>>18655998
>which is something that was said of germ theory.
And germs can be seen with microscopes, unlike god. Big difference.

>>18655998
Thats not true, but it is what the average internet atheist brings to the table.

>>18655998
The idiots who wrote the Torah and the Bible think sickness come from supernatural forces LOL

>>18656012
Lmao microscopes, peep into this magical hole that makes invisible things the size of an apple, sure buddy. Everyone who looks into a microscope sees differently placed shapes. Wake up.

>>18656021
Thank you for demonstrating the mental retardation you have to go through to believe in your god.

>>18656023
>woosh

I think you'd be totally rational to disbelieve germ theory if the content just was "germs did it"
And the guy putting forwards germ theory didn't bother to explain what germs are, or how they do what they do. Didn't bring a microscope. Didn't make testable predictions, etc

>>18656030
Okay, my bad. But there are theists who actually argue like that.

>>18656042
Not just theists. There are atheists who argue that. About spiritual experiences.
>Lmao
>"magical" or sumthin
>suddenly not so invisible huh
>everyone sees something else anyway
>just shapes bro
and occasionally they add
>what if everyone is a hallucinating schizo despite not meeting the diagnostic criteria did you think of that

The whiplash of reading a retarded sentence like >>18656021 is similar to what theists get when someone thinks it's clever to challenge some of the most universal and consistent human experiences across history.

>>18656055
What best explains you feeling whatever a spiritual experience is?
human biology
or
spirits?

>>18655998
>you actually believe that the graves flew open and a horde of zombies shambled around Jerusalem and then two wizards flew over Rome on clouds having a magical duel?
Remember, if you don't believe both these things happened you burn in hell forever.

>>18656060
That entirely depends... are you apriori determined to shove everything into biology and deny spirits till you're blue in the face? I'm not. So I'll go with spirits. When we find circuitry for having spiritual experiences (not just areas that may or may not trigger spiritual feelings), I might reassess.

>>18656055
>spiritual experiences.
Oh boy. Isn't it funny how these "spiritual" experiences can be had by ingesting material substances?

>>18655998
That’s not the only one. They also make these arguments:
>if God real why bad thing happen
>if God real why dinosaurs
>if God real why God not real
>if God real why me not woman
>I hate God
>I hate you

>>18656012
If you need to do something to see germs why is it implausible to think you need to die to see God?

I mean yeah on reddit maybe. But when will Christians start to acknowledge that how later the gospel is written how more divine they make Christ out to be. How suspicious.

The only reason why Christianity is even for the gentiles is because Paul claimed to have seen a vision of Christ. The entire religion basically rests on the claim of a random jew. Please tell me why I should trust Paul?

Jesus clearly never meant for Christianity to become a religion for gentiles

>>18656012
>if God real why can’t I see Him?

>>18656081
You have never read the New Testament

>>18656085
>god is just like this thing which can be seen, except he can't be seen!

>>18656089
What thing that can be seen do you think God is “just like”? Who told you this?

>>18656098
Are you stupid? Read the OP

>>18656087
I have. Will you address the arguments? In the earliest version of Mark the resurrection isn’t even mentioned.
And where does Jesus say that it’s a religion for gentiles and not just for the Israelites? Nice cope, you worship Yahweh, a Jewish God

What does it feel like to experience a spirit?

>>18656079
Where on a dead body can we tell that they are seeing god?

>>18656079
How do I "see" without eyes?

>>18656064
Can you think of any examples where we didn't know something. Then we checked and it turns out the explanation was spirits?
I just think spiritual explanations got such an awful track record, I wouldn't go to them, when there are perfectly good mundane explanations available

>>18656079
>you need to die to see God
So maybe wait until that happens. When you die and see God, THEN you are justified in believing in God.

Guys who invented germ theory did so for good reasons, btw.
Like patients getting infections if you didn't wash your seemingly clean hands before surgery. Or people getting sick from certain wells.
Made people infer that there was something on the surgeon's hands or in the well water they couldn't see, that made people sick.

You got none of this for God.

