/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1:18-32

They don't want God to be real. If God was real they'd have to account for their nasty little selfish decisions to someone and they can barely tolerate that from other humans let alone an objectively correct judge of human character.

>>610753

This is straw-manning.

>>610749

Cognitive Dissonance. If they admit, then it shatters everything they have done; forced to own up bad things they did in their hedonistic pursuit or debauchery; acknowledging that one is just another sinner, not the special snowflake like every single grade teachers have told them; and their pride will not allow that.

Wew, only four responses in and it's become evident this thread is going to be just as useful as asking an atheisum subreddit why Christians refuse to consider there isn't a God.

Given Atheism means the lack of belief in a god/gods and not

>An evil centralized Jewish conspiracy organized and updated exclusively through Big Media hedonist/consumerist memes

There's a huge spectrum of people that are not religious for various reasons. There are absolutely some hedonists that are Atheist, but to imply they're all X or Y is disingenuous (if X or Y aren't "Atheist")

Of the atheists I know, the reasons vary. Some include:

>It's not worth my (despite what Christians want you to believe) painfully FINITE time of conscious existence to spend time hoping and doubting over the supernatural

>It's a pointless path of thought in line with Buddhism's Imponderables

>The scale of thought and perception that a god becomes relevant at doesn't bother me at all.

>>610758

I know few atheists that consider themselves special snowflakes – if anything, at face value, Christianity is by far a more "special snowflake" ideology – because if you go full reductive materialist atheism, you and everybody else are literally the same components and any thought to the contrary is objectively false. All that is "you" in the conventional sense is just a fleeting illusion in the universal one-ness of being. Whereas in Christianity, everybody really is unique and no matter what there's at least one/three person(s) that love you and care about you.

the answer is death

>>610749

Being in the same boat you are in, in that regard, I believe in the West there is a certain strain of atheism that is just simply angry at Christianity due to slights a person might have received (or were perceived to have received) at one point or another from someone in clergy or from a particular community or another. I certainly had an issue along these lines, and it sure seemed like I wasn't the only one (however I no longer have access to those people I associated with back then so I am in no position to take a census).

Some might be hyper-rationalistic, and might discount anything intangible, I don't doubt people out there exist like that. But the one or two that I knew like that were outweighed by very angry people who were more interested verbal knife fights with what they perceived to be TPTB than correlational studies, historical research and scholarly artifact dating. If something came up that supported an anti-Christian view they accepted it, but if something came up that supported something in the Bible it was discounted as unimportant. After a time of this I drifted to agnosticism until I resolved the situation towards Christ's end a few years ago.

>>610762

Sure, people can believe or not believe in something for any number of reasons. However, having been in a position of being in both groups at varying points in my life I can only comment on direct observations I made of other (at the time fellow) non-believers, and the vast majority of the ones I observed locally were simply very angry at Christianity and used the most efficient means available to them at the time to attack it, nothing more or less. There's a lot of athiests online these days like that who seem to have a flirtation with either Islam or hard left politics, and I expect over the next 10-20 years those types will drift over to one or the other as their religion of choice. It's sort of happening now, atheism is certainly not as…dynamic, perhaps? As it was just 5-10 years ago.

>>610749

Lack of humility.

Because God does not force his presence upon normies, he gently calls them with signs and symbols, the atheist can easily ignore the signs because the atheist wants mathematical syllogistic certainty or to experience the full force of God's presence.

>>610788

You need to go back Schlomo

>>610756

No it’s not. Atheists hate accountability

Just because you believe in an afterlife, bad, good or both, how does that mean that one exists? And yes, belief in nothing after we die is freedom as it is freedom from the decietful false promises from religion given to us by the very people who founded your god. There was no heaven, no hell no purgatory etcetera to begin with. It was imagined, just as an idea is. Because that is what religions are: ideas.

they want God to not be real bc then that means taking accountability for their actions

>>610749

Good post OP. We know it's a good post cause of all the butthurt atheists who responded, crying at you

Read your Bible

John 3

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

>>610902

My goal wasn't to make people butthurt, my goal was to have genuine understanding.

I find it interesting the amount of atheists who are apparently browsing a Christian board and then get mad at the resident Christians for not believing the same as them.

>>610749

Here in Britain most people I know weren't raised with any religion and therefore don't see the need for it. When asked about God they just don't see any reason to think He would exist.

Atheism is associated with intelligence since it has associated itself with the sciences astronomy, psychology and biology, to practice science you have to use scientific discernment which is if there is a theory present you look for evidence to disprove It, which is the opposite of how one finds faith, child phychologist Jean piaget noticed that as one year old children were only able to rely on their oral survival circuitry, when faced with an obstacle of a glass bridge they would not cross It, despite being able to feel the glass bridge they could not believe it was their and therefore stayed put. Matthew 11:25 shows us that God wants us to come to him.

