At what age did you outgrow atheism?

at what age did you outgrow atheism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/8r-e2NDSTuE)
realitysandwich.com/170364/secrets_kashmir_shaivism/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
theword.net/
8ch.net/ooo/index.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

About what age I grew into Discordianism Absurdism Memetic Engineering

when I turned 14

Around 15.

In the future, when i'm on the verge of dying. On my deathbed is when the idea of reincarnation and possible life after death sound a bit appealing to me.

I went through a 'rationalist' and 'skeptic' phase.

It ended a few days after I lost my virginity.

...

From age 0-23, I was a Mormon, AKA LDS. One day I was driving to work (I was working at an AT&T "mobility" call center), I decided to start asking some questions to myself, as one must when one is part of an unusual religious group.

Anyway, my questioning led me to Richard Dawkins, Hitchens, and finally George Carlin. The George Carlin thing about religion (youtu.be/8r-e2NDSTuE) is what finally did me in. It's not especially clever, I guess, but at the time it was revelatory because I was a good boy. They told me to refuse sex at every opportunity, and I did. I didn't even masturbate past 13 years old, so I spent a decade without jerking off. I was a good boy.

I didn't browse chans seriously until I became an atheist. When I first decided to be an atheist, I was hardcore. I loved listening to bands like Slayer and Venom. I've always been a metalfag, and now I could start poking into bands that were verboten. This was, of course, a self-imposed restriction…the music I mean.

I craved debates with Christfags around this time, but nobody obliged me. Really, your average Christfag isn't as nasty as the atheism people might make them out to be, although they certainly are not scientists. That's probably what pisses off people like Dawkins, or even Bill Nye.

After a while, I got into enlightenment, zen, yoga, mindfulness, meditation, et cetera. For a while, I tried to kill off my ego entirely, but I don't think that can be done. I can, however, spent my day in a state of mindfulness, which produces some interesting, if autistic, results.

Well, I could go on forever, but at the end of the day, if you want to believe in something metaphysical, you will. If you don't, you won't. I have zero love for any religion that pretends to be something other than applied psychology, although I don't entirely reject the ideas of clairvoyance, mass hallucinations, blah blah blah. If you want to be religious, fine, I'm not going to dissuade you, argue with you… In fact, if the Christcucks got together one day and said "Hey, user, we're going to go crusade against the Muslims", they have my full support. I might even join them.

As sperging retards shouting how much atheistic they are make them out to be, you mean.

Right, it am do it be am to be out them, I mean.

In my teenage years I was an edgy atheist, now i'm just an atheist that admires western civilization's christian roots without being anti-religious. I'm anti-Jew, anti-feminism, anti-Islam, and i'm racist.

14

I thought it was edgy and cool.

I dont quite understand american religion - iam atheist (at least i think this), my parents was baptismed (at least mother was), i maybe too, but no one care about religion here (iam from eastern europe, so sorry about engrish). Older folk are usually going to church few times a year, younger usually not (and are not believers) , but we are not in some hardcore atheists VS christians conflict - majority of country are atheists (only 19% of population believe in god), but everything is OK. I sometimes help at church (because those granies cant move church benches while cleaning and have zero knowledge about using PA while some bigger masses), but not like believer, but like neighbor. And majority of others are same - we dont believe in god, but at least we dont trying corrupt centuries old traditions, but help to continue them for next generations.

pews are a Western invention; no wonder nobody goes to church since you guys cucked yourselves so hard

Was never a full on Atheist

...

True religion is pic related

picking one of these at random

"Light is a particle and has mass (a photon) Job 39:19"

Job 38:19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?"

lol not even close

user, youth is about rebelling and being anti mainstream, part of the counter culture.
People that have a specific political or religious opinion because they actually understand it (and understand themselves), are the minority.

When the majority was right wing, conservative, religious squares, the youth wanted to be left wing and atheist.
Not because they understood it, but because it was the opposite of the norm.
As our society changed and liberal atheists became the norm, the counter culture youth gravitates back to right wing religious conservatives.

It's a pendulum.
It goes back and forth, back and forth, just like my dick in and out your mum's asshole.

at what age did u outgrow theism?

so u r sayin the concepts in religions start making sense only, when u r almost dead, broken, starved and chained to a bed?

And it's a fucking cancer. These lazy hipster faggots need to do some research into what they believe in, or at least not project their own ignorance onto others.

It is what it is.
It's part of human nature, the youth will always think that the opposite of what is the standard is "better" and have a deep need to estabilish themselves and leave a mark in history, by going against what is estabilished in their time period, they feel unique, and thus they feel like they're building a personality for themselves.

They're also incredibly easy to manipulate by those that genuinely want to see a certain estabilishment or norm get demolished because they have their own agenda, so they're very quickly brainwashed, as uniting against something makes them feel bigger, part of a group, like they finally belong somewhere.

nah in the US back during the bush administration people had legitimate reasons to be upset with conservative politics

now, it's the left that's gone batshit insane with their islamic apologetics, political correctness, and corporatism

the real pendulum is the corruption and insanity that shifts from party to party in the US government

So pews dude - i said i am from easter europe and i dont wrote in proper english, but in my language is word for pew and bench same - its stil big wooden bench with some cushion and kneeler on back side. And its bit heavy, so its pain in the ass move it.

The brain chemistry of desperation and social frustration does that to a man. Look at poor countries.All believe in a god that will make them rich and fuccing virgins in the afterlife.

If there is an afterlife its n-1 layer of simulation.

...

Did you just in all seriousness complain about an average human being a dumb fuck who doesn't want to burden himself with learning how things really work, with actual fucking thought process?

seriously underrated post, anons.

Walked away from Christianity at around 21, no regrets. Religion is not for me and it never will be.

^^^pretty much how every debate about God unfolds (unless you're dealing with fundamentalists, in which case it's like arguing with a schizophrenic)

There probably isnt a god but getting upset over someones religion is at least 10X more autistic than actually believing any of it

remember: existence of god is indistinguishable from its nonexistance, so why think it exists

back when I started considering myself an atheist there were no fucking edgy internet faggots and this meme war. Some people simply don't believe, not because it's fucking trendy. I get your point but that's just dismissive of actual christians and actual atheists that don't take said stance because of fucking political ideology and [current year].

I don't quite understand your question and I don't think you do either

u dont, cuz its not a question

36

For some reason my brain completely blocked out "it's" nonexistence.

It's not that I think it exists or doesn't exist, but I do know that it's just a nebulous concept (with many variations) that comes from the human imagination. There's no good reason to have a belief (or non-belief) in something that, if "it" exists, would be completely out of reach by means of our very limited senses/intellect.

Now, some people interpret that position as agnosticism, but I think agnosticism is just a tepid form of atheism. Unless we're talking about the extreme "fedoras", most atheists realize that you can't disprove the existence of any concept of God with 100% certainty.

u know u cant disprove anything to any degree?

Love how it doesn't point the ones that were wrong.
Nooooo, those were only "metaphors" or something.

No, but you certainly can disprove things beyond a reasonable doubt. And I can say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, there is so evidence to support any notion of God.

It's like the dopey philosophical question about the tree falling in the woods. It's safe to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it still creates the physical reaction that we would perceive as sound, but if there's no one there to perceive it, well… there's no one there to perceive it.

and im pretty sure u should define "beyond reasonable doubt" for it to count.

IIf the vast majority of empirical evidence points in the direction of something being true

Hhowever, knowledge is provisional, and I accept the fact that we'll always know less than what we do know. Unfortunately, religious people fail accept this.

Perhaps if you wouldn't resort to sarcasm, I'd know what the fuck you're talking about.

thats pointing to sth else being true, not pointing, that sth else is wrong
im talkin bout how u cant show the thing, thats outside of space and time doesnt exist

Nice strawman m8

Well, isn't that convenient

I lean towards a materialist view of the universe: the universe (or multiverse) is made of observable material, and I have no reason to belive otherwise.

Of course that's not taking into consideration this new theory of the universe being a computer simulation (which I don't think is all that outlandish). Unfortunately, no evidence for that either.

yeah, but u cant disprove that im right. U can prove something else is right, but u cant prove that its all a mystification of dwarves hiding behind magic pictures

sounds reasonable

Right. Round and round we go.

I think you're almost catching on to the absurdity of believing in a concept of something that is completely unknowable and indescribable. "God" is not a sufficient answer for anything, it only raises more questions.

Yeah, so either your worldview that contradicts everything humanity knows about nature is true..

Or it isn't.

"Reasonable doubt" might vary from person to person here but from where I'm standing, there isn't much reasonable about that assertion.

and how do you come to the conclusion that supernatural entities are incompatible with what we know about nature?

if supernatural entities exist then anything is possible

but unicorns r just rare and invisible, so u cant say they dont exist, just cuz u saw none.

Because that's literally what supernatural means.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Go ahead, keep reinforcing my point

whats your point? That u r a materialist? Cuz my point is u cant disprove things, u cant prove things only

I can't say they don't exist with 100% certainty (nothing is certain) but I can say that they don't exist beyond reasonable doubt because their existence would be extremely unlikely.

Either science is bullshit and invisible horses exist among us.

Or unicorns are a made-up fairy tale.

You can't say either for certain but I think it's pretty clear which one is true "beyond reasonable doubt" and which one is totally ridiculous.

One is "there is no way to prove one way or another so I don't give a damn, just leave me alone to do my thing in peace" and the other is "there were no deities, are no deities and can never be any deities, and if you disagree I'll probably try argue with you".

ye, see, but u cant disprove magic, if it breaks, or bends physics, so it must be true

This line of reasoning is absurd, and for practical purposes, incorrect. Nevertheless, it still doesn't give any credence whatsoever to God or Zenu or Lord Zipzop or whatever.

Nah. Agnostics often maintain a sort of 50/50 split as if it's equally likely that science is sound or skypeople exist.
The vast majority of atheists acknowledge that nothing is certain and anything is possible. God is, however, so unlikely that I choose to live my life as if he doesn't exist.
On the contrary, I think the agnostic would be more likely to argue with you and the atheist just doesn't give a shit.

prove im not a god

wtf, 50/50 split between pregnant and not pregnant?

Your weak arguments in this thread are a good indication that you're not – beyond a reasonable doubt, that is.

As if what currently we believe to be fundamental and unchangeable laws of the Universe may turn out to be a subset of something larger and more complex. Like happened with atom, then subatomic particles and will probably happen to quarks and all that counterintuitive shit modern day theoretical physics operates with. Or maybe this is it and we've discovered all there is. Time shall tell.

...

over the last three centuries, the brightest minds have chewed this question to gristle. the existence of god is a question of faith, not logic, due to the nature of god as described by believers and the inherent contradictions in any description of god. beyond that, philosophers circle the black hole of uncertainty. in epistemology, any given proposition is as likely valid as it's inverse.

When the gods came out of hiding. Oh wait, that never happened.

OP, you completely failed to refute one word Dawkins has ever said. Fix yourself.

Pretty much. Although I expect it to turn out to be some kind of ayys if there happens to be anything at all, given that all religions are cults to manipulate large numbers of people and/or rake money.

10/10 strawman argument

I disagree

I don't know how familiar you are with philosophical concepts, but atheism/agnosticism is like determinism/compatibalism – they ultimately end up converging when you realize that choice is not incompatible with determinism, or with religion, that uncertainty is not incompatible with atheism.

I used to be an Lutheran, and then I become atheist.
Then I discovered Pastor Anderson

I'm not sure it's right to go all philosophical on this one. Uncertainty isn't incompatible with atheism because atheism posits there are no deities. There are no options, no choice. Agnosticism allows for the options to be there, but due to its very nature suggests its adopters to occupy themselves with something even marginally more productive. Like shitposting on imageboards.

>Uncertainty isn't compatible with atheism
ffix

Is he a god?

It's not exactly a strawman. I was just pointing out how these threads usually develop: the same tired arguments that always end up boiling down to the same answer that religious people mistake for a stalemate.

FUCK OFF

RELIGION IS MADE TO CONTROL YOU IGNORANT FOOLS SO THAT PORKY CAN TAKE YOUR USELESS PAPER

What a retard. That is why people laugh at christians. You are stupid. You keep saying that your religion will save civilization, yet you are still stuck fighting against high school biology. And are losing badly.

Well, I suppose we get into semantics here, and it doesn't really matter; although from my experience, most people who identify as atheists accept the philosophical truism that you can't disprove with absolute certainty any supernatural claim. For me, I enjoy debating this subject because it's a fun philosophical exercise.

As for debating people who actually interpret their scripture literally, forget it, I won't even bother. You do have to pick your battles kek.

