/lit/ - Literature

>>12505452
I probably could, what should I refute?

>>12505452
I can refute the fuck out of the moral landscape easily. It's filled with nonsequitors. He literally leaps back and forth over the gap between "ought" and "is" like it isn't there. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
"End of faith" however is gold.

>>12505452
Refute what? His neuroscience?
Oh wait..

>>12505452
he is such a fucking retard but he's right about a lot of things so i doubly hate him

>>12505538
no you couldn't.

>>12505592
this poster is stupid

>>12505663
nice meme

>>12505670
just accept that he is smarter than you and the hate will dissolve into the admiration that he deserves

>>12505689
Not arguments.
1/10.

Consider suicide if you have nothing to do with this time.

>>12505592
Literally what is wrong with faith

>>12505452
“Find out what TWO WORDS make this NEW ATHEIST go CRAZY and consider SUICIDE
Ben Stiller

>>12505702
its the denial of truth

>>12505702
It's irrational and therefore not right with G-d.

>>12505452
He's correct that God isn't real, but his argument that we should therefore bomb the Middle East isn't persuasive.

>>12505731
Explain how bombing the Middle East wouldn't result in a net decrease in suffering.

>>12505718
Having faith implies you don’t know what the truth is, so how can you deny it? We have faith because we cannot know the truth.

>>12505731
>He's correct that God isn't real
Prove it

>>12505592
It isn't there, dumbass. You can only get an -ought- from what -is-. Any 'ought' is created/adopted with the intent of manipulating what is, and is informed by what is.

Also, if you're going to use the lingo you should at least spell it right (see the intent and reference to -is- in this ought statement?).

>>12505452
Tropic Thunder sucked

>>12505452
On his neoliberal ideas, I easily can.

>>12505718
Well, it's the disregarding of falsifiability. And as a foundation for opinions it can only ever be right accidentally.

>>12505731
Strawman as fuck. He never said any of that.

>>12505702
I'm an adult and I just recognize the existential uncertainty we all face. It's scary that all I have to go on is provisional logic structures, but life has cursed me with the ability to ask good questions, so I will never have the luxury of being able to repeat comforting fantasies until I believe them.

>>12505777
>but life has cursed me with the ability to ask good questions, so I will never have the luxury of being able to repeat comforting fantasies until I believe them.
Yeah, I thought the same thing, buddy.

>>12505755
Just don't know then rather than repeating whatever option you like.

>>12505762
What are you even doing here? Why should I do that? There is no should. "Is" informs "ought" but does not imply it. Go read your first philosophy book.

>>12505767
Topic thunder was hilarious you dirty whore.

>>12505760
He never said that.

To all the Christlarpers:

- Show me evidence of God
- Prove the Bible is actually the divine word of God
- Refute that faith is not evidence of God
- Admit the Bible is an inherently flawed document with outdated laws that could be scrapped right now
- Prove that if God did exist he is either incompetent or evil to allow all the injustice and suffering in the world

>>12505799
>Just don't know then, rather than repeating whatever option you like.
Why?

>>12505815
is this supposed to be a parody of r/atheism, or are you actually from there?

>>12505731
>He’s correct that God isn’t real

>>12505762
>You can only get an -ought- from what -is-.
How?

>>12505826
>red herring

wow so compelling

>>12505815
>>12505835
decent enough for neo-/lit/ desu, you'll get replies

>>12505815
Inb4
>those parts of the bible don't count.
>You cant know nuffin so what I know is legit.
>Free will and determinism don't conflict because look at these goalposts move.
>God is (insert non-biblical interpretation)

I'm amazed Christmas don't just wander into traffic with their heads so far up their asses.

>>12505825
Because you are a detriment to anyone who wver looks to you for perspective and you give much more extreme faiths validation.

>>12505843
>Christmas
Christfags

>>12505849
Atheism refutes itself. If there's no God, then there is no standard for truth or reality or any valid reason to prefer one option over another, so to an intellectually honest atheist, theism is as valid a perspective as atheism.

>>12505815
>Show me evidence of God
There’s no true evidence either way. This is why faith is important. Can you benefit by believing? Then have faith that He does exist.
>Prove the Bible is actually the divine word of God
Not able to be proven completely, as well. The OT prophesies and Jesus’ existence are pretty convincing, though. God would not opt to force you to believe through simple certainty, but through faith.
>Refute that faith is not evidence of God
Who claims that faith is evidence of God? I agree with you.
>Admit the Bible is an inherently flawed document with outdated laws that could be scrapped right now
How is it flawed? Yes, some of the laws are outdated, but they all portray meanings that can be applied today. Most of them, for example, are critical of indulging in pleasure for the sake of it. Would you rather the Bible simply say “Don’t indulge in pleasure” ? How boring and ineffective of a law that would be.
>Prove that if God did exist he is either incompetent or evil to allow all the injustice and suffering in the world
Yes, evil happens to humans, and to alligators, and birds, and bugs—some of the evil originating from humans— but why does this matter to God, the creator of everything? Can’t God make a universe for his own purposes? Why should He be obligated to create the world solely for YOUR infinite pleasure and lack of suffering? Can you really think of no benefit to allowing suffering, and struggle, and meaning? Do humans not write books with conflict and suffering? Can you design a better universe?

>>12505879
>Can you really think of no benefit to allowing suffering, and struggle, and meaning?

yes because the 7 million children who die before the age of 5 every year is all part of god's wonderful incomprehensible plan

>>12505879
>How is it flawed? Yes, some of the laws are outdated, but they all portray meanings that can be applied today.

the bible condones slavery, even jesus endorses it

yawn

>>12505869
>No standard for truth or reality without god
Erm, what?

Anyway, read carefully. I know its difficult for religious people to tolerate a void where comforting answers would be, but neither I nor Sam harris said there is no god. We pointed out that if faith ever found truth it would only do so on accident. It fails as a foundation for opinions or a method of proceasing information, because it is an incubator of bad ideas. Whereas challenging one's ideas and collecting broader perspective stands a chance at finding truth, assuming it can be found.

I'm not asking you not to like an idea. I'm asking you to stop baselessly being convinced of it, because you encourage the young and impressionable to do the same and it is holding back our species from real life verifiable scientific miraclea like genetic engineering and stem cell medicine because people preserve and swear by unfalsifiable ideas like Souls and imaginary lines between what deity intended what and what is defying their supposed omnipotence.

>>12505592
Yeah "End of Faith" is pretty god tier(lol).

>>12505717
You know he jokes about it himself right?

He was giving a speech and was talking about what could be going through the audience members' heads and he said "You know... he DOES look like Ben Stiller!"

>>12505895
Interesting that you mentioned children dying, and not the millions of animals and insects that humans are killing. It’s almost as if your perspective is limited to your monkey brain who sees any sense of suffering as a flaw in the creator, while the creator does not operate like your brain chemistry. Pleasure vs. suffering isn’t God’s motivation. Truth is. That includes understanding the good, the bad, the creation, the creator.