I am going through a time of serious confusion to why I exist but also I have the clarity to see the kingdom of heaven on the move today, the church will need men who can discern truth from lies and take on the huge hurdle of digesting all that science and philosophy has thrown up to form its arguments, they will need to be agreed as snakes but innocent as doves, but with Christ ALL things are possible

>>610937

This as well. Households are less religious and kids figure they’re doing fine enough and don’t seek to convert.

Also there are Atheists that wish there was a god (even the Christian one) but don’t see it being possible.

I know quoting comics is garbage tier but there’s a beta ray bill quote that sums it up

Lack of clear, compelling, physical evidence does it for me.

>>610971

I always fucking hated this quote. Because he says this in the fucking marvel universe, where God does infact exist. Hell, he got his powers from odin like tf.

>>611007

The setting undermines it a bit but I could probably find the same character in Endtown but it wouldn’t be in a single digestible panel

>>611006

what do you make of the evidence for the resurrection of Christ? When I converted, all the other theories seemed even more plausible and I had to conclude He rose from the dead.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

>There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition

>>610819

is there some online compendium where atheists are getting their zingers? i swear i've seen this quote with minor rewording hundreds of times in youtube comment sections

>>610809

This is why they love social programs and abortion.

hello, sorry to be all "me me me" and jerk off in this thread, but i was raised agnostic and became a HUGE anti-theist so i hope that my journey might shed some light:

I used to be a radical anti-theist but I always enjoyed playing with theological arguments AND HATED to see fellow atheists who used strawmans and weak logic against equally retarded american protestants. also, i felt that anti-theism actually required a faith dogma of its own, in the like of Nietzsche european atheism, so I respected any intellectually honest Christian (usually they were Catholic) who articulated their faith assumptions in clear light

after a long time of studying philosophy I became convinced of some sort of clinical, objective, detached form of Greek theism, and i thought that atheism was stupid

then i read the writings of Guenon and Schuon and became convinced that religion is the best and most efficient way of articulating and understanding the ultimate truth, so here i am today (Catholic)

Who cares what atheists think?

>>617078

Yeah, you taught them pretty good.

t. Santa Muerte laughing while good Catholic cartel members flay one another.

>>617078

>>617114

Columbus might have been jewish.

http://medievalnews.blogspot.cz/2009/10/christopher-columbus-was-catalan-and.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101017123715/http://www.tbspr.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=2026&

>>617121

Cristoforo Colombo was Italian, Genoese to be precise.

>>617114

After the Freemasonry took over their Country, then things got truly wild.

>>617153

>Freemasonry took over their Country,

Can you give a rundown of what happened?

>>617279

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero_War

>>617561

Ah ah, yeah…sure, we must say thanks to the person who did the good deed too (after all, he/she acted on free will), but indeed we are but tools in the hands of God.

>>617547

I read a bit about these groups; thanks for the answer, my point was mostly about why Mexico has such hard times to be truly Christian (even if there have been people doing such things even before the padres came to that land, and after they converted tribes some of them rebelled and wanted to revert, thus they masked their ancient heathen cults under a "Christian" facade, which brought forth Santa Muerte and similar things, just like voodoo, juju, santeria and macumba (my great-grandmother was Brazilian and witnessed/knew a lot on the last one).

>>610749

It's easier to tell yourself that God is impossible (which is pretty hard) than it is to tread the path of righteousness

>>617561

This happens all the time. Whenever God is mentioned – even if it's in a common saying such as "Thank God," or "God Bless you." – an atheist always objects with some truncation of God doesn't exist.

>>610762

>I know few atheists that consider themselves special snowflakes – if anything, at face value, Christianity is by far a more "special snowflake" ideology – because if you go full reductive materialist atheism, you and everybody else are literally the same components and any thought to the contrary is objectively false. All that is "you" in the conventional sense is just a fleeting illusion in the universal one-ness of being. Whereas in Christianity, everybody really is unique and no matter what there's at least one/three person(s) that love you and care about you.

Nobody actually corresponds their actions to fully nihilistic materialist atheism. I mean, they claim to espouse it, but no one can even follow that since, utility-wise, it basically means saving up enough money to inject yourself with heroin until you either die from over-dose or old-age.

Considering it's a pretty easy calculation to figure out the current price of heroin, life expectancy, and the amount of heroin needed as tolerance kicks in, you'd figure atheists would have a savings account and be working on their stash.

That, of course, assumes rationality. I actually know atheists that are post-rational. They don't even believe logic has meaning but, at that point, there's zero reasons to have a discussion with them. If you believe in rationality, the heroin route seems the most expedient way to live a pleasurable athestic lifestlye- yet no one does it. Why? Because the atheists somehow think the random beliefs they were born with and pet-sins they developed somehow have more meaning than heroin usage until death- because deep down they do think they're special snowflakes and allow that to trump their rationality.

>>610749

Romans 1 sums up exactly why quite nicely

>>629038

I have read on apologetics extensively.

All I was explaining is that atheists do not follow their rationality to its logical end that, in fact, the rational result of materialistic nihilism is death, yet, they are unwilling to accept it.

