Religion

I wish Sweden was more of a Christian society. If it could hold the degeneracy en masse at bay I'd be all for it.

Hell isn't a place you go to, it's the default condition. You're already in Hell, salvation means getting out of it.

i'm a deist

>i'm an apostate

tg af

I'm a Christian desu, though

> New Zealand

> Developed

America is a nation built on religious freedom--you can be whatever zany cult you want as long as you're not killing or raping people. In Europe they ban groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses because they would "disrupt ordnung" or are "culturally incompatible" with the nation.

Is that not even worse?
Lemme get this straight, homeboy: God is a supremely perfect res cogitans that also has unconditional love and compassion for every person yet automatically sentences people to eternal torment?
Do you not see any contradiction there?

He works in mysterious ways :^)

Braise gahd bruddrs n zisders :DDDDD

I don't see a problem here. It's exactly like the government, do as your told and you're rewarded, do the opposite and get fucked

>this is the guy who thinks he shouldn't go to jail if he commits a crime and it's all society's fault

Catholic

Generally hell is reserved for those who refuse retribution. You could let them out and they wouldn't come out because those who are in hell are determined to be miserable. Some Jews reason it as everyone is in the same place, and those coming to terms with it are in purgatory, those who've come to terms with it are in heaven, those who hate it are in hell.

>gosh
>hush
>heck
>sam hill
Why dont Americans swear

>This is the guy who got an 84 on his IQ test

>Harambe
nice dead meme

Is it true, that most of americans are theists?
I am 25 and have never met a theist of my age. Maybe religion works on people who are >50 y.o. when degenerative proccesses starts in brain...

Most people believe in God here

I'm a devout Catholic pursuing a vocation.

Yes, I would say 80% of our population (including people under 25) believes in God or at least goes to church.

Why?

He's just mad cause God didnt give him a jaw

>80%
Oh fuck, seriously? Wow...

Easy--America has always had religious freedom, we have not had a history of a state church being used as a tool of political repression.

>dead meme
true senpai
(still annoying though there are posters for it now)

Good luck.

Come on, it's not that high. Maybe in the 1950s eighty percent of the population attended church every week,

De Tocqueville noted in the 1820s that Americans believed in religion with more fervor than any other nation he had been to.

Most Americans I've met have been atheist or non-practising Christians. I don't believe that outside of the bible belt the USA is any more religious than Europe.

I think he was referring to the percentage of the population that believes in God, including those who don't go to church often.

Aaand it's this shitty argument again.

How did you met these Americans? In what situation?

But even in those days, church attendance was often strictly a social function. Despite candy-coated myths about the Eisenhower years, there was no unusual religious fervor among Americans then.

It doesn't matter. I don't even speak about church. Why would anyone believe in a bearded man sitting on a cloud and watching you masturbating?
Well, it is shocking amount of people.

Because people are brought up with God shoved down their throats. If you were born to orthodox parents you'd probably be an orthodox christian or whatever sect of christianity

God decides whats good and evil, he created the concepts
You don't get to decide whats evil just because it hurts your feelings

Thank you, and your prayers are most welcome.

Apparently 80℅ of America has a reason to believe.

>Why would anyone believe in a bearded man sitting on a cloud and watching you masturbating?
Nobody believes that. People who spout misrepresentations like this have very little understanding or exposure to people of different viewpoints. Either that, or you've had bad experience with them. Regardless, it just shows you're speaking out of ignorance and bitterness, and not worth having serious discussion on the topic.

>You don't get to decide whats evil just because it hurts your feelings
Picking a religion is making the choice and then choosing what to ignore in your religious text(as every religious person does) is also making a choice.

Priesthood? Monastic? Both?

Actually it is widely believed among theologians that Russia is in fact Hell. Sinners are penalized by being reincarnated there.

>Picking a religion is making the choice and then choosing what to ignore in your religious text(as every religious person does) is also making a choice.
Okay prove to me thats how people pick their religion. I know you're full of shit because that isn't how I nor many I know personally chose our religion. But you've made some claim of knowledge, so validate your claim by proving it. I expect links

For the most part, atheism is simply used as an excuse to be a degenerate. Don't believe the Dawkins nonsense that it's about scientific enlightenment or whatever.

