Perceiving the universe and existence without God and coming to the conclusion of apathy and fear is for brainlets

I think consciousness is the side effect of when you get a complex enough system of interactions

this.

>source: nihilistic atheist from 16 years old until now.

looking for good places to start for a logical return to religion.

i will never accept that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that women were crafted from a rib, LITERALLY.

but i am willing to accept explanations of symbolism and interpretation of thought at the time the bible was written.

i need someone to tell me where to start.

i mean its true, hes retarded, and i say that with such confidence because if you take away your senses of touch, taste, smell, sight, as well as your memories and ability to memorize, you are basically nothing but a chemical reaction playing out until it its end, there is no "secret" to conscious life, youre just a complex system of interactions

Why would that insight make one apathetic and fearful? It has no bearing on my day-to-day life. I still need to care for myself and my family.

>Why would that insight make one apathetic
basically look at rick from rick and morty, thats how most liberals tend to view things. For some reason large numbers make them think nothing matters when value of existence is not a function of quantity. The value you get from your existence is whatever you decide it to be. Kinda like a sandbox game just an actually good one with a well populated world and a robust physics engine.

The inevitable technological singularity will lead to the creation of a god.

Attached: six-epochs.jpg (930x773, 85K)

jordan peterson biblical lectures on youtube are pretty good in that sense of getting meaning from the bibble for the average modern materialistic minded person.
jonathan pageau channel on christian simbology too.
For hardcore you can go with Ripperger, this video or the ones about spiritual warfare are pretty neat:
youtube.com/watch?v=XyV2raem1s0

Yall eat ass too?

i try to get people to watch petersons bible series any chance i get, theyre well put and interesting

I have never seen anything in life that does not create a reaction.
God will always have a Shadow. The aim of singularity will lead to the duality
Matrix was kinda about this and how The Matrix deals with Smith Cancer by tricking neo into thinking he is the cancer

>Perceiving the universe and existence without God
How do you do this without having any evidence to suggest a God exists?

God is the universe, it is nature
How do you know this?
>and the other is after, when we can create order and goodness
You needed another God to do that? Couldnt the first one do that? If he has omniscience, I'm not seeing an issue.

Proof of a creator, the ancients knew.

12742
Earth diameter km
3474
Moon diameter km

R = 1
Asquare = 4
Acircle = 3.1416
4-3.1416 = 0.8584
0.8584/3.1416 = 0.273
3474/12742 = 0.273

How about moon takes 27.3 days to get around Earth too.

Look at the drawing to the left. It is a circle inscribed inside a square. The Earth and the Moon conform absolutely to this simplest of geometrical figures. Let us imagine that the green circle represents the Earth. If this was the case, then everything in the drawing that is not green and is shown in red, would represent the Moon.

The drawing is an expression of a mathematical fact. It represents the relationship between π (Pi) and the number 4. The symbol π appears time and again in mathematics and it has fascinated people for at least 6,000 years. π defines the relationship of the diameter of a circle to its circumference. The true definition of π cannot be discovered because it appears to go on forever.

The Ultimate Truth

The relationship of π and the number 4 throws up a number of ratios.

π + 0.366 of π = 4.

We could also express this as 27.322% of π added to π would equal 4.

The relationship of the Earth and the Moon throws up the same ratios.

Earth’s polar circumference, plus 0.366 of Earth’s polar circumference equals Earth and Moon size combined. As a result it would also be correct to say that the Moon is equal to 27.322% of the size of the polar Earth.

Oh yeah, a perfect eclipse too.

Who Built the Moon? Christopher Knight

Attached: __6199757.jpg (142x142, 4K)

Why do people need God to feel good about life? Why not just live your life and do good and take care of your friends and family?

Why do you think a concept proves God?

What the hell is the Moon?

How does a mere human reify god?
>seek god
>seek what you reified as god

by the way I'm not saying god doesn't exist.