Or, worse, they are post-rational. Basically, they only believe words are a control mechanism from human to human and there is no objective truth to be obtained from discourse, only control.

There are, of course, ways to witness to these individuals though, despite my trying, I have not been successful. Whatever does bring success will not be rational discourse though because rational discourse is only a smokescreen through which they protect their ego; they don't actually believe in searching for truth via debate.

>>629057

>Most of You guys are sadly mistaken as an atheist I would much much much rather believe that God is real, if I could

Anyone can believe anything.

Are you saying you can't stand the cognitive dissonance?

Jettison the ideas that contradict God, that's part of conversion anyway.

Are you saying you would still have doubts? Welcome to almost every Christian walk ever. Conviction in your belief (faith) is a gift from God, belief is just choosing to believe.

You can't believe because you believe you can't believe. Unless you mean something else, in which case please elaborate.

if they were willing to entertain ideas they would not be atheist for long and would become agnostic if they followed logic and reason for the simple reason

"IF there was an all powerful being

THEN it would be trivial for him to hide from us"

so by default those who remain atheist instead of agnostic are not thinking 100% logically and yet still have some other motive for denying god, of the top of my head I cant really think of a good motive

>>629067

I don't believe the Bible is anymore divinely inspired than the Torah, Koran or Egyptian book of the Dead. I don't believe in divine natures and never had any reason, besides the word of believers to consider it. Even if I was able to "just believe" in God, which should I choose as there as many Gods, and God sects as their are languages and the business of divinity is no less fragmented than any other construct of humanity.

>>629068

>so by default those who remain atheist instead of agnostic are not thinking 100% logically.

I don't believe in vampires, why should I be an agnostic vampire believer.

I don't believe in aliens (on Earth), why should I be an "agnostic" alien believer.

I don't believe in a lot of things, there is no reason for me to "have doubts" as nobody in my adult life has even given me a slight hope that God is real.

People of faith shouldn't talk so much about logic.

>>629073

Vishnu is the one real god you fucking prick.

>>629075

t. Not Hindu

Hinduism is a polytheistic religion and the concept of "one true god" is foreign to them. Go read your Nanditha Kirshna.

>>629073

Literally vid related is on the topic you're having an issue with. This might help. If you're really looking for an answer.

>>629074

>People of faith shouldn't talk so much about logic.

Why, not where does logic even come from? Why are people of faith suddenly penalized for talking about logic? Really i'd say start with C.S Lewis cause these problems have already been talked about people have already been down this road. Im literally reading a modern day version of C.S lewis's problems when he was in his early teens.

>>629086

Faith is about believing in something due to your own conviction rather than based on evidence or proof.

Its a logical fallacy. That doesnt make you a bad person. But you would not be viewed as the expert on logic if you are seen making logical fallacies.

>>629092

>believing in something due to your own conviction rather than based on evidence or proof

No, at least not in the case of when i actually got into the books and started researching this stuff. So a common myth, is that oh well christianity's just like every other god out there. That there's no difference in the others. But that's just not the case Litterally read mere Christianity, the case for christ, and any well laid out case, and you'll come to find a lot of myth that skeptics tend to lay out are really out of anger and bias is kinda just bs. Another one i found *Oh Christianities responsible for the dark ages, they burned the books and set us back etc. But if you do some research,and actually this is something i had an issue with my history teachers was. On one hand you actually read about what the monks did for preserving both pagan and christian works. But at the same told you're told, but yea they set us back……… There's far issues i've come to find then what most people are setting up. Some people i would say just they don't know what they're talking about, and when i confronted my history teacher on this he got uncomfortable, on the issue just end well you can believe what you want to believe. And logical fallacies again read the books, do the leg work and you'll see there's a lot of weird new age stuff out there.

>>629073

>I don't believe the Bible is anymore divinely inspired than the Torah, Koran or Egyptian book of the Dead

Why are you here then? If you want to believe, believe. If not, take yourself elsewhere. This isn't a "I'm an atheist, debate me" board. We're sick of that and, frankly, if you've ended up here, you've largely gotten tired of talking about it with atheists since they don't seek truth and can never learn.

You said you'd rather believe but can't

I countered your argument and said you could believe

Your counter of "but I don't" is irrelevant. The question is- why don't you choose to believe

>I don't believe in divine natures and never had any reason, besides the word of believers to consider it.

This is the only reason (witness) to believe in anything we haven't experienced personally. Do you believe the large hadron collidor exists? You do so on the basis of witnesses and their testimony. Pictures are secondary (there are icons of Jesus) since, without the testimony, pictures are meaningless.

You can choose not to believe the Christian witnesses you're exposed to, but don't pretend you believe anything else on a more certain basis. Even memories are quite maleable.

>Even if I was able to "just believe" in God, which should I choose as there as many Gods, and God sects as their are languages and the business of divinity is no less fragmented than any other construct of humanity.

You stated earlier you wanted to believe. Do you or not? Which is it? If you want to believe, nothing's stopping you. If you don't want to believe, go talk with others that don't want to believe.