>>12505916
In the absence of God, why do you care about progress or truth or bad ideas? If life is a meaningless void, why do you care about anything? Either you are dishonest and lack the courage of your convictions, or deep down you accept the metaphysical.

>>12505901
What’s wrong with slavery? There are rules to slavery to prevent mistreatment. Both the slave and the master can still live spiritual slaves dedicated to God, so there is no sin involved.

>>12505935
>Interesting that you mentioned children dying, and not the millions of animals and insects that humans are killing

im talking about God not humans

>What’s wrong with slavery? There are rules to slavery to prevent mistreatment. Both the slave and the master can still live spiritual slaves dedicated to God, so there is no sin involved.

easy to say when you are not a slave

>There are rules to slavery to prevent mistreatment.

lol

>>12505869
This. If you take atheism in it's modern context to it's logical conclusion, you end up with nihilism.

>>12505952
>im talking about God not humans
Yes, how does the existence of suffering make God flawed? I would argue that the absence of suffering would make God flawed.
>easy to say when you are not a slave
It’s probably easier to have faith in God as a slave. It’s not like you’d be drawn away by material pleasures.

Are you going to make an actual argument for once, or continue to type like the average teenage atheist?

>>12505452
>Buddhism is not a religion lol

>>12505937
>Why do you care about truth or bad ideas?
I find it convenient to understand things. I enjoy scientific advancements. I think that more sustainable living is possible and worth the effort. I have emotions. In the absence of divine purpose or obligations, one doesn't just become void of feelings and intentions or preferences. This doesn't confess dishonesty or lack of conviction or acceptance of the metaphysical. However, I accwpt the possibility of the metaphysical. I just don't go repeating that I have faith in it because that would be retarded. God damn religious people are dumb.

If you think that without god nothing in life is worth your effort, that says a lot more about you than me. You should probably kill yourself.

>>12505944
Not him but slavery is a weak example. All the monotheistic texts are filled with declarations of war on other modes of thought that christians insist just don't count.

>>12505957
You end up with competent and intellectually honest adults admitting uncertainty.

>>12505994
What’s wrong with admitting uncertainty while having faith in something maximally meaningful?

>>12505972
>Yes, how does the existence of suffering make God flawed? I would argue that the absence of suffering would make God flawed.

what's that based on

>It’s probably easier to have faith in God as a slave. It’s not like you’d be drawn away by material pleasures.

what's that based on

>>12505976
>I have emotions. In the absence of divine purpose or obligations, one doesn't just become void of feelings and intentions or preferences.
Your emotions and feelings are just a result of a chemical cocktail in the brain. Your consciousness has no metaphysical basis.

>>12506000
Why do you have to skip right past enjoying a possibility and go all the way to telling yourself baselessly that this one is true? One of these things is honest. The other discourages critical thought in anyone that looks to you for perspective and makea you lose out on chancea to take in new information.

>>12506008
Indeed. What's that have to do with anything? Knowing that doesn't make me not experience them and it doesn't make me jist decide life isn't worth living qithout divine purpose.

>>12505976
Why do you care about your personal convenience or enjoyment? If you deny God, and believe yourself to be a meaningless bundle of atoms, why do you care about this bundle? Can you see how you contradict yourself?

>>12505994
You also have to admit our current values are based on Christian ethics, which are your same values. Either you have to admit religiousness is an inherent part of the human experience, or deny thousands or years of civilizational progress.

>>12506004
>what's that based on
First, why would God not create suffering? God is omnipotent and omniscient, so he creates all and understands all. To not create suffering at all would severely limit God, as he would have no way of perceiving what suffering is (if God perceives something, it necessarily exists). Furthermore, the existence of suffering makes sense in a rational universe that explores the truths of existence. Why WOULD God create a world that doesn’t make sense? This world has more meaning and interest than a world without suffering. And why should God be concerned with some organisms’ suffering? Again, God doesn’t view everything in terms of pleasure vs. suffering, for God did not evolve from a monkey. You’re using your biology to criticize the creator of the universe! Can you seriously not consider the possibility that God has logical motivations that you simply cannot easily understand, being the limited human that you are? CAN YOU CREATE A BETTER UNIVERSE?

>>12506016
How can you derive a meaning of life out of material purpose?

>>12505718
>>12505729

Faith is comprehension of, and therefore trust in, the principles of nature" -- instated by God -- as manifested in your own mind's gestalt field - your consciousness. It is not denial. Faith is proactive. To have faith is to operate from your position of faith, and to do things in concord with your faith --- faith is affirmative action. This is why it is written, "faith without works is dead." To have faith is to live with life-affirming impetus. It is the engine fueled by breath.

If one claims to have faith, or claims to not have faith, look at their actions. Then anybody can clearly see and pick out the believer from the non-believer.

>>12506021
He won't be able to give you an answer. It's a basic unanswerable problem with atheism, and Craig used it to destroy Harris in their debate

>>12506009
>Why do you have to skip right past enjoying a possibility and go all the way to telling yourself baselessly that this one is true?
Because I believe in what gives me the most meaning to my life, and I also have faith in what makes at least some sense. I have a much better life as a Christian, I will testify that. I would probably have committed suicide if I couldn’t believe. I DON’T KNOW if God exists. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t believe it anyway.

>>12506021
I didn't deny god. I denied that I had any objective basis upon which to pretend to be certain of how the universe works or how any sort of divine morals would work. How goddamn dumb are you? Read.

But assuming I had denied god and stated factually that there is no meaning, that still would not be a contradiction. Having preferences or intentions or goals or considering this life just interesting enough to be worth the effort, does not require a frame of reference outside what my physiology is wired to be and do. I didn't choose to exist, but its happening and I'm not in a hurry to end it. Sustainable living is doable for now and I could get another dopamine fix in five minutes. What imaginary contradiction are you pointing at? Ans even if you did find one, NEITHER ONE OF US would have any objective basis upon which to know anything about anything divine or metaphysical, so claiming it would STILL be dishonest and counterproductive to the potentiality of actually learning it.

>>12505829
Judgement or identification.
Can life exist without death? Can left exist without right? The way we see the world is binary, just 0's and 1's. But how many numbers are there between the numbers 0 and 1? what is 0+1? Logic and reasoning can only help you so much.

>calls christianity a "sky daddy myth" yet will state that they're just trying to have a reasonable discussion on god.
>makes boundful claims on morality and existence, politics and society but then, when pressed, states they just have a lack of belief.
>will refute their own claims from moments before to refute your statements but when calls out on that contradiction will weasel out of it.

At this point, I dont think fadora-faggotry is a religion or a philosophy or even a debate strategy since they simply fail at being consistent with any of them.

I honestly think its a failed reproductive strategy. They tend to thknm that this mentally superior mindset will let them redpill the stacies and as thanks for beimg mentally superior to chad will suck his weiner and become a part of his tenchi muyo harem..

>>12506031
Lots of either-or fallacies today.

>>12506046
I do what I want and try to make it sustainable.

