/lit/ - Literature

>X is a social construct

>>16200285
believing in self help books

>evo-psych is worse than regular psych

>>16200366
Oh shit it's fucking true

>>16200285
Correct. It's just a midwit cope.

>>16200285
>he doesn't know about the grand scheme

>>16200366
WHOA BAD PEOPLE CAN INVENT THINGS

>correlation does NOT equal causation

>>16200476
kek this

>>16200476
This is always the cope when I bust out anything of substance.

>Source? I need a source? Sorry, I mean a source that says exactly what you claim, you can't make inferences. Nope, still no source

>>16200366
KeeeeeeeEEEEEEEK

>What are your sources?
>X is biased

>>16200285
>X is bullshit!

>>16200476
>>16200506
>>16201500
It's so easy to do this shit to retards and then in the same breath turn around and give my most extremist dogmatic opinion and they're flabbergasted because they can't refute it.

>>16200468
>gender was invented
looks like you're not up to date with your tribe's agenda.

>Both sides are retarded

>slippery slope fallacy
>you can't prove a negative
>bearded old man in the sky
>found the incel!
>Read [insert author] *doesn't add anything else to the discussion nor explains how the author is relevant*
>as a woman,
>I prefer reason to belief
(most people don't understand what belief means in christian worldview and think it's blind acceptence of authority)
>X is not real because there are cases where X is ambiguous (X could be race, color, free will, consciousness, whatever)
>morality is subjective
Either morality is objective or it doesn't exist at all, since X being moral is an universal property that's completely different from saying "I like X".
>There are no facts, just opinions/ That is my truth.
same thing.
>AI will beat us by 2025
just lol and wait until they move the date further ad infinum
>Flat-earthers are retards
Flat-earthers are wrong but they're smarter than the average populace. They're wrong but they have a philosophical framework that's relatively sophisticated. It's actually quite hard to verify by yourself the curvature of earth. Most people's idea of how they know the earth is round is false (for example
the commonly cited Eratosthenes method is just a calculation of earth's radius in the model of a round earth, it does not prove the model. Same observations are consistent in the flat earth model and would allow you to calculate how far the sun is from the earth).
>mathematics is a subjective human invention because it rests on arbitrary definitions and axioms
Read Shafarevich's "On Certain Tendencies in the Development of Mathematics".
>Darwinism is an immoral theory because it promotes survival of the fittest/might is right
There have been a few people who tried to argue this to me.
>the is/ought gap problem is relevant to morality
It's not. Ought statements are meaningless in the analytical sense and are only social signals or signals of intent.
>0.999...<1

>you have to pick a side!

>>16200327
I just make them seethe by telling that egalitarianism is a social construct

>>16200506

I think X is better than Y
>Do you have a source on that?

Stupid normies are too dumb to understand that value judgements don’t, and can’t, require a fucking study. That’s inherently a misunderstanding of the point of science

>>16202829
>Stupid normies are too dumb to understand that value judgements don’t, and can’t, require a fucking study.
Do you have a source on that?

>>16202763
>>I prefer reason to belief
>(most people don't understand what belief means in christian worldview and think it's blind acceptence of authority)
When people say that, they mean belief in general, not anything related to Christianity.
>>morality is subjective
>Either morality is objective or it doesn't exist at all, since X being moral is an universal property that's completely different from saying "I like X".
"X is moral" is a shorthand for "X is morally acceptable within the community Y," so your point is false. Y of course includes anything from a small school community to nations or even whole world, but the further you go, the less common morals there are. Morals are therefore subjective, or should I say limited, to communities.
>>mathematics is a subjective human invention because it rests on arbitrary definitions and axioms
>Read Shafarevich's "On Certain Tendencies in the Development of Mathematics".
This is almost as bad as one of your points. At least make an actual point from the book and then mention it for further reading.

Stop with analytical crap, you are giving yourself away as a pseud.

>>16202920
>morality is subjective

It's interesting how this ALWAYS gets used as a thought terminating cliche, but never as a principle that the people who say this live by. NOBODY in practice acts as if morality is subjective, especially not when it would invalidate their opinion on particular matters.

