Christfags

Why are there so many fucking Christcucks on imageboards now? I've seen a steady increase pf them over the past couple of years. It's NOTHING like it was say 10 years ago. You can't call them out for being goddamn faggots without getting called a "fedora" because muh Reddit. There's every reason in the world to hate you people. Your religion is parasitic to society by perverting the concept of morality. You're no better than the kikes.

Don't you fucking morons realize you're going to hell for even being here, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Denial (psychology)
psychologytoday.com/conditions/delusional-disorder
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
twitter.com/Iamkelmitchell
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

not if they confess it

I am one of those Christcucks, backsliden, and I agree with the above statement. When I am on here I don't force religion down anons throat because being on a porn site like Holla Forums automatically makes me lose any credibility.

...

Its mostly posers and edgy Holla Forums types thinking that religion makes their views more acceptable. Juyt another "in-group" from which to shit on an imaginary other. Outside of /christian/ and /christ/ there's little to no legitimate religious discussion going on.

They were always around but le fedora meme gave them a way to shit up boards with relative impunity

It means a lot of porn is posted here. It is like an interactive porn site. Holla Forums on 4chan is worse and you see the religious preaching there. It's like going to pornhub to do the Lord's work.

And i have been in love ever since.

——————————————————————
That's not how Christianity works.

Tenants of Christianity:
-turn the other cheek
-love your enemies
-do unto others as you would have done unto you
-do not judge
-etc.
What was that about perverting morality?

feel free to call me out, i have no problem discussing things, just be reasonable in your arguments. (avoid logical fallacy's, i will do the same)

same is said for atheists.

Both sides are using the straw-man fallacy to misrepresent the others side of the argument, and it is shameful no matter which way it is going.
The only difference between each side is that one claims to be "logical" and the other claims to be "spiritual".

Imageboards are a counter-culture. If you're here, it's because you don't fit in elsewhere.
If religious following, traditionalism, respect for purity, and myriad other "in-groups" are now counter-culture, then maybe the overt culture needs to be re-examined.

IT is me,
Though i would share so lovely porn parodies, for the keks.

Please, Jamal - fuck my wife, just let me get to clean up afterwards.

The key to removing the Christ from the Cuck and therefore rendering an individual no longer cucked by Semitic superstition, is offering them something as replacement. You see, no one is likely to give up their long held beliefs without having something better to replace them with. It would be like falling blindly into a never-ending abyss; without an alternative ideology the Christian (or any person really) will abandoned their world-view. Its not a matter of they won't but they simply can not.

I, however, do offer something better for the Christians. A something upon which they may safely land after taking that first leap into the unknown. And at the request of the inquistitive believer I will divulge this something. But I must forewarn the curious user who may be tempted to LARP as a Christian: the Knowledge offered is one of the ultimate Redpills. It may be better to wait, an remain careful of what you unleash.

The bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. and that it is between only those two. No Jamal allowed.

Sure thing, buddy - it's not like cuckolding is popular or anything.

This applies to both parties:

The woman in the example was sexually immoral, for that reason the man has every right to leave her on her own and find new fish, and they will be justified in doing so.

It perverts it because you only abide by good principles because god told you so, and not because they're, well, good ideas. Nietzsche would like to have a word with you.

TOP KEK

actually that's the thing. There is no "this is how it works" because any clear statement is either contradicting or doublethink. Any supposed facts from the bible have been proved false.

But of course it wont change the minds of so many people, as facts alone won't change the minds of people. The information is processed through feelings, instincts, and life circumstances. We shape our opinions to conform to the views of the groups with which we most strongly identify, because humans are naturally social animals that rely on others for survival.
which is why peep pressure is a thing, and cults.

Doesn't matter how dumb one religion is to another, they have no reason that appeals to their feelings that it might be *wrong*

/thread

LARPing + not-wanting-to-be-called-atheist

check out the cannon by St. Paul. Called Romans.
It is a cannon that, in simlest terms, states this argument:

The other anons argument was that Christians are going to hell just for being on this board. But this is a star-man which misrepresents the entire premise of Justification through faith.
Christ-cucks/christ-fags are not going ot hell for being on an image-bard or posting on one. They are already forgiven, that is that.

Proof, please?

This is, without doubt, truly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I am not fucking joking when I say: you are genuinely stupid. I know people say stuff like this a lot on chans without proper evidence… but you have proven amply that you should be removed from the gene stock of humanity. I sincerely apologize to the Universe for your existence.

you got it wrong friend. I chose Christianity because, of all the religions out there, it is the only one to have invented this type of morality. It is also the only one to have a close and personal God.

...

The burden of proof is on you faggots.
But you have none.

This tbh.

Thanks for proving that you literally know nothing about your own religion. Christianity is THE religion that propagated the attitude mentioned en masse. You should be banned on spot for lulz.
I miss those days.

For a """""logical""""" person, you sure are not good at philosophy user.

Judaism is literal communism. Christianity is the same thing. Commiecucks gtfo.

Not really. I can make a better religion right now. That can't really be your criteria for a religion, just a list of attributes that you like, as if you're building a doll.

What about proof? What about any of it being true?

- implies there is contradictory statements in the bible
- does not prove it, moves the goal-post and puts the burden of proof on someone else.

good job not providing a counter-arrgument to the original position and just agreeing instead of elobrating on why you agree.

If you know so much about it, then please; enlighten me.


this is why there cannot be a good argument. the political discourse always has guys like you on both sides doing this shit.
If you want to argue, then provide a reason for your views instead of just calling opposing ones stupid and not explaining why.

It began as a meme by atheists trolling atheists. (one like the current Islam=good shit), but soon newfriends mistook anons acting retarded as a safe space for them, being trolled for them meant being accepted and validated.

which one are you looking for?
Philosophical, religious, or historical.
take our pick.

...

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

The only reason you are christan is because you were raised as one. If you were born in israel you would probably be jewish. if you were born in middle east, a muslim and so on.

Yet you feel that YOU are CORRECT and THEY are WRONG.
You could argue that it's the general notion of good that they teach, but the morality of religions are different and even if they weren't it would make the whole RELIGION part meaningless.

Before you try to justify your faith, please do try to remember WHY you have faith.

Also the definition of faith is belief in something that is not supported by evidence. Which is unlogical in itself.

just take any passage and you realise how stupid it is. God decides to murder the fuck out of everything because of a few bad apples. Doom everyone to hell with no warning or redemptions. uhh but not noah.