>>12506045
>all this delusion

It really is true that religion rewires thought patterns in the brain

>>12505689
>no you couldn't.
I definitely could

>>12506031
How come I can't just refrain from murder because I enjoy the social contract the government enforces that we generally all want to avoid that?
I don't rape because that's no subatitute for a woman being into me.
I don't steal for the same reason I dont kill.

>>12506046
The same way you do. I imagine it. The dofderence is I don't need it to be comically correct in some magical way.

>>12506048
>Unanswerable problem
Its a dumb fucking questions preying on religious retards idea that without god life is not worth the effort or that simple dopamine chasing is unsustainable.

>>12506116
>Comically
Cosmically

>>12505452
that's because he's right desu

>>12506101
You really convinced me with that amazing argument. Atheists are so smart.

>>12505895
How is that his fault?

>>12506116
But why is that the social contract, and why do you like it? Do you understand the basis for your preferences? You can certainly imagine a world in which these aren't your preferences, so what scientific reason can you give for why these are better? You like what you like because you have been conditioned that way. You have been conditioned that way because 2000 years ago a beggar in the desert taught the virtues you believe to be self-evident.

>>12506139
>believes in an ancient book written by barbaric kikes that contradicts itself thoroughly
>calls people who know it's ancient hogwash dumb

>>12506159
Name one(1) contradiction

>>12506094
>'audience pussy'

>>12506159
>I’ll just change the conversation, maybe he’ll forget that I didn’t have an argument!
I thought you guys were supposed to be geniuses?

>>12506151
Dipshit. You incredibly delusional dipshit. If murder wasn't generally considered undesirable before Jesus there wouldnt be people. Also. I didnt say they were self evident. For instances. I think you should ne fucking gassed for slowing down our species.

>>12505879
>"do not indulge in pleasure" is boring and ineffective
>"do not kill" is fine
h m m m m

>>12506202
One of them is vague and general, the other one is specific. In fact, killing someone falls under the category of indulging in pleasure.

>you cannot refute him they said

>>12506192
You know, when you resort to insults, it kinda means you lost the debate.

>>12506192
Why should there be people? And are you really so sure there wouldn't be people? There is a wide gap between a society that allows for killing the inconvenient and irrational, indiscriminate, ceaseless murder. Your anger betrays you though. You are not only a murderer, but worse you are a coward. Your virtue is not the presence of morals, but the lack of will. If it were easy and convenient and could be described in a pleasant way, you would kill millions. After all, you support abortion.

Miracles galore back then but nothing for hundreds of years?

Fuck off sky daddy

>>12505452
You're right, because he offers nothing substantial. A circular reasoning hack.

>>12506151
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

>>12506241
Never confuse semantic disagreements for substantive disagreements. If noone "believes" in miracles, but instead believes in scientific phenomena, then how could any miracles be seen?

>>12506252
>the way things are is inevitable; therefore, the way things are is good; therefore, every effort should be made to make sure the way things are remains the way things will be.

>>12506241
And yet not everyone believed in Jesus even when he performed miracles. Such denial only results in more suffering. Would you rather God force us to believe by proving Himself outright? You want God to be a scientific fact, something in only our brain, and not our hearts?

>>12506257
>"science can't explain how the social contract came to be"
>here's an attempt at doing exactly that
>wAtCh ThEsE GoAlPosTs MoVe

>>12505799
>Just don't know then rather than repeating whatever option you like.
What if the widespread adoption of this view makes everyone more miserable. Isn't that immoral.

>>12506268
A society of absolute skeptics couldn’t function. Everyone lives on faith. Having faith in God is the most pragmatic thing you can do.

>>12506264
I didn't say science can't explain the mechanisms by which the social contract developed. I said science can't explain why the current social contract should or should not be the social contract. Since you seem to believe the current social contract is good, you need to find a strong scientific proof for why this contract will persist into the future, even when the social ideas which grounded it are removed from the contract itself.

>>12506280
Your original question is "But why is that the social contract, and why do you like it?". To which sociobiology/evolutionary psychology tend to answer : because we evolved that way. So on for your other questions.
>you seem to believe the current social contract is good
first, stop inserting morality everywhere, second, I never said that. I'm not the anon you were originally responding to.
>you need to find a strong scientific proof
cough cough.
As far as sociobiology/evolutionary psychology is concerned, the social contract isn't going to majorly change until with majorly evolve.
Fun fact : taboo on incest is something that ethnologist have found in every culture they studied. What a coincidence it so well lines up with a basic evolution concept, amirite.

>>12506268
I should be clear. If having no faith were to make people more miserable, isn't it immoral to advocate for an end to faith?If you think that overall, it would make people happier or better off, isn't that a subjective opinion on morality?

Even if you assume there's is an objective morality (say, based on brain states), you can't know what effect an action will have on such a complex system. You can only guess. It makes sense that when Harris talked about Hume in a blog post he stuck to extreme examples by saying something like "at least we know everyone being tortured for eternity is worse than everyone being happy." Besides extreme hypothetical contrasts, he can only provide his opinion/guess on what is moral. That's what everyone else does anyways.

Why did god made?

>>12505718
Objects of perception are real, and they interact with us and make us behave differently. If you disagree you are obliged to dismiss all money the same way you dismiss totem poles.

>>12506315
>If having no faith were to make people more miserable
Not him, but -if-.
First, demonstrate that this would be the case.
I know I'm perfectly fine with not believeing in any formal god and the supposed loss of meaning it incurs, because I can just fine entertain the idea that our existence's "meaning" is endogenous rather than exogenous.

>>12506350
I would bet that the majority of people who committed suicide were atheists

>>12506314
>because we evolved that way
That is literally saying "because it is". And just because it was a biological necessity does not mean it will remain a necessity. That does not however mean that whatever is possible is optimal. But optimal itself invites value judgement. You want to remove morality from the conversation, but morality is the conversation. Your material determinism is bad logic, it's a paradox of perspective. You think you are saying something convincing, when you are only giving a tautology. How is not Why.

>>12506365
There is no why.
How is the sky blue? Because wavelenght shenanigans. Why is the sky blue? It's a meaningless question.

>>12506383
>A meaningless question
No, it is the question of meaning. Your claims to meaninglessness are more baseless than all other answers. Your only defense is axiomatic tautology, which is also your (false) argument against all other positions. What's worse is that Why is the only question that could possible matter, and How is only relevant to the extent that it achieves Why. This is why STEMfags are a meme.

>>12506360
If you say so anon.

>>12506350
I don't have to demonstrate that it's the case. Nobody could demonstrate one way or another because they can't run a controlled experiment where you monitor everyone's brain states in different realities (a thousand realities where religion is common, thousands where everyone is raised to be atheists, a mix, etc).

Someone claiming objective reality could only provide their opinion on the morality of an action. The moral landscape provides no guidance but can be used to claim your personal values are objective. Which is extremely arrogant, at least if not more arrogant than a religious person claiming the bible provides objective morality.

