No religion has ever been proven true.We are entering a new age, where people realise that science is our best way to learn about the universe, while religion is just unproven speculation.
>>17271737Nature is eternal and uncreated and there is no creator God Minds are composed of many parts and thus can not be fundamental, which means a personal God can't exist
>>17271737I wish the West viewed religion in a more Eastern Asian way
>>17271746We will, eventually. East Asia is just far too ancient and worn out to be enthusiastic about religion any longer.
>>17271743Perhaps you are right but I think we just don't know yet. Humans should do more science so we can better understand the universe.For example, is the universe eternal? Maybe, but maybe not. Science will teach us more.>>17271746Well China is an atheist state. And according to the demographics on the following page, 2/3rds of Japanese people don't belong to an organised religion:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan#Demographics
>>17271743>Minds are composed of many partsHuman minds perhaps, but why does that necessitate God's will be in the same way? Is his vision the same as ours? Nope for he sees every single thing in perfect clarity and without the need of created things like light.
>>17271784Why do you think God exists? What evidence is there for God?If you look at the OP image, that's Andromeda galaxy, and the reason we think it exists is because we can see it with our own eyes.If I can't see God, or hear him, or detect him with my senses in any way, then why should I be sure that he exists?
>>17271822>If you look at the OP image, that's Andromeda galaxy, and the reason we think it exists is because we can see it with our own eyes.There are many arguments for God, it's pointless to go over them. But this right here is a flaw. Before we had the right instruments we didn't even know pic related exists. The strength of our senses says nothing about reality.so it is an extremely poor argument
>>17271737>>17271822Personally, this strengthens my faith in God but isn’t the reason for it.There is no know method to science in which information can code itself.DNA is our genetic code, therefore there must be an intelligent designer after it.DNA can not duplicate with proteins, and proteins cannot be produced without DNA, therefore they must have been created together.Similarly, bees and flowers need each other, one evolving before the other would cause both to die out. Therefore they must have been created.
>>17271834>Before we had the right instruments we didn't even know pic related exists. The strength of our senses says nothing about reality.so it is an extremely poor argumentBack when Galileo was around, he thought the Earth orbited the Sun (which is true) because of his astronomical observations. The Church opposed him because of their religious dogmas.Moral of the story: science is our best tool for discovering the truth. Not religion.All you're saying is that science doesn't know everything because our tools aren't perfect yet, which is obviously true, but science is the best thing we have for discovering the truth. We should improve our scientific tools so we can discover more about reality.
>>17271873>There is no know method to science in which information can code itselfDNA could have resulted from random chemical reactions. This process (abiogenesis) is not fully understood yet, but with more scientific progress, we might understand it better.
>>17271979Science and religion are not opposed to each other, get the fuck out of here with that reddit meme. They don't even deal with the same domains. You look like this right now. Also no your argument is we don't see it therefore it isn't real. Many things were beyond detection at one point too but does that mean we had absolutely no reason to believe in them. And others that we thought were absolutely there like the luminiferous aether turned out to be completely false. Just because our current scientific knowledge accepts something doesn't mean that you are now certain that this is the world we live in. That's ignoring the multiple assumptions we simply have to take to be able to do any scientific research. I just don't get why atheitards think science is even the right tool to use for a being that is supposedly beyond physics.
>>17272012>I just don't get why atheitards think science is even the right tool to use for a being that is supposedly beyond physics.Evidence showing that there is anything "beyond physics"? You have no evidence. You're just a moron.
>>17271737People will always need spirituality and God will always be there. At this point I think even the Church of England will survive.
>>17271981>just believe in spontaneous generationPlease no, next you creatures are gonna suggest we revert back to beliving in shit like the aether, in fact you already basically do with your addiction to blaming dark matter for everything we don't understand in the universe like that's somehow a better answer then just god LMAO.
>>17272023> Evidence showing that there is anything "beyond physics"?The equations of general relativity predict a singularity at the very beginning of the Big Bang, where density and temperature become infinite, and the laws of physics break down.