Attached: 1528026563982.gif (600x600, 1.77M)

Nature does create order but it's very slow at doing it so it created beings such as us that are able to do it on a much more rapid time scale.

Because the average person has trouble setting such goals, let alone the half of the population that is below average. This is why the Bible is written in seemingly simple ways. It's obvious that it's not a literal book, it's a incredibly dense transcription of humanitys understanding of reality, but if you take it at face value and live your life accordingly you can get along pretty well.

>he believed the "perfect eclipse" meme

I didnt say God, I just said there was a creator. The odds are impossibly low that we would exist on this planet while the moon makes a perfect eclipse. Then the more you study the Moon, Earth, and its relationship with the Sun, you find out theres a basic sacred geometric proportion built into the size and distance of the Moon/Earth.

If you were looking for a message left behind from the creator, how about a giant one left in the sky that you only have to study a while to figure out how perfect and meaningful the message is. Its encoded in geometry, and a physical body that's impossible to miss. You just have to look. Why would all ancient megoliths have these same geometric proportions? They figured it out too. It's being kept away from the public on purpose because it ruins the kike fairytale that we are just random specs of rocks that evolved from non living substance as a result of random mutations.

Attached: 1542161560779-pol.jpg (562x768, 96K)

Epoch 7
>Milhouse becomes a meme

>he calls things a meme instead of refuting, because he can't

On Earth, the ratio is between 0.940 and 1.104, which explains why we see such fantastic solar eclipses; it’s an almost perfect fit.

it is literally for brainlets

I am so sorry but if you lack faith in the Universe itself then you have sections of your brain deactivated

this has been proven

literally a brainlet

You should look into the anthropic principle.

I think there are better books and ideas about morality and ethics. I also think it’s unfortunate that the good that comes with the Bible (and there is some good to be sure) is tied to bizarre supernatural beliefs that can’t be proven and that have no influence or relevance to every day life at all. Let’s all be good people and build good communities without the fantasy elements and superstitions. I think that will be for the best.

>jordan peterson biblical lectures on youtube are pretty good
It's entirely heretical. If you want a psychological, pseudo-scientific analysis of a book that a man hasn't even read, then you should watch it. But by no means watch it if you actually want to learn the Christian understanding of the Word of God.

Attached: Jesus2.jpg (249x473, 24K)

>Nature does create order
So why assert a God did it?
>but it's very slow at doing it
Are you saying it's too slow without a God? I dont understand this point.
>so it created beings such as us that are able to do it on a much more rapid time scale
Why bring more assertions to the table, when you havent even verified the first post of assertions?

>for the best

Attached: Atheism.jpg (1239x900, 215K)

youre supposed to fear god though

Not being superstitious is not the same as being degenerate or a communist. Being a non believer has nothing to do with those things. This is an embarrassingly bad argument.

>Let’s all be good people and build good communities without the fantasy elements and superstitions. I think that will be for the best.
You're vastly over estimating the general population on this planet. This fundamentally can't work. Maybe with extreme eugenics programs

lol are you fucking serious? You should write a paper...seriously. Some of the greatest minds in the world would be eager to read about how you deciphered arguably the greatest mystery surrounding the most complex structure in the known Universe.

If it is a side effect of biology it is pretty strange that we are the only ones, there are lots of other similar brains and bigger brains on this planet, but we are the only ones that are truly conscious.

Attached: t3_50316o.jpg (1009x1009, 135K)

Not having a moral code derived from something higher then your arbitrary opinion IS the same as being a degenerate and communist, however. As long as you allow for an arbitrarily decided moral code, you cannot disagree with their moral decisions; their opinions are just as valid as yours within that worldview.

