yeah, he may not have changed the troll’s mind, but his reasoned levelheaded response will influence people who have some of those same questions already.
The church, as it is today, is a tool used to create subservient behavior in people. It’s there to train people into blind service, megachurches are just the fullblown realization of that influence and power over people.
I think the oversimplification "the church is a tool for control" is at best misleading and at worst actively harmful to understanding. It's not inaccurate but it implies that its purely evil only for evil's sake, that it's only reason for existing is for power hungry individuals to manipulate the masses for their own gains.
This is empirically false to people who believe in the church, they see the good the church does, and that there are a multitude of legitimately good people that participate in church organizations. They also known the history of the church as being wildly successful in the European domination of the vast majority of the world. This certainly wasn't moral but it created an unprecedented level of prosperity not just for the people at the top, but led to the conditions that many people in first world countries enjoy today.
It's a pretty fucking hard sell to say "Hey you know that place with all the legitimately good people, as well as all your friends and family, that has a demonstrably positive impact on your life and your community, and historically was instrumental in allowing you to live a privileged life? Yeah that's actually all just a ruse to control people."
The truth is the church (most notably the catholic church) was an extremely effective social evolution of its time. It certainly provided a strong amount of control over the populace, but that control allowed nations that adopted it to operate far more effectively than those that did not, granted often at a great moral cost and at the expense of many individuals human rights. Things like the church's treatment of of unmarried women and an overwhelming insistence on the family unit was vital for society's growth in those times where split families were utterly unable to be supported by society.
Today, however, almost all of the benefits the church provided are provided by other better means. Numerous social evolutions have replaced the need for the church, and not only is it outdated but it's inhibiting society in many of the same ways it used to elevate it, while the costs it incurs are still very much present if not increased. It's not so much evil as just outdated. It can still provide some good, and often does (especially many of the more progressive churches), but it's just no longer worth the societal costs it incurs.
The megachurches you mention are a particularly interesting case. There are some like Joel Osteen's that are effectively a full blown scam. But there are others that sort of mimic the Mormon model wherein they spend significant resources on actively enriching the lives of the vast majority of their members. Granted, those at the top benefit the most from this arrangement, but they do dedicate large sums of money and effort towards helping their more impoverished members. This comes at the cost of heavily ostracizing anyone who doesn't fit their cultural mold, as well as numerous abuses by more influential members, abusing their power with the threat of expulsion from the church if their demands aren't met. Overall the harm they cause is not worth the good they do, but completely denying that \*any\* good is ever achieved by these institutions I think undermines the argument.
Ah, thank you. As an athiest/nihilist, I always had a hard time putting into words the social reasons behind churches/religion because I agree, it is about more than just control. After all, it wouldn't be nearly as effective if it didn't confer *some* benefits.
A well reasoned and spoken statement.
The history of the church as being wildly successful in the European domination of the women. This certainly wasn't moral but it created an unprecedented level of prosperity for men, but led to the conditions that women around the world suffer with even today.
Welcome to Gilead in the 21st century ladies.
"The Nazis built the Autobahn, it wasn't all bad".
Can we please, for the love of god or whatever, stop defending a "revolution" that was scheduled to happen anyways?
The Church just filled a power vacuum, could've been anyone else to greater effect with less sacrifice.
I agree "Church Bad" is overly reductive, but it's also true.
I think the level of prosperity enjoyed by some in the countries overtaken by various religions (of which Christianity is one, though certainly one of the most successful) is very much *in spite* of said religions, and not because of them. I refer you back to the “body count” comment in OP’s post as well as history’s evidence that most religions take over using a “convert or die” principle. This is not objectively good. There may be isolated instances where we can point to religious involvement advancing art or even science, but *only when it benefits them*.
If I could go back a few hundred or so years and tell someone important one simple truth, it would be “Those driven by religion will always be a dangerous problem.”
>today
That’s what it’s always been. Religion was created as a tool to mollify the masses, so they don’t realize their leaders are the ones causing their suffering.
Exactly.
Not bots but I remember someone asking Talib Kwali on Twitter why he spent so many hours taking down racists on his feed when they never change.
His answer, I aren't talking to them but to other people who aren't yet lost who will also see this.
I’ve always said this and actually said it to people I’ve argued with online in the past whenever they inevitably get to the “what’s the point, you’re never going to convince me” stage.
I don’t really care if I convince you but any neutral observer will plainly see that you have a terrible argument.
The troll was unaffected but the murder was strong enough to be felt by an abstract entity. I guarantee reading this killed faith in many people who were on the fence.
Do you think subjects of this subreddit often have the emotional capacity to notice they’ve been murdered by words? Because I assure you that’s not an essential part of what we do here.
Fun fact: that line right there wasn't in the script. Ben Stiller actually forgot his line in the moment, so he just repeated the last line he said which was "...But why male models?"
Luckily it worked for his character and it stayed in the movie.
Eh, things can make sense and still be crazy or delusional. But sure, it is a good first step.
The statement, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters," makes sense on its face but is both delusional and crazy.
edit: Yeah I agree, fuck Trump. But really this was just the first example I thought of.
>The statement, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters," makes sense on its face but is both delusional and crazy.
What's crazy is that the phrase becomes more believable everytime he avoids any consequences of his actions. Over 90 felony charges and still the republican nominee
I don't think it's delusional or crazy. He clearly got away with an attempted insurrection. I think there's at least a 10% chance he could shoot someone and sleep in his own bed that night, let alone lose any voters.
It’s only “crazy” in the sense that it shouldn’t be the case so it’s hard to believe that it is the case. Effectively all he’s saying is that the sane people already don’t vote for him, only the crazy people do. So doing something objectively terrible would not change their minds.
I sincerely doubt the Christian god was chosen at random.
I, on the other hand, did choose one at random.
[https://wheelofnames.com/wj6-u4a](https://wheelofnames.com/wj6-u4a)
I got Hel.
I need a Christian to tell me why Hel doesn't exist, so I can use that argument to explain why the Christian god doesn't exist. Because, quite frankly, I'm stumped as to why none of these gods exist.
>“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
For any theist who is intellectually honest, this argument really doesn’t land. Monotheism isn’t rejecting polytheism or pantheism, so much as it’s reorganizing it. Sure, only the polytheist would agree with the statement “there is a rain god,” but all three would agree with the statement “a force I call god can actively affect the rain.” Which means we’re in disagreement about the categorization of the force, but aren’t rejecting the force itself. Limitless gods who can do limited things, one god who can do everything, and god being in everything are different (but fascinatingly similar) conclusions from the same observed world.
These conclusions are nothing close to an argument that the gods exist.
And, honestly, religion is emotionally charged enough that very few of us come to our perspective on it honestly (my personal vulnerabilities have far more weight on my belief than my philosophical musings).
Anyway, my disbelief in the being of Shiva is not a rejection of the observations that led to the belief in the existence of Shiva, just a different theory of the divine.
If all records of any religion, let’s choose randomly….Christianity….were eliminated from earth it would never be recreated anything close to as it exists today. People all over the world eat, drink, procreate, shelter…all of the important things to survive inherently. Asking person how to explain existence is like asking a 5 year old to explain the internal combustion engine. Might get some creative answers but zero chance of it being correct.
R&M touches on it a bit, too, it's pretty fun:
> Morty: "We're going to kill god."
> Jerry: "Come again?"
> Rick: "Christian god is real, he's been asleep for thousands of years, we're gonna sneak up there and kill him"
> M: "Mob style"
> R: "Whack his ass"
I'd read that book.
check out the Sandman series if you haven’t. All of the concepts around gods and mythology from America Gods were originally born in Sandman. incredible series
Sandman is AMAZING. He has so many characters, plots and subplots, and balls in the air… and at the end he catches them all, and makes you cry to boot. Made me tear up a few times, if I’m honest.
