How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

TL;DW: In the face of disconfirming evidence to one's beliefs, the most natural response is to double down and reinterpret the events in a way that conforms to their beliefs, and the way the early Christian movement panned out is entirely in line with human psychology.

Thoughts?

  1. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    classic case of poisoning the well fallacy and armchair psychology
    kill yourself OP

  2. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    [Open]

    >TL;DW: In the face of disconfirming evidence to one's beliefs, the most natural response is to double down and reinterpret the events in a way that conforms to their beliefs, and the way the early Christian movement panned out is entirely in line with human psychology.

    >Thoughts?

    Didnt read

  3. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    Agree. Christcucks make it up as they go along and cherry pick their beliefs to suit their 21st century biases and agendas.

  4. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    LULZ christcucks are mostly contrarian larpers.

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      Ironically enough the converts who are obsessed with theological rules/denominational posturing were almost certainly hardcore atheists in the past.

  5. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah true but it’s not the reason why, more like those behaviours are just a function of an underlying lack of agency and tendency towards supernaturalism/magical thinking.

  6. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Agree. Christcucks make it up as they go along and cherry pick their beliefs to suit their 21st century biases and agendas.

    [...]
    LULZ christcucks are mostly contrarian larpers.

    Yeah true but it’s not the reason why, more like those behaviours are just a function of an underlying lack of agency and tendency towards supernaturalism/magical thinking.

    Ironically enough the converts who are obsessed with theological rules/denominational posturing were almost certainly hardcore atheists in the past.

    *yawn*
    Already debunked:
    https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/critiquing-matthew-hartkes-proposal-that-jesus-disciples-suffered-from-cognitive-dissonance-part-1-the-summary/
    https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/addressing-the-claim-that-jesus-disciples-suffered-from-cognitive-dissonance-theory-part-2-in-my-critique-of-matthew-hartkes-blog-post/
    https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/part-3-of-my-critique-of-matthew-hartkes-post-about-christianity-and-cognitive-dissonance-theory-the-end-of-this-post-is-a-bit-out-there-lets-see-what-you-think/

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Joel Edmund Anderson, the blue collar bible scholar
      lmao

  7. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    That's a common misconception. Atheists will often get mad and start flailing around when a Christian doesn't immediately accept the Atheist's arguments as "proof" there is no God: evolution, the big bang, whatever else. The fact is that all of these things can still be interpreted as having God as their root cause, even if they're grounded in science.

    Just as a scientist might make a hypothesis to explain some phenomenon. If someone were to try to disprove his hypothesis, there are two reactions he could have... he could totally throw out the hypothesis and come up with a new explanation, or he could determine if this new information can fit itself into his hypothesis somehow.

    When Darwin proposed "pangenesis" as a reason that evolution occurred, and it ended up being disproven, it didn't mean that the theory of evolution was now incorrect... it just meant that there were different explanations.

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      Hypothesis: the Christian god is real

      Supporting evidence: ….

      Contradicting evidence: Genesis is in the wrong order, the cosmology is wrong, the timeline is wrong, even later “well obviously it wasn’t 6 days” arguments by priests still got it wrong with their revisions.
      There is a lot more and I will continue going through the Bible if I deem it necessary to get it through your head that the book was written by ancient people making things up.

      • 2 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Supporting evidence:
        >The gemstones in New Jerusalem are said to be all anisotropic gems, which refract a beautiful array of light, high chance this proves the Bible is divinely inspired
        >Jesus is a real life historical figure, believed to have lived and died just as the Bible tells, at the hands of Pontius Pilate and crucified, implying the Bible was always based in fact, not total fiction
        >Our conscience and objective morality prove that we have a sense of right and wrong in line with Biblical teachings, and "wrong" actions have very clear physical punishments
        >The Fine Tuning of the universe relies on chance or an intelligent creator, and an intelligent creator is much more likely

        • 2 days ago
          Anonymous

          Jesus being a real person doesn’t mean the supernatural aspects are true, lots of ancient history is peppered with obvious fiction, plus there isn’t much historical documentation of his life.
          Morality is a social instinct shared by all sicial primates with varying degrees of complexity.
          The universe is arguably not fine tuned because it’s almost entirely vacuous nothingness and lifeless rocks, even if so that doesn’t point to the Christian god as genesis is wrong

          Also,
          >gemstones
          You have to be fucking kidding me.

          • 2 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus being a real person doesn’t mean the supernatural aspects are true
            It's a one-to-one comparison to the OP message. Once upon a time Atheists unanimously believed Jesus was totally fictional, then historians discovered provable records that indicate he was not fictional, but you still have some Atheists claiming otherwise. Meaning the Atheists had to adapt their arguments and give ground in order to remain entrenched in their views.
            >You have to be fucking kidding me.
            Educate yourself, tranny-sir

            • 2 days ago
              Anonymous

              I’m not denying Jesus was a real guy, I’m denying he was the son of a God.

