Anonymous OP 2w

The ‘devil’ was one of the first things to help wake me up from all the nonsense very young. This god’s biggest enemy who somehow can’t/won’t be defeated? And yet I’m supposed to believe that this god is all powerful/all loving? 🤣

35

Anonymous #2 2w

Humanity was created as part of God’s plan.

9

Anonymous OP 2w

Correct. And does humanity stray from God,s plan?

-3

Anonymous #2 2w

It wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t part of this big plan your cult loves to talk about.

10

Anonymous #2 2w

Negative, everything happens for a reason

9

Anonymous #1 2w

You are completely misrepresenting Christianity

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

And statistically earth even being able to sustain life is statistically impossible. So what do you say about events that are statistically impossible?

17

Anonymous #2 2w

Agreed, that’s not what Christianity is about

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Modal fallacy, permission ≠ intention. Simply that’s a false equivalence. A parent can allow a child to disobey without wanting the disobedience

0

Anonymous OP 2w

And I say all of this kindly, I hope it doesn’t come across rude or whatever. This is what Christianity is and part of its theology. I think we could both agree that understanding what God is actually saying and demonstrating is important to understand

4

Anonymous #2 2w

There’s over a sextillion number of planets in the universe. With that large of a number, even statistically improbable events are expected to happen. And of course, we would only spawn in on the planet that has life. So while statistically improbable, it is also statistically guaranteed in a large enough data set

18

Anonymous #2 2w

I was raised Catholic so I understand the religion pretty well. Did Wednesday school and got baptized, confirmed, all that. I guess I’m agnostic now. I believe that there COULD be a God, but I don’t believe that the abrahamic God is the God. Or the Islamic, Buddhist, etc. because ultimately, all major religions that are around today are playing a big game of telephone. Scriptures were written, re-written, translated, etc. But to your point, Christianity (today) teaches peace, love, etc.

3

Anonymous #2 2w

Not at all— the core doctrine and text is inherently negative and abusive. Focuses so heavily on blood and death and sacrifice and is rife with abuse, genocide, rape, the list goes on.

5

Anonymous #1 2w

True, but the way Christianity is TAUGHT is more of a “love thy neighbor, accept all people” kind of way. At least, that’s how it was taught to me and many people that I know

9

Anonymous OP 2w

Unfortunately, that’s far more limited a view amongst the 45,000+ sects. If it genuinely teaches love and support and kindness and working for a better world, it can’t really be deemed “Christian” in anything but name. It’d be far better than. But none of that is from the abrahamic god.

9

Anonymous #1 2w

Really I’m just trying to drive the point that none of the religions that are around today are “correct” because they’ve all been telephoned

8

Anonymous OP 2w

I see what you are saying. I think it’s worth mentioning the codex Sinaiticus is the oldest price you’ll find of the bible, the most complete bible that is. And you can actually look at it yourself on Google. Really neat. Anyways, that was found in 400 I believe and it matches up with the bible today. It hasn’t been rewritten, sure there are different translations but nothing about the bible has actually changed

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Also, scripture shows that God is love, I see how God looks completely different in the OT and the NT but it’s still God. And God is love. The OT is much harder to understand especially with how culture was back then. But when you check the Bible and why God has done what has been done it makes sense. So if you’d like to bring anything you don’t agree with I’d be happy to help if you’d like

7

Anonymous #2 2w

That’s pretty cool, I’ve never heard of that before. But still, the fact that Christianity has broken out into several different sub religions (I think) showcases my point as well. It’s a big game of telephone. If there is a God, they’re not accurately described in any current day religion

1

Anonymous #2 2w

It’s not that I don’t agree specific events, it’s just that it’s so old that it’s bound to be inaccurate to the original. The codex’s existence kind of diminishes that logic a little, but I was never talking about Christianity specifically, I was just using it as an example. Either way, I think most religions (today) are net good, even if proven false. Many of them teach good values and whatnot. So I’m not bashing any of them!

