I missed the hyperaggressive atheists here that attack believers in God 😂

@Kwek00 I'm not denying that. I agree. I'm just saying that something always had to have existed for us to exist. For our universe to be the way it is, we can reason some things out.

And I'm talking since the Big Bang all the way to now :v
Now from the first living cell tbh. My question includes [b]all[/b] explanations for the obvious organization we witness and see in ourselves and around us in this universe, so it fits to say evolution comes into play somewhere bro.

Also, you call it a primal tendency to claim that God did this. What do you mean by primal? 🤔
What is primal about that but not primal about you claiming evolution is what organized us to be this way? There can be many hypotheses. Why are you comfortable with just asserting one to be "primal?" I don't get that.

I also didn't say I'm making a clear case for God, bro. My goal is to reason what makes sense and what doesn't. IF God makes sense, God would fit into reason in some way, right? That was my point in a nutshell. Whether God exists or not isn't dependent on you. If God exists right now and has existed, nothing you say can make that false. If God doesn't exist, then nothing you say can also make that false. And since God can't exist AND not exist at the same time, only ONE makes sense. My goal is for us to reason which makes sense and which doesn't. I'm not asking or talking to you about dogmatic principles and scriptures and stuff. Just conceptually observing certain phenomena and making logical conclusions.

To address your points, I can't tell you what God is. If God exists, how can you demand of my limited existence to define what created everything before me when I wasn't even there? Furthermore, something arguably outside of the universe? In-detail knowledge OBVIOUSLY would require something outside of human logic, reason, and imagination. I'm trying to bring in scope what simply makes sense to you and me.
[quote]if God magicked the first living cell into excistence, don't we then break our first premise that we both agreed on that something can't come from nothing?[/quote]
Yeah, I agree. It appears to follow that something just can't exist from nothing so that's not where we're tryna poke holes in this idea.
[quote]And if God is able to create a living cell and it's not by a form of magic... then wouldn't nature not be able to have done it on one of the millions planets in our known universe?[/quote]
And no. This is non-sequitur. If God can create a living cell, why does that mean nature can create a living cell? .-.

I don't even wanna discuss God. I wanna stick with a completely naturalistic worldview and avoid God UNTIL God is the only option that makes sense. It's at this point where I would ask: in a Godless world, does the "nature" you observe and ascribe the organization to tend to organize itself into observable structures and functions like the first living cell from an unstructured world of inorganic compounds? Or is that something irrational to believe, directly invoking manipulation of the laws of the universe being required? If so, why? And I sure hope you're not biased .-.
I don't want you to sweep this under the rug and come up with your own dogmatic belief and say "At this point, we HAVE to conclude this and think a certain way."
If there is no answer for this, why should I trust atheism, then? Especially if atheism calls me to ignore this and our own evolutionary models require an answer for this? Since you like calling things fantasies, is it fair to say that atheism is a fantasy because it fails to answer such an important question? (A question of why nature broke its own rule?)

Next point:
This is where science actually filters out what hypothesis makes sense or not. This is entirely based on the human mind's amazing capacity to analyze artifacts and make conclusions on the necessities for that artifact to exist. It's what we've been doing and still do for all of science and reason that we know to make sense. This is what archeology and evolution and all of these things ARE based on.

I guess another way of articulating the point I'm trying to make is revolving around the watchmaker analogy. It is arguable that something that exhibits intelligent design requires an intelligent cause. A complex design forces a complex cause. We have rationality, therefore something with the capacity for rationality has to have been there before we have been there. (And if you deny rationality existing, then you're shooting your own ability to reason down). All the evolution with its mechanisms like natural selection in the world gears us towards survival; not truth. Where did such faculties for reason and speculation come from in a naturalistic model? No evolutionary psychologist is going to argue that evolution is the foundation of reason, imagination, and truth which are cognitive tools that help us analyze why something is the way it is or formulate and create something. Isn't it remarkable that we come up with stories and lies? That we can look at something and explain some things that just have to be true about it (with no explicit confessions)?

