/lit/ - Literature

>>21675074
It's a pretty standard argument
>The balance of evidence is pretty overwhelmingly against the kinds of gods any major religion espouses
>Religion's not inherently a force for good, it's often a force for bad, and you can be good without a religion
>Religions should have a lower power-level and prominence than they did in 2006, because they use that power in negative ways, such as discriminating against LGBT people and indoctrinating children

If you're online, statistically speaking, you already agree with him

>>21675074
the bible is a greek math textbook

>>21675074
I always found Dawkins to be the least interesting of the new atheists because he tended to focus on the factual claims of religion which is boring and easy. It's more fun to consider it on philosophical or ethical grounds.
On the other hand The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker are both great books.

>>21675074
He's a midwit who was BTFO'd by a review that started with an "Imagine..." shitpost.

>>21675249
>The Selfish Gene
Much better.

The selfish gene is the good Dawkins book, I think the god delusion was written purely to pander to the new atheist movement.
The best atheist book I've ever read (and only one I would recommend to anyone) is Il vangelo secondo la scienza, but it only exists in italian.

>>21675111
>If you're online, statistically speaking, you already agree with him
What makes you think that?

>>21675589
>theology
lol

>>21675589
Lol religious people are so easily cucked by rhetoricians they've lost the ability to detect fart-smellers. Every one of these essays fails the among us test.

>prove you have hands
you hold up your hands

>prove you have a pencil
you show me your pencil

>prove to me god exists
"Okay first we need to come up with a coherent definition of what proof, knowledge, and what it means to 'be', for if we consider some notions of..."

>The Selfish Gene

Btw do wonder if the anon I talked about this with is still around ... last thread sadly died.

>>21675800
>pander to the new atheist movement.
Have you heard the man speak? He IS the new and old atheist movement. There is no pandering

>>21675895
>Prove that a certain and empirical category is physically present within you = Prove that an uncertain and logical category exists by necessity

You're not even midwit, you're just retarded. Read a book.

>>21675800
I will never read that disgusting commie fuck
Odifreddi can suck my dick

>>21675895
prove me truth exist

>>21675822
Statistics

>>21675111
Except he's a retarded faggot who's already backtracked on all that now that he's being canceled by mentally ill AtheismLGBTQIABRAP+ transvestites for refusing to call them "women's penises", and realized religion prevented society from devolving like this.

>>21675895
amogus

>>21675074
>I’ve found Augustine and Descartes
This book wasn't written for people who've read Augustine and Descartes, it was written for people who grew up being told that learning what Evolution or the Big Bang actually entailed would send them to hell. Tradlarpers don't get this because actual Christians got ghettoed when the nuAtheists achieved total victory. The fact that nuAtheism collapsed into Tradlarp, the Alt-Right, and Social Justice is irrelevant. Want a demonstration of this? See >>21676910. No one actually believes an ancient Rabbi rose from the dead, they're just using it as an excuse to sorta-kinda stand against Anti-Whiteness (hence the whole Tradlarp vs Alt-Right dispute).

If you want to know who this book was written for, go look at the people who are into Qanon, because that's the last vestige of actual Christianity on the internet.

>>21676910
He hasn't backtracked anything, critical theories are as irrational as religion in much of the same ways.

>>21676935
>augustine
reminder that at the time dawkins wrote the god delusion christians were arguing that augustine was satanic propaganda

>>21675111
>there is no evidence "against" hence the "lack-belief" retards appeared
> utilitarian crap and muh gay
> muh gay and the myth of neutrality

>>21677018
>we need to pretend to be greek orthodox so that we can meme ron desantis into becoming racist
If Ken Ham and Kent Hovind got their way it would be illegal for you to say this.

why do you even have to "get" religion? the abrahamic religions are blatantly false. they are based on pure faith rather than observation of reality.

>>21675111
The concept of 'good' is itself a religious concept that was brought around by Christianity.

>>21677050
But all sorts of non- and pre- Christian religious traditions, like Platonism and Buddhism, have complex moral and cosmological schemas allow for objective truth and morality. Why do we need Creationism, speaking in tongues, and snake handling to tell us "don't steal" when Buddhism and Platonism can do that just fine? I mean, hell, Augustine himself said that the Roman Pagans were far more virtuous than any Christian.

>>21677058
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not saying that Christianity is the only religion with a moral framework. I'm saying that the Manichean concept of 'good and evil' is almost entirely exclusive to Christianity and it's ideological descendants and so when using the terms 'good' and 'evil' you're judging Christianity using its own metrics. Also - moral systems just tell you how to behave, they don't need to justify themselves - for example the concept of virtue is mostly pragmatic and aesthetic, even a generally monstrous individual could be virtuous. Same goes for Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

>>21677050
Plato was discussing the form of the Good 500 years BC you pseud.

>>21677144
That's fair, but you probably should have been more specific in that you were referring to Anon's post-Christian Progressive Liberal ideas of "good" (and by extension "evil") which derive from (reaction to) Christianity, as opposed to the standard Christian line of "how can you be against stealing if you don't support circumcision".

>>21676935
You're not larping if you're actually going to church, praying, and generally trying to live the way the bible tells you to. It's not even debatable that things were better when we were a Christian nation, and not a nihilistic tranny totalitarian economic zone, which is why everyone had the natural desire to go back to those times.
>y-youre just prete-
"All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary."

>>21677158
>actually going to church, praying, and generally trying to live the way the bible tells you to
Tradlarpers don't do that, they just roleplay on the internet.
>b-b-but LARP means "live-action roleplay"
Yeah and that term is used to make fun of Asatruar for actually going out and killing pigs to have lunch with Thor. I totally agree that we shouldn't call them "tradlarpers" because that takes their memeing more seriously than it deserves, but I didn't get to pick which term we'd all use to make fun of them.

No one who uses terms like "apostolic majesty", "nihilistic tranny totalitarian economic zone", or "universal orthodox magisterium" actually goes to church, and they'd be booted out the moment they opened their mouths and started spouting heresies (see: Matthew Heimbach).