>I didnt say God, I just said there was a creator
What pointed you to a creator otherwise?
>The odds are impossibly low that we would exist on this planet while the moon makes a perfect eclipse
How does this get you to a creator?
>Then the more you study the Moon, Earth, and its relationship with the Sun, you find out theres a basic sacred geometric proportion built into the size
Geometry of shapes gets you to a creator how exactly?
>If you were looking for a message left behind from the creator, how about a giant one left in the sky that you only have to study a while to figure out how perfect and meaningful the message is
A conceptual language, such as math, is something we've created. We use it to quantify things in reality. Because you see patterns in 3 shapes, how does this conclude that a creator exists?
>Why would all ancient megoliths have these same geometric proportions?
Argument from ignorance.
>being kept away from the public on purpose because it ruins the kike fairytale
It seems more like you have an idea in your head that you would rather believe. Unfortunately, science provides evidence for its claims. If you have an issue with science, point to where they're wrong specifically. To assert a conspiracy is occurring, and pretending your position seems more coherent than the strawman you posed, is beyond silly.

Even though most mammal brains have the same basic structure, our species can fit the most neurons in the cerebral cortex which is responsible for thinking. This advantage probably comes from the position of the primate within the food chain.

In a sense, you’re not wrong, but I think if we use common sense and empathy, people will agree on what we should do in order to build the most stable and happy communities. You don’t need to be religious or believe that morals come from God to agree that murder is immoral and should be illegal. The most hardcore atheists and the most hardcore believers will agree on that. They will agree on many other laws and moral and ethical issues too. It would be convenient if we could all agree that morality is objective and handed down from God, but I and many people are not convinced by the evidence for God. So we will have to concede that morality is somewhat arbitrary and do our best to all be in the same page in order to organize society. I want to believe that people don’t need fantasies and superstitions in order to control themselves and lead good lives.

Science is an axiomatic system. It relies on blind faith just as much as religion. You appeal to it just like 16th century church ladies appealed to God for authority.

so the universe is the brain of God in fetal stage, growing and slowly making pathways after epoch 6

>Perceiving the universe and existence without God [...] is for brainlets.
Correct.

>We are all the universe itself articulated into living conscious beings.
sharing a body with toothless inbred sends shivers up my spine

this hippie shit is intended to deceive us from racial reality and to force us to accept the crap society has become, like the indians already do

shame on you, retarded bot

>die
>islam is right
wat do

Atheism and godless universe is the truth. But I do support Christianity anyway, that’s the only thing that can keep masses from degeneracy.

>Science is an axiomatic system
You're going to have to elaborate.
>It relies on blind faith just as much as religion
Demonstrably false; you cant demonstrate or test for a God, there is no evidence to suggest a God exists, and faith can lead you to anything regardless of evidence. If you actually believe this, you're severely unaware of axioms and science.

>th century

Scientifically? The generally accepted explanation is that it was formed from debris ejected from an enormous collision between the young Earth and a smaller planet in the early history of the Solar System. The smaller planet was obliterated entirely and Earth absorbed the remains, while the Moon accumulated from the molten material that was ejected into orbit by the cataclysmic force of the impact. Some evidence supporting this is analysis of the Moon's composition showing it's mostly made up of the same stuff as Earth, the Earth having an exceptionally large iron core (which gave it a powerful magnetosphere, protecting the surface and atmosphere from being ravaged by the Sun), and the general strangeness of the Moon as our satellite, being the largest satellite relative to its planet by far within our Solar System which raises questions as to how Earth could have ever captured it (in fact, the Sun has twice the "pull" on the Moon as Earth does; at no point in its orbit does the Moon move in retrograde relative to the Sun as we often perceive it, rather it weaves back and forth around Earth).

I don't remember the Bible having much special to say about how the Moon was created and why, but the Moon has been critical in shaping and stabilizing Earth to support life and humanity.

Attached: Earth-moon-to-scale.svg.png (1280x64, 5K)

I know enough about science to know it is littered with holes which we can only hope to one day "fill". Dark matter is the biggest example since every scientific "unknown" gets scapegoated to dark matter. Gravitons is another. The asymmetry of time on the microscopic scale.

