Anonymous #2 1w

Or maybe, we just don’t lie to children and ourselves?

8

Anonymous OP 1w

You are lying to yourself by saying you know for a fact that God doesn't exist

-3

Anonymous OP 1w

Choosing to have faith in God is a lot less dishonest

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

No, it’s actually entirely provable that every religion is a human social construct. Sure you cant prove that an impersonal god caused the big bang and then never put measurable force into altering the universe, but then who cares? All human religions and creationism can absolutely be disproven and already have by science.

5

Anonymous OP 1w

Yes, religion is a human interpretation of God's will, I don't think anyone denies that

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

I can’t “choose” to have faith in something fundamentally impossible to be true sorry 🤷‍♂️

8

Anonymous OP 1w

If humans creating something is testament enough that it isn't true, why do you believe in science?

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Because scientific discoveries provide evidence that humans evolved as a product of a solely material universe, devoid of any metaphysical power. There is zero evidence to support any of the man made religions over any other man made religion.

9

Anonymous OP 1w

How do you believe in gravity if there is scientific evidence which goes against the theory?

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

How do you even believe the scientific evidence denoting gravity to not apply in these cases, knowing that it's the work of a human?

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Not sure what you are referring to because there isn’t lmao. Gravity is an observable force, that’s why I believe it exists, because there is actually proof

10

Anonymous #1 1w

You aren’t even making sense anymore, what are you even on about?

6

Anonymous OP 1w

Gravity is observable in some cases, but in cases like quantum mechanics and dark matter, the theory of gravity does not fit neatly. In fact, it hardly applies at all and has to be fundamentally changed to fit a model in these situations.

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Well sure, what causes gravity and its mechanics can be debated, but it still is a provably extant force. No reason to attribute it to god, and no reason to think god exists.

5

Anonymous OP 1w

Now you might argue that it is because we don't fully understand gravity yet, and I think thats a valid argument, but it relies on faith that the theory of gravity is actually correct, which if you break that down, is ultimately faith in human teachings.

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

This is just semantics lmao. Belief in an observable force that we don’t entirely understand is not equivalent to faith in unobservable metaphysical beings without any evidence for their existence

7

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah, we are arguing semantics here. It's faith in humans teachings in the face of evidence to the contrary vs faith in human teachings in the face of evidence to the contrary.

-2

Anonymous OP 1w

I find it hard to believe that if there is a God, he is so interested in what goes on on Earth that he'd make an appearance every so often for our sake and belief.

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Once again, the difference is that gravity actually exists, whether or not its mechanics on a quantum scale have been worked out or not. There is irrefutable proof for its existence, there isn’t for god, (and that’s because he doesn’t exist)

4

Anonymous #1 1w

He doesn’t make an appearance lmao, that’s my point, there is no god

6

Anonymous OP 1w

If it doesn't apply in all cases, its not actually proven yet.

-2

Anonymous OP 1w

That's why it's still called the theory of gravity.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

You aren’t actually making any point lmao, we don’t have to fully understand something to have sufficient proof for its existence. The difference is there isn’t any proof at all for god, if there was, you would have actually provided some instead of this non-argument.

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Prove gravity without making any assumptions and I will believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

All I ask

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

I went to church, and now I have an anxiety disorder because I was told that exact thing. Who knew telling kids that they have 0 privacy and that they’re being judged for every little decision they make can make them nervous 🤷

2

Anonymous #1 1w

Well you can go around believing there’s no force of gravity if you want, if you are asking me to fill in explanations for gravity in a quantum scale I can’t do that, because unlike you I don’t claim to know things beyond my current understanding. I have provided plenty of evidence for gravity’s existence, even if I don’t have a unified and complete theory of it. You haven’t even provided one piece of evidence for your so called “god” 🤷‍♂️

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Shroud of Turin

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

I do believe in gravity, my point is that this also requires faith.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

lol, shroud of Turin and its white European Jesus is your “evidence”? And you claim you have any idea what you are talking about? Lmao

6

Anonymous OP 1w

Yea I saw it on ancient aliens buddy

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Sure, I disagree but if we want to define it as faith for sake of argument we can. The difference is faith in the existence of gravity is backed by material, testable evidence.

2

Anonymous OP 1w

Shroud was dated back to the crucifixion using modern methods

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Except that study was entirely debunked, the current consensus among anyone with half a brain is that it is a medieval era forgery. Unless you believe a distinctly European Jesus was walking around Roman occupied Palestine lmao

4

Anonymous OP 1w

I don't really think he looks distinctly European in the shroud, and that was from contamination in the middle ages

0

Anonymous #1 1w

That absolutely looks like European depictions of Jesus from the Middle Ages lmao, brush up on your art history.