I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

...

This thread I flooded with Christians and atheists, so I'll add some diversity to the mix despite being American.
I'm Sikh.

I am exaggerating, obviously. But philosofers, even such as highly theistic as Spinoza show us how insignificant the god is. Just thinking logicaly you can understand this.
And I won't accept ever such thesis as "don't think, just believe. It is absolute knowledge". I heard this from a priest. It is just dumb.

Consecrated religious, specifically the Order of Preachers. I'm in pre-postulancy at the moment.

Like are you a Sikh convert or is your family from India?

>how insignificant the god is
God isn't insignificant, He's the only source we have for the origin of the universe that makes sense.

This is only true if you don't truly believe.
Some religions haven't been ridiculously politicized to the point where the religion is lost, look at Sikhism or even Buddhism for example.

Not all theists believe in a permanent hell.
T. Sikh

>Okay prove to me thats how people pick their religion.
There is more than one religion ergo following any one religion is making a choice about which is correct. That your peers or parents happen to have followed that particular religion is just a coincidence surely but for the rest of us there is nothing to indicate your choice was based on the innate correctness of your holy text such that every other text is wrong but yours is the true facts from god Himself.

Catholic youth groups, volunteer programs for school credits, and religious education. After all of that being almost inseparable part of my life for the first 18-19 years, I really really don't give the slightest shit about religion anymore.

It's just too much of a life style for me. And honestly, I just grew out of it after I moved out.

I'm atheist.

Convert. (Not 3ho though)
I'm extremely active in the local Sikh community though, so I'm not just watching YouTube videos and saying I'm an expert lol.

>based dominicans

Absolutely noice, does this mean you will become a novice soon?

youtube.com/watch?v=Ic2SFS1LbrM

Bruegel detected

It isn't. It is the next stage of mythology, and mythology is form of fairy tales based on natural phenomenas.

The novitiate is after postulancy, which is typically three months long. So I have a ways to go yet.

This is not true. As somebody who tried many religions, I can confidently say that I didn't choose the one I follow.
This is the one that felt right to me, this is where I felt God. Other religions didn't offer that for me, but this one did.
I don't know how I would choose to feel God desu.

>That your peers or parents happen to have followed that particular religion is just a coincidence surely
They don't
>but for the rest of us there is nothing to indicate your choice was based on the innate correctness of your holy text such that every other text is wrong but yours is the true facts from god Himself.
Have you studied the all "holy texts" and came to this conclusion yourself? Or are you just assuming "its all pretty much the same"?
>It isn't.
Okay, what else could have created the universe besides God then. Give me your one strongest source for creation apart from God

Ah sorry, I thought that you had typed "post-postulancy"

Good luck though, you have my prayers.

Yet they don't ban Muslims for those same reasons, really makes you think

So this perfect God works just like a corrupt government? Do you people even hear your own retardation?

I believe in God of some sort but man these people make it hard

I was raised non-Christian, but when I was about 13 years old, my mother and father "found God" and started forcing Christianity upon me. I didn't really mind tbqh
I decided that there probably is a God, but I am not entirely sure if Christianity is the correct doctrine. On one hand, there are plenty of things in the Bible that make sense (creationism in relation to biology, for example), but additionally there are plenty of strange inconsistencies (incest not being a sin, for example)
Anybody else here feel the same way I do?

>They don't
So you're a special snowflake, ehh?
>Have you studied the all "holy texts" and came to this conclusion yourself?
As it happens i have so you'll have to tell me what it is about your religion that makes it the objectively true one and the others false because honestly i'm just not seeing it.

>there are plenty of things in the Bible that make sense (creationism in relation to biology, for example)
This nigga serious?

I don't see any alternatives, especially since entropy is a thing

Felt the same way for years, became a Sikh
Just look into other religions man. Christianity is great if it successfully medicates the spirit (like it has your parents apparently) but if it doesn't successfully medicate your spirit then find a religion that does.

