Why should I believe in God?

What archeological evidence?

Descartes was most probably atheist or at least agnostic like Hobbes was, and was scared by the Church, so he added that complete bullshit "proof of God" argument in the meditations due to that.

People literally read the bible and go dig up the stuff in the bible. Anything from Jericho to the Hittites to the pool of Siloam to the war cisterns of Jerusalem to the burned wreckage of Sodom and Gomorrah.

>The more copies of a book we have the more reliable and trustworthy that book is
Well this I guess Lenin is super reliable and trustworthy, because his works were printed in hundreds languages and in hundreds millions copies.

>peopel literally read spider man to uncover places in spider man, like new york

Wahtever city they find, it wouldn't prove a deity would it?

You mean agnostic atheist? Most atheists are agnostics.

Do they?

>year 2016 of the dead kike on a stick
>not being enlightened by your own intelligence
Come on now.

Moses is now confirmed fake, so at least part of the bible is just entirely fictional novels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

Its not a history book.

"Archaeologists working at excavation sites like Megiddo in northern Israel, above, say that no evidence has been found to confirm biblical stories about a united monarchy ruling over a large area from Jerusalem or about the wanderings of the Jews in the desert during the Exodus."

What utter bullshit.

Go ahead and hypothesize what evidence a few million people wandering in the wilderness would leave 3500 years later.

Go ahead and imagine one single fucking thing that they would leave behind.

The spider man argument is honestly very stupid
Spider man isn't written with the intention to be anything more than a story.

Patterns of Evidence

Graves of their religious practice dating back to their era. Tools used by their culture.

"a few million people" a couple of ten thousands maybe at the most mate... seriously

Just believe whatever you are capable of believing in according to your intellect and temperament.

Let it be a natural discovery instead of a forced coercion.

Let's talk the bible.

>be dumb and don't test "god" heheh, you're just being "tested" instead of punished

>God gives lots of rules instead of freedom because He hates you being a homoxexual since He's the one making you a homosexual. Thus being this what HE wants and His will.

Anybody can understand this.

Easy to see: Oooooh, the devil is in the woooorld, and the devil wants to ruin mankiiiiind, so the devil forbids buttsecs and all manners of sexual and not sexual fun and makes you a slave of everybody turning you into a servant, just opposite of GOD.

Look what kind of faggot rewrote the bible.

>THIS IS DEGENERATE

Ah, you confess to hate what God wants of His humans? And that you want them bound to stupid rules that ruin lives and make life hell?
Rules you faggots don't even follow?

LOL

And my favourite: "God doesn't real"

Which translated means: Be stupid, don't start looking by yourself. Really, be stupid, can't you see how I'm laughing at you? No really, be stupid while I call you smart.

Anybody wanting to find God and the Christ should start looking from a freedom perspective, not from a slavery perspective, because if God makes a man that desires to be a woman, God wants this man to be so, and even wants this desire to come to reality because God loves humans, not demons that want to enslave you.

Buried in the sand. No tools were used. Food literally rained down from the sky. Nothing they owned wore out.

Now what.

[citation needed]

The men numbered over 600,000 iirc; can't remember if that was military men or just men. Either way, millions of people.

Go back on your meds.

>some people are destined to be gay at birth
I wish this meme would die.

Just because you're attracted to something doesn't mean you have to fuck it. Gay men have faked being straight and have successfully had sex with women and started families. So, even homosexuals can follow the "no gay sex" rule.

Not everyone is gonna get to marry and have sex with what they find the most attractive. I'm sorry, senpai.

why are you using blatant pol memes

Awareness of God is built into every human being. You don't need convincing, you were created that way. You just need to stop bullshiting yourself with childish atheism.

You got a problem with it?

Maybe you should start by providing a concrete example of a discovered artifact that is accurately described by a bible verse. Up until now all you've proved is that apostolic age texts and apostolic age artifacts seem to be from the same time frame.

>inb4 wishful thinking-tier wood scraps that are claimed as Noah's ark.

It's pretty cringy, dude. Rookie mistake.

I thought it was funny. Sorry to disappoint.

Sorry for straining your credulity, but some people really don't believe in gods. One can play this game from both sides:
>Privately, Mother Teresa experienced doubts and struggles over her religious beliefs which lasted nearly 50 years until the end of her life, during which "she felt no presence of God whatsoever"

“Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths–not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.”

John Garstang, a British archaeologist, was then the first person starting in 1930 to lead an excavation using more modern archaeological methods. He dug at Tell es-Sultan from 1930 to 1936. The two most notable discoveries by Garstang’s team was a collapsed city wall toward the top of the mound (built on top of a wall which was built on top of the revetment wall…yes, possibly 3 different vertical walls), and evidence of a thoroughly violent destruction of the city. Garstang dated, based on pottery found at the same depth, the city was destroyed around 1400 BC. In his own words he writes:

In a word, in all material details and in date the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative. Our demonstration is limited, however, to material observations: the walls fell, shaken apparently by earthquake, and the city was destroyed by fire, about 1400 B.C. These are the basic facts resulting from our investigations. The link with Joshua and the Israelites is only circumstantial but it seems to be solid and without a flaw.

t. Pascal

Do you mean the picture or the post itself? Because the post is pretty spot on, speaking as a gay man myself.

