Me and my bruddas agree Nietzsche is bad so god obviously exists cause morals aren't relative

I don't think thus guy says "christianity is right", I think he says "there is an objective good, and we worship it in temples".
Like, the agreed on common sense christian ethics about inherent value of people, about doing good, about private ownership and so on, are objectively good, and thus we formed a cult around these universal truths.

I don't agree, but it must be said it works. Its a great placebo, and as long as religion exists to reaffirm it, its a great way to allow for a few million people to live on top of each other in a city that doesn't have a single farm.

If people's idea of justice came from God we would all have the same conception of it. yet it varies widely across time and cultures

...

Atheists express rage towards theists trying to run society based on a very old book.

no, C.S. Lewis is a christian apologist arguing specifically for christianity, even if he uses more general arguments for God. He still tried to justify Jesus being the son of God in spite of what he admitted was an error

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman.

You like quotes?

>“Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side … the facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance” (World’s Last Night, p. 97).

really makes you think

>it's OK when we do it!

But evolution is observable and provable.
We have genetics now for fucks sake, its an almost mathematical proof of natural selection.
You eat plants that we "evolved" in laboratories.

buddy do you know what projecting is?

not this shit again
literally EVERY DAY with this

This is a really dumb argument. I don't see how it follows that because my thoughts are wholly natural, under no circumstances can they be trusted.

Why are christcucks to easy to troll?

Is it the fact that they're all virgins?

Monkey-to-man evolution is not observable or provable.

You are committing the equivocation fallacy.

>science is bad because it's a religion!
So what is Christianity then...?
I don't know where you are going with this.

>Monkey-to-man evolution is not observable or provable.

Monkey-to-man evolution isn't claimed either.
It is claimed that "monkey" and man come from the same ancestor, not that "monkey" is man's ancestor.

Also "monkey" is hundreds of species, and this isn't true for all of them. Which ones do you mean?

He said evolution, not science.

Evolutionism is a religion, science is not.

youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

Atheists don't exist.

Fine, let's make it

>evolution is bad because it's a religion!
So what is Christianity then...?
I don't know where you are going with this.

Now actually respond to the post

Your religion is false, my religion is true.

The Way, the Truth and the Life.

>presuppositional

What even is "Evolutionism"?
Your problem is that you literally do not understand what you are talking about.
I would bet anything you learned everything you "know" about evolution from some creationism pamphlet.

Trying to find the argument in your post..

Nope, couldn't find it.

and how do you know this? so hear's the dichotomy we have according to you

>evolution believer takes it on faith
>christian takes it on faith

How do we go from this to you are correct?

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

evolution is an un-scientific myth

>Y-you just don't understand it!

No user, YOU don't understand evolution.
trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php

It's an attempt deny the structural distinction between Scientific knowledge and religion. One is a dogmatic system based on a 2000 year old text, the other consists of constantly adjusted facts based on repeatable experiments.

You can't be serious.

Here's the thing. There is no difference in mechanism between 'monkey to man' evolution or variation within species. Everything in evolution is reducible to mutation, selective pressure, etc.

Christian believer instinctively knows his views are true, evolution believer has to be taught and educated to hold such views.

It wasn't intended to be. Nor is presuppositional apologetics intended to convince anyone to become a christian

Please show me the repeatable experiments that showed animal kinds changing into different animal kinds.

youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

Presuppositional apologetics isn't intended to convince you to be a Christian either.

It's meant to show how absurd and irrational atheism is.

How do you know it's instinctual when Christians raise christians and muslims raise muslims? anyone raised a muslim and wants to convert to christianity has to learn about it

>bacteria meme
icr.org/article/do-bacteria-evolve-resistance-antibiotics/

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8

I think the idea of a "god", that is the idea of a universal constant in morality and ethics, that is always true, is a very instinctive one.
People raised by the wolves will also know what is "right" and what is "wrong".

>institute for creation research
>"bacteria do mutate, and those mutations are passed down the generations, but its not evolution!!!"

>potholer54

My nigga.

Yes there is.

One is observable, testable and repeatable.
The other is purely speculation and fantasy.

This guy's link
shows how evolutionists conflate the two.

The guy in this thread is completely right, though. Evolution is a myth from the pits of hell.

Now, say after me: "lah illaha illallah, muhammad rasul allah". Repent from shirk or go to hell

Describe the difference in these mechanisms.

but the God of christianity isn't "the idea of a universal constant in morality and ethics". now suppose we assume this is true, everyone instinctively knows there is a God. How do you get from this to christianity specifically is instinctual and not taught?

samefag

Animals reproduce after their own kind.

It's really simple, but the concept seems to go over your head.

Lewis was way ahead of his time.. it's 50 years later and he is still revolutionary, people still don't understand him.

i think it will take another 100 years until people actually realize what a genius he was.

>says OP after never responding to this

The only ones that still don't understand C.S. Lewis are militant atheists.

When you become a Christian, you realize how powerful and deep of a philosopher Lewis is. He completely destroys Nietzsche and nihilists.

That isn't really an explanation. I want to know the mechanistic differences between macro and microevolution.
Or, let me phrase it like this:
What causes evolution suddenly stop at speciation?

I'll give you that he was smarter than you because at least he could admit Jesus was wrong

DNA and genetics.

A dog does not have the genetic code to turn into a whale, cow or bird. It is impossible.

I suggest that the idea of God (universal objective "right") is instinctive, and that each culture is building up on that idea to come up with its religion.
Christianity is the liberal values western civilization religion. In other parts of the world, where freedom and liberty are less valuable, they came to different conclusions when examining their consciousness searching for that universal good.