              Morality is a human social instinct, you haven’t explained what you think the universe is fine tuned for (extremely dead and empty if you mean life) and you haven’t addressed that genesis is incorrect.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Morality is a human social instinct
                You haven't explained how this is the case, you've just claimed it without proof.
                Morality is objective and given to us by God, in our souls, our conscience. When we do a good act, we feel good for it, and when we do a bad act, we feel bad for it. That doesn't mean we're incapable of doing bad acts, but that when we do them it hurts us on the inside, and a tiny piece of us knows it is wrong to do that thing, even if it's a very very very tiny piece of us, it speaks to us. Even soldiers sent into a warzone that kill an enemy that would have killed them had they hesitated will feel terrible remorse, and they give interviews about feeling terribly evil after killing another human being.
                >you haven’t explained what you think the universe is fine tuned for (extremely dead and empty if you mean life)

                >and you haven’t addressed that genesis is incorrect.
                In what way is Genesis incorrect? The Catholic Church does not claim that the Earth was created in a literal six day timespan--rather, they conclude that the work God put into creating our world (remember, he is a God that exists outside time and space, and has no concept of days) would be translated into six human days, leaving one day left in a week of worship to God. If I were to do a long days work and say "I just did a whole week's worth of work" it would be symbolic, not literal.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >You haven't explained how this is the case, you've just claimed it without proof.
                It is basic biology that social animals have pro-social instincts that manifest as empathetic contagion of positive and negative emotions. Emotions are collectively felt by groups and transfer via body language, auditory and other cues to gauge the mind state of other primates in the group and this motivates pro-social behaviors.

                Animals would literally not form groups if they did not have these pro-social emotions, including humans.

                >what way is Genesis incorrect? The Catholic Church does not claim that the Earth was created in a literal six day timespan-
                The original revision was that it happened all at once and 4.5 billion years broken into the accurate lengths was not arrived on until scientific exploration revealed it.

                It’s also in the wrong order in the first place.
                Your worldview does not fit the evidence, instead of doubling down into cognitive dissonance you should adjust your views and move on.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >It is basic biology
                We're discussing morality, not conformity. Your view is that people do things and behave in certain ways so that they can fit into a larger group of people, because otherwise they would be judged by those groups of people. But this belief breaks down entirely when you observe people outside of a certain group--like an Atheist Liberal Progressive--that feel shame and guilt for doing things that would be considered as Biblically sinister, such as masturbation, that's a very typical thing for people all over the world to feel shamed about... in fact, all forms of sex outside of love and marriage often carry a sense of shame. And like I said, it's the same for murder and most forms of killing--even two groups fighting amongst each other often results in the soldiers of those groups getting a sort of PTSD and a moral struggle to cope with their deeds. That has nothing to do with your biological ideas of in-group conformity.
                >The original revision was that it happened all at once and 4.5 billion years broken into the accurate lengths was not arrived on until scientific exploration revealed it.
                Like I said, sometimes an individual makes an incorrect assumption (like an Atheist can incorrectly assume Jesus never existed) but when proven wrong, that does not invalidate the core belief, otherwise you're going to tell me that because one (actually millions) of Atheists have been wrong about Jesus' existence, means that it is now proof that Atheism is incorrect?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                I’ve never had shame about sex outside of marriage, in fact the only time I’ve even heard of this is when a drunk hookup happens with an ugly woman or ruining a relationship with cheating.

                It’s not conformity it is an internal moral compass due to pro-social instincts that evolved to make us form groups.

                >Like I said, sometimes an individual makes an incorrect assumption
                Both the Bible and priests were wrong about how the world was created indicating their source is not actually the creator of the universe, but their imagination.
                We only actually learned how the world was created through people utilizing scientific exploration.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >I’ve never had shame about sex outside of marriage, in fact the only time I’ve even heard of this is when a drunk hookup happens with an ugly woman or ruining a relationship with cheating.
                All men experience post-nut clarity. When you're not horny anymore and you regret jacking off, or sleeping with a woman, ugly or not.
                >It’s not conformity it is an internal moral compass due to pro-social instincts that evolved to make us form groups.
                Then explain why some people in different groups can experience the moral hangups of other religious groups. You ignored that part, conveniently.
                >Both the Bible and priests were wrong
                Again, it's not being wrong, it's being interpreted wrong. Unless you're going to sit here and tell me that allegory does not exist in any form of literature, then you can't tell me something was "wrong". You are displaying the cognitive dissonance phenomena now, just like in the OP. I have presented to you contrary information (that The Bible contains allegory left up to our interpretation) and you have rejected that information and rooted yourself deeper into your own belief as a result. You won't even engage with the discussion that The Bible contains allegory, you just shrug it off all together and say "but it wasn't literally true". This is a child's grasp of debate, anon.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >All men experience post-nut clarity. When you're not horny anymore and you regret jacking off, or sleeping with a woman, ugly or not.
                Yeah no chief plenty of guys don’t get sad because they fucked a hot chick