So rocks?

Not really a game, I'm not here to change your opinion, I'm just stating that each man can sense the presence of God if willing. It is perfectly fine not to do it, at this point in life I'd rather die than live that sort of life without spirituality and would probably feel empty and tortured like Mother Theresa (can't really say what made her that way)

Each man can sense the presence of whatever he likes if he grits his teeth and wills it hard enough. I'm sorry earth doesn't have anything you're interested though.

>Why should I believe in God?
Well it might provide some overarching framing narrative for your sense of self-worth. So if you are desperate for meaning it might help you cope.
On the other hand it introduces nonsensical cosmology, promotes judgmental and tribal behavior, and is a gateway to harmful cults so be careful.

Human imagination is just for fun, it's not really "sensing the presence of God".

Daily reminder that you must repent now. Also, daily reminder that explanations without God, like the fable of evolution, have been debunked again and again.

Repent, filthy sinners, or risk burning forever

...

...

...

>breathable air

Poe's law

...

...

...

...

...

i had an "atheist" prof, im saying atheist because here dont really care what you believe in
he said ppl can consider it as a risk
as a non believer.
if theres is god and yadda yadda you will go to hell etc
if there isnt you didnt lose anything

...

Yes, the exact fallen walls of Jericho, burned with fire, exactly as the bible states. Except that one corner remained upright.

The corner where a certain harlot managed a brothel, and allowed two Hebrew slaves to escape. Her corner of the wall did not fall down. And she gave birth to Boaz, who sired Obed, who sired Jesse, who sired David the King.

It's all real dude. Despite your disbelief.

...

...

So did they find a red lantern and evidence of harlotry? Did they find some scrolls mentioning Boaz? Or did they find some rocks and ash in a city that has been inhabited non-stop for like 7000 years.

Get the fuck out of my thread, you dense piece shit.

The city was buried. The survivors built a new Jericho.

Do you see how disingenuous your request for evidence is?

Obviously you don't know the experience I'm talking about. While calling it imagination, hallucination or wishful thinking might give you a feeling of intellectual superiority, it just sounds incredibly childish and uneducated from the point where I stand. Sorry

>when Grandpa finds Veeky Forums

tfw have grandkids

>Dumps shitty poorly drawn creationist comics
>Strawman argument

Are you retarded?

What even specifically is "childish and uneducated" about it? I don't get this specific insult. Seems kind of the wrong angle for you to take, why not go with "undignified" or some other word more aligned to the spiritual perspective?

How would you feel if I told you that I knew for sure that your mother and father did not exist?

>all smart people must be atheists like me

What we're saying is, it doesn't matter how we feel about it. I can demonstrate my parents to you - you can walk all the way around them in 3D and ask them questions. All you can do is attempt to assure me that your delusions have some 'real' basis.

How does agnostisism require a leap of faith?

How does deism and pantheism not require a leap of faith?

So you are saying you feel insulted when people contradict your worldview?

I'm sorry to tell you that people are going to have rational explanations for things that are going to be contrary to your overlapping spiritual terms that you have assigned onto real things. For example if I call something Imagination that you have assigned the additional spiritual category of Divinity, whose fault is it that you are upset? Is it mine for not anticipating your additional superimposed criteria, or is it yours for insisting on extra terminology? Since you are concerned with maturity and education, then why not take responsibility for the flaws in what you believe?

You can be true agnostic, at least, I am

So if I were to continually say you had no parents; that your mother and father did not exist, would you ultimately believe me?

Or would you think that my beliefs, contrary to what you knew to be the truth, were childish and immature?

He's only saying that you can't get all the way to Abrahamic Theism by reason alone.
IMO deism, pantheism, atheism all are least-common-denominator conclusions derived from relatively simple suppositions about the world around us.

Agnostic would be less than that, and require nothing but the ability to be satisfied by being ignorant and indecisive.

Deism is simple. Somebody made the universe, and it wasn't us.

Pantheism is simpler. One big God to do the big stuff like make the universe, and a bunch of other gods to handle other stuff.

It is my firmly held belief that you did not have a mother and a father.

>the arguments of Descartes
lel

The discussion of whether or not our parents exist doesn't end with just contradicting each other ad infinitum. I can PROVE my parents. You've already admitted that the only proof you have is your precious feelings.

Are you equating the reasonableness of having a biological father and mother to the reasonableness of believing in God? Categorically those two claims have different levels of falsifyability so that analogy is not as strong as I suspect you think it is.

Good smokescreen thought, like all analogies, since it redirects the discussion to a tangent issue.

Go ahead. Prove you have parents.

