Thread for atheists

Empiricism is completely material. It answers physical questions only. This is fine and it works.

However by nature it can never address metaphysics, or personal consciousness. YOU are the only confirmed conscious being in your universe. You are forever trapped in your own body, with your own mind, limits, and beliefs. In many ways what you personally believe is all that really matters.

This is why God is called a personal God. Nobody can be told what God is. You have to see it for yourself. He is metaphysical.

Imagine a pattern that only you could notice. For example, as you go through life, every time you meet someone and are in a good mood, you come away from the meeting feeling good and having made some connection. Every time you meet someone while you're stewing in negative thoughts, you don't make a connection and come away feeling socially awkward. After several years of this pattern repeating, you form a belief that life is trying to tell you something - that you should be a positive person to make friends. You apply the pattern and start making more friends.

Now imagine trying to prove the hypothesis that positive thoughts make you more friends. How could you show evidence? How could you set up an experiment? You can't control people's thoughts, and putting friend-making to an experiment would require making social meetings completely unnatural and thus make valid results impossible.

Attached: YeahOK.png (1166x694, 190K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/vffn9J1L
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Imagine trying to explain to a friend that you KNOW that being positive makes you friends, because you've seen the pattern time and time again. He replies 'pfff, nah bro, show me evidence then I'll believe you". It would be impossible to convince a skeptic of your belief empirically. You tell him you're popular, but he puts it down to personal testimony - it's unreliable.

There are in fact TWO ways of finding truth about the world. Experiment (physical, outward, shareable), and Experience (metaphysical, inward, personal). One is not less true than the other - as your perception is exactly equal to your reality. The ONLY way to share truth found by experience is through trust. If you trust that someone is wise and smart, you will listen to their experience as quite possibly true. You will realise that you have not yet experienced enough to judge whether they're right or wrong, so trust their word (if they deserve trust).

Experience is the only way to see God. This is why Christians are so utterly convinced about something that has no physical test. We have simply seen it with our own eyes. You might as well tell me that I’m not conscious, and expect me to have proof to show you that I am.

Atheists have experiential beliefs too. You probably believe in the big bang (as do I). But, I doubt you have personally done the calculations to come to the conclusion of the age of the universe (I have). I doubt you have personally actually read any scientific papers about the big bang. The fact that experiments have been done therefore is irrelevant to you - you haven’t seen them. You trust that they have been done properly, and in the experience and conclusions of scientists, because your experience with technology has shown you they’re trustworthy. The belief that “scientists are trustworthy” is one formed from your own experience.

Attached: Hmmm.png (1212x700, 205K)

You don’t believe in God only because you’re not experienced enough in the meta patterns of life, and you haven’t looked inward enough. You’ve spent your time reading about science and technology, not truly questioning your own existence, mortality, basis of knowing right from wrong, or blessings. You have not yet realised there is a deep mystery. The what and the how can be answered by experiment, by the why cannot. Why does gravity exist? Why am I here- me, and not another?

The truth seekers amongst you WILL find God if you keep going, I know that for sure. You don’t have to trust me though. Nor the testimony of experience of a billion people, many of whom are smart, successful people in the physical world. Nor the testimony of people 2000 years ago, who by the way weren’t any less evolved mentally than we are now. Just trust in your own ability to see patterns in your personal world.

Those among you who are convinced you already know all the fundamentals of the universe, even enough to attack and hate other people for disagreeing with you, you will never grow beyond where you are now.

Attached: Reconsider.png (1290x754, 237K)

Attached: QuotesontheBible1.jpg (1836x3276, 1.44M)

More testimonies. You will never see physical proof or evidence. It is impossible by nature. Only by your own experience, including witnessing other's conviction, can you come to see the light.

Attached: Biblequotes2.jpg (1836x3252, 1.43M)

Attached: Quotesaboutthebible3.jpg (1824x3260, 1.3M)

Bump

I come baring you a pity (You)

Thanks Mario

Attached: 1558646300008.png (1169x1080, 81K)

This is a Christian board fren. Only shills are atheists and only retards are pegans. Don’t be anxious about our souls

Attached: B2A02016-B3A6-4E0E-837A-00985C8B7013.gif (480x633, 235K)

It's for them, trying to put it into words they can understand.

Back when I was atheist the normal Christian phrasiology was a barrier to my understanding. Only reading this book really explained it to me and made it click. I guess it can be difficult for those raised with Christian culture to understand how confusing it can seem from the outside.