>>16202920
>not wanting society's morals to be entirely shaped around your own

>>16200285
>the wrong side of history
What's better than outsourcing an argument to the common opinion of the masses? Outsourcing an argument to the common opinion of the masses of a future. This is obviously besides "the wrong side of history" concept necessarily invoking a particular endpoint towards which history progresses, which is just as unknowable and unprovable as the future common opinion.
>thinking along those lines ended in concentration camps/gulags during the 20th century, you know
Because obviously anything that does not conform to the post-WW2 liberal status quo is a thing that automatically would result in the deaths of millions. It's also literally bigoted to believe that your particular take that just so happens to conform to the status quo is the one take that is objectively correct and right - who would dare to say that you are not, risking a negative backlash/social suicide for going against the herd?

>>16202920
>When people say that, they mean belief in general, not anything related to Christianity
Yes, people don't understand what belief means in general. They think that if I believe in God, then that means I have no actual reason to do it and am relying on faith alone. However, this view is exposed as incompatible when applied to truths outside of religion. Most people would agree that believing 2+2=4 doesn't mean you have no reason to believe it and are taking it on faith alone.
Essentially, their sense of what belief means changes when it comes to religion.
>"X is moral" is a shorthand for "X is morally acceptable within the community Y," so your point is false.
Not true. Those two are completely different statements. As different as "Mark doesn't like when someone is murdering children" is from saying "Murdering children is immoral".
> but the further you go, the less common morals there are
Holy shit you're a midwit. Morals are not moral stances and opinions. It may be true that different cultures have different opinions on what is right or not but that has no bearing on the objectivity of what is moral itself.
In the same way there are people who believe "0.999.. <1" and people who believe "0.999...=1" doesn't mean that the truth of "0.999...=1" is subjective. One of them is right and the other is wrong.

No offense but you're a complete brainlet. Read a book.

>>16202763
Found the biggest pseud on the board.

just about anything this coke-addicted retard jew ever said.

>>16202920
A man called X is brought up in a small closed village of 10 people. The villagers have a law that everyone who kills must be put to death. A villager Y decides to attack X and rob him of his belongings. X manages to ward off the attacker and in the process kills him.
The villagers decide to put X to death because he broke a law.
X has an innate sense of justice as most humans do and exclaims
"But it is immoral to punish someone for defending themselves!"
Now you say
>"X is moral" is a shorthand for "X is morally acceptable within the community Y,"
What is the community Y in this situation?

>>16203004
Not an argument.

>>16203012
>you're just projecting
>you hate others for what you hate in yourself
>have you ever considered that you might be gay because you think that [insert political stance here]?
>the term "pathological" and its abuse
>everything can be traced back to sexuality
>you think "x" because you have mommy/daddy issues/subconscious bias

Freudism is already cancerous; its vulgarized pop-sci form even more so.

>>16203018
You're right. It's a statement.
Are you going to refute it?

>w-was that an ad-hominem instead of an argument??!
>tough luck pal, that's a 3 day ban for you, plus another 3 for replying to off-topic garbage.

>>16203021
No. In absence of any reasons why you think I'm a pseud, there's nothing for me to refute.

I've been away for a while, are we /polit/ now?
Also
>Judiasm is a religion, Jews aren't a race.

>>16202975
It's not subjective WITHIN your community, but outside of it, it is. Moreover, even if I don't think mutilating newborns is immoral, I won't do it as I would get arrested. To hold a view is not the same as expressing it.
>>16202996
I never said belief as you describe it is bad. In fact, that is the way to live. I don't speak for majority of population.

If you insist on making that distinction, then let me say that "X is immoral" is a meaningless sentence then. Try to define "moral" without invoking a community, you won't be able to.

Your 0.9999 example is not an opinion. It's a properly defined number which is 1 by all definitions of a decimal expansion. Anyone who says otherwise is simply uneducated on the topic, not a belief holder. In that regard you are already a dimwit, who's seen 0.9999 problem two days ago on /sci/ and thinks he's been elightened. Moreover, please, define morals outside of communities.
>>16203016
Killing is immoral within the community in any situation. Therefore X is an immoral man within the community. However, the villagers are hypocrites for then killing the man back. The real law would be "killing is wrong except when done by the government." Also, you assume justice is some objective thing, whereas it's shaped by our community, personal experiences etc. The only objective definition of justice is just law, in which case X was an unjustful man.