>>17272023>b-but le infinite membranes colliding to make infinite universes doesn't need evidenceA being that created reality is above it you fucking moron. You may not like it but that's what the vast majority of monotheists believe in. So if you want to make an argument against God your scientism just won't do.
>>17272054nta but time and space are a continuum, so if space breaks down, so does time. Except we already know that energy can't be created or destroyed, only transformed. So, the Big Bang doesn't make sense as an event springing from a singularity, such a transition (and vice versa) would be impossible. Rather, we're living in a snow globe, or an hourglass, of space and time, and the Big Bang was the "shake" or "flip" moment, and this has been happening indefinitely, and will happen indefinitely.
>>17272106> the Big Bang doesn't make sense as an event springing from a singularity, such a transition (and vice versa) would be impossibleAnd yet that’s what the physics says.> Rather, we're living in a snow globe, or an hourglass, of space and time, and the Big Bang was the "shake" or "flip" moment, and this has been happening indefinitely, and will happen indefinitelyNot provable or even the majority opinion among physicists.
>>17272119That's not what the physics says. See the Hartle–Hawking state.
>>17271981>could have resultedYou now believe in “unproven speculation” which you accused religion of being in your original post>random chemical reactionsTill now the facts show that information can’t be coded without an intelligent mind, can you at least admit you don’t believe in rational evidence anymore and mostly on speculations. Besides, random chemical reactions wouldn’t be able to design such a complex code
>>17271979I am the poster from here:>>17271981 and here >>17271873Galileo wasn’t opposed by the Church because of religious dogma, the vast majority of scientists back then accepted the sun orbiting the earth as a fact, and thus opposed Galileo’s belief.
>science >Today mens brains are like women brains because muh equality>Tomorrow they are different and trannies have the brain they wantNo thx, I prefer insanity that I believe in as opposite of insanity that I don't believe in.
>>17271737>We are entering a new age, where people realise that science is our best way to learn about the universe, while religion is just unproven speculation.Your kind are anti-natalist and anti-scientific, the only age you'll create is the age of suicide, religious people are the onlypeople who still procreate and have a high amount of offspring, they will inherit the Earth unfortunately for you
>>17272182> Was there a first moment of time, before which the universe did not exist? What does Modern Cosmology have to say about this question? I think that Modern Cosmology gives a fairly clear answer: probably, but not almost certainly.http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-i-big-bang-cosmology/Hartle-Hawking covered here:http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-viii-the-no-boundary-proposal/
>>17272321>So, even if we can say there appears to have been a beginning based on an extrapolation of the Big Bang Model to early times, there are also reasons why we can't be completely sure, so long as we don't completely understand quantum spacetime (or the initial conditions for inflation). Certainly the universe as we know it began, but we cannot completely eliminate the possibility of a pre-Big-Bang stage.This was my point. I don't know if any physicists have explored this option yet >>17272106 but they should
>>17272339You
>>17272339The thing that boggles people's minds is the possibility something always existed which has no beggining and that which will have no end, the Big Bang was just a loop of something which happened previously and what will happen again, that's at least my opinion on the matter
>>17272351Explain to me what makes it impossible for space to be shaped in such a way that a finite amount of time is recycled indefinitely, and what makes it possible for a singularity of space and time to transition into its antithesis and vice versa? Your links don't discourage these possibilities, but do contrary to that.
>>17272034>People will always need liesWhy not embrace the truth instead? We can still have positivity and good moral lessons without believing that God definitely exists.>>17272041Can you prove that abiogenesis didn't happen? No you can't. It could well have happened.>>17272054Scientists already know that our current understanding of physics is incomplete, right? Quantum mechanics and relativity and incompatible, so we need more scientific research in order to figure out how to reconcile those two theories.
>>17272065Evidence that this God exists? You fucking moron.God is just a speculation. Like Bigfoot, or unicorns.
>>17271737>We are entering a new age, where people realise that science is our best way to learn about the universe, while religion is just unproven speculation.We've already been in it for more than a century, anon. God is dead.
