Did Scott cawthon pissed off SJWs?

Even e-celeb drama whores like Jim Sterling praised how Scott refunded fans and pulled FNFAF world/apologized for it. There must be something deeper.

He's openly christian.
That pisses off literally all flavors of hipster faggot.

Or maybe everyone got tired of the Scott making fnaf games. Also why the fuck are we talking about fnaf unironically, shouldn't you be in school?

I guess caring for the poor, sick, elderly, orphaned and others who can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps isn't a thing.

I guess being richer than the poor is ok.

I guess capitalism and religion is a great mix, nothing to throw tables over.

...

What is summer break?

Holy shit, I don't like christianity as much as the next guy but that is the single most retarded comparison I've ever seen.

I don't care for FNAF, but Scott is a pretty cool dude. There's no need to insult him personally.

This isn't very good bait.

...

The utopic form of communism, where greed and selfishness are nonexistent.

Holla Forums used to like Undertale unironically. Does that mean it's not cancer? No, it doesn't you retard.

You don't know what Marxism is, do you?

Buy better bait next time, I aint biting.

Did you really think that would do anything but reinforce the point that Holla Forums has a shit load of faggots who will stop liking something the second it stops being cool to?

Actually, that was exactly what I was trying to reinforce.

...

why do autists make those thousand yard stares

Surprise channel awesome hasn't shit on Scott cawthon yet.
Holla Forums should of made all those James Rofle is a cuck meme about Doug Walker and Brad jones. They are literally confirm cuck long before James uncuck himself.

you tell me :^)

Can someone explain to me how the fuck Fox turned Lucifer into a cop drama show?

He is a white christian male, SJWs dispise people like him.

Thinkign of A presses

Holla Forums loved undertale and still begrudgingly appreciates the gameplay and genocide run option.

However, Holla Forums which isn't POZ LOADS turned on it when they hit the halfway point and realized it had faggotry subversion in it up till the end.

Then we discovered an alternate boss fight for those two homo knights which was a cat and aligator (the two merchants you run into earlier on) and the boss fight was about friendship instead of trying to hide how badly you want to suck your best friend's dick.

When we discovered this fight, which fit better in the theme of the game, yet was cut in favor of faggotry, and how forced the other line of homosexuality was in the characters (the yuri lizard and the angry mermaid) we then went back and discovered more

like how Toby Fox specifically chose to make most of the "monsters" furries just to get easier free publicity on tumblr and make bank.

That thread was great but I guess most posters missed it or are new and so they think Holla Forums just hates Tumblrtale because "its popular/tumblr likes it so its bad"

No

Undertale was good but then reworked (and originally was designed) like that ZOOTOPIA movie: it's furry bait disguised as something else

bing.com/images/search?q=undertale bunny&FORM=HDRSC2

Type in "undertale bunny" and watch

He's making a joke with that video, look in the comments. You think a guy that reviews porn for a living gives a shit about James not seeing ghostbusters?

I remember when we liked Brad and thought he was alright.

Then he got divorced and lost a lot of weight and his inner bitch started to show

Probably because it's a cheaper budget for the show and mainly because the execs and writers are hacks.

Wait, what? I don't know how archiving works on Holla Forums, but is this thread saved anywhere? I'd love to read it.

Jesus Christ this thread…
Christfags please go and stay go.

Holla Forums - Video Games

...

Tip tip tip

Not that I know of, sadly. It was around the time the game came out so it'd be quite a while back now.

You can probably find the twitter or tumblr post by Fox that was posted in the thread where he basically flat out states that it's thanks to the furry crowd his work got so big.

Wish we had a dedicated archiver of threads like that

No one's even started espousing the virtues of Christianity in this thread. Are you seriously that full-on Sodom that the mere mention of Christianity makes you uppity? Read the thread

Actually, that was believed to be the hard mode variant. Toby Answered in a Q&A over on /underground/.
Which would have meant gay surfer dudes would have been the shopkeepers

...

Oh and also Toby is a massive furfag you gay retard.

...

I'd believe that if there was official concept work or something in the game that led us to believe the gay surfer knights were supposed to be the shop keepers for an easy mode.

I think Toby's just BSing, but maybe. meh

...

Look how you all got triggered.
Where did I even imply I was an atheist?
You fags have a victim complex, you're worse than the kikes.

...

...

...

You're the kind of faggot that needs to be expunged from life.

Dang, that sucks. I was around for the release, but only hung around the threads for a few weeks.
I'll have to see if I can find that tumblr post, I guess.

Did Toby explicitly say that, though? I know it's not really important, but I'd like to get some logic into the usual UT shitflinging.

Stay triggered nigger

This is what you believe.

user, stop. this is Holla Forums for Vidya
We can discuss the scientific implausability of Darwinian evolution and the nonsensical concept of discovering nephilim bones another day.

Ok

...

I too was going to make fun of what you believe but that giant skeleton image you posted does it all for me.

I think it was twitter, but check tumblr first yeah

I wish this meme would die

thingken about fast

ok fuckers, what did he do?

we know that coordinated attacks happen when socjus want something

I'd have to reverify, the Q/A thread seems to have gone of /underground/. Anyone have the email?

Can you walk me through, in detail, how you could know this without being a complete faggot and (90% probably) slightly underage, within the 16-18 area? I'm coming up blank for any even theoretically viable excuses.

do people get triggered by that?

Isaiah 40:22

Might be the OP bullshitting, I havent seen any links in this thread yet and I am not clicking the embed

No it doesn't.
Stop divorcing scientific fact from Christianity

C.S.Lewis is ashamed of you.

As opposed to

have you been reading the thread?

1 Chronicles 9:24
Ezekiel 42:20
Ezekiel 7:2
Isaiah 11:12
Revelation 7:1
Revelation 20:8

God is the most logical and reasonable answer.

It's good to know there is still fellow christfags here
keep posting

You do realize the bible was edited by man and entire books where left out based on the political atmosphere at the time hell ask the average christian about the actual story of Adam and Lilith

I am not saying god is wrong I am saying the meddling of man has distorted your bible so much that you put your faith in the wrong thing

Round =/= sphere

Ok you faggots, what type of vidya our lord and savior jesus christ would play?

When the christian is someone like c82400 I can understand, guy might be a false flag though because what crap he posted is just laughable.

yall just mad cause god cucked a nig

Wew lad

Jesus is a fucking faggot, he could have gone with him and had fun too

...

...

Cognitive dissonance.

The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, the majority Greek text.

Wow this thread escalated quickly.

Favorite verse and video game, go!
Matthew 8:5-13
Super Metroid

He's shitposted the exact same images with his YEC, flat earth bullshit multiple times on Holla Forums before.

He's done it on /christian/ too

I'm glad this thread didn't devolve to shit like usual

/christian/fags, give me, a fedora tipping atheist, a few reasons to become Christian.

You have 1 bible verse
I have 6, all of which referring to the world as having 4 corners and sides.

There was no fun, it was a diversion.

The You Testament. mdickie.com/prev_youtestament.htm

For real, that game is fucking fun once you get the hang of it.

didnt the original book got lost and we only have translated stuff?

that first one is new to me.

Why people believe on an book written by man?
even if it were the fucking 12 apostles, they were all still man, and thus liable to error or evil
why anyone would believe a book like that?
There is no word of god, only renditions of man, if not directly words of man for man to man

Research religion, study the King James and find your own reasons. It's that simple.

Do you also think when someone says he has met people from all the world means he met people from Earth's core as well?

...

Any question you might have is probably answered on
gotquestions.org or compellingtruth.org

Top kek

nice try satan

...

Satan don't you have islamism to maintain?

He's right though, the best way to find an answer is to search for it.
Doubly so when it's a spiritual question.

Personally I always believed in reincarnation

Is that plausible within Christian beliefs, or a form there-of?

The Earth doesn't have a core, I proved this to you already.

wew

Religion can be anything you want it to be, everyone bends the rules to their own liking.

yeah, it didn't end well
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caedite_eos._Novit_enim_Dominus_qui_sunt_eius.

The Religion of Atheism

In many practical aspects, atheism is a religion.

"How can you say that, Cowboy Bob? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods".

Yeah, sure. That's the cop-out redefinition, not the real definition. Except not all atheists got the memo, and some are confused.

As I was saying, in many practical aspects, atheism is a religion. It is a philosophy of life and conduct, and has many of the trappings of organized religion. Although atheists will tell you that they believe in "reason", they actually have a religion that is based on faith. A lot of it. I can't go there, Girlfriend.