Attached: 51x+g3l3G5L._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_.jpg (194x293, 10K)

Meant for

Today op was not a faggot

that’s ireland, retard. fix your color correction.

I have found that empiricism has lead to many traditional religious beliefs/laws being justified.
Things like rules around marriages, women in the church (govt), fags, sexual degeneracy, etc have all slowly been proven to have been rules/laws based in a kind of basic wisdom about human nature.
This is how religion can justify itself.
The problem is that between the catholic church failing to punish and excommunicate the pedo priests and American evangelicals pushing their retarded Zionism and faggy satanic panic of the 90's, they've basically undone themselves. Add in the ridiculous resistance to evolution for decades and you have a situation where the masses were convinced it was okay to just ignore these "crazy religious nut jobs".

Sadly, had Christianity not picked these ridiculous fights and instead focused on the message of salvation, and the basic ideals of blood and soil, it would probably still be a strong force in our culture, but they didn't and it's not.

Ha, oops. Got night mode on.

Yeah the majority of modern Christians are pretty much heretics as far as I can see. They do the opposite of what the Bible says in most cases. Sadly their actions are used as 'proof' that Christianity is wrong. When actually it's only proof that man is flawed.

Attached: Lol.png (1220x658, 181K)

>DURR you take big bang on faith right?
This is the most retarded talking point of NPC tier Christians. You're probably a fucking boomer aren't you faggot?

I don't "believe" in the big bang. I accept that this is the most plausible working theory for the universe.
I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept that it is the most plausible working theory for the development of biological life in this planet.
Unlike a Christian, if science found that the big bang is wrong, I might be skeptical until I had read more information about the error, but I wouldn't simply dismiss the new information proving the old theory wrong.
Unlike a Christian, is science found that evolution is wrong, I might be very skeptical until I had read more information about the error, but I wouldn't simply dismiss the new information proving the old theory wrong.
Fuck, if they scientifically proved God exists, I would again be skeptical, but I'd give the information a fair hearing.
This is something entirely unlike religious faith. Even in a situation where they proved God exists, each individual of faith would attempt to justify their specific belief system in the face of God, even if it went contrary to everything we learned about God via science.

I don't give a fuck if you want to believe in a God or follow some religion, but please don't project your retarded faith based thinking on the scientific method. It's a lazy as fuck argument, and it betrays your ignorance about where empirical rationalists are coming from.
It also utterly fails to engage the right arguments. You're asking us to understand your faith based thinking by comparing it to our empirical thinking. There is no comparison, because faith is wholly spiritual, and personal.
It's just sad how little you guys understand of where we're coming from. And your "reasoning" betrays that utter lack of understanding.

Best thread bras

Well done for 0 reading comprehension

>I accept that this is the most plausible working theory for the universe
Because teachers and science websites told you so, and you BELIEVE them. You did not work it out yourself and you've never done the calculations. You didn't do the empiricism yourself. Therefore accepting it is based on trust and your experience that you can trust science, NOT on 'rational empiricism'.

I believe in the big bang too, I'm just not pretending that it's somehow purely objective.

>muh scientific proof
Means absolutely nothing unless you have personally done the experiment OR read through and understood the scientific papers themselves.

It staggers me that you believe reading a claim in a science journal and believing it is somehow objective, and isn't based on trust.

Bumping with more

Attached: Cycle.jpg (2480x2748, 534K)

10/10 thread OP, we need more people like you in this world. Also put me in the screengrab guys.

The Catholic Church and I’m sure other religions have been infiltrated by people with evil, satan knows no boundaries, it’s stupid to think he/it/evil can’t manipulate the church itself. All that matters is your personal belief and the good you do because of it.

This

based OP

Attached: 640b453b7264bc3dbd86df1d03b5b0cefb5c3c4327101fbf7903e1a83e171102.jpg (2000x1485, 1.83M)

This thread will unfortunately die because you didn’t provide one-liner bait for retards to grab onto.

Attached: A6F77081-A1C5-467B-9BD5-50C7FD2FD68B.jpg (689x500, 42K)

Good shit, praise our lord Ahura Mazda

>Everyone is a chirstian here, those whom are not ar to be excluded/ridiculed/insulted
Fuck off good goy. Your religion is mere superficialism and doesn't not dive deep into human nature whatsoever.

