Thread 23171087

Love and believe in Christ is the last chance for you, and you're running out of time. Take action.

Jeremiah 29:11
"If God Still Wakes You Up Everyday, He Still has a Plan For You."

>>23171087 (OP)
I am a hylic, they do not make messiahs for me. The plan is only destruction for the amusement of others

>>23171087 (OP)
Anyone who speaks literally of God, or Christ, is invariably speaking only of themselves. Get rebuked, thou.

Proof the Bible is the word of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5ZEsXjNVI
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
Jesus Christ is God who came to earth from heaven in the flesh. He died as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of the whole world to save you from eternal hell, the punishment for your sin. He was buried, then He resurrected and is now in heaven. Do you regret your sin? Do you want forgiveness? The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is sufficient to wash your soul from all sin eternally, so believe in Him. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:28) God wants to forgive you, but you have to make a choice. Do you refuse this gift and choose this evil world that only wants to hurt and ruin you, or do you choose to submit to the will of God and be saved? Your own deeds, no matter how good you think they are can NEVER justify you. You're corrupt and need to be saved. “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Romans 5:9). Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, in what HE did for you. Only He can wash away all of your sins with His blood. Salvation can't be earned, it's a gift. What do you choose? God has given you much time to repent of your sinfulness and self-righteousness.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:9)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbPchtYsXNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS78mFJcvhQ

>>23171089
Christ literally exists and His death burial and resurrection were real historical events that actually happened

>>23171091
>His death burial and resurrection were real historical events that actually happened
You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

>>23171090
>Proof the Bible is the word of God

Christ is king of the jews and only the jews

FUCK JESUS I SPIT ON HIS UNHOLY NAME!!!!!!

*P’TUHH*

Rabbi yeshua is a symbol of weakness

>>23171091
Even if I believed your laminated cheat sheet, that just invites more of your toxic delusion. I'm being generous by calling you insane, because the only other explanation is kikery. You're not a kike, are you anon?

>>23171087 (OP)
If you worship jews you're going into a blender before and forever after death, remember that.

>>23171097
nobody worships pharisaens, and nobody should support the orthodox heathens in the east either

>>23171090
You "people" seem genuinely insane posting walls of schizobabble written by desert jew rats.

>>23171098
STOP TALKING LIKE YOU’RE FROM 400 A.D. CHRISTKEK BITCH FUCK YOU. THESE TERMS HAVE NO RELEVANCE TODAY

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
GOD FUCKI G DAMN IT

>>23171098
Christkikes view all of reality through a jewish lens. Trying to redefine "da real jooz" to deny it is insane pilpul that shows how kiked you are.

I love Jesus Christ

>>23171095
I hate christfaggotry but nigger you gay. Your vidrel is gay as hell. Disgusting.

>>23171091
>Christ literally exists and His death burial and resurrection were real historical events that actually happened
Lol. Lmao.

>>23171103
>t. Closeted christcvck
No u nigger

>>23171093
>circularity
every worldview is self-referential at the foundational level.
that doesn't mean they're irrational, it means they start from axioms or presuppositions that are taken as givens.

empiricism
>assumes that sensory experience is reliable, but that assumption is itself based on experience.
scientism
>the belief that science is the best or only way to know truth is not itself a scientific claim
naturalism/physicalism
>assumes only physical things exists, and uses empirical models (which only detect physical things to confirm that)

faith in God is no more circular than faith in reason, science, or the senses.
the question becomes which worldview makes the most sense of reality, morality, meaning and human experience?
>>23171096
"insane" is just a social construct tied to norms.
if we're measuring by social norms, strong atheist materialism paired with judenhass is far more outside the mainstream than Christianity.
you are an extremely rare duck.
>>23171104
what are you giggling about?
maybe try interacting with the evidence i'd presented.

>>23171105
>>t. Closeted christcvck
Cope. How many gay/bestiality do you possess Seamus?
PS I denounce the torah, the tanakh, the talmud, the zohar, the kaballah, judaism, jewry, jewishness, zionism, the zionist state, sabbateanism , frankism, yhwh, satan, azazel, the new testament, the mashiach, paul, peter, the vatican, protestantism, islam, the koran, muhammad, allah and all associated semitic sandnigger cults and deities.

>>23171087 (OP)
Hey.
So basically, I'm just not gonna worship a mythical dead kike on a stick.
I Know.....
UGH I know... It's just that, I'm not gonna do it is all!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

>>23171107
Ok this one is the same but less gay

Also denounce gay pagan larping

>>23171107
do you denounce the flag of your people that portrays the 3 crosses of 3 Christian saints?

>>23171106
>that doesn't mean they're irrational
It does when your only arguing buvle say say
>>23171106
>faith in God is no more circular than faith in reason, science, or the senses
Incorrect because reason, science.ams senses lead to observations and demonstrations out side themselves. Whereas the bible is right because bible say so

>>23171087 (OP)
No thanks christ golem.

>>23171106
>interacting with the evidence i'd presented
There isn't any evidence of supernatural events of the bible. This goes back to th3 circular part.

Christcvck x Paganfag
<3 <3 <3

>>23171087 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbC826n_f-s

>>23171106
>maybe try interacting with the evidence i'd presented.
Kek
>Gospels written by jewish anons and alleged letters by some jew called paul
Cult texts. Inadmissible
>Josephus etc
Confirms the existence of christfags and their beliefs - not jesus himself
>appearances
Alleged in anecdotes in cult texts ie inadmissible
>trans
Alleged in anecdotes in cult texts ie inadmissible
>proclamation
Alleged in anecdotes in cult texts ie inadmissible
>James and Paul's conversion
Alleged in anecdotes in cult texts ie inadmissible
tldr: you have nothing but anecdotes in cult texts aka (((the new testament)))

I've read the gospels. Didn't really find anything particularly appealing about Jesus. Weak philosophy, terrible miracles, and cringe followers.

Can any Christian please explain what is so appealing for you about this Jesus guy

>>23171087 (OP)
I've accepted Christ and believe in him. I'm Catholic. Now what do I do?

>>23171110
>do you denounce the flag of your people
No
>but muh origins
You argue like a leftist and a jew

>>23171111
oh, what's up ghost of mesa.
been a while.

>It does when your only arguing buvle say say
maybe if you clip your thumbnail you'd be able to type on your phone with less errors.
>Incorrect because reason, science.ams senses lead to observations and demonstrations out side themselves. Whereas the bible is right because bible say so
here you're mistaking circularity for uselessness.
reason, science, and the senses do produce observations, but only after assuming their reliability, that's epistemic circularity.
the Bible's authority claim is no more circular than empiricism's trust in experience or reason's trust in logic.
the difference isn't whether a system is circular, it's what it explains.
the real question remains, which worldview best accounts for consciousness, morality, meaning and the very intelligibility of science itself?

can't wait to read your well thought-out erudite response.

>>23171117
Uhhh... I don't know, if you actually read the old testament + the gospels, you would know that Christ is the Messiah that redeems us of our sinful debt. He's a pretty important character in the Bible.

>>23171099
A lot of things seem insane at first but are true as turned out later on.
People thought that thinking is done in the brain but the bible says that its with the heart.
Now many studies emerge recently that the heart can predict the future 5 or 6 seconds before it comes to pass and other studies show us that the heart contains memory cells and people with transplanted hearts get memories from the donors and thoughts look it up.
The bible is correct again.

>>23171118
>Now what do I do?
Get yourself crucified and then vanish of the face of the earth? It's what jesus would do.

>>23171113
>There isn't any evidence of supernatural events of the bible. This goes back to th3 circular part.
only if you define "evidence" as "repeatable physical phenomena in a lab"
but that's just begging the question, assuming naturalism to disprove the supernatural.

historical claims aren't verified by test tubes, they're weighed by testimony, coherence, and explanatory power.
you don't get to redefine "evidence" to exclude anything that threatens your sad worldview, then act surprised when it doesn't show up.
try again with a definition that doesn't rig the game.

>>23171109
>Ok this one is the same but less gay
Theyre all gay anon.
>Also denounce gay pagan larping
I denounce gay pagan larping and gay bogtrotters with gay jesus vids saved on their harddrive

>>23171120
>here you're mistaking circularity for uselessness
I dk t find anything useful in the supernatural fairytale in the bible. Cool that you do>>23171120
>reason, science, and the senses do produce observations, but only after assuming their reliability
Imcorrect. It's how you demonstrate reliability
>which worldview best accounts for consciousness, morality, meaning and the very intelligibility of science itself?
It sure isn't Christianity
>can't wait to read your well thought-out erudite response.
I bet, so you can r/eddit out about irrelevant shit lol

>>23171123
Wow, very nationalistic. You know, it's because of people like you that the UK is in trouble, right?

>>23171124
>they're weighed by testimony, coherence, and explanatory power
And there isn't any that backs the supernatural claims the bible makes

>>23171113
Uhhhh... The Great Canyon? Great Flood? Erosion? Fossils in mountains? No?

>>23171125
Now denounce pretending that Britain can be saved, that’s the saddest larp of all
>BUT NO UUU PADDY!!!
I’m Jewish, I hate the cvck island

>>23171127
Since when has worshiping some jew in a jew cult done anything to mitigate the jq nigger?

>>23171087 (OP)
So, was Jesus the first Jojo?

>>23171131
>im jewish
You were rabbi raped as a kid maybe thats why you hate God

>>23171132
>Denies the couple of thousand years of white people being christian

>>23171130
Those aren't supernatural my friend

>>23171091
Shut up kike.

>>23171131
>I’m Jewish
Imagine my shock
>I hate the cvck island
Mine or the one you're squatting on? Go back to your levantine containment zone you filthy shtetl trinket merchant while it's still your choice to make.

>>23171135
>>Denies the couple of thousand years
1400 for Anglos - 1000 for scandis and balts
Ethiopia has been christfag longer. It's still a nigger shithole.