In the United States, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism is a religion
The US Supreme Court ruled that atheism is a religion.
Secular Humanism (a masque for atheism), received comments from the US Supreme Court that it is a religion (one of these groups wanted tax-exempt status as a religion)
Atheists adore their religious leaders like Richard "Daffy" Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robespierre and others
They seek their own special pleadings in court to restrict the rights and beliefs of the majority (even back to the days of Madalyn Murray O'Hair getting prayer removed from schools; ironically, her son directs a Christian organization)
The dreadful philosophical writings of the aforementioned misotheist authors are freely quoted in lieu of actual thought, and seem revered as atheistic scriptures
Forums and other Internet gathering places are like anti-Christian fellowship arenas, fraught with self-congratulations on being non-thinkers and praising each other for trolling Christians
Enthusiastic atheistic thugs pa-TROLL the Internet, seeking to destroy the faith of Christians (which I suspect is an effort of ego-bolstering)
Since these kinds of Internet atheists are unskilled in logic, they attempt to destroy the writings of believers with ad hominem attacks, quote mining, selective citing, ridicule, intense mockery, red herrings, non sequiturs and other distractions (see my series on "Logic Lessons" linked in the right-hand column)
They hate God through a double standard: "How can you hate something that doesn't exist?" (a silly statement based on the Fallacy of Assertion), and yet, God conveniently exists when they want to use the Straw Man fallacies that they create based on their misunderstandings of reason, philosophy and the Bible
Demanding their own military chaplains
The "Freedom from Religion Foundation" was ruled a religion by the US Department of Justice, and Annie Laurie Gaylor is a minister
Do a search for atheist bumper stickers, calendars, coffee mugs, clothing and other paraphernalia and see how antagonistic the fundamentalist acolytes of atheism have become these days

Yes, atheism is a kind of religious cult. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, thinks like a duck… It's a duck.

not only are those blanket statements and assumptions it's more apt as a description of existential nihilism.
and plus
pick one

archive.org/stream/LostBooksOfTheBible/LostBooksOfTheBible_djvu.txt

You're right, your alternative is clearly superior

Yup, clearly a superior set of beliefs, how mistaken and blind are we, men who lack faith and don't simply listen and believe.

Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

youtube.com/watch?v=7xBWPiJLnFw

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA

youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

youtube.com/watch?v=9wAxPG4WpN8

youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI

youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

youtube.com/watch?v=niDCq3TbvOo

going to give it a try, it looks spooky

It was written by men divinely inspired by God.
It was compiled by men who feared God.
It was translated by men who worshiped God.
apocrypha
But I'm sure you think the Gospel of Judas is also a legitimate synoptic gospel which was left out because of tomfoolery

The flat-earth tripe is garbage and utterly embarrassing. I could swear this whole mess of flat earth was started to mock Christians and subvert the Alt. Right (which was then successfully subverted by meme worshiping idiots and "alpha homos")

/thread

this was the best laugh I had all day so far

May God bless my siblings in Christ in this thread, from the intelligent to the simple, with understanding and great peace.

I'm leaving before this turns into a shitposting den.

Read the bible. Jesus literally says that Jews are satanists.
"
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
John 8:44

Read in a wider area around that part and you'll see he's calling out Judaism.

Fixed.

Amazing game.

Scott's been a constant thorn in their sides since he became a thing, and not because he actually ever said anything; it's more to do with e-celebs and indie hipsters being terrible about ever getting any work done. They had a nice cozy little niche where they lived off of monthly donations while never putting out any games, and then Scott came along, put out an entire fucking series of games in a year, and made mad cash for it. That in turn made some people criticize said indie hipsters- "Hey, this one lone guy put out a ton of games on a budget of peanuts that set YouTube on fire and made all the cash- what the hell have you been doing these past five years with all that money that's been going to you?"

Remember that one of the indie-clique's criticisms of their customers is that they 'want AAA games from small teams' or 'won't go for games that aren't the cliched RPG and FPS fests' (basically, anything they can think of to divert criticism away from themselves). 'Cept games like FNAF and Undertale show that you don't need big-time graphics and budgets, or to follow the rules of main genres in vidya. Even if you were to look at them derisively (Jump-Scare the Game and Earthbound Tumblr Edition), they still don't follow the norms of any genre. So just the fact that these games were hits kind of ruins the indie-clique's whole 'people don't want different' argument.

The fact that the creators of both of those examples are male only pisses them off even more. Scott in particular; he showed that you can put out a successful game giving zero fucks about anything (remember that he hadn't had a thing under his belt except for one game that got lambasted to hell and back.) RadFem devs and the indie-clique constantly cry about how hard it is to make a game and sell it when you're a nobody, and Scott was literally a nobody with a game that supposedly attracted zero attention on Kickstarter. The feminist indie-clique can't manage to put out a decent game with thousands of collective Patreon dollars and websites shilling their shit weekly.

The very existence of people like Toby and Scott (productive people, that is) challenges their system of collecting Patreon and sitting on their asses while they never deliver on Kickstarter promises. That's problematic for the indie devs, because if it wasn't for idiots freely handing them money for nothing, they'd actually have to do work. Scott's handling of the FNAF World launch showed that devs can be honorable and held accountable for incomplete products without throwing a giant bitchfit, and that's absolutely frightening to them.

Ayo, god just contacted me and he told me to call you a massive faggot.

If you are right and I am wrong, nothing will happen to us when we die.
But if you are wrong and I am right, you will go to hell and I will go to heaven.
Is that really a bet you want to take?

Is that you Common Filth?

poor judas, he got the short end of the stick

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator" Romans 1:25

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 14:1

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" 2 Thessalonians 2:11

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts" 2 Peter 3:3

"The heavens declare the glory of God" Psalm 19:1

I stopped paying attention to the generals, was /underground/ ever shilled there or on /mtt/ or did it just become a "secrit kidz clubb" organically, because based on the general thread there, it was made sometime in late February.

One thing that annoys me is that a lot of the refutation and research into the arguments against Undertale aren't used anymore in favor of high ground arguments.

On topic, I guess people are pre emptively hitting Scott for whatever the Sister Location game's story or theme is, or that his new game hype is getting in the way of some dyed hair's advertising campaign for "Suck my Queer Dick 3: Now made with Ren'Py deluxe edition."

ITT: Christfags crying

Europe is as good as done for, America is next.

...

I can't force myself to believe something I simple don't anymore. Sure, I could go around claiming to be a christian again, but it would be a lie.

The Earth cannot possibly be billions or millions of years old.

1. Population: The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we have records. The present six billion is the right number of people to have multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400 years ago. If man had been around for millions of years, the same growth rate would have produced 150,000 people per square inch of land surface.

2. The planets are losing heat. If they had been formed millions of years ago, they would have no internal heat left given the present rate of heat loss. If a hot cup of coffee were left standing for 400 years, it would have no internal heat left.

3. The planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago.

4. The moon: Space dust accumulates on the surface of the moon at the rate of about one inch for every ten thousand years. Astronauts found an average of one-half inch, just about what you would expect in six thousand years. Also, the moon is very slowly moving away from the earth. If it were millions of years old, it would have had to start very close to the earth, causing ocean tides so severe it would have drowned every thing on land twice a day.

5. Comets: As comets travel through space they continually shed some of their material. Any comet more than 10,000 years old would have long since disintegrated into nothing.

6. Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. At the rate of deterioration, no such field would exist if the earth were as old as evolutionists believe.

7. Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart.

8. Petroleum in the ground is under tremendous pressure. The rocks that contain it are porous. If the oil had been there for millions of years the pressure would have dissipated long ago.

9. The oldest living plants, the bristlecone pine tree and the coral reefs only go back about 4500 years. If earth had existed for millions of years, why aren't there older plants still alive?

10. Ocean salt: Now at 3.8 percent, the salinity of the oceans would have been much greater. The present rate of increase points back to a beginning about six thousand years ago.

11. Evolutionists point to stalactites in caves as proof of an old earth, but there are stalactites in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial several feet long that have grown in less than 100 years.

The evidence continues to accumulate, exposing the evolutionist's erroneous assumptions. Yet, in blind faith, they cling to their absurd theories rather than accept the Biblical record of creation.

To feed the hungry.
To give drink to the thirsty.
To clothe the naked.
To harbor the harborless
To visit the sick.
To ransom the captive
To bury the dead.
To instruct the ignorant.
To counsel the doubtful.
To admonish sinners.
To bear wrongs patiently.
To forgive offences willingly.
To comfort the afflicted.
To pray for the living and the dead

Satan, if a book written by men says that 1+1=2 is that untrue as well? Keep in mind that new Testament was written 30 years after the events, by the people who witnessed it all.
Not saying that everything is true or correct, but books about Romans and Greeks where mostly written 500 years after they died, those would be even less correct. Although still good stuff to learn or live by.

