How to turn an atheist into an agnostic in minutes. Btw, they couldn't.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Okay I have some good points to discuss here. First we have to differentiate between two Creationist Theses.
The whole universe was created by an external entity, but sentient life evolved after that.
Humans were created by an external entity, without the evolutionary pathway.
First of all when you say Creationism, which one do you mean?
If its 1 - then no one can disprove it. Even the main stream Science is at its wits end to figure out the origin of the universe.
If its 2 - then the only impediment is proof of evolution. So the whole argument comes down to being able to prove or disprove that humans evolved via Darwinian evolution.
I personally used to take it for granted, but recently, looking at it more critically, I have to say:
Darwin's theory has never been proven. It has never been observed in nature where one organism evolved into another organism with incompatible DNA.
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for Darwinian theory by looking at the organisation of species and the commonality between the DNA material, but its not conclusive by any means.
There is a body of literature (not related to any religion) that indicates connection between consciousness and quantum universe. This could be used to make a circumstantial case for some kind of creationism.
So I would love to see anyone either prove or disprove that Darwinian evolution actually happened specifically for humans (its possible all other organisms evolved naturally, but Humans - atleast the leap in DNA - was crafted by some external entity).
If I were a scientist strictly following scientific methodology, I would have to say that its an open problem that requires more research to be done.
There's a Christian scientist named Kent Hovind who has tons of videos on youtube. He probably has one on disproving evolution, if you are interested.
Thanks, I will check it out!
A lot of scientists are dumping Darwinism
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
The idea of modern scientific thinking has gone very far from the what Science was all about. Infact from the beginning, science and spirituality went hand in hand because scientists were people who were curious to learn about the reality.
Nikola Tesla once said something to the effect of "If scientists start studying non-physical phenomenon instead of phsyical phenomenon, they will make more progress in 10 years than what they would currently do in 50-100 years"
Born atheist, but turned agnostic in my 20s, I now believe that spirituality exists and is very important for human existence, and spirituality and consciousness directly interacts at a quantum level.
I also believe that a lot pre-einstein physicists turned to ancient scriptures for answers to the scientific problems they were working on.
I was listening to a spiritual leader from lat 1800s from India, who had a huge influence on Western scientific community, and he talks about space and energy in a way that prhaps only now scientists are beginning to think about.
I think we have had atleast a 100 year spirtual vacuum in the name of science, perhaps premeditated, with the focus on material advances but carefully stopping anyone from making advances in the directions that really matter.
Here is an extension of this thought process, I think the Globalists pushed Einstein and his theories really hard to the general public because the idea of light speed being the limit was a good way to make fun of anyone or anything that implies luperluminal travel, including the possibility of aliens visiting us from other star systems.
Thanks, and same applies to you as well!
Removed Off-topic. Hey, I believe in God but this is off-topic. We are trying to keep this board’s discussions and info related to Q. Please feel free to check out the new Christianity win community that has been created. Thanks for understanding.
I don't give a shit what you believe...
Post this crap somewhere else
At least my Star Trek posts tie into the current political situation.
This is a generic "Atheists r dum, amirite guys?" shitpost
I'm agnostic and know I'll never know the full nature of reality.
But the "absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence" argument isn't very convincing or novel.
I respect Christians who show love, don't judge (like Mike Lindell <3), aren't sanctimonious, and don't need to convince you of the existence of god.
Atheism isn't practical?
Practical: "of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas."
Atheism is absolutely practical, because it tells the atheist that all he can trust is that which he has evidence of. (which is useful for day to day life, science, etc)
Your argument has equal merit with: "Because you can't prove there is a city of Pop Tarts 200 light years away means, it is irrational to ignore the possibility of PopTart-topolis"
*Also at the end, I was giving an example of Christians I like, vs Christians who annoy me. (And Christians who are sanctimonious (believe that they are better) because they believe in God are pretty annoying)
*Note, there is certain circumstantial evidence one could apply that would point to the possibility of metaphysical/godlike stuff.
Deport requested. I am an atheist and this has nothing to do with Q and the only possible outcome would be to create division and this is exactly what the cabal wants.
I agree it's off topic, but you're really athiest? Not agnostic, but athiest?
Aristotle already cracked that nut. The Creator is the First Cause.
Aristotle introduced the notion of a “First Cause” in Physics.
So what does Kant believe? Causes stretch back infinitely?
I see. So you rely on Kant to dismiss the first cause, and now he is irrelevant.
What you need to answer is “do causes go back infinitely?”.
Your reasoning for dismissing God as the first cause is because you expect an explanation on God’s cause.
I am asking the question without even bringing religion into it: do causes go back infinitely?
So you believe in nothing.
That’s fine. I believe God is the first cause.
Let’s move on.