Posts by Amy Bennett

graniteharbor502 said:Sixty-four posts on a topic he doesn't even care about—honestly, I can't even wrap my head around that level of dedication. 🙏🙏🙏
God, I really can't stand John—and no, I’m definitely not talking about John Wayne.

Look, I’m only bringing this up because you guys have been getting under my skin in all my other threads—I can see now that this specific topic is basically the root of all the friction here. Please, just try to follow my logic—for God's sake. I’m honestly just sitting here waiting for that one guy to show up and tell me I’m not allowed to post this given how much I contribute, only for him to immediately start quoting the thread rules and calling for everyone to get banned. That’s just the reality of how things work on the sports subreddits.

Maria Fowler39 said:And besides—did anyone actually tell you that you couldn't open it?

Alright, so how am I supposed to add a moderator warning to the opening post? I mean, what exactly are we even talking about here... 🤷

Anyway, someone started a dedicated thread just for fans to talk about the game—since the mods locked the other one—so now we’re all piled into this single one again. It's basically the same old story.

Here's a snippet from the opening post:

Master said:Let’s keep this thread strictly for those of us planning to cheer on the national team—leave all the politics, intelligence agencies, and other nonsense for a different topic.

So, there were actually two different threads going for the match against England. The first one was started by one of those guys who is always rooting against us—but once this second thread (Master) popped up, that first one got shut down. Now everyone is piling into this one, including all the haters, even though the author originally intended for this space to be just for us Americans who are actually pulling for our team.

And then you have the nerve to ask me who’s actually stopping me from starting a thread?

hollowdriver13 said:You're saying you weren't trolling when you went there? Man, the first thing that happens is everything goes south—it’s like the moment you step foot in the room, the whole thing falls apart. I saw the timestamp right here at 11:11 PM on the 16th... you were definitely there. first one to show up just to stir the pot and gloat over how wrong the "haters" were right after things wrapped up with N/A. ☕

Everything you need to know is right there in the post you quoted—even in this bolded part. Honestly, you guys were getting under my skin, so I decided to jump into your thread to finally settle things with you.

Maria Fowler39 said:You’ve got a whole bunch of fan-based threads and just one dedicated anti-fan thread—which, by the way, has very clear rules set out in the opening post. And what do you do? You go in there as a fan trying to "re-educate" the haters... and then you act surprised when people complain about the modding style.🙂
They weren't complaining about how people were talking to one another—they’re fine with that—but I’m pretty sure they’re all at an age where they don't really need someone coming in to lecture them.

Why isn't there a single fan thread with clear guidelines in the intro post?

Is it really that much trouble? Just open one thread for the fans and one for the critics, put warnings in both, and everything would be smooth sailing here in America. I don't get why we have to pretend the other threads are "fan threads" when they don't actually have any rules and anyone can post in them. That's how the haters end up bleeding into the fan discussions and totally ruining them. It gets to the point where you can barely talk about football without someone getting under your skin with random troll posts calling people names, accusing teams of being losers, or saying they support criminals—you know, the usual nonsense.

---------

To be honest, I didn't even bother opening this hate thread until I realized that all those annoying types from that specific thread were constantly jumping into every single national team discussion to troll, post insults, and cheer for whoever we happen to be playing against. That is quite literally the only reason I ever stepped foot in your thread. When I first saw it, I skipped right over it because the name made it obvious it was just going to be childish stuff, similar to YouTube comments, which—personally—just doesn't interest me. And I’d bet anything that the main reason fans of the national team end up in your thread is because you manage to clutter up every other topic on the sub with the same repetitive, exhausting jokes—it happened to me, too. Seriously, if I didn't have to deal with you guys 24/7 in every other thread, I wouldn't have entered this one. Most of the other 80% of users feel the same way. You could write all the little poems you want from now until tomorrow, and most people wouldn't even pay you any attention.

Joseph Stewart38 said:You hit the nail on the head. Especially that whole thing with that girl Atomic—she acts like she’s sixteen, accusing people of being some kind of clone. I mean, seriously, calling someone a clone? That’s apparently the ultimate insult around here, if you can believe it... but hey, whatever works for them..

Accusations about clones actually get penalized on other subforums. I used to post in some of the more laid-back, casual sections, and they handled that stuff pretty strictly there.

Larry Rivera83 said:Oh, come on—don't lie...

They aren't lying—most of the bans we've seen actually went to those of us who support the national team. I've been banned twice myself, several others have at least one, and I'm sure some people have dealt with even more than that.

Besides, during that stretch when the last few pages were nothing but constant arguing between the two sides, I suggested opening a fresh thread—one without those strict warnings in the intro—so people could just talk openly and move the debate over there. It seemed like a much simpler fix than banning a huge chunk of the forum users. And honestly, the desire to argue clearly exists because people from both camps keep jumping into each other's threads to start things up anyway.

And when I say they jump into each other's threads, I should mention that those of us on the "pro" side don't even really have our own dedicated space—we just comment on the match threads, which are meant for everyone. So, we end up reading what the "anti" crowd writes, and eventually, the same old arguments break out there, too. It’s not just the "haters" starting fights; the other side starts them whenever they swoop into the regular match discussions to bring up crime or nonsense.

Since everything is functioning in such a murky way right now, the whole dynamic of this PDF basically boils down to a war between two factions. When the national team fans are busy attacking the haters' thread, the match threads stay quieter, and you can actually enjoy football because the haters are occupied defending their own territory. On the flip side, if the haters' thread is quiet and they're just messing around with songs or whatever else that thread is for, it means the fighting has moved to the match threads and the national team fans are currently on the defensive.

None of this makes any sense at all.

Nathan Doyle said:It is. Everything was developed by humans, including religions...

If you had a moral code back when you were an atheist, was it meaningless then? Did you just not act according to it?

Claiming there's an "objective morality" is just like claiming there's "objective art." Both art and morality come from people, and you can't precisely define how either should look, especially since both vary from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define "objective art."
It's pretty ridiculous to say traditional Christian morality is objective, just like it would be stupid to say Confucian morality is objective. It's like saying Expressionism is objective art. There's nothing "objective" about it...

So I guess that predator follows that traditional Christian morality?
I remember seeing a breakdown on a forum once showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is way higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting... I went looking for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you've got maybe one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), but among priests, it's one in 20.