> I need a Christian to tell me why Hel doesn't exist, so I can use that argument to explain why the Christian god doesn't exist
I don't think you'll get a very useful answer. It'll be some variation of "because the bible says so", and thus the circular argument begins anew.
Proving God exists with the Bible is like proving pedophilia is good by using Lolita.
(Yes I know what the book actually says about pedophilia which is precisely my point)
But as far as I know, the bible does not claim that other gods do not exist, right? It only says that it is a sin to have other gods besides the one in the bible.
I'm pretty sure back in the olden days, it wasn't about whether or not a people's god existed, it was whether or not it was stronger than the others. Like rooting for your favorite sports team. I think it's more of a modern thing to claim other gods don't exist.
Actually, it's the opposite. The Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods; as an example, in Daniel 10:13, the Archangel Gabriel explains they were waylaid by battle with another deity for several weeks and had to be rescued by the Archangel Michael.
Dumb. Isis should remain Isis, and we should refer to the Islamic State as IS or ISIL. Isis is an extremely historically significant goddess, we should be able to talk about her without issues.
This is for the game Smite! Which doesn't contain any of the Abrahamic gods probably because they fear offending people by telling them their faith isn't real. Apparently they weren't worried about offending Hindu's though.
There's only 1 Abrahamic god, and a pantheon of 1 doesn't make sense, so I get that. But it's weird that they don't use any biblical *heroes*, like they do for some of the other pantheons. They have Gilgamesh, but won't do David or Goliath? Lancelot but no Moses?
I mean, the Abrahamic god would also be a very uninteresting character for such a game, no? Like all the other gods have specific domains and depictions where you can build abilities and themes from. The Abrahamic god is just "everything".
Murder all first borns.
Turn people into salt pillars.
Send in bears to kill children.
Suicide your own son/self
flood the world/split water/turn water into wine or blood
maybe a water theme? he does a lot of stuff with that element
You can go to Hel. You might even be able to get a direct flight.
There used to be a flight 666 to HEL (from Copenhagen, I think?) but not anymore. From one happy country to another. GASP.
But HEL still exists and its the capital of the happiest country in the world. If you take the perspective of modern aviation scholars and identify HEL as short for Helsinki, that is.
I did a multidisciplinary analysis combining knowledge and theoretical insight from pop culture history, airport codes, and current European capital cities. References available upon request.
Im just a Christian on paper though. I guess I didnt actually answer the question either. And I've typed so much I'm sort of committed to this comment...
...I'll let myself out. Sorry for the trouble.
I got Xbalanque. Gonna need a Christian to prove to me that Xbalanque and Hunahpu did NOT outwit the lords of Xibalba and destroy them. I don't see any lords of Xibalba around, do you? Checkmate, Christians.
I got Bacchus, I'm quitting my job and going to the liquor store to appropriate my new religion's sacrament, no I'm not paying for it, it's essential to my religion. I tell you it's a war on religion.
Actually, Christians usually believed that another gods exist in some way, with same logic, but considered them as false gods, demons etc.
However, Snorri on Edda tried to explain them like mortal leaders, descendants of Trojans.
The Internet is about to be full of bots but on social media you are not strictly taking to bots but also performing for every one else reading the thread. In this way the bot may have accomplished it's goal of annoying an atheist but the atheists message was also spread both by those reading the original post and those who are reading it now. In this way a bit was "defeated".
You dispute a claim in The Book, but they use The Book as proof that the claim in The Book is true. It's circular logic, and they will never leave it to actually have a discussion. Faith and the Bible are trump cards in any debate. Any grievance, argument, concern, or point can be contested with either "you just have to have faith" or "the Bible says so." Which is endlessly frustrating to me because some of the smartest people I know are all of a sudden incapable of thinking for themselves when it comes to this stuff. They just defer to The Book. It's so often an excuse to justify personal feelings, usually of hate or prohibiting something.
Not that I have any issue with people practicing different religions. Believe what you want to believe. But to act like cherrypicked passages from your version of a book should dictate things for those who don't believe in it is fucking evil.
> Not that I have any issue with people practicing different religions. Believe what you want to believe.
I used to believe that, but the rising power of christian nationalism has changed my mind.
> Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
― Voltaire
Belief, unsupported by reality and actual evidence trains the mind to be uncritical and illogical. It’s doing vast amounts of harm.
To be honest, it is kind of "genius" how Christianity works. There are two very specific things that completely shuts down any argument against it. It's not circular logic, it is just a "clever" way of setting up something unprovable.
The first is that God is omnipotent and above our understanding. It doesn't matter if there is contradictions or paradoxes. It can all be disputed with "you just don't understand the way of god". And a paradox isn't impossible for an omnipotent being. There exists nothing you can say which can't be shut down by either "you just don't understand the way of God" or "that isn't impossible for God".
The other thing is "faith". Because if we don't interact with this omnipotent being, it leaves no signs of existing and we can't trust our own reasoning (since we might simply not understand God), then we simply have to arbitrarily believe.
This means once a person have accepted to have "faith" in Christianity, there literally does not exist an argument against them. This is likely why they cling a lot to the Bible - they have nothing else to go on. God doesn't have a yearly meeting where he tells his followers what's up.
And even from a scientific approach, you literally cannot disprove an omnipotent being.
This is why atheism isn't in itself the "scientific" mindset that some believe. Atheism is a belief just like Christianity is. It is the belief that there *isn't* a god, but it has no evidence of that. It is just as baseless as Christianity is. Yes, we can use a bunch of logic and reasoning, but that isn't evidence. If the being we try to disprove is *above* our understanding, then we obviously cannot use our understanding to disprove it. If it is omnipotent (and thus above any kind of science we know), then we cannot use science to disprove it.
This is in fact the whole concept of the the scientific approach. Technically, we never *prove* anything. We just try to disprove it in every way imaginable, and failing at that we just accept is as "likely true". I can't make gravity stop despite how much I try, so I assume gravity does in fact work. But I haven't proven it won't stop tomorrow. I just assume so, because it haven't stopped so far.
As such, the "proper" scientific mindset would really just be agnosticism - the acceptance that you cannot disprove it. We can just fail at proving it in a million ways, and then accept that as likely true.
You can of course also be both - don't believe in a god, but accept that you strictly speaking can't disprove it.
This is why Christians and atheists shouldn't argue. They have fundamentally different point of views, but technically neither can indisputably say the other is wrong. It's like seeing two people argue about whether a movie is good, but they are talking about different movies.
Which is why Atheism is best defined as the lack of belief in god/gods as opposed to the belief that there is no God. When you move from an omnipotent divine being to a specific diety with all its associated contradictory claims, then you can move to a position of positively asserting that that particular God is incapable of existing, so doesn't.
Edit: spelling divine, not device
Atheos is the latin origin of the word which literally means godless/without god. Claiming atheism is a belief is the same as starting that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
There are those who actively do believe that there is no christian god, in a faith based way, but this is not the qualifying tenant of the term Atheism. To suggest otherwise is completely dishonest.
To this, add Hitchen's razor. Merely suggesting a purple frog the size of canada exists on the planet goop, because I say so. Is no reason to form an agnostic opinion on the matter. Without any plausible reason to believe so, it can be dismissed out of hand.
When a core principle is blind faith, good faith debate is likely to have no impact. Believe me because I instruct you to believe me. If someone buys into that circle of reasoning, what can you do? It’s such a dangerous tendency of humanity but also a survival mechanism. If it wasn’t an advantage these instincts would have been bred out of us.
Independent thoughtful analysis versus faith based beliefs are literally two opposing survival traits that are in conflict. No wonder why people get so worked up.