Personally, I found Sikhism to be very logical. So if you want something logical, you may look into it.

Other than that, look into anything and everything. You might be surprised by what you vibe with and where you feel God.

If god=creator, than there is no reason for him to be intelligent. The thing that created our universe could be a stone, that hit another big stone.
And even if the creator was intelligent, and he created our world in his laboratory, why the fuck do you think he is interested in you? In whole humanity? It is so fucking egocentric.
More to say - religions. Well, that's just complete bullshit. I can't believe people take it serious.

>So you're a special snowflake, ehh?
okay I guess
>As it happens i have so you'll have to tell me what it is about your religion that makes it the objectively true one and the others false because honestly i'm just not seeing it.
Okay, then whats your gripe with the "minimal facts" argument for the resurrection of Christ? I won't bother going over it since you claim to have studied it yourself

I wish I could fully believe in God and Christianity. I respect the culture and think that people's belief in God gives them satisfaction and more purpose in life. I think it's important for Christianity to be strong in America and Europe, purely from a perspective of cultural preservation.

I just can't bring myself to believe in any of it though. Why believe one of the thousands of religions that exist? How do people believe in their own religion so strongly while laughing at the idea of Vikings worshiping Odin or ancient Greece worshiping Zeus? A God of some sort MAY exist, it hasn't been ruled out completely yet, but it definitely isn't the specific God that any religion ever created has talked about. All religions were created by humans, for humans. There is nothing supernatural about them.

>The thing that created our universe could be a stone, that hit another big stone.
impossible. stones are created materials, so they can't exist in a state of nothingness
>And even if the creator was intelligent, and he created our world in his laboratory, why the fuck do you think he is interested in you? In whole humanity?
idk man, its beautiful though isn't it? (interesting question, but not really an argument)
psalm 8
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
4
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?

>then whats your gripe with the "minimal facts" argument for the resurrection of Christ?
Must have missed the "minimal fact"s chapter of the bible so you'll have to be more specific as to how this is objective proof please.

Thanks, I'll look into some doctrines of other religions

>Must have missed the "minimal fact"s chapter of the bible so you'll have to be more specific as to how this is objective proof please.
You just said you studied it yourself, but you haven't heard of whats been called the strongest argument for Christ's resurrection? I'm starting to think you might have been lying

Catholicism is the creepiest shit baka syrup man

There is still a chance.

>why would God be interested in us?

Sikh perspective:

God is the universe and everything in it (in a way.) We are like water. God is the ocean and we are a glass. Our ultimate gol is to become one with God again, as we are of the same substance and simply separated. This is why God is interested in us. So we can have the relationship so that we can merge into the universe and in God.

Pretty simplified version desu

Wasn't Spinoza a pantheist? He believed god was everywhere and in everything.
My brother-in-law (who's a trained chemist and quite an important chemist in the sub-field of pharmacology) told me that he came to belief by searching for it, and he acknowledges belief as irrational. Every theist ultimately has to discard reason

Nah, I can't argue in english with my poor vocabulary.
Even so I like to do it with random sect preachers on the streets.

Whereas created things have both actuality and potentiality, only God is purely actual. Since God is not potentially anything other than God (He is perfect), there can only be one. If there were more than one God they would have to be distinguished by something that the other lacked, and since God lacks no thing there can only be one God. Zeus or Odin are not what we call God.

Are most people in huehue land believing catholics?

>You just said you studied it yourself
Yes and i don't recall the minimal facts part or seeing any objective proof so you'll have to be more specific about this objective truth.
>I'm starting to think you might have been lying
What?! Of course i'm not i'm just confused because you having studied many holy texts managed to find the objective truth in one and i didn't.
I don't really feel like reading through every single one again so it wold be a great help to me if you could post the objectively true part for me.

