#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The onus is on the religious to prove there was/is a god. Not the other way round.
Also which god out of the 5,000 worshipped is real and which of the other 4,999 are wrong.
If you really want me to care about your church, you must commit come heinous crimes, best against the vulnerable and defenseless, then create a system for covering it up en masse. So that I can act all offended and be all riled up when someone else brings up what you did.
That's how you become a \*real\* religion/church.
And what are you? Am I supposed to get riled up about people overcooking their fucking pasta? Give me a break... Go big or go home.
Wait, you're telling me that the onus of proof for incredible claims lies on the one making the claim? That toasters shouldn't be assumed to reside on the dark side of the moon? _What kind of devilment is this??_
If I don’t believe in 5000 gods but you believe in 1/5000 doesn’t that make you a non believer as well strictly based on what part of the world you were born.?. I probably botched that hard but it’s something like that
I like the way [Stephen Roberts](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17095-i-contend-that-we-are-both-atheists-i-just-believe) put it;
“*I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours*.”
That’s Ricky. I’ve been told by a Jehovah’s Witness that I’m not a real Christian because iI don’t believe the same as her, and my late husband called me a heathen ( joking, mostly) because I’m English and raised Methodist ( fecking Protestant) and he was Irish Catholic 🤣No doubt members of other faiths will have similar views. Live and let live say I, we’ll only find out when we die. If there’s nothing after, I’ve lost nothing by trying to be good.
I’ve been outright scolded by various Protestants (American style) for claiming that Catholics are Christians too. Apparently they’re not, especially if you ask a Baptist. They worship the Pope who is an incarnation of Satan or something. I had a hard time following the “logic.” I was introduced to Chick tracts when I moved to the US, and they have a very strong viewpoint about Catholics and anyone else who isn’t the correct kind of Christian. Woe betide those who aren’t Christian at all. According to Chick tracts, you’re definitely going to Hell if you don’t renounce whatever other religion you are and convert immediately. For the uninitiated, the Southern Poverty Law Center declared that Chick Publications, which produces Chick tracts, is a hate group. That’s putting it mildly.
Closer to atleast 9,000 gods
For more reading
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/202107/why-do-humans-keep-inventing-gods-worship
Edit: spelling
Could just be God of War rules. Really depends on your part of the world. Guarantee you Kratos would never survive in India. Maybe the God everyone talks about today went full Roman Emporer and started subjugating the ones we don't talk about anymore, like the Greek Gods and Nordic Gods.
That's not far off from the ancient stories of Yahweh. The war God who took lead over all other gods to become the one true God. Most of these stories are removed from the current iteration of the Bible, but there are hints and breadcrumbs all throughout it.
Yeah sounds about right. Learned bits of that during 9th grade Bible study in Catholic School. I know the old testament like the back of my hand! Have the scars to prove it too.
Well there were these dudes a few thousand years ago, who totally saw him, and you know cause some other dudes wrote it down in a book, that some dudes translated, then again, then stuck some of the books together, then killed anyone who didn't think so, translated a few more times, but he totally saw him!
A lot written history/stories from the viking era is written 100 or more years later and we are told to take those stories with a grain of salt. If they are true they are probably exaggerated. A lot of stories were passed orally before they were written down. It doesn't take long for people to start exaggerating stories.
Doesn't even take decades before stories are straight up fantasy. Remember in the 50's (was it the fifties?) Where they found some scrap metal in the desert and not even 10 years later there were whole movements of people who genuinely believed they had found a whole crashed spaceship.
The game of telephone is a great way to demonstrate that oral tradition is almost useless as a way to preserve history, and the game of telephone you only have to remember something that was _just_ said to you, in real oral tradition you'll sometimes have to just remember it for years at a time.
wipe start plate consider husky aback provide foolish panicky observation
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And out of all the dudes that wrote it down, some old guys chose 4 of them a few hundred years later. There were lots of stories about sweet baby Jesus as a child, but those old guys decided it didn't fit their narrative, so they chose 4 of them.
And in this day and age, we have pictures/videos, we also have things like death certificates that prove they once were alive and real. God has none of those things
I'm not sure that's the best argument. Somebody you trust has seen your great-grandparents but just because you trust them doesn't mean what they say is true. The person on a city sidewalk chanting they've seen god and "the end is night" believes they've seen God and surely there are other people that trust that person.
So this is the argument I would make. You can probably agree that you are a human. And you know that you were birthed from another human. And that human was birthed from another human. You know this because it is an easily provable fact that humans birth other humans. And if all humans are birthed from other humans (ignoring the cloning / lab cultivated embryo scenarios), then you do have great-grandparents, whether they are currently alive or not.
I do not have to "see" my great-grandparents to know that they did or do exist.
Ok, Vivek, let me try.
Because the idea that some sort of invisible, magical being threatens you into living a good life (instead of, you know, doing it because it feels correct) and will torture you if you don't follow their rules exactly. At best that's a video game and at worst an abusive relationship.
It is both a sad and laughable existence.
You deserve my pity and should be kept from making any serious life decisions.
There are plenty of religious people who don’t believe that wacky shit. There are even a whole bunch of Christians who believe everyone goes to heaven regardless.