I never implied that. It's better especially in the case of religion to find your own reason.
I gave a tip, it's just up to him what to do with it. The fact that he is interested is a good start.

The bible kinda implies that the earth is flat, as God screeched out the earth etc. Who knows.

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance – French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

To be fair its fun to see how retarded the arguments can get

It's six periods of time, not days.

You forgot the part where Scott can't stop making fucking fnaf games.

Also

Satan please.

But I'm not a JW or a fedora to take everything the bible says literally like a retard.

KJV clearly says days. Are you questioning the divine origins of this holy text?

...

The book of Genesis literally says days. You can say it's a metaphor, and it most likely is, but then a lot more things could be interpreted as metaphors.

fucking this. 2 books into Lucifer and I fucking love it.
He's just so…classy

cuck

don't forget, a day is relative to the earth rotation.
It took 6 of these earth rotations of a planet that didn't exist for billions of years to do this.

so, it's written by men.

it's a metaphor when it suits their needs.
People telling them off for circumcision? it's a metaphor!
that simple

Not 24h days idiot

Is that a serious question? The Bible isn't "one book". You should read up about the canonization. It will help you understand why people going "books left out" is complete bullshit like there is some sort of conspiracy. As well as why what was considered as it was.

For me, from nihilist to full on bible believing Christian, once I established the reality of a transcendental maximal being (which, after studying enough philosophy, the only coherent explanation of everything involves this, to the point I view atheism now as simply ignorance), the rest resolved upon the historicity of the Gospel accounts.

Aside from the recorded speech of Christ as resonating so much (there was a part that made me realize it was what I was looking for all along, when I read "drink of my water, and you'll never be thirsty", it sort of all made sense), the historically reliable accounts of Jesus (even from non-Christian sources) have Christ fulfilling several prophecies made some thousand to a thousand and a half years earlier. It just too big to ignore.

Which sort of lined up with old testament writings. The trial of the false gods, the ultimate test was "can your god tell you the future or the past?". Which sort of makes sense. In theory, with advanced enough technology, you can recreate any physical miracle. But making predictions is quite a bit trickier. I would know, my specialization deals with information process physicist, systems. We run into limitation problems when analyzing some systems, so that it would be impossible to account for the degrees needed to accurately predict some things, even if you had infinite processing capabilities.

If you are wondering what philosophers had the biggest effect on me, it went Aristotle -> Plotinus -> Descartes -> Leibniz -> Kierkegaard -> Marcel.

Hey that middle one is my post!
What the fuck? That doesn't seem like it should be posted in a Christian pic dump. It seems dangerous gnostic or folk.

The parable of the pharisee and the tax collector.
Been playing a load of empires mod lately.

Daily reminder that approximately 2000 years ago, God became a human and died for your sins.

If you reject His gift of eternal salvation, you will burn in hellfire.

/thread

...

Only NOW do you see any issue with his posts? Like 90% of the things he posted is retarded bullshit

What a fantastic discussion on the video games board. I'm sure everyone here has learned more about different worldviews and beliefs, becoming a better more rounded individual because of it.

I'm so glad we can all get together to discuss our opinions and exchange ideas through the power of the internet.

Sure bud sure

Well if you want to rip your eyes out to give them to a blind person or murder your own family because the bible says so be my guest.

People who aren't insane or autistic can understand the meaning of words outside of their literal sense.

Why call them days then? Did all knowing God didn't anticipate it would be interpreted as actual days when He inspired whoever person wrote the book of Genesis?

Did you have a shitty day or what?

Perhaps God didn't want to blow up everyone's mind and just focused on what mattered when he gave them a message.
If you go to Africa to help people out in a humanitarian aid you wouldn't just start off trying to talk to them about advanced economics or astrophysics when they lack all of the fundamental education to really understand what you are talking about now wouldn't you?

...

kill yourself

I'm not the one refusing to answer a straight answer like you.

the word day in the bible is translated from the Hebrew word "Yom" which is referring to a literal day

I did answer though.

No, plenty of people from different religions aren't autistic user, you are.

Top kek

It was a metaphor then? What stops me from considering the whole book of Genesis a metaphor then? Why would anyone consider creationism a valid explanation for the origin of the universe if it's based on a metaphor then?

It's a translation problem. A lot of study bibles will point out that the meaning of Hebrew phrases at some points isn't fully explained. Not often, but it does happen. Genesis is loaded with things that are interpretive since the importance is implication, not mechanics. It's not important how God made the world, just important that we know He did. Notice a lot of description is pure responsibility and no description.

Look up Hugh Ross if you want good lectures about Genesis from a Ph.D astrophysicist.

I was writing that long ass post I wasn't noticing all the post inbetween, I'm sorry!

Again, I gave a direction. How daft are you?

He didn't ask for direction, SJW.

Genesis is a metaphor unless you honestly pretend dinosaurs never existed.
Hell most of the Bible is, even most of the things written about Jesus are about his parables, all metaphors trying to teach you a valuable lesson on morality and how to be a decent human being.

But most dinosaurs didn't exist, they were either invented by evilutionists making abominations by combining skeletons or were placed there as a test of faith by G-d.

I'm a christfag, how the hell does that make me a damn SJW

...

Nope!

Top kek

Pretty sure you are derailing mate

No you retard.

Dinosaurs existed alongside with man, until they were wiped out by the Flood.

The word "dinosaur" didn't exist until the 18th century. Before that they were known as dragons or giant lizards.

Top kek

Keep going, I might get hard.

Here's a humble request to our christian friends (because I always forget to bookmark things)

In one of the new testament letters (don't know which, please help), the writer essentially tells the christian community he's sending the letter to, to not try converting gentiles with falsehoods about the natural world. I want to say he mentions saying the sky is not blue, or something or other about nature.

Anyway, he pretty much says that doing so will weaken any efforts at spreading the word of god. Makes sense, since the gentile will just look at you funny and wave you away.

I really want to find the passage, becuase that's what a lot of this focus on evolution does in my opinion. It's just not helpful at all, just pretending to take it seriously opens a can of worms due to all the fucky shit in nature.

As for going back to GAMES, the only game i know that's halfway decent with christian themes would be boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17392/here-i-stand

Not really sure if there are any passable biblical / overtly religious video games….

That's what I said, 90% of the species of Dinosaurs never actually existed and were invented using the bones of other creatures.

Top kek

I love to run

Top kek

Does it get better when you get powers? I loved fucking around in it and Hard Time, but it qas absurdly hard to actually do anything with everyone being chaotic evil and your character entering pissfits

There should be absolutely no problem in accepting the theories for the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth and evolution, as long as every believer shrugs and say "God did it, that was probably all part of His plan" then. There should be no religious fanatic attempting to deny any of those.
I'll consider it.

You say most of the bible is a metaphor. Why not all of it? Who decided what was or wasn't a metaphor? How can you so calmly accept so many loopholes and not question them?

shoot. I know what you're talking about.

It's funny how people honestly believe stuff like that.
Then you bring up pre-historic sea creatures like the Carcharocles megalodon and how would they have died in the flood and they just drop their spaghetti all over the place.

There are no loopholes, all of the Bible must be taken literally. To do otherwise is heresy.

...

Mate, these people believe in things there is no evidence of. Believing is the opposite of knowing

gci.org/bible/literally
Poor athemanlets, when will they ever learn new tricks.

What the fuck is wrong with this thread. I came into this thread to see what Scott supposedly did or did not do but none of you fags care, it's just religion banter

It does.

Top kek

You've given me an ounce of hope. That maybe the indie devs will start being held accountable be laymen instead of just people like us: calcified in the niches of the internet's bowels.

Nigger if you honestly care go read the fucking manual.

The reason why we attack the theory of evolution is because that's why people turn into atheists.

This debunked lie/hoax/fraud of this garbage fantasy that Darwin came up with has poisoned the minds of millions of people.

The root cancer is evolution.

Atheism, and all sorts of degeneracy:
are the symptoms.

The decadence in western civilization can be traced back to the 18th century "enlightenment" thinking, when people started believing they were nothing but animals.

Good joke.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

Evolution is a myth, it's a hoax held afloat with government funding.

I knew I wasn't just remembering a fever dream.

Journo clique hating on Scott is easily accepted as part of the 'They hate cis white religous men' structure, so discussion would be scant. Religious bants have more engagement value.