>>18656055
excellent post
>what if everyone is a hallucinating schizo despite not meeting the diagnostic criteria did you think of that
this one always gets me

>>18656055
>>18656296
Literally no one who know what they are talking about are saying that religious experience is caused by schizophrenic hallucinations.

>>18655998
>The only argument an atheist has ever made is
>>You actually believe that?
You actually believe that?

>>18656071
Oh boy. Not any weirder than me focusing after caffeine, no. Perception is affected by millions of chemicals.

>>18656117
Who is "we"? Most modern people don't accept spirits as an explanation so you'd be asking me to find an example of the unacceptable being acceptable.

>>18656712
Agreed.

>>18656736
We in the same sense of "we figured out lightning is explained by electrical charge accumulating in the clouds"
Can you think of any examples where spirits turned out to be the explanation?

>>18656750
I am still not clear on who you mean. Humanity? The West? There isn't much more we (you and I) share with Benjamin Franklin and other pioneering cloud investigators. If that's what you mean then we figured out posessions are caused by spirits. Now, we-as-modern-people have started rejecting that, presumably because we prefer measurement-based studies and there isn't really much you can measure in a posession so no methodology was ever agreed upon with modernists. Despite that, posessions are still happening and the Vatican is still training and employing exorcists to this very day.

>>18655998
The amount of child rape, children born with terminal illnesses, natural disasters where innocents die etc in the world means the only way God can exist is if he is evil. So pick one, either god doesn't exist or god is evil.

>>18655998
>>18656074
none of these have been refuted

>>18656764
This is such bad faith time wasting

It's a yes or no question. And largely a rhetorical one.
No. No, never did it turn out that the explanation was "spirits".

>>18656081
All Gospels have high Christology and it is not a given that Mark was written before Matthew.
And the earliest written books of the New Testament were the Pauline letters who do have very high Christology as well.

I think it is interesting that atheistic arguments seem to conveniently forget that the Pauline letters exist.

>>18655998
Yes.
I think there is a lack of intellectually in atheism nowadays.
You usually have some variation of
>you believe in fairy tales
>you worship a jew
And so on, rather than serious arguments
Not attempts to honestly argue but attempts to "win" by a kind of status game.

>>18656941
>>you believe in fairy tales
>>you worship a jew
Both these are factual statements. Just because you cannot refute them does not make them unserious.

>>18656947
You are just showing yourself as an unserious person when you say things like that.

Your purpose is not really to debate in good faith (no pun intended), but rather to "win" by ridiculing others rather than proving their arguments are wrong.

>>18656955
Nta. But no one who is religious makes real arguments. They just assert their beliefs with no evidence. If I’m wrong then show real evidence of god right now. Then all you’ll have to do is prove it’s specifically the Jewish god.

>>18656941
>Not attempts to honestly argue
Nobody argues honestly on this website. I bet if I were to argue honestly with you, it would take around 10 posts before you started trolling me or otherwise arguing dishonestly for optics or to detail the conversation.

>>18655998
I thought christians didn't believe in germ theory

>>18656965
>I bet if I were to argue honestly with you, it would take around 10 posts before you started trolling me or otherwise arguing dishonestly for optics or to detail the conversation.
I would like you to take a deep breath, read what you wrote here and tell yourself if you are being honest.
Is "I will behave dishonestly without given the other guys a chance to discuss because they will behave dishonestly anyway" when you don't even know them a honest way to debate?

Is the kind of post that you make "it is just fairytales" something that will attract good debates?

>>18656955
>You are just showing yourself as an unserious person
How does someone restating what you believe make them unserious?

>>18656961
>But no one who is religious makes real arguments. They just assert their beliefs with no evidence.
I wonder in which bubble do you live or if you ever engaged religious people. Or is your experience with religious people TV shows and the strawmen depicted in atheist material?

>>18656975
>I will behave dishonestly
I never said that. I simply won't debate you at all.

>>18656978
You are not doing so.
You are either trying to ridicule others by calling their beliefs "fairy tales" or an emotional appeal to anti-semitism in the second case.
Are you really honestly engaging their arguments when you do this or are you just acting like a politician?