1

Anonymous #3 2w

That’s basically what I was saying lol

38

Anonymous OP 2w

I totally see what you mean. It’s worth mentioning that if this really was a game of telephone different manuscripts would say completely different things. Better yet different religions claim their way is the one true way. So either all are lying or all but one are lying. And in historical analysis, age cuts the other way that you claim when you have multiple independent sources. Having multiple sources say the same thing proves authenticity if anything. And could you maybe explain more on why

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Nothing is statistically guaranteed in that way. Each new planet has a 99.9% chance of being uninhabitable. You’re using a gamblers fallacy

11

Anonymous OP 2w

You think God isn’t accurately described in any current day religion?

0

Anonymous #2 2w

Well to be fair, Christianity WAS the government in many areas across the globe, so imo I think that has made Christianity more telephone-resistant than other religions. But I do agree, if multiple independent resources report the same result, it does give good credibility

1

Anonymous #2 2w

I guess I should rephrase. I believe it is highly unlikely that any current-day religions accurately describe God. Still possible, but highly unlikely.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

It’s not gamblers fallacy. It only takes a sample size of 30 to develop a predictable normal curve. When you have sextillion+ events, even 0.01% becomes millions. But you’re right, I shouldn’t say it’s statistically guaranteed, I should say statistically expected.

24

Anonymous OP 2w

Then what did they get wrong and how would you describe God?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

The bible’s texts and 45,000+ smaller cults≠authenticity or proof. It just shows how contradictory and inaccurate it all is.

1

I would just simply describe God as an entity that created the universe. The creator. I wouldn’t throw in other stuff like all powerful, omniscient, state that God is a man, etc. and that’s assuming that God exists.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

#2 was just using that information to prove that today’s Bible is largely unchanged from older versions. They were not stating that the Bible itself is accurate.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I know. I’m commenting on the “multiple independent sources” part of it.

4

Anonymous #5 2w

through abiogenesis. And even some plants can move and react to outside stimuli.

13

Anonymous #5 2w

We have numerous avenues through which to explore and confirm or deny. The building blocks for life are *not* rare in the universe. It’s quite possible life formed numerous times before it really took hold. Even the least supported ideas still have more evidence than the abrahamic “god”.

9

Anonymous OP 2w

So why can’t the entity who had created the universe be all powerful? Considering you acknowledge that there is a creator, why can’t the creator take on flesh?

1

Anonymous #6 2w

But what if free will is all part of God’s plan? Then that subsequently makes all free will choices part of his plan

5

Anonymous OP 2w

I was also skeptical of god but the one thing that always gets me is there’s fossil reminisce of noah’s arc

-4

Anonymous #7 2w

Although even that’s not conclusive so we may never know:)

-5

Anonymous #7 2w

No, there isn’t.

11

Anonymous #1 2w

#7 got clickbaited

10

Anonymous OP 2w

There’s many things that align that would make people believe it is noahs arc, but like I said it’s non conclusive:)

-4

Anonymous OP 2w

It was when Eve ate the apple

-4

Anonymous #6 2w

But that would’ve had to be part of God’s plan if God has a plan for all animals and humans.

6

Anonymous #7 2w

Quite the opposite. Reality disproves the ark. Repeatedly. In every way.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Bestie, religion is just brainwashing and an instrument to control people

6

Anonymous #5 2w

I need a chemist, but its just more complexity stemming from energy release. Do we know the exact pathway of chemicals>Molecules>Proteins? No but the proof is in the pudding and DNA

2

Anonymous #9 2w

Chemical - blanket term for one or more atoms Molecule - two or more atoms Protein - macronutrient made up of molecules By the way, any product that advertises “no chemicals” is straight up lying to you because even a single atom is considered a chemical.