>>23171126
>I dk t find anything useful in the supernatural fairytale in the bible.
that's nice. your personal taste isn't a refutation though.
i don't find anything useful in your spelling, but i still engage with the content.
>it's how you demonstrate reliability
you're missing the point.
you demonstrate reliability using the senses, but that's circular if the senses are what you're trying to justify.
same with reason, you use logic to prove logic, that's epistemic circularity.
>it sure isn't Christianity
bold claim.
still waiting for a worldview that ground objective morality, consciousness and meaning without collapsing into nihilistic incoherence.
naturalism doesn't do it.
post-modernism doesn't do it.
Christianity at least attempts to account for these things.
>r/eddit out about irrelevant shit lol
translation: i can't answer the question so i'll pretend it's irrelevant.

keep entertaining me, clown.

>>23171137
>>23171138
Pisslamists and antisemite commies are losers forever. Accept it. It’s so ogre for you freaks.

Off-topic bait.
1pbtid.
Herbed.
Anyone who replies to this post denounces the talmud.

I denounce the degenerate scum bag jesus

>>23171137
i don't get why a muslim would be mad at what i'm saying.
your moon god allegedly planted this evidence i'm referring to in order to deceive us people of the book into believing prophet isa was actually crucified.

>>23171141
>Pisslamists and antisemite commies are losers forever.
Yes. Thankfully I'm an anti-semitic rightist. I hate all semites including muslim vermin and shtetl gypsies like you
> It’s so ogre for you freaks.
I think not. Every 80 yrs there is a major backlash against jewry because you retards never learn. Furthermore you are merchant caste shtetl trinket dealers and completely unfit to govern either yourselves or anyone else. Protip: the next major backlash approaches and there's nothing you can do about it except spew chutzpah into the ether.

>>23171087 (OP)
Jesus wasn't even a real person, you dummies

>pic related

>>23171140
>your personal taste isn't a refutation though
Neither are yours regarding proof

>>23171140
>you demonstrate reliability using the senses, but that's circular if the senses are what you're trying to justify.
same with reason, you use logic to prove logic, that's epistemic circularity
You don't get it. They demonstrate reliability beyond themselves.
>it sure isn't Christianity
>bold claim.
Not really. Cool if Christianity works for you though
>still waiting for a worldview that ground objective morality
Demonstrate such a thing existing then demonstrate its only found in your worldview
>>23171140
>i can't answer the question
You never asked one duder.
Thanks for demonstrating how r/eddit you really are though lol

>>23171140
>still waiting for a worldview that ground objective morality, consciousness and meaning
Platonism and classical virtue ethics aka objective morality

>>23171145
>U CANT RULE ANYONE JOOO!!!
but also
>RAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! DA JOOOOZ MADE US CVCKS!!!!
? ? ? ? ? ?

You’re just jealous, it’s understandable.
Israel is mighty, Europe is CVCKED.
Sad stuff.

>>23171147
>neither are yours regarding proof
i didn't offer personal taste, i challenged your definition of proof.
you're still assuming empiricism as the only valid epistemology, which is the very thing being questioned.
>they demonstrate reliability beyond themselves
that's a nice slogan.
now explain how you verify the senses without using the senses, or how you validate logic without relying on logic.
you're still stuck in circularity, you've just dressed it up in confidence.
>cool if Christianity works for you though
this isn't about what works, it's about explanatory power.
Christianity offers a coherent framework for objective morality, consciousness, and meaning.
if you think another worldview does it better, name it, defend it. coward.
>demonstrate such a thing existing.
you're asking me to prove objective morality while denying any framework that could ground it.
if morality is just evolutionary conditioning or social consensus, then forced sex isn't wrong, it's just unpopular.
so again, which worldview makes sense of moral realism?
>you never asked one duder
i asked which worldview best accounts for reality, morality, meaning and human experience.
you dodged it, repeatedly

still waiting for a response that isn't 90% cope and 10% typos.

>>23171149
>all that cope
Judaism is a primitive superstition based on merging a midianite volcano god (yahweh) and the remote high god of the canaanite pantheon (el). It then plagiarised various forms of proto-monotheism from both the Persian zoroastrians and the Greek platonists but not before mangling the ideas with the customary malignant jewish narcissism. Judaism is essentially one big cope for being surrounded by more advanced people continually curbstomping jews. It is a power/revenge fantasy.
>egyptians/assyrians/babylonians/greeks/romans are bad mmmmkay
>yeh but our god is best god though
>yeh but our god is ONLY god though
>yeh but we are god's chosen though
>yeh we lost because god is punishing us though
>yeh but we're smarter though
>yeh but one day mashiach will come and smash all our enemies though
Truly asinine and pathetic.

jesus is the antichrist

>>23171087 (OP)
Allah is the king of Universe.

escape the city [step 1] if you want to survive

https://pol.foundation/Happening.html

>>23171150
>christkike ends up doing the jewish philosophy equivalent of "prove the chair is real"
Kek. So is raping and murdering children ever morally correct?

>>23171149
>”I’m outnumbered help” the post

>>23171148
i don't believe you're an actual platonist, but i'll pretend you are and demonstrate why it fell out of favor.

explain how abstract Forms floating in metaphysical limbo cause anything.
or how virtue ethics grounds morality without smuggling in teleology.
platonism gives you ideals, it doesn't explain WHY humans ought to care about them or why those ideals exist at all.
classical virtue ethics assumes a purpose-driven human nature.
where does that purpose come from in a godless universe?

you're borrowing metaphysical furniture from theism while pretending you live in a minimalist apartment.
try again with a worldview that doesn't collapse into borrowed capital or poetic hand-waving.

>>23171087 (OP)
The king of what?

>>23171150
>i challenged your definition of proof.
And failed lol

>>23171150
>you're still assuming empiricism as the only valid epistemology
Incorrect
>>23171150
>now explain how you verify the senses without using the senses
I never said this
>>cool if Christianity works for you though
>this isn't about what works
Hmm
>Christianity offers a coherent framework for objective morality
Please demonstrate how
>if you think another worldview does it better, name it, defend it.
Mine. Hence why I'm no longer a Christian

Notice how this clown can't back this claim

>i asked which worldview best accounts for reality, morality, meaning and human experience
Oh OK, mine

>>23171155
That clown is about to make excuses

>>23171151
>ummm ackshully u guize were also cvcked 2500 years ago so-
>all that cope
>cope
That’s all you GOY
In physical reality we’re winning.
TikTok commies dominate anti-Zionism and so fighting Israel just means suicide for your own country. Do you really not get this? Grow up! Hating Israel is brown coded and GAY.

>>23171155
i think i've had this conversation with you before and it was fruitless and you were irrational.

first things first, "rape" and "murder" basically means sex+bad and killing+bad.
so yes, those cannot ever be morally correct since by definition they're immoral.

now here's where you go, "aha! but your god commanded rape and murder!"
which is bullshit.
go ahead and lay out your silly case for it.

>>23171154
>escape the city
Woo!
Oh yeah!
Running around at the speed of sound.
Got places to go, gotta follow my rainbow!

>>23171087 (OP)
He was a Jew though.

>>23171160
Yep, it's alreasy started kek.
>>23171162
>"aha! but your god commanded rape and murder!"
>which is bullshit.
Why are you lying?

>>23171162
>which is bullshit
The bible details it very well

>>23171087 (OP)
KIKE B CRUSTY KANG

>>23171087 (OP)
>If
Fake theological statement.
Christ is King.

>>23171158
>explain how abstract Forms floating in metaphysical limbo cause anything.
The forms exist in the divine mind of the Monad who emanates them into material being in an eternal panentheist cosmos
>how virtue ethics grounds morality
Classical virtue ethics ARE morality and grounded in the Monad aka God
>it doesn't explain WHY humans ought to care about them or why those ideals exist at all.
Neither do the jewish texts of your semitic blood cult
>classical virtue ethics assumes a purpose-driven human nature.
Correct
>where does that purpose come from in a godless universe?
The Platonic cosmos is not godless
>you're borrowing metaphysical furniture from theism while pretending you live in a minimalist apartment.
Wrong way around. Christfags plagiarised Platonism.
>try again with a worldview that doesn't collapse into borrowed capital or poetic hand-waving.
Cope more yahwehite

>>23171160
>and failed lol
sick rebuttal, truly socratic
>incorrect
then clarify your epistemology, fatboy.
if you're not assuming empiricism, what is your standard for knowledge?
because so far, you've dismissed anything non-empirical as "fairytales"
>i never said this
how would i know? you type like a retard and offer vague nothings i have to attempt to guess the meanings of.
from what i've gathered though, it's implied in your entire framework.
if you think the senses are reliable, you're either assuming it or trying to prove it using them, which would be circular.
>please demonstrate how [Christianity offers a coherent framework]
sure.

Christianity grounds
>morality in the nature of a transcendent, personal God
>meaning in a purposeful creation narrative
>consciousness as a reflection of divine image
>reason as a gift from a rational creator
your turn, show me how your worldview grounds these without collapsing into relativism, material reductionism or poetic hand-waving.

>mine. hence why i'm not longer a Christian.
that's not a defense, that's autobiography.
name your worldview.
define its metaphysics.
show how it accounts for the things you take for granted.

All who rage against you will surely be ashamed and disgraced. Those who oppose you will be as nothing and perish.

>>23171166
go ahead.
show me a divine prescriptive and not descriptive murder in scripture.
again though, murder is killing+bad and not just killing.

>>23171161
>In physical reality we’re winning.
Jews are always winning - in 80 year segments until theyre not and get curbstomped for overreach and hubris. Rinse and repeat for 2700 years. You truly are retards.

>>23171172
Pol Pot was right to kill people like you. Kill, not murder, killing you wouldn't be bad.