God designed the world in just 7 days?
Thats the stars "would fall"?
That the moon is a lightsouce, not just reflects light?
That pi is not actually 3.14, but simply 3.

and that just from the top of my head

Show me your best "historical". No links as arguments, you do all your demonstration here. Links can be a source but I'm not gonna read off-site atm.

John 1:18 - "no one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God."

1 John 4:12 - "no one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

Genesis 32:30 - "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, 'It is because i saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared'."

how is this a good argument?

I should say, start at the beginning. The validity of the other document is predicated on the Torah. So start with the Torah. Nature of the document prior to the contents if you don't mind.

John never should have gone into the cannon tbh

Neitzsche was referring to the death of religion due to modernism. He though of Christianity as weak, but he feared that there would be nothing ot take its place. This is where he suggests having culture replace Christianity.

Religion is a creation of Man. Just like any other invention, Religion has a purpose. The most apparent reason for religion is to ease the fear of death. Religious people all around the world feel better about dying because they think will go to heaven. Perhaps this was abused, tricking people into thinking that if they fought/killed enough they would gain entrance to eternity. The second reason is to explain things beyond the scope of comprehension (such as the creation of the universe).

If people are/would be moral without religion, does it really matter if religion pushes morality? We were going to do it anyway, who cares if god told us to do it?
People will also be without morals as well, with or without religion. It's almost like morals are learned behavior, and Men invented an easy way to teach them ie religion.
Major religions have been taught for thousands of years, any morality derived from them is pretty much second-nature so of course people say we don't need religion to be moral. What we see now is a few generations being less and less religious, culmination in the present hedonistic nihilist generation seeking personal pleasure and isolationism. Content to hookup with many strangers and interact on social media.

Back to religion as an invention. Anyone can see quite clearly that what we have now as any religion has been altered/created by Men. The similarities between the Semitic Desert religions should be proof enough that if such religions were founded by the word of God, such words have been edited over the centuries of their existence.
Religion can be altered to suit the need of whomever wishes. Today we see alterations that make cuckoldry moral. Tithe is collected to line the pockets of the clergy. The Jews have corrupted Christians into believing Israel is legit and they should send their sons to die for it. All those examples are of changes made for detriment.

The true redpill on religion is that it can and should be altered for good.
If you try to remove religion entirely, you will have something come to fill the vacuum. Be it scientifism, or atheistic Marxist slavery.
Religion is indeed an invention of Man. Like any invention, the obsolete is discarded, what works is retained, what is new is adopted. The religions of old must be refined, parts exchanged -others removed.
There are problems in the world today, what better way to solve them than Faith?

Jon absolutely defines modern Christology, the Christology of the past 1800 years or so. Its what take Jesus from a Jewish context of being the Messiah and turns him into a real God, then reshapes the interpretation of the earlier documents in that light. John makes Christianity its own rather than just the Mormonism of Judaism.

Much easier to interpret Genesis allegorically than even think about a hand against John.

Nope. I spent the majority of my life as an atheist. Then i actually placed reason before bias and figured that i prefer christianity over the rest, based on the resutls from those who follow its tenants.

Never stated this in my prior argument.

there are creationists, and complementarists. The majority of Christians are complementarists (the beleif that the earth was made in a collection of phases, not in accordance with literal 7 days)

a light-source is a point from which light comes from. A mirror is as much of a light-source as the flash-light you shine into it.

bible never mentioned this, at all. WTF book are you reading?

revelations is the only book that mentions this. It mentions the star wormwood falling from heaven and opening the gates to the abyss.

It's apocalyptic literature, so it is not literal, but rather represents literal things using symbol, metaphor and analogy.

Wrong - it it literal.

But how would you do that? I've seen people propose this ideology before. If only we could hold unto the morals and such while getting rid of the obvious fantasies etc etc. But as of yet, the only reason to act moral in the context of, say, Christianity, is the sovereignty of God. He rules by right of creation, he enforces his supremacy by his sheer will, and his morality id absolute and inescapable. Whether it makes people nice or not or society enjoyable or not has nothing to do with it, if anything a lot of the scriptural stories are about holding fast to God's ultimate commandment's precisely when its difficult, when its uncomfortable, when the powerful and the civilized and the moral majority tells you to reject God. That's when you're in the right.

So how do you amend this? I sure as hell don't know. What's your idea?

It makes it into something that it is not.

Will do.
Going to simplify it so that i don't have to write a university thesis.

The great city of babylon is mentioned in the bible, yes?
Using geographical knowledge, and mentions in the bible, historians have been able to locate the ruins of babylon.

What about that one prophet who went around in a fish?
Documents by historians of ninivee (which i remember is the place mentioned) talks about a man who came about and was considered as an incarnation of their fish God. Thus the repentance of the city.

What about Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
There are Historical documents which have mention of a Jewish man by the name of 'Jesus of Nazareth' crucified.

These are off the top of my head, if i remember there are articles for proof, but its Friday and I don't want to go through the effort.

KEK

Well, let me put it like this. Christian sects which don't consider Christ to be divine all died out before Spain was a state, before Rome fell. Only since the early 1900 do you have tiny little splinter groups like the Jehovah Witnesses bringing it back. For the rest of human history, Christians usually think Christ is God.

You tell me which one is "the real" one.

atheists are still the worse than christians

Allegory worked well in the Bible, lets use that.
It is quite easy. All you have to do is say a god is powerful. Backing it up is the hard part.
Pretty much all you have to do is have the bigger army. That's how it started.

user, i know you want to think that way, i want to, but that is simply not true. Everyone should be judge by their merit to argue, not their beleif. So stop the ad hominem please and provide a legitimate argument.

~christ-fag

Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?

Here's a compelling argument you should take into consideration.

These don't really prove anything relevant. The divinity of Christ is what's on trial here, not the fact that the hebrew writers of the OT knew their geography, or that the Romans/Hellenic types kept records of messianic types. Bar Kokhba was recorded as well, another Messianic type, but it doesn't prove him divine.

Why I suggested the Torah as the starting point is because the legitimacy of the supernatural claims (this is the relevant part) of Christianity rest upon the Torah. The rest of the OT (Ketuvim and Nevi'im) rests on the validity of these stories, the same way that the New Testament's validity depends on the OT prophecies being true. Not being "fulfilled" on paper, anyone can do that, but literally having the events of the which are supernatural, having those be proven to be true to the satisfaction of modern standards of evidence. But you have to start with the Torah.

I have hard time believing it was just 'reason' that got you thinking it was 'real'. Please do show us the information.
Did it have anything to do with the community you were living in? Still think your religion of choice would be Christianity, and not Islam if you were in the middle east?