2

Anonymous #2 2w

We can’t confirm or deny any of that through actual evidence, so we’re not sure. That’s what it means to be agnostic, you don’t know

1

Anonymous #10 2w

To #10’s point, I intentionally left out those other details because we don’t KNOW. It’s still very possible that God is the creator/all powerful/all seeing/etc. we just can’t prove that, so I’m not going to use it as the description. Think Halo, the precursors created most sentient life, but they were not all powerful

1

Anonymous OP 2w

free will is part of his plan, we have the free will to ignore his plan if we want. clearly you don’t believe, but using free will to go against his plan would land someone in hell. not saying you have to believe in God, but don’t try to make gotcha statements while misconstruing the entire premise of an argument. you’ll get dumbasses to agree with you but it doesn’t make you right

-1

Anonymous #11 2w

If there’s an overarching plan, then there’s no free will.

2

Anonymous #11 2w

It’s not misconstruing the argument. It’s thinking abstractly about the argument. Where does God’s plan start and end? If God’s plan starts before creation, then having free will is part of the plan, and therefore our choices are part of the plan. If God’s plan started after free will, then we can go against his plan. The original post is definitely clickbait though lol but isn’t everything nowadays??

2

Anonymous #1 2w

Not true. He could give us free will as part of his plan, expecting us to do unexpected things, but that’s to be expected BECAUSE it’s part of the plan. It could even be the ENTIRE plan. The plan could be just to create some creatures and have fun watching.

2

Anonymous OP 2w

the whole premise of free will is that it is the ability to choose whether or not we follow god’s plan. unless you’re trying to say that every possible outcome was preemptively created by him, and so therefore free will can’t exist because there were infinite predetermined possibilities. it’s like a CYOA book, you make a choice and then move to a new section, but you won’t get to read the whole book through.

-1

Anonymous #5 2w

Say you don’t believe in science the concept, lol. Please just vaccinate your children otherwise some of you people will have to buy tiny coffins and look for sympathy

1

Anonymous #7 2w

Could’ve made any other argument but chose the one about a boat that could fit EVERY? Single species of animal at the time (a lot) WITH their counterpart sex, so technically double of every species without any animal killing another for food?? Idk abt that one. Like I can kinda see like the reincarnation as a possibility and we can never truly 100% know abt a higher power but like cmon. The boat one isn’t the one to use.

6

Anonymous #13 2w

I agree with your logic, obviously the ark couldn’t hold every animal in the world, let alone double. But I’ll defend the Bible here, it was written at a time where only the Old World was known, so they were likely talking about a much smaller number of species. And classifications were likely more broad back then, they might have considered 3 different species of wolves (current day) to be the same

6

Anonymous OP 2w

You can’t give life “odds” on different cuz we have no idea why it exists or how it was created, just the situations that allow life on OUR planet to not die. Silly to say there’s a “0.00001%” chance cuz there is genuinely no odds in this scenario

1

Anonymous #14 2w

You 100% can give odds to the “chance” of life on other planets. You can analyze a large sample set of planets, determine what ratio is Earth-like planets or look for signs of construction/habitation, then use statistics to normalize everything. Do this many more times over different sample sets, compare the data, and there’s your estimate. You’re going to get a range that the odds of life existing, not a single number, but it will give you an accurate estimation.

2

Anonymous OP 2w

Even with their ever-changing “kinds” examples and far fewer, it still wouldnt work. Just the animals known then— with two mating pairs and several more for sacrifice, the amount of food needed, the living space, none of it would work. It was an impossibility in their context just the same.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Not to mention what happens when you try to repopulate with only two creatures of that kind…

5

Anonymous #1 2w

wdym? the devil HAS been defeated lol

-2

Anonymous #15 2w

Then he doesn’t work as the scapegoat and the bad that happens is as a result of god, got it.

1

Anonymous #15 2w

Where did you learn that the devil has been defeated?

6

Anonymous OP 2w

please provide the evidence that every single religion is false! i’ll wait.

-2

Anonymous #16 2w

None of y’all have been able to provide evidence that they are true, so…

6

Anonymous #16 2w

I said all religions (today) are either proven false OR they have no concrete evidence.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

okay? back up your claim.

-2

Anonymous #16 2w

Greek/Nordic/Egyptian gods all proven wrong by science. Thor? Nah that’s just lightning. No concrete evidence to suggest that Christianity/Catholic/Judaism, just the Bible and some other historical texts, written at a time period where religion was the government, so they can control the narrative.