>"christian"
>pol/cel/

Lol

i'm still here and ready to continue embarrassing you, gaytheists

>>23171178
Me too. Address this
>>23171169

>>23171170
>>513957668
>what is your standard for knowledge?
The reliability of its claim to knowledge
>i never said this
>how would i know?
Kek can't prove his claim lol
>i have to attempt to guess the meanings
Stop trying to fish for strawman and ask me direct questions
>>513957668
>coherent framework]
Making a God and attributing morality to it, isn't coherent. Considering I can make up anything as God and do the same .
Further more, you haven't demonstrated that morality is only capable in your world view

>>513957668
>>mine. hence why i'm not longer a Christian.
>that's not a defense,
For me it is.
>>513957668
>jump through my hoops
Lol
>things you take for granted.
Such as?
>>513957782
>show me a divine prescriptive and not descriptive murder in scripture.
Sure
>Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’
And
>17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

>18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

I look forward into your pilpul and excuses

>>23171178
>immediately thinks about homosex
Kek

>transferred
JANNIES ARE LITERAL FAGGOTNIGGERS
not you're regular niggers but literally FAGGOT NIGGERS

>>23171180
>divine mind
it's theistic so not really interesting to me right now, i'm more in the mode to shit on nu-atheism.
>>23171182
>the reliability of its claim to knowledge
interesting.
and how do you determine a claim's reliability without already assuming reliable tools to do so?
>making a God an attributing morality to it isn't coherent.
strawman.
Christianity doesn't invent a God, it posits a necessary transcendent source of moral obligation.
you can "make up" anything, sure. but coherence isn't about imagination, it's about explanatory power.
>you haven't demonstrated that morality is only capable in your worldview.
i don't need to. i asked which worldview best accounts for objective morality.
still waiting for yours to do more than gesture vaguely at platonism while rejecting its metaphysical commitments.
>kill all these dudes
that's not a murder, it's a killing.
if morality is subjective or evolutionary, then your disgust is just a chemical reaction, not a truth claim.
you're borrowing moral categories from theism to condemn theism. that's called incoherence.

>>23171196
>and how do you determine a claim's reliability
The outcomes they produce
>>23171196
>>making a God an attributing morality to it isn't coherent.
>strawman
Nope. That's what you've done
>>23171196
>Christianity doesn't invent a God
My bad, it took the jewish one lol
>but coherence isn't about imagination, it's about explanatory power.
Which you can never explain with your gid beyond perosnal feelings and opinions
>>23171196
>>you haven't demonstrated that morality is only capable in your worldview.
>i don't need to
Then you're entire argument is moot
>>23171196
>that's not a murder
It is. Killing babies is murder, you've already agreed to this so no need to back track

>>23171147
>>still waiting for a worldview that ground objective morality
>Demonstrate such a thing existing
Nice that this clown
>>23171196
Can't answer this

>>23171196
>it's theistic
So what? I'm a Platonist.
>not really interesting to me right now
IE you can't refute anything I said ergo your claim of christfaggotry being somehow unique in presenting a coherence and grounding is proven false
Concession accepted yahwehite

>>23171239
>ergo your claim of christfaggotry being somehow unique in presenting a coherence and grounding is proven false
Yup 100%

>>23171172
>show me a divine prescriptive and not descriptive murder in scripture
Numbers 31

>>23171245
1 Samuel 15:3 as well

>>23171249
Indeed
Here's my QRD on judaism
Judaism is the merging of a primitive pagan midianite volcano god (yahweh) and the high god of the pagan canaanite pantheon (el). Pre Babylonian exile jews were polytheistic yahwehist savages who sacrificed first born babies TO yahweh and asherah among others.
During and post exile jews then blatantly plagiarised and retconned the code of Hammurabi, Babylonian creation myths and Persian Zoroastrian concepts. Post exile they plagiarised middle Platonism during the Greek Seleucid hegemony. Everything they stole was then retconned and bastardised through the lens of collective jewish malignant narcissism.before being scrambled together in the Greek septuagint in Alexandria circa 300BCE. Therein jews projected their own sordid savage religious practices onto foreign gods, foreign peoples, "pagans" and "apostates" in quintessential jewish fashion. Jews steal everything, corrupt it and then claim provenance while projecting their own savagery onto others.. They are a nation of thieves and liars and those vices extend to their own retarded retconned creed, history and mythos.

>>23171254
Agreed 100%

>>23171211
>the outcomes they produce
so truth is whatever works? that's pragmatism, not epistemology
by that logic, placebo pills are "true" if they make you feel better.
you're dodging the question, what grounds your ability to judge reliability in the first place?
>my bad, it took the jewish one lol
the judeo-Christian framework gave us moral monotheism, the bedrock of universal human dignity and Western ethics.
your quip only underscores its explanatory power. what’s your alternative?
>you can never explain with your god beyond personal feelings
false.
Christianity grounds morality in the nature of a personal, transcendent being, not in vibes or consensus like gaytheism.
>then your entire argument is moot
i asked which worldview best accounts for morality.
you still haven't shown how yours does, just claimed that mine isn't exclusive.
that's not a rebuttal, it's a dodge.
>killing babies is murder
i distinguished killing from murder. murder is unjust killing, which requires a standard of justice.
the amalek case is divine judgment, not murder, per theistic ethics. you condemn it, but why?
if morality is subjective, your objection is just preference. if objective, what’s its source? you’re still using theistic categories to critique theism.
>>23171227
i don't understand what you're trying to say here.
>>23171239
that's nice.
you should be helping me attack the gaytheists then.

>>23171276
>you should be helping me attack the gaytheists then.
I oppose yahwehites and their false semitic cult just as vociferously.
Imagine worshiping the tribal god of the jews - yahweh
Imagine believing in the salvific efficacy of scapegoat blood sacrifices to a semitic god of foreskins and gentile slaughter aka yahweh
Imagine believing in the alleged human sacrifice of yahweh's first born son to himself in order to save yourself from eternal moloch firepits that yahweh himself created in gehenna/sheol under a flat earth
Imagine believing you can transpose your crimes/misdeeds/filth onto innocent chickens/goats/oxen/sheep/godmen/messiahs that are ritually sacrificed and consumed/believed in/deified in order to appease/satisy yahweh
Imagine a European believing in this incoherent, immoral, schizo, blasphemous jewish sandnigger nonsense

>>23171254
>Yahweh was a volcano god
this is based on fringe 19th century speculation, not serious scholarship. no archeological evidence supports this.
>jews plagiarized hammurabi, zoroastrianism, platonism
they engaged with surrounding cultures like every civilization in history. that's intellectual development, not theft.
>septuagint scrambled together in 300 BC
the septuagint was a greek translation of already existing hebrew texts. you've got the timeline backwards.

you should unsubscribe to whatever youtube cartoon you got this garbage from.
>>23171280
is it because Christians bullied you for being gay?

>>23171276
>so truth is whatever works?
Depends on the context. In xk text if religion and morality, yes
>you're dodging the question
Nope. You're just 1 dimensional
>>23171276
>the judeo-Christian framework gave us moral monotheism
Prescribing the death of babies and rape of little girls is moral to me. So that claim doesn't resonate
>what’s your alternative?
Not killing babies or raping little girls, regardless of who commands it

>>23171276
>>you can never explain with your god beyond personal feelings
>false.
>Christianity grounds morality in the nature of a personal, transcendent being
>personal
Thanks for contradicting yourself
>>23171276
>i asked which worldview best accounts for morality
Depends on the context of the situation..there's not context where it's ok to kill babies and rape little girls

>>23171276
>i distinguished killing from murder
Not really no.
>murder is unjust killing
Like killing babies
>your objection is just preference
Just as yours are. You prefer a god that is OK with killing babies and raping little girls. I prefer not to believe in that kind of god

>>23171276
>i don't understand what you're trying to say here
You are incapable of demonstrating objective morality

>>23171288
>this is based on fringe 19th century speculation
Yes
>no archeological evidence supports this.
Incorrect
>that's intellectual development, not theft.
That's pilpul, not a refutation
>the septuagint was a greek translation of already existing hebrew texts.
Jewish propaganda
I recommend reading Gmirkin
>you should unsubscribe to whatever youtube cartoon you got this garbage from.
You should unsubscribe from the semite blood magick scapegoat cult you get your garbage from.
>is it because Christians bullied you for being gay?
I'm not gay but speaking of fags
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Gomorrhianus

>>23171290
>depends on the context. in religion and morality, yes.
so truth is context-dependent? then morality is just a mood wswing.
you've abandoned epistemology for relativism. congrats.
>rape of little girls is moral to me
freudian slip? not surprised though, you definitely look like a diddler.
>personal
>Thanks for contradicting yourself
personal in this context doesn't mean subjective, it means God is a person (3 in Christianity), that moral obligation flows from a rational, relational source, not from human opinion. you're confusing metaphysics with psychology.
>you're incapable of demonstrating objective morality
i've offered a framework, morality grounded in the nature of a transcendent being.
you've offered nothing but outrage and nu-atheist slogans.
you have no grounding or standard, and without one you're just screaming into the void.

anyway, your responses are emotionally reactive, philosophically shallow, and rhetorically scattered. you're not engaging with my actual argument, just repeating moral outrage while refusing to ground it. you are boring and we are done here.

>>23171307
Forgot pic

>>23171087 (OP)
God isn't real

>>23171318
>your responses are emotionally reactive
Aren't you the one saying people look like diddlers and got bullied by christpussies for being gay? Real eunuch behavior here, DYEL.

>>23171318
>i've offered a framework, morality grounded in the nature of a transcendent being.
Fine by me
But then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "it's yahweh"
I should release that as a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC_vahP8blA

>>23171324
Proof?

>>23171307
i don't know what the fuck pilpul is.
you supposed jew haters speak fluent yiddish and study the talmud, it's weird.
>>23171320
there's nothing about a volcano here.
the phrase "his asherah" is ambiguous, it could refer to a goddess, a cultic object (like a pole) or symbolic language. the image itself is likely the egyptian bes rather than yahweh.
the art style is phoenician/syrian, not israelite.
the inscription and the drawing were added separately. there's no evidence they were meant to be interpreted together.

>>23171326
Are you trying to imply eunuchs were invented by Christianity lmao. Eunuchs were a common feature in Republican and Imperial Rome and just about every single culture on earth. Thousands of years before Christianity, there were eunuchs.

>>23171326
don't you though?
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/505058625/#q505079820

>>23171330
The world isn't ordered in a way you would expect if God was real and Christianity is true.

