Thread 18145854

God doesn't exist.

This is not the creation of an intelligent all-loving God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

>B-b-but that's the way God chose to do it!

No, it's cruel and contradicts everything in Genesis, it doesn't even align with a metaphor version.

The Christian God doesn't exist but some other God might

>>18145854 (OP)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

>>18145854 (OP)
>christianity is when you choose not to discern any distinction between the light of God and the dark which ever seek to destroy the light

>>18145861
Even then, what a shit creation, more like random chance over million of years without any guidance or design. What kind of god is that?

>>18145862
>>18145863
Evolution proves the Christian god is false

>>18145866
A God who doesn't care about consistency and is capable of making mistakes

>>18145870
No, it doesn't.

>>18145854 (OP)
Why even argue about that though? The only places where there are any Christians left are Africa and the Americas, both third world dysfunctional shitholes. Why even bother convincing them in anything?

>>18145876
Yes it does. The Bible says death didn't enter the world until Adam and Eve ate the fruit, but Evolution requires millions of years and millions of deaths of hominids. So death already existed, nothing has ever changed, the world has always been "fallen" from the beginning. There was never any God or Garden of Eden.

>>18145874
Evolution doesn't even require a god to work

>>18145908
>The Bible says death didn't enter the world until Adam and Eve ate the fruit,
Where does it say that?

>>18145922
Romans 5:12
Death in Adam, Life in Christ
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

>>18145854 (OP)
Evolution aligns perfectly with various religious conceptions of creation.

Apes evolved towards the form of man. Ergo, man existed ontologically prior to apes.

We are not apes because apes don't possess souls, consciousness or intellect. Man is a defined, singular entity who came into existence at a specific point when the material embodied form had evolved to a satisfactory point so as to host sapience. "Our ancestors", properly speaking, were the disembodied souls that existed before we were embodied souls, not apes.

>>18145861
Evolution is fake

>>18145980
It's talking about spiritual death, not literal death. Do you think the lions and wolves ate lettuce?

>>18145876
At the very beginning of the Bible, it says God created man, so yeah, evolution does in fact prove the entire religion false right from the get-go.

>>18145854 (OP)
>evolution
Oops. God DOES exist. Maybe you should have thought about that before deciding to become an assmonkey. Have fun burning!

>>18146207
Souls don't exist, you have no proof

>>18146221
It doesn't say spiritual death anywhere

Cope harder, you lost

>>18145854 (OP)
Stupid bot. Be more funny

>>18146259
Evolution is a proven fact, your shitty facebook image means absolutely nothing. Have fun working at Taco Bell!

>>18146207
One of the most retarded, nonsensical copes I've ever read, well done.

>>18145889
>typed Sven, with an Algerian's dick up his ass

>>18146279
>Evolution is a proven fact,
Evolution is mathematically impossible given the age of the earth that you fags made up. Therefore, it couldn't have happened. Therefore, it didn't happen. God hates you. Enjoy burning.

>>18146291
You never graduated high school. Evolution is a fact, it's taught in schools, Jesus is not allowed, the Bible is banned, you lost.

>>18146301
Tick tock. :)

>>18146311
2,000 more years, trust the plan

>>18146317
>2,000 more years
Hopefully!

>>18146317
>>18146318
this argument is a complete waste of electricity

>>18146290
At first, migrants live in ghettoes in Europe, and unlike your niggers they're actually kept in check so Sweden still has crime rate more than ten times lower than your shithole. At second, the US racial census counts Algerians, Somalis, Jews, Syrians, Armenians, gypsies etc. etc. as "White" so you must be a leftist kike trying to D&C the glorious White master race.

>>18146273
eventually there comes a point where you need charity to interpret. its obviously talking about death in the rational divine man.

>>18146557
Adam never existed

>>18146575
Your father wasn't a fish.

>>18146575
k

>>18146221
>but according to MY interpretation, it means something completely different
My interpretation of John 3:16 is that the bible is wrong, and you have to treat that like it's valid now

>>18146207
>We are not apes because apes don't possess souls
fake and gay, homo sapiens belongs to the great ape family

Why are Jews so spiteful and disingenuous?
They shit on Christianity all day long but the moment you point any of their critiques at the Jewish faith, even the "secular" ones start screeching.

>>18146268
>>18146280
This is extremely rudimentary metaphysics. Are you not embarrassed?

>>18146762
The material embodied form evolved from apes. Human beings, as sapient life with advanced consciousness (what may be termed "souls"), are not merely our material form, but also something higher.

