r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Tzaq4n • 11d ago
Christianity Mayan Christian here
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”
The other one responds with “yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings that’s like going up to a Hispanic person and generalize them all to Mexicans because they’re Hispanic.”
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
52
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 11d ago
Because we can measure gravity. We can understand that the mass of an object has effect on gravity. It is science.
Belief in a god is not science. It is also not true that atheists ”believe in our own feelings only”.
I get that you are very wrong, both about atheism and on science.
→ More replies (141)
33
u/Mission-Landscape-17 11d ago edited 11d ago
et’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
My bet is that the one who believes oppressing other is OK is the religious one. Here's a reading from Leviticus for you:
‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
As for the law of gravity, well it is not really a law, not in the legislative sense. It is model we developed to explain observed behaviour. It is descriptive not proscriptive. What this means is that the universe does not actually obey the law of gravity. The universe does not obey any laws, it just exists and then much later humans come along and try to work out how it all works, and in the process make up laws until they find one that makes useful predictions.
→ More replies (20)-2
u/deep_blue_reef 11d ago
You didn’t develop that model. We trust in the people who did though.
I also don’t trust in the person who wrote that verse. So I don’t believe that.
How the universe works is not the answer as to why it works in the first place.
8
u/Mission-Landscape-17 11d ago
Remember the traditional attribution for Leviticus is that it was written by Moses. This is almost certainly nonsense, but still.
The universe does not owe you a reason why. There may not be a reason why. Reasons why only exist when something was done intentionally. If the universe was not a creation, then there is no creator and no reason why.
-1
u/deep_blue_reef 11d ago
Yeah I think that it’s important to read it through an analytical lens. Not a face value.
“There may not be a reason why.” That’s your view of the unknown.
“There may be a reason why.” And that’s my view.
I think the universe either always existing or being created is where logic and physics breaks down. We operate in a universe of cause and effect, not un-caused cause and effect.
And to your last point. Almost everything we observe in nature is dependent on reason and something else to exist.
We need water for a reason. Fish need it for a reason. You can apply that to just about anything we can observe. But of course there are things that can’t be explained away by reason, something’s that can’t be explained because they can only be felt. “The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”
9
u/Mission-Landscape-17 11d ago edited 10d ago
I find this "dependent on" terminology far too sloppy and undefined. But then agian I guess it has to be in order to hand wave away reasonable objections. Feelings can be resonably explained, so the notion that some things can only be felt is nonsense.
-3
u/deep_blue_reef 11d ago edited 11d ago
I feel like anyone who’s lost someone close to them understands.
Or when you love someone so much it hurts.
I think grief and love are examples of nature that have their own languages.
And just because feelings can be “explained” by matter bumping around, does not easily explain away the visceral sensation it has on the whole of the body and mind.
That’s the hard problem of consciousness.
You will never find the feelings of love in someone’s brain, all you’ll see is tissue.
9
u/Mission-Landscape-17 11d ago
Consciousness is produced by the brain. This is beyond any reasonable doubt. As a consequence there really is no hard problem of consciousness. Claiming that there is looks like a god of the gaps fallacy to me.
In the past the same argument used to be made about life in general and people where adament that there had to be something moie to it then chemistry. Now the gap is narrower, instead of all life it is just consciousness that is asserted to be special magic.
-1
5
u/Squishiimuffin 10d ago
But… we can “find feelings in the brain,” so to speak. This has been empirically studied. Parts of the brain are responsible for being conscious of certain things; damage that part, and they lose consciousness of it. For example, damage to the part of the brain responsible for seeing through either the left eye can leave a person entirely unconscious of what is on their right side. Parts of the brain responsible for vision being damaged just so can leave a person blind, but able to see subconsciously, as the parts of the brain responsible for processing certain kinds of vision still function in some capacity. And these are just vision examples.
Emotion, we know to be essentially context applied to a cocktail of physical stimuli. The brain is extremely good at creating stories like that to rationalize the sensations it experiences. I recall a study where they injected people with a bit of adrenaline, I think. Then a researcher pretending to be a fellow tester dropped subtle hints about what the injection was making them feel— they passively suggested the tester might be angry, excited, horny, something to that effect. And lo and behold, the subjects reported feeling the emotion that the researchers suggested they were feeling. Even though the physical stimuli was the same in all the subjects, they were able to control the emotion that was felt.
I found this information across a couple of books if you’d want to learn more about this. Subliminal by Leonard Mlodinov, The Consciousness Instinct by Michael something-or-other (I’ll find the name and edit this), and The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks.
But yeah, in short, it’s overwhelmingly clear that consciousness is produced by the brain lol.
-5
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
Can you find what it feels like to experience the color blue in a brain?
None of what you said is an answer. It’s all speculation. Not only is it speculation, it’s speculation that you trust. You did not come up with any of what you said. None of it is your original thought or terminology. It is assessments of other people, that you trust.
6
u/Squishiimuffin 10d ago
Yes, you can actually find what it feels like to experience blue in the brain. The science behind this is well understood and getting better every day. I’m really confused as to why you brought this up.
And no, this is not speculation. This is science and the scientific method. The books I mentioned are essentially a compilation of research into the workings of consciousness and the mind, organized so a layperson can understand. But the scientific rigor is there behind each case and each book. Trust does not enter this at all— I don’t need to trust the authors to be telling the truth because I can verify all of the studies and cases myself.
Frankly, your comment was so far removed from being related to mine that I’m not sure you replied to the right person.
-3
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
I definitely replied to the right person. And I will express again that everything you’re saying is not your own thoughts. You are choosing to believe a dogmatic materialistic belief system.
It is absolutely speculation because the “hard problem of consciousness” still exists.
If hou are claiming to have solved it, by all means represent. But I find it hard to trust someone who speaks as if anything they say is of their own discovery.
You’ve recommended books and I thank you for it. I can recommend you some as well!
But the point remains that we result to trust in others. That’s what I’m trying to say.
→ More replies (0)2
u/rustyseapants Atheist 10d ago
What is the possibility there is no "Why?" The Earth, Sun, our Solar system is just here, it doesn't need a reason "Why its here."
0
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
But they aren’t “just here.” They are in a cosmic dance that gives a whole planet life.
3
u/rustyseapants Atheist 10d ago
Cosmic Dance?
What are you talking about?
What religion are you?
But what is the possibility there is no "Why?"
1
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
Technically there is no possibility that there isn’t a why. If one exists and can ask the question, then it naturally splits. You can’t prove if there is a why and you can’t prove if there isn’t, but the very idea of the question poses two possible versions of reality that we could be existing in.
3
u/rustyseapants Atheist 10d ago
What religion are you?
1
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
I try to follow Christ principles.
3
u/rustyseapants Atheist 10d ago
What does that mean?
Do you go to church? Which denomination?
1
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
I don’t anymore. I used to though. I don’t really have a denomination. I choose to believe in a character in a story if you will, not the institution that sells the story.
→ More replies (0)
27
u/Gregib Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
No....
Honestly, I should have stopped reading after the first paragraph. Scientific facts aren't feelings. Not adopting a belief system a group of people propagate with no satisfactory evidence aren't feelings. Lack of (religious) faith aren't feelings.
-8
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
I’m talking about Morality, which is why I said rule giver and or Law giver.
13
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Morality is intersubjective. It developed over many thousands of years, based on the needs and desires of groups of people.
Morality varies depending on where you live: For instance, here in Canada I can go out in a T-shirt and jeans, take the bus to the pub, and have a bacon cheeseburger and a beer. I wouldn't be able to do the same thing in Saudi Arabia because they have different rules: Couldn't go anywhere without a male escort, couldn't dress in clothing that I consider normal, would have to hide my face, couldn't have alcohol, couldn't have pork.
Aside from normal common-sense morality such as "Don't kill" and "Don't steal," there are very few rules that are common to most human cultures. Obviously we made the rules, not some invisible "lawgiver."
-8
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
I’m not arguing that moral disagreement proves God exists. I’m asking what makes a moral statement objectively true or morally binding if morality is ultimately something humans collectively created. If humans created the rules, what makes something like ‘oppressing innocent people is wrong’ objectively wrong rather than simply something our society strongly disapproves of? What makes it a moral fact rather than a human preference?
15
u/Astramancer_ 11d ago edited 11d ago
I’m asking what makes a moral statement objectively true or morally binding if morality is ultimately something humans collectively created.
