/lit/ - Literature

Also, has anyone been able to rebut Bertrand Russell's famous reason-based ethical argument in “Marriage and Morals”?

>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.

>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.

>Even in civilised mankind faint traces of a monogamic instinct can sometimes be perceived.

>I should not hold it desirable that either a man or a woman should enter upon the serious business of a marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experience.

>Joy of life... depends upon a certain spontaneity in regard to sex. Where sex is repressed, only work remains, and a gospel of work for work's sake never produced any work worth doing.

>Gluttony is regarded by the Catholic Church as one of the seven deadly sins, and those who practise it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of hell; but it is a somewhat vague sin, since it is hard to say where a legitimate interest in food ceases and guilt begins to be incurred. Is it wicked to eat anything that is not nourishing? If so, with every salted almond we risk damnation.

Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Bertrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.

>>22082043
This is not a problem if you reject the fundamental that a society should be tolerant in the first place

>>22082052
All Popper (I call him Pooper) demonstrated was that the group that wields political power determines the norms of the society it governs. Much think, such insight wow.

>>22082052
>reject the main western value

Might as well reject equality or progress

>>22082068
Nice b8 m8

>>22082043
so this is the "kpop" i've been hearing about huh

>>22082043
Karl Popper is sucking cocks in hell

>>22082068
>western values
Spooks

>>22082043
The fig tree incident alone refutes Christianity. No amount of cope matters after that.

>>22082068
This is bait but correct. These are the main values of Judeo-Christian civilization. Look upon it and despair.

>>22082043
hitler was a masonic mi6 agent putting opponents of the british monarchy in camps because he was an evil gay and i'm glad he's dead

Most of these aren't things you can rebuke, they are just his value judgements that you might share or not.
>you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
easily countered by free will defense, but the general problem of evil is harder.

>>22082043
>paradox of tolerance by karl popper
"Popper, read logically, advises the Nazis to repress the Communists, the Communists to repress the Nazis, the liberals to repress both and both to repress the liberals. From his “open society” he comes all the way around to Hobbes, Schmitt and Machiavelli. Next he will tell us, in Esperanto, that “the earth is nothing but a vast bloody altar.”"

>>22082169
damn maybe this popper guy is based after all

>popper making hegelians seethe
It's okay, The Open Society and Its Enemies can't hurt you in here

>>22082043
Here you go, Russell refuted.

>>22082046
>>The psychology of adultery
The psychology of adultery is the psychology of free-riding. Those who did not feel jealous, left fewer offspring. Therefore, most people feel jealous.
Genetics is important.

>>Love as a relation between men and women
Love, ultimately, is a question of thermodynamics and affordances. There is nothing special about love: either it works (evolution-wise, in a particular environment), or it doesn't.

>>22082043
I don't see the point poking at christians now. Only 80 year olds and social rejects believe in it. Let them die in peace

>>22082043
>KKK and fascists
Smart guy, but he makes a rookie mistake of not treating the root cause. He should've said
>if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, could you not produce something better that niggers and Jews?

>>22082043
>bertrand 'berty' russell
One of the greatest cocksman of his era, a massive shagger and an absolute demon in the sack according to all his ex-lovers, who were legion.

>>22082046
>and those who practise it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of hell
Gluttony is merely the Third Circle. Bertrand Russell is an idiot.

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt since there’s a ton of facetiousness imbued in these quotes, but going exclusively by them I would say Russel is the most spiritually dead author I’ve ever seen. Also, his attempts at objectivity are a mockery and the man overflows with sophistry when trying to present his own moral values as absolutes.
>inb4 prove it
No. Someone who agrees with his statements will keep doing so no matter what I say. That’s fine too. You do you.

>>22082068
Funny how the so-called main value of Western civ only started being applied after WWII

>>22082043
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.
This isn't really an argument. He's just saying "Well it could be some other way maybe."
>If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe
This concept is wrong. God created the universe he did for reasons he knows himself, which derive from himself and not from anything else external to himself. Whether it is the "best world" has no relevance to anything.
>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world
Christianity specifically teaches that the world is corrupted and imperfect due to human sin. Perhaps he thinks God should not have created moral agents.
>I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.
"It hurts my fee fees"
>and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all.
Well it doesn't. Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't make anyone happy.

>>22082046
>Nobel Peace Prize
Didn't they give one of those to that American president that started a bunch of wars and kept a secret civilian kill list?

>>22082869
War is Peace

>>22082869
War only becomes bad when non-Americans do it

>>22082198
Probably the most disappointing thing about apologetics is when you want to be convinced because of how depressing atheism and then you realize it’s all garbage like this. I read every page of this book when I should have known it was a waste like 30 pages in

>>22083001
Aquinas has great apologism for theism in shorter summa but Ibn Taymiyyah has the best for a specific religion

>>22083001
Mere Christianity is very simplistic apologetics, it's more of a polemic directed at a society that is still culturally Christian and not something written for post-modern atheist golems

>>22082043
Why didn’t you post this in the Russell thread

>>22082046
>divorce sex from an emphasis on emotional commitment
>people end up having less sex and are more depressed
Multigamy leads to the devaluation of social relationships and alienation of the individual. The social benefit of monogamy is stable relationships that increase the likelihood of well-functioning family units. Also, the individiual benefits you receive from a committed relationship are greater than those you get from a series of one night stands. Both of these combined forward the idea of a union that is higher than the individual, although he or she partakes in it, and is above the animalistic base desire of hedonism.

>>22082068
There is a single western country with free speech.

>>22082043
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
Appeal to unknowns and doesn't directly address the logical absurdities of infinite regress. It's a fair point but it sidesteps the holistic nature of religious understanding and ignores the Aristotelian Medieval Worldview of Aquinas.
>If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others
Going after the low-hanging fruit of simplistic dogmatism. This became the reflexive go-to of fedora tippers; basically a licence to be disingenuous. Also, it sidesteps the implicit humility of religious understanding and provides an excuse to dictate what omnipotency entails without admitting the limits of rationality.
>produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
See the last point. Free will and personal agency create morally repugnant outcomes. They underscore the responsibility entailed by being possessed with such and Russell is foisting a rather simplistic view of such--its just as logically valid within that framework to assert we'd be better as drones.
>serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell
Plenty of people live in hell right now. Look at concentration camps in North Korea or China. Full autonomy means you can render yourself incapable of accepting grace by your own actions and decisions. Evil people exist.
>"What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
This statement is true and he hasn't given a good reason to reject it. Stealing candy from a store will make a child happy but that doesn't mean it was a moral action. In a social group there are sacrifices of personal happiness that benefit others--Russell seems to want hedonistic utilitarianism which is absurd and divorced from reality. There are also moral acts that harm the individual but they can still have a valid sense of fulfillment from partaking in them--that's "sacrifice."

>>22082869
It was also made by a swedish arms dealer

>Has anyone been able to refute “Why I am not a Christian”, by Bertrand Russell?
Yes, anyone who is not retarded. This is one of the worst books I've ever read, period, even when I was doubting Christianity I saw this as one of the most retarded collection of letters ever written.

I think that the Universe had a beginning because of the big bang
I will admit that I'm not philosophically knowledgeable but I believe in God because of this

He strikes me as the sort of person, who, if he were alive today, would be very critical of Christianity in his public capacity, but would be completely silent about Islam.

>>22083670
Considering Islam is shat on in France for precisely Popperian reasons, probably not desu

>>22083673
Russell was Br*tish not French

>>22083674
Sure, and the Anglosphere definitely has a difference approach, but they’re not blind to reality. Also Popper and Russell are not the same

>>22083681
>but they’re not blind to reality
doubt.jpg

>>22082068
If you say so

>>22082043
>There is no reason
Reason, the thing you're appealing to only works on things with reasons. As far as we can reason about a thing it has reasons. Disgusting dishonesty to pretend you promote reason but abandon it when it points to something uncomfortable.
>God had a reason
Retarded and dishonest misrepresentation of all theology. God is the source of reason.
>muh nazis
Dishonest subhuman worm. What kind of diseased mind can take this guy seriously? What does this retard know about Christianity if he has no grasp on the idea of a fallen world?
>He believed in hell
And gave you details about what He meant which you dishonestly ignore to promote your propaganda narrative.
>muh bad Christians
Fuck off retard. What happened to logic? It's completely abandoned?
>The object of morals is not to make people happy
Obviously not you piece of shit. Your deranged hedonistic bullshit has nothing to do with anything. If you accept the billion year evolutionary history and then start talking about the virtue of the pursuit of happiness you are completely braindead.

>>22082063
I would also wager that women act as the codifiers of the state ideology. I mean I'd love to walk out on my porch butt ass naked but women will have a period over that. eliminate them from the public eye and I could get away with so much shit like beating off in restaurants or holding up signs in Times Square with the phrase "Show me your tits"

>>22082068
the idea equality is a western value is the end product of a gross misinterpretation of the constitution and the time and place it was ratified.

>>22082104
"Judeo-Christianity" is a literal oxymoron and is only used by larpagans mad at their dads for making them attend church when they were tots.

>>22082246
right, meanwhile academics think a boy can be a girl and vice versa. in the real world, its much different and most well-adjusted individuals, save for a few, tend to believe in God. but I bet you haven't been outside your house in ages.

>>22084199
>constitution

It’s in the declaration

>>22082068
Guaranteed replies

>>22082043
>The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination
That just makes eternity the beginning then. You've just reductio ad origenumed. Whoever gives English 'philosophers' a pen needs to be put down.

>muh ku klux klan
what a faggot

>>22082043

No atheist can refute this:

>>22084417
>tips fedora

>>22084417
but Jesus never cut people off from their family, he didn't give a shit whether people followed him or not
shit meme/10, but tips fedora to a dear atheist sir

>>22084466

1. Claims world is ending imminently (1 John 2:18, Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:34)


2. Wants you to sell or give away your belongings (Luke 14:33, Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22)


3. Wants you to cut off family who interfere, and leave your home/job to follow him (Matt. 10:35-37, Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:29)


4. Unverifiable reward if you believe (Heaven, i.e. the bribe)


5. Unverifiable punishment if you disbelieve (Hell, i.e. the threat)


6. Sabotages the critical thinking faculties you might otherwise use to remove it (Proverbs 3:5, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 28:26)


7. Invisible trickster character who fabricates apparent evidence to the contrary in order to lead you astray from the true path (So you will reject anything you hear/read which might cause you to doubt)


8. Targets children and the emotionally/financially vulnerable for recruitment (sunday schools, youth group, teacher led prayer, prison ministries, third world missions)


9. May assign new name (as with 3 of the apostles), new identity/personality to replace yours

Imminent end of the world:


1 John 2:18 "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."


Matthew 16:27-28 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."


Matthew 24:34 "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."


Matthew 10:23 "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

Revelation 1:7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.”


Sell your belongings:


Luke 14:33 "In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples."


Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 12:33 “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.”

Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Acts 2:44-45 “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.”

(Please note that only Luke 18:22 and Matthew 19:21 concern the story of Jesus advising the wealthy young man about the difficulty of entering heaven.


These verses are included for completeness, and to acknowledge the existence of this story because the most common objection I receive to the claim that Jesus required followers to sell their belongings is that I *must* be talking about this particular story and misunderstanding the message it conveys.


However in Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33 Jesus is not speaking to that man but to a crowd following him, and in 14:33 he specifically says that those who do not give up everything they have cannot be his disciples. It is therefore not a recommendation but a requirement, and is not specific to the wealthy.)


Cut off family members who oppose the leader:


Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."


Matt. 10:35-37 “For I have come to turn a man against his father a daughter against her mother a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law---a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”


Matthew 19:29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life."
Do not apply critical thought to doctrine:


Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”

2 Corinthians 5:7 “For we live by faith, not by sight.”


Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.”


Proverbs 28:26 “Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe.”

John 20:29 “Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.””

>>22084460

>>22084475
>Matt. 10:35-37 “For I have come to turn a man against his father a daughter against her mother a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law---a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
CITATION NEEDED where he "cuts people off" from their families
Your reading comprehension is shite, I GUARANTEE you did terrible on the SATs. Or did you not even take them?

>>22084482

You quoted only one out of the three verses cited. Your citation is the other 2 verses

>>22084486
That's the point you fucking RETARD, Jesus doesn't hold people hostage, that would negate the point of FAITH in him
HOW LOW IS YOUR IQ?

>>22084488

I never said he held anyone hostage. You seem strongly emotional, like a woman or a child. I advise you to take some calming breaths, and approach the topic like a rational adult.

>>22082869
Nobel peace prize has always been hit or miss, that doesnt mean the people who did great things should be discarded from a few bad apples

>>22084491
you are RETARDED and LOW IQ. hope that HELPS!