                >Again, it's not being wrong, it's being interpreted wrong.
                No it’s wrong.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >still ignoring the fact that people from different groups experience negative reactions to doing acts considered sinful by another group
                You lost the debate, everything from this point after is just cope and seethe

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >have presented to you contrary information (that The Bible contains allegory left up to our interpretation)
                You as a catholic have to rely on the clergy interpretation and they got it wrong until science got it right and they pretended that’s what they meant all along.
                Your bullshit detector is completely broken.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >You as a catholic have to rely on the clergy interpretation and they got it wrong until science got it right and they pretended that’s what they meant all along.
                You as an Atheist have to rely on the scientists interpretation and they got it wrong until science got it right and they pretended that's what they meant all along.
                For thousands of years scientists were getting things wrong, but also for thousands of years the Bible has been rooted in historical fact. You lost, tranny man

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Not an atheist and you’re deflecting because both the Bible and the priesthood got the creation story of the world wrong, which would not happen if their god was real.

                >still ignoring the fact that people from different groups experience negative reactions to doing acts considered sinful by another group
                You lost the debate, everything from this point after is just cope and seethe

                I don’t know what acts you’re talking about and I think your definition of what constitutes the same group might be too strict. Two guys fighting for different government can still see themselves as part of a similar group, the othering is obviously not complete there.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >I don’t know what acts you’re talking about and I think your definition of what constitutes the same group might be too strict.
                Atheists often feel the same sense of shame that religious people feel for the same sinful acts. You can't explain that. You lose.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Atheists often feel the same sense of shame that religious people feel for the same sinful acts.
                What you consider sinful here is a biological drive to avoid that behavior, because it is likely harmful for survival or reproduction.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >feel shame and guilt for doing things that would be considered as Biblically sinister, such as masturbation

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >feel shame and guilt for doing things that would be considered as Biblically sinister, such as masturbation, that's a very typical thing for people all over the world to feel shamed about... in fact, all forms of sex outside of love and marriage often carry a sense of shame
                Lol you just got brainwashed into having a shame response to most forms of sexuality and now you're projecting that onto others because the realization that you were mindbroken by a middle eastern myth would be too much to handle.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >literal six day timespan--rather, they conclude that the work God put into creating our world (remember, he is a God that exists outside time and space, and has no concept of days) would be translated into six human days, leaving one day left in a week of worship to God. If I were to do a long days work and say "I just did a whole week's worth of work" it would be symbolic, not literal.

                Lmao no wonder Catholics have been so adamant about not letting people read the Bible.

                12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
                [1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
                [1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
                [1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
                [1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
                [1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
                [1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
                [1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Vegetation exists
                >Evening and morning exist
                >Light exists
                >Sky exists
                >Sun and Stars exist
                >Earth exists
                >Day and night exists
                These are all facts. Those things exist. Those things must have come into being--and they have by both religious and secular belief. The Atheists believe The Big Bang was responsible for creating our universe, and that clashing of asteroids created our Earth. The religious believe varying things, but the most prevalent is that those things can all be equally true--but they were set in motion by God. For everything that exists in time and space requires a beginning, so The Big Bang requires a beginning.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah the Bible names things that exist and gets their creation and origin wrong.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                God created the big bang. That was his method to create the universe.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Genesis is wrong then.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                If I created an axe, and I cut down a tree with the axe, then I did that, the axe didn't do that. God is the lumberjack, and the Big Bang is the axe, the universe is the tree.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                If you cut down a tree with an axe, but later someone writes a story about it and says you used a chainsaw, the story is wrong.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                If an axe is defined as "a sharp blade you cut things with" and 2,000 years ago the word chainsaw was defined as "a sharp blade you cut things with" then it's not the source material that is wrong, but our interpretation that is wrong.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Genesis has the Earth being formed before the Sun.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Plants too lol

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Plants too lol

                Genesis is in the wrong order and it the world with current biosphere was not created in 6 days. The priests who made up a “new interpretation” were also wrong.

                No one knew the actual story until scientific exploration revealed it.

                Hypothesis: the Christian god is real

                Supporting evidence: ….

                Contradicting evidence: Genesis is in the wrong order, the cosmology is wrong, the timeline is wrong, even later “well obviously it wasn’t 6 days” arguments by priests still got it wrong with their revisions.
                There is a lot more and I will continue going through the Bible if I deem it necessary to get it through your head that the book was written by ancient people making things up.