I suppose this thread would be as good as any to share my conversion point.

I was in my technology class, as I was booting up windows xp I started typing onto the computer questions out of boredom before the computer loaded asking, "God if you're there, tell me my lord." and stuff like that, at the time all my friends were Fedora-Tipping autists and I was slowly converting into one of them. I was typing these things and hoping they wouldn't show up on the computer. As my computer booted up my computer neighbor next to me said What the hell, I looked over and saw "i am alive" on his browser written in system font, with everything else being completely white. After a minute or so and me nearly shitting myself and laughing internally like a madman I calmed down.

looked like just like pic related

I know this is bait, but it's shitty bait. The United States has the largest Christian population in the world, with nearly 247 million Christians, so the odds that anyone "outgrew" atheism are pretty fucking nil.

You worship the Machine God. Praise be the Omnissiah.

I wonder if God uses a PC or a Mac…

Obviously, God uses GNU/Linux.

I must be the only person on Holla Forums who still doesn't know who the fuck this dude is.

I'll just leave this here:

realitysandwich.com/170364/secrets_kashmir_shaivism/

A non-dual conception of 'reality' does not need to concern one'self' with such ignorant questions.

Educate yourself:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

… so, pantheism. The whole "we are the universe and the universe is us and we're all one and God represents the whole of reality in and of itself" kinda stuff?

I see. We were, indeed, talking about slightly different things. I don't meet outspoken adherents of atheism anywhere near often so I was going by its definition only. It is interesting that the majority is shifting from uncompromising atheism by the book to a blend with agnosticism.

In America religion is a business. A tax free business.

If there is a shift, I think it's probably because most people don't study philosophy and have a relatively superficial understanding of their arguments. I mean, perhaps because of the Internet, and the fact that these debates have become much more prevalent, people are simply becoming more aware of the flaw in saying that a supernatural entity does not exist. Now, of course many religious people take that as a win, but that's because they don't understand their arguments either.

Poor Christians cannot conceive of non-dualism, so they try to pretend it is pantheism.
Cute, but NO.

Exactly. I became an "atheist" when I was around twelve, because I can into logic. There was no need to go announce it to the world or create seekrit fan clubs cuz IMVERYSMART.

Seeing someone who publicly flouts their atheism is as rare and cringy as actual religious people.

Not religious

No? Ok, then when you refer to God, what do you mean? Because from what I can tell, the article is talking about God as some kind of infinite singularity that represents everything that is, and always will be (which I pretty much interpret as pantheism)

...

Same age I outgrew theism and realized complete apathy towards religion is the objectively best choice.

Non-dualism is not 'oneness'. Common misconception.
There are no 'entities', including 'self'!
Prove me wrong.

Non-dualism is not 'oneness'. Common misconception.
There are no 'entities', including 'self'!
Prove me wrong.

Non-dualism is not 'oneness'. Common misconception.
There are no 'entities', including 'self'!
Prove me wrong.

Non-dualism is not 'oneness'. Common misconception.
There are no 'entities', including 'self'!
Prove me wrong.

Never was an atheist. Atheism is for degenerates that ram bananas up their ass.

I started considering myself atheist at 7 and outgrew it at 14. I'm agnostic now.

Then perhaps you have an unconventional interpretation of it – Nondualism, also called non-duality, means "not two" or "one undivided without a second".

Yes, the self is a construct of the imagination, but for practical purposes, we perceive the individuals corporeal material as an entity.

Bananas are soft and even if a bit breaks off and stays inside it will just be partially digested. Shoving a cross up your ass is much worse.

Photons - waves, particles and light and how they act, spoken into…. Look up thermodynamics, study the principles throughout all ages. Embrace the scientific method and the wonderful finds.

Avoid subjectivity at all costs. I am serious. You are seeking the truth with all you understand, not man made doctrines of those you've come to respect. If you are sincere about being a true scientist, go start doing some real research.

Look them up.

Sound waves are a good starting point. Read your Bible. Science is in more agreement to your Father in Heaven then most "scientists" will ever care to admit.

Have fun.

theword.net/

Non-dualism is not 'oneness'. Common misconception.
There are no 'entities', including 'self'!
Prove me wrong.

Done. What's your point? Do you even have one?


Stop pretending to be objective. You aren’t. No one is more subjective than you theists.


Typical christian hypocrite: The Bible is the inviolate word of god when I agree with it. The Bible is just a jewish allegory when I don't agree with it.

Non-dualism is not 'oneness'. Common misconception; especially for 'Westerners'.
There are no 'entities', including 'self'!
Prove me wrong.

This kind of intellectually dishonest approach to religion irritates me as much as the fundamentalist interpretation. You cannot appropriate empirical science into your religious beliefs when it suits you, or to make it seem like you know what you're talking about; none of it is evidence of "God", but rather how matter interacts with other matter.

Stop being such a fucking sophist.

Judaism and Islam are religions and feminism technically ticks most of the boxes of being a cult. Fuck off fedorafag.

...

...

When I was 22 or so. I'm ignostic these days.

This exact type of shit, this "my unproven opinion is true and I can't hear you LALALALALALALA" is what kept us in the dark ages for so long. Humans likely won't even leave the planet on a massive scale for some time, how the fuck can we know whether there is or isn't something that could be completely outside our current view of the universe? Stop bickering and, religious or not, let's come together to make the world a better place while we wait for the gods, if any, to arrive. There are douchebags on either side and those are the types who need to shut the fuck up.

The "dark ages" is just the muslim golden age in the south and the viking age in the north, renaissance was the age of christian europe.

Btw, most tards here are americans, go to any country that already won in science to Usa like even India (ask sjw biology what is "science" right now).

the same logic theists use on god would also apply to unicorns and dragons and invisible silent leprechauns dancing just out of reach. They're fucking retards.

This is why people call you fedora and laugh.

You cant compared what can be created with the creator, a guy with a horse and a gun is basically a god for stone age tribes. Try reading Godel before using something so shitty.

More tipping (check flag before ad hominems please)

True. I can just as easily say that unicorns are the so called "prime mover". They are both bullshit. You assume there must be a "prime mover". You assume that it is a god. You assume that it's name is Yahweh/Jesus. And you assume that Yahweh/Jesus has the exact same political opinions that you do. You people are easily impressed by bullshit artists from a thousand years ago.


Stop projecting your religious hat fetish.

You forgot to mention the fall of Rome and the Christian Inquisition.

I never did.

Yes you can, but that doesnt made that real, we have concepts, a unicorn isnt the same concept as a prime mover, if you cant understand that then i have bad news for you and you see this as a projecting because you cant see it, like emotions in faces, yes, is a mental problem.

The christian inquisicion was banned by the church because Spain used it to hunt down jews, the outcome was the end of the muslim golden age, Spain having colonies around the globe, almost an entire continent conquered and safe europe for the renassaince. BTW, it was the first "modern intel agency".

And you forgot to mention the kitos war and the barbarians at the north.

Existence itself points to the existence of God. A universe doesn't create itself. And neither does life form from rocks and dust by itself.


It's completely implausible that life and the universe were created by anything other than an omnipotent creator.

Sorry youre too stupid to understand higher level physics bucko

lol sure buddy

*tips*

I am a Christian by tradition. I believe it is necessary for the continued survival of mankind for Christianity to remain the world religion. Christianity thrives on the mission of giving to spread its virtues. I do believe it is selfless in nature, especially when compared to Islam. I also believe religion can be both good and bad for society. I am a cultural realist, I do not think Islam is a good religion, it should be abolished. I believe Christianity has been necessary for western civilization and its values to thrive however.

Past that though, I find myself much more moderate and rational when it comes to the universe itself. I find myself flirting to so speak with the eternal return theory and even Alan Watts level eastern philosophy. But overall I am driven more by rationalism than faith

Nice blogpost, faggot

Are you retarded?
Blogposting would be me making a new thread full of opinions nobody gives a fuck about. I'm replying to a thread toic

Still waiting. I grew out of hating religion around 19 though.

I'm still an atheist.
Don't mean I'm some militant faggot.

religion is too cool to abandon

at what age did you outgrow shitposting?

When I was 15, I literally thought I was intellectually above every Christian and I was beyond enlightened, I would even memorise Dawkin quotes and arguments.

Yeah, its was pretty pathetic.


Then I discovered Pastor Anderson and become a Lutheran.

I've never been religious, despite religious education, and nobody i talked with, even during my few as altar boy, believed in god.
Yet i've always been in opposition towards modern atheism as it was void of any real philosophy and insights, ever since i became a Marxist Leninist their bourgeoise ideological background always disturbed me. While claiming to be "smarter" than religious people, they believe in fundamentally the same idealist worldview.
I did read "God delusion" and was really annoyed, at some point he even admits in believing in some sort of "Zeitgeist". No analysis, just a shortcut bullshit escape. He might as well have said "god".

Communism might as well a religion

Hello stupid people

Hello projector.

And here we encounter another theist pile of bullshit. Why must a prime mover be a person? It could just as easily be some intangible force of nature. Even were it living, you still can't assume its your specific god. Hell it might not even exist.

glad i'm not a christfag cause that jpg would be real embarrassing

Gee wiz never would have guessed that on my own m8.

gnostic theist
gnostic atheist
agnostic atheist
agnostic theist

pick one, because """agnostic""" isnt it's own thing. god, I wish people would do the little bit of research to know what the fuck it is they're identifying as.

When I was 19. Discovered that God is real. Knew what I had to do.

When I was 18 I stopped being an atheist, became a Christian and then lost my virginity. Atheism was holding me back from getting laid during high school, because I came off as a close minded hateful douche bag.

are you sure it wasn't because you're an autistic beta-male faggot and some poor girl just had pity on you?

some christfag you turned out be…

I didn't outgrow atheism; it just means not believing in a deity. I still don't believe in that shit.
What you're probably referring to is the so called "new atheism" movement which has been hijacked by neofeminism and SJWs thanks to the same-sex marriage debate.

LOL This kind of attitude is exactly why you guys don't get laid.

Atheists are SJW's user. The real anti-SJW's/anti-feminists are Christians. Such as Trump and Pat Robertson.

not mad, not a virgin
lmao

...

Being in denial gets you nowhere.

That is factually untrue.

I never dipped into Atheism but I got close.

Raised Catholic, was "Catholic" through High School and whenever other kids would get turbo-anti-religious I'd tell 'em to tone it down or lay off. Sometime in Senior Year or my first year or so of college I started to fade away from the idea of religion. It was just a bunch of stupid rules made by men in a book that portrayed God as equally stupid.

What kind of all-powerful, all-knowing being who is literally everywhere would need/desire praise from its creations? It would be a lazy and selfish God IMHO. A God with that much knowledge and power would be beyond even the concept of selfishness.

I think there are too many coincidental things here and there for it all to be billions of years of accidents, but could I pinpoint specifics? Not really. Like how we don't know exactly what all dinosaurs looked like (however I hear we recently got a good start on one, thanks to a chunk of tail found in some amber). I can't abandon the concept of a God or Gods.

But fuck religions.

at your mom's age

i never was atheist.
however im not religious either.

im not dumb enough to say no god can exist though. its more i dont care if one exists. what happens, happens.

Can you refute any of them?

Zeitgeist means culture. Nothing more. There's absolutely nothing supernatural about it. Dawkins invented the term meme to explain how culture and ideas spread.

False. We all know bible thumping Christians are anti-SJW's. They spew hate against the homosexual community. The things they do, pisses off SJW's the same way it pisses off atheists.

That may be, atheists are not by definition sjws.

You know Jack and shit.

…said the christfag. how ironic.

about the age that i decided to become a SubGenius and pull the wool over my own eyes and relax in the safety of my own delusions

Atheism is for fags.

sorry I'm late for the party

said the atheist faggot.

ITT: Insecure atheists spout on about how they're right.

how would that shit work?
your house explodes with all your family
you are crippled and have nothing
i will not pray to god because i decide to do what i dont want to do.

Look at the OP and say that you aren't a complete hypocrite.

True, but the majority of SJW's are atheists and it shows when they mock Christianity and protest Christmas because it's a Christian holiday.


Except I'm right. The Westboro Baptist Church are a prime example of what anti-SJW's really are. If you use the word faggot, you're an anti-SJW. And they use that word a lot.


False. But go ahead and stay salty my friend.

I posted the picture of the Pope, the most powerful and richest christian leader in the world with over one billion followers.

You talk about a church with less than a dozen members, that even your fellow christians laugh at. You are delusional.

