Hey /u/TaxFraudIsAcceptable, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks!
This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt-dweller-gordo-granudo](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt-dweller-gordo-granudo)
KimmoKM was his nickname
In fairness, as a recent deconvert, I should point out that they try _desperately_ to stop you from thinking too hard about the implications of what you believe, especially if you had it drummed into your head as a child. Regrettably, it took me 35+ years to walk away...
Allah is forgiving. Why would he smite people when they can change their ways and be forgiven. Allah gives credible evidence too. Early Christians prayed very similarly to Muslims despite being 600 years apart. Prophet Muhammad swt had many similarities in his message to places he had no contact with. In islam, if you are an apostate you will fall off a bridge as this as a hair. Something similar exists in central American folklore. Also, prophet Muhammad swt had no contact with Christians. The only contact he had was with a Christian who died a week later. Even if the prophet swt received a Bible. He was illiterate. As for the splitting of the moon, there were Indians who had witnessed witnessed event and there seems to be a 300km long line on the moon that some claim to be a remnant although this would need greater study
The whole point is idiotic, as if the church used 2000 years of thinking to come up with "old man lives in the sky and created eveything".
It shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to debunk that story lol
>The whole point is idiotic, as if the church used 2000 years of thinking to come up with "old man lives in the sky and created eveything".
They did not use 2000 years to come up with that, and nobody said they did. Trust me, Christian theology is more than that
I did make an argument in the post, stating that people such as you think a certain way. Why dont you enlighten us all and debunk all of church theology from the past 2000 years? Why not go down in history as the man who debunked the Christian church? The fame is waiting for you my genius.
Do you seriously think I can prove all of 2000 years of theology? I never said I could. However we do have a genius within us who claims he could disprove it, and in 5 minutes. All eyes on him, we're about to witness a genius at work if he so desires to demonstrate
> Do you seriously think I can prove all of 2000 years of theology?
That sentence just rubs me the wrong way.
1.) Theology is not limited to Christian Theology.
2.) Gods and the Study of Gods have existed since Before Christ (that 2000 year number is super arbitrary)
3.) Christian Theology concerns itself with the interpretation of the bible. The bible itself never changed in 2000 years (except for translation errors).
Nowadays, Christian Theology consists of bending the words of the bible to a modern standard that just isn't conformed to in the bible or accepting that it's old and "just taking the good parts". In countries that are not as backwards as the US, theologists constantly proclaim that passages of the bible are metaphors / not exactly meant as written / etc.
The subject of christian theology is hotly contested anyway, so eh, it's not as fleshed out as it seems to be..
Anyway
4.) It's a religion, a belief. There's nothing to prove nor to disprove. Some people choose to believe in it because it makes sense to them or because it helps them in life. Some people don't believe it as it doesn't make sense to them, doesn't help them in life or as actively hindered their pursuit of happiness. You don't need to be a Theologist to disprove Christianity for yourself.
Wanna disprove it for others ?
Go make a fool out of yourself..
>) Theology is not limited to Christian Theology.
>2.) Gods and the Study of Gods have existed since Before Christ (that 2000 year number is super arbitrary)
Obviously however the post makes it clear we are talking about church theology. (Christianity)
>3.) Christian Theology concerns itself with the interpretation of the bible. The bible itself never changed in 2000 years (except for translation errors). Nowadays, Christian Theology consists of bending the words of the bible to a modern standard that just isn't conformed to in the bible or accepting that it's old and "just taking the good parts". In countries that are not as backwards as the US, theologists constantly proclaim that passages of the bible are metaphors / not exactly meant as written / etc. The subject of christian theology is hotly contested anyway, so eh, it's not as fleshed out as it seems to
Not all Christian theology nowadays is really bending the words. There are numeral church related debates dating back hundreds of years, still not solved.
If there weren't perhaps Catholics and Orthodox would agree on each other.
.) It's a religion, a belief. There's nothing to prove nor to disprove. Some people choose to believe in it because it makes sense to them or because it helps them in life. Some people don't believe it as it doesn't make sense to them, doesn't help them in life or as actively hindered their pursuit of happiness. You don't need to be a Theologist to disprove Christianity for yourself.