The traditional understanding of the human entity in practically all religious metaphysical frameworks has been as a bridge between the material and the immaterial realms. We therefore have both a material form (the embodied biological human creature of organs, senses, etc) that evolved from apes, but also a fundamentally higher, immaterial "being" that is not subject to the material and from which our intellect, discernment, reason and morality derives from. It is from this second "being" that we derive our human/sapient qualities, not apes.

>>18146978
>as sapient life with advanced consciousness (what may be termed "souls")

No, you have no proof

>>18146978
If I smack you in the head with a hammer and damage your brain, your "soul" magically disappears and you become a drooling, diaper-shitting retard that's dumber than a chimp. I hope this simple scenario helps you understand, since I know you aren't cracking open any neuroscience books anytime soon.

>>18145854 (OP)
>well you see
>*pulls notes from inside his own asshole*
>homo neanderthalensis was a sinner
>"oof that was a close one"

>>18147100
We don't deal in empirical proof for things that are non-empirical in nature.

>>18147107
>If I smack you in the head with a hammer and damage your brain, your "soul" magically disappears and you become a drooling, diaper-shitting retard that's dumber than a chimp.
The brain is the interfacing tool, the medium, through which we are able to access higher planes of knowledge. If damaged, then obviously higher functioning - and, in turn, the soul's ability to interface with the corporeal form - will be impaired. This is a weakness inherent to material existence.

>>18147150
>We don't deal in empirical proof for things that are non-empirical in nature.
So in other words you can just make up whatever you please and we're supposed to take your word for it?

>>18147150
>The brain is the interfacing tool, the medium, through which we are able to access higher planes of knowledge. If damaged, then obviously higher functioning - and, in turn, the soul's ability to interface with the corporeal form - will be impaired. This is a weakness inherent to material existence.
And what exactly is your reasoning for believing this?

>>18147210
>So in other words you can just make up whatever you please and we're supposed to take your word for it?
The investigation of the non-empirical is ultimately what philosophy, theology and religion revolve around. The pursuit of wisdom. Through cultivating our higher being, the non-empirical becomes evident to us. This is how we discern and perceive morality, truth, justice, etc. Law, for instance, is the legislation of morality. If there were no morality, there would be no law. We rely on higher wisdom all the time, you've just been to immersed in materialist dogma to see it.

>And what exactly is your reasoning for believing this?
The brain evidently has some relationship to how we as embodied beings interface with higher reality and vice versa.

>>18147238
So in other words, you're making everything up and we can safely ignore it.

>The brain evidently has some relationship to how we as embodied beings interface with higher reality and vice versa.

Yes, the brain is you. When your brain is damaged, who you are is damaged. When the brain ceases to function entirely, you cease to function. There is no evidence for any "soul" nor is there anything unique about humans compared to other animals except for having more complex brains - which, again, when dysfunctional or damaged, can place us lower than animals. If I smack your head with a hammer, you will become more retarded than a chimp. The concept of a "soul" doesn't factor in whatsoever and is something humans made up to feel somehow superior to other life.

>>18147352
>So in other words, you're making everything up and we can safely ignore it.
Philosophy is the oldest intellectual discipline. If you want to dismiss literally tens of thousands of years of investigation into this field because it threatens your materialist bigotry then you're closing yourself off to a wealth of knowledge. But I suppose that's your call to make.

>Yes, the brain is you. When your brain is damaged, who you are is damaged. When the brain ceases to function entirely, you cease to function. There is no evidence for any "soul" nor is there anything unique about humans compared to other animals except for having more complex brains - which, again, when dysfunctional or damaged, can place us lower than animals. If I smack your head with a hammer, you will become more retarded than a chimp. The concept of a "soul" doesn't factor in whatsoever and is something humans made up to feel somehow superior to other life.
Once again, if this is how you've decided to make sense of the world according to your materialist dogma, that's on you. But you should know this view is essentially a relic of 19th century materialism largely rejected by today's scientific pioneers of physics and consciousness. You're a bigoted old reactionary thrashing about in rage because the dogma you've internalised is under threat. It's understandable reaction, in a way, so I don't exactly blame you, but it's unfortunate to see nevertheless. Wisdom, not the dogmas that make you feel safe, should be your guide.

I will read the Holy Bible today.

>>18145854 (OP)
>9/12 niggers are homo
wtf

>>18145854 (OP)
Why does every one , including neanderthalis but mostly sapiens and except erectus , look like a nigger ?
Also, christcucks are retarded and obviously that's not the true god, if you want one

>>18145854 (OP)
>contradicts everything in Genesis, it doesn't even align with a metaphor version.
Gradual development of life from general lifeless forms to actual humans aligns with the "metaphor" exactly.