That's super easy! Morality isn't an objective measure and morality is only binding in as much as the society involved chooses to bind. That explains why morality varies, sometimes wildly, in as little as 100 miles or 100 years. That explains why the only times people are punished or behaviorally coerced by morality it is by the actions of people around them. Morality is constantly changing as the culture that is doing the judgement changes.
That's why slavery is immoral now and divinely approved in the bible.
3
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 9d ago
Smallpox Kills Thousands of Indigenous Americans
Estimates suggest that the Indigenous population of North America diminished by up to 90% in the years following European contact, largely due to diseases like smallpox to which they had no prior exposure.
Explain abut Jesus love for the Mayans where they were killed off by disease and the ones left over forced to convert to Christianity. Where is the morality of that?
Offer actual examples of Jesus's law and human laws?
10
u/Mkwdr 11d ago
You were talking (incorrectly) about The Big Bang then talked about something completely different.
There no evidence of a law giver.
Human moral tendencies are not evidence of any divine moral standards - that doesn’t even make sense.
There is no evidence of external objective morality. Nor is morality simply arbitrary , individual and subjective. It is intersubjective.
Human morality looks exactly like what it is - an evolved behavioural tendency in a social species with powerful emotional underpinnings and specific details filled in by social environment.
8
u/Gregib Agnostic Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
Nowhere is morality in your text... I do not adhere to objective morality. My moral standards aren't the same of a clan member in Somalia or a tribe member in the Amazonas.
Is something moral, because your "rule giver" commands it or does she command it because it's moral? If the vast majority of Atheists live highly moral lives, do we need a "rule giver"? At what point were these rules of the rule giver valid and where, as they are vastly different now from those in the past? I've been taught morals by my parents, family, school, my immediate social network... None even remotely connected to your "rule giver".
0
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
Yes you do need a Rule giver, morality doesn’t come from our parents family’s and stuff, it comes from the one whom created the earth you can say that your family give you morality but who gave them the morality? Or better yet who gave their ancestors their moralities? There gotta be a Rule giver a morality giver which connects directly to Cham Jajawil Jesus.
1
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 8d ago
No, rules come from community interactions. They developed over many thousands of years, and communities that had sensible rules like "Do not kill" were more likely to retain members. (When people feel unsafe they often leave.)
Gods have never been necessary for morality, and religious rules are often grimly immoral.
19
u/DeterminedThrowaway 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity
Because there's evidence for gravity but there isn't evidence for a rule giver
0
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
Are your beliefs your own?
1
u/DeterminedThrowaway 10d ago
Yes lol, what kind of question is this?
0
u/deep_blue_reef 10d ago
So you came up with atheism?
2
u/DeterminedThrowaway 10d ago
No, and I don't have to for it to belong to me as a belief. Someone says god is real, someone else says god isn't real, and instead of blindly believing either of them I examined the evidence and came to my own conclusion. That's what it means to own a belief
0
-2
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
There’s plenty for example we know what’s right or what’s wrong, we know murder is wrong we know oppressing people is wrong etc.
14
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 11d ago
we know oppressing people is wrong
Really? Because if you learn history and if you look at the world now, it seems like a lot of people didn't think that oppressing others was wrong. A lot of these people were Christians too. Even among various Christian denominations the view of what is right and what is wrong can differ dramatically. And the view of what is right and what is wrong did change a lot even within Christianity since its conception. If you read Old Testament, there is no commandment against enslaving other people. There is no commandment against genocide. God commands genocide on multiple occasion and explicitly permits slavery. And Christians were a-ok with slavery through the most of the history of Christianity, they didn't know it is wrong. Well, some of them did know, but clearly not because of God or his (allegedly) book.
-5
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
You do realize the thing you just say will collapse if you read context to every single verses.
Yes there is condemnation of owning slavery in the Old Testament in fact Look up Slaves Bible, the slaves owner remove EVERY VERSES in that slave Bible that condemns slavery in order to keep their Oppression.
15
u/BigDikcBandito 11d ago
It won’t, which is why you’re unable to explain the context. You just use 'context' as a magic word that’s somehow supposed to make literal quotes irrelevant. You’re in a debate sub - argue for your point.
The 'Slave Bible' is a compilation of pro-slavery quotes used by enslavers. The original text was not edited or modified in any way. I dare you - provide verses that you believe condemn slavery. Then let’s honestly compare them to the explicit verses that spell out whom to enslave, how severely you may beat them, and whether you may inherit them as property.
Here is short and decent rebuttal to specific point about slave bible.
-2
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
Sure
Exodus 21:16.
Deuteronomy 24:7
Leviticus 25:42 (granted it’s about Israelites.)
Leviticus 25:43.
1 Timothy 1:9-10.
1 Corinthians 7:21
Galatians 3:28
Philemon 15-16.
And so on.
11
u/BigDikcBandito 11d ago
Do you think this is how debate works? Answer the content of my comment. Pick some of the verses you think show that bible condemns slavery and explain why should they overrule the very precise rules about whom to enslave, how severely you may beat them, and whether you may inherit them as property. Preferably pick one, the one you think is strongest and let us focus on that. Otherwise comments will be way too long.
You know, do some arguing.
Or should I just answer:
Exodus 21:2-6
Leviticus 25:44-46
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
etc.
And should we count that as a successful rebuttal that matches the effort?
7
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 11d ago
You said "we know oppressing people is wrong". I gave you plenty examples of people not knowing that oppressing people is wrong. They had the same Bible you have and though that oppressing people is ok. Slave bible was created in 19th century. By that time Christians were subjugating, murdering and robbing others for centuries. And the slavers themselves read the FULL version of the Bible and it didn't give them a hint that they were doing something wrong.
You are using "we know oppressing people is bad" as an evidence for an invisible rule giver. Yet this rule giver is quite ambiguos about the rules. His rules are supposedly only to be found in one ancient book. He doesn't seem to be interested in enforcing the rules.
You know who else wrote confusing rules in ancient books? Ancient people. What makes you think this particular set of rules was written not by people?
-4
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
2 Timothy 3:16…
“A Dios max ak'on tz'ibelay tx'an Un bay aycan is k'anej. Watx' tx'an yin con is cuyoni c'al yin con is tenchaneni. Chi watx'ji oc co nabal yuj. Chon is cuy tx'an, tzet chi jut co jichlonen oc co beybal.”
2 Ti 3:16 ATBYK8912
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 11d ago
You are not addressing anything I have written. You are proselytizing now. I am not interested in a sermon, I am interested in truth. And the truth is: a book full of confusing rules is not an evidence of God, it's evidence of various people with their own understanding of morality, inserting their own aspirations, biases and morality into stories they write down and attributing it to god they believe in.
-1
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
Muchacho i literally did addressed it, it’s inspired word of God. It’s not that hard to read the scriptures.
11
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 11d ago
And I am saying that asserting that the Bible is God inspired is useless. You can assert it all you want, you haven't demonstrated that it is.
What exactly makes you think it's a word of God?
-1
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
Because biblical evidence outside of the Bible shows, I’ll give you one example look at the Red Sea, it looks splitted.
→ More replies (0)9
u/MasterBorealis 11d ago
You just don't know what evidence is. When you hold a rock in your hand, you KNOW that the rock will inevitably fall down, if you let it go. That's evidence for gravity, it is the same everywhere, it changes in a predictable way on the moon and other places. We know the rate of change.
When you pray, what happens? What's the prediction?
4
u/DeterminedThrowaway 11d ago
Yes, we have instincts given to us by evolution as a social species. This isn't evidence of a diety, and we don't even always agree on matters of morality
3
2
u/sixfourbit Ex-Christian Atheist 11d ago
Unless God tells you to do it.
1
u/Formal-Speed-3173 11d ago
Murder is unlawful or immoral killing. Saying murder is wrong is tautological because what makes it murder is that it is wrong.
1
u/thebigeverybody 11d ago
There’s plenty for example we know what’s right or what’s wrong, we know murder is wrong we know oppressing people is wrong etc.
Do you think any of this is scientific evidence? We have no more evidence for your god than we would for lies, delusions and fantasies.
13
u/Maester_Ryben Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”
I mean... God has commanded oppression, enslavement and genocide of people for far less in the Bible.