But what does that even mean, a "spiritual experience"?
If you're talking about things like visions or divine revelations, there's just zero proof that people aren't just lying or maybe having some kind of hallucination...
Just because someone hallucinates seeing God doesn't mean they actually saw God, it just means they experienced something and then decided to label it as "God."

I’m not making demands of God because God isn't real.
And man, look at the tone you're using with me, especially coming from a Christian... Pride and wrath are literal deadly sins, you know... 🙂

In a universe without purpose or inherent meaning, any "morality" is, by definition, meaningless.

Claiming there is such a thing as "objective morality" is no different from claiming there is "objective art." Both morality and art originate from humans; you can't precisely define how they should look, and both vary wildly from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define what falls under "objective art."
It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that traditional Christian morality is objective, just as it would be silly to claim Confucian morality is objective. It’s like saying Expressionism is objective art. There’s nothing "objective" about it.

Do you actually have an argument here, or are you just repeating the same point over and over? Your logic is basically like saying that because first graders sometimes get different answers to the same math problem, there is no such thing as a correct result in mathematics. You aren't demonstrating anything that proves morality or beauty isn't objective.

I assume that pedophile is following that traditional Christian morality?
I’ve already posted somewhere on this forum the statistics showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is significantly higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting—I looked for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you have one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), whereas among priests, it's one in 20.

You don't. I mean—I believe you could reach that conclusion if you were being extremely selective with your data, but when you look at the actual reality, there isn't really a massive difference.

What exactly are spiritual experiences?
If you mean "apparitions," "revelations," and things like that, there's zero evidence that people aren't just lying or experiencing hallucinations.
Hallucinating that you see God doesn't mean you actually see God; it just means you experienced something and identified it as "God."

That doesn't necessarily mean you didn't see God, though. It's like when you're walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree—that doesn't prove you actually saw an apple, it just means you experienced something and identified it as an apple. But maybe you *did* actually see an apple. Anyway, to answer your question—these are the types of experiences people describe as spiritual. It doesn't even have to involve grand apparitions or revelations; it can be something much simpler and more mundane. The point is that these experiences exist. You can certainly question their authenticity, but they aren't rare. That's exactly why religion is such a widespread and universal phenomenon. The fact remains that when people see, hear, or feel something, there is usually something there. Hallucinations and similar things are the exceptions. It seems absurd to reduce a universal phenomenon like religion and spiritual experience to mere exceptions and deny that there might actually be something real behind them.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Yeah, I was trying to be brief, so I guess I ended up being vague...

I already wrote entire essays on Religion and I honestly don't have the energy to keep repeating myself. Should I really sit here and debate someone's anthropomorphic views of God (I almost lost it there)?

Anyway, it might make more sense to talk about this book instead...

If anyone's read it, let me know which ones... there are a few people sharing their stories at this link.
“WHAT WE BELIEVE, WE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD” – STATEMENTS FROM FAMOUS AMERICAN ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

First impression? These aren't just mindless ramblings.
Even if these 7 or 8 didn't blow my mind with anything groundbreaking, they at least have a personal touch—which is pretty decent, especially considering a book on this topic even exists.

That's a tough one. 🤣

Nicole James said:A naturalist perspective doesn't imply that everything is just pure, unadulterated chaos. There are physical laws in place—matter exists in specific structures governed by those very laws—and then there is our shared perception of those structures, which allows us to evaluate them. I don't need a deity to conclude that the material form allowing me to exist as a human being requires a heart that pumps blood efficiently; I don't need a god to recognize that my existence is a state I prefer over non-existence (whether that preference stems from raw evolutionary instinct or more complex philosophical drives), and therefore, any condition that diminishes my heart's ability to pump blood is objectively undesirable.

People find all sorts of things undesirable, but that doesn't mean illness is just one of those arbitrary preferences.

Nathan Doyle said:🤣 bluepuma9 and Nicole James pretty much covered it all. I mean, obviously... 😁

The thing is, morality doesn't actually come from God, it comes from people. Some folks are convinced it’s divine, but since God is just a human invention too, there's nothing supernatural about morality. It’s just this super natural thing for humans, something that inherently develops when we live together in a community—just a set of values and rules that lets us cooperate and live together somewhat peacefully. It's honestly pretty naive to claim religion is the source of morality when we know it existed thousands of years before any Abrahamic religions even showed up. Your religion is just a result of the morality that was already there being woven into it. It isn't the source.

"Personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles for how I act is my morality. And it's definitely not insignificant to me. Did you ever take sociology in school? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how in the standard definition, God and faith aren't even mentioned.
Just one serious question: didn't you have moral principles back when you were an atheist?
And regarding being bold—you can debate everything—both the subjective and the objective.

I don't really need some grand saga about a fall from grace, hell, or heaven just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly, if living without faith makes your life feel worthless, maybe you should just take a step back and ask yourself what's actually going on... like, try building a real connection with someone or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... those delusions about God being the ultimate purpose probably aren't fooling anyone entirely, because deep down, that underlying unhappiness is still simmering...

And regarding the whole sickness thing—don't even try to pin that on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. The way a living organism functions biologically is totally independent of how humans define right and wrong from a moral standpoint. If you want to debate the actual definition of disease, we should probably move this over to philosophy or the natural sciences...

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans...

Of course it was intended. You've never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is a heavily edited, expensive book and some guys in robes claiming He exists, even though they haven't seen or heard or felt anything either...

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an almighty being, if one actually existed, to just do that one little thing for me? It's a rhetorical question because the hypothetical situation is incredibly asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically can't damage my brain enough to accept the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an almighty being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He would surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have zero intention of basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and repulsive content...

I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.

"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.

If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.

I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?

I am.

Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.

It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.

I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.

Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.

There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.

Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.

Not really. 🤷

Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.

So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?

Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.

Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says:
It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.

Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.

wiredfalcon2 said:The whole thing is, there is no such thing as this "common sense" you keep leaning on. It’s just as common sense to let a guy inside as it is to keep him out. The only logical move is to peek through the window and see if the dude is actually holding an axe or not.

Same deal with the whole seven days of creation thing. There isn't some common sense way to decide if it's an allegory or whatever. All we can do is check if it's actually true—it's not, because the Earth wasn't made in seven days, so what's written in the Bible is just bullshit.

Since there’s no universal common sense, if we're going to play that card, my interpretation of the Bible being a manual for a toaster is just as valid as yours being about soul salvation.