>>18147382
It must be crazy living inside your head. I'm so glad I ended up not being schizophrenic.

>>18147426
He's right. Reductionism is a cope and there is no shortage of academic sources (including biologists and neurologists) who express the same sentiment.

>>18147382
Anon, ancients could be forgiven for constructing the theories they had because they didn't know what we know. There is no excuse for continuing to believe in this kind of retardation in the modern day. You sound like a dipshit retarded faggot.

>>18145854 (OP)
>implying your finite, temporal monkey-brain can comprehend the motives or methods of a transcendent, timeless Creator

The Fall introduced suffering and death into creation, it wasn't the original design. You're judging the blueprint by looking at the wreckage.

> muh cruel
According to whom? Your subjective, evolved meat-feelings? That's just the universe you find yourself in. Doesn't prove a thing about its origin.

> contradicts everything in Genesis
Genesis is theological, not a science textbook. It's about who and why, not how. Getting hung up on literal vs. metaphorical is a category error.

>>18147437
He (You) cherrypicking a few fellow schizos out of the overwhelming mass of neurologists and academics who don't believe in it because it isn't provable doesn't mean it's an outdated concept. In fact, it is currently the mainstream consensus by overwhelming majority. Even the majority of modern-day philosophers, who are dedicated to the metaphysical, believe in materialism. So when I read your tripe accusing me of being le bigoted outdated chudcel, I just have to laugh. It's so far beyond the pale of sensibility it seems like you're playing a character, but I do in fact believe you are not trolling and are just that stupid.

>>18147466
>it isn't provable
What exactly "isn't provable"? That reductionism is incomplete? We have proved it many times over, often on the very triumphs that reductionists scream from the rooftops. Dawkins' heuristic of a "selfish gene" is one of the most famous reductionist cases in the world, proposing that our mechanisms are reducible to survival goals (for the lack of a better term) of the individual genes. Yet this heuristic works equally well the exact other way around, where genes are the prisoners of the organism, who decides which ones to utilize, activate or even re-structure based on his needs, something the "selfish gene" interpretation doesn't actually account for unless you stretch the idea of "selfish" to the most absurd limits. And the funny thing is, Dawkins is not apriori opposed to this, as Stephen Jay Gould points out.
>[materialism?] is currently the mainstream consensus by overwhelming majority
As opposed to idealism and dualism? Perhaps. That means very little, especially seeing that physicists who are the most qualified to define what "material" actually is, are the least confident in their answers.
>when I read your tripe accusing me of being le bigoted outdated chudcel
Take it easy. We're discussing philosophy on an anonymous image board. The stakes could not be lower.

>>18146978
>all that gay wrong shit
Wrong. We did not evolve from apes, we evolved with them because we are them. The only thing that separates us from other animals is our intellect, and anything you perceive as making us different from other apes is a matter of how much of our brainpower is able to be dedicated to things that are not directly related to immediate survival.

>>18147440
>it wasn't the original design
Did God know it would happen?

>>18148308
>The only thing that separates us from other animals is our intellect
Wrong, even by materialist metrics.

>and anything you perceive as making us different from other apes is a matter of how much of our brainpower is able to be dedicated to things that are not directly related to immediate survival.
You think if chimpanzees lived in an abundant chimp utopia they'd be working in laboratories and flying rocketships?

>>18145854 (OP)
show me a single proof for evolution given by the church fathers.
if you can't, it's eisegesis and not real.
ha, loser.

>>18147486
Soul not real accept that.

>>18148323
>even by materialist metrics
I mean if you want to be pedantic, the only things that separate us meaningfully are our intellect AND the fact that we jog pretty well. However, jogging wasn't relevant to my point so it seemed stupid to include it. Now list several other human characteristics you believe to be unique to us so I can tell you why you're wrong.

>working in laboratories and flying rocketships?
With enough time and abundance, yes. They can already use rudimentary tools and learn sign language when taught. That we have technology and they don't is simply a matter of us beating them to the punch

>>18146443
>right wing is when you hate jews
Retarded /pol/tranny

>>18147424
Genesis is not a metaphor for that

Bump

>>18145854 (OP)
Me at #2.

>>18148440
Genesis is arguably not a metaphore at all. But if you were to read it metaphorically, as I think you should, evolution is completely within its immediate scope of metaphorical points.

>>18146207
>Apes evolved towards the form of man. Ergo, man existed ontologically prior to apes.
Evolution doesn't have a direction or intention.
There is no 'towards'.

>>18146978
>metaphysics
Lmao, do you still read Aristotle, too?