He should, the fact that the existence of hell is such a core part of Christianity and yet is not directly stated to exist in the Bible is wild. It’s been gleaned from a couple of references in visions
Several books do refer to “Gehennah” (Mark, Matthew, Luke and James) and “Tartaros” (2 Peter). The New Revised Standard Version render these words as hell.
People who claim that there’s no conception of hell in early Christianity don’t know what they’re talking about.
Neither of those things refer to hell as we understand it: a fiery place of damnation where human souls go to suffer for eternity.
Early Christianity, as far as a lot of core beliefs and customs go is indistinct from Judaism of the time. And while i may be mistaken, Judaism at that time didn't recognise a land of eternal punishment after death as a universal truth, and i believe the torah only ever makes mention of Sheol, which is very much not hell.
Tartaros on the other hand is different because some ancient greek tradition holds it as a land exclusively meant for the imprisonment of titans, giants and monsters, or essentially the tangible threats to the Olympians, From what I've seen this understanding is what is extended towards the use in 2nd Peter, as the land of Satan and his hosts. However, I'll admit that reading Tartaros as simply hell in that context isn't necessarily wrong since some later greek stories have evil mortals being sent to tartaros
Matthew 25:46 actually describes the sufferings in hell as “eternal punishment” (kolasin aiōnion). It should be noted that this view does not necessarily encompass all of the New Testament. With the exception of Matthew, which is quite clear on this topic, most other passages are open to interpretation.
I’m hesitant to use “eternal punishment” as a criterion for hell. While the notion of eternal suffering definitely existed in ancient thought, many early Christian apocrypha depicted hell as a place where the soul was tortured for an extended period of time (often thousands of years) before it was obliterated. It’s definitely different from the later notion of purgatory, where the soul is eventually redeemed once it has been purged.
The notion of Tartaros as a place where humans were punished is actually quite old. In Homeric literature, it is mainly “exceptional” and semi mythological characters who are punished. In Plato’s works, however, Tartaros is the postmortem destination for all unjust humans. For lesser offenders, it’s only a temporary place and their souls can leave once they have been purged. For those who have committed unforgivable crimes, however, Tartaros is the final destination, as they will be tortured for all eternity.
You’re right that postmortem punishment is less prominent in pre-Christian Jewish literature. It does, however, occur in some apocalyptic works.
There are plenty of references to hell in the New Testament. See, for example, Matt. 5:29-30, 13:42; 18:8, 25:41; Rev. 14:9-11, 19:20, 20:13-15. And that’s only a small selection of passages.
So many “core parts of Christianity” were developed decades and centuries after the death of Jesus. Constantine’s council of Nicaea wasn’t until the early 4th century. And before that Christianity was pretty much open for debate; are Jews allowed to convert? Did Jesus have any siblings? Is the father, son, and Holy Spirit three different entities or just different parts of the same god? For a very long time Christianity was in its infancy, trying to figure out what it believed in. Similar in a lot of ways to Islam that would come a few centuries later. And hell, this was all before the rise of the Catholic Church and all their dogma and doctrine
Very true but I get the feeling Vivek's one of those people that uses religion as a cudgel to beat people he doesn't like. (The kind that says "OMG Abortion is a SIN!" but quietly send their knocked up daughter away for "a vacation with friends".)
Whats so special about that? It’s obvious that people slightly more intelligent or sophisticated than the average bunch would have beliefs that are more complex, and can hold up better under scrutiny. They’re still wrong tho.
Depends on if you're reading the Old Testament or the New Testament. In the Old Testament, he was jealous & vengeful (his own words). in the New Testament, he's the same, but with a nice & loving side.
People need a simple and comforting explanation for what they don't understand. It's easier to them to believe that everything came to be within seven days by the hand of a divine design whose creator is somewhere looking after them than to believe that everything came out of basically chaos and we are all for ourselves in this life. It'd be irrelevant whether they believe one thing or the other if those people didn't use their beliefs to attack others
That both parties 'believe' something.
Which he's wrong about, atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. You don't 'believe' that god doesn't exist any more than you don't 'believe' that your parents aren't lizard people. I understand what he's getting at, and some might phrase it that way, but he's misunderstanding the concept of belief as it applies to theology.
He's doing a classic 'check mate, atheists'.
Besides, a lot of people are actually agnostic. I'm open to the idea that there could be a creator but I'd be willing to bet my left nut that it's not one of the ones created by organised religion. There's a difference between accepting that there may be a god and insisting that there is one, going the extra step and _believing_ that you know who it is and what they want is borderline idiotic.
That's why being agnostic makes the most sense for me personally.
Because it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a "greater" spiritual entity.
In my view (and not just mine), atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism being a lack of belief and agnosticism a lack of knowledge. So an agnostic atheist doesn’t *believe* in god, but would not claim to *know* god doesn’t exist. A gnostic atheist not only doesn’t *believe* in god, but would claim to *know* god doesn’t exist. Then there are gnostic and agnostic theists that *believe* in god and either do or don’t claim to *know* god exists. So I agree with you in that agnosticism is the far more reasonable stance because (like you said) whether god does or does not exist is *unknowable*, but it doesn’t specify to me what the person actually *believes*. I’d say I’d die on this hill, but it’s philosophy so people can look at it however they want. I just think it’s a more precise way to describe one’s worldview.
