Walker

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX You’re asserting ‘more probable’ without a way to measure the non-physical. That’s not evidence, it’s assumption. And ‘possibility carries a burden of proof’ is backwards. You haven’t shown impossibility, just limits of your method

But I absolutely CAN say that based on ALL the available evidence it is faaaaaaar, faaaaaaaar more likely, faaaaaaar, faaaaaaaar more probable that an afterlife is not possible. FAR from an assumption, a conclusion highly supported by the ALL of the actual evidence. I really don’t give a shit if your brain refuses to acknowledge that fact. Or realize how much more probable it is that you are wrong. You have ZERO positive evidence supporting YOUR “conclusion“ besides your gut feelings, childhood indoctrination and desperation for your implanted religious beliefs to be true which isn’t even guaranteed even IF you could prove an afterlife exists. THIS BELOW is all FACT regarding what neuroscience has demonstrated. STILL waiting for your proof a non-material, supernatural exists, right now ZERO PROBABILITY of that happening. POSSIBILITY carries a burden of proof, prove a non-material, supernatural afterlife is even POSSIBLE, you claiming it is doesn’t prove your non-material, supernaturalism afterlife is even POSSIBLE.

Atheists unironically believe lighting struck some water and... poof! Life just... happened. And then that turned into a fish. And then a lizard. And then a monkey. And then you. But Christians are the ones that believe in fairytales...

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX You can’t measure the non-physical, then claim it’s ‘probably not real.’ That’s not evidence, that’s assumption

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX Again, for you to say you KNOW Christianity is true you have to KNOW an afterlife, in fact, DOES exist …..but literally ALL of the actual evidence is against you. You cannot possibly say you KNOW Christianity is true and THAT was my original point.

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX You just conceded it. You can’t rule in what’s beyond your method either. So you haven’t proven ‘no afterlife’ only that science studies the physical.

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX Riiiiight! Hysterical! Your only FALSE HOPE aka Christianity is to assume NON-physicalism without proving it. The PHYSICAL EXISTS…..I don’t need “faith” for that. YOU can’t rule IN what’s beyond YOUR method.🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX You keep demanding proof of an afterlife while assuming physicalism without proving it. Brain dependence ≠ no afterlife. Science can’t rule out what’s beyond its method.

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX And….even IF you could prove an afterlife in fact does exist that STILL doesn’t prove Christianity is true, lots of religions claim an afterlife exists. Your “Faith” (programming into it) that Christianity is true is THAT unsupported, THAT improbable, THAT unknowable!

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX >Asserting he has evidence >Not actually providing it >Replacing arguments with memes

Just ignore how stupid you just made yourself look as I pointed out and move on! 🤣. I have presented TONS of actual evidence backed by modern neuroscience etc… PLUS REALITY AS IT EXISTS. YOU, STILL nothing but baseless assertions, unsubstantiated claims and endless ignorance-based “NUH UH!” and a brain that either is incapable of realizing or won’t allow itself to acknowledge it is wrong due to its programing. YOU>Still no alternative evidence presented FOR the existence of an afterlife or supernatural. At this point, I’m not debating you jus laughing out loud and amazed. You are beyond shitty critical thinking skills ….

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX >Makes claims >Posts memes when asked for evidence of such claims >Still no evidence presented

“If you’ve got evidence for consciousness without a brain, present it. If not, that kind of settles it.” Are you stupid? MY argument is that consciousness is a product of the brain. That goes AGAINST the claim an afterlife exists! I’ll turn this around on you….”If you’ve got evidence for consciousness without a brain, present it. If not, that kind of settles it.”

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX Memes aren’t evidence. I gave a causal argument (mind depends on brain). If you’ve got evidence for consciousness without a brain, present it. If not, that kind of settles it.

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX Brain damage reliably changes personality, memory, and identity. Remove the brain, the mind goes too. That’s not just correlation, it’s causal dependence. If you claim otherwise, what evidence shows consciousness exists without a brain?

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX Oh look! Big surprise…. not one shred of evidence for an afterlife or a supernatural but you KNOW Christianity is ”true“ and Gospel Jesus is “God”. Sure you do. Keep telling yourself that…..

@ThatGuyOppai @oliverburdick Serious claim, but it’s not accurate. Early Christianity spread mostly without political power, and killing anyone who questioned just isn’t historical reality. Abuses happened later, but that’s not the foundation or message of Christianity

@Walkerqzzo @oliverburdick Your religion is built on the genacides of cultures and religions because your religion can't survive questioning that why the church killed anyone who questioned them

Atheists:

@ThatGuyOppai @oliverburdick Gnosticism was mostly 2nd–4th century. And it wasn’t about Genesis literalism, it was rejected for fundamentally different theology

@Walkerqzzo @oliverburdick It's basic history, do a tiny bit of research into what that church was doing between the years 850-950

@ThatGuyOppai @oliverburdick That’s not accurate. Gnostics weren’t wiped out for not taking Genesis literally, but for radically different theology (dualism, rejecting the OT God). Also “genocide for power” is a huge claim. What primary sources support that?

