Peak christcope.

>>17863470 (OP)
That pic is supposed to make you think atheists are gay. It is correct because you are.

>>17863470 (OP)
>Heh, silly little christcucks
>Heh, silly little atheists
>Heh, silly little muzzies
>Heh, silly little kikes
>Heh, silly little vishnuniggers
>Heh, silly little paganfags
idk, did I miss anyone?

>>17863470 (OP)
Is this like one of those stonetoss comics where you have to find the amongus?

>>17863470 (OP)
Based comic. Goodness, truth and beauty go hand in hand.

>>17863479
I've never met an atheist who wasn't either a manchild or a tranny

>bro look at the trees and sunrise
And they literally think this is a good argument.

>>17863638
It is. Every single civillization understood the argument, too. Why can't you?

I don't feel particularly fazed or impressed by nature. I mean, I live in sparsely populated area and it is pretty and all, but I see it every day.

>>17863642
Those things came to be by random chance. We have models explaining them, they are fully understood phenomena.

>>17863642
Stating that it is doesn't make it one.
>Lots of people believed the argument
That's also not a good argument.

>>17863650
You and whoever else is with you should publish more. As far as contemporary models go, random chance is a premise, not a conclusion and the related models are far from "fully understood", in fact one of the hottest expectations laid upon contemporary scientists is to produce a unification theory that would join various aspects of physical randomness to other things we know.

But besides that, my point was that you don't understand the argument the comic puts forth. Can you please re-iterate what you think the argument is?

>>17863661
I didn't aim to "make it one" so I'm fine with the statement.
>>believed the argument
Check again.

>Make a bad argument
>It gets called out
>Claim it wasn't understood
Standard day with apologists.

>>17863678
you literally misquoted me lmao

>>17863664
The argument is
>brooo it's so crazy that we exist and shit nature is so beautiful praise be to god for creating us *hits blunt*

>>17863678
>I didn't intend to make it one
I'm aware
>Check again
What relevance is your statement that civilizations understood the argument unless you're implying they also believed it? It isn't a good argument either way.

>>17863688
Oops, meant for >>17863667

>>17863687
Okay, and so in your opinion the majority of civillizations on Earth collectively thought exactly that during most of their existence. They took a break from developing algebra and geometry and went "We exist and shit nature is so beautiful praise be to god".

>>17863685
I was implying implications, sometimes ">" isn't meant to be a literal quote.

>>17863470 (OP)
Praise the king of glory. He is holy and perfect. All who see him fall in love with him and are in absolute are of him in trembling fear and admiration. He will bring justice to the nations.

>>17863688
>>I didn't intend to make it one
>I'm aware
So why did you point out that my assertion doesn't achieve something it was never meant to achieve?
>What relevance is your statement that civilizations understood the argument unless you're implying they also believed it?
You're asking me what relevance is the fact that an argument was universally undestood that most atheists can't seem to grasp?
>It isn't a good argument either way.
You seem to have a habit of saying that before you even establish what is being argued haha.

>>17863698
Even if it was a "figurative" quote, you were dead wrong. Take the L and move on with the discussion.

>>17863696
Humans have an inherent desire to know. Admitting you don't as a ruler or respected figure in a community can be very damming. It means people have to live in uncertainty. This is the gap that religion fills and why it continues to rear its ugly head everywhere humans go

>>17863703
>why did you point out...?
Because since this is a discussion board, I want to encourage you to back up your assertions rather than just merely asserting them.
>You're asking me what relevance is the fact that an argument was universally undestood that most atheists can't seem to grasp?
No I'm asking what I asked: why you bring up that people understood it if you're not also implying they also believed it.
>you were dead wrong
So clarify for us. Are you saying "every civilization" merely understood the argument without believing it?
>take the L
Totally not manchild behavior right here. I don't care about "winning" over you whatever that would mean.

>>17863718
From this hypothesis two predictions could be made:
1) Kings would inform priests rather than seek their counsel
2) The most successful religions would explain the most natural phenomena
Both of these are exactly wrong. And it's one of the reasons why academic scholarship has moved on from this theory around the end od the 19th century. Whatever religion is, it's not primarily an explanation mechanism. If it were, "We exist and shit nature is so beautiful praise be to god" would have no place there either way.

>>17863727
>I want to encourage you to back up your assertions
Asserting this doesn't cure leprosy. I know your assertion was never meant to do that, but this is a discussion board.
>>You're asking me what relevance is the fact that an argument was universally undestood that most atheists can't seem to grasp?
>No I'm asking what I asked: why you bring up that people understood it if you're not also implying they also believed it.
My answer was in the question. Contrasting the fact most civillizations understood the argument and y'all mostly have no idea what it is about.

>>17863727
>So clarify for us
Oof not the insecure plural.

>>17863746
>Asserting this doesn't cure leprosy. I know your assertion was never meant to do that, but this is a discussion board.
Would be a halfway decent analogy if explaining why your arguments are good wasn't in fact encouraged on discussion boards.
>y'all mostly have no idea what it is about.
We do, at least the popular forms of the argument. If you have a variation in mind, you will have to clarify for us.

>>17863752
Okay clarify for me.

>>17863763
>explaining why your arguments are good
First understand my argument, then I'll defend it, deal?
>We do
I will be unironically glad to hear it, because the only other person in this thread that had tried seems to not have been exactly clear on what this religious argument is or what religions are at all.

>>17863746
It is both a mechanism of explanation and a tool for political power. Put simply there is much to gain by claiming to know and much to lose by claiming not to know.