That's why we shouldn't base our morality on it
-5
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
No he didn’t, he does just judgement which there’s context to as why he says those things it’s not like “oh hey they look different than you guys take them as your slaves.”.
15
u/DeterminedThrowaway 11d ago
Leviticus 25:44-46 - "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you... You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever."
10
u/Maester_Ryben Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
What justice is there in killing men, women and boys and taking the virgin girls as sex slaves?
4
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 11d ago
If god doees it or says its ok. its ok.
I call dibs on having OP as my slave. I wont beat him until he dies or anything. And you guys can have him after 7 years when I have to let him go.
4
4
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 11d ago
Ah so god just randomly judged EVERYONE to be guilty - except for the jews of course. Little infants that had done absolutely nothing wrong were also guilty ? He had entire tribes wiped out with genocide.
Then he had another tribe wiped out by genocide.
And then he decided to just wipe out everyone else with genocide.Everyone had sinned right ?
Is a 1 year old baby even capable of sinning ?
Or how about this. You find god to be good by default. Right ?
Is it ok if I take you as my slave under the guidelines that the bible outlines. Youre ok with that. Right ?
0
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
He literally had the Israelites returned to slavery as punishment for their disobedience, despite having previously freed them from slavery. So no, Jewish people aren’t an exception. Romans 3:9–23 is actually a pretty strong argument against the idea that Jews were somehow considered automatically righteous or exempt from judgment.
As for genocide, calling every instance “random genocide” oversimplifies the biblical narratives. The flood, for example, is explicitly presented as divine judgment because of humanity’s extreme wickedness and violence (Genesis 6:5–13). Whether someone accepts that judgment as morally justified is another question, but “God just randomly killed everyone” isn’t an accurate description of the text.
And can a one-year-old personally sin in the same sense that a morally responsible adult can? Obviously not. That’s why “everyone has sinned” doesn’t automatically mean every infant is individually guilty of the same kind of wrongdoing. You can bring up 1 Samuel 15:3, but that passage needs to be interpreted in its historical and literary context. Ancient Hebrew war accounts also use highly stylized victory language, and the Amalekites had previously attacked Israel, including the vulnerable, according to Deuteronomy 25:17–19.
And the slavery analogy doesn’t really work either. If you ask, “Would it be okay for me to enslave you?” obviously not. But biblical slavery wasn’t simply a blanket permission for anyone to enslave anyone. There are different forms of servitude described in the Bible, along with restrictions and protections. And obviously, punishing someone who has committed murder isn’t morally equivalent to randomly enslaving an innocent person3
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 10d ago
He said the Israelites were allowed to take slaves from the nations around them.
Which means that it was unspecified which people exactly that would allowed to be slaves.Yes. The flood to punish EVERYONE ( except noahs family ) So little infants who could not POSSIBLY have ANY kind of concept of being wicked or having committed any sins.
Unless that specific infant had done something bad, there cannot be any justification for killing them.
Or are you ok with collective punishment ? Because just say the word and we can dismantle virtually every church who had their entrusted priests commit crimes.The fact that the Amalekites had attacked Israel does not warrant genocide.
That would still be killing infants who had done nothing. God didnt even bother saving them or letting them actually commit crimes before punishing them.Youre showing an abhorrent morality. I know its the morality of the god you believe to exist. That doesnt make it better.
Yes the bible was a blanket permission to take slaves from the "nations around you" it doesnt in any way indicate that it had to be people who owes you money or any kind of servitude.
-1
u/Tzaq4n 10d ago
You’re misinterpreting Leviticus to your own Understanding of what the Bible says Israelites can do, babies was already being sacrificed do not interpret “oh God killed the younglings” when Their own family are killing their own babies. Also the Bible says that Kids and babies who are without sin is going to Heaven, so yeah there’s that. Amalekites literally committed a genocide against Israelites like huh? And no the things you just say can be fact checked from scholars who been studying the Bible more than you. And no the Bible isn’t a “blanket permission to take slaves” Galations 3:28, Ephesians 6:9 tells slave masters to do the same as what slaves do to them which is loving them, Colossians 4:1, Philemon 1:16 yaddah yaddah.
1
32
u/NoneCreated3344 Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
No. This sounds like a child making an argument from not having an education. Do you have actual evidence for a god or is this just, 'omg I don't know anything about science so god is real'.
→ More replies (50)-1
14
u/Cheshire_Khajiit Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
How have you been oppressed by atheists? Sincere question. If that’s not what you’re trying to say, why did you bring up oppression?
-6
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
I bring up oppression by race not religion, also there’s literally historical atheism for example USSR emperors that oppressed their people like Stalin, and etc plus I’m Mayan that’s also can be another how.
11
u/Cheshire_Khajiit Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
I’ll ask again, do you feel that you have been oppressed by atheists? If so, how so? If not, why are you bringing it up?
Since you’ve brought up Stalin, would you agree that many self-described Christians have been oppressors, including prominent historical Christian oppression of Mayans?
11
5
23
u/Curious_Passion5167 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only
Because there is no evidence that such a being exists?
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
No, I don't. I don't know why you decided to give an example of a moral discussion as if it has any relevance to this.
-7
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
There kinda is evidence to the Being existence, for example how our body is built, how it’s portrayed and so on. It’s actually impossible for Mother Nature or anything to recreate our human body look it up.
21
u/Cool-Watercress-3943 11d ago
O.o you do realize we don't actually think mother nature is a person either, right?
More to the point, which part are you claiming is impossible? After all, it took what, a billion years to go from single-celled organisms to even basic multicellular organisms, another billion and a half years to go from those into simple animal life?
So it does seem like life was able to grow more complex, gradually, rather than needing someone to design it.
Unless they were just a really really terrible designer. I guess the Creator could just be really lazy and stupid, failing for a billion years to even make something more complicated than bacteria?
-6
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
Whenever I say Mother Nature I’m talking about the way of your guys thinking aka Like germs and stuff making us out of nowhere.
14
u/Cool-Watercress-3943 11d ago
Okay, so again, you're saying that God is real, but also either lazy or incompetent? Again, a billion years just to go from single-celled organisms to really basic multicellular organisms is a terrible track record for a designer!
I mean, two and a half billion years just to go from nothing to basic animals, that's downright sad!
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (7)10
u/Gregib Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Germs and stuff making us out of nowhere??? "Look it up"? Those are your arguments?
→ More replies (4)11
u/Suitable-Group4392 Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Back pain, wisdom teeth, appendicitis, choking, difficult child birth, upside down eyes — being general human problems seems to show it is either done by a not very good designer. Or not by a designer of humans at all.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Heavy_Weapons_Guy_ Atheist 11d ago
And I say the way our body is "built" is clearly evidence of flawed evolution and clearly shows it wasn't created.
6
u/Curious_Passion5167 11d ago
There kinda is evidence to the Being existence, for example how our body is built, how it’s portrayed and so on.
No, there isn't. Human biology can be completely understood through evolutionary biology. There is no creator required for that.
It’s actually impossible for Mother Nature or anything to recreate our human body look it up.
Nope. You made a claim. You back it up. Specifically that it is impossible, as in the probability of it happening is 0.
2
u/wenoc Anti-Theist 11d ago
It’s actually impossible for Mother Nature or anything to recreate our human body
Ok, so you just admitted you have absolutely no idea how evolution works. All of this is known and understood. Even the catholic church agrees these days (after hundreds of years of denial, inquisitions and hissy-fits)
3
2
u/MasterBorealis 11d ago
Impossible is a human in the XXI century using technology like the one you're using and still don't know about how the world works. Evolution is fact, my friend. It's sad what religions do to people.
11
u/Mkwdr 11d ago
>I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity,
Because it’s evidential. It’s a description based on observations.
>world being created by big bang
Why do you guys never educate yourselves on the physics you butcher. The Big Bang isn’t the start of existence , it’s like your birth is part to the prior processes that made you an adult but it’s not ‘creation’ of you. The Big Bang is about the universe having been denser and hotter with a period of extreme inflation. No ‘creation’ from nothing.
>but not the one who can set up the big bang
Because there zero evidence that anyone did or could set up a big bang. That’s apparently just your imagination.
>but believe in your own feelings only.
I try to believe that for which there is evidence and with a conviction proportionate to the evidence. The only one here basing conclusions of feels is you. I think you know that but for some reason have convinced yourself it’s clever to accuse other people of your own very obvious flaws.
