Guys I'm scared

Christfags really are just the other side of the "atheist with a fedora" coin

Too many internal contradictions and nonsense for it to be true.

such as
>inb4 block of text

>Dude the universe was literally created by a magic sky daddy lmao
>dude people with thousand year lifespans lmao
>Dude sticks turning into snakes lmao
>Dude resurrecting people from the dead LMAO

Yeah no.

>magic sky daddy
Wow, that's a funny name. I guess there's no god.

Honestly ever since I was a kid, I wanted everything in this book to happen. It sounds cool as fuck. I know I would probably die and be damned, but still, I'd end my earthly existence witnessing the sickest shit that's ever happened in all of human history.

>Tfw agnostic
>reading addison's evidences of the christoan religion
Im spooked lads

This! We're not autistic virgins anymore! Le narwhal bacons!

stop being agnostic then

I'd be happy to clarify if you would perchance express the source of your confusion a little more transparently.

What confusion?

>he hides behind five layers of irony to distract himself from his life

I am god and I say that you have nothing to worry about.

...

...

Just because the creation of our universe can't be explained as of now (and probably never will) that doesn't mean that a higher deity is the cause

a higher being is literally the best and only explanation

The masons know the creator is real. They also literally control the earth.

How many times in the course of history has the best explanation been disproved with time and discovery?

Are you admitting god is the best explanation?

No, I'm acknowledging you think it is. It is one plausible explanation but there's no evidence other than wishful thinking so I don't really put it above any other explanation for example a computer simulation

Are these the same logic and facts that come from Christian thinkers?

There's no evidence for anything beyond the begging of the universe though. Approaching it like that would get you nowhere.

>lol these people are religious so religion must be a good thing
>completely ignores the medieval age

Maybe you can argue that a universe without a God is illogical, but how does the existence of a God make sense either way?

Existence is just a mind fuck, and no religion or scientific observation so far can actually explain it. And I don't think it matters.

That's because there's nowhere to go. We can't know one way or another, so what benefits do we derive by attributing the creation of the universe to God if not to promote a particular religious agenda. How do we know which God created the universe? Every religion has their own creation myth.

>The church spends countless resources preserving ancient Latin and Greek texts from the civil wars raging throughout Europe in the anarchy left after the fall of Rome
>Some retarded fedora attributes the dark ages to Christianity

>so what benefits do we derive by attributing the creation of the universe to God if not to promote a particular religious agenda.
Well if there is a creator and that religious agenda is correct then there's not much to lose by signing up for it.
>How do we know which God created the universe?
There's nothing I can say that Aquinas hasn't already said.
>Every religion has their own creation myth.
This is true. Generally speaking many of the same themes run through them. When analysing history this is a good way of securing the authenticity of something, similar themes with slight differences of detail. For some reason the same principle is not carried over for religious history.

>Existence is just a mind fuck, and no religion or scientific observation so far can actually explain it. And I don't think it matters.
literally bro tier science

whats that have to do with anything?
might as well not believe anything then if you're going to be so cynical, especially historical events

Well yeah, that's the point.

these hurricanes and earthquakes are proof of revelation's authenticity.

you're crazy if you think that

you're crazy if you dont think that

heh, gottem.

>Old Testament in OP's pic
Gotta take with a grain of salt. In Leviticus Chapter 20 there's a bunch of stuff about when it's ok to put people to death, including 20:13 which says something like 'if a man lies with another man like he would a woman, then they should be put to death' or something like that. The thing is, what did Jesus say? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", meaning He went DIRECTLY against some parts of the Old Testament since it has points where it instructs COMMUNITIES to come out and stone someone to death for such-and-such a reason.

Why should you be scared though? All Jesus Christ wants us to do is live good lives, and to my knowledge He supports the 10 commandments from the Old Testament which I think are very reasonable rules to live by though even in the New Testament there's ONE passage that gives ONE situation where it's ok to kill. If a thief breaks into your home at night and is dealt with a fatal blow, it is not manslaughter. The next passage specifies night, though. If the Sun is risen, then it's murder. I don't agree with it, but still, I'm glad there's SOMETHING in the Bible (pretty sure it's New Testament) that supports self-defence.