That is what you imply. In order for Christianity to be TRUE, THEY HAVE to be WRONG.
Believing in Christianity makes is such that that the other religions CANNOT be true.

and for you "counter-arguments" on factual errors in the Bible
you try to deflect what the Bible, the WORD OF GOD - MESSAGE TO MANKIND, is saying.
It literally says that he created it on 7 days, as many other things.
If it was not literal, then what the fuck is it supposed to mean. it is 100% subjective and it can be used to wrong. Like it has multiple times all over the places. Same passage can justify war, slavery, peace, liberation and so on. because when we can prove the passages have no literal meaning, the fanatics have to make up meaning.

different user here
- Remember when Christianity was consistent of some 13 people?
- Remember when they were prosecuted, by the likes of Nero, yet did not shrink but rather continued to spread, albeit slower?
-Remember when, as a minority religion, Christianity spread like wildfire through the roman empire?

I do…

So, you're what, well over 2000 years?
I would have expected someone of your age to not argue like a fucking retard.

That's just argumentum ad populum fam.

I agree. I think a lot of people here confound the results of religion with the results of a strong unified identity, a confidence in the leader, a vibrancy of the culture. Religion is the outdated form which did the job then, but today you simply don't need it. You just have to be able to either demonstrate or convince people of the latter three to have "good morality", as well as individually proving each proposal to be good ideas to a satisfying extent to enough members of the population. Its democratic morality, the best there is at the moment.

Lol, I didn't mean the religion is "True" true, just that its the true form of its expression as defined by itself. Popularity IS reality at least with the religions that have existed in human history so far. When the one true undeniably correct religion shows up sometime in the future, then that will change.

I looked at the tenets, then i looked at the result of practicing them. In my book Christianity won.
There was the added bonus of having a personal relationship with my creator, which only Judaism and Christianity provide.

1-dimensional black-and-white thinking right there.
I believe that most monotheistic religions are right. In my opinion, there is only 1 God, and that god created everything else. Including other gods (if they exist).
I think the monotheistic religions share the same God. Judaism and Christianity both have a fair, but loving God. Islam has a just God, but they seem to have edited out the loving part, so i think they are wrong.

We will only know who is right once we are dead. until then i am content with the god i love.

That is not impressive. Most stories put in to the bible were stories past on from generations.
Of course it could say a city existed if they lived the year it existed. They simply documented what were around them. Nothing divine about it.

What WOULD be convincing if it would give information that were simply not observations and actually gave us insight on the world. For example if the universe is expanding faster or slower and why. Or how dark matter works.
Or more relevant to their time, THAT GERMS DID ACTUALLY EXIST. Jesus did not know germs existed and said something about the lines with "if it isn't visible it isn't harmful"

please stop doing this. Don't attack the person, attack the argument with a better built argument, otherwise your statement holds no validity and you make yourself look foolish.

only an atheist would point out logical fallacies like an autist.

But Christianity still attained success through the conventional and time tested means of popular appeal, enticing select nobles, creating powerful priestly classes, then overtaking the status-quo religion politically and using its former means of oppression as means of empowerment.

Christianity didn't end up with the lion lying with the lamb. The pagan kingdoms just became Christian kingdoms, the hierarchies endured, the armies still conquered and warred, the poor suffered, the sun still set and rose. Still does, its still like that today.

pretty black-and-whit argument there
you think that pointing this out is somehow reserved to atheists only? like believing a specific thing makes you smarter?

Yes, it spread all over by people teaching it. It was not wiped out, and was allowed to grow larger and larger until becoming dominate.
It definitely helps to not be killed in infancy for something to become powerful.

All stolen from us after WWII

...

please elaborate

k

I don't know who "us" is, but people still have this. Some people, anyhow. I think Scandinavians are a perfect example of this atheist "communal conscience", though they've had this even when they were religious as a whole.

...

Or more relevant to their time, THAT GERMS DID ACTUALLY EXIST. Jesus did not know germs existed and said something about the lines with "if it isn't visible it isn't harmful"

You expect a book, which focuses on spirituality and morality, to focus on science?
There are some verses, but they are few and far between.

Here is one that highlights those specific verses, though it seems to ramble a bit:
answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

States that were at points in the past dominated by the various Roman forms of worship slowly experienced a shift in demographic from the bottom up as the number of Christians increased, eventually the elite in the city began to convert as well culminating in the monarch recognizing the religion as legitimate, eventually joining it himself.

if you are not going to take this discussion seriously, then i advise you to leave. You are not welcome here if you cannot have civil discourse.

This is Holla Forums….

I love a good paradox.

If god could, he would impose limits upon himself.
If he could not, he would not be omnipotent, and thus already have limits imposed on himself.

I don't want to alarm you, but I think you may have a severe case of autism.

What I meant is it isn't able to represent the people at large, because globalism.
It is alive in the hearts of the people, but the governments do everything they can to suppress it. "Us" are all the people who are told to accept an outsider who will rape and kill our people, and are unable to fight it.

I see. What I was talking about is what would be more internally consistent. But yeah, that's about right.

I just realized i fell for your shenanigans.
Well played user.

at least I'm not faggot.

more like, pointing out logical fallacies is something only someone as self-important, autistic, and pseudo-intellectual as an atheist would do.

Ah, now I see your logical fallacies clearly.
You looked for religion for religion's sake. You sought a religion that fit your own views, rather than the truth. You FELT that Christianity was correct, and that was about it.
And yes, Religion are black-and-white thinking. You are not Christian, but rather your own view that adopted Christian values. You WANT to believe in something more than you KNOW it to be true. It can be a pleasant thing to forgo the ultimate responsibility and to 'have all the answers'.
This is how different sects appear, such as protestant, orthodox, catholic, Jehovah's and Plymouth Brethren. Your view is just a bit more fluid and fledged out.

also stated here
facts wont change your mind as long as you 'feel' you are correct. Your moral appraisal of your peers is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason and logic. The disapproval of other is so shatteringly terrifying to you that nothing can withstand its impact within your consciousness; thus deny you would deny the evidence of your own eyes and invalidate your own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan's moral sanction.