>>22084478
>tips fedora

>>22084493

>>22084495
You got REFUTED and then CALLED low IQ.

HOPE THIS HELPS XD

>>22084494

>>22084498

I am sorry you are so emotional. I hope when your time of the month is over and your hormones rebalance you can come back to this discussion and participate maturely.

>>22084499
>no you
>tips fedora

>>22084502
shh. it's over for you

>>22084506

>>22084507
>no evidence of coercion
>no evidence of using financial gains to enrich themselves
Atheist anon is a retard. Just ignore.

>>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
these words shaped the view of millions of redditors and twittards

>>22084509
>no you (again)
>tips fedora

>>22084515

There is evidence of coercion. heaven/hell is a threat/bribe, carrot/stick mechanism to entice belief and deter apostasy. The invisible tricker Satan explains away any contrary evidence as diabolical deception to lead you astray. Jesus repeatedly urges followers to give up their belongings and leave their homes/jobs.

Also, you are nitpicking a single aspect of a much larger argument. Not every cult leader's in it for the money, for example. Marshall Applewhite wasn't trying to get rich.

>>22084522

>>22082043
I'm no longer Christian but I still love Jesus, respect his brand of philosophy, and that he died for his own beliefs (and might've believed he was dying to forgive our sins). But in most standard christian beliefs, I'll still go to "hell" due to not practicing forgiviness of my sins and fully accepting God's existence. Any belief that has this notion of everlasting hell by not having a constant compliance is why I think Christanity is dying, it's such a twisted hypocrisy that Christians have to ignore to still be religous

>>22084529
Emails from Grandma tier meme

you're an embarrassment to the human race!

>>22084531

Shhh go eat your lustpotato and breastfeed your niglet

>>22084530
read Dante friend...

>>22084533
>having these shit memes saved to your computer
lol, just fucking lol @ u. did fundamentalist mommy beat you or something?

>>22084540

They're crying, go feed them purple drank before your wife's bull wakes up and beats your white ass

>>22084541
>total avoidance of the dreaded mommy question
oh i'm very sorry about that bro

>>22084544

>>22084527
There's no evidence of coercion. Heaven/hell have earthly connotations as well. There's no evidence Jesus and his followers enriched themselves via their followers. Simple as.
>slide
Heaven's Gate started by making money at UFO conventions.

Aside, what is there is largely superficial anyway. Cults in countries that dont have a large contingent of monotheists or messianic figures are political (e.g. Japan). Would you call everyone who votes for a given political party a cult member? You're dumb.

>>22084529
>tips fedora

>>22084536
In what way, as actual "scripture" of how terrible hell is or something else?

>>22084554

>>22084546
>doesn't even have words left
>still avoids the subject of mommy
it's over man. I'm actually sorry non ironically that you had to deal with that but its over

>>22084555
No... how virtuous Pagans can be... it may surprise you...

>>22084558
>same joke (again)
>tips fedora

>>22082246
Oh boy, wait until you take a glimpse at the demographics of Christians, their average age, their average ethnicity. Haven't you heard the good news?

>>22084549
>There's no evidence of coercion. Heaven/hell have earthly connotations as well.

"Join for eternal paradise, but if you leave, or don't join, you suffer eternal torment" is coercion

>There's no evidence Jesus and his followers enriched themselves via their followers.

That is not a necessary criteria for something to be a cult, I already explained there are examples of cults which didn't do this.

>Heaven's Gate started by making money at UFO conventions.

It is not a requirement to be a cult that it make no money at all, Applewhite did not live like a king, and his primary goal was never self enrichment but to attract worship to himself and not die alone/forgotten

>Aside, what is there is largely superficial anyway. Cults in countries that dont have a large contingent of monotheists or messianic figures are political (e.g. Japan). Would you call everyone who votes for a given political party a cult member? You're dumb.

Which political parties tick every single box listed here?>>22084472

"You may as well call everything a cult" is what cultists who do not realize they are cultists say, because the cultic attributes are normalized such that they don't see them or recognize their significance. Early Christianity isn't just vaguely similar to a cult, it matches up perfectly, including satisfying the B.I.T.E. model. The reason you do not see this is the same psychological reason Mormons do not realize what Mormonism is, and Muslims do not realize what Islam is. You can't tell from the inside

>>22084564

Read your own post out loud

>>22084573
>posting obviously fake websites and expecting people to get mad
Dude. this is embarrassing for you...

>>22084573
>same joke (again again)
>tips fedora

>>22084577

Google "neckbeard fedora" and check the first few pages. You will find 90% of atheist neckbeard memes, but without the text. This is because the text was added by Christians to inflate the number of images, from an original 11 cherry picked from a Reddit "faces of atheism" thread which contained mostly normal looking people. If you can lie, so can I. If you are mature and respectful, I will be too.

>>22084569
>no evidence of coercion
>no evidence that Jesus/followers sought to enrich themselves
>can't respond to the analogy that cults in non-monotheistic cultures revolve around politics (i.e. his analogy is superficial)
I accept your concession. Go ahead and post more BBC memes, perv.

>>22084589
What in the fuck is this word salad?
Look man, the image you just posted is so clearly faked from MedicalNewsToday that a child could see. The fact that you could possibly think such a retarded image could hurt someone's feelings is lol... really lol....

>>22084598
>What in the fuck is this word salad?

There are many adult literacy resources you may avail yourself of if you struggle to read.

>Look man, the image you just posted is so clearly faked from MedicalNewsToday that a child could see. The fact that you could possibly think such a retarded image could hurt someone's feelings is lol... really lol....

See >>22084589

>>22084589
>WE DONT ACKTULLY WEAR FEDORAS!
>STOP SAYING IT!
>tips fedora

>>22084600
Ok, so you're going to post 85 IQ atheist memes and then get mad when people kindly tell you that they're retarded. OK lmao

>>22084601

I wish you could see my intention isn't to be hurtful. It is natural to feel embarrassed, and a normal simian urge to retaliate when someone causes you to hurt. But this doesn't mean that's what they set out to do. Trying to help a deceived person overcome their deceived state with patience and gentleness is a kind act. Many people just like you have been able to figure out they were tricked, that is where atheists come from. We aren't made in factories, we are former Christians. I mean you no ill will. Keep thinking, on your own time and terms, about this topic. I hope we can have a more civil discussion one day.

>>22084600
>doesn't understand metaphors
>angry people keep saying he's tipping his fedora because
>I DONT HAVE A FEDORA THO!
>tips fedora
Kek.

>>22084604

It was in reply to "tips fedora". Garbage in garbage out. If you want high level discussion then lead by example.

>>22084605
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.]

>>22084605
militant atheists are literally the same as militant fundamentalists, annoying as fuck. now kindly shut the fuck up

>>22084608
>tips fedora

>>22082063
tpbp

>>22084466
didn't Plato more or less advocate for this for his followers as well?

>>22084609
>Hitchslap
kek

>>22084212
semantical. you know damn well what i meant. its late here

>>22084608
>atheists are titans of intellect
>[but expect you to be impressed they don't believe in Santa]
>atheists stand for free-thinking
>[but demand you adhere to Scientism]
>atheists are champions of reason
>[but have strong opinions about things of which they're uneducated]
>atheists are anti-dogmatic
>[but insist you interpret scripture only according to their ideas of it]
Atheism is an intellectual LARP that retards indoctrinate themselves into. Being an atheist is ridiculously easy; their main weakpoint is their unearned pride and if you poke at their (entirely self-perceived) intelligence they become reactive and break down. Reminder that the legacy of New Atheism is pic-related (>>22084617): homosexual rape/cuck furry fetish cartoons.

>>22084563
Wow such a great belief that everyone is stuck in a boring void forever longing for heaven. People in Limbo could've done better things than a generic Christian, whose only contribution to making people lives better was not being a dick to everyone they met, only donating money at church, and confessing she's done some wrong in her life. Yet she gets to live eternally in forever happiness while people below suffer forever. Truly a great job Dante

>>22084495
Yeah very cool
Anyway, as I was saying...

>>22082043
>that pic
Why are they so scared of and convinced that intolerant would rise up? Is it because they know they're better and actually correct so that that would be the natural thing to happen? Why would they otherwise need to suppress it? If being tolerant is so great, wouldn't it stay that way? It's almost like they're admitting their own inferiority

>>22084647
>whose only contribution to making people lives better was not being a dick to everyone they met
this is non ironically an excellent achievement... I'm not sure if you meant it that way...hmm

>>22084658
Well, if ISIS was a political party and they somehow won a democratic in France, they would abolish the vote and it would turn into a shitshow
So yeah i think I understand the idea

>>22084660
I meant this person was nice to most people they met overall but could still be a dick to others

>>22084665
The only way ISIS would win an election in France would be tolerantards flooding the country with immigrants. There's your paradox, retard.

>>22084684
don't sign your posts

>>22084685
>no response
You're a retard.

>>22084726
Autism speaks! At least you didn't sign your post this time. Bravo!

>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?

This is Reddit tier

>>22082043
>If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.
God can make any laws He wants. The Bible is clear about this. God can make a triangle have 4 sides if He wants to.

>>22082043
>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching.

Literally wtf is this. This is just moral fagging rhetorical nonsense. No argument.

>>22082043
>There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."

Yes? Morals is not about "happiness" in the childish sense that we know of. A child can't imagine a greater pleasure than having chocolate in their mouths. So to we are the same.

>>22084729
>reuses joke
Wasn't that clever the first time, retard. You're a retard.

>>22082043
>if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law
This is bad faith arguing. Why would a trancesdent Being be subject to physical laws?

>>22084747
YOU MAD? LMAOOOOO

>>22082043
>>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
...
Hello, Candide.
Read the Job, Russell

>>22084757
*Job

>>22082043
>because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness
Like being a cuck.

>>22083028
Neetch obliterated Christianity almost 150 years ago, just accept there is no coming back for this collection of ancient superstitions.

>>22082046
>>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
KEK!!!!!
We ruined love by trying to assure we're investing resources in children that are really ours.

>>22084777
>Neetch obliterated Christianity almost 150 years ago
Nietzche didn't do anything to Christianity. Our faithless world is simply the result of the long march of history

>>22084789
>Nietzche didn't do anything to Christianity
This is most certainly false, but I'll take your point as pointing out that Christianity was a house of cards to begin with and the winds of time would blow it apart eventually anyway.

>>22082046
>Is it wicked to eat anything that is not nourishing?
It's wicked being an amerifat.

>>22082046
>and win the Nobel Peace Prize
Let's talk about real prizes. Obama won that one too, an after that he began a war.

>>22084801
wicked sick brah

>>22084781
The essence of romance seems to stand at some distance from the practicality of parenthood. To put it another way, the "honeymoon period" usually refers to early on in a relationship, whereas once there are children the focus shifts to responsible parenting. It's reasonable to hold that love, in it's romantic sense does get ruined by the practicalities of parenthood, while also holding that it's worthwhile to ruin it in service of the greater good which is raising good children you can be reasonably certain are yours.

>>22084794
>This is most certainly false
Do you really think people left their faith because they read "Genealogy of Morals"?
Darwin is much more relevant in this respect.

>>22084819
Nietzsche's influence exists, therefore the statement "he didn't do anything to Christianity" is false. I would agree Darwin probably had more direct impact because for the uneducated, the diversity of life seems to be an indicator of a creator who made animals and plants exactly as they are for their environment, and the simple mechanisms of evolution which show how simple beginnings of life can develop over generations to become more specialized to specific environments has great power to disillusion people of their previous ignorance.

>>22084829
>Nietzsche's influence exists, therefore the statement "he didn't do anything to Christianity" is false.
How often do you see people in Academia or on the streets sporting "master moralities"; that is, while being concious of it?

>>22084854
*conscious

>>22084753
You're retarded.

>>22084887
I'm not, but you definitely are MAD LMAOOOOO

>>22082043
>“Why I am not a Christian”, by Betrand Russell
He's not a christian because he's stupid. That's all!!

>>22084914
tough, but ultimately, when you really dive into the details.... fair

>>22084912
>durrr
You're retarded

>>22085028
Keep replying, you're definitely not MAD LOOLOLOLOL

>>22082043
Not sure what your image ha to do with the quote or question, the image is a matter of government and the flaw in democracy; it wouldn't matter what you believed, for example, if it was assured that you'd never be in a position to have your beliefs put into law. A closed society doesn't have this paradox whilst an open society has intolerance as the flaw; i.e. an open society must propagandize out of fear and force conformity all the time, whereas a closed society nobody cares what other people think.

