Is Christianity True?

[young canyon]

It was to prevent the state from being dependent on. State religion

To allow all people regardless of beliefs a voice

Not to prevent the majority fron enacting moral god abiding laws

If 90 percent of a country wants to muder babies that should not make murder legal for example

According to your own beliefs then Religious people should never be allowed to have an opinion

Cause my values align with my faith

There is however a fine line between using religion as an excuse and just being a follower of Christ.

[terse belfry]

Have all the opinions you want, but back them up with more than your book if you want everyone of every faith to have to follow them.

[young canyon]

I dont want to force others to believe what I believe

I want a morally just society

[terse belfry]

Which you base on your book.

[young canyon]

But just as god respects your desire to sin and distance yourself from him

I resspect your choice to sin as well

Im not gonna stop people from doing drugs for example

I will discourage it

[terse belfry]

I don't believe in sin as it only exists as an extension of God

[young canyon]

Your opinion

Not mine

But anyways I wont force someone to stop smoking weed

Its not my place

[terse belfry]

I believe in actions that have demonstrably positive or negative effects on the well being of humans and society.

[young canyon]

I dont like that way of thinking

It can be used to justify heinous actions

[terse belfry]

So can God

[young canyon]

But thise people are acting heinously

And we dont claim them

[terse belfry]

But it's in the book

[young canyon]

They do not worshio god

Its nit in the book

[terse belfry]

They are just following the book

[young canyon]

You have not read the bible if you think it encourages violence

God says Love thy neighbor

[terse belfry]

I know you like to pretend the Old Testament doesn't exist.

[young canyon]

And literally one of gods commandments is thouhh shall not kill

[terse belfry]

Oops old testament

[young canyon]

I dont pretend it doesnt exist

It does exisy

And was gods original words to man

But it is not verifiable

[terse belfry]

I assume if you follow Jesus you have given up all of your worldly possessions?

[young canyon]

Jesus never said abandon all worldly posessions

He said do not cling to wordly posessions

Do not desire and crave moral posessions

And I dont

[terse belfry]

Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come and follow Me.”

[young canyon]

I know

This was in context in reference to those around him

Who wanted to join him

And live a life without sin

He asked them to sell their mortal posessions and join him

[terse belfry]

So he changed his mind on that?

[young canyon]

No

But your not taking into account context

Jesus knew it was not possible

As even food was a wordly desire

And you must eat

Which is why Jesus encourages us to fast

[terse belfry]

Like his Dad changed his position on killing people who blaspheme, or children who disobey their parents, or women who go into church on their period. All perfect all knowing but couldn't see they change coming.

[young canyon]

Im going to stop engaging with you as I dont want to give your hatred a voice

I pray for you to find peace

[terse belfry]

I'm totally at peace. Just not a fan of people pretending the Bible has good messaging. Jesus had some good ideas, but nothing novel. His dad was a narcissistic psychopath that ordered genocide multiple times.

Though my favorite example of his cruelty would have to be Jephthah

Are you familiar with that story?

[young canyon]

Your not at peace my friend as you clearly bear much hatred in your heart

But I can tell when someone has closed their heart to god amd instead wants to spread hate so I wish you well.

[terse belfry]

No please, let's explore the Bible together. Jephthah asked God for help in his military conflict. In person, because God was corporeal a lot back then.

And being a good sport, God said he would aid him in battle if he sacrificed the first person to meet him when he arrived home from the victory.

Jephthah was a bit concerned by this, it was only his wife, daughter, and housekeeper that were likely to greet him, but he really wanted to slaughter those Ammonites so it was worth the risk.

God aids him in his conflict, so he completely wipes out the Ammonites. And of course, as the omniscient God knew, it was his daughter to meet him when he came home.

He did let her go into the mountains for a few weeks to bewail the fact that she would never be able to use her virginity for her father's gain, which was nice.

[formal heron]

@terse belfry yeah I agree with caveman here, the context of that passage is when a Pharisee or other rich man was asking Jesus how to get to Heaven (and it’s implied that he was asking basically the bare minimum required), I think this is the same passage where Jesus says it’s harder for a rich man to go to heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle

The thing is, yes you have to let go of your physical possessions, but that doesn’t mean you have to make yourself homeless or give away literally every cent you have, Jesus and His disciples had money, I think it’s more-so referring to not relying on your wealth but instead in faith that the Lord will sustain you

Also full disclosure I tried reading up as much as I could but I haven’t read the entire conversation so forgive me if I make you repeat anything you’ve already said

[terse belfry]

That's a very modern and convenient interpretation based on how people today would prefer to live their lives and practice their faith.

I don't blame you really.

[formal heron]

I agree that especially in America there are a lot of Christian’s who are only looking for comfort

The Bible doesn’t say oh yeah just sit back and relax God will take care of you, it also doesnt say oh yeah give your money to the poor and you’ll get a raise

It says that we will be hated for identifying with Him

That our lives will be harder

And that we might never get any reward in this life

So yeah I agree the idea that you can’t be a Christian leisurely

Well, at least you shouldn’t

You might could still be saved anyways

[young canyon]

now your pondering the greatest question

how important is devotion

[formal heron]

Since it’s by faith not works, but if you have faith then you should have works that reflect your heart

[young canyon]

versus works

[young canyon]

no

that is not true

no where in the bible does it say its faith not work

it says faith it important

but also the works

[formal heron]

Have you read Romans?

[young canyon]

yeah

[terse belfry]

It says both, no point in arguing

[young canyon]

It does say both are important

[formal heron]

I wasn’t trying to argue, my bad

[young canyon]

your good

[formal heron]

Definitely

And I think that a true Christian will show both

[young canyon]

I dont see you as being argumentative

[young canyon]

a true Chrsitian knows he is not enough fo either to live among god himself

[formal heron]

But in an example of the guy on the cross next to Jesus he repented and was saved the same day

[terse belfry]

You can justify any side of any argument using a Bible passage.

[formal heron]

Yeah you can interpret it very differently

[young canyon]

yeah but on the other hand we have no evidence the man next to Christ was a bad man

he may have sinned

but know not how we are judged

which is why you always aspire to strive closer to gods wishes!

[terse belfry]

Shouldn't the all knowing creator of the universe been more precise in his words so they couldn't be interpretted multiple ways based on the feelings of the people interpreting it?

[formal heron]

The Bible says that in God’s eyes every sin is equal, to hate your brother is the same as killing him

[young canyon]

that is not actually what that says

it says all sin are equal in the sense that all sin require redemption

[formal heron]

Well the whole point of Christianity is that we can be intimate with a personal God, we don’t just read these ancient texts and do nothing

[young canyon]

but the old testament highlights that some sins are greater than others

[formal heron]

It’s a personal relationship

[young canyon]

hence the commandments

[formal heron]

And since it’s based on the heart

The Bible has to be vague because it can mean different things to different cultures

Yes sins are sins

But there’s a lot of things that aren’t sins but require discernment

[young canyon]

True this where much of the sects actually come from

[formal heron]

Like in 2nd Corinthians when Paul talks about meat sacrificed to idols and being respectful of Christians who don’t want to eat it

[formal heron]

Right, the denominations, and while some might be wrong I think most are mostly right, like most will go to heaven

[young canyon]

I agree

[formal heron]

Because at the end of the day if you misinterpret a part of the Bible it’s probably harmless

[young canyon]

I would like to think god is not so bitter

[young canyon]

this is actually something I mentioned earlier

[formal heron]

As long as you agree on the major parts, like Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins

[young canyon]

I do not think the bible was ever meant to be seen like the Quran

[terse belfry]

Unless you misinterpret something that causes immense suffering to large groups of people.

[young canyon]

and used as the end all be all of the faith

more so as a guide to how to live in the wishes of Christ

[formal heron]

Right

[young canyon]

and how to seek absolution for sin

[formal heron]

And sin will never go away in this life

[young canyon]

Amen

but that does not stop us from trying

[formal heron]

Yeah that’s a problem

And you definitely see that

Like extreme homophobia, people hate criming through murder and abuse and assault

[young canyon]

Of course any time someone has a belief system is can be used as a weapon

[formal heron]

I mean that’s how terrorist groups are so effective

[terse belfry]

Like religious stances on gay people, or the idea that black people were the result of Noah's son looking at his naked body. Pretty harmful interpretations.

[formal heron]

I’ve never heard the black person interpretation

[young canyon]

Religion does not hurt homosexuals

people hurt homosexuals

[formal heron]

^^^^

[young canyon]

god says homosexuality is a sin

but he also says to love all people even those who sin

[formal heron]

I’m not an advocate for Christian’s ever harming lgbtq

[terse belfry]

Religious justifications were used for their persecution for centuries, and still today.

[formal heron]

Even through verbal abuse

[young canyon]

that is why Christ chose to broken to give his teachings

[formal heron]

But a disagreeing with something someone identifies with isn’t in itself harming

You don’t believe in my faith but I’m not harmed

[formal heron]

Yeah exactly

Which is why the Bible should be interpreted as a whole

[young canyon]

Christ did not choose the wealthy or of whole mind in spirit he chose those who sinned Prostitutes and thieves to give teachings to.

[formal heron]

Like Paul is sarcastic a lot, it can look really bad if you single out a verse

Look at the whole chapter

[young canyon]

Why because he knew they needed his love most

[formal heron]

The whole book

And the whole Bible

[formal heron]

That, or because it’s impossible to accept Christ if you don’t think you need help

The Pharisees needed him just as much as the sinners

[terse belfry]

Why don't you interpret the story of Jephthah for me. What moral lesson do we take away from that.

[formal heron]

Which book is that in?

[young canyon]

Cite it please

[terse belfry]

Judges

[formal heron]

Ahhh

I haven’t read much of judges

Sorry for my lack of knowledge in the subject

[terse belfry]

I posted it right before you started posting.

[formal heron]

If you know what chapter I can go through it rn

[terse belfry]

With a bit of added flair.

[formal heron]

Okay so I read it

I don’t think God ever is corporeal in Judges are you sure about that?

[young canyon]

can cite which part of Judges

[terse belfry]

Possibly not, that may have just been in Genesis.

[young canyon]

cause im am rereading it

and I do not see anything

[terse belfry]

But he definitely strolled around in parts of the old testament.

11-12

[formal heron]

Genesis is the only old testament book I can see someone make an argument for that being true

And exodus with Moses seeing his back

[terse belfry]

That wasn't really the point of the story though.

It's basically Abraham and Isaac, only without God stopping the sacrifice, and a slaughtering of an entire group in between.

[young canyon]

I mean from what I read he promised god

not the other way around

Jephthah made this vow to the LORD: “If indeed You will deliver the Ammonites into my hand, 31then whatever comes out the door of my house to greet me on my triumphant return from the Ammonites will belong to the LORD, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”

[terse belfry]

And God didn't say "woah now, maybe just a goat? Sacrificing people isn't really my thing."

[young canyon]

god chose to punish him for his desire to manipulate him

She choose the punishment

My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me as you have said, for the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites.” 37She also said to her father, “Let me do this one thing: Let me wander for two months through the mountains with my friends and mourn my virginity.”

[terse belfry]

Totally normal

[young canyon]

Jephthah is a symbol of the fact god is not all merciful

he is just

[formal heron]

He sticks with his word

[young canyon]

If she would have ran god would not have smited her

[terse belfry]

He burned his daughter

[young canyon]

HE DID

not god

God will let people make their own choices

She was forgiven

and holy

[formal heron]

Which yeah is totally messed up but I think it’s very significant that it was him not God

[young canyon]

he sinned

Judges 5 is about how Israel falles into sin

Judges is in Chronological order

and is the story of Israel's descent into depravity

[terse belfry]

Right but in this story God is conversing with him. It's not just free will. It's a bargain. And God just went with it? Also aided in the slaughter that preceeded and necesitated the burning. I really don't see how you can defend that.

He could have not aided in the slaughter, let Jephthah die for making such an offering. So many better lessons available there.

[young canyon]

Again

this is where what I mentioned about how the old testament is riddled with questions that are not present

why her?

why such a cruel treatment?

Why honor his bargain

but it does give us some answers to one of your questions in judges 13

Again the Israelites did evil in the sight of the LORD, so He delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years.

[formal heron]

It was meant as a warning to not make promises you can’t keep

[young canyon]

I see it as your desire to use god punishes more than just yourself

you hurt others around you when you attempt to use god

[formal heron]

Yeah

[young canyon]

this is also what I mentioned earlier as the powerful warning about using god for war

every time they try to use god to help the conquer israel

[formal heron]

There was no “God what can I do to show my devotion to you?” He just jumped immediately into pagan sacrifice

[young canyon]

God punishes them

cause god did not want them to murder and maim those in the region

[formal heron]

When he can’t be bought, he just wanted faithfulness from them

[young canyon]

Indeed

god proved he would protect them

but when they started trying to use god to kill their enemies

god punishes them

and he does this in sometimes strange ways

but after Jeptuah had just murdered 40 prisoners

It makes sense that someone be punished

Why not Jeptuah is the real question

[terse belfry]

I would also argue that even based in the Bible homosexuality is not a sin. The passage everyone likes to quote of "if a man lie with a male..." in the original language man and male meant different things. Male was the word for a young boy. So the passage really would be interpreted as denouncing pedophilia specifically.

[formal heron]

Yeah but

Sodom and Gomorrah

Pretty clear cut

[formal heron]

Wouldn’t that still be denouncing gayness too? Like that’s both gay and pedophilic

[terse belfry]

Why would you specifically use two different words that meant different things. Older male and younger male.

That's like saying having sex with a female child is the same as with an adult woman.

I'm not a fan of Lot either. Offering up his daughters to the crowd in place of his angelic visitors.

[formal heron]

I’m a little confused

I didn’t go against anything you said there

I was just adding that on top

That it could be both

If it’s a grown man and a young boy

That’s gay pedophilia

Both gay and pedophilia

[terse belfry]

That passage wasn't both. Now if you are saying homosexuality is forbidden elsewhere.

[formal heron]

What leads you to believe it’s not both?

[terse belfry]

That passage would specifically be referring to the disparity in age.

[formal heron]

If it was only referring to pedophilia why wouldn’t it be a grown man and young woman?

[terse belfry]

Do you really want to go there?

[formal heron]

Are you getting upset right now?

[terse belfry]

It doesn't mention women, because women were property then. Rape was not a crime, other than if the woman was a virgin and then you had to pay her father 50 shekels and marry her.

[formal heron]

And young marriage was the norm

Which now leads me back to the man and boy thing

Why can’t it be both

[formal heron]

And yes I know you gave this answer already

But it was just repeating your opinion I don’t really see any argument for the “why”

[terse belfry]

It could, but like everything in the Bible it leaves it open for interpretation. It could have been "with a man or male"

But it wasn't. One I agree with, one I don't.

And it is hard to say with Sodom and Gomorrah, because while they say people were gay they were also all rapists. And I'm not a fan of rapists gay or straight either so can't really fault him for that massacre

[formal heron]

I think that you’re right that there’s no way to prove that it’s talking directly about gayness and that there’s proof that it’s talking about pedophilia

But I think it wouldn’t make sense to ignore it in conjunction to sodom and Gomorrah

And Genesis as well, the whole creation of Eve thing

[terse belfry]

Possibly, but it's one of those things that was understandably banned back then due to the health concerns at the time.

The same reason they didn't eat pork or shellfish, they seemed to bring disease. So if it was a similar justification for the uncleanness of gay sex, which would be understandable, why would we not cast that aside along with those other laws from the same book that we have since abandoned.

[formal heron]

Yeah

Aren’t several STDs from gay sex?

[terse belfry]

Not specifically that I am aware of. AIDS was labeled as a gay STD but anyone could get it. The prevalence of STDs and promoscuity in the gay community decades back was more a product of the way gay people were treated than anything.

They couldn't have a normal committed relationship in public with who they wanted and were told their feelings were evil so naturally they turned inward.

The more society has accepted LGBT people the less prevalent all of these things have become.

[chilly escarp]

Christians are not surprised at the amount of hate we receive. It’s actually just another prophecy fulfilled.

So thanks Guy well played

[upper pine]

That actually isn't biblical for that time period. What that verse was talking about was two people, unmarried, having consensual sex. The man is punished to be with her, because now she is defiled and in that day it would mean she is extrememly less likely to find a husband.

[upper pine]

Question then, what is with the verse talking about women leaving their natural use and men likewise leaving the natural use of the woman and burning with lust for men?

Romans 1:26-32

[obtuse kettle]

well what's Christianity?

it's so loosely defined, the question is impossible to answer

[chilly escarp]

The Question is not hard to answer a Cristian is a follower of Christ and Christianity is a group of followers, one might say there are too many denominations and to that I say there is key doctrines that unites all Christianity

The Holy Scripture is inspired by God

The one true God

The Deity of Christ

And the fall of Man

[chilly escarp]

Hay guys do me a favor if you find a Christian or group of Christians who doesn’t adhere to these let me know and I’ll contact them to bring them to proper conservative doctrine

[tacit pivot]

Yeah that’s a pretty solid list. I think you could also argue that the Holy Trinity and Sola gratia (we are saved by Grace alone; we can’t save ourselves) are fundamentals as well.

[terse belfry]

Only about 75% of Christians believe in the Trinity. Which is a high percent but I wouldn't consider it a unifying belief.

[gilded pollen]

I mean, it's pretty easy to answer really. Beyond the probable existence of a person who was called Christus, there isn't any evidence for any of the stories being true, and there are also clear and obvious reasons why such stories would be fabricated. So we can't say Christianity is true, and we can say that it is extremely likely to be based on lies. For all practical purposes, we can say no, it's not true.

[chilly escarp]

There should have been a way to like comments

[chilly escarp]

So your saying a group of guys got together to fabricate a lie that got all of them persecuted and kept that lie going even while being tortured.

Doesn’t seem logical

[chilly escarp]

What happened I thought you didn’t want to talk about the faith

[terse belfry]

Not privately, I prefer an audience to witness both sides.

[chilly escarp]

You didn’t say to me

[terse belfry]

Not necessarily. Could have been 1 person or a few people. People die for all sorts of false beliefs even today. Many people put their child's safety at risk due to provably false beliefs about vaccines.

It may be irrational, but people can be convinced of many irrational things and once convinced some people can't be swayed by anything.

[chilly escarp]

I’m sorry sir I just can’t agree with your religion

[terse belfry]

I have no religion.

[chilly escarp]

It causes to much strife

[terse belfry]

Muslims die for their beliefs. Hindus die for their beliefs. Jehovahs witnesses die for their beliefs. Doesn't mean they are all right.

[terse belfry]

No idea what you are talking about.

[gilded pollen]

I'm saying one or more people started exaggerating the stories they were telling to make them seem better, and then other people spread those stories who honestly believed them.
By the time anyone was persecuted for any of it, those people who exaggerated the stories initially had tons of supporters who actually believed in it, and those who had deliberately exaggerated it were living off it very comfortably. For both groups, they would have been happy to undergo a degree of torture to continue.