This is a very restrictive view. Its one view, for sure, but its not like this for everyone. Think about just the everyday forms of mutually-acknowledged rituals and cultural norms you encounter every day. The little things. But you also have the large trends of "generally accepted" rights and wrongs despite a traditional moral-source (religious). Things like slavery, theft, murder, pedophilia, etc. There is a certain degree of the quality that I'm talking about in basically every state with a secular leader. A state in which the people see the machinations of the leader-making and still choose to accept the outcome, abide by the rulings of the very mortal man/woman giving them. Its pretty amazing compared to the divine right and God-kings of the past, shrouded mysticism. The abstractions that manifest into physical behaviors coexist peacefully with the knowledge of their mundane nature, I mean. And somehow they still work. There's a limit to how far you can take it obviously but once someone figures it out, I'd like to think one could take this phenomenon very far.

Holla Forums has a weird audience. Some of them where 4chaners. Some of them came from all the other imageboards that are out there. You see them on Holla Forums, can't testify for 4chan. I don't see them on 420chan and I see them rarely on krautchan, there are a few on 76chan. I see none on 7chan, (lurk a lot more than I post there), and I rarely see them on wizardchan.

In other words, they aren't everywhere different sites have different pools of core users. I'm a wanderer (just told you to where). I'm not a christian, but I've false flagged as one before.

so when am i allowed to point out flaws in arguments?

I want to see good arguments, but there are logically flawed ones everywhere. So I'm trying to get everyone to stop doing that shit.

you miss the point. THE WORD OF GOD TO YOU IS THAT IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE SHIT PARTICLES ON YOUR HAND IT IS NOT DANGEROUS. YET WE KNOW IT IS FALSE BECAUSE OF GERMS.

also what you linked proves nothing. the verses used are vague and out of context, and fail to consider verses that contradicts what is written.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

i lived most of my life trying to have all the answers. i tended to be wrong, a jerk about it, or speaking out of my own ass.
So i dropped the idea of knowing everything, because that is, in all honesty, impossible to do.

I am christian, i chose christinaity because, under its leather skin, it turns out to be a compassionate and joy-filled religion of peace. and iolent christians are the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, violent christians tended to disobey their own docterine or cherry-pick it.
I discovered that the media lied about it.

no. from the start i was a misfit, so i have learned to go solo. Also, if this were true i would not have been the one doing most of the christian arguing in this thread, i would have said i am wrong.

no. My sticking to my own moral beleifs and not compramising is my main concern. Not validity or appraisal from others.
This is also the reason i have been asking people to avoid using logical fallacies in their arguments.

I hope you understand now.

alright, time to go.
I meant that
and I meant to quote THIS post


as well because cannot convince someone with evidence who refuses evidence

You misunderstand. I consider science a valid discovery that God intended for man to confront on their own. So if science discovers germs, I'm not going to protest. Man found the cure to rabies, so i will use it if i need to.


which is why i said it was not the best one i could find.

I think thou wast created for men to breath themselves upon thee.

g'bye user
have a lovely day.
I hope to argue with you again someday.

Don't get your hopes up.
If anything you'll be the one on the receiving end.

it is astonishing that you cannot see your own doublethink, or just a clever troll. In every one of your responses you contradict what you earlier have written. We have pointed these things our but you refuses to see it.

You say you are Christian, yet you do not adopt all of its views.
You say you dropped the idea of knowing everything, yet you choose the option that knows everything.


You have said it yourself that you CHOSE Christianity because of the LOVING GOD. This was not a logical conclusion, but what you WANTED out of religion.

Also the last 2 'statement' are just my conclusions on you. Take it as you will, but I suggest you ponder on what it really means.

This was how i was before i was christian.
I have autism (no joke), which makes it hard to interact with people, without acting like an autistic weeboo retard.

No you misunderstand. I wasn't talking about rejecting new science. I was talking about how God didn't know how the world even works and give you false advice. If you insist on thinking it's still God's word, maybe rethink on why he said that to you and revalue what the bible really want to tell you.


because there aren't any better ones.
There would be one, the bible itself, but we both know it isn't a reliable source.

And you misunderstand me. The bible is a book about spirituality and morals, its focus is not on science, and even then you would really need to look and cherry-pick to find anything relating to science.

scientifically, no. Theologically, yes.

i dont know what this is supposed to mean but I take it there was nothing logical you could say that would refute anything I've written.

My advice to you is to ponder again with this new information. Try looking at it in a new angle, it might be difficult. Try yourself to test how 'water-proof' the idea is, or assume something is correct you think is not. Try to prove yourself wrong.
This is of course forbidden in some Christian cults, because that would create non-believers.

What's the point of the passage that tells you about the non-existing germs? There is none except for God trying to tell you about hygiene.
Also cherry-picking is the exact thing you do, not picking all its values, only the ones you agree with.

so slaves are ok. beating slaves are ok. working on a sunday is punishable by death.
Mass murder of children, along with the mothers are ok because the father disobeyed a king.

if not, then you are cherry picking, and thus not really a Christian, but you adopted some of its values.

Wtf are you talking about? When did i ever mention a passage about germs? did you? What passage is it, because i really want to know?

You have mistaken me for a jew, dearest user.

Not him, but I feel you. Its only ok for Jews to do these things, because God said so. Its not ok for other people to do this though. God just plays favorites like that. So much for absolute, objective morality yeah?

whats the score so far?

first of all, you don't SAY "that's a (whatever) fallacy", that's stupid.

like, instead of saying "that's ad hominem" you would say, quit attacking the person's character rather than their argument.

pointing out fallacies is retarded

i guess so.
I like to think of it as relative absolute morality.
1 absolute morality for the Jews
1 absolute morality for the gentiles
both are judged within the frame of their absolute morality.

But that is just my personal opinion.

Fair enough.

You're in the minority then. Dual-covenant theology is rejected by pretty much every Christian sect. The Jews have their view of it with "Torah for us, Noachide laws for the goyim", but that's them.

Not that this is any better or worse than any other interpretation, however. You do you my friend.

I can't hold it anymore. I'm just gonna go over here, okay guys?

It's possible I'm wrong. This is just what i got so far until a better idea comes out.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus never mentioned Paul the Apostle during his ministry? And don't you find it odd that there's a whole bunch of stuff Jesus forgot to mention to us and the Paul had to fill in? Isn't it odd that only two of the Gospels are named after Disciples of Jesus? I mean who the heck is Luke? And why is it that the Gospel of Luke along with Acts of The Apostle are written in the same hand writing as the books written by Paul? Isn't Acts of the Apostles the book that "proves" Paul was sent by God? Wouldn't that undermine it's credibility if Paul actually wrote himself into the Bible?

have fun.
Ill just be over here, mindin' my own business

why? U dont know logical fallacies by name? Is it scary to learn new things? U feel dehumanized, when some1 addresses the issue factually, not emotionally?