                >You haven't explained how this is the case, you've just claimed it without proof.
                It is basic biology that social animals have pro-social instincts that manifest as empathetic contagion of positive and negative emotions. Emotions are collectively felt by groups and transfer via body language, auditory and other cues to gauge the mind state of other primates in the group and this motivates pro-social behaviors.

                Animals would literally not form groups if they did not have these pro-social emotions, including humans.

                >what way is Genesis incorrect? The Catholic Church does not claim that the Earth was created in a literal six day timespan-
                The original revision was that it happened all at once and 4.5 billion years broken into the accurate lengths was not arrived on until scientific exploration revealed it.

                It’s also in the wrong order in the first place.
                Your worldview does not fit the evidence, instead of doubling down into cognitive dissonance you should adjust your views and move on.

                Debunked:

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Genesis is in the wrong order and it the world with current biosphere was not created in 6 days. The priests who made up a “new interpretation” were also wrong.

                No one knew the actual story until scientific exploration revealed it.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >was not created in 6 days
                Again, you're ignoring that it wasn't a literal 6 day creation. You're an Atheist that has been presented new information from a Catholic (the majority Christian religion) that you do not like, because it invalidates all of your arguments, so you ignore it all-together and stick yourself deeper into your trench. Like I said. You lost. From this point on, it's all cope and seethe, until you admit that literature includes allegory, especially when talking about a timeless and spaceless God who would have no concept of days.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Again, you're ignoring that it wasn't a literal 6 day creation.

                Certainly looks like it

                And God saw that it was good.
                [1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
                [1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
                [1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
                [1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
                [1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
                [1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
                [1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

                Anyway, they had new interpretations from priests and those were wrong too.
                We didn’t learn how long the earth was created or in what order until scientific exploration revealed it. If this bothers you, the thing a man with integrity would do is admit he was wrong and change his views. I’m not holding my breath.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                We've arrived at an ouroboros in this discussion. You'll just keep spamming the passages from Genesis (which, by the way, have been addressed thousands of times by Biblical scholars) and whining about "but it's a muh literal 6 day creation" to which I will point out that God exists outside of space-time, so a "day" is meaningless to him, and that the scripture is understood by most Christians as being allegory. Then you'll get mad that you don't have a response to the passages being allegory, and you'll spam them again, and cope and seethe even more. And on and on it goes. If this is the depth of the discussion you offer, anon, then there's nowhere left for us to go.

                Plenty of scientists have been wrong about their interpretations of phenomenon, but that does not make the phenomenon itself wrong; and plenty of fallible priests have been wrong about their interpretations, but that does not make the religion wrong.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

                The priests interpretations were also wrong. So we have the Bible getting creation story in the wrong order, and you claiming a day is 1000 years which still doesn’t fix the timeline.

                AND

                We have priests claiming it happened in various periods of time, all getting it wrong until scientific exploration revealed the true answers.

                So your “holy book” is wrong despite the information supposedly coming from that god, and the priesthood also getting it wrong. This disproves the book and preisthood of being in communication with the creator of the universe.

                That’s checkmate, now fume and chew on the pieces instead of shaking my hand.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >With the Lord a day is LIKE a thousand years, and a thousand years are LIKE a day.
                Learn to read.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah that fixes nothing.

                6 days is wrong
                Arbitrarily lengthening what day means to any amount is still wrong.
                The priests who actually made claims of it happening all at once and other interpretations were also wrong.

                We never got these answers from the Bible or priests getting the message from god and telling us, we found out when the scientific method was applied to these questions and they investigated it.

                Keep drooling on the chess pieces instead of taking the L and growing as a person.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah that fixes nothing.
                There is nothing in need of fixing.
                >6 days is wrong
                6 days is factually correct.
                >Arbitrarily lengthening what day means to any amount is still wrong.
                It's not? Obviously a Creator God's perception of time would be completely different from ours. You're just desperate to keep your wrong interpretation of Genesis as the only valid one to force us to be in the position that you want us to be, but we don't have to, we don't have to abide by your absurd standards.
                >The priests who actually made claims of it happening all at once and other interpretations were also wrong.
                No idea what priests you're talking about but ok.
                >We never got these answers from the Bible or priests getting the message from god and telling us, we found out when the scientific method was applied to these questions and they investigated it.
                The man who postulated the Big Bang in the first place was a priest. Cope eternally.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >The man who postulated the Big Bang in the first place was a priest. Cope eternally.
                This is where a lot of science-worshipping Atheists crumble to pieces... knowing deep in their hearts that the vast majority of all our major and minor scientific breakthroughs and inventions have come from Christians.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So we have the Bible getting creation story in the wrong order
                It's not in the wrong order. And actually it might even be proof that the Bible is divinely inspired.
                The account is from the point of view of an observer on Earth (hence it can be calculated in days when God has no concept of days) and as the other anon pointed out, one could say that "one day" equal thousands of years.
                So, from the point of view of an observer on Earth, there would have been no light at some point in Earth's existence. And this is scientifically proven--as the early Earth's atmosphere had such gases surrounded it that very little to no sunlight would pierce to the surface. So what is being described is not "the creation of the Sun before the Earth" but what is being described is "the Sun's ability to put light into the Earth's atmosphere". Nowhere does it say "God created the light" it says "God let there be light", because "the light" does not mean "the sun", as there are very clear words in Hebrew for Sun and Moon, and they are not present in this verse. "The light" refers to the Sun's ability to project light onto Earth. Simple. I would recommend you look up the science about Earth's atmosphere before making these kinds of comments, anon.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                This all happens after plants so even with that post-hoc, rocking back and forth desperation, it still doesn’t make sense.