Meanwhile in the Quran the only 'thou shalt not kill' I could find is "believers (Muslims) do not kill yourselves or one another". Meaning Muslims should not commit suicide or murder other Muslims. There's several passages however that instructs them to fight in the name of Allah, and even passages that say if they REFUSE to fight in the name of Allah then they will be punished.

I like being Christian, and would rather die than convert to Islam. Sadly, there are literally millions of Muslims out there who would be happy provide such an ultimatum.

>what did Jesus say? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", meaning He went DIRECTLY against some parts of the Old Testament since it has points where it instructs COMMUNITIES to come out and stone someone to death for such-and-such a reason.

Wrong. Jesus did not got against the Old testament. The pharisees were trying to trap him. The Romans forbade the Jews from executing anyone. That's why the Pharisees went to Pilate to execute Jesus.

Jesus is 100% FOR her death, but he cannot incite violence or he would be punished by the Romans for doing so. That's why he comes out with what he did. It's very clever from him really. What he said isn't against the Old Testament and it also isn't inciting violence. See you actually need to study the Bible to understand it friend :^)

What if the only truth in the Bible is that it's the dullest book in the history of literature? Seriously, each episode following the fickle God and his chosen people as they fight assorted unbelievers has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the book's only consistency is its lack of excitement and ineffective use of prophecies, all to make miracles unmiraculous, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when God vetoed the idea of Satan directing the book; He made sure the book would never be mistaken for a work that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross promotion for His ideology. The Bible might be pro-Gnostic (or not), but it's certainly the most anti-Greek pantheon in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the prose was good though

No!

The writing is dreadful, the book was terrible.
As I read, I noticed that every time a character had a child, the author wrote instead that the character "begat". I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times.

I was incredulous. God's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that He has no other style of writing. Later, I read a loving, lavish review of the Bible by Joseph Smith. He wrote something to the effect of "if these kids are reading the Bible at 11 or 12, then when they got older they will go on to read golden plates". And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read the Bible, you are, in fact, trained to read Joseph Smith.

There is literature no reason to think the universe didn't come from nothing, prove me wrong

Except you could lose valuable parts of this only life in your own imagination, and also pascal's wager is shit

Many of the same themes run through them likely because they represent virtues some people think are good for the progress and social cohesion of a society. And for supernatural postulations, the same heuristics don't hold - you need a little more than vaguely similar themes.

If he was for her death, he could have just convinced the Romans to execute her, or the Jews at least banish her, rather than show kindness towards her. What terrible exegesis

Sperg-tastic post, user! Totally not an ad-homonem! Praise kek and touch ____~!

>unironically posting facebook memes

Books before revelations: books to convince simpletons through simple advices and moral tips
Revelation: hail-mary attempt to convince those last few skeptics by fear and terror

You know that I'm right.

>yfw you're a Christian
>yfw the "greatest mind" of Christianity, Thomas Aquinas, thought that the universe was expressly designed for the pleasure of humanity
>yfw you now realize it's almost a certainty that aliens exist
>yfw you realize your religion is stupid as piss

>>yfw you now realize it's almost a certainty that aliens exist

Gonna have to disagree with you there, bro.

>billions of potential earth-like planets in a galaxy
>billions of galaxies and more in the universe
>possibly not even a single universe but more
>conditions to start life can be found all across space

>dude I just don't think aliens exist, man, praise Christ

Don't you think God would have mentioned it in the Bible if he made other beings elsewhere?