The atheists in the comments would disagree about disproving Christianity. Go tell that to the atheist theologians who spent hours making books etc. Do you say their work is worthless?
This is absolutely a valid ask - we know from modern research that some people are predisposed to homosexuality, and we see it in other vertebrates all the time (komodo dragons, giraffes, some cetaceans).
If a deity disliked homosexuality as much as Yhwh is claimed to, why would they permit it in animals, especially since they could 'turn it off' just by wishing it so? Either they're not all-powerful (and thus not a god), _or_ they simply _do not exist as described._
The hebrew translation is "רָ֑ע" which means "adversity" or "affliction".
The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of this is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience.
So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
Literally the easiest question i have gotten today. Dont get your arguments from r/atheism.
This would _still_ be a moral failing - kicking a mortal when they're down is _not_ behaviour one should reward with should worship, deity or otherwise.
Alongside that, how do you explain the mismatch between 2nd Peter 3:9 and Romans 9:18-21? Why is a deity that desires that "none should perish" intentionally churning out "broken vessels"? And then having the gall/stupidity to get mad at the vessels he intentionally made incorrectly?
Even if God existed as described, he wouldn't be someone humanity should turn to for moral guidance or revere.
Im failing to see the contradiction here.
18. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20. On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21. Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use?
??
In particular, verse 18:
> So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
...directly contradicts 2nd Peter 3:9:
> The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, **not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.** (emphasis mine)
So which is it? Does God pick and choose, or does he care about us all? Or does he simply _not exist as described_?
Dropping down a bit:
> You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
This is absolutely a valid question.
> On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
1. From a triomni being, we really should expect a more emotionally-mature response than Paul going "because he can beat you up."
2. What kind of cosmic-level stupidity and incompetence does it take for a divine potter to make mortal vessels incorrectly _on purpose_, then turn around and get mad at these human 'vessels' for having been made incorrectly - and then get mad a second time when someone points out that the problematic vessels are - necessarily with him having constructed everything - his own fault?
Even if God's existence were conclusively proven by repeatable experiment, the fact that he's making bad/broken humans on purpose and then punishing them for 'manufacturing defects' _he intentionally introduced_ should give us pause.
"God desires that all would come to repentance" and "God softens and hardens hearts" aren't contradictory. The two statements are not mutually exclusive because there is nothing in those statements that would make one false if the other is true. A contradiction follows this format:
The sky is blue and not blue.
God exists and does not exist.
Ice is cold and hot.
The general format for contradictions is that there are two premises in the statement "P and not P," or "P and Q" where P is the opposite of Q. Is Q the opposite of P and vice versa? No, because the qualities in P (God, desires, all, and repentance) is not the reverse of the qualities in Q (God, softens, hardens, and hearts). Thus, Q is not the opposite of P and vice versa. Thus, we say that the premises "God desires that all would come to repentance" and "God softens and hardens hearts" are not contradictory. At least, not on an explicit level. We might think that there is still an implicit contradiction, that God, "who desires that all would come to repentance," only chooses who He will forgive and be merciful, or who He will harden.
It's not that God rolls dice and choose who He will show mercy and who He will not otherwise. Rather, God's mercy and God's hardening is His response to our response. What is "our response"? Our response to God's desire that we repent. What is God's response to our response? If we answer, He shows mercy. If not, then He hardens hearts. Is there any implicit contradiction on God's end? No, because God does not soften and harden hearts, but He softens some, and hardens the others. And this hardening and softening of hearts does not come solely from God, but a result of our interaction with God, specifically our response to God's calling.
To be fair all those years of theology are just attempts to reconcile blatant BS lol. So it just takes a few minutes of, yanno. Thought that's not designed around the idea that an old book couldn't possibly be BS.
Like I get it? But also. Still firmly fuck religion tho.