If you want a good post, read

Reminder that stormcucks are ruining imageboard culture with rampant moralfaggotry and whining

I didn't ask the question.

Top kek

You don't go to heaven when you die. We are resurrected after the end of days.

Don't see the appeal imo

He did ask why should he follow a religion, the entire point of the religion is written in book form.
Telling him to go and read it and find out himself is akind to telling someone to just go play the fucking game and form their own opinion.

Stop being a sheep and depending entirely on other people's opinions like a cuck, if anyone cares they should just go read the bible, visit the christian board or go ask a pastor.

Nothing of what that user is saying is wrong at all.

Ebin
Top kek

Silly kafir

I'm sorry you're stupid. It's the christfag curse i guess

I didn't say the bible is to be taken literally, quite the opposite, in fact. But I ask you, who gets to decide what parts are to be interpreted as a metaphor and which aren't? The article you linked seems to imply it should be on a case to case basis, but then, what kind of logic do we apply to discern between what would be logical and which wouldn't be when we're talking about miracles and other things that defy logic?

If you could sum up why should someone join a religion in 2 seconds you'd be right.
You're acting like a SJW though.

But you're the one believing in a myth.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html

I believe in Biblical facts and truth.

Top kek

Which facts and truths?

Aight, I'll play it some more later. Thanks for reminding me that it exists

Lots of parts of the bible are parables, the important thing though is the message if you're a christian.
Whether God made Earth and the universe in a week or what God considers a week, whether everyone will rise from their graves in the end of the world or not really doesn't matter at all.

What version is this chart supposed to be based on?

...

You aren't shrugging anything. The fact that all things are contingent upon God implicitly implies that all things happen because of God. The mechanical nature of things is irrelevant most of the time.

The moment you start investigating the "contradictions" is the moment you realize whoever made that doesn't know shit.

Top kek

I made a post a while ago stating this is why Undertale got massive fan praise but won jack shit at any awards ceremony. Undertale not once even won it's deserved bar minimum, - sometimes not even nominated - which is the category for best soundtrack.

Of course, I made a fucking shot in the dark months ago when I said this. But as time keeps passing, I look at the store page for Undertale on Steam and see 50,000k reviews. Then I think what it feels like to be another indie developer that may have made another good game but didn't receive even five percent of the attention Undertale did.

So I think the indie clique - which toby isn't a part of - is salty as fuck and that's why despite the extremel critical and user praise of the game, hardly appeared in any awards, especially indie awards

everything is cancer, the OP caring about some FNAF faggot, the absolutely mind numbingly retarded Christ/pol posters and the idiots actually attempting to reason with them.

If you bothered to look it says King James in the bottom left.

Its funny though

Yeah, all supposed "contradictions" always happen to be misunderstandings or things taken out of context. i.e man failing to understand God's Word.

Atheists, before even reading, already start with presuppositions and a negative scoffing attitude. They will read *looking* for contradictions or anything they can find to boost their confirmation bias.

Here's your reply

Oh man this thread.

This takes me back to my embarrassing old days of being a christfag. Good thing I found logic and reason or I'd still be as crazy and deluded as you guys.

Sorry man, but again, I didn't misremember that bit about the preaching advice in one of the 'Letters'. You can't go around trying to spread the gospel with untruths about the natural world.

It's incredibly easy to separate each of those philosophies you listed from each other. I'm sure you see a common thread winding through them, but I don't and I'm sure you must know that most people don't.

Throwing a link is not enough, specially not in an user board like this. We like the bants, or else we'd stop coming.

==

Here's a bit of an example about the separation of philosophies and beliefs, with communism. Have you ever read the manifesto? It's super short, takes like 20 mins and it's hilarous as fuck.

The first half of that pamphlet is actually pretty legit. It explains the natural progressions of regular capitalism, bubbles and booms, and even praises the technological progress it enables.

THEN the shitty ass thing jumps the shark on the second half with it's utopian bullshit that's not worth the paper it's printed on. It's funny!

So now, after reading it, one can appreciate the criticism of capitalism and how incentives can be created to keep capitalism working well, while not becoming a pinko russian commie.

This may come as a surprise, but people CAN hold different views just like that, and most people DO.

The KJV has no contradictions whatsoever.

I remember being a militant atheist, but then I turned 20 and stopped being edgy.

But fox already has a capeshit cop show

You agree then with the statement that the belief that God created the universe is not mutually exclusive with the current theories for the origin of the universe and, therefore, would agree that religious fanatics that attempt to deny said theories because of their beliefs are nothing but fools, right?

Yes, of course, we're the ones with the confirmation bias, not you.

...

Most people stop being edgy, but they don't go back to being christians, at least not regular practicing ones. I still tend to go sometimes because 1. church's pretty close 2. makes my ma's day when I do.

Also because I buy lunch those sundays.

I remember those times, feeling so much smarter because you aren't religious and replacing it with atheism as a religion itself.
All that fucking cringe looking back those days now.

If you were militant atheist you never really changed at all.

Such as?

C.S. Lewis and

conclusively proves that a belief in God is more logical and reasonable.

The idea that there is no creator is irrational.

Such is the price of free will though.

Argument from Cause: This argument considers God the "First Cause." In other words, everything that exists must come from something else and that something else is what we call God. Philosophically, this argument is presented as:

- Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
- The universe had a beginning.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first aspect, that everything that had a beginning had a cause, is based on the principle of causality. Nothing cannot produce something. The second part, that the universe had a beginning, is supported by many lines of modern scientific evidence. These include the second law of thermodynamics (that the universe is running out of usable energy toward disorder), the expansion of the universe, the radiation echo of the initial explosion of the universe (often called the Big Bang), among others. The conclusion is that the universe had a cause.

Argument from Design: This argument proposes the following: Every design has a designer; the universe reveals complex design; therefore, the universe has a Designer. This design includes both natural and supernatural causes. Both the macro level (design found in the universe based on astronomy) and the micro level (design found at the cellular level) support the argument of highly designed and complicated forms of life that find no adequate explanation apart from an outside, powerful force capable of intelligent design. This Intelligent Designer opens the door for the existence of God.

Argument for Morality: This argument follows a more internal logic that suggests that:

- Every law has a lawgiver.
- There is an absolute moral law.
- Therefore, there must be an absolute Lawgiver.

Some question whether there is an absolute moral law. Yet as C.S. Lewis notes in Mere Christianity, "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about."

While postmodern philosophy attempts to deconstruct this argument by suggesting all absolutes of right and wrong regarding morality are relative, the existence of absolutes in the universe is undeniable. For example, two plus two cannot equal four and two plus two equal five at the same time under the same conditions. Likewise, many areas of morality suggest a universal sense of injustice regarding the wrongs of the world. Individuals may differ regarding exactly what is labeled justice and injustice, but every person has an innate sense of there being right and wrong. This morality has an origin and it is argued this original Lawgiver is God.

Ultimately, the Bible teaches that the fool says in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14:1). Those who are honest will admit there is "something" behind the design of the universe and human life even if people disagree on what the something is. While there are arguments for the existence of God, faith also plays a role. Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." God desires that we seek Him, and rewards those who do. He has provided many ways to understand Him, including the created world and His Word (Psalm 19). Ultimately, those who come to faith in Him must do so through His Son Jesus Christ in order to receive eternal life (John 3:16; Acts 4:12; Ephesians 2:8-9).

In examining the existence of God, the first question that should be asked is: "Why does anything exist?" Subsequent questions are: Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? In considering the question of God's existence, there are three popularly proposed answers as to why there is something rather than nothing: (1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. Which is the most plausible solution?

The idea that reality is an illusion is primarily a tenet among Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The "reality is an illusion" option was disproved by the philosopher Rene Descartes who argued that if he is thinking, then he must "be," "I think, therefore I am." In other words, "I think, therefore I cannot be an illusion." Illusions require something that is experiencing the illusion. If nothing exists, neither does the illusion. Philosophically, doubting your existence actually proves your existence. "Reality is an illusion" is a self-defeating argument.

There are then only two choices—an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Something exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If the existence of God is denied, an eternal universe is the only other option. To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning. Whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal is demonstrated by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang, the fact that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity.

Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

With the clear evidence for the existence of God in mind, why are there so many atheists, and are there any grounds for atheism? No, there are not. The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time. In other words, to disprove the existence of God, one would have to be God. The need for an eternal and self-existent Creator can be proven. Atheism cannot be proven.

Another crucial issue to consider is the fact that the acceptance or rejection of the existence of God has more implications for life, action, and morality than any other issue. If atheism is wrong, it will result in unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. With this in view, atheists should produce conclusive and undeniable evidence for the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot accomplish this, and therefore, all atheists can do is hope that they are correct. Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.