                It’s mythology, obviously. Grow up.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                This is what I call Atheism of the Gaps. I've proven you wrong on one account, now you desperately fumble and attempt to salvage the situation.

                Regardless, in Genesis, light comes before plants.
                >1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
                >1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
                >1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
                >1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
                >1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
                >1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
                >1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
                >1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
                >1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
                >1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
                >1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
                >1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                There’s no gaps.

                There are four narratives that align with Christianity and they’re all wrong.
                No one knew how old the earth was, how long each thing took and what order things were created until scientific exploration revealed it.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                You say there are no gaps, but there are certainly gaps in your ability to defend your position. You've constantly lost ground, and when you do lose ground, all you can do is cope and seethe.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                The Bible as it reads is incorrect, and all interpretations by priests and theologians were incorrect.
                The only way we found this stuff out was through scientific exploration. You are not fooling a single person.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                No one knew the earth was 4.5 billion years old with the process of our world coming into being taking that long. They even got the order wrong where fruit trees are created “the day” before the sun moon and stars. It’s right in the Bible.

                11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
                [1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
                [1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
                [1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
                [1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
                [1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >They even got the order wrong where fruit trees are created “the day” before the sun moon and stars.
                Light already existed before the fruit trees are created, so that's not proof of anything but your inability to read, anon.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                We can all read anon, maybe you can’t.

                11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
                [1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
                [1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
                [1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
                [1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
                [1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Don't be rude! He just doesn't know that light comes from stars. I guess he just...never looked up? Ever? In his life?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Desert semites were so primitive and uneducated that they thought light and dark just existed, and that the moon, sun and stars were nothing more than set dressing.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Also it's the fourth time he spammed the verses ITT, he's already mindbroke. You don't need to reply anymore.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                I agree. I have a terrible habit of getting into these circular arguments with types like this. I'll just stop it here or else the entire thread will be filled with the same copied verses (that start in the middle) over and over again.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                I know you guys want the verses to not be seen so I make sure they’re not far from wherever we are in the thread. Greatest antidote to Christianity is reading the Bible with a working brain

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                As long as you keep not making arguments, spam the verses all you want, I don't care. As long as I don't actually have to argue with you, you are just doing my own work for me by making it seem like you have no argument to give, therefore nobody has a reason to take you seriously.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                See:

                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                Debunked:

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah that fixes nothing.
                There is nothing in need of fixing.
                >6 days is wrong
                6 days is factually correct.
                >Arbitrarily lengthening what day means to any amount is still wrong.
                It's not? Obviously a Creator God's perception of time would be completely different from ours. You're just desperate to keep your wrong interpretation of Genesis as the only valid one to force us to be in the position that you want us to be, but we don't have to, we don't have to abide by your absurd standards.
                >The priests who actually made claims of it happening all at once and other interpretations were also wrong.
                No idea what priests you're talking about but ok.
                >We never got these answers from the Bible or priests getting the message from god and telling us, we found out when the scientific method was applied to these questions and they investigated it.
                The man who postulated the Big Bang in the first place was a priest. Cope eternally.