>>21677157
Again, I don't think there's much of a distinction. For one thing the post-Christian ideas are virtually identical to the Christian ones. Also the very concepts of good and evil are essentially Christian - regardless of whether they're used in a religious context or not. Pagans for example didn't think in terms of universal 'good' - but the same can't be said for modern progressives for example.

>>21677190
>No one who uses terms like "apostolic majesty", "nihilistic tranny totalitarian economic zone", or "universal orthodox magisterium" actually goes to church, and they'd be booted out the moment they opened their mouths and started spouting heresies (see: Matthew Heimbach).
That depends on the church.
A lot of modern churches are pretty fucking gay, which turns people off even more.

>>21677028
>you

>>21677205
The Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Catholic Church have all said that accommodating LGBTBBQ+ folx and persons of crime is their primary concern. If you want to destroy the entirety of organized Christendom and start over fresh so that you can RETVRN TO SERFDOM or whatever, feel free to, but don't get butthurt when people laugh at you. If you can't be assed to do daily prayers, you're not going to go on a CRVSADE to LIBERATE the HOLY LAND OF ISRAEL from the MUSULUMAMEN INFIDELS.

>>21677250
>The Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church
Source?

>>21677250
Just watch me. :^]
It's already been agreed upon by all the fact checking experts that far right christian national extremism is such a massive threat that their victory is inevitable.

>>21677058
Buddhism and Paganism are both essentially theistic.

>>21675111
But the problem is he approaches the topic of religion from a enlightenment, emperical worldview. He would never allow for any sort of transcendent form to enter into the argument. Op is right it is a bit childish, because, I dont know if it is due to fear or lack of self assessment he does this btw, he nelgects arguing with real philosophical minds about religion. I am a religious person and have read Hume, niesche, or whoever and try to argue with them. But regardless, my favorite reply to his "Religion is used for bad" is that the church invented hosptials, the church was the reason why slavery was banned (as per For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery by Stark). And if you want to be real about it, how many wars were started because of religion... ok get the number of them in your head, so you got it? ok now understand that every other war you didn't think of was started for secular reason. There are more wars over secular rasons than religious ones- WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Russo-Japanese war, Napoleonionic wars, Iraq invasion, Afganistan in vasion by Russia, Cold War, guatamalan civil war, Emu war, etc. If we compared the numbers secular wars would greatly outweigh the religious ones, and for that matter the advancement in science has only helped to increase the number of deaths of these wars. It used to be that you had to train to be strong to chop through a person with a sword to kill him, now all you have to do is flex your finger and 30 people die from a drone strike.
>>21675800
This is correct. It is akin to a elementary catechism for children.

>>21675895
>prove you have a personality
you hold up Richard Dawkins

>>21676593
>>21676094
ez, it doesn't.

it's a beautiful abstraction to apply to the universe, but we totally made it up.
>tfw god-cels and truth-cels malding in the groupchat

>>21678036
>prove you have a personality
you hold up a book of 2000 year old middle eastern schizoposts and shared universe fanfiction

>>21678036
the cover of that book is based on a famous glown*gger emblem, can you guess which?

>>21677660
>church did this, church did that
yeah but what have you done for me lately?

>He would never allow for any sort of transcendent form to enter into the argument
By which you actually mean when you either just make shit up or use ambiguities in language to make shit up. Here, I'll cover for him
>god's death coincides with the collapse of modern ecclesiological ecology within the post-romantic gestalt, in his absence modern processes seek to transpose us from the grounded to the rationally divine
for people who don't like playing bullshit word games signifying nothing, he does just fine with the empirical
>that shit's made up and you don't have any proof worth a shit

>>21678100
didn't read lol

>>21678036
That guy is basically a Christian at this point.

>>21678049
>I said prove you have a personality
you tip your fedora

>>21678113
Your retardation is a transcendent form

>>21675895
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial homonids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditiation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: Saturday morning philosopher (secret weapon: midwit empowerment (aka Reddit); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4 and is unimpressed you don't believe in Santa. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Even myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>[(You) have fainted.]

>>21678246
>Even myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism
lol, believers never cease to crack me up.

>Believe 2000 year old myth
True and based!!! Deus Veult!!!! I hate minorities!!!

>Believe myth I just made up 20 minutes ago while smoking crack
WTF noooooO!!!!!! beliefs are supposed to be a popularity contest based on seniority!!!! you can't just make new ones!!!!!! I still hate minorities!!!

Just admit you want an ethnostate, we'll get there eventually either way, save me the time

>>21678246
>Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion
The history of science is pretty interesting. It basicallys started as a big scholastic inspired project to use facts and logic to prove that christianity is real in a period when belief became threatened by increased contact with the far east (i.e. how do we know we are right and induists and buddhists are wrong?).
In that way it failed spectacularly but it did succeed in other impressive ways. This is a theme in the history of science, we researched a cure for gout and found a way to go to the moon instead.
The religious problem however remains: how do we know one religion in particular is right and all others are wrong? More contemporary religious attempt to solve this problem all end up in a for of soft synchretist worldview: "they are all sort of true and we just agree to disagree on the one that is the most true of all".
Personally, I find this solution deeply unsatisfying, I think it's functionally equivalent to being an atheist.

>>21678281
>Believe myth I just made up 20 minutes ago while smoking crack
I don't believe in queer theory, though.

>>21677594
And?

>>21678113
>fake links
>made up statistics that can be proven wrong with a google search
In 2018 over 300 priests in the state of Pennsylvania alone had charges brought against them for sexual abuse of children.

>>21678325
>prove that christianity is real
It's a given that Christianity is real.
What made Christians great scientists is that they seek to understand what everything means, therefore try to understand natural phenomena and recognize patterns, while your average leftytroon believes basic pattern recogniton to be a form of schizophrenia.

>>21678349
How do you square this with your firm belief in Creationism and the rejection of the sciences of biology, physics, and genetics?

>>21678349
I'm sorry, I thought you weren't retarded.

>>21678354
A lot easier than you do with transgenderism, thanks for asking.