Anyway
>>22082043
>“Why I am not a Christian”, by Betrand Russell
The main points you post are superfluous; the prima causas has never been connected to the jewish theology anymore so than any other copper age theologies. It's actually a massive problem with judaism-chistianity-islam when you understand prima causas, i.e. the reason for god belief isn't religion in most peoples minds but the childish notion that "someone had to but the shop there on the street, and that someone was gob," etc.

More than this, however, i the paradox of christianity itself: a jew needs jesus to help them overcome the laughable nonsense contained in abramic theology, whereas a non-jew doesn't need jesus and comes to take very seriously the laughable nonsense contained in abramic theology - emulating circumcision, for example, considering the racial supremacist jews as the angel-ubermenschen as christians have always done, etc.

>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.
I don't think this is true; since Jews don't have a hell insofar as I understand and that hell was a german pagan concept (the name itself) (much like single marriage, which is also absent in judaism).

>>22084549
>There's no evidence Jesus and his followers enriched themselves via their followers. Simple as.
What about the infamous last supper incident? Do you think people just kept perfumed oil laying around in their shacks? Those were luxury goods in the poverty stricken society he was in, and that probably cost the equivalent of a car to a 9-5'er.

>>22082043
>Bait thread with 140 + replies
Olde tyme /lit/

>>22083001
>>22083028
It's a good book, you're wrong if you think it's garbage. Just because it's written in a simple English it means it's trash? I disagree, the concepts are right. Read Claude Tresmontant if you didn't like it but you're still looking for a Christian apologetic.

>>22085204
They can read Emperors Maximinus and Flavius Julian otherwise.

"may those ['former'-christians] who, after being freed from [the self-defeating errors of] those by-ways [which had led them to nothing but enmity toward their fellow-man], rejoice [at having been] snatched from a grave illness"
Galerius Valerius Maximinus Daza, 308AD
from a defaced inscription

>>22082043
Most of these arguments follow the "if God good and powerful why do bad things happen?" which is just a slightly weaker version of an older argument made by Epicurus.

Anyway, God is not all powerful in an absolute since. An unstoppable force can't move an immovable object. We, as mortals, don't know what these unstoppable forces and immovable objects are. God does. God is only restricted insofar as truth itself is restricted.

If God is good, he isn't a deciever. If he isn't a deciever, then he won't shelter us from truth even if it is inconvienient or painful sometimes. So the very nature of God being good is also a restriction on possibility, even if it is one He self imposed.

As far as it being immoral to let Hell happen, what was God supposed to do? Tell Satan and his third of the angels they aren't allowed to leave Heaven and instead have to serve him. Satan takes issue with God not allowing for freedom but then Satan exercises his freedom to leave Heaven and create Hell and that is somehow God's fault. And you could say "well why couldn't God just create Satan to be a loyal and good person". Well then Satan would be right to question God's authority, but unable to question said authority. Satan has no one to blame but himself, and neither does anyone else who ends up in Hell. They did it to themselves. "But why is Satan evil?" Well I can't say. Only God knows who Satan really is and he accepts him and loves him. Implicit to God's love for Satan is his allowing Satan to choose Hell.

Also, it is funny that Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan are his ultimate evil and most painful things. Dawkins made this argument more spicy by talking about parasites digging in your eyes for his unacceptable bad thing.

>>22082043
I love the “paradox of tolerance” because it implies that arguments for intolerance will always win the battle of ideas and thus must be censored to preserve libtard society.

>>22082043
I like that the image implies Marshall Hindenburg prided himself on a tolerant society.

>>22085249
Hence why Roman Polytheism is superior.

I mean in the Jupiter version of "why bad happen," but also in the more advanced Haides and Prosperpine version, where..in brief..scary monsters and worms in your eyes are natural barriers which are to be respected and which are supposed to be there to keep humans in line; as Apollo learned it's very bad to kill the monster as then humans will enter the monsters lands and via it, find new parts of the world and ruin those places like they ruined their own home.

The Jews have an evil diabolical and stupid god who is viceful and desires humans be ignorant, but then they insist that their God is Good (otherwise they would recognize their theology is inferior, primitive and stupid and abandon it) and end up having to call the gods actions good. Christians inherit this wholesale.

There is the objective stance on the stories, but the abramists can't accept 'this' because it turns the satan into a good guy and important partner with god, i.e. satan is the only character enforcing gods rules and punishing those who don't follow gods rules, etc.

>>22085249
>God is restricted
That's retarded but nothing will ever come close to the retardation of atheists.

>>22086139
An atheist is.. at least somewhat honest in their retardation (but i'd argue they're still culturally christians brainwashed etc into zealotry, see: matt dillahunty). Whereas a christian is stockholm syndrome: they 'know' their religion is bullshit and they spend their energies trying to find anything other than that obvious answer. But that by doing that they prove that their religion is not merely wrong but actively evil, since it causes them to uphold viceful actions in order to maintain their appearance. Same for muslims too, I suppose.

Notice difference: i'm saying 'the religion' is bullshit, not the notion of the divinity of things or some other religion.

>>22086139
My man, YOU are an atheist in regard to every religion you don't believe in

>>22086510
He wouldn't take seriously the flying carpet god of X tribe, he would laugh until his gut burst over that stuff, but the flying carpet god of Y tribe he become deathly reverent towards.

What can you call that but either profound dishonesty or profoundly low IQ.

>>22082869
Kissinger was never president but yes

>>22086510
>>22086554
NTA but you two are retards making meme arguments (>>22084609).

>>22086390
>I'm a pretentious pseud
It's obvious, anon.

>>22086732
I think your new word this year to "shut up other people" is unconvincing, and quite old really. If you have arguments, make them.

>>22086728
You're abusing the language there, if you equate things you don't like with (XYZ pejorative) you'll just confuse people.

>>22086745
>I think your new word this year
Your statement was pretentious and demonstrates you're a pseud. It presents a painfully simplistic understanding of the subject at hand while making broad yet shallow generalizations about diverse and complex groups.
>You're abusing the language there
You're literally making the Zeus argument, kek. It assumes that no one can have valid reasons to follow a given religion and represents low-hanging fruit (i.e. you're not going after religious scholars, as that would require education and knowledge of the subject, but making a statement that's even applicable to areas of knowledge you'd support such as scientific understanding).

So you're a pretentious pseud who speaks of things on which you're uneducated. You're also this meme >>22084637.

>>22086510
No.
>>22086554
>He wouldn't take seriously the flying carpet god of X tribe
I do. I only dismiss actively dishonest perspectives like le spaghetti monster. There is no religion in all history that comes close to being as dumb as the "atheist" religion.

>>22084738
>God can make a triangle have 4 sides if He wants to.

>>22086965
It's possible to construct a circle that satisfies the analytic requirements of having 4 sides. I'm sure God could do even better.

>>22086996
>circle
triangle*

>>22086779
That could be plausible, except it's obviously just a string of conditioned trigger-responses from whatever I actually said: >>22086390 which resembles nothing of your string of pejoratives.

If you find it simple then what pains you about this? And what is "pseeeeuedissh" about it either? The simplest explanation is the opposite of your insistence upon coming up with elaborate romantic stories to explain or rationalize all of the same points that are otherwise self-evident but not intellectual enough for your tastes. Usually, when hurling abuse at people you've never met and can pin nothing on, the go-to will be the thing that hurts 'you' the most. It shows in this instance.

Nice job blowing off your own leg there, anon.

>>22086789
>>He wouldn't take seriously the flying carpet god of X tribe
>I do.
Why? I mean, that's just a confession that Yahweh is on the same level of cognition of a primitive man being amzed and bewildered at lightning strikes and screaming at the top of his lungs and then throwing his baby into a volcano because he's taken LSD and believes that a human life will appease his drug hallucinations.

What of the majesty of the Gods of State and the hallowed traditions of civilized religion and the mandate of right-rulership derived from divine favor?

>>22087108
>resembles nothing of your string of pejoratives.
You made a blanket generalization about a diverse and complex set of beliefs while regurgitating a simplistic idea revolving around the notion major religions are le evil. That's the definition of pretentious and it's fair to label you a pseud. Of course you're filtered when this is pointed out to you as acceptance of this point requires selfawareness and thought--two things it's evident you lack given your post.
>coming up with elaborate romantic stories to explain or rationalize all of the same points that are otherwise self-evident but not intellectual enough for your tastes
Nice sperg but it demonstrates you're understanding of religion is shallow. As institutions the major organized religions have various organs that debate theological prepositions (which come from what may be fairly labeled as diverse sets of believers within the religion itself). The contrived and stereotyped idea of hegomonic rule you regurgitate simply doesn't bare up to reality.
>Usually, when hurling abuse at people you've never met
Cry me a river princess victimhood. You literally claimed anyone who doesn't follow your beliefs is a brainwashed zombie that condones evil. Fuck off.
>Nice job blowing off your own leg there
See directly above and previous sentence about self-awareness.

>>22082043
>Bertrand Russell shitpost thread
>Karl Popper shitpost image
You so didn't want a good faith thread, fag.

>>22087219
They both bought into the conflict thesis and are largely responsible for the popsci definition of science that atheists regurgitate (eventhough the former has been academically rejected for over half a century and the later even longer).

Some wisdom from the scriptures that BTFOs atheists forever

22087245
>bait
If you respond to this anon he'll just post BBC cuck memes.

>>22082043
There is literally another comic refuting this from the philosopher's actual words.

Please kill yourself, you already made a russel thread.
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
On what basis? Something doesn't come from nothing. Therefore holding a position everything came from something is more justified.
>The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.
Ad hominem. And observing every aspect of empirical reality, in which something comes from something preceding it gives us precedent to assume creationism.
>Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.
Because you don't have an argument yourself.

>If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.
Stone fallacy. Follow the logic, if God is all powerful then he cannot create something more power than him. It is a demand God disprove himself, which he cannot do because if he existed, he is truth and cannot be disproved. God could not push nothing for example because nothing doesn't exist but if we compared the force of nothing vs the force of my arm pushing an object I would win, yet I am am not all-powerful. You ask a a not even real question and therefore is invalid as argument. And God is not subject to our logic as omnipresent and all powerful, we can only comprehend God through our logic so God not fitting to your logic is only proof of flaw of our logic. In order to get anywhere close to an actual opposition you'd need to prove our logic is the real omnipresence which you cannot do so by the 'standard' you set to disprove God.
>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?
"God doesn't exist because reality doesn't conform to my ideals"

Russel is a pseud and only good as a human calculator.

>>22087216
>That's the definition of pretentious and it's fair to label you a pseud.
No it's not hahahahaha, a 'pseud' is a prenteious academic who pretends to have great ideas; complex things (i will not deny this), but what I said was intensely simple.

>>Nice job blowing off your own leg there
>See directly above and previous sentence about self-awareness.
You hit occams razor, btw, if you didn't figure it out:

You demand a pretentious elaborate story (i.e. something which would be pseudish) and you refuse what I said because it was "overly simple" so you fucked up your own accusation against me and proved your own guilt of what you were accusing me of.

>You literally claimed anyone who doesn't follow your beliefs is a brainwashed zombie that condones evil.
I said nothing at all of 'my beliefs' ... and I said the exact opposite of "brainwashed zombies," that their refusal to grasp the simple answer (ironic given your obstructionism towards this same point) is a proof that they are consciously aware how wrong they are and so seek anything but that simple answer, which is why I concluded that the atheist as a retard was 'more honest' on these matters than the religious zealot; the retard can by accident by right once or twice, but the sign of conscious awareness of what the right answer is and never ever arriving at it is what is displayed by the religious freak, which is a mark of awareness of guilt.

So that's four lies from you so far.

>Nice sperg but it demonstrates you're understanding of religion is shallow.
This was your response to my explaining to you why your accusation was in error, mind you.

Very stupid.

The "abuse of language" point remains accurate anyway, whatever a 'pseud' may be you're really muddying the concept by using it as a pejorative for men you want to have sex with.

>>22082046
Russel himself refuted it with his life of being a cuck and many divorces.

>>22082043

>>22087318
Islam is the only ideology that would actually push back against the others here

>>22087318
More conservative view

>>22087323
Only because it hasn't been consistently undermined by the jewish elite. Christianity in the east is much more compatible with ethnohcentrism, nationalism and antidemocratic means. It was jews behind the ecumenical movement, most of the modern catholic corruptions (but it was always heresy from the schism so it'd eventually disintegrate regardless)

>>22087318
>>22087324
>>22087333
I only post these comics to point out the original comics flaws while staying in the liberal paradigm. Intolerance to the enemy is the only method by which civilisation has prospered. The liberal notion is a principle of allowing those with the ability to destroy liberalism in for the sake if liberal values. Libertarianism is paradoxical and most 'democratic' countries aren't democracies. The world has only ever functioned properly on strict hierarchies and the greatest civilisations were all antidemocratic.