So, does belief in the existence of God have intellectual warrant? Absolutely. While atheists claim that belief in the existence of God is a psychological crutch, it is in fact atheism that abandons reality in order to fulfill a psychological need. If there is no God, there is no morality, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. If God does not exist, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences. That is the true motivation behind atheism.

In opposition to atheism is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and declares judgment on those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:18-21). It is the fool who says in his heart "there is no God" (Psalm 14:1). Denying the existence of God is foolish—philosophically, scientifically, and most importantly, eternally!

In looking for "conclusive proof" of God, one must first consider what type of evidence counts. For example, we cannot see the wind, yet we know it exists because we feel it, hear it, and see its effect. Likewise, no one has touched the sun, yet we know it exists because we can see its impact in our world and beyond. In the same way, we can speak of evidence for God from the basis of the things God has made and the ways God has worked in the universe as well as in our individual lives.

One logical way in which we can provide "proof" for God's existence is through the natural universe. The universe is either an illusion, is eternal, or had a beginning. Since we would normally reject that all existence is an illusion, and scientific evidence points toward a beginning of all space, matter, time, and energy, it is most likely that all created things had a beginning. Something that has a beginning requires a cause. This First Cause can be defined as God. The best evidence or proof points toward His existence.

A second way to speak of proof for God's existence is found in the complexity of design throughout creation. From the complexity of the stars in the sky to the vast number of advanced parts within even the tiniest cell, the evidence points toward intentional design rather than random events evolving toward today's observable universe. In philosophy, this is described as the argument from design or the teleological argument for God's existence.

A third way to discuss proof of God is found in the universal sense of morality. In other words, every person adheres to some system of right and wrong, even though people vary greatly in what is accepted as right or wrong. This universal sense of right and wrong points toward an outside, objective source of morality. This is often called the moral argument for God's existence.

Yet another way to speak of evidence for God is to appeal to the vast number of unexplained occurrences of miracles and the supernatural. Are all of these events explainable by natural causes? If not, then the existence of a supernatural being is at least possible.

More specific to the God of the Bible are the many predictions made regarding the Jewish Messiah in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ (see this article for more). Though predicted hundreds of years before His coming, they describe His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), His town of birth (Bethlehem; Micah 5:2), His Jewish tribe (Judah), and many other areas, including His suffering (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22). Though one could argue for a few seemingly "random" connections, the number of accurate predictions and level of detail make it so improbable as to be considered statistically impossible for one man to coincidentally meet them all. Fulfilled biblical prophecy points toward a God who is sovereign and omnipotent.

While some would reject these arguments as conclusive proof of God, the evidence for an eternal, all-powerful Creator God is strong. Further, the evidence for the God of the Bible and Jesus the Messiah include great detail worthy of further study for those investigating the claims of Christianity.

And this preoccupation with 'proofs' is another of my sticking points.

Has faith no legs? If CS Lewis had died in a freak accident before writing his works, would your faith be diminished? What's with that desire to pin faith to someone's works?

The only reason I never go smug against christians is because the best dude I ever met in my life was a priest. Dude saw some shit, and was still the chillest most kind guy I'm likely to ever meet.

But some of these arguments? Worthless. Either stick to your faith by God alone, or don't. Don't be leaning on shitty man-made things to support belief.

Christianity is too extreme for Holla Forums.

I take it a step further. Many theories aren't only not mutually exclusive, but are dependent upon God's existence in the first place.

All scientific theory is dependent on a few implicit epistemological axioms, such as the belief that the entire universe is causal in nature, and that the entire universe is ordered (this means that it can be studied intelligibly). Both of these things are only justified by a transcendental maximal agent imposing them upon the universe (that is, God: notice singular, since other qualities implied by this necessitate singularity since pure active quality means the being and it's genus are one in the same).

This is why many concise arguments for God's existence are undeniable, particularly to someone who subscribed to the validity of scientific empiricism. And they have to unwittingly destroy their own belief in order to escape it. Considering the hot new thing is deny one or BOTH of these axioms (that our universe is contingent causally, and that it is ordered), I find it hysterical.

Not to mention physical evidence of previously pure philosophical postulates (that we have, scientifically, found it undeniable that we live in a non-past eternal universe that cannot be cyclical). Which run directly into establishment of the above.

I would never render a harsh judgment in that way. Since, after all, I accept that all my philosophical and scientific knowledge might all be as worthless as straw when it comes to the nature of things. But I would disagree fairly strongly with anyone who thinks you need to choose between Christian belief and scientific knowledge. Since it implies poor understanding of one or the other (or both).

hardly, but if you push it on others, people will push back.

You are not serving your lord by doing this. Let others find their way on their own and you'll have more followers.

If you are just and correct, that is.

Evangelists have no faith in their faith.

You get me? Just focus on being correct and people will follow you. All else is blasphemy to your lord.

How is it possible for God to always exist, but not the universe? This does not make sense.
If everything must have been created, it follows that if god exists something must have created him too.

It can, as long as you aren't a sociopath. Humans are happy to act morally towards one another because it's more evolutionarily viable than fucking each other over.

I want to write out one of the stories about that guy by the way, so you can compare yourself to him and cry.

So the guy lives in a perpetually in-construction church. It's pretty large (only one in a growing community that's way out of the way), but there's no roof, it's all grey and concrete because it's done as donations allow y'know.

So at one point, one of my aunts straight up sees him faint. Rushes in, helps him out, asks if he's fine. He's fine, but says that maybe a bit of food would be fine.

That sounds odd, so she starts digging and long story short, it's found that the old ladies helping him run the church are straight up stealing from the church's donations. So much that he's foregoing eating because "they must have needed it very badly" (he only said this way after the fact)

Well, shit hits the fan, and the community straight up shames the ladies into getting the fuck out. They're still around, padre-man wouldn't allow them to leave and said he forgave them and all that jazz.

If forgiveness is a superpower that guy had it, because I know I wouldn't be able to.

==

Point is, that as a non-edgy, non-affiliated with much of anything heathen, that guy's actions were the only thing that makes christian though palatable. Not your attitude of 'everyone's fucked but me' and not your shitty argument that have truck sized loopholes.

God is not bound by time.

Time, space and matter are things He created.
He is not limited to these laws as we are.

God is eternal, the "I Am".

God is the eternal goalpost mover, more like.

Seriously, religion is based around the ultimate Mary Sue.

Keep flailing your arm around like a child throwing a temper tentrum

Oh, of course, could I have a citation?
And an actual answer to my question?

You're supposed to grow out of imaginary friends when you stop being a child

Wow, it's almost as if arguing against religion or God is useless because God is the ultimate "fuck you nuh-uh" everything proof shield of logical arguments

Quick on the trigger for the shitposter, not so quick for the people asking thing in good faith (pun intended)

Just look at his earlier posts, guy went full retard from the first post he made and more than 30 posts later he is not showing any signs of stopping

So? What's your point?

Sounds like you're whining because you've been proven wrong.

Denial is the first step.

I am not sure when "faith" became "blind faith". Considering Paul specifically instructs against it. The facts of the crucifixion are acknowledged because it was recorded even by non-Christians or uninterested parties. "Even the demons believe, and tremble" That should be the clear tip off.

Not "all things have to be created", it's "all created things" have to have a cause. You know it is created because of it's contingent nature (i.e. our entire universe and everything in it).

Video related, or a text version of what he covers.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

It should clear up misunderstandings.

Also morality CANNOT exist without an agent to impose it. You are looking at it backwards. You cannot assert morality without asserting God. You can assert a moral form with platonism, but then you cannot assert a moral duty in that case. It's something you can't escape. Since the person who the morality is imposed upon is subordinate to the morality itself (it's definational in morality: something the person is bound to).

Interesting, but couldn't random events be orderly in nature, even if such order is a mere coincidence? I would agree such a thing happening is very improbably, but isn't it still a possibility? Either way, you do present an interesting point of view.

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that, even if this argument works towards the possible existence of God, or at least an intelligent design, it still doesn't mean such being has to be the Christian God or even the God from the Abrahamic religions.

Denial is the first step.
And it's where you are.

You can't have logical argument when using illogical things as evidence now can you?

Great thread, OP.

When you sit on a chair, you have faith that it will hold you.

When you go to a doctor, you have faith that he knows what he's doing.

When you get in your car, you have faith that it will bring you from point A to B.

When you get on a plane, you have faith that it will bring you to your intended destination.

That's reasonable faith.

