Why are (((Atheists))) like this?

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

LOL Are you seriously making this comparison?
Also, read what I wrote, I never said "there are no deities" bruh.
I said "I don't believe your claims that there are deities. Evidence, please".
So.... evidence, please.
If there's as much evidence for the existence of god as there is for the existence of the United States (I still can't even that you made this comparison), provide it.

I've already provided evidence for the existence of god.

That's what everyone does, regardless of beliefs.
They adapt to the world around them because that's beneficial and much easier than trying to change the world.
You follow the law of the country you live in not because that's what aligns with your beliefs but because it's beneficial to you.
Also... bringing out the Nazis already?
Dude, you're such a parody of a Christian apologist.

People follow the ethical and moral code of their religion. Your ethical and moral code happens to be cribbed wholesale from Christianity and Judaism. Mine is more or less also borrowed from Christianity and Judaism because that's the roots of Western society, but I'm honest about it unlike you and your fellow atheists. I'm not a Christian either BTW.

We don't know. Some versions of BBT are pointing that universe is in fact eternal. Other just states it is eternal.

Except atheists claim they do know there are no gods, or weasel their way out of it by saying "the probability is almost certainly nil" (Dawkins did this). There also isn't to my knowledge a single version of the Big Bang Theory claiming the universe is eternal, since that's why it exists. The only version that says anything like that are the cyclic cosmology variants, which aren't really taken seriously in science anymore. Each of those still has the problem of what set the universe into motion to begin with.

And the eternal (((thing))) decided in some point of time that they should be some universe with Earth and humankind? Also placed some false evidence that they didn't?

This is extreme stupid.

I'm not saying it happened that way, I'm just saying it happened in a way similar enough that such is how our ancestors interpreted it. Whatever "cosmic truth" is out there has almost certainly revealed itself in bits and pieces to humanity over the countless millennia, and since pagan/nature worship religions were around for the longest, that's why so many of them have similar elements.

 

[Balalaika Z Bree]

This is just a nitpick but.... no, he didn't.
God took the form of a human, he suffered for a bit, he got stabbed, then he went to hide behind a rock for 3 days to regenerate his health... and then he went back to Heaven to rule over the entire universe for all eternity.
That's not sacrifice, that's just a vacation.
He was bored and decided to try being a human for a bit.

Also, dying for our sins... why exactly?
He's god, he can just forgive people for their sins, he can get rid of the concept of sin entirely.
Instead, he sacrificed himself... to himself.
Why was a human sacrifice necessary?
It wasn't, god just chose to do things that way to guilt trip humans.

That's not right. Aside from the typical lack of respect shown, God, the Second person of the Trinity, took on a human nature, not just for a normal human lifetime, but forever. Fully God and Fully man, forever. When he appears to the Apostle Thomas after the Resurrection he still has wounds in his hands, feet, and side.
The entire incarnation, the life and willing sacrifice of Jesus is a mystery. If you sincerely want to have a proper grasp of the teachings, to know well the sorry tale of sin and death, and God's patient and merciful plan of redemption, then you ought to read the Scriptures, particularly the Gospel accounts. Take a Catechism class or at least read the materials.
The closest to a single sentence summary I can give would be: God is merciful and just, he will always be both, by taking our sins away through a sinless victim he was able to fulfill the Law which came before, opening all mankind to the fullness of his mercy without denying his perfect justice.

 

[Sorlock]

Why then is it so difficult for atheists to say "yeah I don't really believe in Jesus Christ, but Christians are basically right about everything else?" If this were the case, it would suggest that humans probably evolved to have these beliefs for a functional reason, and so atheists should pretty much just go along with Christianity even if they can't bring themselves to fully believe in it themselves.

How can you do that though when a huge part of Christianity is the afterlife and, even barring that, it matters which denomination you pick? For example, I don't think most people are trying to comport themselves in a generally Southern Baptist manner where you can do whatever you want once you believe because "faith alone" and "once saved, always saved." In fact, Baptists (including non-Southern) are probably largely reacting specifically to people like Jordan Peterson who like the idea of Christianity symbolically but don't actually believe in supernatural claims.

That's not right. Aside from the typical lack of respect shown, God, the Second person of the Trinity, took on a human nature, not just for a normal human lifetime, but forever. Fully God and Fully man, forever. When he appears to the Apostle Thomas after the Resurrection he still has wounds in his hands, feet, and side.
The entire incarnation, the life and willing sacrifice of Jesus is a mystery. If you sincerely want to have a proper grasp of the teachings, to know well the sorry tale of sin and death, and God's patient and merciful plan of redemption, then you ought to read the Scriptures, particularly the Gospel accounts. Take a Catechism class or at least read the materials.
The closest to a single sentence summary I can give would be: God is merciful and just, he will always be both, by taking our sins away through a sinless victim he was able to fulfill the Law which came before, opening all mankind to the fullness of his mercy without denying his perfect justice.