Attached: 42534362.jpg (895x653, 59K)

Athiests are big into delusion. They are more into pop-science than actual empirical science. For instance they believe in something illogical as life coming from non-life. Just thinking about it should tell you it’s impossible yet they repeat it enough to delude themselves. Absolutely no evidence it’s possible even after dozens upon dozens of expiraments. It goes against their pop-sci theory of the origins of life. You should let the data speak for itself, if it goes against a long held belief then drop the belief not the data lol.

Cletus, just because there are metaphysical experiences, concepts, entities or whatever the fuck, it doesn't mean your kike LARP isn't a kike LARP. Abrahamic and Hindu religions are subgroups of religions followed by subhumans and brainwashed golems (abrahamic faith is even very recent in comparison), practically every other one make more sense than them (except weird primitive tribal crap).

>Yeah the majority of modern Christians are pretty much heretics as far as I can see.
this also saddens me and there isn't much I can do about it if they're too far gone, someone has been working diligently to destroy Christendom the past few centuries

Attached: Langanmorality.jpg (677x1275, 265K)

this desu

based af

>MFW I actually like going to mass every Sunday at 8 am and it's all thanks to Jow Forums.
>Pic related my local Cathedral.

I actually feel relaxed and at peace afterwards.

Attached: _MG_8189.jpg (445x296, 58K)

Meant for

You must be a queer or a Pagan.
I don't know which is worse...

Attached: 1544934244906.gif (220x256, 145K)

>You must be a queer or a Pagan
And here we witness the superficialism aforementioned that kicks in again.
Isn't prejudice one of the elements seen as "faults" by your religion?
Monotheistic, almost a form of blackmail.
>Worship me or go to hell, subject to eternal damnation.
Who cares if you were a righteous man --follower of the morals set by our primal istincts-- You'll still got hell/Purgatory!
S.U.P.E.R.F.I.C.I.A.L.I.S.T.

>can't win traditional way because, you know, god doesn't exist
>force a meme

Comfy

I have a friend who, along with myself, were going through a very difficult but prestigious job selection process. Every time we had some hurdle or about to go into some interview or test she would loudly pray. Every meal we ate together she would pray for the both of us. We both made it through and scored highest in our testing groups. I began to pray. It felt so dumb at first but just ask for faith and it will be given. Ask to be shown the way. All you have to do is ask and pay attention to the things around you. Look at true Christian families and see how they treat each other. Pic related for some reason stayed with me for this whole process. Again it can only be experienced.

Attached: bccdbb114f28e0755577df0da02cc846.jpg (250x399, 29K)

Almost finished with this book. Absolutely great read. Any other recommendations for a new Christian?

I tend to trust most scientific papers but after reading a bit on the philosophy of science and studying the history of science you begin to see that a lot of it is very political (social) and is influenced by career and reputation. It's reddit tier thinking if you believe that a scientist with 40 years of his life committed to a theory wants to be proven wrong and have his whole career negated.

The Bible, it was a long time before it called to me but now I've started reading it it's just chock full of encouragement, enlightenment, positive reinforcement to give you courage, and it's actually quite poetic once you get used to the phrasing (somehow it only took a page or two before I completely forgot it's written in a strange old-timey way). It's really a beautiful read.

Your ignorance of what Christians actually believe is almost absolute.

Also gender being a social construct yet at the same time people being born into that social construct (trans)

Also gender being a social construct yet at the same time people being born into that social construct (trans)

Yeah they have huge, fundamental blind spots but pretend these are just small hiccups.

Or they say
>yeah, we just don't know do we? Nobody really knows.
>But I know you're wrong lol

>Worship me or go to hell,
Want to know how I know you've never read the book of John?

Chapter a day keeps the enemy at bay

>Empiricism is completely material.
Everybody with an IQ over 70 knows not believing in any gods has nothing to do with any unrelated math or science.

>Because teachers and science websites told you so, and you BELIEVE them.
No, anyone can become a scientist and test these theories for themselves.

> accepting it is based on trust and your experience that you can trust science
Science can be wrong, but it is the best method for arriving at the truth.

>unless you have personally done the experiment
Accepting the work of others keeps us from re-inventing the wheel. It's how we build on the shoulders of giants. It's far more useful and far less irrational than believing in swimming axe heads.

>Athiests are big into delusion.
Three fingers pointing back at you.

>they believe in something illogical as life coming from non-life.
Isn't this the religious definition of creation?