Majority of Holla Forums acts like kikes but they are merely kike (Rothschild) puppets. Generalizations are bad in general.

...

evil exists because humans have free will

Then just get rid of "free" will.

get to work lobotomizing everyone on earth then

Without free will people wouldn't be people at all.

You have no understanding of free will. People aren't born evil. They just make evil decisions of their own free will. God allowed mankind to have free will. You should be thankful that we have free will. You have the free will to molest a child. I have the free will to kill you and prevent you from molesting that child.

Free Will is illogical. Determinism is a much more accurate way to describe the way in which we live.

But murder is a sin, user. A good Christian is supposed to turn the other cheek.

No, you're clearly the delusional one here. The Westboro Baptist Church isn't the only ones who are against homosexuality. It's everywhere with Christians, mainly conservative Christians. Conservatives are inherently anti-SJW. Atheists are more liberal. They are inherently SJW.

I was proving a point user. Besides, I don't even own a gun.

That is true.

...

One can accept homosexuality without being an sjw. Also, why make tolerating fags the line that distinguishes the two?

true that the environment influences all thinking, however we still have the executive functions necessary to make any decisions we want; even if our desires and willpower is shaped by our surroundings, it is possible to break conditioning.

...

Tolerating fags is what makes you a SJW. Protesting against them makes you an anti-SJW. There's no in between.

I live in a safe neighborhood. I don't plan on killing anyone.

And if neither of us had free will no one would be molested or dead and nothing of value would be lost.

You're wrong, protesting them makes you insane. Tolerating them makes you reasonable, but treating their faggy lifestyle as somehow more honorable because "muh progress" also makes you insane. The in between is the only sensible choice.

The fact is, freedom is an absolute – you can have varying degrees of "difficulty of Will", but varying degrees of freedom doesn't make any sense. We make choices, and our individual corporeal material is "responsible" for those choices, but when you add the assertion that we are "free" to choose, this is inaccurate.

Free Will doesn't properly acknowledge causality and the fact that every choice/event is predicated on a maelstrom of other causal relations that we don't have control over. And when you add the fact that time is transient and we essentially live in the rear view, this makes any notion of freedom even more dubious. We live under too many constraints (genetic and environmental) to be free, and so I believe that we have about as much "freedom" to make those choices as the planets had to form, or a tree has to grow – it's just that varying degrees of entropy and the fact that we're sentient beings makes things infinitely more complicated and creates the illusion of Free Will.

Guns aren't just about self defense. It's a great hobby as well. That said, I'm sure as fuck not going to let them try me for my shit at home without them getting a few of pic related fired in their direction.

Guns serve multiple purposes. I live an area without much crime, but I sure as shit don't want to take that for granted. Having a gun and not needing it is better than needing a gun and not having it.

Extremism is the order of the day, user. Being reasonable, moderate, logical is, like, old news and stuff. They want to be at each other's throats. They want blood. They only see "us versus them". They want nukes to fall. The cleansing fires will purge all this idiocy and the meek, indeed, shall inherit the Earth. Life recovered from extinction events before.

Is there even enough powder to propel all that with sufficient force? Isn't it simpler to go for napalm rounds?

You can spin it however you want it. Fact is that Christians have more in common with anti-SJW ideology than atheists. Hell even Muslim extremists are more anti-SJW than atheists. Atheists have more in common with SJW ideology than Christians, since atheists are more liberal minded and progressive. Trump is the perfect example of an anti-SJW Christian. Hillary is the perfect example of a candidate who happens to be SJW.

But why do they have to do that? It doesn't make any sense.

Trump is not anti-gay.

No one is going to take away your toys, little boy

Yes. It's a combo of birdshot and 00 buckshot. It's going to fuck up anything that gets in its path pretty well. There's other specialty loads out there that might be better suited to home defense, but if I ever had to shoot someone breaking into my house, I want to make sure they won't ever do it again.

One I saw that would be good for someone living in an apartment was a load with what amounted to tacks. Allegedly they wouldn't penetrate a sheet of drywall, but I'd be it would still fuck you up pretty good.


Much easier to buy ammo than make napalm.

Except I live in a wealthy city, the cop presence is heavy and I live in an apartment building. So if criminals were to try to break it, they won't get far due to all the camera surveillance and the police station being nearby. I don't need guns. I'm not gonna take a life.

Being an extremists isn't about making sense.

Doesn't matter user. He's associated with Sarah Palin, who is anti-gay.

Very intelligent posts. I now agree with you pretty much entirely to be honest.

But where's the fun in that?

So now just associating with anti-sjws is enough to make you one?

I guess that's fair. Associating with SJWs makes you one in their eyes.

pic related, nigger


You'd be surprised how fast criminals can steal your possessions, or worse, harm you or your loved ones. It's good that we have someone affluent enough to have those luxuries among us, but for many people, it's cheaper to buy a gun. It's not like anyone really ever even wants to use a firearm in self defense. I look at guns the same way I look at the seat belt in my car. It's there to protect me, but I hope I never need it.


There's a difference between easy and creative, user.

My thoughts on the matter aren't particularly original, but I'm glad you agree. I believe if more people understood determinism, they might not be so quick to judge others – not that we shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions, but the notion of intrinsically good and evil people is illogical.

No. But his racism against Mexicans and Muslims sure is.

...

The problem with determinism is if we accept it then it will become an excuse.

Except I don't have to worry about that, I'm pretty safe. Besides, I don't want my kids grabbing a gun and playing with it, then shooting each other with it. That can be dangerous and it's happened before with other people. Which is why I refuse to own a gun. Hell I have my katana locked away in a safe place because I don't want my kids to get to it.

Famous last words. Detroit used to be safe. Times change.

I haven't I still don't believe in god. Back then I used to believe that the world would be better if no one believed in god. But I was wrong, and I out grew that. Stupid people need god, like you.

Is it a kind of safe place only a katana fits in? Because otherwise a gun could be stored in there as well. Away from kids.

Detroit was never safe. The city I live in is because there are no ghetto areas. We're so far away from that crap. I live in the redneck state of Texas for crying out loud. LOL I'm safe.

Yes. But again, I don't need a gun.

I suppose that's always a risk; however, there are consequences for your actions whether you take responsibility or not. If you use determinism as an excuse, chances are you'll suffer as a result.

Now, if the legal system recognized determinism as a valid excuse, that'd be a problem kek.

Alright, you gave it up right there. You have to be fucking with me.

Of course, Neo. You don't really need a katana either, you can just disarm them with your l33t h4xx0r skillz.

...

I don't "need" a gun either. That said, I also don't need running water, indoor plumbing, electricity, or internet.

I sure enjoy life better with them than without them, but all you really need to live is food, water, and air.

Clinton voter detected

LOL


Or I'm just not paranoid enough to believe that some criminal is gonna break in my secured apartment building, in the safest city and the safest state in the U.S.


Maybe if you moved out of Detroit and lived in a safe city, you wouldn't feel the need to own a gun.


False. I speak the truth. Texas is a redneck state. Are you ashamed of being a redneck? I think you're the Clinton voter here.

You have no understanding of how racism works.

If I lived in Detroit, I probably couldn't even own a gun.

Nasa.

truly embarassing

Seems like liberals enjoy calling red states "redneck" states. I'm sure there's some rednecks there, but I tend to think of Mexicans when Texas gets brought up. I'm far from a redneck, BTW. I just believe I have the right to own a gun, and I'm going to exercise that right. You don't have to, but since I'm not fortunate enough to have armed security guarding my home, I'll just have to be my own security. MAGA, faggot

this is something liberal faggots living in gated communities with mommy and daddy will never be able to understand

that was too good not to screencap. Too bad I'm a lazy faggot and didn't restart my browser or just open paint and get rid of the (you)

also those time dubs in >>6508961

troll thread

but a reminder anyway that atheism is degenerate

a nihilistic philosophy that dismisses huge swathes of cultural heritage and spirituality and shuts down pursuit of higher realms of understnading

...

...

...

Read the thread, there are plenty of arguments that don't contain the assertion that you can prove it one way or the other, but rather the fact that it's not based on evidence and it's a superficial answer that only raises more questions.

God isn't a sufficient answer for anything, it's just filling in the blank with some half-cocked preconception of what you think is responsible for time and space.

You completely failed to name one. The marxist Pope, Obama, Clinton, Merkel, Cameron, etc, etc are all fucking christians. You are ruining the West. Take responsibility for your own christian degeneracy.

Then the existence of God is trivial, no matter what I think about it, that's pretty obvious. But considering the arguments, is safer to assume he exists. It's just that his existence doesn't make any fucking sense to begging with. much less how he is depicted in the bible.


This. Catholic church is a joke right now, and thanks to their more liberal way of thinking they degenerate. No one even follows the bible anymore or go to church regularly.At least muslims are more conservative in their own twisted way.

Its like you don't understand the concept of nuance.

You christians can't prove anything. You christians had two thousand years of so called "theology" and all you have to show for it is the "prime mover" because I say so argument and posting photoshopped pictures of strangers wearing hats. Pathetic.

Are you referring to Pascal's Wager? If so, you should send $5,000 to my Paypal in the next 10 minutes or I'm going to destroy your life.

If you're not referring to the fact that you should believe in case there's a hell, I don't understand why you think it would be "safer"

atheism=god doesn't exist

thats why agnostics are the masterrace of the branch

also while you call christians pathetic lets this about this a second

Married, have children, friends, a house, a nice life, do well by their people and country

under 20, communists, complete losers, drug addicts, no community ties, unlikely to lead successful life, autistic in 1 of 3 cases, virgin

whos really pathetic?

Pascals wager is stupid, there are a bunch of logically contradictory faiths that would condemn you to their own version of hell for not believing in them, not just Christianity.

Are you agnostic on unicorns and dragons too? If not you aren't being consistent with your standards.

You can't worship Moloch and also be christian

of course i am

the panda was considered a mythical creature up until 1869

also im not agnostic doh

Was it really?

Another picture of a stranger wearing a hat. For all you know, he's your fellow christian.


You are for lying using green text.

How many children do you have? Answer the fucking question.

I can doubt your word, user. It's completely different with a cosmic entity that can destroy life as you know by just farting or because he is in a bad mood.
Pascal's Wager is based on faith, that's the only thing it asks, so when you die, if he exists, you'll be happy, if he don't you don't lose anything. I don't think Pascal's Wager can apply to anything but God.


Agnostics are nothing but the contrarian hipsters, the true fedoras. Apatheism is where it is at.


True enough. But say, if you're born in a christian society, then you lose nothing by believing in the christian god, while you could achieve eternal happiness if you do. If you were born in India you'd believe whatever the fuck they believe around there for the same concept.
Unless they ask you more than faith, there's nothing wrong with it.

Pascal's Wager is so popular because the Christian god can basically forgive all your sins if you just repent before dying. That's just way more stupid than the wager itself.

I think you can get into semantics here, but I don't see atheism as disbelief but rather the absence of belief. I don't consider myself to be "on the fence" about any supernatural claim; if there isn't evidence to support it, then there's no sense in giving it the benefit of the doubt (especially when it's as ambiguous of a concept as God). Nobody knows why space and time exists, and to say that it's God is like saying that something is infinite if you simply don't know the limits.


Exactly

yep


2

what age are you, how much do your parents complain for you to move out, and how severe is your autism? answer the fucking question

Even if that was true, that's a big if, then that would make them your fellow theists.

this is 100% semantics, but saying


is equally as stupid as saying


this

should have gone with this, its more what i meant

True user.


There is nothing wrong with being a redneck. When I think of Texas, I think of rednecks like myself dressed in cowboy outfits, listening to country music. In fact I'm gonna leave this music video embedded so you'll see why being a redneck is a beautiful thing. But you're probably a liberal pretending to be a gun owner who hates the term redneck because you believe the negative images the media portrays rednecks as. You ignorant libtard.


Politicians don't count, they're all satanists. The pope is catholic, not christian you retarded faggot.

Also Bill Mahur is a liberal atheist.

35, parents are dead, no autism.

I used to have empathy for Bill Maher for his stand in female pedophilia, after he said he was "raped" as a child by a woman and it was a good experience, something that I can totally relate, but after actually listening to him, I can say he is shit in absolutely everything else.

its time to stop browsing r/atheism and swallow the first real redpill breh

You fear Mexicans and Muslims. Good to know. Pussy.

My point is that it's based on the same specious line of reasoning; that is, despite more logical arguments, you believe in something out of fear. And this is the crux of why religion is such an effective institution of power and control.


I wouldn't necessarily call EITHER position "stupid"; however, I think it's absurd to believe or not-believe in something that is unknowable and can't be defined in the first place, other than "the creator".