>>22087340
It is just a case of whether the nation is at least honest about being undemocratic.

>>22087307
>semantics over "pseud"
You admitted earlier it's colloquial and I stand by my use--a pretentious idiot that is blissfully unaware their effort exposes their ignorance.
>I'm filtered and will strawman the idea that nuanced equates to embellished
You're misusing the idea of Occam's razor (he was a monk by the way, kek). I'm afraid it isn't a licence for being simple-minded.
>sperg where she admits, with a complete lack of selfawareness once again, that she's generalizing religious groups..."but it's ok because I think I'm better than the average atheist too"
Pretentious. Pseudish. Simple as.
>This was your response to my explaining to you why your accusation was in error
You didn't explain anything, retard. You asserted you were right and I was wrong without addressing the problems I clearly laid out in direct response to your post. I'll point out you ignored my point about the organs of religious institutions before saying: no you. Don't worry though, I know you're too dumb to even know when you're being disingenuous.
>IM NOT A PSEUD AND YOURE GAY!
I assure you that that sounded as clever in your head as it is pathetic in reality.

Again, you present a shallow and stereotyped understanding of religion alongside making blanket generalizations. This is the definition of pretentious and if you're only defence is that you're not educated enough to qualify as a "pseud"--aim higher I guess. You're obviously quite stupid but who knows?

>>22087140
>that's just a confession that Yahweh is on the same level of cognition
Yes, everything you read is a confirmation of your biases. Don't think about anything, just say "no" and make up dishonest cartoons to misrepresent everything said to you.
You're a fucking idiot. I can't say anything to you. All I can do is attempt to convey to you that you're a fucking idiot.

>>22087370
Based.

>>22087356
I understand you've invested quite heavily in the habit of calling people 'pseud' on the internet as a means to avoid answering their questions or defending your beliefs or statements. There's not much else to be said really.

>YOU'RE GAY
is the same level as 'you're pseud', except your belief-set aligns with sexual repression and masochism, so.. at least I have a basis for 'my' blanket generalization. In addition to your language.
>pseud
>effort
>pretentious

I mean, we could've saved time earlier on if i'd just replied that you were a queerbait I suppose. Does that word still offend? Queerbay? Is that more offensive in your region? I want to go for a lazy-eyed trucker group kind of feel sneering at you in a bar and making kissy faces and reminding you that you couldn't take a punch, being a queerbay and all.

>Again, you present a shallow and stereotyped understanding of religion alongside making blanket generalizations.
Not even close, but look, I can't really bothered to talk to a queerbay. I realize that your inversion (x3 in this thread) is a sign of mental imbalance, that your love for a religion famous for homosexuals and child molestation is a way to not-so-subtly seek an outlet for your desire to pretend you aren't into wearing womens make-up, and that you're profoundly into the word 'pseud'. So I'm going to remind the reader of my original post which prompted this drivel, which was a pretty great post: >>22086390

and let's thank the anon for bumping this cool thread about Bertrand Russel.

>>22087370
hahahahaha you fucking wt m8

Sorry to make you feel bad there, champ. Guess you just didn't think before you spoke huh

>>22087356
>You admitted earlier it's colloquial
actually i.. didn't.. wait what? Pseud is a nonsense speak for a person who is more well-spoken than you are, colloquially it's apt; like if you call me a lefitst or a fag in your part of the world, it means the same thing. But in human language it refers to a continuity of a previous author, 'pseudo-dionysus', for example.

Ithinkthat's what I was getting at with "abue of language" anyway, I'm pretty worn out from fucking your female relatives to be quite honest.

>>22087370
>dishonest cartoon
and wait what

I'm getting the feeling you guys have been "arguing the toss-pot (shaking around a small cup of another mans jizzom, as we say in my country)" for several hundred posts. I merely arrived to post a picture of russel in sunglasses at the end of demonstrating the superior wit of the reader of russel compared to his detractors.

Primarily for the benefit of the ESL gentleman earlier who needs to encounter higher class white people now and again, so he doesn't only encounter the American Queer and, gods forbid, takes that to be reflective of the broader polity.

and now i shall go to my bed
*tips fedora*
happy harlan ellison day, readers

>>22087400
>I understand you've invested quite heavily in the habit of calling people 'pseud'
I'm sorry the word hurt your feelings so much you've posted about it multiple times.
>calling you gay is the same as pseud
Kek. The only person sucking dick ITT is you (and it's your own hence pseud).
>I mean,
Stopped reading there. Write like an adult.
>projects homosexual fantasies and cries about being called "pseud" again
Holy shit, lol.
>>22087426
>multi-replies to cry about being called pseud
HOLY SHIT! FUCKING LMAO. I knew you wouldn't respond to actual arguments but seriously--youv'e outdone yourself retard.

>>22087426
>and wait what
Illiterate and absolutely braindead.
>muh lightning and babies in volcanoes
You spend every post building up these caricatures. No energy at all is spent on trying to understand anything.

>>22087455
That guy was shockingly dumb.

>>22084472
>>22084475
Are you illiterate

>>22087455
>No energy at all is spent on trying to understand anything.
Because you've responded to actual comments with immediate dismissal and pejoratives. You're surprised that a person doesn't take you seriously? I mean (uh oh triggered the other guys pretenses), you're crazy people.

>trying to understand anything.
What is there to understand? We were talking and then you became triggered by something and declared this out of the blue:
>>22087370
>Yes, everything you read is a confirmation of your biases. Don't think about anything, just say "no" and make up dishonest cartoons to misrepresent everything said to you.
>You're a fucking idiot. I can't say anything to you. All I can do is attempt to convey to you that you're a fucking idiot.
This is dissonance. I pointed out that.. (i wont bother rephrasing it again) >>22087140 and you accuse me of braindeath and dishonestly; but these are just nonsense pejoratives because you can't bring yourself to even 'consider' that what is said of you or your position could be or is true.


>>22087451
I do find that word very gay to be honest. But as I said to your lesbian lover just now, you've both responded with nonsense and I don't take either of you to be at all rational actors. Simply repeating the nonsense pejoratives, for example, doesn't make your inability to refute the claim or case "go away," it's hanging on you both like the smell of chris chans underpants... I mean it's noticeable and self-evident to anybody ...the more abusive posts you make in character (dated cliched early internet pewdiepie character mind you) just demonstrates and reinforces your guilt over (whatever the fuck i said in the first place).... nor does it justify your misuse of the words you use to dismiss people/observations that trigger you, which just proves you to be stupid by accusing someone of a thing you get wrong then immediately go on to demonstrate in several subsequent posts. It's like an Menippean Satire, which I appreciate and find amusing.


And... you're both demonstrating the same behavior, funnily enough, accusing others of what you're both doing word-for-word. Confirmation bias in the last guys case, pretentiousness in yours. It really is a great case study in the perturbations of the unconscious and the kneejerk unthinking trigger reaction.
anyway I'm done for tonight, probably catch you two hot tgirls sluts over croissants tomorrow morning eh what tallypip

>>22087493
>sperg
Not reading that, retard. I thought you announced you were leaving after multiple posts crying because I called you a pseud. You're a pseud.

>>22084589
>they were normal looking people

Lol. The most Reddit of all Reddit moments and you were there

> the perturbations of the unconscious and the kneejerk unthinking trigger reaction.
'displacement' is the word i was looking for, emotionalistic projection of own self-conscious guilt, is another DSM cat. for this

>>22087499
>more babyish pejoratives and cliched internet lingo from the 90's
whatever schizo, your delusions will only hurt you in the end. i suggest you commit suicide or seek talk therapy to fix your broken brain.

>>22087504
>still here after announcing he was leaving twice
Pseud.

>>22087499
I'm just going to have flag you for trolling abuse now, that was too much for me to let go.

good night, enjoy losing access to this vital mental health tool for several days.

>>22087512
why are yo pretending that I'm upset about your pejorative? this is blatant gas-lighting now lol

I tell you what, I'll repost my original comment since you're doing your best to bury it with this stream of trash. Thats probs the most effective way to counter you from now on.

>>22086390
>>>22086139
>An atheist is.. at least somewhat honest in their retardation (but i'd argue they're still culturally christians brainwashed etc into zealotry, see: matt dillahunty). Whereas a christian is stockholm syndrome: they 'know' their religion is bullshit and they spend their energies trying to find anything other than that obvious answer. But that by doing that they prove that their religion is not merely wrong but actively evil, since it causes them to uphold viceful actions in order to maintain their appearance. Same for muslims too, I suppose.
>Notice difference: i'm saying 'the religion' is bullshit, not the notion of the divinity of things or some other religion.
there.

>>22085125
>>22086965
Pic related is a curve. Its true look it up.

NTa and personally I disagree with him and so do most theologians but I don’t think the idea is ridiculous

>>22087333
>only because Muslims are not cucks and Christians are

Christianity in the east has no serious normative power, Orthodox countries love abortion and produce more child porn than any other lands

>>22087509
>announces he's leaving multiple times
>still here
Since you can't let this go I'll give you my permission to take the last word now, pseud. After this dopamine hit feel free to jerk off to internet porn to fool your chemical existence into thinking you aren't alone. Treat yourself.
>>22087518
>MULTI-REPLIES
>REEEEEEEEEE
There there, pseud. There there. I promise I'll ignore you from here on so you can actually leave and pretend like you accomplished something. You can even pretend I read your reply.

You'll still be a retarded pseud though but you can pretend.

>>22087522
Because the countries got cucked by nihilism among the masses and organised crime. The Christian institutions within those bations are at least uncucked in their rulings. They're still against gays, feminism, etc. In the west we have got the vatican considering female pastors. You can say what you want about the nasses but the institutions and those that actually follow them still survive. There are many areas throughout easyern europe and russia that are very trad and follow moral law. Muslims in the west are mainly nigs and they are just as degenerate as before because Islam can permit it.

>>22088319
The solution is not a false prophet that looks appealing from the outside but returning to the actual core positions of morality.

>>22082052
>I cannot do everything by myself
>I will band with other humans so we can share tasks
>I need to tolerate other humans if I want things
Any other option that doesn't include tolerance is literally Mad Max Fury Road

>>22084801
That's Canada bro
But might as well be America
Just saying

>>22085269
this

>>22087521
>>>22085125 (You)
>Pic related is a curve. Its true look it up.
Not sure what the fuck you're talking about.

>>22087538
Yes, yes I was "very upset" at your predictive linear trolling script when I proved you to be an idiot yesterday and you couldn't answer to anything, way back here >>22087307
>You demand a pretentious elaborate story (i.e. something which would be pseudish) and you refuse what I said because it was "overly simple" so you fucked up your own accusation against me and proved your own guilt of what you were accusing me of.

You didn't understand it apparently, or perhaps you did. Either way you sold go back to /pol/, your 'REEE (laughing at you)' PSEUD (outwitted you)' 'SPERG (more than one line)' shit is disgusting and unwanted, whatever the context.

>>22086789
>>He wouldn't take seriously the flying carpet god of X tribe
>I do.

ahem, serious point btw, I know you overlooked this yesterday or didn't understand it, but it remains:
>>22087140
>What of the majesty of the Gods of State and the hallowed traditions of civilized religion and the mandate of right-rulership derived from divine favor?

I was saying that 'if', as you said, you consider your prima causas creator god to be no different than any other rock that is worshiped by a cannibal tribe, then you have no understanding in your own mind of the "greater power" that you no doubt would profess to believe in "of" that creator god. In other words, if you don't know anything about this or think of it at all,
>>the majesty of the Gods of State and the hallowed traditions of civilized religion and the mandate of right-rulership derived from divine favor
then you have no reasoning to claim any powers to the god in the first place; as, to you, it is just a 'holy rock' that demands respect, in your mind, because some people at some point called it a god.

I think your snippy response revealed an awareness of the fallacious nature of your comprehension and so explains your bewilderment about it, but the point still remains.

that is: what is the difference between your creator god and a piece of rock, as you have said you consider those things to be the same.

>>22087493
>you can't bring yourself to even 'consider' that what is said of you or your position could be or is true.
What would it mean if it was true? It means nothing anyone said about any religion means anything. We can safely ignore everything ever said that doesn't fit your atheist religious dogma.
There's nothing I can say to someone this dumb and dishonest. You're a fucking retard. That's all there is to this interaction.
Here you are still making up endless retarded shit instead of just fucking thinking for even a second.