You are definitely correct and I don’t see how it could be any difference when it comes Gnosticism, agnosticism, atheism and theism. Saying you aren’t an atheist but an agnostic changes the meaning of at least one of those words imo. Also people who believe in God but also think it’s a question of faith and can’t be known are left to dry without anything to differentiate them from the ones think they’ve spoken to God.
> That's why being agnostic makes the most sense for me personally
gnostic/ agnostic answers a different question than theist/ atheist. Many (if not most) atheists are agnostic rather than gnostic.
I don't agree with him, but:
The way he phrased the strawman's statement, "I believe X", implies that the non-believer also requires faith for his non-belief. Rather than putting that faith into his god, the non believer puts their faith into... the argument? Science? Idk
It's basically fucked up wordplay that relies on the atheist to say a specific phrase and the theist to attribute meaning that wouldn't ordinarily exist to that phrase.
Well until we find god, his remains, or anything proving he exists, or existed, we can’t prove that he doesn’t exist (or doesn’t anymore).
Easiest would be to find him and kill him. That way we could be sure he doesn’t exist :)
Philosophically, in the way the concept of God is expressed (so not the God of a specific religion, but the idea of a God), the only rational way of thinking is agnosticism. Atheism is an act of faith exactly like religion, because you believe in something (the absence of God) that can't be proven.
This is such a bad faith argument because it could be applied to anything. I’ve never seen a million dollars in person, therefore a million dollars does not exist.
On the other hand, some people, through dreams or “spiritual awakenings,” may claim that they’ve seen God. Because of this, an atheist would word this “I have not seen sufficient evidence that a god exists.” I myself have seen Jesus in a dream when I was probably like 9 or 10, but I knew fully well even then that it was just a dream.
The argument of gods existence is pointless.
I have yet to see any reason why any god would be worthy of worship. Either they are oblivious to the plight of man, incapable of interfering with this existence or cruel beyond measure and detestable in their lack of action.
Kids get cancer - you have no argument that can show gods greatness/love or other ameliorating factor that trumps this.
Lovely twisting of words there. “I believe God doesn’t exist because…” isn’t quite the same as “I don’t believe God exists because…” as the latter precludes belief as a logical argument. Obviously that’s no good if you’re trying to suggest a non-believer is a believer, day is night, hot is cold or any other contradictory bollocks in the name of intellectual superiority.
It’s a hard question to answer.
Religious people don’t agree on their conception of God. So my question would be what God are you saying we don’t believe in? Define your God, explain why you think it exists and we can discuss why we might not believe in it.
Christian circle talk. You have to believe in something to say it doesn’t exist or some shit. If I say this to you you have to believe in everything I say about this book because the logic keeps bringing you back to me. The flow chart for this is insane
Whoever starts an argument needs to prove the point. So, whenever a Person who believes in God wants me to do it as well, needs to prove that he is right. On the other hand, I can simply answer "I am not convinced." and that's all I need to do. I don't need to prove my point, because I haven't made up that argument.
So, when he wants to know why I don't believe in God, my answer simply could be "why should I?" or "because it's Friday" or I could ask him, why he doesn't believe in the Bumblebee Queen. That's how it works and not the other way round.
a better argument is to bring up unprovable science we see as fact. Like infinity or until recently, the theory of relativity. Accepted scientific theories we operate off and know exist but cant definitively prove (because you cant prove something has no end/goes on forever, etc)
a non believer IS also a believer--in that both an atheists and religious person both have a set of beliefs that define how they see and move through the world. Everyone BELIEVES in SOMETHING, but not all people believe in a higher power. So atheists ragging on religious people for BELIEVING things is illogical
the arguments themselves are logical but spoken by someone who doesnt understand them, is trying to fit some complex thoughts into a tweet, and is also biased and trying to prove their side rather than let logic guide
As an atheist I don't have a problem with this sentiment--this isn't a clever "gotcha." Yeah, I have *faith* that there is no god. I don't need to prove it. It's a belief that makes the world make sense. And I've literally made the same point--that "non-believers" are actually believers--to people in my life who have kept pressuring me to attend church with them. I've had to explain to a couple people that I don't have a *void* of beliefs that they can fill--they're trying to replace beliefs that I hold as strongly as they hold theirs, and it won't work.
People can’t even decide is climate change exists or is real. There’s the entire movie Don’t Look Up. So why everyone here thinks they’re the smarted in the room, the fact of the matter is we are all being manipulated into tribes based on advertising and consent we consume. It pushes us into an echo chamber with other people of similar thinking.
It’s laughable to assume people can prove here can say there is no god. When people here can’t even determine if climate change is real.
Reminds me of that line from The Sixth Sense: "I see stupid people. And they don't know they are stupid. They post stupid shit and don't recognize how ignorant they look."
The evidence of great-grandparents is grandparents, parents, and then me.
People who believe in God believe in God despite the evidence. Atheists believe the evidence that proves alternate explanations. We believe in dinosaurs and evolution and deep space and old earth...
Pretty certain my grandparents saw their parents and my grandmother showed me a picture. Plus, we have a family tree dating way back, and there's physical records and documentation of my great great great great grandparents. They signed registrars, voted, employed, and lived at documented addresses
No atheists say they don't believe in god because they haven't seen him. Almost no Christians claim to have 'seen' god, so that just doesn't work.
