the most laughable instance of modern decadence is regarding societys passive acceptance of "atheism" or "secularism" as a supposed golden age for humankind, modern day atheism is not dissimilar to the roman "gods" who used them as beings for the cause of furthering their own agendas, lacking any soul or wit. this manfiestation of atheism is revolting
Kuffar, all of you
Out of agnosticism, atheism and having a set faith I find atheism to be the worst of the three.
At least with agnosticism and faith you recognize on a certain level you don't hold the answers to existence. And although faith reaches too far for me, to assume the understanding of existence is held to god(s) at least they recognize themselves and their understanding as beneath something.
Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is nothing because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life. Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well. While my friends with faith are moral upstanding people, with long term goals, heavy family emphasis and happy with their lives
Summary: Chad Hopeful Agnostics > Faith > Virgin Atheism
Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false.
Kuffar, all of you
Out of agnosticism, atheism and having a set faith I find atheism to be the worst of the three.
At least with agnosticism and faith you recognize on a certain level you don't hold the answers to existence. And although faith reaches too far for me, to assume the understanding of existence is held to god(s) at least they recognize themselves and their understanding as beneath something.
Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is nothing because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life. Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well. While my friends with faith are moral upstanding people, with long term goals, heavy family emphasis and happy with their lives
Summary: Chad Hopeful Agnostics > Faith > Virgin Atheism
Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false.
"it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false. "
so because god can be explained by means relating to sociology and supposed "culture" then it is to be accepted that he does not exist?
Kuffar, all of you
Out of agnosticism, atheism and having a set faith I find atheism to be the worst of the three.
At least with agnosticism and faith you recognize on a certain level you don't hold the answers to existence. And although faith reaches too far for me, to assume the understanding of existence is held to god(s) at least they recognize themselves and their understanding as beneath something.
Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is nothing because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life. Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well. While my friends with faith are moral upstanding people, with long term goals, heavy family emphasis and happy with their lives
Summary: Chad Hopeful Agnostics > Faith > Virgin Atheism
Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false.
"it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false. "
so because god can be explained by means relating to sociology and supposed "culture" then it is to be accepted that he does not exist?
god is to be viewed as a result of these things just like the countless of other ideas with which parallels can be drawn, socioculturally as a manner of understanding
god is as real as the concept of money or equality which means that he exists as much as we allow
Kuffar, all of you
Out of agnosticism, atheism and having a set faith I find atheism to be the worst of the three.
At least with agnosticism and faith you recognize on a certain level you don't hold the answers to existence. And although faith reaches too far for me, to assume the understanding of existence is held to god(s) at least they recognize themselves and their understanding as beneath something.
Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is nothing because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life. Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well. While my friends with faith are moral upstanding people, with long term goals, heavy family emphasis and happy with their lives
Summary: Chad Hopeful Agnostics > Faith > Virgin Atheism
Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false.
"it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false. "
so because god can be explained by means relating to sociology and supposed "culture" then it is to be accepted that he does not exist?
god is to be viewed as a result of these things just like the countless of other ideas with which parallels can be drawn, socioculturally as a manner of understanding
god is as real as the concept of money or equality which means that he exists as much as we allow
i have perceived you to be of the conviction that since god can be explained by the means of sociocultural science, or any other manner of understanding he can reasonably be accepted to be a diety bestowed upon man by man himself, for it removes the necessity of religious diatribes, am i correct?
Kuffar, all of you
Out of agnosticism, atheism and having a set faith I find atheism to be the worst of the three.
At least with agnosticism and faith you recognize on a certain level you don't hold the answers to existence. And although faith reaches too far for me, to assume the understanding of existence is held to god(s) at least they recognize themselves and their understanding as beneath something.
Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is nothing because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life. Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well. While my friends with faith are moral upstanding people, with long term goals, heavy family emphasis and happy with their lives
Summary: Chad Hopeful Agnostics > Faith > Virgin Atheism
Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false.
I see that when it comes to putting down other faiths, but to say that this existence is godless is to make a massive claim with little to no understanding of what is going on. It's just as if not more ignorant than people claiming they know the will and intent of god
Theres a lot more questions scientists cant answer, why chose those specifically?
i didnt watch them all tho, its boring after having seen 1000ts of videos like this one
#10
Actually some of those scientists can answer, but none of those can be answered without science.
Including number 10, so theists can't answer it either.
"God created it/made it that way." is an answer to everything.
Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is "nothing" because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life.
I'd say every perspective yields that, just replace "nothing" with whatever their bender is about.
It sounds more like you dislike Atheism because you think it's arrogant enough to think it knows something at all (spoiler alert: that's most if not arguably all faiths). There are Atheists who are essentially waiting for that moment when something can prove it wrong, who instead of presuming "to know", they'd presume "to guess" until shown otherwise as their understanding of an Occam's Razor perspective.
Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well.
While my friends with faith are moral upstanding people, with long term goals, heavy family emphasis and happy with their lives
Yes I understand but the question isn't a 50/50 one, it's not just that there isn't any proof of god, it's that the rationalisation for how such an idea (socioculturally) came into existence is well understood and explained. God is clearly a human construct and as such can be reasonably defined as false.
Is it not proof that every living creature has a purpose behind every underlining part that makes them, which also has a purpose ? Or are we to think all of this came to be unguided.
For every living creature there is male and female. To think this is a shot in the dark by an inanimate, unconscious coincidence is absurd.
All the coding in the DNA that makes us specific to our species, and we're to believe all that coding and the genome which carries out it's instructions all running right now like software in an operating system, happened to to be correct by mistake countless times over on the same world, to make not just a male, but a female who in turn were made for one another to co-create. Each with vital organs and body parts which every single part having a purpose, like the way hands are formed. It clearly has it's reasoning as do the teeth and the digestive system, from the brain, the heart, the shin. You name it. It has a purpose and function down to the last drop of blood.
The complexity of the eye happened to be made or evolve as it is, meanwhile light exists while the eye is dependant on light, while the gas that surrounds us, we're breathing right now, is conveniently invisible for the light and the eye. We're to believe these dots were connected unguided, and without any consciousness ?
The trees/plants cannot survive without creatures, and creatures cannot survive without them either, the exchange of gasses being one reason. Neither plant or creature could have come first. Arguably all of this which is happening right now, is a set up.
Science doesn't know how bacteria could have been alive, While we have yet to bring life to anything, other than our offspring which is how we're are coded and built to begin with since out beginning. None of our technology can hold a candle to the complexity of a flea, when we modify genetics we're doing it with borrowed materials that are alive, and we're to believe we who are conscious was outdone/outclassed by an unconsciousness that did this from scratch.
Without the claws the cat wouldn't survive, as every creature has what it needs to have a fighting chance in the chain. Disrupting that chain can result in the extinction of other species. From what I've gathered, if the Bees were gone, human beings would be facing real problems.
We're seriously to believe materials colliding with one another in space and making it's way here and all the purpose behind all the components and things on the Earth and it's position from the sun, with the Earth's shielding which it yet another convenient thing all happened by mistake. And though all of this, we became conscious, and we're equipped with emotions that are very intuitive toward ourselves and others.
.
.
.
It's much wiser to be agnostic than atheist in my opinion. For the atheist it's all doubt without leaving an open channel to other possibilities while not having all the answers. It's like a finalization of character who narrows down the creator to despicable religion while having nothing to look forward to other than a short life span and ceasing to exist.