>>22088955
>I was saying that 'if', as you said, you consider your prima causas creator god to be no different than any other rock that is worshiped by a cannibal tribe
Not even close to anything I said. Why are you doing this? What do you think anyone gains by your disgusting dishonest horseshit? How should I respond to someone so fucked the head he can't consider anything said to him at all on any level? Is there some reasonable motivation for me to keep feeding you points that you'll always reliably deliberately misrepresent? What would motivate me to to offer anything to a black hole of thought like you?
All I can do is call you a retard. That's the highest level of communication when it comes to retards like you.

>>22082086
More action than you'll ever get.

>>22089498
>Not even close to anything I said. Why are you doing this? What do you think anyone gains by your disgusting dishonest horseshit?
Oh for FUCKS. SAKE. Would you STOP. LYING.

Here, try again, I'll just repost verbatim.

>>22086789
>>He wouldn't take seriously the flying carpet god of X tribe
>I do.

ahem, serious point btw, I know you overlooked this yesterday or didn't understand it, but it remains:
>>22087140 (You)
>What of the majesty of the Gods of State and the hallowed traditions of civilized religion and the mandate of right-rulership derived from divine favor?

I was saying that 'if', as you said, you consider your prima causas creator god to be no different than any other rock that is worshiped by a cannibal tribe, then you have no understanding in your own mind of the "greater power" that you no doubt would profess to believe in "of" that creator god. In other words, if you don't know anything about this or think of it at all,
>>the majesty of the Gods of State and the hallowed traditions of civilized religion and the mandate of right-rulership derived from divine favor
then you have no reasoning to claim any powers to the god in the first place; as, to you, it is just a 'holy rock' that demands respect, in your mind, because some people at some point called it a god.

I think your snippy response revealed an awareness of the fallacious nature of your comprehension and so explains your bewilderment about it, but the point still remains.

that is: what is the difference between your creator god and a piece of rock, as you have said you consider those things to be the same.

>>22089481
>>you can't bring yourself to even 'consider' that what is said of you or your position could be or is true.
>What would it mean if it was true? It means nothing anyone said about any religion means anything.
No, it's not a universal thing, it's that you personally:
>>can't bring yourself to even 'consider' that what is said of you or your position could be or is true.

>Here you are still making up endless retarded shit instead of just fucking thinking for even a second.
This is literally you. Do you know what Displacement is in psychology? When you're accusing others of doing exactly what you're doing at the same time? DISSONANCE. THIS SHOWS YOUR GUILT AND IMPAIRED MENTAL STATE.

>>22089581

>>22084777
>I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.
>t. picrel
Why can't secular humanists ever keep their fuckin narrative straight?

>>22089775
>STOP. LYING
START. THINKING.
Just try for once to fucking consider alternatives even for a moment. Stop pretending your braindead ideas are holy religious dogma that can't be questioned.
Every single religious claim in history has some perspective worth thinking about, except "atheism".
That I don't automatically dismiss animism and take tribal perspectives seriously doesn't mean I'm equating their ideas with ideas of universal law or prime movers. You can't think about any subject. Your mind is mush.

>>22084777
>nietzsche obliterated christianity almost 150 years ago, that's why governments are pissing their lgbtqp+ panties that jesus is coming back and sending them all to gehenna

>>22089780
>No, it's not a universal thing
You're not even literate, you can't read. I sometimes think I'm being a little unfair to "atheists" but every time one of you retards try to defend your position you show I'm actually overestimating you.

Just look at the structure of your posts:
If I "take flying carpet claim x" seriously then that means I'm "confessing that Yahweh is equivalent to throwing babies in volcanoes".
What the fuck is wrong with your brain? None of those things have anything to do with each other except in the cartoonish fantasy you just made up. You're presenting as a person that can't begin to think about any subject.

>>22089874
This again proves my theory:
>Angloids are worse than Jews.

>>22089991
violating the nuremberg code is the only way soros can get it up anymore

>>22089914
>>you can't bring yourself to even 'consider' that what is said of you or your position could be or is true.
>Just try for once to fucking consider alternatives even for a moment

Look,
we're both accusing each both of the exact same thing, this is depressing, exhausting and absurd.

siiiiigh fucking christ
> If I "take flying carpet claim x" seriously then that means I'm "confessing that Yahweh is equivalent to throwing babies in volcanoes".
yes. It was a point about how cheaply and poorly you consider the concept of God; that you consider it equal to "flying carpet god of x tribe".

Telling me I'm
>disgusting dishonest horseshit
>so fucked the head he can't consider anything said to him at all on any level
> a black hole of thought like you
for suggesting this, is only showing anybody who doesn't subscribe to your cult just how demented you people are.

My point, anon, is this: you should not be moved to respond with extreme emotional abuse when a plot hole in your favorite book is revealed.

>>22086510
you stupid fucking faggot most religions are just about astronauts who were nailed to a tree by the gay mafia because tavistock doesn't like competition

>>22090027
>we're both accusing each both of the exact same thing, this is depressing, exhausting and absurd.
I pointed out your behaviour, it's demonstrable. You coped with braindead rants and attempts to say "no u".
You're a fucking retard.
>that you consider it equal to
I don't. You're a fucking illiterate dishonest retard. This is objectively demonstrated in your posts.
>anybody who doesn't subscribe to your cult
What cult? The cult of thinking about things? The cult of not automatically dismissing ancient ideas about flying carpet x?
>when a plot hole in your favorite book is revealed
Is that what happened in our interaction? You can't reveal anything about any book, you're illiterate. If you could read it's still logically impossible to reveal anything about a subject from a dismissive perspective.

>>22082080
Underrated post

>>22086510
Not really. The Christian view is that the "gods" of other religions are real, but they are demons, not the true God.

>>22084530
>Any belief that has this notion of everlasting hell by not having a constant compliance is why I think Christanity is dying
Rejecting eternal good results in an eternal absence of good (evil). Why are people so butthurt by this?

>>22090239
Evil isn't the absence of good.

>>22090243
Yes it is.

>>22090239
>>22090243
>>22090253
Idk what OP was even on about, but atheists BTFO
/thread

>>22090072
>>we're both accusing each both of the exact same thing, this is depressing, exhausting and absurd.
>I pointed out your behaviour, it's demonstrable. You coped with braindead rants and attempts to say "no u".

kid you've got to take your meds, I've been polite in every response and you just won't stop with inversion and verbal abuse, you are mentally ill if you believe what you're saying.

>>22090243
evil is the satanic inversion; punching you in the head while shouting at you to stop punching them. mental illness. burn this type of person to death with chemical fire. kill on sight. all public discourse improves 100,000% by eliminating the mentally sick.

>>22088879
>comes back to cry about being called a pseud the next day
Again, nuance isn't the same thing as unnecessary embellishment, retard. Sperging about semantics because you're filtered. I guess I lied about leaving you alone: keep crying.

>>22090468
>nuance isn't the same thing as unnecessary embellishment,
I have no idea what you're responding to, but if you want to sit at your computer workstation stuffing gummies into your mouth, bashing your fisties on the desk with joy, squealing with ecstasy at every response and fantasy role-playing as a cool troll who is BTFO'ing a "pseud" who is "crying", go ahead, I totally don't get the impression that you're a malding manchild with a profoundly low IQ and cognitive disorder at all from your conduct.

as i said,
>>go back to /pol/, your 'REEE (laughing at you)' PSEUD (outwitted you)' 'SPERG (more than one line)' shit is disgusting and unwanted, whatever the context.


and as i remember the context of this.. hahaha... i've never known anyone get so triggered by occams razor.

>>22090502
I'll explain this carefully because you're a retard. Odds are you'll still be filtered but I'm bored.

You're response to me calling your post pretentious/pseudish is to assert a strawman wherein I'm arguing something must be overly elaborate. However, your post is being called pretentious because it uses a confused lack of nuance to make a contrived generalization. In so doing, you betray the fact you haven't thought deeply about the subject and yet have strong opinions of it you confuse as being the same thing as well-formed ideas (this is pretentious). What's more, the shallow and superficial take you're pretentiously presenting lays on a veneer that you can define yourself as above others due to the oh so deep and thought out claim you're making (this is pseudish).

Get it now, retard? Hey, remember when you said you aren't educated enough to be a pseud? That was pretty funny.

>>22089874
That is a based take on Nietzsche. A person can both decimate the underpinnings of a religion while also being a total psychopathic schizo himself.

>>22089939
Are those the governments in majority Christian countries? Pretty sure communist atheist China doesn't have any LGBTQIA+ rainbow brigades.

>>22090115
>Believes the "gods" of other religions are demons
Right, so you disbelieve the theism of those religions and reject the claims that the gods of those other religions are the real thing.

>>22090624
Wow, that's pretty articulate. Nice effort to defend your initial wrongness on the topic and on your denialism on the obvious point that you as a very obvious pseud are using the word against other people.

This was all that I said in the first post you responded to with your long mess of verbal abuse.

>What's more, the shallow and superficial take
>t you haven't thought deeply
That is just your opinion, you've presented no evidence on-topic to address 'my take' on anything - and I do not even remember what it was I said after this length of time has passed. We've not mentioned this due to your deflection tactic to turn the discussion away from (the topic) and into verbal abuse - which is always a sign that you're quite aware you're in the wrong and possessed of an emotionally imbalanced character (i.e. intensely low iq, dunning-kruger effect: demonstrated by your baby-like internet trolling and your elaborate cognitive dissonance to enable immediate "filtering" to dismiss any opinion/position which differs from your own whilst avoiding examination and refutation).

Oh, I found it - here's my first post that prompted all of this, >>22086390
>An atheist is.. at least somewhat honest in their retardation (but i'd argue they're still culturally christians brainwashed etc into zealotry, see: matt dillahunty). Whereas a christian is stockholm syndrome: they 'know' their religion is bullshit and they spend their energies trying to find anything other than that obvious answer. But that by doing that they prove that their religion is not merely wrong but actively evil, since it causes them to uphold viceful actions in order to maintain their appearance. Same for muslims too, I suppose.
smart stuff there

i.e. atheists are as bad as christians but slightly more honest, whereas christians are more dishonest for holding a knowingly unprovable position and being forced to avoid the topic - since they cannot prove what they say in a logical and straight-forward manner they are forced to play games and initiate verbal abuse, as you also have done here; perhaps having inculcated this habit from your religion and proven the point for me (given your subsequent responses of off-topic verbal abuse).

So... care to refute this, bearing in my your abuse has already proven it? You could claim not to be a religious person perhaps. Or you could just tell me I'm some random pejorative again.

>>22090910
>christians are more dishonest for holding a knowingly unprovable position
literally not true and I'm sick of atheists saying this
The Triune God of Christianity has been irrefutably proven. It is objectively true. It is called the Transcendental Argument for God.

>>22088879
Menger curve

>>22090910
>This was all that I said in the first post you responded to with your long mess of verbal abuse.
Stopped reading there. Stop crying about being a victim when you literally labeled a group of people as willfully evil you complete and total retard. The criticism has stayed the same since the beginning, the only one engaging in informal fallacies to save face is you. You're a retard. You're pretentious. You're a pseud. You're a retarded pretentious pseud. Q.E.D.

>>22090981
>>christians are more dishonest for holding a knowingly unprovable position
>literally not true and I'm sick of atheists saying this
>The Triune God of Christianity has been irrefutably proven. It is objectively true. It is called the Transcendental Argument for God.
That's hilarious, I could kiss you for being so adorably naive in your stubbornity. Your faith is necessarily 'uprovable' otherwise it would't be 'faith' you little darling you. hahaha

>>22091005
>Stopped reading there. Stop crying
Ah, you see what I mean about your cognitive impairment blinding you to healthy perspective? I don't believe you of course and recognise this is some egotistical attempt to hurt my feelings, as if i'd be hurt that you didn't read muh wurdz.

fucking teen girl mentality you have

> when you literally labeled a group of people as willfully evil
BUT YOU ARE aren't you? Look at how you speak and act, this isn'te conduct of a person who is Good, and you're motivated to BE THIS WAY 'because' of your religion. Indirectly, I admit, it is a indirect effect - Jesus would vomit to see how you are for example, but it is an effect of the religion (or holding any position which provokes you to enmity due to inability to discuss it without embarrassment).


>evil you complete and total retard.
>You're a retard.
> You're pretentious.
> You're a pseud.
>You're a retarded pretentious pseud.
>Q.E.D. (idk what this means)
hahahahaahah here lemmeput on my wizards cap,

You're clearly butthurt, my boy. Here, take this magic potion and rub it inside your anus to gain a temporary buff to allow you resist the friction burn from my intellectual arse raping of your poorly adopted position of aggressive ignorance.


>>22090990
Oh okay, I repent. Jesus saves, on second thoughts. Thanks for presenting the only sound argument here in a direct and intellectually honest manner, praise be.

well this has been fun.