Meaningless drivel about how you want to believe but can't, when belief is clearly within everyone's capabilities, is simply demonic.

>>629094

I think we would agree with eachother on the dark ages.

I was really getting at the definition of faith and how its different from knowledge or belief.

>>629098

>You said you'd rather believe but can't

Im not the guy you are replying to but Ill give you my answer to this.

I think everyone would like to believe that they and their loved ones dont just rot in the ground once they are dead. My old mum is a faithful churchgoing Christian so if you guys are right then she will get to chill with all her relatives and friends in heaven. I want that to be true because compared to any religion my beliefs are pretty bleak. In Buddhism you might reincarnate as a worm but at least your not in the ground getting eaten by them.

>>610749

I understand that mentality because I had the problem myself. It feels like there's a mental barrier to accepting God, or anything that contradicts mainstream beliefs. It's literally brainwashing, all of upbringing in today's society is, school, uni, media, all has one and the same Jewish agenda.

>>629126

>

I think everyone would like to believe that they and their loved ones dont just rot in the ground once they are dead. My old mum is a faithful churchgoing Christian so if you guys are right then she will get to chill with all her relatives and friends in heaven. I want that to be true because compared to any religion my beliefs are pretty bleak. In Buddhism you might reincarnate as a worm but at least your not in the ground getting eaten by them.

Yeah. That's the huge upside to belief- eternal life. Some people think it comes with downsides because they're more concerned with staying who they are than having eternal life.

If you don't believe it, that's fine, but if you want to believe it do - confess with your mouth that he has risen from the dead and live by his commandments. Of course you'll have doubts, most Christians have doubts, but you'll believe.

Satan deceives

>>629163

Belief in God is the mainstream belief. Even among the nominally religious or secular, many believe in a "God" type of power.

>>629163

Former fedora here as well, if anything I believe it's basically an expression of the human person's innate sinfulness in hoping that ultimately we won't be held accountable for our actions. Years before I rediscovered faith, I just remember seeing a medieval depiction of hell, and being filled with an existential dread. I spent a lot of that night trying to convince myself that it wasn't real, like on some level I sensed that it must be.

>>629181

It's worth keeping in mind that the majority view and the mainstream consensus are not the same thing.

Belief in some kind of "God"-lite is the mainstream, like maybe god is "the universe" or "energy" or somesuch other thing with no judgement or moral content. This in and of itself is an atheistic mindset, that even if there is a deistic "God", the universe still "just is", and there is no moral order or accountability. This is all too common even among professed christians, and this mindset and the one I've mentioned are psychically similar, and both are a denial of God's nature.

>>629085

At 4:09 when he says "they don't realize the stupidity of the new testament and it's doctrine of Genesis" Pretty much have to quit there.. his words are overtly negative and divisive while discussing Christians I would hate to think how he views the rest of the world's people

>>629098

I have already said I would like to believe and others do so below. It is down-right incorrect to think atheists want to not-believe. (An obvious and common misconception of people who have posted in this thread) The topic of this thread, started by a Christian I assume, asks a question of atheists, you are getting answers, don't be so shocked. Finally I'm shocked that you think "belief" is a matter of choice.

>>629155

>Being unable to believe in divine natures = belief in Lucifer..

stunning logic..

>>629057

This is my first post.

>>629241

That's not what luciferianism is. It would've taken less than 10 seconds on google. Here:

>Sometimes mistakenly associated with Satanism due to the Christian interpretation of the fallen angel, Luciferianism is a wholly different belief system and does not revere the devil figure or most characteristics typically affixed to Satan. Rather, Lucifer in this context is seen as one of many morning stars, a symbol of enlightenment, independence, and human progression, and is often used interchangeably with similar figures from a range of ancient beliefs, such as the Greek titan Prometheus or the Jewish Talmudic figure Lilith.

>Luciferians generally support the protection of the natural world. Both the arts and sciences are crucial to human development and thus both are cherished. Luciferians think that humans should be focused on this life and how to make the most of it every single day. The ability to recognize both good and evil, to accept that all actions have both positive and negative consequences, and to actively influence one's environment is a key factor.

>Hurrr durrr stunning lojizz.

People like you are insufferable.

>>629241

>I have already said I would like to believe and others do so below. It is down-right incorrect to think atheists want to not-believe. (An obvious and common misconception of people who have posted in this thread) The topic of this thread, started by a Christian I assume, asks a question of atheists, you are getting answers, don't be so shocked. Finally I'm shocked that you think "belief" is a matter of choice.

I'm not shocked, just dismissive. Also, regardless of OP's post, I was replying to the train of thought that belief is not a choice. I've heard zero refutations or rebuttals of my points, only reassertion that belief is not maleable.

Everyone believes what they want to believe. If you don't understand your own cognitive processes enough to know that this is the case, if you're not consciously aware of your own choice-making mechanisms… all I can say is be a bit more honest with yourself.