I have no respect for him. He comes off as a douche bag.

Wow. You are really grasping at straws.


That still makes them your fellow theists.


Catholics are a subset of christians, you hypocrite. You christians can't even stand each other. Atheists will never hate you theists as much as you theists hate each other.


That's it? A minor talk show host on HBO? Who do you think is responsible for destroying the West? The heads of state of western civilization or a B list celebrity?

He is a comedian, I thought it was all part of his act. But he tends to act all high and mighty all the time. It's shitty.


And there's nothing particularly wrong with that. Humans need control from other humans.

How can you not kill yourself being that pessimistic?

Ones faith is a part of ones heart, I don't think it should treated so cheaply as to be given to ones society just because or out of the fear of loss. It should be given only to something one actually precises.

Your religious control doesn't work anymore. It is completely obsolete. That's what happens when you build your civilization on a foundation of lies and propaganda. Bronze Age jewish fairy tales that a smart ten year old would laugh at. And you assholes wonder why it all came crashing down. No wonder the west is fucked.

It's time for a new ideology. Morals and civilization need to be based on a strong foundation of survival, self defense, masculinity and nationalism. Instead of scaring people into things with the holy Boogey Man, spread good ideals using their own merits.

thats 100% true

Look at any point in human history, we need imposed structure morally, socially, and economically or else shit goes right back to africa tier real fast

Now you've moved the goalposts from metaphysics into psychological/sociological territory. And if you're making the argument that religion is beneficial because of it's moral concepts: first of all, ethics is not something that's even remotely singular to religion; secondly, you shouldn't need to think too long and hard to come up with examples of religious people doing horrible things. In fact, I'd say that due to the fact that religious moral constructs are usually very superficial and didactic (at least Western religion), this doesn't provide people with a very solid logical foundation for their beliefs and principles; therefore, the foundation is perhaps more likely to crumble.

Remember, the rest of the animal kingdom manages to survive without moral constructs, and for human beings, I think they're usually relatively superfluous. Due to innate biological imperatives to preserve the species, I think most people have a decent understanding of right and wrong without being in fear of going to the place where bad little boys and girls go

Maybe, but the past 100 years or so have been remarkably different from any other point in human history. Things could change.

consistency of ethics throughout a society is best achieved through religion

Can you name a successful society that achieved the same goal another way?

China, which had the Confucian philosophy.

Says the idiot who is being a hypocrite by grasping at straws. Christians and Catholics aren't the same thing. That's like saying Christians and Mormons are the same. Which they're not because Joseph Smith is a liar and a fraud who fooled people into believing his lies.


And that's where you're wrong. Christians get along with each other very well. I have friends from other religious believes such as Jews and Muslims.


And that's where I call you out on bullshit. Atheists always hate on Christians. Just like The Amazing Atheist and Mr.Repzion.


You said to name one. Not a billion. You lose.


You're right. I suppose all comedians have to act like douche bags to get somewhere.

First of all "success" is very relative. And no, I can't, because religion has always been the pervasive approach to philosophy throughout modern philosophy.

But this might be a good answer, I dunno, I'm not familiar enough with it. but again, "successful" is relative.

China was the worlds economic powerhouse for thousands of years thanks in large part to the stability that philosophy brought to the country.

misleading answer

Confucian philosophy is more parts religion than belief system, it just considered the actions of secular class mortals to be directly connected to the sacred nature of the Shen

there were still gods in spirits in that "belief system", and atheists always intentionally take it out of context

You make me laugh. Does your Ten Commandments have the inviolate word of god that says "Thou shall not kill"? Or does it have the inviolate word of god that says "Thou shall not murder”? It's funny how christians couldn't even translate their Ten Commandments correctly. This douchebag doesn't even consider catholics to be christians.

Laws are the only way to enforce consistency. I'll take the Constitution over the hundred different versions of the retarded Bible, any day.

Translation >I hate laws based on the morality of the bible. A pedophile like myself should be able to date girls as young as 5 years old. I should be able to have an incestuous relationship. I should get away with murder and theft, even though the Ten Commandments forbids that. And let's not forget, I want to commit adultery without having to worry about going to hell for it.

the constitution is fundamentally based in christian values though

even the deist founders claimed that repeatedly, the Adams Jefferson correspondences confirm that beyond doubt

People haven't changed at all

Once you remove comfort and security people turn right back into barbarians

these things are considered wrong even in secular worldviews, if they're what your worried about you should let it go

What causes atheism?

is it crushing emotional defeats?

Indifference and a lack of belief in magic.

user, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not an idiot, but you should seriously pontificate these things a bit more because your logic is deeply flawed.

Churches are like a cheaters paradise

I just said that Catholics are a subset. Pay attention, retard.


That's funny. Mormons say the exact same thing about you and your denomination. What a coincidence.


You just proved otherwise.


A Youtuber and someone I have never even heard of. That's what I thought.


You just proved my point. A B-lister, a Youtuber and a nobody are the worst atheists you can name. You are praising atheists with faint damnation.

While you are busy blaming e-celebs for the downfall of the West, your fellow christians Merkel, Hollande, Obama and the Pope are shipping in muslims by the millions. Take responsibility for your own christian degeneracy.

huh, pretty funny considering how many of them believe in socialism and communism while thinking magic is outlandish

also why are so many ethnically jewish people atheists?
Is it somehow related to lack of foreskin?

Communism isn't magic, its retarded optimism. Also you're clearly retarded too.

isn't believing in heaven and god just retarded optimism too? also magic?

Theres an equal amount of logic and evidence supporting both god and functional communism

miracles and heaven outright defy the physical laws of the observable world, so no its a step well beyond "optimism"

So do the economics and social structure of communism

Its literally the exact same thing

At least you failed to lie in green text.


Raping children, murder and theft are all supported in the Bible, and more. Unlike you, I actually read it.

OUTRAGEOUS

no it isn't. communism is theoretically possible without violating the laws of physics, it just doesn't work in practice because people suck

no, you just need to defy human nature, supply and demand, common sense, basic economics, and biochemistry

Wrong. The First Amendment directly contradicts the first commandment.


You just destroyed your own argument.


Jefferson wrote his own deist version of the Bible. He was definitely deist.

Animals lack rational thoughts, that's why we need morals, because we don't act solely on instinct.
That's subjective, which is why we need morals. You could say that slavery is right because it can lead us to amazing lengths like Egyptians did, but it's morally wrong.

The problem in this case are the religions that promoted the morals, not the morals on themselves. It used to be pretty effective because everyone was an ignorant back then, but now it's different. Clearly we need something new now, because we also need morals, otherwise we fall in degeneracy and we end up like Europe. As someone else said, laws are the closest thing we have to moral guidance now, but law can't be a moral guidance for it's nature. We need something more.

I realize that our cerebral cortex is the reason for philosophical constructs, but it's not as if it's a big deterrent for "immoral" behavior – that's what laws are for, because people find it difficult to resist their selfish instincts and unscrupulous impulses. However, I was mainly talking about the notion of an intrinsic morality which defines things as intrinsically good or bad (no such thing).

Not sure what you mean, exactly, but philosophy that is predicated on fear is not the answer. We need a higher understanding of metaphysics and our own psychology, and generally speaking, religion does not offer that.

correction: generally speaking, *western* religion doesn't offer that.

When I read this shit. Instantly

Pathetic meme.
People think Eastern religion is deep and sheeet because the Western books on it will focus on the more interesting and colorful aspects of it, but the faith of an ordinary Indian or Chinese guy is as shallow and ignorant as of normies in the West. Both Eastern or Western traditional religions have a deep intellectual value if you study where those tend to reside, and not on the pathetic believes of the plebs.

Then you've never been to India. Sure, they believe many outlandish things, but they encourage critical thinking much more than Western religion. Whether it's the Hindus or Jains or whatever, they seem to have more respect for cosmic conundrums that the vast majority of Christians. Like, the first conversation I had with an Indian when I arrived was about metaphysics with a fucking cab driver.

Also, whether it's Buddhism in the east or Zen Buddhism, their basic tenets and practices embrace a deeper ontological understanding.

Note: I'm not talking about people like Thomas Aquinas or Kierkegaard or the theologians that follow them.

Simply because their culture is still more connected to religious aspects, so yes, obviously the metaphysical aspects will have a bigger presence. Because their culture hasn't been vehemently attacked by materialism, in a daily basis, as Western culture. But it doesn't mean that they are more apt to dig into deeper truths of reality or spiritual awareness than any Western person desirous to do the same inside their religion. What really impoverished Western religious experience are things that came from outside the religious aspect, not a problem with the religions themselves.

You make a good point about materialism, and that certainly makes a society more decadent, but if you look at the Amish and their beliefs, they're almost childlike. Also, I went to a Catholic prep school, and the Christian Brothers all had a very superficial view of our place in the universe.

Again, I partially agree; however, that's like saying that the jihadist mentality came from things outside of the Quran – partially true (Wahhabism), but there are plenty of violent and intolerant quotes in the Quran as well.

All said, the bottom line is that I'm opposed to supernatural beliefs, in general. I'm not opposed to morality, but when you spice it up with myth and supernatural claims, it belongs in the trash.

That's a religion that's plainly based on the 'practical' aspects of it, there's not any intellectual elite behind it, so duh.

Don't suppose you'd think believing that a man with three arms is holy, because his crippling reminds the iconography of some deity, and, not satisfied with that, believe that if he sleeps with his belly up or something like that on some night, that it means the summer is going to be very dry and the people will go hungry (as Hindu folk religion goes) is very mature.

There sure are. I would never say that. And what I said is nothing like that, because although you have parts on the Quran talking about killing and stuff, you don't have parts in any traditional Western text telling people to just worry about shallow aspects of religion instead of trying to discover greater things inside themselves.
You have the opposite, so yeah, what I said stands.

Arguments are interesting. Opinions not so much.

It's based on a literal interpretation of a book which is supposedly the word of God. In a way, that makes a lot more sense than cherrypicking what you want to take literally and what you don't.
The more you intellectualize Christianity, the further away from it you become.

I already stated that they believe in many outlandish things, but I believe the Bhagavad Gita encourages critical thinking more than the bible.

Perhaps not explicitly, but the concept of heaven and hell and sin are anti critical thinking (God wants you to do this/God doesn't want you to do that).

These things are impossible to quantify, and we could bicker all week about this and never reach an objective conclusion; this is why I made that statement. I'm guessing you're arguing from a Christian position, correct?

Yeah, I love those parts where Paul says how you're supposed to ride a bike, or the kinds of pants that God likes.

says who? Definitely not the Bible, or Christian Tradition.

You're talking specifically about a book that is supposed to move people away from the act of thinking and contemplating, typical of the Brahmani caste into the more action-driven Ksatryia mentality. You probably just saw what you wanted to see.

For an actually enlightened Christian the Will of God is the most intellectual thing, because it means that there is an objective reality, there is a way things are, regardless of how you feel about them or you wished them to be, and the laws transmitted in Tradition are supposed to help you understand that, structurally.
'Our wills are ours to make them thine'
'And his will is our peace' means that when we stop seeing the world through vain, selfish thinking, and prepare to recognize reality as such, we grow. It is about apotheosis, becoming one with God, much like the Bhagavad Gita.

I am Christian, yes, but I'm not arguing from a position, I've studied intellectually both Eastern and Western traditions, and was truly amazed by how deceived I was when I believed the same thing you mentioned in the post we started this.
I'm not even saying Western or Christianity is better. Just saying that what is foolish and childish is pleb religion, all around the globe.

Test

Well, I typed put my response, but it doesn't seem to wanna go through on my computer.

Oh well

That doesn't mean it doesn't fit into existing laws of nature. We know there has to be some sort of prime moving force. The law of thermodynamics extrapolated into infinity is just as absurd a concept as the idea that some force outside matter created matter. The belief that blind fate and luck caused the elements in the universe to randomly collide in such a way as to enable to develop self-replicating life that could eventually survive the harsh environs of a constantly changing planet long enough to evolve into a form capable of self-awareness and questioning its purpose is equally as implausible as the idea that said prime mover created mankind with a purpose. When it comes down to it, any science dependent upon phenomena we cannot actively observe from start to finish requires just as much faith as any religion you can name. To act intellectually superior in your atheism is to fundamentally misunderstand the entirety of what your (so called) 'lack' of belief entails.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I know they're based on Biblical verses (one of them being about "thou shalt not wear clothing from more than one loin" or some shit)

I don't understand the question. Says logic?

