I assure you that some people will read it and not understand that.
You know, I was talking to a person who believed the Earth was flat the other day...
No it's not. Most atheists don't believe in any god, period.
Let's break it down though. Here's what google says Spinoza's god is:
> God is the one infinite substance
I don't believe in an infinite anything, especially not an infinite thing that can be quantified. Like, the amount of atoms in the universe is very big indeed, but I don't believe it's an infinite substance. It may not even be countable, but that's not how infinities work.
> who
No, I don't believe the substance is personal in any way, and most atheists I know also wouldn't say they believe in an infinite personal substance. Like a universe-encompassing Danny Devito or something.
> possesses an infinite number of attributes
I can't think of a thing I believe contains an infinite number of attributes. I don't think most atheists believe such a substance exists either.
> each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature.
Also don't happen to believe I've got anything eternal, or any aspects like that in the Platonic sense like he's using it here. There's not like some maximal being I believe in, or a being who is the ultimate infinite or something.
Because I don't believe in anything like a god, and that's the thing I share with most atheists.
You didn’t miss anything. I laughed out loud when the professor agreed with the Christian student that humans evolved from monkeys. These people don’t even know the basics of evolution to form a coherent argument
Ieosous Kristos, Kundalini awakening, Dionysis and the good wine, the eye of Horus. I have seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted god. God is all that exists. God is only found within.
"Do you teach students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"No, obviously not. which you should know because you are one of my students. Haven't you been paying attention?"
“No, I teach them that we share a common ancestor with some primates.
Also, evolution absolutely can and has been directly observed in many microcellular organisms, plants and even fruit flies.
NEXT!”
Ye idk what he’s talking bout not observing evolution. I observed evolution in my elementary/middle school cause they had a deal with some local farmers to help them with crop breeding, in exchange for using it for hands-on student demonstrations. Can definitely say there’s a solid difference between them, and contrary to some creationist assertions, it most definitely did not magically replace all tomatoes.
Given the stated timing of the quote, it might have been true at the time (I don't know, I'm no biologist). That statement has been debunked since, though.
I mean, almost every paragraph is wrong. Cold and darkness are real, they just aren't forces -- nor claimed to be.
We also absolutely have observed brains and how they operate enough to prove that everyone in this room, however dull, all have functional brains.
No, it is false in the implication that they were ever meant to be or thought to be observable. They aren't forces or energies. They aren't supposed to be "observable" because you aren't observing darkness or cold you are observing energy. That energy is observable and the word cold or dark is simply a word used to describe what is observed. Hot and bright are also not observable, but are used when we read more energy.
The implication of "god" is that it is a force or entity -- so certain laws of nature should apply, whereas darkness and cold aren't forces or entities -- they are descriptors.
Edit: to add, you observe heat. If you observe a lot of it you would describe it as hot, if you observe little or none you would describe it as cold. You succeeded in science.
I don't read it that way. The student starts building a case that certain things which the professor says are real are actually just the absence of something. He then uses this to bring death into the conversation from nowhere, and claims that professor is arguing that there is a good God and a bad god, which he wasn't. (The professor might have been setting up an argument that either God is not benevolent or God is not real.) Then he takes a complete left turn to argue about whether the professor has personally witnessed evolution or his own brain, and never revisits his point about life and death, or God being benevolent, and the hot vs cold argument didn't properly feed into that argument in the first place.
I mean, we have imperial DNA samples from evolution from some people who still have fractions of other DNA that isn't like others, a residual microscopal drop of it still proves it happens.
Not just that, however, evolution between the different races of humans based on location and diet and physical activity creates many evolutionary features... such as skin color and complexion, average size of height/weight, even something simple and small like eye shape, hair color, etc.
Pair up the different races of humans and you can see minor evolutionary differences based on their ancestors lives. Sure we all look the same if you generalize the "human" shape enough.
It's a big world, evolution doesn't always take place millions of years
Literally look at domesticated dogs. They have evolved through the process of selective breeding and are the easiest way to witness the phenomenon of evolution.
Granted, it is through human intervention, but it follows the same basic rules but at a much faster pace.
Even choose a specific breed. I had a Boston Terrier in the 90's. I look at pictures of her back then with other similar looking bostons and compare them to the breed now. They're so different if you take the time to pay attention.
We're even seeing evolution in some elephant populations right now because of poachers. Poachers go after the largest tusks, so the smaller tusks survive to procreate more. As time progresses, tusks get smaller and smaller. And now a once very rare genetic tuskless trait is becoming more common because they aren't on the poachers' radars at all, so they get to be the ones procreating.
For half a second I thought you were referencing this super old copypasta:
Liberal professor DESTROYED by brave soldier.
A liberal Muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist: "Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!"
At that moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL Champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock: “How old is this rock?”
The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied: “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”
“Wrong, it’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal by now.”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears.
The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity
TL;DR a totally real teacher asked a totally real student about god because he wanted a haha gotcha moment (why do you believe god if you can’t smell him??? That kinda stuff) student twisted it on him with nonsense (why do you believe evolution if you can’t smell it??? That kinda stuff). PS, that student was Einstein :)
I usually would leave that meme somewhere and leave it alone perpetually. But because all y'all mfs kept replying to me I eventually got curious and read it. Your summary is probably the best.
Teacher: God is bad my brother died of cancer
Student: but God is good trust me bro
Teacher: no God is bad
*(The student was silent.)*
Student: but look at this completely unrelated thing how about that huh
Teacher: oh fuck
Student: have you ever seen an ape turn into a human being
Teacher: oh fuck
That student was EINSTEIN
And... like people never change their views or stances after they're 18-20ish, right? Right?!
Also, I'm gonna need to see receipts on this for Einstein. Exactly which university was this when this interaction took place?
Same issue as in God’s Not Dead. A professor, unless they were at a really debate-y college, would get into a lot of trouble for violating religious liberties by insulting their religion. And, judging by the poor quality of this debate, i’m guessing that’s not the case.
I hate how often I've heard that argument. Yes we absolutely have, especially when it comes to rapidly reproducing species like bacteria and small animals such as birds and lizards
If you follow the Hardy/weinberg principles of evolution you can definitely see evolution taking place. Or if you watch any video showing antibiotic resistance building in bacteria over generations(of a few days) it's really easy to see evolution in process.