All of our outlook on life is a myriad of facts interwoven to reduce cognitive dissonance. You weave together your empirical experience and, the best you can, you make a narrative that explains it. This narrative is your "beliefs" and they are completely changeable.

Now, there are arguments as to why you would choose not to believe. I've heard those to. But the argument being made is that you literally -cannot- believe and that's horse manure.

All that belief requires is choosing an idea and acting as if the idea were true. You can believe and still have doubt- if you say you believe Christ rose from the dead, and act as if you believed it, then you believe it- though you may have massive doubts, you are a Christian. Anyone can do this. Why can't atheists understand this? Do they want complete faith at step 1? Life doesn't work that way.

>>629181

> Even among the nominally religious or secular, many believe in a "God" type of power.

Believing in the Deistic god is utterly meaningless, and the chasm between it and actual, Christian God couldn't be greater. This society is entirely geared towards denigrating Christ, because his murderers want to cover up their crime.

>>629246

>if you believe (X), (X) becomes true.

wew

>>629359

I can't even really get your point. Why don't you explain to me your position instead of posting a graphic that seems to conflict with your supposed message. By they way, I was on 8ch when it was created, so you cut out your reddit level troll bullshit right now.

>>629362

Bless your heart but the Lord didn't bless you with brains.

>>629365

>talks about nasty people

>>610753

>is nasty people

irony folks

wrong link

>>610753

>talks about nasty people

>>610365

>is nasty people

still as ironic.

>>629346

Huh? Where'd you get that from. I didn't say that believing X makes it true. I said that believing X is easily doable for anyone. The only truth is our Lord Jesus Christ.

>>629506

Can you believe in Santa?

>>617051

Right on and amen (welcome home)

>>629416

>>629415

>>629362

>>629530

How about you engage the actual arguments, or are the non existant too?

>lalala not real

t. you

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

>>629530

Of course I believe in Santa, if you mean Saint Nicolas.

If you mean a magical fairy in a red suit that comes by once per year, I don't believe that -but I could. I could espouse my belief in Santa, prepare a cookies for him, and have the expectation of presents in the morning.

The cognitive dissonance between expected results and being present-less would be hard to bear, unless I just decided I'd been naughty. It would also be hard to deal with the belief socially as no one I know believes in Santa. The reason I don't believe in Santa in that sense is a complicated explanation, though also intuitive. The issue is that God both is and isn't like this.

Similarly, you can believe in God. I didn't say that makes God true. God is true, but that's a completely separate issue to whether you believe in him.

Now, if you're concerned about cognitive dissonance I pointed out regarding the hypothesized belief in Santa, that's a valid concern. It's your misapprehensions about God that create those concerns.

Please explain why believing in God would be constantly challenged by your empirical experience and I will point out one of two things that will probably address them (if they don't, I'll follow up):

1) the cognitive dissonance from a belief in God would be created by the fact that you misunderstand God as a magical wish fairy in the sky instead of the essence of love, power, and righteousness that He is.

2) the cognitive dissonance created by your belief in God would be because you have surrounded yourself by people who do not believe in God and they are constantly battering you with the negative view.

As to the second, if you prefer to have those associates than believe in the promise of eternal life, you're welcome to make that choice but realize the cognitive dissonance is just as easily rid of by ditching your nay-saying friends.

The point I'm making is belief is a choice. How you resolve the cognitive dissonance between your beliefs is another issue entirely. Do you understand?

>>629590

He had a valid hypothetical, though it was stated in a mildly inflammatory way. I think I addressed it here (though, really, it's just the same argument I posted previously with more examples since, for some reason, I think this guy is having trouble comprehending it)

>>629703

>>629703

as the essence of love, power, and righteousness.

or

That angry God found all over the old testement.

>>629415

>>629416

>tries linking twice

>screws it up both times

Yeah, ironic.

>>629933

I'm sorry did you have a point pertinent to the discussion or are you just trying to post inflammatory BS?

If you want to see the reconciliation of your misunderstanding about the old and new covenant, go read some of the two millenia of theology that have already rationally dealt with your arguments long, long, ago to the satisfaction of millions. If you can't be bothered actually reading the theology, I can't be bothered arguing it with you.

We were discussing your proposed point that belief is literally impossible, my blowing you the f out, and you still being unable to post a refutation or rebuttal that is on point.

>>610749

Hardcore atheists desperately want to be a part of a group. Religion requires rules, anyone can say there no deities and be "woke". They are lonely, that's it

What about atheists that disbelieve in the Christian God/Jesus but are completely open to "spirituality" and various false religions.

>>629962

that wouldn't be an atheist, that would be an agnostic+

>>629938

your asking me to "believe in God" but the one you describe is unknown to me, just like a Muslim telling Islam is the religion of peace. So, I don't get where you are coming from.

>>629949

Your view is interesting. This is actually how atheists consider religious people. Desperately trying to be part of a group, too have a father-figure, to be told what is right and wrong etc, to be told in the end it's all going to be OK+.