Yes, to all of this. Once you start seeing the very "human" hands that wrote these documents, you can't unsee them. Stuff like this is all over the ot and nt.

it just makes you look like a moron trying to look smart by demonstrating his knowledge of fallacies.

how is demonstrating knowledge stupid? R u 1 of those ppl, who laughed at classmates with better grades?

Consider this:
The books of Matthew, Luke, and john were all but a fraction of what Jesus taught. They would be writing forever if they wrote everything he ever did or said. So they wrote what they considered the most crucial, and taught the rest by oral tradition.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john are all autographs of what the apostles saw. Much of what was written in the autographs were first taught by oral tradition.

Luke was a physician, a Greek, and a close friend of Paul.

Jesus never mentioned Paul the apostle because Paul was born after Jesus died and ascended.

The gospel of both acts and Luke were written by Luke. That's why they have the same hand-writing.

The similar hand-writing in Paul's' books. I don't know if that is true. please cite the article in support of this.

This is everything that i know. I hope it helped

So?

You've misunderstood. Re-read the previous post and the one before.

why is a twat, that had no contact with jesus writing the teachings, that were passed on by oral traditions?

there's really no need to demonstrate your knowledge of fallacies unless you're trying to impress others in this context. so yes it is stupid in this situation.

You should have added quotation marks to each of those names ("Mark", "John", "Luke") because those are the intra-Biblical characters to whom the gospels are attributed within the religious tradition but Biblical scholarship recognizes them as anonymous scholars and might only use those names for convenience rather than as a way of validating the dogmatic narrative.

I already did.
But perhaps i do not understand as well as i would hope to.
Please, explain.

because the secular = reddit fedoralord meme was successfully pushed and the libertarian pedo userbase was replaced by /news/man stormfags. We could have prevented this.

I already did.
But perhaps i do not understand as well as i would hope to.
Please, explain.
(sorry, i responded to the wrong one0

oh, so the person that used the fallacy knew its argument is fallacious? So why did it use it?

Thank you. I will ensure i do so in future.
Also, thank you for sharing that information about anonymous biblical scholars.

twice. Fuck.
, i meant you

No problem. If you are religious yourself you should not feel ashamed to push the narrative that the gospels were literally written by those characters, however. You would have tradition backing you on that even if biblical scholarship does not.

Because different churches began requesting that scribes write the oral teachings of the apostles and 2nd generation Christians (like Paul) so that they could also teach it and share it. This was convenient because the apostles could not be everywhere at once.

Thanks again, dearest senpai

My meaning by putting the "human" in quotes was to signify how obviously "not inspired" or otherwise mundane some of these various things (like the example the other poster gave) are. Things that once you perceive them as such after originally accepting the mystical orthodox narrative, it becomes very difficult to return to reading them at face value. Paul is a good example.Reads more like Joseph Smith to me now than he did when I was more faithful.

so luke only wrote whats already written? He did no work and possibly made more errors. So his evangelion is least credible

I guess it loses its mysticism when you are more aware of the finer details?

No. Luke wrote the autographs (the first original copies). Then as the church grew, more and more scribes copied it, made errors, etc.
Overall it hasn't changed much, when you compare it to the surviving autographs (which at this point are mostly destroyed).

Apparently for some people, yes. It did for me. Especially when you see the same things repeated over and over in different religions and you start to draw parallels.

Not everyone, though. Some people get inspired from it, from mistakes and human error and false things in the scriptures. It tells them (and I'm just paraphrasing here) that it fills them with hope how God hasn't abandoned humanity. How despite our endless flaws he still not only works for us but *through* us, even knowing the result will be flawed. And that this is an expression of his unconditional, boundless love.

That's one way of looking at it. Not mine, but someone I know who is a scholar of religion and a religious person as well.

yeah, he made copies, which prompts error.
And id like to remind u, "originals" r not credible either.

how so?

how many angels were at jesuss grave? What time of day? who came there? Was the stone moved? Whats the smallest seed?

I think i get what you are saying.
The original authors had their own way of saying things, their own emphases, etc. So sometimes they tell things the others don't. And as a result, it can be a but unreliable.

i'm not having a formal argument, i'm just expressing my opinion. i am allowed to have an opinion on a group of people without it being fallacious.

and he is pointing out your opinion is fallacious.


no, those r not emphasis.
How many angels were at jesuss grave? What time of the day was it? Who cam to the grave? Was the grave opened? Where the angels in, or out?

different user here
Whether you are expressing your own opinion or not, it is important that it have good reasoning. This is why you should avoid logical fallacies, as they tend to make a poor argument.

There is no science without God.

bait.

The hypothesis I learned in school was that the gospels used each other as sources and changed thing according to "X". "X" here means hoe you want to interpret "independent" material. Could be "oral tradition" if you want to sound Semitic, could be a different text that we don't have, could be just what they felt like making up if you are cynical.

"Mark" came first, the shortest one, the "original gospel" if you will. "Matthew" and "Luke" took that story and changed it up, added to it. Mix in the "Q" source (don't mock me, kraut anons) which they both draw from independently. "John" is the only totally original gospel.

This is why there are inconsistencies regarding the times, dates, places and order of events. Like how "Mark" calls the guarding just a dude while the others call him an angel. The claims grow more extravagant as the gospels progress. Mark starts out with Jesus as the Messiah. Just the Messiah, yeah? Not God. By John, he's the Logos, Alpha and Omega, he and the Father are one. There's a chronological progression progression.

i dont know
according to some books, it was early morning. sunrise.
According to the books, it was mary magdaline and 1 other woman
According to the books, yes
It only metions they were there, though some of the books say they were inside.

These are likely additions by later scribes though, as the original Greek texts were more concerned with the fact that Jesus rose than the specifics of the event.

Dune coon pls

that makes them a bad source.
Even if all of them agreed on 1 version of the story, its still not a proof of existence of god.

whadda u mean u dont know? Its written in the gospels
according to others, it wasnt. So which 1 is the real 1?
according to others, it wasnt. So which 1 is the real 1?
according to others, it wasnt. So which 1 is the real 1?
It mentions their position, so where were they?

They cant all be right, the can all be wrong though

I agree to some extent. They are definitely the best source for what the early Christians believed to be true, but not for what is demonstratively true by modern standards.

I think its important to remember that the document itself demands faith as the ultimate and necessary means of accessing the validity of this information and connecting with God. Any person calling themselves Christian and claiming that God and Christianity can be boiled down to purely logical and reasonable fact like we do with so much else, that person is claiming the Bible is incorrect. Its a self-defeating endeavor, truly, and a way of giving into the demands of the world at the expense of religious sincerity.

