The "prove God exists" take is dumb in several levels.
>Faith doesn't use proof in the scientific sense. If it did, it would stop being faith.
>The need for proof is actually on atheists to OTHER SCIENTISTS. If you want to base your arguments on science, use the goddamn scientific method. Prove it and peer review it, otherwise its just philosophy disguised as science, which becomes neither because there's no experiment and just aims at acting smug without adding anything to anyone.
>They have zero right criticizing religious people when they themselves have no theory of how the universe came to be.
If you actually want proof of it, release a study proving or disproving it and peer review it. See how well it does and THEN we can say you can say you use science.
It's just a fart in the wind otherwise in scientific terms.
That's not how science works. The onus is on (You) to prove your theory of the divine.
Science has shown that multiple tenants of the Abrahamic desert trilogy never happened; such as all animals descending from a single pair, the global flood, and the Earth being 6,000 years old.
>That's not how science works. The onus is on (You) to prove your theory of the divine.
We did with our own criteria. We never proclaimed ourselves as scientific.
You are the ones wanting it to be when it never was.
If YOU want scientific proof, YOU go after it. We never claimed having it.
>Science has shown that multiple tenants of the Abrahamic desert trilogy never happened; such as all animals descending from a single pair, the global flood, and the Earth being 6,000 years old.
Have ya heard about metaphors?
And no it's not a recent thing. Saint Augustine is cited multiple times reading books of the scripture that way several times.
>T-the ridiculous parts are just metaphors!!
Typical.
The Bible is more than just a single book, there are several. Some are historical accounts, some aren't.
Y'all demanding I read every book in a store like they are all historical just out of cynism.
>has faith in shit he hasn't even read
Christcucks, everyone.
>haven't read himself and attributes that to the other party, just to avoid the point
Atheists, everyone
Wrong.
It literally lists the order god did things and how much time passed, there is almost nothing else listed. The least believable parts of the OT are basically bullet points of things that happened in the story in sentence form.
Anyone can read it and see how incredibly full of shit you are.
Also you refuse to touch this
because it’s a direct refutation of the op
>It literally lists the order god did things and how much time passed, there is almost nothing else listed. The least believable parts of the OT are basically bullet points of things that happened in the story in sentence form.
And you, as an outsider, expects me to read about a talking snake as 100% factual and historical, dispite actual doctrine against, just because?
At least know more about what the vatican preaches so you actually have basis for anything.
I didn't reply it because its a blatant fallacy.
See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Examples
Not even gonna waste my time.
>And you, as an outsider, expects me to read about a talking snake as 100% factual and historical
It was a story cooked up in the Bronze Age anon, yeah. Talking animals are a part of a lot of myths.
>didn't reply it because its a blatant fallacy.
It’s perfectly scientific to not believe things exist that haven’t been proven to exist. Get over it.
>It was a story cooked up in the Bronze Age anon, yeah. Talking animals are a part of a lot of myths.
Have you ever heard of symbolic reading? It paints an image that makes easier for less instructed people to digest bigger concepts.
And around 99% of people from most of history werent even able to read. Hence all the paintings.
>Disregards the fallacy and sticks to it, doubling down
Sure champ.
Are the zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem a metaphor? What about the raising of Lazarus?
Personifications of the evils we all experience.
So its symbolic, but also very palpable.
What led you to that conclusion?
The fact that I can extract value for myself from that text if read that way. Which is the entire point.
Both.
It happened and we have historical accounts outside the Bible to prove, and a lot of value can be taken if read metaphorically.
>The fact that I can extract value for myself from that text if read that way.
That doesn't necessarily mean the text wasn't meant literally.
What would be the point of the text then?
To give us an account of the events surrounding Christ.
Ah yes, because believable that snakes knew how to talk and that humans had language since forever.
It's cynism at this point.
About as believable as the resurrection.
You don't have to believe it how I do.
What about the crucifixion? I suppose that is also symbolic.
Any claim anyone makes does not have to be accepted as true by default in any context including a scientific context.
Also sidestepping criticism of the veracity of text by branding it metaphorical could be done with any myth and it would also be a coping mechanism by the person who believes it.
Augustine was writing maybe 2000 years after genesis was concocted and passed down orally, it would literally be like me saying the story of jesus was always intended to be a metaphor.
I’ve read Augustine’s justification and the large majority of it is him explaining that even 3rd century Romans were smart enough to know it’s fiction, don’t make Christians look dumb by claiming it’s true, it’s obviously not.
He wasn’t presenting some Iron Age scroll he found about how it’s a metaphor, he was saying “this isn’t believable, don’t publicly embarrass us, we need to convert more people”
>Any claim anyone makes does not have to be accepted as true by default in any context including a scientific context.
It's not my point though.
It's not the point to science to prove nor disprove God. It should absolutely indiferent. For several reasons.