You can't have it both ways. The Bible can't be an allegory and also be literal truth at the same time. And common sense can't be universal if everyone's version is different, which it clearly is.

Look, letting some guy show up at your door in the middle of the night wielding an axe has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Honestly—I don't even know why I bother commenting on this kind of nonsense. You can play dumb until tomorrow for all I care; I really don't give a damn. The thing is, by the day after tomorrow, you’ll probably pick up a book or some piece of writing and finally realize—most of the time—the difference between when a text is being literal and when it's using allegory or metaphor. You won't be hitting yourself in the head with the book like a complete idiot just because you "don't understand" the nuance. I truly have zero desire to go back and forth with someone who lacks even the basic will to have a normal conversation—someone who just types out whatever random garbage pops into their head solely to be contrarian, whether it's because of atheism or whatever else.

Nathan Doyle said:So, if you're really out there claiming that objective morality actually exists, how does that even work in practice... like, what exactly does it cover and where is it all coming from? Is this stuff just etched in stone forever, or is it something that shifts and changes as we go...
I wonder if those kids raised by wolves out in the wild actually possess some kind of objective morality, or if it's all just instinctual survival... it really makes you think about whether right and wrong are hardwired into us from birth or if we have to learn them through society and culture...

I honestly think morality basically started because we just needed a way to make living together less of a headache, you know, like a way for everyone to keep each other in check... When most people actually stick to those social rules—whether they’re written down or just understood by everyone—life gets a lot easier because you finally know what to expect from the people around you and how to act yourself. That’s really the whole deal with morality. As long as a person's own sense of right and wrong doesn't clash too much with the standards of the rest of the community, everything tends to run pretty smoothly and stay in harmony...

My morals don't mean anything? How does that even make sense... If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would've caused so much damage to the people around me and ended up wrecking my own life in the process. But the way things are, I feel good, and I'm actually pretty satisfied with the way I've lived my life and how I'm living it now... It’s not like any of it is worthless...
Am I living some kind of "higher purpose" or whatever? Honestly, I'm just out here living my life. My life *is* my purpose, you know... I try to live it in a way where every single day feels as good as it possibly can, and there's nothing fake about that at all...
Yeah, look, when you start searching for some kind of "meaning" and everything just feels heavy and pointless because you can't find it, you really should consider talking to a professional... I mean, why would you just settle for living life feeling totally drained if there's actual ways to help yourself feel better? It could honestly be anything from a chemical imbalance in your brain to some deep-seated stuff in your subconscious that needs to be dug up and sorted out... Mental health struggles are real, and depression is such a common thing, so there's really no point in acting like it isn't a serious issue...

Honestly, I think concepts like good and evil are just things humans made up to make sense of the world... In reality, there’s really only objective pleasure or benefit versus pain and damage, whether you're looking at the immediate impact or the long-term consequences, in any combination you can imagine. Anything beyond that is just a lie, and no matter how many times people repeat those moral labels, it doesn't actually make them true...

Honestly, that whole dog versus rooster in a ring thing is such a spot-on comparison, I’m actually pretty happy with it... 😁 You believers are all just playing out this imaginary scenario in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and these imaginary rewards and punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were basically designed just to be tested? And then on top of that, you're supposed to love the very thing that created you. It feels just as twisted and tragic as some stray fighting dog loving its owner... but the dog doesn't know any better and doesn't even know how to break free... 😢

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything at all to just hand me a winning hand of cards. If the absolute most an omnipotent being would bother doing for me is give me one silly book and a bunch of narrow-minded people, I'll pass... 😁

It’s pretty much your standard, traditional Christian morality.
Amy Bennett:

Morality basically stems from this fundamental human need to make living in a community a little easier—it’s a way for us to keep one another in check. When most people actually stick to those social rules we've all implicitly or explicitly agreed upon, life becomes predictable; you know what to expect from others and how to carry yourself. That's really the heart of the matter when it comes to morality. As long as an individual's personal code doesn't clash too much with the standards of the community, they’ll generally live in harmony with everyone else.

Alright... so... where do we even begin?
Amy Bennett:

My morals don't mean anything—how can that be? If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would’ve caused a lot more damage to the people around me, and by extension, to myself. But this way, things feel right—I actually feel good about how I’ve lived my life and how I’m living it now. It's not like any of it is worthless.

There’s really no such thing as objective morality. What you have is just a set of personal preferences—which, honestly, are pretty trivial. It’s funny—if you argue that God doesn't exist and that people just made Him up, you can easily flip that logic and apply it to morality, too. And we both know your version of "morality" isn't just about you. Tomorrow, you’ll jump into a thread about abortion and start lecturing about rights or how things *ought* to be, acting like you're discussing some objective truth that's actually up for debate. But it's not. Once you lean into moral relativism, any real moral discourse becomes impossible.

Am I living "my own purpose"? I’m just living my life. My life *is* my purpose—I live it in a way that makes my day-to-day as good as it can be, and there’s nothing dishonest about that.
And yeah, if you’re searching for "meaning" and feeling listless because you can't find it, you should probably seek professional help. Why struggle through being unmotivated when you could get assistance and feel better? It could be a chemical imbalance, or maybe something buried in your subconscious that needs untangling. Mental health issues are real; depression is a common disorder—why pretend otherwise?

But why wouldn't you be listless? There’s really no point in trying to be anything else when everything is ultimately meaningless, including your own existence. Besides, in your worldview, even illness can't truly exist. Illness implies a state where something isn't as it "should" be, but in a mechanical universe without purpose, everything is exactly as it "must" be. This is that recurring issue where the atheistic worldview ends up being totally inverted—it goes completely against our actual experience and how we perceive the world.

Both good and evil are human inventions. Objectively speaking, there is pleasure/benefit and pain/harm—whether short-term or long-term—in varying degrees and combinations. Anything beyond that is just a fiction, and repeating it doesn't make it true.

I was talking about Christianity. But hey, I'm glad we finally cleared the air that good and evil are just fabrications in your view. So, essentially, every moral system you construct is, by definition, just an arbitrary invention of your own—which is exactly what I'm telling you. It doesn't even make sense to call it "morality."

Though, I have to say, that dog or rooster in a ring is a really solid analogy; I’m quite pleased with it. 😁 You believers are basically playing out this imaginary match in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and imaginary rewards or punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were created just to be tested? And then to actually love the one who created you? It feels just as twisted and tragic as a fighting dog being devoted to its owner. But the dog doesn't know any better, and it doesn't know how to break free. 😢

We weren't designed for that.