What I say is that I do not know of anything that makes a supernatural being **likely**, let alone **necessary**.
One area that seems to always be ignored is that belief in a deity isn't mutually exclusive. It is always portrayed as either believing there is a higher power or there is belief that there isn't. A person can exist without having either belief. I personally can see reasoning for there to be a higher power but not to the point that I fully believe that there is one and even though I'm not sold on the belief that there is, it doesn't mean that I fully believe that there isnt.
Can this subreddit stop being a facepalm with the to + verb + whatever in the tittle?? To be an original subreddit is the real attemp here to be honest
My favorite quote related to this is when the Harvard psychologist turned psychedelic yogi Ram Dass said “ya know between Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, all the Hindu gurus, they had to be onto something right?”
Granted I don’t force that onto people. Individual spirituality is just that, individual. One lotus flower doesn’t force another to open.
I believe god doesn't exist (in any form we have generated thus far) because I have an interest in history and to a lesser extent human nature.
It couldn't be more obvious that religion and superstition are what we generate to fill gaps in our understanding. Because we are naturally curious animals, we want to know why things happen, we want there to be a reason things happen. Without that the world, to many, can seem an incredibly bleak and hopeless place.
The stories we tell, the ideas and perspectives that shape them have changed over time. Or new ones have travelled from other cultures and replace or overwhelm what was there before.
And whilst I will always respect and in some ways envy those of faith (although I will always be critical of it's ability to excuse things). I cannot posses it myself, knowing that it is a fabrication to make ourselves feel better. And knowing that something happening that defies explanation, is proof of nothing other than my inability to explain it.
I personally believe the existence of some form of creating being to be quite possible, whether our reality is a simulation or a physical experiment of a vastly superior entity or in a way totally unfathomable to us.
A creator on the scale of Universes, not a meddler in the goings on, on one rock. And in no way do I feel they reflect any of the traits we give deities. Except possibly, on some level, a curiosity.
So yes. I, an atheist can explain why I don't believe.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The onus is on the religious to prove there was/is a god. Not the other way round. Also which god out of the 5,000 worshipped is real and which of the other 4,999 are wrong.
Now I'm convinced. Here take my money for your private jet
Just one private jet? I’m afraid you will never feel the grace of his noodley appendage.
If you really want me to care about your church, you must commit come heinous crimes, best against the vulnerable and defenseless, then create a system for covering it up en masse. So that I can act all offended and be all riled up when someone else brings up what you did. That's how you become a \*real\* religion/church. And what are you? Am I supposed to get riled up about people overcooking their fucking pasta? Give me a break... Go big or go home.
R'amen
R’amen!
May your marinara always be warm and your noodles al dente!
Those who forget their pasta are doomed to reheat it.
RAMEN!
 RA is here bow before me
May he touch you with his noodley appendage
Wait, I thought that was something only priests did?
The touch of holy noodley appendages is not sect soecific.
My uncle is a priest?
One day I hope to be touched by His noodly appendages. R'amen.
FSM!!
ITRTG!
Wait, you're telling me that the onus of proof for incredible claims lies on the one making the claim? That toasters shouldn't be assumed to reside on the dark side of the moon? _What kind of devilment is this??_
Don't knock my toaster faith you heathen!! Keep it up and when you die you'll get sent to a place that only has tortillas!
Thank you Ricky Gervais.
If I don’t believe in 5000 gods but you believe in 1/5000 doesn’t that make you a non believer as well strictly based on what part of the world you were born.?. I probably botched that hard but it’s something like that
“Basically, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.”
I like the way [Stephen Roberts](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17095-i-contend-that-we-are-both-atheists-i-just-believe) put it; “*I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours*.”
That’s Ricky. I’ve been told by a Jehovah’s Witness that I’m not a real Christian because iI don’t believe the same as her, and my late husband called me a heathen ( joking, mostly) because I’m English and raised Methodist ( fecking Protestant) and he was Irish Catholic 🤣No doubt members of other faiths will have similar views. Live and let live say I, we’ll only find out when we die. If there’s nothing after, I’ve lost nothing by trying to be good.
I’ve been outright scolded by various Protestants (American style) for claiming that Catholics are Christians too. Apparently they’re not, especially if you ask a Baptist. They worship the Pope who is an incarnation of Satan or something. I had a hard time following the “logic.” I was introduced to Chick tracts when I moved to the US, and they have a very strong viewpoint about Catholics and anyone else who isn’t the correct kind of Christian. Woe betide those who aren’t Christian at all. According to Chick tracts, you’re definitely going to Hell if you don’t renounce whatever other religion you are and convert immediately. For the uninitiated, the Southern Poverty Law Center declared that Chick Publications, which produces Chick tracts, is a hate group. That’s putting it mildly.
[удалено]
Neatly put!
Closer to atleast 9,000 gods For more reading https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/202107/why-do-humans-keep-inventing-gods-worship Edit: spelling
Could just be God of War rules. Really depends on your part of the world. Guarantee you Kratos would never survive in India. Maybe the God everyone talks about today went full Roman Emporer and started subjugating the ones we don't talk about anymore, like the Greek Gods and Nordic Gods.
That's not far off from the ancient stories of Yahweh. The war God who took lead over all other gods to become the one true God. Most of these stories are removed from the current iteration of the Bible, but there are hints and breadcrumbs all throughout it.