>>12506401
>This is why STEMfags are a meme.
Stop roping in us pure mathematicians with fucking engineer brainlets.
EVERYONE knows engineers are fucking retarded. Please stop mixing the rest of STEM up with them.

>>12506383
The things you find meaningful in your life are also meaningless. Congratulations, we've finally reached nihilism!

>>12505895
Nice try Ivan

>>12506350
>I know I'm perfectly fine
How many children do you have? Aka. how well is your surrounding genetic pool / community doing thanks to your behavior-belief sphere?

>>12506421
But you belong with them. You are logicians without any sense of perspective. There is no purer form of obsession with mechanics, as though numbers could reveal any other truth but themselves.

>>12506401
>Your claims to meaninglessness
There is no claim to meaninglessness, only claims of meaning-ness on your part.
I see no evidence of anything around me having a meaning, whatever that word signifies for you.
>What's worse is that Why is the only question that could possible matter
kek.

>>12506401
>Lack of god would make me sad.
>I do not wish to be sad.
>Therefore god.
>Everyone else has shitty logic.

>>12506449
>everything is meaningless
>that's not a claim
what a waste of time.

>>12506456
>existence of God would make me sad
>I do not wish to be sad
>therefore God
>Everyone else has shitty logic

>>12506425
Yay, do I get a medal?
Hilarious bouts of joking aside, it depends what you consider to be meaning. I ascribe them meaning, I don't need a supernatural entity to ascribe it for me.
>>12506438
None, but I'm young enough that it is the norm. Althought considering I have some health issues, it might be better in terms of overall genepool that I don't reproduce, so I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this.

>>12506456
Beliefs are your actions. You believe money is valuable, you use it and aim for it. You believe you value, you act on it, you believe others have value, you act on it. You believe your nation has value, you act on it. You believe your nation exists, you act on it. You believe your nation does not exist, you act on it. Same for God.

To scientific minimalism, belief is all that matters until confirmations occur. As for now, atheism as a belief in no God existing is highly detrimental to human populations, social trust and civilizations.

>>12506498
>Althought considering I have some health issues, it might be better in terms of overall genepool that I don't reproduce, so I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this.
Atheism is a genetic dead end, an extinction horizon, a meme that kills.

>>12506456
>Existence of God would make me sad
>I do not wish to be sad
>Therefore no God
>Everyone else has shitty logic

>>12506477
>not engaging with the point.
Like clockwork. In the absence of evidence for a meaning to existence that transcends it, you're the one claiming there is one. Therefore, you have to backup your claim in one way or another.

>>12506516
All memes except Christianity kill.

>>12506498
>it might be better in terms of overall genepool that I don't reproduce
Have you ever considered saying fuck it and go full hedonist and watch sissy hypno videos, take female hormones, crossdress, and get bukkake'd and gangbanged by lots of hot daddies and tranny chasers?

>>12506523
>In the absence of evidence for a meaning to existence that transcends it
Evidence has no value beyond the push it gives to one's beliefs.
>you're the one claiming there is one.
There is no reason to behave according to that particular paradigm in a meaningless pattern sea.

>>12506523
Why would I engage with someone who argues in such bad faith. You deny that you are even making arguments as you make them.

>>12506516
>atheism is a gene
wow.
You're the one who brought up genepool, therefore I answered you on that perspective. On a personal level, I do want to have kids at some point, I just hope that they won't have to deal with the same health issues that I did. Which seems like a pretty logical thing for a parent to hope for regardless of their belief system, don't you think?

>>12506546
>"is a genetic dead end"
> is a gene
Not that anon btw

>>12506545
Sure, I'm making arguments. And my argument is that you're the one claiming existence has a meaning. Therefore you have to back it up in some way, else we'll just spend hours running on slight variations of
>life has a meaning
>no it doesn't
>yes it does
>no it doesn't
yadda yadda asserted without evidence dismissed without evidence yadda yadda.
I engaged with you on the matter of social contract and why we created it that way, and provided the general source for my argument.
Now, if all you have to say in defense of transcendental meaning is "but you'd be sad if there wasn't one", then I think I'll go to bed.

>>12506534
>wanting to be a tranny
Not him, but let me shortly explain why that is a path of despair.
>#1 hot daddies and tranny chasers
This is gross. Who wants to like a man's body? It's shaped according to survival and resource gathering needs because females outsourced the dangerous jobs. Sexual attractiveness in masculine shapes aside from phallos is neglible. In fact, all things that women find attractive about men are proof of their utility. Once strength and durability lose their status as necessities, women go for what is actually sexually ideal for them (aka. beauty standards); shojo art, complete androgyny aside from the necessary, utility traits men find attractive in women (wide hips, breasts).
True human beauty ideal is something akin to how we depict angels or elves, who don't exist biologically. At least yet.
>#2 Biology is clumsy and inadequate for fantasies
Aside from distant potentialities, human biology is absolute garbage, in dire need for prolonged eugenic process towards said elves. Before that happens humans will (due to their lowly genes) assume that some clumsy and creepy fleshcrafting will change anything major. Hormonal changes affect mood and health in many detrimental ways, and the sex change surgery is an abomination.

>>12506534
Not my kink.

>>12506566
I took a shortcut because what he said was incredibly stupid. Being wary of your kid inheriting genes creating health issue is a perfectly reasonable reaction regardless of beliefs and one anyone from any confession could have.

>>12506607
You didn't engage. I clearly btfo'd you, and now you've shifted the goalposts to the perennial "whoever smelt it, delt it", as though you've actually provided any evidence for your own position. But here is a new argument: you are stuck in confirmation bias. What's my evidence? Your post history. Go to bed you dunning-kruger mother fucker.

>>12506609
>Sexual attractiveness in masculine shapes aside from phallos is neglible.
Agreed. The penis is the most beautiful and aesthetic aspect of the masculine.

>>12506629
It's actually kind of retarded, especially for your position. How can you say what life is good or worth living? How do you know which genes will be valuable in the future? So far, the only reason it would make sense for you not to procreate is that you are an atheist, but even I would say removing yourself from the gene pool is a bit harsh. Probably a better idea, even if you're right, (especially if you're right,) just to change your mind

>>12506632
You know what they say about claiming you won an internet discussion.

>>12506656
No, I don't, because I don't rely on "internet rules" to form my opinions

>>12506607
>Sure, I'm making arguments. And my argument is that you're the one claiming existence has a meaning.
If existence has no meaning, taking a position at all is irrelevant. If existence has a meaning, it can be important to take a position.
To discuss this at all is to indicate strong and firm conviction that existence has a meaning or it is proof of you being an NPC just going about its programming and not truly speaking at all.

>>12505452
I have never seen more non sequiturs collected in one place before. Religious people really are too goddamn dumb to function.
>Lack of belief is belief because who'd have ever thought of just owning uncertainty while admitting that any attempts at logic are potentially flawed but at least have more consistent predictive power than faith.
>Lack of belief makes any actions contradictory of said assumed belief in unbelief so atheists should just sit and wait to die or else they lack conviction and are cowards.
>All value judgements are Christian ones because before Jesus no group of people got together and agreed that murder is just generally bad problem solving.