Then you haven't read the book

Jesus fucking Christ, what the fuck is going on with this shitty goddamn site

Literally anti-critical thinking. We're intensely limited to our petty senses and intellect, and the nature of "reality" is something that we'll never have unbridled access to…

cont…
that said, what you don't do is invent mental constructs and act like they're intrinsic – knowledge is provisional.

I'll do it bit by fucking bit

cont…
And let's be honest, if you're a christian you're referring to a deity (an entity with desires, a creator, a God that has feelings), NOT some pantheistic notion of God like many "enlightened Christians" like to pretend.
This is typical theological cherrypicking. It's about heaven and hell, and if you believe otherwise, then you're not a true Christian, sorry.

You're fooling yourself, of course you are.

Exactly, even if we truly live in a deterministic universe, the social order depends upon the majority believing (at least subconsciously) in free will. Determinism is a pointless belief because it provides little comfort outside the worst situations, and introduces cracks into the foundation of societies advanced enough to accept it as fact.

See:

I'm pretty sure if it was a literal interpretation, as you said, they would have gotten to all those times Christ says nothing of external devotion has any true significance, but what comes from within. They chose what they wanted to choose, with a pre-conceived objective in mind. That's not a literal interpretation.

This is just babbling. In this way, you can say absolutely anything on Earth and just use that argument.

$5k is $5k, but in terms of an eternity for belief things fall much differently. Destroy my life, it ends. Hell, on the other hand, is eternal. No escape.

Probably neither have all those Indian scholar on the subject who will tell you it is a piece on Kshatrya mentality, and that this is what it is about.


There is a very complex, coherent (even if not to our, as you said, petty senses) structure behind everything. It's not all just pure chaos, it only appears as such to us. Recognizing there's a 'will' in everything and trying to go into that, moving out of our selfish perception, is getting closer to reality.

The possibility of our electric nervous system lending itself to something that is a soul is more terrifying that not having something like that.

With the knowledge that there is no deity in the sky looking to scoop you up. With the plethora of universes that could exist. There arises the possibility of something that Eats that soul after we die.

You Live you Die your "essence" gets eaten by a higher life form.

I am atheist only in the sense All world religions have no knowledge that any of them are more "real then the other. The True possibilities of the universe/multiverse are cold dark and painful.

Knowledge brings Fear

Exactly, there's no point in believing it if actions still have consequences.

This is typical theological cherrypicking. It's about heaven and hell, and if you believe otherwise, then you're not a true Christian, sorry.
Now you completely show what I was saying all along. People on the West can only see Christianity as a religion for peasants and farmers, just because it's what they've been taught, so they think is all there is to it. The Bible doesn't even mention hell a lot of times, mate. You're just too attached to certain notions someone put into you, so you're not willing to look at it from a critical perspective. With Eastern stuff you do that, so it seems richer. Read something like Huxley's Perennial Philosophy, and see how side by side they can be put.

It ain't dismissing what it literally points to and says "yeah this exists but it ain't the topic"

When I'm explaining specific things about the possibilities of Christianity, then, yes of course. But what I'm generally telling you, that only a deep misconception would bring the perception that Eastern religion is so much richer, then no. I'm arguing bit by bit, using pure information. By the way, I wasn't even Christian until I realized this aspect. I was Atheist, then learnt Ancient Religion (Greek mostly), then Eastern (Indian and some Islam), and taught the same as you, then I started studying Christianity (which I despised) scientifically, and realized all the richness I'd seen elsewhere was there, just somewhat harder to find because we're use to see it through fake glasses, which is what I'm trying to show you.

Also, Christian (actual, not tales just to make people not rape or steal one another) Theology is much more about Genesis and the Apocalypse as the relevant duality than Heaven and Hell.

lol welcome to america where were you living?

Many atheists are atheist not because they truly thought things through, but because a bunch of people said some shit that made sense and they wanted to hop in on an easy train to win all the internet arguments. Pretend we have all the answers and when we don't it's because you're not a scientist.

Then when that becomes the boring mainstream view, you jump on the other boat because you found other arguments that make you feel superior. Which is funny: atheisms make up such a small minority but are so over represented in media that it's even possible to see it as a boring mainstream view.

Gee, it's as if the Bible is a subjective construct of the human imagination that's full of contradictions…

You asked, "says who?" What the fuck do you want me to say, the question didn't make any sense. I'm saying that when you pontificate philosophical matters outside of scripture, the path becomes a labyrinthine maze that would only end back at Christianity because of tradition and wishful thinking.


Never said it was, there is obviously an order to things, otherwise nothing would exist at all.

Sounds like you're talking about quantum mechanics, not God. And If you think that somehow represents God, then you're not referring to the Christian God.


You'd have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to tell me that it's not fundamental to the dogmatism of the religion.

I'm willing to look at the philosophical constructs in the Bible critically, but as far as being a product of the imagination, there is absolutely nothing that separates the bible from any other book.


And I'm trying to tell you that, given you're philosophical beliefs, there's no reason to identify as a Christian any more than a Kantian or Aristotelian or whatever. What keeps you clinging? Meaning, purpose, value… the usual?

I find that most people want to feel happy or special or a sense of belonging without thinking things through or understanding them.

People subscribe to various Faiths of ideology politics parties movements.

Separating yourself from those things is near social suicide It renders one for the most part in the real world truly alone. Because you have to ask questions and pick apart everything and take nothing or no one for granted. It means abandoning the concept of faith in people in institutions in government.

Few people If any are willing to do that. They want to feel happy and safe.

The truth or being faithless has brought me no happiness or love or even success It cuts me off from most of humanity because we are trained to "Need" faith in our lives.

Trust is something that is earned through actions and deeds. Trust is not something that you can have in Any of the institutions of the united states. The actions and deeds have shown me that distrust should always be applied as the default action to any statement by any agency of the united states government.

Distrust and Disbelief is the only logical and sane response to statements made by these agencies.

That is what it means to follow the path of being rational. Not some fedora tipping atheist.

Most of the time I Just lie and say yes Jesus or whatever to get people to just smile and nod.

The truth or as close to the truth as you can get as a human being will not bring you salvation or joy Insofar as i have lived. I do not prey on the weak or submit to the predators. I just move along my own path.

The Truth is something you move towards but can never truly grasp as a individual. the best hope is to find some true friends that follow the path of being rational. but few are willing to let go of what it means to connect to others.

Our world is filled with cruelty lies and deception and the only escape from that is to put the earplugs in of whatever "faith" you find appealing and follow it.

Being rational and thinking things through. it hurts. Pure unadulterated pain as you know what the lies are that people swallow to feel better.

There is no greater pain then knowing that you truly hold only a few bare drops of knowledge and those few drops of knowledge are what separate you from those of "faith".

There could be Q like entities. There could be "Gods" but given the nature of our world as it stands in that there are predators and prey. I would not wish to attract the attention of such beings as we could end up being the "prey" very easily.

I wasn't the one who said it was possible to take literally and build a faith around it. That was you…

Because you made the statement, apparently, just because you liked the feel of the words in your mouth. There was no point to it.

Because you made the statement, apparently, just because you liked the feel of the words in your mouth. There was no point to it.

It's not outside, it's taking it as what Jesus fucking said it was, a parable. That is, something you read, and then try to find the most useful way to learn things from it. All you're saying that 'this is Christianity or BTFO' is Lutheranism, not Christianity.

It's not outside, it's taking it as what Jesus fucking said it was, a parable. That is, something you read, and then try to find the most useful way to learn things from it. All you're saying that 'this is Christianity or BTFO' is Lutheranism, not Christianity.

'But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.'
The Christian God is the sum of the structure of all that was, is and will be. It's what Theology recognizes. You were probably thinking about the God of the Jews.

Fundamental? Heaven is, Hell isn't. It may be to some denominations, but to the very Christian structure it isn't. What is fundamental to actual Theology, as I said, is Genesis and Apocalypse. Maximus, one of the first Father of Church, even said: 'the valley of death is Earth', that is blatantly denying even the existence of Hell.

Because I showed you everything that I believe is inside Christianity, as I was giving examples inside Christian tradition to any statement I made about my faith. You just can't accept that as Christian because it's not what your mom or dad or whatever told you Christianity was.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone calling themselves a Christian is merely clinging if they don't take the word of God literally.


So, are you telling me that there's nothing divine or sacred about the book?


That is an EXEGESIS! See, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that intellectualizing Christianity always veers further away from it. Like how that charlatan Deepak Chopra misappropriates quantum physics to make himself seem smarter, so that planting his religious flag becomes easier.

Exegesis

Then either you're using Christianity as a template for your philosophical beliefs, the way someone would use any other school of philosophy… or you're simply clinging.

merely clinging if they don't take the word of God literally.
So Christ Himself was clinging (and not from the Cross, I mean), since he said all He was speaking were parables, the opposite of literal?

No, I meant those things that you say that are fundamental to Christianity are only Martin Luthers' opinion, not what of the whole Christendom.

So fucking what? All those Indian books you jerk off to are also full of exegesis, for fuck's sake! The Sutras of Patanjali, for one, are not even published, ever, without three treatises of exegesis.

I'm just not a degenerate Protestant. It's that so weird for you?

How much of the bible is actually based on Christ's teachings? Very little, as I understand. Christ was just many of the many characters in the bible, and it just happens that history favored him; however, when you look at mythology that predates Christianity, his story is certainly not unique.

So, it is sacred? More sacred than other religious texts?

The closer you get to understanding the fact that it's a human creation that is obviously severely limited by our intellect, the better. It's just philosophy spiced up with myth – and of course the myth is what really reels people in.

We wouldn't still be having this debate if that were the case; they're like arguing with retarded children.

So if any other element you recognize as Christian is taken away, then it's not Christianity, but Christ himself, fuck him, right?
There are schools of thinking in Christianity that do not recognize the Old Testament as 'the Bible', just as books of sapience helping understand the actual Holy Book, which is basically the Gospels. In this case, it's all about Christ. In the others, yeah, you're right. It gets a bit messy.


The Son of Man is the Son of God. The opposition you put here is meaningless to a true Christian.

Yeah, that would be pretty hard to deny. But then, since you apparently have an interest in this whole religion thing, besides seemingly being Atheist or Agnostic, try to learn about Christianity away from those fuckers. Give the Philokalia a read, or Meister Eckhart, or Saint Dionysus. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux is pretty cool too.

Made me kek. No, that's not what I was saying. I'm just trying to elucidate the absurdity of people plucking what they want to pluck from the religion when there are countless other intellectual sources to pluck from. The only thing I can take away from this is that people find the tradition comfy – and all the intrinsic meaning, purpose and value that come with it.

Nietzsche is lightyears more profound than biblical philosophy, but it's no wonder his philosophy doesn't have mass appeal, as he doesn't placate anyone and make fantastical promises of eternal bliss.

You're dodging my question, and it's pretty obvious why.

So, then every other piece of philosophy is also divinely inspired?

I appreciate the recommendations, but to be honest, there's much more interesting and worthwhile philosophy and physics to study.

Each individual has a certain 'personal equation', a sum of several elements forming his mentality out of the several factors to which a person is subject to, and some external elements just have the keys that work for us. It's not something bizarre or outlandish, just how humans work.

He isn't, and you'll find this out one day if you have the time and strength to really study stuff. Also, the ideas Nietzsche had would never be possible to conceive and organize the way he did without the German language, which wouldn't exist in the form he received without the Bible. Are you familiar with the Indian concept of Santana? One of its meanings is that everything that exists on the Cosmos is simultaneously touched by a huge web of connections and influences which the human mind could never grasp, countless in every possible way. Understanding that, and assuming a dialectic method out of it would make you a much more profound thinker than just putting side by side and saying this is better, this is worse, like a child choosing which toy to play with.

Truth is sacred, lies and mistakes are not. Most things waves between these two poles.

You didn't seem that immature before.

waver

Talmudist detected, not trolling.

Yes, I would agree, but that doesn't exactly address my point. There is always a reason why people choose one thing over another, and you're refusing to directly address those reasons for why someone would choose religion.

Nice sneaky ad hom.
Everything is regressive, and even if this specious claim is true, it only means as much as you want it to mean. You're reaching.

Fine, but for practical purposes, Nietzsche's philosophy is much deeper in it's depth of contemplation than biblical.

You should take your own advice

Define "truth"
Like the ones in the bible? See, at this point, religious convictions start floundering when people start acknowledging that it all comes from the imagination; therefore, one must reach the conclusion that there's no point in identifying as one thing or another. I may respect Nietzsche as a philosopher, but I certainly wouldn't call myself a Nietzschean.