>Absolutely no evidence
A gap in our knowledge where your gods can safely reside.

>No, anyone can become a scientist and test these theories for themselves.
And yet, YOU haven't. So YOUR belief in them is based on trust.

>Accepting the work of others keeps us from re-inventing the wheel. It's how we build on the shoulders of giants.
I agree.

bump

Attached: BiblicalEthics.png (1032x1176, 2.83M)

The god of the gaps argument is circular, it only works if you already don't believe in God.

He's not the gap god to me, he caused all of it, including everything we do and don't understand scientifically.

Well, this is it Jow Forums
>no gf
>family hates me
>poor as fuck
>spent all of my life on Jow Forums
Since you guys have been chill with me, I'll be chill with you.
Live streaming my suicide in roughly 20 minutes. FH

Live stream link + further explanation:
pastebin.com/vffn9J1L

Attached: 1562855581.829.jpg (360x640, 80K)

Well, this is it Jow Forums
>no gf
>family hates me
>poor as fuck
>spent all of my life on Jow Forums
Since you guys have been chill with me, I'll be chill with you.
Live streaming my suicide in roughly 20 minutes. Cw

Live stream link + further explanation:
pastebin.com/vffn9J1L

Attached: 1562855660.483.jpg (360x640, 80K)

These are for gathering IP's, don't click on em.

Smooth, I saw you post that an hour ago in another thread

Well done for being a fucking retard and doubling down on your claim that acceptance of scientific theories as reasonable explanations for why reality is as it is, is equivalent to having FAITH that an invisible sky daddy is watching over us and created everything.
I tried to engage you here, tried to encourage you to approach your view on this shit differently and to maybe respect the fact that not all atheists are mouth breathing fedora fags. But no, you decided to prove yourself as worthless and as useless as I figured you were.
You doubled down on a false equivalency argument and proved your either completely full of shit on how you like to discuss things, or that you're a brainlet who actually believes the diarrhea he's spewing.

>And yet, YOU haven't. So YOUR belief in them is based on trust.
I'm a biologist for the state. I actually have performed a number of experiments that confirm prevailing theories in my field and one that challenged it. I've published 3 papers, just turned 30.

We accept the results of work performed according to the scientific method because the process can be trusted. Do you have electricity and plumbing in your home? Is it the result of science you believe in or science you accept? When you flight the switch, is the probability of the lights turning on related to how much faith you have? Or do you expect the lights to turn on/off without any degree of belief?

The credulous and beguiling people who sell snake-oil and spread lies for a living can never be trusted.

>Nobody can be told what God is.
Goes on to try to tell us what God is. gg.

My personal experience is that no gods exist. I know that the claims believers make about ways to discover God do not work.

>The belief that “scientists are trustworthy” is one formed from your own experience.
I don't trust that scientists are trustworthy, I observe that the scientific method is the most reliable means of learning about the world around us.

>I tried to engage you here
By getting told again here and ignoring it? You're strawmanning - I didn't say the word faith. And now you come out with anger and bile like that's going to convince anyone.

You think that you reading and believing scientists = the objective scientific method, and you think your beliefs are above mine because of this delusion. I am just trying to show you that both of our beliefs are based on personal experience and trust. It's hard to see why this is so hard to understand. You're not even addressing this core point with a counterargument you're just strawmanning and now ranting

>The god of the gaps argument is circular,
Where do your gods currently reside? In some gap of our knowledge? Of course, it's the only place they can ever exist.

>it only works if you already don't believe in God.
Why? Are you saying you belief in gods insulates you from facts, evidence and reason?

>He's not the gap god to me, he caused all of it,
Where did you learn that? From a book, written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night?

>Three fingers pointing back at you.
Okay.

>Isn’t this the religious definition of creation?
No, it’s the pop-sci and largely atheist view.

>A gap in our knowledge where your gods can safely reside.
Except it’s not a gap, it’s impossible. Saying life came from non-life is the same as saying a square is a circle.

>I actually have performed a number of experiments that confirm prevailing theories in my field and one that challenged it.
That's honestly great.

>the process can be trusted.
I agree, thanks for admitting it's based on trust and personal experience. I trust science (mostly) too because I observe technology working.

Unfortunately for real scientists a lot of science's authority is being abused today by things like gender studies with terrible, terrible methodology seeking specific conclusions. But yeah, physical sciences can be trusted. I've never claimed otherwise ITT, in fact my OP opened with saying it works.