>>21678339
Actually given that the chart has "Average Yearly Cases of Child Sexual Abuse", and the 2018 Pennyslvania Report found "over 1,000" children (the majority of whom were little boys) that had been abused by the 301 priests across 2 years, you are incorrect. Pennsylvania alone had over 500 cases of child sexual abuse by clergymen. If we extrapolate this to 48 states, that's 24,000 cases of child sexual abuse by clergymen, according to the USCCB there's 37,302 current Catholic Clergymen in the US, 24k/37.302k=0.64 children abused per Catholic Clergymen.

So, per capita, roughly three out of every five Catholic Clergymen is a pedophile.

>>21678364
I'm not sure what you mean. Trannies obviously exist because they're sexually abused by people, often Catholic priests, or they're brainwashed by Jews. I don't like that this happens, but it sadly does.

>>21678364
Troons are retarded because they make metaphysical claims, like religion.

>>21678373
>Pennsylvania alone had over 500 cases of child sexual abuse by clergymen
per year*

>>21678339
>>fake links
Nvm, found it, https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf, the image just got the link wrong. Interesting how it doesn't actually cite where the "201" number comes from.

>>21678373
your assumptions are stupid
can you figure out why?

>>21678409
That this report is one of the few that actually happens because the Vatican is a massive NGO complex that spends ludicrous sums of money covering this sort of stuff up?

Yeah, I know, it's pretty sad. I don't like this topic, these people should be punished for their crimes, hence why I should have put "at minimum" on all of those figures. There's 0.64 children abused per Catholic Clergymen at minimum.

>>21678414
so you can't figure out any of them
here's the first one:
not all offenders are single time offenders

>>21678281
>lol, believers never cease to crack me up.
Weaponized condescention.
>True and based!!! Deus Veult!!!! I hate minorities!!!
Lack of nuance.
>WTF noooooO!!!!!! beliefs are supposed to be a popularity contest based on seniority!!!! you can't just make new ones!!!!!! I still hate minorities!!!
Ignorance of history and inability to contextualize.

The Dunning Kruger show that always comes alongside atheistic pride never ceases to crack me up. You've earned your fedora tip, good sir.

>>21678441
>pedo apologist doesnt how per capita works
Not surprising tbqh.

>>21678325
>It basicallys started as a big scholastic inspired project to use facts and logic to prove that christianity is real
What we would think of as Theology Islam and Christianity as informed by Platonism and Aristotelianism
>In that way it failed spectacularly but it did succeed in other impressive ways.
It didn't fail at all. The Aristotelian-Medieval worldview was incredibly successful, standing for the better part of 2 millenia, and eventually birthed modern science. The reason it maintained itself for so long was due in no small part to its explanatory power (i.e. the idea that it was a pile of rubbish beliefs demonstrates a one sided bias and ignorance).
>This is a theme in the history of science, we researched a cure for gout and found a way to go to the moon instead.
The theme is the continuous overturning of paradigms that form the bedrock of beliefs (including scientific beliefs). For example, Newtonianism's mechanical universe was usurped by the ideas of General Relativity and Quantum Theory. When the language of these theories are found wanting and they're replaced by something that can explain 98% of the universe we call "dark" will someone on the internet scoff that we didn't have a scientific, let alone True, mindset?
>how do we know one religion in particular is right and all others are wrong
That's up to every individual person to decide and there's no doubt such decisions are culturally informed and dependant on individual ability. If you're part of a culture infused with Christianity you can read up on the relationship between doubt and faith and go from there. The simple atheistic answer is that you don't have the capability of doing so because something has to be more correct than something else. That demonstrates a misunderstanding of the problem.
>"they are all sort of true and we just agree to disagree on the one that is the most true of all"
Nope, that's the athiest's strawman of religious belief. We don't live in a world with one set of beliefs and humility doesn't demand we write everything off as equal and paint them with the same brush.
>Personally, I find this solution deeply unsatisfying
Then it's your job to figure out if you're thinking about the problem in an incorrect way.
>I think it's functionally equivalent to being an atheist.
Being closed minded and carried away by one's own inherently limited intellect and a myopic sense of personal intellectual pride is the functional equivalent of being an atheist.

>>21678480
fallacy fallacy *VINE BOOM SOUND EFFECT*

>>21678640
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Every time.

>>21678354
>>21678356
There are multiple anons but he isn't wrong about transgenderism (just crude). Funny how a supposedly scientific mindset can't recognize social contagion even when it harms children. At least Catholic priests have to operate in a paradigm where they're forced to take responsibility to maintain the humanity of the sinner (not that I'm defending the idea that such decisions have been appropriate or reduced harm). What will the doctors fall back on if people regain common sense? Why did you presribe experimental hormones that upset natural biological development to children--the boy needed to feel normal. Why did you surgically mutilate a minor--because it made her feel better about herself. No more questions.

>>21678726
>What will the doctors fall back on if people regain common sense?
They'll just say that they were forced to do tranny shit at gunpoint by ZOG and that you can plainly see that it's all bullshit. Compare that with the Vatican which is willingly ousting Priests who aren't gay pedophiles (but I repeat myself).

>>21678752
>we were just following orders
So they lack the personal agency to understand what they're doing is wrong. Compare that with the Nazis.

>>21678767
>So they lack the personal agency to understand what they're doing is wrong
Oh no, they totally get it, they'll just lose their livelihood, possibly be sent to prison, have their children taken from them, etc.

Much like the Priests who speak out against Catholic sex abuse. They're stuck in a system, and if they speak out, they get punished. That's the entire point of institutions: give up personal agency in order to achieve greater goals.

>the DEMONRATS are like the NAZIS for ABORTING BLACK BABIES
Yeah of course the pedo-apologist would also do an Anti-Whiteness unprovoked.

>>21678726
Do you think transition is ever justified? There is some hysteria at the moment, but it does seem to help some people.

>>21678767
Every single person in the tranny industry absolutely knows what they're doing is wrong, they either don't care or are outright evil.

>>21678776
>not that I'm defending the idea that such decisions have been appropriate or reduced harm
Why are you retards always so predictable? You ask for proof of a deity while arguing with invisible phantoms. Ironic.

