Do you believe in God?

It's difficult because if an omnipotent creator did exist and didnt want us to know about it we never would, but there's no actual reasons to believe in god except for a book filled with inacuracies admitedly written by humans

>Do you believe in God?

I think that's an extremely difficult question that I can't conveniently answer with a yes or a no.

i believe in the one aka the good aka the sun

No.

pretty much this. I can make the case for Christianity, but the case for a god is a bit harder.

...

Yes

why did this idiot quote me

Im not sure desu, i don't think it''s provably either way

>desu
i meant t.b.h i don't know why it keeps doing that

Loled at the quote, YA SURE CONVINCED ME!!!

super cringey pic
y i k e s

nope.

How fucking new are you

Because there's nothing edgier than a meme answer to a serious question. I'm the person who posted the image by the way

p new tbqh family

memes arent that edgy

Nah, concerning the abrahamic god it's hard for me to give it any legitimacy after studying the ancient middle east.

>fedora pic
>uses edgy
>complains about memes
try being subtle next time pal

>calling someone new based on a correction
get out of here kid

I want to believe theres something out there larger than ourself other than the chaos that is the mostly empty universe.
Not necessarily a god or a deity or anyone/anything in control, but something more than us. We are primates with nuclear missiles and smartphones, there got to be something more to this.

If not, I guess I'm fine with it. I think.

More because he wasn't sure why t.b.h become desu, senpai. And for the record, I'm a lonely old mam, thank you very much.

I cant remember what butthurt was changed into, but I have a faint memory of it.

>I'm a lonely old mam, thank you very much.
s-sorry if i sounded rude, i fought you were a teenager

Certainly not in Yahweh.

Yes.

There is too much overwhelming evidence for the existence of a Creator God.
Atheism is illogical and unreasonable.

>Worst Objection to Theism: Who Created God?
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

yes. there is a god.

Yahwey / Jehovah / Adonai / LORD / The Most High / Lord of Hosts = the one true God, who created the universe and mankind.

The God of the Bible is the only real God.
He knitted you in your mother's womb.
He knew you before you were born.

He loved us so much that He became a man and died on the cross for our sins.

>open video
>squeeky teenage voice starts yammering
Do you expect me to watch all that shit? This is just VenomFangX with a new coat of paint.

god knits? lol gay

Not an argument.

>ad hominem
>doesn't address the arguments

>(((Yahwey))) / (((Jehovah))) / (((Adonai))) / (((LORD))) / The (((Most High))) / (((Lord of Hosts)))

Still not an argument.

oh sorry.

let me spend the next 2 hours watching those vids for the sake of an anonymous internet argument in a thread that wont exist in 4 hours and I'll get back to you.

That's 8 fucking arguments, each with probably 5-10 subsets of problems you want me to adress in a limited 3000 word response.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

that's a complicated question, and it depends entirely on what you mean by god

Please don't curse, this is a Christian website.

God is real. The real red pill is that he doesn't care about us

HABABABABABABAB LOOK HOW MAD I AM ARRRRRGH

The christian god? No, definitely not. Some other kind of deity or group thereof? Also no, but I'm not quite as certain in my disbelief here.

Also what the this guy fucking said. People who spam links to multiple youtube videos in these threads(really, it's probably just one very annoying little faggot, but I'll set that aside for now)aren't here to discuss anything, they're here to preach.

boo hoo

...

Boy, I sure love virgin vs chad memes that don't even attempt to be funny and are just a way for someone to state their opinions.

Actual Christian here.

"Cultural" Christians or Deus Vult shitposters are literally just LARPers. They don't actually believe in the Bible, they just like the benefits the faith brings to society.

Either be an atheist or a literal Bible-believer, don't be a lukewarm fence shitter.

>fence shitter
Shitting fences or shitting on fences?

ah, let them be, as long as they don't profess anything and just respect christianity and read aquinas. it's just transitional

t. ex-cultural chrisitan, now actual christ follower / believer

It's pretty much undeniable that the moral decay and destruction of family values, sanctity of marriage and life (we fucking kill babies in the womb in the millions) are the result of western civilization abandoning God and all that is holy.

How atheists in the right-wing (libertarians or alt-right /pol/tards) can't see this is really dumbfounding. They complain about forced multiculturalism, SJWs, homosexuals, transvestites, why children are shooting eachother up in schools, the normalization of pedophilia and beastiality, etc etc, but then don't realize it's because of the vacuum left by Christianity. At least traditional American conservatives do recognize this.

C.S. Lewis, Nietzsche and others all talked about this.

they blame it on communists, which of course, is a an atheistic - nihilist ideology. only proving the point further more.

This.