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything to just deal me a winning hand. If all an all-powerful entity would bother to do is give me one silly book and a bunch of stubborn people, I'll pass. 😁

The further this conversation goes, the less you seem to grasp. Or maybe—and I say this with all due respect—it’s just showing that you don't actually *want* to understand, much like the other guy. Honestly, I don't think I could find a better example of my point than you right now. You're skipping over the core issue because you feel like God isn't going to step in and deal you a winning hand just because you want one. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

Nathan Doyle said:Look, there’s really no such thing as objective morality out there... It’s just something humans cooked up, and it evolves right along with us, shifting not just between different cultures but even from one individual to the next. Even our basic grasp of what's right or wrong changes as we grow and change as people. I mean, even things like the value of a human life or the definition of murder aren't viewed the same way from one era to the next, let alone from one culture to another... To me, seeing a gay couple kissing on a street corner in NYC doesn't bother me at all, though I'm guessing you probably see that as immoral... And abortion doesn't clash with my own sense of morality, whereas you probably equate it directly to murder... Not to mention all those massive gray areas, like killing in self-defense—since the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing doesn't exactly include an "unless it's self-defense" clause—or a starving person stealing food to survive, or the whole trolley problem, or even animal rights... At the end of the day, you get as many different answers to those questions as there are people on this planet...

Most of the time, I just act based on how I actually perceive the world around me. My morality is pretty much my own thing—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, the people I grew up with, empathy, and just using my head... I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to live my life. Honestly, life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why would it even need one? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever actually started messing with my daily routine or making me feel totally paralyzed because I couldn't find a reason to get out of bed, I'd probably just go see a professional and get some help...

I mean, I just don't see the logic in believing that some higher power created me just to put me through this gauntlet, testing me against an evil that was probably cooked up by the same entity just to reward or punish me... It feels like being a pit bull or some fighting rooster bred specifically for the ring. You get a treat if you win the fight, but if you lose, you just get broken and tossed out into the trash... Honestly, what kind of life is that...

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, a lot of us, myself included, are pretty skeptical about the whole thing—then he obviously hasn't delivered on it yet... everything... What would it even take... If he really wanted to prove himself to me, he could just find someone to predict the exact order of a deck of cards I shuffled myself. The odds of getting that right are basically 1 in 52 factorial... and honestly, even though the chance isn't technically zero—you don't need to be all-powerful, just insanely lucky—it would be more than enough for me to start taking everything he says as gospel. I might even throw a curveball and ask him to dye his hair bright green right in front of me, just so I could be absolutely sure... 😁 I mean, sure, I believe in a higher power based on what's in the Bible, but those random violent, misogynistic books that have zero depth and just make no sense at all? No way. I can't even take them seriously...

I'm honestly worried that if things work that way, the crowd in heaven is gonna be pretty small and incredibly boring...😁

Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

wiredfalcon2 said:But there are ten other questions you haven't touched. We aren't even circling them; you're just dodging them entirely. Like that bit about the little house, the woods, and the guy knocking—any sane person would have given an answer to that by now. Just give me something to work with.

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

wiredfalcon2 said:Just because you "had a run-in with some guy on a forum" or "lack the willpower" doesn't mean you actually went out there and proved anything. Your little claim that you've got "reason" and therefore know when something is a bible allegory doesn't answer a single real question. Like, why is something in the Bible an allegory? Why isn't something else? Why was something once seen as literal and now suddenly it's an allegory? Why would God even bother putting allegories in the Bible in the first place, and how does God feel about people who interpret those allegories differently? Of course you don't have answers to that. Honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to give because the Bible is just a deeply contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists. If anything, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original point: why do atheists care about God's judgment? It’s because you guys just refuse to look at the evidence before ignoring it. You skip the hard questions, pretend they don't exist, and then—suddenly—the stuff you can't escape from (the stuff actually written in the Bible) magically becomes an allegory. And when that doesn't work out, you hide behind this esoteric concept of "common sense" that doesn't even exist.

Look, let me show you how common sense actually works. Suppose you and I are living in a cabin in the woods, and at 2 AM, someone starts pounding on our door. Based on the sound, it sounds like an axe hitting wood. Is it common sense to let them into the house, or should we keep the door locked?

Look, I’m not going to go in circles here just because you’re playing dumb. You made a claim, and I refuted it. Yet, you keep spinning the exact same narrative from one post to the next. What do you think I'm doing here—wasting hours trying to convince someone like you? Honestly, what's your deal? I've said all I deem necessary, and if that doesn't sit right with you, well, that's your problem. It doesn't affect me either way. We've already covered the rest of your questions. You are literally just looping through the same point because your main argument relies on that tired atheist myth—the idea that people only start calling things "allegory" once science provides a better explanation.

Nathan Doyle said:It seems like most former atheists who end up finding faith usually went through some kind of serious illness or a massive life crisis right before they converted... Then you've got the other crowd, people who were deep into drugs or getting caught up in crime, so they basically just swapped one extreme lifestyle for another, and now they're acting more devout than the Pope himself. For people who couldn't quite figure out how to handle the weight of life, religion acts like this defensive mechanism, sort of a crutch for their emotions... And then there are those who claim they had some kind of "transcendental" experience—whether that was triggered by substances, a medical seizure, or a near-death experience—which flipped a switch in them, even though doctors can pretty much explain those sensations away quite easily...