But generally what happens is that the people who make up or exaggerate the stories in the first place egg others on to do the dirty work, and so aren't the ones that end up punished.

History is littered with people who have made or followed cults and been persecuted in one form or another for it. It's not remarkable for people to maintain any kind of belief that may seem ridiculous to any right thinking person, even under torture. Torturing people tends to have the opposite effect even. It just convinces people more strongly to ignore what the people who are doing the torturing are saying.

The things we know for sure, are that there were hundreds of different versions of the stories knocking around until they were standardised to some extent much later.

And we've seen hard evidence of various people changing the stories to make them sound better to their way of thinking, all throughout history. So we know for sure that the stories can easily get changed.

[chilly escarp]

Well thank you for your time and your comments. The same right you have to your opinion is the same right I have to mine

[gilded pollen]

Sure, but my opinion has evidence to support it, is all I'm saying.

Whereas Christianity does not.

It's up to you whether you think evidence is important.

[chilly escarp]

Isn’t that wonderful

[gilded pollen]

I mean, it's pretty depressing really, how many people seem happy to disregard evidence to this extent. But hey ho, such is life.

[chilly escarp]

No that’s a theory I can provide you with evidence if your willing to look at it

[gilded pollen]

Go for it.

I've looked at all the evidence people have presented here so far.

[chilly escarp]

Wait there’s more

[gilded pollen]

Good, because a book written by a Protestant clergyman doesn't really count as evidence of anything except his desire to persuade people to, essentially, give him money.

[chilly escarp]

How about a nice Jewish boy

And of course you have the Roman account

Look if you don’t want to look at the evidence that’s fine I’m not your boss

[gilded pollen]

I wrote in detail about Josephus previously: #1207038265820061696 message
Essentially, Everything from Josephus has been edited and changed by Christian monks, so none of it is in any way reliable.

[chilly escarp]

That’s a theory

[gilded pollen]

Like I said, I've looked at it. But it's not evidence of anything except someone's desire to persuade people to give them money.

[gilded pollen]

It's not a theory, we know that the surviving copies were all written by Christian monks.

And we know Christian monks like to change stories to make them portray Christianity better.

[chilly escarp]

That’s an accusation

[gilded pollen]

It's a clear fact.

[chilly escarp]

Well this conversation is getting no where we gonna have to agree to disagree

[gilded pollen]

Look at how many different versions of the Bible exist.

[chilly escarp]

Yes I have

[chilly escarp]

Do you want agree to disagree or do you want to keep wasting my time

[gilded pollen]

You can do whatever you like, I'm not asking you to forcing you to do anything. I'm just saying, all the evidence for Christianity comes from people who directly benefit from persuading people to believe in Christianity. It's all propaganda, so none of it is in any way reliable.
It's up to you if you want to respond or if you accept that there is no evidence to back up Christianity's main claims.

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you like.

But when people ask the question, "is Christianity true?", I'm going to reply truthfully and say "no, it's not, as far as we can tell."

[chilly escarp]

If the evidence I presented to you is not enough to persuade you that’s ok, however the claim you make that there is no evidence is incorrect

[gilded pollen]

If I tell you that there is a invisible giant unicorn running the world, and that means you have to pay me 10% of your earnings, is that evidence for the existence of an invisible giant unicorn?

[chilly escarp]

I mean I only posted 2 pictures and rather then take a look at them you immediately shot them down

[chilly escarp]

Was there witnesses

[gilded pollen]

Yes, me. I know it's there for a fact.

and you can trust me, right?

All you need to do, is give me 10% of your earnings, and all of your money when you die.

and the giant invisible unicorn will make everything better for you after you're dead.

[chilly escarp]

Did they sacrifice all and was persecuted for there beliefs

[gilded pollen]

Not now, of course. It won't change a damn thing while you're alive. But once you're dead and can't do anything about it, everything will be fine.

[chilly escarp]

Hold on 10% wait what are you talking about

[gilded pollen]

Absolutely. I was persecuted by the Romans a ton, honest.

[chilly escarp]

Ok

[gilded pollen]

Tithes. You're aware that was compulsory for Christianity, right?

[chilly escarp]

What are you talking about 10%

[gilded pollen]

...and still is compulsory in some versions.

[chilly escarp]

Ya but who ever is charging 10% is wrong

[chilly escarp]

Tell me who and I’ll get on the case

[gilded pollen]

I mean, it's quite a list. Tithes affect most of Christianity for at least 1300 years up until the 1800s, and that's ignoring the first 500 years when it wasn't given an official title.

and that's only in the UK. Some countries still do it.

[chilly escarp]

Ya those crazy Roman Catholic

[chilly escarp]

Well I’m here today telling you a Christian don’t have to tithe to be saved they tithe because they are saved

[gilded pollen]

...and Adventists, and Anabaptists, and Baptists, and Lutheran's, and Methodists, and Moravians, and Orthodox, and Pentecostal, and Reformed, and Mormons....

[chilly escarp]

No your wrong

[gilded pollen]

The only reason not all of Christianity charges such a high fee now, is because the churches have already stolen so much money from everyone that they are already richer than they know what to do with. The churches simply don't need people to give them money any more because they already have too much.

[chilly escarp]

The 10% was an Old Testament Jewish commandment

[gilded pollen]

Which was conveniently adopted by Christianity later.

All religions do it. It's the purpose of religion.

It's the only tangible aspect of religion; to give your money to people who claim to be indispensible to you without providing anything in return.

[chilly escarp]

Look I’m trying to share what the Bible teaches on this matter and your choosing to make accusations I don’t think that’s civil, I mean I told I’ll go speak to those already the list you posted was very broad I know a few of those I can tell you that is not a mandate for all of them

I’m gonna say goodbye now

[gilded pollen]

I was just quoting from Wikipedia. Feel free to check on all of them if you like.

[chilly escarp]

Lol Wikipedia

Ok have a good day

[gilded pollen]

I tell you what, come back and let me know if you find evidence that any of those don't tithe.

But it still won't change the point I'm making. Religion = profit for those running it.

[chilly escarp]

Sure they do, however it’s not a forced 10% it’s actually more biblically accurate to give 100% and I never seen anybody request someone give 100%

[gilded pollen]

Oh you're arguing about the 10% figure? That's fine, I didn't say anything about 10% and am happy to agree that different religious groups charge varying amounts.

[chilly escarp]

There is people in it for the money I’ll give you that. Please don’t think that represents 100% of us. I really don’t think you would appreciate if I put on all non believers what certain non believers do

[gilded pollen]

Oh don't worry, I don't think that all religious people believe it's just a con. I know some people actually believe it's true.

[chilly escarp]

Ok so here we at then do you believe Peter Paul and John was trying to trick the world

Was 9/11 a inside job

Do you believe in pizza gate

Are they poisoning our water supply

[gilded pollen]

If any of them actually existed, it's possible they believed some or all of the Christian teaching.

[chilly escarp]

You have to understand I’m saying God exist that means I also have to believe the devil exists

[gilded pollen]

You do you.

[chilly escarp]

So of course your gonna find an argument for what ever I say on Wikipedia

[gilded pollen]

Wikipedia is just a handy source for denominations who tithe. I'm happy to argue that Christianity is indistinguishable from a financial scam without referring to Wikipedia.

[chilly escarp]

Happy

Ok

Have fun

[gilded pollen]

Not that Wikipedia is generally unreliable on these things.

It's certainly more reliable than any Christian documents.

[chilly escarp]

Look I’m gonna say this to you in hoping this helps you in the future, your a bit intense and that’s a turn off for people. Just think about that

[gilded pollen]

Thanks, I shall honestly consider not using this discussion for dating 👍

[chilly escarp]

It’s not always about dating

I mean stay intense for you thing that makes you happy

Honestly I’m happy you exist

[gilded pollen]

It's ok, I'll let you go have fun somewhere else. You don't need to stick around and try and defend Christianity here.

[chilly escarp]

Why is someone attacking ?

[gilded pollen]

I can do, if you like. I do believe it's very harmful.

But I was just arguing that it's ideas were false really.

Arguing they're harmful is a separate discussion.

[chilly escarp]

I’m happy you exist was a real statement your not attacking anything, any thought or action that is fearful of conversation must be in error.

But I have to ask what’s the rush why hit so many subjects

[gilded pollen]

?

[chilly escarp]

When ever your ready take some time out and actually talk, message me

[gilded pollen]

We're on one subject so far, the truth or lack thereof in Christianity. Moving to a second doesn't feel like a crazy thought.

I was just asking you to explain your message, as it didn't make sense to me.

Posting a question mark is hardly a refusal to talk.

[chilly escarp]

That’s fair ask

At one point a said agree to disagree and you kept me going changing subjects, making accusations. And worst off after you agreed to take a look at the evidence I presented and you instantly disregarded. Have you read fox’s book of murdurs.

Overall not civil at all

It’s a book about people dying for there belief

[gilded pollen]

It's also fictional as far as I can tell.

[chilly escarp]

But Wikipedia is good, sir I’m done

Have a good day

[gilded pollen]

Like I said, you're not obliged to respond to every message I write here. I was just clarifying my position. It's entirely up to you if you want to reply to anything, and always has been.

[chilly escarp]

Ok so overall I will not be able to get a agree to disagree

Ok you don’t have agree to disagree i still wish you well and thank you for the opportunity to speak

[gilded pollen]

We can agree to disagree. I'm just saying that doesn't make our respective positions in any way equal or equivalent. My positions has evidence supporting it, which yours doesn't seem to.

I'm not going to validate your views on the subject, if that's part of what you see as agreeing to disagree.

[chilly escarp]

Well here goes the problem, I presented a book about people dying for there beliefs and you told me you can’t except it because it has a Christian writer, you are not allowing evidence in your court.while presenting me with Wikipedia

[gilded pollen]

I'm not saying we have to keep arguing, I'm just trying to clarify that I don't think this is an issue where all views are equally valid.

[chilly escarp]

I haven’t argued yet

[chilly escarp]

I’m sorry you perceived that way. Im sorry I didn’t mean to offend you

[gilded pollen]

I'm not allowing evidence of something else, to be presented as evidence of the truth of Christianity. Evidence has to be relevant to be considered as evidence.

[chilly escarp]

No who else will present Christian evidence other then a Christian

[gilded pollen]

The fact that some people believe in Christianity is not itself evidence of there being any truth in Christianity.

[chilly escarp]

No if the evidence is there then it’s there disqualifying because a Christian say it is hate

[gilded pollen]

Do you not find it odd that there is no evidence from anyone who is not already psychologically inclined to believe in Christianity, of anything Christianity claims?

[chilly escarp]

There’s a few I know personally

[gilded pollen]

Surely there would be some evidence of some kind, anywhere, other than word of mouth from someone who wants you to give them money?

[chilly escarp]

At any point does what I say matter we already discussed this

Yes creation is evidence

[gilded pollen]

How so?

[chilly escarp]

Big Bang theory say it happened all at once right

Before that science believed it always existed

[gilded pollen]

...no?

[chilly escarp]

Well at least can we agree to disagree on that one at least

[gilded pollen]

The theory of the Big Bang posits that there was an event where all the physical matter and energy we can observe today was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, and then suddenly stared to expand. The processes that created all the structures we see around us took billions of years.

[chilly escarp]

Ya that make sense

Ok the Big Bang didn’t happen cool

Happy we hammered that one out

[gilded pollen]

Sorry, I don't follow. Why are you saying the Big Bang didn't happen?

[chilly escarp]

Because of your response to me bringing up the Big Bang theory

[gilded pollen]

Which part of what I said do you think implies that I think the Big Bang didn't happen?

[chilly escarp]

Well then I must have been mistaken.

Look pal I’m trying to share a good light here I fear as though, you might go back and edit all your post in attempt to make me look crazy nothing of your responses lead me to believe any better of you.

[gilded pollen]

Wow, ok, that's quite a claim. I don't accept Christianity so I would go back and edit my posts to make you look bad?

[chilly escarp]

I really do hope you get better because as far as I’m concerned this conversation wasn’t about Christianity it was display of the hate for Christians in today’s society.

[gilded pollen]

OK, look, I need to leave to go to a meeting in 5 mins (ironically in a church). I'd love to hear your theory on why creation proves Christianity is true, but I won't have time to reply now even if you do get round to posting it.

[chilly escarp]

Love you pal hope it goes well, looking forward to our next talk

[gilded pollen]

It wasn't. Like I said, that would be a different topic altogether. This was just a rejection of Christian propaganda.

[chilly escarp]

Ya

[gilded pollen]

For the record, the only things I think make you look bad here is the constant threatening to leave the discussion, and the repeated accusations of bad faith that seemed to come from nowhere. I don't think there's anything in any of my posts to make you look bad.

[chilly escarp]

Hay pal if don’t except what I’m saying that people died for this thing called Christianity then all I can offer is agree to disagree.

Go to your meeting we will talk later

[terse belfry]

Nobody is saying people didn't die for their belief in Christianity. But that is true for every religion, even ones that almost everyone agrees were insane cults. You've heard of Heaven's Gate I assume?

So I don't know why you think people dying for Christianity is supposed to be a great piece of evidence.

[chilly escarp]

No I’m saying the Disciples that walked with Jesus Christ where killed for they faith and we believe the Report of a Resurrected Christ.

[royal monolith]

is this a philosophy question? ^^'

well i mean,,, hard to say yes or no. if u mean, is there like. undeniable proof that its true, then no =w=

but i mean,,, is it true?? who knows, yeah?

[chilly escarp]

Every thing requires a measure of faith

[royal monolith]

wellll thats trueee. i rlly feel like this is less of a question of,"is christianity true" and more like,,, "is it justifiable to believe in christianity", and i mean. that depends on u ig

[chilly escarp]

I like how you put that

[chilly escarp]

And thank you for revealing something about my self

[royal monolith]

o how so?

[chilly escarp]

I wanted to justify my position as a believer to a hostile audience.

[fringe bolt]

And there's definitely some part of the Bible that are provably false

[chilly escarp]

Define false

[fringe bolt]

Not the really inportant central parts of the Christian faith, but like some major parts of it

Main things examples I point to is genesis and the global flood and ark

[chilly escarp]

I believe the Bible to be God breathed: meaning the various writers of the Bible was inspired by God in its original format: ( Old Testament Prophets) and those who walked with him (Apostles New Testament)

[upper pine]

That's a big difference though. People die for things they believe in, not things they made up. The people who put their children at risk because they don't want them taking vaccines truly believe that the vaccines would harm their kid. They aren't just saying no for the sake of it. Just as the men and women who die for Christ, they truly believed in Christ. I know for sure, that when I was in my early stages of Christianity just a year ago, I would not have died for Christ, even though I had faith that he was God and that God was real.

Whether the belief is false or not is different, but they truly believed what they experienced to be true. And the Jews truly believed that these people believed what they were saying,a nd thus persecuted them.

[upper pine]

If that unicorn had a physical son on Earth that died and was resurrected with many witnesses, then yes.

[fringe bolt]

Yeah man there's even a Netflix original series about him

[terse belfry]

Right. I'm not saying they don't truly believe, but that's irrelevant to it actually being true.

[royal monolith]

im being impartial =w=

but for the sake of accuracy, i should note that there's little to no actual evidence of Jesus' actual existence. Nor are there historical records of witnesses

I should also note that its pretty hard to prove the legitimacy of the bible, especially considering most of the bible is comprised of unknown authors. We don't actually really know who wrote a lot of it ^^'

[tacit pivot]

I mean anyone can say they are a Christian, even if they don’t believe a word of the Bible. They just wouldn’t be Christians at that point. So if 25% of so-called Christians reject a fundamental aspect of Christianity, that would logically make them not Christians at all. So if the list that @chilly escarp and myself created is an accurate representation of the Christian fundamentals, then it would be true that absolutely 100 percent of all Christians affirm the Trinity.

[terse belfry]

Based on your subjective definition of Christianity, sure. But you're just no true Scottsmanning at that point.

It is fun watching religious people argue about who is the realest real believer and use the exact same arguments to one another as to how they came to their conclusions.

[tacit pivot]

I'm not arguing if my statement is correct or not. I am pointing out that your "statistic" is completely irrelevant and contributes nothing because it hinges on if the Trinity is fundamental or not. In what way does your statistic answer if it is fundamental or not? It doesn't. Its useless.

[terse belfry]

Because 25% not believing someone is massive when it comes to core tenets of an ideology.

That would be like only 75% of Ku Klux Klan members not liking black people.

Something fundamental to the religion should be high 90s at least. Like believing Jesus is God, died, and resurrected are fairly safe ones.

[tacit pivot]

I think the point is more so that people won't die for something they know to be false. The disciples would know for a fact that Christianity is false (from your perspective). People who put their child at risk for their false belief on vaccines genuinely believe those false beliefs. The disciples would not have genuinely believed Christianity.

[tacit pivot]

Well, whats fundamental to being a Christian is ultimately for God to judge, not based on what a certain percent of humans who self-identify with the religion believe.

[terse belfry]

You are assuming things played out as described in the Bible for that to be true.

Again I mentioned Heaven's Gate. I can't say fir sure whether Marshall Applewhite actually believed what he was saying, was a conman, mentally ill, or some combination of the three. But he died with his people so I guess by your standards he didn't know it was false and didn't make any of it up.

One mentally ill person can believe something truly and convince others to follow it to their death. Looking at you Paul.

[tacit pivot]

Well if the resurrection of Jesus was a coverup conspiracy by Jesus' apostles, then they would know with absolute certainty that the resurrection did not happen.

[tacit pivot]

I'm talking about people present for the death, burial, and ressurection of Jesus. People who would know if it was true/false, as opposed people who were deceived by the propagators of the "lie"

[terse belfry]

Again you have to assume that everything in the Gospels and Paul's writings are accurate for this to be the case.

Mark ends with no one having actually witnessed the Resurrection, and also makes Jesus out to be the least divine. You can see the progression from Mark to Matthew to Luke to John in how they copy and change things from one another to make everything more spectacular and fulfill all the Jewish prophecies they want to hit.

[tacit pivot]

I don't follow your point. We are specifically talking about whether people died for something they knew was false (Christianity). If you want to discuss the validity of the gospels, thats a different story.

If you accept the fact that Jesus was at some point died, then someone had to be the initiator of the lie that He came back from the dead. We know that most if not all of the Apostles who are described to have encounters with Jesus were executed later in life.

Therefore these apostles who had to have at least some part in this lie (and therefore knew it was false) allowed themselves to be killed for something they knew was false, which is what we have been discussing.

[terse belfry]

Yes and that happens all the time.

[tacit pivot]

Well it seems we could have avoided the past 20 minutes of conversation if you had said that here...