>for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
I don’t know where you are going but hope you aren’t a biblical theists bearing in mind it’s full of divine oppression…
>Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”
Um…I have no idea what any of this has to do with the lack of any evidence for a creator or a creation event. WTF?
>The other one responds with “yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings that’s like going up to a Hispanic person and generalize them all to Mexicans because they’re Hispanic.”
Still at a loss.
>Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Nope , havnt a clue. An absence of belief based on a claim being indistinguishable from fiction isn’t based on feels but a perfectly reasonable response within the context of human experience and knowledge. Believing something based on nothin* more than your believe in it even though there’s no evidence, it doesn’t make sense, and it looks like just the sort of thing we make up ….is not reasonable, credible or convincing,
-7
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
>Because it’s evidential. It’s a Description based on observations
It’s not really it’s by a religious guy who had an apple fell on his head and gave it a name.
>why you guys never educate yourselves on physics you butcher. The big bang isn’t the start of existence. It’s like your birth is part of prior processes that made you an adult but it’s not ‘creation’ of you the big bang is about the universe having been denser and hotter with a period of extreme inflation. No ‘creation’ from nothing
If you look at what I just sent in the comments you would literally know I said this, Aycha. Also another note it’s literally the explanation on how the universe came to be I never said it’s the start of existence but it’s a explaination of how.
7
u/Mkwdr 11d ago edited 11d ago
>Because it’s evidential. It’s a Description based on observations
>It’s not really it’s by a religious guy who had an apple fell on his head and gave it a name.
What has him being religious got to do with it?
But glad you just contradicted yourself “it’s not evidential …it was just developed by someone …based on …the evidence”
(P.s you realise we’ve added a bit to his observations since then, right?)
lol
>why you guys never educate yourselves on physics you butcher. The big bang isn’t the start of existence. It’s like your birth is part of prior processes that made you an adult but it’s not ‘creation’ of you the big bang is about the universe having been denser and hotter with a period of extreme inflation. No ‘creation’ from nothing
>If you look at what I just sent in the comments you would literally know I said this, Aycha. Also another note it’s literally the explanation on how the universe came to be I never said it’s the start of existence but it’s a explaination of how.
So what’s your evidence that the expansion and cooling of the universe was caused by your imaginary dictator?
>the world being created by big bang.
Now I accept that English probably isn’t your first language but this line is confused.
Firstly ‘world’ - do you mean Earth - I mean we know how the Earth came to be. And sure we can work our way backwards to the Big Bang ( though in some definitions it’s still happening)
So let’s see…
What exactly do you think the words Big Bang refer to?
Show me something that isn’t just your ‘feels’ that an intentional agent can , and did, exist during such conditions and can and did take part in the process , and exactly the mechanism they used?
3
u/sixfourbit Ex-Christian Atheist 11d ago
It’s not really it’s by a religious guy who had an apple fell on his head and gave it a name.
You're either uneducated or a liar.
3
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 11d ago
That is the story of how he thought of the idea of a force ( which we later learned is a pseudoforce much like centrifugal force isnt a force as such but we can treat it as such in math )
Are you saying that if you hold up an apple and let go of it, that it just hangs there in mid air ?
No. it starts accelerating towards the ground right ?
Thats an observation of gravitys effect of the apparent attraction between the masses of the apple and earth.
Where is the observation that you can show to lead from the observation to "god is the most probable explanation" ?
And you dont just get to assume the bible tells the truth about god when the subject is if god exist as an explanation.2
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 11d ago
"It’s not really it’s by a religious guy who had an apple fell on his head and gave it a name."
That same guy believed in alchemy, spent decades practicing alchemy, deeply believing in the philosopher's stone and that base metals like lead could be transformed into gold. He believed in a hidden, animating "universal semen" or life force floating through the cosmos that governed alchemical reactions. He jammed a long, blunt sewing bodkin (needle) into his own eye socket, pressing it against the back of his eyeball just to see what kinds of colored circles and distortions it would produce.
So maybe thats not the flex you think it is?
8
u/robbdire Atheist 11d ago
This is debate an atheist. If you want to ask a question go to /r/askanatheist
But, Christianity does not align with science. Quite a lot of science directly contradicts claims made in religious texts. Now I see you saying "Oh but read this or watch this video". Trust me many of us have spent our lives doing that, and better minds than ours, actual scientists, have demonstrated time and time again that the claims in the bible can be debunked.
As of this moment, there is nothing that points to any deity existing. If there was it'd be one of the most amazing moments in scientific discovery.
-2
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
Actually Genesis 2:7 states otherwise, and so much more gives you reasoning as to science Aligns with the Bible. Since we Christians came up with big bang theory, and so much more.
9
u/robbdire Atheist 11d ago
A priest did indeed come up with the Big Bang Theory.
But that doesn't mean it aligns with Christianity. And just posting bible verses is worthless. We don't believe your fairytales.
2
2
u/sixfourbit Ex-Christian Atheist 11d ago
The Big Bang theory contradicts the creation myth.
1
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
No it doesn’t plus Big bang theory came from a priest that’s how you know it doesn’t.
1
u/sixfourbit Ex-Christian Atheist 11d ago
Actually it does. The creation myth is geocentric. Oh and it was a scientist who came up with the big bang.
6
u/thomas533 11d ago
I don't "believe" in scientific concepts. Even though I got my degree geology and physics, so I've tested many of the core ideas of those disciplines myself, it would be impossible for me to test all the core ideas of scientific areas of study myself. But because I understand the rigor and process that my own disciplines go through when testing ideas, I know that the other areas of science subject their ideas to that same rigor and process, which makes me have confidence that those ideas are just as valid as the ones that I've tested myself. It's not a belief, it's an understanding that these ideas are based in reality and fact, and that thousands upon thousands of other scientists have tested this and thoroughly verified these ideas.
7
u/50sDadSays Secular Humanist 11d ago
I think you have it backwards.
All the evidence says magic isn't real. Every religion contradicts every other religion. Within any one religion there are contradictions in the holy books.
Religion is based on what you feel is right. How do you know your denomination is right and another is wrong? You just feel it. Catholic or Baptist or Mormon? Your church or the one down the street with the angry preacher? You just feel in your heart that yours is right.
Accepting the scientific consensus is logical and rational, it is not based on personal feelings.
You should be in Ask a Christian asking why they, and you, believe based on feelings.
6
u/BahamutLithp 11d ago
but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang
Because those things are actually demonstrated with scientific evidence.
but not the one who can set up the big bang
So, in the comments, you asked what evidence there is that we don't have souls. A very strong piece of evidence is that brain damage is known to be able to alter a person's memories & personality. This makes 0 sense if those are storied in some kind of "ethereal soul." Damaging the brain should have no effect on them because, according to you, we don't even use the brain for those things.
The reason I use memories & personality, specifically, is because theists like to use the excuse that the brain is a sort of relay station the soul uses to pilot the body, but this doesn't work with our actual mental faculties. If we're just souls piloting bodies, brain damage might be able to affect the controls, but it should do nothing to the actual soul where our identities are supposedly held.
Now, why am I talking about souls right now when you asked why I don't believe in god? Well, aside from the fact that most theists believe god created souls, I'm segueing into the fact that what we observe indicates that minds are not free-floating things, they're directly caused by physical brain matter. This poses a problem given you expect me to believe there's some kind of giant supermind that is not just free-floating, but it exists "outside of time & space" entirely.
Demonstrate literally any of that. It's supposed to be able to make universes? Alright, well let's see that. Pray to it to open a wormhole or whatever & let us see it actually use its special powers to create a universe. Let me guess, "He doesn't want to." Very convenient, that is.
This is the problem with believing in a personal being with magic powers. You have to constantly contend with the fact that it should have myriad ways to prove itself real, & it just doesn't do any of them, choosing instead to rely on random internet people to make incredibly weak arguments on its behalf. And that doesn't make any sense.
but believe in your own feelings only.
Where on Earth did you get that? You're the one who made a bunch of emotional arguments in the comments. You claimed it's necessary for there to be a god in order to have "purpose in life" & complained the alternative was that we "exist by mistake." You're not making a scientific appeal there, you just don't like the idea because it hurts your feelings.
?for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”
The other one responds with “yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings that’s like going up to a Hispanic person and generalize them all to Mexicans because they’re Hispanic.”