How do you figure m8? Why is god a necessary condition to explain the universe?
Define god while you're at it

>God is the universe and everything in it
so if modern science states that there was a time when the universe didn't exist then it follows that God didn't exist at that time either. therefore the sikh is not infinite or times and therefore not God at all, since God must necessarily be the greatest conceivable being in order to be God
I thought your vocab was pretty good, apart from misspelling "philosopher" at one point :p
>Why is god a necessary condition to explain the universe?
If you know any better explanations for the universes creation, I'd like to hear it
>Define god while you're at it
The greatest conceivable being

>Kiwi thinks he knows physics
While entropy does increase in a closed-system, earth is not a closed-system my man

>If you know any better explanations for the universes creation
It always existed :^)

oh btw if you're going to argue with random preachers, I'd recommend visiting a reformed Presbyterian or reformed Baptist church, you may find them more equipped. Idk if those types of churches are prominent in Russia

Die in fire sand nigger

See I just figured we were rare enough as a sentient species that God would take some interest in us, but that one also makes sense. I know there's some of that in Khaballah (and Cabala but same thing).

That strongly goes against mainline science then. You'd be considered fringe saying something like that

>earth is not a closed system
no, but the Universe is

>therefore the sikh is not infinite or times
therefore the sikh god is not infinite or timeless**
I was getting blown up with (you)'s and started rushing :p

Yes, he was. And he believed in god.
But you could exclude term god from his Ethics and nothing will change. Substance, he operates with, is self-sufficient.

Yea nice ontological argument faggot
Axiom: my dog is necessary
P1. My dog is the best of all possible dogs and is the supremely perfect dog
P2. Since what exists in reality is better than what exists only in the mind, my dog must exist
C. This perfect god exists
Take philosophy 156 syrup man

I'm white faggot

>God is the universe and everything in it
Then you're a pantheist m8
pantheism is akin to atheism
You my friend, are an atheist

>so if modern science states that there was a time when the universe didn't exist then it follows that God didn't exist at that time either.

Not true. This was just the easiest way of explaining it. I'll go more in depth I guess.

God is both everything and the lack of everything.
Therefore God is both he universe and the lack of the universe.

I would recommend reading the Holy Nitnam if you want a crash course (because nobody in this thread will read the whole SGGSJ) or at least the first "chapter" or Bani.
It makes a lot more sense there.

You're just re-hashing scholastic bullshit m8
Physicists now think the big bang was caused by a sort of white-hole, the opposite end of a black-hole

It's not an ontological argument, it's part of an argument from contingency.

Albanians aren't white muzzie faggot

Well, thanks. Nice to hear.
Yeah, I think we have those. I already met baptist, krishnait, yegovist and mormons.

>That strongly goes against mainline science then.
So does a creator having always existed, my explanation requires fewer assumptions so is the more correct of the two.

It is an ontological argument because you are ontologically committed to god as being a necessary condition for the universe. Why can't I just as easily start with the axiom that our universe is necessary?

I wouldn't this this to be true seeing that the SGGSJ (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) mentions there being worlds upon worlds and dimensions upon dimensions, and one can only assume that they're inhabited with other life forms.

In addition Sikhs also believe in reincarnation, so all life forms regardless of intelligence are in his interest.

Because the universe is potentially other than what it is, what (ultimately, and not in a temporal sense) actualised it?

He wasn't talking about his beliefs, he was quoting me talking about Sikhism.

And no, that is nit the same as pantheism. That shows a gross misunderstanding of Sikh beliefs. There is only 1 god (literally the first words in the Sikh holy texts, ik onkar, meaning that there's only one God and that God is one)

Russians are mostly very religious but they say that they are atheists. They may don't believe in god but at the same time the believe that US (Ukraine, Estonia, you name it) is trying to destroy Russia. It's just another form of religion. By the way communism is a religion too and all communists declared themselves atheists in USSR.

I'm a cultural Catholic I suppose: from a logical standpoint, I can't justify the existance of any supernatural force, so that makes me an agnostoc atheist, but on the other hand I see all the benefits Christianity (excluding heathenry i.e. protestantism) has brought to society and Western Culture. So, I support the Church as an institution even though I don't accept it spiritually. Very Nietzschean, I suppose, although maybe that's a strech.