Then there's blind faith, i.e believing in the theory of evolution requires blind faith because of the lack of evidence and the fact it has been debunked and destroyed countless times.

I could never have that much faith to be an atheist that believes in billions of years and Flintstone stories.

Look, if god personally spoke to me I wouldn't question it.

If a motherfucker with crazy powers of creation and a visage that killed people popped up one day and said he created the earth I'd believe it.

But religion was created by people for the control of other people in superstitious times where people needed that sort of thing to keep them together in dark times.

But right now you are not serving your "god" by being a facetious ingrate.

You know the type of people who serve your lord? The forgiving, the peaceful and the kind, like in this anecdote here

By being all deus vult and shouting down others who challenge you, you sperg out and yell at them, which shows you have no faith in your lord because you feel the need to angrliy defend it.

people like you are the reason I left the church to pursue my own life. You make me sick.

I was literally sent to a fucking indoctrination camp because of people like you who thought I wasn't extreme enough for the religion. I just wanted a fucking peaceful life of silly hobbies and fair worship but you fucks opened my eyes too wide to the sort of outright devilry that plauges the christian community.

You're being targeted by the media now and if you fucks don't shape up, then the good people of the religion, the caring types, the ones who organize community service, the ones who actually follow the religion's tenants will be put the cross and killed like Jesus after enough time.

You need to stand tall and re-read the fucking bible.

And did I say blind faith in my post? I was alluding to 'proofs', logical reasoning with flawed thinking, or an attempt to reduce god to bite-sized pieces.

If 'the facts of the crucifixion' are your credo, then so be it! Hang on to it! Such must be your belief. Is that not what informs the rituals of the church you belong to? Blind faith would probably just devolve into some feelsy hippie fest.

As for 'morality' unable to exist without an agent, why must the agent be god? Has it not been the more immediate case that it is people who hold morality?
Having people as the agent explains the changes in societies through the ages, both the good and bad.
Having god as the agent would probably make injustices worse, when the downtrodden cry out for aid and receive none….

Religion; a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Everyone has a religion.

Call it a worldview, presuppositions, but everyone has one.

You were going so great, until you reached the point of thinking there is no evidence for the theory of evolution. There's plenty of studies on fossils and on the genetic of current species that seem to indicate different species have a common ancestor or are related in some other way. That seems to point validity in the the theory of evolution.

Further more, why is the idea that mutations can occur that make the resulting mutant more likely to survive and reproduce in it's medium, which would make said mutations prevail up to the point of becoming what's common for said species? Because that's all evolution is really.

I'm merely engaging the materialists/naturalists in their own language.

We live in the age of """reason"""

Delude yourself no more, you self righteous blasphemer.

You are the devils that subvert what you supposedly protect.

What? Guy went full retard from his first post on

I meant on that specific post.

He was doing fine in the sense that he deigns to engage us. How many christians would have just posted a smug picture and left?
He has conviction, but a conviction that's way different from other christians, which is why we're picking at each other's scabs.

Common designer.

A Ford Mustang and Ford GT both have 4 wheels.
Does that mean they evolved from a skateboard?

And mutations cause so many problems for the theory of evolution it's not even funny. DNA proves a creator.

But you are defining god as something not created and the universe as something created. You're assuming that the universe couldn't have always existed and that god couldn't have been created. This is not necessarily the case.

If morality needs an agent to impose it, it does not need to be a deity. I implied that when i said being moral was more evolutionarily viable. There's a little saying: "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." If you must have an agent, society itself can function as that agent. In more tribal times being kicked out of your tribal group could be a death sentence, and being a selfish edgelord would do that. Being good and, in turn, well-liked amongst this group would increase your biological fitness.
You also have to factor in altruism amongst family members, where one member sacrifices their own fitness to increase the fitness of another. It's a thing that happens with biological basis in most species. It doesn't happen simply for religious reasons.

His attitude isn't conviction, it's hatred.

Someone with conviction would stand tall and practice his religion even as he is assailed, but this bastard doesn't even read the bible and yet holds it over others.

He's more a convict then a convicted person.

Guy is batshit if he believes what he is posting, not only is he constantly contradicting himself he is also making blanket statements that are false and then he calls other people dumb for believing in facts.

"Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked."
-Psalm 97:10

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil" -Proverbs 8:13

Well if it's orderly it isn't random now is it? Haha. But I see what you are asking. The essential heart of the question dances around what is meant by "random" in the first place. Since "unpredictable" is a problem of capacity rather than a lack of teleology. That is, just because we don't have the faculty to monitor a large amount of interactions doesn't change the inherent nature of the interactions. Nor the boundaries set up. The "random" system itself is inevitably shaped by the boundaries and rules of interaction within the system. Which then implies a non-arbitrary direction (since people say "random" and they think that means "undefined"). So it would be impossible to have a physical random system which was truly undefined. It would always be determined by the larger system it resides in. And not arbitrary.

In that same way, you can think of it mathematically.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
What is the nature of "randomness" in this case? That should make it more clear (or less clear, technically joke)

As far as "the God". Anything that terminates in the conclusion of an entirely active being means it's identify God. This is why it is irrelevant who comes up with the conclusion, since it is determined only by the facts it relies on and not any of their spiritual revelation.

But as for why Jesus Christ, as I put earlier, that is entirely dependent on scripture and what you think about it. I listed earlier my many reasons for why I believe the accounts recorded and tradition to be reliable and factual in their claims about the nature and person of Christ.

No, it's deduced not defined. The universe can't be causally past eternal since it would imply we have traversed an infinite set of causal interactions to get to right now. It is impossible to traverse an infinite. So even if the material was eternally present, the essential nature of it was not. Hence, for the causal chain to start, that thing must itself be uncaused and non-contingent. That thing must have a bunch of other properties too (which I mention how and why in some other post). That thing is what we call God.

Materially we now have plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that the universe was not materially past eternal either. And as of the last decade, we essentially have the proof for it.

I can use the internet too.

Also Psalm and Proverbs are the most read chapters in the bible.

Posting random verses from the internet is not what will prove you read the bible, it's your ATTITUDE that will.

It's clear from your attitude here today that you have not read the bible or taken any of it's words to heart.

You are a disgrace.

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. -Numbers 31:17-18

You need to point out where the flaw is. Hence the nature of logic and reason. Logic is strictly defined. You would need to demonstrate where the logic becomes faulty, or what premises fail to work. Which has yet to be demonstrated.

And it isn't reducing God at all. Far from it. I'd be the first to argue that God, by His nature, can never be subject to the intellect of man. Hence why only qualities are defined negatively (i.e. say what God is by figuring out what He is not).

Morality is imposed upon the person. The person is necessarily subordinate to it, hence why the person needs to act "in accordance" with morality. If someone wasn't subordinate to it, they aren't obligated to it. If you say otherwise, then you aren't talking about morality, you are talking about something else. Or you are saying morality doesn't exist. Which is exactly what the original argument was: if you want to assert any moral truth, then it is contingent upon a superior agent. Note: the reason God and not some other human is that morality, by definition, applies to the class of things (humans). It would need to apply to the person imposing it as well. Thus the problem of "human will defining morality" becomes apparent in it's internal contradiction.

A command to a specific group of people in a specific area in a specific time period.

What's your point?

I'm honestly more confused by the evolution angle. That's what I really don't get.

How does the full dismissal of evolution fix the following
* Same fossil species found in different continents
* Dogs
* Relations found through DNA mapping
* That one 40 year old experiment with E.Coli where they developed a way to eat the agar base
* And on and on

This is completely ignoring his tree
.
====

To me, this worry about evolution; this view of it as the true cause of everything bad smacks of the attitude of the conspiracy theorist, of the black israelites, and others:

I found the cause. I know the truth and it's this. It's a massive simplification of things that's just absurd.

It's almost sollipsism for me: It's easy to know how you yourself are a complex human, but to turn around and say "oh hey, all these problems here? This all wasn't made by complex interactions between complex humans like me. Nope. All of these problems are caused by 'evolution'~!" Or the illuminati! Or the jews!

It could never be something like, the tragedy of the commons, but in a larger scale right? Nah!

And those are not legs. They are used in mating, similar to snakes.

Evolutionists used to say that they were vestigial, but then they got proven wrong.

Have you never encountered a narcississtic person in real life? A hypocrite?

Having morality handed down to you by your mother, your father, or your village may not be the most logically rigorous thing, but surely you must see that it can happen?

A king can assert immoral things upong subordinates, can make them the tradition of the land over generations.