>>17272184I guess the truth is that none of us know how DNA first came to exist. It could have been abiogenesis. Or maybe there is a God who made it. Who knows.But I definitely believe that science is the way to get more answers. Repeatedly throughout history, science has disproven religious dogmas, such as the dogma of geocentrism (the belief that the Earth was at the centre of the universe, and the planets and sun orbited the Earth - we now know this is false, but Christians believed in it for a long time, because they wanted to believe in it).
>>17272195>Galileo's championing of Copernican heliocentrism was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that his opinions contradicted accepted Biblical interpretations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei>>17272294I'm not anti-natalist in any way. Where did I say anything about reproduction? I think it should be everybody's choice to decide if they want kids or not.>religious people are the onlypeople who still procreateThat's obviously not true, many irreligious people have children. For example Stephen Hawking who had 3 kids. Also the current prime minister of the UK is an atheist and he has 2 kids. Those are just two examples.And even IF you were correct (which you're not), your point doesn't prove religion to be true.
>>17272386This change is still happening though. Pic related.
>>17272386Barely, anon. The majority of the planet remains Abrahamic, and if not that then capitalist, which is just economic Calvinism.
>>17272294>religious people are the onlypeople who still procreate and have a high amount of offspringNot only is this bullshit, but many religious people reproduce for completely shitty reasons, either out of some tribal conformism, religious duty, or competition with one's neighbor. None of this is good for the planet or the species. The anti-natalists are preferable to these apes.
>>17272470>extinction is preferableatheism is anti human
>>17272484Extinction is preferable to devolving into psychopathic retardation, yes. You're no better than an ape otherwise. Worse, even, since apes are unconscious to the processes of evolution.
>>17272494>psychopathic retardationYou just described atheism here. Sorry but having babies because it's commanded by the Lord is infinitely more preferable than dying because you can't stop shoving fruits up your butt
>>17272508How about having babies out of compassion, not out of duty? Not enough of a reward in it for you? Abraham was motivated by reward; Abrahamic religion is all reward-oriented. These are inherently narcissistic (read: autistic and psychopathic) religions.
>>17272530>atheists>compassion for babieslmao, why wouldn't you be an anti natalist if you thought all of this was meaningless and full of suffering. you are cruel
>>17272550Only atheists can have compassion for humanity. You need human beings to imitate God before you can pretend to care about them. That's not compassion.
>>17272600>Only atheists can have compassion for humanity.So killing innocent babies because you wanted to satisfy your lust and torturing people who want more than one kid is compassion I see. Who says you can imitate God, religion is about guidance
>>172726261. Theists can abort their babies, too.2. Abortion is merciful if you don't have the means to safely raise a child.3. Abrahamic religions render humanity as a flawed imitation that must suppress itself to be lovable. This isn't compassionate.
>>17272642>1. Theists can abort their babies, too.Murder isn't allowed sorry atheitard, meanwhile you can't even say it is objectively wrong.>2. Abortion is merciful if you don't have the means to safely raise a child.If you were merciful you'd not have sex when you weren't ready. But all you care about is cooming, killing off the life that spawned out of the natural process of reproduction is second to that if you even think about it at all. There is no mercy in putting your pleasure above the life of an innocent>3. Abrahamic religions render humanity as a flawed imitation that must suppress itself to be lovable. This isn't compassionate.Human beings are created with a pure and innocent nature so nope. And yes suppressing your personal desire to murder is righteous
>>17272706>Murder isn't allowedStop breathing then. You murder oxygen molecules when you do.>molecules aren't human beingsNeither is an embryo.>If you were merciful you'd not have sex when you weren't readyMakes no sense.>all you care about is coomingand finding ways to relax with my wife, and ways to help my wife relax.>There is no mercy in putting your pleasure above the life of an innocentAgain, stop breathing, stop eating and drinking. To live means to exploit other life. There is no way around it.>Human beings are created with a pure and innocent natureBut then there was The Fall, and now we're not pure and innocent anymore, i.e., you're not compassionate for humans, but for some idealistic conception of them.
>>17272484Why haven't you answered what I said here about anti-natalism: >>17272408Is it because you can't think of a counterargument?
