im an atheist. debate me!

Simulation theory isn't creationism. Creationism is a specific brand of biblical literalism that rejects evolution theory, and says that fully formed adult animals were generated in their current state via supernatural powers.

I still have a problem with your assertion that it's equally rational to believe in a god than it is to not believe in one, assuming neither side has evidence.

The theist proposes one specific explanation, out of an unknown number of potential explanations. The atheist is simply rejecting the explanation of the theist, but not offering an explanation.

You could compare it to a dice roll. neither side has seen the die, but the theist is saying it landed on 5. The atheist is saying, it's not 5. In this case, the theist has a 1 in 6 chance of being correct, but the atheist has a 5 in 6 chance of being correct, because the atheist hasn't limited themself to 1 option.

The more details the theist provides about their god, ie omnipotence, omniscience, doesn't like shellfish, or adultery etc the more specific the explanation, the greater the potential to be wrong.

NO NEED TO CHRIST WON THAT ARGUMENT IN CALVARY NAILD TO THE CROSS!

Just kill yourself now and then tell us how it was
!!!!!!

Last Edited by Reader. on 10/13/2021 10:18 AM

I had an experience of dying and it was very nice.

Most of the points of religious people here are very repetitive and although there are some valid points, most of the logic is very faulty:
1 - Morality: Morality is nothing but state in which one tries to live and conform to a set of rules established in order to achieve a goal, which in most cases is simply collective well being. Everything else is completely subjective.
2 - Evolution: Its most always inferred as "opposition to god". Like, one says: I'm atheist and very, very frequently the religious one asks: Where did life come from. Well, first of all, evolution and "where life comes from" are two very separate topics(the later one called abiogenesis). So lets suppose for the sake of the argument that evolution is totally false. That hundreds of years of science, discoveries surrounding it(like antibiotics for example) and everything in between is false(which is definitely NOT). Even this would not prove the existence of a god.
3 - Pascal Wager: Its a (faulty)logic inferring that its better to believe in god and be wrong than not believe it and get "damned for eternity". The fault in this, is that most will assume that their own god is the right one.
4 - Circular reference: The bible says that god is real and the word of god. And the word of god is that the bible is real. Frequently linked to item 3.
5 - Woo-woo: Consciousness, spiritual, faith, personal relationship... this is all but vague excuses to try and justify ones own convictions.

5. True for some but for many it's a life changing experience that you cannot go back from.

1. Yes there's nothing worse than a righteous ego but true religion/spirituality is to remain beyond ego and allow our innate qualities such as love and compassion to emerge naturally and live with no personal agenda.

First prove that anyone actually has an internal dialog inside there heads and not just programmed flesh bots

Truth, by its own nature is verifiable. "True for some" is not truth. At best, a testimony. If its not verifiable, its not truth, its just opinion.

"True religion/spirituality" is a fallacy in and on itself, like what you said about truth. If its not verifiable, its only opinion and/or hearsay.

True as in practised as was originally intended, not adulterated.

Same fallacy. Can't you see that most of your arguments are subjective? What you see as "the true originally intended bla bla", to someone else is different, therefore, this is all subjective and as such, unverifiable.

What is god? Who is real? Why?

Top five scientific lies around the earth



Earth has no tide

Earth has no magnetic poles

Earth has no magnetosphere

Earth has no Van Allen Belts

Polar lights are not caused by solar wind

Solar wind does not exist

Debating a fool only proves there are two.
I won't even read your stupid thread.

What is the difference between animate and inanimate objects?

What I said is completely verifiable. I can't demonstrate that to you but i know you have the capacity to demonstrate it to yourself if you had the will to do so.

Good question. I always used to think: what is the difference between a body in the so called alive state and a body 1 second later in a dead state. One moment you love and want to hold another body and one second later many would be repulsed by that same body.

No one puts up? All stfu?

Still don’t know you are stupid?

Cap'n Crunch is better than Cheerios

You will know in due time.

Maybe too late.

One can`t explain true nature of reality based on intellect. That is a very limited approach.

What's the alternative to intellect?

I look at it like a torch. A torch shines light (awareness) on objects and with the intellect is able to analyse those objects. But the torch, whichever way it points its light it can never shine light on itself. So the only way to know something about the torch is to stop paying attention to the objects and feel what is like to be a torch. Because we are living beings we can experience what it is like to be a living being when we suspend the activity of the mind.

There is no 'we' without the activity of the mind. It sounds a lot like you're attempting to justify turning off rational thought in order to accept the irrational.

Which is something every snake oil salesmen would want you to do.

I meant turning off the background noise in the mind (all the junk being fed from the subconscious).

So a question for you: who or what knows the content or state of their mind?

The self?

Then you are deceived by your own choice of faith. You have faith, just not in God.

Just out of interest can you say something more about that self? Do you just consider it to be whatever it is, is it eternal or is it something temporarily generated by the brain or something else?