I hope that you entertain these questions

@Babylon
[quote]What do you mean by primal?[/quote]

Primal or if you rather hear primitive, because it's something human beings have been doing since ancient times. For some reason, if a primitive tribe comes across something they don't understand, there is a tendency to invoke a fantastical reason for it to excist. Either because they don't have the tool to research it or because they aren't aware that a more rational conclussion can be made if we take the time to think about it. There is also a tendency to explain everything even with ideas that don't explain it. For some reason, some people just seem to have issues living in a world with open questions.

There have been movements through the ages that try to get away from this kind of thought. The most recent big movement is the enlightenment that tries to reject dogma and favors more reasonable exploration.


[quote]I also didn't say I'm making a clear case for God, bro. My goal is to reason what makes sense and what doesn't. IF God makes sense, God would fit into reason in some way, right?[/quote]

This is what you set out to do:

[quote]Now, my only question for you is whether or not you accept logic and reason to come to some conclusions about the existence of God or not. If not the God explained in particular religions, rather whether or not the idea of God is logical or not. Cuz many people think believing in God is against reason. I just wanna know if you accept logic or not with regards to SOME things about God.[/quote]

So yeah... in a way, you did. You can't just say that God is an option, if you want to take me down the line where God suddenly is reasonable. I'm not looking for ambiguities here, else this is an entire excercise becomes futile. And I'm not going trough another pipeline where someone talks about some random thing and then suddenly goes: "so we need a creator". I've already done that out here, these conversations take a lot of time, take me to an hour stuff that I either mostly agree on or totally agree on. Just to make a magical leap of faith that says: "thus God". And well... ain't nobody got time for that, because that one step, is the only thing I care about. And no one needs to fluff it up, we just need to be concerned about that point where we go from physics and things we know too God. That's what is the goal.


[quote]To address your points, I can't tell you what God is. If God exists, how can you demand of my limited existence to define what created everything before me when I wasn't even there?[/quote]

If you don't know what you are looking for... How will you find it?
Like with the Higgs-Bosson particle, people knew what they were looking for.
In the search for more evidence for evolution, the so called missing links, people know what they are looking for.

These ideas and concepts are so tight, that researchers have an idea what they are looking out for. But you are looking for a total abstract. If you don't even know what the concept of God means, then how can you find it? Your search is for something specific, namely the concept of "God". That's what we are looking for. But you can't even reach to some fuzzy definition of it. People that search for new things, like explorers that visit "the new world" and saw their first Turkye and Potato, well... they were probably amazed because it was so new that they couldn't have set out to find those because they were unkown to them. In your case, we are searching for something called "God" so this thing should at least be known in some way or another. But I guess "God" is just ad devoided of substance as the unknown Turkye. Which is really weird, because if that is the case, then maybe, it's better to ditch the concept all together, just keep exploring and maybe one day we'll find something completely new that even our fantasy couldn't conjure up, and then we give it a name. Instead of looking for a concept that can't be defined. It feels like a form of insanity and confirmation bias.


[quote]And no. This is non-sequitur. If God can create a living cell, why does that mean nature can create a living cell? .-.[/quote]

Well, please explain then how God does it? If God is using a natural process, then shouldn't nature be able to do the exact same thing under the right circumstances?


[quote]I don't even wanna discuss God. I wanna stick with a completely naturalistic worldview and avoid God UNTIL God is the only option that makes sense.[/quote]

Well, I want to skip exactly to that point honestly. You can write a long message with all the steps you take. And then I would like to see where this point occurs. And how God will be the only thing that make sense, especially in the mind of a person that considers God as a total abstraction. I fear that we are going to end up at a point where God is nothing more then a maleable form that fits all, and will fill a gap where: "We don't know" is always the better answer.


[quote]in a Godless world, does the "nature" you observe and ascribe the organization to tend to organize itself into observable structures and functions like the first living cell from an unstructured world of inorganic compounds?[/quote]

Yes, this actually happens in nature.
If you accept the theory of the big bang... then you know that all these mollecules drifting in space create an attraction to one another through gravity. That heavier objects attract lighter objects and that when they reach eachother they clit together. In cases of Gass molecules, once things get to dense they can ignite because of pressure and friction. In cases of solid molecules like the planets, they eventually cooled off. It's also not really as nicely and neatly structured, but in our lifespan gives the illusions that is. Because we only live 70-80 years, while the universe around us has been forming for millenia. And there is still a lot of chaos out there. Pieces just wham into eachother, suns explode or implode, ... there is a lot going on out there that I wouldn't really call "organized".