Revelation isn't supposed to spook anyone at all, but it's done in the genre of Jewish apocryphal literature so it comes across as some kind of end-of-days spookfest. The purpose of the book is actually to uplift Christians going forward into times of persecution, with the ultimate message being that God won't ever forget their suffering and is always in control. The end times and judgment will certainly be rough for people who chose to go without God's salvation, but it's not like some huge event or craziness with happen on earth to signal it. The bible says that the end will come "like a thief in the night," so we're all probably just going to wake up one morning and be like "oh ok".

...

>It contradicts Pauline doctrine

An unsurprising comment from someone who lists heresiarchs like Origen and Luther amidst serious Biblical study.

>There is literature no reason to think the universe didn't come from nothing, prove me wrong

You cannot metaphysically justify this position, but unfortunately you haven't put in the time studying philosophy to understand why. How does ANYTHING exist at this very moment? Walk it back to the first cause and your life will change forever.

Good point, that's why he mentions all those peoples who didn't interact with Jews and the roman empire

Fuck off the first cause to prove God exists requires saying God is the exception to the rule, at which point you establish things can exist without a cause, making the universe existing without a cause just as likely, if not more likely, than God existing without a cause and making the universe

Revelation is a bunch of nonsense designed to spook the romans...... probably

I remember being a boy at church reading all the wacky stuff there

It wasn't an ad hominem you sperg.

Generally the developments of those thinkers were only possible because they freed themselves from the shackles of fundamentalist religion and stopbusing religion as a crutch to explain the world. When they returned to fundamentalism and the crutch, their thinking was hampered, like what happened to Newton with his gods hand keeping the planets in orbit

He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star. And the spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely. For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Are you actually that stupid?

Holy fucking shit what a literal mongoloid.

>Revelation isn't supposed to spook anyone at all

Well it did, and it does.

>not a single argument

You didn't provide an argument either

>WHY DIDN'T JESUS DO THIS?

umm because he didn't I guess?

nothing has ever been observed to come from nothing

Uh pretty sure both books are true.

Imaging the physical appearance of the person who added the text to this gif made me sad.

it has unicorns and wizards I would not be concerned if you want more proof the bible said no one with foreskin will enter jerusalem

Your reading comprehension is terrible, as are your critical thinking skills. I didn't say "why didn't jesus do this", I showed the existence of alternatives which would be predicted is he really was for her death yet did not want to incite the Jews to kill her immediately. The fact jesus didn't choose those options implies the claims of the user I was first replying to are bullshit

And nothing has ever been observed to come from God, so we have two hypotheses which are both equally unsupported by the evidence. Yet, by Occam's razor it's clear which one should be chosen

>I showed the existence of alternatives which would be predicted is he really was for her death yet did not want to incite the Jews to kill her immediately. The fact jesus didn't choose those options implies the claims of the user I was first replying to are bullshit

I don't actually understand what you're saying here. Grammatically this makes no sense at all.

no explanation is the best and only explanation
the only entity who could ever end this planet is the homo sapien

>which are both equally unsupported by the evidence
thats where you're wrong
everything with any degree of complexity is observed to come from a creator, as far as we know
so the universe, considering how complex it is, as well as DNA and life in general, should also be assumed to have a creator... by Occam's razor of course :^) something being created by something else is the norm, something created by nothing would be QUITE the singularity

Phoneposting, my mistake
*predicted if he

No, we don't know that at all, gimme citations pls. I really hope you're not going by the creations of humans, because that would then be undergrad-tier extrapolation given the tiny sample size in relation to the entirety of the universe and your lack of defining what complexity is in the natural world

citation of what? I said AS FAR AS WE KNOW, everything that we see has a creator. Unless you can name one thing that you KNOW doesn't have a creator? no I don't think so

Yes the creation of life implies a creator as well. Biogenesis, biological law, states that life can only come from life, which implies life could only have stemmed from an infinite living GOD... Otherwise it would be turtles all the way down. and abiogenesis is a hypothesis that hasn't progressed passed paper

Kek nice understanding of the burden of proof, you can't just, when asked for evidence, demand evidence of the opposing viewpoint instead
I just want you to state which things you know were made by creators, ideally outside of human creations to avoid shit-tier extra