>>17272732>murder oxygen moleculesThey aren't alive. The fact you equate human beings to soulless molecules is very telling about how you see others. An embryo is a human being in a very early stage of development retard.>makes no sense to control my urges to prevent innocents dyingMaybe you and your wife can find another hobby to help you relax that doesn't involve murder.>To live means to exploit other lifeOne is done as a necessity and the other is just for fun.>now we're not pure and innocent anymoreI am not Christian. In my faith there is no original sin and people are expected to fail and sin. What matters is how they repent to the Lord.
>>17272742I am not the person you were talking to there. If I was an atheist anti natalism and extremely depressing nihilism would be the only way.
>>17272769>If I was an atheist anti natalism and extremely depressing nihilism would be the only way.That's because you're a nihilist at heart and religion just keeps it at bay for you. Atheists who aren't nihilists are eugenicists.
>>17272759Are you a plant that performs photosynthesis for nourishment? No? Then you commit murder to live on a daily basis.>What matters is how they repent to the LordWhich means humans are just a flawed imitation to you all the same. It changes nothing. You don't have compassion for life on Earth.
>>17272776Of course religion does that because I know the purpose of creation and everything I do matters eternally.>Atheists who aren't nihilists are eugenicistsNope once you are on your death bed you wouldn't care about racial purity bs. This is a temporary delusion you have adopted because you have nothing else.
>>17272788As an atheist, I'm always "on my death bed." Unlike you, who hides from death.
>>17272785>thinks human babies are equivalent to meat products he buys at the supermarketYet again another perfect example of atheism being against humanity.>flawed imitationOf what? objective morals? the same ones that demand compassion for life on Earth. For you it's just a preference, one you don't actually even believe in.
>>17272795>As an atheist, I'm always "on my death bed."Oh don't worry I noticed that bro>hides>says the atheistard as he refuses to walk into traffic because his biological programming prevents him from self terminating
>>17271743Big bang shows the universe had a beginning. It had a cause.This is why Einstein began to believe in a creator, else he would have to add a fudge factor to itI would argue that what we all mean by mind, the sensation of self awareness, "me", is consciousness. It is temporarily stored in the brain and interacts with it. It is not the brain, emotions, etc.
>>17272798>thinks some life is worth more than others, thus demonstrating he's not motivated by compassion towards life on EarthGood one.>Of what?"The Lord">>17272808Confronting death doesn't mean being suicidal. Wow, do you understand absolutely fucking nothing about my viewpoint (which is also the Taoist and Buddhist viewpoint btw).
>>17272822>some life is worth more than othersYes absolutely! I love my cat to death but I wouldn't let it maul a baby for food. Similarly I would give you medicine to kill the parasites infesting your skull right now, you know the ones making you say these horrible things about children.>"The Lord"We can never imitate him. Those are laws for human beings like us not for him. If we follow them perfectly and never sin we'd simply be perfect human beings and not God.>Buddhist viewpointThat you are actually nothing, but at the same time "you" must seek release from the cycle of rebirth by committing a more permanent kys act?
>>17272844>Yes absolutelyTake away your false religion, not built on compassion but on narcissism, and there's no basis for ranking life in such a fashion. >If we follow them perfectly and never sin we'd simply be perfect human beings and not God.It doesn't matter, my point still stands: you don't love humans, but some perfect image you have for them. If they don't fall in line with your values, they're useless to you. Not love, but utility, leads you to reproduce and stand against abortion and sex for pleasure.>Buddhist viewpointHeaven and hell are conditions of the heart, and life and death define one another, therefore one should live as if death is always near, and can only really live when it is.
>>17272769>If I was an atheist anti natalism and extremely depressing nihilism would be the only way.Then you don't understand what atheism actually isAs for your picture, I would guess that most atheists are not moral nihilists. But even if you encounter a moral nihilist, are you actually going to kill them and get sent to prison? Almost certainly you won't.
good midwit containment thread
>>17272867>there's no basis for ranking life in such a fashion.Yes there is, see unlike you we have this thing called objective value. Also that's really rich coming from a baby murderer enabler/>but some perfect image you have for themI would want them and myself to act perfectly yes. I fail to see the issue. A human being can decide he just loves to butcher tiny children but that doesn't mean he is being perfect for doing so or that his current evil twisted nature deserves love. >Not love, but utility, leads you to reproduce and stand against abortion and sex for pleasure.Both actually. What makes me take a stand against abortion is the fact that it ends human lives primarily. Also sex for pleasure is fine but not at the expense of potentially murdering somebody. Which is exactly why marriage and contraceptives are a force of good.>one should live as if death is always nearMy faith explicitly teaches this and you're right about the condition of the heart affecting how we actually live our lives.>and can only really live when it is.explain some more this part please
>>17272918The midwit here is you because you haven't been able to offer any arguments whatsoever.