>>22091029
>expects people to read his paragraphs of sperg
Develop some selfawareness and learn how to not be disingenuous, directly respond to what's being said if you can stand above your ignorance, and your posts may become worthwhile.
>attempt to hurt my feelings
Kek, you've literally been crying about being called a pseud for 2 days and played the victim card multiple times. If you don't want to be made fun of stop being pathetic.
>NO YOU
I'm labelling you personally as a retard and a pseud based on textual evidence within this thread. I've explained why multiple times (i.e. vapid generalizations based on shallow understanding which you confuse as thoughtful). Instead of presenting a deeper understanding you argue semantics over what "pseud" means and cry about being offended (you even stated you were going to tell the jannies on me, kek); this demonstrates I'm correct and you're a retard. You've ignored the counterpoint I made about institutional organs because you never even considered them before and you know, deep down, the only thing you could respond with is a predictable generalization that will betray the fact you're ignorant.
>Jesus wouldn't like you
I'm not Christian but I respect Christians. I'm an anon and I don't respect you, another anon. Get it?
>teen girl
I noticed you haven't fallen back on "I mean, ..." since you were made fun of for writing like one. Lol.
>YOURE ANGRY, NOT ME (NO YOU, again)
You've been crying about being called a pseud, multi-replied, characterized yourself as a victim multiple times, and even said you were going to run to the jannies. No you, anon. Kek.

>>22091029
>t.

>>22091123
>(off-topic, verbal and emotional abuse)
...uh huh... and I see you're back to just calling me a 'pseud' again to ignore the topic. I figured.

> you've literally been crying about being called a pseud for 2 days and played the victim card multiple times
>You've been crying about being called a pseud, multi-replied, characterized yourself as a victim multiple times, and even said you were going to run to the jannies.
This is how you've 'desired' to read it when I make points like this, which is related to and fully proves the claim that you've been attacking me over:
>> Look at how you speak and act, this isn'te conduct of a person who is Good, and you're motivated to BE THIS WAY 'because' of your religion (or holding any position which provokes you to enmity due to inability to discuss it without embarrassment).


> I've explained why multiple times (i.e. vapid generalizations based on shallow understanding which you confuse as thoughtful)
I answered this in the last post; this is just your professed opinion which you've been unable for (2 days?) to provide any evidence for, whilst I've been providing evidence for my claims by letting you prove them for me lol (see above, and also notice how this doesn't register in your brain).

This is pretty much the cardinal point that upset you in the first place that you've been trying to bury.

> You've ignored the counterpoint I made about institutional organs
Where did you write anything about this?
>>22091005
>>22090624
>>22090468


>I'm not Christian but I respect Christians.
Good call. I told you to say this a little while back, you were pretty clever (heavy sarcasm) not to say it immediately otherwise that would've looked even more deceptive.
> I'm an anon and I don't respect you, another anon. Get it?
Nope. You're offended because I said Christians were less honest than Atheists, have admitted ad much, and have been gas-lighting me for two days to hurt my feelings over it lol - but haven't said one word to refute the point.

If you weren't invested in either camp you wouldn't be here.


>Jannies
Oh, I would have broken your face open and twisted off your typing fingers if you'd said anything like this to me (gas-lighting and verbal abuse) IRL, as you're well aware and would never ever do. I'd prefer to have you put into prison and your cowards tool of anonymity taken away from you to prevent your pollution of the public forum, an exaplemad eof you, to keep other people with your psych make-up scared into keeping their mouths shut:to force them to be polite and reasonable.

In lieu of real laws applying here ... what am I to do when you gas-light? you can pretty much do as you please with impunity. Every single response you've made to me since the first insult has been a breach of the off-topic and trolling-outside-of-/b/ rules, for instance, can anyone be bothered to report every single thing?

>>22091257
I don't know what to say anon, if you're a christian reveling in verbal abuse and if you can'see that this proves you're full of vice and lying about being into "god", then you need to be forced into a convent prison or something to learn from actual religious people.

>>22091257

>>22082043
I am not a Christian and I'm not trying to place myself above you, but reducing it to reason and logic is just part of the disease. In the way every boy in America is circumcised, every man of the west is lobotomized and this is one of the symptoms. Not saying that makes God real, but Russell has the disease and you can smell it like a dog smells cancer.

>>22091269
>>22091275
>multi-reply
>NO YOU
Kek.

>>22091258
>sperg
Not reading all of that, sperg. Don't have to: you probably just cried about being a victim yet again and wrote extended seethe because I pointed out your pathetic "I'M TELLING THE JANNIES ON YOU!" response (which is indefensible). Sorry not sorry.

>>22091310
>sperg
>Not reading all of that, sperg. Don't have to: you probably just cried about being a victim
yawn yawn proving the argument yet again as to the evil deceitful viceful character of so-called christians.

>>multi-reply
I'm having this exact same conversation in another thread and the verbally abusive christian troll is also pretending i'm replying to myself. Scary how alike you all are from this common origin point.

>>22091276
>i'm not a christian but
>REASON AND LOGIC ARE LOBOTOMY
>RUSSEL HAS THE DISEASE
>not saying that makes the jewish god real or anything like that ho ho ho
it's disturbing that you thought this lie would work.

Why do you hate logic so much anyway? Isn't Jesus supposed to be Logic incarnate? baka

>>22091310
>(which is indefensible). Sorry not sorry.
I'm sorry they didn't ban you for 3 days for the rule-break. Just goes to show.

And yes, this was a "multi-reply," and also technically a "sperg" since it was, like the last one, on topic and to the point.

>>22091362
>yawn yawn proving the argument yet again
I just went up and skimmed and my prediction was dead on. You called yourself a victim, I noticed "gas-lighting" a few times (kek), and went on an extended sperg because I made fun of you for stating you were going to cry to jannies to get me banned, kek. You can pretend I wrote that before skimming the post if you're embarrassed--its not like I can prove it. I will point out crying about gas-lighting is laughably retarded when there's a written record of what we've said (kek, retard).
>confuses multi-reply with samefag and cries about being abused (again) in another thread
You're pathetic and retarded. Expect your betters to point it out to you until you learn condescension means nothing if it's coming from an idiot and is unearned.

>>22091390
>seething so hard she multi-replied again
Maybe the jannies read the comment and decided you're a retard and making fun of you is entertaining. It's funny you talked like a tough guy when it's obvious from your responses youve (rightfully) experienced bullying and cry out "I'M TELLING ON YOU!" like a child.

>>22091403
>>22091414
> I will point out crying about gas-lighting is laughably retarded when there's a written record of what we've said (kek, retard).

>my prediction
> "gas-lighting"
> embarrassed
copying my words and throwing them back at me and jumbling the order of events is an example of gas-lighting, you disgusting sociopath.

>You're pathetic and retarded. Expect your betters to point it out to you
I wish I could put my hands on you. I'd snap your arms at the joints and kick your mother to death for raising scum such as yourself.

> It's funny you talked like a tough guy when it's obvious from your responses youve (rightfully) experienced bullying and cry out "I'M TELLING ON YOU!" like a child.
As I've told you several times, when remakring on your verbal abuse: you are proving christians are mentally depraved monsters with no regard for truth or reason by talking to me like this, this has been the content of each of my replies, highlighting your insanity to keep speaking to me like this.

You are doing this to me because I had said "atheists are slightly more honest than christians," that you will not and cannot stop is the reason I have flagged you for trolling.

>Maybe the jannies read the comment and decided you're a retard
Then blood will be on their hands for letting another columbine occur. God forbid you do this to somebody with less restraint.

good night, animal.

>>22091656
>violent and vivid schizophrenic fantasies followed by a rambling projection I'm a school shooter
Seek professional help, anon.

>>22091257
Christcucks are extreme cringe

>>22091414
I mean :) let's be honest

I just want to butcher you for the endless spew of twisted surgical insults... BUT IN FAIRNESS you have proved my point over and over again to the reader.

You and your kind are the worst kinds of people ever encountered on this place; the cancer of the public forum who must be stopped. I truly hope that the laws are fixed and the pathways you exploit to psychologically bully people anonymously are removed.

I'll be saving this text and submitting to the 10,000 other examples of sociopathy on anonymous forums.

>>22091674
I work in mental health and i know the damage that people like you are do in society. You're an extreme minority of mentally sick people responsible for 99% of all problems, exploiting a temporary lapse in the laws and you will be stopped a held to account. And I will be one of the people to stand over you during your mental health treatment.

>>22091689
>>22091692
>I work in mental health
In the same way Leo was a detective on Shutter Island, kek.

>>22091678
>>not only the Galilaeans of our day but also those of the earliest time, those who were the first to receive the teaching from Paul, were men of this sort, is evident from the testimony of Paul himself in a letter addressed to them.
Flavius Julian Aug., Against the Galilaeans

>>22091698
dated reference there, malding manchild

That makes it marginally worse that you're over 40 yrs old and the only person on this website who shitposts extreme psychological abuse for days on end, don't you think?

>>22091257
acktuahahlllllllllly

the argument is St Pauls promise that being baptized will cure you from being effeminate, liars, revilers (verbal abuse), etc.

we all know this promise isn't true, of course. But that you revel so greatly in harming other people is the more obvious and glaring personality trait of the vicious-minded petty animal who uses religion as an excuse for avoiding-correction and doing harm.

former christian, btw.

>>22091728
>dated reference there
You got it though. Listen, it has become obvious by your posts that you're genuinely disturbed; I feel badly for you. We all say pretentious things sometimes and you shouldn't raise getting called out on it to the level of a life event. I'm sorry if I was too harsh with you and that it affected you so negatively. You're completely right that I was mean and insulting and I don't want you to feel manipulated. I still think that the idea you presented was insulting to vasts swaths of people and displayed profound disrespect and personal bias; but maybe you have some deep-seated resentment based on personal experiences that should be taken into account. Even if what you say is stupid it doesn't mean those feelings are invalidated or even unwarranted when it comes to your personal experiences.

Take care of yourself and I mean this with all honesty and without condescension.

>>22084460
Not an argument. Religion is a joke

>>22091795
>religion is a joke, the ancient egyptians were just joking about having magical powers haha OH GOD STOP THOTH IT BURNS

>>22082043
>>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching.
So.. he doesn't understand the nature of Christianity at all and has never actually read the Bible, but feels smugly confident that he knows what Christians believe?
This must be how the Marxists here feel all the time.

>>22091689
>guy loses an argument and goes full mask-off authoritarian pushing for laws to silence his enemies because of it
Ironically, you're exactly the type of person that Popper warns us not to tolerate; one who openly advocates for stripping others of their rights with violence. In a just world, hateful people like you would not be allowed to vote.

>>22091700

>>22091790
>Take care of yourself
aw, thanks buddy. Maybe we can go to the beach one day and steal peoples towels together? A psychopath and a sociopath could accomplish a lot together.

>>22091881
Oh I agree wiht you entirely! You need to end democracy and institue scientific-logic-based authortiarianism in order to coutner the thread of someone ending democracy and insittuing a scientific-logic-based authoritariam.

Do it!

see: >>22085125
>the image is a matter of government and the flaw in democracy; it wouldn't matter what you believed, for example, if it was assured that you'd never be in a position to have your beliefs put into law. A closed society doesn't have this paradox whilst an open society has intolerance as the flaw; i.e. an open society must propagandize out of fear and force conformity all the time, whereas a closed society nobody cares what other people think.
smart person wrote this

also,
>Popper
keep taking them, fuckboi hahaha

>>22092214

>>22082043
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all
>Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause

>>22092535
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all
>Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause
it is actually that simple.

Nobody yet knows "how the universe came about" for sure (or, more accurately when), but the child-like pretense to "know for sure" before having been capable of undertaking an examination of... the center of our galaxy, for instance... is 100% going to be completely wrong.


Also, you ought bear in mind that these religions were unaware of what stars or space even was at this time, and you ought walk about in public and proclaim that the mysterious thing above you is a glass dome which keeps water from drowning you at Gods will, as He did unto the Sodomites.

>>22092535
>First Cause
Also,x2

Prime Causas was/is an intellectual proposition design to prompt the mind into examining the nature of Consequence in ordinary everyday things, leading to a grasp and understanding of Logic and Cause (see: felix causas). I won't say that the position that kipping all of this and pretending a magic creature was responsible betrays a profoundly ignorant society or disposition, but I ought say this as you would have been more capable of grasping such logical good behaviors as a small child than you are, set in your brain like cement, as a grown adult.

The position that you are superior to all humans for having made-up a magical creature in your mind to spare you from adult-like thought, for instance, is regressive infantilism.

now let's have some lunch.

>>22082043
>must have a beginning is really
Stopped reading there. Any time your argument rests on "well it's REALLY like this" or "ACTUALLY..." you can safely dismiss the entire argument. The argument inevitably boils down to "well if you just throw out your own axioms and evidence, I'm right!".