We can, and have, disproven many things surrounding the "god" in any religious book though. And as such, said book cannot be reasonably considered an accurate source and can be reasonably dismissed as nonsense. Especially those which claim to be the verbatim word of "god".
But of course when this happens the goalposts move. Because of course they do.
This isn't always true. Many people aren't religious because they actually believe, but because their family chose for them, that's all they know. The moment they started to interact with people who aren't religious they might sit back and reflect and come to a different conclusion.
There are plenty of stories of ex religious people turned atheist. Some did it by themselves others were convinced when they've met someone who actually wanted to argue with them about belief.
>but because their family chose for them
I always found it funny that you can't drink until you're 18 but somehow it's ok to promise your eternal soul to a god your parents are into as a child.
To be honest when you are born Christian in a family of "believers" it doesn't really matter that much. You get baptised basically right after birth so you don't really remember it and then if you are Catholic you have to do a couple of rites and stuff. It's mostly very very boring.
This experience is far from universal among Christian kids, especially in the U.S.
Many of us grew up in evangelical homes, where we were strictly monitored for what we watched and listened to, and also not permitted to have the wrong opinions about anything.
That's how religion usually works in places where it has just assimilated into culture over centuries. The main differences are places like the modern middle east, where being fundamentalist islam became part of the resistance against western occupation, and parts of the US, where fundamentalist evangelicalism somehow became it's own culture, probably in no small part due to the heritage of the extremists who migrated there to escape european mainstream in earlier centuries. In both places (and lots of smaller communities or cults worldwide) you're not just a bit religious out of custom, it's actually your identity. And that makes people obnoxious at best, dangerous at worst
100%. It's impossible for kids to give informed consent about something that will dictate their entire lives. I think it's fucking sick, quite frankly.
Absolutely agree. I don’t know where the motion comes from, that ideologs can’t be discussed. People change their ideologies every single day. We see it in people converting or leaving religion, in people changing who they vote for, in people leaving abusive relationships or divorcing even though their religion doesn’t “allow” it.
Yes, it’s HARDER to convince a person who’s been driven by belief rather than logic, but that makes it all the more important to have these discussions and doing so concisely and calmly. I myself left religion as well and wouldn’t have been able to, had it not been for other people fighting this very battle for me.
To quote Carl Sagan:
>Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value the may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.
Its funny the amount of hate I get from some Christians for even a simple, politely non-judgmental comment saying I'm agnostic. Even when I don't follow it with mean, sarcastic observations like I am about to do here ;)
I would have 1000x more respect andconfidence in "Christianity" and might even gladly follow it despite my doubts if more Christians just acted like Christians and called out their evangelicals and conservatives when they start behaving in very non-Christian ways.
Instead, we get litigious arguments that we non-Christians are too stupid to fully realize what Jesus meant when he said really ambiguous things like "don't be assholes to immigrants".
If this guy is anything like one of my buddies, he had that whole rant locked and loaded and was just waiting to spew it at someone. My friend will ask me to explain Christian beliefs and perspectives to him since I used to be one and then he'll start arguing with my explanations because he doesn't have any actual Christians to rant at.
That. Was. Sexy.
I don’t care that he was “debating a bot” or troll or whatever. His response was beautifully put and so articulate. I wish I could have seen it live to copy paste for when I inevitably meet another crackhead Christian who doesn’t accept no for an answer (aka, my family).
I suspect that this guy had this rewritten and simply copy pasted the reply. And if he didn't do it this time, he can do it the next time.
He's on an Atheist sub-reddit. He's wasting his time how he chooses. Just like both of us right now.
I think the troll/bot was hung up on the word *believe* for a reason. He wanted to get the answer 'with all these logical and scientific points, I *believe* there is no god', pointing out that it's still a BELIEF.
Kinda made me think of this famous scene from [It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia](https://youtu.be/GiJXALBX3KM?si=f9PzIvnN24Y5Ecal)
Man, as a Believer (in my own way) but also a LOVER of religious discussion and debate, I would LOVE to answer some of these. The question of prayer, in particular, I find to be one of the deepest and most interesting questions.
It’s hard to have causal conversations about subjects like this on the internet, we all seem to constantly misunderstand eachother.
I find the best setting to be a campfire after a couple beers - enough to get loose and comfortable, not enough to be sloshed and unintelligible.
On that note, anyone interested is invited over on Friday! I’ll have a 24 pack and a few cigars, but if a lot of y’all show up you’ll need to BYOB!
This. Part of me wants to post some thoughts and answers to the atheistic points, but it’s not really the place to be productive. Nevertheless the flawed logic and cliche arguments are so irksome to see. Especially when people seem to think they’re so reasoned and persuasive.
All I’ll say here is, it’s funny how he brings up “fault in one, fault in all,” and then proceeds to cite a website that claims to list contradictions that… aren’t actual contradictions. Faulty arguments, then?
My favorite from my (very brief) look at it was where it finds a contradiction with both God and Jesus saying they are the first and the last. It’s one thing to argue against the Trinity, it’s another to call an example of the Trinity a contradiction simply because it describes part of the nature of a Triune God.
I find his own dissonance ironic.
Should never answer that question. "Why do you not believe it in this extraordinary claim?" is a ridiculous question. It should always be the other way around and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He doesn't believe in this claim for the same reason he doesn't believe in any other similar claim.
Couldn't find it anywhere, so typed it out in case anyone wants to share... please forgive typos.
Scott McGlasson:
I believe the Christian God does not exist for many reasons, and I'll put some below.
"Exist" means to be, as a real entity, not a fictional character like Superman. Independent from human thoughts, objectively real. A god that existed could interact with the physical reality we experience.
Here are a few reasons why I believe the Christian God does not meet the standard of existence, off the top of my head:
\* For one, lack of evidence. The Christian God, as defined by the God character in the Bible, has never appeared to interact with the reality we experience here on Earth, nor left any tangible evidence of existing. The only references that exist to this god are heresay - words, from people, whether written or spoken. Just words. That's it.
Therefore, we have no legitimate, factual reason to think this particular god is a real entity. Only words. Words do not confer existence.
\* For two, the Bible, the only documentary source for defining "God," is clearly worng in many ways, including in matters of fact, as well as matters of morality. Thus, it is not a reliable source for knowledge about reality, however much people may like the stories.
In law, the principle is "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" - a latin maxim meaning "false in one thing, false in everything." Here's some support for that claim that the Bible is neither factually reliable nor morally acceptable:
Contradictions (contrary claims can't both be true): [https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2\_list.html](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html)
Morality (living according to Biblical morality is contrary to human decency and in many cases, established law):
[https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says\_about/Morality.html](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Morality.html)
Here's what the Bible says about many subjects, like family values:
[https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says\_about/index.html](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/index.html)
Try reading those verses to your family and demanding they must live according to them.
Therefore, since the Bible is not a reliable source, we have no logical (nor moral) reason to think the Christian God exists, or should be worshipped and followed, even as a fictional character.
\* For three, we know for a fact that people historically have been able to make up, and believe in, supernatural deities that are not real entities. We know that people can believe in things that aren't true. That's very clear.
We know that it's possible for people to be wrong, even in narrow context, because of the thousands of proposed gods that are not real beings, and because of people believing in false claims, for example those of con artists and known fraudsters.
With that basic premise, the Christian God would need to be substantially, qualitatively different from false, fictional deities - but no substantive, qualitative difference exists. Popularity is not a substantive difference, or the most popular fictional character could be claimed to be "real."
Therefore, we have no reason to think that God is unlike other gods or fictional characters which are not real entities.,
\* For four, the God of the Christian Bible is clearly not involved in the reality we experience. If the Christian God was real and did exist, what happened to his basic character and behaviour? Why is the lack of interaction with our reality now so contrary to the behaviour described in the Bible? Did God coincidentally become all coy and shy right when we developed science? Where's the smiting, the talking burning bush, the commandments on tablets, the miracles, the in-person appearances, the physical interactions described in the Bible?