I'm invoking the exact same feeling that people telling Christians there is no God, or there was no Jesus, or Jesus did not rise from the dead, cause to believers.

Childish, immature denial.

You can be agnostic and unsatisfied

So you admit that it is a leap of faith?

Atheists make the same logical error that theists make, that we as humans are capable of understanding the mechanics of the universe to such a degree to make a decision one way or the other that god is or is not.

It's like arguing if we are really brains floating in a tube, there is no provable part of that statement in our current situation, so the only logical course of action is to admit lack of knowlege and wait for the event where we are in a position to make a logical conclusion.

>So you are saying you feel insulted when people contradict your worldview?
I think it's more taking issue with the lexicon of mocking dismissivness.

But I have a deep and abiding faith that I surly MUST have a father and mother, since I read a deeply moving fantasy novel once that described how wonderful and life-affirmed it would be to have a father and mother. Later I had a vivid and wonderful dream about them. Therefor I am absolutely certain beyond any rational powers of explanation that I have a father and mother.

I am absolutely livid at your childish and uneducated lies that contradicts my Truthful emotions.

You've already retreated from your original position (gg) of:
"there are no real atheists, just people deluding themselves" to
"people saying god doesn't exist is the same thing as me saying that another thing doesn't exist"

Which I'm glad you did do that - because plenty times in history philosophers and scientists have thrown out entire categories of science when they came up with better answers. Things that seemed very real until all of a sudden they weren't.

Phlogiston... gone.
Humours... gone.
God... next.

Trust me you don't want to go down this route, because you're arguing that an assertion can be proven wrong while simultaneously holding onto the untested assertion that there is a skydaddy.

If you are agnostic and unsatisfied, you would likely identify yourself as a "seeker" or some such nonsense.

I have to define faith first. Faith is not a religious word; it is a human ability. Specifically, it is the human ability to believe things you have not seen. Everyone has faith, in different measure, and everyone uses faith.

So by faith I know Jesus rose from the dead, even though I did not see it. By faith I know Jesus ascended into heaven, even though I did not see it.

For you, your first "leap of faith" is to admit that you really do not know anything for sure. Once you're there, you have a foundation to receive information not only from empiricism, by sight, but revealed knowledge from God through His prophets, and through His Son, by faith.

[citation needed]

That logical error applies to everything though. Every word we've invented for anything is a specifier for a specified object that we can't necessarily prove exists. Arguments for and against a god exist in the same playing field as arguments for and against a spatula in my kitchen. What we have got to realize is that the burden of proof rests on the claimant - that is - the person who claims "there is a god."
Atheists merely say "there's no good reason for that assertion so I'm going back to doing whatever else I was doing."
inb3 semantic discussion of atheism vs agnosticism, it just doesn't matter.

My actual position is "there are no atheists, just millions of shitty little gods running around".

Your earthly father is less real than my heavenly Father; yours depended upon mine for existence.

There is nothing unprovable about God; one day you will know, for sure, that Jesus is God. Your knee will bend, your tongue will confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord.

And my assertion that you have no earthly parents is just as valid as you saying I have no heavenly Father.

>What even specifically is "childish and uneducated" about it? I don't get this specific insult. Seems kind of the wrong angle for you to take, why not go with "undignified" or some other word more aligned to the spiritual perspective?
Do you have children? It is exactly the same like when I talk to my daughters about things, they keep making silly arguments. It's not that they are stupid, they are very bright, doubt they will get much smarter in life, but they lack the experience. When you acquire life experience that is relevant to spiritual discussion it would be visible in your talk. Sorry for not continuing, due to lack of stamps one can easily derail discussion here

I've already made the first "leap of faith" (though I wouldn't call it that at all) logically my interpretation of my senses is imperfect and I do not grasp the whole truth or even a decently large portion of human knowledge.

Explain how the logical admittence of my own ignorance allows me to make an assumption that is not evidence based (all evidence pointing to god is strongly debated, weak evidence)

Back to blanket assertions of TRUF.
Dude you're an intellectual coward.
"One day you are going to stub your toe on the coffee table and realize that no divine being would put you through this much agony, and your faith will be shattered as the waves upon the rocks" - Shiggy 10:3

>have silly impossible worldview
>inevitably leads to contrary explanations
>"It's everyone else's fault that I'm mad! They are being so immature!"

Allahu akbar.

You can make intelligent decisions that are evidence based, not necessarily fact based. If there truly was a spatula in your kitchen, you could go there and through interpretation of sensory data and repeatable testing, conclude that there is logically a spatula in your kitchen.

Now if you walk up to me and ask me if you have a spatula in your kitchen, i've never been in your kitchen, there is no way to inspect evidence or test if you do in fact have a spatula in your kitchen. If I say anything other than "I don't know" I am making an illogical assumption or a leap of faith.

By being an athiest you are taking an illogical leap of faith that you understand the universe.

(Note repeating burden of proof wont change this fact)

Seems like you are projecting your parental authority complex onto an internet discussion.