James 1:6 comes to mind ("But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind…") as well as anything written by Paul, "Paul" or "Luke". If at some point you don't reach some fact, some event, some concept that there is just zero proof for and you just have to accept it…just because, then that religion is not Christianity. But I think all religions have that.

Way to miss the point.
Christianity teaches the same morality as Bolshevism, because it is proto-Bolshevist.
Wealth is bad, we are all the same inside, Jews are our brothers in arms, you must forsake your family, share everything you own.

okay.

Thnaks for this.
It helped me to understand something:
my faith is based in circular reasoning
my faith will never have solid ologic involved
but i refuse to abandon it, call it pride or foolishness
I have decided that i will just accept that my faith is, by principle, illogical and continue with it nonetheless because i need a savoir, something to give me hope.

but how is being in wilful denial, a.k.a. having faith a value?

hope for what?

dubs

hope that humanity, in its fallen state, and the world, will be redeemed.

saying you find one group of people worse than other is inherently personal, so no shit it's an attack on character. this is what I mean about the kind of people who point fallacies out

by who? What makes u think world need to be redeemed and that theres some1 who can just do it?

and what we meant is that u r wrong to get ass-blasted, cuz we know a name for it and wont be derailed

pointing the fallacies out is not an attack on character. It is pointing out a flaw in the argument
If a bridge is missing a support, should i not point that out before someone tries to move a house across it?

Christianity is an overhaul of all traditional Jewish values, which are ironically much closer to what you probably prefer. God, King, Race and fuck the rest. Christianity preaches these revolutionary concepts without descending into complete materialism, and elevates the metaphysical transformation of the self as an essential part of each physical action. Its not about taking the means of production from the elite, its about transforming your soul from impurity to purity through submission of the natural man and a rejection of then-contemporary cultures of wealth, power, dominance, violence, war, hatred. A subversion of the self to the eternal as a way to improve the self. Highly individualistic.

Never mind how much Bolsheviks shat on Christianity specifically and religion as a whole, divorcing their every thought and action from them as much as they could and blaming Christianity (the religion that invented taking care of the poor and needy in the West, mind you) for the victories of the capitalists. This is and has always been an anti-semitic canard that relies on superficial differences, thematic similarities (often misunderstood) and presupposed hatred of a Jewish straw man rather than any kind of valid analysis of the two vastly different word views. Nazism and Bolshevism have more in common than Christianity has in common with either of them.

duh, clearly - dont be an asshole

Then i tried the Christianity kool-aid, and for some reason this hope gave me new meaning and i began to change. I improved significantly.
So seeing the results, why would i want to leave?

Thou saucy half-faced scut!

i'd rather hang with 10 christians than 1 muslim tbh

You're welcome. Everyone has faith in something, so don't think you're a moron or whatever just because you have faith. Look up Richard Bushman when you have the chance. He's Mormon, so probably not like you, but he's a good example of an academic who struggles with the challenges of faith, of researching that religion with academic means and having to reconcile those things in his heart. His writings about his personal beliefs are incredible. Inspiring, even to someone like me.

And if he can do this with such an obvious fraud as the Book of Mormon, anyone can do it with more concrete like the Bible. As he says, to have something to carry you day to day, to keep you warm in the darkest nights.

So Jesus didn't have the holy spirit?

result? Like more war, intolerance, division…
Sure it feels better, when u dont have to get off your ass and work to fix whats wrong with the world. Just blame it on the invisible, all-powerful guy, who uve been told hell get to it eventually

the first good post.
You, dear user, explained this better than i could ever hope to.

I don't know. I don't do that. I guess I do, to some extent, just not with organized religion. I wasn't saying this is a virtue, I'm just saying the book itself, the source of the religion says faith is necessary. That's just a conversation ender. If you're not willing to take some things on faith then you just can't be a Christian, its as simple as that.

Whether Christianity is real or not doesn't enter into it. But it will probably influence your opinion on this greatly if you're the type of person who does not or cannot have faith.

but thats preposterous.

I'm not in the mood to argue with you and you God Nietzsche.

I don't know. Ask him yourself.

i know - u r in the mood of w8ing, till itll argument itself in your favour

not that either.
I would love to have an opposing view to respectfully clash with.
But I'm tired

Maybe, but that's what it says. The Bible: believe it or don't.

I don't, personally. I have the same issue as you which is why its sad how much time I dedicate to this religion. Such is life.

but u still cling to some god, no?

No. I'm functionally atheist. I'm a deist, because I think the logical proofs for God make sense. Aquinas's proof at least. But that doesn't prove the God of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon or any of the blue gods, all it does it prove a God that creates the universe exactly as it is right now and that's it. Morality, the afterlife, purpose, none of that enters into it.

i disagree about aquinass argument.
Theres no reason to add an extra cause to universe. Universe was a singularity and it expanded into the universe.

So what figured how the singularity was divided?

Suit yourself. If you think that answers the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" conclusively and without gaps, then that's your "God" for all intents and purposes. That's what God is to me too, just the thing that causes the universe. I wouldn't claim to know anything else about it as of yet because I couldn't prove it.

divided?
Nothing needed to figure out anything. How does water figure out where to split, when u put a wedge in the stream?

oh no. I dont need to name it "god". That word has specific definition. No need to redefine words to make some1 happy.
And thats not what says why is there sth, instead of nothing. Rule of identity does that.

"God" is one of the most hotly contested words in history man, there's definitely not a stable definition, hence the myriad religions. I could make my dick God if I wanted to and it would be just as valid. In this context, I mean God fulfills the same role for you as it does for me, except you don't call it that.

What do you mean by this second line though? I thought you said there is something rather than nothing because " Universe was a singularity and it expanded into the universe." How does the rule of identity contradict this?

the more reason. "God" means nothing, while i mean "the beginning of the universe"
U know what rule of identity is?

Sure bro. I do know it, yes. I just don't see how its at odds with your first statement.

Magnetofluid dynamics.

A flowing body of water creates an electromagnetic field that is fractional in mathematical nature.

so something had to be. And the earliest think we know of is singularity. Theres no reason to explain this with something else. Models account for and explain everything else we know without the need to getting another cause of the 1st cause

Your dick wouldn't be god unless there were 13 officers listening to it.
lol

so yeah, physics.
Physics made singularity expand.