>>23171318
>so truth is context-dependent?
Correct
>>23171318
>you've abandoned epistemology for relativism
This also have context lol
>>23171318
>>rape of little girls is moral to me
>freudian slip?
Very r/eddit if you to focus on the error while still understanding what I meant
>>23171318
>>Thanks for contradicting yourself
>personal in this context doesn't mean subjective
Sure does
>>23171318
>it means God is a person (3 in Christianity),
To you, which is subjective. Again kid, you're contradicting yourself
>>23171318
>>you're incapable of demonstrating objective morality
>i've offered a framework,
That's not demonstrating. And I'm still right. You can't prove objective morality exist
>>23171318
>anyway, your responses are emotionally reactive
Says the r/edditor lol
>you are boring and we are done here.
Your concession is accepted

>>23171332
>i don't know what the fuck pilpul is
Then how do you know its etymological roots? Everyone hates you because you're a slimy piece of shit and you're a slimy piece of shit because you're a christjew.
>isrealite art style
There was never such thing as an "israelite"

>>23171338
elaborate.

>>23171335
You must be a proud eunuch. Judeo-christianity made it a virtue.
>>23171336
>so flustered he forgot how IDs work
Kek, be less emotional.

>>23171307
So what do you call it when the Renaissance occured in Catholic Europe? Was it intellectual theft when the monks from Constantinople smuggled treatises on everything from engineering to warfare to Rome in order to save the knowledge from the Muslim savages that would have destroyed it all? Was that theft, too? It seems by your logic you'd think so.

>>23171332
>you supposed jew haters speak fluent yiddish and study the talmud, it's weird.
Know thine enemy
>there's nothing about a volcano here.
Holy kek
>the phrase "his asherah" is ambiguous,
No. No it isn't.
> it could refer to a goddess
Ya think?
> the image itself is likely the egyptian bes rather than yahweh.
Complete and utter rubbish. Peak christjew cope.
>the art style is phoenician
Fellow semites. Protip: tophets have only been found in judah and carthaginian (phoenician) territories
>the inscription and the drawing were added separately. there's no evidence they were meant to be interpreted together.
Holy fucking cope. Lmfao.

>>23171318
>you're not engaging with my actual argument
Let's see. All you've done is demonstrating how your god is subjective, you haven't been able to shows that your worldview is the only one with moral frameworks, considering that you think it's moral for God to command the murder of babies and rape or girls.

AL you've done and will ever do is demonstrate you have a preference for your brand of Christianity. That's it

>>23171347
Nah I just respect the fact that Christianity built everything around me and is the sole reason the west ascended to mastery of the world culturally, materially, technologically and in just about every single way you can.

You apparently aren't educated very well on history or culture. Or anything I would imagine.

>>23171350
i disagree.

>>23171349
>Was that theft, too?
No. They didnt claim provenance - unlike the thieving jews who did.

>>23171351
I'm not a Christian and I don't factor the morality in. I factor in results. That of which are

Christianity:
>Is the sole reason for the Renaissance
>Is the sole reason for pre-secular cucked modern education systems
>Is the sole reason the west ascended to mastery over the entire world in cultural pursuits, in technological development and also warfare
>Defended the west from invasion for roughly 1500 years at this point

Meanwhile, secular society:
>Threw all of that away in less than a generation

What is your suggestion for a superior system? Because secularism sure ain't it.

>>23171359
You're wrong.

>>23171342
>Problem of evil
>Universe is too big/anthropocentric bias
>Biblical contradictions
>No evidence of the supernatural
>Contradictions in God's properties
>No historical evidence of Jesus's resurrection
>No historical evidence of Noah's Ark or Moses parting the red sea
>No historical evidence of miracles
>No evidence of a soul/evidence suggests we are our brains/material beings
>ect.

>>23171353
>I'm a christjew because I'm educated
That must be why there are so many biblical literalists involved in STEM lmfao. Could it be that you're just anti-White and attribute to the torah what Europeans had already been doing for centuries before christianity?

>>23171365
>Christianity:
>>Is the sole reason for the Renaissance
>>Is the sole reason for pre-secular cucked modern education systems
>>Is the sole reason the west ascended to mastery over the entire world in cultural pursuits, in technological development and also warfare
>>Defended the west from invasion for roughly 1500 years at this point
I don't agree
>>23171365
>Meanwhile, secular society:
>>Threw all of that away in less than a generation
Also don't agree.
>>23171365
>What is your suggestion for a superior system?
I enjoy the knee were in. Freedom of and from religion

>>23171365
Ethiopia has been christfag longer. It's still a nigger shithole.
It's almost as if RACE made Europa great and not your sickly sadomasochistic semitic creed

>>23171371
>knee
One*

>>23171371
All yahwehite creeds are false but modern secular society is suicidal.

>>23171379
Bizarre typo

>>23171388
Right? I guess we're all under some type of knee

>>23171365
>What is your suggestion for a superior system?
Platonism, classical virtue ethics and social nationalism

Okay so basically what you're saying is that you're a tranny with no logical consistency who is unable to reconcile his (incorrect) beliefs with the world around him and just can't accept that he has a penis even when it's shown to him.

I'm sure you'll struggle to understand the alliterations here considering you struggle to understand the subtext to Bible parables which are basically babbys first subtext.

Got it lil bro have fun with that. You're wrong though and Christians have accomplished more than you ever have in your life, or that you ever will. Despite being held back by beliefs that may or may not be the genuine article with regards to their nature. You still haven't presented evidence to the contrary as I requested. Despite all that and all your beliefs, these were smarter, more charismatic, more successful and skilled individuals than you could ever hope to be. What's your response to that? Why are you inferior to such a dumb people? Why haven't you soared to such heights being you are so smart?

Damn nigga u a sad little faggot, aren't you? Getting mogged on by those dumb Christians!

Lmao. Maybe one day you'll actually know something about the world but for now you're just a sad little nigger getting outplayed and outshined by dumb Christians who lived 700 years ago.

>>23171401
>Okay so basically what you're saying is that you're a tranny
Lol this guy wants to be a christjew so badly. He's probably a yahweist in denial.

>>23171392
I'm under the knee of The One aka the Platonic Monad
We've come full circle

How come you aren't as smart and successful and charismatic as these dumb Christians! You are enlightened by your intelligence after all? Why are you poorer than them? Why are you less educated than them? They're just dumb Christians. You're an enlightened individual after all.

>>23171402
>No argument
Ok tranny don't really care what trannys think why are you mogged by Christians from 700 years ago so hard though?

Anybody know who this spastic is talking to?

>>23171368
>Problem of evil
logical version has been defeated, plantinga's free will defense is widely considered a successful rebuttal to mackie's formulation.
>universe is really big, therefore God doesn't exist
c'mon man.
size doesn't disprove design. a vast universe could just as easily reflect grandeur, not randomness.
>bible contradictions
all the "contradictions" from the SAB are reconciled in depth here:
https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/
name some that give you great pause.
>No evidence of the supernatural
hearkens back to what was being discussed earlier in the thread about circularity, epistemology/methodology and evidence.
>No historical evidence of Jesus's resurrection
the image in this post is a presentation of the evidence of the minimal facts argument for the resurrection: >>23171091
the minikmal facts argument is built on data accepted by most scholars, even skeptical ones.
are you saying there's no evidence or are you saying you don't find the evidence compelling? if not, why?
>No historical evidence of Noah's Ark or Moses parting the red sea
even if these stories aren't historically verified, they're not central to the core claims of Christianity, like the resurrection or moral teachings.
>No historical evidence of miracles
where have you looked?
have you checked out Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts by craig keener?
it documents hundreds of miracle claims with eyewitness testimonies and medical corroboration.
>No evidence of a soul/evidence suggests we are our brains/material beings
sure, science hasn’t found a soul under a microscope. but many people have experiences (spiritual, emotional, even near-death) that suggest there’s more to us than just neurons firing in our meat robot suits. even leading neuroscientists admit we don't fully understand consciousness. that mystery leaves room for something beyond materialism.

>>23171408
Post again ITT to confirm you molest children like the god of israel commanded his followers to do :^)

>>23171401
>to understand the subtext to Bible parables
Is that you Juden Peniswash?
>Christians have accomplished more than you ever have in your life, or that you ever will.
New pasta
Lmfao

>>23171412
>a vast universe could just as easily reflect grandeur, not randomness
>could
Could you be wrong about your god?

>>23171415
as an atheist, would you say that's objectively wrong?
if so, why?

Could it be you aren't as smart as you thought? Because I figure a guy like you should be able to mog Christians who lived 700 years ago but there they are making you look like a poorfag dummy.

It's almost like you aren't intelligent whatsoever and have no leg to stand on in this argument because you aren't qualified to even be involved in it given your ignorance on the subjects you're trying to approach. Deflect all you eat, you're the moron here and anyone with a brain cell can put that together crystal clear.

That's good enough for me. Like I said I don't care what trannys who get mogged by those dumb dumb Christians who lived 300 years ago have to say about anything.

>>23171412
>>No evidence of the supernatural
>hearkens back to what was being discussed earlier in the thread about circularity, epistemology/methodology and evidence.
And this is you. Unable to prove any supernatural claims the bible makes

>>23171422
I'm not an atheist. As someone who's god never said its wrong to molest children and explicitly condoned it on occasion, you can't say it's objectively wrong :^(

>>23171412
>the image in this post is a presentation of the evidence of the minimal facts argument for the resurrection
There isn't anything reliable here.

>>23171423
You just confirmed you're a pedophile see >>23171415

>>23171419
i'm done talking with you, chomo of mesa.
the anon i was speaking with entered the thread a strong atheist making a positive claim that atheism is true.
he's not a pussy that couches his attacks on Christianity behind the shield of agnosticism.
by giving a possible counter-explanation for his claim, i've addressed his point.

>>23171422
>anyone who disagrees with me is my boogeyman
This anon is mentally a child

>>23171412
>plantinga's free will defense is widely considered a successful rebuttal to mackie's formulation.
No it isnt.
>name some that give you great pause.
The fact there are any is sufficient
>the image in this post
Debunked here
>>23171116

>>23171432
>he's not a pussy
You are though.

And just for the record tranny

I was raised in a secular household. I'm just a student of history and humanity including theology and I am well versed in many different belief systems.