                Did Noah and co really live for hundreds of years? Was there a global flood or a local one? Did the animals really need saving by a man with a big boat?
                Was the Tower of Babel real? Were languages or language families really created from one proto-language after god confused the tongues of people building a really fucking big tower?
                Did Moshe actually lead over a million Israelites out of Egypt? Did he part the Red Sea?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Did Noah and co really live for hundreds of years?
                Maybe, that is one intepretation of the lifetimes that we find in Genesis, another I've heard is that they refer the lifetime of each tribe named after its founding patriarch, like how the Twelve tribes are named after each one of Jacob's sons, or how Israel is named after Jacob.
                >Was there a global flood or a local one?
                The flood is not told from the objective perspective of God, but Noah's own subjective perspective, and since he spent an entire year without finding any land, it would make sense that Noah would have come to the conclusion that the whole Earth had flooded.
                >Did the animals really need saving by a man with a big boat?
                I don't know what this question is implying.
                >Was the Tower of Babel real?
                Yes, very much so, and we have already found it, it's remains at least. It was a ziggurat, we have records that Alexander the Great found what little was left of it when he expanded eastwards.
                >Were languages or language families really created from one proto-language after god confused the tongues of people building a really fucking big tower?
                Each language was spoken only by 1 person, so it would be obvious that none of those languages would survive after each individual person who spoke them died.
                >Did Moshe actually lead over a million Israelites out of Egypt?
                They are symbolic numbers refering to Israel as a marching army triumphantly leaving Egypt, sort of like saying that "legions and legions" of Israelites left.
                >Did he part the Red Sea?
                Yes.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                This overall still puts you at odds with what we know about the world. It's a good demonstration of the fact that just denying a literal Genesis doesn't give you a scientifically accurate picture.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >This overall still puts you at odds with what we know about the world.
                Such as?
                >It's a good demonstration of the fact that just denying a literal Genesis doesn't give you a scientifically accurate picture.
                Maybe because the Bible is not a science book, nor does it make scientific statements and should not be read as such?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Such as?
                Noah's flood: A local flood wouldn't have Noah sailing for a year.
                Tower of Babel: Ur was constantly inhabited before, during and after the construction of its eponymous ziggurat. A scattering of languages as the one you describe completely defies our knowledge of linguistics - we even have written records from before and after the construction of the ziggurat, and they show no such thing.
                Exodus: If anything similar to the biblical exodus happened, we'd have at least some evidence for it. What could be possible would be an exodus so small that it would cause no significant disturbance in Egypt and thus leave no historical/archeological record.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Noah's flood: A local flood wouldn't have Noah sailing for a year.
                Why not?
                >Tower of Babel: Ur was constantly inhabited before, during and after the construction of its eponymous ziggurat. A scattering of languages as the one you describe completely defies our knowledge of linguistics - we even have written records from before and after the construction of the ziggurat, and they show no such thing.
                False, your understanding is simply incorrect here:

                >Exodus: If anything similar to the biblical exodus happened, we'd have at least some evidence for it. What could be possible would be an exodus so small that it would cause no significant disturbance in Egypt and thus leave no historical/archeological record.
                We have evidence:

                And contrary to what most atheists like you believe, historians don't believe that the Exodus never happened, the current academic consensus is that the Exodus story was inspiried by real events. It has shifted from its prevous position as pure myth, and it will continue to do so in the future.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                When someone replies to my points by simply dumping links to around 5 hours of video material, I'm going to assume that they just want to avoid having a conversation. And I'll respect that.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                To be fair his question about the flood is valid. I'm curious what, if anything, you have to explain why that would be impossible.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                You being too lazy to go over the evidence is not my problem.
                Into the trash you go.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, I know you did not expect me to watch videos for 5 hours and come back to you with a response. Why can't you interact with people in a civil manner? I'd be completely fine with ending it like this without any insults.

                To be fair his question about the flood is valid. I'm curious what, if anything, you have to explain why that would be impossible.

                The local flood hypothesis latches on to the fact that there indeed would be some local floods in the middle east. The issue is that such a flood wouldn't leave a flash-flooded area under water for a year. I suppose Noah could wander off to sea, but the idea that he wouldn't be able to get back to land from the Mediterranean or the Red Sea is a bit silly.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Anon, I know you did not expect me to watch videos for 5 hours and come back to you with a response.
                I expect you to educate yourself in the evidence, anon. I gave you the resources, now it's up to you to pick them up. But from now on you can never say that there is no evidence for the Tower of Babel or the Exodus anymore. Not in an honest way, at least.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah so as I said, you did not want to continue the conversation. That wouldn't be possible if I had to look at videos for 5 hours.
                I have no issues with looking at primary material and potentially revising my stance, but I won't get my information directly from InspiringPhilosophy since I've seen him misrepresent scientific information before.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                The reason you don't make your own argument and present the evidence yourself is because you don't understand the evidence or arguments that you put forward, you simply look up a video that claims to "PROVE THE EXODUS" or "PROVE MOSES," and you accept the claims uncritically without examining the evidence yourself.
                By the way this
                >the current academic consensus is that the Exodus story was inspiried by real events. It has shifted from its prevous position as pure myth, and it will continue to do so in the future.
                Is the exact opposite of reality.
                Early 20th century archaeologists went digging around in Palestine expecting to find abundant evidence for the Exodus and conquest narratives, and then they didn't.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Depends on how you define "regional", according to Genesis, Noah was unable to find land for a year, so based on that we can speculate on the size of the flood.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                It repeatedly states that it’s the whole world and all humans except Noah and his crew are wiped out.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                If everything and everyone around you sank and drowned in a flood and you were unable to find land for an entire year, you'd reasonably conclude that the whole world was flooded.