It's not something claimed to be scientific. It's not able to be experimented on. Its not even approachable by any scientific field, just philosophy.
It's not a scientific concern.
First of all I want to clear something up for you. If someone asks you to prove a claim you made that isn’t restricted to scientific studies. If my co-worker claims he has a Lamborghini and I ask him to prove it, scientific studies don’t need to enter the equation, this is a basic everyday thing people do.
That being said, if the Christian god was real you absolutely could prove it with a blind study on prayer and its effects. If you test 1000 people praying and it doesn’t do anything outside the predictable chains of cause and effect as the universe normally functions, the null hypothesis hasn’t been rejected.
What is your level of science education to be making these claims of how it works and how it doesn’t work?
>If someone asks you to prove a claim you made that isn’t restricted to scientific studies.
Would you accept the reasoning in the doctrine then? Because I don't think you would.
>That being said, if the Christian god was real you absolutely could prove it with a blind study on prayer and its effects
Not how prayers work, nor is their intended purpose to wish something like its a genie.
>What is your level of science education to be making these claims of how it works and how it doesn’t work?
Whats your level of theological education to know what the experiment should be on even?
>Would you accept the reasoning in the doctrine then?
Give it your best shot. Not an hour long YouTube video either, your own summation.
>Not how prayers work, nor is their intended purpose
Yes it literally is. I swear you motherfuckers on this board never stepped foot in a church. Catholics and Protestants both believe and preach that god can and does answer at least some prayers.
>Whats your level of theological education to know what the experiment should be on even?
Clearly that’s more than you as you are denying Catholics preach that prayers are never answered by God. You’re either bearing false witness or you’re not an actual confirmed Catholic.
>Give it your best shot.
It's always a subjective proof, because God shows himself in different ways to different people.
To a lot of people (me included) its not a thing chosen by me, but the thing that chose me. And from then on more and more things clicked the more I tried to stray away from it. The harder I avoided, the harder it pulled me.
You obviously won't call it proof of anything, which is why I said there's no "proving" this. It's highly personal and inseparable from the person's history.
The doctrine itself doesnt spend a single second proving this, just elaborates with that as a starting ground.
>Yes it literally is.
No it isn't.
Prayer in the Catholic Church is "the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God."[1] It is an act of the moral virtue of religion, which Catholic theologians identify as a part of the cardinal virtue of justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_in_the_Catholic_Church
The "requesting of good things" isn't shit like "I want this new car", prayers are also requests you make to yourself calling upon gifts of the spirit. Nothing as mundane as you think. Not to mention thanksgiving.
If it was like you said the story of Moses should've played out different with the Pharaos prayers.
>You’re either bearing false witness or you’re not an actual confirmed Catholic.
Baptized and certified theologian in the history of the church.
>Prayer in the Catholic Church is "the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God."[1]
>or the requesting of good things from God."
>he "requesting of good things" isn't shit like "I want this new car
Any request for something to happen that god would fulfill would be a testable hypothesis.
Of course you will never ever concede defeat here, you have devoted your life to a lie and it would be devestating to admit this is fiction.
>isn't shit like "I want this new car",
You have never interacted with Christians in real life and it shows.
uhm excuse me anon but he said that he had a phd in larpology.
istg every atheist pseud that wants to talk about the Bible knows jack fucking shit about the Bible
I don’t need to read books about leprechauns to know that they don’t exist
Then you admit to be absolutely out of your league when in a threa dabout something you yourself admit to not have read?
I’m not that anon. I’ve been to Bible school and was forced to Bible study groups as a teenager. All it made me do is realize that Christcucks are control freaks and their solution to people calling them out on their logical inconsistencies is to bury them under mountains of empty rhetoric and then act like they’re the asshole for not wanting to slog through it all
I’ve read the Bible and went to church for 16 years in different churches, I was a confirmed Catholic and belonged to a Bible study group so you don’t have to.
It’s bullshit, you’re not missing anything.
>I refuse to engage with this issue scientifically, (You) do it for me!
>And if science does contradict my book of fairy tales, I'll just call it a metaphor anyway
Ok pal, this conversation is over
>the 6,000 years are actually just a metaphor for a different amount of years
Bravo.
Buffoon.
The Christian white flag of surrender.
>Saint Augustine is cited multiple times reading books of the scripture that way several times.
Augustine believed everything listed actually happened, you drooling retard.
>an actually based post from a namefag
Broken clock and all that.
Redditor
not an argument albeit
Science doesn’t dictate that anything which isn’t scientifically proven to not exist, exists.
Not believing in something which hadn’t been proven to exist is perfectly appropriate and normal within a scientific context and frankly just a regular common sense context.
This seriously has to be one of the dumbest and blatantly uneducated boards on LULZ.
Unreal.
doesn't use proof in the scientific sense.
Then stop trying to force your israelite fairytales on other people. If it's so great, then surely you believe in it for its own reasons and not just because it's something to make other people do.