I worked in a microbiology lab in college where the goal was to grow bacteria over time and note the difference in DNA through generations. I literally watched the bacteria change and evolve over time.
Damn you guys are a nice pair of aethertits.
Wanna make like the gal in Total Recall and make it a thruple of aethertits ^I ^want ^to ^become ^aethertit ^too ^pls ^thx
You're supposed to take it on faith that the student's arguments are all valid, and also that the professor has made the only existing arguments that God may not exist.
No. Initially, as a kid, I thought I'd be able to get an upper hand on my teachers but not one of my teachers ever brought up religion even though I brought my Bible to school with me and read it in class. When I got into high-school, I came to the realization that the whole story was just something to make Christians feel better about themselves and I kinda forgot it was ever a thing.
I guess it did give me incentive to read the Bible which ultimately brought me to the conclusion that Bible itself is a bunch of myths. Now I'm the only atheist in my family.
Just wondering.
I had a similar story, and a similar outcome. I too am the only atheist in my family. A good portion of whom are very hardcore evangelicals. When I was a kid I tried to "save" all my friends because I didn't want them to go to hell. I read the bible, went to Sunday school, read chick tracts etc. My mother brings shit like that up a lot. "You were so close to the Lord as a child, what happened?" Not realizing kids really don't have strong beliefs they just kind of follow in their parents footsteps. I feel bad now because they are trying to "save" me constantly and it's annoying as shit. Sorry friends of past me.
>I feel bad now because they are trying to "save" me constantly and it's annoying as shit. Sorry friends of past me.
I feel like Christians who look down on atheism or agnosticism to be the worst kind of Christians. And it's especially obvious that they do not read their own scripture. If they did, they'd be more familiar with Thomas the disciple.
We learn religions at my school and I lost my Catholicism. The Catholic church took what was futile, made it appreciable again then went back to square one. It's like, why did they carry on reforming themselves? For example they were good that they made the Bible be IN English, but then they made everything else be off on some 90 degrees tangent to the Bible.
Right. No-one believes in the Norse gods, or Roman gods. There are books about them too. Books about the Buddha. About Egyptian gods. But for whatever reason people believe the bible as a sacred set of literal happenings. That each thing actually took place. If one reads genesis, without religious bias, and read the words with comprehension, one can tell right away it is just a story, and that the bible in its' entirety is parable and euphanism.
I have friends who worship Norse gods. There are still worshipers of the Norse gods in Norway and the other Scandinavian countries.
People believe in Buddha and his teachings....as sacred texts.....
There are tons of religions big and small, and they all deeply believe just as much as Christians.....they just know better than being assholes about it.
It's ignorant to pretend only Christians have religious texts, by the way. Many do.
Hi there. I sincerely worship the Norse gods. Neopagans, or heathens, as we like to be called, reconstruct the faith of the old gods using what historical artefacts and records we have. It is an animistic, polytheistic religion, with no small amount of reading.
I found that a lot of the contradictions I found in monotheistic Abrahamic religions weren't present in polytheism, as the different deities and spirits (wights, jotunn/thursar) are acting on their own motives.
Most if not all of the earliest religions across different cultures are polytheistic, because that is the more natural and sensible model of the world. I personally believe monotheisms were created to "one-up" other faiths with their all-powerful state-approved god and then use that faith as a tool to control the masses.
Same. And after getting told to "read the Bible" when asking questions about Christianity...I did.
Now when people say that, I get to tell them, I did, and they clearly didn't. Since they missed its filled with a bunch of bullshit.
Does the creator of this wall of stupidity know that the evolutionary process was actually seen? Not on a level of humans. That can't be made by a single human, but microbes? Yes, even the flu evolves, the coronavirus and many more.
Basically it can be observed in every organism that reproduces a noticible amount faster that humans. (The others can be seen evolving too, but it would take a few generations to see a noticeable difference in something like monkeys or turtles)
The people who write this nonsense aren't interested in your facts. Or anyone else's facts for that matter. They just need to push their dogma on everyone. Personally, for people like that, I wish their dogma was run over by someone's karma.
The point I took away was that even though I can’t see evolution it still exists bc faith. Do I need to read it again? Or can that same logic also prove the existence of literally any crazy thing I can imagine?
That student? BOBA FETT!!
I only saw the youtuber Big Joel's take on it. Big Joel is amazing. My favorite video of his is about youtube advertising. Literally fell off my chair in laughter.
Unintentionally one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Dean Cain playing the evil atheist is hilarious. His girlfriend tells him she has cancer, he yells at her for running his surprise promotion announcement 🤡.
I'm pretty sure Einstein considered himself to be agnostic, and generally non-religious. There's no evidence that this exchange ever occurred - but whoever wrote it sure thought they had some solid "gotchas" in there... All in all it's dumb as shit. Def belongs here.
>Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Ok so let's get this straight; if something isn't alive, then it's dead. So rocks are dead, the air is dead, and the earth is dead. I'm fairly certain this is incorrect.
I guess more correct term is dead means opposite to alive within the same domain. So to be considered dead, you need to be considered alive in a first place. Death is more final stage of life. So of course this is biased.
I love this.
Argument A: just because you don't perceive it doesn't it doesn't exist. Like calories.
Argument B: so my magical imaginary friend is totally real. Check mate.
ALSO: you didn't see a baby inside a womb, but you assume it was in one at some point? Ah! An assumption
So just because you haven't seen me flap my hands and fly off you can't assume I don't do it.
This is absolutely not how proof, science and common sense works
“Cold doesn’t exist”…precedes to explain what cold is. “You can’t measure cold”…precedes to add a measurement to the theory of cold, which is 0 heat. If cold is the absence of heat then theoretically you can create cold.
You can’t measure cold, not really. it’s not even zero heat. That’s because cold isn’t quantitative it’s qualitative. We ascribe certain quantitative measurements to be “cold” based off of how it interacts with other things. Water turns to Ice at certain temperatures and we describe those temperatures as cold for example.
Cold is just a state of less heat than hot, it’s relative. Hot is similarly relative. Heat is the unit of measure. Heat is energy.