Look man. Chemistry is clearly defined and is some weird modular algebra that changes every time you "count to 10".

If that was changed any other way, by the will of god, the nuclear forces of nature would justify it and you'd look completely different and function different.

Math just describes what is not what has to be if its even correct to begin with.

Ok, that sounds exactly what I would call God. I think maybe the fact that I call it God implies a personality and humanoid type attributes to this creative force which for me is not the case.

God's powers are akin to like a storyteller.

...

Lol, how very semitic of you. Yeah, I guess in a way its like that.

...

1st prove god. Then prove he can change anything.
If anything was different, then everything wouldve been different. Whats your point? Fine tuning? How come wind is so finely tuned to windmills? Cuz its the other way around. We r finely tuned to our environment. If the environment was different, there mightve been a different life asking the same stupid questions.

i wanted to link some dictionary definitions, but the problem is words r defined by how they r used, which is saturated with vague terms, like "the supreme being" (The? Supreme to what?). Also theres a definition that categorizes itself as "christian science" (u can see how dumb that is, right?)
But to define a god by describing the essence, i go with "personality-having magic user, that creates universe/commands a conceptual domain", which i think encompasses what major religions see as gods, what old religions held as gods and what ud regard as gods in games, like warhammer, d&d. Cuz they do "make miracles", right? And whats a miracle? Its not just sth rare - thats just sth rare. Its bending or breaking rules of physics. Which is just magic, which doesnt exist

No other way to explain "could god lift a rock heavier then god can lift" or whatever the fuck that was.

where do the forces of physics come from?

from the universe

Proving God doesn't mean he has the ability to change everything. You would have to deny his ability to subvert everyone's effort and freewill to change it to his won. You don't know his will so you can't prove he can or couldn't change anything. This means that's not really a gauge you can use to prove god.

No. One thing could be changed in the beginning so that only a single event changed in history or a single thing could event so a sequence of like events changed. This is even describable in mathematics.

Why do the planets turn to the sun? I agree that we are tuned to our environment.
What you ignore is that god may value free will because its not something you can create. Free will is something you can grow.
Sure… power… gold… women… pleasure… anything you wanted is at the control of your free will but another's is something thats limited to the consequences of the environment god creates.

where does the universe come from?

singularity

/thread right now:
2 functional atheists seriously discussing God without treating each other like trash.

im happy

where does singularity come from?

It doesn't have to come from anything so to speak. The birth of a universe is the start of time. Anything before that is simply the order of things.

Time is a construct. It has to be created.
Time and a universe are parallel things.

it doesnt

good answer.

then how is it exist?
something does not come from nothing.

You may have the order of events or causation without time, because there is no difference from the smallest piece of time to the next.

Loosen that fedora, OP. You're not getting enough oxygen to your brain.

wasted quad 6

For there to be a birth implies there was something before, or that the universe in uncaused and came from nothing umprompted. Maybe the universe is just eternal and uncreated.

the irony

fuck off

u know uve got the best discussions bout gods only amongst the atheists

great. U still didnt make the 1st step of proving god, so why is this here?
U talkin bout butterfly effect? Cuz im talkin bout universal constants. Given how fundamental they r and how long they had to influence reality, chaos theory will ruin u.
Planets dont turn to the sun. They just spin, they dont have faces and they dont feel the urge to meet the sun periodically with 1 of their sides. As Hitchens stated - "we have free will, cuz we have to. U say we do, cuz the boss said so". And u still didnt prove god, to start talkin what he can, or cant

trip dubs of truth

Nah, I said "maybe". And why not, right? If God can be eternal and uncreated, why can't the universe be eternal and uncreated? I find the "abstract vs agency" argument appealing but ultimately unconvincing because of human mental limitation. I'm just trying to figure out that other user's views at this point. I've talked enough about my own beliefs and frankly I don't come here to masturbate.

smh tbh fam

it didnt come from nothing

it doesnt matter how small they r, they r sequential still

see, the difference is, that universe started very simple and got complex over time, while god is infinitely complex, has a personality, uses magic, punishes for behaviour with torture and expects tribute

where did it come from then?

Forget the Abrahamic God from now on, I don't think anyone is arguing for that stuff anymore, we've moved past it.

I don't see why you can't be a good Christian and still browse imageboards. It's not like we believe in that silly kek cult run by underageb&s or the banana-fuckers' atheism that they're always posting on here.

Birth requires a time and place that exists to be born into. The cause of a universe cannot be called birth.

it didnt come. It was there from the start

then its like i said - definition twisting. U worship gods. Do u worship a beginning of a countdown? U celebrate your birthday, but do u worship a day?

Things that are immediately in order, one after the other, have no difference between the first and the second.

i respectfully disagree.

I do see what you are getting at though. MAybe the universe is infinite. I doubt it though, as it came from somewhere, which implies that it is created. If it exists in an endless cycle of collapsing in on itself and expanding over and over again, changing the forces of physics each time, then that means there must be apoint where it started. The universe is made of matter, matter is made of energy, energy cannot be created, so then how did it come about? Was the matter there in the first place? This brings me back to the problem of the looping expansion and collapse idea. If the matter was there at some point, then how did it first come about.

I think God is nothing, at least from a physical standpoint.

Think about it: if there were a before the universe, then what is present before, during, and after the universe exists? Nothing, that's what.

sorry for the ramble, i hope i conveyed my message well.

Hopefully you now understand why i cannot accept the idea of a self-existing universe.

they do - its time

I haven't used that word once. I'm not going to be saddled by whatever definitions or prejudices you have about what God is, especially when up until now I'm just patiently explaining what my views are. There's no need to assume anything outside of what I've written to be my belief, especially when I've disassociated myself from Christianity or Abrahamic religion in general.

I know it gets confusing with the lack of IDs though, so maybe its that.

what was before the start then?

change "universe" for "god"

There is no time between one thing and another if there is no difference between them. There is only their order.

Time requires a difference between one second and another. If you cut time infinitely into half moments and watch one from the other then there is no difference.

i stated it multiple times - words convey meaning. No need to call "the beginning of universe" "god". "tbou" is pretty self-explanatory. "God", as u can see, has many meanings.
I get, that humas r lazy and want to save energy, but that creates confusion. Sometimes u need to put work in, by saying "the beginning of the universe", instead of "god"

if theres no difference, then they r not multiple. 1 of the differences is the appearance on the timeline.
Have u ever tried to divide any number so hard, that u get 0?