Go ahead, post your fedoras. It's not like I expected to actually discuss religion in depth without at least one fedora reply.

I was quoting someone else. I do not believe that
Are we God then? Is God also abstract concepts like love and hate and mercy?
What caused the white hole
Fair enough. I'll break out some science then, and hopefully you'll do the same
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

no i am muslim

Did you live in the USSR?

Nobody still worships Odin though.

If the universe is necessary it needs no causal agent.
>the universe is potentially other than what it is
What does that even mean

If God does not exist, it makes no logical sense for atheists to be butthurt at him. You may as well be butthurt at Spiderman or the Incredible Hulk.

Kek, Jaiden Smith stop shitting up these threads

Roman Catholic

Of course you fucking are

>I'll break out some science then, and hopefully you'll do the same
My explanation is just your explanation without the unverifiable timeless creator bit and that makes it more correct.

The universe as we know it popped into existence where once there was "nothingness" or else has always existed in some form.

God popped into existence and created the universe as we know it where once there was "nothingness" or else God has always existed form.

We know the universe exists so spot the flaw in one of these explanations.

I was born in 1981, so yes I lived.

>or else God has always existed form.
*God who created the universe has always existed in some form

>Are we God then?

"Salutation to God Who is present in all forms" - (SGGSJ ang 71? (if wrong this is somewhere in the Jaap Sahib)

>Is God love and hate?
I can't say that I'm sure, but I would assume so as the SGGSJ says that he is boundless and beyond our comprehension.

He can also be two contradictory things at one as the Jaap Sahib states "I salute God Who has no home" and then the ext page states "I salute God Who resides everywhere" and also "Salutation to Creator of all" and then "Salutation to Destroyer of all"

The universe isn't necessary because it is made up of matter, energy, etc. all of which have unactualized potential. Liquid water could potentially be solid water, which could potentially be liquid water again, etc. The universe is the sum of its parts, and it's parts all have unactualized potential, so you can't say that the universe necessarily exists (a necessary thing wouldn't have parts).

You're only saying that. I detest militant atheists as well but I think to found an Atheist club and to have being-an-atheist as an integral part of your identity is understandable if you grow up in an oppressively religious society.

Well the universe most likely did not exist forever, as my link explained. and it most likely did not "pop" into existence because science has not observed anything ever "popping into existence". Everything from animals to plants to cars must be created first. It must have some observable origin.
>God popped into existence and created the universe as we know it where once there was "nothingness" or else God has always existed form.
I've already defined God as "the greatest conceivable being", so it must have the greatest attributes in order to necessarily be God. Therefore God must be infinite and has always existed

Why would not a necessary thing have parts? Going along with your Aristotelian story here: what if the universe is necessarily such that it is made of parts which have unactualised potential which will be actualised eventually?

In any case I think the initial assumption is baseless.

>It must have some observable origin.
>Everything from animals to plants to cars must be created first.
Except god who either popped into existence or has always existed.

That's a pretty neat argument, but you can always say that assuming the creator has those properties (so that you don't get a creator of a creator, and so on) is just ad hoc. There is no reason to assume that a creator would have those properties. It's convenient to assume, yes, but again, there's no reason to assume so.

Atheistic ideologies killed 100 million people during the 20th century.

Of all things, creationism made sense to you?
Nigga, really?

A necessary thing could not have parts because things made up of parts are dependent on them, and a necessary thing is not dependent on anything.

A physical thing always has potential, so physical things can't be pure act.

Not Biblical creationism, the whole Adam and Eve thing seems a bit erroneous
But a higher being having created everything makes sense to me

I just explained that he always existed
>There is no reason to assume that a creator would have those properties. It's convenient to assume, yes, but again, there's no reason to assume so.
I don't think its simply "convenient" for God to be infinite, or an assumption, I think its logically necessary

>Well the universe most likely did not exist forever
"in some form" and "as we know it" were important parts of my post
>"pop" into existence because science has not observed anything ever "popping into existence"
Science has never observed a creator who by will alone can create something from nothing.