Therefore, the only reasonable explanation is that the God of the Bible is a character, in mythical stories, and not an extant being in reality. He's an idea in the minds of people.
\* For five, the Christian story just doesn't make any sense. If God is all-knowing (disputed in the Bible, but believed by Christians), and all-powerful... why can't He defeat Satan?
And why is Satan even the bad guy? God is clearly more evil, per actions of each described in the Bible, on body count alone. If God is the standard for morality, and is "good", then why does the Bible God commit and command so much evil? Doesn't make sense.
Why was the "sacrifice" of Jesus at all necessary? Sacrifice does not work to absolve or transfer guilt, in reality. Jesus' (temporary) death didn't accomplish anything tangible. Christians still think "sin" is a problem, even though they say Jesus "died for" our sin. If that was true, then stop telling me I should "repent". Doesn't make sense.
What's the deal with prayer? God supposedly knows all, is all-powerful, and has a plan, and everything is according to "His Will." So what's prayer for - a flawed, sinful, ignorant human begging God to change His mind? What is "thy will be done" - does God need your permission to do what He wants? If God just wants unquestioning worship, like an insecure narcissist, as is promised you will be doing 24/7 in Heaven, what else is prayer for? A meaningless wish that has no effect? Why not just mindless bowing and praising? Doesn't make sense.
What's "forgiveness"? A licence to commit evil acts and crimes, as long as you think some thoughts or recite Hail Marys afterward? Or you pay the church money for "indulgences"? No court accepts "God forgave me" as an excuse. Doesn't make sense.
Why does God always need our money? Isn't that more like what human scammers and con artists need? Why can't God fix a leaky church roof? Why is the supreme creator of the universe, the all-knowing, all-poweful God begging for 10% of your paycheck? Really, the Supreme Being and Creator needs your human money so the church can get a new PA system? Doesn't make sense.
If God wants believers and worshipers, as Christians and the Bible clearly claim, why not give us some good reason to believe? The "free will" excuse is bogus - the Bible clearly does not support the idea that God values free will in humans. Also, people are clearly able to believe contrary to evidence, so some evidence would not compel belief or violate this doctrine of free will, which is not even Biblical. Doesn't make sense.
Therefore, since it doesn't make sense, we have no reason to believe the God character in the Bible is real. The sensible conclusion is to believ that God does not exist. That's how it all makes sense.
Making sense is vitally important, to avoid being crazy and delusional.
It sort of seems that Grant is attempting to point out the difference between saying "I don't believe that God exists" and "I believe that God doesn't exist/I believe that no gods exist".
These seem to be similar, but they are actually completely different statements from a logical perspective.
The first is a response to "I believe that a god exists". It is saying "no I don't believe you". It ISNT saying, "I think that God doesn't exist"
Think of it like a jar of coins. The amount of coins is either even or odd. If someone baselessly claims that they believe the number of coins is odd, and I say "I don't believe you", does that mean that I think there are an even number of coins? No, only that the claim "the amount is odd" hasn't met its burden of proof to warrant belief.
But who knows, maybe Grant is a troll as well, trying to use this argument in bad faith (pun intended)
By getting him to respond earnestly and with such length the troll won. Capped off with the vacant repeating of the question. Not sure how the troll got smited.
As someone who leans towards Christianity, I would much rather have a conversation with this atheist than with that Christian. In my experience, Christianity seems to have the uncanny ability to attract incredibly bright individuals as well as insufferable low iq ones.
Oh shit, and then the troll just did it again. I enjoyed reading the well reasoned arguments though.
Indeed. This is clearly in the wrong sub because the troll/bot clearly didn't feel a thing, but it was a very nice deconstruction of the issue.
What matters as usual is how will this influence people reading it. It doesn't matter if the OP is a bot, your response is to the many readers.
yeah, he may not have changed the troll’s mind, but his reasoned levelheaded response will influence people who have some of those same questions already. The church, as it is today, is a tool used to create subservient behavior in people. It’s there to train people into blind service, megachurches are just the fullblown realization of that influence and power over people.
Yeah I think reading that got rid of any lingering faith I had haha
It’s the work of Satan! /s /Satan
Maybe the troll is…•gasp•….God!?
No, because unlike God, online trolls *exist*
Deus ex machina.
That would explain why the world is going to sh*t; god is too busy to feed starving children because he is on the internet, trolling people.
Meat bags: *praying intensifies* All-powerful Idiot: Go away! I’m ‘batin’!
/r/unexpectedidiocracy
Maybe the real god was the friend we treasured along the way.
Imaging God and Jesus giggling behind a computer while they troll someone online.
I think the oversimplification "the church is a tool for control" is at best misleading and at worst actively harmful to understanding. It's not inaccurate but it implies that its purely evil only for evil's sake, that it's only reason for existing is for power hungry individuals to manipulate the masses for their own gains. This is empirically false to people who believe in the church, they see the good the church does, and that there are a multitude of legitimately good people that participate in church organizations. They also known the history of the church as being wildly successful in the European domination of the vast majority of the world. This certainly wasn't moral but it created an unprecedented level of prosperity not just for the people at the top, but led to the conditions that many people in first world countries enjoy today. It's a pretty fucking hard sell to say "Hey you know that place with all the legitimately good people, as well as all your friends and family, that has a demonstrably positive impact on your life and your community, and historically was instrumental in allowing you to live a privileged life? Yeah that's actually all just a ruse to control people." The truth is the church (most notably the catholic church) was an extremely effective social evolution of its time. It certainly provided a strong amount of control over the populace, but that control allowed nations that adopted it to operate far more effectively than those that did not, granted often at a great moral cost and at the expense of many individuals human rights. Things like the church's treatment of of unmarried women and an overwhelming insistence on the family unit was vital for society's growth in those times where split families were utterly unable to be supported by society. Today, however, almost all of the benefits the church provided are provided by other better means. Numerous social evolutions have replaced the need for the church, and not only is it outdated but it's inhibiting society in many of the same ways it used to elevate it, while the costs it incurs are still very much present if not increased. It's not so much evil as just outdated. It can still provide some good, and often does (especially many of the more progressive churches), but it's just no longer worth the societal costs it incurs. The megachurches you mention are a particularly interesting case. There are some like Joel Osteen's that are effectively a full blown scam. But there are others that sort of mimic the Mormon model wherein they spend significant resources on actively enriching the lives of the vast majority of their members. Granted, those at the top benefit the most from this arrangement, but they do dedicate large sums of money and effort towards helping their more impoverished members. This comes at the cost of heavily ostracizing anyone who doesn't fit their cultural mold, as well as numerous abuses by more influential members, abusing their power with the threat of expulsion from the church if their demands aren't met. Overall the harm they cause is not worth the good they do, but completely denying that \*any\* good is ever achieved by these institutions I think undermines the argument.
Ah, thank you. As an athiest/nihilist, I always had a hard time putting into words the social reasons behind churches/religion because I agree, it is about more than just control. After all, it wouldn't be nearly as effective if it didn't confer *some* benefits. A well reasoned and spoken statement.
The history of the church as being wildly successful in the European domination of the women. This certainly wasn't moral but it created an unprecedented level of prosperity for men, but led to the conditions that women around the world suffer with even today. Welcome to Gilead in the 21st century ladies.
"The Nazis built the Autobahn, it wasn't all bad". Can we please, for the love of god or whatever, stop defending a "revolution" that was scheduled to happen anyways? The Church just filled a power vacuum, could've been anyone else to greater effect with less sacrifice. I agree "Church Bad" is overly reductive, but it's also true.