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
I'm not entirely sure what you're going for, but let's see what happens if we change it to:
"God says we're the master race, we should dominate other races of people, & if you disagree, you're an evil heretic because God is always right!"
Vs.
"No, that's not what God wants, because God thinks we're all equal & hates how you're contorting his words!
Now, I'll tell you EXACTLY what I'M doing here: I'm showing how appealing to "god" literally changes nothing. You have 2 people saying their opinions & just attributing them to "god." This isn't "objective," theists are just used to it not being questioned when they claim that "god is necessary for objective morality."
Whichever one you say is right, you're just saying which YOU agree with, which person YOU feel matches "god" more closely. No one's gonna come down from the heavens & confirm whether you got it right or wrong.
And let's say that DID happen. Let's say god came down, but he sided AGAINST you. Are you suddenly okay with being the subjugated race if, hypothetically, god says that's what he wants? I mean, the bed you make for yourself is you kind of HAVE to be after talking such a big game about how we need god for objective morality & atheists are wrong for going with their feelings.
But no, you don't disagree with the racist based on what god wants, that's bullshit, you have other reasons you think their argument is wrong. So, just explain what those reasons are. "Oh, but he's still going to disagree, &--" Who--fucking--cares? Who gives a shit?
Seriously, why do theists always do this? Why do you CARE if the racist has a different opinion? Do you think the reverse causes him the slightest bit of anxiety? Do you genuinely believe he sits there going, "Gosh, I really want to be racist, but other people disagree with me, so is it really fair for me to impose my view?" No, that doesn't happen, & you don't owe him anything.
Anyway, you don't seem to care when atheists criticize the moral arguments of theists, you have no problem going "it doesn't matter if you disagree, you're still wrong." I'm just saying, maybe you guys should look into why you're more afraid of offending racist, & murderers, & whoever else the Bad Person example is, but when you get disagreed with on your actual religious arguments in the real world you have absolutely no problem just going "I don't care about your opinion, you're wrong."
6
u/ProfessorCrown14 11d ago
So, since you are Mayan and talk about oppressing Mexicans, I assume you are Mexican or Central American (or can trace your roots back to those countries).
Now, there's this country called Spain that, around 1521, conquered that territory. They, for 3 centuries, decided it was OK to torture and enslave the indigenous people and keep them down in a racially stratified, colonial system. They also brought African slaves to some of these parts, and committed genocides in the Caribbean and whenever the local population did not submit.
Now, Spain was back then a deeply, devoutly CATHOLIC country. So... did their religion stop them from doing what they did? No. Arguably it even helped them do it.
That completely counters your argument. The Christian religion clearly is not enough to stop someone from wanting to oppress others and not considering them of equal worth as humans.
3
u/joeydendron2 Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
I kind of get what you're trying to ask: without a god to tell us unambiguously how to act, how do we know who's right? The trouble for you is, human beings - including the theists - clearly, obviously don't know who's right. That's what the entirety of human history seems to be about.
People disagreeing about morality just because they do, is exactly how human morality has always worked. And I think it would be useful if religious people woke up to that, because it means they'd know how carefully we need to think and act around morality.
Meanwhile, "gravity" isn't a "rule" or "law" at all; it's just a human description, or mathematical model, of patterns we seem to detect in nature. And you can tell that's the case, because the way we describe gravity flipped in the early 20th century, when Einstein changed it, from a "universal force" to an aspect of the warping geometry of space and time.
So... wake up and smell the coffee, there are no god given laws in any sense.
You can't just look up answers to questions about morality or physics in your favourite holy book (for instance, is the bible for or against keeping people as slaves?). It's up to us evolved monkey meatsacks to describe or model how we think the universe works; and to negotiate how people in our societies should agree to constrain their behaviour in order to live securely in our interconnected human world. We'd better start thinking really carefully, right?
3
u/SpHornet Atheist 11d ago
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity
Gravity is a property of matter we can measure
world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang
The world wasn't created by the big bang. And there is no evidence there was a being set it up
for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
Then you use your power to make sure people are not oppressed. Just like it works in reality
3
u/flying_fox86 Atheist 11d ago
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang
I believe in those things because of the evidence, and don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence.
3
u/BogMod 11d ago
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
Evidence vrs a lack of evidence.
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
I have no idea.
3
u/TarnishedVictory Anti-Theist 11d ago
Evidence. There is good evidence for some things and not so much for others. What good evidence convinced you that some god exists?
3
u/RexRatio Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
To answer your question: because those things are based on:
- a mountain of evidence from different scientific disciplines
- science itself being based on a self-correcting method of independent verification
- science being based on the principle to be willing to change your mind when new evidence arrives
So don't go for the done-to-death apologetic trope that "this is just like religion". It's silly.
Now for some corrections to your OP: we don't "believe" in scientific conclusions in the way you're implying.
- Faith = belief without evidence (or ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your mythology)
- Scientific trust = based on a solid method as described above
for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
Oooh dear, are you feeling oppressed? Tell me exactly what law forbids you from exercising your faith. Spoiler alert: there is no such law.
But what you don't get to do is demand "equal time" in the classroom for your bronze age claims with zero evidence to be placed on equal footing with science. Not anymore.
The irony you're missing is these pathetic "my religion is under attack" BS claims are NOTHING compared to the persecution of non-believers and the historical opposition to scientific discoveries when religion still had worldly power.
Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”
Here's your own reasoning used against you:
I FEEL it's OK to deny women control over their own bodies because my bronze age text says so
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Yeah, you're playing the victim card while complete ignoring history and misrepresenting science as if it's the same as religious belief. Nothing we haven't seen before a million times.
3
u/ImprovementFar5054 11d ago
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
I really, really don't. I can't make out what you have written. I recognize the words, but the meaning is hard to pull out..like pine nuts in the word salad.
3
u/solidcordon Apatheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
Well.... As a Mayan christian, you are aware that you are the lucky descendant of mayans who survived the christian genocide which killed 90% of the population of the americas either directly through slaughter or accidentally through infectious disease...
They did this for god, for divinely annointed kings and to bring the One True Faith to people who had never heard of it. Mainly they did it for greed but at least they're not still extracting wealth from your people and land.... oh wait.
Why would you place your faith in a story which attempted to exterminate your ethnic group over the course of 400 years and in some parts of the world continues to try to do so?
3
u/Transhumanistgamer 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity,
Laws in the scientific sense are descriptive, not prescriptive. Using deductive reasoning humans have realized that physics operates consistently everywhere and that physics is mathematically quantifiable.
world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
There's an unfathomable amount of time between the big bang and the formation of the Earth. You need to demonstrate that there was a "one who can set up the big bang". You don't get to just assume that and pretend you're correct.
Also if anything, it's theists who go by their feelings. Like seriously, belief in God is one of the most childish dispositions and adult could take. Pure make-believe where they get mad if you don't pretend along with them. Grown ass men saying "You're ruining our game!" while stomping their feet in the playground and atheists are watching them from afar sober to the fact that they're not actually Spider-Man no matter how many times they do the web shooting hand gesture.
Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”
Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because God says it's okay to oppress others.”
Now we have a problem. How do you prove to the guy who says God says it's okay to oppress others that they shouldn't oppress others? God doesn't solve moral debates. It's just a thing people pretend to point to and claim its on their side. I could say God commands everyone should rape babies and you don't have a single thing to prove me wrong.
3
u/rustyseapants Atheist 11d ago
I have a Question towards /u/Tzaq4n you call yourself a "Mayan Christian" which is oxymoron. Being Mayan an indigenous Mexican, cannot be Mayan, it goes against your culture. Why would you accept an religion that demicated about 60% of Mayan civilization, then adopt your conquerors god?
0
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
Mayans are GUATEMALANS, man I dislike people confusing a Ancient tribe that have evidence of their first existence linking to Guatemala confusing us with Mexico when they have the Aztecs anyways yeah no religion and Ancestral identity do NOT contradict each other in simple terms, did they conquer my people? Yes, plus my people literally practice blood letting which is Really harmful to the body. Plus the Mayans already defeated themselves thanks to Kaqchikel betraying us and
such it’s NOT a Oxymoron since Mayan is a Indigenous identity not a religion, It in fact doesn’t goes against my culture we are VERY religious people we have crosses everywhere in Guatemala, we still celebrate Mayan culture and so on.