>>629968

>your asking me to "believe in God" but the one you describe is unknown to me, just like a Muslim telling Islam is the religion of peace. So, I don't get where you are coming from.

I never asked you to believe anything. You said (or at least took up the argument that) you were -incapable- of belief.

Still no refutation or rebuttal to show you are incapable. You can choose not to believe; it's not my eternity on the line man, I've already chosen to follow Jesus, you have free will.

But you asserted a proposition that just isn't true. You can believe if you want. Go back and read my answer to your Santa analogy, or go back and read my points on cognitive dissonance.

Do you recognize that you can believe if you want?

As long as you recognize you have the choice, and just choose not to, that's on you. Believing you have no choice- that's a demon.

>>629968

> Your view is interesting. This is actually how atheists consider religious people. Desperately trying to be part of a group, too have a father-figure, to be told what is right and wrong etc, to be told in the end it's all going to be OK+.

So maybe, just maybe, humans have an innate desire to form communities based around shared beliefs. Even people who claim that atheism is merely an absence of belief in any gods, in fact want to form communities based around a supposed non-belief. People who have claimed to have removed religion from their lives still desire a church.

>>629506

Huh? Where'd you get that from.

I didn't say that believing X makes it true.

>>629530

Similarly, you can believe in God.

I didn't say that makes God true.

The actual definition of belief in English:

>be·lieve (bĭ-lēv′)

<1. To accept as true or real

Your entire argument is based on this line of false reasoning and misunderstanding of English. Is that refuted enough for you?

>>629703

(last post) I apologize for the wrong link I've never had to cross-link so much in my life. 728a71, You seem like a good guy, but look around you on this thread, so many nasty and negative people claiming to follow Jesus. These kinds of people don't just ripple on Christian imageboards but in real life, they say and do things everyday that make more people turn away from God. If you really want to convert more people to God, perhaps the best thin you can do is "clean your own house". Anyways, thank you for being civil. I don't know how this became an attempted conversation thread, it was never going to happen.

>>610749

To recap this entire thread. I believe most atheists would prefer to be believers, but for various reasons we cannot believe. Those people who talk nasty in this thread is another reason atheists don't believe as Christians don't have a track-record of high-humanity that surpasses other groups. Perhaps you guys could work on that, I promise you that will give (some) people a chance of belief.

>>610749

Oh, they KNOW that God is real. They just HATE Him.

Those who have pointed out that the problem atheists have is that they're afraid of judgement are correct for only a minority of the atheists out there, and mostly those of the faggot or racially (((jewish))) varieties. These people use rhetoric to attempt to show that they are vehemently opposed to any idea that God exists, because they are afraid of what will happen when they die. They are literally and figuratively "whistling past the graveyard."

For a lot of them, though, the problem is that they are not rejecting God so much as they are rejected an incorrect conception of Him. This can be addressed through a de-catechization of what they think they know, and a proper catechization of what they should know. about Him. Many of these issues revolve around the substitutional model of the Crucifixion, a juritical model of Salvation, and a total ignorance of the importance of the Incarnation. For the most part, these people will be intellectually honest in conversations, admitting that God exists, or saying they wish He did, or claiming agnosticism, while basically taking a stance of rejecting various religious interpretations of God.

Still others have been simply brainwashed by the zeitgeist. They really don't have any opinion of their own about the matter, they're simply "virtue signalling" by parroting what they think, or what they've been made to think, will make them look "cool" and "smart" and will help them conform, because the vast majority of people are essentially NPCs it may sound insulting but it is true and will just do whatever and say whatever to be thought of as one of the group. These are the people that will neither be vehement, nor intellectually honest, but will be flippant and ridiculous in their commentary. "Oh that's just crazy" or "muh current year man" or "wow just wow" type of responses. This last group is full of people who, when the revolution comes and the real Holocaust begins, not that fake LOLohoax crap, and the (((jew))) is expelled from our lands and we take over the media and government again, this last group is full of people who will go to Church every time the door is open and will proudly say they've always believed and will make those snide comments to atheists once that all happens.

>>630016

you did if you wrote:

>>629346

No. My argument is that anyone can believe in God. That's it. No more. Everyone is capable of belief.

I never said that believing makes it true. You countered sarcastically that it doesn't because you misunderstood my argument. That's all.

>>630021

>(last post) I apologize for the wrong link I've never had to cross-link so much in my life. 728a71, You seem like a good guy, but look around you on this thread, so many nasty and negative people claiming to follow Jesus. These kinds of people don't just ripple on Christian imageboards but in real life, they say and do things everyday that make more people turn away from God. If you really want to convert more people to God, perhaps the best thin you can do is "clean your own house". Anyways, thank you for being civil. I don't know how this became an attempted conversation thread, it was never going to happen.

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm have just been pointing out a logical fault in your reasoning. Anyone can believe.

You may have reasons for choosing not to believe, but it's a choice. As long as you're aware of that choice, it's yours to make. I just have disdain but also pity for the silly "woe is me, I wish I could believe" threads. If you want to believe, do so, with all its attendant benefits and the changes you will have to undergo to reconcile yourself to the new reality you've accepted.