Personally, I find my way of looking at things just much simpler and more beautiful, and honestly, everything feels crystal clear this way... Those deep philosophical questions that nobody can actually answer just stay unexplained, and frankly, they don't really affect me as they are. To me, the whole point of life is just actually living it. My conscience is totally clear. You guys can't even skip Sunday service or deal with certain private habits without feeling a massive wave of guilt hitting you. I don't need to go out of my way to act religious just to realize it isn't any better, just like I don't need to put a bullet in my head to know that I wouldn't like it... 😁

So, looking at where we're at now, we all basically know that Earth wasn't actually formed in just seven days, that Eve didn't pop out of Adamov's rib, and that the burning bush probably wasn't literally talking... back in the day, people used to get burned at the stake just for suggesting stuff like that, but now that we actually understand how things work, everyone just pivots and claims those stories were always meant to be allegories and that's what they intended all along. Like, what else are we supposed to pretend they didn't mean? It feels like such a tragedy when you think about all those people who were persecuted or even killed just because they were sticking to scientific facts that contradicted the Bible, and it makes you wonder why a good God would let people suffer like that just because His own book wasn't written clearly enough... He had one job... 😁

I mean, if He’s truly all-knowing, He’d definitely know every single individual soul out there that needs a nudge to accept His existence... So if He’s also all-powerful, proving Himself to everyone one by one shouldn't even be a challenge for Him. If He could show up for "Doubting Thomas," why wouldn't He just show up for every other skeptic out there? Just popping into their room and pulling off a few miracles until they finally get it should be a total breeze for someone like that...
Even a flat-earther would be convinced the Earth is round if you just floated them up in a warm air balloon way past the stratosphere and into space, where they could see the whole thing at once. If some hypothetical omnipotent being actually wanted people to realize the planet is a sphere, it would honestly be in their best interest to just make it happen and convince them...
So what's the deal then with this god you guys believe in? Why does He rely on this one ancient book that fewer and fewer people actually take seriously anymore?...
It’s either because He isn't all-powerful, or He just doesn't care about us. Or, you know, He just isn't there... 😁

Obviously not, that "Catholic" is probably heading straight to hell because it’s hard to imagine someone with such a shallow faith confessing all those sins they were busy committing throughout their life... You spend your whole life overeating and drinking too much at weddings and baptisms and then just forget about it all, boom, you're in the eternal fire. As for a Muslim, I don't know, that's why I'm asking...

So, in your eyes, is the whole point of religion just blind faith, regardless of what exactly you're believing? Like, as long as you act according to whatever you blindly believe, that's enough to stay in God's good graces? Even if you're physically disciplining your wife in accordance with your faith, or looking down on people from other religions?...

I’ve had an experience that was somewhat similar—though, in my case, the struggles didn't really kick in until after I had already convinced myself of God's existence on a purely rational, intellectual level. So, it might not fit perfectly into the standard pattern you're describing here. I'll admit, though, that what you're laying out is definitely a common occurrence. The thing is, that doesn't actually tell us anything about whether the theism held by those converts is actually true. It's easy for me to claim that atheism is just a byproduct of people being angry at God for reasons A, B, or C—or to argue that atheism is merely a way to rationalize lifestyles that don't align with Christian morality. I mean, I could say those things, but they're really just passing observations. They don't work as actual arguments because the logic just doesn't follow. It's a bit like arguing that someone is only Roman Catholic because they were born into a Roman Catholic family in a heavily Catholic country like Italy. Okay, sure—but that still doesn't tell you anything about whether the God those people believe in actually exists.

Personally, I find my way of looking at things much simpler—and honestly, a lot more beautiful—because everything feels crystal clear to me. Those deep philosophical questions we can't quite wrap our heads around? They stay unexplained, and frankly, they don't really affect me. To me, the whole point of life is just... living it. I have a clean conscience. You guys can't even skip Sunday service or indulge in a little private vice without feeling an immediate wave of guilt. I don't need to pretend to be religious to realize it isn't a better way to live—just like I don't need to test out a bullet to the head to know I wouldn't enjoy it. 😁

It’s not exactly crystal clear, though—if you look at things through a purely naturalistic lens, there isn't any inherent meaning to life; everything eventually just boils down to being meaningless. Any sense of purpose we feel is just an illusion of meaning, an illusion of morality, and even the idea that a higher power exists is really just a byproduct of the programming left behind by our evolutionary history. In that sense, there's no reason why you wouldn't turn that same skepticism toward the very beliefs you hold dear. Meaning is just a human invention—a fiction—just as much as God is. That’s why, when I talk to atheists like this, I usually tell them they can apply that same level of scrutiny to the concepts of meaning or morality as they do to the question of God. You can't really look at the existence of God in a vacuum; a lot of these ideas come bundled together. This is why I mentioned in my last post that theism feels much more coherent to me—because atheism seems to be in total opposition to how we actually experience ourselves and the world around us. I mean, even if you argue that objective morality doesn't exist, or that there is no true purpose, your own behavior and your lived experience—your personal reality—will still be largely at odds with that stance.

So, let's look at the facts—we already know that Earth wasn't created in just seven days, that Eve didn't pop out of Adam's rib, and that the burning bush probably wasn't actually talking, right? It’s funny—back in the day, you could get burned at the stake just for suggesting those things, but now that we actually know the truth, everyone suddenly pivots and claims these stories were always meant to be allegories. They claim they never intended them to be taken literally. But what else are we supposed to pretend they didn't mean? It feels like such a tragedy when you think about all the people who were persecuted or even killed—people who were just trying to speak scientific truths that happened to contradict the Bible. If God is as good as we say, why would He allow people to suffer like that just because His own book wasn't written clearly enough? I mean, he had one job... 😁

I feel like I’ve already covered this ground with that other forum member.

I mean, if we’re talking about an omniscient being, He would theoretically know every single individual who needs to believe in Him just to acknowledge His existence. So, if He's also all-powerful—which is the whole premise, right?—then proving Himself to every person one by one shouldn't actually be a challenge. If He could pull that whole "Doubting Thomas" routine and show up to prove a point, why wouldn't He just do that for everyone else? I guess appearing in someone's living room and performing every miracle imaginable until they were finally convinced should be, what, a walk in the park for Him?
Honestly, you could probably convince even the most hardcore flat-earther that the Earth is actually round if you just lifted them up in some kind of warm air balloon—way past the stratosphere and right out into space—where they could finally wrap their eyes around the whole thing at once. If there really were some hypothetical, all-powerful being out there who wanted people to grasp the truth about the shape of our world, wouldn't it be in their best interest to just make it happen and convince us?
So, what exactly is the issue with the God you all believe in? Why pin everything on one primitive book that fewer and fewer people seem to take seriously these days?
Is He not all-powerful, or does He just not care about us? Or—maybe more simply—does He even exist? 😁

Maybe He gave us everything we actually need—it just might be our own fault if we fail to see it. Honestly, I feel like we’ve already lost that battle against temptation.

It’s pretty obvious—that "Catholic" is probably headed straight for hell. It’s hard to imagine someone confessing all those sins they spent their entire life racking up so casually. I mean, if you spend your weekends at weddings and christenings just overindulging on the buffet and the open bar, only to forget about it all by Monday—well, boom, you're stuck in the eternal fire. As for Muslims, I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking.