And now this gem catches my eye:
>Therefore, perhaps
So he's not even going to address the argument at all, but he's going to hide behind "well maybe I don't have to really explain myself, let's just gloss over it and get right into the rhetorical bullshit".

There's a RICH theological tradition, and most modern atheists outright ignore it, but not in the smart way of "I haven't been presented with evidence, so I'm agnostic"; rather they ignore it to make flawed attacks on strawmen, literally what they imagine religion/christianity to be rather than what it's proponents say that it is.

I can imagine two reasons why someone would make such an argument: the first is that they feel constrained by some moral obligation they imagine is a result of religion; the second is that they are, for some reason, antagonistic to religion (specifically christianity), and they are trying to lead people away from following it. So I must ask what sin does Bertrand wish to commit and feel no guilt over, or what kind of person is anti-christian in general? What group of people has made it one of their foundational principles to be against the teachings of Christ? Perhaps the group that induced the romans to put Christ to death in the first place?

I'm so tired of rhetoric bros.

>>22092587
>Perhaps the group that induced the romans to put Christ to death in the first place?
The irony is that the Romans 'persecuted' the Christians 'as' Atheists, whilst you proclaim Atheists are so bad.

What's going on here? One group has a set of principles and practices which another group flouts, the former group is moved to suppress the latter group due to challenge to the status quo.

I would say in both instances (both the atheists today and christians back then) the 'challenge to the staus quo' is founded upon legitimate grievances which the status quo reuses to hear, whereas your bad rhetoric to demonize the challenge and uphold your status quo is the same mentality exhibited by the people who killed Jesus; founded upon the same loftiness and egoism... fundamentally the refusal to consider the prima causas of the complaining party.

e.g.
as easily:
>So I must ask what sin does Bertrand wish to commit and feel no guilt over, or what kind of person is anti-christian in general?
>So I must ask what sin does a Christian wish to commit and feel no guilt over, or what kind of person is a Christian in general?

i.e.
an ad hominem: an attack of the character of the speaker and not the case put forth by the speaker.

>>22092566
>>22092564
>If I never saw it personally it doesn't exist

Same people who dismissed germ theory out of ignorance

Anglos must have a genetic anomaly that predisposed them to being utterly cold, soulless and pathetic rationalist cucks. Analytic philosophy is the most disgustingly sterile and worthless intellectual abomination ever birthed by the West and Russell is likely the most insufferable autist this wrethched Earth has ever produced. God I hate humanist realists with every single fiber of my being

>>22092625
>>If I never saw it personally it doesn't exist
>Same people who dismissed germ theory out of ignorance
Without evidence they were right. Not being given evidence and denying evidence given you are not the same thing, the latter is a mentality of religious dogma, the other is evidenced-based reasoning. Now you know the difference.

The main point (in what i said) was that (they) have approached a matter having already made-up their minds before having undertaken (or in this case been able to undertake) a study. In other words,wen you were told that "god made universe" and took in that claim without any further thought you were being lied to, as the persons who made that claim had no evidence to have based the claim on themselves; it is thoughtless dogmatism which guarantees you will be hostile to any inquiry into the reality of the subject itself due to having invested, erroneously, in a faulty claim of the subject.

>>22092643
>Anglos must have a genetic anomaly that predisposed them to being utterly cold, soulless and pathetic rationalist
that's a contradiction in terms, you pathos driven (pathe+tic) hypochondriac.

Be at ease, return to your shack; tarp-wearing immigrant who dwells at the liberty of the Emperor in lands which he has no right to be in, the imperial governor will manage this matter as He manages everything else.

>>22092668
>Without evidence they were right

>>22082068
>>reject the main western value
The same west all progressive academics label "white supremacist" as they believe such a term accurately describes the hegemonic culture.

>>22082110
Who's bot is this?

>>22092731
-_-

>>Without evidence they were right (to ignore the claims)
i wulda fort that wuz obvious m8 an wuld go wivout sayin

>>22092753
Midwit take if I've ever seen one and flies in the face of science as a discipline

>>22092587
>for some reason, antagonistic to religion (specifically christianity)
Mainly due to pride. It's an intelligence LARP ironically based on complete ignorance of both religious understanding (e.g. theology) and detailed accounting of scientific enterprise (e.g. it's actual history, process, and limitations). Science itself becomes an ideology (Scientism) by these means but Luciferian pride becomes comical when these people have no actual scientific background and present naive takes on the history/philosophy of science they picked up from Bill "her penis" Nye and Richard "mild pedophilia" Dawkins.

>>22090439
>I've been polite
Mindlessly propagandizing is not polite.
Lying is not polite.
Refusing to read anything written is not polite.
>you consider your prima causas creator god to be no different than any other rock that is worshiped by a cannibal tribe
This is your reply to the suggestion that dismissing x tribal perspective is not helpful, this is how you respond to the idea of actually thinking . Your behaviour is recorded in this thread yet you find ways to convince yourself it never happened. You're completely fucked in the head.

>>22089874
this reminds me when I had a public debate with a Stirnerite libertarian and after waffling for awhile about political theory and brass tacks adjudication of justice I ascertained that his philosophy led him to a repugnant position. That he had no intention of helping his parents in old age who otherwise raised and secured education for him without incident purely on ideological grounds that should they face hardship in old age it is indubitably a failure of personal responsibility aka 'not my problem'.

The whole audience turned on him with that admission

>>22092758
>Midwit take if I've ever seen one and flies in the face of science as a discipline
... that a claim made without proof is to be disregarded? lol

Thanks for demonstrating that people who use the word 'midwit' are incredibly clownishly low iq.

>>22092768
>. Science itself becomes an ideology
thasone helluva cope, cuthbert

You went to a lot of trouble to avoid the word 'religious dogmatism' there, as that is really the thing that is going on: claims made not on scientific evidence but on wishful thinking and fantasies are called "religious dogmas".

>>22092836
>Your behaviour is recorded
>Mindlessly propagandizing
>You're completely fucked in the head
oh boy not you again. It's mr "you are braindead" back to curse at me again for pointing out an error he made... whilst engaging in unconscious psychological displacement of his behavior and actions onto me in every reply.

>this is how you respond to the idea of actually thinking
my roflcopter goes soi soi soi

>>22092997
>without proof

>>22093008
no idea what you're even trolling me over at this point. sorry to say.

>>22092997
>You went to a lot of trouble to avoid the word 'religious dogmatism' there, as that is really the thing that is going on: claims made not on scientific evidence but on wishful thinking and fantasies are called "religious dogmas".
You're an unstable person and I'll thank you to not respond to my posts for the sake of your own mental health. Besides, we've discussed Scientism in the past and you were completely filtered by the concept of it; you have no background regarding the history and philosophy of science and you're not interested in going beyond your IFL level of understanding so what's the point of us speaking?

>>22092997
>pointing out an error he made
What are you talking about? Can you quote what you're referencing?
>unconscious psychological displacement
I'm talking about very specific examples of your behaviour and every time I do you distract from the point because you know you can't defend any of your shit on any level.
>you consider your prima causas creator god to be no different than any other rock that is worshiped by a cannibal tribe
This is your reply to the suggestion that dismissing x tribal perspective is not helpful. There is no way to justify any of your replies, there's no hint of reason there. You don't understand how to structure any kind of thought, argument or not.

>>22082046
>with every salted almond we risk damnation.
Almondbros...

>>22092612
Yes, it's an ad-hominem, AFTER I refuted his argument. Rather, it's more of an insult than an ad-hominem.

>>22092768
Yeah I agree. I suppose it's not surprising that post enlightenment stupid people would just switch from religion to scientism. The human drive to believe in something seems innate.

>>22093131
She's unstable, anon. She'll attempt to troll when losing an argument and will meltdown if you do it back (as in have a real psychotic episode). You're not going to get a meaningful convo and in the end you'll just feel bad for her (it's not just stupidity but actual mental health problems you shouldn't aggravate). Best not to engage.

>>22092522
Keeping power away from petty tyrants like you is not the same as ending democracy. Anonymity is essential to democracy (and has been since Paine published Common Sense anonymously) so to ensure that we keep it, we can not afford to allow people like you to ever seize power.

Also,
>it wouldn't matter what you believed, for example, if it was assured that you'd never be in a position to have your beliefs put into law
>an open society must propagandize out of fear and force conformity all the time, whereas a closed society nobody cares what other people think.
Yeah, that's definitely why dictatorships are known for just letting their people express ideas freely, right? Why the Chinese ignored the Tiananmen Square protests, why Stalin let random people speak out against him, why Hitler was perfectly fine with some members of the SA holding socialist views? Definitely all some of the most open and least fearful societies to ever exist right there, huh?

>>22093045
>Scientism
Oh sure. The word Scientism.

You believe that science is dependent not on actual proof or ability to predict in material realms but that things are dependent on random guys and we must painstakingly ignore the scientific process and take them at their word,centuries or milleia back (if we don't then we're cucks who have been filtered by your autism) - when they say something you like, and then when they say something you don't like, they're cucks who have been filtered by your autism. It's quite a rock solid position you've made-up for yourself there,.

> so what's the point of us speaking?
yeah I agree. go play in traffic.

>>22093131
>every time I do you distract from the point because you know you can't defend any of your shit on any level.
And you babble on with 'actual' nonsense and I tell you it's displacement and projection (accusing me of thigns you've literally doing i front of me as you accuse me of doing it), I ask you to stick the point then give up and go away, then we meet each other again and it starts all over.

>What are you talking about? Can you quote what you're referencing?
>WHAT! "IM SURPISED!" WH-WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! im so sincere!

Here faggot: you've been keking on at me for fucking days because I pointed out some dumb simple error in shit you said all the way back here: >>22087140

I've explained it to you twice and you haven't stopped with this "i am suffering braindeath" jargon since that point. Just post address and come fight me or shut the fuck up ad admit you were wrong. I will slide a butchers knife into a youtube incels throat if you keep provoking me with this gas-lighting begging, it will be because you wouldn't make your address known to me.

>>22093189
Oh yeah lol i forgot about this shit,

That's right. I'm wanting for the law to be applied to stop unlawful acts and you declare me a tyrant for wanting to stop you from raping infants or something. It's a convicning argument alright, if you're a fucking retard.

Or: I'm a tyrant for wanting to enforce libel and perjury laws and end the culture of false accusation and terror of false accusal. But you will sooner die than let this happen due to vague idealisms about your liberty (to rape infants or something).

I don't know if we got that far into the thing but that's what I actually think about the thing. I also realize tat people like you are the impediment to getting anything done, so yeah, unironically gulags for you I suppose.

On the brightside china did solve ISIS with reeducation camps and our lot failed to do so and lost a war to them, so.. maybe you should reconsider the shit you've been suckled on about daddies looking out for you being bad.

also, all of your babyish responses were address in the text that was green.

>>22093188
>She's unstable, anon.
I agree, she's crazy.

>>22093159
>AFTER I refuted his argument
Where did you do that? Responding with ad hominem is not a refutation of anything.

>>22094302
>t. doesn't know what Scientism is
What a weird projection/strawman you made there.

>>22094778
Scientism is a word that you personally made-up moments prior to reduce the sciences to the level of a crass ideology. It's a means for you to smuggle biblical creationism in by tarting it up in the cardigan and spectacles of an academic manner, to impress infants.

>>22094868
biblical creationism is true it's saying the universe originated as a point also known as the big bang you stupid degenerate

>>22094868
>t. I don't know what Scientism is
We knew that already, retard.

>>22094882
>you stupid degenerate
you disgusting e michael jones ball sucker

>biblical creationism is true
>the big bang
is le fucking theory, not le fucking divine word of gob-shite. Show me where Yahwehs foreskin appears in the big bang model. do not post rule 34. you are talking about Plato and le prima causas. this is not a yiddish concept which confirms le biblical creation story.

>>22094938
>It's true that christians have lots of hilarious youtube and home video lecturers where scientism is derided as a marxist-ism; I do use this, from time to time, to disregard science that I don't understand or want to pretend isn't true - the creation claim, for example, which is pretty damaging to my religious dogmas. Look, I'll come up with something to lend plausible doubt to your science if you give me a moment to remove my magic marker and colored notepaper from my fanny pack.

>>22094964
>strawman of what Scientism means
I told you already: the thread knows you don't know what that word means.

>>22094970
i told you already that your begging to take seriously your stupid hack psuedo-scientists doesn't not become laughable if a congregation of incels on 4chan agree with your made-up bullshit.

we live in real world.

>>22094975
>you're making up the word "Scientism"
Kek, you're out of your depth, retard.