You people have bought into a whole lot of dark age propaganda and its truly a wonder you don't wander into traffic.

Isn't this the guy who basically said that good things are good because I think they are good?

>>12506702
>hehe, lel updoot
I agree, Black Science guy is fucking based.

>>12506702
>dark age
>Le evil Christianity that destroyed the learning and thinking
In how many layers of memes is your brain?

>>12506682
Non sequitur. See>>12506702

Lack of belief does not mean giving up. Theres this thing. Its called uncertainty. Anon can either engage you or jerk off. Do you think that anyone who loses faith should immediately off themselves? And even if you were right, that doesnt make faith suddenly a strong foundation for opinions or a viable means of procesaing information. You're still the retard here. At worst he's just inconsistent.

>>12505452
we literally can't, that's why we
>Harris
him

>2019
>God

HAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA

let bygones be bygones

>>12506702
>any attempts at logic are potentially flawed but at least have more consistent predictive power than faith.
A religious man can have all the good pragmatic lifestyles of an atheist, with the additional lifestyle of having faith in the greatest possible thing (God), giving his life meaning and hope, and also possibly resulting in a good afterlife. Having faith in God is clearly superior to not believing, and you have no good reason to claim the opposite.

>>12506645
>How can you say what life is good or worth living?
I can't with absolute certainty. I guess you can only say a man lived a good life when he's dead. In the meantime, I suppose I go with the usual "trying to feel good more often than I feel bad" without falling for the hedonistic trap of maximizing instant pleasure without accounting for long term.
>How do you know which genes will be valuable in the future?
I can't. However it's reasonable to assume that for a generation as close as my children, they'll be mostly the same as todays. And even further down the road, I highly doubt genes causing hearing impairments will be valued.
>the only reason it would make sense for you not to procreate is that you are an atheist
I still don't see why that should be the case. Atheists do have children. I wouldn't exist otherwise.

>>12506711
>>12506722
A thousand + years of the intellectual authorities of the western world encouraging circular reasoning, confirmed biases, and tautologies while periodically punishing people who produced too many verifiable facts. Yes. Religion has always slowed down our species.

>>12506094
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/lawrence-krauss-sexual-misconduct-me-too-arizona-state/573844/
Not as strange as it sounds

>>12506734
I'm not believing im something that has no evidence

>>12506734
Entertaining an ambiguous idea of something higher than himself is not the same as believing in a specified deity.

>>12506745
>periodically punishing people who produced too many verifiable facts
Such as?

>>12505452
Who is he?

>>12506755
Not him but I'd say Giordano Bruno is a pretty clear cut example. I mean the guy's usually heralded as one of the figureheads -if not the figurehead- of modern scientific method.

>>12506752
Does money have evidence? If so, then believers are evidence of the target of their belief.

>>12506771
Faith is not evidence of God

>>12506778
Yes it is, because it shapes behavior. No different from belief in hunger or the existence of other people. I mean, it hasn't been proven that other people are conscious.

>>12506755
Galileo

>>12506752
>>12506754
You think Christianity had zero evidence? You think it has no more evidence than the infinite possible religions we could invent? The prophecies in the OT, the account of Jesus, the prose... do these all mean nothing to you? Why don’t you want to have faith?

>>12505879
>There’s no true evidence either way. This is why faith is important.
>This is what non-catholics actually believe

>>12506782
If i have faith in a unicorn with an ak47 in the sky and i revolve my thoughts and life around it does that mean it exists?

>>12506786
>the prose

>>12506769
They did not kill him because of his scientific views but because of his theological ones.

>>12506786
Because it was written and conceived by humans not God

>>12506796
>If i have faith in a unicorn with an ak47 in the sky
But can you have? Ironic belief is still belief, you know.
>and i revolve my thoughts and life around it does that mean it exists
Yes.

>>12506808
No it was written by humans but conceived of by God. Ever heard of revelation?

>>12506784
see>>12506807
The Catholic Church persecuting scientists for their discoveries is an "enlightenment" meme. The material atheists are the only ones who have ever said their is an argument between science and faith.

>>12506807
In an era when whether the earth revolves around the sun or the other way around was considered a theological question.

>>12506752
define evidence

>>12506808
You need to faith to believe that. It seems you would rather use faith to not believe, than to use faith to believe. You don’t want to believe out of pride. This is the biggest reason for your disbelief.

>>12506823
So the old "the bible is true because god has written it, and we know god has written it because the bible says so"?

>>12506786
>You think Christianity had zero evidence?
You implied you were gonna give evidence
>>12506823
>it was written by humans but conceived of by God
This is the part were you give the evidence

>>12506786
What evidence?

>Why don't you want to have faith?
Because I am comfortable being uncertain and I will wait to be confident about my opinions before claiming otherwise.

>>12506831
It wasn't though. It's on the record. The Church allowed for the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun. There was no theological reason why it needed to be one way or the other.

>>12506823
>The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible
this is fundamentally what christcuckery boils down to

>>12506875
They are evidence. I think you just don't understand what "evidence" means.

>>12506820
Autism

>>12506875
>This is the part were you give the evidence
The revelation is the evidence.

>>12506872
>>12506883
revelation, not Revelation you dimwits.

>>12506890
>>12506897

Wow. Just wow.

>>12506875
You don’t need evidence to prove Christianity, but to have faith in it. The only proof needed is that it is better than all other religions. Therefore being a Christian is the best choice to make.
>I will wait to be confident about my opinions before claiming otherwise.
What do you have to lose by believing?

>>12506883
It really isn't. The essence of Christianity is a strong metaphysical argument which provides a unified epistemology and ontology, which the Bible expresses on multiple levels of interpretation simultaneously. Or in simpler words which you are sure to reject--it has complete harmony, when nothing else does.

>>12506897
>revelation, not Revelation you dimwits.
good bait, sir, I admit defeat, you got me good right there. here's your (You) so that I may leave in peace and you may not follow me.

>>12506909
>it is better than all other religions. Therefore being a Christian is the best choice to make
O-ok. If you say so. I'll go get baptized right now. Thanks anon.

>>12506784
Literally a meme, look up the actual story. Ironical that you believed a story without checking it with "verifiable facts"

>>12506897
Not evidence of anything except that writing exists

>>12506904
They are, by definition evidence. It seems you are looking for undeniable proof. But there is no such proof of anything, and there never can be. Perfect certainty is impossible in all things.

>>12506909
The potentiality of better understanding the world around me rather than twisting it to suit unfalsifiable pretenses.

>>12506930
It wasn't bait you were just too eager to try to BTFO religicucks epic style that you misread what I wrote

>>12506943
What is by definition evidence?
I have a penis. Is that evidence of god? What about my farts? They've been silvery becauae high protein diet. Is that evidence of god?

>>12506936
Pseud. And what does the existence of such writings suggest? Where did they come from. How were they developed? Is there anything meaningfully comparable? Does its creation and existence cohere with its teachings? Do you even know how logic and inference work?

