I didn't ask if the belief in god manifests. Of course it does.

I'm asking if the actual god that you believe exists manifests itself in reality in any way.

But that seems to be irrelevant, because you seem to subscribe to the notion that as long as believing in a falsehood makes you a better person, it's ok to believe in that falsehood. And I'm going to call bull**** on that, because how can you be a good person if you have a warped view of reality and the consequences of your actions within it?

It's all the small things

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

There's zero evidence of the physical literal existence of a god so I'd say no, he doesn't manifest in reality probably because he isn't physically real.

Your second train of thought leads to the conclusion that there isn't a single good religious person in the world. If they all orient themselves towards a falsehood and couldn't possibly be "good" with that warped view of reality, I'm not sure what else I was supposed to infer from your statement. That conclusion is obviously false.

And yet you claim to align yourself in accordance with this nonexistent god's ideals. Why would you take the ideals of an imaginary creature into account when making decisions about how you act in reality?

What you should infer is that every time you defer to your imaginary god's imaginary set of ideals or morals, you risk harming yourself or others by thinking out of line with reality.

Is there any behaviour that I couldn't justify with "my imaginary god thinks it's a good idea"? That exact thinking is why NYC has 2 less skyscrapers now.


Also, this is my cue to call bull**** on the entire concept of people aligning themselves to a deity:

Did you knew? Neurological evidence that "God's will" is bull**** by Amadeus - TribalWar Forums

amram quick reminder you're associating with a known pedophile right now

I'm not religious and I don't believe in god and I don't model myself after any such ideals. Sorry to burst your bubble. I'm just interested in the topic and the exchange of ideas that comes from a good conversation. Im not trying to prove anything to you or catch you in a gotcha. Just to get that out of the way (again)

I don't think that abstracting a set of ideals and then orienting yourself towards those ideals is something inherently bad. When it goes bad, it tends to be a dead end. The proof is in the fact that there are billions of religious people in the world living in successful and productive societies.

Jesus, to Christians, is the human embodiment of a collective set of ideals that they should aspire towards. He's the ideal, and thus the judge. There is ample proof in life that having something good to aim towards makes you a better and more fulfilled person. What's wrong with that?

Because those same ideologies tend to carry some aboslutely bonkers baggage from the bronze age that directly harms people, including the believers. In fact, any false statement included in that baggage has the potential to cause harm. And you can certainly align yourself towards good ideals without such baggage, millions of atheists are doing just that.

Give me one positive effect of theism that cannot also be achieved via secular means. Otherwise, achieving the positive effects of theism is not a good enough reason to be a theist.

One good reason to be an Atheist: You have never directly experienced God.

One good reason to be a Theist: You have directly experienced God.


"religious discussion is mostly a waste of time." -My opening argument

You are asking me to engage in religious discussion with you, which is identical to asking me to waste my time.

If some random person on the internet asked you to waste your own time, would you abide? You would not. Therefore you cannot expect any different result from others.

Is that what love is? A "brainwave" or a "hormone"? What is the unit of measurement for love?

Yes, you can measure "brainwaves" and "hormones", but that does not prove that love exists, nor that it can be measured.

If you can prove the existence of love and measure it, than you will win a nobel prize.

You do not have a nobel prize, because you can not prove the existence of love, nor will you ever.

There are things in this reality that cannot be measured by science.

You have an interesting way of consistently arguing against someone that is not in the room. This is another big reason why I do not engage in religious discussion with most people. Most people look for these sorts of talking points, because they know how to address them. It is another indication of the "I need to win" mentality.

I'm not discussing gap theory. I'm discussing the woeful inadequacy of human scientific advancement.

If you think we are hyper advanced in terms of scientific advancement, than feel free to explain to me why we can't even leave this rock called Earth.

Archeological digs are evidence of the historical accuracy of religious texts.

I do not care if I look smug or whatever. You are welcome to label me however you please. You have already labeled me aggressively from the get go without even hearing what I believe, so... anyone would draw the conclusion that taking the discussion further would yield more distasteful negativity.

It doesn't take psychic powers to read someone opening their entire argument with "religious discussion is a waste of time" and guess that they will not engage in religious discussion with you. Should you be applauded for your accurate prediction that even a child with any form of reading level could have made?

The fact that I will not engage only proves that I was sincere in my stance, not the opposite.

You will continue to push the "see, the guy that says that religious discussion is a waste of time is not engaging in religious discussion, therefore he is an insincere smug turd making stuff up" when it is quite the opposite. I am being consistent in my stance.

You are right, it would be super easy for me to engage in worldview discussion, I'm great at it... What a wonderful free country where I get to personally screen and select who I engage with.

If I have already given you my "ultimate surrender" and you have achieved a mighty victory over me, why are you still engaging with me?