8

Anonymous OP 2w

That burning bush that Moses saw? Yeah, very possible that he DID see a burning bush. Butttt also very possible he was just tripping on ayahuasca.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

that’s not evidence, that’s speculation lmao

-1

Anonymous #16 2w

No, religion is speculation despite evidence.

3

Anonymous #1 2w

prove a negative to me. can you?

-1

Anonymous #16 2w

Y’all are the ones making claims of gods and magic with nothing to back it.

5

Anonymous #1 2w

if you’re smart enough, you would understand both sides are ambiguous, meaning the other side can’t prove each other 100% false, meaning each side are both equally true and equally false.

-1

Anonymous #16 2w

You don’t seem to understand. You bring me no evidence to support that God’s real or miracles happened or anything. I provide evidence to suggest Moses may have been tripping, not viewing magical/godly things happening. You tell me that’s “speculating”. I have provided a reasonable hypothesis, YOU are speculating

9

Anonymous #16 2w

Yeah, no. See, there is this beautiful thing called “evidence” that exists. We know there was no global flood, we know the Earth (an oblate spheroid, not flat) is not thousands but billions of years old, we know the ark would not be a possibility, we know people cannot walk on water or split seas with some magic words, the list goes on.

2

Anonymous #17 2w

It doesn’t matter if it disturbs me because it’s all part of God’s plan

4

Anonymous #17 2w

Yeah, no, you can get off the drugs.

3

Anonymous OP 2w

i don’t think you understand, friend. All i’m saying is, you can’t hate a group of people for believing in something when you can’t even verifiably prove what they believe is false. it’s absurd.

0

Anonymous #16 2w

We know the fantastical events, dates, and stories of the bible are false. 9/11’s destruction of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon being depicted in the SpiderMan comics doesn’t suddenly make SpiderMan real.

6

Anonymous #16 2w

I never claimed to hate any religion, I specifically said I’m not bashing them and they’re probably a net good in today’s world. But what you are saying is that “I believe this because of no evidence just faith” and I am saying “we have evidence that suggests certain biblical events may be false, and no evidence suggesting miracles/godly events may be true.” You are actively choosing no evidence over some evidence. You are free to believe what you want, I don’t care, but I choose some evidence

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Do you count fulfilled prophecy as evidence or accurately, predicting something 1000 years in the future?

0

Anonymous #18 2w

Literally anyone can make any prediction about anything, and sometimes they stick. That’s not evidence for anything.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Yes but crazy accurate detail is evident. If something is talked about in detail 1000 years before it was invented, David accurately describes crucifixion and Jesus’ crucifixion, and Daniel accurately predicting the rise and fall of Alexander the Great and the wars between his generals hundreds of years before. The level of accuracy makes it to where that to make the agreement that it is a random guess would be just plain denial and stubbornness

0

Anonymous #18 2w

I can easily say that a girl name Sarah in the 1700s prophesied global trading routes. It does not mean anything. 🤣

1

Anonymous #1 2w

Look at Daniel 9-12 read it for yourself if you actually are trying to understand

0

Anonymous #18 2w

Cool, writing something after it happens doesn’t mean anything. Gotta love the biblical “cover all your bases so even when you’re wrong, you’re right!” nonsense, too. Deut 18:20-22, “if it happens, it was from god. If it doesn’t, the prophets were just making things up.” 🤣 And if ‘prophecies’ are suddenly a marker of legitimacy, what about when other cults make them and they stick? The Oracle of Delphi got a lot right, guess that means Zeus is real.

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Ope, the Simpsons predicted some things! All hail Homer!!

5

Anonymous #16 2w

That’s kind of why religions are especially problematic though? they’re unfalsifiable. Any evidence that conflicts with anything else can be handwaved as “put there by god”. That’s why every religion is so careful about not setting anything as absolute, if it’s wrong their religion falls apart. You’re misinterpreting the argument OP is making as “look, here’s proof you’re wrong” instead of “there is no evidence you’re right, this is ridiculous”

1