Dad's a blaspheming atheist. I'm a born again Christian

>allowing religion to get between. You and your family
I understand that most plebs need some kind of binding, concrete rule set to follow as a means of giving structure to their lives and alleviating existential crises but come on bro, you may as well be doing heroin if you've chosen Christianity and you're letting it mar your relationship with your father. How about you think a little harder about the fact that Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish heretic who managed to piss off the religious authorities of Judea to such a degree that he had to be put down. Think of him as a matter day Charles Manson; had Charlie been "martyred" as it were his followers would have written I'd the extraordinary things he was capable of whether it was true or not. What makes you think Jesus was so much different from your average cult leader? And why the hell are you allowing that to get in the way of one of the most important relationships you'll ever have?

Reconcile with your father, not Our Father. One is going to love you unconditionally until the end and the other is a myth perpetrated by powerful people to control others such as yourself by providing them comfort. The latter are drug dealers. The former loves you.

>all these fedoras
Please know that your father can still be converted and saved unless he is an apostate. You should pray everyday for him. Have faith that God is good and that God is true. You should check out 8ch’s /Christian/ board.

>be atheist
>son grows up to be some sky wizard cultist
Damn, he sure failed at parenting.

"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."
Be a good Christian. Pray. Love him.

>most plebs need some kind of binding, concrete rule set to follow as a means of giving structure to their lives
this also the most shocking part is that he's insulting his own fucking father
you'd think a fucking evangelic of all people would be really respectful of family, traditional values, etc, and never say a rude thing about his father like that
i guess op fails even at being a bigot

suicide is the only option

>lel sky wizard XD

Attached: tip.jpg (299x168, 11K)

>le fedora

God isn't real. Your dad is right.

Ad hominem isn't an argument. If you were smart you would know that.

Attached: science vs religion.png (404x404, 135K)

Ironically, advanced fields of science are beginning to produce evidence proving that the same ideas that are innate to spirituality are correct.

The Big Bang Theory is a bigger joke than most organized religion.

>same ideas that are innate to spirituality are correct.
Name a few.

>The Big Bang Theory
I don't recall anyone finding anything better.

This is the stupidest post I think I've ever read on this website.

Attached: brainlet4.jpg (550x543, 30K)

These are bait posts right? Because nobody is actually this stupid, are they.

Attached: bait.png (625x626, 66K)

the usual shit every religious fanatic does - have no tolerance, know better what he needs etc.

Pretty sure suicide is sinful to some degree, and you get sent to limbo or something.

lmao where did all these raging fedora fags come from

>anything better
The big bang flies in the face of causality, the laws of thermodynamics, and the most basic scientific methodology. Our current understanding of the fundamental mechanics of our universe bode pretty well, until you’re met with the most glaring contradiction that we don’t know how or why reality exists in the first place.
>name a few
discovering forms of subjectivity, rather than clear objectivity, in regards to the universe’s nature on a quantum scale

>becomes hostile

The only requirement to get into the Christian heaven is to trust Jesus as your savior.
The only way you can get out of that is by explicitly renouncing your faith.

Jesus didn't kill himself because its still a sin but it doesn't exclude you from heaven.

Unironically read the Bible and pray

meant to quote the post below regarding the hostility, probably for the best that I didn’t give him a (You)

>anyone who doesn't believe in an imaginary sky wizard is a "fedora"!
What does it feel like to be so stupid that you can't even make a logical argument for your position? I guess that's because there are no logical arguments for your position. Your position is "I believe in a sky wizard because it makes me feel better". There is no evidence for this sky wizard. Unless you can provide some?

>the big bang theory can't be true because then that means my imaginary sky wizard doesn't exist and that scares me and makes me shit my pants!
Do you realise how much of a fucking moron you are?

Attached: brainlet5.jpg (1838x2048, 157K)

Never mentioned sky wizardry wtf!
Nice poop picture, ad hom-user

I’m simply better at using the scientific method than you, and it makes you uncomfortable to fathom being wrong.

>The big bang flies in the face of causality, the laws of thermodynamics, and the most basic scientific methodology
Causality depends on theory. (say an universe that expands > contracts > big bangs and repeats) Hell, vacuum state fluctuation are a big part of the explanation. Thermodynamics is covered by how extreme the event is (just like other extreme shit like black holes and neutron stars). What are the exact issues with methodology?

> we don’t know how or why reality exists in the first place.
Why isn't a scientific question in this context. It's like asking why green is green and blue is blue. As for how, we have a pretty good idea until the last (or rather the first) little bit with a lot suggesting a random ass fluctuation.

>discovering forms of subjectivity, rather than clear objectivity
Quantum memes don't have much in common with spiritual ideas, if anything the chance factor goes against them. Seems like you confuse how "observer" is used in scientific texts. Besides, one of the most famous fucking theories already covers that. Subjective realities don't go against objectivity, it just rarely plays a relevant role to point out outside of specific experiments. Just like it'd be unpractical to point out that "dropping an apple means it will fall down is only correct in 99,999999999 etc % of outcomes"

Let's break down what you said:
>The big bang flies in the face of causality, the laws of thermodynamics, and the most basic scientific methodology.
Those are all big claims and you haven't justified a single one.
>Our current understanding of the fundamental mechanics of our universe bode pretty well, until you’re met with the most glaring contradiction that we don’t know how or why reality exists in the first place.
Sure, we don't. But we're still very confident that the Big Bang happened. A couple centuries ago we didn't know about atoms. Before 2012, we didn't know for sure whether the Higgs boson existed. History shows that science uncovers the nature of reality with increasing accuracy over time. And besides, we do not need to know "why reality exists" in order to be confident about the Big Bang.
>discovering forms of subjectivity, rather than clear objectivity, in regards to the universe’s nature on a quantum scale
Explain exactly what forms of subjectivity you're talking about. I don't know a huge amount about quantum theory but I know there's weird shit about superposition. But I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean that you get to subjectively define whatever you want into existence. Like a sky wizard, for example.