[gilded pollen]

It's plausible that people have died for their belief in Christianity. Maybe even some people who knew the person called Christus.

But that simply has no bearing at all on whether a Christian god exists.

[gilded pollen]

So a god inspired a bunch of writers to all write different versions of the same events, and was happy for them to only be standardised hundreds of years later?
That's one heck of a slow process of ensuring accuracy.... that's not even finished after 2000 years.

[gilded pollen]

Yep, there were many witnesses to the invisible unicorn's son on earth, totally. They're just all dead now so you can't talk to them. But that's fine, because I can tell you about them. And you know, the unicorn checks everything I say or type so what I'm saying is 100% true.

[tacit pivot]

Well thankfully the witnesses left us multiple eyewitness accounts explaining it all in great detail, forming what has been proven to be the most historically and archaeologically accurate ancient book.

Or, let me guess: we can't trust it, because some people think it may have been slightly altered.

[gilded pollen]

It's ok, you and I spent days covering this already. There are no eyewitness accounts, everything was written at least decades or maybe even hundreds of years later.

...and for that matter, by people who were trying to persuade people to give them money. There's no reason to believe a word of it.

But we don't need to cover that again. We did that to death I think.

[tacit pivot]

Except the part where they taught people to give all there belongings to the poor, not to them. Seems like an ineffective tactic to get rich.

[tacit pivot]

Perhaps you're right.

[terse belfry]

Or we don't trust it because it makes supernatural claims that can't be tested and have never been reproduced.

I would sooner assume almost any wild guess about what really happened over a legitimate resurrection.

Do people lie? Yes, so that's more likely.

Do people hallucinate? Yes, so that's more likely.

Are people mentally ill and spread false information unknowingly? Yes, so that's more likely.

Do people create false stories for power or personal gain? Yes, so that's more likely.

[gilded pollen]

I would dispute ineffective. The Christian churches are some of the richest organisations in the history of the world.

[tacit pivot]

I seem to recall the apostles being crucified, not becoming rich megachurch pastors.

[tacit pivot]

I mean they can be tested... Quite easily.

[terse belfry]

Please go collect your Nobel Prize for being able to definitely test the validity of supernatural claims.

[tacit pivot]

I'm not sure they hand those out for becoming a Christian

But you're welcome see if you get one:
https://www.salvationist.org.uk/faith/explore-faith/becoming-christian

[terse belfry]

I actually wrote a historical fiction story many years ago that takes place during the lost years of Jesus life. I had planned to continue the story with a revised version of his ministry and include a plausible way for them to have faked his death and resurrection. Had the whole thing storyboarded. It's not hard to come up with plausible alternatives to actual resurrection.

But pretty much anything is more plausible than magic

[tacit pivot]

Please go collect your Nobel Prize for being able to disprove the most widespread, widely accepted, and widely acknowledged religion that has ever existed and will ever exist.

I'm just kidding. Thanks for the interesting conversations today though 👍; gn.

[terse belfry]

Later

[gilded pollen]

I mean, you're not actually recalling that happening. You're recalling being told that happened, by people who were being paid to tell people that.

[obtuse kettle]

yes you're right they all believe in this christ guy but other than that there's very few things that you can argue without them changing the meaning of it or deciding not to believe it

try to approach it like a scientific theory

then you realise that you can't

[obtuse kettle]

yeah but even if you say the stories are false, you can just say they're metaphors lol

[obtuse kettle]

maybe they thought it was true

or it just didn't happen

but anyway, you can say this same or similar argument for most religions

actually adding onto this, I'm sure there are many people in the world rn who would die for christ

but anyway, not a scientific theory

[chilly escarp]

Hay guys just wanted to stop in say hello

I hope everyone is doing well

[royal monolith]

why is this so nice omg

[chilly escarp]

Hay what’s up meow

[royal monolith]

henloo,, im current existing =w=

u?

[chilly escarp]

What’s is existing lol

[chilly escarp]

Doing well thank you for asking

[royal monolith]

ofc ofc!!

uhh existing is just,,, like. being stuck between a state of,"im so motivated" and "doing things is exhausting"

i broke my leg, so, everything is weird now ^^'

[chilly escarp]

I got ya

How long is the recovery time

[royal monolith]

uhhh probably a couple months,, and i still have to go through another surgery ^^'

so could be longer

[chilly escarp]

Ouch..

[chilly escarp]

How’s risk treating you

[royal monolith]

hehe funny question,,, right? so lol.
like. i planned on playing, i just never played it yet =w=

[chilly escarp]

Watch a lot of killpetestategy

[royal monolith]

hmmm maybe i will then! i think i watched a video and then joined bc i liked it, but i cant even remember wut i watched ^^'

[chilly escarp]

Overall I enjoy watching because I enjoy the chat

[royal monolith]

o ic ic ic
im kinda torn honestlyyy.. i love videos for the information they provide, but. im more of an analytical person

or uhh, ig. the process of reaching information is more important to me than wut the information actually is ^^'

so when information is like,,, handed down to me i kinda dont like it

[chilly escarp]

Very interesting do you enjoy puzzles and mysteries

[royal monolith]

puzzles uhh yeah sometimes. mysteries less often but i do like them =w=

i prefer puzzles im actively involved in. or like,, ig. puzzles for the sake of doing puzzles is kinda boringgg

but like, solving problems for some reward is fun

[chilly escarp]

Sure is a great feeling tackling some difficult puzzles and overcoming them

For example I think in the game of risk any given player has a chance to win and the game plays out in to a series of correct choices if one can read it right from the beginning

So winning is so sweet because I know it was real people I was competing against. So getting the insight from the pros really helps

Wow my English is terrible

[royal monolith]

o ic ic ic. i like using my brain and then feeling good bc my brain was good =w=

which makes risk attractive, purely from an analytical perspective bc i feel as though games that can become influenced by a lot of variables rlly quickly become about who does well on average the best

and getting good at averaging things requires finding some underlying truths abt the game, which is rlly interesting but can be difficult

which i think is the right amount of challenge for the right amount of reward =w=

[chilly escarp]

Yes it always feels good to win any competition however it’s important that the game is fun for one because from my prospective If I’m not enjoying the game while losing then maybe this is not my game

[chilly escarp]

Do you play any other games

[royal monolith]

uhhh i used to but not rlly anymore,,, i kinda just play wutever i feel like draws me in the most in that moment =w=

[royal monolith]

but also, who has fun losing? i mean,, ig maybe some ppl lol
but i imagine everyone wants to win on some level :0

[chilly escarp]

I try to remember that this a game meant for entertainment

I’m a husband and father I don’t often get a chance to go out or at least do what I used to do so any self time is great

[royal monolith]

o ic ic ic,,, thats fair =w=

i think everyone wants to win but i think everyones definition of a win varies,,, if that makes sense. or rather like, a win is just wut u want to accomplish actively happening lol

so,,, if u just want to pass the time, then, i feel like doing so is winning

[chilly escarp]

Of course I’m always trying to win and get better at any competitive game/sport I play. But there gonna be bad days

I’m the bad days/tough loses one’s character is exposed so I always keep in the back of my mind this is only entertainment and I should be thankful for the opportunity to play

[chilly escarp]

Hay wanna play some zombies

[royal monolith]

o ic ic ic ic thats fair =w=
do u have any goals? or reasons why u compete rather :0

[royal monolith]

honestly, i would but lol.

1. idk if i even have it (literally have not booted up the game yet)
2. lol idk, im lazy

[chilly escarp]

That’s a great question. I thought about my end game with risk today knowing I don’t really have the skills or the time really i think I’m just gonna play until it’s no longer fun

[royal monolith]

o ic is that the goal u decided before looking at how much free time u have?
or the goal u decided after u felt like u didnt have free time? :0

[chilly escarp]

Yes not enough time to learn and play at the top of the skill level

[royal monolith]

so playing at the top was ur goal?

[chilly escarp]

Yes I believe then any person can master any craft if putting in the time makes them happy

Good days and bad

Like when you told me about your broken leg I instantly thought of what a person might do in that situation to Improve ones life until recovery.

[chilly escarp]

I mean that may not be your goal but if I could inspire you to invest some time in something that makes you happy and is good for you I could walk away very happy

Just want to take a moment to say there is no underline spiritual context here. Just a conversation

[royal monolith]

o i thought so lol

i dont rlly know wut my goals are with the game if i even have any lol. i mean, id like to beat good ppl. id like to minimize my chances of losing lol. more importantly, i think proving that i can learn it would be nice =w=

i think almost all goals are attainable. which is why im really fixated on the process for reaching goals

while i wouldnt exactly consider myself one,,, i used to. like, by definition, be a "coach" that helped ppl compete just bc like, the process of improving was so interesting to me

so actually being able to use it myself would be nice lol

thats wut im aiming for me thinks

[chilly escarp]

Well I hope you succeed and have fun while doing it

[royal monolith]

yeah, me too! one of these days ill actually have to boot up the game lol

[chilly escarp]

Well it’s getting late. May I leave you with a Christian teaching before I go it won’t be long

[royal monolith]

sure why not =w=

[chilly escarp]

The only reason a person is important is because they are made in the image of God no more no less.

All people

I’m gonna say good night I know my baby boy can’t sleep with out daddy’s phone. I’ll see if I can get on later if there are any questions about what I just said.

[royal monolith]

o ic lol, i hope he sleeps well =w=

its an interesting statement which ig does belong in the "is christianity true" thread. im sure somebody has a question abt it if anyone's even reading it rn

[obtuse kettle]

that was a weird convo

[royal monolith]

ikr =w=

but it was fun

[chilly escarp]

How can I improve?

[chilly escarp]

Thanks

[royal monolith]

ofc ofc ofc =w=

[upper pine]

For the sake of accuracy there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is many historical figures and there are historical records of witnesses... If you are being impartial, then it seems you haven't done much research as this is a conclusion even secual historians admit to. The only part some historians will deny is simply that some of the events in the bible are true while others are accurate accounts.

[upper pine]

So why didn't God and Jesus mention this invisible unicorn or its son?

(Sorry for late replies btw, I was at MEPS so couldn't really talk)

[gilded pollen]

Because neither the god you're talking about, nor Jesus, are real. It's only the unicorn that's real. People who say otherwise are lying or mistaken.
You understand the point, right? There's as much evidence of the unicorn as there is of the Christian god. Or any other god, out of the 200+ gods humans have talked about in human history.
There is nothing in the way of evidence that separates Christianity from any of those other gods. It's irrational to believe in any of them.

[royal monolith]

i disagree with this???

at least, for relatively modern historical figures,,, we have way more proof. the older in time you look, the harder it is to definitively prove but there's still a lot more proof for other figures than jesus. There also are not many witnesses, if any at all (excluding the Bible for reasons that need not be mentioned)

Jesus was a popular name in the region at the time though. If you want to say,"A jesus of nazareth" existed, kinda like how saying,"A michael in newyork existed", then, I mean. You're probably correct ^^'

But saying there was a Michael and that michael was michael jackson is a little different ^^'
Similarly, saying a jesus existed and THE jesus existed is uhh, hard lol.

i also think its hard to say,"the only part historians deny is simply that some of the events in the bible are true", which like. when the basis of jesus that is believed in today lies largely in the bible's influence ^^'

like. thats like me finding records that a percy jackson existed, maybe even did things kinda closely similar to some parts in the book lol. So the book probably happened and percy jackson is real

That's a large, intellectually dishonest leap in logic, especially considering the fantastical works mentioned in percy jackson. i dont think this case is much different ^^'

[upper pine]

Well of course there is more evidence for modern historical figures than there are Jesus, they are more recent. There is more evidence for Jesus than there are historical figures from the same period of time is what I was implying. Now not to say more evidence for Jesus than EVERY historical figure from his time, but the vast majority. Also, excluding the bible as a historical source goes against the foundations of historicity (for some books, not all books).

Whether you think the amount of evidence is enough to justify his existence is different, and admitting his existence doesn't mean you admit to all the stories being factual events surrounding him. But the person in the bible called Jesus Christ was undoubtedly a real person at that time period, who was crucified under Pilate. And we can see that from sources outside the bible too. We can see it from Roman authorities letters.

I find it funny how people can believe in somethings such as evolution with less evidence, but not the fact that Jesus Christ was a real person. If you can believe evolution is fact, but not Jesus' existence then at that point you're just selectively choosing as Jesus has 100% of existence while evolution just has connections people dot together to claim it is the natural process, with evidence that would support various other theories as well.

[chilly escarp]

please read Romans chapter 8

It explains a lot

[chilly escarp]

I apologize for taking so long to respond to you reply I seen it the other night just didn’t have mindset at that point to respond. Concerning first hand witness resurrection how would someone think they saw someone come back to life from the dead they would know it was true.

[chilly escarp]

Please understand that it is 100% true that Jesus Christ was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God.

[chilly escarp]

There is no other religion like Christianity . Reply for more info I will respond at my soonest convenience

[chilly escarp]

There is evidence it’s that you won’t take Christian evidence in to account. I thought we talked about this already. But look here’s where I’ll leave you if you go to the dentist to fix your Computer and he takes your money and breaks it who’s really at fault there.

[chilly escarp]

One’s disbelief does not disqualify another’s belief

[obtuse kettle]

hmm no nothing is 100% true

wait wrong reply

[obtuse kettle]

how so?

[obtuse kettle]

I mean I can think of some reasons but out of curiosity, what evidence is there to go by?

it's sketchy man, accounts from thousands of years ago, much of it translated dozens of times (and possibly changed by the changers), (certainly prone to bias, perhaps more than anything) before they had the scientific method or any of that stuff

it's not like any critical accounts of what was going on would survive

TLDR; I don't know anything about how particularly this stuff went out or the evidence and that jazz but I'm guessing there's lots of biases

[chilly escarp]

Some things are 100% the Romans kept an historic account He did exist and He was crucified under Pilot

[proper nebula]

Fun fact, the cross actually represents an ancient airplane

[solemn valley]

So, when we talk about "did jesus of nazreth exist?" We are vaguely referring to the biblical Jesus. To take your Michael in New York analogy, if we heard stories that there was someone in New York who always wore an orange hat, heart shaped glasses, and his underpants on the outside of his pants named Michael, and there were multiple friends of Michael who verified his existence, and maybe a reference to him being at a parade by a local news report in his typical attire, then when we say "Michael of New York" it's possible to acknowledge that there are many Michaels in New York, yet we can specify and say "The Michael who wears an orange hat, heart shaped glasses, and his underpants on the outside." Now, if someone were to say that they saw Michael in New York lift a pizza with his mind, we would need a lot more evidence to verify if that actually happened. Acknowledging a Michael in New York who wears an orange hat, heart shaped glasses, and his underpants on the outside of his pants, exists is very different from accepting all claims of what Michael did. It is very likely that Jesus of Nazareth did exist. This Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic teacher who had disciples, and caused a tiny bit of a ruckus, leading to his execution on a cross by the Roman government. This acknowledgment does not say that Jesus of Nazareth committed any supernatural acts, and especially does not say that he rose from the dead after his execution, just as an acknowledgment of Michael's existence does not admit stories of Michael's floating pizza.

[chilly escarp]

lol I love it

[chilly escarp]

Well said

[proper nebula]

This is why it took 3 days to come back to earth

[chilly escarp]

Ok every other religion works like this if you do right or have some kind of Change of life then maybe you will be accepted by a certain Deity. This would be likened to husband telling a wife if your good girl for 40 years and you do right then I’ll except you has wife. Where as in Christianity one is saved by faith held by the Power of God

[chilly escarp]

I really do like your response, what up how’s your day going

[proper nebula]

That's awesome, imagine I made the same kind of jokes about islam

[chilly escarp]

For the record I hold that any images of God is in violation of the 2nd commandment but I can tell this is was of humor which is appreciated

[chilly escarp]

Some might get upset

Would be ok with you guys if I post some Christian videos to better explain the faith

Oops wrong religion

[proper nebula]

🤣🤣🤣

[chilly escarp]

No but seriously I am limited to typing which is not my forte. may I post a Cristian sermon?

[proper nebula]

I'm sure that's fine

[chilly escarp]

Thank you give me a moment to find one

[solemn valley]

LMAOO

[solemn valley]

Thank you

[solemn valley]

So I'm kind of just skimming through the messages on this channel and I might respond inconsistently but this is actually a really good point. There is no precedent for an actual supernatural rising from the dead, so literally any other explanation that has a natural precedent is more likely. Occam's Razor is one hell of a drug, but people lie all the time, people get confused all the time, mythos spreads from real events all the time. I don't actually believe that the apostles lied and died for a lie, and frankly I think it's a silly notion to suggest so, but people die for lies/religions a hell of a lot more than they resurrect from the dead. I still think it's a productive conversation to talk about the evidence for the resurrection, and hell, it might convince me, or someone else in this chat, and if it genuinely meets a high level of evidence to justify belief in the supernatural, then I do need to know. But just taking into consideration the level of evidence required for these claims, I would also sooner take a wild ass guess which has evidential precedent, than a moderately evidenced supernatural claim with no precedent.

[chilly escarp]

I’m very happy that you brought us to this point in which I have been trying to get to, First hand witnesses seen both Him die and resurrect more then just His buddies. Jesus also performed great miracles witnessed by more then just His Pals. He was put on the Cross/airplane by His own people The Hebrews who was Given The Old Testament ( The Law and The prophets) that wrote of His coming and yet they rejected him, but why did they reject him this comes down to the doctrine of the fall of man. (Romans 8:7-8) the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread was that the hate towards Christianity is the evidence of its authenticity.

[chilly escarp]

Which sets up this YouTube video

I don’t generally watch YouTube sermons as of this last 5-6 months I wanted to post this because these videos randomly turned up on my recommended after this discord channel started for me a few days ago

[solemn valley]

"First hand witnesses seen both him die and resurrect more than just his buddies." I disagree, and don't think the gospels are eyewitness accounts. I don't think there is enough evidence to say anyone saw him resurrect.

[chilly escarp]

Well if first hand witnesses doesn’t satisfy your requirement to believe I really don’t think reading some words of a old fat guy that’s balding on a discord channel will do it either. I care enough about my fellow human beings to put my self in a bad spot to try to explain the evidence of my belief would you be so kind as care enough for me to offer me evidence for disbelief

[solemn valley]

"If first hand witnesses doesn't satisfy your requirement to believe..." I just said that they weren't first hand witnesses, so no it doesn't satisfy my requirement to believe. If you don't want to provide evidence because you are not familiar with it, thats 100% more than fine with me. I don't wanna trap anyone in a corner or hit people around who validly don't have all the evidence for their belief memorized. Just want you to know you're all good : ) and if I went against Christian scholars or more educated people I'd get my ass handed to me. All I want is a productive convo so I'll engage in whatever you're comfortable with. As a skeptic, my job is easy. I get to say "I don't believe that" and "there's not enough evidence for that" but I commend those who are brave enough to prop up a hypothesis or defend something they believe. I'll give you some positive arguments for disbelief in Christianity. (Quick note I am a very busy person so it might take me a while to respond, and currently, I'm unsure about how much time I have to write positive claims so do stand by, if you'll indulge me.)