I do, that's the view I hold as well to some extent, though I would call God something rather than nothing. I don't think God has to be conscious, or at least to apply those terms to it would be pretty futile because I don't believe humans could differentiate between agency and inanimate force at that level of immense power. Maybe, who knows for sure though?


I have a friend who believes that. That the universe is eternal, uncreated and fundamentally "static". It shifts and moves and whatnot but it doesn't change beyond its nature. Was, is and always will be. Interesting way of looking at it.

That's ok, I can see the point in your criticism and I respectfully stand by my decision to call the beginning of the universe God, regardless of what characteristics we might discover about it in the future, this is what I choose to call it.

I trust we can amicably disagree.

i wanted this

i just dont get why u have to give it a name. Especially, when this 1 is taken.

Lol, because its not taken, actually. Especially if you say "I'm a deist" people know exactly what that means 75% of the time. Yes God No Bible Yes Creation No Intervention. Its really quite simply, with IDs.

no. Deists say god doesnt interact with the universe anymore, not that "god" is actually another name for "tbou"

I forgot to add, that i think God exists in the sense that he is not physical, but can interact with the physical. After all, someone had to put potential into the underlying quantum fields of the universe.


Can you elaborate? I am interested to see what your friend beleives

no

I just don't get why you have to avoid giving it a name.

There's different types of deism. Its not something you have to worry about.

cuz it has 1 - the beginning of the universe

so if there r different types - even more reason to not know which 1 r u, when u say u r a deist

sorry for >implying
my bad

no1 had to put potential into quantum fields

That failed intl meme again…

Fun facts, most people with internet in this planet are christians and Holla Forums isnt a safespace for fedoras.

Its not that interesting. He's Mormon, so like Christians he takes it all in by faith and then afterwards tries to justify the dogma philosophically as much as he can, a la Aquinas.

To them the universe is static and uncreated, and Gods are just an eternal part of it. They breed and care for their young like any species except they can manipulate the fixed laws of the universe as much as they can be manipulated. "Master Scientists" or Magi, really. And humans are like larvae Gods, some of which become drones and a handful who become queens. Those go to hell, but the ones who become "exalted" become Gods and keep the whole cycle going on ad infinitum.

where does potential come from though?

it didnt come. It was there from the start

k

so u denounce god here, right?

nope. never.

...

...

not going to change it

active denial
u r a mental case with delusions

same thing to you; right edgelord?

find definitions of both, loon

Definition for active denial:

Definition for faith:


your point?

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Denial (psychology)
psychologytoday.com/conditions/delusional-disorder
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
loon. God isnt real

okay.
you believe what you believe, I'll believe what i believe.
don't be a cunt about it, m8.

but i believe based on facts, while u based on feel-good fiction

pick 1

So? my Christian morality makes me a much better person, not ashamed to say that if I didn't have it I would be a much more decadent and uncaring person. To have a set of God given laws to abide is important, Otherwise I would be looking out for myself 100% and fuck anyone who gets in my way. Sage because this tread is 4Chan tier.

trip 1
trips of truth

denial
delusion

the only fact is that nothing in science is a fact
call me delusional for that, but i know that the real delusion is the belief that science is a fact.

science, unlike faith, works, u loon

It works, but it changes often.
Who is to say that tomorrow everything we know about the world will change?

There is no denying that science works.
Faith works too, but in a different way.
you will disagree most probably, but i know and will stand by my beliefs.

it doesn change. Details get refined and its still better than your delusions
exacly. Denial, delusion

when did i mention feelings?

disregard that word, rest is still valid
faith explains nothing, does allow accurate prediction and discovers nothing new

Faith:
- provides purpose to human existence
- is the active catalyst in hope
- improves outlook
- is shown to be good for mental health
- gives something to look forwards to after suffering in this world

in other words. faith does not need to, just like science does not need to explain the spiritual.

in other words: whats "spirituality" and science already explained it

this argument is going nowhere and I'm getting real sick of it. We will always disagree with each other so we have essentially digressed into a shouting contest.

I believe that mangoes exist, because i have read about them. However, i have never seen, tasted, or heard one. Mangoes redeem the soul.

its going nowhere, cuz u have nothing to back up your claims and expect to be taken seriously
Also u have unresolved psychological issues

This conversation looks like something you would see in a youtube comment section.
Ya'll kids can take your business back to halfchan. This place isn't for you.

I do not understand how 'faith' is supposed to be a good thing. It literally means believe in something with no evidence to support it.
It would mean having faith of a flying spaghetti monster is a good thing to do.
'Faith' is just another way of saying "Just trust us you dumb fucks. By the time you know if any of this is correct you are already dead"


Also what most already have written, the writings in the Bible have circular reasoning. Which means "X have to be true because bible says so. The bible have to be true because it X is true."
What most also forget is that the passages in the bible were VOTED in. Why would there be a selection of asswhipes vote what words of god to distribute? And the 'idiots' who accepted ALL the verse are the 'idiots' you call jehovah's witness.

actually you are wrong on 2 counts.
First of all the birth of a universe is not "the start of time". Time as we have defined it doesnt have starts and beginnings.

A human construct. It isn't a 'thing' really, which is why time-travel is inherently impossible

you want to believe in something because you need a saviour.
That is not faith though. You adopt some of the doublethinks of some religions because it helps you sleep.

That is a dangerous thing. You reject reality and exploration of our world because it makes you uncomfortable.

Actually the thing that makes science a fact is because that's how it works. It doesn't draw conclusions from maybes and faith.
Facts are what makes science.

An evildoer is struck by lightning.
A witchdoctor claims it was HE who caused it by his dance (faith). The witchdoctor has no reason to continue in wondering why and continues his dances for his enemies.

A scientist wanted the evildoer stuck by lightning, but doesn't know the cause. Through research he thinks he knows it was the electrical charge how it happen, and the large metal pole on the evildoers head was why it happen.
Now this is just a theory, in order to prove it, it has to be re-produced. And not just by him, but by others. Setting up a metal pole in the middle of a lightning storm proves his theory right, and thus it becomes a FACT that it was electrical charges that caused the lighting.

Sure you could argue that was how God truck the evildoer, by creating electrical surge, but it cannot be proved and thus not a fact.

Then Jesus is just a dude. The bible is wrong

my initial point was not that fallacies are stupid, it was that atheists are worse than christians, which is an inherent attack on character.

you know the name of a fallacy that doesn''t apply to my what I said. well done.

Jesus Loves you user.

I love george

Yes please

twitter.com/Iamkelmitchell

Who knew he was really into Christianity?

On b its sinful to do what exactly

Bump

...

...