                The Bible is not written from God's objective perspective, only from our own subjective perspectives.

                Stop thinking like a protestant.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                A flood of that magnitude would leave a mark in the geological record. The "local flood" hypothesis as constructed to not conflict with scientific data doesn't present a flood lasting a year.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >A flood of that magnitude would leave a mark in the geological record.
                It has, you're just being silly.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Atheists BTFO

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                The fine tuning argument suggests that if some of the physical constants of the universe are only slightly altered, any number of things necessary for life would not be possible, like stable matter, nuclear fusion, long-lived stars, and other things like that.

                http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/fine2.pdf

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yes I know, I’m open to the possibility of a creator being, I’m saying the Christian story is bullshit. In fact if God is real and cares at all what you think God is probably furious that you think he’s a 30 year old virgin that got killed by guys with iron spears and wood.

            • 2 days ago
              Anonymous

              >Once upon a time Atheists unanimously believed Jesus was totally fictional
              Where did you get this? Never heard anyone claim that before.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                He made it up. Christians are inherently dishonest snakes.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Atheists aren't very intelligent. Polls done by Pew Research prove most Atheists don't even list "disbelief in God" as their top or second-top reason for being Atheists. The first two reasons are basically "I'm a Liberal homosexual and Christianity violates my willfulness to worship Baal and the Democrat Party" and "I don't like church"

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                You posted this before and it was shown you were wrong. You know this, so that means you either got amnesia or you're just lying for Christ.
                Which is it?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                I posted what before? I just now snipped that image off of an article I found. I think you're arguing with the ghosts in your head again, anon.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Polls done by Pew Research prove most Atheists don't even list "disbelief in God" as their top or second-top reason for being Atheists.
                You posted this before. It was shown to you that the poll was only conducted in the US and that, more importantly, what you called "atheists" also included agnostics and people who didn't identify with any major faith. When looking only at atheists, the poll said the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                This has been debunked. Regardless, you ignored the image I posted that claims most Australians disbelieve Jesus was real or doubt it, after you claimed "I've never heard an Atheist say that". Let's go one at a time here, anon. Concede that you were wrong about that and we can move on.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Regardless, you ignored the image I posted that claims most Australians disbelieve Jesus was real or doubt it
                Because 1)I don't care what dumb bogans think and 2)if you look at the actual article, you'll see that the title is misleading.
                >after you claimed "I've never heard an Atheist say that"
                I didn't claim that. My first post itt was

                You posted this before and it was shown you were wrong. You know this, so that means you either got amnesia or you're just lying for Christ.
                Which is it?

                .
                >This has been debunked.
                Will you concede that you were lying for Christ? How will you repent if you keep on piling more lies on by denying the first lie?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                You got btfo in the Pew Research argument. It was proven that Atheists were a tiny minority of delusional and angry transgender ma'ams, and it was proven that they arrived at their opinion not through logic but through undiluted tranny rage against religion. The fact you're still angry you lost that discussion is sad.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >it was proven that they arrived at their opinion not through logic but through undiluted tranny rage against religion
                And so you continue piling on more lies. Do you have no shame? Isn't lying against your religion?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, the layman Atheist typically thinks Jesus is a myth. Only a very tiny minority of Atheists that bother with in-depth discussion will concede that Jesus was real, the rest will just cope and seethe and make subhuman-IQ insults about Jesus being imaginary.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                But Jesus didn’t exist. The historical consensus is a lie christisraelite peddle using their shaboo goy Ehrtman, there is not a single survey asking historians if Jesus was real.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                You said once upon a time all atheists claimed that Jesus never existed as a human being and was purely fictional. You're the first person I've ever seen make that claim. Seems difficult to prove or even support with evidence.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                I've proven that right now in the current year, most Australians don't believe Jesus was real. So you've already conceded the argument that a huge amount of Atheists were incorrect about Jesus, now I'm just dwindling you down post by post.
                >A survey for the Church of England suggests 40% of people in England do not believe that Jesus was a real person.
                And now that's England's Atheists proven as brainlets. Need I go on, tranny man?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Are they unanimous in this like you claimed?
                >40%
                oh

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      You should try to figure out what's wrong with the logic in your post by substituting things that you don't have a irrational emotional conviction to.

  8. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    christians arguing that the gospels are good evidence for the resurrection is like someone trying to convince you that an American auto-worker died and rose from the dead in 1933 and their proof is four pamphlets published by some weird cult in the 60s (and they all plagiarize each other).