Then how can you say creationism in christianity makes sense?
And just a bit? Nigga, the fact the inbreeding causes birth deficiencies is enough to end this retarded fairy tale

>"in some form" and "as we know it" were important parts of my post
well then in what form do you suggest it existed?

Fluffy clouds and a big bearded guy maybe.

>Then how can you say creationism in christianity makes sense?
I said in relation to biology, but I suppose that could be broadened to "existence" as well
>And just a bit? Nigga, the fact the inbreeding causes birth deficiencies is enough to end this retarded fairy tale
Yeah that's one of the many reasons why I don't believe in it

>I think its logically necessary
If what's logically necessary for you theory is an assumption than it should tell you something about how sound a theory it is.

How is "the greatest conceivable being must be infinite" an assumption? Is infinite not objectively greater than finite? I'm genuinely confused here

Biology literally doesn't have anything to do with your physics concerns. The theory of evolution is proven and only a drooling retard can fail to realize it.

>How is "the greatest conceivable being must be infinite" an assumption?
Tell me first how are you able to conceive of something infinite?

>Tell me first how are you able to conceive of something infinite?
I'm not conceiving infinity itself. I'm conceiving the concept of someone that must necessarily be infinite in order for that someone to exist

So you're conceiving the concept of someone that must be inconceivable in order to exist?

>Biology literally doesn't have anything to do with your physics concerns
The biology concerns and physics concerns are 2 different concerns in relation to Christianity but they are valid

>The theory of evolution is proven and only a drooling retard can fail to realize it.
The theory of long-term evolution is most definitely not proven, which is why it's just a theory. Considering that there have been missing """""""""""links"""""""""""""" that have been downright faked over and over again, it seems that it's on the same level of Christianity (or any religion really) in that it requires faith.

Yes, the concept of "nothingness" is inconceivable but scientists acknowledge that there was a state of nothingness at one point. So conceiving the concept of things that inconceivable is not illogical, it is necessary to understand these things

Neither does America.

>Just a theory
lmaoing out loud
Unicorinically stopped reading there

>refers to a concept as a theory
>"b-but it's not a theory! it's fact!"
>can't back himself up
Why are militant atheists so dumb?

>but scientists acknowledge that there was a state of nothingness at one point.
Any scientist that says there was once nothing is making an assumption which perhaps is rooted in sound science(unlike your creator idea) but is faith-based all the same.

>muh missing link
>a theory is just a geuss :^)
ok stop talking any time now

>He's the only source we have for the origin of the universe that makes sense.
> he made a dude out of some dirt and then took one of the dude's ribs to make a woman and then it all went tits up when the woman had a chat with a talking snake and then a few years later he got tired of this city of poofs so he turned everyone into salt and then this dude named lot fucked his daughters and then he was sick of all the degenerates so he got this bloke to collect two of every animal and made it rain for a month and a half and then made the water disappear and it all started again and at some point this bloke got swallowed by a whale and got stuck in it's belly so he lit a fire.
> makes sense

And then there's the apocryphal gospels where Jesus tames a bunch of dragons and then teenage Jesus goes hella angsty and starts killing his classmates.

Give me evidence to think otherwise. I'm not here to try and prove creationism, and I'm not even saying that creationism is fact (I have my doubts about creationism tbqh). I'm just sharing my views because it's related to the OP. I just don't understand why Atheists have to say "evolution is 100% factual!" and then when I say I have my doubts they say "lol idiot" instead of giving me reason to think otherwise

It isn't "100% factual" so any atheist that says that is wrong. It's the best explanation we have for an observable phenomena unlike creationism which is just about the worse.
A better explanation for what we observe would have to be pretty fucking amazing but as yet it hasn't materialised so evolution it is.
Also you are an idiot.

lmao I guess 100% of all universities in the world are just dumb militant atheists eks de

Pretty much this.

I can see why evolution is accepted as the best explanation for life as we know it, but I don't believe in it, or at least I don't believe in it completely. It gives no insight into the origin of life, let alone everything else.