>>17272910Atheists always say it's le "lack" of belief in god(s). But unfortunately it isn't that simple because atheist tend to think practically identically about other things.>Almost certainly you won'tOf course not but it does show to them that they cannot hold that position anymore without having hypocrisy in their heart. And your guess is what I suspect too from discussing with you people. You think morals come from society and sometimes even innate preferences fundamentally.
>>17272923>objective valueThe narcissist's deus ex machina. How can I prove I'm not a narcissist? I know! I'll say my perspective is "objective," not "my perspective"!>I fail to see the issue.Well, that's because you're a narcissist, so you don't bother to learn the words you use. "Perfectly," for example, is entirely relative. You want them to "act perfectly," that is, act according to how you want them to be, and when they fall short of your ideal, you discard them.>Which is exactly why marriage and contraceptives are a force of good.Neither guarantee a 100% avoidance of conception.>My faith explicitly teaches this If your faith is Judaism or Islam (you already said it's not Christianity), then it doesn't. All of them are derived from Platonism, which sought to obscure death from life as much as possible.>explain some more this part pleaseIf you live as if you're not going to ever truly die — and all Abrahamic religions encourage this view with their notion of the immortal soul that moves on to heaven as a reward for their faithfulness — then you aren't living, but in an undead state in which everything around you is merely a reflection for narcissistic pathology. To encounter others, one must mortalize the self and actualize death as a true phenomenon.
>>17271737The conflicting historical, linguistic, and doctrinally idiosyncratic aspects of religions bear no significance towards the real truth expressed in each religion.All religions share a truth, a truth so fundamental to our being that it is metaphysical in nature. There is a common ethic amongst all the religions (e.g. do not covet).Furthermore, among Christian mysticism, Sufism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism there is a common spiritual orthodoxy for how to attain metaphysical knowledge (gnosis, nirvana, theosis, ma'rifa etc.)In all of these mystical traditions there is a common theme of the individual being strewn between the higher self and the lower self. The lower self is associated with the ego, and the love of the material, whereas the higher self is associated with a higher, constant, unalterable truth that can be transmitted to the individual by way of him realising the transience and falsity of his own lower self or ego, thus overcoming and dissolving it and annihilating himself, and allowing the higher spirit to flow through him. It should be noted that this truth can only be properly conceived through faculties beyond individual human reason, faculties that experience truth in a direct, metaphysical fashion. There is truth that cannot be understood solely through logical reasoning, that must be experienced to be understood.
>>17272926>argue with midwits to prove you aren't a midwitAnon, I...
>>17272923Atheism doesn't any particular morals. You can have whatever morals you like while being an atheist. You can be an atheist who objects to abortion if you want to do that.>>17272949>You think morals come from society and sometimes even innate preferences fundamentally.Morals are just mutual agreements I guess, and morality then informs our political behaviour. If some behaviour is regarded as immoral by a majority of people within a country, they can vote for a party who will make that behaviour illegal.