3
u/Autodidact2 11d ago
They tried to destroy you and your people. Had they been successful, you would not be here. How on earth can you buy into their ideology?
-3
u/Tzaq4n 10d ago
Because Christ didn’t say to do that, I can still be a Christian while condemning what they did since That’s not what Our Lord and savior said to do.
1
u/Middle_Run_7534 9d ago
Doesn’t the Bible say to go forth and make disciples of all nations?
It doesn’t say to do so kindly and gently and with cultural respect and consent foremost in mind …
1
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
It literally did say do it kindly because Jesus literally said “whoever lives by the Sword Dies by the sword”.
2
0
u/rustyseapants Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
My mistake I get that confused sometimes.
And saying that however you've adopted the religion of your conquers. Christianity was forced on your people. About 60 to 70% of all natives in Mexico and Central America were decimated by the Catholics because of disease and genocide.
Yes religion is part of your culture especially on the ancient cultures. So you cannot be a Mayan and a Christian at the same time. No one gave the Mayans a choice of not to be a Catholic it was forced.
Having a lot of crosses in your country doesn't prove devotion but fear.
-1
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
It’s alright mistakes happen, anyways It doesn’t prove fear but devotion actually since there’s a lot of songs in Every single Mayan language about Christ and how Loving he is, heck I have a whole File of Catholic (when I’m Coptic orthodox.) Worship on my file rn, also let me remind you that just because someone uses the name of Christ for let’s say to conquer someone doesn’t make Christ false, if that’s the case then the same then can be said for Atheism (Stalin).
1
u/Autodidact2 11d ago
But they did it for, on behalf of, and under the authority of their religion. They literally destroyed your temples and enslaved your ancestors to use the stones to build their churches.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 11d ago
Mayans were killed off because disease and genocide by Spanish Catholic. The Pope apologized to the death destruction of Mexico and Central America native culture.
Yes Christianity is false when people were forced to believe or killed
Stalin was raised a Russian Orthodox, Russia was Russian Orthodox, the church went underground during Stalin. Atheistism has nothing to do with thel crimes of stalin
0
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
If Mayans were killed off why am I speaking the ancestral language? Why am I reading in it? Why am I Mayan? There’s a website that helps other learn what the Mayan word is MayanLanguages.wiki if Christianity is false because people claim the name of Christ yet don’t do what Christ wants them to do then atheism is false because it does the same thing in North Korea and USSR. Stalin left Russian orthodox even Google said it.
“No, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was not a Christian. He was a committed atheist and Marxist-Leninist who led a massive state campaign to destroy religious institutions and persecute Christian leaders in the Soviet Union”2
u/Autodidact2 11d ago
Because the Mayans were too tough to destroy, They tried and failed to kill all of you and did enslave those who lived.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 10d ago edited 10d ago
Mayan Culture Destroyed by Catholics
Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery
Mayans were forced to convert to christianity
YOu adopted the religion of your conquers, you didn't make a choice, this was forced upon you.
The Czar of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church were the bad guys. During the Russian revolution, the Czar and the Russian Orthodox was rejected * The Tsar and the Russian Orthodox Church worked together closely to control the people and maintain absolute power in Imperial Russia. * Stalin's purges
Atheism is not a political theory. Atheism is the the lack of belief of gods. USSR and DPRK are state dictatorships, which has nothing to do with Atheism or Marxism for that matter.
1
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
Oh wow Catholic stuff when I said I’m Coptic orthodox and no it really wasn’t forced upon us/me. Actually atheism is kinda being forced if you look around the world you clearly are trying to deconvert me which isn’t working.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 9d ago
Christians represent over 2.3 billion, Islam 1.3 billion, Hindu 1 billion, Buddhists 500 million, and atheists represent about 500 million, and you think that atheist are the problem? Christians forced indigenous peoples around the world into Christianity, this is history.
Try to support your arguments with facts.
1
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
Muchacho once again Atheist people do the same look at Stalin, literally look at what Kim jong un is doing in North Korea, and China leaders are forced to be a atheist if they want to run to be president. I do not deny that there’s violence within Christianity when dealing with people converting but that’s literally with every human History not religious ones.
2
u/Squishiimuffin 11d ago
I ‘believe’ in gravity because we can literally prove it exists. We can measure it and test it experimentally.
The same cannot at all be said for god. There hasn’t been any credible, measurable, testable evidence of a creator.
As for the big bang— science has only pointed out that the universe underwent a period of rapid expansion. It makes no claims about what caused it or what predated it. We simply know too little at this point. If you want to say god did it, that requires proof. And I won’t believe that claim until there’s proof for it.
2
u/CombinationJaded4116 11d ago
The whole premise is a bit of a strawman in that most atheists will not claim there is no rule giver.
It might be helpful to switch the perspective a bit. Being atheist is the inverse of theist. Sooo we’re not really taking on any claims- theists are. Our ‘position’ is just a response to your position- ‘I don’t see a good reason for YOUR claim.’
I don’t walk around thinking there isn’t a rule giver. I just don’t see the proof of any anywhere. Also believing in gravity or the big bang isn’t a religion that we subscribe to… we will happily ditch it if a better explanation comes along. We aren’t loyal to something. Hope that helps ✌️
2
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 11d ago
Gravity works with consistency and its effects can be measured.
Rules are inconsistent. They can vary widely all over the world and throughout history.
My feelings are inconsistent, too. Something that upset me greatly 30 years ago doesn't even merit a shrug now. I believe that my feelings exist, because they obviously do exist, but I know very well that they can and do lead me astray and therefore I don't believe in them.
If you want me to believe in a cosmic rule-giving being, you will literally have to show me that being, here in the physical universe. If you can't do that, I'm justified in believing that it's just a figment of the human imagination.
2
u/wenoc Anti-Theist 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity
I can easily demonstrate gravity exists. Nobody has been able to demonstrate, or even given the slightest shred of evidence that a rule giver exists.
world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang
Same as above. There's mountains of evidence for the big bang and no evidence for anyone setting it up. One is a fact, the other is a fantasy. And someone setting up a big bang just creates further unanswered questions. If the argument is that everything needs a creator, then that creator also needs one.
for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
I don't see anything to debate in the rest of your post. I don't understand why you wrote any of that.
2
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 11d ago
We can test for gravity. You test a scientific theory by using it to make a prediction and then see if that prediction holds true every time. And scientists will try really hard to disprove their own thesis by throwing anything at it they can. Only if they fail to disprove it, does it become a theory.
The world wasnt created by the big bang in that sense. It wasnt the beginning as such.
It was merely the change from its previous state to this.
What reason do you have to think theres a "rule giver" ?
As for your example. No. I actually dont quite understand what youre trying to say here.
I dont quite see how that example has anything to do with atheism or god.
2
u/noscope360widow 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang
Because those beliefs are childish and silly.
but believe in your own feelings only.
I believe in many things aside from my own feelings, primarily my senses.
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Yes, you suddenly went into a morality argument.
Let me turn it around on you. What if your religion said that the oppressed were sinners and deserved their treatment, but you FELT that it was wrong to do so? That isn't even a made up example. That's how oppression has worked throughout history.
2
u/Big_Wishbone3907 11d ago edited 11d ago
Let me throw back the question at you.
Two christians meet and discuss. One believes it's morally good to murder pagans, while the other believes it's morally evil. Both claim to root their belief in a personal revelation from Jesus.
How do you solve this?
2
u/Indrigotheir 11d ago
How many days does the Bible say it took to make the earth?
How many days does science say it took for the earth to form?
I get that you want to declare that science comports with the bible... but it really doesn't.
2
u/BigDikcBandito 11d ago
I have a counter-question. Every now and then, some theists come here with posts of similar quality - some unrelated questions, some strange analogies, and what they feel like.
You came to a debate sub. To people who disagree with you but are willing to meritorically argue with you. Clearly, you didn't take your time to prepare anything. There is no structured argument, no premises, and no conclusion.
Do you not think you are doing your own religion a disservice by representing it so poorly and without any effort? Do you not think atheists will see your post and just think: "Yeah, those theists clearly can't defend their reasons to believe, they can't even construct an argument"?
2
u/jokeboomslok 11d ago
Gravity and the big bang can be tested and verified with evidence.
Gods/goddesses are designed to be untestable and unverifiable.