My point is that you can't say that your experience of science being generally trustworthy is any more valid than believer's experience of God existing. It's all based on what you've personally seen, Faith is a different matter. Perhaps you think faith and belief in God are the same thing, but that's why I made this thread to try and explain theology to you in non-Christian jargon.

kys honey pot nigger

>Saying life came from non-life is the same as saying a square is a circle.
Prove it.

>Where did you learn that?
I saw it with my own eyes, as truly as I see any other pattern of truth. You can't see it because he hasn't opened your eyes yet.

Faith in God is different to the knowledge that God exists. You could know there's a God but be faithless and not believe he'll take care of you.

>No, it’s the pop-sci and largely atheist view.
It has nothing to do with atheism. You can't successfully argue against atheism, so you try to lump it together with something unrelated. You believe you can successfully argue against this unrelated idea. We can all see what you're doing. It's like watching a 2 year-old craft his first lie.

Use common sense. How can life come from non-life. Think about it. Look up studies and material and thought expiraments. It’s impossible.

Yeah it’s largely the atheist view. Not every atheist believes it. Just like not every religious person believes in intelligent design.

You believe life came from non-life?

You sound very angry btw.

You can’t recognize, observe, or reason about anything you don’t have a concept for. Think of the set of concepts you have as a board with square, triangle, and round holes. All the phenomenal data, static, is pushed through these holes like pegs.

For example, the natives in America had no concept of a big Galleon, so when the Spanish colonists first arrived all the natives could recognize was these shiny people appearing to materialize in thin air; the galleons were just a blind spot to the natives.

Which is why UFO sightings are bullshit, despite all our sci-fi, we have no real concept of an alien spacecraft; if a real ufo is as different from a space shuttle as a galleon to a canoe, then we wouldn’t recognize it let alone observe it or come up with theories about it unless the aliens were themselves similar enough to us, IE Star Trek style hominids, and could communicate with us about it.

And just like there are infinite numbers, there are also infinite possible concepts, because numbers are themselves concepts. Anytime you look at one thing, you find you can break it up into many different things, or you can combine different things into one thing. Analyze, synthesize, construct, deconstruct.

This is all just a reorganization and revaluation of the concepts in your own personal world, which is commonly referred these days as a ‘mind’. Whether you interpret a pile of phenomenal data as being good evil broken repairable red green straight curved is all to concepts in your mind.

And your minds employment of concepts can get pretty wacky. Example amphetamine abuse commonly causes hallucinations. Being a social drug, it pushes the concept of other persons to the top of the priority list and especially in the dark of night addicts will continuously look around for people, and if there aren’t any, will interpret any pile of junk a few feet away as filling that concept of a person. Like a scarecrow.

>Use common sense
Not proof.
>How can life come from non-life.
Not knowing how life can come from non-life doesn't prove that it cannot.
>Look up studies and material and thought expiraments
Saying that a square cannot be a circle isn't based on experiment, it's based on the definitions of square and circle.
>It’s impossible.
Prove it.

Relevance?

>a lot of science's authority is being abused today
Many scientists would agree that sensationalism is the enemy of meticulous work and analysis. But nearly all of us agree that the disciplines are well-policed by ourselves. We want the world to have that next important discovery, that next breakthrough, that next medical miracle, but only a statistical few bad actors are involved.

>you can't say that your experience of science being generally trustworthy is any more valid than believer's experience of God existing.
You're still battling to prove your gods are better than the 3000 other gods that have also *existed*. You have no problem dismissing their fictional gods with the sciences that produce useful technology. You just have to be brave enough to do it one more time.

Time to take off that last training wheel.

The chances of inert matter randomly arranging itself into the simplest healthy DNA is so small that it would never be expected to happen in the universe, ever.

>inb4 we just don't know
>inb4 I'm so rational I'm happy not knowing
>btw I'm 100% sure I'm right about God

>The chances of inert matter randomly arranging itself into the simplest healthy DNA is so small
You just admitted that it isn't impossible.

>I saw it with my own eyes,
You witnessed your gods creating the universe? I don't believe you. You were told about these stories from other believers. That's how mass hysteria is spread.

>Saying that a square cannot be a circle isn't based on experiment, it's based on the definitions of square and circle.
Exactly, like based on the definition of life and non-life.