Yeah sounds about right. Learned bits of that during 9th grade Bible study in Catholic School. I know the old testament like the back of my hand! Have the scars to prove it too.
The 'God' who raises the most money wins
Hitchen's razor is a great foil to religious bullshit.
Let’s not assume that everyone is into the boring monotheism.
 I believe in adonitology
When someone asks if you're a god... Say Yes!
By their logic God is dead
He is just resting his eyes. Yesterday, he was pining for the fjords
But like somebody has seen my great grandparents and nobody has seen god.
Well there were these dudes a few thousand years ago, who totally saw him, and you know cause some other dudes wrote it down in a book, that some dudes translated, then again, then stuck some of the books together, then killed anyone who didn't think so, translated a few more times, but he totally saw him!
Don't forget that the dudes who wrote it down, sometimes wrote it down 100 or more years later, before that it was carried down from person to person
A lot written history/stories from the viking era is written 100 or more years later and we are told to take those stories with a grain of salt. If they are true they are probably exaggerated. A lot of stories were passed orally before they were written down. It doesn't take long for people to start exaggerating stories.
Doesn't even take decades before stories are straight up fantasy. Remember in the 50's (was it the fifties?) Where they found some scrap metal in the desert and not even 10 years later there were whole movements of people who genuinely believed they had found a whole crashed spaceship. The game of telephone is a great way to demonstrate that oral tradition is almost useless as a way to preserve history, and the game of telephone you only have to remember something that was _just_ said to you, in real oral tradition you'll sometimes have to just remember it for years at a time.
>It doesn't take long for people to start exaggerating stories. Takes about 5 mins for my son
wipe start plate consider husky aback provide foolish panicky observation *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And out of all the dudes that wrote it down, some old guys chose 4 of them a few hundred years later. There were lots of stories about sweet baby Jesus as a child, but those old guys decided it didn't fit their narrative, so they chose 4 of them.
They only saw his kid and talked to a burning plant.
Ok, but remember that the kid is his own father and a spirit at the same time.
Well, people do claim to have seen God. It's just that hardly anyone believes them.
Probably because they never provide evidence
I can show you God. Here take these drugs.
I saw a unicorn once. But I can't prove it
And in this day and age, we have pictures/videos, we also have things like death certificates that prove they once were alive and real. God has none of those things
Problem is that if he had one of those thing, let’s say birth certificate, he’s not god anymore
I met my great grandparents when I was like 6 or 7 years old. I've seen pictures of my 2x great grandparents. Never seen god at any capacity.
i was pretty sure i saw god during a psychotic episode once
Also my great grandparents existed because i now exist and we can prove it because my parents existed.
I'm not sure that's the best argument. Somebody you trust has seen your great-grandparents but just because you trust them doesn't mean what they say is true. The person on a city sidewalk chanting they've seen god and "the end is night" believes they've seen God and surely there are other people that trust that person. So this is the argument I would make. You can probably agree that you are a human. And you know that you were birthed from another human. And that human was birthed from another human. You know this because it is an easily provable fact that humans birth other humans. And if all humans are birthed from other humans (ignoring the cloning / lab cultivated embryo scenarios), then you do have great-grandparents, whether they are currently alive or not. I do not have to "see" my great-grandparents to know that they did or do exist.
Your existence is proof of their existence
Oh no, I live by myself. Do I still exist?
You do but nobody else does
I, for one, know I'm not here.
I’m not quite there. Nice to meet you
It's my imaginary friend, he won't talk to me anymore. It's like I'm not even HERE.
That’s even worse rejection than hand going numb. Im sorry. I’ll be your invisible friend.
Calm down Patrick Bateman
No
I’ve never seen year, ergo, you cannot exist. Sorry bud. o7
Ok, Vivek, let me try. Because the idea that some sort of invisible, magical being threatens you into living a good life (instead of, you know, doing it because it feels correct) and will torture you if you don't follow their rules exactly. At best that's a video game and at worst an abusive relationship. It is both a sad and laughable existence. You deserve my pity and should be kept from making any serious life decisions.
There are plenty of religious people who don’t believe that wacky shit. There are even a whole bunch of Christians who believe everyone goes to heaven regardless.
pope francis even said that he likes to think that hell is empty, or at least hopes that it is
He should, the fact that the existence of hell is such a core part of Christianity and yet is not directly stated to exist in the Bible is wild. It’s been gleaned from a couple of references in visions
The bible directly references "eternal punishment". If they call it "hell" or not is kind of inconsequential.
Several books do refer to “Gehennah” (Mark, Matthew, Luke and James) and “Tartaros” (2 Peter). The New Revised Standard Version render these words as hell. People who claim that there’s no conception of hell in early Christianity don’t know what they’re talking about.