[fringe bolt]

the important distinction here is the nature of the claim we are making. Like if I said I owned a cat, you would probably just believe me, as owning a cat is super common. If were super skeptical, you'd probably ask for a picture or something and that would be enough proof.

But if I said my cat came back to life, it'll be reasonable to be more skeptical of that claim than the first one. A simple picture probably wouldn't be enough evidence for someone to believe this claim.

Same thing with Jesus. Lots of evidence that he was a real person. Probably more evidence than any other historical figure. But because the actual claim isn't "jesus was a real person" it's "jesus came back to life" more evidence would be required.

I will concede though that starting with the assumption that Jesus did resurrect, the evidence would probably be about what we see today.

[chilly escarp]

Thank you for your reply, please bare with me as I only have some much time in the day if you can reply with a good time for us to discuss this in the future I would really appreciate it and we can visit this

[royal monolith]

welll yeah, that's my point though. if you want to say a jesus existed, sure. but the jesus specifically of the bible, probably not ^^'

Even if the biblical version is based on a real version of jesus, i feel as though it's a slipperly slope of logic where ppl will claim that a jesus existed, and this jesus is the jesus mentioned in the bible, therefor increasing the bible's legitimacy. meaning that its more likely that everything in the bible occured

That's why I differentiate between jesus and jesus of the bible, as they're inherently different ^^'

[royal monolith]

i do want to also say that a lot of the sources mentioning jesus are from questionable roman figures ^^'
but im really claiming that there's little to no evidence for the biblical jesus specifically

also, the evolution point is crazy =w=

[chilly escarp]

That’s great I was just watching a video on evolution I’ll post it and maybe we can discuss it maybe tomorrow please reply with a time that works for you.

[royal monolith]

o uhhh,,, im usually on all the time so like, anytime after like. 1 or 2 pm probably works lol

[chilly escarp]

Have a good day everyone talk to you later

[upper pine]

Ok, so you're claiming history is wrong.

[fringe bolt]

if i'm being honest, thats a weird distinction to have? like jesus is pretty confirmed to be a singular person who actually lived. Maybe you can distinguish between jesus's acts as a man and the more divine stuff, but its not like they were two different people

[upper pine]

^

Like I was saying, it's not even a religious opinion that the Jesus in the bible existed, whether the supernatural acts where real or not, the person being talked about in the bible was real and was cucified. Now whether he was resurrected or did many divine works is where the debate really starts.

[royal monolith]

thats not a weird distinction to make??? imo lol

a man that walked around and a man that literally walked on water are not the same guys lol. even if the latter is based on the former lol. it might seem redundant,,, but the biblical jesus is as amazing as he is largely bc of his supernatural nature ^^'

basically, i just think its weird to conflate the 2, especially bc the bible is weird lol
for argument's sake, i will agree that you could just split the actions and the person. but i dont like the trajectory of doing so. id rather classify jesus and the biblical jesus as 2 completely different entities.

[royal monolith]

if u watch a documentary abt a person, right? and they change some details in the story so that it works better for the audience: the person may have existed, but the documentary's telling of that person did not actually exist at any point in time lol.

thats the difference in the way i worded it, if that makes sense ^^'

[upper pine]

Ok yea, well then we agree.

[gilded pollen]

Christians have a very good reason to lie about the authenticity of the wild claims Christianity makes. Of course I'm not going to just take their word for it, over the evidence of literally all of human experience.

[gilded pollen]

The evidence for disbelief is very simple. Christianity is indistinguishable from a fraud scam. They take your money and don't give you anything in return. That's by far the most likely explanation. It fits with everything we know about how people work and about how the universe works.

However to believe the Christian version of events, requires accepting that the most common rule you see in action every day, causality, has one exception, and that one exception cannot provide any evidence that is exists. Christians are asking people to ignore the strongest of all possible evidence, without offering any evidence in return.

It's simply not rational to believe in Christianity. Being religious is essentially a sign of mental illness; a brain that is not working properly.

[chilly escarp]

Those are accusations ,not evidence and I’m so very sorry that you feel that way.

[chilly escarp]

It’s a trust issue then. Well that’s just fine I will pray to The God of the Bible that He may increase your faith because as far as I’m concerned its good that you have your reservations that indicates a strong mind and high ranking (Acts 17:11) please ask The Lord for a sign and he will provide please be sensitive to Gods Holy Spirit He will guide you to truth. Salvation is personal it’s not ideal to look for it on a message board.

It’s ok to question God it’s ok to even have your doubts i to was a atheist. I asked God for sign of His existence and He provided one that still follows me until today. What ever I study comes UP it’s weird when meow meow meow mentioned evolution earlier I responded with that’s great I was just watching a video on that subject then posted it.

Well guys duty calls I hope everyone a good night

[chilly escarp]

What time zone did you mean i assumed UTC

[chilly escarp]

To not to go to God because of sinners is the logic as to not go to the gym because of fat people (Mathew 9:10-13) last message about to give up the phone Good night

[chilly escarp]

^

[upper pine]

"It's simply not rational to believe in Christianity. Being religious is essentially a sign of mental illness; a brain that is not working properly."

So you have a mental illness? You made some pretty religious claims there. Also, it still begs the question on how you think the Universe came about. No matter what I believe it is more logical that the universe was created than not created, based on "everything we know about how people work and about how the universe works". As we know, things don't get created from nothing. So where did it all come from? It just always existed in a singularity? What's your personal belief.

The strongest evidence for Christianity is personal evidence in your own life. No amount of outside forces can bring you to Christ, only God himself. Those who harden their hearts to him and do not wish to seek him will not find him, those who open their hearts to him and seek to find him will find him. Even many self-claimed Christians will not truly know God, even if they may believe that they do and will do many works in his name. In the end, it doesn't matter if you belong to a particular religion, it matters if you follow Jesus Christ.

You can get all caught up in the details of who has the correct opinions on this part, who has the correct view on salvation, who has the correct view on communion, infant baptism, etc. None of that matters, relatively. These are all traditions of men, nothing we do here on Earth can save us, we have to go to God and he will save us. He will transform us and give us discernment to understand what is right and wrong.

[proper nebula]

On the note of mental illness, there's a video I usually link, that I totally agree with. So I'll just hop in, share it, and leave the conversation again.
https://youtube.com/shorts/JhMBTY-FE_0?si=WjR1A4x7wRMoKmIj

[gilded pollen]

On the contrary, the fact that causality exists everywhere we look is very strong evidence to suggest that it would exist everywhere else as well. The fact that Christianity also exactly fits the description of a fraud scam is also good evidence that we don't need to invent supernatural explanations for any of it.

To not to go to God because of sinners is the logic as to not go to the gym because of fat people (Mathew 9:10-13) last message about to give up the phone Good night
I don't see how that is relevant to our conversation. If anything, that argument supports the view that Christianity is false, since we don't need to rely on the words of other people to not believe in a god since we cna just look at the universe for ourselves and see the complete lack of a god. But we do need to believe the words of fellow humans in order to believe in the existence of a god. All religion relies on believing that humans are suddenly infallible on this one issue, which is insane given how fallible humans are in every single other situation.

[gilded pollen]

There are no religious claims in my comment. It's a really common fallacy to suggest that not believing in a god requires the same level of faith without evidence as believing in a god, when you arrive at the conclusion there is no god simply by rejecting claims that have no evidence.

How do I think the universe came about? Well, firstly there is no evidence that it was created. Everything that we observe about the universe shows us that nothing is created or destroyed, things merely change from one state to another when they interact with other things. Secondly, even if it did appear out of nothing, it seems much more plausible that something simple (the observable universe) was created out of nothing, than something unbelievably complex (a god) was created out of nothing and has no observable impact on anything.

It's also a flat lie that people that open their hearts to the idea of a god will find one. I tried that, and nothing at all happened. What you actually need for religion, is to abandon everything you know already, and accept an alternate entirely fictional account of everything without any evidence whatsoever, and never question it. Accepting religion is basically like giving up on life entirely, because you need to reject your reality in order to do it. At best it's escapism, for people that prefer a fiction to reality and are allowed to live like that because it benefits those in power.

Once you reject reality, you can find anything you want. But it doesn't make any of it real.

[gilded pollen]

I'm confused. I watched that video, and found someone who was using dishonest and prejudiced arguments. Which part of it do you agree with? What she is saying, or spreading the video to make fun of her?

[gilded pollen]

First off, she starts with an ad hominem attack, trying to establish that anyone that thinks religious ideas are problematic, automatically thinks of themselves as superior to religious people. That's obviously untrue, it's perfectly possible to attack ideas without attacking the person, and it is irrelevant to the point anyway.

Then, she tries to claim that mental illness is the same thing as being neurodiverse, which indicates a huge lack of awareness and is incredibly insulting to neurodiverse people. Being neurodiverse is as much a mental illness as being tall is a physical illness. Neurodiversity doesn't indicate there's something wrong. Mental illness does.

The quote she is responding to does treat people with mental illnesses disrespectfully, because it asks for them to be "called out". But her response is also problematic.

Saying that belief in religion is a sign of mental illness is not disrespecting or being rude to anyone. It's simply saying there is something wrong with how they think. It's not saying anyone is fundamentally stupid, it's saying there is a temporary problem with their existing thought processes, that is understandable. That is an accurate description of some mental illnesses, and I think it's much kinder than the alternative, which is just calling religious people innately stupid and refusing to engage with them.

[chilly escarp]

Sorry accusations are not evidence try again

[gilded pollen]

How does what you said there relate to what I said in the message you quoted?

[chilly escarp]

Thank you for that, it is does not would you like to talk about (Mathew 9)

The line where you said Christianity is a fraud scam I stopped reading after that because that’s an accusation based on a feeling

[chilly escarp]

Exactly

[chilly escarp]

Well said

[proper nebula]

@gilded pollen Sorry, but the trait of "being born in a religious society", which is the greatest indicator of what religion someone will adhere to, is not a mental illness.

Second of all, neurodiversity only becomes a mental illness when it impedes their ability to function in society.

On the contrary, belonging to a religion usually improves one's functioning in society. It's usually the minority religions or non-religious groups that have trouuble on that front.

[chilly escarp]

So humans are fallible is the reason you don’t believe.this is the reason I posted (Mathew 9:10-13) it all boils down to this does one believe what happened 2000 years ago concerning the resurrection based on first hand witnesses or does one believes those reports are false.

I do believe I have offered evidence to the best of my ability, please for the sake of having a civil conversation please offer evidence for your position if all you have is accusations please keep them to your self your not helping the non Christian party here on this discord

Would someone in the non religious party explain to this person what’s the difference between evidence and accusation

[gilded pollen]

It's based on hard evidence, not a feeling. Christianity took money from people in exchange for no tangible benefits whatsoever, and it still does in many cases.

So humans are fallible is the reason you don’t believe.this is the reason I posted (Mathew 9:10-13) it all boils down to this does one believe what happened 2000 years ago concerning the resurrection based on first hand witnesses or does one believes those reports are false.
There is absolutely no evidence that any of it is based on first hand witnesses. Anything that is even claimed as a record of the events was produced a minimum of several decades later, by people who would personally have benefited from persuading people. There is no record of anything other than a bunch of troublemakers causing problems, from anyone who was keeping records at the time. Those actions are easily explained by people wanting other people to give them money and power for offering very little if anything.

The burden of proof is on Christianity to prove that its claims are true. Since it can't do that, there is no rational basis for saying it's claims are true. Since we have easy alternative explanations for everything connected to Christianity that we do have evidence for, that fit perfectly within the same frameworks that are also consistent with how everything else in the universe works, that's really strong evidence that those alternative explanations are true. Christianity's explanations aren't consistent with the causality visible in the observed reality.

[gilded pollen]

Correlation doesn't imply causation. I'm not in any way saying that "being born in a religious society" is a mental illness. But, being born in a religious society does seem to correlate quite highly with a faulty way of thinking. Peer pressure is a powerful influence, and we know that religions generally use peer pressure a lot as part of their mental conditioning. For example, gathering the whole community together in a church to read out repetitive statements of affirmation.

Neurodiversity is simply not mental illness, and mental illness is not neurodiversity. They are two completely different things.
If a neurodiverse person cannot function in society, that is simply society at fault. That's just taking into account the fact that people are different, and is no different from, for example, not putting everything on very high shelves that only tall people can reach. There's nothing to change about the person.
If someone with a mental illness cannot function in society, they require help to become well again. It's a massive difference.

Since non-religious people have historically been heavily persecuted by religious groups, and religions have taken control of most country leaderships, it's not very surprising that non-religious people have a harder time in society. That doesn't say anything positive about religious people though.

[chilly escarp]

Hold that thought

I thank you for dropping in I appreciate your input, however Aklar bringing up mental illness is a ok I would like to say yes there is a mental illness on both sides. On one side (total depravity) a Biblical teaching that a person is totally unable to understand the things of God and is actually hostile towards God. And the the other side which is true Christians are crazy for believing that God would send down his Son to die for us a bunch of lunatics ( Acts 26:24-25 & 2 Corinthians 5:12-14)

[chilly escarp]

^

[chilly escarp]

I don’t believe because I don’t believe is not an valid argument and please allow me to repeat my self you are allowed to believe what ever you want.

[terse belfry]

I don't really care if people are Christians, but when it gets to blatant science denial like this is when it gets dangerous.

Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is constantly adding new data and expanding, but the underlying fact that organisms on this planet evolved from common ancestors is indisputable if you spent any amount of time examining the very readily available details.

Every argument I have ever seen against evolution boils down to people not understanding what it actually is and pretending that their wild conception of evolution couldn't possibly be true.

[chilly escarp]

Evolution is a theory it in the Title the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin

Because one can make assumptions on the data one has at the time which is fine that’s how the scientific community works one scientist makes a theory and others attempt at either proving or disproving theory

[terse belfry]

Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is a constantly expanding branch of science, there is a difference. Also, theory is basically the highest level any scientific idea can attain. It's not just a guess thrown out by your drunk uncle on Thanksgiving. It means it has been attempted to be disproven is every conceivable way and has withstood all attempts.

[chilly escarp]

My drunk uncle throws out the best theory’s on thanksgiving lol

[chilly escarp]

We have to understand the scientific procedures it must be tested

[terse belfry]

It's has been, not anyone else's fault if you dont understand it. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there who still believe the earth is flat because from their personal perspective it appears so.

[gilded pollen]

If you're not going to respond to the points I'm making, but instead write counter-arguments to points that nobody is making, I'm not sure how we will be able to continue this conversation.

[chilly escarp]

What points?

[gilded pollen]

#1196286273506250753 message

[chilly escarp]

Did you test it your self

[chilly escarp]

So your accusing me of not addressing your point when I clearly did you have to scroll up a little bit ( accusations are not evidence)

Both secular and Christian Scientist have tested this theory

[chilly escarp]

I was afraid we wasn’t gonna have time to speak on this topic today but it look like it worked out please enjoy

[terse belfry]

I've researched parts of it myself, and I find it is convincing. All attempts to cast doubt on the evidence have been laughable. I still consider them, but they are always awful.

If someone comes forward with evidence to disprove any piece of evolutionary theory I'd happily review it.

But it's always "so humans came out of goo or a fish sprouted legs?" No thats not what any part of the theory states. Or "well where did life come from to begin with" which is not something that evolutionary theory tackles.

[chilly escarp]

So you sat there and watched animals Change over millions of years

I’m gonna post a video

[terse belfry]

I've watched that video and many others, all hot garbage. Can give notes on the specifics of why it doesn't hold up later.

[chilly escarp]

So in response you say you put your faith in Science specifically one set of science. Which is debunked which is the scientific method. Nobody likes to be proven wrong I understand and I’m not waiting for you to say Charles Darwin is wrong. I’m simply stating in order to believe the theory of evolution it requires a certain level of belief.

[terse belfry]

Belief, not faith. Darwin was wrong about a ton of stuff. But the theory born out of his original ideas continues to grow and explain the world better with each passing year.

Thats the difference here. I can accept that a piece of a theory can change without scrapping the entire thing. And I'm always willing to accept new ideas if they explain the situation better.

I'm not afraid of being wrong. If we found out tomorrow that actually it was God and he created all of the species to appear like they evolved and it was a test of our reasoning ability I would incorporate that into my worldview if there were sufficient evidence for it.

[chilly escarp]

Well said and to be respected sir

[terse belfry]

I don't personally know how to create a vaccine, or could perfectly explain how the immune system responds to vaccines to protect us from that virus, but I have seen enough to trust the general process.

I have read history books and heard first hand accounts from people of the devastation and fear that polio, smallpox, and measles caused before vaccines were created for them, and how they were completely eradicated after the creation.

That doesn't mean that every vaccine is ethically tested or can't be flawed. We saw some instances of polio vaccines causing polio, but that was an issue with manufacturing and not an indictment on the concept and validity of vaccines.

[gilded pollen]

That isn't a response to the points I made. I was stating simple facts. If you want to challenge any of them be my guest, but you can't just dismiss them without responding to them and expect a conversation to happen.

Does and did Christianity take money from its followers? Yes, indisputably. Tithes were standard practice, and still are in many places.
Does Christianity provide tangible benefits? No, the rewards take place after death where it is impossible to check they exist.
Are there any first hand witness accounts of any of Christianity's claims? No, and I've already shown how unreliable Christianity's own accounts are.
Do monks and priests benefit from persuading people to give them money? Yes, of course they do, that is clear a priori. And we have many examples that show priests are apparently even more willing than the average person to commit crimes that they think their position will let them get away with. We also know that church institutions will go out of their way to cover up any wrongdoing by priests.

Like I said before, if you look at the bare facts of what Christianity does, it boils down to giving a small group of people, the priests, your money and letting them tell you what to do, in exchange for somewhat vague promises of future benefits. That is no different than any other self-help scam artist you can find in any advertising media.
.

Does Christianity use classic brainwashing techniques? Yes, certainly. Forcing people to repeat statements over and over again is identical to brainwashing. Forcing them to do it in groups uses peer pressure to override normal thought processes as well. Teaching, encouraging, forcing them to avoid questioning things is also textbook procedure for anything based on lies. As is teaching people to view themselves as flawed, and therefore unable to trust their own experience. It's all classic psychological manipulation. Even if any of it was true, which is obviously not the case, that wouldn't excuse it from using such blatant psychological manipulation.

Is there any proof of any part of Christianity that would be acceptable as proof in any normal situation where proof is required? No, not even close.

These are some of the points you need to respond to, for us to even have a conversation about whether Christianity is anything other than a bunch of fundamentally exploitative lies.