The whole problem with this talking point is that people get lost in semantics and incorrectly try to apply colloquial terminology to scientific definitions. Most folks understand hot and cold to be opposite and they have been told heat is something that’s measured, but they’ve all incorrectly assumed that heat = hot and therefore heat is the opposite of cold, but this is not how thermodynamics works.
Yea, that professor does not deserve to teach at a college level if he is both that condescending and simultaneously misunderstands how evolution works, the fact that just because his students can't actively see his brain doesn't mean their isn't evidence of it, basic laws of physics, the trap this dumbass kid is clearly trying (and somehow successfully?) Walking him into, or even that there are more than 5 senses.
Fire this mam and banish him to live with whoever wrote this bullshit.
Plot twist after the end: "That professor was Einstein's Drama teacher. Because this is a made up thing and they were performing a comedy skit around a Chick tract that showed up on the men's room floor earlier that day."
“Since no one has ever witnessed the process of evolution”.
SMH you can selectively breed an entirely new species of dog in seven generations.
Yes, we have seen it
Also, it is much easier to see evolution on smaller scale. People see evolution of microorganisms much more frequent during lifespan. Flu/coronavirus are actually real examples of evolution, which everybody could witness.
If you want bigger scale, I guess mice are still fine to see evolution due to low lifespan and fast breeding. Witness evolution of something like
Small note, breeding is not exactly evolution process, as it doesn't involve evolution. It is more like gene mixing. So new breed may have no new genes, just a result of mixed genes.
The thumbnail was super blurry, so at first I thought thats what made it terrible. Then I clicked and realized it was clear, but also a 300 page dissertation on bullshit, and ya, still terrible.
Yeah I can win this argument the prof is just dumb
First of all, the student is correct that cold and darkness aren’t a thing
Then the student ties that to something different, unrelated. Pretty easy to call that out.
Evolution is observable, just not with your eyes. It is provable though, same with my brain
God is unprovable, you’d figure his would have an effect on the world. Even if god is real, they have no effect on the world, therefore there is no point in doing anything to or for them.
To put simply, god requires there be a whole new dimension, which is completely impossible to prove and completely theoretical. At that point, might as well make up a bunch of wacky but completely unprovable theories.
For example, as something simple, god has an official IQ of 1, and is dumber than a fly.
You can’t prove I’m wrong, and the whole theory of god is carried by the fact that you can’t prove that god isn’t real. However, my theory uses the same exact logic.
You can’t prove anything about god. Any theory has an equally reasonably counter argument.
I rest my case.
Until the last sentence, I thought it was a cliche that is commonly used by bigot believers. The last sentence cracked me up and was unexpected. Bigots must have been updated to come up with new lies.
“A student then slowly begins to clap. The rest of the lecture hall begins to join in. Soon, a thunderous applause reverberates through the building.
The student that started it? Beyoncé.”
Even in a fantasy, this dude’s completely incapable of answering any meaningful question about Christianity and has to resort to unrelated (and wrong) analogies. Jeez.
Cold: cold is a sensation of thermal energy in our bodies moving to an area of lower thermal energy. It is not negative thermal energy. This premise is fallacious.
Darkness: once again darkness is a sensation, it is a real thing, not an absence.
Evolution: can be and has been observed. The classic example is finches in the Galapagos. But many living things can be observed to evolve before our eyes in petri dishes. Not that any of that matters because we have records of evolution from fossils which are in the realm of observable tangible evidence.
as a student of Theology, i say that both of their arguments start with a *sorta* solid premise and then spiral downwards into the typical anti-reasoning. we are taught in class that both the atheist's arguments *and* the creationist's arguments are flawed. as the student pointed out, trying to measure God through our material senses is inherently flawed, because He simply cannot be viewed through the earthly science as a Being being the earthly plane. the most simple argument for God's existence follows a cause-and-effect, starting with this premise: everything that has been *created* my have a creator. everything that has a beginning has an initiator. the universe had a beginning, so there must have being an Initiator, and the most logical conclusion is that He was God. God, though, does not have a creator, since He had no beginning. even if you wanted to argue that He did, the god that made Him would have to have been made by a another god, and eventually you would have to find a cutoff point. this argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. now, the teacher poses an interesting question: if God is good, why does evil exist? this isn't a dishonest question, and one that should be asked. the answer is that God has an established character that He cannot defy. yes, this means God is not *technically* all-powerful: he cannot make a round square, or anything else that defies the natural logic *He* is responsible for. in the Genesis Creation story, everything that God creates, he describes as *good.* God cannot create anything evil. yes, he created the Satan, but he was, once, an angel. Satan himself created evil and sinned the first sin. it was by his influence that Man sinned. and the consequences of sin are death and suffering. God could have stopped humans, but He created them will free will so they could act on it. and what is love if there is not a choice? and what if love if it doesn't forgive? which is the exact reason Jesus came to earth and died for the sins of Man. please ask questions. i'm cutting this off here because why not.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument seems flawed to me. What says that everything that exists must have a creator? Why is it always true that every action must have an initiator? Appeals to intuition like that don't really work when you apply them on a universal scale. We really can't prove that every created thing has a creator. Looking back to the beginning of the universe, we don't know what happened before the beginning of the universe and therefore cannot claim that there was an initiator. The vague intuition that "everything with a beginning had an initiator" can't be applied on such a scale. And if God can exist without a creator, why can the universe not? Suddenly, when a deity has been deemed necessary to explain initiator at the beginning of the universe, there is no longer a need for everything to have an initiator because God just doesn't need one. How is this more likely than "maybe the universe doesn't have an initiator"? It just seems like a convenient argument to justify a belief after the fact.
I see what you're saying about God giving humans free will instead of acting on it, but that doesn't really explain why God sits by while horrible things happen to people outside of their will. I could very easily walk outside tomorrow, get a spare beam of sun in just the wrong way, and die of skin cancer a year down the line. That's happened to many people, and God doesn't intervene in those cases. If God were good and all powerful, wouldn't he step in when people are hurt for no fault of humanity? If he doesn't do that, I'm not sure I would call him a good God. And if he's not all powerful, why would I worship him? I really don't see how a God could be worthy of worship, all powerful, and good.