>>17272981I accept your concession, midwit
>>17272984You seem rather upset by a simple observation lol. Certainly not telling at all
>>17272960>my perspective>how you want them to beIf you're doing an internal critique then this is just false since I depend on what I consider to be divine revelation. I know you might disagree but there's a difference between saying X is wrong because I think so and X is wrong according to God's teachings. The main difference being I can point to a source external to my whims and desires. Also I am not sure where you get the idea of discarding sinners. The community should ideally guide each other towards goodness. It is an obligation upon the believer even.>Neither guarantee a 100% avoidance of conception.No but at least your intention is purified and the chances reduced. Surely you would agree manslaughter is less evil than premeditated murder.>then it doesn'tpic related>If you live as if you're not going to ever truly dieIf you mean by death complete destruction then yes you are right, but we absolutely are encouraged to live like it is our last moments of life. And I am not sure why you have this impression that it does not matter, What happens in the worldly life echoes through eternity, what we do here actually matters more than if we were to fade away into nothingness. The gates of repentance are closed upon departing this world and whatever evil we have brought will bite us in the ass. We will be held responsible and the problems we have caused to others wouldn't just be left resolved.
>>17272982>You can be an atheist who objects to abortion if you want to do that.Yes but based on what criteria? Most of you accept it because there is very little holding back a person who follows nothing than themselves from thinking it is a righteous action. Honestly it's not even a problem with atheists only. Religions that lack actual accountability are also vulnerable
>tfw they took my baitFeels good
>>17272989You're a moron, evidenced by the fact that you haven't produced any arguments>>17273111>i was only pretending to be retardedSure thing, moron
>>17273111checked and kekd
>>17273065You can form your morals based on your interactions with other humans. Some actions cause a lot of pain to people, and in some cases you might think that pain is unfair, and thus you might consider the pain-producing action to be immoral.As for accountability, we have a system of accountability in society which doesn't require religion - it's called the law. If someone commits rape for example then the law should hold them accountable.
>>17273136Why exactly are pain-producing actions unfair? Chemo can also cause pain but there are plenty of people desperate for it. But also crucially when we are talking about abortion the humanity of the baby is being contested here. How you interact with people barely matters. A lot of you still think it is just sperm that went bad/meaty and could be flushed away.>As for accountability, we have a system of accountability in society which doesn't require religion - it's called the law. If someone commits rape for example then the law should hold them accountable.That isn't your system of accountability since religious people are also subject to it. That being said it's also an extremely poor one because you can get away with many crimes. Do you think a state is going to bother using their resources to track down the murder of people who don't even have birth certificates? You can't fool God
>>17273136>If someone commits rape for example then the law should hold them accountable.And rape is bad for what reason exactly?
>>17271737Consciousness seems to be a fundamental aspect to existence via the shape of the 0 dimensional point so if existence is eternal it pretty much proves god. Now if you believe in creation out of nothing, what does that even look like without god as whatever popsci “quantum foam” your thinking of has definable structure
>>17272550>>17272626>>17272706>>17272759>muh abortion
>>17273221Unfortunately black women have been so dehumanized that they see killing their offspring as the only choice they have to live in such a society
>>17273226>Unfortunately
>>17273229Yes! All human life deserves dignity
>>17273045>The main difference being I can point to a source external to my whims and desiresWhat source are you referring to?>what we do here actually matters more than if we were to fade away into nothingnessThis is slave morality. Master morality thinks otherwise. Instead, it feels death as the impetus to live a more daring and riskier existence.
>>17273221one living white baby is worth more than 100 dead black babies.
>>17273284>What source are you referring to?From my paradigm, it would be the instructions given to us by the Lord through his angels and prophets.>This is slave morality. Master morality thinks otherwise. Instead, it feels death as the impetus to live a more daring and riskier existence.I mean in an ideal situation (according to the religion) we would be willing servants of God that put our own desires always second to his commandments. In a way you have made yourself into your own god. I see why you're forced to do that because of your position, but I could never do something like it because I am not omniscient, merciful, good, etc. It seems like a task a human being is just completely unsuitable for.
>>17272391>who knowsYou are doing exactly what you accused religious people of doing, you now believe in unproven speculation.>science has disproven religious dogmasScience never disagreed with Christian dogmas since they simply don’t answer the same questions.>GeocentrismChristians believed in geocentrism because it was a common belief among scientists themselves, which is why Galileo’s discovery was controversial. Most sciences agreed back then that Geocentrism is true.So geocentrism wasn’t a Christian belief, scientists believed it back then.See this: >>17272195
>>17271737Science and Religion go hand in hand.
