this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2025
449 points (95.0% liked)
Data Is Beautiful
9033 readers
1 users here now
A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's all well and good if you're already working under the framework that God exists. If I'm not, why should I accept such a fallable and obviously human work as proof that God not only exists, but this specific God exists?
Some people tried to prove God through language and logic, but it's beyond the point. The existence of God is much more easily experienced than proven.
The Bible was born as a support to create the community around which the experience of God was possible. A scenario in which a person is reading the Bible alone, thinking really hard about it, and comes out convinced of God's existence is not what the Bible was written for or how it's used in most forms of Christianity.
An almighty god can't or won't create an objective book for us to follow? Not worth worshipping.
The big selling point of Christianity was to move God and faith within the subject, moving away from external and ritualistic practices. Also, objectivity is a modernist perspective and it's not an intrinsic valuable thing. Outside of rationalist bubbles in the global north, objectivity is pretty uninteresting trait to evaluate knowledge, because the knower and the known are never objective.
Replace God with aliens if you want to understand how I see these kind of statements. It's so very clearly the creation of an evolved ape supported by assertion.
I assume you've never experienced the existence of God, which is a pity. Great experience. 10/10, would recommend.
I guess you've never experienced the existence of aliens, which makes the two experiences equivalent in their absurdity to you, but you should consider that the vast majority of people out there did experience God in a way or another.
I did. On acid. Which made me even more adeist, which basically means I don't believe in deities and I don't call "god" "a god". And I don't believe, I know that the intelligent observer exists, I just don't give it a worship credit because worshipping is a "satanic" principle. All of the religions prove it. Universe and dimensions are too complex to dismiss the intelligence and a creation in the equation, but it doesn't mean we are obligated to build temples to it and call it a god and make fools out of ourselves and the creation. And we did exactly that. Why? There has to be some logic in our flawness and there surely is, we just don't understand it. I think that perfection reflects in the flawness and that our level of consciousness was needed so the force can reflect its perfection in our corruption. Paradise and hell are simple to explain, just take DMT and you will understand. Because we extract DMT as we die and death is just a trip. Will it be paradise or hell, depends on your ego and all the informations you gathered during life. So, if you, for example, killed people, DMT in combo with it will make your transition a hell. If you were NPC, you're stuck in the "purgatory", if you were good, you'll be able to release the ego and DMT will create a heaven for you. What's after that, fuck me if I know.
DMT and the Church are both technologies to access the experience of God, with very different costs. I agree on the worshipping part, in fact I'm talking about experiencing God, not worshipping. Worshipping is a way to eventually experience God, it's not a consequence, at least within Christianity. Faith means trusting that through worshipping you will eventually have the experience of God, in a way or another.
Then if you prefer not to call it a God, that's fine, but you miss out on the fact that countless people in the past millennia were talking about the same thing you saw on DMT. The God of Spinoza, Mulla Sadra or Plato is not necessarily a God to worship.
Good for you
Oh so you're saying the Church's actions speak louder than the Bible itself?
Also assuming you're Catholic from your other comments.
So, witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, burning Joan of Arc, selling indulgences, fighting tooth and nail against an English translation of the Bible so normal people can actually read it (and burning the translators for good measure), justifying slavery under the guise of "well we're saving those slaves by forcing then to become Christian", generations of science denial and suppression, and Indigenous residential schools. My what a great experience you've forced onto this world.
Also, if you're so confident that experiencing God will turn someone Christian, what's with all the hell stuff you keep pushing? Sure seems like the fear of eternal torture is your bread and butter way of getting people to believe.
I'm not Christian. I was raised culturally Catholic but never practiced or believed in the Christian God. I've been excomunicated for a few years too. I have no connection to the Catholic in any form (except maybe some of their money funding some political stuff I do).
The Catholic Church, understood as the community of believers, is an organization going on for thousands of years, in every corner of the world, involving a few billions of humans. Every organization of that size will have stains in its history, especially if you judge them from the perspective of late-stage modernity morals, which the Church deliberately doesn't participate in. They have their own system, and it clashes with the rationalist mindset because both systems have a claim to universalism, with the Christian universalism creating the modern colonial-scientific universalism. They are two sides of the same coin. I make little distinction between the two, because both eventually lead to oppression. That said, nowadays the Catholic Church is positioning itself as the main leader of the anti-fascist front in the Global North.
Also little historical note: quantitatively, the vast majority of witch burnings were done by protestants, not by catholics