@Walkerqzzo @oliverburdick It's a historical fact documented by the church, the Catholics commited a religious genocide to get rid of the gnostics because they questioned the word of the Bible the only thing keeping the Catholic Church in power for over a thousand years

@ThatGuyOppai @oliverburdick Non-literal Genesis goes back to Origen and Augustine. Long before modern science. And Gnostics weren’t rejected for that but for very different beliefs. So this isn’t a modern “defense”, it’s been part of Christianity from the start.

@Walkerqzzo @oliverburdick Those groups, like the gnostics where all persecuted and killed by the church for heresies not taking the Bible literally started after massive backlash against the church for going against their own beliefs. Not taking the Bible literally was a popularised to protect the church

@ThatGuyOppai @oliverburdick I think you’re assuming a strictly literal reading of Genesis. Many Christians (even historically) don’t read the “7 days” as 24 hour periods, and see it as theological, not a scientific timeline. So evolution really just challenges one interpretation of Genesis.

@Walkerqzzo @oliverburdick It also proves that humans weren't just placed on earth, so the Adam and Eve couldn't be true for multiple reasons and the 7 days story can't be true because it also claims life was just put on earth the way it is now

@ThatGuyOppai @oliverburdick Appreciate the specifics. “Hands” (Greek cheir) can include the wrist, and crucifixion methods varied. Romans also used multiple cross types, not just X. And evolution explains how life develops, not whether God exists.

@Walkerqzzo @oliverburdick Its specifically stated that nails where put through Jesus hands which is incorrect they would have been put through his wrists as well as crucifixes were not T's they were X's. And evolution does disprove

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX You just moved the goalposts to “in the physical” which concedes my point. Science studies the physical. It doesn’t rule out anything beyond it. You haven’t shown mind = brain, only correlation. Where’s the actual argument?

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX Maybe actually read this? x.com/Robbservations…

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX Calling a meme “100% proof” isn’t evidence goofball. Science hasn’t “ruled out” an afterlife, it studies the physical. “No evidence” ≠ “impossible” or “unworthy.” You’re making philosophical claims, not scientific ones. What’s your actual argument?

You misunderstand. To ME, the meme below is sufficient evidence, 100% proof that an afterlife as portrayed by the Abrahamic religions is impossible. The 1% is merely an intellectually generous, not really warranted, leaving of space for any (not even proved possible) supernatural alternatives. A supernatural you have ZERO evidence exists but that science can’t prove is impossible only in the same way it cannot prove Fairies existing is impossible…not an acknowledgment that it is possible. Merely that it is unworthy of consideration. If YOU can find a win in the fact that science has effectively ruled out an afterlife in our physical world but your baseless belief in a supernatural, non-physical alternative can rescue you, good for you! Run with that! That is religion in a nutshell, your brain irrationally, baselessly, believing in the unbelievable, the unsubstantiated, the unverifiable, the unfalsifiable aka Self-Delusion… your brain making itself feel better in accordance with its programming..

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX You’ve shifted from “99% impossible” to “you can’t know.” That’s a retreat. Also, “not scientifically provable” ≠ unknowable. Science can’t test the supernatural, so it can’t rule it out either. What’s your argument, not assumption?

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX Dude, your whole argument is “NUH UH!” And you not supplying anything at all supporting YOUR claims. Offer up some counter evidence ….evidence FOR an afterlife, for Christianity being true…ANYTHING or buzz off.

@ThatGuyOppai @oliverburdick I appreciate you actually giving specific points 1. Evolution doesn’t debunk Christianity. Many Christian’s accept it. That’s more about how life developed, not whether God exists. 2. What specifically is incorrect about the crucifixion accounts?

@Walkerqzzo @oliverburdick Both creation stories are debunked by the existence of homo species before homo sapiens, the description in the Bible of how Jesus was crucified is completely incorrect on how it was actually done

@SITH_SILENCE @Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX You’re at least recognizing the key point. Mind may not reduce to brain. That’s exactly what he hasn’t justified.

@Robbservations2 @Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX Consciousness is just cosmic string signal interpreted by the brain wgich is the knots of cosmic strings. It is entirely possible the Cosmos is self aware and omniscient by the oscillations of cosmic strings we interpret with the knots of those same strings. Metaphysics 101.

@Robbservations2 @AgainstAtheismX How did you calculate 99%? What method did you use? If science can’t test the supernatural, how can it justify your certainty about it? How do you get from “no evidence” to “probably impossible”? How do purely physical processes produce subjective experience?

@Walkerqzzo @AgainstAtheismX I am not arguing for impossibility, I am arguing for probable impossibility. 99% certainty. Science is PROVISIONAL….there’s no afterlife until you prove there is. Then science will update. I AM STILL WAITING FOR A SHRED OF EVIDENCE FROM YOU FOR THE SUPERNATURAL….