Science is axiomatic. All of our scientific models are based on our assumptions about what we are observing, and therefore limited by our ability to observe. If one day every scientist woke up and decided the Earth was the center of the universe then from the perspective of science, it shall be so. You only need to open a history book to see how many sound "scientific" models have been thrown out over the centuries.

>If it is a side effect of biology it is pretty strange that we are the only ones, there are lots of other similar brains and bigger brains on this planet, but we are the only ones that are truly conscious.
Is that really true? I've seen convincing evidence that other animals possess awareness and intelligence, even higher-order concepts like tool usage and language.

>If one day every scientist woke up and decided the Earth was the center of the universe then from the perspective of science, it shall be so
This is empirically true though.
The Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun revolves around Sagittarius A*, but the "center of the universe" is wherever you are observing the universe from (for every human alive, roughly "Earth").
We presume there is "more" to the universe beyond what we can observe, but it is literally impossible for us to ever know because anything that may exist beyond that is casually disconnected from us; absolutely no information from beyond that point will ever interact with us in any way.
We can look out and see light that has been traveling toward us since nearly the beginning of the universe, but it also represents the end which is coming ever closer as space itself expands faster than light can cross it. The Alpha and the Omega, you could call it.

Attached: observable universe.jpg (580x580, 82K)

Thanks for proving my point retard.

>Dark matter is the biggest example
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter, it's not an objective claim on whatever they feel like grouping it in with. I think you're assuming the information from science somehow makes objective stances on things, when it only tests predictions to see an outcome of the current information we have on a particular subject.
>All of our scientific models are based on our assumptions about what we are observing
Based on collected information of the subject.
and therefore limited by our ability to observe.
What else could we use to observe/study?
>If one day every scientist woke up and decided the Earth was the center of the universe then from the perspective of science, it shall be so
Utterly false, and thank you for this demonstration of your severe lack of understanding of science. Science doesnt go by consensus, it's either shown and demonstrated, or the assertion falls flat. Like the God discussion I've been attempting to have that somehow got derailed by false equivalencies and silly goosery.
>You only need to open a history book to see how many sound "scientific" models have been thrown out over the centuries
By better science, due to more information science has brought to the table.

Let's say science is 100% wrong, does that make a God claim true?

>Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter, it's not an objective claim on whatever they feel like grouping it in with.
When science makes claims that can only be consistent with our current scientific models if this magical dark matter exists then it is pertinent. Believing in something you cant prove sounds a bitch religious, no?
>Utterly false, and thank you for this demonstration of your severe lack of understanding of science. Science doesnt go by consensus, it's either shown and demonstrated, or the assertion falls flat. Like the God discussion I've been attempting to have that somehow got derailed by false equivalencies and silly goosery.
Yesterday's science was correct until today. And today's science will be wrong come tomorrow.
>By better science, due to more information science has brought to the table.
Ever heard of the saying "it's turtles all the way down." That's science according to you. You can never know if today's science is the 100% correct model until tomorrow, ad infinitum. Sounds a bit like your God conundrum doesn't it?
>Let's say science is 100% wrong, does that make a God claim true?
Science is limited by the observer. Because we are fallible, so is our science. Idk why you are so triggered. Much greater men than you have conceded the unknown to God.

Rejecting the concept of science on the premise that all human observation is fallible sounds pretty retarded to me. Doesn't really make sense when you think about it, your observation of this thread is fallible so why are you bothering to participate?
It might "objectively" true that people's eyes and ears can't always be trusted, but talking that to its logical conclusion and declaring none of the ways that we interact with the world can ever show us "truth" is just insanity. I mean, how would ever learn of God without observing His work and words?
It's like when people realize that in a casual universe all events, including their own actions, are predetermined and take that to somehow mean it justifies them acting in a certain way, or that none of their actions "matter" at all, even though learning about causality changed nothing about the life they were already leading. It doesn't make sense.

You talk a lot, but you don't really say much. It's funny that you are talking about logic because you are solely relying on your instincts to determine what "sounds/feels" right and wrong.