Note, I am not even saying that there is such a thing, only that the idea of it is instinctual.
For example, the idea of atoms and molecules is not instinctual, it takes a lot of effort to think of stuff that way. Or the idea that the human body is just a society of genes who only work together to improve their odds of procreating, and not an autonomous actor.
We currently hold that the last two claims are true, and I hold them to be true, but they seem wrong. You have to try very hard to get them to fit, and to think they are correct. God is easy to assume to be true and correct. Its instinctive and seems right, feels good, fits easy.

that's not what "macro-evolution" is. it's subtle changes over long periods of time. there is no point where you could say "it is no longer the same kind" unless you count where two animals from common origins are no longer able to produce either offspring or fertile offspring. this specifically has actually been observed

That's not an explanation either. You described what makes evolution work, not why it suddenly and inexplicably stops at speciation. Why is it impossible for the genetics of a species to drift to the point of incompatibility.

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>The Laws of Nature
youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI

What if I feel the opposite, that it's instinctive to feel like an animal because we eat sleep and fuck but it's bizarre and weird to get told by a pastor that we have invisible souls and will be judged by some mysterious figure for "bad things" we did?

Whose feels dictate the way the universe works?

not really, "right and wrong" are taught and thus appear vastly different in different cultures. it's nothing more than an attribute of us being social animals that have to have a set of standards to be able to live together. of course your definition of God is so vague and meaningless that it could still fit with what I've said without there being anything spiritual to it. Allow me to define God now as the instinctual ability of humans to decide whether food tastes bad or good. people may have different ideas of a good or bad taste, but this ability to distinguish good taste from bad taste is instinctive.

Probably around 20% of dog DNA is an exact match to whale DNA.
Also, a dog doesn't turn into a whale. Rather, a dog turns into a bigger dog, turns into a dog that swims to hunt fish, turns into a bigger dog that swims to hunt fish, turns into a dog without fur since it doesn't need it anymore, now it lives always near water, and so on.
It isn't a binary thing.

If you told me you feel that way, I'd tell you that you are lying. Certainly I'd feel that you are lying, because you don't fit with the rest of the world I observe. People don't feel the way you describe, and I can only imagine you are ill or lying.

No evidence for that.
Pure imagination.

Dogs produce dogs and that's all we have observed throughout history. Dogs come from the original 2 wolves that God created.

but you should be able to observe how vastly different "right" and "wrong" are in different cultures.

see

Yes, because people are taught different things.
Take a chinese baby to grow up in a french family, and see if it turns out chinese or french in its views.

We hack our instincts and via education start believing things that don't seem intuitive at all.

What if I told you that I think that all religious people who claim to believe in God are lying in order to claim undue moral authority from their religious institution or some other selfish reason?

Is the solution that we should always expect everyone to be dishonest?

The solution is to trust your senses. These are the only facts you have. I know how I feel, I know what clicks and fits reality the easiest, and what requires a lot of indoctrination to make belong. And my own senses and feelings tell me you are wrong.
Why would I trust you over my mind? I wouldn't. And since we are the same, and our minds are the same, I know that either you are broken and can't feel things right, or that you can, and are lying for some reason that my circumstances haven't given me.

Well you've fallen into the same trap that CS Lewis does, you just can't imagine even the possibility that people could be different from yourself, therefore whatever you like and feel MUST be the same for everyone. It is impairing your ability to empathize with others and giving you a false sense of self-importance.
Oh well.

>idiots who know nothing about evolution are terrified of being related to monkeys

Really gets the synapses firing.

How does the idea that we are all alike make me self important? Its the contrary.
And if you imagine someone is different, thats you imagining it. It still comes from you. It is your mind producing that. You are crating that person as it suits you.
Rather I'd assume the person is the same as me, so that I am not the creator of that projection, but instead whatever created me. I'd trust my creator more than myself, because I am not a self important prick.

This post worries me. You might genuinely be a psychopath.

> I am not a self important prick.
But you just said that I am a liar, and a damaged sick person because I don't feel the same emotions that you feel and come to different conclusions?

Welcome to religious mentality. These are the same people who think that without god there is no reason not to rape, steal, and murder. A normal person does not think that way.

List some reasons not to rape, steal and murder, that can't be traced back to the deist idea of the inherent value of the human individual (because soul).

It causes harm to others.

S O L I P S I S M

Why is that a reason not to do it?

So? Why not harm them?

There's nothing Deistic about that, even Hammurabi's code had laws on stealing, killing and divorce.

Because it hurts people. You don't (or shouldn't) need a god to tell you why that's bad.
On the contrary, however, if something is bad because a god says so, then the suffering it causes is secondary at best.

Why not hurt people?

Hammurabi's code was written with God in mind.

I have empathy.

>it feels right
Good argument for God there.

Because it lowers peoples' quality of life.

Why do you care if it does?

That's a particularly shitty argument for God, actually.

Where does that empathy come from?

According to you, there is no purpose to life. There is nothing divine or absolute. There is no afterlife. You are just a blob of chemicals, a random accident. There is no meaning, everything is relative.

What prevents you from just fulfilling your urges by raping girls?

I want to see people happy and succeed, which, in turn, aids the prosperity of the species as a whole. And I want to see this happen because it makes me happy.

>According to you, there is no purpose to life.
What the fuck, since when did I say this, what makes you expect to get away with lying so freely?

>What prevents you from just fulfilling your urges by raping girls?
Empathy.

But here we go back in a circle because you think that any human emotions point to God.