John Read

@Eachwayjasetoo @JaneCaro The facts say otherwise

@JohnRead133885 @JaneCaro Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity, nothing more, and there is no singular practice or set of rules for it. It is not a religion.

Yes, there are some decent people if faith, many of them, in fact, but I completely agree with the view that the only force on earth who can get decent people to do terrible things is religion.

@Eachwayjasetoo @JaneCaro Atheism is indeed a religion -> it is a FAITH in both materialism and human reasoning as the only guides to ‘truth’ (rejecting the observed reality of completely immaterial things and our limited human minds)

@JohnRead133885 @JaneCaro Atheism is not a religion but yes, political ideology caused the deaths of many millions last century, more than religion.

@AtridaEl @Ektelion14 No new genetic code was generated

@JohnRead133885 @Ektelion14 What nonsense! The term "finch" doesn't refer to a species (it's not even a real taxon/clade). The birds known as finches are actually 18 different species. If you recognize that they have a common ancestor, you recognize speciation. To say "they're still finches" is meaningless.

L’évolution n’est plus « la théorie de Darwin » au sens étroit du XIXe siècle. C’est une théorie scientifique mature, comme la théorie de la gravitation ou la théorie atomique : elle a été testée, raffinée, et aucune donnée sérieuse ne l’a contredite en 167 ans. Les créationnistes continuent de combattre une version de paille de 1859 parce que c’est plus facile émotionnellement : ils peuvent y coller des images sataniques, des églises en flammes et des « WE HATE GOD ». Ça marche bien sur les réseaux, mais ça n’a rien à voir avec la science actuelle. Darwin lui-même n’était même pas athée au moment où il a écrit L’Origine des espèces (il était déiste, puis est devenu agnostique surtout après la mort de sa fille). L’évolution n’oblige personne à être athée des milliers de biologistes, chimistes et paléontologues croyants l’acceptent parfaitement (théisme évolutionniste).

@AtridaEl @Ektelion14 Those finches are still finches (no new genetic code)

@JohnRead133885 @Ektelion14 cope bbc.com/news/science-e…

@AtridaEl @Ektelion14

@JohnRead133885 @Ektelion14 So "nonsense" that it's one of the foundations of biology XD It's better to believe the story of the clay man, the rib woman, and their inbred offspring

@hookskat Time is running out. Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart. Solomon’s wise conclusion: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is your duty and God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

I believe that if a god exists and wants to reach me, it is more than capable of doing so without a third party. I’d rather find my way through genuine conviction than be a 'success story' for someone only looking for a notch on their belt.

@TheSkepticWiz God scattered mankind into separate nations by language to preserve human freedom by preventing a single authoritarian ruler from controlling the entire world.

@hookskat Alternatively, it is in fact describing the divine.

Christians claim the Bible describes the divine, it is actually describing the human experience projected onto the divine.

@Danish_SMF What do you think the word ‘eternal’ means?

If the universe requires a creator, we must logically ask where tht creator came from If we claim the creator has always existed despite having no evidence, why not simply accept the universe, which we can actually observe & date back 13.8 billion yrs, is wht has alwys existed?

@ToriatheistTori Since atheism is a religion, this means you believe the world would be a better place without atheists

@Olu_Utd14 Because people themselves are immoral. The lunatics can’t run the asylum.

Why do theists think morality only comes from religion? It’s honestly exhausting having to explain this every time…

Minns. ‘ the Jewish community have been through so much ‘ What in the fuck does he think First Nations people have been going through continuously for the last 200+ years

Most atheists I know don’t claim evolution proves God doesn’t exist. Evolution simply offers a natural explanation for complexity, something that used to be attributed to a “Designer.” It doesn’t disprove a deity; it just makes one unnecessary… And you can see why that unsettles religious thinking… If Adam and Eve weren’t literal, then “Original Sin” becomes questionable and if there’s no original sin, the whole idea of a “Savior” starts to lose its logical footing… You can’t offer a cure for a problem that never existed.

@C0nditi0nSupply @darwintojesus Your burden of proof remains. Until then you hold a religious FAITH in atheism.

@JohnRead133885 @darwintojesus I don't know how life "arose", and neither do you. Paul only had his hallucinations and astral projections to go on, so I wouldn't be taking his word for it either, if I were you.

I’ve never seen an atheist actually prove this, they just say it. Make an argument.

@C0nditi0nSupply @darwintojesus …says your negation bias! By the way, you still have a burden of proof to show that life can arise spontaneously from non-life (totally preposterous belief, non-sensical, lacking any scientific evidence whatsoever).

@JohnRead133885 @darwintojesus Your willful ignorance and confirmation bias would say that. And they would both be wrong.

@Ektelion14 Matthew & John were apostles and direct eyewitnesses. Paul personally knew Peter, James the Lord’s brother, and John -> He explicitly appealed to 500+ living direct witnesses, inviting verification in a way no forger would. NB: our current Church age addresses the intellect:

Rappel: il n’y a aucune preuve historique ou scientifique de cette résurrection (ni des autres dans la Bible : Lazare, la fille de Jaïrus, les saints au moment de la crucifixion, etc.). On a des textes du Nouveau Testament écrits 30-70 ans après les événements, par des auteurs qui n’étaient pas tous témoins directs, et qui rapportent des témoignages. Pas de rapport de police romain, pas d’autopsie, pas de vidéo, pas de témoin neutre extérieur au mouvement chrétien primitif. Le Suaire de Turin n’est pas la preuve qui change tout. Des débats existent sur une possible contamination ou une réparation invisible du tissu, et quelques études récentes (rayons X, modélisations 3D) relancent la discussion chez les partisans. Mais le consensus scientifique reste clair : c’est un objet médiéval, pas du Ier siècle. Même l’Église catholique ne le présente pas comme une preuve dogmatique de la résurrection. Aujourd’hui, à l’ère où on peut tout mesurer, filmer, scanner et publier en temps réel… plus personne ne ressuscite. On réanime des gens en arrêt cardiaque grâce à la défibrillation ou à l’hypothermie thérapeutique, mais quelqu’un qui est mort depuis trois jours, enterré, et qui revient en pleine forme sans aucun dommage cérébral ? Zéro cas vérifié, malgré des milliards d’yeux et d’instruments médicaux partout. C’est même devenu un critère de scepticisme légitime : les miracles bibliques semblent s’être arrêtés pile quand la science a commencé à pouvoir les tester.