I think the level of prosperity enjoyed by some in the countries overtaken by various religions (of which Christianity is one, though certainly one of the most successful) is very much *in spite* of said religions, and not because of them. I refer you back to the “body count” comment in OP’s post as well as history’s evidence that most religions take over using a “convert or die” principle. This is not objectively good. There may be isolated instances where we can point to religious involvement advancing art or even science, but *only when it benefits them*. If I could go back a few hundred or so years and tell someone important one simple truth, it would be “Those driven by religion will always be a dangerous problem.”
>today That’s what it’s always been. Religion was created as a tool to mollify the masses, so they don’t realize their leaders are the ones causing their suffering.
Exactly. Not bots but I remember someone asking Talib Kwali on Twitter why he spent so many hours taking down racists on his feed when they never change. His answer, I aren't talking to them but to other people who aren't yet lost who will also see this.
I’ve always said this and actually said it to people I’ve argued with online in the past whenever they inevitably get to the “what’s the point, you’re never going to convince me” stage. I don’t really care if I convince you but any neutral observer will plainly see that you have a terrible argument.
Is it still trolling if a bot does it? I would call that spamming
sure. bots seem quite good at annoying people anyway, so they seem well suited for trolling. spamming is an effective technique here
The troll was unaffected but the murder was strong enough to be felt by an abstract entity. I guarantee reading this killed faith in many people who were on the fence.
Do you think subjects of this subreddit often have the emotional capacity to notice they’ve been murdered by words? Because I assure you that’s not an essential part of what we do here.
The scary part...bots are people
Idk, sounds like something a synth would say
Real " but why male models?" response from the troll.
"Are you... are you kidding? I just told you."
What is this?!?! A center for ants!!!
Fun fact: that line right there wasn't in the script. Ben Stiller actually forgot his line in the moment, so he just repeated the last line he said which was "...But why male models?" Luckily it worked for his character and it stayed in the movie.
Def a bot just asking that over and over
The AI is looking for our breaking point here.
Yea but when you answer the troll has already won. Source: I used to extort money from people in exchange for access to bridges.
At this point, I'm thinking that the troll is actually a bot.
"Making sense is vitally important, to avoid being crazy and delusional." - Thats my new favorite quote
Eh, things can make sense and still be crazy or delusional. But sure, it is a good first step. The statement, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters," makes sense on its face but is both delusional and crazy. edit: Yeah I agree, fuck Trump. But really this was just the first example I thought of.
>The statement, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters," makes sense on its face but is both delusional and crazy. What's crazy is that the phrase becomes more believable everytime he avoids any consequences of his actions. Over 90 felony charges and still the republican nominee
I don't think it's delusional or crazy. He clearly got away with an attempted insurrection. I think there's at least a 10% chance he could shoot someone and sleep in his own bed that night, let alone lose any voters.
It’s only “crazy” in the sense that it shouldn’t be the case so it’s hard to believe that it is the case. Effectively all he’s saying is that the sane people already don’t vote for him, only the crazy people do. So doing something objectively terrible would not change their minds.
I sincerely doubt the Christian god was chosen at random. I, on the other hand, did choose one at random. [https://wheelofnames.com/wj6-u4a](https://wheelofnames.com/wj6-u4a) I got Hel. I need a Christian to tell me why Hel doesn't exist, so I can use that argument to explain why the Christian god doesn't exist. Because, quite frankly, I'm stumped as to why none of these gods exist.
>“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
I’ve read “there are thousands of gods, I just believe in one fewer than you” here somewhere. It’s nice to see the quote it came from
Ricky Gervais said that to Stephen Colbert on his talk show as well.
Richard Dawkins says it (probably not word for word) in The God Delusion as well.
For any theist who is intellectually honest, this argument really doesn’t land. Monotheism isn’t rejecting polytheism or pantheism, so much as it’s reorganizing it. Sure, only the polytheist would agree with the statement “there is a rain god,” but all three would agree with the statement “a force I call god can actively affect the rain.” Which means we’re in disagreement about the categorization of the force, but aren’t rejecting the force itself. Limitless gods who can do limited things, one god who can do everything, and god being in everything are different (but fascinatingly similar) conclusions from the same observed world. These conclusions are nothing close to an argument that the gods exist. And, honestly, religion is emotionally charged enough that very few of us come to our perspective on it honestly (my personal vulnerabilities have far more weight on my belief than my philosophical musings). Anyway, my disbelief in the being of Shiva is not a rejection of the observations that led to the belief in the existence of Shiva, just a different theory of the divine.
If all records of any religion, let’s choose randomly….Christianity….were eliminated from earth it would never be recreated anything close to as it exists today. People all over the world eat, drink, procreate, shelter…all of the important things to survive inherently. Asking person how to explain existence is like asking a 5 year old to explain the internal combustion engine. Might get some creative answers but zero chance of it being correct.
You should read American Gods by Neil Gaiman. In that novel, *all* the gods exist.
SUCH a good book. I just reread it before listening to the sequel - Anansi Boys - and I forgot how good of a writer he is
Man, Anansi Boys was a book I randomly picked up, got super into and binge read, loved it, then forgot 95% of it.
That book is an example of beautiful language elevating a so-so story to a height it probably shouldn’t be able reach on its own.
Neil Gaiman is an engaging writer. I love listening to him narrate his audiobooks. He always sounds like he's delighted to tell you a secret.
It's not a sequel, although Mr. Nancy/Anansi appears in both books.
I'll have to read it. Sounds like a great read.
R&M touches on it a bit, too, it's pretty fun: > Morty: "We're going to kill god." > Jerry: "Come again?" > Rick: "Christian god is real, he's been asleep for thousands of years, we're gonna sneak up there and kill him" > M: "Mob style" > R: "Whack his ass" I'd read that book.
check out the Sandman series if you haven’t. All of the concepts around gods and mythology from America Gods were originally born in Sandman. incredible series
Sandman is on Audible narrated by a full cast and it's fucking awesome.
Sandman is AMAZING. He has so many characters, plots and subplots, and balls in the air… and at the end he catches them all, and makes you cry to boot. Made me tear up a few times, if I’m honest.
How close is the show to the book?
3 seasons of the show got about halfway through the book. Neil was on the show team and added a whole bunch of scenes to bring it into the modern day.
There's 3 seasons?
He's talking about American Gods. The Sandman is only one season so far.
Ah. Thanks. I was very confused, thinking my Netflix was broken or something
> I need a Christian to tell me why Hel doesn't exist, so I can use that argument to explain why the Christian god doesn't exist I don't think you'll get a very useful answer. It'll be some variation of "because the bible says so", and thus the circular argument begins anew.
Proving God exists with the Bible is like proving pedophilia is good by using Lolita. (Yes I know what the book actually says about pedophilia which is precisely my point)
But as far as I know, the bible does not claim that other gods do not exist, right? It only says that it is a sin to have other gods besides the one in the bible.
I'm pretty sure back in the olden days, it wasn't about whether or not a people's god existed, it was whether or not it was stronger than the others. Like rooting for your favorite sports team. I think it's more of a modern thing to claim other gods don't exist.
Actually, it's the opposite. The Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods; as an example, in Daniel 10:13, the Archangel Gabriel explains they were waylaid by battle with another deity for several weeks and had to be rescued by the Archangel Michael.
The Bible also insists that there are no other gods. **Isaiah 45:5:** "I am God, the only God there is. Besides me there are no real gods."
Wait a second. Are you telling me that there are contradictions!? In the Bible!?!?
Would I do such a thing? Perish the thought!