Although I'm not religious, nor deny the possibility of a higher being, one can't deny the importance of religions across the Earth.

It's also naive to think oneself or one group as truthful when humanity is ultimately imperfect.

It's always important to be open-minded and skeptical of any information given to us, for as we know, there are many fallacies that exist in our attempts to give meaning to the universe.

To all Veeky Forumstorians,
user

Hell no

>one can't deny the importance of religions across the Earth.
I don't think anyone does, but some people disagree about whether it's for better or for worse.

All cultures across written history have had some form of religion (in a broad sense of religion). Is it any wonder that with the decline of religion in the West we see a rapid increase in depression and anxiety disorders? I'm not saying we need something like religion of the past, but we need something to fill the void outside of television and social media.

Not in any religious, divine God. I’m more of a Deist / Agnostic who believes in the possibility of a Creator (or creators) who stepped back after the creation of the universe, leaving it to the laws of physics to organize it. There are no miracles, revelations or messiahs.
Maybe there is some kind of interference, but not in a way we can perceive. I like the metaphor that we’re like an ant colony next to a six-lane highway. We’re just living our lives, exploring what we can fit into our brains while there are far bigger, more advanced things going on. Sometimes the ant colony is affected by the highway, either on purpose or not, but we are way too stupid to understand it. It makes absolutely no logical sense to believe in established religions.
As for Christianity, we have historical evidence that the God of the Israelites was just their god of war, who became their main divine figure after the babylonian exile. It’s not special in any way.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
Not to mention how underwhelming or nonsensical the biblical miracles are. Turning water into wine? Is that seriosuly the best way you can show you are the son of the God who created nuclear fusion and relativity?

People are not more depressed or anxious. It’s just that it’s not taboo anymore to say that you have a mental illness and seek help. People used to keep it to themselves and suffer alone.
Also, there seems to be no correlarion between the level of importance of religion in a country and depression.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_depression

>>It's pretty much undeniable that the moral decay and destruction of family values
This is inherently subjective. Family values meant something very different a couple hundred years ago.
>>sanctity of marriage
Marriage throughout most of history had been more about political contracts then love or sanctity.
and life (we fucking kill babies in the womb in the millions)
Chemically induced miscarriages are not some new thing, nor are they all that terrible either.
>>are the result of western civilization abandoning God and all that is holy.
Try increasing wealth and technological advancement instead. You will find the description far more accurate.
>>How atheists in the right-wing (libertarians or alt-right /pol/tards) can't see this is really dumbfounding. They complain about forced multiculturalism, SJWs, homosexuals, transvestites,
Christianity is utterly incapable of doing anything to reverse this trend. A more specific issue by issue approach is required. What's more, homosexuals and transvestites are just oddballs who don't fit in with mainstream society, the real example of "degeneracy" you want to bitch about is transexualism and other sorts of tumblr-tier horseshit.
>>why children are shooting eachother up in schools,
A mix of social isolation and certain sorts of medications that are currently being over-prescribed to people they really shouldn't be is the cause of this problem.
>>the normalization of pedophilia and beastiality, etc etc,
Where in the fuck do you live that people think fucking little kids and dogs is a good idea?
but then don't realize it's because of the vacuum left by Christianity.
Heh, no. The causes of modern dysfunction are far more varied then that and your simplistic solution of a return to faith will not fix them.
>>At least traditional American conservatives do recognize this.
Traditional consevatives? You mean the market fundamentalist morons who let the GOP take a gigantic steaming shit all over the legacy of FDR?

>there's nothing wrong with murdering babies

This is the deranged mentality of God-hating leftists.

Yes.

>we have historical evidence that the God of the Israelites was just their god of war, who became their main divine figure after the babylonian exile. It’s not special in any way.

Though a common consensus, this has been recently challenged by scholars both confessional and secular. It is likely that Yahweh's characteristics are originally a kingly god with warlike elements. (Psalm 29:10; 2 Samuel 22) He is also a creator of some sorts, since he is Lord of Hosts, some passage may indicate that he is a creator of the holy ones (creator of his army? see Deut 33:2). It is also likely he is a god of justice since he shine like the sun and also a holy God who came from the south of Israel/Edom. (Habakkuk 3:3 and Deut 33:2) Furthermore he seems to demonstrate a sense of autonomy and reign over his own council (Deut 32:8-9)

The "canaanite myth" theory is utterly false. It's been debunked by actual Biblical scholars.

The only people that still peddle that crap are militant atheists who can't handle the idea that the events described in the Bible really happened.

>>chemically induced miscarriages
>>murdering babies
Blah blah. Pro-life retards are equal parts annoying and stupid.

This.