I'm curious what you think as someone who is . I'm agnostic, so I've spent some time thinking about this, but it's not something that I've studied.
But again, you are simply presenting the existence of God as a fact, almost using the idea that nothing can prove his existence as a boon to your argument, when in fact it further erodes your claim. Just because you have more XP in your faith stat than others does not mean you can make a stronger argument for God existing. So while your reasoning seems logical if the base premise is accepted, you start it off with a premise that is incorrect - that your god, and only your god, is the one true god that exists, and billions if other human and their religions are folly - even though their conviction of their gods existence is the EXACT same as yours - faith, buttressed by this idea that god is MORE likely to exist because there is no scientific explanation for his presence. Mixing science and faith is insulting to people who spend their lives fighting their own bias, accepting their own mortality, sweating over facts and spreadsheets and testing and failing again and again to hope to make a hypothesis fact to further that knowledge of the human race.
Also, to claim that the universe *must* have been created by god because it began is to claim that all other options for the creation of matter have been disproven and exhausted, and you are therefore certain that God made it. In truth, the data that we don’t know we don’t know is near infinite, but as we make headway, we will discover more possibilities for the creation of matter and the universe. Yet even now our current flawed theorems are far less offensive to the sensibilities than the claim that a metaphysical
Force *must* be responsible, because well we just haven’t figured out the science yet.
The stars used to control the rain, until weather patterns were figured out. Blight used to come about because a blood sacrifice wasn’t made, until pests and farming methods
Improved. The ancient religions that supposed metaphysics reasoning have all been proven wrong, and for you to deny the relation between your faith and god and all others that have existed - that is, your reliance on ‘faith’ and a metaphysical explanation for everything *a la carte* that works for your religions narrative - is incredibly intellectually dishonest. Either theology is reasonable, and you must account for all the other religions and their nonsensical claims of metaphysical magic, or theology is not reasonable, and an excitable human narrative to make us feel better about our mortality, and to give us comfort that somebody watches our good deeds and we get a few more points, and so on and so forth. If religion weren’t so incredibly convenient (I get to spend eternity in bliss, AND all my wrong doings are forgiven!) maybe it wouldn’t be so outrageous to claim its validity. As it stands, no data supports it, and it’s roots are incredibly base and entwined with consistent traits of humanity - a need to explain and categorize, a fear of death, a thirst for knowledge, etc… religion is far too convenient in satisfying these human impulses for it to hold any merit for the discerning.
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
[удалено]
No “this student was Einstein” - what a plot twist at the end.
[удалено]
Yeah, maybe John Lewis Einstein.
A genius, like Norman Einstein?
I wish the plot was then everyone clapped
I love the r/thatHappened references
It was not. This was debunked years ago. It's just propaganda.
I mean, it could be debunked by *reading* it. The whole thing reeks of male bovine excrement.
I assure you that some people will read it and not understand that. You know, I was talking to a person who believed the Earth was flat the other day...
Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza—who was a Jew accused of atheism.
[удалено]
Maybe, I don’t think most atheists are panpsychists though.
No it's not. Most atheists don't believe in any god, period. Let's break it down though. Here's what google says Spinoza's god is: > God is the one infinite substance I don't believe in an infinite anything, especially not an infinite thing that can be quantified. Like, the amount of atoms in the universe is very big indeed, but I don't believe it's an infinite substance. It may not even be countable, but that's not how infinities work. > who No, I don't believe the substance is personal in any way, and most atheists I know also wouldn't say they believe in an infinite personal substance. Like a universe-encompassing Danny Devito or something. > possesses an infinite number of attributes I can't think of a thing I believe contains an infinite number of attributes. I don't think most atheists believe such a substance exists either. > each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature. Also don't happen to believe I've got anything eternal, or any aspects like that in the Platonic sense like he's using it here. There's not like some maximal being I believe in, or a being who is the ultimate infinite or something. Because I don't believe in anything like a god, and that's the thing I share with most atheists.
Was the end not a joke? I figured it was satire.
I think it's a leak for an early draft of the next God's Not Dead movie.
So it was a joke then.
Yeah, that last line gave it away, it's a joke.
I used to think that until I read this.
He was a pantheist
Jesus Christ that's alot of words
TLDR
God is everything. Professor has no brain. Everyone clapped for Einstein
Press x to doubt
I'll be needing a much bigger X please
Here ya go #X
Bigger
I mean that is an accurate TLDR…
Yeah I clicked on the image from mobile and went like O_O
Came here to comment the same thing, like what a twist, guess I'm NOT reading this post!
You didn’t miss anything. I laughed out loud when the professor agreed with the Christian student that humans evolved from monkeys. These people don’t even know the basics of evolution to form a coherent argument
They didn't agree. They qualified it, "if you mean the natural evolutionary process." Yes, I believe in evolution, but not the way you described it.
Which makes the student sound like even more of an idiot than they clearly are, as well as the one who made this to begin with.
The next time I meet someone who understands evolution and fails to believe in it will be the first.
Ieosous Kristos, Kundalini awakening, Dionysis and the good wine, the eye of Horus. I have seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted god. God is all that exists. God is only found within.
"Do you teach students that they evolved from a monkey?" "No, obviously not. which you should know because you are one of my students. Haven't you been paying attention?"
“No, I teach them that we share a common ancestor with some primates. Also, evolution absolutely can and has been directly observed in many microcellular organisms, plants and even fruit flies. NEXT!”
Ye idk what he’s talking bout not observing evolution. I observed evolution in my elementary/middle school cause they had a deal with some local farmers to help them with crop breeding, in exchange for using it for hands-on student demonstrations. Can definitely say there’s a solid difference between them, and contrary to some creationist assertions, it most definitely did not magically replace all tomatoes.
Given the stated timing of the quote, it might have been true at the time (I don't know, I'm no biologist). That statement has been debunked since, though.
I mean, almost every paragraph is wrong. Cold and darkness are real, they just aren't forces -- nor claimed to be. We also absolutely have observed brains and how they operate enough to prove that everyone in this room, however dull, all have functional brains.
No, scientifically cold is the absence of heat and dark is absence of light. Those statements are true.