[gilded pollen]

See, this is another example of a religious person basing an argument on the fallibility of humans. How can anyone argue with a god, when we are all always assumed to be wrong?

The difference in outlook between Christianity and atheism is that atheists trust their experience of the world, trust the things that have been proven to be trustworthy, whereas Christians reject the things that have been shown to be trustworthy and instead trust a small bunch of people who we know for sure have a motive to lie to them. Christianity means choosing the most unreliable path, for purely emotionally manipulative reasons.

Science doesn't claim infallibility, it just works. Religion claims infallibility, and doesn't actually do anything useful. It's not rocket science to choose between them.

[chilly escarp]

Ok guys that a lot to take in give me a few hours I’ll try to respond the best way possible

[proper nebula]

So my mental illness has nothing to do with my autism? I just need help to get better again?

That's an absolutely depraved and sick way to speak about autism. I'm done here.

[chilly escarp]

Unfortunately I have to get back to life.

[chilly escarp]

I actually have 2 children with autism spectrum disorder

Please don’t jump to conclusions I apologize if I gave the vibe that I was speaking about people with mental disorders not concerning the subject currently at hand

[chilly escarp]

This response right here

I have to go I have children I must go to please have a good day

[gilded pollen]

How on Earth did you reach that conclusion from what I said? I explicitly said very clearly that neurodiversity, such as autism, is different from mental illness in that it's definitely not something that anyone would "get better from". You're looking at my words backwards.

Just because sometimes people experience mental illnesses as a result of dealing with poor treatment by others due to their diversity, doesn't mean neurodiversity and mental illness are the same thing. A car accident is not the same thing as a broken leg.

[chilly escarp]

Wow bro that was cheap, my next line will be my last in this thread

[proper nebula]

No one is claiming that neurodiversity is the same as mental illness, you're arguing with air.

What is the case, is that my mental health issues, which I have had since I was 4 years old, and have had help with since 2001, are for at least 95% caused by the fact that I have autism and I don't fit into modern western society.

I have a mental illness: I have trouble functioning in society, I have a diagnosis, I have people that aid me weekly, I can't just "get well again". Implying that I can is nothing more than mean and/or ignorant. I would literally have to reshape society in order to not need help.

[gilded pollen]

I don't disagree with any of what you're saying about autism. I actually have quite a lot of experience with autism. I just don't understand how any of that is relevant to what I said about mental illness.

[gilded pollen]

Sorry, but I'm not convinced you're actually reading my messages.

[proper nebula]

I have problems with you saying the difference between neurodivergence and mental illness is that, and I quote "If someone with a mental illness cannot function in society, they require help to become well again."

I do require help, and no, I will not "become well again". I have to accept and deal with being different, and maybe make life easier for people like me.

[gilded pollen]

Ok, so to be clear, I'm definitely not saying that helping someone with a mental illness recover will somehow remove all the other challenges they face.

[proper nebula]

What's my other challenges beside my challenges as someone with autism?

These are my challenges

[gilded pollen]

....Obviously. What's your point?

[proper nebula]

That recovery is not even an option

[gilded pollen]

But I'm not saying that recovery from neurodiversity IS an option.

I specifically said it's not, in fact.

[proper nebula]

No, you're saying that recovery from mental illness is an option

[gilded pollen]

Yes. Do you disagree?

[proper nebula]

Which it is not in my case

This is the mental illness

I require help for my mental illness

And I will

Forever

[gilded pollen]

You don't think that if society adapted such that it didn't place you in extra difficulty as a result of your neurodiversity, you wouldn't have the cause of your mental illnesses any more?

[proper nebula]

I refer back to what I said, I would have to reshape the entire world to get there

So it won't happen

[royal monolith]

o chat is really active today ^^'

[gilded pollen]

I'm not saying that recovery from mental illness is easy. It's almost never easy, and the effects are almost always long-lasting, often with a permanent impact on a person's life. But the same can be said of many physical illnesses, that can now be fully recovered from due to the improved understanding of the condition and how to treat them and recovery from them.

But the cause of your at-present immovable problem is the neurodiversity, not the mental illness itself.

[proper nebula]

Exactly what I'm saying. Disregarding my entire life of just having to accept mental illness for your delusional view that in theory I could "recover".

It is mean and/or ignorant.

Sorry, man. I really can't deal with that anymore.

[gilded pollen]

No it's not, In any way. It's the opposite in fact, it's recognising that something can, and should, be done about it, to improve the situation for people like you, and me, and many others, who have to face incredible difficulties through no fault of our own.

I don't just accept that autistic people will forever suffer from depression and anxiety etc.

[proper nebula]

I don't have depression, or anxiety, etc

[gilded pollen]

Do you want to discuss specifics, or shall we stick with the general point?

I know I don't particularly want to talk about my own situation in detail, so I won't ask you to either.

[proper nebula]

In fact, if you try to get an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, but you're already diagnosed with other mental health issues, they will hardly even start the process.

[gilded pollen]

No argument there. Getting a diagnosis is incredibly hard in the UK.

[proper nebula]

For me, it's just autism spectrum disorder. I get help for that. It's no extra diagnosis or whatever.

Autism is the thing I get help for.

[gilded pollen]

Autism isn't a mental illness though.

[proper nebula]

The way it expresses, it absolutely is.

[gilded pollen]

I disagree entirely.

[proper nebula]

The only thing you can point to in my mental health situation is literally just symptoms of autism.

There is nothing else, I don't have another diagnosis

[gilded pollen]

Knock on effects of autism, maybe, but that's not the same thing as symptoms.

[gilded pollen]

Not having another diagnosis doesn't mean you're not suffering from mental illness alongside being autistic. Doctors can miss or mis-diagnose symptoms really easily.

There's almost nobody, in fact, who is autistic and hasn't experienced mental illness alongside it at some point or another.

[proper nebula]

What is the diagnosis for not being good at planning?

[gilded pollen]

Would you classify "not being good at planning" as a mental illness?

[proper nebula]

Absolutely not

It's just a symptom

[gilded pollen]

I wouldn't class it as a mental illness either.

[proper nebula]

What's the diagnosis for common tasks taking longer for me to process mentally?

(Or the same speed, but costing more energy. )

[gilded pollen]

I wouldn't classify that as a mental illness either. In another person they might also be symptoms of some mental illnesses, but that doesn't mean autism is a mental illness. In the same way that not being able to run fast could indicate a developmental issue with your legs, or just that your leg is heavily bruised.

I mean, this is one of the major problems that people with Autism face, the common assumption that you can just "get better". Of course you can't. But the reason that's a common assumption is that with mental health issues, people can get better. People are just often mistaking the type of cause when thinking about autistic people.

[proper nebula]

Dude, do you think a mental illness is like, a temporary mental impairment? Like hangovers and stuff?
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders

[gilded pollen]

Temporary? Yes. Like a hangover? No.

Mental illnesses are temporary if they are treated, or treatable, just like physical illnesses are temporary if they are treatable and treated.

[proper nebula]

Just read the page

Just reading it should be enough to be done with this.

And that is exactly my point why calling religious people mentally ill is harmful.

You don't even know what it is, and therefore you stigmatise both the religious and the mentally ill.

[gilded pollen]

You realise it's a page about mental disorders, not mental illness, right? "Mental disorder" is a term that refers more generally to developmental issues like autism or ADHD, rather than mental illnesses issues like depression or anxiety.

"Mental health", "mental illness" and "mental disorder" do not mean the same thing as each other. Those terms are not interchangeable.

[proper nebula]

Read thr goddamn page

[gilded pollen]

I did.

[proper nebula]

Depression and anxiety are on there, too

If you honestly did read it, that means you're just being mean.

Goodbye

[gilded pollen]

That is because this is a page trying to cover a variety of different things, some of which are mental illnesses, and some of which are not.

By the definition that page uses, "disorder" simply means there is a problem.

[proper nebula]

You are wrong. One more message and I'm blocking you

Note, I didn't even block falcon.

So that's saying something.

[proper nebula]

(Directed at me, obv)

[gilded pollen]

I find this conversation very weird. I really don't know why you're taking offence at my differentiating between "mental illness" and "mental disorder", if that's what you're doing.

[proper nebula]

Okay that's not a message I would block you for

But still

[gilded pollen]

I don't want you to block me. I'd prefer to work out what the problem is here and resolve it. But all I've got so far, is that you're blocking me because you think I'm wrong about "mental illness" meaning something different from "mental disorder".

As far as I can tell, we agree about everything except what name to use, which seems like a pretty silly thing to block someone over. But you do you, I guess.

[proper nebula]

As I said, the disorder is the cause, the illness is the thing you need help for

They are two sides of the same coin

And in enough cases to take offence to your claim, it's not something you can realistically recover from

[gilded pollen]

They are not always two sides of the same coin, though, are they? A person can have a mental disorder like autism without also having a mental illness like depression alongside it, and a person can be mentally ill with something like depression without also having a developmental disorder like autism or ADHD. I was only ever talking about separate mental illnesses, when they are not accompanied by a developmental thing that cannot be changed.

[proper nebula]

And saying "Yeah it might be more difficult, BUT..." makes you seem extremely ignorant.

[gilded pollen]

It's important to note that I didn't say that with respect to autism or developmental disorders.... and wouldn't ever say anything like that with respect to that sort of condition.

[proper nebula]

It doesn't have to be a developmental disorder to be a disorder.

Depression is still in the list of mental disorders

[gilded pollen]

I agree. Not all disorders are developmental disorders.

[gilded pollen]

...and depression is something that can managed and cured to an extent, like an illness, whereas autism is something very different.

I would not classify autism and depression in the same way....except in the most broad of possible categories, which the page you linked was doing.

[proper nebula]

They are both mental disorders, and to get treatment, you have to get a diagnosis of mental illness in both cases.

[gilded pollen]

Autism is not a mental illness.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autism/what-is-autism/

Autism is not an illness
Being autistic does not mean you have an illness or disease. It means your brain works in a different way from other people.

It's really important not to confuse the terms "mental illness" with "mental disorder".

"Mental illness" implies it can be cured, whereas "mental disorder" does not necessarily.

[proper nebula]

Then what mental illness am I suffering from?

Because it seems like you're implying I'm not suffering from any mental illness

[gilded pollen]

Maybe our countries use the terminology differently, is all I can think of right now.

[proper nebula]

Nope, because we don't even make the distinction in words, just in context.

[gilded pollen]

By the definition of mental illness my country uses, autism is not a mental illness. That's not me saying you're not suffering from a mental illness as well, just that autism doesn't fit into that category (precisely because it cannot be 'cured').

[proper nebula]

But I do need help for my mental health issues

And my mental health issues are just "having autism in this world"

Nothing more

[gilded pollen]

I don't know what your symptoms are. Maybe you are suffering from a mental illness, or maybe not, I don't know anything about you.

[gilded pollen]

That wouldn't be considered a mental health problem in the UK.

[proper nebula]

Well in that case I live in a less dead nation.

[gilded pollen]

Autism, and ADHD and similar conditions, have their own category here which is separate from any illnesses. This is because associating them with illnesses gives the wrong impression about them, i.e. the false impression that they can be cured.

[proper nebula]

Already told you. Just normal things like planning and figuring out how to like, package a present or whatever, cost more energy. Now imagine what effect that would have on my daily life.

So that's why I get help.

[gilded pollen]

I don't have to imagine it, actually.

[proper nebula]

Some illnesses can't be cured

It's just the way it is

[gilded pollen]

...yet

[proper nebula]

Yeah, so they can't be cured

[gilded pollen]

...yet. But we're still trying to cure them because they are temporary negative things. Whereas autism isn't temporary, nor is it necessarily negative in itself. It's often just different.

But then autism is a huge spectrum, and covers a huge range of ability levels with in a range of different tasks.

[proper nebula]

You can't tell me that "illness" is by definition temporary.

That's just not true.

And if you think so... Then why the fuck does the term "Terminal illness" even exist? That should be a paradox then.

[gilded pollen]

Illnesses are generally thought of as conditions that affects us, rather than things that are a part of us.

Something can be temporary and that temporary period still include a person's death.

The definition that comes up when I google for a definition of illness, is "a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind." which does certainly imply it is temporary.

[proper nebula]

I agree with that. I'll explain it again.

My disorder is a part of me, is explains how my brain functions differently.

My mental illness is how that condition affects me, it disrupts my functioning in society.

The condition of having a mental disorder.

[gilded pollen]

That's not how I would use the phrase "mental illness", but I'm not going to say that you're wrong for trying to explain it that way.

[proper nebula]

The answer that comes up when I Google "how many times does the letter "n" appear in mayonnaise?" is 3, so..

Gotta do a little more reading than just a google these days.

[gilded pollen]

I did, which was why I didn't post that as my first response.

But yes, I do think "illness" generally implies a temporary thing.

If it's not temporary, I would use "condition" instead

But anyway, I think we've sorted out the misunderstanding.

[proper nebula]

It's nice that you think that, but that still implies that whatever I have, in your opinion does not need weekly psychological help, or government funds to pay for it. (Since that's locked to the diagnosis)

Note: You can still be diagnosed with autism here, but not be indicated as eligible for these funds.

I can scroll through the entire DSM 5 and not find anything other than ASD that describes my struggles. I've tried.

[proper nebula]

From your perspective, my disorder falls under this category.

And from your perspective, I don't have a mental illness, because I have nothing that is temporary.

So I'm left with nothing that would make me eligible for help.

And That. is what I have a problem with.

Not semantics or linguistic misunderstanding.

It's an entire subgroup of the population you are disregarding when you say that a mental illness is something you can always recover from, in theory.

Easy fix: Just include them in the definition.

We do.

[upper pine]

Believing in a God does require the same level of faith as believing in a God. You do not know if one exist or not. The evidence for no God is the same evidence for a God. I could use the same logic saying that I arrive at the conclusion there is a God simply by rejecting claims that have no evidence. The thing you fail to understand is the evidence is the same, the thing that differs is the interpretation of that evidence.

I disagree that there is no evidence the universe was created. We KNOW that nothing in this universe comes about without a cause, why should we believe the universe is any different? You are correct in saying that matter is not created or destroyed, that is why whatever is the case, eternal universe or a God, has to be eternal. It does not seem plausible at all that something, even something simple, was created out of nothing. We don't see that, so I don't think that is an option. And as you said, even if that is the case, the universe is not simple. Also, I think you musconstrue what a God is. By definition, God cannot be created, he is eternal. (As a side note, I'd just like to point out, how do you know that we do not observe the impact of a God in our universe? Are you suggesting an all-powerful God cannot cause natural events? A creator cannot use its own creation?)

This last part comes to just opinion. I obviously believe as a CHristian that if you truly open your heart to God, not just like for 5 seconds, or asking for signs, but truly just trying to make a relationship, he will be revealed to you. Most Christians don't even have Christ revealed to them, they just go to church, sometimes read the bible, then go on ignoring Christ. I only noticed Christ when I started really reading the bible, praying, talking to God daily, and trying to follow his rules. I did not have to abandon what I already knew, I abandoned claims that seemed unreasonable to me.

[upper pine]

It seems like we are partly on the same page, blatant science denial is dangerous, also blatant science (adding? not sure of a better word rn) is dangerous.

Evolution is a fact, you are correct. Macro-evolution is a theory. Micro-evolution is a fact. We do see adaptation in various animals, but nothing extreme as to creating new species, if we do have observed evidence of this then please show that to me, I'd be interested. Keep in mind, I don't think macro-evolution is impossible, I just simply don't believe there is enough evidence to decide one way or the other.

If you think that organisms evolving from common ancestors are indisputable can you please show me sources that explain it further, maybe the reasons I heard are just lacking, but I don't deny their could be some train of thaught I haven't heard. From what I've read and been taught in college, the evidence is that there are similar organisms, some of which happen to appear to change in structure (thus technically being different organisms) and then there is the DNA bit. Claiming that because things have similar DNA it must be evolved from one another is like saying that my computer program evolved from someone elses: while that can be true, it is not reasonable to assume that without further evidence.

[terse belfry]

1. His first point about how we can't trust our senses for certain is true. It is an assumption we have to make that we can generally rely on our senses and the corroboration of our senses by others in order to make any sense of the world. But he lost me when he got to it making more sense that a God gave us those senses. That's extra assumptions we have to make without any basis.

To even consider a God might exist you first have to assume the reliability of your senses. Because the only way to have any concept of a God is through our senses and mind interpreting what he have experienced in the world.

2. The second part about evolution is just nonsense. Mullers work is loved by creationists because they twist his call for a unified theory of evolution that incorporates all aspects of it, including cultural and social effects on populations along with gene mutations, natural selection, etc.

That does not mean, and he has clarified many times on this point, that he thinks any part of evolutionary science is wrong.

[terse belfry]

3. The distinction between micro and macro evolution again is a distortion. While these are different terms in biology they are the same functions just over a much longer timescale. "Kinds" is also not a scientific term. We have witnessed speciation in dogs even in our lifetime. Dogs born of two different breeds so dissimilar from other dogs that they can no longer mate with that dog. If you didn't know it you would assume that a wolf and a pug were not related in any way. But you find it so hard to understand that squirrels and chipmunks or humans and apes share common ancestors as well.

[terse belfry]

I mentioned in my reply to the other guy. A very obvious example of speciation is in dogs. All modern breeds share ancestry with wolves. And it wasn't even that long ago. 15,000 years to go from gray wolves to pugs and chihuahuas and every other type of dog that, if we didn't know their ancestry we would never link to wolves. Most of those breeds can no longer mate with one another.

So think about what the descendants of the thousands of different types of dogs will be like in 1 million years if this is only after 15,000 years.

To be fair, humans sped this process up considerably, but only because we decided to do the selecting instead of letting nature run its course.

You should also look into endogenous retroviruses and how they appear at the same point in the genome of species with common ancestors.

To play off your DNA example, that would be the equivalent of me hiding a specific string in my source code that didnt really do anything but couldnt be altered or removed, then everyone copying that source code to create their own programs from it. You'd still always know where it originally came from if you could find my secret code.

[fringe bolt]

If you think that organisms evolving from common ancestors are indisputable can you please show me sources that explain it further, maybe the reasons I heard are just lacking, but I don't deny their could be some train of thaught I haven't heard.

I've got a creationist source right here that says all dogs have a common ancestor. This is stemming from the fact that the bible said God created each "kind" of animal and put them on the ark. https://gregenos.org/tree-of-life-or-an-orchard/

Genetic studies now confirm that all of the domestic dog breeds are descended from a single pair of dogs.[4] God probably created just one original dog kind that would have looked a lot like a wolf.