I don’t think you ready to accept what science has known for a while now. You seem hell bent on proving a point. I’m just trying to bring another angle to the discussion. Lots of pop-sci paraded as science today.

How do I rationalize some of the bizzaro shit in the bible that is obviously fable when I have people telling me its entirely true front to back no lies. And also the bullshit about humans getting their lifespans turned down for being bad goys is complete nonsense. Half the bible is fable and the other half is false and I can't base my entire life off such a questionable book.

>Exactly, like based on the definition of life and non-life.
What about the definitions of life and non-life proves that life cannot come from non-life?
>You seem hell bent on proving a point.
I am, that point being that your claim that saying life came from non-life is the same as saying a square is a circle is false.

>You're still battling to prove your gods are better than the 3000 other gods that have also *existed*
No, I'm really not. There is one highest God of the universe, maybe some of those other 3000 were him by another name, IDK. Whichever God is the one, is my God. That's what monotheism means.

In my view the polytheistic gods exist too, but they're not THE god, they're not real entities but archetypes/moods. Pray to Thor to summon/channel battle lust and bravery etc. Hence why they're all very similar across cultures - reflections of parts of the human spirit. Real in a way, but not in the highest way.

>But nearly all of us agree that the disciplines are well-policed by ourselves.
Did you do an experiment to determine that or is it based on personal experience?

It doesn't have to be. Gods hand was there no matter how unlikely or likely it was. I'm just saying that you're very confident you're right for people who have absolutely no idea where they came from.

>What about the definitions of life and non-life proves that life cannot come from non-life?
Mutually exclusive I think is the word?

>You believe life came from non-life?
I know life comes from life. I don't speculate on the other permutations because we don't know. It's not honest to claim you "know" something that no one can know. And it's particularly troubling that your tall tales came from illiterate Bronze Age shepherds.

>You were told about these stories from other believers.
No, I was not. I personally observed God at work over several years as my consciousness rose. I wasn't Christian for years, I just knew there was a God and was looking for the religion that actually explained it. C.S Lewis was the one who actually explained it to me. But I knew God before I'd ever been preached to by anyone.

>It's not honest to claim you "know" something that no one can know
>yet I KNOW you're wrong

Do you even hear yourself?

It's all true but not all literal

>A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
Is not talking about falconry

I think there’s a lot of good and maybe bad that can come from it. I’m personally agnostic as I believe both atheism and theism are two extremes that can’t be proven at the moment. The Bible talks about many things millennia before it was common knowledge. For instance germ theory (unclean/clean commands), ptsd (after war soldiers are to stay separate from civilian life for a period of time before rejoining them), and a few others. I think all religions can have a lot of good in them as well as some bad. I do not believe the Bible is divinely inspired or preserved but that doesn’t mean that God didn’t do what is retold in some of the books of the Bible. I just don’t believe that they are necessarily retold accurately through time.

Do that make any sense? Lol.

Your math skills are on par with your natural sciences, I see.

L-shaped amino acids form under a variety of conditions on Earth because of the natural (ionic, covalent, polar) bonds between the elements involved. It's an easily understandable heuristic process that probably could have occurred much faster if not for constantly changing conditions on the Earth's surface.

> your claim that saying life came from non-life
In which specific post did I claim this?

Mutual exclusivity shows that life is not non-life, not that life cannot come from non-life.

>I know life comes from life. I don't speculate on the other permutations because we don't know.
We do know. Scientists can’t turn non-life into life. They’ve tried and failed. I don’t think you’ve yet grasped that the gap between life and non-life can’t be filled. It’s an impossibility.

How do you know God's hand was there? Did you show it experimentally or experience it personally?

>There is one highest God of the universe,
That's quite literally what they all say.

>maybe some of those other 3000 were him by another name,
With vastly different moral systems, different manifestations of him, different tales and different elements of faith?

>Did you do an experiment to determine that
We constantly repeat the experiments of others to demonstrate repeatability and confirm research. It's part of the scientific method.

>I just knew there was a God and was looking for the religion that actually explained it
Ah, a conclusion in search of supporting evidence. We call that bad science.

Attached: Moses_dore.jpg (531x660, 146K)

L shaped amino acids? No problem.

3000 different proteins? Maybe eventually it would happen in some ocean.

3000 different proteins arranged for 4 million base pairs in the exact order to create a bacterium? No. Not in 14 billion years could that be expected to occur by chance.

3.2 billion bases long