>problematic
>toxic
>cultural appropriation
>non-binary
>ally
>microagression
>intersectional
>if you are anti BLM you're a white supremacist

>>16203036
>If you insist on making that distinction, then let me say that "X is immoral" is a meaningless sentence then
This is my point then. Either "X is immoral" is objective statement or it's meaningless. There's no third option, because the statement itself is formed in an objective way.
In the same way "I believe 2+2=5" means something different from "2+2=5". The former could be true while the latter is false.
If you say it's meaningless then you don't believe in morality and that's fine by me (at least it's logically consistent).
>Try to define "moral" without invoking a community, you won't be able to.
I can't define "moral" because I'm not yet convinced objective morals exist. However, I don't think it would be hard for a christian to define morals as "Something in accordance with God's nature and will". Whether or not that is consistent with objectivity of morality is another argument.
The argument I've been giving here all along is that "X is moral" is a different kind of statement with a different meaning from a subjective statement like "Y likes X" or "Community Y considers X to be a moral". It's either meaningless or objective (true/false).
>Your 0.9999 example is not an opinion.
Yet people hold different opinions on whether or not it's true. Some people believe it's true and others believe it's not.
>It's a properly defined number which is 1 by all definitions of a decimal expansion
Correct.
>Anyone who says otherwise is simply uneducated on the topic, not a belief holder.
How does being uneducated on a topic preclude one from holding a belief on it? If they don't believe that "0.999... <1" why are they saying so?
>In that regard you are already a dimwit, who's seen 0.9999 problem two days ago on /sci/ and thinks he's been enlightened
I literally created the image in your pic related lmao.
>Moreover, please, define morals outside of communities.
Already addressed this point. I don't yet accept any definition of morals.
>Killing is immoral within the community in any situation
I just gave you a situation where it's not. A lot of communities used to and still view execution as a valid/moral form of punishment.
>Therefore X is an immoral man within the community
The community thinks X is immoral. That doesn't mean he is.
>However, the villagers are hypocrites for then killing the man back.
How so?
>Also, you assume justice is some objective thing
I never said nor implied such a thing. All I've been saying all along was that the statement "X is moral" is an objective statement that's either true/false or completely meaningless. It's completely different from statements like "Y likes X" because it's appealing to some objective moral law.

>>16203023
>not knowing how to ban-evade

Fucking newfags

>>16203095
>>16203036
Given the axiomatic nature of a statement like "0.999...=1" I would suggest another example.
"The earth is less than 10 000 years old" is an objective statement. Some people believe it's true and others believe it's false. That doesn't make it a subjective statement. It's either meaningless or objective. If a person believes it to be false that doesn't mean he takes it on faith alone. One might believe the earth is older than 10 000 years old and also have good reasons for believing so.

>>16203096
>ban-evading makes the jannie less of a faggot

>>16202589
Found the midwit

so everyone that disagrees with you retards is just a midwit? and you dont think AT ALL that maybe, just maybe, it's midwitted to dismiss opinions like that?

>>16200285
AI is not going to do a takeover.

>>16203036
I swear, this has to be GPT-3 AI wtf.

>>16202763
>It's actually quite hard to verify by yourself the curvature of earth

If you throw a ball it curves on the way down. You can throw it a bit further and it still curves on the way down, but now the curve is longer, and the ball takes longer to come back to the ground. You can imagine, if wind resistance did not exist, throwing the ball so hard that a long enough curve will cause it to never hit the ground at all, until it eventually comes back around to its original position. That is orbit. Only possible around a spherical body.

Also you can see the curvature of the Earth on the horizon with the naked eye.

>>16203143
You just demonstrated how people's reasons for why they think the earth is round are completely retarded.
The motion of a ball in the ranges that humans deal with is completely consistent with a flat earth in which there is constant downward acceleration.

>>16203143
That's...not due to the curvature of the earth. It's the Magnus effect.

>It's institutional
>How
>IT JUST IS IT'S SYSTEMATIC

>could god create a rock so heavy he could not lift it?
>check and mate christchuds