That’s exactly my point. People tend to take things like this way too literally—as if you just go to confession, recite the required lines, beg for forgiveness, and call it a day. But even if you aren't a believer, you can still see that it shouldn't be that hollow or superficial.

So, are you saying that the whole point of religion boils down to just having blind faith—regardless of what those specific beliefs actually are? Like, as long as you act in accordance with whatever you blindly follow, that’s enough to stay in God's good graces? Even if that "acting in accordance" includes things like physically disciplining your wife because your faith dictates it, or treating people from other religions with total contempt?

I honestly feel like all the major religious traditions out there are legitimate paths leading toward God. Different groups of people have followed their own unique historical journeys—walking through different chapters of time, really—and they carry these distinct collective stories with them. To me, the variety of religions we see across the globe is just a reflection of that, yet they’re all ultimately reaching for that same transcendent truth that serves as the ultimate Source for everyone. Think of it like a single spring that feeds into several different rivers—rivers that branch out, flow separately for a while, but eventually find their way back to merge into one single stream. Personally, I am Roman Catholic and I hold that to be my truth, but that doesn't mean I lack respect for other faiths or assume they don't hold any truth within them. They simply view that truth through their own lens, though our perspectives overlap quite a bit in many ways. Of course, there are some significant differences, too. For instance, Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, whereas we believe he is the Son of God. I suppose one day, those kinds of things will finally be resolved.

wiredfalcon2 said:Nah, because allegory is way more open to interpretation than just plain old facts. Getting an allegory right takes a certain level of intellect and life experience—if you don't have that, you can totally misread things and—boom—there you go, straight to hell. And what happens when you finally show up at Saint Peter's gate and say, "Oops, my bad, I totally misinterpreted the 'thou shalt not kill' part, so I ended up slaughtering 7 million French infants," and you think that's gonna count as a valid excuse to get into heaven?

Sorry, I just don't have the energy for this.

wiredfalcon2 said:Look, if I'm reading a fairy tale, fine, I get it—it's an allegory for something. But if I'm reading instructions on how to avoid ending up in hell, nothing should be an allegory unless it explicitly says so. Believers who claim parts of the Bible are allegories aren't doing it because God told them it was an allegory. They're doing it because real life and science contradict the Bible in a billion different ways, so to make reality and the Bible play nice together, they just label things that clearly aren't true as "allegory." Anyway, you didn't answer a single one of my questions, so here they are again:

Why would God ever tell the world through His followers that He made Earth in 7 days if He didn't? Why say people were living 700-800 years ago if they weren't? Why say a burning bush can talk if it can't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say Earth is at the center of the universe if it isn't?

Why wouldn't the Bible just say Earth isn't the center of the universe, or that it actually took billions of years to form? Would God be any less God if He had taken billions of years to create it?

Maybe the core truth that this allegory is trying to communicate for your salvation is actually more important than listing off dry, technical facts. There's really no point in just going in circles here. I've already explained that people in the Bible didn't just see everything as an allegory simply because science contradicted it. I honestly don't get why we keep recycling this—it feels like we're just repeating the same argument over and over regardless of what I'm saying. It's just not getting us anywhere.

wiredfalcon2 said:So why aren't the parts you think *aren't* allegories also just metaphors? If we're just gonna cherry-pick how we interpret the Bible whenever it suits us, then fine, my interpretation of the whole thing—Old Testament, New Testament, whatever—is that it’s actually just a manual for a toaster. Yeah, there. That’s my take. The Ten Commandments? Just an allegory for how to operate an Iskra toaster, specifically the ZX 277. model. Following your logic, you can't prove me wrong. You can't prove the Bible isn't just a glorified instruction booklet for kitchen appliances.

It’s pretty simple—when you read the text, just like you would any other book besides the Bible, you don't run into these kinds of problems.

^^ Continuing from my previous post—it wouldn't all fit in one...

I totally get why you’d use a tactic like that if you were debating an American fundamentalist, but there are actually plenty of much more sophisticated ways to interpret these texts. You really have to take those into account—especially here in the States, given how deeply rooted our Roman Catholic traditions are. Though, honestly, you should consider them anywhere in America, or really anywhere, unless you're specifically talking to a fundamentalist. But that’s kind of the core issue with this "new atheist" approach to religion. These folks tend to tackle religion using the exact same narrow lens as the fundamentalists themselves—it's pretty much the only trick they have up their sleeves. It becomes painfully obvious the moment they step into a conversation with someone who doesn't view religion through that strictly literal, fundamentalist framework. This sort of intellectual laziness—this hunger to attack the weakest possible target—really defines their entire vibe. For instance, they’ll write these massive books claiming to "debunk" religion and prove that God's existence isn't logical, yet they often seem completely unfamiliar with the classic, long-standing arguments for God's existence. Don't get me wrong, there are better atheists out there—there definitely are—it's just that they usually have a much more nuanced approach than those ridiculing types like Dawkins, Harris, and so on...

Nathan Doyle said:I honestly can't help but wonder if life feels just a little bit lighter and more straightforward for people who don't believe... like, imagine seeing the world without that whole heavy construction of original sin, pure evil, and this endless cycle of reward and punishment hanging over everything... it probably makes everything seem so much simpler and more beautiful...

You didn't even touch on that post I was talking about...
So, here’s the thing I’ve been chewing on... if God actually wants people to know Him and show some respect, why doesn't He just make Himself known to everyone on an individual basis? Like, why would He expect people living in the 21st century to just take these inconsistent, totally unreliable, and honestly pretty primitive ancient texts at face value—especially when they've been edited and tweaked by who-knows-who countless times over the centuries... If He really is all-powerful, it wouldn't cost Him a dime to just prove He exists once and for all. Is the whole point just that we're supposed to respect God and try to be "good" (because, let's be real, everyone would follow His lead if He just made His presence undeniable and clearly laid out the rules)... 🤷...or is he just testing how naive we really are, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it pure stupidity...

Does this whole life thing feel like some kind of competition among you believers to see who can be the biggest fool by just blindly following along...

So, what happens to the Roosters and Asians? Does their Islam, Shintoism, or whatever else they’re into actually count as much as Christianity, or are they just destined to burn in hell because that "almighty" God somehow missed them... maybe He just didn't realize how many billions of people ended up on the other side of the world...