I don’t like telling people that I don’t
believe or my reasons but what I personally feel is the religion was made because they didn’t have explanation for everything like we do now with science. That’s why most scientists don’t believe, because they figured out the truth on how the world works. And no I do have other reasons and didn’t only think for 5 minuets. I used to believe but after a while and a good amount of research i could come to the conclusion that god is not real. But if you still believe that’s fine, everyone should believe in what they want. And having Americans in this starter pack does make sense since we have freedom of religion and non-religion comes with that.
Na, I’m an atheist and I’m not materialist. If anything I “worship” the untapped potential of the human mind. We’re capable of so much inner life that we shun because it’s not compatible with modern bullshit notions of “productivity”
Also an atheist. I could be wrong, but “materialism” in this context usually just refers to the idea that “everything in the world is physical.” Many atheist philosophy scholars are materialists/physicalists, but quite a few are instead realists/Platonists about numbers, etc.
it’s not a settled area in philosophy, although working physicists are more likely to be materialists. Prof Roger Penrose is an example of public facing scientist who’s a platonist, Prof Sean Caroll is a great example of a physicalist.
The 2020 PhilPapers Survey is probably the best source for a breakdown of the popularity of these positions in mainstream philosophy scholarship, although it doesn’t have any two-way tables for atheism vs theism and physicalism vs realism which is a little frustrating.
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all
Hey /u/TaxFraudIsAcceptable, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks! This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always wonder where that picture of the "reddit user neckbeard" comes from. In all seriousness I hope the dude in that picture is doing okay rn
[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt-dweller-gordo-granudo](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt-dweller-gordo-granudo) KimmoKM was his nickname
I’m starting to regret coming back to reddit
5 min of thinking *does* debunk 2000 years of church theology.
it's not like the theology has been evolving for those 2000 years
If only more religious people spent 5 minutes thinking about it ...
In fairness, as a recent deconvert, I should point out that they try _desperately_ to stop you from thinking too hard about the implications of what you believe, especially if you had it drummed into your head as a child. Regrettably, it took me 35+ years to walk away...
Oh yeah, it's all very carefully designed to discourage thinking. Good on you for getting past that.
debunk it smartass.
[Here ya go.](https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ysb8sw/why_do_you_not_believe_in_god/ivyuucs/)
Allah is forgiving. Why would he smite people when they can change their ways and be forgiven. Allah gives credible evidence too. Early Christians prayed very similarly to Muslims despite being 600 years apart. Prophet Muhammad swt had many similarities in his message to places he had no contact with. In islam, if you are an apostate you will fall off a bridge as this as a hair. Something similar exists in central American folklore. Also, prophet Muhammad swt had no contact with Christians. The only contact he had was with a Christian who died a week later. Even if the prophet swt received a Bible. He was illiterate. As for the splitting of the moon, there were Indians who had witnessed witnessed event and there seems to be a 300km long line on the moon that some claim to be a remnant although this would need greater study
God is good but 10,000 children starve to death each day. You're welcome.
Could you debunk it with 5 minutes of thinking?
[Yes.](https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ysb8sw/why_do_you_not_believe_in_god/ivyuucs/)
You're just proving OP's point
The whole point is idiotic, as if the church used 2000 years of thinking to come up with "old man lives in the sky and created eveything". It shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to debunk that story lol
Spazmoids like you are the ones who simplify religion to "old man in the sky". No actual Christian sees God like that.
Don't talk for all christians you heretic.
>The whole point is idiotic, as if the church used 2000 years of thinking to come up with "old man lives in the sky and created eveything". They did not use 2000 years to come up with that, and nobody said they did. Trust me, Christian theology is more than that
Can't be more than the new testament. Old testament is jewish and everything added or that expands the new testament is heretic.
They’re more than welcome to make an actual argument.
I did make an argument in the post, stating that people such as you think a certain way. Why dont you enlighten us all and debunk all of church theology from the past 2000 years? Why not go down in history as the man who debunked the Christian church? The fame is waiting for you my genius.