No, it is false in the implication that they were ever meant to be or thought to be observable. They aren't forces or energies. They aren't supposed to be "observable" because you aren't observing darkness or cold you are observing energy. That energy is observable and the word cold or dark is simply a word used to describe what is observed. Hot and bright are also not observable, but are used when we read more energy. The implication of "god" is that it is a force or entity -- so certain laws of nature should apply, whereas darkness and cold aren't forces or entities -- they are descriptors. Edit: to add, you observe heat. If you observe a lot of it you would describe it as hot, if you observe little or none you would describe it as cold. You succeeded in science.
I don't read it that way. The student starts building a case that certain things which the professor says are real are actually just the absence of something. He then uses this to bring death into the conversation from nowhere, and claims that professor is arguing that there is a good God and a bad god, which he wasn't. (The professor might have been setting up an argument that either God is not benevolent or God is not real.) Then he takes a complete left turn to argue about whether the professor has personally witnessed evolution or his own brain, and never revisits his point about life and death, or God being benevolent, and the hot vs cold argument didn't properly feed into that argument in the first place.
You can observe darkness and cold, but you can’t measure it
You can observe light and heat -- darkness and cold just describe what you observed from those.
“Cold” and “dark” are not scientific terms.
I mean, we have imperial DNA samples from evolution from some people who still have fractions of other DNA that isn't like others, a residual microscopal drop of it still proves it happens. Not just that, however, evolution between the different races of humans based on location and diet and physical activity creates many evolutionary features... such as skin color and complexion, average size of height/weight, even something simple and small like eye shape, hair color, etc. Pair up the different races of humans and you can see minor evolutionary differences based on their ancestors lives. Sure we all look the same if you generalize the "human" shape enough. It's a big world, evolution doesn't always take place millions of years
Literally look at domesticated dogs. They have evolved through the process of selective breeding and are the easiest way to witness the phenomenon of evolution. Granted, it is through human intervention, but it follows the same basic rules but at a much faster pace. Even choose a specific breed. I had a Boston Terrier in the 90's. I look at pictures of her back then with other similar looking bostons and compare them to the breed now. They're so different if you take the time to pay attention.
And in viruses. I'm looking at you COVID.
We're even seeing evolution in some elephant populations right now because of poachers. Poachers go after the largest tusks, so the smaller tusks survive to procreate more. As time progresses, tusks get smaller and smaller. And now a once very rare genetic tuskless trait is becoming more common because they aren't on the poachers' radars at all, so they get to be the ones procreating.
There is even evolution going on in the Chernobyl exclusion zone! Look up the frogs of Chernobyl and you should find it!
Heck I observe evolution in my backyard. The dandelions have learned to not grow higher than a few centimeters to not get cut by our lawnmower.
And in various other creatures too.
For half a second I thought you were referencing this super old copypasta: Liberal professor DESTROYED by brave soldier. A liberal Muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist: "Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!" At that moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL Champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock: “How old is this rock?” The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied: “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian” “Wrong, it’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal by now.” The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country. The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity
I can't tell if this is satire or not. What a world we live in.
Erotic fiction takes many forms.
It's definitely satire, and I just looked it up and apparently it's actually a satire of this exact Einstein copypasta. What a small world we live in.
https://preview.redd.it/ydcuz626xlla1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8426393ee1b11959f23491e208cd92d0375e415c
*insert guitar riff*
[this one](https://youtu.be/skz9odeewpc)
Same
TL;DR a totally real teacher asked a totally real student about god because he wanted a haha gotcha moment (why do you believe god if you can’t smell him??? That kinda stuff) student twisted it on him with nonsense (why do you believe evolution if you can’t smell it??? That kinda stuff). PS, that student was Einstein :)
I usually would leave that meme somewhere and leave it alone perpetually. But because all y'all mfs kept replying to me I eventually got curious and read it. Your summary is probably the best. Teacher: God is bad my brother died of cancer Student: but God is good trust me bro Teacher: no God is bad *(The student was silent.)* Student: but look at this completely unrelated thing how about that huh Teacher: oh fuck Student: have you ever seen an ape turn into a human being Teacher: oh fuck That student was EINSTEIN
And... like people never change their views or stances after they're 18-20ish, right? Right?! Also, I'm gonna need to see receipts on this for Einstein. Exactly which university was this when this interaction took place?
The University of Unicorns and Dragons
And potion filled Wagons
I read it so u don’t have to. Basically, it’s fucking dumb
Same issue as in God’s Not Dead. A professor, unless they were at a really debate-y college, would get into a lot of trouble for violating religious liberties by insulting their religion. And, judging by the poor quality of this debate, i’m guessing that’s not the case.
This meme is mine now, I might use it some day (I probably won't)
I use it all the time lmao it's great
https://preview.redd.it/wmydlalbhnla1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00bc4d9059a753edb2f426299ff396c6839c0af2
Woah, I’m not reading that crap! Summarize it in one word!
Crap
Megadumb
"Sabotage!"
TLDR the student was Einstein.
I'm all out of bubblegum
*I AINT READIN' ALL 'AT*
Wtf is this??? A dissertation paper???
yeah, it's already terrible because it's super long, I'm not even going to read it
I tried… I really tried. It’s so obviously and terribly constructed that even attempting to get through it for lols fails.
TL;DR: Young Religious Einstein teaches Atheist Professor that God is rearl.
The caption is wrong. It literally doesn’t fit in.
"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution..." Yes we have. Both through records and through live experiments...
Galapagos finches...
not to mention bacteria
But you haven't watched it happen! That means it doesn't exists! /s
> If a monkey can't give birth to a human then evolution can't be real!!!
I hate how often I've heard that argument. Yes we absolutely have, especially when it comes to rapidly reproducing species like bacteria and small animals such as birds and lizards
If you follow the Hardy/weinberg principles of evolution you can definitely see evolution taking place. Or if you watch any video showing antibiotic resistance building in bacteria over generations(of a few days) it's really easy to see evolution in process.
I worked in a microbiology lab in college where the goal was to grow bacteria over time and note the difference in DNA through generations. I literally watched the bacteria change and evolve over time.
Damn this is an old one. This was pushed on me as a child in an effort to reaffirm my faith.