>>17274952As a Christian I agree but I’m curious to know how other Christians deal with Darwinism
>>17272508why did he shove a banana up his ass again? why are athiests such attention whore shitty people?
>>17273150>Why exactly are pain-producing actions unfair? Chemo can also cause pain but there are plenty of people desperate for it. I specifically said that "IN SOME CASES" you might think that pain-causing events are unfair, not necessarily in ALL cases.>abortionAn atheist can take whatever stance on abortion they want. They could be pro-life or pro-choice.>That isn't your system of accountabilityThe law is society's system of accountability though.>You can't fool GodI don't believe God exists.>>17273156Maybe you should get raped from behind, if you think it isn't bad.
>>17274463>you now believe in unproven speculationNo, I'm saying "WHO KNOWS". I'm not saying "here's a speculation that I definitely believe is 100% true despite it not being proven".>Christians believed in geocentrism because it was a common belief among scientists themselves, which is why Galileo’s discovery was controversial. Most sciences agreed back then that Geocentrism is true.>So geocentrism wasn’t a Christian beliefWrong, see here:>the Roman Inquisition... concluded that [Galileo's] opinions contradicted accepted Biblical interpretationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei>>17274952>>17275054Religion is just made up stories.>>17275097There have been Christian priests who have molested or abused many children. Does that mean all Christians are "shitty people"?
>>17272981This is me on 4channel.
>>17272012>earth was created 6000 years ago>two of each species on a boat to repopulate the eatrth>people turning into salt pillars>talking snakes and apples of knowledge>resurrection>walking on waterall very unscientific irrational beliefsreligion is incompatible with science because religion makes material claims which are wrong.
>>17276641This desu. Every time they're proven that some part of the Bible is untrue, they conveniently ignore it from then on >"yeah biblical geology/geography/astronomy/biology/etc is fucked, but that's because that part was written by fallible men, instead, find the divine-breathed red thread which is..."or they write it off as a metaphor>"Eden was actually a symbol for the stone age Ethiopian savannahs, where our ancestors lived happily, butt-naked, without the knowledge of good and evil, and even though things didn't seem perfect to us even back then, it was a paradise because God is good"
>>17272809>Big bang shows the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is not a matter of fact.
>>17276047>who knowsfair enough.>wikipediaUse a historical source please>religion is made of storiesDarwinism is a religion>>17276641If you’re interested make a new thread about this. We will discuss it there.
>>17272054I once remember a guy who used an argument like this to tell me that it was possible for AI to be exactly like human minds. Ever since then, I have no respect for any argument that relies on appealing to the notion of a limit or a singularity for speculative reasons.
>>17272411Tacobros, is our diaspora becoming increasingly less religious too? I thought we were immune to atheism, homosexuality, and gender dysphoria.
>>17277493>DarwinismNobody is a Darwinian literalist these days except for people who advocate for eugenics and treat Mein Kampf as a scientific work. Most biologists accept that Darwin was missing a lot of stuff and made claims that have been refuted by now.Charles Darwin was a devout Anglican all his life long btw. He was not one of us.
>>17277758>he was not one of usHe literally invented your ideology
>>17277769I trace my intellectual lineage back to Pyrrho of Elis, not to Charles Darwin.
>tfw Christians on /his/ know so little about the history of Western philosophy and ideas that they get stumped by the notion of pre-Christian non-Abrahamic monotheists, different schools of thought in Ancient Greece, and serious agnostics and atheists who were around 2 millennia before Richard Dawkins was born>tfw they believe all of Europe was homogenously Christian up till the Protestant Reformation, even though there were plenty of breakway groups in the Middle Ages in Europe, like the Arians, Bogomils and the Cathars, the Priscillianists, the Dyaphysites, amongst others>tfw /his/ Christians can't even imagine that the Popes and Antipopes were just bishops backed by different political groups, rather than the one true line of Popes and a false group of claimants to the Papacy>tfw /his/ Christians ignore the Guelph vs Ghibelline conflicts, the Sack of Rome, every single Pope who died violently at the hands of Byzantine exarchs/strategoi, amongst other issues for the sake of mentally keeping up the narrative that all of Europe was united by Christianity