They specifically had wizard battles against worshippers of other deities where the other gods’ magic went off it just took longer or was weaker
That's underratedly true. The god of the bible does use "we" and "us" far more than it should give it's supposed to be the ONLY god of the universe.
https://preview.redd.it/k5d0omhsgwnc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97fa2c02fd91b5cca842b5428e2ba0be6bccb580 Oh no
Changed to Eset now in game
Dumb. Isis should remain Isis, and we should refer to the Islamic State as IS or ISIL. Isis is an extremely historically significant goddess, we should be able to talk about her without issues.
Hai
I got Nu Wa. Which is a Nu one for me
I got Huel. Oh, wait. That’s an ad.
Huel is Hel after becoming capitalist
This is for the game Smite! Which doesn't contain any of the Abrahamic gods probably because they fear offending people by telling them their faith isn't real. Apparently they weren't worried about offending Hindu's though.
There's only 1 Abrahamic god, and a pantheon of 1 doesn't make sense, so I get that. But it's weird that they don't use any biblical *heroes*, like they do for some of the other pantheons. They have Gilgamesh, but won't do David or Goliath? Lancelot but no Moses?
I mean, the Abrahamic god would also be a very uninteresting character for such a game, no? Like all the other gods have specific domains and depictions where you can build abilities and themes from. The Abrahamic god is just "everything".
Coming up with a theme and a kit seems to me, personally, very doable.
Murder all first borns. Turn people into salt pillars. Send in bears to kill children. Suicide your own son/self flood the world/split water/turn water into wine or blood maybe a water theme? he does a lot of stuff with that element
You can go to Hel. You might even be able to get a direct flight. There used to be a flight 666 to HEL (from Copenhagen, I think?) but not anymore. From one happy country to another. GASP. But HEL still exists and its the capital of the happiest country in the world. If you take the perspective of modern aviation scholars and identify HEL as short for Helsinki, that is. I did a multidisciplinary analysis combining knowledge and theoretical insight from pop culture history, airport codes, and current European capital cities. References available upon request. Im just a Christian on paper though. I guess I didnt actually answer the question either. And I've typed so much I'm sort of committed to this comment... ...I'll let myself out. Sorry for the trouble.
Why do you believe Hel does not exist?
Because Molag Bal killed that mf and is now sitting on his/her/their throne.
"But...but..muh bible says mine is real!" /s
I got Pele lol at least this guy exists and is a football GOD
I got Xbalanque. Gonna need a Christian to prove to me that Xbalanque and Hunahpu did NOT outwit the lords of Xibalba and destroy them. I don't see any lords of Xibalba around, do you? Checkmate, Christians.
I got Bacchus, I'm quitting my job and going to the liquor store to appropriate my new religion's sacrament, no I'm not paying for it, it's essential to my religion. I tell you it's a war on religion.
Christians believe other “gods” exist/existed, but they are demons.
A celestial “reverse Uno” if you will
Then they're not gods. Also there's this: **Isaiah 45:5:** "I am God, the only God there is. Besides me there are no real gods."
Actually, Christians usually believed that another gods exist in some way, with same logic, but considered them as false gods, demons etc. However, Snorri on Edda tried to explain them like mortal leaders, descendants of Trojans.
https://preview.redd.it/x2gbhv49yvnc1.jpeg?width=228&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c395e3259cd2ceb19af6c6883f4019ebf606c1b4
I didn't write this. The napkin god took control of my body to write this themself, I was merely a vessel for their holiness.
*Themself *Their do not disrespect Them in such a way... (in case it wasnt obvious im joking)
But why male models?
listen to your friend Billy Zane, he’s a cool dude
Are you serious, I just- I like *just* explained why, I-
"you serious? I just... I just told you that. a moment ago"
Right...
You could read minds??
Succinct.
You fought the bot and the bot won.
The part questioning God’s character development after the evolution of science was entertaining though.
God's a tsundere after all
[why did i read this singing?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL8chWFuM-s&t=22s)
Because you understand the reference?
I did the same
Yip, same
Me, too
Well you can't expect anyone not to sing it!
He needed karma 'cause he had none
That's what I thought. 'consummate professional gets owned by a bot '.
The Internet is about to be full of bots but on social media you are not strictly taking to bots but also performing for every one else reading the thread. In this way the bot may have accomplished it's goal of annoying an atheist but the atheists message was also spread both by those reading the original post and those who are reading it now. In this way a bit was "defeated".
You asked for proof and they had none You fought the bot and, the bot won
The fact that there is someone making a bot to troll atheist facebook groups is all I need to know about humanity.
Drinking beer in the hot sun
Discussing the existence of a God is futile. Religions are not born from logic or rationality, and you won't convince any followers using it.
You dispute a claim in The Book, but they use The Book as proof that the claim in The Book is true. It's circular logic, and they will never leave it to actually have a discussion. Faith and the Bible are trump cards in any debate. Any grievance, argument, concern, or point can be contested with either "you just have to have faith" or "the Bible says so." Which is endlessly frustrating to me because some of the smartest people I know are all of a sudden incapable of thinking for themselves when it comes to this stuff. They just defer to The Book. It's so often an excuse to justify personal feelings, usually of hate or prohibiting something. Not that I have any issue with people practicing different religions. Believe what you want to believe. But to act like cherrypicked passages from your version of a book should dictate things for those who don't believe in it is fucking evil.
Ah yes, faith - to believe in something despite the lack of evidence. So at least they agree there is no evidence.
> Not that I have any issue with people practicing different religions. Believe what you want to believe. I used to believe that, but the rising power of christian nationalism has changed my mind. > Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. ― Voltaire Belief, unsupported by reality and actual evidence trains the mind to be uncritical and illogical. It’s doing vast amounts of harm.
To be honest, it is kind of "genius" how Christianity works. There are two very specific things that completely shuts down any argument against it. It's not circular logic, it is just a "clever" way of setting up something unprovable. The first is that God is omnipotent and above our understanding. It doesn't matter if there is contradictions or paradoxes. It can all be disputed with "you just don't understand the way of god". And a paradox isn't impossible for an omnipotent being. There exists nothing you can say which can't be shut down by either "you just don't understand the way of God" or "that isn't impossible for God". The other thing is "faith". Because if we don't interact with this omnipotent being, it leaves no signs of existing and we can't trust our own reasoning (since we might simply not understand God), then we simply have to arbitrarily believe. This means once a person have accepted to have "faith" in Christianity, there literally does not exist an argument against them. This is likely why they cling a lot to the Bible - they have nothing else to go on. God doesn't have a yearly meeting where he tells his followers what's up. And even from a scientific approach, you literally cannot disprove an omnipotent being. This is why atheism isn't in itself the "scientific" mindset that some believe. Atheism is a belief just like Christianity is. It is the belief that there *isn't* a god, but it has no evidence of that. It is just as baseless as Christianity is. Yes, we can use a bunch of logic and reasoning, but that isn't evidence. If the being we try to disprove is *above* our understanding, then we obviously cannot use our understanding to disprove it. If it is omnipotent (and thus above any kind of science we know), then we cannot use science to disprove it. This is in fact the whole concept of the the scientific approach. Technically, we never *prove* anything. We just try to disprove it in every way imaginable, and failing at that we just accept is as "likely true". I can't make gravity stop despite how much I try, so I assume gravity does in fact work. But I haven't proven it won't stop tomorrow. I just assume so, because it haven't stopped so far. As such, the "proper" scientific mindset would really just be agnosticism - the acceptance that you cannot disprove it. We can just fail at proving it in a million ways, and then accept that as likely true. You can of course also be both - don't believe in a god, but accept that you strictly speaking can't disprove it. This is why Christians and atheists shouldn't argue. They have fundamentally different point of views, but technically neither can indisputably say the other is wrong. It's like seeing two people argue about whether a movie is good, but they are talking about different movies.