I can—I was an atheist for most of my life. But honestly, it isn't simpler or more beautiful. There’s just no sense to it, and it actually feels completely at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world we live in.

You didn't comment on the post I was actually referring to.
The question was: if God wants people to know Him and respect Him, why doesn't He just prove Himself to everyone individually? Why would He expect people in the 21st century to rely on inconsistent, unreliable, and primitive records from centuries ago that have been edited countless times by who-knows-who? If He is all-powerful, it wouldn't cost Him anything to prove His existence. Is the point that we should respect God and be "good" (because, let's be real, everyone would listen if He made His presence unambiguous and clearly dictated the rules 🤷) or is it that He's testing our naivety—or should I say, our stupidity?

How could He have expected any different from people before the 21st century? Are we somehow special, requiring something extra to convince us, as if we possess something they didn't?

And I don't buy the idea that everyone would fall in line if He just showed up. The entire Bible actually tells stories to the contrary. It feels a little silly to look at these things totally out of context, and then make these claims in the same conversation where we mention the Fall—which happened precisely because people ignored what God told them. On the other hand, I'm not even sure what would satisfy many people's need for proof of God's existence. I mean, even if all the stars in the sky rearranged themselves tomorrow to spell out "I am the Lord your God...", the question is how many atheists would actually be convinced. Some might, sure, but let's not kid ourselves—there's a whole drawer full of "secular explanations" for a phenomenon like that, ranging from mass hallucinations or some magician's trick to aliens messing with us, plus the whole spectrum of other possibilities. Also, it isn't clear that God "wants" rules to be followed blindly; if He did, He wouldn't have created us with free will (regardless of whether you personally believe in free will, I'm speaking within the context of the Christian narrative). The point is about living a moral life because it *is* a moral life, not just because some rules dictate it. It's about a genuine desire to return to God and align one's life with Him. Maybe those who truly seek find exactly what they are looking for. Perhaps God is always there, but we've closed ourselves off. Maybe we don't see Him because we've become too alienated, even from ourselves. The problem with the atheistic approach is that it searches for God with a magnifying glass, looking for spectacular material evidence. If you're going to look for God, the only "laboratory" that works is the one inside your own mind.
Quote:>

Yeah, and what about Arabs and Asians? Does their Islam, Shintoism, or whatever else they follow hold the same weight as Christianity—or are they destined for hell because that "almighty" God somehow missed the memo about how many billions of people have multiplied on this side of the globe? Maybe He just overlooked them.

I don't think everyone is just headed for hell. I think we really need to unpack what "believing" actually means here. Does someone who is Roman Catholic only on paper believe any more than someone who truly lives and practices Islam? Does a person truly believe if their faith is reduced to nothing more than a verbal profession? Does a person feel genuine remorse when they say they repent, or is it just a hollow word? Or is true repentance something much deeper and different? There’s no denying that massive religious traditions exist worldwide—and I’m certainly not going to tell you they are all identical—but I do believe these traditions generally point in a similar direction. This brings to mind a quote that has always resonated with me:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

It isn't hard to imagine that several different paths might lead to the summit of that mountain.

wiredfalcon2 says:
This is exactly my point—you believers take what science has proven to be baseless nonsense and turn it into an allegorical story just so you can say, "Oh, nobody actually believes that literally." Five hundred years ago, you would have been burned at the stake for suggesting the Earth wasn't made in seven days, and no one would be spinning tales about it being an "allegorical version." If God wrote the Bible through His followers—which is what faith tells us—then either everything in it is literal truth, or God doesn't exist. You can't just pick and choose which parts are allegory and which aren't based on whatever suits the current generation of believers. Why would God ever tell the world He created the Earth in seven days if He didn't? Why say people lived 700–800 years ago if they didn't? Why say a burning bush can speak if it can't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say the Earth is the center of the universe if it isn't? Etc., etc...

See, that's the kind of "pure logic" you guys refuse to accept. And since you won't engage with it, we end up having these discussions centered on value judgments just to try and bring you closer to understanding the depth of your own misconception.

Who says an allegory isn't truthful? If I recall correctly, I even mentioned that calling something an allegory doesn't make it untrue. And how do you distinguish between allegory and literalism? Well, you read the text with understanding. I don't see people struggling this much to differentiate between literal and allegorical elements in almost any other type of literature. As for the idea that it’s "all or nothing"—either everything is literal truth or God doesn't exist—that’s hardly worth debating. Even if the entire Bible were just something humans dreamt up, that wouldn't mean God doesn't exist. I've said this before, and I honestly don't get why it keeps coming up. Finally, addressing the core of your argument: it simply isn't true that people only started calling these things "allegory" after science "discovered" the reality of things. People have debated these concepts forever. Regarding the seven-day creation specifically, a quick Google search or checking the first result on Wikipedia would show you that->https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allego...ons_of_Genesis

The opening chapter of Genesis tells a Story of God's creation of The Universe and humankind as being accomplished over The course of six successive Days. Some Christian and Jewish schools of thought ( such as Christian Fundamentalism) interpret these passages quite literally—basically believing each "day" lasted a full 24 hours. Others (like Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestant denominations) tend to view the narrative more allegorically—arguing that the core purpose is to explore the bond between humanity, the creation, and the Creator, rather than providing a literal historical timeline. To them, those six days might just represent vast stretches of time.

Genesis 2 Records a second account of creation. By chapter 3, we meet a talking serpent, which Christians understand to be Satan in disguise. It’s interesting to note that this kind of symbolism is embraced even by Christians Who believe The Story as a whole is based on an actual historical event . [ citation needed ] Many Christians in Ancient Times regarded the early chapters of Genesis to be true as both history and allegory.[1]

Other Jews and Christians have Long considered The creation account of Genesis as an allegory even prior to The development of modern science and The scientific account based on The scientific Method. For instance, we could look at two notable examples ara Christian theologian Augustin of Hippo Who in The 4 th century argued—for purely theological reasons—that God actually brought the entire universe into existence all at once, rather than following the literal six-day sequence;[2] or even the 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who suggested it would be a mistake to pin creation down to six days or any specific timeframe at all.[3]

Of course, this brings up some deeper questions about what an allegory actually is—questions that, honestly, I think both of us struggle with. You seem to feel that calling something an allegory makes it a fiction, whereas I’ve always felt that allegory and truth don't have to be at odds. There are also questions regarding history itself; personally, I believe these narratives shape our very history, but I don't necessarily mean the world was built in seven literal 24-hour days. It’s more about how these stories use symbolism to capture the essence of what actually took place.

placidcrane66 said:As long as you think you do.