>To recap this entire thread. I believe most atheists would prefer to be believers, but for various reasons we cannot believe

-choose- not to believe. Sure, I agree if you mean choose.

>Those people who talk nasty in this thread is another reason atheists don't believe as Christians don't have a track-record of high-humanity that surpasses other groups. Perhaps you guys could work on that, I promise you that will give (some) people a chance of belief.

Christians cannot convert you. Only you can. Christians deliver the message in a million different ways and the hope is that the listeners will actually hear one of the versions.

Christ says we'll be hated for our beliefs, that doesn't surprise us. If you believe, understand, and live by his teachings, everyone else seems twisted and insane. I have the benefit of being a convert so I remember how it was to be unsaved but you gotta remember, we're spreading the message for your potential benefit, not ours. We already have the gift of eternal life.

>>629092

You would be shocked to discover just how much you take on faith, without the merest support, shred of evidence, proof, or even probabilistic weighting.

Summon all your courage, and with your integrity, love of truth and curiosity, your perspective on faith may be transformed.

>>630253

>Oh, they KNOW that God is real. They just HATE Him.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

>>630274

You seem to be unable to concentrate on the rebuttal you requested and continue to post your assertions. Here are your points.

>Huh? Where'd you get that from.

>I didn't say that believing X makes it true.

>Similarly, you can believe in God.

>I didn't say that makes God true.

Here is my rebuttal.

<The actual definition of belief in English:

<be·lieve (bĭ-lēv′)

<1. To accept as true or real

It's not sarcastic or anything else as you implied but a straight, technical point of fact. You defined belief in a way that "doesn't make something true" not once but twice in previous posts as a kind of "gotcha" argument. All your text every single bit of it relies on a false understanding of the word belief.

it's more irony but it's not sarcasm.

>>630419

>

It's not sarcastic or anything else as you implied but a straight, technical point of fact. You defined belief in a way that "doesn't make something true" not once but twice in previous posts as a kind of "gotcha" argument. All your text every single bit of it relies on a false understanding of the word belief.

Not at all. Here's the problem with your erroneous interpretation of that correct definition:

1. To ACCEPT as true or real

In an objective sense, believing something doesn't make it true or real. Belief is you -accepting- something as true or real.

You're confusing the objective with the subjective. Anyone can accept something as true or real, it just doesn't make it so in an objective sense or even necessarily toward others.

Accepting something as true just means living your life in accordance with what a person would do if it was true. Believing can also include doubt, yet you act as if it was true in spite of the doubt.

At least you finally explained what you weren't understanding. You're confusing the objective with the subjective. Believing means making a thing true, accepting it, personally- which anyone can decide for themselves. But belief doesn't not change objective reality. That was the point I was explaining in conjunction with how anyone can believe whatever they choose to.

>>630454

Literally you want to keep the word-games going and in order to do that I have to be more direct.

I can only ACCEPT something being true (belief) if there is evidence to support it. People who ACCEPT claims that DEFY natural laws and experience are fools/mentally off-balance. (Yes, a great deal of the world has some sort of mental health issue)

In this case, there are multiple parties (religions) with conflicting stories and evidence ("sacred texts") that conflict and deny the others. Many stories are older (pre-date) (The assertions of your group) Christianity. When many parties (religions/sects) claim to have ("the true divine") belief (acceptance) must be reserved for those who can prove their story.[Most people just adopt the story told by their local culture out of laziness] Only atheists (deniers of the divine) have any chance of it, due to lack of ANY evidence and non-biased sources the most suitable and acceptable conclusion is that all faiths are fables and myths. The only "belief of true" that any logical person can have is that non of it is true.

Nobody who has every been on 8ch (or ever) has ever seen a miracle, an angel or been touched by ANY god and their is certainly no proof of that event. We get lucky, we turn out lives around, we are forgiven by our self and others, good things happen sometimes but they cannot be "certainly" attributed to God, that is just people's wishful thinking that they are special and some divine-daddy-figure is actually looking out for them. The whole man is center of the Universe right below God is actually repulsive to me and has been humanities greatest excuse to bring evil to themselves, others and their environment.

>>630253

>atheists hate god.

literally impossible by definition

>"afraid of what will happen when they die"

literally the crutch the nearly all religion uses to gain followers, this isn't a fear of atheists but a fear of the religious.

>blames Jews

the founder of Christianity was a Jew, and while I'm not a big fan, your talk of a 2nd holocaust is not in lines with Christian ideology, I would go far as to say I have a better chance to get to heaven than you do.

>For the most part, these people will be intellectually honest in conversations, admitting that God exists

displaying a brain hard-wired since birth to be unable to even conceive of anything other than the assumptions stuffed into it as a child.

>claims about zeitgeist

non-belief has been a thing since religion was a thing. (pre-Christianity) He dismisses athetism as a "fad".