>Also you are an idiot.
Cool stuff, my friend

If you believe in creationism from a perfect god, why did he give the majority of animals flawed eyes with a blind spot, but cephalopods got the only perfect eye with no blind spot?

He proved he could make a perfect eye, but decided only to give it to squids, octopus and cuttlefish? Is that a mysterious way of moving?

Or do you think it is evidence that the eye had several independent beginnings and evolved separately on multiple occasions achieving different results?

is a better explanation of why evolution is taught at universities, rather than it is "100% proven" like you insinuate

nobody cares about religion
its not a topic to speak about
you dont announce yourself as atheist (cringe) or catholic or whatever

I believe in a monotheistic god.

What even is 100% factual? Evolution is as factual as any other scientific theory.
What other proof is needed beyond that fossils over time keep getting more complex gradually? Perhaps god somehow created living beings in a more complex time over time and was somehow misunderstood and taken for evolution?

Sounds pretty exhausting, though. What's the point of shirking religion if you're only going to start something fairly similar to it anyway?

>It gives no insight into the origin of life
It doesn't have to.
You don't judge a theory based on how much shit it gives an answer to, otherwise whatever crackpot with his "answer to everything" would be deemed the most reasonable in any argument.

Being limited in your claims is a sign of honesty, not the other way around.

Eh, perhaps the atheist hated the whole pray, fast, abstain from alcohol and sexual relations or we kill you aspects of his religion?

>but I don't believe in it
What about it do you struggle with? I can give you the broad strokes and i think you'll agree they make sense and even if they don't "prove" to you the origin of man or completely assuage your doubt i think you'll agree that they make sense.
>What even is 100% factual?
If you want to be pedantic which religious people often are when it comes to discussing science that contradicts what they believe, nothing is the answer.
What you point out is an important issue in this debate(they take for granted science being factual in so many other aspects) but if you want to be entirely correct you can't say it's more than a theory even though "just a theory" is a dumb thing to say..

You make a good point. Perhaps a god created mundane living beings and left them to evolve? Or controlled their evolution in some sort of way over time?

>Perhaps god somehow created living beings in a more complex time over time and was somehow misunderstood and taken for evolution?
That definitely sounds possible

I don't know if there's a god but if he does/does not exist it would not affect my life in anyway. I am apatheistic.

>i think you'll agree that they make sense.
Yeah, I do think there's merit to the theory of evolution

I suppose my main gripe isn't exactly with evolution of life but rather the origins of life

>That definitely sounds possible
It's not scripturally supported though.
It's essentially just saying god is responsible for evolution, he's omnipotent and omniscient so in a sense everything happens according to his will so by necessity what we understand as evolution would be his will and there's no need to call it something else.

Good point. I was erroneously interpreting evolution as more than what it really is supposed to theorise, and denoting it as less than what it really is (this is based on what I've seen a lot of atheists say about evolution)

It's not scripturally supported, but I don't believe in Christian doctrine (too erroneous)
Just the creationism sort of factor seems somewhat correct to me. A combination of creationism and evolution also seems possible to me. I'm open to most possibilities when it comes to the origins and evolution of life

The existence of Justin Bieber makes the likelihood of a benevolent, all-loving, omnipotent god unlikely.

Your high school teachers pray for the strength to put up with you everyday.

I'm smart enough enough to know there's no God or afterlife

>tormenting bad people is bad
k, m8

youtube.com/watch?v=_jkaEXdLXls

None of my friends go to church.
I actually don't know anyone who still does.

I'm atheist, my parents are atheist, my grandparents are atheist, my wife and her parents are atheist and all my friends are atheist. I think i have three people on facebook who believe in God.

I can't take a religious person seriously. Its like a kid believing in fairy tales, Santa Claus etc. It's cute, but... you know... naive and shit :)

How is being an apostate bad?

f*ckin THIS lol I personally never polluted my mind with the Bible or any religious texts of prolific medieval ecclesiastic philosophers, but I'm sure its all dumb shit TOP KEK TOP KEK XDDD Dawkins4lyfe

No one under thirty actually believes in God in any place that isn't awful.