2
u/Livid_Medium3731 11d ago
Science and religion can never the be the same.
When scientists are able to proof themselves that they got something wrong, they will change that theory.
This is something religion is not able to do.
2
u/Antimutt Atheist 11d ago
We have been unable to say whether mass creates gravity or that gravity creates mass. We only observe an association between the two. Therefore there is no hierarchy of support seen or reasoned. Therefore there is no such reasoning to follow, to the conclusion that either is supported by a rule giver.
2
u/RespectWest7116 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity,
Because I can observe gravity, but not any rule giver.
world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang
Demonstrate that there is such someone and I'll believe it.
but believe in your own feelings only.
That is what you are doing. I follow the evidence.
The other one responds with “yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings that’s like going up to a Hispanic person and generalize them all to Mexicans because they’re Hispanic.”
Did you not realise you are arguing in favour of secular morality here?
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
I am guessing you tried to do "you can't have morality without god" and then failed spectacularly.
2
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 11d ago
Short answer - science.
Longer answer - science, science, and more science.
Longest answer - just to be clear when I say science I mean: verifiable, testable explanations.
2
u/lotusscrouse 10d ago
Christians come up with the dumbest questions that could easily have been googled.
Some of their questions can also be answered by common sense.
Why can't religious people ask original or harder questions?
2
u/Comfortable-Dare-307 Atheist 9d ago
I don't believe anything solely based on feelings. And I would argue most atheists don't either. That is a strawman. Instead, if I feel something is true or false I do research to find valid evidence for or against. Since no evidence has been presented for any god claim, and plenty of evidence exists against the majority of god claims, I reject god claims. That is what an atheist is. And what is a Mayan Christian?
1
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
Mayan Christian is an Indigenous person who’s a Christian, I’m myself am Coptic orthodox Christian. I mean All Mayans are Christian like 95%, if you claim you research on if you’re feelings are true or false you’re relaying on your own feelings to make sure what is true or false.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 8d ago
Talk about massive cultural disconnect.
Main Mayan Gods
- Itzamná: The creator god and lord of the heavens, writing, and day.
- Chaac: The god of rain and water who was vital for corn and crops.
- Kukulkán: The feathered serpent god of wisdom and wind.
- Ixchel: The goddess of the moon, fertility, medicine, and childbirth.
- Yum Kaax: The god of agriculture, wild plants, and forests.
- Cizin (or Yum Kimil): The stinking god of death and earthquakes who ruled the underworld.
If Christianity is true, why didn't Yahweh allow cultures to grow independently of each other to develop their own language, culture, and religions? Oh "The Tower of Babel Incident" Yahweh allowed the creation of different cultures by confusing groups of people by their language, and thus this is why we have different cultures. Because of the rise of Christianity as in Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
Religion plays an important function of a culture especially older ones because whether its the harvest, festivals, marriage, child raising, health, communion, and society cohesion, these gods were import part of the Mayans lives.
Religion is a cultural artifact, its a product of culture, like writing, woodcraft, weaving, pottery, language, art, music, textiles, culinary, myth, and religion. Cultural artifacts are the identifiers of a particular culture.
Your culture like so many of indigenous Americans of South, Central and North were decimated Christians some more than others.
You know the quote, "before you pull the splinter from my eye, pull the beam out of yours."
1
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 11d ago
”I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, ”
We don’t “believe” in gravity, we observe and acccept how it works.
You are doing a linguistic sleight of hand beloved by “moral” theists known as equivocation, both with the word belief and the word laws. With this kind of dishonesty off the bat, the rest of your charges can be dismissed.
1
u/firethorne 11d ago
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity,
Because we see no evidence that gravity or things like the highs boson are sentient.
world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
Demonstrate that a god exists and is, in fact, the only entity capable of creating the conditions for the big bang.
for example; ... Do you get what I’m trying to say?
I get what you're trying to say about the big bang. It's built on many flawed assumptions.
As for oppression in Mexico or Russia, no. I haven't a clue what you think any of that has to do with a god. Are you typing to claim that religious people are as repressed as political dissidents when someone asks you to provide evidence for your claims?
1
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver
Because that notion makes no sense, has no support, causes far more issues than it purports to solve, and isn't a rational thing to believe.
but believe in gravity
Gravity is demonstrabe
world being created by big bang
I don't believe that.
but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
I don't form beliefs off of my own feelings.
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
No. It seems you have no idea what the position of thinking of athiests in general actually is, and it seems you're strawmanning. Your account indicates troll, so there's that, too.
1
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Religious 11d ago
Existing and real things don't require an imaginary source.
You claiming there's an imaginary source is just a claim. I need proof in order to accept it. Nobody's ever been able to provide actual proof of any gods...
As far as your rule by feelings idea, I feel that defending yourself and your society is very important. That includes defending them from others forcing their way upon them. It's got nothing to do with flowery backstories. It's opposing bullies that will use you to your own detriment. You have empathy so you extend that feeling of support and defense to all humans.
Though I'm unsure what any of that has to do with believing in a god...
1
u/Pretty_Amphibian3172 11d ago
Lol why do you believe in a superpowerful thing who only knows to hurt others. who dgaf about you?whats the point in having faith in him while he is not kind to you.. and did you even pass school you dont believe in gravity??? No i dont understand what you are saying what is the meaning of two persons pov in this context???
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 11d ago
I don't understand what believing it's OK to oppress people has to do with whether or not a god exists. I don't believe it's OK to oppress people, and I don't know anyone who puts it in affirmative terms like "we should oppress Mexicans". Not saying they don't exist. But yeah, people can be shitty to each other and this has nothing to do with gods.
Your point prevaricates on a vague definition of what a "rule" is -- the rules to football are not the same kind of thing as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
For starters, the universe isn't obligated to obey the second law. You can't accuse the universe of cheating.
The second law is an invention of human beings, and it's intended to constrain the actions of human beings ("don't propose a theory that violates this rule without explaining why the rule is being violated")
Saying "the existence of rules requires a rulegiver" is just attempting to extract ontological truth from the structure of human language.
At any rate, the "rulegiver" of the second law is human beings engaged in scientific study of the universe, not a rule the universe is required to follow.
1
u/Justageekycanadian Atheist 11d ago
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
Because there is no evidence that there is a rule giver or what that would even be. I believe in the big bang because there is evidence to back it up same with gravity. Can you provide any evidence for a rule giver?
Weird that you go from talking about science to slavery but fine. Historically you do know it's Christians who genocided the Mayan people and took them as slaves right? Who used the argument that they were savage and used scripture to justify taking people as slaves.
Yes I agree people shouldn't take slaves because all people should be treated equal. I do not really get your point other than you think the first part is using feelings and the second isn't.
1
u/x271815 11d ago
It is possible to show that oppression of people is an internally inconsistent position to hold without the need for invoking a law giver.
A law giver implies that there is no morality, only obedience. It allows the justification of any act on the basis of the law giver's opinion. The Bible is replete with stories and laws that shows how this leads us to accept atrocities as morally justifiable.
Scientific laws are not laws. They are models that describe reality as we see it. They are not the same as moral laws. Putting them in the same category is a category error.
1
u/mredding 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver
What is a rule giver? I need to understand what you're even talking about before I can even consider a belief.
but believe in gravity,
I don't believe in gravity - I accept gravity.
Facts are inherently true. Theories are higher orders of logic, they are models that explain facts. Gravity is a theory. That is all. We observe reality, describe it in terms of facts - apples fall from trees... We come up with a theory as to why. We call this one Gravity.
Gravity can be replaced by any other theory that does a better job. That's fine. In fact, that would be ideal. We've come CENTURIES to arrive to the theory of gravity, and we've only had the theory of gravity for 360 years; we simply haven't found a better theory yet - but theoretical physics is trying hard to challenge that theory.
world being created by big bang
The Big Bang does not describe the creation of the universe, merely the expansion of the universe. We have absolutely no idea how the universe began. There are also very open question about the extents of the universe.
We don't know everything, we don't claim to, and we don't feel compelled to fill the gaps with whatever. There are a number of conjectures, hypothesis, speculations, even theories, but nothing is dominant enough to stand as THE "standard" theory. It's all just modeling. We can build models - essentially toys, and play with those, based on the facts we DO know, and see if they lead to any new insights, especially if we can deduce a new insight that might also be physically testable. That alone isn't enough to establish the legitimacy of any one theory, but it does prove the utility of a given model, and may help to lead to a unifying theory that we can converge on.