>>16203095
>>16203095
>I literally created the image in your pic related lmao.
Then I salute you, you gave me countless keks
>>16203095
A belief that can be verified is either true or false, true one being "truth" and false one being a delusion. Actual belief in itself is something not verifiable. In that regard, I don't consider 0.9999!=1 being a belief as it is verifiable.(this related to your first point as well)
>>16203095
>I can't define "moral" because I'm not yet convinced objective morals exist. However, I don't think it would be hard for a christian to define morals as "Something in accordance with God's nature and will". Whether or not that is consistent with objectivity of morality is another argument.
>The argument I've been giving here all along is that "X is moral" is a different kind of statement with a different meaning from a subjective statement like "Y likes X" or "Community Y considers X to be a moral". It's either meaningless or objective (true/false).
Morals as we know them can not be objectively defined, exactly because they depend on communities as I mentioned before. To "find objective morals" would be to redefine world morals to mean something disconnected from the individual, whereas current morals are something close to the individual, which is exactly why the individual feels inclined to follow them. However, in general speech, "X is immoral" is used within context of a community, in which case my argument of it being a shorthand applies.
>>16203095
>How does being uneducated on a topic preclude one from holding a belief on it? If they don't believe that "0.999... <1" why are they saying so?
My first point
>>16203095
>How so?
"Killing is immoral" in itself applies to all killing, which also means killing carried out as punishment. That's why I gave the extension which allows government to kill criminals.>>16203095
>I never said nor implied such a thing. All I've been saying all along was that the statement "X is moral" is an objective statement that's either true/false or completely meaningless. It's completely different from statements like "Y likes X" because it's appealing to some objective moral law.
Then the part of him "having innate justice" is meaningless, as his "justice" is simply his own personal morals, experiences etc(not to repeat myself). The way you said it implied the people of the village were wrong as his justice was supposed to be somehow "right," or perhaps I misunderstood.
>>16203103
That statement is verifiable, although its verifiability is a belief you could say, because you would have to believe the ways used for verification. But that is just a discussion terminator, as all knowledge is based on assumptions and beliefs. So, to ignore the underlying principles, that fact is verifiable and therefore not a belief, or at least not a belief in itself.
>>16203142
I'm a human, or at least I think I am. In the very least, I have a mind capable of self-reflection.

>>16203193
Fuck, ignore the countless (You)s, that was not intentional

>>16203134
shut up midwit

I don't know anyone who's truly bright who'd call someone else a midwit. Intelligence is common. Genius (or the capacity for it) is common. What's the point in trying to stratify ourselves based on this narcissism of small differences? You should try to do some self examination and figure out why you're insecure about your intelligence. Everyone with enough brains to see the problem in the first place knows on some level that even if you're smart, you're not the smartest. Go look up the percentiles and estimate how many 150+ IQ people there are in America. You could fill an entire city with them. The entire midwit garbage is the romanticizing of this poorly defined quantity which isn't actually that rare, has only a weak correlation with your level of success, and no statistically significant correlation with general life satisfaction metrics. Why go through the trouble of erecting this internal hierarchy over something that actually has very little worth on its own? Sure, it's rare, but rarity doesn't denote worth. My piss and shit are pretty rare -- only I can produce them -- but they get flushed down the toilet every day regardless.

This shit makes self-styled "smart people" really tiresome to be around. It's like if you happened to be born with a talent for juggling and you went around evaluating whether or not other people could juggle as many balls as you could, and this formed the center of your identity.

I know this sounds really specific, but I've been around for a minute, and I've been annoyed by the "hello, I am smart" crowd for almost as long. What happened to humility?

>>16203191
Look I’ve said this before, and I want to be as polite as possible here, but I’ve literally never heard a coherent response to this. Everyone makes fun of it as a dumb argument, but I think its a perfectly valid heuristic for an argument to demonstrate the incoherence of omnipotence. Seriously, please explain to me how this is stupid without referring to its apparent simplicity

>>16203193
In regards to belief, I guess your understanding of it simply differs from mine and majority of other people. I and most others consider belief to mean simply thinking that something is true, regardless of whether or not it's verifiable.
Most people understand what is meant by a statement like "John believes the earth is 6000 years old" and don't see any issue with it, putting you in the minority.

With regard to your point about morality, thanks for clarifying. As stated their decision is indeed hypocritical, you were right to correct me.
> The way you said it implied the people of the village were wrong as his justice was supposed to be somehow "right," or perhaps I misunderstood.
I did not intend to imply that the village was wrong and the person was right. As I said before, I do not yet believe objective morals exist.
What I tried to do here is refute your claim that "X is immoral" is merely a shorthand for a statement like "Community Y thinks X is bad". My example demonstrates that it is possible for a person to think that there is some objective sense of right and wrong that is independent of whatever a community thinks and to appeal to it. By saying "Punishing me for defending myself is immoral!" he is not saying that his community or any other community thinks punishment for self defense is bad. He is appealing to a higher, objective sense of justice that he believes exists.
I believe the same to be true in almost all cases where people say "X is wrong".
In the same way that when people say "The earth is 6000 years old" they are not merely asserting that some community thinks it's 6000 years old, rather they are appealing to some objective truth, the same way saying "X is immoral" is completely different in nature from saying "Some people Y don't like X"

>>16203261
Does God possess the capability to perform an action that does not have the inherent attribute of possibility?
No, that's entirely nonsensical, which is why people make fun of it.