>>12506936
Where is your evidence that there was any thought behind this post?

>>12506954
>Silvery
*sulfery

Or is it proof of the devil? Do I have fire and brimstone in my atheist guts?

>>12506945
You can understand the world around you while being a good Christian. Why is this so hard to understand?

>>12506957
So if I wrote down that god doesnt exist that serves as evidence? God damn law school was a waste of time.

>>12506896
It's the identical fashion existence of abstractions and memes portray and manifest themselves through human (and presumably living) experience.
We do not know much about that unicorn or the background of it. Is it an image of a schizophrenic mind? Perhaps. Is it a trickster demon pulling your nose? Perhaps. Is it a child trying to combine silly concepts together and creating a monster that can beat some other monster in an internet fight? Most certainly.

>>12506965
You have to make a trade off and drop scriptural adherence for secular knowledge. What parts of the book are you cherrypicking that qualify you as Christian?

>>12506954
>I have a penis. Is that evidence of god? What about my farts? They've been silvery becauae high protein diet. Is that evidence of god?
If it has being then it is in part evidence of God, since God is the essence of being itself.

>>12506973
Delusion

>>12506954
Evidence is reason for BELIEVING. Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence are evidence because they give you reason to believe that God exists. The Bible is evidence of God because it gives you reason to believe that Jesus, the son of God, performed miracles etc. Or do you claim that the Bible gives evidence to not believe in God? How could you possibly argue that it offers zero evidence?

>>12506954
If you were actually being sincere, then yes, everything is evidence of God. But in the sense that you're asking, the Bible and its contents are evidence. They are signs that suggest the existence of God. Again, it seems that you are confusing evidence with proof.

>>12506945
Well, every time we make science we are twisting things, it would be pretty naive to think otherwise.

>>12506979
False beliefs are the ones that result in extinction, my friend.

>>12506968
Would that scenario be at all comparable to the writing of the bible?

>>12506994
It came to him as a revalation one day

>>12506975
The only parts of the Bible you need to pay attention to are the ones with a spiritual message (which are almost all of them). Atheists apply every verse in a materialistic way, which is why they misunderstand Christianity so much.

>>12507001
Is that how the bible was written?

>>12506957
>Where did they come from. How were they developed?
They were written by sandpeople
>Is there anything meaningfully comparable?
Yes. The sacred texts of pretty much any other religion.
>Does its creation and existence cohere with its teachings?
Yes, it is extraordinarily coherent with what comparative study of other groups give us to expect of that kind of society at that age. In fact it is much more coherent than believing skydaddy randomly chose a tribe among all the others to play favorites but somehow also loves all of humanity equally.

>>12506994
Yeah it would say so right next to where I wrote that god doesnt exist.

>>12507001
Anon here can write book two detailing how book 1 is super legit.

>>12506993
And christianity is dying fast

>>12507017
Why would it be comparable? What is the same about it?

how do I hire the holy spirit to be my ghost writer

>>12507005
Deuteronomy 13:6-10+
Yeah. Its just the atheists that arwnt reading it right.

Way to gloss over the fact that you still have to cherry pick parts of the book to keep your dipshit faith alive because faith is incompatible with a willingness to scrutinize ideas you like.

>>12507010
>Yes. The sacred texts of pretty much any other religion.
They conflict in detail, interpretation and goals. It is foolish to say that one source makes any other irrelevant. No, it is the goal and the belief that makes other teachings redundant.

>>12507022
I was divinely inspired.

What would be incomparable?

>>12507026
Heyoo

>>12507021
The people who abandoned Christianity are going extinct. Christianity itself survives and thrives in Asia.

>>12507010
Have you really studied this, or are you basing this off a jpeg you saw online once? Are there any differences between the world religions that might be meaningful? Do you actually think they were written by sandpeople? How do you know what would be reasonable or unreasonable for the supreme will of all existence?

>>12507031
Do you actually know anything about the writing of the Bible? It would seem you are completely ignorant.

>>12507027
>all religions teach different values
>therefore christianity is the best
???

>>12507025
Wow, good job picking a verse that applied to a specific people at a specific time.

>>12507043
Oh, well, you called me ignorant. So you must know a thing or two. Ill back down and get back to real life. You and your imaginary friends have fun. Try not to slow down our species much more.

>>12507052
>Those parts of the bible don't count.
There's that cherry picking.

>>12505935
or he didn't need to belabor the point because anyone with a dick for a brain could still see that children dying couldn't be part of a loving plan.

>>12507058
What do you mean by “count”? That verse does not apply today. Do you disagree? That verse highlights the importance of maintaining relationships with other Christians and not allowing your culture to be destroyed. But the literal law does not apply today.

>>12507061
>God designed the world purely because he is all-loving (to humans) and never wants them to suffer
That’s not in the Bible, kiddo. God doesn’t think like you. Get this through your dick-brain.

>>12507053
I asked if you knew about how the Bible was actually written, since you are saying that the Bible cannot be used as evidence. But you don't seem to know anything about how the Bible was written. How can you know it can't serve even as weak evidence if you don't know anything about the circumstances surrounding it? It's very strange to me that you are deflecting on all these questions; why be flippant about something which you know so well? If you are so certain, why do you refuse to say? What's very strange is that there is much you could say that is verifiable, but instead you are making comparisons that don't actually apply. Maybe you should slow down and actually pay attention.

>>12507050
>all religions teach different values
They teach different goals. Sometimes different values, but the ones that remain to this day have similar values, and aside from Judaism don't believe in the necessity of human or animal sacrifice, for example.
>therefore christianity is the best
It depends on what your goals are. If you want to align with the Divine source and 'grand plan', Christianity is definitely a good call. Though with that particular desire, New Age religions and Gnosticism would also apply.
If you want to honor European history and its development, Christianity is definitely the way to go - unless you form an idol out of it and have it compete with the Lord.
If you want to escape karma, I suggest a different religion.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/article4.html
Notice the Aristotelian influence in the primary and secondary arguments.

>>12507036
>Have you really studied this, or are you basing this off a jpeg you saw online once?
I put on a fedora one day and all the knowledge suddenly poured in my brain. It was kinda like a divine revelation actually.
>Are there any differences between the world religions that might be meaningful?
Do you think questioning whether we should wage war on our neighbours so we can take prisonners in order to sacrifice them so the sun can rise again tomorrow to be meaningful?
>Do you actually think they were written by sandpeople?
Yes, and so do you. Even if there is a god who revealed his plan to his prophets, he didn't pick up the pen himself, by your own book's admission.
>How do you know what would be reasonable or unreasonable for the supreme will of all existence?
godworksinmysteriousways.jpg

>>12507079
>If you want to escape karma, I suggest a different religion.
Except good Christians will have good karma, but those who devote themselves to non-Christian religions won’t be good Christians. There’s no reason to choose something like Buddhism over Christianity

>>12507091
That's not how buddhism works. Also, Pascal's wager? in CURRENT_YEAR?