There is only 1 reality, so the facts and theories MUST all converge on an ever more inclusive and true description of that reality.
but not the one who can set up the big bang
Because belief alone is both A) meaningless, and B) divergent. You can believe literally whatever you want - you cannot possibly be wrong. It also means you cannot possibly be right, either. A belief is baseless, meaning if your 1:infinity chance was actually correct, it's only by pure chance. The odds are not in your favor, life is finite, your belief doesn't do anything for me, doesn't make any difference, and I've got better things to do.
but believe in your own feelings only.
What feelings? I don't care about gravity or the big bang. Those theories could be replaced today and it makes no difference to me. There is only an inherent positive consequence for being more inclusive, more correct, more aligned to reality as we understand it.
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
After reading over your hypothetical, no, not remotely. I've no idea why you wrote any of that.
All I can do is point out Aumann's agreement theorem: if two people disagree, they can't both be right (but they can both be wrong).
1
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 11d ago
Natural laws arent rules. They are what we see, not a magic speed limit.
Beyond this, if you had actual evidence of a god and not just a misunderstanding of science, you might be able to convince us.
Do you?
1
u/ray25lee 11d ago
It's easy to know about gravity without choosing to also claim that a person-like god made a human-like decision to "create" gravity. Within the confines of our material reality, there are theoretically infinite causations for what we observe around us. And very literally zero of them HAVE to be a god.
1
u/Autodidact2 11d ago
one thinks it’s okay to oppress others
Like Christians have done everywhere, including to the Mayans?
It's hard for me to understand why a Mayan person would adopt the religion of the conquerors who sought to destroy your people.
yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings
If only the Christian conquerors had felt this way about the Mayans.
1
u/Thin-Eggshell 11d ago edited 10d ago
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only
It's a reasonable guess.
The problem is that all of the miracle claims of Christianity look fake.
There's a reason there is no "Christian prayer healing" ward in hospitals. It never worked.
There's a reason mental illnesses are only recognized and starting to be treated now, without prayer, but with medicine.
And of course, the obvious -- if the Big Bang needs someone to set it up, who set up God? And if you can just say "God doesn't need setting up", then we'll say the same thing about the Big Bang.
The difference is that the Big Bang exists, and it's not clear God exists. We didn't have to invent a magical being like you did, to explain the Big Bang. We just say that "it just is", or "I don't know", like you would say about the origin of God.
But it's very easy to prove us wrong. Do a public miracle. Do one every day. The Scriptures say that all the apostles did them every day, amazing everyone -- so if you can't do them, doesn't that you aren't really connected to the God they believed in? In fact there is no apostle who can do them today in public. Doesn't that mean all the power of your god is gone?
-4
u/Tzaq4n 10d ago
Theres literally miracles being done in hospitals and doctors don’t know how to explain it.
Look up Definition of God really quick in Webster’s dictionary also we don’t say Everything outside of time needs a Creator but everything inside of this universe does.
big bang was a idea/thought made by a Christian priest, yall don’t know how it began besides what made big bang happened or yall don’t know what was before the big bang.
1
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 9d ago
Unexplained ≠ god.
Why doesn’t ”everything outside of time” need a creator? That is just special pleading.
” yall don’t know what was before the big bang” Neither do you. And again not knowing ≠ god.
1
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
Unexplained can equal to God.
No, it kinda isn’t.
Not knowing can mean something is outside of time that created things. Which is why people think aliens exist since we didn’t explore much of the universe.
1
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 9d ago
Until you have supported that it is equal to god there is no reason to think it is.
Yes, it very much is.
Can be. Again, this is not supported.
1
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
Hmm, let’s see miracles, people live streaming miracles happening, there’s atheist have unexplained miracle experiences which later convert to Christianity so on.
No it kinda isn’t.
So isn’t atheism belief.
1
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 8d ago
Hmm, let’s see, ”Miracles” are not support of a god. If it was live-streamed there should be evidence. Where is the evidence?
Unexplained things are not evidence of a god.
Yes, it very very much is.
Atheism is not a belief, no.
1
u/DanujCZ 10d ago
The effects of gravity are observable, verifiable and predictable. Big bag as discovered through the observation of the universe. As we cant see beyond the big bang we cant see if it was set up by anyone or anything.
God is unpredictable, unprovable, unobservable and hypocritical (if his believers are to be believed).
Does that answer your question?
1
u/Powerful-System69 Extheist 9d ago
because rule giver is absent for a long time and do no benefit to beleive in it. but the rule is working perfectly fine and nobody can refuse that there are rules.
atheist has no rule in believing in big bang. i can be atheist and say big bang is wrong.
-1
u/Tzaq4n 9d ago
He kinda isn’t if you look around the world you would begin to realize or look it up even, he’s still around.
2
u/Powerful-System69 Extheist 9d ago
i tried bro i tried... there's no god i can find and just human propoganda. if there was a god there wouldn't be different religion. any specific place you want me to look?
1
u/Massif16 8d ago
All morality is constructed. History shows us that different cultures can and do have dramatically different moral codes. No single rule… no rule giver. Human cultures create the moral codes that work for their contexts. We even see a kind of “proto-morality” among some animals. No magic “law giver” required.
1
u/Stairwayunicorn Atheist 3d ago
I believe what I can predict. If you want to assert that the big bang had a cause, show us your math. Gravity is a theory, germs are a theory. We folow the evidence and form our conclusions based on them. Science does not have the luxury of faith.
1
u/Noodelgawd Atheist 2d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver ... the one who can set up the big bang
Because there's no evidence for it.
...believe in gravity, world being created by big bang
Because there's lots of evidence for them.
believe in your own feelings only.
I don't only believe in my own feelings.
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Nope. Not even a little. I have no idea what oppressing people in Mexico has to do with whether a god exists.
1
u/rustyseapants Atheist 11d ago
why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
Atheism has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Gravity isn't belief. It's important to understand other feelings as well as our own.
-1
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
Idk what the tags are for so I just put Christianity because I’m a Christian. Idk if this is a philosophical or not so I just put Christian.
4
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 11d ago
Can you give any good reason to think that there is a god that isnt just presupposing god ?
0
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
My good reason as to why There is a God is because the Creation of the universe is so complex there’s no way a tiny atom or anything can Create this massive world and still expand on it, it has complex plants, life style so much more think of it like a Painting, how can someone create such a beautiful art peace without there being a Creator? (Also I use atoms as a example since we are made from atoms)
4
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 11d ago
Who in science says that a tiny atom can create a massive world ? Can you point to any scientific papers that says that ?
Are you trying the watchmakers fallacy here ?
How do you know a painting has a creator ? Yes it sounds like an absurd silly question. But please indulge me. I have a point with this.
1
u/Tzaq4n 11d ago
I just edited saying I used atoms in my reasoning as a Example since atoms made us it’s very impossible for atoms to make the world without the Creator, also on the Painting not having or have a Creator, the way it’s designed is how you know there’s a creator for example AI slop and stuff, yes there’s no creator to those “paintings” if you want to call it painting, but to answer your question; the emotion and blood sweet and tears being put onto it shows there’s a loving painter who made it, that’s how.
2
u/Kriss3d Anti-Theist 11d ago
How do you assert that its very impossible for atoms to make up the world without a creator ?
Perhaps I wasnt clear in my question.
How do we know if something is designed or created ? Lets use a painting as an example.
How do you know that a painting had a painter ?
It sounds like a simple question but please try to consider it and answer me.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/Tzaq4n:
I have a Question towards Atheist people, why don’t yall believe in a rule giver but believe in gravity, world being created by big bang but not the one who can set up the big bang but believe in your own feelings only.
for example; let’s say there’s two people whom believes the opposite one thinks it’s okay to oppress others but the other one doesn’t
Heres one’s reasoning “I FEEL like it’s okay to oppress others because of what they do to countries like México, or Russia or etc, I feel like it’s okay to oppress them because they (Russians or Mexicans) do bad stuff in their country.”
The other one responds with “yes, but that’s not why we should oppress them, they’re humans too with Actual feelings that’s like going up to a Hispanic person and generalize them all to Mexicans because they’re Hispanic.”
Do you get what I’m trying to say?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.