… and we have a more blatant ad hom. Nice

When did I do that? I said we have ways of understanding things that would fit better into this or that religion. As long as they make sense, that is, they're traditional religions, not new age crap that ultimately has no content. Inside the scope of traditional religion, most people find themselves inside them because of family, and just try to figure it out. Those who, instead, get to choose their own, do so out of not only if it makes sense, but in which way it makes sense. What's the evasion here?

Well, you clearly has less ground under your feet than I do, I don't think we'll have to argue that. Your references are one-sided, and you don't know how to properly connect stuff. So take it more as fatherly advice, I didn't mean to make you look bad with it.

Not at all. His dependency on the structure of German language and concepts is widely known and has been declared essential by the great majority of his scholars. And the ability for grandeur, transcendence and sidereal proportion is historically situated at the moment the Goths entered in contact with the Gospels. Fact, and fact.

Imagination is not intellect. Structural thinking comes from the intellect, which is the base of religious texts, and the way it is said comes from imagination. Even if God spoke directly to me right now, I'd have to 'imagine' what he's saying in order to understand. I'd be closer or further from truth depending on how powerful that imagination is. These dualisms you try to shove into religion make no sense discussing it. You're trying to eat pasta with a sofa instead of a fork.

Don't be retarded! An ad hominem can only be present in the context of a discussion. There was no argument going on at that point, just you telling you didn't like books you know nothing about, just like a child who won't eat cabbage because he's never seen that before. There was no argument on your part, so no reason for one to come from mine. Garbage in, garbage out.

This would make more sense under the umbrella of philosophy, not just religion. And despite all of your strawmen that I've been stepping over since we began this debate, you cannot deny that religion is different than secular philosophy in that it contains supernatural claims; thus, why RELIGION?

That's a bit hypocritical, to say the least. You name dropped a few theologians and Eastern concepts, congratulations.

Great. I still don't know what this proves, other than some desperate attempt to marginalize him.

Except there is no "God" speaking at all, it's just you and your preconceptions. Understand? Whether it's structural or not, the foundation for the bible, like everything else, is the human imagination.

It's in the context of the broader argument, so it would qualify. But whatever

Btw, I just noticed you made no attempt to define "truth", so if you could get to the bottom of that, I'd love to know.

Gonna nut-check you real quick, user.
Give me a measure for how subjective or objective a person is. Just, you know, a sort of barometer that I can use to tell. Then test this meter to make sure you're not a fucking idiot.

Because it "sounds" you think that Isaac Newton was extremely "subjective" and the feminists your ilk complain so much about are superior in their "objectivity"

I don't care what your mommy and daddy made you do on Sunday when you wanted to stay in and play video games. I don't care what religion you hate or like, but your idiotic categorization is meaningless when you consider the fathers of the very methodology that GOT US to the point of having even a glimpse of a theory of how the universe may have began, or even how to postulate how planetary motion and conditions could have made a wet rock into a dinosaur battle royale. And it isn't just that you minimized these figures, it's that you elevate figures with no redeeming qualities other than that their answer to the whole "god y/n?" question agrees with you.

Take your undeserved self importance and shove it right up your ass. Join a real science subject and actually learn about the world around you instead of focusing on the
It's fucktards like you that make atheism into a "phase" that people come out of. It's the most goddamn hypocritical thing I've ever seen from a class of people I looked up to as paragons of knowledge as reason.
Here's a fun fact: if you haven't explicitly studied the research and data and physical laws that explain the stuff you believe in then you are taking faith in what someone else says about the universe. Interpretation of theory to laymen does an abysmal job of actually explaining what goes on, there are some "atheists" out there who I'd be more comfortable calling "popsciologists" because they think that listening to Bill Nye sneeze gave them expert knowledge on the production of our Universe (as well as a little quantum theory lesson that cements their belief that there one universe among infinitely many in the aether where they got laid before they turned 30.)

Now, put on your big boy pants and accept your own ignorance. Fix it. And start learning more about whatever the hell you think this universe is about. Then, when you come across a roving creationist, don't dismiss them with fucking embarrassing lazy arguments.

replace with

It's a goddamn miracle that this shit even got though. I was on and off trying to get this posted for at least three hours. Time to kill myself.

Well, for one because without it Philosophy had absolutely no chance of ever coming to existence. So your question is just the same as asking why flour if we have bread?

So Plato, Hegel, Heidegger, Novalis, et al, are just a bunch of pamphleteers for some religion?
I keep telling you, those unnecessary dualities, bro…

It proves that this product you've bough and is so proud of boasting about, called Modernity, and its very biased notion of this is metaphysical, this is empirical, etc, prevent you from ever going really deep into things and seeing the whole of Human Knowledge as one hyper-connected whole. Basically it means that if you love Nietzsche, you'd understand him better knowing the Bible fully, having read it in Gothic, having read Eckhart, which I pointed out earlier and which influenced Nietzsche a lot…
'God is not good; I am good'. Interesting concept? Not Nietzsche, Eckhart, a Christian Theologian.

Even in therms of secular thinking, intellect differs deeply from imagination, and your claim is out of place.

Then the fact that, inside the context of the broader argument, you were just 'saying boohoo, I'm not going to read those books cause I have better ones to read, although I know nothing of them I know this' count more against you than against me, don't you think?

That which is in and of itself, and not dependent upon things such as context, time and space, which is not defined by comparison, or measurement or participation.
Beware as you counter this one as this is not only a religious concept but also a basic one for oh muh dear philosophy. Unless you wanna hang with the Foucaults and sheeet

Looks like we're gonna have to do this shit in sections again…

Religion IS philosophy, you fucking simpleton. And if you're postulating that religion is superior because it came "before philosophy", then by this line of reasoning, you're saying that knowledge doesn't evolve, but rather devolves because it's all regressive anyway – bullshit.

Any supernatural claims they may have made were based on logic (as unsound as some of it may be). For them, belief served a function as a means to an end, rather than a vessel for their desires.

Ok, Joseph Campbell, it's really not that difficult to grasp things in terms of oneness, and I think you're using it as some kind of scapegoat to cling to Christianity, when you know perfectly well how simpleminded that is ("well, it's all ONE and so Christianity is part of that ONE, so despite the fact that Christianity is just ONE segmentary way of thinking among other ONES, I'm just gonna say it's all ONE and connected to justify it")

Ok, Schopenhauer influenced Kierkegaard "a lot"; it doesn't mean that one can't be more logically sound than the other, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to know the whole of human fucking knowledge to understand them.

It may differ, but it's not mutually exclusive. It all begins with the imagination.

Yes, I have a life, and it's too short to waste with theological hokum when there are things I'm much more interested in.

The fact is, truth is a concept which relies on the individual to perceive it. My perception lies somewhere between the deflationary theory and correspondence theory, but the way you used the term in your previous post doesn't exactly mesh with the post that I'm responding to. So, the way in which you refer to truth as independent of our faculties would suggest that the only truth would be nothingness.

Behold the Enlightened One. You have braved the forest of mistakes, and now you can give orders to the angels. Hail, hail, hail!

Kek. I really hope you're not the user I've been debating with for what seems like a goddamn eternity.

Never said that. My point is that I'm a human being, in a huge wide world, so I'm pretty happy that I have all these tools to use. It's fucking wonderful!

Neither coming here nor going. It definitely doesn't simply evolve nor regresses. Human knowledge is obviously circular.

So are those in religion, but to understand them as such you'll need to stop making this terrible mistake

That is plainly wrong, from both philosophical and scientific points of view. Intellect comes first, then imagination. Go back to Plato before waking to all those 19th century Germans.


I don't need to cling to Christianity. I prefer to rejoice in it. And I was never trying to justify Christianity, just trying to demonstrate to you some parts of its body you are clearly oblivious to

Never said that. But there is understanding and there is better understanding. Then even better than that. What I just demonstrated is that, well, if you're reading all those books is because you're seeking something. But something of the choices you've made are making that search less efficient. So why CLING to them? winkwink

it is literally an eternity!
Ever read a J.L. Borges short story called The Theologians (Los Teólogos)?
We are those two fags!
But yeah, simply put, truth is nothingness.

Khornate pls.

what about the idea that We create "gods" from our thought process's or angels or devils from our belief in them.

God needs prayer badly.

What if our belief creates what we think..but conversely my previous ideas that there could be higher lifeforms that would eat our essence/soul as food

But for some reason (I think we both know why) you choose to focus on one particular foundation.

If that were true, we'd still be hunter gatherers.
ftfy

The intellect is primarily concerned with abstract constructs. And assuming your referring to Plato's cave: first comes imagination (Socrates thought little of creativity), then our unfounded but real beliefs.

Whatever you wanna tell yourself, m8.

I really don't need to understand how different individuals managed to put on an astounding display of mental gymnastics to justify the weak foundations of their beliefs.

What if religions are just preparing your essence for consumption?

What did I say that gave away this impression? That's not how it works for me, at all. To me the strictly religious experience (prayer, contemplation, etc.) works like cement, in the sense that the symbolic frame of mind helps connects stuff, and experience them better also.

I honestly have no idea what you're saying. If you think it's some family or social obligation, no one in my family (except grandparents who died before I was born) were religious.

More recent ways are not objectively better. There were a lot of aspects in our nature that we lost by changing that. Yes, we survive more, but that, like everything else, is a pro that takes its cons as well.

Intellect is structure, imagination is the stuffing. Take a look at Timaeus, or Parmenides both Plato's), or (author) Plotinus, which is way clearer about this stuff.

You juggle the stuff. If ever you decided to study anything related with really methodical Theology, you'll clearly see that the beliefs come as sum of the reasoning, not the other way around. They are conclusions that are then synthesized in a symbol for easiness of transmission.


Well, then I'm gonna have to ask you for some of those harsh chemicals you've been taking. Because I figure they'll make for great seasoning.

Ok, so it's just a tool for contemplation? You're so full of flaky ambiguities, it's difficult to really know where you're coming from, and you're starting to sound like one of those new agey people you were mocking earlier.

Why not Plato? Why not stoic philosophy or any of the other religions in the world? You chose Christianity because perhaps it was the most palatable religion, and you like the idea that life is not intrinsically meaningless and that there's light at the end of the tunnel.

Strawman. Knowledge evolves. We have a deeper understanding of the universe. Period.

But on the subject of "better or worse", regarding the human condition: It's all predicated on suffering, whether we have more efficient ways of survival or not, sure.

Semantics, but I don't think this is accurate; regardless of which fucking word comes first, every piece of philosophy comes from the human brain – hows that? Or do you wanna tell me that God created the brain, so it's all God, and it's all one, or something along those lines?

Word salad

Btw, you're obnoxiously pedantic, and you should really stop that. You reek of a philosophy major who tosses around names and concepts because you're insecure with the meat of your arguments.

I can toss around names and esoteric concepts too.

No, it's a system built around symbolism, which is an efficient way to experience, among other things, contemplation.

What I've described is the intellectual aspect of Christianity since it fucking started. You'll find these in from Dante to Donne, from the Boof of Enoch to T.S Eliot's Ash Wednesday. Sorry if your notion of a Christian was a Preacher at a pulpit talking of what you should do with your peepee.

Who said not Plato? I've said Yes Plato. You have a problem with Christ and Plato walking in tandem. Wouldn't say stoic though, because I'm no Jew.

Same argument could be use as to why someone reads Plato. It can be just as comfy, if it's what you're looking for. Accusing that particularly on religion is a tired old cliche.

Well, you don't seem willing to argue that, so, fuck can I do? Enjoy your deeper understood universe, I guess…

Different processes achieving different results. One of the basic requirements to understand philosophy is know to separate them. If you don't care for those definitions or find them useless, better look for a new hobby for yourself.

You can't prove that empirically. You can say it is heavily processed on it. But you can't through the meanings of science, actually PROVE that consciousness starts in the brain. Not saying that to prove it was God (because it doesn't) just that your argument leads nowhere.

Honestly sorry about that. I would definitely use simpler words if I thought I could put these same ideas behind them. You may not believe and think I forced something, but I can only say that any time I used a not so common word it was because I couldn't think of a better one. Also, not writing in my first language, so sometimes I may make a bad call. Never wanted to obscure anything, I'm not that much of a faggot.

Atheists lack morals, which is why they hate Christians.


Churches preach against adultery. Atheism is a cheaters paradise.


False. The only one being a retard here is you.
You obviously don't know the history behind Catholics, making you ignorant to why Christianity and Catholics are separate from each other. Mormons and Catholics aren't considered real Christians.