[quote]Or is that something irrational to believe, directly invoking manipulation of the laws of the universe being required? If so, why?[/quote]

Why invoke "manipulation" when you have physics?

[quote]And I sure hope you're not biased .-.[/quote]

That's a strange question from someone that is looking for something undefinable that is going to fill in a gap somewhere.

[quote]If there is no answer for this, why should I trust atheism, then?[/quote]

Because people like me aren't giving you answers to questions we don't know the answer too, we don't have. So you don't have to trust people like me at all, because we aren't trying to provide answers that require trust. We are trying to figure out how it actually works not some narrative that furfills us with a sense of accomplishment. The opposite however is way more true, why would you trust anny religion? Or an abstract concept that can't be defined? You need a lot of trust for that. You need absolutely no trust to listen to a person that explains that there are certain things we don't know.

[quote]Since you like calling things fantasies, is it fair to say that atheism is a fantasy because it fails to answer such an important question?[/quote]

Not if you subscribe to my type of atheism. Because admitting that you not know something is way more inteligent then to come to a point where you not know and go: "thus God". That's the fantasy. Because as I said earlier, since we started to move away from that kind of thinking, a lot of "God" has been erased and replaced by theories that hold up according to evidence and practise. If you think that is all fantasy, well then fantasy put a human on the moon while religion has kept humanity down for centuries by burning books with scientific exploration that went against dogmatic principles that that society couldn't let go. I'll take my "fantasies" over dogma anny day.


[quote]I guess another way of articulating the point I'm trying to make is revolving around the watchmaker analogy. It is arguable that something that exhibits intelligent design requires an intelligent cause. A complex design forces a complex cause. [/quote]

But you sneak in the premise that something is designed. While if you agree with the Big Bang, then it's clearly not designed. It just went "boom" and all the rest was a consequence of forces that are described in Physics.

[quote]We have rationality, therefore something with the capacity for rationality has to have been there before we have been there.[/quote]

No... that's not how it works. That's not what "rationality" means. Someone can have a totally diffrent outlook then you and be totally rationally consistent. The reason why the person diverts from your answers, is because they adopted diffrent premises. Rationality isn't some kind of absolute that just excists in a vacuum. It's just a word we use to agree that someone is logically consistent within the premisses that he/she holds.

Someone can thus be totally rational, but for an outsider be irrational. For instance, people that only watch "Infowars", can be totally rational, because the premises that they use is information from the Infowars channel. Now, Infowars is a conspiratorial show full with insanity, but as long as people keep using their info as their premise, they can build up a rational framework of though inside those premisses. To an outsider, someone that is "aware" of other information, this reasoning of the infowar watcher is probably irrational, because he's aware that some of their premisses are just wrong. But if people are not aware of them, they can still be rational.

[quote]All the evolution with its mechanisms like natural selection in the world gears us towards survival; not truth. Where did such faculties for reason and speculation come from in a naturalistic model? [/quote]

From our human need to search for answers? We develop these things. Maybe you should read up on "ontology" and "epistemology". There are diffrent theories and arguments about how we gather knowledge and how we look at reality. It's an ongoing debate, it's not set in stone. And the goal is to better understand our reality that we are living in and to gather better and usable knowledge to advance the exploration of our reality.

[quote]No evolutionary psychologist is going to argue that evolution is the foundation of reason, imagination, and truth which are cognitive tools that help us analyze why something is the way it is or formulate and create something. Isn't it remarkable that we come up with stories and lies? That we can look at something and explain some things that just have to be true about it (with no explicit confessions)?[/quote]

I hope not.
It's remarkable that we are able to fantasize. I think it's a good thing. It's jut that if you want to explore and discover things, we don't need fantasy. We need to be able too make a distinction, that's where epistemology comes in. But I do think that you are really confused about certain things. Because you seem to be throwing a lot of concepts on a big pile, and then things become all confusing, and from that confusion you seem to try to make sense of it all by introducing watchmakers, order and a being that can't be defined... which, well, feels like a fantasy that has no place in a conversation where you are trying to find what's going on.

@Kwek00 these are getting kinda long so I'm gunna try to cut it down a bit

I'm well aware of the many fabrications to explain things and I'm against that idea myself. I can imagine it to be common and I appreciate you teaching me that bro.