Huh? So God is good simply because God God? Brilliant argumentation.

I'm waiting for you to explain the logic behind that. If your "intuition" is just projecting things you don't understand onto a higher power, then sure, I agree.

Some might not be at that level, while others certainly are. First you whine that we lack arguments, then you back it up with a heavy dose of nonsense you can't even defend.

Of course I do. Primarily, I have an intuition telling me that God exists, I have my own personal experiences, and—of course—I have the arguments that various theologians and philosophers have used throughout history.

Huh? So God is good simply because God is God? That's some top-tier argumentation right there.

Yes. God is Good.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the logic behind that. If human intuition just means attributing things we don't understand to a higher power, then sure, I agree with you there.

Human intuition suggests a higher power exists regardless of whether people can actually explain or comprehend it. On the other hand, the logic is straightforward: God is the transcendent source and the foundation of everything else that exists; without Him, nothing else could even be.

Maybe some people aren't at that level, while others definitely are. First, you complain that we lack any arguments, and then you back it up with a heavy dose of nebulous ideas that you can't even defend.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It should be obvious that people here don't believe God created the world in seven literal human days. These are allegorical accounts—which doesn't mean they aren't true—that use symbolism and similar devices to give people insight into the essence of things.

Nathan Doyle said:It's not really hard for me to wrap my head around since God isn't even real...
But it honestly just doesn't sit right that some perfectly good God would allow evil to exist in the first place. You believers always seem to twist the definition of perfection or infinity just to fit whatever narrative you need at the moment...

Maybe you could take a look at this post too?

FTFY.

Well, in the beginning, there was no evil. Evil entered the world through the Fall. You could think of it as the world being knocked off its axis. The goal now is for the world to return to God—it's the process that humanity and the world have to go through. That's how the whole cosmic story begins, and it ends with Judgment Day and the restoration, where the world finally returns to harmony.

Maybe you could also comment on this post?

Well, I'm just commenting on that specific post—if I've got the right one.

wiredfalcon2 said:Once they realize they can't actually prove God doesn't exist, the strategy shifts. They start painting God as some kind of monster just to try and convince believers that their whole faith is total bullshit. If you people would just admit there's zero logic behind it and accept that God isn't real, we wouldn't have to waste our time arguing over whether your deity is evil or not.

Look, if you believers were actually capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" angle;

- God made the Earth in seven days.
- Nope, and we’ve got the data to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Yeah, here it is.
- Okay, fine, you're right. The Earth is billions of years old and everything in the Bible is nonsense. You win, God isn't real, my bad.

The thing is, atheists don't actually have a single serious argument—it’s all just circular reasoning and beating a dead horse.

then they pivot to painting God as evil, just hoping believers might realize their faith is total nonsense.

Besides, God isn't "evil"—because if He were, He wouldn't be God. I think the real issue here is that you don't quite grasp what the concept of God actually represents.

If you believers would just accept that there's no logic behind God's existence, we wouldn't have to waste our time debating His moral character.

It's not just logical; it's actually pretty intuitive.

Look, if you believers were capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" argument;

- God created the Earth in seven days.
- No, He didn't, and we have the evidence to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Sure, here it is.
- Okay, you win, the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible is just nonsense. You're right, God doesn't exist, silly me.

Man, sorry that we aren't at an elementary school level so we can actually hold a dialogue. Feel free to head off to some far-flung corners of the USA or similar places to argue with creationists; those Dawkins-style jabs don't fly here because most people don't even buy into them anyway. Not to mention, your little caricature of a "smart" debate doesn't actually prove God doesn't exist. But hey, let's just attribute that to that legendary atheist capacity for logic.

Honestly, I feel a bit bad for starting this thread now that I'm scrolling through and seeing what everyone is posting. I jumped in on a whim and left one post, but looking at this, it feels like there's really not much point in saying anything here.

Nathan Doyle said:I actually ran into a believer once who was preaching "logic first and foremost"...

Is your version of logic just deciding it pays to believe just in case, since you've got nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain?😁 Like some kind of cosmic insurance policy or something like that...

If evil exists—if we go by the believer's own definition—then God either can't get rid of it, which means He isn't all-powerful, or He just doesn't care about us, which means He isn't "infinitely good"...

But hey, maybe you actually think He isn't "infinitely good," just all-powerful...

If you believe He's all-powerful and that it's important to Him that every single person knows He exists, then why hasn't He just shown Himself? Why would He wait (according to the believers) 2000 years and let us live through all this doubt and be split up by a million different religions without anyone ever seeing or hearing Him? Why would His only trace be these ancient texts from centuries ago, constantly being edited and interpreted in a thousand different ways, and why would He bother delegating messages to prophets and apostles instead of just doing it Himself? I mean, wouldn't an all-powerful being be too smart to think that some half-assed attempt from 2000 years ago would actually work on people living in the 21st century? How much would it even cost an all-powerful being to just prove Himself to every one of us individually?...

Since an all-powerful being, by definition, wouldn't cost Him anything, we're left thinking that either He isn't all-powerful because He can't show Himself, or He just doesn't care if people know Him because He doesn't want to show Himself...

Either way, why would anyone bother believing in a "God" who is basically:
- not all-powerful
- not good
- doesn't want people to know He exists?

Honestly, what's the difference between a God like that and no God at all?...

I see this specific argument being recycled constantly on this forum and pretty much everywhere else online. The real issue is that it’s built on some pretty shaky, hidden premises—because just because someone is omnipotent and perfectly good, it doesn't logically follow that God "ought" to just snap His fingers and "delete all evil from the world." That’s more of a specific atheist viewpoint, really, but those perspectives don't set the universal standard for what "good" actually means or how things should work. Besides, within the framework of religious belief, everything is explained through the Fall and the eventual return to God, where He acts as the final judge at the end of the cycle. So, it’s not a matter of Him being unable to act or simply not caring—it's just that we have our own part to play in all of this, no matter how hard that might be for atheists to swallow.

Richard Sanders7 said:Lucy, who actually has a point here? ☕

Jagodar.

5 kuna.

I guess I won't be able to step away from the bar. 😳