False. Christians get along with each other, including people of different religions. It doesn't mean we're forced to agree that their religion is the same as ours. Stop being a dumbass.


Both of youtubers you idiot.


False. You obviously don't have a clue of what you're talking about because you're an idiot who refuses to accept facts when presented to ya.


Again, they're not Christians, they are Satanists and one Catholic. Stop being such a retard.

False. I take responsibility for my own actions. I'm not responsible for the actions of others, retard.

False. You obviously haven't read the bible. Just because you google search bible quotes, doesn't mean you read it. Atheists usually take things out of context, mostly from the old testament. Unfortunately for you, Christians use the new Testament because the old one is out of date and doesn't fit with Jesus teachings.

Well, here we go again with the segments. What the fuck is wrong with this site right now

You're almost frolicking in ambiguity at this point. Why. Call. Yourself. A. Christian? At some point, it just becomes another book on the shelf, pal – nothing holy or sacred or divine about it, just some poetic metaphors and symbolism for you to latch onto.

No, you're describing a pantheistic notion God, which is simply not compatible with Christianity.

And you're still missing the point. Why not identify as a Platonian? And then you could always do you're little dance and leave shit out and fill in the blanks when it suits you.

Sure, if it's what you're looking for, but the reason why most people choose religious philosophy is because it makes their lives seem more meaningful, given the idea of supernatural transcendence.

You're being disingenuous. By "deeper", I'm referring to the fact that superstitions have declined, and we know more about how the universe works.

It's not that I don't care for specificity of language, it's just that I think your position on those terms are inaccurate.

I can say that until proven otherwise, the universe (multiverse, whatever) is made of material, and our thoughts are essentially made of material as well (atoms trying to understand each other)

You didn't obscure anything (other than your woo woo approach to Christianity), it was more the name dropping of philosophers that I find irritating when you could simply argue the points.

What is your field of study? Because you obviously have more than a casual interest in philosophy

See, that's why I feel pressed to 'drop names' sometimes. Because I don't want to look like an asshole, who is simply repeating something, without actually arguing it, just stating it, and hope that others will just take it as true. That's what you're doing with those dualities of yours. Those very things you're mentioning are, in a a traditional mindset, sacred and divine. Just as the word spell implies, being to simply put the letters on a word, or conjure some magic thing. Poetry, originally, was seen as magic. Not in the sense of making objects fly with your mind. But of, through symbolism, reach parts of our minds very hard to reach otherwise. You may think that sounds new age, but research the concept of Anagogia. It was one of the basis of Medieval, Christian culture.

Not true at all. It's only Pantheism if you affirm it as such, and deny the unity of the whole. Which I never did. You may experience the multitude of the world, as long as you profess it all coming back to the One. In both Christianity and Platonism.

Well, I can identify as Platonian, of course. It hurts not one bit of my Christianity. I don't see the divider you try to impose here. And I've explained why.

I'd actually agree with that. And I am sorry so many Christians (and people from other religions) satisfy themselves with so little.

I've offered source, you haven't, so what can we do about that?

Then it's just not science, as much as the modern fashion says it is. It's obvious scientists just created this shitty argument of 'until proven otherwise', which is a double-standard on empiricism just because shoving it in the face of uneducated religious people makes their tiny dicks wet. And, come on, you know that! It's hypocritical! But still, even recognizing thoughts are probably material, you can't say they START on the brain. All that is empirically noticeable is, as I said, that they're processed there.

If you mean Academia, none. I simply went around reading this stuff, because I felt a need to. Not because I was desperate or needy for security, as in the comfy afterlife version. I give little shit about that, believe it or not. I was always very cool in that regard. It was more about understanding the structure, going to the ultimate, more and more naked aspects of things.
What about yourself? Get paid some scheckels to read the shit?

...

Ok, but if you're using it to tap into something, I believe Christianity is a dried up Well. You might as well stop with the identity nonsense, and just accept it for what it is – just another book on the shelf.

Pantheism does not deny the unity of the whole.

But it's not as much of a part of your identity as your Christian faith. So, when someone asks about the main foundation of your philosophical beliefs, you surely don't lead with Plato. Why Christianity?

Intellect has more to do with abstract ideas, and imagination has more to do with representation. I'm certain of this, and I'm not going to dig for sources, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

That's just a cynical way of looking at it, and I think you're just being glib. No one can disprove anything with 100% certainty, but one CAN say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, there is either evidence for something… or not.
Thoughts are interpreted by means of the senses, processed by the brain, from the external environment. Why should I believe otherwise?

I'm an alcoholic fisherman who paints and writes in his free time, and has the occasional online debate.

Question: Do you believe that our individual consciousness transcends to another realm when our corporeal material is no longer active?

Btw, I got the subtle whiff of anti-semitism; Please don't tell me you frequent Holla Forums…

Preaching ain't doing. Words are wind. Only actions matter.


I know exactly what the history is. Protestants broke away from catholics. Mormons broke away from protestants. You christians have been fighting each other over the title of "real christian" for centuries.

What do you know, you liar?


What "facts"? That you spend too much time on Youtube? That was obvious from the beginning. Help, help! Nameless youtubers are ruining Europe!


but, but, but they aren't "real christians"!!!

You are such a fucking liar. Like I said. Atheists will never hate christians as much as you hate each other. The only "real christian" that christians can agree on is Jesus. And he was a jew! Hilarious.

I obviously have.


I know exactly what “context” means and I know how you christians use and abuse it. You use the word "context" to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you like and call them the inviolate word of god. All the parts you don't like are just jewish allegories. You are a fucking hypocrite.


Thanks for proving my point. The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament, you lying hypocrite.

The more connections a coherent system can make into other coherent systems the best that system is. I'm not forcing connections, they're well built. You haven't in hours of conversation found one of my connections that you could say, 'no this is not there, you're making it up' and then pointed why, besides saying it didn't fit your preconceived notion of that concept.

It simply isn't. I agree with you that I'm not a common believer of Christ. I said that in the beginning. The common is the pleb version, which of course would never fit intellectual discourse. That's why you had Priests, and Monks, and shit. But those are not different faiths, just different points of views of the same one.

Again, why you make so many assumptions? I never said that, nor would say that. Both have been very useful to me, and I'm just so glad I don't have to pick one.

I may, if it is useful to that conversation. I can say anything about my take on reality using simply Plato. Or using Christian teachings. Now, to come to the comprehension myself, I needed both. And read both as eagerly. But if identity is your problem, I can go with either. Prefer to go with both though.

Abstract is the most wrong term to put side by side with intellect. By the way, take a look at the etymologies if you can, and you'll see the absurd.

Which is not the same as to say it is this way just because we haven't got evidence for the other, when you don't have evidence for neither. As your Indian friends would say nêtti nêtti.

You don't have to. But if you want to be empirical, never again say that thoughts ORIGINATE in the brain, that's all.

Fucking cool, man! I draw and write as well. Any chance of seeing your work? Interesting to find such big things in common after hours and hours of disagreement.
Also, my grandfather was a fisherman as well. Before he became a stained-glass artist.

Absolutely not. Because you may scream if you want, but that would be Christian heresy. It may be hinted at in popular belief, but it's definitely wrong theologically. The thing that was before birth and continues to be after it, has absolutely nothing individual. There's biblical evidence for that.

No, your rhetoric is well rehearsed, and you seem to have identified the deeply rooted flaws in Christianity… and either backflipped around them, or refused to acknowledge them altogether (the abundance of myth, and conveniently choosing what to take literally).

Remember the thing about "until proven otherwise"? Well, I can't prove with absolute certainty that it's just mere words and that it's not divinely inspired, but I can say that there is nothing to even suggest otherwise. It is so obviously, thoroughly, unambiguously a product of the limited human mind, and the bulk of the burden of proof lies on the person who says otherwise. Not to mention the fact that it's replete with astrological appropriation, and when you learn of the permutations of the content of bible throughout the years, it's just laughable. The bible is only mysterious because we didn't have the technology to document shit the way we do today kek.

I didn't say you had to pick one, but why is Christianity more important? I feel like I've asked about 20 variations of this question, and you're eluding it because deep down, you know that by answering it, you run into a brick wall.

We intellectualize things by means of abstract concepts, as the true nature of reality is not within reach. If you do a simple google search, you'll find 'intellect' and 'abstract' side by side quite a bit.

Right, so the absence of belief would be the most logical route to take in a scenario in which there is a complete absence of evidence. Or at least you shouldn't expect the person who finds the assertions to be highly dubious to prove you wrong – if things needed to be proven wrong before a firm basis for truth was formed in the first place, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Sure, perhaps I'll make a thread some other day.

You're right after so many hours of conversation, I'm interested in your age and location.
Me: 33/Pittsburgh – not in india anymore

Our planet is filled with cruelty. predator devours prey.

Why would a higher level being regard us a little more then slaves or food.

Absent of the christian god..or any of the more benevolent gods on this planet. IE none of them are logically more real or better then any other one.


What is left over when you let go of a worldview of kindness that our planet will last and that our survival is assured in a new life.'

What your left with is a cold uncaring multiverse?/universe. in which the possibilities for cruelty multiply and the capacity for kindness and altruism shrink.

Our "souls" are likely if they exist something that may be food for something else given the nature of how life has evolved here on earth.

You also failed to answer my question or give a truly coherent answer to the possibilities i presented.

You desire a finality that you understand and you believe it is so. You lack the imagination to see the cruel designs we could be shackled to by virtue of chance.

Being food for something else..being insignificant on a cosmic scale those are concepts that are foreign to those desiring self importance and self worth.

Religion is a pleasurable socially lucrative choice. it matters not to believe or not. the true worth is the social value it entails. that is what i have seen in how our society functions. you need faith in something to have good social currency.

Belief in something carries alot of value in our society because that is what the media tells us. to have faith in Something.

I have christian values. I refused idols or worship of other human beings or institutions or ideologies. I saw others engage in that kind of worship and become enthralled by the pleasure it gives.

I have seen people become consumed by the destruction and hatred within and take rapturous pleasure in inflicting cruelty upon others in the name of faith/ideology However they wished to justify it.

Would it surprise you to know that I feel little joy or pleasure in expressing my point of view. that I feel only pain because 99.999999% of the time im completely alone.

Most of the time There is some limitation or limit people have in how far they willing to in abandoning the ties they have with others over trivial things…over idol worship or ideology. to abandon those things. even Atheists have a hard time letting go of those things..they simply transfer faith from one vessel to another

Fuck, now I have the cutting thing! What the fuck is this? We can only go one at a time? Sounds like a bad, lazy, whore.

What you call that, I keep telling you, are only present in the popular version of it, which naturally can not survive intellectual discussion as it was not made for that. If you went and researched the intellectual side of it, you'd simply find what I've been telling you.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that as an argument that somehow I'm not a true Christian just because I'm not simple-minded and have built my faith with some bricks you're not accustomed to, as you did a couple of times before. If you're just saying that, to you, it's just a book, then cool. I'll never try to convince you otherwise, as that would be proselytizing, and I would never do that.

You mean in the sense of the Kabbalah, or just the simple things with Jesus, the Solstice and the twelve signs?

I'm not eluding! I'm just repeating that it isn't. Nor it's less important, it's just meaningless to have to choose when there's no conflict between them. You said it was more important TO ME, I never said that.

Fuck, now it won't go even if I chop the shit really tiny

Maybe just make a new thread; although, it would be nice if it wouldn't wrecked by shitposters.

Another dead board?

I thought we were talking, at this point, about philosophy. So what would prevail would be the Hellenistic concept, not dictionary one.

Seems to work if a make it really small, and put a picture. Go figure…

(cont.)
In this case, Intellect would be logos, which evidently is not abstract. Imagination can be demiurgi (not sure about the declension for a noun right now, I haven't slept in over 24h) or doxa. Even the English words reflect that thought, as intellect is that which is collected from within, that is something that is not dependent from the senses, as abstractions means 'to extract' which would be always related to an object from the senses which we 'take something' from, instead of the actual thing, then the idea of abstract forms, for example.

This wasn't about belief, this section of the discussion. It was about being able to affirm not even a negative, but a positive, which was the origin of life or thoughts. You don't have to believe it's supernatural, but there isn't any actual proved positive notion of that. Of course the negation of supernatural until proven is perfectly fine if you want to be an empiricist. The affirmation of matter as absolute isn't.


I'm 28, currently in South America. Not a native though, originally Western Europe.