[quote]Just to make a magical leap of faith that says: "thus God". And well... ain't nobody got time for that, because that one step, is the only thing I care about. And no one needs to fluff it up, we just need to be concerned about that point where we go from physics and things we know too God. That's what is the goal.[/quote]
Well, I sure hope we don't come across any leaps of faith. I'm trying to just remain on things we can observe and are well within reason.

[quote]If you don't know what you are looking for... How will you find it?[/quote]
Good question. We discovered gravity like that, right? (Sorry to bring it up again.) We notice things, look for clues of things, investigate, and reason certain things out. Kinda exactly like how we got no clue what gravity exactly [b]is[/b] but we can clearly see its effects and we can measure that. We're still in the works of learning how we can find out what exactly controls or causes this but I don't think you consider it abstract and not reason enough to believe in it. Likewise with your own mind and consciousness. Some things just leave patterned trails and impacts that are observable and can be associated with each other statistically. Science itself is based on this idea of observed regularity/association and replicability.

[quote]confirmation bias[/quote]
Tis a tricky word. Firstly, you're already dismissing the idea of God being possible because you don't fully understand what God is, what God is made of, etc. .-.
You established that you don't NEED to know that to believe in something. You just need to see EFFECTS of it that are rationally observable, right? If not, can you tell me what gravity is and what it's made of? If not, you're literally accepting the idea of believing in something based on evidence of its effects, right?

[quote]Well, please explain then how God does it? If God is using a natural process, then shouldn't nature be able to do the exact same thing under the right circumstances?[/quote]
I'm not able to tell you how I was made or how the universe and all existence was made (assuming it was) :v
If there is a natural process for things to be made, following such a process would replicate the results, if and only if all factors involved remain constant and are reliable and not random. But God is not a naturally occurring phenomenon ._.
It goes directly against naturalism.
Kinda like tryna use physics to solve metaphysical problems. They're in different domains and require different tools. Some things are not solvable in a lab .-.
Some things require high-level analysis, evaluation, and reason.

[quote]Well, I want to skip exactly to that point honestly.[/quote]
Okay, I guess we'll do that then :v
[quote]I fear that we are going to end up at a point where God is nothing more then a maleable form that fits all, and will fill a gap where: "We don't know" is always the better answer.[/quote]
Firstly, just because you don't know doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. There are many ways we can be sure of something

[quote]Yes, this actually happens in nature.[/quote]
[quote]While if you agree with the Big Bang, then it's clearly not designed. It just went "boom" and all the rest was a consequence of forces that are described in Physics.[/quote]
Actually, no it doesn't .-.
I'm afraid I can't back you up here and this is the anomaly in arguing against intelligent design. Such reasoning violates a fundamental law of the universe: the Second Law of Thermodynamics (known as the rule of entropy). We know nature can't assemble components of itself of low complexity into more complex, structured, and destroyable systems. What you described truly was following the laws of physics and thermodynamics but you're completely aware that it starts to look like a leap of faith to say that nature literally broke its own laws here and had the natural world just somehow "collide" itself (literally chaos) into a complete, observable system that is void of chaos, all from a chaotic cause. Would it really seem unreasonable to then say that it required manipulation? I mean, we do the same thing when we come across a stop sign on the side of the road. Just the shape of it and where it is is so obvious that it's not a part of the beautiful scenic landscape but rather it exhibits signs of manipulation. Right here is where I say that I just cannot pretend there is a logical and acceptable explanation from atheists to say that there is no designer for what clearly exhibits structure. Would you argue that your own eye functions the way it does without a designer?
Is there anything fundamentally AGAINST thinking this way? 🤔
Cuz it seems like it is the option that makes the most sense to me, from a completely logical standpoint.

I don't think it's fantasy to observe something exhibiting clearly intelligent design and then coming to the conclusion that there is a designer for it ._.
In fact, I argue that humans can detect patterns and that intelligent design leaves a distinct pattern that is detectable and it is a remarkable ability we have and use every day of our lives. And I'm not talking about "Oh, I don't know how to explain it, so it's made up"
I'm talking about actually coming across an artifact and based purely on analysis, we can make conclusions about events that must have taken place.