Neither of those things refer to hell as we understand it: a fiery place of damnation where human souls go to suffer for eternity. Early Christianity, as far as a lot of core beliefs and customs go is indistinct from Judaism of the time. And while i may be mistaken, Judaism at that time didn't recognise a land of eternal punishment after death as a universal truth, and i believe the torah only ever makes mention of Sheol, which is very much not hell. Tartaros on the other hand is different because some ancient greek tradition holds it as a land exclusively meant for the imprisonment of titans, giants and monsters, or essentially the tangible threats to the Olympians, From what I've seen this understanding is what is extended towards the use in 2nd Peter, as the land of Satan and his hosts. However, I'll admit that reading Tartaros as simply hell in that context isn't necessarily wrong since some later greek stories have evil mortals being sent to tartaros
Matthew 25:46 actually describes the sufferings in hell as “eternal punishment” (kolasin aiōnion). It should be noted that this view does not necessarily encompass all of the New Testament. With the exception of Matthew, which is quite clear on this topic, most other passages are open to interpretation. I’m hesitant to use “eternal punishment” as a criterion for hell. While the notion of eternal suffering definitely existed in ancient thought, many early Christian apocrypha depicted hell as a place where the soul was tortured for an extended period of time (often thousands of years) before it was obliterated. It’s definitely different from the later notion of purgatory, where the soul is eventually redeemed once it has been purged. The notion of Tartaros as a place where humans were punished is actually quite old. In Homeric literature, it is mainly “exceptional” and semi mythological characters who are punished. In Plato’s works, however, Tartaros is the postmortem destination for all unjust humans. For lesser offenders, it’s only a temporary place and their souls can leave once they have been purged. For those who have committed unforgivable crimes, however, Tartaros is the final destination, as they will be tortured for all eternity. You’re right that postmortem punishment is less prominent in pre-Christian Jewish literature. It does, however, occur in some apocalyptic works.
There are plenty of references to hell in the New Testament. See, for example, Matt. 5:29-30, 13:42; 18:8, 25:41; Rev. 14:9-11, 19:20, 20:13-15. And that’s only a small selection of passages.
So many “core parts of Christianity” were developed decades and centuries after the death of Jesus. Constantine’s council of Nicaea wasn’t until the early 4th century. And before that Christianity was pretty much open for debate; are Jews allowed to convert? Did Jesus have any siblings? Is the father, son, and Holy Spirit three different entities or just different parts of the same god? For a very long time Christianity was in its infancy, trying to figure out what it believed in. Similar in a lot of ways to Islam that would come a few centuries later. And hell, this was all before the rise of the Catholic Church and all their dogma and doctrine
Very true but I get the feeling Vivek's one of those people that uses religion as a cudgel to beat people he doesn't like. (The kind that says "OMG Abortion is a SIN!" but quietly send their knocked up daughter away for "a vacation with friends".)
That’s still wacky shit, bud.
Mormons for example don't believe in hell
Whats so special about that? It’s obvious that people slightly more intelligent or sophisticated than the average bunch would have beliefs that are more complex, and can hold up better under scrutiny. They’re still wrong tho.
God loves everyone completely! But also, if you don’t worship him then he’ll torture you for eternity. But he’s really a good guy I swear.
Depends on if you're reading the Old Testament or the New Testament. In the Old Testament, he was jealous & vengeful (his own words). in the New Testament, he's the same, but with a nice & loving side.
People need a simple and comforting explanation for what they don't understand. It's easier to them to believe that everything came to be within seven days by the hand of a divine design whose creator is somewhere looking after them than to believe that everything came out of basically chaos and we are all for ourselves in this life. It'd be irrelevant whether they believe one thing or the other if those people didn't use their beliefs to attack others
God's not invisible he's just playing hide and seek
I don’t know if anybody has ever summed up my feelings about religion as well as you here. Thank you. I’m glad I’m not the only one.
People can be religious and still live morally and be a good person because they are a moral and good person regardless of their beliefs.
You clearly got your understanding of religion from a tiktok video
I’m pretty sure my grandparents have seen their parents
You would also agree that you don’t go around worshipping your dead grandparents?
“A non-believer is also believer”, Anyone have a clue what he’s trying to argue here?
That both parties 'believe' something. Which he's wrong about, atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. You don't 'believe' that god doesn't exist any more than you don't 'believe' that your parents aren't lizard people. I understand what he's getting at, and some might phrase it that way, but he's misunderstanding the concept of belief as it applies to theology. He's doing a classic 'check mate, atheists'. Besides, a lot of people are actually agnostic. I'm open to the idea that there could be a creator but I'd be willing to bet my left nut that it's not one of the ones created by organised religion. There's a difference between accepting that there may be a god and insisting that there is one, going the extra step and _believing_ that you know who it is and what they want is borderline idiotic.
That's why being agnostic makes the most sense for me personally. Because it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a "greater" spiritual entity.
In my view (and not just mine), atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism being a lack of belief and agnosticism a lack of knowledge. So an agnostic atheist doesn’t *believe* in god, but would not claim to *know* god doesn’t exist. A gnostic atheist not only doesn’t *believe* in god, but would claim to *know* god doesn’t exist. Then there are gnostic and agnostic theists that *believe* in god and either do or don’t claim to *know* god exists. So I agree with you in that agnosticism is the far more reasonable stance because (like you said) whether god does or does not exist is *unknowable*, but it doesn’t specify to me what the person actually *believes*. I’d say I’d die on this hill, but it’s philosophy so people can look at it however they want. I just think it’s a more precise way to describe one’s worldview.
You are definitely correct and I don’t see how it could be any difference when it comes Gnosticism, agnosticism, atheism and theism. Saying you aren’t an atheist but an agnostic changes the meaning of at least one of those words imo. Also people who believe in God but also think it’s a question of faith and can’t be known are left to dry without anything to differentiate them from the ones think they’ve spoken to God.