How is this not just feudalism as a religion? Not all Christians believe this, so I'm not questioning Christianity, just these particular beliefs. Perhaps it could be feudalism and be true, but it seems quite suspicious for the area of Earth that already had ideas about feudal lords, substitution, and threefold gods to be selected to receive some divine revelation of exactly that which purportedly no one else even received. There's the phrase "I believe it because it is absurd," referring to something being unlikely rather than being illogical showing that you aren't just believing whatever you feel like, and then there's this very convenient belief which fits perfectly into Europe's pre-existing sociology that's the exact opposite.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

There also isn't to my knowledge a single version of the Big Bang Theory claiming the universe is eternal

Do you ever read about cyclic theory? In this version the initial singularity was born due to collapse (or whatever) of former iteration ov universe.

The only version that says anything like that are the cyclic cosmology variants, which aren't really taken seriously in science anymore

Argh, you read about them, but probably from some reasons you are bliving that Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok models are not dissputed in academia.

I've already provided evidence for the existence of god.

Uhm, like where? Science theories can figure out how most things come to existence (blank parts are how life transited from WWA to RNA or why BB happened when it happened - not how it happaned. And a minor question why matter ant anti-matter aren't in balance).

But this didn't mean that was done by good. I have no idea how exatly CPU is produced but I don't see why I should belive that CPU is a god gift.

I'm not saying it happened that way, I'm just saying it happened in a way similar enough that such is how our ancestors interpreted it.

You even find different theories of creation of world in Bible. Genesis contains at least two different descriptions. There is nearly no similarities in descriptions of world creation between religions (some similiarities will occur when such religions are closely related).

Each of those still has the problem of what set the universe into motion to begin with.

Probably nothing.

Because in initial singularity they was no reasons why universe expand should not happen, and rest is just physics (gravity and so shit that constructed celestials) and chemistry (all of life and so).

 

[Balalaika Z Bree]

How is this not just feudalism as a religion? Not all Christians believe this, so I'm not questioning Christianity, just these particular beliefs. Perhaps it could be feudalism and be true, but it seems quite suspicious for the area of Earth that already had ideas about feudal lords, substitution, and threefold gods to be selected to receive some divine revelation of exactly that which purportedly no one else even received. There's the phrase "I believe it because it is absurd," referring to something being unlikely rather than being illogical showing that you aren't just believing whatever you feel like, and then there's this very convenient belief which fits perfectly into Europe's pre-existing sociology that's the exact opposite.

Christ is King. The gold given to him in his infancy was a symbol of this. But it is not a subject or serf we are each called to be, but a son or daughter.

Christianity isn't European. It is the fulfillment of the Law as given to the ancient Israelites in the Middle East, and is truly universal, the origin of the word Catholic.

Following Christ Jesus was and is revolutionary, not found in meaningful part or whole in prior beliefs, outside of elements like truth, mercy, hope etc. There are legends of men ascending or descending to the places of various gods and giants etc. not a God taking on a human nature, teaching, suffering, dying and raising himself up for us, that we might be raised up and live forever with him in perfect peace.
There are pantheons of varying size, and gods that appear in multiple forms, including 3. That does not mean they resemble the Trinity except for sharing that number. Some gods as gods or in other forms were killed, but this was not the death Jesus died, put to death by us in our sin, that his willing sacrifice could take away our sins.

 

[Idiotron]

I've already provided evidence for the existence of god.

No, you didn't.
You might think you did but there is zero evidence in your posts.

People follow the ethical and moral code of their religion. Your ethical and moral code happens to be cribbed wholesale from Christianity and Judaism. Mine is more or less also borrowed from Christianity and Judaism because that's the roots of Western society, but I'm honest about it unlike you and your fellow atheists. I'm not a Christian either BTW.

No, actually.
I disagree with tons of stuff from the Bible.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Atheism is an easy way of feeling intellectually Superior to random people for absolutely no reason even though atheists follow every single law in the United States in most Western European countries created by Christian morality atheist or immoral pieces of s*** when left to the own devices if you don't believe me look at the Soviet Union which was state-sponsored atheism it killed nearly 40 to 20 million people simply for disagreeing with the state

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

No, actually.
I disagree with tons of stuff from the Bible.

Most religious systems or morality aren't accepted by so-called belivers - shitty fact of today. I was raised in (post)muslin culture of south european nations (in my case - Bosnians who moved to Germoney as gastarb's). It will be a nice world if people follow what Jesus/Prophet/Patriarchs was telling them, but most of so-called belivers didn't do that.