>>21678783
Despite tranny lies, transgenderism never existed until a pedophillic jewish sociopath made it up, so no, it has never helped anyone, it's something that's literally inflicted on people, and sold a series of "cures" that are even worse.

>>21678783
The social cost at this moment is a lot of harm we're not supposed to speak openly about. Also, a lot of the academic justification of such is rooted in the ideas and language put forward by a man whose life's work resulted in the creation of child pornography and the suicide of his primary subject. It's funny how they lean so hard into social constructivism while conveniently ignoring where their ideas came from.
>>21678790
Probably not every single person, a lot are carried away by ideology that leads them they can't do wrong, but there sure seems to be a lot of nefarious actors

>>21678819
Every single part of transgender ideology is a lie, every single part of the treatments the transgender industry sells is a lie, and there is zero chance that people who have taken this up as a career jave somehow failed to notice that their success rate of reassigning a person's sex rests at an impressive 0%.

>>21678845
I don't really want to slide about this but it's a decent example of how someone can be carried away by an ideology. It's far more scary and dangerous that they don't know what they are doing is wrong.

>>21678928
Which is why transgenderism is a bad example of that phenomena, because it's indefensibly evil from the start, which is why their two primary lies are "it's not happening" and "it's reversible".

>>21677029
Only christianity is based (theoretically) on faith. the other Abrahamic religions are based on reality.

>>21678945
You can read that as a way to understand why people maintain harmful beliefs that, while internally consistent, aren't based on the consideration and evaluation of alternative narratives. This means that a surgeon irreversibly mutilating a child can justify such an action in multiple ways never having truely questioned the repurcussions of act itself. They can focus on the one person who seems the better for it without ever questioning if that person believes such because they have to. They can ignore any number of people who have been damaged by it by saying they were acting in service of a higher good in generating social acceptance of the group. That's what makes it dangerous--that people can act and behave this way in accordance of a preset that automatically justifies their actions and automatically delegitamizes criticism.

>>21678325

damn there's a lot of fucking retards itt

>>21679169
>adds one more
inb4 no you

>>21675111
>>Religion's not inherently a force for good, it's often a force for bad, and you can be good without a religion
You have to be genuinely retarded to believe this. There's no standard for objective morality in atheism, hence saying things like "x is a force of evil" or "y is a force of good" doesn't make any sense.

>>21679317
x is a force of evil by my standards, and all reasonable people in my society.
There you go ;)

>>21679326
>might makes right therefore "her penis"
Kek.

>>21679339
Sure, we should instead bring back slavery, stoning and genocide.

>>21679350
You forgot your selfie.

>>21679350
>might makes right
>there is no alternative to "her penis!"
>>21679356
Kek.

>>21675249
What’s funny is the selfish gene is just a much pseudoscience as any religious doctrine. Another scientist who can’t see the forest for the trees I guess.

>>21675895
>prove an axiom
Extreme midwit detected

Either you assume an axiom to be true or you do not.

>>21676944
Basic everything humanity touches becomes a religion. Fucking everything.

Its impossible for morality to exist in atheism but that doesnt make it not true.

>>21680141
You have to demonstrate why it's reasonable to assume an axiom is true. This is why Aristotle's Organon dealt with both demonstration of axioms, positing of axioms and deduction from axioms ("first principles").

>>21680154
No you don’t, lol, and Aristotle isn’t the god of metaphysics. Axioms are used to construct tautological systems. Different axioms create different systems, things like merit of reasonableness are just value judgments imposed by ignorant human minds.

>>21680186
It's not metaphysics, it's epistemology. And yes, you do, if you want those axioms to be taken as real.
>Axioms are used to construct tautological systems.
The axioms are usually based on a fact which is not formalizable, like the relations of the angles of a triangle which is based in spatial reality, a reality which is beyond axiomatic systems.
> things like merit of reasonableness are just value judgments
They are judgements of consistency between external reality and axiomatic judgements. It's the opposite of ignorance and requires carefully intuition of external reality. This is like saying the definition of a triangle is a value judgement; it's not, it's actually an intuition of external (purely spatial) reality.

>>21680204
Whew lads. We got a live one here. I agree with you that if I want to persuade others to adopt my axioms, I.e. beliefs, it helps if they have some rhetorical appeal, eg in the case of an audience of empiricists some conformity to reality. However, if you have taken higher mathematics, you would have learned one can construct any number of mathematical worlds simply by manipulating the axioms of algebra we all love and know so well. From there you would understand that the mathematical axioms you are taught in school are so chosen because they make possible the equations of physics which appear to conform to observations about physical reality. But the fact is that one can assume any axioms, and they are valid and true by virtue of your assumption. You are just one level too low on this one kid. You need to realize the requirement an axiom ‘reflect reality’, which is a synonym for the physical world, is a constraint imposed on them for rhetorical purposes and not intrinsic to their existence or validity.

>>21680186
This is right.
>>21680204
You're a retard.

>>21680217
>However, if you have taken higher mathematics, you would have learned one can construct any number of mathematical worlds
You can't create a "mathematical world" where the angles of a triangle add up to 8000 degrees. There are complicated formal systems you can create, indefinitely many, but none of them contradict the basic reality which makes it all possible in the first place. You are still making the mistake of confusing the system (capable of indefinite prolongation or elaboration) for reality, which is comparatively simple in its essence. Higher mathematics as it stands today is great and provides many intellectual challenges and considerations, but it is also an obfuscation of the more simple truths of reality in that its entire complexity is rooted solely in systematization. You lose sight of the ground when you no longer care about the ground. If this is not the case, then mathematics loses all claim to reality and physics would be more real than mathematics, but then geometry (per the example of triangles I used) is no longer a branch of mathematics because it is, in contrast to "mathematics", actually real and indisputable that a triangle's angles will add up to 180 degrees, and there is no amount of axiomatic nonsense you can elaborate to change that fact.
>But the fact is that one can assume any axioms,
I never said this was not the case. I said that your choice of axioms has to be justified via demonstration if you want to claim reality for them. You seem to be misunderstanding the argument if this is the basis of your retort.
>You need to realize the requirement an axiom ‘reflect reality’, which is a synonym for the physical world,
It's not a synonym for the physical world. It's also not rhetorical, any more than the fact that I have two hands is rhetorical, or that a triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees is rhetorical. The axiom is given authority by reality, physical or not.

