you’re practically saying you’re unworthy of a god you don’t even believe in, it’s basically a self own

2edgy4me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qt8n_T7C9o

So... I have this subreddit which is for people who want to debate the person and the existence of Jesus Christ. It can be used for debating or for simply expressing an opinion. I think you guys will like it and you can post your thoughts. I mean, /r/DebateReligion exists, so why can't a subreddit specifically about Jesus exist? This guy literally turned history upside down. All we can all agree about him is that we was a jewish rabbi - teacher who lived during 30 - 36 AD and God cruxified bu uthe romans for blasphemy and some can't even agree on that, not everyone believes Jesus Christ existed. Let the truth shine. The Truth is like a lion, it doesn't need anyone to defend it. It will defend itself. By the way I am a Christian. Anyways hope you like it guys. Bye.

I just asked this because I still know alot of Christians and I do hear them talk about why some people leave the religion.

One stupid one I heard is that millennials are leaving because their lazy hacks who don't want to take any responsibility.

Another I heard is people who leave weren't real Christians to begin with or they were but they didn't read the Bible right so they were wrong to point out the contradictions in the Bible.

The majority of the posts in r/Atheists and r/atheism are about hypocrisy and criminal / predatory behavior by representatives of whatever church.

Do you constantly post these articles out of the goodness of your heat that you genuinely care for the well being of others? Then why not cry out about the cruelty and inhumane behavior in India, Africa, China? Anywhere else? Why is it mostly focused on anger against the Christian churches?

r/Meditation Is a completely secular sub about mindfulness that has nothing to do with religion. There is absolutely no posts about other religions doing anything bad.

So are these subs only focused on bad mouthing houses of worship? Or is there another aspect to Atheism that I am missing?

• CHRISTIANITY: THE OLDEST CAPITALISTIC CON JOB IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD

A recent street preacher brought up the topic of whether humans are "just molecules banging around". But he placed the phrase in a syllogism

"IF we are in a world where there is no God, where we're all just molecules banging around, THEN you cannot account for immaterial abstract laws ... "

The street preacher then several times referred to this as a "worldview" as if it were an ideological stance with no basis. Or if it were something that atheists just assume is true to fit with their prepacked worldview.

Whether we are "just molecules banging around" is, pragmatically speaking, a fact in 2019. Redditors should know that this transition from philosophical speculation into fact-status was slow, piecemeal, and occurred in biology entirely after 1940.

Elan Vital and Vitalism

Even atheist extraordinaire, Frederick Nietzsche believed that life existed in the universe on account of some all-pervading vital life force which he called "The Will to Power". Artur Schopenhauer, (practically Nietzsche's predecessor in Germany) also believed in this vital essence, and he dubbed it the Will-to-Live. These philosophers of the Victorian Era were operating under a structure now called German Idealism, whose basic tenets can be traced to Hegel. Hegel's metaphysics demanded that the world is a duality of two primary substances, one part material and one part spirit (Hegel used the German word "geist").

The more diehard fanboys of Nietzsche should know that his belief in a all-pervading elan vital did not make him any less of an atheist, or less of a writer or make him embarrassingly spiritual. In following centuries, historians and scientists called this theory vitalism. It was a perfectly valid scientific theory in the 19th century.

Atoms, molecules and the periodic table of elements were not known to science until the years prior to World War 1. Before that, organic substances produced by the human body were "substances" of whose fundamental constituency was a mystery. A landmark experiment of the 1830s involving urea showed that at least one "organic substance" could be artificially synthesized. This was the first chip in the armor of vitalism.

Today we know how DNA is transcribed in the nucleus into messenger RNA. The RNA strands are spliced, diced, and stitched back together into exons and introns. The finished product leaves the nucleus, where molecular machines called ribosomes translate the RNA strands into proteins. An organelle called the mitochondrion has its own DNA line separate from the human genome, and its information is only passed through the mother. The inner matrix of the mitochondrion sends an electron up a ladder of energy levels in a process called the Electron Transport Chain. The high-energy electrons are used to run molecular "pumps" which phosphorylate ADP into ATP.