[quote]No... that's not how it works.[/quote]
Forgive me for not making it clear. If an entity doesn't have the potential for rationality, we agree that it cannot give rise to something with rationality. Unless our principles that something cannot just come into existence by itself is not true. If we have the potential of life, we came from something with the potential of life. If we exist, we came from something with the potential to exist. Same with rationality and reason.

[quote]Because you seem to be throwing a lot of concepts on a big pile, and then things become all confusing, and from that confusion you seem to try to make sense of it all by introducing watchmakers, order and a being that can't be defined... which, well, feels like a fantasy that has no place in a conversation where you are trying to find what's going on.[/quote]
I could also argue that it's a confusing fantasy to say that in some point in time in our atheistic model that the second law of thermodynamics was broken by nature left alone. I actually think that the answer to this really boils down to the watchmaker analogy. If you believe that coming across a structure that arguably displays significant design could have just been an anomaly of nature due to random chance, then ultimately, you can accept that the first living cell just happened to also be an extreme anomaly. I personally cannot accept that. (By doing so, you would be countering something I consider normal though :v)

@BlueVeins man, it's one of the worst things when your questions are shut down with authority as if it's an answer 😕
I'm sorry that you went through rough times cuz of it too bro

This is why I always say you're different 😁
Also, Pirate ain't really a Christian 👀

@faithfulhusband Are you as cute as she is in this picture.☺️

@Zonuss she actually is .-.
She's cuter in my humble opinion

But I hope that doesn't matter ._.
She's lit, man

@Babylon Well that's good to know. Some people here actually aren't that beautiful. 🙂

@SW-User I honestly can believe that :v
I don't see people making fun of atheists but maybe I just pass by without paying mind to it 🤔

@Babylon Thank you!

@Carazaa anytime 😁
I'll gladly stand against defamation and lies any day

@RandomForest oh. So I take you think black people can't be racist because they were subject to racial oppression from whites for CENTURIES here in America, right? :v

Cuz I met black people who think white people are LITERAL devils... all thanks to their history of oppression

What do you think? 😂

@Babylon I think you've cooked up a foolish false equivalency. But of course black people can be racist. Anyone can.

@RandomForest [quote] I'm not sure you can reach "hyperaggressive" if the other side has a history of burning folks on pyres. [/quote]
You're explicitly implying the argument:

I'm not sure atheists can reach hyperaggressive because of the history of some religious people

Is it really a false equivalency to compare it to how some people say blacks can't be racist because they didn't reach the level of oppression that whites have oppressed them?

Come on now. You can't just claim false equivalency there 😂
I translated oppression with racism directly.

@Thevy29 lol bro 😂
I'll answer you. But just like how you want me to answer you, I would like you to answer me

[quote]Isn't it funny how Jesus Sycophants have absolutely no regard for anyone elses beliefs and morals. And the draconian methods they have used to ensure their supremecy[/quote]
It certainly is ridiculous, funny, and backwards if a Jesus Sycophant doesn't show any regards for other beliefs. I must ask though: are you saying Jesus Sycophants (in general or overall) are as you described them? 👀
Or are you just generalizing to get the point across?
And are the Christians today the same as those before? Or are you taking the actions of dead people and painting people alive today with that?


[quote] "Why do you busy yourself ridiculing other people's beliefs and morals? 🤔
Do you even know what's right and what's wrong?" [/quote]

@Babylon I guess its a generalization. Due to their being so many different variants of faith regarding Jesus. You go to say something about the Christians people defend themselves by saying their Lutherans or Catholics or any of the other ones that follow Jesus. Or they'll claim the follow the new testament or the old one or something else. Or basically anything that dodges the blame.
(You could say their all the same since they follow the same guy but that would cause even more arguments.)

I call the whole group Sycophants because Sycophant means (a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage.) Which seems to be what they have been doing.

Yes religion has done a lot of evil shit in the past. And no I don't think modern day Christians are the same as their past counterparts.

The modern day Christians are all to quick to point out that most of the bad stuff their religions followers had done. Happened a long time ago. Better yet a hundred years ago. There is no way they are responsible for any of that.

The Stolen Generation of Australian Aboriginals was an attempt of Genocide of the race by the white citizens of both colour, history, language and culture. That would not have been possible without the support and aide of Christians and those like them. My father was lucky enough not to be taken from his parents. 5 of his brothers and sisters were not so lucky.