Because I want to learn about my environment, where I came from and how the world really works and came to where it is today. Unlike yourself, who just wants to be told he has a beautiful vagina even though he has a penis (you'll probably have trouble with that one too given your demonstrated intelligence)

Keep getting mogged on by long dead Christians bitch nigga, get used to it. That's your life.

>>23171432
>i'm done talking with you,
I don't care

I will contine to dunk on you over and over

The pedoleaf definitely still lives with its parents kek.

>>23171412
>miracle claims with eyewitness testimonies and medical corroboration.
Nope.

>>23171412
>but many people have experiences (spiritual, emotional, even near-death)
All subjective amd different, as if they're based on personal experiences and feelings

>>23171412
I have thoroughly looked into everything. Deciding to abandon your religion isn't something one should do without doing thorough research.

>>23171423
Lay off the drugs Mr. Peterstein

>how do you know molesting children is bad if you don't believe in a god that thinks molesting children is ok
Is definitely in the top 3 dumbest fucking things I've ever read in my life lol

>>23171436
>No it isnt.
it is though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense#:~:text=Plantinga%27s%20defense%20has,propositions%201%E2%80%934.
>The fact there are any is sufficient
I don’t think there are any contradictions, but let’s say for the sake of argument that there were.
how would that invalidate Christianity being true?
the gospel doesn’t depend on every verse being error-free, it’s about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. even if the canon had minor inconsistencies, that wouldn’t undermine the core claims of the faith.
>Debunked here
your post was garbage. just a bunch of "nuh uhs"
i'd address a serious critique.
you clearly didn't even read the image given you said "you have nothing but anecdotes in cult texts aka (((the new testament)))"

>>23171466
Apparently I owe a debt to my landlord
This angers my landlord who demands recompense that I am unable to provide
So the landlord visits me with his son, stabs his son to death and then declares my debt paid if I just believe that his son's blood has magic debt cancellation power
But I better believe this in perpetuity of he will torture me forever
Consequently feral mass murdering, child raping niggers now have all their debts cleared too if they accept this and will be welcomed to the landlord's mansion party
Meanwhile virtuous people who question the sanity or morality of this are consigned to the eternal moloch fire pits
Somehow this insane jewish filth is supposed to be rational and moral

>>23171466
it's just not something that's inherently morally wrong under atheism, as morality isn't inherent under atheism.

>>23171472
The most amazing thing about christianity is, since god has allegedly been largely absent from direct and explicit intervention in worldly affairs, no christian can challenge an evildoer when they claim they're acting on yahweh's behalf. How do we know the atheist that shot up the Sutherland Springs church in Texas a few years ago wasn't divinely appointed to kill heretics who disappointed yahweh? We don't, that's the fun.

>>23171461
what was the smoking gun silver bullet, the straw that broke the camel's back and made you decide atheism was true?

>>23171477
>it's just not something that's inherently morally wrong under atheism
That's preferable to it being inherently right under christianity. Speaking of, why haven't any christians outside of Europe and the US figured out that raping babies is wrong yet? African christians still rape infants thinking they'll cure themselves of AIDS. That's christian morality for you.

>>23171477
>it's just not something that's inherently morally wrong under atheism
Correct. Why is that? Because atheism doesn't have any positions about morality.
>as morality isn't inherent under atheism
Yup. That's why it's up to the atheist to discover it themselves

Jist like everyone else

>>23171483
People like you

>>23171467
>it is though
>widely considered
No it isnt.
>I don’t think there are any contradictions
There are hundreds
>how would that invalidate Christianity being true?
All mainstream branches preach atleast some degree of biblical inerrancy
> it’s about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Which depends on the tanakh being true
>your post was garbage
Cope
>you said "you have nothing but anecdotes in cult texts aka (((the new testament)))"
Correct
You have nothing but anecdotes in semitic cult texts aka (((the new testament))) written decades after the supposed events
One third is from some jew who never even met jesus in the flesh - and the rest by anons
Lmao
>goyim just trust us bruh
Lmfao

>>23171483
A bayesian inference between what I know is true vs. God being real. The likely hood of God being real is so low I can basically say God isn't real.

>>23171480
Muh mysterious ways 'n shieet

>>23171498
>it is though
>widely considered
>No it isnt.
read nigger! reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense#:~:text=Plantinga%27s%20defense%20has,propositions%201%E2%80%934.
>There are hundreds
name the strongest three you have that are impossible to reconcile.
>Correct
if i demonstrate that sources from outside the new testament are utilized within the MFA, will you apologize and read the gospel of mark over the next week?

>>23171506
interesting.
bayesian inference depends heavily on priors though, what you already assume to be likely before evaluating new evidence.
so i'm curious, what priors are you using that make the existence of God so improbable? was it the points we've already discussed, or something else?

some argue that the complexity of consciousness, objective morality, and the fine tuning of the universe actually raise the prior probability of a creator, so depending on how you weight those, the inference could swing either way.

>>23171510
>name the strongest three you have that are impossible to reconcile

1. Creation Accounts in Genesis
Issue: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present different sequences and details of creation.
Genesis 1:1–2:3: Describes a six-day creation where animals are created before humans (male and female together) on the sixth day (Genesis 1:24–27).
Genesis 2:4–25: Suggests a different order, where God creates Adam first, then animals, and finally Eve from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:7, 19–22).
Contradiction: The sequence of creation (animals then humans vs. Adam then animals then Eve) differs.

2. The Number of Animals on Noah’s Ark
Issue: Genesis provides differing instructions for the animals Noah takes aboard the ark.
Genesis 6:19–20: God tells Noah to take two of every kind of animal (one male, one female).
Genesis 7:2–3: God instructs Noah to take seven pairs of clean animals and birds, but two of unclean animals.
Contradiction: The number of animals (two of every kind vs. seven pairs of some) seems inconsistent.

3. Judas’s Death
Issue: The New Testament gives conflicting accounts of how Judas Iscariot died.
Matthew 27:5: Judas hangs himself after betraying Jesus.
Acts 1:18: Judas buys a field, falls headlong, and his body bursts open.
Contradiction: The method of death (hanging vs. falling and bursting) and the acquisition of the field differ (Matthew says the priests bought it with Judas’s money; Acts says Judas bought it).

>>23171510
>read nigger! reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!!!
>widely considered
No it isn't.
>name the strongest three you have that are impossible to reconcile.
One would be sufficient
https://bradleymnelson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/biblecontra_big.pdf
>sources from outside the new testament are utilized
Already addressed that

>>23171518
>some argue that the complexity of consciousness, objective morality, and the fine tuning of the universe actually raise the prior probability of a creator
But are always unable to demonstrate past the presupposition

>>23171510
>>23171524

>>23171526
Christfag presups are insufferable
But to the right of the mathematicians is Pythagoras :)

>>23171524
>nuh uh
it's virtually unanimous that mackie's formulation of the problem of evil has been killed. even mackie admitted it.
no atheist intellectual uses the logical formulation of the problem of evil anymore and instead goes with stuff like alex o'connors "the evidentiary argument from gratuitous animal suffering"
>>23171533
yes, those are taken from the SAB
i've actually sat down and went through all of them.
they're stupid and there's a bunch of doubles on that image and references to verses that don't exist.
like some of them even have "contradictions" within the same chapter, like someone saying
"Answer the fool according to their folly" and "Don't answer the fool according to their folly"
when that's just a literary device.

again, they're all lazily reconcilable and have been meticulously taken apart here:
https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/

there was a reason i asked you for just your 3 best instead of making me sift through 500 iterations of retardation.

>>23171546
Indeed

>>23171552
>it's virtually unanimous that mackie's formulation of the problem of evil has been killed
Not really, on the flip side, some argue the logical problem isn’t entirely dead. Philosophers like Graham Oppy or J.L. Schellenberg contend that certain forms of evil (e.g., gratuitous suffering or "divine hiddenness") still pose challenges to theistic coherence, even if Plantinga’s defense holds in a narrow logical sense. The debate remains active, especially in nuanced discussions about what "omnipotence" or "goodness" entail.

>>23171533
>opened the image to grab some examples of stupid ones and doubles on the list
>image isn't even readable
think about that.
just posting an embiggened thumbnail of sam harris' stupid list while whining about jews earlier.
you ain't right, boy.

>>23171552
>there was a reason i asked you for just your 3 best
And here you are. Ignoring
>>23171519

>>23171552
>it's virtually unanimous that mackie's formulation of the problem of evil
> mackie's formulation
Hmmm
>again, they're all lazily reconcilable and have been meticulously taken apart here:
I'm too lazy to read all that cope. The koran has barely any. I don't believe that horseshit either and for sound reasons. The tanakh is absurdist immoral rubbish of the most egregious kind. Anything built atop THAT is false by default.
You are a monolatrous demon worshiper of the child sacrifice demanding, tribal demongod of the jews and his supposed mashiach - a circumcised, torah asserting, yahweh worshiping, unmarried NEET ethnic jew who referred to non jews as dogs.
You assert blood magick scapegoat rites of sin transference and treat jesus the way jews treat chickens - voodoo nigger nonsense
You are the ultimate cuck in mind, body and soul. A gelded eunuch and a traitor to your blood, race and ancestral spirit in favour of semitic demonic filth.
>>23171556
IE To the right of mathematicians are Hellenic metaphysicians.

>>23171627
>>image isn't even readable
Pdf here retard
>>23171524

>>23171624
>some argue the logical problem isn’t entirely dead. Philosophers like Graham Oppy or J.L. Schellenberg contend that certain forms of evil (e.g., gratuitous suffering
no one asked you and you're conflating the logical formulation of it with the evidentiary formulations of it.
the former is completely dead and the latter is weak.'

>it's virtually unanimous that mackie's formulation of the problem of evil has been killed
>not really
“I argue that, while familiar logical arguments from evil are known to be unsuccessful, it remains an open question whether there are successful logical arguments from evil.” -- Graham Oppy
>>23171630
i'll address those if the brit says those are best.
again though, no one's talking to you.

>>23171639
>it's virtually unanimous that mackie's formulation of the problem of evil
> mackie's formulation
>Hmmm
that was my original point that kept getting poopoo'd by you, starting here where you quoted the part that had "mackie's formulation" in it. >>23171436
i'd say all of the logical formulation of the problem of evil are dead, but mackie's (the strongest) is especially dead and mackie agrees.
>The koran has barely any.
gaytheist playing da'wah bro. classic.
actually, i'm bored of you now and will go back to the other retard and address the contradictions he'd brought up.

>>23171654
It's hilarious that you've abandoned any pretense of defending christjewry and are just defending theism broadly now. Pussy move.

>>23171654
>no one asked you
You're in a public forum
>you're conflating the logical formulation of it with the evidentiary formulations of it
Nope
>>23171654
>it remains an open
So not killed. Thanks kiddo

>>23171654
>i'll address those
You probably won't.

>>23171519
>#1
>the sequence of creation (animals then humans vs. adam then animals then eve) differs.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 serve different purposes and are not strictly sequential. Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides a broad, chronological overview of creation, emphasizing the six-day structure and God’s orderly work, culminating in the creation of animals and then humans (male and female) on day six.
Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on the creation of humanity, particularly adam and eve, with a focus on their relationship and role in eden.
it is not a separate creation account but a detailed elaboration of day six.

the apparent discrepancy in the order of animals and humans arises from translation and interpretation of Genesis 2:19, which says,
>Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals… (NIV).
The Hebrew verb for “formed” (yatsar) can be translated as a pluperfect ("had formed"), indicating the animals were already created before adam, consistent with Genesis 1.
the narrative in Genesis 2 is topical, not chronological, focusing on adam’s naming of the animals to highlight his authority and the need for a suitable helper, leading to eve’s creation. thus, there is no contradiction; Genesis 2 complements Genesis 1 by providing a focused account of human creation.

>>23171679
>The Hebrew verb for “formed” (yatsar) can be
And here we go with jewish weasel words in defense of the torah.

>>23171679
Thank you for being unable to debunk th4 contradiction

>>23171665
>it remains an open
>So not killed
oppy's saying there could maybe be some logical formulation that hasn't been thought of yet possible someday that gets around plantinga's defense.
it's dead dude.
>>23171519
>#2
>the number of animals on noah’s ark
the instructions in Genesis 6 and 7 are complementary, not contradictory.
Genesis 6:19–20 provides a general command to take two of every kind of animal to preserve all species. Genesis 7:2–3 adds a specific instruction to take additional clean animals (seven pairs) and birds, likely for sacrificial purposes after the flood (see Genesis 8:20, where Noah offers sacrifices).
clean animals, as later defined in mosaic law (e.g., Leviticus 11), were suitable for offerings, requiring more than just a breeding pair. the “two” in Genesis 6 is a baseline for all animals, while Genesis 7 clarifies the additional clean animals and birds.
the text assumes the reader understands the cultural context of clean and unclean animals, and the two passages together provide a complete picture of noah's instructions.

>>23171694
>oppy's saying there could maybe be some logical formulation that hasn't been thought of yet possible someday that gets around plantinga's defense.
So not dead or killed

>>23171694
Kek he's getting this from AI

Thanks again for not being unable to debunk the contradiction

>>23171703
>Thanks again for not being unable to debunk the contradiction
For being unable to debunk the contradiction*

>>23171693
>>23171705
explain how that doesn't offer a plausible reconciliation between the two passages.
>>23171519
>#3
>the method of death (hanging vs. falling and bursting) and the acquisition of the field differ (matthew says the priests bought it with judas’s money; acts says judas bought it).
the accounts of judas’s death in matthew and acts can be harmonized by considering them as complementary descriptions of the same event. Matthew 27:5 reports that judas hanged himself, likely on a tree or elevated structure.
Acts 1:18 describes a subsequent event: judas’s body, after hanging, fell (possibly due to the rope breaking or the body decomposing) and burst open upon impact.
the verb “falling headlong” (prenes) in Acts suggests a forward fall, consistent with a body dropping from a height. the gruesome detail of bursting open is typical of a fall from a significant height, especially if the body was in an advanced state of decay.
regarding the field, Matthew 27:6–8 states the priests used judas’s betrayal money (30 pieces of silver) to buy the potter’s field, called the “Field of blood” (metal) because it was purchased with blood money.
Acts 1:18 notes that judas "acquired" the field, which can be understood as him indirectly causing its purchase through his actions and money. in ancient contexts, someone could be said to "acquire" something if their actions led to its procurement, even if others executed the transaction. the field’s name in Acts, "field of blood," aligns with Matthew, suggesting both accounts refer to the same plot. thus, the accounts describe different aspects of the same event: judas’s suicide by hanging, the subsequent fall and bursting of his body, and the purchase of the field with his betrayal money.
>>23171698
argument of the gaps
>>23171703
i'm getting it from:
https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/
which dismantles each and every SAB alleged contradiction in depth.

>>23171714
>plausible
Lol see >>23171684
>>23171714
>complementary descriptions of the same event
Weird how god didn't think to tell people the same version of these events, isn't it?

>>23171714
>plausible reconciliation between the two passages.
The bible is the inerrant word of God. Of that were true. Then these things would have been explained from the get go. Instead they aren't. Whicb means people like you have to invent headcannon to avoid the contradiction

Watch, you'll do it again
>>23171714
>argument of the gaps
Which is what you're doing

Concession accepted

>>23171703
Hmmmmm

>>23171728
Yeah that anon likes to LARP as an intellectual but when you observe him, you see he has no experience with anything beyond internet memes

>>23171726
>The bible is the inerrant word of God.
i agree. but not everyone believes this and it's not actually important when it comes to salvation.
Christianity existed before any of the NT was ever written.
>[if] that were true. Then these things would have been explained from the get go
what makes you think that?
>[Which] means people like you have to invent [headcanon] to avoid the contradiction
or just read it without a dogmatic precommitment against its veracity.

>argument of the gaps
?
oppy was saying "there might still be in the future some as of yet unexplained logical formulation of the problem of evil we haven't discovered yet"
i haven't said anything like this.

i'll give you one more chance to make an interesting thoughtful response, if it's stupid i'm leaving.

>>23171728
it's just thinking that because of the weird hyphens that were copypasted (from human text) - vs –
i'm going to start using alt+0151 to mess with people

>>23171736
>>The bible is the inerrant word of God.
>i agree.
Then God is wither an idiot or its written by man.
>christcrap slogan
>>23171736
>Then these things would have been explained from the get go
>what makes you think that
Because a "personal" and "loving god" who really wants to connect with his creation wouldn't have left any gaps in there or contradictions

There is no one who operates like this in the business world intentually.

If you want to convey an exact message and want people to follow then you give as much detail as possible leaving no room for guess work. Shouldn't be hard for an omnipotent being.

>>23171736
>or just read it with a dogmatic precommitment
Ftfy.

>>23171736
>there might still be in the future
If something is dead or killed then there's no future to be had.

It's logic kiddo

>inb4 gonna call me stupid and leaves
Concession accepted

>>23171654
>gaytheist playing da'wah bro. classic.
I'm Platonist ie not atheist
>the point
>your head
Entire libraries are full of non contradictory works of fiction. Theyre not divine either is the point.
The logic of transcendental argumentation to assert God also disproves that such a God is the moronic demonic entity described in the tanakh
Simple as

There's no way this philosophy dweeb ITT paid tens of thousands of dollars for a degree that offered him nothing but getting BTFO on the question of child rape. Forget about the problem of evil, christians can't address the problem of kiddy diddling without appealing to external morality.

>>23171953
>christians can't address the problem of kiddy diddling without appealing to external morality.
Christians can't stop kiddy diddling themselves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Gomorrhianus

>>23171953
i did address your dumb argument though.
under Christianity, child rape/murder is wrong.
under atheist materialism, nothing is right or wrong, because the truth value of moral claims has nothing to be grounded in.
God ordering people to be killed isn't murder, God ordering people to be married isn't rape.
it's as shrimple as that.

off to attempt to find more intelligent people to engage with in one of the myriad 1pbtid antichristian threads in /pol/'s catalog.

im my own religion that i made up myself, so there

>>23172183
>under Christianity, child rape/murder is wrong.
Not according to Numbers 31
>because the truth value of moral claims has nothing to be grounded in.
The contradictory moral claims of christianity and the (((bible))) are no less contradictory by claiming theyre grounded in a moronic entity named yahweh
>God ordering people to be married isn't rape
Moses ordering little girls to be kept by kikes as sex slaves is pedo rape and moses ordering the murder of boys, women and non combatant men is murder and.Moses ordering 32 little girls to be sacrificed as a heave offering to yahweh is human child sacrifice aka primitive evil. And all carried out per the will of yahweh in Numbers 31.

>>23172183
>under Christianity, child rape/murder is wrong
Unless God commands it
>under atheist materialism, nothing is right or wrong,
Because atheism doesn't deal with morality or right or wrong. It's simply an opinion on God. That's it. You know this but continue to frame as of atheism permits it. You are a disingenuous person.

>>23172183
>God ordering people to be killed isn't murder
This is called bias, you don't want to see it that way because it's your favorite thing. But you've already conceded that murdering and raping kids is wrong Not matter what
>God ordering people to be married isn't rape.
Kek, yeah. God having the isrealites kill a little girls family in front of her and then taking her a spoils against her will is totally that.

You literally make excuses for murder and pedophilia

You are a massive faggot

>>23172183
>off to attempt to find more intelligent people to engage with in one of the myriad 1pbtid antichristian threads in /pol/'s catalog.
Maybe you should unironically go outside and interact with people

>>23172313
>God having the isrealites kill a little girls family in front of her and then taking her a spoils against her will is totally that.
There's not any indication that they were even married albeit by force. The text suggests forced concubines ie literal child sex slaves
Kikes are still at that game today apparently - among others
>You literally make excuses for murder and pedophilia
Quintessential yahwehism

>>23172295
>under Christianity, child rape/murder is wrong.
>Not according to Numbers 31
the omnibenevolent maximally great being and ontic referent of the truth value of moral claims ordering people to be killed isn't murder, the omnibenevolent maximally great being and ontic referent of the truth value of moral claims ordering people to be married isn't rape.
you're not understanding the argument.
>moses ordering
moses isn't God.
the only good person in scriptures is the triune God.
unlike your islam, our prophets were deeply flawed individuals.