But the issue is that this line of reasoning is that it's incompatible with the denial of macroevolution because what we see in the modern day is that dogs and wolves cannot have fertile children. So what we have is:

1. Common ancestery (one wolf-like common ancestor for both dogs and wolves)
2. Evidence of reproductive speciation (dogs and wolves can't mate)

This is clear-cut evidence of macro-evolution

[fringe bolt]

This is the issue with debating creationists though is they usually don't even know their own science 😐

[upper pine]

After looking into evolution of dogs and looking at the different reasons they give for dogs evolving from wovles, it seems to mostly just come down to DNA, which as of now I still don't see that as being proof of evolution, but it definitely is evidence. Most articles I read even say that it is an infrance, meaning it's not 100% fact, it's just the best thing they can think of. As for the dog speciation thing, I haven't found anything on that, in fact I've found the opposite that there isn't dog speciation. Do you happen to have a source for that, I can't find anything on it.

I will look into endogenous retroviruses, maybe that will explain some of the confusion I'm having with understanding how DNA prooves ancestral lineage without it just being an inference based on the DNA being similar.

[upper pine]

Yes, in the bible it does say each "kind" was put on the ark, we don't neccisarily know what that means though, as far as individual species at that period in time, genuses, families, etc. My main concern with evolution is just the idea that the only real weight behind it is just similar DNA, which I believe is also just as explainable with creationism of every creature seperately. (Not to say that's what I believe happens, to be honest I don't have a full-formed opinion on how things came about other than original animals being created).

To go along with your thing on the line of reasoning being incompatible with denial of macro-evolution stems from common ancestry, as far as I'm aware those are just educated assumptions based on similarity of DNA, when every type of creature could just be created by God with it's unique DNA. Again though, not to say that means evolution couldn't be possible, I just don't see it as 100% fact, yet. 2 kinda builds off of 1 so, I'll just leave it there.

[fringe bolt]

The source I'm saying literally says that wolves and dogs are the same "kind" of animal though.

[gilded pollen]

I don't think that at all. I know for a fact that autism alone does often need regular psychological help.
Calling it a developmental disorder instead of a mental illness doesn't really affect what support you can get in this country.

[upper pine]

That's their intupretation on what "kind" means though. As far as I'm aware, the bible doesn't define what "kind" means. What separates "kinds" of animals.

[fringe bolt]

A plain reading of the text in Genesis infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind, not evolve from one to another.

We believe that God created these original plant and animal kinds each with a vast amount of genetic information. This would give their descendants the potential for the variation they needed as they spread out and adapted to different environmental conditions according to natural selection.

But the issue with having god create literally ever single kind of animal species individually means that you'd run of of actual space on the ark.

[upper pine]

If kinds is based on reproduction ability, which it very well could be, and it is implied that each kind can only reproduce with it's own kind. That'd mean wolves and coyotes would be one kind. Those are different species.

Edit: the similarity here would be genus of animal, but then again we see that dogs and wolves can't reproduce and those are also of the same genus. I don't think kind is as straightforward as people might think

[chilly escarp]

For more information please go your local Church and ask

[gilded pollen]

I don't think I agree with anything in this message of yours.

Believing in a god is very different from not believing in a god. Not believing in a god is the default situation that everyone is in, without any evidence or psychological manipulation. As I think I've explained already, believing in a god requires rejecting reliable evidence and replacing it with words from extremely unreliable sources. You need to trust things that are not trustworthy to believe in a god, whereas you only need to trust your own experience to not believe in gods. It's not about interpreting evidence, it's about understanding sources of evidence. Religious sources are unreliable.

On the point about the universe being created, we don't actually KNOW that nothing comes about without a cause. We just strongly believe it because of how ubiquitous that pattern is in our experience. And actually, the universe is quite simple. There are a fairly small number of basic patterns that combine in interesting ways to form larger patterns like life. But either way, whether the universe did spring out of nothing or it was created, we don't need a god to explain that.

In your final paragraph, you are essentially describing the mental conditioning you put yourself through in order to force yourself to believe in this god. If "opening yourself up to God" involves carrying out brainwashing on yourself, then that's not going to be a big shock to anyone that it ends up with someone believing in a god. That's entirely consistent with the atheist view of Christianity.

[upper pine]

This is a two way street, I don't agree anything in the message of yours, except this specific statement "we don't actually KNOW that nothing comes about without a cause". We don't know that, but by your entire argument you have to agree with this if you want to be intellectually honest since your entire argument is based on what we experience, we never experience things just magically appearing out of thin air.

I disagree that believing in a God is the default situation we are all in, as by default every single civilization has some sort of divine belief, even isolated local tribes have religious beliefs, whether it aligns with western beliefs or not. My belief in God does not come from the bible, it comes from personal experiences, the bible is what those personal experiences have lead me to. Also, no, we don't need to trust things that aren't trustworthy to believe in God, as if God is real then everything he does is natural, since we are his creation, but I do get where you are coming from on this point.

Again, I agree that we don't know that things can only come about through causes, but as I explained if you don't agree that it is true, then your're arguing against yourself. If it was created, then who created it if not God? If it was created, it wasn't eternal, and therefore something had to come before it.

In your final paragraph, I am conviced you are brainwashed and have no idea what religious people's lives are like, nor the journey to them. Opening myself up to God means trying to talk to God, asking him to help change me, then seeing just overnight my own desires changing, and little did I know until reading the bible that they were changed to be more in line with God's will for our behavior. It's odd that'd happen without me having read some of those behaviors being wrong. Plus, what lead me to trying that in the first place was the fact I don't see the universe being possible without some form of creator

[gilded pollen]

Yes, your belief in your god comes from your personal experience of brainwashing yourself.

[upper pine]

It's like you don't even read what other people say 💀

It's illogical to have a discussion with you if you can't even reasonably discuss with other people.

I could easily say the very same thing about you if I was to be as prideful as you and say that your belief in no God comes from your personal experience of brainwashing yourself.

[gilded pollen]

Many cultures believe in many gods as opposed to just one. There is nothing about any particular belief about gods that is universal to humans. Most of the world doesn't believe in Christianity. So it's simply not true to say the belief in any religion is the default. Nobody would believe in Christianity if they hadn't been subject to persuasion by Christians, just like nobody believes in any of the other religions without someone persuading them of that.

If the universe suddenly sprang into being without a cause, then it didn't need a god to do it. The universe is much simpler than a god, and so there is no reason to believe that a god could exist without a cause without also believing that the entire universe could exist without a cause. There is no form of argument connected to causes that requires the existence of any god, let alone the Christian one. Anything that could be used to justify a god doing the creating can also be used to justify the universe being created in literally any other way.

There's nothing odd to me at all in your last paragraph. Trying to talk to a god, and various other actions that implicitly assume a god exists, is itself a form of brainwashing to make you believe in that god. Of course it's going to make you believe in a god more.
Since Christian morality has been copied directly from normal human morality, it is entirely unsurprising that you came to that morality on your own. It would be a lot more remarkable if you had come to literally any other conclusion.

If you don't believe the universe could be created without some form of creator then it would probably be worth your while reading the books that explain how the most complex life can be created from just the few basic laws of nature. 'The Selfish Gene' is a good start.

[gilded pollen]

You can say anything you want, but it wouldn't necessarily be true. Unlike you, I haven't used any recognisable brainwashing techniques on myself.

[upper pine]

Except denying evidence and/or logic, unlike me. See just saying stuff doesn't make it true.

[gilded pollen]

Sorry, I still don't understand what that message means. Could you elaborate?

[upper pine]

You're sorta on the right track, yes many cultures do believe in many gods as opposed to one. I don't understand how it's not universal to humans though when nearly EVERY single early civilization had religious views, it seems like the default. "Nobody would believe in Christianity if they hadn't been subject to persuasion by Christians, just like nobody believes in any of the other religions without someone persuading them of that. " Except that's literally what happened. The beliefs of the religion come about from the belief in our hearts that there is a higher power, the natural instint in our nature.

"If the universe suddenly sprang into being without a cause, then it didn't need a god to do it". Yea, if it could do that then it wouldn't need a God, but as we already discussed, it can't do that, if you think it can then you're going against your own claims. The reason a God cna exist without a cause it because that is the nature of a God, the universe by nature, is natural and is held to certain rules, such as things not just appearing from nothing, so the universe on it's own can't just appear. It'd have to be eternal. That is why you are wrong about the universe vs. God as by their verty nature they are different, and the universe literally can't do what God can do, unless you deny science on what the universe can do.

Trying to supress God and viewing impossible situations as the only likely situation , is itself a form of brainwashing to make you not believe in a God. Of course it's going to make you believe in a God less.

WOAH WOAH WOAH, I see a major red flag in your logic. You mad a giant mistake lol, "Christian morality has been copied directly form normal human morality". Human morality is subjective, so Christian morality cannot come directly form normal human morality, unless you imply there is a higher moral standard that is placed on all of us, like the Bible says. Also, I'm talking about stuff like masturbation, overnight changing, that's not

something that'd happen regularly. There's no reason for someone to suddenly have a change in heart on that without any conversation on it.

[upper pine]

I could, but if you can't understand that simple sentence you probably won't understand it in a different way.

[gilded pollen]

"Except denying evidence and/or logic, unlike me" is half a sentence at best, and entirely missing context.

[gilded pollen]

The existence of many contradictory religious views are not an indicator that any one of them is in any way universal. On the contrary, they are a good indicator that shows that any specific belief about a god is entirely based on your culture.
The fact that belief in some kind of supernatural entity appears to be common is merely an indicator that it's a common form of exploitation, which would be expected given all humans share the same vulnerabilities to brainwashing, and all human cultures contain people with the desire to exploit the weaknesses of others. Literally the only thing in common between all the religions is the psychological manipulation and supremacy of the priesthood.

There is no reason to believe that if a god can appear from nothing then the universe couldn't also appear from nothing. If everything does obey the rule about needing a cause, then it is just as plausible for the universe to break that rule as it is for a god to break that rule. You say it might be in the nature of a god, and I say it might be in the nature of the universe. It's at least equally likely, if not a lot more likely. In both cases, our only judgement about the likelihood of it existing without a cause comes from complete human guesswork. We have nothing to inform such a decision on. There is no evidence of any kind concerning what the nature of a god is, nothing that suggests a god is in any way likely to exist eternally.

I don't know what you're referring to by "trying to suppress God". Do you think I've tried to suppress the belief gods in me? I can assure you I haven't. I haven't needed to, I never had a belief in the existence of a god. There are also no impossible situations that I'm viewing as the only likely situation.

Christian morality, like human morality, is subjective. Christian morality changes with the times like human morality does. It just changes slower, which is why Christian morality is always slightly worse than regular human morality.

[upper pine]

It was a continuation on your sentance. That's how conversations work when someone tells you an exception to what you said.

[upper pine]

I'm not arguing with that point for my particular religion, I'm arguing for the point that religion is a natural belief process for humans, since you seem to think it's some strange concept that doesn't make sense. The whole point you were making is that religion is not a default mindset for people, and I was making the argument that it is, based ont he fact that quite literally every culture has some form of religious view in terms of a God or gods. They do show a lot about your culture, that is correct, that doesn't change anything with the argument. You mention the desire for humans to exploit others, I see no better way to do that than getting rid of religion, or hiding religion so much that the people in charge can twist the religion, such as before bibles were mass-produced where more people could gain access to them instead of trusting priests. The bible talks about being generous and chairtable, that sounds like some really big exploitation there. Also, Christianity does not have priesthood supremacy, catholicism does. Some Christian denominations might, but the churh does not have any authority over it's members scripturally. In fact we are all called to be equal in our sharing (prophesying) of the gospel to each other in church (just a gathering of Christians to talk about the Lord and the bible). I'm not going to deny religion has allowed for manipulation, but so has atheism. Literally anything can be used for manipulation.

Well yes you are correct. If a god can appear from nothing then the universe also could. I never said that was the case, and if you think I did I suggest you re-read what I said, the multiple points about needing either an eternal God or eternal universe. If a God just popped into existence, then that leads to the same dilema as the universe popping into existence

[upper pine]

This one starts at your 3rd paragraph: Well just like how taking actions to move closer to God is "brainwashing" myself, taking actions to move further from God would also be "brainwashing" unless you think we can start using double standards, which it seems you are fond of given the entire universe origin dilema. How can you assure me of anything if you are brainwashed? Also, yes, the impossible situation you view as the only likely situation would be the existence of no God.

Christian morality isn't subjective though, it's set in stone by the bible. Individual morality views of indiviual Christians may change, but that doesn't change the actual moral views of the bible or God. Also you are making a bit of a contradiction here with "It just changes slower, which is why Christian morality is always slightly worse than regular human morality.", if morality is subjective, then Christian morality is no worse than "regular human morality" which to claim there is a regular morality on all humans is to claim that there is some higher authority that sets in stone moral views.

[gilded pollen]

It doesn't make sense as a continuation of my sentence, hence my query.

[gilded pollen]

Religion is clearly not the default mindset for people, otherwise people would start of with a belief in a god until they were persuaded to become atheists, which is obviously the opposite of what happens. Also, having a few religious people in every culture doesn't in any way indicate that it's universal. There are more non-religious people than religious people in the UK, for example.

Can you give me an example of any type of Christianity where you never had to listen to the priests and/or give them money? Maybe such a version exists in tiny numbers nowadays, but it's clear that money and power is a result of all organised religion.

There is little more exploitative than convincing everyone that you're charitable while taking their money.

There is no equivalency between religion and atheism when it comes to exploitation. Religion uses psychological manipulation to make people more vulnerable to manipulation, whereas atheism doesn't. It's impossible to argue that teaching people that certain ideas and people cannot be questioned, and that some things don't need proof, doesn't make people more vulnerable to manipulation.

[gilded pollen]

Again, "not-using brainwashing techniques" is not the equivalent of "using brainwashing techniques". Psychological manipulation is only necessary for religion, not atheism. Nobody needs to take actions to move them further from a god. I don't ritually chant "There is no god" every day. I don't gather together with others to sing songs about how there is no god. I don't listen to people explaining how there is no god every week in my spare time. Atheism is the result of the absence of such brainwashing techniques, not the use of slightly different techniques.

Christian morality isn't set in stone by the Bible, it changes all the time. Christians are well known for changing their views over time, on such issues as slavery, women and homosexuality, for example.

We don't need to set any morality in stone to recognise when morality improves. We can just look at democratically decided morality and compare it to religious morality. Democratic human societies have better morality than religions, and we can show this by looking at the fact that all the changes that Christianity has made to its morality have been preceded by the exact same changes happening in the cultures it's based in. Christianity only changes its morality when it's clear that people are going to view it as being obviously wrong if they don't.
Morality might be subjective, but we can take a consensus view to indicate better morality, morality that most people agree on.

[formal heron]

Correction, Christianity does not have the evidence you are looking for and you see the rest as being circumstantial

[gilded pollen]

Christianity doesn't have any evidence that indicates Christianity is true. Things like the Bible and other Christian writings are indeed evidence. They're just not evidence of Christianity being true, that's all.

[formal heron]

Yeah saying that atheists are brainwashed is a pretty huge stretch, and I have met Christian circles that were explicitly brainwashy, especially cult culture ones like The later day saints

[formal heron]

There is secular evidence for Jesus existing as a person, and while the Dead Sea scrolls can’t prove everything, they still importantly it proves that the prophecies in Isiah were written before Jesus was born

[formal heron]

There are cornerstones that have to remain true for it to not become a cult, but within those limitations there’s a lot of wiggle room, the Christian faith is personal, you can truly be Christian without agreeing on every single theology as long as you agree on the important ones listed earlier

[gilded pollen]

I believe there is evidence of the existence of someone referred to as "Christus", yes. But I don't think there is evidence of anything other than that name, so it seems a stretch to even go so far as to say that's evidence of the existence of Jesus, given how many extra things get attached to the name Jesus when it's used.
And yes, while there is evidence that prophecies existed before this Christus figure, those prophecies are so vague and broad as to be virtually meaningless.

Therefore they also don't indicate the truth of anything, in any way.

[formal heron]

I’m at a doctors appointment right now but when I get home I’ll find secular papers that acknowledge first hand accounts of Jesus and then quote the prophecies to see if they line up

[gilded pollen]

That would be great, especially if they are new secular sources that haven't already been discussed here.

[formal heron]

I’ll try not to repeat any

[gilded pollen]

FYI, we've done a fair bit on Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius already, and also mentioned Pliny the Younger. I don't necessarily mind discussing any of them again, but I am already of the opinion that there's nothing from any of those authors that supports any of Christianity's claims.

[formal heron]

Those aren’t research papers though

[gilded pollen]

No, those are the most commonly mentioned contemporary-ish sources that mention Jesus or a similar figure.

[upper pine]

"a few religious people in every culture" is an understatement, as JUST Christianity and Islam alone account for 56% of the entire world's population as of 2020 accord to the CIA world factbook, that's not even considering all the other religions. When we add in Hindu, Buddhist, and folk religions we get to 77.8 percent of the world that are religios. YOu're statement is more accurate saying "Having a very small amount of the world being non-religious (or not believing in a deity at least) indicates that it is not universal." If your reason is to say that it need to be 100% then sure, but then no mindset is universal.

Yes, the church that I am in, we are non-denominational because Christ calls us to not divide ourselves, that is the work of Satan. I believe most churches do not require you to adhere to the pastors/priests, but instead they offer them as a person to help guide other people who may not be as knowledgeable in their faith. That alone though is not what God wants, he wants us to have teachers, but to also share with each other and become teachers. Also I have never been to a church personally that REQUIRED money to be paid, except 1 group in college which I immediately left because that shows they are not Christians. So maybe from an outsider perspective that is what you see, but that is not the case.

Atheism does involve manipulation though, it tells you that you have to believe in everything coming from nothing which goes against all logic. Once you can believe that they can convince you of anything. They imply that lives are meaningless, and thus atheism is going to lead to more natural exploitation of people, I mean just look at openly atheist government like Stalin and Mao who committed tons of atrocities. If you can convince people their lives have no meaning, they're less inclined to care for others and be more selfish. I agree that you should not teach people to not question ideas, that is stupid to consider. If you think everything needs-

proof though then I think you would be more akin to a agnostic rather than an atheist though, becuase there is no PROOF for atheism, there is only evidence, just as there is evidence for religions.

[upper pine]

So you don't make assumptions in life based on a mindset there is no God, you already said you believe the universe was created from nothing if I am not mistaken, or did you say you don't know. If it is you don't know then you are making assumptions to assume that evolution is fact, if you claim that the universe was created from nothing then you are making that assumption, just as I make the assumption that God created the universe. You are correct that religious people do use more things to stay closer to their religion, but ahtiest do too, you just don't acknowledge it as such. Anything you view things as not requiring a God, you are doing such, just as anytime we say something was done because of God, we are doing the same; as we have no proof for or against a God, only evidence.

I think you conflate Christianity with individual Christians. Christianity is set in stone, it is a book. It's not constantly changing. No where in the bible did it used to say "Slavery is good" and then later it was changed to "Slavery is bad". I agree that CHRISTIANS change their views, but Christianity doesn't. The bible teaches that slavery is wrong, Christians sometimes take the bible out of its entire context to conclude that slavery is allowed, but that is just twisting the scripture.