For example - Prophet forbidden for all muslims to be a invaders (which means in case of war they must not kill kiddos and gurls, also not made nearly nothing other than killing FIGHTING enemies - a men who surrenders should be not killed according to Prophet) and all muslims are obligated to give beggers money in not-so-small percentage of own salary. Also muslims should not use drugs.

And guess what - most of them fail to do this. Osama was a drug addicted bat shit crazy idiot who ordered a massacre of civilians, Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait was abducting girls as crazy and so one.

Catholic priests are supposed to live without sex, and - guess what - they fail in it. At least a signifant number of them fuck kids, other have just hidden girlfriends. Christians are also obligated to separate the spritual and state interests, and - guess what - they supposedly often fail in this.

And so one. I belive most belivers of any confession will not see their own wrongdoing, but will be active as fuck when they can force own 'morality'into others (abortion for example, probably most of 'pro-life' activists will accept abortion as a option if their teenage daughter will go preggo after a forced gang-bang with random potheads).

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

No, actually.
I disagree with tons of stuff from the Bible.

Same. Leaving vague "it's about being nice" cafeteria Christianity aside, one of the core pillars of the Christian mythos is scapegoating. The idea that someone can die in your stead to wipe your misdeeds away. I consider that hideously immoral. But it's okay, I know I "just don't understand it correctly" or whatever; the only way anyone could possibly disagree with Christian teachings is if they're damaged or don't understand it well enough. Couldn't possibly be because it's not true.

 

[Matt Damon]

Leaving vague "it's about being nice" cafeteria Christianity aside, one of the core pillars of the Christian mythos is scapegoating. The idea that someone can die in your stead to wipe your misdeeds away.

And that's not even going into the bizarre way that God rule-lawyers his own standards for getting into heaven. You can tell Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism because the New Testament is all about the God of the universe jewing himself.

It's nonsense that you'd think was made up on the spot to work around what was previously a set of rules literally etched into stone.

 

[The Tall Man]

Because their parents made them go to church on Sundays, and they still haven't gotten over it in their "adulthood'.

(((Pakman))) went to church on Sundays?

 

[CornBogFitz]

That is just objectively false

I mean do poor answers not backed by any facts or evidence really count as answers? Hell we have evidence showing all that creation mythology to be false

Yep, you really have no clue or understanding about atheism. christians simultaneously believe and deny free will exists when it convenient to the conversation.

lol

This is a perfect example of the narcissistic man child. He simultaneously whines that my answers are not backed facts when I say religion requires faith. then disputes my other statements by simply saying "this is just objectively false"

the eternal athiest rejects any concept of faith because submitting that they can never understand something is to admit is not in their control. so they cling to other improvable "theories" that explain it for them. consoling themselves that its not faith its "science" and that makes them smarter than you. never mind that no dark matter has ever been found despite the infallible science claiming its like half the universe. Im sure they didnt just make something up so that their formulas would work. The science is settled.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Most religious systems or morality aren't accepted by so-called belivers - shitty fact of today. I was raised in (post)muslin culture of south european nations (in my case - Bosnians who moved to Germoney as gastarb's). It will be a nice world if people follow what Jesus/Prophet/Patriarchs was telling them, but most of so-called belivers didn't do that.

For example - Prophet forbidden for all muslims to be a invaders (which means in case of war they must not kill kiddos and gurls, also not made nearly nothing other than killing FIGHTING enemies - a men who surrenders should be not killed according to Prophet) and all muslims are obligated to give beggers money in not-so-small percentage of own salary. Also muslims should not use drugs.

And guess what - most of them fail to do this. Osama was a drug addicted bat shit crazy idiot who ordered a massacre of civilians, Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait was abducting girls as crazy and so one.

Catholic priests are supposed to live without sex, and - guess what - they fail in it. At least a signifant number of them fuck kids, other have just hidden girlfriends. Christians are also obligated to separate the spritual and state interests, and - guess what - they supposedly often fail in this.

And so one. I belive most belivers of any confession will not see their own wrongdoing, but will be active as fuck when they can force own 'morality'into others (abortion for example, probably most of 'pro-life' activists will accept abortion as a option if their teenage daughter will go preggo after a forced gang-bang with random potheads).

I think this critique of believers of believers not being perfect is fairly poor.

If I say that the way to lose weight is to have a calorie deficit between food eaten and energy expended, that is a 100% correct theory. If I am then trying to lose weight, but do not manage to resist eating a handful of sugared candy today, that doesn't mean I don't believe that theory to be correct, it means that I am imperfect. Flawed like the rest of the people in this world.

And if that same person would then argue for laws and regulations that reduces the ubiquitous availability of sugared candy, because it is unhealthy and the country is fat and they don't want it offered to everyone on every street corner (or all the sugars in processed foods), then that is not hippocrisy in itself.