It's all a complex issue.

@Thevy29 I think the supremacy of Britain and the U.S. has nothing to do with religion .-.
Only one nation today, as far as I know, is officially using a religious text to expunge and slaughter a populace

@canusernamebemyusername [quote]Because every time religion and government has mixed it results in atrocity. That is why atheists fight religion.[/quote]
The U.S. claims separation from Church and State. This explicitly states secularism if I'm not mistaken, yet this same government violated and destroyed Iraq over a lie. China is literally committing a genocide and ethnic cleansing by force. Can we claim that secular governments results in atrocity? By your standards, yes. You can't just take the ACTIONS of some select people and claim their religious or secular beliefs are the cause. Atheism seems to dominate China and they're oppressing religious people there. I sure don't call atheists bad people because of that. What do you make of this? I think atheists can be good people in the same light.

[quote]Also what if God is the bad guy and the devil is the good guy.[/quote]
Now this is a really good question. I would say this is a totally separate discussion to the point of this post but I don't think it makes sense, based on rather common sense principles, to question whether God is the good or bad guy in comparison to Satan 🤔
And I'm talking of neutral analysis of what God encourages and teaches across all religious scriptures in a general sense.

@HannibalAteMeOut ikr :v
I laugh at jokes about anything and errthang XD
So long as it is true and not defamation

At least you can have a laugh ;-:
People here will BLOW YOUR MIND

@Babylon people are weirdos

@HannibalAteMeOut ikr ._.
The blasted weirdos man :v
This site makes me feel normal again

@anxietyme well, I think it's important to share our contradicting beliefs. I just think it should be healthy. I think it's not entirely a waste of time if there is a search for truth from both parties. We know that two contradicting ideas cannot both be true, especially about the origin of our existence. For us to ponder, share, and reason with one another towards what makes sense and what doesn't is (to me) one of the most important things we can do as a thinking, cognitive species. We should work together to help and argument is healthy. It's just unfortunate that people don't have the intelligence to avoid attachment to something they don't completely understand .-.

Often times, you'll see that this clinging to a belief that's not sound is the reason for these zealots (from all belief systems) attacking one another. Humans are silly 😁

@Babylon I would agree with you on most of your points.
Sharing the faith is great, striving to be right in every situation is what I see as pointless.

@adorbz oh, and I've been chillin :3
Workin hard to get workin

@Babylon but why don’t you just...make a new one 👀 or press forgot password 👀

yeeees 😌 I need some new shows again I’ve kinda fallen off of it 🤔 but I don’t feel motivated to start anything

@adorbz cuz I deleted the e-mail ;-;
I'm a crackhead

Start Barney and Telletubbies :v
Great series
Especially the sun baby

@Babylon It certainly can be

@Classified I think it is intended sometimes 😂
Maybe towards some it would be fair 👀

@Babylon Not denying that, but who determines what is fair? 😋

@SubstantialKick they're silly 😁
I respect their beliefs but I don't respect their disrespect

@Shpiders to be honest, I was kinda arrogant and immature back then 😂
I would allow the same forgiveness for you

@SW-User I promote free thinking and maturity 😁

@deadgerbil I think they're in it for the truth 😅 (hopefully)
Not the looks

@texasdaddydom maybe you and I are seeing the same thing dude ._.

Bro. Check what Menas said bro :v
It's got me thinking

@InOtterWords I like that :)
Me personally, I don't think anyone is born into religion 😅
It's a belief. You accept it and understand it or you don't. You cannot instill belief in your children. Rather, only encourage a belief or mindset

Clearly you're an example :3

Also, what do you think is the source of religion? 🤔
I get a lot of different answers for this every time

@Babylon I think it began from community elders telling stories to encourage behaviour that will benefit the community....for example stealing and killing is not good.....eating meat from a pig is unclean in the desert.
Then it became a way to control people.

@Zonuss not even hot 😂
It's like ideological war for some. Which leads to closedmindedness. What people don't understand is that this IS the one thing they should be most open about cuz they get the meaning of life wrong, what mistake is graver than that?

@basilfawlty89 same :v
Sometimes people dunno what the hell I believe cuz I played devil's advocate from all angles 😂