What is a 'moral truth' then? How can we find it? Do we start from our upbringing and our biases? From something outside it? If it is not applicable to real world views of morality, did our investigation even start at the right place then?

Just letting you know I can quote the bible too. Can you explain why a loving god would command his worshippers to do this?

Do you have a single fact to back that up?
And can you explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes?

What I meant by "random events" is events that happened the way they did not because there was a force or being guiding them, but by simple chance. But I think you understood that much.
Then again, even if there is a creator, I can't bring myself to believe it's a perfect creator, because then you would expect the creation to be flawless, much less could I bring myself to believe said creator to be the christian God.

Dang, you just reminded me of that video.

Here, from a time before dawkins was an edgy meme.

Most of the chapters in the bible prove that it's written by man and not the divine, as it is a product of basically medieval 1984 control, simply by sheer moral dissonance.

And considering that every thing ever that is written was written by man, there is no evidence of the divine in any case.

The only thing that people allows people to accept religion is the kindness of the people in it, like any other group. If you're a dick, you have nothing that wants people to keep you, because your backstory is bullshit, but if you're NICE, people won't oust you, even if your backstory is bullshit.

Two things.

One: The thing about evolution is that EXACTLY like every other science (although evolution is a theory, albeit one with a lot of scientific basis and work), like robotics and medicine, our knowledge of it is incomplete.

If it wasn't incomplete then there would be no need for scientists. Science is advancement and most importantly, a field of study, not a religion. Unlike religion, there are no absolute promises, only progress. They are exact opposites.

Two: A couple of those were explained (Dogs are the result of selective breeding of wolves, we literally made them partly by accident because we kept the ones that were loyal to us and the other failed ones just ran off or some shit), and honestly i'm not an expert on this shit and this site pretty much THE WORST place to ask because this is a site for shitposting and argument, not science.

So check on a scientific forum for you answers.

It's a clusterfuck, but if you can bear it you can track down the information on ALLLLL that shit and the progress on specific instances.

You see, in Science, the incorrect thing isn't promoted over an over to a ridiculous degree, it's cast out. Sure, there are those fucks who want to bend experiments for their own benefit, but nothing's perfect. But for the most part, it's the reason we have so much these days.

In fact, in the old days, most of the scientific work was done by the church. A priest figured out basic gene work, regressive genes, etc.

They just don't do that shit anymore because the churches kept trying to bend experiments to match their narritive, so church scientists were killed off or left because of this and continued their work. The churches had the most funding for shit like that back in the day.

These pagan cultures were extremely wicked and evil, worshipping Satan, sacrificing children to underworld demons, having orgies in temples, rampant homosexuality and other degenerate activities, such as having sex with animals (which the Hittites were known for). Not to mention the nephilim genes.

Do you have an issue with Russia bombing ISIS?

God was getting rid of cancer.

Chances are that you and I would not be here talking to eachother if these certain groups were not wiped out.

As for your second question, these are all answered in Kent Hovind's creation seminar.

The giraffe is an example of extremely amazing design. They are able to drink water without breaking their neck.

(41) and he is still going

Keep telling yourself that.

You may want to see that linked video, he was talking about the nerve going from the brain to the vocal cords.

Also, you keep going into your religion's stories. Makes it difficult to follow.
What even is a nephilim gene, why was it bad, where'd it come from?

go deus vult on the christfag board.

If we're telling you that you're a retard, it isn't because we're pagans or satanists or whatever boogeyman you've chosen today.

It's because you're a retard who's doing a disservice to your religion because you sperg out about it all the time. You're the reason people leave.

I can post non-arguments too!

That is exactly what I pointed out by the "random events". You say "guiding" and that is as fine as word as any. That is essentially exactly right. It has an inherent object by the existence of it's boundaries alone. So even in a strictly material sense, you cannot have an "unguided"(undefined) random system. Or even simulate one (this is a key thing in information theory). You'd have to abstract it.

Why would a perfect creator imply a flawless creation? That seems like a basic assumption but I am unsure on what grounds or observation that would come from.

And by what measure do you hold things up to be "flawed/unflawed"? Since this presupposes an ultimate thing to measure it against. You'd have to trace the justification of this measurement to a proper terminator. Essentially, and deeply ironic, you'd need an ultimate, maximum (fully active) being to justify a proper norm that resided outside of "my preferences". That is, something which the things being measured can be subordinated to.

Which brings us back around, the reason the use of ration in this case only works is because the thing sought after is a universal concept. It's not "the Christian God", it's just "God". And the question then becomes "Is Jesus Christ who He claimed to be?", which I already talked about why I think so, which I can only implore others to look into on those same grounds.

Jesus warned us of religion, vain repetition and man's traditions.

And don't kid yourself, Evolutionism/Darwinism is a religion, if not a cult.

Oh boy, that explains alot.

If those cultures were evil, why not kill everyone? Why were the israelites told to take the virgin women? Were they somehow not as evil as the others living there?
And I thought God loved everyone, why would he consider them cancer? Couldn't they have been reformed?

Try again, m8.

And you completely ignored my question about giraffes. Look at the other guy's video with Dawkins if you don't know what I meant.

Let's try for the new record.

That depends on the tribe/nation.

Some were completely killed off, some were spared because they weren't completely bad. In this case, the virgin women had no fault.

God knows best.

Try again, m8

see? I can ad hominem too

If you get a monkey to type a thousand sentences and predictions over and over and over, and if you make it vauge enough and have followers that are fanatical enough about it, it will be misconstrued, bent, twisted and presented as truth.

You are the poster child for atheism.

...

Retardation coupled with paranoid schizophrenia.

Would you accept that your use of the word 'religion' is not common?

That most people think mormon, catholic, islam, buddhism, etc.

Wouldn't it just fit better to call things ideologies? Ideology of islam, of christianism, of darwinism, of statism, of marxism.
Surely that would cover more things like you describe?

Dude, you can't expect me to know your religion's canon. I barely know my own trade.

I don't get your beef with the video either? It's about 4 minutes long and it's a dissection of a giraffe focusing on the neck. The lady in a raincoat points the 'laryngeal nerve' at its starting point near the back of the skull. Then the nerve is pulled slightly, and tracked along its path. The nerve then splits onto a Y shape around the heart's location in the chest. One of the paths of the Y split goes back up to the neck and ends up at the vocal cords.

That's what he was asking about, if you didn't want to watch the video.

It's okay when we do it!

And I only suggested the video with Dawkins in it because someone else posted it and it explains what I was asking you about. If he bothers you that much you need only google 'recurrent laryngeal nerve giraffe.'

As far as I can tell it has something to do with those goofy GIANTS R REAL!!! pictures he posted earlier. Something about DNA from another species. I assume its just christfags confused about neanderthal DNA.

what? how did you get that out of what I said?

Do you think that your work wasn't edited over the millienia? hell they're still doing it now, making subtle changes in wording, language, etc.

People have been editing the bible, adding on chapters that suit them and all that shit for centuries.

Do you honestly think the bible was all written at once?

Good you brought that up.

What you know as "Neanderthal" skulls are infact the skulls of pre-flood man.

The older you get, the more refined your eyebrow bridge becomes.

The more you eat, the stronger your jaw bones become.

Here we have skulls with very defined eyebrow ridges, strong jawbones and more brain capacity.

Now what book talks about people living to be over 800 years old? Take a wild guess.

This is direct evidence. But you'll deny it because you've been brainwashed to believe these are the skulls of primitive Flintstone cavemen.

You need to be more specific, you sound like a retarded Muslim when you say

The Bible is not a book, it's a library.

All those things only agree again! I totally agree that these people aren't actually defining morality in any way when they simply use threat of violence to get what they want. Same with people who just go with whatever they heard first. The original argument was that, you need a very specific thing in order to assert morality in any way. I say "assert" in the sense that there is a logical and rational reason to agree to it as moral or not. For this you need that thing to impose it that exist outside. You simply cannot assert anything an an objective morality (and that means, cannot assert any moral duty) without recognizing that it depends upon God. This is only important to recognize because many atheist will assert strong moral stances as binding upon others, but there is no meaningful reason they are binding or correct in any metaphysical sense. That is to say, there is no logical reason to assume it is imposed if their reasoning begins and ends with "I like it/don't like it right now".

Let alone the other problem of arguing against God's moral character. This is immediately debilitated because any argument against God as a moral agent collapses since any moral claim appeals to God in the first place. It becomes internally contradictory again.

Identifying "what" is moral is a far different question, and one that is far more complex. The original scope of the argument was simply to establish the dependent nature of morality.