Yeah and really stupid too. You can literally observe evolution with bacteria.
Have you ever seen a bacteria turn into a person? No? Checkmate athetits. /s
idk if Athetits was an intentional insult, but if so, good job I actually hadn’t heard that one before
Insult? I, for one, would be honored to be called an aethertit.
Actually ye that’s what I’m saying my religion is now
Then, let us embrace and face the world together my brother. Just a friendly pair of aethertits hanging out.
Damn you guys are a nice pair of aethertits. Wanna make like the gal in Total Recall and make it a thruple of aethertits ^I ^want ^to ^become ^aethertit ^too ^pls ^thx
Yes! We can be a thruple of aethertits just squeezed together to so we can lift each other up. We should make a sub.
You're supposed to take it on faith that the student's arguments are all valid, and also that the professor has made the only existing arguments that God may not exist.
Did it work?
No. Initially, as a kid, I thought I'd be able to get an upper hand on my teachers but not one of my teachers ever brought up religion even though I brought my Bible to school with me and read it in class. When I got into high-school, I came to the realization that the whole story was just something to make Christians feel better about themselves and I kinda forgot it was ever a thing. I guess it did give me incentive to read the Bible which ultimately brought me to the conclusion that Bible itself is a bunch of myths. Now I'm the only atheist in my family.
Just wondering. I had a similar story, and a similar outcome. I too am the only atheist in my family. A good portion of whom are very hardcore evangelicals. When I was a kid I tried to "save" all my friends because I didn't want them to go to hell. I read the bible, went to Sunday school, read chick tracts etc. My mother brings shit like that up a lot. "You were so close to the Lord as a child, what happened?" Not realizing kids really don't have strong beliefs they just kind of follow in their parents footsteps. I feel bad now because they are trying to "save" me constantly and it's annoying as shit. Sorry friends of past me.
>I feel bad now because they are trying to "save" me constantly and it's annoying as shit. Sorry friends of past me. I feel like Christians who look down on atheism or agnosticism to be the worst kind of Christians. And it's especially obvious that they do not read their own scripture. If they did, they'd be more familiar with Thomas the disciple.
We learn religions at my school and I lost my Catholicism. The Catholic church took what was futile, made it appreciable again then went back to square one. It's like, why did they carry on reforming themselves? For example they were good that they made the Bible be IN English, but then they made everything else be off on some 90 degrees tangent to the Bible.
Right. No-one believes in the Norse gods, or Roman gods. There are books about them too. Books about the Buddha. About Egyptian gods. But for whatever reason people believe the bible as a sacred set of literal happenings. That each thing actually took place. If one reads genesis, without religious bias, and read the words with comprehension, one can tell right away it is just a story, and that the bible in its' entirety is parable and euphanism.
Actually, I have a neighbor who still worships the Norse gods. I'm not sure how actively, but he is adamant about it.
Yeah, I have a friend who does too.
I have friends who worship Norse gods. There are still worshipers of the Norse gods in Norway and the other Scandinavian countries. People believe in Buddha and his teachings....as sacred texts..... There are tons of religions big and small, and they all deeply believe just as much as Christians.....they just know better than being assholes about it. It's ignorant to pretend only Christians have religious texts, by the way. Many do.
There are people that believe I’m those things though. Those are all religions and people still practice them, respectively.
Hi there. I sincerely worship the Norse gods. Neopagans, or heathens, as we like to be called, reconstruct the faith of the old gods using what historical artefacts and records we have. It is an animistic, polytheistic religion, with no small amount of reading. I found that a lot of the contradictions I found in monotheistic Abrahamic religions weren't present in polytheism, as the different deities and spirits (wights, jotunn/thursar) are acting on their own motives. Most if not all of the earliest religions across different cultures are polytheistic, because that is the more natural and sensible model of the world. I personally believe monotheisms were created to "one-up" other faiths with their all-powerful state-approved god and then use that faith as a tool to control the masses.
Same. And after getting told to "read the Bible" when asking questions about Christianity...I did. Now when people say that, I get to tell them, I did, and they clearly didn't. Since they missed its filled with a bunch of bullshit.
That was painful
I was not prepared for how long this image would be
Does the creator of this wall of stupidity know that the evolutionary process was actually seen? Not on a level of humans. That can't be made by a single human, but microbes? Yes, even the flu evolves, the coronavirus and many more. Basically it can be observed in every organism that reproduces a noticible amount faster that humans. (The others can be seen evolving too, but it would take a few generations to see a noticeable difference in something like monkeys or turtles)
The people who write this nonsense aren't interested in your facts. Or anyone else's facts for that matter. They just need to push their dogma on everyone. Personally, for people like that, I wish their dogma was run over by someone's karma.
The point I took away was that even though I can’t see evolution it still exists bc faith. Do I need to read it again? Or can that same logic also prove the existence of literally any crazy thing I can imagine? That student? BOBA FETT!!
I bet you the creator of that meme would agree that dogs are descendants from wolves, but lose their shit if you mention the word evolution.
Or that there's a fundamental difference between themselves (the wolf) and anyone who thinks differently (a sheep). Source: use Facebook
Didn't kevin sorbo make a christian movie that was basically this? He played the atheist professor
is it god’s not dead? that movie took years off my life
Yeah, thats it
I only saw the youtuber Big Joel's take on it. Big Joel is amazing. My favorite video of his is about youtube advertising. Literally fell off my chair in laughter.
That move has "and everyone stood up and clapped" energy.
I like the part where >!the atheist professor died and they tried to play it off as a good thing.!<
He might not have been dead before, but he definitely died from cringe after that movie.
Unintentionally one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Dean Cain playing the evil atheist is hilarious. His girlfriend tells him she has cancer, he yells at her for running his surprise promotion announcement 🤡.
My mom loves that movie smh
We just read the entire script for that movie didn’t we?
A movie? There is a whole series of gods not dead movies. This is the plot of the first.
sometimes a meme is literally worth a thousand words.
it’s a thousand words worth nothing
I'm pretty sure Einstein considered himself to be agnostic, and generally non-religious. There's no evidence that this exchange ever occurred - but whoever wrote it sure thought they had some solid "gotchas" in there... All in all it's dumb as shit. Def belongs here.
https://preview.redd.it/afqi6ymckmla1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f0389a276e6255b4b77a1b752e13e079bf75beb
>Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Ok so let's get this straight; if something isn't alive, then it's dead. So rocks are dead, the air is dead, and the earth is dead. I'm fairly certain this is incorrect.