>>17863775
Okay, please state your argument and we'll see if I understand it. After that, please defend it.

>>17863784
>It is both a mechanism of explanation and a tool for political power
From this hypothesis two predictions could be made:
1) (Unchanged) Kings would inform priests rather than seek their counsel
2) The most successful religions would explain the most natural phenomena or offer the most power
Both of these are exactly wrong.

>>17863790
I did. But to really summarize it for you and whoever else is with you:
Argument: An average atheist rejects the argument from the comic without understanding it.
Defense: We have seen it in this thread.
Challenge: Articulate the comic argument without googling or a LLM.

>>17863803
Manchild behavior as predicted.

>>17863811
Huh? I literally indulged your request as clearly as humanly possible.

>>17863642
>Why can't you?
Because nobody has explianed the argument to me
Is it:
>sun = God (singular)
?

>>17863819
If you genuinely misunderstood me, please state the argument in the comic, or what your interpretation of the argument in the comic is, to clarify what you think so many are misunderstanding. Then defend that.

>>17863803
>1) (Unchanged) Kings would inform priests rather than seek their counsel
This is wrong. Political power dominates religious power, which throughout history has constantly had to accomodate for it wherever necessary. See the prevalence of caesaropapism or for a more recent example the attitudes of the Orthodox church of Russia and that of Ukraine.
>The most successful religions would explain the most natural phenomena or offer the most power
This is quite literally the case.

>>17863824
My argument is precisely that you guys don't understand the comic argument. Why would I explain the comichere and make my own argument completely moot?
If refusing to argue for things I never asserted is manchild behavior, I suppose I am guilty.

>>17863826
>Political power dominates religious power
Yes that is exactly why the prediction made by your theory is wrong.
>>The most successful religions would explain the most natural phenomena or offer the most power
>This is quite literally the case.
Christianity explains about 4 things:
1) in what order stuff appeared
2) a different order in which stuff appeared
3) what do rainbows mean
4) why childbirth hurts
You think this is "the most" natural phenomena explained by a religion?
Or perhaps you think the religion that experienced its biggest growth during persecutions and powerlessness is one that offers the most power?

>>17863822
No, that's sadly not it.

>>17863847
>>Political power dominates religious power
>Yes that is exactly why the prediction made by your theory is wrong.
Kings rule by the grace of God.

>Christianity explains about 4 things
Christianity explains everything. Believing in an all-powerful, just and moral God can for a man put all of life's problems and uncertainties far away.

>>17863470 (OP)
The existence of a creator (which I will take as an axiom) doesnt vindicate any earthly religion/theology/theogony/ethic system in and of itself.

>>17863861
>Kings rule by the grace of God.
Most things happen by the grace of God. That's not a prediction even remotely specific to your theory.
>Christianity explains everything.
>put all of life's problems and uncertainties far away.
Have you read Job? Where God shows that he will not explain even some of the most dire things?
Have you read the epistles? Where the believers are ridden with uncertainty?
It's sort of a romantic "ahh opium of the masses or something" way to look at things, but in reality it doesn't exactly work that way. A farmer in Buttcrack, Utah might say it was the will of God that his goat has died, but this is not actually an explanation. It's not a certainty. It's not a removal of the problem.

I don't blame you for viewing religion the way you do. To a materialistic mind most things will be either about power or about knowledge. You rarely encounter anything else in today's world - political ideologies and "I hecking love science!" podcasts, that's the zeitgeist dichotomy for social institutions. But again, this scholarly approach to religion was tried and it failed. And you're seeing now exactly why. Because it's not the most explanation-potent religions or the most power-hungry religions going to the top (although Islam is trying). It's ones that address comepletely different needs.

>>17863891
>It's ones that address comepletely different needs.
Such as? You attack my position but what do you actually think they're about?

>>17863899
Such as existential needs or more globally "spiritual" needs, here meaning transforming one's relationship with the world and with their own life. Religions virtually always offer psychotechnology that helps the believer better grasp and control their own agency in the world or at the very least frame it in a way that makes it intelligible - like mythology. I cannot say that this is the contemporary consensus, because the interest in clarifying what religions themselves are seems to have dialed down quite a bit, at least to me, but from cognitive and anthropological perspective religions aim at these needs more than at explanations. You can see this in real life when people use "God did it" and dont' actually mean the god of the gaps fallacy.
>>Why did my car break down?
>God did it.
>>Well no we found out it was a broken differential.
>Might be God still did it.
The explanation and "God did it" are almost completely independent statements. The purpose of the latter is to frame it as something humans can intelligibly interact with, by their own agency, instead of merely stating that events happen and responses follow.

corr >>17863917
>Might be! God still did it.

broke: life is a creation from God and is evidence of a creators existence
woke: life doesn't necessitate a creator god
bespoke: life is a bloody hellscape anyone who would create such a thing isn't worth worshipping

>>17863917
>that helps the believer better grasp and control their own agency in the world or frame it in a way that makes it intelligible
I agree with this. The need for answers is a part of this process.

>>17863936
Answers? Yes. Just not explanations.

>>17863945
Just the notion that all of existence is the manifestation of one God that cares for and looks out for you is enough to make existence make sense. There is no need for didactic explanation of every natural phenomena. God itself is the explanation.

>>17863482
>he hasn't developed his own homebrew theology yet
Ngmi

>>17863847
>No, that's sadly not it
THEN WHAT IS IT?

>>17863470 (OP)
>thing that would have happened anyway should be considered a sign
This is an undefensible argument. I get that they're going for "the majesty of creation is proof of god", but as an argument it just doesn't work.