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      Their proof is also that the auto-worker's grave site is empty

      • 2 days ago
        Anonymous

        no, it's that the cult pamphlets SAY it's empty

        • 2 days ago
          Anonymous

          Tacitus is a reliable historian and claims Jesus was a real person executed by Pontius Pilate. So that means one of two things
          >one, we can find Jesus' body somewhere and prove that he was not risen from the dead
          >two, we cannot find Jesus' body somewhere which proves he was risen from the dead

          • 2 days ago
            Anonymous

            >we cannot find Jesus' body somewhere which proves
            top notch logic

            • 2 days ago
              Anonymous

              Come on anon, don’t you know that every dead body from 2000 years ago still exists?

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                >implying skeletons older than 2,000 years don't exist
                Anon...

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Nope, what you’re implying is that every dead body from 2000 years ago still exists and is discovered as you’re positing we would absolutely find Jesus’s body if he didn’t ascend into heaven.
                Im mocking you because it’s moronic.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                As long as you admit that you can't find a body, and that you can't disprove Jesus ascended into Heaven. That's good enough as a concession for me. Personally, I would have expect you to say "well maybe we'll find it someday" instead you went straight into the "we'll never find it but that doesn't matter" cope. Interesting.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Was Jesus mummified like that image?
                You are on the ropes, thank you for making Christians look bad. It makes my job easier.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                No, but the dinosaurs also weren't mummified like that image, neither was this skeleton found in Vietnam mummified.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                Almost zero dinosaurs get preserved out of the population and mummification is extremely rare. Most dead bodies from 2000 years ago are rotted away into dust and water.

              • 2 days ago
                Anonymous

                you will never find the ashes of julius caesar therefore he was assumed into heaven by the gods

  9. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    >how cognitive dissonance explains atheism
    fixed your thread, yw.

  10. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    Like all psychology it's a joke

  11. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    Kinda crazy that christians feel ashamed of jacking off but then feel no shame over lying.
    Seems like a case of misplaced priorities.

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      I sometimes wonder if they’re so mentally Ill that they’re just in denial, but it does seem like some of them are consciously lying.

  12. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    You have to wonder how a Christian can possibly justify their continued belief in their god when their original texts and their priests who said “the text is wrong, god actually meant this” are wrong and the first people to actually answer the question are scientists.
    It’s all emotion, no logic or reason.

  13. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    Saw this funny video of a whiny voiced Liberal Professor at a college asking a question to a campus preacher guy and then walking away before he gets an answer. Kek, you can actually hear how shaken he was in his voice, how unsure he was in his beliefs, all of it a product of his inability to control his emotions. Sad how terribly these people have been led astray, to the point they don't want answers that could damage their Atheistic beliefs, they just want to be angry.

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      Wow man that totally changed the fact that your Bible and priests made claims about the creation of the earth supposedly delivered from the creator and they’re all wrong.

      • 2 days ago
        Anonymous

        >he's actually defending a whiny liberal professor crying in public then running away when a Christian gives him an answer
        kek, the absolute state of atheism.

  14. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine a guy with a large following back in the day wrote a book that the Himalayas were created in three days on the spot. Night came then the next day, x 3

    As time goes by and civilization advances, people just find the story less believable so his priests say things like oh he didn’t actually mean a day he means like a day is one thousand years, They say it happened all at once in an instant, they come up with these different interpretations that are not 3 days anymore.

    Remember this guy based his following off of being correct because he was supposedly privy to this information while others weren’t.

    Then it’s eventually discovered that the mountains formed 40 to 50 million years ago.
    The followers refuse to accept this, doesn’t that sound like unhinged, delusional cult behavior to you?

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      Remember, they refuse to accept they were wrong, and just pretend they weren’t. They claim they always meant 40 to 50 million years despite the fact that we can all read what they used to think before geology revealed the answer.

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      Remember, they refuse to accept they were wrong, and just pretend they weren’t. They claim they always meant 40 to 50 million years despite the fact that we can all read what they used to think before geology revealed the answer.

      Now while some of the smarter and more reasonable people conclude, “that guy and his cultic priests were lying, they didn’t actually know, they were making things up.

      Others just pretend it’s not true and get locked further into the cult, denying truth itself. These are the kind of people you’re dealing with.

  15. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    you mean the masonic revolution which paved the way for the state of the west now lol. It would be wise to know who's really your enemy cuz it aint us if you think "christcucks" are responsible for the state of the things oh boy do you got another thing coming.

  16. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    You could use the same arguments on Islam and polytheistic religions too. The reason you don’t is because of a selective group of people you hate with clear bias. Your arguement is dishonest.

  17. 2 days ago
    Anonymous

    Appeal to emotion fallacy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *