You just repeat your same stupid shit. "Durrr you steal my worldview, you steal my worldview."
No motherfucker, I don't believe in the magic kike. You believe in genes. You steal MY worldview!
Your magic kike God tells you to be nice, but then you go call people faggots. You clearly don't even believe in the teachings of your magical kike. You walking contradiction.
Peace and truth are separate concepts, you fucking idiot.
Go die of a tooth infection.
Shocking that critical thinking is damaging to your spirituality.
Cult member idiot.
"You're angry. Your post is too long. Therefore the magical kike stories are true! Teehee!"
I don't give 2 shits whether your angry but it's apparent logic is not your strength.
Ahahaha! @eagleshigh, get a load of this guy. He has no idea that I've been teaching you logic on Voat for years now, harping on it with every retard I come across.
But yeah sure whatever you say guy who doesn't know logic.
Hope your faith is fulfilling enough so you can stop verbally masturbating your insecurities all over voat.
Faith?! Coming from the guy who believes in the magical kike! Roofles! gtfo!
I mean you think your so beyond everyone and should be so fulfilled yet here you are,
I AM ABOVE YOU! I REPEAT: I AM ABOVE YOU! YOU FUCKING RETARD!
jumping into a conversation you did not start
Oh God, not that! How dare I discuss on a discussion forum!
and calling backup on top of it.
Oh God, not that! I pinged people, therefore you're right that some kike rose from the dead. Teehee!
Let alone stealing my worldview.
This is as shallow as your primary talking point of "nuh uh I'm right you're wrong." It's shallowness is easily demonstrable, as I can just repeat the same thing back to you. YOU stop stealing MY worldview. Look you retard, I dont need to believe in the magical kike to get by, but you keep referencing genes from biology. So the fucking FACT here is I'm not stealing from your shitty and retarded and magical worldview AT ALL (despite your retarded and baseless insistence), but YOU ARE stealing from the scientific worldview which you're too stupid to take to its logical conclusion.
Must be great to be you, hahahahahaha.
"Your life sucks, so that definitely proves the magical kike rose from the dead! Logic, teehee!"
Wake me up when you actually do something productive.
You think brainwashing children into your retarded magical cult of virgin sacrifice is productive. Teehee, the Romans beat the shit out of the magical virgin kike, but it's okay because he rose from the dead contrary to science, therefore my completely unrelated sins are forgiven somehow and for some reason I'll be given eternal bliss in heaven, so long as I wholeheartedly believe the stupidest shit ever, teehee!
Look you tard, I don't want any of what your retarded worldview has to offer. It's not worth stealing! I do want you to shut the fuck up about genes, and other scientific discoveries that you're ungrateful for and unabashedly steal! And I do want you to die of a tooth infection, rather than rely on the science you eschew to save you, that way you can more quickly visit your magical kike in eternal paradise! (Your magical kike, who, by the way, did NOTHING to inform us about genes or bacteria.)
Fuck off now, shit-for-brains, with your obviously false magical cult thinking. Your religion is a fucking joke, and you're a fucking idiot.
Skimming through my comprehensive smackdown of idiot @Crensch, I found a highly amusing example (of many!) of idiot Crensch being proved wrong but of course being absolutely unwilling to admit any wrong.
Basically, idiot Crensch, who is an idiot and knows nothing about Godel, chooses to love his ignorance about Godel, because he claims Godel (and Aristotle) had no access to physicists. My smackdown was threefold.
First, I pointed out to him that some contemporary physicists like Freeman Dyson are theists.
Second, I pointed out to him that Aristotle wrote "the book" on physics. (Aristotle is also one of history's greatest logicians.)
And third, and most damning, I showed that Godel would go on walks with Einstein, (Einstein, who humbled himself before Godel's brilliance.) Idiot Crensch, from his ass, thinks for some reason that the Big Bang means logic don't real. Idiot Crensch fails to realize that the Big Bang falls under Einstein's physical theory, the same Einstein who humbled himself before logician Godel's brilliance.
But is that enough for idiot Crensch to admit wrong about anything? Nope! He still "knows" that he doesn't need to know anything about Godel or logic.
Would it be so hard to say: "hey, I thought Godel was unaware of physics, but it turns out that he had direct access to history's greatest physicist who he humbled with his brilliance"?
That is too much for idiot Crensch. He can't admit wrong about anything, because he is a stupid cult member, even though he is an atheist. Even in matters such as these where he has been objectively proven wrong, where there can be no ambiguity regarding how decisively proven wrong he is, he still somehow refuses to admit wrong and somehow thinks he "won." This is because he has the insanely thick mental defense mechanisms of stupidity common to cult members.
Thanks for linking to comments where you got wrecked. I do enjoy the fact that I bug you enough that you still bring me up to others years later. It must have really hurt to get ass blasted like that
No surprise, you're still an illiterate retard. Those comment chains prove it.
You somehow think that me answering why my accounts are in the negative constitutes giving a shit about your shitbrain opinions.
I love the comment chains as they stand. I'm glad they're archived. Maybe that's something we can agree on. But you seem to think they represent you favorably. They don't, as a matter of fact. But you're too stupid to realize how hard you got crushed, because you're an illiterate retard.
Actually you do, no matter how much you want to deny it. Your anger and hostility only serves to prove my worldview correct and makes yours ash.
Actually all of your posts prove Mickey Mouse is the one true God! Teehee!
Why so upset, whatever I said is just the result of random thoughts and has no basis in logic or reason. Not sure why so angry I mean it's not my fault that mutations produced my supposed stupidity.
Oh, so if evolution made you stupid, it is impossible evolution made me angry! That makes sense!
It's all random chance anyway so it should not impact you emotionally. It's all just nature regurgitating out it's beauty. No thought, no purpose, just red tooth and claw.
Oh, so if I'm mentally unwell, that's far better explained by a perfect God eith a perfect design, than by imperfect evolution! That makes sense!
Again why so angry and hostile. You can call all your buddies but there just going to spew there random thoughts and experience all over,
Either evolution requires only random behavior, or evolution can account for nonrandom reason. In EITHER case, rising from the dead is an obvious fairytale. You can't get from the supposed inadequacy of evolution to yield directed reason, to your obvious fairytales being not fairytales.
hopefully with the same moral outrage so I can laugh while pointing out the walking contradiction you all are
Laughing at others. How Christlike. Your God tells you not to call others fools, but doubledown on being insulting anyway. You walking contradiction.
You also seem to love talking about shitty genes. You know who didn't love talking about that? Jesus. Because he didn't know what genes are. Because he is an ancient scientifically-illiterate kike.
You can keep your garbage fairytales. 100%! We don't want them! At all!
You can keep your walking on water. You can keep your fish multiplying. You can keep your rising from the dead.
DON'T WANT THAT GARBAGE!
We have Mickey Mouse. We have Pokemon. We have Harry Potter. Whenever I feel the need to turn to obviously fictional shit, I won't ever need to borrow from precious yours.
Grown adult with child brains. Believes obvious fairytales. Keep them. Cram them up your ass. I don't want them.
I heard Muhammad split the moon. If i ever so desperately need to believe obvious lies, I have other sources than yours.
You believe fairytales. FAIRYTALES! Like a fucking child!
I can be gay, call for help, and have shitty genes. That totally means you don't believe in fairytales! Look at that airtight logic! I'm a gay tard, therefore rising from the dead isn't a fairytale! Teehee!
You literally didn't answer him at all, you fucking tard. He gave you a clear answer: awful shit happens because of uncaring evolution and there's no God. You can't understand that? Just call him contradictory ehen he made no contradiction. Just offer no informative answer while pretending you have the intellectual high ground that he can't comprehend. Keep believing in your water-walking, fish-multiplying, death-conquering magical messiah, you grown human body with child brains.
You're all like this. Every last cult member. No big difference between the smartest Christian and the dumbest one. At the end of the day you choose to believe obvious fucking fairytales.
This is a good post sure to piss of the religious people. I've also thought along these lines. What kind of sick god would make such a cruel world. I mean look at the poor baby birds being pecked in the face to death. This is just one example and there are many. I mean you're a god, you create the whole universe and this planet and this is what you come up with? And why would we all be punished for one man's fuck up, I didn't eat the fucking apple did I? Why am I being punished for someone else's fuck up.
The reality is we are just beginning to understand what this existence is. There is some science that suggests there are multiple lives that people live which makes sense. What kind of god would judge you for an eternity for only maybe 80 years of life? This is why there is suffering, this is a place where you pay for your fuck ups. Like being born a nigger, that's a punishment for some shit you must have done before.
No christian has yet to answer my question, they are too triggered like the snowflakes they are. It really comes down to them just being terrified of eternal non-existence after they are dead. They cling on because they are scared.
Gods creation was good. Then Eve was beguiled by the serpent and sin entered the world. Jesus later died to pay the price for sin so we could be back in right relationship with God. So, yes, a loving God made nature. But, Satan made it like this...
Light is measured in photons. But, darkness is only measured as the absence of light.
Similarly, Faith, Hope, & Love are the evidence of God. The evil that abounds in the world is where there is a vacuum of God that Satan is more than happy to fill.
BTW - God is a big boy and he can handle any question you ask Him. You don't need to throw it in front of a bunch of pissy goats. Also, if you are sincere and ask for Him to reveal Himself to you, He will. Maybe not the way you expect. But, nonetheless...
So in the perfect place, they lack the perfect good-from-evil detection mechanism?
The OP pointed out a particular example of natural suffering. Maybe you can try to make the case that this particular suffering existed in order to gauge human responses to it, thus separating good from evil.
But what about all the natural suffering that goes unrecorded and unnoticed? Like a fawn burning to death in a forest fire?
Maybe you can make the case that such unnoticed suffering is a further test of faith, for the humans who are appalled by it vs. the humans who somehow rationalize it.
But then why would this unnoticed suffering be so excessive? It's not just one unnoticed fawn. It's millions and millions of years of dinosaurs suffering and dying with not enough brains to ever rationalize it.
Maybe you can make the case that excessive unnoticed suffering is a further test of faith. But doesn't it seem that there's not merely excessive unnoticed suffering, but EXCESSIVE excessive unnoticed suffering? That is, if God wanted to test our faith with excessive unnoticed suffering, he could have done so merely with millions of years of it. But tens of millions of years of it seems excessive, even from the perspective of an excessive unnoticed suffering being a necessary test of faith.
If you think that excessive excessive unnoticed suffering is likewise a test of faith, I'd ask: Doesn't it seem simpler or make more sense to explain this apparently arbitrary amount of suffering, according to an evolutionary worldview, rather than to bend backwards trying to justify the unjustifiable to make the case for God?
Sure, we can say maaaaaybe, all that suffering, plus God, for some unfathomable reason. But we can also say, maybe no God, and just evolution. But what I want to emphasize is that these "maybes" are not on par. They are not 50 50 likely. One readily makes sense and is consistent in the proposed worldview. The other is deeply troubling and provides a profound problem in the proposed worldview.
So now that I think I've reasonably made the case that atheism is much, much more sensible than theism, I ask you: Why remain agnostic rather than being atheist? It seems to me that you're clinging to the unlikeliest of possibilities.
If we were discussing a lottery ticket, do not pretend that there is a 50 50 chance of it being a winner. If asked whether you believe it is a winner, why answer with, "It might be!" rather than the more down-to-earth "No"? It's one think to contort yourself intellectually into admitting there's a possibility; it's another thing to live your life according to the uncertainty of this possibility rather than living your life according to the near-certainty that the ticket is not a winner. Do not preface all of your life plans and big financial decisions with, "Well, if that ticket is a winner..." Rather, live your life as if you know it's not. If someone asks you to reconsider buying that Hawaiian vacation, or that mountain of cocaine, on the remote possibility that your ticket is a winner, isn't it the right attitude to reply with, "Get the fuck out of here with that excessively hopeful bullshit. Don't even waste my time and thought-cycles on asking me to always consider what is almost surely false, before every action I take"?
I simply can not understand this preference for agnosticism over atheism. Be brave enough to make the leap. Clearly the excessive excessive unnoticed suffering implies God's nonexistence. Stop making excuses for maaaaaaybe the possibility of Heaven. There is no Heaven. There is no God. Our reality is unbearably cruel. It's time to admit facts, if intellectual honesty is a virtue you wish to possess.
You seem extremely angry over this though. Why is this so important to you?
Whether I am angry or jolly should not affect your intellectual examination of my reasons.
It is morally offensive and intellectually insulting to look at the suffering of children and suggest, "Teehee, maaaaybe this is good, on the off chance that God exists."
We all have different definitions of perfect.
Oh, and do we all have different definitions for "triangle" or "one"? Sure they mean some things to you, but to me triangles have four sides, and one really means two.
The perfections of God are well-defined and need to be strictly adhered to, to competently play the game of theism.
Maybe there is still things to be learned, maybe there is a desire tobsee competing free-will in action.
God is all-knowing. God is without desire. Desire is a lacking, and God is complete. You are not talking about the God of monotheism. You are talking about a comic book character whose attributes you pulled out of your ass on the spot.
Maybe heaven isn't perfect after all. This all illustrates why I am agnostic, as opposed to religious or an atheist.
Maybe up is down, and Led Zeppelin is a rap group. This all illustrates why I don't believe any words have any meanings at all!
We cannot possibly know in either case.
Yes we can! Goddamn, it's like you don't even know how to use the word "know". Sure, it looks like JFK was shot in the head, but maaaaybe it just exploded on its own. We can't know! Teehee!
Nothing in my post indicated anger for you to call it out. But if I play along and admit anger, nothing in my reasoning was affected by it. It's up to you to point out flaws in my reasoning, which you can't, so you pretend flaws are in the reasoning inherently due to anger. I shouldn't have to slowly explain to you that belief in this imaginary being causes immense violence worldwide. But what is angering me more right now than little Ackmed's suicide bombing, is that you and people like you are either too stupid or are pretending to be so stupid, that you can't see why this is an issue worth being passionate about unless it's slowly explained to you.
Perfect is objective. On a math or spelling test, perfect is getting all of the answers right, not getting some of them wrong. We usually denote this with 100%. In bowling, a perfect score is 300. And when it comes to the perfect God, he is all-knowing, not absent of some knowledge until he studies. Did you not learn what the word perfect means?
It's not about the bible! The difference between God and the comic book characters you invent from your ass is: God is supposedly knowable on the basis of pure reason, whereas your comic book gods require empirical discovery. This is the difference between the "a priori" and the "a posteriori". See: "ontological arguments" regarding a priori knowledge of God. It's not about the Bible at all! Only idiots think academic investigation of God is constrained by the bible or the Koran or whatever arbitrary scripture you adhere to is. It's not. And geometric investigation is not constrained to the writing of Euclid. And evolutionary investigation is not constrained to the writing of Darwin. God is defined as having the omni properties not because the bible says so, but because this is God's academic definition and the most sensible definition to ascribe to God. And for the purposes of effective conversation, you're to adopt this definition, rather than swap out God-talk with talk of some non-God powerful comic book character that you just made up on the spot.
Nuh uh, my god who is the son of Spiderman and Batman might have just willed that JFK's head exploded, therefore we can't know he was shot! Teehee! Who are you to just declare that God's existence can't be proven or disproven? How the hell did you reach that conclusion? Honestly, I don't even want to hear what you have to suggest, as I already know it is dumb. Theists think that ontological arguments prove God exists. Atheists think the problem of evil proves God doesn't exist. Clearly lots of people who study this a lot more than you do think the issue is decidable. But you, with opinion pulled from ass, just confidently declare that it's not decidable.
I'm just about done talking to you now, as you consistently refuse to accept that words have meaning. It's just a waste of time talking to you. You keep saying "you're angry, you're angry" while contributing NOTHING of substance to the conversation, as if my supposed-anger makes any of your half-baked ideas correct. This is just like @VulgarChristian who just says "lalalala I'm right you're wrong so there!" and @Crensch who does the same thing. An agnostic, a Christian, and an atheist, all exhibiting dense stupidity and refusal to admit wrong about anything no matter how clearly their wrongness is demonstrated.
Nobody writes long drawn out posts like that unless they are emotional.
I pointed out flaws in your reasoning that god does not exist. We can not possibly know one way or the other. My position of being agnostic is absolutely reasonable. If you think you have disproven god, let me know and I will check your logic for you.
Perfect is measurable with facts, not VALUES. You presume values can be perfect, which is senseless. Who is to say what values are right or wrong? Go read up on the differences between facts and value systems. Specifically use terminology such as positive statements and normative statements.
So academics invents the definition of god, and uses their own definition to disprove theism? Sounds like a basic strawman argument to me. If you want to disprove god, you don't get to invent someone else's definition of god.
Well good for you if that is your god. Have fun with that. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between actual factual and provable events (JFK being shot), versus items which cannot be proven or disproven (an entity with great power who created life and watches it). The fact that I am opening your eyes to this weakness also seems to be frustrating you. Don't wish you were right, wish you were better.
Listen you retard: Stop referencing my emotions. It does nothing to support your case or to detract from mine. I shouldn't have to explain this to you AGAIN!
"Your post is too long, therefore I'm right, teehee!"
Listen you retard, I already explained that theists and atheists alike think the issue is decidable, and how you just pulled the claim of its undecidability out of your ass. Nothing has changed.
Listen you retard, I don't give a fuck about your logic nor do I need you to check mine. You don't know logic. You don't know what contraposition is. You don't know what the law of the excluded middle is. You don't know what the Barcan formula is. You're outclassed and will never admit it.
Listen you retard, that 300 is the perfect bowling score is a fact, not a value. Getting all the answers right on a math test is a matter of fact, not values.
Listen you retard, the academic definition of God is not a strawman. Technical terms exist in fields. You don't get to pop up and revise the definitions in place. You don't get to pop up and say you'll start calling the flu cancer and start calling cancer the flu.
Listen you retard, words have meaning, and aren't infinitely flexible for you to make up whatever you want them to mean on the spot so you can never be shown to be wrong about anything ever.
Listen you retard, the academic definition of God is accepted by theists and atheists alike, and the matter of debate is whether the being according to this definition exists or not. It's not a strawman, as both theists and atheists don't take it to be a misrepresentation of the item under consideration. It's not a strawman, because this universally accepted definition does not unfairly tip the discussion in favor of theism or atheism ahead of time.
Listen you retard, when you talk about your comic book character god, who is really powerful and created life and sits and watches it, you are talking about a god not the God. As I already explained, and you ignored, your considerations of gods rely on a posteriori discovery, whereas the debate between atheists and theists is around the monotheistic God allegedly knowable a priori. Once again, you simply refuse to use words correctly.
Listen you retard, if I abused language as much as you do, I could say "being shot" means "given flowers" and that JFK means "the unknown soldier" and that "facts" means "spaghetti", and so teehee I'm agnostic about whether JFK was shot because you can't establish the spaghetti that the unknown soldier was given flowers, teehee! What's that? You insist that JFK must refer to JFK, and that facts must refer to facts? Strawman! Strawman! You don't get to invent my definition of JFK and facts for me just to refute me! I get to define JFK and facts any way I want to, because I'm a brilliant agnostic who refuses to believe that words have meaning! Teehee!
When you have prrof that god does not exist, post it.
If academics define god as perfect in their logical chain to disprove it, then they only have disproven THEIR definition of god.
Math are facts. "Perfect" is a value when you decide what equates to "good" or "bad".
Why is no suffering good? Is all suffering bad? According to who? And why?
These are value systems, not facts. Muslims find it good that women are confined, raped or beaten. Is that good or bad? Is that "perfect"? Depends on who's god you chopse I suppose.
Look you insufferable retard: the topic wasn't regarding subjective perfection of value for you to excuse God for all the inexcusable suffering in the world. The topic was regarding objective perfection of completeness of knowledge ie omniscience which whether you like it or not is part of the standard universally accepted definition of God. (NOT your really really smart comic book god who still has experiments to run to learn from.)
Your suggestion that God (the all-knowing one) allows suffering to learn how free-willed agents behave, is as retarded as you are. There is no logical possibility that God (the all-knowing one) needs to run experiments to learn things. And this is the God that atheists reject. Because this is the God that the world's monotheists talk about. No one is talking about your comic book god that you just invented out of your ass. With the conversation being about the all-knowing God, where his all-knowingness is taken to be part of his definition, at least for the sake of conversation, there is no logical room for him to learn things. It is this God that atheists like @jewsbadnews express disbelief in. It is this God that I encourage you to be an atheist rather than an agnostic regarding. But instead, you constantly conflate subjective and objective perfection, you constantly conflate the moral issues surrounding suffering with the completeness issues surrounding omniscience, and you constantly conflate talk of God with talk of gods. You're basically retarded and don't know how to use words.
Then for you to go on to say, "Maaaaaaaybe rape is good lol it's all just like your opinion man roofles teehee who's to say who's right anyway maaaaaaybe the Muslims are right if they think they are lol!" just fucking further proves that you're a know-nothing incompetent at philosophy, like we needed any more evidence for that incontrovertible fact.
No you fucking retard, rape is not moral. And your shitty appeal to the dumbest and most immoral people on earth does not one bit help to establish that insane "possibility", you absolute fucking retard.
Shut the fuck up now, you retard who thinks that "omniscient" means "has experiments to run to learn" and who thinks "values" means "lol maaaaaybe rape is good teehee who's to say???"
"...which whether you like it or not is part of the standard universally accepted definition of God"
Which I have already countered with.....man's understanding of god is not necessarily perfect because man, and the books man write of god, can be quite wrong.
How do we know god is "omnoscient"? We don't, just as we don't know if he exists or not.
But the real question is, why is this so important to you?? Why does somebodys belief in god, allah, buddha, etc,... make you so angry?
Your entire premise here resides on.... "...which whether you like it or not is part of the standard universally accepted definition of God" Which I have already countered with.....man's understanding of god is not necessarily perfect because man, and the books man write of god, can be quite wrong.
Dawg, there WAS NO COUNTER! I've explained that academic understanding of God doesn't rely on scriptures, and you just ignored that, and bring up again "but but but scriptures can be wrong teehee!" as if that were at all relevant. Which it's not. At all.
I've explained to you MORE THAN ONCE that this God-talk is an "a priori" issue, not an "a posteriori" issue, terms which you don't understand.
I told you to investigate ontological arguments, and you didn't bother. Ontological arguments revolve around things like maximal conceivability, and it is around these rigorous and technical arguments that God is defined, for good reason! This makes God-talk unarbitrary, unlike your arbitrary comic book god-talk that you just pulled out of your ass!
As omniscience is conceivably greater than merely being "really really knowledgeable", it is FACT that this is an attribute of God's worth discussing. It's not MERE OPINION that the world's expert theologians have landed on arbitrarily and have been in agreement regarding for millennia. Contrast this with your "lol god might just be really really smart" idea that you pulled out of your ass five minutes ago and have never thought deeply about. These definitions aren't fucking opinion established on whim, like yours are. These definitions are established for good fucking reasons based on highly technical arguments that you can't comprehend. So do yourself the fucking favor of learning about ontological arguments rather than continuing to embarrass yourself by running your ignorant trap and vomiting your half-baked opinions rather than doing any reading from those who are much, MUCH more qualified than you.
But the real question is, why is this so important to you?? Why does somebodys belief in god, allah, buddha, etc,... make you so angry?
I already answered your stupid question. Just like when I clarified that God-talk is a priori, that scriptures are irrelevant, and that definitions are there for good reason and are unarbitrary, it's in one ear and out the other with you. Like fucking Zoolander, you ask again questions that were just answered, as if they were worth asking again; you repeat your objections which have already been smacked down, as if they were still strong and worth raising again. You don't comprehend my answers. You don't comprehend my refutations of your objections.
I told you already, but I'll repeat myself:
There is tons of religious violence across the world based on unclear thinking surrounding this God issue.
It's absolutely immoral and dishonest to look at the suffering of children and dismiss it as "okay" because teehee maaaaaaybe God or a comic book god has a reeeeeeally good reason for it that we humans can never ever ever ever understand but that we should hold out hope for and faith in anyway for no good reason teehee!
And that know-nothing plebs like yourself, (and Christians like @VulgarChristian and atheists like @Crensch), run their fucking mouths against their intellectual superiors like they actually know better than the people who actually take academic study of these subjects seriously, (unlike you plebs who have only the faintest passing interest.) You plebs love running your stupid mouths so much that you even disparage the logical abilities of professional logicians, whereas as a matter of fucking FACT you plebs don't even know elementary logic. Like take fucking idiot Crensch. He thinks he is literally smarter than Kurt Godel, the greatest logician that ever was, simply because Crensch is an atheist and Godel was a theist. And this arrogance causes Crensch to completely refuse to do any learning whatsoever ever. Meanwhile, I have tons and tons of proof that Crensch doesn't know how to use even elementary logical terminology, but that doesn't stop this utter idiot from thinking he's smarter than history's greatest geniuses and that he's right to insult their logical abilities when he doesn't even know anything about them and refuses to learn.
Oh, but if I get mad at senseless religious violence, your mockery of the suffering of children, or your unbounded disrespect to your intellectual superiors, that means teehee I'm wrong and you're right about everything. And you three tards in the very same thread could use the same shallow and worthless tactic to teehee proooove your right, while completely failing to consider that MY ANGER can't support your three mutually contradictory worldviews of agnosticism, theism, and atheism as if they were the case simply because I used mean words or made a post that was toooooo long so you didn't read it and couldn't understand it even if you did teehee I'm right you're wrong roofles.
Go study ontological arguments and shut the fuck up.
Yeah so academia has disproven academia's definition of god, all while picking and choosing only specific facts about god and man.
So what?
It doesn't prove shit, it just proves what we all already know, that academia today selects the narratives it wants and then chooses only those facts which support their narrative.
Listen you fucking anti-intellectual retard who is averse to higher education:
The DEFINITION of God isn't disproved by academia.
As I've mentioned, but you're too stupid to have listened, the definition is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by agnostics, theists, and atheists alike. The only one who doesn't accept it is you, because you're a fucking idiot with a half-baked comic book god concept that you pulled out of your ass and have never thought seriously about.
Listen you fucking retard: agnostics, theists, and atheists haven't "disproved the definition" of God, (whatever that fucking means!), but have disagreements about what statements can be drawn from that accepted definition.
Listen you fucking retard: I already fucking explained this to you: Academia isn't some arbitrary social body that arbitrarily came up with some arbitrary definition of God! (That's what you do!) The definition of God falls out of logical considerations around ontological arguments! But you're still too fucking stupid to learn about that which you know nothing about!
Listen you fucking retard: The definition of God wasn't just made up "today" by some corrupt academia! It has been in place for thousands of years, across continents and languages and political systems! The definition of God has been agreed upon by the left-wing and the right-wing! The definition of God is accepted among agnostics, theists, and atheists alike! The only person who is denying that words have meaning is you!
Look at the fucking move you're trying to play here: "I'll throw ALL ACADEMIA under the bus as being dumb or dishonest, and that surely means my half-baked ideas are right! Because I'm being honest when I say that I'm personally smarter than ALL ACADEMIA on a subject I know nothing about and don't care to study!" Gtfo!
So you are saying I MUST accept academias definition of god, and since they feel they have logically proven that (their definition of) god does not exist, I MUST accept that god doesn't exist???
There is no "maybe" when it comes to discussing an all-knowing being needing to come into knowledge. There is no "maybe" when it comes to discussing a desireless being wanting something.
We can be honest with ourselves to say we know that the monotheistic God would not create evil. As evil exists, the conclusion that God doesn't exist is inescapable.
Retard. Christians are the ones that claim the true god is all loving and created a perfect world without suffering, yet natural evolution disproves that.
and according to Christians the perfect world went away
Oh, so the perfect immutable God made a perfect world which was mutable. That is, immutability is a requisite for God's perfection, but when it comes to the perfect world, its perfection can change into imperfection for some reason. You would think that a perfect world, were it truly perfect, would remain incorruptible.
when they violated gods rules.
Oh, so the perfect God in his perfect design equipped people with free will, but for some reason they didn't always freely will to do good. Almost like they were designed to unfreely out of necessity have to choose evil sometimes, by the perfect God's perfect design. Looks like a design flaw to me.
The only way you can make sense of this is to take the bible literally and to think all animals were vegans before Adam and Eve sinned which is what Ken Ham and most creationist believe. Are you that retarded?
Oh please, you just don't have an answer. Here is my answer, there is no god, or at least the Abramahic god, we came about by brutal and uncaring evolution.
Antiracist8 ago
I don't want your shitty worldview.
Your magical kike is a lie.
You just repeat your same stupid shit. "Durrr you steal my worldview, you steal my worldview."
No motherfucker, I don't believe in the magic kike. You believe in genes. You steal MY worldview!
Your magic kike God tells you to be nice, but then you go call people faggots. You clearly don't even believe in the teachings of your magical kike. You walking contradiction.
Peace and truth are separate concepts, you fucking idiot.
Go die of a tooth infection.
Shocking that critical thinking is damaging to your spirituality.
Cult member idiot.
"You're angry. Your post is too long. Therefore the magical kike stories are true! Teehee!"
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Antiracist7 ago
Ahahaha! @eagleshigh, get a load of this guy. He has no idea that I've been teaching you logic on Voat for years now, harping on it with every retard I come across.
Check this out, from years ago: /v/Theology/1377927/6784146
But yeah sure whatever you say guy who doesn't know logic.
Faith?! Coming from the guy who believes in the magical kike! Roofles! gtfo!
I AM ABOVE YOU! I REPEAT: I AM ABOVE YOU! YOU FUCKING RETARD!
Oh God, not that! How dare I discuss on a discussion forum!
Oh God, not that! I pinged people, therefore you're right that some kike rose from the dead. Teehee!
This is as shallow as your primary talking point of "nuh uh I'm right you're wrong." It's shallowness is easily demonstrable, as I can just repeat the same thing back to you. YOU stop stealing MY worldview. Look you retard, I dont need to believe in the magical kike to get by, but you keep referencing genes from biology. So the fucking FACT here is I'm not stealing from your shitty and retarded and magical worldview AT ALL (despite your retarded and baseless insistence), but YOU ARE stealing from the scientific worldview which you're too stupid to take to its logical conclusion.
"Your life sucks, so that definitely proves the magical kike rose from the dead! Logic, teehee!"
You think brainwashing children into your retarded magical cult of virgin sacrifice is productive. Teehee, the Romans beat the shit out of the magical virgin kike, but it's okay because he rose from the dead contrary to science, therefore my completely unrelated sins are forgiven somehow and for some reason I'll be given eternal bliss in heaven, so long as I wholeheartedly believe the stupidest shit ever, teehee!
Look you tard, I don't want any of what your retarded worldview has to offer. It's not worth stealing! I do want you to shut the fuck up about genes, and other scientific discoveries that you're ungrateful for and unabashedly steal! And I do want you to die of a tooth infection, rather than rely on the science you eschew to save you, that way you can more quickly visit your magical kike in eternal paradise! (Your magical kike, who, by the way, did NOTHING to inform us about genes or bacteria.)
Fuck off now, shit-for-brains, with your obviously false magical cult thinking. Your religion is a fucking joke, and you're a fucking idiot.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
libman ago
You gotta make a logically consistent universe. Anything else would be even worse.
jewsbadnews ago
How are my thoughts and words random? I use the English language and I use reason to make sense of the world. Retard.
jewsbadnews ago
Enjoy hell, faggot. You picked the wrong denomination!
Antiracist4 ago
Over your head too I see. Keep on proving my worldview. It feels good.
jewsbadnews ago
This guy is a fucking idiot. But anyways, what is your favorite part from the bible? This is mine https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032:22-32&version=NIV
God cheats in a wrestling match with some kike and still loses! ahahaha
Antiracist5 ago
Ezekiel 4:12
@eagleshigh @bojangles
jewsbadnews ago
Haha! Say, how many accounts do you have?
Antiracist6 ago
/v/AskVoat/3492835/21143052
jewsbadnews ago
Oh shit, what did you do to piss him off?
Antiracist7 ago
Crensch or PuttItOut? PuttItOut's site is just shitty. Those posting rules are just his shitty code.
As for @Crensch, I smacked him up and down in debate because he's a stupid bitch.
There's wayyy too much to link that proves it.
Check out the old pages of v/theology.
/v/Theology/new?page=5
archive dot is/Agslt
/v/atheism/comments/1060840/5308250
jewsbadnews ago
lmao
BagelsHigh ago
Skimming through my comprehensive smackdown of idiot @Crensch, I found a highly amusing example (of many!) of idiot Crensch being proved wrong but of course being absolutely unwilling to admit any wrong.
/v/whatever/1399972/6768084
Basically, idiot Crensch, who is an idiot and knows nothing about Godel, chooses to love his ignorance about Godel, because he claims Godel (and Aristotle) had no access to physicists. My smackdown was threefold.
First, I pointed out to him that some contemporary physicists like Freeman Dyson are theists.
Second, I pointed out to him that Aristotle wrote "the book" on physics. (Aristotle is also one of history's greatest logicians.)
And third, and most damning, I showed that Godel would go on walks with Einstein, (Einstein, who humbled himself before Godel's brilliance.) Idiot Crensch, from his ass, thinks for some reason that the Big Bang means logic don't real. Idiot Crensch fails to realize that the Big Bang falls under Einstein's physical theory, the same Einstein who humbled himself before logician Godel's brilliance.
But is that enough for idiot Crensch to admit wrong about anything? Nope! He still "knows" that he doesn't need to know anything about Godel or logic.
Would it be so hard to say: "hey, I thought Godel was unaware of physics, but it turns out that he had direct access to history's greatest physicist who he humbled with his brilliance"?
That is too much for idiot Crensch. He can't admit wrong about anything, because he is a stupid cult member, even though he is an atheist. Even in matters such as these where he has been objectively proven wrong, where there can be no ambiguity regarding how decisively proven wrong he is, he still somehow refuses to admit wrong and somehow thinks he "won." This is because he has the insanely thick mental defense mechanisms of stupidity common to cult members.
@eagleshigh @bojangles
Crensch ago
You still believe in the Holocaust and have an unhealthy shit fetish, Jew.
Crensch ago
Thanks for linking to comments where you got wrecked. I do enjoy the fact that I bug you enough that you still bring me up to others years later. It must have really hurt to get ass blasted like that
Antiracist8 ago
No surprise, you're still an illiterate retard. Those comment chains prove it.
You somehow think that me answering why my accounts are in the negative constitutes giving a shit about your shitbrain opinions.
I love the comment chains as they stand. I'm glad they're archived. Maybe that's something we can agree on. But you seem to think they represent you favorably. They don't, as a matter of fact. But you're too stupid to realize how hard you got crushed, because you're an illiterate retard.
Crensch ago
I bet you still think the Holocaust happened.
Crensch ago
Jews like you have a really unhealthy fascination with shit.
antiracist3 ago
Actually all of your posts prove Mickey Mouse is the one true God! Teehee!
Oh, so if evolution made you stupid, it is impossible evolution made me angry! That makes sense!
Oh, so if I'm mentally unwell, that's far better explained by a perfect God eith a perfect design, than by imperfect evolution! That makes sense!
Either evolution requires only random behavior, or evolution can account for nonrandom reason. In EITHER case, rising from the dead is an obvious fairytale. You can't get from the supposed inadequacy of evolution to yield directed reason, to your obvious fairytales being not fairytales.
Laughing at others. How Christlike. Your God tells you not to call others fools, but doubledown on being insulting anyway. You walking contradiction.
You also seem to love talking about shitty genes. You know who didn't love talking about that? Jesus. Because he didn't know what genes are. Because he is an ancient scientifically-illiterate kike.
@eagleshigh @bojangles
Antiracist2 ago
You can keep your garbage fairytales. 100%! We don't want them! At all!
You can keep your walking on water. You can keep your fish multiplying. You can keep your rising from the dead.
DON'T WANT THAT GARBAGE!
We have Mickey Mouse. We have Pokemon. We have Harry Potter. Whenever I feel the need to turn to obviously fictional shit, I won't ever need to borrow from precious yours.
Grown adult with child brains. Believes obvious fairytales. Keep them. Cram them up your ass. I don't want them.
I heard Muhammad split the moon. If i ever so desperately need to believe obvious lies, I have other sources than yours.
You believe fairytales. FAIRYTALES! Like a fucking child!
I can be gay, call for help, and have shitty genes. That totally means you don't believe in fairytales! Look at that airtight logic! I'm a gay tard, therefore rising from the dead isn't a fairytale! Teehee!
Child brains cult member idiot.
@eagleshigh @bojangles
antiracist ago
You literally didn't answer him at all, you fucking tard. He gave you a clear answer: awful shit happens because of uncaring evolution and there's no God. You can't understand that? Just call him contradictory ehen he made no contradiction. Just offer no informative answer while pretending you have the intellectual high ground that he can't comprehend. Keep believing in your water-walking, fish-multiplying, death-conquering magical messiah, you grown human body with child brains.
You're all like this. Every last cult member. No big difference between the smartest Christian and the dumbest one. At the end of the day you choose to believe obvious fucking fairytales.
@eagleshigh @bojangles
Hussite ago
This is a good post sure to piss of the religious people. I've also thought along these lines. What kind of sick god would make such a cruel world. I mean look at the poor baby birds being pecked in the face to death. This is just one example and there are many. I mean you're a god, you create the whole universe and this planet and this is what you come up with? And why would we all be punished for one man's fuck up, I didn't eat the fucking apple did I? Why am I being punished for someone else's fuck up.
The reality is we are just beginning to understand what this existence is. There is some science that suggests there are multiple lives that people live which makes sense. What kind of god would judge you for an eternity for only maybe 80 years of life? This is why there is suffering, this is a place where you pay for your fuck ups. Like being born a nigger, that's a punishment for some shit you must have done before.
jewsbadnews ago
No christian has yet to answer my question, they are too triggered like the snowflakes they are. It really comes down to them just being terrified of eternal non-existence after they are dead. They cling on because they are scared.
jewsbadnews ago
You are worse than Charlie Kirk at dodging a question. Always remember that Jesus is a monster for creating such a fucked up world.
jewsbadnews ago
Morality has been around long before that kike Abraham claimed to talk to a god.
Currahee07 ago
Ill bite...
Gods creation was good. Then Eve was beguiled by the serpent and sin entered the world. Jesus later died to pay the price for sin so we could be back in right relationship with God. So, yes, a loving God made nature. But, Satan made it like this...
Light is measured in photons. But, darkness is only measured as the absence of light.
Similarly, Faith, Hope, & Love are the evidence of God. The evil that abounds in the world is where there is a vacuum of God that Satan is more than happy to fill.
BTW - God is a big boy and he can handle any question you ask Him. You don't need to throw it in front of a bunch of pissy goats. Also, if you are sincere and ask for Him to reveal Himself to you, He will. Maybe not the way you expect. But, nonetheless...
Be blessed.
Shadowlight ago
fuck off kike. if earth was like heaven what would be the point of heaven.
fucking retard
Antiracist10 ago
If Heaven existed, what would be the point of Earth?
@jewsbadnews @eagleshigh @bojangles
Shadowlight ago
Maybe Earth is a method for sorting good from evil....
Antiracist9 ago
So in the perfect place, they lack the perfect good-from-evil detection mechanism?
The OP pointed out a particular example of natural suffering. Maybe you can try to make the case that this particular suffering existed in order to gauge human responses to it, thus separating good from evil.
But what about all the natural suffering that goes unrecorded and unnoticed? Like a fawn burning to death in a forest fire?
Maybe you can make the case that such unnoticed suffering is a further test of faith, for the humans who are appalled by it vs. the humans who somehow rationalize it.
But then why would this unnoticed suffering be so excessive? It's not just one unnoticed fawn. It's millions and millions of years of dinosaurs suffering and dying with not enough brains to ever rationalize it.
Maybe you can make the case that excessive unnoticed suffering is a further test of faith. But doesn't it seem that there's not merely excessive unnoticed suffering, but EXCESSIVE excessive unnoticed suffering? That is, if God wanted to test our faith with excessive unnoticed suffering, he could have done so merely with millions of years of it. But tens of millions of years of it seems excessive, even from the perspective of an excessive unnoticed suffering being a necessary test of faith.
If you think that excessive excessive unnoticed suffering is likewise a test of faith, I'd ask: Doesn't it seem simpler or make more sense to explain this apparently arbitrary amount of suffering, according to an evolutionary worldview, rather than to bend backwards trying to justify the unjustifiable to make the case for God?
Sure, we can say maaaaaybe, all that suffering, plus God, for some unfathomable reason. But we can also say, maybe no God, and just evolution. But what I want to emphasize is that these "maybes" are not on par. They are not 50 50 likely. One readily makes sense and is consistent in the proposed worldview. The other is deeply troubling and provides a profound problem in the proposed worldview.
So now that I think I've reasonably made the case that atheism is much, much more sensible than theism, I ask you: Why remain agnostic rather than being atheist? It seems to me that you're clinging to the unlikeliest of possibilities.
If we were discussing a lottery ticket, do not pretend that there is a 50 50 chance of it being a winner. If asked whether you believe it is a winner, why answer with, "It might be!" rather than the more down-to-earth "No"? It's one think to contort yourself intellectually into admitting there's a possibility; it's another thing to live your life according to the uncertainty of this possibility rather than living your life according to the near-certainty that the ticket is not a winner. Do not preface all of your life plans and big financial decisions with, "Well, if that ticket is a winner..." Rather, live your life as if you know it's not. If someone asks you to reconsider buying that Hawaiian vacation, or that mountain of cocaine, on the remote possibility that your ticket is a winner, isn't it the right attitude to reply with, "Get the fuck out of here with that excessively hopeful bullshit. Don't even waste my time and thought-cycles on asking me to always consider what is almost surely false, before every action I take"?
I simply can not understand this preference for agnosticism over atheism. Be brave enough to make the leap. Clearly the excessive excessive unnoticed suffering implies God's nonexistence. Stop making excuses for maaaaaaybe the possibility of Heaven. There is no Heaven. There is no God. Our reality is unbearably cruel. It's time to admit facts, if intellectual honesty is a virtue you wish to possess.
@jewsbadnews @eagleshigh @bojangles
Shadowlight ago
We all have different definitions of perfect.
Maybe there is still things to be learned, maybe there is a desire tobsee competing free-will in action.
Maybe heaven isn't perfect after all. This all illustrates why I am agnostic, as opposed to religious or an atheist.
We cannot possibly know in either case.
Antiracist2 ago
Whether I am angry or jolly should not affect your intellectual examination of my reasons.
It is morally offensive and intellectually insulting to look at the suffering of children and suggest, "Teehee, maaaaybe this is good, on the off chance that God exists."
Oh, and do we all have different definitions for "triangle" or "one"? Sure they mean some things to you, but to me triangles have four sides, and one really means two.
The perfections of God are well-defined and need to be strictly adhered to, to competently play the game of theism.
God is all-knowing. God is without desire. Desire is a lacking, and God is complete. You are not talking about the God of monotheism. You are talking about a comic book character whose attributes you pulled out of your ass on the spot.
Maybe up is down, and Led Zeppelin is a rap group. This all illustrates why I don't believe any words have any meanings at all!
Yes we can! Goddamn, it's like you don't even know how to use the word "know". Sure, it looks like JFK was shot in the head, but maaaaybe it just exploded on its own. We can't know! Teehee!
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
Emotions cloud reason, and this is VERY important to you for some emotional reason. Why so afraid to say why?
Triangle is objective, perfect is subjective. Were you never taught this?
The bible says god is perfect, but the bible was created by and interpreted by imperfect man.
We can know JFK was shot in the head, but we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. No matter how angry you get.
Antiracist5 ago
Nothing in my post indicated anger for you to call it out. But if I play along and admit anger, nothing in my reasoning was affected by it. It's up to you to point out flaws in my reasoning, which you can't, so you pretend flaws are in the reasoning inherently due to anger. I shouldn't have to slowly explain to you that belief in this imaginary being causes immense violence worldwide. But what is angering me more right now than little Ackmed's suicide bombing, is that you and people like you are either too stupid or are pretending to be so stupid, that you can't see why this is an issue worth being passionate about unless it's slowly explained to you.
Perfect is objective. On a math or spelling test, perfect is getting all of the answers right, not getting some of them wrong. We usually denote this with 100%. In bowling, a perfect score is 300. And when it comes to the perfect God, he is all-knowing, not absent of some knowledge until he studies. Did you not learn what the word perfect means?
It's not about the bible! The difference between God and the comic book characters you invent from your ass is: God is supposedly knowable on the basis of pure reason, whereas your comic book gods require empirical discovery. This is the difference between the "a priori" and the "a posteriori". See: "ontological arguments" regarding a priori knowledge of God. It's not about the Bible at all! Only idiots think academic investigation of God is constrained by the bible or the Koran or whatever arbitrary scripture you adhere to is. It's not. And geometric investigation is not constrained to the writing of Euclid. And evolutionary investigation is not constrained to the writing of Darwin. God is defined as having the omni properties not because the bible says so, but because this is God's academic definition and the most sensible definition to ascribe to God. And for the purposes of effective conversation, you're to adopt this definition, rather than swap out God-talk with talk of some non-God powerful comic book character that you just made up on the spot.
Nuh uh, my god who is the son of Spiderman and Batman might have just willed that JFK's head exploded, therefore we can't know he was shot! Teehee! Who are you to just declare that God's existence can't be proven or disproven? How the hell did you reach that conclusion? Honestly, I don't even want to hear what you have to suggest, as I already know it is dumb. Theists think that ontological arguments prove God exists. Atheists think the problem of evil proves God doesn't exist. Clearly lots of people who study this a lot more than you do think the issue is decidable. But you, with opinion pulled from ass, just confidently declare that it's not decidable.
I'm just about done talking to you now, as you consistently refuse to accept that words have meaning. It's just a waste of time talking to you. You keep saying "you're angry, you're angry" while contributing NOTHING of substance to the conversation, as if my supposed-anger makes any of your half-baked ideas correct. This is just like @VulgarChristian who just says "lalalala I'm right you're wrong so there!" and @Crensch who does the same thing. An agnostic, a Christian, and an atheist, all exhibiting dense stupidity and refusal to admit wrong about anything no matter how clearly their wrongness is demonstrated.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
Nobody writes long drawn out posts like that unless they are emotional.
I pointed out flaws in your reasoning that god does not exist. We can not possibly know one way or the other. My position of being agnostic is absolutely reasonable. If you think you have disproven god, let me know and I will check your logic for you.
Perfect is measurable with facts, not VALUES. You presume values can be perfect, which is senseless. Who is to say what values are right or wrong? Go read up on the differences between facts and value systems. Specifically use terminology such as positive statements and normative statements.
So academics invents the definition of god, and uses their own definition to disprove theism? Sounds like a basic strawman argument to me. If you want to disprove god, you don't get to invent someone else's definition of god.
Well good for you if that is your god. Have fun with that. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between actual factual and provable events (JFK being shot), versus items which cannot be proven or disproven (an entity with great power who created life and watches it). The fact that I am opening your eyes to this weakness also seems to be frustrating you. Don't wish you were right, wish you were better.
Antiracist6 ago
Listen you retard: Stop referencing my emotions. It does nothing to support your case or to detract from mine. I shouldn't have to explain this to you AGAIN!
"Your post is too long, therefore I'm right, teehee!"
Listen you retard, I already explained that theists and atheists alike think the issue is decidable, and how you just pulled the claim of its undecidability out of your ass. Nothing has changed.
Listen you retard, I don't give a fuck about your logic nor do I need you to check mine. You don't know logic. You don't know what contraposition is. You don't know what the law of the excluded middle is. You don't know what the Barcan formula is. You're outclassed and will never admit it.
Listen you retard, that 300 is the perfect bowling score is a fact, not a value. Getting all the answers right on a math test is a matter of fact, not values.
Listen you retard, the academic definition of God is not a strawman. Technical terms exist in fields. You don't get to pop up and revise the definitions in place. You don't get to pop up and say you'll start calling the flu cancer and start calling cancer the flu.
Listen you retard, words have meaning, and aren't infinitely flexible for you to make up whatever you want them to mean on the spot so you can never be shown to be wrong about anything ever.
Listen you retard, the academic definition of God is accepted by theists and atheists alike, and the matter of debate is whether the being according to this definition exists or not. It's not a strawman, as both theists and atheists don't take it to be a misrepresentation of the item under consideration. It's not a strawman, because this universally accepted definition does not unfairly tip the discussion in favor of theism or atheism ahead of time.
Listen you retard, when you talk about your comic book character god, who is really powerful and created life and sits and watches it, you are talking about a god not the God. As I already explained, and you ignored, your considerations of gods rely on a posteriori discovery, whereas the debate between atheists and theists is around the monotheistic God allegedly knowable a priori. Once again, you simply refuse to use words correctly.
Listen you retard, if I abused language as much as you do, I could say "being shot" means "given flowers" and that JFK means "the unknown soldier" and that "facts" means "spaghetti", and so teehee I'm agnostic about whether JFK was shot because you can't establish the spaghetti that the unknown soldier was given flowers, teehee! What's that? You insist that JFK must refer to JFK, and that facts must refer to facts? Strawman! Strawman! You don't get to invent my definition of JFK and facts for me just to refute me! I get to define JFK and facts any way I want to, because I'm a brilliant agnostic who refuses to believe that words have meaning! Teehee!
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
Well you definitely sound angry now, LOLLLL!
When you have prrof that god does not exist, post it.
If academics define god as perfect in their logical chain to disprove it, then they only have disproven THEIR definition of god.
Math are facts. "Perfect" is a value when you decide what equates to "good" or "bad".
Why is no suffering good? Is all suffering bad? According to who? And why?
These are value systems, not facts. Muslims find it good that women are confined, raped or beaten. Is that good or bad? Is that "perfect"? Depends on who's god you chopse I suppose.
1NOnlyAntiracist ago
Look you insufferable retard: the topic wasn't regarding subjective perfection of value for you to excuse God for all the inexcusable suffering in the world. The topic was regarding objective perfection of completeness of knowledge ie omniscience which whether you like it or not is part of the standard universally accepted definition of God. (NOT your really really smart comic book god who still has experiments to run to learn from.)
Your suggestion that God (the all-knowing one) allows suffering to learn how free-willed agents behave, is as retarded as you are. There is no logical possibility that God (the all-knowing one) needs to run experiments to learn things. And this is the God that atheists reject. Because this is the God that the world's monotheists talk about. No one is talking about your comic book god that you just invented out of your ass. With the conversation being about the all-knowing God, where his all-knowingness is taken to be part of his definition, at least for the sake of conversation, there is no logical room for him to learn things. It is this God that atheists like @jewsbadnews express disbelief in. It is this God that I encourage you to be an atheist rather than an agnostic regarding. But instead, you constantly conflate subjective and objective perfection, you constantly conflate the moral issues surrounding suffering with the completeness issues surrounding omniscience, and you constantly conflate talk of God with talk of gods. You're basically retarded and don't know how to use words.
Then for you to go on to say, "Maaaaaaaybe rape is good lol it's all just like your opinion man roofles teehee who's to say who's right anyway maaaaaaybe the Muslims are right if they think they are lol!" just fucking further proves that you're a know-nothing incompetent at philosophy, like we needed any more evidence for that incontrovertible fact.
No you fucking retard, rape is not moral. And your shitty appeal to the dumbest and most immoral people on earth does not one bit help to establish that insane "possibility", you absolute fucking retard.
Shut the fuck up now, you retard who thinks that "omniscient" means "has experiments to run to learn" and who thinks "values" means "lol maaaaaybe rape is good teehee who's to say???"
God you're fucking stupid.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
Your entire premise here resides on....
"...which whether you like it or not is part of the standard universally accepted definition of God"
Which I have already countered with.....man's understanding of god is not necessarily perfect because man, and the books man write of god, can be quite wrong.
How do we know god is "omnoscient"? We don't, just as we don't know if he exists or not.
But the real question is, why is this so important to you?? Why does somebodys belief in god, allah, buddha, etc,... make you so angry?
LogicDestroysCrensch ago
Dawg, there WAS NO COUNTER! I've explained that academic understanding of God doesn't rely on scriptures, and you just ignored that, and bring up again "but but but scriptures can be wrong teehee!" as if that were at all relevant. Which it's not. At all.
I've explained to you MORE THAN ONCE that this God-talk is an "a priori" issue, not an "a posteriori" issue, terms which you don't understand.
I told you to investigate ontological arguments, and you didn't bother. Ontological arguments revolve around things like maximal conceivability, and it is around these rigorous and technical arguments that God is defined, for good reason! This makes God-talk unarbitrary, unlike your arbitrary comic book god-talk that you just pulled out of your ass!
As omniscience is conceivably greater than merely being "really really knowledgeable", it is FACT that this is an attribute of God's worth discussing. It's not MERE OPINION that the world's expert theologians have landed on arbitrarily and have been in agreement regarding for millennia. Contrast this with your "lol god might just be really really smart" idea that you pulled out of your ass five minutes ago and have never thought deeply about. These definitions aren't fucking opinion established on whim, like yours are. These definitions are established for good fucking reasons based on highly technical arguments that you can't comprehend. So do yourself the fucking favor of learning about ontological arguments rather than continuing to embarrass yourself by running your ignorant trap and vomiting your half-baked opinions rather than doing any reading from those who are much, MUCH more qualified than you.
I already answered your stupid question. Just like when I clarified that God-talk is a priori, that scriptures are irrelevant, and that definitions are there for good reason and are unarbitrary, it's in one ear and out the other with you. Like fucking Zoolander, you ask again questions that were just answered, as if they were worth asking again; you repeat your objections which have already been smacked down, as if they were still strong and worth raising again. You don't comprehend my answers. You don't comprehend my refutations of your objections.
I told you already, but I'll repeat myself:
There is tons of religious violence across the world based on unclear thinking surrounding this God issue.
It's absolutely immoral and dishonest to look at the suffering of children and dismiss it as "okay" because teehee maaaaaaybe God or a comic book god has a reeeeeeally good reason for it that we humans can never ever ever ever understand but that we should hold out hope for and faith in anyway for no good reason teehee!
And that know-nothing plebs like yourself, (and Christians like @VulgarChristian and atheists like @Crensch), run their fucking mouths against their intellectual superiors like they actually know better than the people who actually take academic study of these subjects seriously, (unlike you plebs who have only the faintest passing interest.) You plebs love running your stupid mouths so much that you even disparage the logical abilities of professional logicians, whereas as a matter of fucking FACT you plebs don't even know elementary logic. Like take fucking idiot Crensch. He thinks he is literally smarter than Kurt Godel, the greatest logician that ever was, simply because Crensch is an atheist and Godel was a theist. And this arrogance causes Crensch to completely refuse to do any learning whatsoever ever. Meanwhile, I have tons and tons of proof that Crensch doesn't know how to use even elementary logical terminology, but that doesn't stop this utter idiot from thinking he's smarter than history's greatest geniuses and that he's right to insult their logical abilities when he doesn't even know anything about them and refuses to learn.
Oh, but if I get mad at senseless religious violence, your mockery of the suffering of children, or your unbounded disrespect to your intellectual superiors, that means teehee I'm wrong and you're right about everything. And you three tards in the very same thread could use the same shallow and worthless tactic to teehee proooove your right, while completely failing to consider that MY ANGER can't support your three mutually contradictory worldviews of agnosticism, theism, and atheism as if they were the case simply because I used mean words or made a post that was toooooo long so you didn't read it and couldn't understand it even if you did teehee I'm right you're wrong roofles.
Go study ontological arguments and shut the fuck up.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
Yeah so academia has disproven academia's definition of god, all while picking and choosing only specific facts about god and man.
So what?
It doesn't prove shit, it just proves what we all already know, that academia today selects the narratives it wants and then chooses only those facts which support their narrative.
eagleshighIsFat ago
Listen you fucking anti-intellectual retard who is averse to higher education:
The DEFINITION of God isn't disproved by academia.
As I've mentioned, but you're too stupid to have listened, the definition is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by agnostics, theists, and atheists alike. The only one who doesn't accept it is you, because you're a fucking idiot with a half-baked comic book god concept that you pulled out of your ass and have never thought seriously about.
Listen you fucking retard: agnostics, theists, and atheists haven't "disproved the definition" of God, (whatever that fucking means!), but have disagreements about what statements can be drawn from that accepted definition.
Listen you fucking retard: I already fucking explained this to you: Academia isn't some arbitrary social body that arbitrarily came up with some arbitrary definition of God! (That's what you do!) The definition of God falls out of logical considerations around ontological arguments! But you're still too fucking stupid to learn about that which you know nothing about!
Listen you fucking retard: The definition of God wasn't just made up "today" by some corrupt academia! It has been in place for thousands of years, across continents and languages and political systems! The definition of God has been agreed upon by the left-wing and the right-wing! The definition of God is accepted among agnostics, theists, and atheists alike! The only person who is denying that words have meaning is you!
Look at the fucking move you're trying to play here: "I'll throw ALL ACADEMIA under the bus as being dumb or dishonest, and that surely means my half-baked ideas are right! Because I'm being honest when I say that I'm personally smarter than ALL ACADEMIA on a subject I know nothing about and don't care to study!" Gtfo!
Go read a book and shut the fuck up!
God you're fucking stupid!
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
Why so afraid now?
Why disappear?
Why not answer a simple question?
Do you believe I MUST accept academias definition of god???
Shadowlight ago
Where did you go?
Now that I have unravelled your broken narrative, you flee?
You claim I MUST accept Academias definition of God? Seriously???
Shadowlight ago
So you are saying I MUST accept academias definition of god, and since they feel they have logically proven that (their definition of) god does not exist, I MUST accept that god doesn't exist???
jewsbadnews ago
Do you think there is a chance we are in a Matrix?
antiracist3 ago
No.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Internalism_and_externalism#As_a_response_to_skepticism
@eagleshigh @bojangles
jewsbadnews ago
Why would god create the evil in the first place?
Shadowlight ago
Who knows. Maybe it was good and turned to evil and he wants to understand why.
Antiracist4 ago
God is all-knowing.
God is desireless.
There is no "maybe" when it comes to discussing an all-knowing being needing to come into knowledge. There is no "maybe" when it comes to discussing a desireless being wanting something.
We can be honest with ourselves to say we know that the monotheistic God would not create evil. As evil exists, the conclusion that God doesn't exist is inescapable.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
According to the bible he is....but that is mans interpretation and man is flawed.
jewsbadnews ago
low IQ response
Shadowlight ago
Pussy poster cant refute.
Shocking
jewsbadnews ago
Stop worshipping a bi-polar, cruel God made up by kikes.
Shadowlight ago
Im agnostic, but unlike you i can use logic. Youre as bad as the fucking jews.
jewsbadnews ago
Retard. Christians are the ones that claim the true god is all loving and created a perfect world without suffering, yet natural evolution disproves that.
Shadowlight ago
Pussy. Everything changes, and according to Christians the perfect world went away when they violated gods rules.
antiracist ago
Except God's immutable nature.
Oh, so the perfect immutable God made a perfect world which was mutable. That is, immutability is a requisite for God's perfection, but when it comes to the perfect world, its perfection can change into imperfection for some reason. You would think that a perfect world, were it truly perfect, would remain incorruptible.
Oh, so the perfect God in his perfect design equipped people with free will, but for some reason they didn't always freely will to do good. Almost like they were designed to unfreely out of necessity have to choose evil sometimes, by the perfect God's perfect design. Looks like a design flaw to me.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @jewsbadnews
Shadowlight ago
The bible says god is perfect, but the bible is a construct of man, interpreted by man.
The bible can certainly be wrong for these very reasons.
jewsbadnews ago
Please just accept that there is no god.
jewsbadnews ago
The only way you can make sense of this is to take the bible literally and to think all animals were vegans before Adam and Eve sinned which is what Ken Ham and most creationist believe. Are you that retarded?
jewsbadnews ago
Stealing your worldview? You are the one that claims there is a loving god who created a sinless world but made this.
jewsbadnews ago
Oh please, you just don't have an answer. Here is my answer, there is no god, or at least the Abramahic god, we came about by brutal and uncaring evolution.
WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI ago
look at this genius
Malayar ago
imagine being an anti Christian masquerading as an atheist on a screen name made to mask the paid shilling
jewsbadnews ago
You call me a shill because i don't like your kike religion? lmao fuck off
jewsbadnews ago
How about besides telling me to read the bible you tell me why here and now, or do you not have an answer?