How is the morality improving though if it is subjective? Claiming such is just a subjective statement, even if it is the majority opinion. Are you saying that if the majority of the world views God as real which is a subjective opinion that it automatically has more weight than other religions or non-religions? If we "take a consensus view" on which religion is better then Christianity wins and thus atheism is one of the worst to support, I find that notion illogical as just because tha majority agree on something doesn't make it correct.

[terse belfry]

Of course the prophecies about Jesus were made before he was born. They were part of the Old Testament. The Jewish people of Jesus' day would have known them very well. Which makes it unremarkable that some of the Gospels would try to make it appear like Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.

It got more ridiculous as they went along. The generally accepted order that the Gospels were written were Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. All of which were written at least a generation after Jesus died.

You'll notice that Mark's Gospel has very little in the way of prophecy fulfillment, and Jesus is far less divine and magical in general. No one even witnesses his resurrection in that book.

Matthew added a few, like Jesus remaining silent in front of his accusers.

Luke really ramped up the prophecy. Throwing in the virgin birth and making Jesus be born in Bethlehem thanks to a census that there is no record took place and which forced people to travel back to where they were from as opposed to counting them where they actually live...like a census.

[terse belfry]

I would say that no, I don't make any additional assumptions in day to day life based on my lack of belief in any deity.

The basic assumptions we all tend to make are that we are alive and our senses are reliable. Beyond that I can't really think of any assumptions, and even these are implicit. I don't wake up every morning and pinch myself to make sure I'm not dreaming and ponder the meaningless of life if we are all actually just brains in jars.

I don't assume anything about how the universe was created, or even if it was created. It is more logical to assume that the universe is just eternal and didn't have a cause than to assume that an eternal deity created the universe somehow and actually he's the one that didn't need a cause. That's just adding an extra unverifiable step for no reason. I'm not saying that is my position, just that it is more logical.

As for something from nothing, I'm not up to date on all my quantum physics but I believe there have been some crazy discoveries regarding particles seemingly appearing in an otherwise empty void. That doesn't mean they are coming from nothing. Could be coming from another universe for all we know.

What I do know is that "God did it" is a lazy and useless assumption. It doesn't make us think and question and explore to find the useful answer. Even if it were true that God cast a spell to create gravity, it still follows rules that we can investigate and use in calculations.

[gilded pollen]

Some mindsets are universal, for example the desire to improve your situation and that of the people you care about. But yes, religion is neither universal nor the default case for humans. Without religion being forced onto people, they grow up without believing in religion.

Like I said, believing in no religion is more common that belief in all religions combined in the UK. Sure, religion is more common in most other places, but it's clearly not universal.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the point about what a Christian is. From my point of view, Christianity is the practice performed by anyone who claims they are a follower of Christ. I'm not going to take sides and say that any one brand of Christianity is the one true version. The fact remains, throughout most of history, most people who have claimed to follow Christ have been part of a religious process that involves giving money to their church and trusting what the priests say.

Atheism doesn't involve manipulation. It doesn't tell anyone to believe in "everything coming from nothing" as you claim, and even that wouldn't be manipulation. Teaching people something that is wrong is not manipulation. What is manipulation, is not allowing people to use their own judgement, blocking their ability to see things rationally. That is what certainly most of Christianity does, and has done for its entire existence. Atheism, simply being a lack of theism, simply allows people to think for themselves and look at things rationally.

Atheistic life isn't meaningless. It contains exactly the same level of meaning as any religious life. The meaning in our lives is provided by our desires and our goals, which is the same as with religious people. The only difference with religious people, is that they are not allowed to choose their own desires and goals, they get them forced on them. But the level of meaning is identical. Especially since all religious desires and goals are provided by humans anyway.

[gilded pollen]

You can look at any openly religious government and see atrocities as well. Just take a look at the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades. Religious reasons are behind some of the worst atrocities in history.

[gilded pollen]

I agree that some level of assumption is necessary in order to live. We do have to assume that the patterns that we observe will remain constant in order to choose any plan of action, and of course it's theoretically possible that those patterns we see might turn out not to be as constant as we thought. But seeing a consistent pattern and assuming that it will keep on continuing (as in atheism), is entirely different from seeing a consistent pattern but still assuming something completely different, as with religion. The assumptions with atheism are like driving along a road and assuming the road won't suddenly disappear. The assumptions with religion are like driving along a road and stopping because even though you can see the road ahead, you still assume it's fake, because a random guy told you that an invisible being told him it was fake. Religious assumptions are entirely based on random unprovable nonsense, whereas atheistic assumptions, regular day-to-day assumptions, are based on our experience.

Assuming that there is no god is the same level of assumption as a person driving along a road assuming the road will continue. Before I thought about it, I was agnostic about religion. I thought there was at least some chance there was some truth to it. But then, when I started to think about it properly, I realised that there is so much obvious nonsense in religion, and so many clearly exploitative practices, so many reasons for people to lie in their claims, and absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to support it, that it's simply not rational to accept it as a valid belief. Religion is perfectly explained as an exploitative practice designed by humans to gain power and wealth for themselves, and isn't explained at all by the existence of a god. It is, quite literally, insane to choose to believe something that doesn't make sense, when there is a flawless explanation to hand that makes complete sense. It is entirely on par with believing 2+2=5.

[gilded pollen]

On an entirely subjective issue such as morality, I'm saying that popularity is a valid choice to use to say something is 'good'. On whether religion is true, which is not subjective but rather rationally disproven, popularity is not a good measurement of 'good'.

If you've already decided to ignore the evidence and believe in a religion, then yes, choosing Christianity because it's popular would be a valid choice. But it's only valid if you have already chosen to ignore evidence.

[obtuse kettle]

nothing is 100%
and much of the records we have from the romans are bs (not religious stuff but other historical accounts like Herotodus saying that the Persian army had like 2m troops or smth)
I've been trying to learn about Alexander the Great and each historical account varies significantly, with some saying he had wings, some saying whatever, you get the point

[obtuse kettle]

I don't understand this

oh

the only other religion I'm familiar with is the Greek and Maori ones and they're both like Christianity in that respect to an extent

if I understand what you mean that is

[deft fossil]

Ah man i wasn't planning on reacting in this thread, but there is one thing here that stood out to me that i would like to correct. I am not looking for a discussion, I am merely sending this message to include a rectification.

Atheism does involve manipulation though, it tells you that you have to believe in everything coming from nothing which goes against all logic

Atheism is the non-belief in any deity. That is it. Not all atheists beliefe something can come from nothing. Not all atheists believe in science. The matter of the fact is that ''atheism'' is not a homogeneous group like ''christians'' or ''muslims'' are. There is nothing that ''connects'' a group of atheists.

Ascribing certain aspects to atheists as a group like ''they believe something can come from nothing'' is therefore not correct at all. That is not a statement you can make. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they do not believe in a deity. Whether that means they are spiritual, scientific, or anything else is totally unimplied.

Atheism is not some sort of doctrine that is comparable to any religion. It is not a construct that ''tells people what to believe''.

Atheism is only the lack of a belief in one or more deities

[deft fossil]

They imply that lives are meaningless, and thus atheism is going to lead to more natural exploitation of people, They imply that lives are meaningless, and thus atheism is going to lead to more natural exploitation of people, I mean just look at openly atheist government like Stalin and Mao who committed tons of atrocities

Who are ''they'' in this example. Do you think all atheists believe life is meaningless? Why not ask an atheist what they believe instead of imposing an opinion on them. Would you like it if non-christian people start creating opinions for christians and pretend like they are factual.

"Yeah Christians don't believe that lives of others actually matter. They like to sexually assault children. I mean just look at all the events of misconduct within the catholic church that have come out in the past 20 years"

You see what i did there? I took some fact that is conducted by a very specific subset of a group, imposed it on the full group and then made an argument that all members of the group are like that. Which is exactly the same type of argument you make about atheists. And you know what, obviously it is bullshit that Christians don't care about children or that they condone rape. But you know what else is bullshit? That athesists imply their lives are meaningless or that atheists end up like Stalin and Mao.

I live in a predominantly non-religious country. I don't see political leaders end up like terrible dictators. In fact, the governing system of your country has very little to do with your religious belief if you follow the phillosophy of Locke, where you seperate church and state. I don't see people be miserable because they don't see a meaning in life because they are atheist. In fact, I don't think the statistics point out at all that religious people are in general more satisfied with their lifes compared to non-religious people.

I would very kindly ask you to stop generalising a non-homogeneous group of people based on a very small sample of historic incidents and impose that onto the full group. Please think before you write.

[upper pine]

So you think the entire human race is more comparale to the UK than the entire world? The VAST majority of the world believes there is some form of higher power, atheism AND agnosticism make up ~>25% of the entire worlds belief. Religion is also in every single continenent and region of the world. Every signle culture has formed their own religious views at points in time. Sure, maybe without any sort of events religion would never be thought of, but religion simply originated from the fact that there are things that we don't understand, and people try to explain them with dieties. Every Native American tribe had their own religious views because the way the world worked it seemed like there were dieties acting in their lives. Being atheistic is much newer of a belief system than religion, so I don't see how the new one can be the default over the original

I think you can have that view on what Christians are, but I think that is a very flawed view. If I call myself a Russian, but I go around attacking Russia, that doesn't mean Russia hates Russia, that means one individual who happens to belong to Russia is attacking Russia.

Ok so your view of what is rational then is does it align with your beliefs. My view of rational is does it make sense that someone could come to that conclusion. I think evolution is rational, but I don't think it is true, yet. I think both atheism and any form of religion are rational, but that doesn't mean I think they are all true. It's easy to see how people can come to the conclusion there are dieties or a diety, it is also possible to see how people can come to the conclusion there are no dieties. But, coming from your own definition of manipulation, Christianity as a religion does not do that, individuals who seek to abuse Christianity for their gain do that. They manipulate the bible too to get what they want. That doesn't mean it follows the religion's beliefs. I think the reason there is an issue here is that you compare individual

-ls to the entire religion, if individuals in power are flawed then the religion must be flawed, is that correct?

Again, you are just making assumptions. Also, atheistic life is ultimately meaningless, you may enjoy doing things while living, but ultimately it has no meaning, everything goes away in the end. My actions have no real consequences for me as I get the same result no matter what, eternal death. With religion at least we view the chance of something better for ourselves, but if you think all religious people have the same desires and goals then you'd be mistaken, going off your paragraph there, as you view the desires and goals as only on this Earth I assume, I don't see every Christian living the same exact life, I see Christians that have the goal to become doctors, I see Christians who have the goal to become chefs and own a restraunt. I see Christians who desire to just make enough money to keep living.

[upper pine]

Even then though, you can see that those atrocities are opnely antithetical to the beliefs of the religion. When it comes to atheism, since there is no religious beliefs other than no diety, atheism can't be opposed to the atrocities. Even then though, not justifying them at all, but they are still not worse than atrocities commited by atheistic leaders, again not that it makes them any better, as theye were both committed by people who were seeking to abuse other people.

[upper pine]

You are wrong here again, from Christianity at least, you don't have to believe something different than what you see, as we believe everything on this Earth is from God, there is nothing on this Earth that contradicts the bible. Also, no we keep going down the path we are going on, the correct analogy would be maybe the road you are travelling on is a small 1 lane road, so it's hard to turn around on, the atheist keeps driving past signs that say if you go this way and don't take an exit ramp, the road does come to an end and you'll have no where else to go, Christianity would be seeing those exit signs and trusting them.

You are correct that God is unprovable, that doesn't make him fake. Just as saying there is no God is unprovable. Also, as a Christian my beliefs do come from regular day-to-dau assumptions and experiences.

You see, we were similar, I was atheist until I started trying to get into Science. Science led me to believing there had to be some higher power, so for a while I tried finding which religion I believed in the most, and for me that was Christianity. Also, do you mind pointing out just one examples of "obvious nonsense" in religion? You are correct to on there being clearly exploitative practices, coming from people seeking to abuse the religion they are claiming to follow, but for Christianity at least, that is antithetical to the religion itself. You again are mistaken that there is no evidence to support it, that is just false and we both know it. Life itself is evidence for God. It is also incorrect to say that atheism is flawless, as the only truly flawless belief system, if there is no diety, would be agnosticism. When there is a diety, then the only flawless belief system would be that particular religion.

[upper pine]

I keep finding it funny that you say religion is rationally disprooven when I cam to religion from rationally looking at all the options, just a little ironic. I disagree though that morality is fine to assume that the majority opinion is the correct opinion. If the majority agrees that rape is moral, I'd never go along with that notion.

Again, funny you say ingoring evidence leads to religion, as looking at evidence brought me to religion from atheism. The language you try to use could entierly be used against you, you just wouldn't believe it, because both of our evidence is the same, other than religious text and events of course, so we actually ahve more evidence, but we just have different interpretations on that evidence leading to an ultimate conclusion of God, or no God.

[upper pine]

Yes, atheism in and of itself leaves a broad spectrum fo people underneath it, but it is still comparable to other religious beliefs as atheism 1, requires an assumption, just like religion, 2, in order to believe it you either have to follow their major beliefs or be contradictory, just like religion, 3 they can have differences in opinions on many things, when it comes to religions the only thing that matters is the foundational principles, such as there being no God, what happens after death, etc. The small details that don't affect that, do not ultimately matter and can lead to people having differences without being a different group.

That's my opinion at least on it.

[upper pine]

The "they" in that example would be atheist, and yes they have to believe life is meaningless otherwise they are contradicting their own viewpoint. It is safe to assume that a Christian believes life has meaning, as that is what the religion teaches, just as atheism teaches everything is naturally made, we're all just cosmic accidents waiting to just dissapear into nothingness. Non-Christian people an start creating opinions for Christians, as long as it follows the religious beliefs, just as what I did with atheism.

(Not sure how to quote parts of text) That example isn't the same as mine though, as mine is based on required beliefs for atheism, and mine isn't saying people can't find things to do in life, but that life is ultimately meaningless. Your example also doesn't align with the main beliefs of the group. I'm also not implying that atheists end up like Stalin or Mao, I'm implying that atheism allows much easier for those type of people to be justified and make way for more of them and their actions.

I think the conflict here is what you believe "meaning of life" to be.

[gilded pollen]

My point is that religion isn't universal, as you're claiming. I agree, some religions have come about in part from people who don't understand the world around them and who try and imagine all possible explanations. But nobody would do anything with those ideas without some form of ulterior motive, because the idea that a god makes the sun rise, on its own, just isn't relevant to anyone. A belief that the unknown has a power over you, that does not ever manifest any evidence that is worthy of the label, can only come from someone trying to prey upon the fears of others. Religion being commonplace in a world that forces religion into people from birth, isn't in any way proof that religion is the default state.

It would be a little odd to expect to find many records of people from ancient times not-believing in gods. It's not like people generally keep a list of all the things that don't exist for them and the practices that they didn't follow. . Especially before the ability to keep lists was acquired. But we know that Atheism dates back at least as far as the Bronze age, so we know it's older than Christianity at least.

There isn't an evidential basis for believing in the existence of a god, when there are always many thousands of alternate possibilities with just as much evidence (i.e. none). There's also no evidential basis for the need to participate in the active religious practices of religions, since they all come from purely from the words of some guys who want you to give them money. The fact that the sun crosses the sky doesn't provide a logical basis for gathering in a room to sing songs about a character in a story. Christianity doesn't have its basis in experience of the world, it has its basis in the words of those guys who wanted people to give them money.

Even if there are versions of Christianity nowadays that don't have exploitative motives, they're still basing everything they do on words passed down from people who most likely did.

[upper pine]

Ok either way I think the is religion a human default is just getting off track now and doesn't really change anything.
If there isn't evidence for the existence of a God, how did I come to that conclusion without talking to priests or religious officials and stuff? Just from looking at science I came to that conclusion, are you claiming science is wrong? "There's also no evidential basis for the need to participate in the active religious practices of religions, since they all come from purely from the words of some guys who want you to give them money". I'm going to guess you just have no historical understanding of Christianity, as I agree other religions are made to mislead people, but Christianity, if all they wanted was money, why would they turn away the rich when they were first starting, seems kinda counter-productive? Why would they say to be charitable, not money, what the person needs, clothes, food, shelter, etc. I think helping other people in your community is a much better practice than being selfish, and if that practice only came about by some crazy person, I'm glad either way. It hits different though when that crazy person had hundreds or thousands of year old prophecies written in advance that he perfectly fulfilled, which no one else can even come close to doing, especially with the fact that many of them had specific timeframes that they had to be completed in. I guess the odds of the universe turning out the way that they are without a God though is even less likely, so I guess it is possible. Again, you're making assumptions that you don't know. I've experienced Christ personally in my life, just like many others, and the only people I give my money too are people I can tell are in need, and even then I don't give money, I ask them what I can do to help, and usually get them food and/or water.

Also you are wrong here again, the exploitative motives were originated from those who did not support it, not the other way around.

[gilded pollen]

You did communicate with religious people, just maybe not directly. I would guess you didn't live in a hermetic bubble and wake up one morning, look at the sun, and say to yourself "Oh, that sun could only have been created by a god who sent his son to Earth and was called Jesus Christ" and then leave your hermetic bubble and find that by chance, a religion already existed with the exact same story.

Literally every confidence scam tries to lead people to believe there is something good going on. Of course Christianity claims to be charitable, claims to have turned away the rich etc. But still somehow the Christian churches ended up as some of the richest organisations in the entire world. Whoops, how could have have happened? Did they run out of charitable causes to give to?
Words are fine, but the reality is that Christianity has made...I think the technical term is a "shit-ton" of money. The evidence doesn't lie. Christianity has exploited the world for its own benefit.

Regarding prophecies, they are barely worth responding to. The so-called prophecies are so vague that literally anyone in any kind of position of power could fulfil them, and the evidence that anyone fulfilled them is so unreliable as to be completely meaningless claims.

The probability of the universe turning out the way it has without a god, is exactly 1. This is exactly how the universe would turn out without a god.

I believe you when you say that you give to people in need, and help others and get them food and/or water. And I believe that you think you've experienced Christ personally. I just also believe that you can't tell the difference between really experiencing Christ and experiencing an illusion.

[gilded pollen]

I'm not sure what your point is with this part. But our actions have consequences that far outlive our brief lives, on into the lives of those who live after us. What we pass on to others gets passed on and on through the generations. The effects of our actions live forever.

That seems a lot better than just working as a performing puppet for an omnipotent god, who created you for their own amusement. A life where you choose your own meaning is much better than one where you get your meaning chosen for you. At least it's my life I'm living, not someone eles's.