>>21680217
>and not intrinsic to their existence or validity.
Also, who claimed that axioms have intrinsic existence or validity? My entire argument is that axioms gain their validity from reality, that their validity and existence is not intrinsic.

>>21680233
You are wrong on every count. Step out of the particular and enter the universal. Take the symbolic logic pill and abstract away all you hold dear. Stop clinging to “reality” like a child to its mother.

PS a triangle inscribed on a sphere has angles that add up to more than 180 degrees, so it’s only a matter of selecting the appropriate mathematical shape for your first challenge.

>>21680233
>You can't create a "mathematical world" where the angles of a triangle add up to 8000 degrees.
t. Lewis Carrol

>>21680255
>You are wrong on every count.
Interesting axiom. It's a shame you have failed to demonstrate the validity of it.
>a triangle inscribed on a sphere
Is not a triangle in 2 dimensions per the common definition.

>>21678726
>Funny how a supposedly scientific mindset can't recognize social contagion even when it harms children
We can, but it doesn't make religion true. It's retarded to bring up trannies every time someone points out the zombie jew isn't real. And countless children were castrated because of matthew 19:12.

>>21680259
>Is not a triangle in 2 dimensions per the common definition.
t. concedes anon's characterization of axiom without realizing it

>>21680233
Also, show me a mathematically perfect circle that exists in reality. You can’t because they don’t exist in reality. None of your perfect geometries actually exist IN reality. They merely approximate it, which would be enough to deem your axioms false under the assumption they need to reflect reality with a 1:1 correspondence. If they don’t, then usefulness instead of truth is your measure of axiomatic validity which is as subjective as it gets. So fuck off and get back to reading translations of dead pseuds or embrace the fact you are thinking about this topic like a fish that believes there’s no such thing as trees.

>>21675111
>The balance of evidence is pretty overwhelmingly against the kinds of gods any major religion espouses
There is no evidence and I say this as a Christian myself. That's the whole fucking point of faith.
>Religion's not inherently a force for good, it's often a force for bad, and you can be good without a religion
This can be said of anything that takes a moral position.
>>Religions should have a lower power-level and prominence than they did in 2006, because they use that power in negative ways, such as discriminating against LGBT people and indoctrinating children
This is completely irrelevant to whether or not God exists, deserves worship, or anything else.

If this is an honest condensation of his arguments then I'm amazed that atheists can actually be so brainless.

>>21680149
It's built in, there's no avoiding it.

>>21678246
kino

>>21675111
Show that material evidence of something is required for it to have value. You can't. Love, art, and morality itself escape the bounds of physical proof. Asking for physical proof of metaphysical claims is retarded.

>>21675111
Let me correct you, and Dawkins:
>there is a lack of direct evidence for any kind of god(s), so choosing not to profess belief is a valid position
>religion is not inherently a force for good, nor is it inherently a force for bad. it has and is used variously for both good and bad; you can be good or bad with or without religion
>people who think differently than me should have less influence in society, and I want to understand bad actions in the simplest terms possible

I don't even understand how you could say your last line with a straight face. This isn't 2005 any more. The internet isn't a niche thing for edgy teens trying to push against the majority culture. Its demographic has broadened extremely and evened out across groups. Since most people are religious, it's very reasonable to conclude that most people on the internet are religious and hence disagree with Dawkins. Nevermind the non-theists who dislike him on this topic.

>>21675589
I read some of Russel. He was fairly based, it kind of sucks to have his name dragged through the mud via comparisons to hacks like Dawkins and the other horsedongs of antitheism.

>>21677050
Everyone look at this guy and laugh

>>21679169
welcome to /lit/

>>21680852
Most people worldwide are religious, but it doesn't necessarily follow, that they all want religion to have a strong influence on politics.

>>21680220
You think, mathematics evolved from axioms? The modern, mathematical axioms were created way after people used mathematics, they just formalize a system that mathematicians were using for hundreds of years.

>>21680150
wrong

>>21681350
That wasn't his argument and the lion's share of mathematics has been overwhelmingly developed from axiomatic systems. If you want to argue about number sense that's another subject. Look up Tarski's undefinability theorem.

>>21680559
>There is no evidence
not just no evidence, there is CONTRADICTORY evidence, particularly for the kind of contradictory lovey-dovey omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god most religions want to sell.

LET THE LOGIC SHOW:
>P1a. God exists.
>P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
>P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
>P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
>P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
>P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
>P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
>P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Either god has been gravely misrepresented by most major religions and isn't one or more of those Omni-'s, or doesn't exist

>>21680852
>Since most people are religious, it's very reasonable to conclude that most people on the internet are religious
Even assuming that there was planet-wide equal access to the internet (and we know that there's not, the majority of internet users are White Americans and Western Euros, with the Russian, Japanese, and Chinese internets being segregated by language and official media channels) all that would result in is the majority of internet users being Chinese Buddhists/Taoists, Sunni Muslims, and Hindus. Evangelical Christianity (what everyone means when they say "Christianity") would be an incredible minority.

>>21681337
No, Chinese Buddhists/Taoists, Sunni Muslims, and Hindus absolutely want religion to be deeply involved in politics. Historically, most Christians believed that politics was only legitimate because of religion's involvement in it. The idea of a separation between the secular and the sacred is one that was created by European elites because Christians literally cannot keep themselves from murdering eachother in the thousands over meme differences like "did Jesus own his sandals or did the Pope" or "did Joseph ever fuck Mary after Jesus was born" unless the state is keeping them from doing so.