Biogenesis isn't a law, as such, simply a useful principle for complex life. Statistically, it's possible though improbable for even complex life to occur from non-life. There is no reason life in the simplest sense can't come from non-life, and there are many promising hypotheses, which you'd know if you were even remotely familiar with the literature

>I just want you to state which things you know were made by creators
>ideally outside of creators
okay then, all the shit made by other living things. animals and bugs create shit all the time. although theres absolutely no reason why humans should be exempted. "shit tier extra" is literally nothing

>There is no reason life in the simplest sense can't come from non-life
except its never been observed, and the only thing that HAS been observed is life coming from life.
name a "promising" hypothesis, just one, that actually has promising evidence behind it. since you've read the literature, it should be easy for you. and summarize it since you understand it so well, so I don't have to waste my time reading an essay by some euphoric stranger on a chinese image board

Alright, even still it makes no sense. I don't understand the point that you're making.

Shit-tier *extrapolation is why humans should be exempted, and if you're going by all animals on earth that point still stands. Unless you believe in ayylmaos which many christcucks don't want to do, the number of your creations are still dwarfed by the mass of objects that aren't creations in the universe, so still an absolute shit extrapolation. Also, wouldnt saying creation requires intent and consciousness be more in line with your worldview?

The hypotheses don't exist in isolation and aren't mutually exclusive, it's likely through the combination of most hypotheses that simple self-replicating genetic information enclosed in a membrane came to be, micelle formation with montmorillonite clay is how that membrane likely formed, and the formation of the genetic information itself is just chemistry

It's pretty clear desu
Jesus allegedly want thing (kill woman but not make Jews kill woman) . Jesus not do thing that would be expected if he want kill woman. This mean jesus not want kill woman.

>Jesus allegedly want thing (kill woman but not make Jews kill woman) . Jesus not do thing that would be expected if he want kill woman. This mean jesus not want kill woman.

Wait what? Jesus absolutely did not want to kill the woman. Where did you get that idea from? Also you haven't read the post which disproves the very thing you're saying here.

Complete brainlet this guy.

>the number of your creations are still dwarfed by the mass of objects that aren't creations in the universe, so still an absolute shit extrapolation.
well, I named things that are creations, so I think its fair to ask you to name some things which aren't creations... since you claim there are more non-creations than creations.. don't forget to provide evidence that said object isn't a creation

You seem to have forgotten what
said, and that's the point I'm refuting.
Which post disproves the very thing I said there?

Ironic how you call me a brainlet but cannot mentally keep track of a single thread. Motes, eyes, etc.

I don't think you did name things that were creations since you didn't address the concept of intent and consciousness being required to actually make creations as would be predicted by your worldview, because to not believe those traits required is very much in the vein of deterministic materialism

>Which post disproves the very thing I said there?

I'll walk you through this since you are quite clearly mentally retarded. The Pharisees do their best to entrap Jesus. Quick question: why was Jesus killed? Answer: the Sanhedrin entrapped him by getting him to claim to be God. Jesus did not specifically say that he was God.
And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself."
Matthew 26:64
This is the same Technique that Jesus uses when confronted with the adulterous woman. There is no way for him to win, they have him trapped. So what does he do? He comes out with a clever retort. He doesn't directly say the thing which they want him to say, but he still comes out upholding the Biblical law.

That is what my post said, but since your IQ is clearly very low I had to explain the same thing twice over.

And now you're ignoring the fact that you said "jesus was 100% FOR her death "

There is a way for him to win because he's a prophet and privy to the infinite knowledge of God, maybe? So if he truly wanted to kill the woman he could have convinced the Jews to get the Romans to do it, as they did for him.

>And now you're ignoring the fact that you said "jesus was 100% FOR her death "

Well yes he clearly is.
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:17
>If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10

>There is a way for him to win because he's a prophet and privy to the infinite knowledge of God, maybe? So if he truly wanted to kill the woman he could have convinced the Jews to get the Romans to do it, as they did for him.
And now you're question why Jesus did or didn't do a thing again. You literally argue in a circle and can't read.