>>16203262
All right then, other than the misunderstandings, I think we are on the same page nevertheless. Good luck in your search for objective morals, but personally I don't think they are real. Naturally, being proven wrong is the whole fun of thinking. It wouldn't be fun if you were always right.
On the matter of beliefs, maybe a better term for the concept would be faith, for what I describe? Though that would imply religious connotations... I will just stick to "unverifiable beliefs for now," although "belief in itself" is also good enough, as introducing verifiability to a belief makes it not a pure concept(now you have "belief" and "verifiability")

>>16203274
So, God's a little bitch?

>>16203261
unironically:
god's omnipotence is illogical to a human but if it exists, if he is truly omnipotent he can find a non-contradictory solution to this problem but it does not have to be logical to humans. therefore I cannot know this non-contradictory solution as a non-omnipotent human, nor can I explain it with my human logic.

tl;dr god can literally do anything so he can also cop-out on your dumbfuck question, if you really want the solution become a christian and ask him yourself, maybe he'll tell you.

>>16203276
Actually, belief also introduces the concept of whatever you believe in, so I guess it can't be pure. I will just stick to "unverifiable" prefix.

>>16203261
Because "a rock he can't lift" isn't a descriptor of the rock, it's a description of the god. If there was a rock he couldn't "lift" he wouldn't be omnipotent. Since he is, he can lift any rock he creates, no matter the size.
You're just getting confused because it's worded in a misleading way.
>t. a nonretarded atheist

>>16203317
>implying god talks to christians
he hates those guys

>>16203328
Why

>>16203274
But doesn’t this just prove the point? Since there is some sort of “inherence” outside of God pertaining to possibility, doesn’t this imply God is not omnipotent? Like, if you’re making fun of this argument because “lifting an unliftable rock” is logically incoherent, you presumably accept that God is bound by logic, and therefore you agree with the argument anyway. So why is it stupid to present it to someone who disagrees?

>>16203330
Dunno, that's all he told me. He's not that into explaining himself.

>>16203084
Those aren't midwit, they're full-blown dimwit.

>>16203134
(You) need to go back. Too obvious anon.

>>16203320
Thank you, this is a good response. Essentially, I take it, no unliftable rock can exist a-priory if there exists an omnipotent being, since the existence of an omnipotent being precludes the existence of an unliftable object. But then, if an unliftable rock, in the unqualified sense (i.e. the descriptor is actually predicated of the rock) cannot exist, does this not mean an omnipotent being cannot create this unliftable rock? I hope I’m not being an autist here, please clarify anon

>"You don't need to a belief in a God to know right from wrong"

>>16200327
spooked

>>16200285
>Being this autistic

>>16203317
Yeah, this is the response I have typically heard, namely “God is above logic”. But this essentially forces you to choose between logic and God, which is also sort of the point of the unliftable rock thing, making the argument non-stupid. I mean if your reply to a logical argument is “well my position is above logic” then you really can’t call the argument stupid, can you?

>>16202920
>Moral relativism is a refutation of anti-realism
Summer /lit/

>>16200285
Anything in greentext.

What if I were to conjecture that God is likely to exist but that if he does, the nature of his being it such that it is completely unrelated to his depiction in religious text? For instance, how do Christians deal with the idea that God may really exist, but that his existence does not verify the Bible?

>>16203253
Underrated post.

>>16203320
so he's incapable of creating a rock he can't lift? meaning he isn't omnipotent

>>16200285
>Hi, I'm OP, I read one philosophy book and one wikipedia page on a philosopher I like. The other day I had a discussion with a classmate who can actually talk in public, a thing for which I admire and hate him at the same time. His ideas slightly disagree with mine, therefore I felt ridiculted by what he said even though he wasn't even disagreing with me personally. I didn't have a proper comeback ready during the conversation to make myself look cool, so now I'm opening a thread on /lit/ in the hope of decompressing a bit of the rage and envy I feel at people who are clearly having a better life than mine.