>>21683142
>>P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omnibenevolent God would want to maximize the good, not prevent all evils. The former is not incompatible with the latter. That's why standard dogma has it that the greatest good is not as simply eliminating the existence of all evil, what we consider evil is a necessary transition for achieving a state of absolute goodness which is otherwise unattainable. This is divine providence. In particular, there is still no evidence one way or the other, because your argument does not apply. In the end it comes down to the fact that you either have faith or you don't, as the previous anon said, because there can be no evidence for this fact considering the immense intellect and power of God, which utterly transcends ours. Again another reason why it is no use bringing up all-too-human counterexamples of something bad happening--for the sole reason that it is a myopic clinging to a non-divine perspective.

>>21684064
This is dressed up
>We live in the best of all possible worlds
And since you're on /lit/, I may demure to saying
>Candide blew the fuck out of this view back in 1759
and it's never recovered since

>>21675074
I don't believe either, but none of the New Atheists are worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9gLvLYF5s&list=PLpzmRsG7u_gpMogZpIcZnS0BsD3z8_x3n&index=2
If I didn't know better, I'd assume the internet has been filled with LARPers trying to make non-believers look like retards

>>21684073
>>We live in the best of all possible worlds
Which is correct, more or less, even if we want to ignore Leibniz's particular theory. And Voltaire did not refute it, he just pretended to be smarter than Leibniz (he's not, he made no contributions to mathematics) by mischaracterizing and misunderstanding the theory. So anyway, this is still a non-argument. The fact remains that omnibenevolence is not only compatible with so-called "evils", it also actually necessitates them given the existence of free will, as if free beings commit evils voluntarily, then if God is omnibenevolent it would be evil if God DID NOT punish them by making them suffer.

>>21684088
>children commit sins in the womb that justify brain cancer
No one said that they find it illogical, they get it, they just think that you're evil for liking this.

>>21684088
Voltaire nailed the entire ideology in one simple idea
>It would be really fucking easy to imagine better possible worlds than this one, there's a LOT of evil in the world
>It seems way more predictive to say supernatural beings either don't exist or are wholly indifferent to making the world less evil, than to assume god IS real, and this is IN FACT the "best possible world" he could deliver on

With the punchline
>Therefore I get to write an entire book dunking on theist cope because everytime they say
>>"yeah, this world is really the best a god could ever possibly hope to give you, you just don't understand that this is genuinely the best he could do"
>They invariably look retarded, because if so, WTF???

>>21675074
Dawkins and scientists in general love talking about things that they don't really 'get'

>>21684158
>they just think that you're evil for liking this.
And they're wrong. It would be more evil to eliminate free will and turn all beings into automatons. Because then the world would not attain the greatest God, and therefore God would not be omnibenevolent.
>>21684161
None of these arguments stand the smallest test of scrutiny. Which is that human imagination is completely limited and you actually cannot imagine a single complete possible world, therefore the entire "argument" is nil from the start.

>>21675074
>>21675111
>>21677029
>>21678049
Daily reminder that if you're over 18 and rage against Christianity, you were likely touched by a priest, BTFO by the church as a youngster, beaten by nuns, or regret being denied immoral things because your parents had morals.
There's nothing wrong with being a non-believer, but if you constantly have to pwn the believers, then you're a miserable shell with nothing good happening in your life.

>>21680593
>>21680149
Not all humans

>>21679317
With or without religion, good people will behave the best they can, bad people will do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion

>>21677205
"If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive
you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." - Literally the word of Jesus Christ

>>21684620
>nooo you can only disagree with religion in the hyper-specific way I find tasteful or your life sucks and you're retarded + L + ratio + abuse victim!!!!
no

>>21684570
>human imagination is completely limited and you actually cannot imagine a single complete possible world
Sure you can, here's a trivial obvious example
>This very same exact world, but instead of some psychopath murdering 15 people on a cracked out rampage, they only killed 14
I don't find it very convincing to say
>for this to be the best possible world, god needs his body count
>why... because... he just does!!!!

>>21675074
>Spend life undermining religion
>Whoops it only worked on the nice religion that doesn't kill people anymore
>The one that wants to slit your infidel throat is now unopposed to take over your country
>All of the progressive churches instantly start dying
>The radical churches that hate faggots and trannies start growing rapidly

I remember the cuckold lamenting that he misses church bells, because now all he hears is the Islamic Call to Prayer every morning. Get FUCKED you subversive shit-toothed faggot lover. I hope that at some point, he gets to realize that this is literally his fault.

>>21684640
And for evil people to do good, that also takes religion. All you've posited here is the idea that religion creates: A) Freedom, and B) the possibility of true sin and transgression. Both of these are dogmas of the Church. But to say that good people need religion to commit evil is myopic, as good people doing evil is always simply a matter of deceit, in the same way that the atheist Soviets used their political views to convince otherwise good people to commit atrocities. It also presupposes what you conceive of as good or evil, which is established unambiguously in the Church.
>>21684763
>>This very same exact world, but instead of some psychopath murdering 15 people on a cracked out rampage, they only killed 14
You don't know "this very same exact world." At best (and this is still effectively incorrect) you only know it as it's been so far (in reality, all you know is the present). And everything which happens now and in the past is instrumental and necessary to what occurs in the future, which means that the highest good at a future time might be decreased by the elimination of an evil now.
>I don't find it very convincing to say
That's because you evidently don't understand what's being said. I'm sure it also seems absurd to you that true heroism also requires true suffering, yet you cannot have the former without the latter. The idea of heroism, in a way similar yet still different to the idea of the good, is not some simple category of purity. It is essentially related to what is required to attain it, just like the good. Free will and the possibility of mortal sin and divine punishment is essentially required for the realization of the transcendental good.

>>21684640
>but for good people to do evil - that takes religion
An incredibly pithy but vacuous statement. Here's one with some actual content: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

The greatest single crime of the last century, the Chinese famine that killed 50 million people, was caused by a genuine, well-meaning, but retarded plan to modernize a country for the benefit of a people who had suffered every form of oppression possible, and been abused for centuries. It was caused by the idealistic but incredibly myopic notion that by abandoning traditions and superstitions, you can drag your nation out of the ignorance and darkness of the past and into a future of plenty and equality.