Why didn't he fly to the moon if he's God xD dude BLAZE IT

Epic my boy.

>I don't think you did name things that were creations since you didn't address the concept of intent and consciousness being required to actually make creations as would be predicted by your worldview

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT YOUR WORLDVIEW IS

I'm not questioning it you pleb, I'm showing you that if he can do something,s and he wants to do something (I.e kill the woman) and there is a way he can do something, he should logically be expected to do that thing in that way, and that way would be to get the Jews to get the Romans to kill the woman, because that's what he want. You're completely avoiding this argument by creating strawman like fly to the moon lmao.
And you could very much say your understanding of the translation of the word fulfil is off, as many Christians do. Some think he came to complete them and his own law, to live your neighbour as thyself, supercedes the other laws. Don't act like this vague teaching (vague in part due to translation) necessarily means what you think it means or supports what you think it supports.

I'm pretty sure you're not a materialist, I'm fairly sure you're not a determinist, and I'm quite sure that's not an argument

>I'm not questioning it you pleb

Not questioning what?

I'm showing you that if he can do something,s and he wants to do something (I.e kill the woman) and there is a way he can do something, he should logically be expected to do that thing in that way, and that way would be to get the Jews to get the Romans to kill the woman, because that's what he want. You're completely avoiding this argument by creating strawman like fly to the moon lmao.

Why would he waste his time getting this woman killed? Why are you questioning the motives of the Son of God? I have completely annihilated you and yet you still cling to this irrelevant "argument" that in your mind has any point.

>And you could very much say your understanding of the translation of the word fulfil is off, as many Christians do. Some think he came to complete them and his own law, to live your neighbour as thyself, supercedes the other laws. Don't act like this vague teaching (vague in part due to translation) necessarily means what you think it means or supports what you think it supports.

What?

>requires saying God is the exception to the rule
maybe that's because the *rule* only applies to contingent facts
damn how can theism even recover after ur argument

>Fuck off the first cause to prove God exists requires saying God is the exception to the rule, at which point you establish things can exist without a cause, making the universe existing without a cause just as likely, if not more likely, than God existing without a cause and making the universe
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the difference is that one side is claiming, "God exists without a cause," and the other side is claiming, "The universe came into existence without a cause." Those aren't the same thing. Unless you are positing that the universe has an eternal existence. Is that scientifically credible?

He would waste time getting this woman killed because by your own argument you said he wants the woman to be killed based on your assumption he follows the outdated Jewish law in leviticus . This is getting infuriating

That's a perfectly clear paragraph, I'm not here to be the reading comprehension teacher you so sorely need

And the uncaused existence of the universe is just as contingent a fact as the uncaused existence of God

Yes, but the key part is they make the exception and beg the question.
An eternal existence isn't necessarily for an uncaused universe, but an eternal existent may be possible, but it depends on how the expansion of the universe goes

From the series "weird atheist arguments":
1 - Aliens exist
2 - Therefore God ain't real
3 - Therefore I'm allowed to be anally fucked by chad

>He would waste time getting this woman killed because by your own argument you said he wants the woman to be killed based on your assumption he follows the outdated Jewish law in leviticus . This is getting infuriating

So he doesn't have better things to do? I mean we can assume that he didn't bother with that one single woman. He was there to save all of us, not to punish one sinnier.

And once again you use circular logic thinking that you know why Jesus did or didn't do things. I refer you to the Book of Job.

>And the uncaused existence of the universe is just as contingent a fact as the uncaused existence of God
"the moon is clouds"

>An eternal existence isn't necessarily for an uncaused universe
So are you claiming that it may have come into existence without cause?

>3 - Therefore I'm allowed to be anally fucked by chad
God is the only thing stopping you from going out and getting buttfucked