That's the thing, perhaps I'm just being close-minded, but I'd rather not follow a road that I'm nearly certain be would lead to a dead end (I've opted for the dead end, itself). I'm always reluctant to actually identify as a nihilist, but I don't think I've ever encountered a more appropriate occasion than to make it clear that I don't believe that life is something worth preserving; therefore, reading material which tries to convince me otherwise would be pointless.

Well, that's fine, but I'd actually be interested to see how that argument would unfold; in fact, that's one of the things I've been trying to pry out of you this entire time.

I don't perceive them as being simple similarities with other deities (Ra, among others) at all. in fact, it's one of those things that sheds some light on the obvious human limitations in the creation of the concepts.

You identify as a Christian, and you keep alluding to the fact that you believe the book is special (relative to other books). So, this leads me to believe that it is more important (or that it holds more significance, if you prefer)

I'm not simply referring to the dictionary definition, you'll find it elsewhere. Anyway, I'm growing a bit weary of quibbling over the difference between intellect vs imagination. It's not really that important, as they all reside in the same place, and that was my main point in the first place.

Of course our bodies are inextricable from the rest of the universe, so this would be impossible; thus, the reasons why abstractions are always inevitable.

If I understand you correctly you're talking about feelings? In which case, feelings aren't exactly the greatest barometer to measure truth.

So, if you don't mind me asking, what are you doing in South America?

Here's a painting of Jesus that I painted over when I was too poor to afford supplies. I suppose its the most appropriate piece I can share ATM…

Pretty terrible glare in the picture, but it'll have to do

I find it funny that Atheists lie about reading the bible, when they only google search the information online, trying to nitpick whatever bad thing they can find out of the bible and try to use it against Christians. Only problem with that is that it doesn't work, so they backtrack and get defensive about it. Case in point, these aren't real atheists who hold a grudge against Christians and claim to know stuff from the bible. These are Satanists. They try to twist and spin everything they say in order to try and make Christians look bad, they even stereotype and group them all as being bad people. But we know the truth. Christians are hardworking, honest, decent people, they even give back to the poor, in fact they run a place called "God's Kitchen" to feed the poor, and they run a few buildings to house homeless people in for free. But atheists won't admit that. They only want to see the bad in Christians. That's how hateful they are towards Christians.

Nice, you basically just let out a massive fart and sprayed diarrhea all over this thread.

False. I spoke the truth that you idiots couldn't counter. By the way, what has Atheist ever done for poor people? Absolutely nothing. So unless they build an atheist Kitchen that serve free food to the poor, you got absolutely nothing.

That's alright. I mean, you seem like a person who was searched for things, nihilist or not, and made your effort to understand this fucking bizarre thing we call a life. But your assertions of what is and isn't Christian, given your self-proclaimed lack of knowledge on huge portions of it, are not very useful. To yourself or nobody else.

It is around what I told you before about truth. It's the consonance between the meaning of the words, when understood in proper context, theologically, with all that you see and experience. Not just aspects or portions. Basically the wholeness of it. But I admit that is not an argument, because this aspect itself falls outside the category of possible argumentation. I just gave you an answer for your (apparent) curiosity.

Right, but thinking of Ancient religion (any) as just weather notices is wrong objectively and scientifically. Anthropology has been over that time and time again.

It is special in the amount of content it provides to what I (and other Christians) need to know about certain stuff. By that I'm not denying that it is holy to me (before you get excited), just that you can't choose between real and real (also said this earlier).

Not to our experience, which is what shapes both intellect and imagination. So it doesn't matter to us what is their actual relation to the universe, even because we'd never be able to certainly define that, given that everything would come from our perspective.

No, it's not something in particular. Just that there are no possible positives about this stuff. We can only see aspects of matter, not matter itself, in its whole. So, as you said before, we can negate the probability of a lot of stuff with what we know. But general, positive assumptions about matter itself are not empirical.

At the moment, trying desperately to get out, really. Got here because family decided to immigrate, at a time I had no say in the matter. It's just a disgusting place

And, if I can have a turn of offtopic questions? You ever wrote anything about fishing or being at sea? Love stories about that, and they're just so much better written by people who experienced it.

Wow, that's really interesting. I actually can't help but see a mystical interpretation of it.

The golden stuff supposed to be vermin?

And why the fuck he's got tits? Tranny Jesus??

Christians that you like are the only "real" christians. Christians that you don't like and atheists that quote the Bible, you lie and call them secret "satanists". How convenient for you.

Here we go again…


That's alright, I feel like I know enough. It's like, I don't need to know the exact science behind the sun to know that it's fuckin hot.

Are you familiar with good ol' UG Krishnamurti? We're just barking dogs. We're no more valuable than dogs, and neither is our understanding of the universe.

Good line, but I fail to see how it's not. It's all a big maelstrom, and the forecast is never clear, but at the end of the day, it's weather. It's just an amalgam of "universal" themes and superstitions and it all comes back to one thing – the human mind and our limited faculties.

But you CAN choose between evidence and no-evidence. "Holy" doesn't make any sense, unless you believe that it was divinely inspired; in which case, if God represents "oneness", then every single thing that human beings have ever done or thought is divinely inspired, and that includes every religion ever; ergo assigning special significance to the bible wouldn't make much sense.

You need to be more specific here, because I'm not sure which objects and concepts you're referring to from my post/

Generally speaking, it's empirical inasmuch as the provisional nature of knowledge is concerned.

Well, do you have a skillset?

Yes, poetry mainly

It's not conceptual, just intuitive

No. Just because you have pathological altruism doesn't mean everyone else has to as well. Kinison >> Jesus.

False. Putting words in my mouth gets you nowhere, nor does you lying.


You're a cheapskate and can't donate to the poor or do volunteer work because you're a libtard who lives off the government, instead of trying to go to college, own your own business, make money and then give back to the community. See us Christians do more for the poor than you Satanic cheapskates who live off the government.

Alright in terms of your own choice. But your judgement of what is Christian or isn't gets you nowhere.

Yeah, but you only see the need to state that when someone is trying to explain religious concepts. Not when you're talking about our discoveries of matter or the deeper understanding of the universe we achieved in modern times? It seems you may not believe in that too much…

You have keys (whether you like them or not) to experience basically everything. One, for example, that has relations to weather and seasons but is clearly not about it are the ceremonies to renew the universe. They seek a deeper understanding of time itself, and its mechanism, not only the orbits of planets or results for the plantations. One thing you should understand about religion, whether you agree or not, is that it's always about vastness, never about confining to one single thing.

But this specific question of yours was between two things that I would consider holy, so between two things that, according to your point of view, would have no evidence anyways.

But they are. In essence they are, what happens is that we tend to focus on the appearance of things because of our not so divine side, and then we entrap that divine spark in ideas that do not come to fruition, then they're not holy in themselves but can be conduced back to it, as we ignore the distractions. Like in myth of Narcissus.

It makes sense to a Christian, as that is the aspect you personally need to know, even if other books may be as sacred. But it doesn't exclude them, nor force you to objectively believe this one more special. It's just closer to home.

So positive assertions around it would be anti-scientific.

Most profitable one would be speaking a bunch of languages, and being able to read and translate to the ones I speak another bunch. But real money only goes to faggots who went to college, even though evidently college here is shit and they're a bunch of retarded cunts.

Would you send some to an e-mail I'd give you? We could maybe exchange, as I do those as well. And anyways I'd be curious to read yours.

It's very intense, and absolutely faithful to a very unique world. Very nice, man! Makes me think of some works David Lynch did in a similar vein.

The only liar is you. The word "satanic" comes from your mouth only. See.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong again. Got any more lies you want to throw against the wall to see if it sticks?

Awwww….did the satanic libtard get butt-hurt? Cry me a river fatty.

Contradicting yourself over and over again is a definite sign of being subjective. Was that suppose to be a hard question? It wasn't.


I never mentioned him. But since you brought him up, Newton thought he could turn his own shit into gold. He was wrong.


If you believe that, then you are completely retarded. Do you feminists want "equality" or do you want special treatment? Make up your mind.

Continued.

You are laughable. Your Bible is a big book of jewish fairy tales. All the bluster and grandstanding in the world will never change that fact.


Or else what? Are you going to post that retarded creationist video again? You dummies couldn't even beat my "lazy" arguments about cosmic background radiation. Here's what happens when christians take on non-"lazy" scientists in court.

Continued.

“Nova: Judgment Day, Intelligent Design On Trial. Creationism vs evolution.”

youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

Well, the fact that Christianity has a head spinning variation of interpretations (like most religions) certainly makes it difficult, but you're correct in that I'm mainly going by the fundamentalist positions – which, as I said earlier, is really the only approach that makes much sense if you're going to identify as a Christian.

Heh, I accept the fact that knowledge is provisional, but I believe in these computers that we're communicating on. I believe that the empirical sciences give us a useful knowledge of the universe, and I find the humility of that provisional approach to be something that religious people often don't see nor understand (the humility, that is). Most religious people want to give simple answers to extremely complex subjects, and then they throw hissy fits when scientists or philosophers say they don't know what they're talking about.

So do philosophers and physicists. And as for the nature of time, whether it's the movements of the celestial bodies or the movement of an atom, time is subordinate to movement – it's just a way in which we measure movement. I don't mean to oversimplify it, but I'm fairly comfortable with that assessment.

You're adding a supernatural element that, if it can't be fully grasped, is only because of the unfathomable complexity of our sentient lives.

This is where things start going off the rails from my perspective, and Christianity becomes as far removed from the scripture as Schopenhauer.

No, you need to combine assumptions with deductions to reach the conclusions. So, positive assertions have a function.

Sure, I'd like to maintain a correspondence


Thanks!
You know, it's funny, I'm not even a big fan of his artwork, but I saw the similarity as soon as I glued the wire.

Well, hey, I really have to get some sleep, but here's what we should do: 8ch.net/ooo/index.html Here's a dead board, and you can either post your response here, or go to the board and make a new thread. I have stuff to do tomorrow, but I'll make sure I at least read the reply. But as for right now, go ahead and give me the email, and I'll be in touch.

Right, I'm going to post some answers and let's see where we take this. For now, thanks for the company and the ideas. It was a very interesting experience.

You can send me stuff to del at keemail. me
Don't be scared by the name, as it's just for these kind of offshot contacts. It's totally legit.

Yeah, it's been one of the more stimulating discussions/debates I've had in a long time. And it definitely broke a record for the fuckin longest!

Been a pleasure. I'll be in touch.

Yep, average modern atheists really don't have anything. Go trip over your own shoelaces trying to prove the earth isn't flat.

You specifically threw "theists" under that category. You didn't say anything about it being a measure of how often someone contradicts themselves.

Okay, so you saved yourself. You can say feminists are in with the lot of theists that are "subjective" by nature. Is there a standard? A minimum number of contradictions where you are stuck under the label of "subjective person" instead of the "objective person" master race?

What do you think classifies a contradiction; is a person unknowingly a subjective person if they housed contradictions that were never even brought to their attention?

You just gave me an argument that Newton was wrong somewhere. I could give you examples of Hawking being wrong somewhere. Modern physicists at the edge of their craft struggle to interpret the physical world through their models, resorting to oversimplified soundbites because it truly begins to lose meaning outside of the language of mathematics. When better theories and interpretations are presented, these people and their ideas could be just as outdated as Newton.
You didn't tell me Newton was a "subjective person". Probably because you with your objective mind couldn't build calculus just to make your physical theories of mechanics work. If it doesn't take an "objective" mind to do revolutionary scientific work and virtually define entire sectors of the machinery we use to build models of reality… what good is this distinction? Is it just a way for you to pat yourself on the back for not believing in that thing you disagree with, looking down your nose at people who do? In the meantime you can be comfortable in your "knowledge" without being bothered by the fact that most "atheists" like yourself barely know anything past high school physics and precalculus and wouldn't be able to actually articulate your beliefs in a manner that is distinguishable from faith.
Oh but you're the objective ones. Because you believe in what the objective prophets told you and you don't have to understand what the hell they said to parrot their sound bites.

I don't care if you want to make a distinction, but for God's nonexistent sake make it a distinction worth making.

Jesus H. Christ you have quite a sense of reading comprehension there, buddyboy. Nice job putting up your dukes to defend against a young earth Creationist because that's definitely the only bloke that would criticize your tired rhetoric, right?

Okay, I'll play your game. I'm a Creationist, I don't see a problem with the CMB. Maybe God put it there. Maybe God zapped a universe into existence but the spacetime geometry of the universe and the physical systems therein were created in such a way that they had a comprehensible past before their creation. I don't see how that contradicts scripture, not that I'd care.

Now explain why the Anthropic Principle isn't the scariest observation ever to happen in the study of the initial conditions of the early universe.