>>16203460
>an argument has to be a complete contradiction and refutation to the original post
Winter /lit/ must suck

>>16203505
>ABLOOBLOO

>>16203473
Honestly they kind of don’t. But it boils down to argument ad-populum and near death experiences + the historical veracity of Jesus. Essentially they claim that they are the closest you can get to the unknowable God because they have the most anecdotal evidence behind them. I.e. “the light at the end of the tunnel is written in the bible, but not in the Quran”

>>16203509
I mean if you're presenting anti-realism as midwit a refutation should be easy to present if you're not a pseud making NPC noises?

>>16203515
I am not presenting anti-realism as dimwit. As that comic says, "All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we can not prove."

>>16203513
Except that Christians don't believe in the afterlife.

The Creed says "resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come", and it means exactly what it says.

>>16203524
Goalposts moved quite a lot from your first post.

>>16203528
I am the guy you first quoted. Anyways, my goal was to say that sentence which talks about immorality and morality is used as a shorthand for communal morality as morality on its own is undefined. I don't see the purpose of your anti-realism vs realism pigeonholing. Right now, morals are simply something that rests up to the individual, simply because different values have different impacts on communities, and same set of morals might be beneficial for one community but detrimental for another.

>>16203545
>Pigeonholeing
Christ. Im out.

>16203420
well, you're right actually. I can't have a logical solution here, but that's because the problem is illogical and requires an illogical solution, and "making the argument non-dumb" is actually trying to prove/disprove omnipotence which is impossible imo.

that's my real problem with this argument: it's very often (in my experience) used as a "btfo'd" quip to attempt to entirely disprove the possibility of god's existence.
but really such a divine being wouldn't be incapable of entirely surpassing the logic of the issue. and when the problem contradicts itself in the way that it does I shouldn't be expected to prove omnipotence out of my ass.
that's what I'm making fun of, the people who use it in this fashion are complete midwits in accordance with the OP.

>>16203562
>>16203451

>>16202763
>>Read [insert author] *doesn't add anything else to the discussion nor explains how the author is relevant*
>Read Shafarevich's "On Certain Tendencies in the Development of Mathematics".

>>16203551

God could create a rock so heavy he couldn't move it AND be able to move the rock

>>16203020
>>everything can be traced back to sexuality
this is true

>>16203598
have sex.

>>16203261
The problem is that "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is as much of a non-concept as "dry water." God cannot create "dry water" because an essential component of the definition of "water" is that it is wet. Similarly, God cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, because an essential component of the definition of God is a lack of limitations of his physical strength and ability to manipulate the natural world. It is just as impossible to conceptualize dry water as it is to conceptualize a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it.
If you have encountered people who make fun of this argument, know that they do so because it is facile, silly, and overwhelmingly produced by the sort of person who has never bothered to read anything besides the latest garbage produced by the mainstream media and their pet public figures such as Sam Harris. Omnipotence does not mean that God is able to perform any senseless action a child may dream up. It means that His ability to manipulate the natural and spiritual worlds is limitless. He can create black holes. He can destroy the Earth and replace it with a black hole. He cannot create a planet that is simultaneously a black hole, because that is a non-concept.

>>16200366
to be fair even Butler criticises him

>>16203562
Thank you. I appreciate the thoughtfulness, and honestly I just hope that we can get better discourse.

>thread ruined by insecure midwits desperate for validation

>>16203625
No thread based on insulting the intelligence of others could possibly turn out well. See >>16203253

>>16203630
midwit posts

>>16203610
TLDR: God is bound by logical coherence. The issue is that on the level of popular discourse this is frequently not the position of the theist, I mean, even in this thread some replies go “no, God is omnipotent beyond logical coherence”, so the argument is just as stupid in context as any other pop-atheism claim, right?

>>16200476
They always use it incorrectly like on controlled experimental studies.