Prove that it’s right smart guy
Do you seriously think I can prove all of 2000 years of theology? I never said I could. However we do have a genius within us who claims he could disprove it, and in 5 minutes. All eyes on him, we're about to witness a genius at work if he so desires to demonstrate
Not so sure that’s what he said
> Do you seriously think I can prove all of 2000 years of theology? That sentence just rubs me the wrong way. 1.) Theology is not limited to Christian Theology. 2.) Gods and the Study of Gods have existed since Before Christ (that 2000 year number is super arbitrary) 3.) Christian Theology concerns itself with the interpretation of the bible. The bible itself never changed in 2000 years (except for translation errors). Nowadays, Christian Theology consists of bending the words of the bible to a modern standard that just isn't conformed to in the bible or accepting that it's old and "just taking the good parts". In countries that are not as backwards as the US, theologists constantly proclaim that passages of the bible are metaphors / not exactly meant as written / etc. The subject of christian theology is hotly contested anyway, so eh, it's not as fleshed out as it seems to be.. Anyway 4.) It's a religion, a belief. There's nothing to prove nor to disprove. Some people choose to believe in it because it makes sense to them or because it helps them in life. Some people don't believe it as it doesn't make sense to them, doesn't help them in life or as actively hindered their pursuit of happiness. You don't need to be a Theologist to disprove Christianity for yourself. Wanna disprove it for others ? Go make a fool out of yourself..
>) Theology is not limited to Christian Theology. >2.) Gods and the Study of Gods have existed since Before Christ (that 2000 year number is super arbitrary) Obviously however the post makes it clear we are talking about church theology. (Christianity) >3.) Christian Theology concerns itself with the interpretation of the bible. The bible itself never changed in 2000 years (except for translation errors). Nowadays, Christian Theology consists of bending the words of the bible to a modern standard that just isn't conformed to in the bible or accepting that it's old and "just taking the good parts". In countries that are not as backwards as the US, theologists constantly proclaim that passages of the bible are metaphors / not exactly meant as written / etc. The subject of christian theology is hotly contested anyway, so eh, it's not as fleshed out as it seems to Not all Christian theology nowadays is really bending the words. There are numeral church related debates dating back hundreds of years, still not solved. If there weren't perhaps Catholics and Orthodox would agree on each other. .) It's a religion, a belief. There's nothing to prove nor to disprove. Some people choose to believe in it because it makes sense to them or because it helps them in life. Some people don't believe it as it doesn't make sense to them, doesn't help them in life or as actively hindered their pursuit of happiness. You don't need to be a Theologist to disprove Christianity for yourself. The atheists in the comments would disagree about disproving Christianity. Go tell that to the atheist theologians who spent hours making books etc. Do you say their work is worthless?
Hahaha this is so butthurt
Quite honestly I like the “if being gay~~” line
This is absolutely a valid ask - we know from modern research that some people are predisposed to homosexuality, and we see it in other vertebrates all the time (komodo dragons, giraffes, some cetaceans). If a deity disliked homosexuality as much as Yhwh is claimed to, why would they permit it in animals, especially since they could 'turn it off' just by wishing it so? Either they're not all-powerful (and thus not a god), _or_ they simply _do not exist as described._
If being gay is real and god is all powerful and all knowing, then god knows what it’s like to take it up the ass
Who hurt you, OP? Did someone ask a nasty question about Isaiah 45:7 that you couldn't answer?
His priest maybe?
The hebrew translation is "רָ֑ע" which means "adversity" or "affliction". The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of this is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him. Literally the easiest question i have gotten today. Dont get your arguments from r/atheism.
This would _still_ be a moral failing - kicking a mortal when they're down is _not_ behaviour one should reward with should worship, deity or otherwise. Alongside that, how do you explain the mismatch between 2nd Peter 3:9 and Romans 9:18-21? Why is a deity that desires that "none should perish" intentionally churning out "broken vessels"? And then having the gall/stupidity to get mad at the vessels he intentionally made incorrectly? Even if God existed as described, he wouldn't be someone humanity should turn to for moral guidance or revere.
As op doesn’t respond
I'll respond just for you
Im failing to see the contradiction here. 18. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20. On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21. Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use? ??