>>22094984
someone I know pointed this out to Pinker and Pinker blocked him on twatter.

>>22094964
by that presumption we can safety state that evolutionism is the same since nobody was around to prove either formulation of the natural world occurred under either.

>>22094997
no shit evolution is fake the chinese don't even have epicanthal folds

>>22094991
Dawkins called Krauss's book as seminal as Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle. I read it and it was just basic undergrad physics concepts (no equations of course--going for that IFL audience) with random non sequitur spergs about religion every 5 pages or so.

>>22094984
because you're able to dunk on vapid pop scientists doesn't confirm your fucking jewish religion or make the scientific method 'not true'. ad hominem kek

>>22094991
>someone I know pointed this out to Pinker and Pinker blocked him
when you leave your basement you might be able to have friends with "i met a celebrity" stories that don't end with "and then they blocked me on social media, heh heh"

Plinker sounds like a good man whoever he is. You should emulate him and strive to be more like him.


>>22094997
>evolution+ism
this is how everybody can tell you're a fucking nit. This is why you're here, palling it up with incels to affirm your poor learning in the company of sociopaths and people on the domestic terrorism watch list.

>>22095058
so your official position is that the greeks just made their family trees up? evolution theory sounds pretty fucking stupid to me. maybe you should shut your whore mouth and let honest people speak

>>22095046
>random non sequitur spergs
this is called Your Cognitive Dissonance when you read or see things you don't agree with and your brain stumbles.

look this up, safespace dweller.

>>22095061
>>>22095058 (You)
>so your official position is that the greeks just made their family trees up
how in fuck is this a response to anything that is being discussed

oh dont tell me
"i dont know," "i have been filtered by your autism from the secret meanings," sad sad sad

>>22095074
you think the story of adam and eve was a metaphor? like the hellenes just made it up? why would anyone lie about being related to zeus or hercules? you think ancient philosophers didn't remember who their own parents were? are you a fucking idiot?

>>22095058
I never made the claim that "the scientific method is untrue." However, I'm willing to bet you have a very naïve account of how the scientific enterprise operates, have ideological blind spots that prevent you from acknowledging non-rational inputs represented at all levels of said enterprise, are ignorant regarding the history of science, and have never heard the terms "theory-ladenness" or "under-determination."

You don't know what Scientism is and you haven't done the work necessary in order to have well-formed informed ideas about science and religion. You are strongly opinionated in a subject of which you know very little--you're an uneducated dogmatist which is ironic considering this is how you most likely characterize the religious.

>>22095068
Have you read the book, anon? Want me to pull up a PDF and post examples?

>>22095099
>you think ancient philosophers didn't remember who their own parents were? are you a fucking idiot?
ha holy shit
So you think Julius Caesar was the bastard son of Venus? Claiming to be sons of gods and heroes is a common thing universally, usually it's a very accomplished king r emperor who has this claim made posthumously as a mark of how good he was in his reign.

You can't claim they're all correct and true if you're positing hebrew monotheism. this is easily the most stupid lie i've seen today.

>you think the story of adam and eve was a metaphor?
No, I think they were literally assembled by Yahweh who forgot he gave them a brain, then deluded himself and them into thinking that intelligent came from eating a piece of fruit. Then, after greatly angering Yahweh for desiring to know right from wrong, they went to Mecca and built a solid cube to live in as a house.

>>22095130
people like you need to be in prison

>>22095114
yes i know, because: "we disagree on the religion" i am therefore "naive in science."

>have never heard the terms "theory-ladenness"
No I haven't, but that sounds like a ridiculous modern terminology that someone would make-up to convey the existance of various theories about a thing to a class of cement-brains who would be terrified and upset to learn that daddy doesn't quite know because daddy hasn't figured it out.

>You don't know what Scientism is and you haven't done the work necessary in order to have well-formed informed ideas about science
You phrae that almsot like a real human being, but we all know that "well informed ideas about Science," to you means "accepting the hebrew creation story and also everything in your religion without question, and bow and worship you as an intellectual titan for being so smart as to believe in that without question," - if anyone doesn't do this, they are "ignorant"

>>22095123
if you like, that'd be more constructive than trading insults.

>>22095135
>people like you need to be in prison
people like you should have been executed en masse by cannonfire by Generals Washington and Lafayette when they had the chance.

you know, christcucks. i hate to make this comparison, but the confidence and self-righteousness in your profound ignorance reminds me of those demented muslims who act nice and use words like "science", then turn extremely nasty and irrational when you point out that half of what they're saying is laughable bullshit from the early 90's.

>>22095155
evolution is not true. biblical creationism is literally just the big bang. why are you lying on the internet

you know, christcucks. i hate to make this comparison, but the confidence and self-righteousness in your profound ignorance reminds me of those demented muslims who act nice and use words like "science", then turn extremely nasty and irrational when you point out that half of what they're saying is laughable bullshit from the early 90's.

i mean.. what i'm getting at it is. you're so far removed from society on these topics that you're resembling a manchild raised in a theocracy who just "doesn't compute" other opinions or the facts at hand, and is single-mindedly driven to use any little thing to proclaim allah to the 'ignorant masses'.

it's a very bad comment on the education system in the west and the severe depths of echo chambers.

>>22095164
>>22095174

i hope caesarion shits down your neck

>>22095167
there are four lights, you xenos scum.

>>22095176
>derka derka mohammed
Yes, good response.

>>22095167

>>22095153
>won't touch the idea that the scientific enterprise contains non-rational elements at all levels
Kek.
>won't get into the history of science because he knows he'll betray his ignorance
Kek.
>cries about "theory-ladenness" because he doesn't know what it means
Basically there are two related types that describe how 1) the semantic content of a given scientific theory predetermines scientific observations (systemic level) and 2) the perceptual basis of observation in gathering empirical information doesn't exist in a vacuum (perceptual limitations). Also, don't confuse this with the idea of individual biases (inb4), retard.
>if you like, that'd be more constructive than trading insults
You seem like too much of an idiot for it to be worthwhile (maybe later). I'll instead point out you have strong opinions about a book you haven't read based on nothing other than your own personal bias. Very rational and not at all like those bible thumpers you like to sperg about, anon. Just like Krauss saying Epstein was a good boy because, "as a scientist," the girls were around 19 and, "as a scientist," this is empirical evidence he observed that allows him to ignore his previous conviction of grooming/trafficking minors, kek.

>>22095210
>the history of science because he knows he'll betray his ignorance
I don't care to argue with you kek about your favorite christian theologians who didn't do shit and persecuted people who told them to wash their hands.

>won't touch the idea that the scientific enterprise contains non-rational elements
according to who? those guys? fuck them and fuck you. go plug your green motorbike into a coal fired power plant.

>Basically
retard

>You seem like too much of an idiot for it to be worthwhile (to provide hard proof for any claim)
yeah figured, fuckboi

>(contemporary political scandal in my dogshit culture refutes all science)
yeah, another great argument there. I'm convinced by this completely that you're a rational actor.

>Very rational and not at all like those bible thumpers
a slave caste brain would hesistate to kill you when you use this sophistry. not the case here, unfortunately.

AVANT
FIRE LE CANNON

>>22095199
i'm pretty sure adam weishaupt knew evolution was made up, you moron

>>22095239
>adam weishaupt
Oh no, the bishop said its bad so i better do as he says, that's how my brain works.

>>22095238
>I don't care to argue with you kek about your favorite christian theologian
I'm much more familar with the history/philosophy of science than I am with theology. Also, the conflict thesis about the relationship between religion and science has been refuted for over half a century (aside, the historography of it relates how it's a reactionary movement that was in response to changes within the Catholic Church in the late 19th century).
>according to who?
Academic consensus which includes people like Steven Weinberg who wrote a paper about the political and economic influence on the SSC. Lee Smolin, who can be a bit of a crank I'll admit (Krauss hates him but mostly because of his critiques of popsci narrative) but he is an active physicist and headed the Perimeter Institute, wrote a pretty great book on how string theory became an ideological vogue that has drained research funds and created a closed-minded atmosphere with little to show for over a generation.
>I'm still too stupid to understand theory-ladenness
If you can't understand the basics you can't incorporate it into your worldview, retard. Not my problem you're too dumb.
>refutes all science
Kek, nice strawman. First and slightly off topic, I enjoy the drama with Krauss because it underscores one of your New Atheist heroes is a bad actor and complete piece of shit. Second, its an example of how enacting the idea of scientism outside of a restricted domain leads to comically absurd outcomes.
>a slave caste brain would hesistate to kill you when you use this sophistry. not the case here
Better get a chinstrap for your fedora so it doesn't fall off, tough guy. Kek

>>22095246
for evolution to be true literally the entire nation of greece would have had to falsify tens of thousands of years of history

>>22082043
>>22082052
>>22082063
The principle of tolerance must be viewed as a social contract. When one party breaks it by being intolerant, they are excluded from its benefits and cannot expect to be treated with tolerance any more.
There is no paradox, just old men jerking off about semantics.

>>22095282
>one of your New Atheist heroes
hello bias my old friend
you've come to insert yourself again

>
>
>
>If you can't understand the basics
no idea what the first three paragraphs had to do with anything anybody mentioned. / tacky sophistry to lead the conversation

>>refutes all science
>Kek, nice strawman.
your slippery 'case' against empirical evidence (i.e. all evidence and all sense data) is bad because "krauss bad because jeffrey epstein," ...
i.e.
>(contemporary political scandal in my dogshit culture refutes all science)
...as a means to shoehorn your irrational pretenses to the delusions of barbarous heathen cults:

you begin this by sewing the seeds of doubt in the mind that it cannot trust 'hard evidence, proofs' you assert that 'science contains non-rational elements' then you assert empirical evidence bad because jeffrey epstein.

cutting through the fluff, those were the two assertions you were driving home; now what o what o what i wonder could those two assertions be a foundation for?

>>22095321
this would be hilarious in an atellan farce, i'm going to use this. u ok with that

>>22095282
>you can't incorporate it into your worldview,
why would i want to? the future will look back on people today as total morons who were deserving of what they got.

look, professor, it's getting late here. we can spar with your rhetoric practice tomorrow

valete ladies.

ciao bella

>>22095393
i don't give a fuck what you do, i'm busy owning this clown in a digital argument

>>22095390
>hello bias my old friend
>you've come to insert yourself again
Nice fedora tip.
>your slippery 'case' against empirical evidence (i.e. all evidence and all sense data) is bad because "krauss bad because jeffrey epstein,"
You can't address theory-ladenness and under-determination so you're focusing on the popsci hero whose defence you rushed to without even having read his book. You're a retard and you're out of your depth.
>you begin this by sewing the seeds of doubt in the mind that it cannot trust 'hard evidence, proofs' you assert that 'science contains non-rational elements'
Nice strawman. Also, I didn't merely assert science had non-rational elements but gave you examples to look up.
>cutting through the fluff, those were the two assertions you were driving home; now what o what o what i wonder could those two assertions be a foundation for?
You're entertaining a strawman that only exists in your own head, retard. You're too dumb for this conversation.

>>22095403
>I'm closed minded and won't read about concepts that undermine the bias upon which I've based my (false) pride
Very rational and scientific, retard. Please try to maintain your pathetic seethe to single posts though.

>>22095447
>You can't address theory-ladenness
is the same as saying
>you can't address blackness

it's something you brought up which is irrelevant to the subject I was talking to you about. / hence sophistry

>Nice fedora tip.
I've surely told you a thousand times that I'm not an atheist, you're doing what you here:
>a strawman that only exists in your own head

moresophistrybasedonthis
>You can't address theory-ladenness and under-determination
>so you're focusing on the popsci hero
I called you out for constructing a case based on that. No idea who that person is. Asked you for solid proof of your claim that the popsci heros books are full of "random sperging" (and that this also proves science isn't real), you refused.

The extreme comedy here (in your sophistry tot he audience) is that you're presenting as a science-guy whilst attacking the scientic method - which is not bound to anybody in the manner that your religious professions (i.e. professing something that can't be true) are and so can't be touched because some pop scientists are idiots.

So this is obviously false from the very beginning, and is ad hominem of course.

>You're too dumb for this conversation.
Yeah probably. / virtue of humility

I used to exclaim the same thing as a younger man, when someone wouldn't fall for my bullshit I would exclaim that they were dumb. Maybe they were. But their singlemindedness to the subject, not being 'intellectual' enough to be distracted from the core issue my sophistry was a mark in their favor, in all retrospect. I hope I have learned to be as dumb as they were.


>>I'm closed minded and won't read
Very rational and scientific, retard. Please try to maintain your pathetic seethe to single posts though.


>>22095418
hehe thanks
love me some atellan farce