Of course your example goes further in imposing laws on others, but I'm saying there is an other, responsible and reasonable side to what you're saying.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

I had a religious teacher mention that many atheists are that way because they're deathly afraid of being responsible to a higher power for their actions. They really, REALLY want to engage in behavior that their Christian/Muslim/not-pozzed-jewish neighbors believe to be morally wrong. Or even outright repugnant.

The idea that they stop existing after they've had their fun is a comforting one, as they're in a very precarious situation otherwise.

It's quite common with the LGBTQP crowd. Or those who want to fuck animals. Or those who want to eat human flesh (like Richard Dawkins).

Jacob Blaustein is an excellent example of this. A stereotypical Reddit atheist who just wants to get off on really messed up things, but God will eventually smite him if he does.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

If I say that the way to lose weight is to have a calorie deficit between food eaten and energy expended, that is a 100% correct theory. If I am then trying to lose weight, but do not manage to resist eating a handful of sugared candy today, that doesn't mean I don't believe that theory to be correct, it means that I am imperfect. Flawed like the rest of the people in this world.

I give examples that are easy to not be breaken. Just don't fuck a kid, don't kill a kid, and if you see a poor kid give him money for food or so.

And people still are 'imperfect' and still are fucking kids, killing kids and not-giving them food.

Well, I think I'm better because I never fucked a kid, killed a kid and I pay taxes in country which has social system concerned about eliminating lack of food for kids (Kindergeld FTW). And I don't need any faith to do that.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

I give examples that are easy to not be breaken. Just don't fuck a kid, don't kill a kid, and if you see a poor kid give him money for food or so.

And people still are 'imperfect' and still are fucking kids, killing kids and not-giving them food.

Well, I think I'm better because I never fucked a kid, killed a kid and I pay taxes in country which has social system concerned about eliminating lack of food for kids (Kindergeld FTW). And I don't need any faith to do that.

Yes, you're right, every person who professed to be a believer is fucking kids all the time, and never those who do not profess to be believers.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

Yes, you're right, every person who professed to be a believer is fucking kids all the time, and never those who do not profess to be believers.

Probably not, but most of religious morality isn't hard to obtain.

What they have in common? Don't steal, don't fuck others than your wife, don't use drugs, don't use harsh language to others and so one.

I think it will be hard to find a beliver who do all of this.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

the eternal athiest rejects any concept of faith because submitting that they can never understand something is to admit is not in their control. so they cling to other improvable "theories" that explain it for them. consoling themselves that its not faith its "science"

Science requires at least some level of evidence to call a theory a theory. No exceptions. Evolution, cosmology and so one have some evidence.

Faith is about to belive AGAINST evidence. In my case: for example I belive that Prophet wasn't well educated against extreme hard evidence that he was. For others it can be that if god/whatever decide sun will rise on the west, not the east or something.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Probably not, but most of religious morality isn't hard to obtain.

What they have in common? Don't steal, don't fuck others than your wife, don't use drugs, don't use harsh language to others and so one.

I think it will be hard to find a beliver who do all of this.

One of the important cornerstones I see much more frequently in faithful people, is the habit of prayer. Especially when they practise voicing gratitude, or asking for wisdom/strength, there is something that happens that very few atheists have something comparable to.

You know that phrase "you don't know what you have till its gone?" It affects everyone, but those who make a habit of voicing gratitude tend to value and honor the things they have much more and as a result tend to be more nurtering to the good in their life, and happier.

Besides the gratitude, there's the contemplation and the quieting of the mind. There is the Dawkins argument that you don't need faith to do all of these things. That's true. Yet it is very rarely practised among the unfaithful (including by Dawkins). Because although we can all design our lifestyle after such time tested best practises, the truth is that habits are hard to develop and reinforce alone, and it's easy to miss valuable parts of it when going at it alone.

It's like how people with molecular cooking can use some of the strangest combinations to receive results indistinguishable from traditional dishes... it's usually easier and much more broadly socially convenient to make it in the traditional way.

Such goes my secular argument for faith.

 

[CornBogFitz]

Science requires at least some level of evidence to call a theory a theory. No exceptions. Evolution, cosmology and so one have some evidence.

Faith is about to believe AGAINST evidence. In my case: for example I belive that Prophet wasn't well educated against extreme hard evidence that he was. For others it can be that if god/whatever decide sun will rise on the west, not the east or something.

faith is absolutely not believing against evidence. It is simply believing. because you can only believe what you do not know. just like the soy filled atheist believes a new nebula scientists discovered really does smell like coffee. Most historical scholars believe Jesus Christ to be a true historical figure, but they do not afford my religion the title of "theory"