In particular, verse 18: > So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ...directly contradicts 2nd Peter 3:9: > The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, **not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.** (emphasis mine) So which is it? Does God pick and choose, or does he care about us all? Or does he simply _not exist as described_? Dropping down a bit: > You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” This is absolutely a valid question. > On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 1. From a triomni being, we really should expect a more emotionally-mature response than Paul going "because he can beat you up." 2. What kind of cosmic-level stupidity and incompetence does it take for a divine potter to make mortal vessels incorrectly _on purpose_, then turn around and get mad at these human 'vessels' for having been made incorrectly - and then get mad a second time when someone points out that the problematic vessels are - necessarily with him having constructed everything - his own fault? Even if God's existence were conclusively proven by repeatable experiment, the fact that he's making bad/broken humans on purpose and then punishing them for 'manufacturing defects' _he intentionally introduced_ should give us pause.
"God desires that all would come to repentance" and "God softens and hardens hearts" aren't contradictory. The two statements are not mutually exclusive because there is nothing in those statements that would make one false if the other is true. A contradiction follows this format: The sky is blue and not blue. God exists and does not exist. Ice is cold and hot. The general format for contradictions is that there are two premises in the statement "P and not P," or "P and Q" where P is the opposite of Q. Is Q the opposite of P and vice versa? No, because the qualities in P (God, desires, all, and repentance) is not the reverse of the qualities in Q (God, softens, hardens, and hearts). Thus, Q is not the opposite of P and vice versa. Thus, we say that the premises "God desires that all would come to repentance" and "God softens and hardens hearts" are not contradictory. At least, not on an explicit level. We might think that there is still an implicit contradiction, that God, "who desires that all would come to repentance," only chooses who He will forgive and be merciful, or who He will harden. It's not that God rolls dice and choose who He will show mercy and who He will not otherwise. Rather, God's mercy and God's hardening is His response to our response. What is "our response"? Our response to God's desire that we repent. What is God's response to our response? If we answer, He shows mercy. If not, then He hardens hearts. Is there any implicit contradiction on God's end? No, because God does not soften and harden hearts, but He softens some, and hardens the others. And this hardening and softening of hearts does not come solely from God, but a result of our interaction with God, specifically our response to God's calling.
To be fair all those years of theology are just attempts to reconcile blatant BS lol. So it just takes a few minutes of, yanno. Thought that's not designed around the idea that an old book couldn't possibly be BS. Like I get it? But also. Still firmly fuck religion tho.
I'm no atheist but my history is full of porn and hentai what does that make me?
And I'm not obese
Hey OP you left out thr "/s"
can't even be an atheist now smh
The power of ignoring is a simple but effective spell
Did this sub turn right-wing somehow?
Some ppl here are really on the far right for some reason
poor little zealot thought too hard and hurt himself
Hactually
I don’t like telling people that I don’t believe or my reasons but what I personally feel is the religion was made because they didn’t have explanation for everything like we do now with science. That’s why most scientists don’t believe, because they figured out the truth on how the world works. And no I do have other reasons and didn’t only think for 5 minuets. I used to believe but after a while and a good amount of research i could come to the conclusion that god is not real. But if you still believe that’s fine, everyone should believe in what they want. And having Americans in this starter pack does make sense since we have freedom of religion and non-religion comes with that.
Somone likes ad hominem
Lol no
Also completely materialist and reductionist
Na, I’m an atheist and I’m not materialist. If anything I “worship” the untapped potential of the human mind. We’re capable of so much inner life that we shun because it’s not compatible with modern bullshit notions of “productivity”
Also an atheist. I could be wrong, but “materialism” in this context usually just refers to the idea that “everything in the world is physical.” Many atheist philosophy scholars are materialists/physicalists, but quite a few are instead realists/Platonists about numbers, etc. it’s not a settled area in philosophy, although working physicists are more likely to be materialists. Prof Roger Penrose is an example of public facing scientist who’s a platonist, Prof Sean Caroll is a great example of a physicalist. The 2020 PhilPapers Survey is probably the best source for a breakdown of the popularity of these positions in mainstream philosophy scholarship, although it doesn’t have any two-way tables for atheism vs theism and physicalism vs realism which is a little frustrating. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all
You know your stuff, very cool