It's a product of the German 'higher criticism' thought which its entire purpose was to discredit the Bible. They already start with the notion that the Bible is false, and try to build a narrative from there. They're intellectually dishonest. They don't want to believe the Israelite story as it actually happened, so they concoct their own story. In their imagination, the Israelites evolved and stole from the Canaanites which is ridiculous and not true. They also make redundant statements like "Israelites worshipped pagan gods" which is confirmed in the Bible, the Israelites constantly fell into sin and idolatry, so it doesn't really contradict scripture at all.

It's just fedora history revisionism.

If you think murdering babies is acceptable, you have no consience.

You're a disgusting and evil person.

pro choicers stopped reading science journos after it stopped supporting their position. interesting.

>>The "canaanite myth" theory is utterly false. It's been debunked by actual Biblical scholars.
Your bible study class is not an actual academic environment and it shows how ill-informed you are that you confuse it for one.

Science agrees with pro-lifers and not baby-killers. Try keeping up with the latest news, Jimmy.

There is something to it, since their secular work has greatly helped with Christian scholars to understand the origins of Yahweh. If they didn't we would not see how the relation between Cemosh, Qos and Yahweh are actually interlinked in someway which expands the deities of the family close to the line of Abraham.

I could just repeat my post you responded to again and add a lol at the end but you won't listen so I'll just laugh at you and call you a faggot instead.

What position is that? That chemically induced miscarriages are not the same thing as infanticide? Because the only time I've ever seen that challenged is by imbeciles like you.

>atheists/commies actually defending the act of killing the unborn in the womb

you can't make this shit up. this is the state of nu-atheism, completely devoid of any morality

that's what i'm saying though

Then I would like you to challenge scholars in the field like Patrick D Miller, Moore Cross, Kitchen, Andersen, E. E. Elnes, Ben Sommer, Michael Heiser, F. Lelli, Zatelli, Wyatt, Hess or Olyan

youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs

youtube.com/watch?v=3NvHFPrxlFw

youtube.com/watch?v=oFIODjvzOFY

I'm convinced at this point that "pro-choicers" are demonically possessed.

It’s true that Yahweh was more than just a “god of war”, but he was still not Israel’s original main deity. It was trough a long and gradual process, involving Israel’s promotion of a “national god”, that Yahweh absorved the characteristics of El. And still, those Israelites were monolatrists until the the exile in Babylon.
The point is that, if you know the secular history of the Christian God, who was promoted as an ethnic god just like the patron deities of the other caanite tribes, was not unversally worshipped as a monotheistic god until the 2nd century BC, and even had a mother/consort in the original mythology, why would you believe in christian dogma? Or that he was any different from the god of the assyrians, persians or the other patron deities?

>>do a point by point rebuttal of the works of multiple people for the sake of some post on thread that will be gone long before that post is completed
Nah fuck off. Those guys are faggots and so are you.

Jews started out polytheist and became monotheist over time. This is fact no matter how much tedious christard or cultural christard revisionists try to claim it isn't.

Your theory has already been debunked.

Why do you believe in atheist dogma?

>my beliefs are facts!! i'm a retard and you can't stop me!!!!

The Biblical account is factual, and your illiteracy won't change that.

I am God.

You should use the bible as a guide to understand the political and cultural events of the time, but not as a source of divine revelation.

Why not?

See:
You already start with the presumption that the Bible is false, before even opening the book and reading it. From stage 0 you already have presuppositions and a bias against Biblical history.

You're not intellectualy honest.

It’s not atheism and how was it debunked? From a historical point of view, where did Yahweh come from? What I said is pretty much the academic concensus.

you either have to be a amoral nihilist, that decides it's more important for the woman who made poor choices, to be financially secure, than the life of the baby, or in complete denial of the facts.

>>biblical account
>>factual
lol no. You're a retard.

The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles clearly explain the history of Israel.

Even if you're a philosophical naturalist that rejects the supernatural and thinks this physical world is all there is - the books I've mentioned is mostly just basic history.

atheists think those stories were mostly exaggarated and inflated to make the hebrews look good, which is ridiculous because they recorded so many losses and embarassments as well.

the real issue is that they don't */want/* to believe. key word is WANT.
like
said. they have an innate hatred towards God, and they project this hatred through history revisionism. similar to how neo-nazis say the holocaust never happened because they hate jews and try to downplay their history

>You already start with the presumption that the Bible is false
No, you brainlet. You start from the presumption that the political and cultural events described in the Bible can be real, like the exile to Babylon or the ascension of Solomon. But you don’t believe that a floating hand wrote a message on the wall in the middle of the king’s feast or that Elijah was carried to Heaven on a chariot made of fire.
You also filter other events that don’t fit the historical narrative, like the Battle of Jericho.