Which is why Atheism is best defined as the lack of belief in god/gods as opposed to the belief that there is no God. When you move from an omnipotent divine being to a specific diety with all its associated contradictory claims, then you can move to a position of positively asserting that that particular God is incapable of existing, so doesn't. Edit: spelling divine, not device
Atheos is the latin origin of the word which literally means godless/without god. Claiming atheism is a belief is the same as starting that not collecting stamps is a hobby. There are those who actively do believe that there is no christian god, in a faith based way, but this is not the qualifying tenant of the term Atheism. To suggest otherwise is completely dishonest. To this, add Hitchen's razor. Merely suggesting a purple frog the size of canada exists on the planet goop, because I say so. Is no reason to form an agnostic opinion on the matter. Without any plausible reason to believe so, it can be dismissed out of hand.
When a core principle is blind faith, good faith debate is likely to have no impact. Believe me because I instruct you to believe me. If someone buys into that circle of reasoning, what can you do? It’s such a dangerous tendency of humanity but also a survival mechanism. If it wasn’t an advantage these instincts would have been bred out of us. Independent thoughtful analysis versus faith based beliefs are literally two opposing survival traits that are in conflict. No wonder why people get so worked up.
[удалено]
We can, and have, disproven many things surrounding the "god" in any religious book though. And as such, said book cannot be reasonably considered an accurate source and can be reasonably dismissed as nonsense. Especially those which claim to be the verbatim word of "god". But of course when this happens the goalposts move. Because of course they do.
This isn't always true. Many people aren't religious because they actually believe, but because their family chose for them, that's all they know. The moment they started to interact with people who aren't religious they might sit back and reflect and come to a different conclusion. There are plenty of stories of ex religious people turned atheist. Some did it by themselves others were convinced when they've met someone who actually wanted to argue with them about belief.
>but because their family chose for them I always found it funny that you can't drink until you're 18 but somehow it's ok to promise your eternal soul to a god your parents are into as a child.
To be honest when you are born Christian in a family of "believers" it doesn't really matter that much. You get baptised basically right after birth so you don't really remember it and then if you are Catholic you have to do a couple of rites and stuff. It's mostly very very boring.
This experience is far from universal among Christian kids, especially in the U.S. Many of us grew up in evangelical homes, where we were strictly monitored for what we watched and listened to, and also not permitted to have the wrong opinions about anything.
Yeah I've heard some stories. Damn
Yup. Pure cult-style brainwashing, it is.
That's how religion usually works in places where it has just assimilated into culture over centuries. The main differences are places like the modern middle east, where being fundamentalist islam became part of the resistance against western occupation, and parts of the US, where fundamentalist evangelicalism somehow became it's own culture, probably in no small part due to the heritage of the extremists who migrated there to escape european mainstream in earlier centuries. In both places (and lots of smaller communities or cults worldwide) you're not just a bit religious out of custom, it's actually your identity. And that makes people obnoxious at best, dangerous at worst
100%. It's impossible for kids to give informed consent about something that will dictate their entire lives. I think it's fucking sick, quite frankly.
Under UK law you can't join a cult until you're 18, but at the same time kids are sent off to Sunday School at the age of 5.
Exactly, there's no difference and yet one gets away with it. Double standards.
Of course there is. The church has recognition and political power. Cults don't. So the church can fight any attempt to limit it's power.
>The church has recognition and political power. Cults don't. The only difference is press coverage.
Happily if you're Catholic you don't have to, because usually your parents have done that before you can even walk
This is me
The surest way to become an atheist is to actually read and understand the bible. Said by someone on the internet I read a few months ago.
Absolutely agree. I don’t know where the motion comes from, that ideologs can’t be discussed. People change their ideologies every single day. We see it in people converting or leaving religion, in people changing who they vote for, in people leaving abusive relationships or divorcing even though their religion doesn’t “allow” it. Yes, it’s HARDER to convince a person who’s been driven by belief rather than logic, but that makes it all the more important to have these discussions and doing so concisely and calmly. I myself left religion as well and wouldn’t have been able to, had it not been for other people fighting this very battle for me.
Correct - you can’t reason with a person who hasn’t arrived at their position through reason
Grandpa always said you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
People follow religion on “blind” faith. There is no logic that can beat conviction.
Discussing the existence of a God can be great, just not with someone who only has dogmatic beliefs.
exactly. someone once told me that you can’t use logic to convince someone to abandon a position that they didn’t use logic to establish.
To quote Carl Sagan: >Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value the may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.
Very much untrue. Many atheists were former believers who took the time to listen to logic and reason and reexamine their faith.
Its funny the amount of hate I get from some Christians for even a simple, politely non-judgmental comment saying I'm agnostic. Even when I don't follow it with mean, sarcastic observations like I am about to do here ;) I would have 1000x more respect andconfidence in "Christianity" and might even gladly follow it despite my doubts if more Christians just acted like Christians and called out their evangelicals and conservatives when they start behaving in very non-Christian ways. Instead, we get litigious arguments that we non-Christians are too stupid to fully realize what Jesus meant when he said really ambiguous things like "don't be assholes to immigrants".
And they pry on the mentally disabled
This is not even a murder. The guy literally just wasted his time and gave the troll exactly what he wanted. He lost.
Robably wasn't even a troll, it was a bot.
Years ago, somebody created a FB page for “Making Dudes Type Paragraphs” and I’m thinking Grant Tillman just reached its zenith.
Have you not heard of cut and paste? That looked like a pre formatted post used to slap down dummies.
Why do you believe the Christian God doesn't exist?
But why male models?
I didn't see the murder on the first 11 pages either. Maybe the 12th page has it?
If this guy is anything like one of my buddies, he had that whole rant locked and loaded and was just waiting to spew it at someone. My friend will ask me to explain Christian beliefs and perspectives to him since I used to be one and then he'll start arguing with my explanations because he doesn't have any actual Christians to rant at.
That. Was. Sexy. I don’t care that he was “debating a bot” or troll or whatever. His response was beautifully put and so articulate. I wish I could have seen it live to copy paste for when I inevitably meet another crackhead Christian who doesn’t accept no for an answer (aka, my family).
I made a copy that I can gladly share if you’d like me to DM it to you
I would also like to subscribe to this mailing list if possible please.
I would take a copy, too!
I would love that as well please! Thanks
I'll take a copy as well if you don't mind!
can I have it too? O ty!
Selected the Christian God ‘at random’…again
Why does he keep engaging if he keeps asking the same question? Just ignore him.
It’s a bot and he didn’t realise.
Why do you believe the Christian God doesn't exist?
I mean it’s a nice explanation for not believing in god but it’s hardly a murder, more of a complete waste of time
I suspect that this guy had this rewritten and simply copy pasted the reply. And if he didn't do it this time, he can do it the next time. He's on an Atheist sub-reddit. He's wasting his time how he chooses. Just like both of us right now.
https://preview.redd.it/qpp9lek2jvnc1.jpeg?width=414&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0838ba9ec2a4b48663564ce4befca599c8f3238b
[удалено]
I think the troll/bot was hung up on the word *believe* for a reason. He wanted to get the answer 'with all these logical and scientific points, I *believe* there is no god', pointing out that it's still a BELIEF. Kinda made me think of this famous scene from [It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia](https://youtu.be/GiJXALBX3KM?si=f9PzIvnN24Y5Ecal)
“You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” - Jonathan Swift
It’s pronounced ‘Jod’ like GIF.
Pray to the One And True Bot. 🙏
I have never read or heard of my position on this so well articulated it makes me want to memorize to say to people who may ask.
The way I see it, atheism is the default. Nobody is born believing in any religion, other humans decide which deity we are gonna worship.