>>23172313
>Unless God commands it
if the omnibenevolent maximally great being and ontic referent of the truth value of moral claims commands a killing, it can't be murder by definition.
if the omnibenevolent maximally great being and ontic referent of the truth value of moral claims commands a marriage, it can't be rape by definition.
i get you're trying to do an internal critique, since atheism doesn't have any ground to stand on when it comes to moral oughts, but you're not accurately representing the moral framework of Christianity in order to do the internal critique.
>Because atheism doesn't deal with morality
yeah. we've had this conversation 10 times and you still don't understand that denying (or merely lacking belief in) the only plausible ontic referent for the truth value of moral claims effecitvely locks you out of specific moral ontologies and into specific ones like
>moral relativism
>moral nihilism
>moral constructivism [i think this one is yours and don't understand why you're arguing with me on this point]
>moral non-cognitivism

>You are a massive faggot
you've explicitly stated you think there's nothing wrong with 2 men having sex and marrying eachother, i don't understand why you're using this as insult.

>>23172579
>if the omnibenevolent maximally great being and ontic referent of the truth value of moral claims commands a killing
What's the difference between me killing a baby and then someone claiming God told them to?

>but you're not accurately representing the moral framework of Christianity
This is irrelevant. You've already conceded that murdering and raping kids is always bad no matter what.

>>23172579
>you've explicitly stated you think there's nothing wrong with 2 men having sex and marrying eachother
Neither do you. Because in practice. You will do nothing about it.

>i don't understand why you're using this as insult.
I dont support killing babies or raping little girls. You do though

>>23172579
The omnibenevolent maximally great being and ontic referent of the truth value of moral claims does not act contrary to his nature ergo would NOT command "killing" and "coerced marriage" aka murder and child rape.
You're not understanding the argument.
>moses isn't God.
Moses was acting in accordance with yahweh and the text assumes rectitude on moses' part
>unlike your islam
I'm Anglo Saxon and Platonist
>our prophets were deeply flawed individuals.
Jew "prophets" were evil cunts yes - if not entirely fictional

>>23172605
>what's the difference between me killing a baby and then someone claiming God told them to?
the difference is in whether God actually commanded it.
within Christian moral ontology, God's nature is the standard of goodness.
if a maximally great omnibenevolent being truly commands something, it's not morally equivalent to a human acting on impulse or delusion.
both acts are wrong unless grounded in divine command, and even then, the command must be genuine, not merely claimed.

>you've already conceded tautology is tautological
yes, because within my framework, those acts are intrinsically wrong unless redefined by divine command. but that's the key.
not all killings are murder, not all marriages are rape. you're conflating categories without acknowledging the ontological distinctions that the framework depends on.

>neither do you
uhhh no, i'm vehemently against homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
>because in practice. You will do nothing about it.
i'm against atheist evangelists too but i'm not going to hunt you down and beat the shit out of you.
i vote and argue against destructive notions.

>I dont support killing babies
that's pretty cool that we're both pro-life, it's nice to find at least one point of common ground.

>>23172579
>denying (or merely lacking belief in) the only plausible ontic referent for the truth value of moral claims effecitvely locks you out of specific moral ontologies
Not necessarily
There are some "nontheistic platonist" conceptions which can assert abstract universals such as logic, mathematics and objective ethics without necessarily subscribing to theistic notions let alone absurdist bronze age semitic ones based on voodoo blood sacrifices of appeasement.

>>23172707
>the difference is in whether God actually commanded it
How would you go about deciphering if he did or not?
>within Christian moral ontology, God's nature is the standard of goodness
That's irrelevant becaue anyone can make that claim about God telling them to do so.

So how would you go about figuring it out?

You've already established that youre ok with your God going against his nature when it helps you try and win an argument.

>>23172707
>within Christian moral ontology, God's nature is the standard of goodness.
Plagiarism from Plato.
>those acts are intrinsically wrong unless redefined by divine command
You understand neither "intrinsic" nor "God" if you think that's coherent
>not all killings are murder, not all marriages are rape
Correct. Such is NOT the case in Numbers 31 etc
>homosexual marriage.
No such thing

>>23172737
>How would you go about deciphering if he did or not?
>e anyone can make that claim
irrelevant to my point. we're talking ontology rather than epistemology.

this is another big difference between us.

note that i'm bringing this up to make a completely different point than what it looks like i'm making,
i remember in our last conversation you said yes to the notion that "if a male tranny were to pass virtually almost completely as a woman, would they be a woman?"
you seem to be concerned with how things seem or practicality, whereas i am more focused on what is or is not, like underlying qualities.

it's sort of interesting.

this way of thinking has always bothered me.
like going back to the pro-life thing, people post an image of an early zygote and are like "Christians actually think this seahorse thing is a human being, what the heck?" and think it's a good argument, since it looks weird, but i mean, it literally is a human rather than bovine and it literally is being instead of non-being.

>>23172775
>>How would you go about deciphering if he did or not?
>>e anyone can make that claim
>irrelevant to my point.
Nope.

If anyone can make the claim that the "maximally great omnibenevolent being" commands them to kill kids and "force" little girls ripped from their families to marry. How would you know if the claim was valid?

Well?

>>23171087 (OP)
Why does jesus not help me with my health issues? Been suffering for 2 years now, nothing but pain.

>>23172775
>irrelevant to my point
Not when your epistemology.is dependent on accepting these texts as holy writ. Indeed this very problem explains the legion of competing, mutually exclusive sects of the supposed "one true faith". Risible.
I see youve now taken to ignoring my posts. Presumably you feel more confident arguing with reductionist materialists than people who subscribe to the metaphysical system that you christfags pilfered, plagiarised and bastardised.
Celsus had your number down 1700 years ago.

>>23172742
>plagiarism from plato
plato posited the existence of abstract Forms, including the Form of the Good, which exists independently of any mind.
Christian moral ontology, by contrast, grounds goodness in the nature of a personal, omnibenevolent God.
the resemblance is structural, but the metaphysical grounding is fundamentally different.
>you understand neither "intrinsic" nor "God" if you think that's coherent
you're conflating intrinsic moral properties with moral ontology.
in DCT, moral properties are not intrisnic in the sense of being independent of God, they are grounded in God's nature.
>>23172796
you're shifting from ontology to epistemology.
my claim is that if the maximally great, omnibenevolent being truly commands something, then by definition it is morally good, because God's nature is the ontological ground of moral value.
whether or not someone correctly discerns such a command is a separate issue.
yes, people can falsely claim divine sanction for evil acts. that’s why Christian theology emphasizes discernment, revelation, and alignment with God's revealed character.

>>23172820
>irrelevant to my point
>Not when your epistemology.is dependent on accepting these texts
did you mean to type ontology here or are you retarded?

>>23172847
>my claim is that if the maximally great, omnibenevolent being truly commands something, then by definition it is morally good
OK now what do when someone comes to kill you based on that logic?

>people can falsely claim divine sanction for evil acts.
You haven't demonstrated to know how it's false. So, how do you.

Youre going find a way to weasel out of this again, watch

1. If you want to have a rational discussion you must try to see things from another person's perspective.
2. If you are seeing things from anothers perspective you are using your empathy.
3. Empathy is the basis of morality.

>>23172847
>Christian moral ontology, by contrast, grounds goodness in the nature of a personal, omnibenevolent God.
But you're only claim to "goodness" is preface it with buzzwords. Again. Anyone can do that for any action they want.

You've already conceded raping and killing kids is always bad unless you recite the buzzwords before hand.

So we are back to what's the actual difference between someone killing and raping kids when one invokes buzzwords as excuses Vs. one who doesn't?

>>23173328
>Empathy is the basis of morality.
Agreed

>>23173328
What is good is that which is the most empathetic. What is most empathetic is objective based on intuition of the concept of seeing something from anothes perspective. We now have objective morality back without God.

>>23172847
>plato posited the existence of abstract Forms, including the Form of the Good
Aka The One / divine Monad
>by contrast, grounds goodness in the nature of a personal, omnibenevolent God.
There is no contrast. Paul himself says as much not to mention "john" blatantly stealing the concept of logos as a divine emanation of divine order and reason
There is no such analogue in the tanakh though Philo tries his best
>the metaphysical grounding is fundamentally different.
Assertion without argument ie cope
>you're conflating intrinsic moral properties with moral ontology
As stated, you don't know what intrinsic means. For someone who accuses others of relativism, your abuse of language is aatounding. You argue like a leftist and a jew in thinking you can arbitrarily reclassify and redefine action and language by appealing to abstracts - in your case a semitic idol you conflate with the Monad
>they are grounded in God's nature.
Yes and God does not act counter to that nature ergo yahweh isnt God
>>23172863
No I meant epistemology.

>>23173328
empathy is a psychological mechanism, not a moral foundation.
it's descriptive, not prescriptive.
saying "empathy is the basis of morality" confuses how we feel with what we ought to do.
plenty of people empathize with vengeance, tribalism, or cruelty, those are just as innate as compassion.
if empathy is the basis, then morality becomes a mirror of whatever emotion happens to dominate.

empathy is notoriously biased. we empathize more with those who look like us, think like us, or belong to our group. that's why empathy alone can't ground universal moral obligations, it's why people can feel deeply empathy for a friend while dehumanizing a stranger.
if morality is built on empathy then it's built on partiality.

from an atheistic standpoint, empathy is just a byproduct of evolutionary psychology, useful for social cohesion, sure, but not binding.
if you reject an objective moral referent (God), then empathy becomes a preference, not a principle.
you might feel bad about harming someone, but there's not ontological reason why you shouldn't, unless you're smuggling in moral realism without justificaiton.

>>23173364
>plenty of people empathize with vengeance, tribalism, or cruelty
Are they seeing things from the others point of view when they decide vengeance is good? Are they putting themselves in the victims shoes?