>They already start with the notion that the Bible is false
No, modern scholars (many of whom are Christian) just approach the Bible the way you would any other document. Nobody thinks every word of the Bible is false, atheists just don't axiomatically assume that any of it is true and Christian scholars are able to distinguish between what they believe based on personal faith and what qualifies as historical scholarship. Rabid christfags like you have to distort the text to fit their biased assumption that it's completely true and try to avoid criticism from this by implying your opponents are subject to a symmetrical bias, but that just isn't the case.

You know how many times the Bible has been affirmed and proven correct after archeological discoveries? Every fucking time.

Bible critics had long sneered at references in the Bible to a people called the Hittites (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8, 17; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 1:4; Judges 1:26 and elsewhere). Their opinion was that the Hittites were simply one of the many mythical peoples made up by Bible writers. Some critics said they may have been a small and unimportant tribe. But the critics were off the beam!

Toward the end of the 19th century, Hittite monuments were uncovered at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria, proving the Bible right. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy (ancient Hattusas, capital of the Hittite Empire) in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents, revealing a wealth of information about Hittite history and culture. The centuries-old Hittite rubbish showed they were a real and formidable power. They were once one of the dominant peoples of Asia Minor and the Near East. They exercised considerable control south into Syria and Palestine.

The Bible was right all along! Today, no one questions the existence of the Hittites. Volumes of books exist on the history, art, culture and society of the Hittites. Yet an anti-Bible prejudice still exists. Scholarly people usually believe that if it’s in the Bible, it’s wrong. But the Bible is right and has always been right.

In 1974, Italian archaeologists found approximately 17,000 cuneiform tablets and fragments at the site of ancient Ebla in northern Syria. The inscriptions on these artifacts date them prior to the 24th century b.c. Noachian Flood. Similar finds were uncovered in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The tablets show that writing was common centuries before Moses. The critics can no longer claim that Moses and his contemporaries were illiterate or that the Pentateuch was written by Ezra in the 5th century b.c.

One of the most ridiculous claims of the critics has been that the Babylonian captivity did not take place. This is on a par with those who believe the Holocaust of World War ii did not happen. The Bible gives specific details about the captivity of Judah by the armies of Babylon early in the 6th century b.c. (ii Kings 24-25). Scholars have said it’s all just another Jewish myth. However, between 1935 and 1938, important discoveries were made 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem at a site thought to be ancient Lachish. Lachish was one of the cities recorded in the Bible as being besieged by the king of Babylon at the same time as the siege of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 34:7).

Twenty-one pottery fragments inscribed in the ancient Hebrew script were unearthed in the latest pre-exilic levels of the site. Called the Lachish Ostraca, they were written during the very time of the Babylonian siege. Some of them are exchanges between the city’s military commander and an outlying observation post, vividly picturing the final days of Judah’s desperate struggle against Babylon! Since the 1930s, there has been more unearthing of Babylonian historical texts describing the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The historical fact of the Babylonian captivity is firmly established.

We could discuss literally hundreds of archaeological finds that corroborate Bible history. Noah’s Flood, the Exodus, David, Solomon and the kings of Israel and Jerusalem as described in the Bible are proven to be historical by non-biblical sources. If you desire to know more, go to your local library and do some self-study. You may be surprised to find how much information is actually available to you. Unfortunately, you will not find this information on your nightly news. Two books we can recommend are The Bible as History by Werner Keller and On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen.

There are numerous biblically related artifacts in the British Museum located in London. They are breathtaking to see. Even though you may never be able to go to London, it is possible to log on to the museum website (www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk) and see pictures of the artifacts. Here is a short list of some of the more important treasures of antiquity:

The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858-824 B.C.) shows Jehu, king of Israel, bowing before the Assyrian king. This is the only known picture of an Israelite king.
Tablets from the time of Tiglath-Pileser (744-727 B.C.) state that he received tribute from Jehoahaz of Judah. This is the full name of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7).
A wonderfully detailed limestone relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh shows the siege of Lachish.
One of the most important is the cylinder of Nabonidus (555-539 B.C.). He was the last ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. This stele proves that his son Belshazzar was co-regent with him (Daniel 5; 7:1; 8:1). Scholars previously scoffed at Belshazzar’s existence.
In his book A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Gleason Archer Jr. quotes author John Elder as saying, “It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archaeology that broke the deadlock between the historians and the … Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archaeologists …. Contemporary records of biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of the biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to newly discovered religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history” (emphasis mine). That last statement is the most important.

Archaeology has proven that the Bible is accurate history.

Your ignoring all other evidence and focusing only on the Bible as dogma. There are other historical sources from the period that are not from the Bible and tell different stories.