>>12507086
>godworksinmysteriousways.jpg
Not him, but this is arrogant of you. You can't understand the Universe, so how can you attempt to understand the Source of all being, which includes you and your capacity to experience, and all the potential and distinct experiences?
The understanding must come from the Source itself, and if you give any merit to long standing and sustainable messages, pride and arrogance are not so good for this. Humility in all things.

If wish to understand anything and everything, you should be prepared to accept anything and everything.

>>12507061
I'm glad you brought up this point. The importance of children's lives is actually not a universal value. Which is not surprising when you consider that for most of human history, infant survival rates were not good. And as much as most (but not all) cultures have found the death of children somewhat tragic, it was not until after Christianity promoted the value of children so much, that secular atheists (who rejected the notion of life after death) became so fixated on stopping death all together, at almost any cost. It is also worth noting how that idea has evolved now into an absurd pursuit in which we would avoid the over harvesting of the Earth by killing life in the womb so that those already living could no longer age, but live forever. But yeah, it's our position that's absurd.

>>12507102
I simply couldn't be bothered with discussing that point because it's the epitome of unfalsifiable, and misses the point I made anyway.

>>12507086
Do you know what a strawman is?

>>12507098
>t. never read Penseés
You can’t deny that a good Christian will not suffer if Buddhism is true, so there’s no reason to choose Buddhism. Also, Gautama claimed, but didn’t prove, to be enlightened and know the secrets of the universe, performed no miracles, etc. whereas Christianity has prophesies, miracles, thousands of people’s over thousands of years, etc. You’d have to be stupid to choose such a vague and empty and arbitrary religion, or should I say philosophy, as Buddhism

>>12507098
Pascal's wager is a good reason to pick an option, but picking an option is not an arbitrary act in any religion. It's a very good reason not to be an atheist, or at the very least it explains why atheists can have no interest in truly long-term plans.
>>12507091
>Except good Christians will have good karma
But they have to go through it on Earth. It's a cross that a Christian carries.

>>12506921
So you're saying that it's coherent and I should just decide to believe it? Why tho?

>>12507121
>Pascal's wager is a good reason to pick an option,
So you’re saying that my religion where you worship a giant floating turd in space is good enough? Fucking theists are so retarded

>>12507120
>all the wrong reasons to not believe in Budhism
Forget Pascal's Wager, Budhism doesn't even satisfy the categorical imperative. It's anti-evolutionary, and has a weak metaphysics. Budhism isn't really a religion at all, just an aesthetic of tranquility with no substance.

>>12507131
Once you are prepared to receive truly good things, you should.

>>12507131
Because man is miserable without God, and needs to acknowledge his sin. It is faith in God that remedies our sinful and wretched existence

>>12507131
>so you're saying
That's not what I'm saying

>>12507137
>So you’re saying that my religion where you worship a giant floating turd in space is good enough?
That's one way to frame Earth, I suppose.

>>12507120
>the bible is true because it says miracles happened
oh please.
And
>god requires absolute, heartfelt trust, a leap of faith
>I'm sure he'll be okay with me choosing him in the shop front after I made a risk-reward analysis
And if buddhism is true, have fun being reincarnated to suffer because christianity doesn't teach egodeath.

>>12507156
Don't underestimate the memetic layer of existence.

>>12507156
Not that anon, but Kierkegard already tackled the leap of faith issue. Knowing that it is the better choice is not the same has having faith. No matter how much evidence there is in support, you will still have to decide without having full certainty. Deciding means more than saying it's true. It means acting as though it's true. That is difficult even for those who grow up with it and never question.

>>12507156
>>I'm sure he'll be okay with me choosing him in the shop front after I made a risk-reward analysis
Does the Bible say anything about that no? But it says “ask and you shall receive.” And if you ask for better faith, you will receive it. If you pray, if you read the Bible, if you avoid sin and do good works, then your faith will be improved, and you will no longer depend on the wager. The wager is just the beginning. Even IF it were sinful to start our faith in such a way, then surely that sin would be forgiven in the end?

I get tired of hearing this knee-jerk argument.

>>12507164
I'm actually trying to write a book on the reality of memes, but it's got me on the verge of psychosis every now and again.

>>12507137
If you worship a degradation of existence, what can you expect your life to be?

>>12507142
>>12507145
But deciding to believe something sounds an awful lot like deluding oneself. Why should there be choice in belief?

>>12507148
Which part(s) of my conjunction are you not saying?

>>12507203
>But deciding to believe something sounds an awful lot like deluding oneself.
It's not a decision, it's a gift. Try to explain colors to a blind man. Hence Christ taught: those with ears to hear, hear, and those with eyes to see, see.
Christianity aims to validate yearning. Not bypass it, not cheat it, not ignore it.

>>12507203
all of it

>>12507203
What makes it a delusion versus belief? It really seems like you've already pre-defined those words as equivalents.

>>12507182
So if I understand correctly, you're telling me that if I pretend all my life I'm a devout christian and act in conformity to the bible, then to god it is the exact same thing as if I actually were a devout christian and sincerely believed in him?

>>12507234
>if I pretend
No. I'm afraid you lack conviction and integrity to begin with.

>>12506769
Giordano Bruno was absolutely mental

>>12507234
>pretend
It won’t be pretending if you want to believe. I was a hard agnostic atheist until I read Pascal, and I accepted the wager, and I tried to improve my faith, and I was changed. Humbling yourself and wanting to truly believe is the biggest step. This is why most atheists cannot believe.

>>12507234
>so you're saying
You should really stop doing this. As soon as you say these words, realize that you are about to make a strawman argument. Every single time you have done this, it has not been a sincere desire for explanation, but instead a couched criticism. You are just saying what you believe about the person's argument, phrased as though you are honestly confused. Instead, just state your opinion. Maybe then, you might stop being a virgin.

>>12507239
So pascal's wager is in the end just a way to get you to try out the religion, like a free month trial.
As >>12507175 said, I'll still have to make a leap of faith. So pascal's wager is in and of itself inconclusive and not useful.

>>12507253
>asking a question to make sure you understand the other guy's position is making a strawman

>>12507257
Pascal’s wager wasn’t an independent idea within Pascal’s theology. Read Penseés. He explains why we should believe in God, and in the second half of the book explains why Christianity is the best/perfect religion. The wager was never meant to stand alone or somehow prove God’s existence.

>>12507257
No, Pascal's wager is a very good reason to stop being an atheist. It's a logical reason to play, and a logical reason to avoid not playing.

>>12507250
Maybe pretend wasn't the right choice of words because it implies malice.
What if I'm convinced god doesn't exist, but I still do good deeds as defined by the bible because I think the hebrews who created it made the best civil code we have? What if I go to church just because I love the sense of community ? If I pray just because I find it to be a good way to meditate ?
In short, if all my actions are perfectly conform to the bible's teaching yet I never believe in its transcendental truth, only it's immanent pertinence?

>>12507276
>>12507273
I'll put it on my backlog then.

>>12507224
Ok, fair enough. Any remarks on what I've said so far?