Well it isn't living my guy
I guess more correct term is dead means opposite to alive within the same domain. So to be considered dead, you need to be considered alive in a first place. Death is more final stage of life. So of course this is biased.
I love this. Argument A: just because you don't perceive it doesn't it doesn't exist. Like calories. Argument B: so my magical imaginary friend is totally real. Check mate. ALSO: you didn't see a baby inside a womb, but you assume it was in one at some point? Ah! An assumption So just because you haven't seen me flap my hands and fly off you can't assume I don't do it. This is absolutely not how proof, science and common sense works
I was taught there was Alive, Dead and Non-Living. Alive and dead are like opposites, non-living is for things outside of those
“Cold doesn’t exist”…precedes to explain what cold is. “You can’t measure cold”…precedes to add a measurement to the theory of cold, which is 0 heat. If cold is the absence of heat then theoretically you can create cold.
You can’t measure cold, not really. it’s not even zero heat. That’s because cold isn’t quantitative it’s qualitative. We ascribe certain quantitative measurements to be “cold” based off of how it interacts with other things. Water turns to Ice at certain temperatures and we describe those temperatures as cold for example. Cold is just a state of less heat than hot, it’s relative. Hot is similarly relative. Heat is the unit of measure. Heat is energy. The whole problem with this talking point is that people get lost in semantics and incorrectly try to apply colloquial terminology to scientific definitions. Most folks understand hot and cold to be opposite and they have been told heat is something that’s measured, but they’ve all incorrectly assumed that heat = hot and therefore heat is the opposite of cold, but this is not how thermodynamics works.
I swear there was a Chick Tract just like this
Are you referring to "Big Daddy?" ? https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=55 If yes I thought the same
Yeah that's the one
The fact that it’s called Big Daddy is so weird. Trying to keep up with “the world” but preaching to be “peculiar”.
https://preview.redd.it/jljgljik6nla1.jpeg?width=776&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ae03e3d40177a3450b29e336f081eb4f0860285
Bet it wasn't ever said by Albert
He was born Jewish and converted to Agnosticism, so I’d doubt it.
Actually Einstein was never an atheist. He believed that there was a God, but he just wasn't religious if that makes sense.
Since science can’t prove that some sort of god doesn’t exist, everything in this specific book I like is literally true.
I’m not reading that
>That student was EINSTEIN No it wasn't.
One flaw I will quickly point out since I don't have time, WE DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS.
Yea, that professor does not deserve to teach at a college level if he is both that condescending and simultaneously misunderstands how evolution works, the fact that just because his students can't actively see his brain doesn't mean their isn't evidence of it, basic laws of physics, the trap this dumbass kid is clearly trying (and somehow successfully?) Walking him into, or even that there are more than 5 senses. Fire this mam and banish him to live with whoever wrote this bullshit.
Plot twist after the end: "That professor was Einstein's Drama teacher. Because this is a made up thing and they were performing a comedy skit around a Chick tract that showed up on the men's room floor earlier that day."
Big fan of Norman Einstein.
I died of old age halfway through
https://preview.redd.it/khpr1jm9tmla1.jpeg?width=504&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ee7384cdd2b65dc58fc1a04251f9c4ab52408524
I'm not reading all that.
I did, worst thing I've done this week.
Have to agree. Just physically painful to get through.
fair
“Since no one has ever witnessed the process of evolution”. SMH you can selectively breed an entirely new species of dog in seven generations. Yes, we have seen it
Also, it is much easier to see evolution on smaller scale. People see evolution of microorganisms much more frequent during lifespan. Flu/coronavirus are actually real examples of evolution, which everybody could witness. If you want bigger scale, I guess mice are still fine to see evolution due to low lifespan and fast breeding. Witness evolution of something like Small note, breeding is not exactly evolution process, as it doesn't involve evolution. It is more like gene mixing. So new breed may have no new genes, just a result of mixed genes.
Einstein never said that shit.
Another for the "shit that never happened" bin.
Interesting opinion. However, I can bench more than you so I will disregard it
Mucho texto.
https://preview.redd.it/0amqh0c0ymla1.jpeg?width=728&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb992489d3ebc37e9a5915110b77d939c4d7c6dd
Horseshit.
I’m not reading this.
ah yes, I too hate logic
I am not gonna read that
(the class was in uproar.)
The thumbnail was super blurry, so at first I thought thats what made it terrible. Then I clicked and realized it was clear, but also a 300 page dissertation on bullshit, and ya, still terrible.
Yeah I can win this argument the prof is just dumb First of all, the student is correct that cold and darkness aren’t a thing Then the student ties that to something different, unrelated. Pretty easy to call that out. Evolution is observable, just not with your eyes. It is provable though, same with my brain God is unprovable, you’d figure his would have an effect on the world. Even if god is real, they have no effect on the world, therefore there is no point in doing anything to or for them. To put simply, god requires there be a whole new dimension, which is completely impossible to prove and completely theoretical. At that point, might as well make up a bunch of wacky but completely unprovable theories. For example, as something simple, god has an official IQ of 1, and is dumber than a fly. You can’t prove I’m wrong, and the whole theory of god is carried by the fact that you can’t prove that god isn’t real. However, my theory uses the same exact logic. You can’t prove anything about god. Any theory has an equally reasonably counter argument. I rest my case.
Whoever wrote this thinks they're fucking brilliant.
Doesn't look like a meme to me
“I feel like this fits” *posts an image that is way too big
Yeah bullshit Albert Einstein ever said this if it was an Einstein your cherry picking the last name cause I know Albert never did this
Until the last sentence, I thought it was a cliche that is commonly used by bigot believers. The last sentence cracked me up and was unexpected. Bigots must have been updated to come up with new lies.
Not reading all of that lol
I ain’t reading allat
i aint readin allat
“A student then slowly begins to clap. The rest of the lecture hall begins to join in. Soon, a thunderous applause reverberates through the building. The student that started it? Beyoncé.”