If you let midwits, regardless of their intention, try to solve big problems you get big disasters. That's it. That's how the real world works. Muh religion, fuck off.

>>21684763
>be athiest
>GOD? HA!
>santa not existing is a truth bomb
>CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW RATIONAL I AM?
>he's above people who find community in faith
>I'M AN ORDAINED MINISTER IN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGETTI MONSTER!
>scientific mindset but can't perform basic calculus
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!
>expert in world history
>DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY WARS WERE FOUGHT IN CHRIST'S NAME?
>thinks knowing the definition of omnipotent is the same as being such
>OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT THE BEST WORLD FOR EVIL, IT EXISTS!
>will continuously sperg the same talking points
>BEHOLD THE ENORMITY OF MY INTELLECT!
>and never realize just how shallow and pathetic he is
>*TIPS FEDORA*

>>21684788
Not his fault that people are retarded. You also overestimate his influence.

>>21684795
>And for evil people to do good, that also takes religion
If that were true you would see more religious countries have less crime, or people in prison being less religious, or the increase in secularization in eu countries be accompanied by an increase in crime.
None of this is true. I think religion doesn't actually do anything in terms of morality, bad or good. The only thing that works here is the rule of law.

>>21684795
>true heroism also requires true suffering
It's nice when they just say the quiet part out loud, glad to hear I was right and your argument is IN FACT, as already called out.
>yeah, god wants his body count, and yeah, I have no justification, he just does.

If god did exist despite the evidence to the contrary, being real with you that'd basically make you the wife in an abusive relationship. When he hurts you he's doing it all for a good reason, right? He really secretly loves you, he's just really bad at showing it!
>huffs copium.

>>21684802
meds, now

>>21684830
>MEDS NOW!
Yawn.

>>21684829
>It's nice when they just say the quiet part out loud
I already told you the "quiet part" in the beginning, which is that omnibenevolence means maximizing the good, and not eliminating all evil. This is verbatim the statement I made when beginning this discussion. The only argument you've made is by asserting that it's evil, because... it just is, ok?
>If god did exist despite the evidence to the contrary
What evidence to the contrary?

>>21684851
The phrase "most perfectly evil good" or "most perfectly good evil" are meaningless and self-contradictory. There are because these things exist on the same spectrum, they trade off against each other (an increase in evil is a reduction in good and visa versa) and to maximize good demands evil's elimination. You're fart smelling by pretending good and evil are on independent axes.

How do religious pipo cope with the fact that they only believe in their religion because they happened to be born in a certain place at a certain time? If you were an Indian sir instead, you’d probably be Hindi. Or maybe if you were born in ancient Greece, you’d say prayers to Zeus.

>>21684883
Historically, they didn't, they'd remove infidel, but given how religious governing institutions have almost completely been hollowed out, how gods have moved from societal uniters against outsiders to meek therapists, how this kind of inter-faith fighting is seen as gauche, and how doing it with any level of success typically invites the US to come freedom you, they've all reverted to a milquetoast pan-religious
>Oh we're all blind men rubbing different parts of the same elephant, nobody's actually wrong, we're all brothers blah blah blah

TLDR they ignore the problem. The alternative of "my spitirual fight my god demands would demand I hide from getting freedomed in mountain caves somewhere" or believing that their god actually meant it when it talked all that shit about other faiths and therefore the vast majority of other human beings are burning in hell right now, and that statistically they probably believe in a fake god too, are all fucked to think about, so they just don't.

>>21684883
This is unironically the reason atheism appeared in europe in the 1500s.

>>21684902
>Historically, they didn't, they'd remove infidel
Historically, they didn't even come into contact with the infidel. Jews were simply christians that didn't get the update, Muslims were heretics and the various tribal religion were obviously inferior.
The crysis only emerged in the 1400/1500s with increased commerce with india and china, who had (at the time) a more advanced civilization without believing in anything similar to christianity.
I'd posit that atheism can only emerge from religions like christianity and islam because they are monotheistic and universalist. Induism or buddhism can never produce atheists.

>>21684941
>Historically, they didn't even come into contact with the infidel.
>Except all these infidels, those don't count
>Please ignore how they were all at each others throats for centuries
cope

>>21684981
There's a big difference between dealing with jews and muslims, which you can conceptualize simply as people who are in error because they are evil, and dealing with an alien culture that is older than yours, has completely unrelated beliefs, and is doing just fine.

>>21684081
Regarding that youtube video: do you understand the per accidens/per se distinction in causes? If I lift a stone with my hand I'm a per se cause of motion for the stone. If I throw the stone am I per se cause of the stone flying through the air or do I become a per accidens cause when the stone leaves my fingers?
In the example of per se causal series he says that if the stick is deleted the stone will stop moving, but that's not true: the stone will continue moving until friction will overcome the energy imparted onto the stone, so that's wrong.
I'm skeptical that there is any distinction between per se and per accident causation. In example of per accident causation, boiling water, we now understand that heat is just motion so there is really no difference, physically, between moving a rock with a stick and boiling a pot of water.

>>21684570
>And they're wrong.
Yeah, we know that you get a power trip of posting AI-generated images of celebrities on the internet, we can tell. Normal people just think that you're a bizarre weirdo for fantasizing about torturing people, as if that would fix the whole "overweight incel" thing, instead of actually engaging in self improvement.

>>21684788
Islam is plummeting though. Mosque attendance just flat out stops at the third generation, and much like Latinxs in the US Nafris and Arabs have an enormous rate of LGBTBBQP adherence at, again, the third generation. The reason that Nafris commit crime has nothing to do with Islam, it's entirely because they're Nafris. They were like this in the Roman Empire (Augustine is the famous example, being a criminal delinquent on his daddy's dime, and then being too stupid to keep attending Plato's Academy). "Muslims" aren't taking over anything, Jews are importing huge numbers of persons of bioleninism.

Also, the Redeemed Christian Church of God is a Nigerian cult and is a huge funder of importing brownoids to Britain, and Newfrontiers exists (by their own admission) solely to funnel LGBTBBQPs into the Evangelical priesthood in Britain.