>>18656982
Not debating and trying to "win" and prove religion wrong by strawmanning the other and ridiculing him via status games counts as "behaving dishonestly".

>>18656988
>Not debating and trying to "win" and prove religion wrong by strawmanning the other and ridiculing him via status games
That's not what I'm doing. I'm simply not debating you.
This discussion is reinforcing my opinion that I made the right call in not debating you.

>>18656986
Do you think the Ark story isn't a fairytale?
>an emotional appeal to anti-semitism in the second case.
I don't use that argument, but it would work on Christian neonazis.

>Are you really honestly engaging their arguments when you do this or are you just acting like a politician?
The church has censored free discussion of its doctrines for centuries. You shouldn't act so stuck up just because you think some people are rude to your religion.

>>18656993
What do you think is the purpose of people who use this kind of rhetoric when they argue like that about religion? Be honest here on what they are trying to accomplish.

Or better yet, let's forget about religion for a moment. In political issues something like this happens too, wouldnt you agree? When someone strawman/ridicules/etc the other side without engaging their arguments, be it communists/conservatives/libertarians what is their purpose in doing so? Is it for no reason at all?

>>18656995
NTA but calling it a "fairytale" is a provacative way of phrasing your opinion

>>18655998
Yeah if you believe Jesus (a JEW) could ever be friendly towards Gentiles you are mistaken

>>18657003
I'm not ridiculing any side. I said that I think nobody argues honestly on this website. Notice how unlike your claim that atheists do not argue honestly, this doesn't single out any specific position and instead serves as commentary on the state of this site's culture.

>>18656995
>Do you think the Ark story isn't a fairytale?
Nope. Im not even arguing over its historicity or about what its aim was, but it very much is not a fairytale. Calling it a fairytale is an attempt to get "status points" not really an attempt to go to its core.
"The Ark story isnt real because according to geology..." => a real argument
"This is just a silly fairytale for children" => the use of emotionally charged language as a status game to diminish your "opponents"


>I don't use that argument, but it would work on Christian neonazis.
Neonazis dislike Christianity and vice versa.

>The church has censored free discussion of its doctrines for centuries. You shouldn't act so stuck up just because you think some people are rude to your religion.
You should be aware that this doesnt answer my point.

>>18657010
OK, point taken. Then, let's forget about this website.

Would you agree that the techniques I outlined are dishonest when used?

>>18657012
You think only geology can debunk the Ark of Noah?
How did Noah get to the penguins? Did he swim there and then carry both male and female of all penguin species on Earth to the Middle East? Or perhaps he took one per trip?
Or did God just teleport them, but then what was even the point of putting Noah to work? What about every species of ant? Or insects that can't swim. What about dangerous animals?
What about animals that would fight each other?
How did only a male and female of each species not result in severe incest?

>>18657021
Generally yes, unless they're employed accidentally or something like that. I don't think that's contentious among people who are being honest.

>>18657023
You are missing the point. The point is not if the Ark story is real. The point is what is honest and dishonest when discussing it.
Refusing to argue and just mocking it is not really honest behavior. Arguing about the logistics of it is.

>>18657025
Yes.

>>18657034
I mean yeah I agree with you. I would rather befriend an ISIS member than a reddit atheist.

>>18657034
>Arguing about the logistics of it is.
There's not much to argue about. The logistics are obvious to any third-grader. Calling it a fairytale is just a quick way to get the point across.

>>18657058
>Calling it a fairytale is just a quick way to get the point across.
It is not and you are being dishonest.
Saying
"The logistics dont work" is an argument on why the story is not real.
Saying
"It is a fairytale" is not. You are just saying you are right without proving it and ridiculing the other one.

>>18657073
It only works as ridicule because everyone is aware of how absurd it is. Calling it a fairytale just brings the absurdity of it into focus.

>waaa! please treat me seriously!

>>18657080
You are just saying you are right without proving it and ridiculing the other side.

>>18657081
If you are not acting honestly you should be called out on it

File: ark.jpg (54 KB, 612x433)

54 KB JPG

>>18657088
>Please don't make fun of the boat

>>18657112
Where is Noah's wife?

>>18657119
eaten by lions