Judging by my post you can clearly see where I think morality comes form in a metaphysical sense: it's the nature of our actions in intent that is imposed by a supreme agent (God). As to what is or isn't moral, as I said before, that is a far different question.

Ok honest question here, are you schizophrenic?

Actually, the big bang is a result of the big crunch, and vice versa.

What happens when energy is confined?

Its potential force goes up.

What happens when all the energy and matter of existence is contained within a tiny ball?

It explodes.

What happens when the explosion dies out and the outwardly hurtling matter starts to be affected by the gravity of objects closer to the center?

They fall back in, picking up speed until everything gets pulled back in.

In, out, in, out, like a pulsating heartbeat.

This is how the universe has always been, this is how it always will be. Explosion, implosion.

It's very simple if you can grasp infinity, which most Christians cannot.

Do you really think eternal life is a gift? Consciousness becomes jaded, bored, indifferent to stimulation. Eventually, you will run out of new experiences. Sure, you may be quintillions of years old, but you will run out.

And you haven't even begun to live.

Now what are you going to do for the rest of eternity? You have nothing left to experience but death and the unconsciousness it brings. And that's the only thing you won't be able to have.

Immortality is a curse, not a gift.

[cont]

The OT was written in Aramaic and Hebrew, the NT was written in Greek.

From then on, you had 2 lines of text:

The "Textus Receptus" (majority Greek text) which is the inspired and preserved Word of God.

And the Alexandrian/Sinaiticus manuscripts which were found in a trash can in Egypt, a hotbed for early heresies and gnosticism. This text is what the Catholics use aswell as Westcott & Hort in the modern perversions.

Now what is exactly your criticism? Linguistics (i.e going back to what Hebrews/Greeks say, textual accuracy vs easy-to-understandism) or the nefarious agenda of changing scripture?

For the latter, I agree. There is an explosion of modern versions of the Bible that have errors in them and even blasphemies, the NIV being the main one. Occult societies that worship Satan ofcourse would attempt to corrupt God's Word.
This is why you stay with the Authorized Version made in 1611 England.

As for linguistics, that's what internet and concordance are for. You can easily look up the original meanings.

There was no big bang.

There will be a big bang when God destroys this universe and creates a new one.

Nice try attempting to change the subject.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about giraffes.

I have no clue where you're getting this bone stuff from. Your jaw bones don't get stronger from eating, your jaw MUSCLES can, but I have no idea where you're pulling this from. Besides your ass.

And of course the neanderthals weren't primitive cavemen, you make too many assumptions. Neanderthals made tools, structures, they had an actual society, possibly even language.
They were not, however, "pre-flood" men, because such a thing didn't happen.

And I'm still waiting for your response about the giraffe nerve.

Repeating the argument in mockery doesn't invalidate the argument when you say nothing afterward to invalidate the point.

case in point

If that was all it took to dismantle an argument, this conversation would be over about 47 posts ago.

By being so defensive, rude and retarded, you have lost followers and gained none.

Since the atheists can't post any proof for evolution and cannot refute the mountains of arguments for God and the Bible presented ITT, I'm calling it a day.

Do you never get tired of getting BTFO?

Every single Christian/Atheist discussion ends up with the fedoras shitposting and making a fool of themselves, while the Christian side provides links, sources and articles.

Christians: [lost count]
Atheists: 0

/thread

That's not what the math says, kiddo.

No, that is incorrect in terms of current cosmological understanding.
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
People have to deal with the fact that we do not live in a past-eternal universe.

Now that's much clearer. It's the 'asserting of an objective moral truth' that's what must bind both parties. That's actually something to chew on.

Still not sure about the need for an agent for that then. Many people can assert that the objective moral truth must be carried out to 'maximise happiness' or 'keep the social order' not just 'because it makes god happy'

You just raised too many questions my friend.
I have no moped to chase you in.

Here's a few questions that I saw no answer

- Bible authorized version. By who? how?
- Neanderthals are regular humans. Is there evidence other than the bible? How can we know that people lived to those ages in that time period?
- Nephilim stuff: Didn't get a mention about what that is. Someone mentioned giants?
- How disproving evolution will actually save us from social evils.
- Or how disproving it will convince the unwashed masses

and on and on

Sorry I didn't keep going :|

Problem is that there's really no evidence that a big crunch has or will occur. It's possible,but the universe also may never stop expanding.
There are other explanations for the Big bang than just a big crunch.

Aww, he's running away.
You never answered me about the giraffe nerve.
Or posted sources from things besides explicitly creationist websites.

That still is grounded in "what I prefer in the moment". And you keep trying to drag it back down to exoteric religious purposes. The argument does not rest upon any of that. It is purely metaphysical. Hence the need for the outside agent. It needs to be removed from the persons preferences otherwise it is not objective (if that is the term you want to use for this property).

Since Christians like you cannot post proof for their god and instead kill or shout down anyone who disagrees, while evolution has plenty of proof and research while "god" has nothing but supposed hearsay and a book that was written before any sort of history preservation and thus has no basis beyond that weak premise, your stance on religion is false.

If anything you're the one tipping the hat here.

You literally sperged for 49 posts about this, providing no evidence or kindness that would allow people to tolerate you.

The point of religion isn't if it's based on a real thing or not, the point of religion is if it benefits society or not, or if it helps people.

You see, back in the day, chritianty did their part by helping in science and providing loads of community benefits and protecting villages.

Nowadays they don't because those same villages can fend for themselves and don't need them, but instead appreciate the churches. Churches found another niche in providing comfort for those who need it, as they no longer do the same work since others have filled it without biases.

People like you are the reason religions will drop off the map in 100 years in major countries, while people like that one superpower forgiving guy who is actually virtuous will keep churches in society.

I'm just glad that your sort is dying out, while the real kind believers are going to last forever.

Am I getting closer?

Before everyone bails out, I wasn't following your conversation but there is an ontology to that claim that is either false, or unfounded. The reason for several religious claims is recorded by founders or people who propagated it, and I can't think of one that went "I just made it up and I hope it helps society".

And as for the evidence of God, there is loads of it. Just go see my other post. I haven't argued once that God is real "because hearsay". So I hope that isn't what you actually think is all that is out there.

If you mean "claiming to know what is or is not a moral truth", that is not what I am arguing. As I wrote I think three times, simply the existence or non-existence of a moral truth is contingent upon God (and all the properties and everything else I wrote) is the entire scope of the argument.

In terms of identifying what is or is not a moral truth, whoever is claiming it would need to provide a reason for that claim. And evaluated based on the reasoning. Same as any other objective claim. And as I said before, this is an entirely separate problem/question.

Unrelated, if you mean to imply that no one would be able to identify what is or is not objectively moral, this is on par with denying anyone has access to an objective reality. Since the grounds upon which something is claimed would need to be examined. So you can't dismiss preemptively something as epistemologically impossible without also consistently dismissing everything else of the same kind on the same grounds. And I don't think you'd be willing to do that just by skimming your other post.

Which is, funny enough, rooted back to the original scope of the argument.

Well, I can't argue against that, you're right, what may seem like a flaw may be just a bias we have due to our lack of knowledge, there's still much more to learn about the universe after all.

I must admit I've ran out of arguments, mostly due to my lack of knowledge on this subject, of which you clearly have more than I do, and therefore any further objections I try to device would only serve to make me look like a fool, not to mention I truly have nothing else to add to this discussion.

It was a pleasant conversation, which is a lot more than what I can say about discussions in the subject of religion that I've had in the past. Good day.

Whoa whoa, existence and non-existence of moral truths is contingent on God?

That doesn't sound very…sound. It feels like going "Hey, if you don't believe this claim, that's proof! And if you do, that's proof too!"

What would be a 'moral truth' then? A commandment ala 'thou shalt not kill'?

I'm probably sounding way annoying, so here's a deal: shoot me a recommendation for a book on your side of things, and shoot me a recommendation for one that you read but disagreed with. I think it'd be pretty interesting to go mano a mano with it.

You havent provided any evidence at all

The fact that some theroies are incomplete is irrelevant.

You're arguing that "Hey scientific knowledge isn't perfect, join up with us because God totally exists because scientific knowledge isn't perfect"

I checked all 14 of your posts and there is no evidence whatsoever of god existing.

If you're going to be c82400 aka posted (49) times guy, then do it somewhere else because the unwritten rule is one salty autist per thread.

I like the series, Lucifer is really funny, I wish I could work for him (I mean, that version of him)

Wow we sure have some real fucking retards on this board. guess which side I'm talking about

The (49) guy

Jewish religions got so lazy about labeling their fairy tales, they simply named one book after themselves.