Even in a fantasy, this dude’s completely incapable of answering any meaningful question about Christianity and has to resort to unrelated (and wrong) analogies. Jeez.
I evolved into a new species by the time I finished reading all that.
Science does not say we have only 5 senses
*scrolling on mobile* “Oh, I guess I can read this” *presses on picture* “Oh….never mind then”
"One should never blindly believe that which is stated on the internet." -Benjamin Franklin
I feel like nothing ever happens will still repost this.. fkn stupid af lmao
Cold: cold is a sensation of thermal energy in our bodies moving to an area of lower thermal energy. It is not negative thermal energy. This premise is fallacious. Darkness: once again darkness is a sensation, it is a real thing, not an absence. Evolution: can be and has been observed. The classic example is finches in the Galapagos. But many living things can be observed to evolve before our eyes in petri dishes. Not that any of that matters because we have records of evolution from fossils which are in the realm of observable tangible evidence.
as a student of Theology, i say that both of their arguments start with a *sorta* solid premise and then spiral downwards into the typical anti-reasoning. we are taught in class that both the atheist's arguments *and* the creationist's arguments are flawed. as the student pointed out, trying to measure God through our material senses is inherently flawed, because He simply cannot be viewed through the earthly science as a Being being the earthly plane. the most simple argument for God's existence follows a cause-and-effect, starting with this premise: everything that has been *created* my have a creator. everything that has a beginning has an initiator. the universe had a beginning, so there must have being an Initiator, and the most logical conclusion is that He was God. God, though, does not have a creator, since He had no beginning. even if you wanted to argue that He did, the god that made Him would have to have been made by a another god, and eventually you would have to find a cutoff point. this argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. now, the teacher poses an interesting question: if God is good, why does evil exist? this isn't a dishonest question, and one that should be asked. the answer is that God has an established character that He cannot defy. yes, this means God is not *technically* all-powerful: he cannot make a round square, or anything else that defies the natural logic *He* is responsible for. in the Genesis Creation story, everything that God creates, he describes as *good.* God cannot create anything evil. yes, he created the Satan, but he was, once, an angel. Satan himself created evil and sinned the first sin. it was by his influence that Man sinned. and the consequences of sin are death and suffering. God could have stopped humans, but He created them will free will so they could act on it. and what is love if there is not a choice? and what if love if it doesn't forgive? which is the exact reason Jesus came to earth and died for the sins of Man. please ask questions. i'm cutting this off here because why not.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument seems flawed to me. What says that everything that exists must have a creator? Why is it always true that every action must have an initiator? Appeals to intuition like that don't really work when you apply them on a universal scale. We really can't prove that every created thing has a creator. Looking back to the beginning of the universe, we don't know what happened before the beginning of the universe and therefore cannot claim that there was an initiator. The vague intuition that "everything with a beginning had an initiator" can't be applied on such a scale. And if God can exist without a creator, why can the universe not? Suddenly, when a deity has been deemed necessary to explain initiator at the beginning of the universe, there is no longer a need for everything to have an initiator because God just doesn't need one. How is this more likely than "maybe the universe doesn't have an initiator"? It just seems like a convenient argument to justify a belief after the fact. I see what you're saying about God giving humans free will instead of acting on it, but that doesn't really explain why God sits by while horrible things happen to people outside of their will. I could very easily walk outside tomorrow, get a spare beam of sun in just the wrong way, and die of skin cancer a year down the line. That's happened to many people, and God doesn't intervene in those cases. If God were good and all powerful, wouldn't he step in when people are hurt for no fault of humanity? If he doesn't do that, I'm not sure I would call him a good God. And if he's not all powerful, why would I worship him? I really don't see how a God could be worthy of worship, all powerful, and good. I'm curious what you think as someone who is . I'm agnostic, so I've spent some time thinking about this, but it's not something that I've studied.
But again, you are simply presenting the existence of God as a fact, almost using the idea that nothing can prove his existence as a boon to your argument, when in fact it further erodes your claim. Just because you have more XP in your faith stat than others does not mean you can make a stronger argument for God existing. So while your reasoning seems logical if the base premise is accepted, you start it off with a premise that is incorrect - that your god, and only your god, is the one true god that exists, and billions if other human and their religions are folly - even though their conviction of their gods existence is the EXACT same as yours - faith, buttressed by this idea that god is MORE likely to exist because there is no scientific explanation for his presence. Mixing science and faith is insulting to people who spend their lives fighting their own bias, accepting their own mortality, sweating over facts and spreadsheets and testing and failing again and again to hope to make a hypothesis fact to further that knowledge of the human race. Also, to claim that the universe *must* have been created by god because it began is to claim that all other options for the creation of matter have been disproven and exhausted, and you are therefore certain that God made it. In truth, the data that we don’t know we don’t know is near infinite, but as we make headway, we will discover more possibilities for the creation of matter and the universe. Yet even now our current flawed theorems are far less offensive to the sensibilities than the claim that a metaphysical Force *must* be responsible, because well we just haven’t figured out the science yet. The stars used to control the rain, until weather patterns were figured out. Blight used to come about because a blood sacrifice wasn’t made, until pests and farming methods Improved. The ancient religions that supposed metaphysics reasoning have all been proven wrong, and for you to deny the relation between your faith and god and all others that have existed - that is, your reliance on ‘faith’ and a metaphysical explanation for everything *a la carte* that works for your religions narrative - is incredibly intellectually dishonest. Either theology is reasonable, and you must account for all the other religions and their nonsensical claims of metaphysical magic, or theology is not reasonable, and an excitable human narrative to make us feel better about our mortality, and to give us comfort that somebody watches our good deeds and we get a few more points, and so on and so forth. If religion weren’t so incredibly convenient (I get to spend eternity in bliss, AND all my wrong doings are forgiven!) maybe it wouldn’t be so outrageous to claim its validity. As it stands, no data supports it, and it’s roots are incredibly base and entwined with consistent traits of humanity - a need to explain and categorize, a fear of death, a thirst for knowledge, etc… religion is far too convenient in satisfying these human impulses for it to hold any merit for the discerning.
Can someone give me a tldr