>>21678148
I know Alex, and it is probably a matter of time.

>>21676935
Zoomzooms aren't able to put the book in the context of the Bush admin where it was popular to claim that the earth was quite literally 6000 years old or try to ban creationism in schools.

>>21679317
It's also vacuous "in religion". If the Good exists independent of God(s) then it's true that there exist morals in atheism. if it doesn't, then good/evil are just artifacts of God's will. Sounds good when you're a Christian, less so when you're called to flay children alive to appease Tlaloc to make the mazie grow

>>21686624
Why would you object to flaying children alive if that's God's will?

>>21685786
> Yeah, we know that you get a power trip of posting AI-generated images of celebrities on the internet, we can tell. Normal people just think that you're a bizarre weirdo for fantasizing about torturing people, as if that would fix the whole "overweight incel" thing, instead of actually engaging in self improvement.
Nice strawman, anon. Did you get a hat for it, too?

>>21686674
>Why would you object to flaying children alive if that's God's will?
Moral intuitions ought to count for something, especially at large scale. We were given God via a game of very human telephone.

Even believers should accept at minimum a small percentage chance that while God is real, that we don't actually know much about him as a person and his power at an object level, and therefore it's quite possible that a god could've lied about what the good actually is if that god is actually evil or has desires separate from The Good we have not been told about that it is seeking to fulfill.

Were this the case, unless you only believe in your god out of rational self-interest, you should probably stop believing them - they're either deliberately misleading you, or you're being jerked around by a cosmic trickster for reasons you don't understand. The way we'd presumably catch this kind of fake god is if a god's definition of Good often or repeatedly violated our moral intuitions, and at least for me and hopefully others, I suspect it's a common feeling that anyone that wants children flayed alive for its own sake is violating our moral intuitions and would be evil.

It's also possible that even if God is real, humans mistransmitted a good god's message, and human biases and evils have snuck in, through some combination of false prophets, mistranslations, miscommunications, and "we chose the incorrect books to make canon".

Moral intuitions being violated should draw us towards examples of this happening as likely areas for mistake, or reasons to recognize a faith as untrustworthy. Any text or faith that advocates for flaying children alive that someone claims they got from a god would for me immediately cause me to suspect an unreliable narrator and text we should probably ignore and exclude.

>>21686888
FWIW it's a majority position in the catholic church, espoused even by the former pope, that in the majority of questions of moral theology the church can not have infallibility.
As for me, as an atheist, I've come to the conclusion that we don't have enough empirical visibility in questions of ethics to make grand theories that derive it from first principles and we should stick to moral intuition for the foreseable future.

>>21686674
Well it's not God's will, is the thing, it's only ever the will of shitty demons and middle management who are discernable as such by being limited to some specific domain

>>21687035
>Well it's not God's will
Oh man are you in for a fun time when you stop putting off reading the Bible.

>>21679317
>hence saying things like "x is a force of evil" or "y is a force of good" doesn't make any sense.
good thing it isn't saying this retard, it's saying it isn't inhetently one or the other.

>>21687226
I have. God hates human sacrifice and punishes those who practice it. If you're alluding to the destruction of Canaan and friends, these were societies that all practiced such human sacrifice. They were given over 400 years to stop of their own will; they didn't. But even then the ones who beg to be spared and profess to stop doing all this sin and human sacrifice are indeed spared and allowed to join Israel.

>>21687393
>God hates human sacrifice
Oh man are you in for a fun time when you stop putting off reading the Bible.

>>21687401
If not to Canaan then, be specific, what are you alluding to?

>>21687393
What about Jephthah?

>>21687415
Well traditionally the Bible starts at Genesis, but some start with one of the Gospels. I recommend starting at Genesis for context.

>>21687393
What about... well, all of the book of Daniel?

>>21687423
Is a great example of God detesting human sacrifice. At this point, portions of Israel have fallen away into the practices of their neighbors and are accordingly out of God's protection and are being harassed. Jepthah is chosen to correct this; and before going to war, of his own accord, makes a careless oath to sacrifice the next person who comes to his door, as would be typical for a warlord in any of these neighbor societies looking to go to war, which Israel isn't meant to be doing. He's immediately punished with the next person being his daughter (in fulfillment of the oath, because oaths to God are always fulfilled) and he immediately regrets it and never does it again. Lesson: don't sacrifice people to God, he doesn't want it.

>>21687393
what about amalek and his family and the amalekites?

>>21687393
What about Leviticus?

>>21687447
That book set in Babylon, a place that notably doesn't worship God?

>>21687461
They are part of 'Canaan and friends'; human sacrificers and nephilim warlords and nephilim worshippers.
>>21687465
^

>>21685620
The point of that video is that they simplified an argument so it would be easier to tear down. I'm not sure if it was malicious on their part or an accident. Read Hume and stop listening to retards.

>>21687495
Yahweh literally tells the Jews to invade Amalek's land unprovoked and to burn every last one of the Amalekites to death as human sacrifice. When the Jews hesitate, Yahweh punishes them.

This is why the other anon told you to read the Bible before regurgitating the opinions of whatever youtuber you've attached yourself to this week btw.

>>21687501
I've actually gone read all the comments to the video. The author seems earnest, he believes the argument to be correct. Other people raised the same objections that I did and the author responds but his responses are equally indecipherable and eventually starts getting condescending. I think he got the argument from Ed Feser.

>>21687539
>invade Amalek's land unprovoked
No, the Amalekites tried to attack the Isrealites first (specifically the weakest Isrealites at the back of the group) while they were passing through the area on their way to Canaan. The Amalekites are human sacrificing warlords and the Isrealites are a bunch of hobos in rags who just got out of wandering the desert. God orders them exterminated after that.

>Human sacrifice is bad
This is the cutting edge moral philosophy Christcucks come up with

>>21675074
Dawkins is a smart guy but he has too much emotional baggage due to being molested by a priest. He acts more like an internet atheist and is completely unsophisticated if you compare him to other critics.

>>21684081
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000614f
You might enjoy these.