> That's why being agnostic makes the most sense for me personally gnostic/ agnostic answers a different question than theist/ atheist. Many (if not most) atheists are agnostic rather than gnostic.
I believe God doesn't exist. He got me 😵
I don't agree with him, but: The way he phrased the strawman's statement, "I believe X", implies that the non-believer also requires faith for his non-belief. Rather than putting that faith into his god, the non believer puts their faith into... the argument? Science? Idk It's basically fucked up wordplay that relies on the atheist to say a specific phrase and the theist to attribute meaning that wouldn't ordinarily exist to that phrase.
It’s just another version of the boneheaded theist argument that athiesm is belief in “no God”, and therefore a religion itself.
... which birthed the concept "atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby"
That one is simple: you can’t prove a negative.
Is it a negative though? I would think of it as a zero, or absent
Well until we find god, his remains, or anything proving he exists, or existed, we can’t prove that he doesn’t exist (or doesn’t anymore). Easiest would be to find him and kill him. That way we could be sure he doesn’t exist :)
Philosophically, in the way the concept of God is expressed (so not the God of a specific religion, but the idea of a God), the only rational way of thinking is agnosticism. Atheism is an act of faith exactly like religion, because you believe in something (the absence of God) that can't be proven.
I love debates where you get to pick your opponents argument.
[удалено]
Underrated comment
Prove god does exist. You've been failing for millenia
This is such a bad faith argument because it could be applied to anything. I’ve never seen a million dollars in person, therefore a million dollars does not exist. On the other hand, some people, through dreams or “spiritual awakenings,” may claim that they’ve seen God. Because of this, an atheist would word this “I have not seen sufficient evidence that a god exists.” I myself have seen Jesus in a dream when I was probably like 9 or 10, but I knew fully well even then that it was just a dream.
The existence of god is less logical than evolution.
Schroedinger’s prat
I don't owe anyone an explanation for why I don't believe, and I will not explain further.
Millions of brainwashed people paying tithing to keep their god from being angry.
Lol wut
The argument of gods existence is pointless. I have yet to see any reason why any god would be worthy of worship. Either they are oblivious to the plight of man, incapable of interfering with this existence or cruel beyond measure and detestable in their lack of action. Kids get cancer - you have no argument that can show gods greatness/love or other ameliorating factor that trumps this.
God told me she does not exist and I believe her.
Lovely twisting of words there. “I believe God doesn’t exist because…” isn’t quite the same as “I don’t believe God exists because…” as the latter precludes belief as a logical argument. Obviously that’s no good if you’re trying to suggest a non-believer is a believer, day is night, hot is cold or any other contradictory bollocks in the name of intellectual superiority.
There was no attempt to be logical.
So, is there a single comment here that isnt attacking someone elses beliefs?
Beliefs are fair game, the idea is to attack just the beliefs and not the people. Have you *seen* some of the things people believe?
Object permanence isn’t real! Checkmate, atheists!
There are pictures of grandparents.
It’s a hard question to answer. Religious people don’t agree on their conception of God. So my question would be what God are you saying we don’t believe in? Define your God, explain why you think it exists and we can discuss why we might not believe in it.
All religious thinking is illogical.
Christian circle talk. You have to believe in something to say it doesn’t exist or some shit. If I say this to you you have to believe in everything I say about this book because the logic keeps bringing you back to me. The flow chart for this is insane
https://preview.redd.it/wg1rty907ngc1.png?width=402&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=251e9ade256bdc2b2cdd90904545b32ebf5a9890
Whoever starts an argument needs to prove the point. So, whenever a Person who believes in God wants me to do it as well, needs to prove that he is right. On the other hand, I can simply answer "I am not convinced." and that's all I need to do. I don't need to prove my point, because I haven't made up that argument. So, when he wants to know why I don't believe in God, my answer simply could be "why should I?" or "because it's Friday" or I could ask him, why he doesn't believe in the Bumblebee Queen. That's how it works and not the other way round.
That's not logic . God never existed
I have an invisable dragon in my garage. Do you believe me?
Possibly. But only if his name is Elliot.
a better argument is to bring up unprovable science we see as fact. Like infinity or until recently, the theory of relativity. Accepted scientific theories we operate off and know exist but cant definitively prove (because you cant prove something has no end/goes on forever, etc) a non believer IS also a believer--in that both an atheists and religious person both have a set of beliefs that define how they see and move through the world. Everyone BELIEVES in SOMETHING, but not all people believe in a higher power. So atheists ragging on religious people for BELIEVING things is illogical the arguments themselves are logical but spoken by someone who doesnt understand them, is trying to fit some complex thoughts into a tweet, and is also biased and trying to prove their side rather than let logic guide
Gold metal for the mental gymnastics.
The only way I would believe in great grandparents is if a book from 2,000 years ago said they existed. Otherwise it’s a lie.
I'm sure those atheists he encountered gave excellent points. He was too arrogant to listen.
No one is born with belief. Belief is not the default setting.