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Hey I can tell AI to make my point for me too! I must be right.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

*loud incorrect buzzer*

2

Anonymous #1 1w

the fact we are even able to argue over Its authenticity shows that your “all powerful god” has some pretty lousy evidence for his existence.

2

Anonymous OP 1w

I think thats a testament to how Christ made it clear that you have to choose to follow him.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Well sure, if god wanted people to choose to follow him without any reasonable proof then he’s doing a great job of gathering up his sheep. I think that an all loving god would probably want to convince people with reasonable evidence however if his criterion for salvation was “belief in gods existence”

5

Anonymous OP 1w

My understanding of the Bible is that it is a struggle between the spiritual and material worlds, ultimately if you choose to make the material world your God then you will not fully find Christ in it. Some level of faith is required, even in the face of situations where your beliefs might not fit neatly.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

The issue here is that the material world is the only thing we can used to make educated theories and observations on, so if god really wanted people to believe he exists, you’d think he’d provide some pretty irrefutable evidence to convince people. Which he clearly hasn’t done. You are also operating from the position that your religion is the only one that could be correct, but the other man made religions have just as much “evidence” and their believers feel just as much “spiritual proof”

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It's not really even a leap in faith for me to say this, because I can already believe in material properties like gravity which do not fit neatly in every situation.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

It’s not that religious beliefs “don’t fit neatly” it’s that they are completely at odds with the scientific method, which requires repeatable experimentation and empirical evidence. Neither of which is applicable to religion.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I don't think Religion is completely at odds with the scientific method

0

Anonymous #1 1w

That’s fine, but science rejects blind faith without proof, otherwise I could publish a paper with findings based on “how god made me feel in my heart”

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It's not completely blind faith if there is proof of its validity

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Yes, and there is zero credible, empirical evidence for the existence of any god or gods. And substantial evidence we live in a solely material universe without any supernatural forces at play, otherwise these could be observed and studied.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Unless they were to completely go against the rules of the material world, since they operate outside of it

0

Anonymous #1 1w

If they operate outside of it, they have no impact on the material world, otherwise we would be able to observe their effects on the material. Since this dosent occur, either god dosent exists, or he plays no role in the operation of the universe, and is uninterested in human affairs. The most likely is the first by simply using Occam’s razor.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I chalk it up as trying to understand God in terms of the material world being a prideful notion

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Mighty convenient, pointing out that there’s no logical reason to believe in a god without proof is “prideful” lmao. And a pretty ridiculous claim if your gods criteria for salvation is to believe he exists. How can I believe he exists if there is zero material evidence for the claim?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Already gave you literal documented material evidence

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Medieval Jesus fanart is not “evidence” lmao. And an all powerful god would need (and provide) a lot more evidence (more than a guy on cloth) to convince people even if it was real 🤣

1

Anonymous OP 1w

There's a lot more symbolism in the Shroud than just a guy on a cloth

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Yeah no shit, there’s also more symbolism in any of the other Christian art (think the last supper) but that’s all it is. Art.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

If it were medieval European I don't see how it would be dated back to early AD and have proof of traveling through the near east and middle east prior

0

Anonymous #1 1w

It wasn’t, that study, as I said, was debunked.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You seem to be basing your theory on outdated claims that utilized a contaminated piece of the fabric

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Specifically a study from 1988 that dated it to medieval Europe, which I don't doubt it arrived there at some point, was held by a medieval European, etc. I do doubt that it would have proof of originating somewhere else, while being made in medieval Europe.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Literally the opposite lmao, your claim is outdated from a previous study that misdated it to far earlier, my evidence was from 2025 showing it has medieval origins. Which could also be deduced by anyone with eyes given the distinctly European style of his depiction.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

The 1988 study was one of many studies, such as the modern 2025 study, that corroborate its actual age as dating to medieval Europe.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Besides, let’s just assume this is shroud they wrapped Jesus in for arguments sake, that still proves nothing. It dosent give any convincing evidence that the man was god. No reason to abandon science and logic to think supernatural powers were embued into this man by an all powerful god, who incarnated as his own son, to save humanity from himself

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The theory of the Shroud is that it is his burial cloth and he literally imparted a divine light upon it to imbue his image. You can have whatever theory you want to, but I don't think it's gonna shake my faith, especially considering that the newest dating of it (not an art comparison, not a contaminated sample) has an age of 2000 years old.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

And that’s an absolutely ridiculous theory, that science would absolutely reject. Your “theory” is fringe and rejected by experts

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I don't see how the one less susceptible to contamination would produce older results unless there was contamination

0

Anonymous OP 1w

If you've got a theory on that I'd be willing to hear it

0

Anonymous #1 1w

My theory, is that you desperately want to believe a medieval forgery, that has been repeatedly tested and found to be such, because you don’t have actual evidence for your “god”

1