>>630474

>literally impossible by definition

False. They hate authority, morals, hierarchies. Anyting that implies they are not free to be degenerates with no restrictions, anything tha implies there are objective morals, objective good and objective evil.

>literally the crutch the nearly all religion uses to gain followers, this isn't a fear of atheists but a fear of the religious.

It is a fear of atheists that they project.

>the founder of Christianity was a Jew

The founder of Christianity did nothing but condemn the jews and their ways. Modern jews are the legacy of the pharisees.

>your talk of a 2nd holocaust

There can only be a second if there was a first one.

>displaying a brain hard-wired since birth to be unable to even conceive of anything other than the assumptions stuffed into it as a child.

That is like saying that "for most part, people will breathe" is just being hard-wired since birth.

>non-belief has been a thing since religion was a thing. (pre-Christianity) He dismisses athetism as a "fad".

Non-beliefe has always been dismissed as the materialistic nonsense of simple-minded people. Atheists know nothing about religions, which is why they consider them all the same and always talk about "how do you know yours is the right one?????", because in their little minds, which knows nothign about them, they are equal, of course, so if anyone follows a religion, it must be something completely arbitrary or because they were taught that way.

Overall, you seem to be a fool who follows the atheism myth. Things that are beyond what you are used to (say, morality, consciousness, etc.) are reduced to arbitrary explanations involving the things you are used to, the same way ancient civilizations tried to explain rain or the seasons through the actions and influence of important human figures.

So you live in the fable, in the cavern. You only see the shadows and think all reality is just shadows. You ask people to show you evidence that there are things that aren't shadows, but you only consider to be evidence what is limited to shadows. That is your brain on atheism.

Here, take a look so that you can learn what "evidence" is, from someone who actually took these things seriously: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

>>630518

<literally just biased, blind and ignorant

>>629057

>oh man I wish I weren't so enlightene>being in my special club is so difficult

Yeah I'm sure being a middle-class "intellectual" in some western nanny-state is absolutely terrible. You are not a Christian precisely BECAUSE you have it so easy.

>>630474

>I can only ACCEPT something being true (belief) if there is evidence to support it.

That is an argument, not a fact, you'll need evidence to support it. No, but really, now you're arguing on the cognitive dissonance level.

Way up here >>629703 I anticpated this exact argument writing:

>Please explain why believing in God would be constantly challenged by your empirical experience

This is the same as saying "why does your current evidence run contrary to the existence of God?"

>Multiple religions

So, they're have been multiple theories in many scientific fields over centuries. Only one of them can ever prove to be right in the end. Sounds like you're just to lazy to explore each on its merits. I've studied a lot in other religions and have very particular reasons for disagreeing with all the major ones. Because I'm not dissatisfied with mine, and because I have yet to find a flaw with Christianity, I don't look into the extremely minor religions.

>no proof of that event

>citing witnesses before

In the philosophical idea, there is no proof of anything because proof is based on your flawed sensory apparatus (touch, taste, smell)

If you mean there is no evidence- witness itself is some evidence, you just choose not to accept it.

Again, believe whatever you want, but the idea that you don't have the free choice to believe or not believe is both silly and demonic.

>>630569

>not belief in your flavor of divinity = demonic

lol

>>630520

Literally stating the truths you don't like to hear.

>>630573

No, You are literally the least logical and Christian person I've met in a long time.

>>630572

I mean, yeah, that's true. You can laugh at the truth but it doesn't change it. Were you trying to move the discussion forward or did you just need to project your disdain publicly to shield yourself from the moral condemnation of the truth?

>>630577

You should learn what the word "logic2 means instead of using it like your favvorite enlightened fedora buzzword

>>630582

>I mean, yeah, that's true. You can laugh at the truth but it doesn't change it.

Implying you know the truth.

>>630589

Implying you even believe in truth as a concept.

>>610749

Pride. Admitting that there is a God, is admitting that there's something greater than you. It's, also why they're overwhelmingly leftist. Atheism is entirely self centered. It's the idea that someone is "good" because they are "good" in their own mental narrative, and not by a standard laid out by something, or someone superior. This is, also why secular moral values are so fluid. Leftism is akin to this, in the sense that they're the protagonist in a story, and the "hero." For there to be a hero, there must be a villain, and those in need of rescue; so they create a narrative in which those in good condition, are in such a condition because they've taken advantage of those who are not.

Of course this is a childish world view, and it leaves them venerable to those who do not share their view, but know how to take advantage. This person ultimately becomes their dictator, in all matters moral, and otherwise.

>>630862

>secular leaders have been far less controlling than religious leaders

China and the USSR called and they want their retarded argument back.

>>630862

Secular leaders have made up a tiny fraction of the world's population of leaders, and yet so far almost every single one has been tyrannical, or has quickly moved towards that. Asides from this, lumping in a ton of non-Christian leaders, to support your argument against a Christian, isn't that great of a tactic.

>>630921

>muh inquisition

>muh galileo

>muh burning times

Your historiography is centuries out of date Gibbons, go back to the grave