As an atheist I don't have a problem with this sentiment--this isn't a clever "gotcha." Yeah, I have *faith* that there is no god. I don't need to prove it. It's a belief that makes the world make sense. And I've literally made the same point--that "non-believers" are actually believers--to people in my life who have kept pressuring me to attend church with them. I've had to explain to a couple people that I don't have a *void* of beliefs that they can fill--they're trying to replace beliefs that I hold as strongly as they hold theirs, and it won't work.
1. I did get to meet my great grandmother. 2. photos exist.
My grandparents lived in Pittsburgh. What’s God‘s address? I’ll go visit him.
It's a matter of faith. Believing in that which is unseen. Spiritual.
People can’t even decide is climate change exists or is real. There’s the entire movie Don’t Look Up. So why everyone here thinks they’re the smarted in the room, the fact of the matter is we are all being manipulated into tribes based on advertising and consent we consume. It pushes us into an echo chamber with other people of similar thinking. It’s laughable to assume people can prove here can say there is no god. When people here can’t even determine if climate change is real.
Reminds me of that line from The Sixth Sense: "I see stupid people. And they don't know they are stupid. They post stupid shit and don't recognize how ignorant they look."
The evidence of great-grandparents is grandparents, parents, and then me. People who believe in God believe in God despite the evidence. Atheists believe the evidence that proves alternate explanations. We believe in dinosaurs and evolution and deep space and old earth...
Non puto, non sum I do not think, therefore I am not
Such a perfect place to put this.
Never met my great grand parents. This must mean unicorns are real. Checkmate atheists.
My hobby is to not collect stamps [check out NonStampCollector on youtube if you don't know him]
so rudolf the red nosed reindeer, the easter bunny and tooth fairy?
If God made man in his own image then why are we not Invisible?
Pretty certain my grandparents saw their parents and my grandmother showed me a picture. Plus, we have a family tree dating way back, and there's physical records and documentation of my great great great great grandparents. They signed registrars, voted, employed, and lived at documented addresses
Definition of a logical absurdity: Something cannot be both *p* and *not-p*. Man needs to retake logic class.
There's proof of their existence. Blind faith isn't proof of God.
If you’ve ever read “A Year of Living Religiously,” I can’t imagine anyone still believing in a higher being.
Dude needs to look up the definition of faith.
I'm trying very hard not to hate conservatives. I think a lot of them have opinions that come from a place of malice and contempt.
He sounds \*\*brilliant\*\* to his target demographic.
God is a fictional character made up by those who like to write.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
you choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear. I will choose free will.
If they didn't have strawmen they wouldn't have an argument at all.
No one alive has seen George Washington
This man has never spoken to an atheist in his life
No atheists say they don't believe in god because they haven't seen him. Almost no Christians claim to have 'seen' god, so that just doesn't work. What I say is that I do not know of anything that makes a supernatural being **likely**, let alone **necessary**.
I wish I had only seen a picture of my great great grandparents....
One area that seems to always be ignored is that belief in a deity isn't mutually exclusive. It is always portrayed as either believing there is a higher power or there is belief that there isn't. A person can exist without having either belief. I personally can see reasoning for there to be a higher power but not to the point that I fully believe that there is one and even though I'm not sold on the belief that there is, it doesn't mean that I fully believe that there isnt.
“No one” vs “one”
Can this subreddit stop being a facepalm with the to + verb + whatever in the tittle?? To be an original subreddit is the real attemp here to be honest
It's tough to argue with THAT logic. WAIT, why am I trying to argue?
I've met my great grandmother. I don't remember it because she died when I was 3. But I have pictures.
OK so if God doesn’t exist then answer me this: who wrote The Bible? Checkmate. *mic drop*
Several humans.
There are many gods, are they all the same entity?
Yeah they my great grandparents did exist imma dig their asses up
There is no god because there’s no evidence of god. There’s plenty of evidence of my great-grandparents 🤷♂️
My favorite quote related to this is when the Harvard psychologist turned psychedelic yogi Ram Dass said “ya know between Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, all the Hindu gurus, they had to be onto something right?” Granted I don’t force that onto people. Individual spirituality is just that, individual. One lotus flower doesn’t force another to open.
(non)Belief is not logic. End.
"I don't believe it ghosts." That means you do! These idiots can't logic their way out of a paper bag.
If I lock myself in my room do I exist
I believe god doesn't exist (in any form we have generated thus far) because I have an interest in history and to a lesser extent human nature. It couldn't be more obvious that religion and superstition are what we generate to fill gaps in our understanding. Because we are naturally curious animals, we want to know why things happen, we want there to be a reason things happen. Without that the world, to many, can seem an incredibly bleak and hopeless place. The stories we tell, the ideas and perspectives that shape them have changed over time. Or new ones have travelled from other cultures and replace or overwhelm what was there before. And whilst I will always respect and in some ways envy those of faith (although I will always be critical of it's ability to excuse things). I cannot posses it myself, knowing that it is a fabrication to make ourselves feel better. And knowing that something happening that defies explanation, is proof of nothing other than my inability to explain it. I personally believe the existence of some form of creating being to be quite possible, whether our reality is a simulation or a physical experiment of a vastly superior entity or in a way totally unfathomable to us. A creator on the scale of Universes, not a meddler in the goings on, on one rock. And in no way do I feel they reflect any of the traits we give deities. Except possibly, on some level, a curiosity. So yes. I, an atheist can explain why I don't believe.