[gilded pollen]

Again, it's not possible to differentiate between the different actions that people who practice a religion do in the name of the religion, and say some are part of the religion and some are not. Everything that the religion causes, is part of that religion. So yes, Christianity caused the Spanish inquisition, and the Crusades, and thousands of deaths from sexually transmitted diseases, and the persecution of women and Jews, etc.

[gilded pollen]

You might believe that everything you see is from your god, but you don't see that. That belief doesn't come from what you see, it comes from what you've been told.

Life isn't evidence of the existence of a god. There are many possible explanations for life, and the explanation that fits all the evidence best is not one that involves a god. Life is, in fact, evidence that there is no god. As is everything else we experience, because the best explanation for all of it doesn't include a god. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a god.

Agnosticism means ignoring, or being unaware of, the evidence which indicates religion is a scam. It's not rational to be undecided about a theory for which there is no evidence at all. The only rational response to a complete lack of evidence for the existence of something, in a situation where we would expect to find evidence, is to reject belief in the existence of that thing. Atheism is the only rational position to take when you consider all the evidence.

The things you say are evidence for religion, are not evidence for religion. It's not possible for those things to be evidence for religion when they are also consistent with the view that religion is nonsense.

Obvious nonsense in religion? Papal infallibility. Ritual chanting repetition of dogma. Faith. Virgin birth. Resurrection. An entire bible testament written decades or hundreds of years after the events it supposedly talks about. The (fake) gospels. All the miracles. The lies about the cover ups of abuse by priests.

[gilded pollen]

"After" doesn't mean "because of". Just because you thought you were rationally looking at evidence, and then came to religion after doing that, doesn't mean that evidence was what caused you to go to religion.

If the majority agrees that rape is moral, I'd never go along with that notion.
But the point is that the majority don't agree that rape is moral. The majority is right on that issue. The majority is usually right on most issues. Not always, maybe, but often enough that it's a pretty good indicator in general.

Again, the things you are calling evidence are not evidence of the truth of Christianity, or of the existence of a god. There's no point in just repeating the claim that those things are evidence. I've explained why they are not, so either try and counter my argument with a reasoned argument and/or evidence, or just accept the truth that they are not evidence. I'm obviously just going to flatly reject anything you say that is based on the idea that you do have evidence for Christianity, until you can provide a valid argument to support that idea. So I'd rather you didn't waste your time doing that and concentrated instead on discussing the points rather than just re-stating your position again.

[chilly escarp]

It wouldn’t be right of me not to forgive a certain member of this discord . I’ll be replying to someone’s question towards me tomorrow, hope everyone has a good night

[deft fossil]

Please slow it down with the misinformation. Atheists do not believe life is meaningless. Atheists can have meaning in life without needing a religion to teach them that. Atheism doesnt teach anything since it is not a doctrine. Atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity. You ascribe all sorts of properties to ''atheism'' that inreality do not exist. I would kindly ask you to stop doing that.

[deft fossil]

But atheism has no ''main belief'' as a group. The only thing that atheists have in common is the lack of a belief. Thats all, nothing more to it.

But yeah, please stop seeing atheists as some sort of organised, homogeneous group, because that is just not what atheism is. It is not a belief. It is not a system. There are no ''rules'' or ''regulations'' within atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a personal lack of belief in a deity and is in no way, shape or form comparable to a religion.

[proper nebula]

Yeah I can literally have the opposite views on basically any aspect of life, except I would agree that I'm not convinced that a god exists.

And that's the only defining feature of being an atheist

[upper pine]

Is it not only fair though when the guy I was telling that too does the same? Besides, you say atheism has no "main belief" as a group and then give a main belief, which is belief in the absence of any form of deity, and yes it is a belief, the only "religion" that does not hold firm beliefs would be agnostics as they simply admit that they don't know and can't know, which I personally see as pretty reasonable, which to be honest I see pretty much every religion as perfectly reasonable except Satanism, but maybe that's just because I don't have enough exposure to it to truly know what they believe in.

Also question then, what is the meaning of life, how can it have meaning if there was nothing to give it meaning, unless the meaning is to live, reproduce, and die?

[upper pine]

Well no, I didn't wake up one morning believing that the world could have only been created by a God, my entire life I woke up believing that God or gods are impossible and illogical, just a bunch of nonsense, then I got to high school, and I started taking AP science courses and I started thinking, where did things come from? I followed that though all the way back to the big bang and the universe, and that lead me to the conclusion that the universe either had to have been created by something or the universe was created. This lead me to watching various videos explaining different major religions, and so I researched into the ones that would actually have an impact on people's lives if they were true, as scientifically that'd make the most sense. That ultimately led me to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, from my research I can't just become a Jew, so that really left Islam and Christianity for me, well Islam directly states that the Christian Gospels and the Torah are the Word of God, and therefore are incorruptible, so I read through the Old Testament and the 4 gospels and studied parts that felt impossible to me. Given the evidence presented to me, I felt that the gospels were reliable and true. From there, and only there, did I ever start seeking Christians where my Senior year of High School I was finally baptized, and now in College I've continued and have only grown closer into that faith.

If you don't think prophecies are worth responding too, then I don't believe you are truly being scientific. If the evidence is someone made a specific claim hundreds of years ago before today about an event that'd happen at this exact time, and not just one but hundreds, I'd be inclined to believe that those people did have real prophecies. Sure, that doesn't mean there aren't other explanations, but once you start trying to explain hundreds of coincidences as coincidences you are just letting bias take over.

Last thing, how do you know you-

aren't experiencing illusions? Also, I never claimed to be hallucinating Christ, or physically seeing him, I claimed to have been effected by him in ways that just don't naturally make sense for a human. Now you may not believe that, and when I was in your shoes I wouldn't have, but it has nothing to do with hearing of visions, but sudden changes in behavior.

[upper pine]

Why should we care what happens what happens after us, genuinely curious? I personally don't think people doing whatever they see fit is better than following the creator of everything. I'd rather not live in anarchy where people killing each other is ok because morality is subjective, I'd rather live in a world where we are all given a heart that has morality planted on it. Also, your idea of the reason behind creation isn't accurate for Christianity at least, I encourage you look into it, it's actually a lot different then most Christians even would assume.

[upper pine]

Ok, so people who do not follow a religion are still part of said religion just because they said they are? If I do not hold citizenship in France am I still a French citizen just because I said I was?

[gilded pollen]

I can summarise your first paragraph very simply. You decided you could believe the religious propaganda, and trust what they called evidence, because you made an emotional choice to view them as reliable.

None of the prophecies are anything remarkable, and nothing makes me inclined to believe the people making the prophecies had any advanced knowledge about events in their future. They are on a level with horoscopes in terms of accuracy. There are barely any coincidences worthy of the name, let alone hundreds. I'm happy to debunk any that you think are in any way reliable evidence of foresight.

[gilded pollen]

It doesn't matter whether or not I'm experiencing illusions. Anything could be an illusion, but since we have no way of knowing and it makes absolutely no difference to anything, it's not worth worrying about. All we need to be concerned with is whether our beliefs and actions fit with the currently available evidence. What fits the evidence concerning people who feel they had some kind of connection with a god, is that it was an illusion. Because it makes perfect sense for people to feel that kind of illusion when they are subjecting themselves to psychological manipulation and conditioning.

What doesn't make sense is for it to be the actual influence of a god, since there's absolutely no evidence of that.

[gilded pollen]

Why should we care? Well, there is no "should" for a start. We can do what we like. But why do we care? Because we care about the people close to us, our children, grandchildren, and they will live I the world after we're gone.
There is no evidence that religion has ever had any kind of positive effect on the actions of a person, so I see no reason to believe that having your morality given to you by a religion has a positive effect on the world. If anything, following a religion makes you more inclined to disregard the views of others with differing views, which make the world and overall less tolerant place.

[gilded pollen]

Christianity doesn't have an ID card, as far as I'm aware, so your analogy doesn't work.

The only requirement to be a Christian is that you try and follow Christ. Plenty of people try and do that but do it wrong. That's practically the definition of Catholicism, that they all get it wrong. The only distinguishing factor is that they claim to be trying. So yes, people are part of Christianity if they believe they are. That's a bit different from just saying that they are, but not hugely so. The point is that I can't tell someone they're wrong if they claim to be a Christian.

[upper pine]

The belief does come from what I see, and what I was told, by atheist, as I've seen it to be illogical.

From my research, life only seems possible coming from a God, we don't see examples of life coming from non-life, EXCEPT magically at the very first microbial creatures, what a coincidence that it only happens once and can't happen again despite it being something of a natural process.

If it is not rational to believe that we cannot know whether there is a God or not, then I believe that just shows how irrational you are, and how brainwashed you might be to think that even simply saying we can't know for sure, which we can't, is something that is so impossibly conceived that it isn't even rational. Also, there is not a lack of evidence, there is a lack of evidence that you are willing to decide is fine enough for you to decide to support, we all can say there is no evidence if we cherrypick like you do. So, you are correct in saying "Atheism is the only rational position to take when you consider all the evidence." IF you throw out all the evidence you just decide not to agree with.

Well now you are showing your ignorance here: (As a Christian I do not believe in Papal infallibility, that is Catholics I believe), I've never once seen ritual chanting or repetition of dogma, maybe a different religion, faith is something you have too whether you are willing to admit, and I can go very in to depth on this point if you claim otherwise, virgin birth is scientifically possible, granted not a male being born of a virgin, but a female, resurrections I can understand as being obvious nonsense as you likely don't believe in eye-witness accounts and also logic you'd have to actually think about stimming from other religions prooving he was resurrected (their actions not anything in their books), the bible spans writtings from thousands of years before to hundreds of years after Jesus. Are modern history books not reliable then?

[upper pine]

So the same could be for you, doesn't mean the evidence you've seen is what cause you go to atheism.

Who is to say that the majority is right on that issue, you are making a subjective claim here, a personal opinion. Why is your opinion more valid than the opinion of rapists who don't view it as morally wrong?

[upper pine]

If that's what you read then I think you need to re-take an English comprehension class, as no where in the beginning were there any emotions, it's the same thing that'd lead you to atheism, interpretation of events, if that is emotional, then you too are atheist because of an "emotional choice", so that point makes no sense.

Also, with the whole prophecies thing, it seems you are just denying evidence here. It's not productive to have conversations with people who just deny evidence on the basis of having pre-conceived opinions.

[upper pine]

So if your illusions fit with the current available evidence, which also very well could be illusions, and mine very well could be too, then why is mine any less credible than yours? For all we know we could have 2 different illusions of the world being displayed with 2 different sets of evidence.

[gilded pollen]

There's nothing illogical in Atheism. Quite the opposite.

It's been explained fairly clearly a few times, how life can come from non-life. There's very good scientific evidence for all the processes. Here's a good place to start to learn about how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Atheism doesn't require anyone to throw out any evidence. It just requires people to not invent false evidence out of thin air.

You've never seen ritual Christian Chanting? Well, you can find it in 10 seconds if you type it into YouTube. And repetition of dogma? Literally every Church service or Mass. Seems like I know more about Christianity than you at this point.

I have 'faith' in some things, but I don't have Christian 'Faith'. They are two very different things. My faith has evidence, whereas the Christian Faith is a workaround for a lack of evidence.

There are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrection anywhere in history, so your claims in the last paragraph are entirely false.

[gilded pollen]

The pretty obvious difference in my case, is that I haven't subjected myself to clear psychological manipulation, and I'm not making a claim that is unsupported by evidence.

[gilded pollen]

Ok, let me help you out and show you where the emotions came into your story:

I felt that the gospels were reliable and true.
There. You said you made a judgement about the basis of your whole belief in religion based on a feeling. Not reasoning, a feeling.

It is a fact that none of the prophecies relating to Christianity are anything remarkable. Pick any of them and try and explain how they mean anything.

[gilded pollen]

Sure, maybe we're both living inside a big matrix where nothing we experience is real. Either of us could be wrong in theory, sure.

But that's where that line of thought ends. There's nothing we can do with a theoretical possibility that we're being fed false information. Either way, we have to proceed based on what we learn from what we experience.

[upper pine]

"There is no 'should'.." because "We can do what we like."? I highly reject this notion, we SHOULD care about things, but to play along to your little word game here then, why do we care about the people close to us, our children, grandchildren, and the world they live in after we're gone?

There is NO evidence for religion having a positive effect on actions of a person is just COMPLETELY incorrect. I personally know someone who through religion, specifically Christianity they were able to get through an addiction to dipping tobacco, now that isn't a moral positive effect, because as we agreed, morality is subjective, but it is a positive effect as it physically will help him. But, who says tolerance is needed and intollerance is bad? Should I tollerate someone who kills my wife? Would you tolerate someone killing someone you love?

[upper pine]

My analogy is flawed now that you point that out, as there are clear guidelines for what Christianity defines as acceptable, but you can still be a Christian. Anything outside of those acts are not of Christianity, but of Satan. If I murder someone, those acts do not align with Christianity, however much I might claim to be a Christian, the act does not align with the Christian teachings. That is what I was originally trying to say. You are correct about Catholicism, they do get a lot wrong, and many people do not consider them Christians as many people claim they worship idols such as Mary. Also, you can claim you are something without truly believing it, which I'm never going to try to claim specific people are, as that is almost impossible to do without them admitting it themselves, but that doesn't mean large groups of people don't fall into that category who abuse various systems.

[gilded pollen]

The word "should" requires an obligation, and with subjective morality there is no obligation. It's not a word game, it's just using words properly.

Why do we care about things that happen after we're dead? Well, on one level there isn't a why, because there isn't a grand purpose behind it. It's just how things work, like gravity. But if you want to know how it happens, then it happens because we are gene perpetuating machines. Everything we do is chosen because it gives, or gave, our genes an advantage at continuing replicating themselves into the future. That's why we are here and other patterns that formed naturally are not, because we were better at making sure we replicated into the future. In short, natural selection.

[gilded pollen]

Sure, a person can use religion to get through an addiction. But they can also do that in other ways as well. That's not a benefit religion provides that is better than all the alternatives.

Why is tolerance good? Because we achieve better things when we work together with others.

[gilded pollen]

I'm not going to dispute the fact that large numbers of religious people abuse religions for their own purposes. That's kind of my whole point, in fact. I just think that category also includes the people who started it.

[terse belfry]

I disagree on this entirely. Atheism is the absence of a belief.

1. There's no assumptions. No one has been able to convince me that their version of God has enough evidence to warrant belief. What assumption am I making?

2. There's no beliefs to follow. The only thing required is to not have an affirmative belief in any God.

There's the old comparison to hobbies that you don't see much anymore. If I do not collect stamps, is that a hobby in the same sense as if I did collect stamps? I guess technically you could make that argument, but it's certainly not a very useful distinction to make.

[tacit pivot]

I think someone may have sent this before but I think this chart explains it well.

[proper nebula]

Yup 👍

[upper pine]

"There's very good scientific evidence for all the processes". Sir, at least be intellectually honest with yourself if you're going to say other people are brainwashed before you even consider what you are proposing. You are claiming an unobserved process that we only have a hypothesis for is a scientific fact. Your own source you decided to quote even admits that.

"Atheism doesn't require anyone to throw out any evidence. It just requires people to not invent false evidence out of thin air." How convenient consider you literally just did that lol.

No I've never seen ritual Christian Chanting, and no where in the bible does it tell us to have ritual chanting, I guess it depends on what you consider ritual chanting. Would singing an alma matter at a graduation be a ritualistic chanting? Also you are correct here on repetition of dogma, you are correct in that being a thing, I misunderstood what dogma meant that was my bad. So going over principles is nonsense, with that being true I could just say anything is nonsense if you repeat what someone else has said.

Your faith ahs evidence? Such as your faith in life coming from no life despite not having evidence other than observing that their used to not be life and now there is, the same evidence for Christian creationism? Especially when that natural process never occurs ever again except during that first period to allow for life to be created, almost like if it was a one time event for God to create animals?

There are plenty of eyewitness accounts in history so it isn't false, but clearly you don't think eyewitness is even needed for something to be credible again going off your claim of life coming from no life lol.

[upper pine]

Except you are making unsupported claims as in my previous statement, so it seems to me like you have undergone clear psychological manipulation if you think you do not believe in things without evidence while simutaniously stating you believe in things without evidence.

[upper pine]

So you never make a decision? Everyone makes a decision based on emotion if that is your standard. I decided the amount of evidence I received was enough, just as with you receiving little to no evidence causes you to believe in your claims. It could be accurate I guess you you to say I made an emotional judgement on the amount of credibility required to support my belief, but I mean everyone does that so.

One prophecy alone is not substantial, it is the combination of prophecies that are combined together required of one person that make them remarkable, such as being born in Bethlehem, declaring himself the Son of God, being crucified alongside criminals, come from the line of Abraham, a descendant of Isaac and Jacob, come from the tribe of Judah, he'd be called Immanuel, children massacred at his birthplace, he'd spend a season in Egypt, preceded by a forerunner, a messenger would prepare the way for him, he'd be rejected by his own people, he'd be considered a prophet, he'd be called a Nazarene, there are a lot. Alone they are not strong, but when they are required to be completed by one person, they are substantial when done.

[upper pine]

Yes, and you are saying that what I experience is not rational or true, but yours somehow is?

[upper pine]

So you think our genes define our behavior?

[upper pine]

So is it tolerant to say all religious people are mentally ill?

[upper pine]

So in short the founding fathers of the US are responsible for every single death caused by any American citizen and their actions?

[deft fossil]

@upper pine Both of you are in my opinion wrong here. It is not that one worldview is right and one is wrong. Actually both are ''wrong''. In the sense that all sensori stimuli that come from outside are processed in the brain. However the brain does process all information assymetrically with some form of bias. Therefore, whenever two people observe the exact same phenomenon, they don't experience the same phenomenon. The brain tries to model a view of reality based on the incoming information. But not all information is used to make that model and not everyone uses the same incoming information.

No one person has an objective view of 'reality'', but rather everyone lives in their own biased version of reality, each version differing from the version of the person next to you. Sometimes by very little, sometimes by a lot.

[deft fossil]

What do you suggest would define our behaviour if not our genes?

[scenic lance]

I think the point of christianity is to have faith

if youre looking for evidence i feel like youre doing it wrong

because god doesnt want us to KNOW hes there otherwise it will take away our free will

[proper nebula]

I agree that the point of Chritianity, belief in god, and other religions, is to have faith.

But the topic at hand is whether it's true. And to come closer to finding truth we require evidence, not faith.

[scenic lance]

i dont really think that will be possible

i mean there are a few things we can say for sure

but i woulndt count that as definite proof of religion

[scenic lance]

such as the actual existence of jesus christ or the finding of ancient egyptian chariots in the red sea (citation needed on that last one)

[deft fossil]

I think that one of the BIG issues I have with religious people trying to justify their religious texts is that they make an assumption that if one small aspect of their religous text is true, they extrapolate that to their whole text. So for example ''Jesus has existed, therefore the bible must be true''