My favorite genre of Christian argumentation is when they cite their own Bible like “you expect me to believe this stupid shit actually happened”
Just several levels of comedy there.
There's nothing to disprove, because nothing has been observed. God at the moment is about as real as little green men on Kepler-452b.
God is merely a metaphor.
The trinity is an anthropomorphizing of Pythagorean philosophy. It's why it's always illustrated as a triangle.
Pythagorus also had a cult. He was a bit of a strange dude.
So what did the good lord above mean, metaphorically, by
>And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
>And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
Or did he actually mean this literally, and every christian on the planet is damned eternally because we don't give priests animals to burn after we have children anymore?
What sense would that make when every christian denomination preaches the exact opposite?
That's why pieces of text taken out of context have the sole purpose of distorting the meaning of the Book they were in.
And admit it, you just pasted those because you want to win an internet argument out of spite, not because you actually care.
That's interesting because you're saying that the word of man supersedes the word of God, unless you believe the Bible isn't His word? In which case, why would you count yourself as Christian?
As for being out of context, it's Leviticus 12, and the context therein is God describing the rules that his disciples must follow. It is as pure as you can get, God mandating His good worshippers directly.
As for your last line, I have no clue what on earth you mean. Are you implying that anybody who actually looks at the Bible is only doing so out of spite? How would the motivations even matter, considering all I'm doing is presenting you with THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD, WHICH ALL ABRAHAMICS BELIEVE BY DEFINITION IS THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD NO MATTER WHAT.
Spinoza proved God in the 1600s
Not the Christian god
Not a god of any religion actually
Jehovah isn't God. Only God is God.
Not disagreeing that the Christian god isn’t god
Surely you mean HaShem?
Who?
Elohim? Adonai? El? YHWH?
You mean Jehovah?
You mean Yahuhe?
No Yeeheewoohoo
doesn't use proof in the scientific sense
The dumb thing in these conversations isn't that they shouldn't dispute faith with science, the problem is that they engage at all with people who rank faith above science. Boiled down to its bare essentials faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and by definition an irrational position. If you take a fundamentally irrational position, and won't actually open your mind at all to logic based approaches, then the people engaging with you are stupid for thinking that you are someone smart enough to listen to reason.
This is the problem with all incredibly smart people who pursue logic based positions in theology to try and find the most accurate religious position. They spend all of their lives pouring over thousands of texts using proper rationality to find an answer, yet the entire endeavour is useless because religion itself is not a ration position, and should not be taken seriously.
I hate to sound like a typical smug atheist, but religion panders to the weak and gullible. Do you need to invest kike fairytales so you can behave morally, or be at peace with the fact that you will die? I find the argument "If you don't have a religion, why do you keep living" monumentally pathetic. If you removed all the thousands of years of precedent surrounding religion and described to someone that has never heard of religion before, and said that you support and create mythical stories about supernatural beings to comfort yourself and guide your decision making, and you think that faith itself is enough to justify this position, they'd think you are a spineless retard.
Religion served a purpose when humanity had no ability to understand the world around them, but now they do, whats the point in it all?
>whats the point in it all?
Faith is a choice.
Always was.
you sound like pic rel but honestly accurate
>Atheist: "There is no God!"
Me: "What evidence is there for that?"
>Atheist: "I'm not making a claim!"
>God is real
>evidence?
>NO YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST!!!
>dudes off work at regular jobs are casually destroying Catholic theologians on LULZ
>They have zero right criticizing religious people when they themselves have no theory of how the universe came to be.
It's intellectually honest to have no theory. To criticize someone positing a theory engenders intellectual rigor.
There's also the old saying that you can't prove a negative.
>DON'T ASK ME TO PROVE THE THING I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IS REAL YOU JUST HAVE TO.....LE BELIEVE OKAY!??!?!?!
>Faith doesn't use proof in the scientific sense. If it did, it would stop being faith.
Yes anon, we know. Faith doesn't rely on proof period. Have you not heard the story of doubting Thomas touching Jesus's wounds? The moral of the story is that you should not doubt until you have certain proof, but "take it on faith".
I'm fine if you take it on faith, but don't act like we just don't understand the different epistemology that naturally applies to matters of religion.
>They have zero right criticizing religious people when they themselves have no theory of how the universe came to be.
Few atheists believe for certain there is no God, we just don't believe in any gods.
There's a difference between believing all cardinals must be red and not believing there are black cardinals because you've only ever seen red cardinals in the wild.
OP why the fuck do you worship someone who can’t even prove his own existence to you? If I was to start sucking a diety off I’d at least want more evidence of his cock than “It’s totally real and his cum tastes like vanilla just believe”
>the opponent of a particular claim has the burden of proving that the proponent's claim is wrong
what the fuck are you even saying, you humungous retard? If you propose something, you always have the burden of proving it. This is logic 101.