If you think by repeatedly baiting me and threatening me with ill-repute that you will succeed in getting me to chomp on the bit of religious discussion, you are mistaken...

...it is a waste of time, as I said.

That being said, the discussion about how religious discussion is a waste of time has been highly entertaining for me, so I appreciate you engaging with me.

Some of the most heinous massacres and atrocities of our times were committed by atheists and anti-religious movements. Your claim of bronze age baggage rings irrelevant to the discussion. Its not as if the domain of human evil belongs only to people of faith. Being a person of faith doesn't magically erase all your other biological human intricacies, good or bad. You bring up 9/11, I retort with Mao and Stalin. What's the point?

I can't give you any specific positive effect of theism that can't be achieved through secular means. I can, however, posit the things you think are atheistic or secular aren't really. If every one of your human ancestors for the last 300,000 years has had some fundamental form of ritualistic belief in the unknown, how can you divorce your own moral compass from that evolutionary branch? If I'm the descendant of one thousand generations of Abrahamic faith adherents, but Im atheist, am I really atheist?

How can you know if you directly experienced god?


I disagree with your reason for why it's a waste of time. It wouldn't be, if only people were willing to admit when they have no good reason to believe the things they do. Then **** would start getting real productive real quick.


They are evidence of love. More evidence than religious people can muster for their gods, by a wide margin.



And yet, science has already achieved immeasurably more than religious belief ever did. None of the technological advancement of the last 10k years was a result of prayer.



Correct. And the historical accuracy of religious texts is not evidence for a god. Just like if people in the distant future find a Spiderman comic set in New York, then dig up the remains of New York, it's not evidence that Spiderman existed.

What a damn waste of time. You're not going to convince a pedophile that there is a God or a reason to believe in God, so why waste your time?

Wonderful, so by proceeding with this question you agree that I gave you a good reason.

You stated that 100 people you spoke with gave you no good reason, so I'm happy to be the first.

I guess it was very easy for me to succeed where 100 other people failed.

Makes me wonder who you were talking to...

You are welcome to disagree.

I disagree with the notion that you are actually seeking productivity.

People interested in having productive conversation are usually polite and respectful.

Nope, love doesn't exist according to your worldview. After all, if you can't prove that something exists scientifically, it doesn't, right? If you are to remain consistent, you now no longer believe in the existence of love.

The evidence towards the religion of secular humanism that you prescribe too is far more lacking from a scientific perspective than theism by a wide margin.

Yeah, all those great scientists, like Newton, the guy that discovered gravity.

Spoiler alert:

If someone lied to you 9 times, what would you predict about the 10th thing they said?

Similarly, if a stranger told you a story, and you could confirm 9 out of 10 facts presented in that story were true, what might you assume about the 10th that was unconfirmed?

There is a reason that the historical accuracy matters to someone that has a logical, critical, scientific mind.

Comparing Spiderman to historical documentation? Really?

You are actually making the case that because Spiderman isn't real, historical documentation has no validity?

Of this we can agree.

What if I was to tell all of you that God is the hottest chick imaginable? She is very choosy. She will only bang one guy from every planet she creates. She chose me. And it was good. When I broke up with her, she went through a tough patch. Now, we are just friends. Too much drama.

ITT posters refuse to allow TW to die and try to create content by making stupid threads.

I donno, probably that none of that is true because of Spiderman?

https://media0.giphy.com/media/8zYun...&rid=giphy.gif

Still, sounds more plausible to me than secular humanism, where "nothing" exploded into a bunch of spinning rocks, only one of them with pondscum that grew and developed itself into a bipedal creature that faps to Russian models with plastic surgery on instagram.

https://external-content.duckduckgo....gif&f=1&nofb=1

https://i.redd.it/ms287dzt4ot51.gif

Go look at a mirror, dumbass.

I define God as:

The set of everything that was, is, will be and everything else.

I am terrified of not believing in it.

Just did, and you may be right. This could only be God's work.

if u don't bleev in god then u don't bleev in time and if u don't bleev in time then u can always b the fastest jogger in the ~fun run~

intelligent design does not exist.

see: wisdom teeth, appendix, tonsils, ****ty eyes, etc.

either our all-knowing god built us with flaws because they're not all-knowing, or our all-knowing god built us with flaws just to be a dick. neither choice seems worthy of devotion or worship.

reddit expert assumer in chief

someone is having a good morning.

ftfy :cool:

The point is that if people who have supposedly aligned themselves to a theistic ideal can commit just as large atrocities as those who haven't, then achieving that alignment is pointless and is not a good reason to be a theist.

Then it seems we are in agreement that there is no good reason to be a theist.

Yes, I am. Because I can arrive to the same, if not an even better, moral compass by dealing with reality on reality's terms. What my ancestors believed to be true or false has zero impact on what the real life consequences of my actions are.

your parents hate u lmfao

u cut ur dick off yet question mark

No. It's only a good reason if it is possible to achieve. So, how can it be achieved?



You may want to look at my conversation with amRam. Surprisingly productive.



For all that talk about respect, you sure are quick to tell me about my worldview.

I can tell love exists, because I experience it directly, AND there is physical evidence of it, AND because I can observe others acting in a way that is consistent with my experience. Can you tell the same for your god belief?

Secular humanism isn't a religion. It's a religion-agnostic worldview.



And this is relevant because?



Nothing, because it would be a logical fallacy to do otherwise. This, by the way, is the basis for a commonly known scam:


And here we see how the fallacies you allow yourself in your religious belief can hurt you in real life.

No, I'm making the case that just because we've confirmed the truth of one statement in a historic text, it doesn't mean that any other unconfirmed claims should be treated as true.

that must be why the catholic church is full of child molesters lol

Atheists and theists alike do bad things so theism is pointless. That's a pretty bad point bro.

What your ancestors believed has deep impact on your being. You think your moral compass is a device of your own making...that's funny.

You're still stuck on what's "true" or "false" like most silly atheists. Blinded by the origins of the physical world because you take the bible literally like the loony fundamentalists.

And you defend those people...

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Is it not true though? Don't religions present themselves as the prerequisite to moral behaviour, only to go on and be equally flawed as everyone else?

But it has no impact on the consequences of my actions, which is what I said.

Slavery used to fit in our ancestors' moral compass not too long ago. What has changed since then, and what prompted the change?

I don't see how the origins of the physical world are relevant to this discussion, and I don't take the bible literally. Might wanna check your strawmen.

Give me one quote where I defended child molesters.

(Spoiler: you won't find one, because I never did.)

You conflate a lot of pitfalls of organized religion with the individuals' faith. The church is man's creation after all. Susceptible to all the same negatives as any other organization. Lots of otherwise good men went on to do terrible things throughout history, with or without faith.

Faith in a higher ideal isn't the only way, it's one way. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have survived for tens/hundreds of thousands of years. Your moral compass is built on it IMO, whether or not you identify with it.

he identifies with pony pillows

Just because something has survived for thousands of years doesn't mean it should be kept around. See: slavery.

Which brings me back to my earlier question: if we're not in charge of our own moral compass, then how come slavery went from morally acceptable to unacceptable in the span of a couple centuries?

By having a personal experience with God.

Now that you know how it is possible, thank you for your admission that it is a good reason.

Is it disrespectful to talk about worldviews now?

So that means anyone discussing worldviews is disrespectful by default?

Yes, of course I can.

The fact that you would even ask that question shows that you have not spoken with many people that believe in God. Either that or you know very little about them.

Sure it is a religion. You can get into semantics based on the definition you choose, but I can easily argue that it is a religion.

Religion can be defined (My Merriam-Webster) as "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Secular humanism is nothing more than a system of beliefs, and there is plenty of faith involved in holding many of the beliefs that lie therein. I would argue that it requires more blind faith than Theism by far.

Please prove to me how secular humanism is not a system of beliefs. Anyone rational would immediately recognize that it is indeed a system of beliefs.

You yourself have admitted that you believe in the existence of love, and yet you cannot prove its existence through the scientific method. You have faith that it exists based on evidence, personal experience, and observation, which is identical to religion. People that believe in God, do so because of evidence, personal experience, and observation. There is no difference.

Your worldview is a worldview, just like any other, full of assertions and beliefs, many of which cannot be proved and require faith.

Many religious people throughout history have moved science forward by leaps and bounds.

Yes, you can also point out all of the bad things that religion has done too. You can also point out all the bad things the religion of secular humanism has done as well.

Claiming that religion has never done anything for science is just wrong. So wrong that it makes me believe that you have not studied history even a little bit.

Oh really? And yet you do not prescribe to this, because you would believe your best friend over a complete stranger, would you not?

It's not a fallacy to trust something credible over something that is not. It's common sense.

The notion of consistent credibility is not a fallacy. It is a fact of life that you yourself adhere to on a daily basis and use as a tool for survival.

You go to work for your boss knowing that he/she will pay you, because they have proven themselves to be credible. Society is built upon the foundational stone of credibility.

I agree with that completely.

And yet, catching someone in 9 different lies serves as evidence that they are dishonest.

Likewise, confirming someone telling 9 different truths serves as evidence that they are honest.

The reason historical accuracy matters is because it serves as evidence towards honesty.

Hail Satan

Will you condemn child molesters?

As a rule I don't condemn people, but I do wholeheartedly condemn the act of child molestation, as I always have.