Attached: cosmic microwave background radiation.png (1280x640, 1.24M)

Long-awaited reply, I was eating pancakes

>What are the exact issues with methodology?
The theory of a universe with zero net energy like Laurence Krauss theorized is thermodynamically solid, true, yet still relies on the idea that the universe came into creation spontaneously out of some empty slice of spacetime, so while it accounts for the concept of thermodynamics it still doesn’t take into account any causality.

>why
You’re right here, the why isn’t scientific compared to the how. that’s my bad.

>spirituality
It’s never going to be as scientific in delivery as science is. It’s still amazing that the long-held belief that we are simultaneously and paradoxically living in a universe comprised of both a subjective reality and an objective reality would have been scoffed at forever in the scientific fields of the absolute. Now quantum physics purports that very same principle; that the “absolute” isn’t necessarily always absolute.

>subjectively define whatever you want into existence. Like a sky wizard, for example.
On a quantum level, things seem to
>Even though in classical physics we are taught that energy is conserved, which means it cannot change, one of the tenets of quantum mechanics says that energy doesn't have to be conserved if the change happens for a short enough time. So even if space had zero energy, it would be perfectly OK for a little energy to pop into existence for a tiny split second and then disappear—and that's what happens in empty space.

Jesus H Christ I’m not saying science is wrong, I’m saying that The Big Bang theory is fervently adhered to much like zany religious dogma, and yet it hypocritically hinges on the idea of spontaneous creation.

I don't know where you are quoting that thing about the conservation of energy from. I also don't see how this is any sort of evidence for a sky wizard.

>I’m saying that The Big Bang theory is fervently adhered to much like zany religious dogma
No, friend. The Big Bang is believed in due to EVIDENCE. This is in contrast to "zany religious dogma", which amounts to random shit written by random desert-dwelling morons thousands of years ago, with precisely ZERO EVIDENCE to substantiate their claims.

There was a previous model called the Steady State model which competed with the Big Bang model in the early 20th century, but the accumulation of evidence for the universe having expanded from a small, dense, hot state convinced almost all scientists that the Big Bang was more plausible.

"Born again" is just also blashpeming but they accept you.

>would have been scoffed at forever in the scientific fields of the absolute
The scientific method just doesn't leave room for that stuff but at the same time, it forces scientists to be accepting of any theory, no matter how unintuitive, if there is some hint of evidence.

>I’m saying that The Big Bang theory is fervently adhered to much like zany religious dogma
It's just the best theory we got based on the data we have. If someone provides anything better with more indicators for it, the views will adjust. How is it close to religious dogma?

Never mentioned sky wizardry, again wtf!
I never argued the evidence behind the Big Bang model, I’m pointing out the lack of understood causality in it. What I’m trying to convey is that the idea that the universe came into being purely out of it’s own accord, like the Big Bang states, is in essence the core model of creationism, minus an implied “will” (basically the question of ‘why’ in spirituality), and yet people invoke The Big Bang as a way to explain away such notions.

Basically, what science often says is that the universe came into being spontaneously, and we don’t know what made it.
Basically, what spirituality often says is that the universe came into being spontaneously, and that it itself made it.

Both answers aren’t perfect, and yet the former incomplete answer is touted as a sort of proof that the latter is rubbish.

We don't know where the matter of the universe came from. The Big Bang doesn't answer that - it just hypothesises that the universe was, about 14 billion years ago, contained in a small and very dense state, a singularity, from which it rapidly expanded.

>creationism
Creationism is some hippy bullshit theory written by ignorant monks thousands of years ago. It is what we call a "creation myth". There is no evidence for the claims of the biblical story of creation. Doesn't the Bible claim that the Earth is only six thousand years old or something? Whereas the evidence of modern science (e.g. radiocarbon dating) indicates that the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. And the universe 14 billion years old, of course.

>Basically, what science often says is that the universe came into being spontaneously, and we don’t know what made it.
>Basically, what spirituality often says is that the universe came into being spontaneously, and that it itself made it.
>Both answers aren’t perfect, and yet the former incomplete answer is touted as a sort of proof that the latter is rubbish.
I don't think science claims to know whether the universe came into being spontaneously or not. But of those two explanations you have given, at least science has the humility to say "we don't know what made it". Whereas your "spirituality" explanation says "[the universe] itself made it[self]". Firstly, that doesn't make any sense. Not sure how the universe can make itself... it's not exactly a very meaningful sentence. Secondly, we don't know what made the universe, so it is remiss to claim an answer that is unfounded. Science is correct to say "we don't know what made it".

Because many people don’t use science to substantiate agnostic reasoning, they use it to form hard evidence-based metrics.
Even though our instruments of measurement are likely rudimentary, and our capacity to understand the paradoxical is limited in scope.
You are using it correctly, and it really is the best we got.

Best answer you're gonna get.

reasonable user

assmad fedoras.

Honour thy father and thy father or Jesus will whip the after-living daylights out of you.

Attached: YESUS-mengusir-jualan.jpg (640x460, 109K)

You’re not wrong dude but you also sort of explained my gripe, that people scoff at the proposal that anything other than pure magical spontaneity created the Big Bang.

In essence, that would entail subscribing to the idea that something could be created out of nothing, with equal measurement of positive energy/matter and negative energy/matter in all parts as to ensure that nothing is really being added, in an algebraic sense. In a way that concept is called प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद or dependent origination