>>12507215
Still very very unsatisfying. You suggest I go about my life until one day I wake up a christian?

>>12507228
Eh, I don't think so and your post is the least interesting one, sorry.

>>12507253
There's at least two of us that do the "so you're saying" thing. If you care so deeply about a stranger's virginity, I'll have you know that I lost mine at 21 in a regretable, loveless encounter and mere sex isn't all it's hyped up to be.

>>12507276
It's a logical fallacy lmfao

>>12507294
>Still very very unsatisfying.
If it doesn't resonate with you, it's not for you. Follow your intuition.

>>12505760
Burden of proof is on you, christcuck. For me it's a mere absence of belief. Now excuse me while I cum in my fedora.

>>12507301
I'll reframe it then.
>If existence is meaningful in a way we can partake in, we should.
>If it is uncertain whether existence is meaningful in a way we can partake in, we should assume it is.

>>12507282
There are too many verses in the Bible about this for me to post them all, you can google them yourself. Just type in “verses about seeking God.” The basic idea is that when you seek God, God seeks after you. Now doing all of those actions may influence you to seek God, but they aren’t enough to make you a Christian. It’s ok if you don’t believe right now. But the question is, do you want to believe?

>>12507301
Which logical fallacy is it? And how?

>>12507318
Fair enough, that seems internally coherent.

>>12507306
>For me it's a mere absence of belief.
Do you not believe that by framing it that way you absolve yourself of responsibility? I wonder if that's a justifiable position.

>>12505452
L O L

>>12507294
How could I have a response? You don't know what I'm saying.

>>12507345
Why are you replying to bait?

>>12507306
The burden of proof is actually on you. You demand evidence and control. We ask for belief and independence. We meet our standards, but we think it's only fair you meet your own.

>>12505452
I like Sam Harris, but it would be nice if you posted some actual claim of his so we can know what you're even referring to.

>>12507352
I was hoping you'd let me know if I'm getting close to it. Apparently I'm not.

>>12507364
The original claim was “God doesn’t exist.” This is a positive claim which requires evidence. This is all you had to say.

>>12507370
It's just a conversation starter, don't be autistic.

>>12507374
If you'd answered my questions earnestly, maybe you would have gotten somewhere.

>>12507378
True. But the atheists do not play fair. They ask for more than they are owed. And we give it to them, because we actually care.

>>12507326
False equivalence

>>12507391
>how

>>12507394
The two options are not logically equivalent because it supposes that God wouldn't know whether you're just pretending to believe in case he exists.

>>12507391
It is only a false equivalence if you demand belief in a particular god in a field of many. But even then, atheism is inferior to agnosticism.

>>12507401
Oh, you went the retarded way. My bad.

>>12505452
He takes a lot of liberties where neuroscience leads him. That's why he is the only one saying it, scientist wont because it isn't verifiable. And if you take a neuroscience class and a monad-predicate logic class you'll find that you don't have to go in sam's direction either with the information at hand. I don't like this screwball.

>>12507384
I always typed what came to mind. >>12506883 was my first post and all of my posts are part of its chain. This should be enough information to determine who I am. Where do you think I was being dishonest?

>>12507401
Read the last sections of the thread, or Penseés. This is such a non-issue. True faith is acquired. You don’t just say “I’m a Christian” and go about your life as usual.
>>12507403
Pascal defends Christianity in the same book as the wager.

>>12507408
Not an argument

>>12507420
>You don’t just say “I’m a Christian” and go about your life as usual.

Id say a huge majority of so called Christians are actually like this

>>12507417
I said earnestly, not honestly. You lacked good faith from the beginning.

>>12507420
I know, but he was writing to an audience that only recognized the debate as between atheism and Christianity.

>>12507436
Literally everyone says this, even the Christians who behave this way. But just because they are doesn't make your argument valid.

>>12507436
So what? They obviously are not great Christians.
>>12507449
Yeah, that’s why he compared Christianity to other religions in Penseés, I guess. Why do you talk so much about something you know little about?

>>12507440
Had to look up the word to learn the difference. I may have expected you to do most of the legwork, but I don't think I acted in bad faith. I'll fuck off to reading, since this conversation is going nowhere. Have a nice evening.

>>12507466
For one, I'm not really arguing with you. For another, the wager itself, in as much as it was a singular argument, has little to do with any of his writings on other religions. His concern with the wager was primarily with non-believers in the Christian world. I'm not trying to say you are wrong, only trying to help you see where your tactics might be limited.

>>12507544
>>The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible
>this is fundamentally what christcuckery boils down to
In what way do you think this is a good faith statement to make?

>>12507556
Nah, that's just traditional 4chan rudeness, that also expresses what I actually believe.

>>12507563
Yes, I know. The bad faith part is not the rudeness of it, but that you actually believe it.

>>12506047
based schizo poster

>>12505976
>I think that more sustainable living is possible and worth the effort
why?

>>12506081
I appreciate that you are at least an internally consistent atheist. There are very few of them. I am curious, what are your thoughts on racism, sexism, antisemitism, you know, all those nasty -isms lurking around every corner these days?

>>12507615
I still don't get how having a belief and acting on it can be bad faith, but I'm really getting tired. I'll check this thread in the morning. Cya.

>ITT
So cringe now I remember why I left this website for so long. All the pseud accusations are truly just projection on this board.

I can't decide if christcucks or atheists are the cringier fags any more. Xtians get it the fuck together, you don't have any excuses.

>>12507684
They're too busy trying to summon a succubus gf

>>12505452
Refute what?

how are these so good at catching flies?

>>12507737
this is what people want to talk about, don't be jelly

>>12505815
This kills the christbois

>>12507808
I guess you didn’t read the responses

>>12507890
They're indefensible and basically amount to "i believe because i want to"

>>12506318
A mistake.

is that bilbaroo of the conchords from down undah? he looks like he'd use his short legs to store immense spring energy so he can jump to great heights

Most Atheists seem less concerned with deconverting people from religions because of that religion’s bad influence on society and more concerned with appearing intelligent, insulting others, and not wanting to try and understand their opponents’ beliefs. Just as most religious people are religious through indoctrination, most atheists disbelieve because of their own interpretations, commonly made in their younger years, which tend to be naive and based on misunderstanding. Atheists will agree with other atheists in debates, but you never see Christians being convinced of anything.

I say all this as someone who never felt like a Christian as a kid, became atheist at 12, and converted to Christianity at 20.

>>12507983
Christians are more annoying desu. They think reading one book gives them the knowledge of a astrophysicist, scientist and philosopher combined. It makes you make insane things about the origins of the universe, the nature of morality and biology, and it's said with a smug assurance because you've obviously got the RIGHT book.

>>12507983
You're a stupid cunt, aren't you? Go away.

>>12507983
>>12508044
Quiet the both of you dolts

American protestant evangelicals were a mistake.

>>12508601
Like all circumcision cults. A human shouldn't be cattle-branded for spiritual entities, it can only end up producing cruel goblin jokes.
Be it Arabs, Jews or Americans...