>>16200285>>16200327>>16200331>>16200366>>16200378>>16200439>>16200451>>16200468>>16200476>>16200486>>16200489>>16200506>>16201493>>16201500>>16201557>>16201589>>16202556>>16202589>>16202763>>16202783>>16202806>>16202810>>16202829>>16202855>>16202920>>16202975>>16202988>>16202995>>16202996>>16203004>>16203012>>16203016>>16203018>>16203020>>16203021>>16203023>>16203027>>16203031>>16203036>>16203084>>16203095>>16203096>>16203103>>16203107>>16203118>>16203134>>16203138>>16203142>>16203143>>16203157>>1620316>>16203165>>16203191>>16203193>>16203199>>16203214>>16203253>>16203261>>16203262>>16203274>>16203276>>16203284>>16203317>>16203319>>16203320>>16203328>>16203330>>16203333>>16203339>>16203349>>16203395>>16203420>>16203443>>16203447>>16203448>>16203451>>16203460>>16203469>>16203473>>16203486>>16203493>>16203505>>16203509>>16203512>>16203513>>16203515>>16203524>>16203526>>16203528>>16203545>>16203551>>16203562>>16203564>>16203580>>16203586>>16203595>>16203598>>16203605>>16203610>>16203620>>16203624>>16203625>>16203630>>16203633>>16203665
t. midwits
anyone bellow my post is also a midwit. anyone I've failed to reply to are the only non-midwits ITT besides me.
I have won.

>>16203679
actual dimwit

>>16203261
God CAN do anything, but there are things God WILL NOT do because they are irrational

>>16203679
It's for you

>>16203473
Then you'd be a deist
>>16203526
A Creed is a Creed, a Christian is someone who professes faith in Christ
The beliefs and rituals of religious people do not always line up directly with texts, this is the case in other religions as well
Religion is a lived experience with textual elements, not the other way around

Everything on here:
>>/lit/

>>16203732
why does the /lit/ archive look like shit compared to desu, 4plebs and barchive?

>>16203726
The Creed is not a "textual element". It's a precise definition of what exactly it means to "profess faith in Christ".

(Muslims and Mormons believe in Jesus too, but they obviously aren't Christian.)

>>16203739
they all look the same

>>16202810
Intuition beats empiri, debeat me

>>16203665
God is not bound by anything. The statements you are making refer to non-concepts. They literally do not make any sense. You can put any sequence of words together in any language, but that does not mean that they refer to any intelligible concept. You may as well ask if God can oisajoisjaiosjiojsiajsj, because that makes about as much sense as what you are asking for.
Also, those people are idiots who, for one reason or another, exist within the framework created by atheists like yourself. They do not represent the Christian faith in any way, shape, or form.

>>16203349
I thought the meme was that dimwit gang and high IQ gang work together because they get to the same conclusions by different methods, whereas midwits are full-blown retarded and have no idea what's going on because they're the masses stuck in the middle.

>>16203036
>It's a properly defined number which is 1 by all definitions of a decimal expansion.
False, even by your own graphic.

>>16204043
Nah, that was always a dimwit cope.

>>16204086
fuck

>>16200476
This and
>freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

>>16204357
They always say this but they seem to push for anyone with non-left wing opinions to be silenced, censored, and not have a platform to express their opinions.

>>16200476
the midwit will make sure to write "!="

>>16204462
Pretty sure that's just engineers without enough self-consciousness to have the unfortunate awareness of groups of people more concerned with the appearance of having intelligence rather than doing any of the things intelligence is actually useful for.

>>16204077
>t. mathematically illiterate person
Please, go learn about some analysis before coming back

>>16204519
Your own graphic concedes that the two expressions are not equivalent in nonstandard analysis. Go learn some math beyond "introduction to calculus for engineers".

>>16200285
>There is no grand scheme of things outside of consciousness. If you deny even consciousness's importance, where is a grand scheme to be found in infinitly shifting dead matter?
Take the neo-aristotelian panpsychism pill.

>>16204544
>changing the problem makes the solution different
Colour me surprised!

>>16204739
Nothing changed. Your statement was:

>It's a properly defined number which is 1 by all definitions of a decimal expansion.

That is false, because there are indeed alternative definitions under which the expressions are not equivalent.

>>16200285
>There is no grand scheme of things outside of consciousness. If you deny even consciousness's importance, where is a grand scheme to be found in infinitly shifting dead matter?
very based

>>16200327
biggest pseud saying there is

>>16200285
>Rest in power

these are the basic midwit stances
>reductionism
>thing spatially big therfore life not matter
>atheism

>>16202763
>Read Shafarevich's "On Certain Tendencies in the Development of Mathematics".
lmao I remember your post on /pol/ on the subject of 2+2=5 where you mentioned Shafarevich, it was refuted to smithereens by literal /pol/tards and you should be ashamed of yourself

>>16200327
you reply with
>yeah how does that invalidate it?

>>16205036
No it wasn't lmao.

>Where is your evidence?

>>16205021
>atheism
Was Feynman a midwit? I'm not even an atheist, but come on.

>>16203020
you hate freud because you hate yourself