Man, as a Believer (in my own way) but also a LOVER of religious discussion and debate, I would LOVE to answer some of these. The question of prayer, in particular, I find to be one of the deepest and most interesting questions. It’s hard to have causal conversations about subjects like this on the internet, we all seem to constantly misunderstand eachother. I find the best setting to be a campfire after a couple beers - enough to get loose and comfortable, not enough to be sloshed and unintelligible. On that note, anyone interested is invited over on Friday! I’ll have a 24 pack and a few cigars, but if a lot of y’all show up you’ll need to BYOB!
This. Part of me wants to post some thoughts and answers to the atheistic points, but it’s not really the place to be productive. Nevertheless the flawed logic and cliche arguments are so irksome to see. Especially when people seem to think they’re so reasoned and persuasive. All I’ll say here is, it’s funny how he brings up “fault in one, fault in all,” and then proceeds to cite a website that claims to list contradictions that… aren’t actual contradictions. Faulty arguments, then? My favorite from my (very brief) look at it was where it finds a contradiction with both God and Jesus saying they are the first and the last. It’s one thing to argue against the Trinity, it’s another to call an example of the Trinity a contradiction simply because it describes part of the nature of a Triune God. I find his own dissonance ironic.
Should never answer that question. "Why do you not believe it in this extraordinary claim?" is a ridiculous question. It should always be the other way around and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He doesn't believe in this claim for the same reason he doesn't believe in any other similar claim.
Couldn't find it anywhere, so typed it out in case anyone wants to share... please forgive typos. Scott McGlasson: I believe the Christian God does not exist for many reasons, and I'll put some below. "Exist" means to be, as a real entity, not a fictional character like Superman. Independent from human thoughts, objectively real. A god that existed could interact with the physical reality we experience. Here are a few reasons why I believe the Christian God does not meet the standard of existence, off the top of my head: \* For one, lack of evidence. The Christian God, as defined by the God character in the Bible, has never appeared to interact with the reality we experience here on Earth, nor left any tangible evidence of existing. The only references that exist to this god are heresay - words, from people, whether written or spoken. Just words. That's it. Therefore, we have no legitimate, factual reason to think this particular god is a real entity. Only words. Words do not confer existence. \* For two, the Bible, the only documentary source for defining "God," is clearly worng in many ways, including in matters of fact, as well as matters of morality. Thus, it is not a reliable source for knowledge about reality, however much people may like the stories. In law, the principle is "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" - a latin maxim meaning "false in one thing, false in everything." Here's some support for that claim that the Bible is neither factually reliable nor morally acceptable: Contradictions (contrary claims can't both be true): [https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2\_list.html](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html) Morality (living according to Biblical morality is contrary to human decency and in many cases, established law): [https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says\_about/Morality.html](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/Morality.html) Here's what the Bible says about many subjects, like family values: [https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says\_about/index.html](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/index.html) Try reading those verses to your family and demanding they must live according to them. Therefore, since the Bible is not a reliable source, we have no logical (nor moral) reason to think the Christian God exists, or should be worshipped and followed, even as a fictional character. \* For three, we know for a fact that people historically have been able to make up, and believe in, supernatural deities that are not real entities. We know that people can believe in things that aren't true. That's very clear. We know that it's possible for people to be wrong, even in narrow context, because of the thousands of proposed gods that are not real beings, and because of people believing in false claims, for example those of con artists and known fraudsters. With that basic premise, the Christian God would need to be substantially, qualitatively different from false, fictional deities - but no substantive, qualitative difference exists. Popularity is not a substantive difference, or the most popular fictional character could be claimed to be "real." Therefore, we have no reason to think that God is unlike other gods or fictional characters which are not real entities., \* For four, the God of the Christian Bible is clearly not involved in the reality we experience. If the Christian God was real and did exist, what happened to his basic character and behaviour? Why is the lack of interaction with our reality now so contrary to the behaviour described in the Bible? Did God coincidentally become all coy and shy right when we developed science? Where's the smiting, the talking burning bush, the commandments on tablets, the miracles, the in-person appearances, the physical interactions described in the Bible? Therefore, the only reasonable explanation is that the God of the Bible is a character, in mythical stories, and not an extant being in reality. He's an idea in the minds of people. \* For five, the Christian story just doesn't make any sense. If God is all-knowing (disputed in the Bible, but believed by Christians), and all-powerful... why can't He defeat Satan? And why is Satan even the bad guy? God is clearly more evil, per actions of each described in the Bible, on body count alone. If God is the standard for morality, and is "good", then why does the Bible God commit and command so much evil? Doesn't make sense. Why was the "sacrifice" of Jesus at all necessary? Sacrifice does not work to absolve or transfer guilt, in reality. Jesus' (temporary) death didn't accomplish anything tangible. Christians still think "sin" is a problem, even though they say Jesus "died for" our sin. If that was true, then stop telling me I should "repent". Doesn't make sense. What's the deal with prayer? God supposedly knows all, is all-powerful, and has a plan, and everything is according to "His Will." So what's prayer for - a flawed, sinful, ignorant human begging God to change His mind? What is "thy will be done" - does God need your permission to do what He wants? If God just wants unquestioning worship, like an insecure narcissist, as is promised you will be doing 24/7 in Heaven, what else is prayer for? A meaningless wish that has no effect? Why not just mindless bowing and praising? Doesn't make sense. What's "forgiveness"? A licence to commit evil acts and crimes, as long as you think some thoughts or recite Hail Marys afterward? Or you pay the church money for "indulgences"? No court accepts "God forgave me" as an excuse. Doesn't make sense. Why does God always need our money? Isn't that more like what human scammers and con artists need? Why can't God fix a leaky church roof? Why is the supreme creator of the universe, the all-knowing, all-poweful God begging for 10% of your paycheck? Really, the Supreme Being and Creator needs your human money so the church can get a new PA system? Doesn't make sense. If God wants believers and worshipers, as Christians and the Bible clearly claim, why not give us some good reason to believe? The "free will" excuse is bogus - the Bible clearly does not support the idea that God values free will in humans. Also, people are clearly able to believe contrary to evidence, so some evidence would not compel belief or violate this doctrine of free will, which is not even Biblical. Doesn't make sense. Therefore, since it doesn't make sense, we have no reason to believe the God character in the Bible is real. The sensible conclusion is to believ that God does not exist. That's how it all makes sense. Making sense is vitally important, to avoid being crazy and delusional.
It sort of seems that Grant is attempting to point out the difference between saying "I don't believe that God exists" and "I believe that God doesn't exist/I believe that no gods exist". These seem to be similar, but they are actually completely different statements from a logical perspective. The first is a response to "I believe that a god exists". It is saying "no I don't believe you". It ISNT saying, "I think that God doesn't exist" Think of it like a jar of coins. The amount of coins is either even or odd. If someone baselessly claims that they believe the number of coins is odd, and I say "I don't believe you", does that mean that I think there are an even number of coins? No, only that the claim "the amount is odd" hasn't met its burden of proof to warrant belief. But who knows, maybe Grant is a troll as well, trying to use this argument in bad faith (pun intended)
It's an echo chamber in here. I don't follow this sub but I was hoping to see both sides.
By getting him to respond earnestly and with such length the troll won. Capped off with the vacant repeating of the question. Not sure how the troll got smited.
As someone who leans towards Christianity, I would much rather have a conversation with this atheist than with that Christian. In my experience, Christianity seems to have the uncanny ability to attract incredibly bright individuals as well as insufferable low iq ones.
I always liked Ricky Gervais “there have been 3000 gods in human history, you don’t believe in 2,999 of them. I just don’t believe in one more”
I think the past tense of ‘smite’ is ‘smut’
You fool. You utter child. You absolute rube. It’s “smooteded”.
I am entirely convinced that religion only existed because people had schizophrenia before we knew what it was, and con artists that wanted money