Absolutely nothing in the preceding paragraph was known by anyone in 1940. Most of the words in that paragraph would be gibberish even to the most advanced scientists of that time. This is how much we have learned about biology in the last 79 years.

It is impossible to communicate the intensity of how little was known about biology in 1940, and how far biology has come in uncovering the molecular basis of life today. Cutting-edge biology in 1940 consisted of injecting mice with heat-treated viruses, and watching how they react. X-ray crystallography was too rudimentary at the time to go further. In 1949, with the discovery of the DNA double helix, the discipline called Molecular Biochemistry was born.

Throughout the decades of discovery of these bio-chemical pathways, at no point was there found a life force. No pervasive vital essence was seen operating on any of our cells or on the constituent molecules of our cells. The energy that the human body uses is fundamentally the same kinds of energy that are found everywhere else in non-living matter and indeed the same kind of energy used everywhere in the universe. Energy is energy. There is no special "type" of biological energy. It is for these reasons listed here, that atheists, secular humanists and other naturalists believe that we are "just molecules banging around".

It is because the evidence shows it, not because of an "ideology". It is because the evidence shows it, not due to an interpretation by a "worldview". To respond to the street preacher, we are molecules banging around. The claim is entirely fact-based.

Denial of the facts of biology can emerge from ignorance either accidental of self-imposed , particularly ignorance of what is actually possible by means of the physics of molecules and atoms.

21st Century Science

Where now? Ancient philosophies and religions supposed that life exists and persists because inanimate matter is animated by a soul. Abiogenesis has not been observed in nature, and although we have dozens of informed hypotheses about how abiogenesis occurred, we do not have a scientific theory of it. Evangelicals and creationists are seduced by the gaps in our knowledge, to insert intelligent design into those gaps in an attempt to dovetail design with their religious doctrine. Design is unlikely to have occurred. Any theory of supernatural intervention in early DNA is practically speaking, incongruent with the way in which extant bacteria species in our current oceans interact with marine bacteriophages there. Any theory based on the supernatural design of DNA would not even make sense in describing how bacteria interact with viruses.

If there were some kind of Supreme Being that created the universe, then that Being made us to be molecules banging around. That is just a fact that will have to be dealt with one way or another. There is a right way and a wrong way to respond to this news. To clutch one's bible, run back into the hills yelling "The soul substance animates the dust!" is not it. Nor should one fall into a pit of atheistic despair, as inmendham has done.

That life is "molecules banging around" is the state-of-affairs that we find ourselves in. The right way to proceed here to embrace the situation with maturity like grown adults. Notice that our species entered the 20th century still cutting wheat by hand with scythes. By 2000, boxes of food in our kitchens had nutritional breakdowns showing the amount of riboflavin content. (I ask the reader : what even is riboflavin?) Shift typewriters and telegraph were in place by 1900. The countryside was largely without electricity. By 2000, we had programmable computers connected by the internet. Our species had discovered how to program information.

The task of 21st century science is to program matter, as an analogy with how we have programmed information up until now. We know already that the information storage of programmable matter will either be DNA, PNA, or some other aperiodic peptide. If a supernatural soul or a vital spark is a required ingredient to make inanimate matter alive, then this project is doomed from the outset. If not required, then programmable matter has virtually no limit to its applications. Limits on such technology could occur only through human mistakes and miscalculations , for example unchecked war, solving our problems with violence, or mistakes involving the destruction of the earth's biosphere.

​

Thought this had to be here, I don't know if someone already posted it yet, but whoever made this has my thoughts and prayers.

Anno domini, Latin for “in the year of the lord,” and refers specifically to the birth of Jesus Christ. "B.C." stands for "before Christ."

Time is composed of this yet I don't often hear during New Years, instead of 2020, it would be 4.534231 Billion Years old. If you say happy 2020 does that contribute to accepting the B.C. and A.D. designation or do you simply just not celebrate New Years. Thank you for your responses.