>>23173364
Also your confusing subjective feelings of empathy with the objective maximally empathetic position.

>>23173364
>empathy is a psychological mechanism, not a moral foundation
To you..
>>23173364
>it's descriptive, not prescriptive
It's both actually
>>23173364
>saying "empathy is the basis of morality" confuses how we feel with what we ought to do.
Thats sympathy. Empathy let's you understand a person so you can best decide what to so.
>>23173364
>empathy is notoriously biased
Absolutely incorrect. Beacaue in practice it makes you look past your biases
>>23173364
>empathy is just a byproduct of evolutionary psychology, useful for social cohesion, sure, but not binding.
Ao is religion. As a matter of fact. It was an act if empathy for god to make himself human to understand humanity lol

The fact that this escapes you demonstrates that you really are just a fraud

>>23173364
>plenty of people empathize with vengeance, tribalism, or cruelty
Yes eg the jews and their yahweh

>>23173364
You can easily tell this anon does nothing for no one else. They've never gone out and been a servant like Christ. This anon has never put anyone's needs before their own. This anon would sooner step over someone in need before ever considering if they need help.

You are a fraud

>>23173394
>nuh uh
>2 u
>derp
>ur wrong atcually
>not really
write out a complete paragraph if you want me to respond.
at least 3 sentences.
>>23173385
>>23173371
>objective maximally empathetic position
that's adorable.

but empathy is inherently subjective and context dependent.
there's no empirical or metaphysical standard for what counts as "maximum empathy," or any mechanism for adjudicating between competing empathic impulses.
like, someone might empathize deeply with a victim of some injustice and feel compelled toward vengeance. another might empathize with the perpetrator's background and argue for rehabilitation.
which one is "maximally empathetic" stance?
you're just layering preference on top of preference.
your appeal to "seeing things from the other's point of view" doesn't rescue empathy from its partiality. people routinely empathize with their in-group while dehumanizing outsiders, which isn't a bug, but a feature of how empathy evolved.
if you want to claim that empathy can guide moral reasoning, sure, but then you need to explain why we ought to follow it, and without an objective moral referent, that "ought" becomes just another psychological impulse.
you're not grounding morality, you're narrating behavior.

>>23173443
>write out a complete paragraph
You ignore them anyway so this red herring is useless

>>23173443
This is an example of a coward. He can't honestly respond to my points so he invents a loop hole I have to jump through as a red herring. He does this a lot when met with arguments he can't address

>>23173443
>someone might empathize deeply with a victim of some injustice and feel compelled toward vengeance. another might empathize with the perpetrator's background and argue for rehabilitation.
You are still being subjective. The question is was the perpetrator putting themselves in the victims shoes and using their empathy when they decided to do whatever they did.

>>23173443
>yahweh killing all the first born Egyptian babies is not murder goys because....just because muh ontological grounding reasons alright!
Why do I bother?

>>23173443
>>23173467
Slavery for instance, is bad because if you use your empathy you realize you wouldn't want to be a slave.

>>23171094
>>23171095

Denounce the Talmud

>>23171118
If you really believe in him you'll keep his commandments

>>23173480
Despite my disagreement with the christcuck, he IS right in claiming that empathy cannot be the basis for morality.

>>23173480
That anon doesn't get it because they live a life serving themselves

>>23173496
He isn't.

>>23173496
You just want slaves

>>23173464
alright fine i'll address your points since you're so confident about them, but then next time use a good format like you did here >>23173436
also, feel free to imagine me as whatever you like, a drug dealer, a weirdo in a latex gimp suit, an anime frog, whatever. my feelings can't be hurt on 4chan anonymously.

let's see
>>23173394
>t-to you...
no.
this isn't matter of personal taste.
empathy is studied in psychology and neuroscience as a cognitive and affective mechanism. it helps us stimulate others' experiences but it doesn't prescribe what we ought to do.
that's a category error between descriptive psychology and normative ethics.
>ackshuallay it's both
then demonstrate how empathy prescribes moral obligations.
saying "it's both" doesn't make it so. if empathy tells us what we ought to do, then you need to explain why we ought to follow it, epseically when empathy leads to conflicting outcomes.
>t-that's sympathy
irrelevant.
emotional resonance doesn't equal moral obligation. understanding someone's pain doesn't tell you whether helping them is morally required, optional or even wrong in some contexts.
>e-empathy m-m-makes you look past your biases
this is demonstrably false.
empathy is biased by design. again, (i have to repeat myself with you, you don't read) we empathize more with those who resemble us, share our values, or belong to our group. that's why empathy can fuel tribalism just as easily as altruism.
>r-religion is byproduct of evolutionary psychology
even if true, that doesn't refute the ontological claims of religion.
you're confusing origins with validiity.
just because something has evolutionary utility doesn't mean it lacks evolutionary grounding. that's like saying math is invalid because our brains evolved to count.

>>23173501
He is. Knowing how someone feels cannot determine the correct course of action.
>>23173509
Incorrect

>>23171159
Kings
Not the Jews
He outright denied that title before his crucifixion

>>23173496
It can be a base for morality but not by itself

>>23173521
It can be part of deliberations yes. But not always eg Idgaf about how child raping slaver jews feel when I pronounce the death sentence.

>>23173480
>>23173467
you're confusing moral reasoning with psychological projection.
saying "i wouldn't want to be a slave" is a useful emotional insight, but it doesn't ground the wrongness of slavery. it just expresses a preference.
plenty of people throughout history accepted slavery while believing it was justified, some even claimed it was compassionate, empathy didn't stop them.

>was the perpetrator putting themselves in the victim's shoes?
this assumes that empathy is a reliable moral compass. but people can empathize with their own pain, their own trauma, or their own perceived injustice and still commit atrocities. empathy doesn't prevent evil, it often rationalizes it.

if you want to say slavery is objectively wrong, you need more than "i wouldn't like it."
you need a moral ontology that says human beings have intrinsic worth and dignity, something atheistic frameworks can't justify without smuggling in theistic assumptions.
so yes, empathy can inform moral reflection, but it can't ground moral obligation.
without an objective referent (God) you're just describing emotional reactions rather than prescribing moral truths.

>>23173515
Empathy is knowing how you'd feel in another person's situation not how they'd feel. And yes it can determine the correct course of action. You wouldn't want to be a slave so it is not morally correct to enslave anyone. You wouldn't want your family rounded up and exterminated so the Holocaust is not morally correct.

>>23173514
>no
Yes, empathy can serve as a foundation for morality. Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of othera, fosters compassion, fairness, and respect, which are core to many moral frameworks. It drives behaviors like helping others, avoiding harm, and promoting mutual well-being, aligning with principles in systems like utilitarianism or care ethics. For example, feeling another's pain can motivate actions to alleviate suffering, grounding moral decisions in shared human experience.

>>23173514
>then demonstrate how empathy prescribes moral obligations
See above
>>23173514
>>t-that's sympathy
>irrelevant.
To you because you don't understand th3 difference. Nor have you ever given empathy to anyone

>>23173514
>>e-empathy m-m-makes you look past your biases
I will concede this point because empathy alone isn't sufficient. It can be biased, favoring those close to us or those we relate to, potentially leading to unfairness or tribalism. Reason, principles, or societal norms often complement empathy to ensure consistency and impartiality in moral judgments. Philosophers like David Hume emphasized empathy's role in moral sentiment, while others, like Kant, prioritized rational duty. A balanced moral system might integrate empathy with reflective principles to address its limitations while leveraging its emotional depth.

>>23173514
>even if true, that doesn't refute the ontological claims of religion.
Those claims stem from survival in a tribe

Notice this clown moved away from
>>23173339
And
>>23172878
Kek coward

>>23173530
Very true

>>23173543
>if you want to say slavery is objectively wrong, you need more than "i wouldn't like it."
Do you know anyone that would prefer to be a slave without coercion?

>>23173543
>it just expresses a preference.
>plenty of people throughout history accepted slavery while believing it was justified, some even claimed it was compassionate, empathy didn't stop them.
I'll ask again. Were they putting themselves in the slaves shoes? Do you understand what empathy is?
>empathize with their own pain, their own trauma, or their own perceived injustice and still commit atrocities.
That would be a 1st person experience and that's just intuitive.

>>23173543
>something atheistic frameworks can't justify
You claim communism is an atheistic frame work and they believe the citizens have intrinsic worth and dignity. Lol

But as you already know. Atheism has nothing to do with morality but you keep trying to make it as if atheism is anti morales. Again, you are a very disingenuous person and a liar at best

>>23173543
Yet your yahweh sanctions slavery including child sex slavery ergo yahweh is NOT an objective referent
>>23173545
>You wouldn't want to be a slave so it is not morally correct to enslave anyone
Not necessarily. Enslaving criminals is moral.
> You wouldn't want your family rounded up and exterminated so the Holocaust is not morally correct.
Never happened
> You wouldn't want your family rounded up and exterminated so the tanakh is not morally correct.
Correct

>>23173530
That's third partying and not what im talking about. If the jew in question used his empathy he would not want what he did to the child done to him. Since he did it anyways that's what I would call evil in this particular world view.

>>23173547
you're confusing moral motivation with moral obligation.
yes, empathy can motivate behaviors like helping others or avoiding harm, but that doesn't mean it grounds those behaviors as morally obligatory.
feeling someone's pain doesn't tell you whether alleviating it is morally required, optional, or even wrong in some contexts.

you cite utilitarianism and care ethics, but both require normative principles to adjudicate between competing empathic impulses.
utilitarianism needs a calculus of aggregate well-being
care ethics needs a framework for prioritizing realtionships.
empathy alone can't provide that, it's just the emotional fuel, not the steering wheel.

your concession about bias is key. empathy is partial, tribal, and context dependent. that's why it can't serve as a univeral moral foundation.
you need something above empathy to correct its distortions.
reason, yes, but also a grounding for why reason itself should be morally binding.
as for your claim that religious ontology stems from tribal survival, that's a genetic fallacy.
explaining the origin of a belief doesn't invalidate its truth. if you think moral realism is false, you need to refute its metaphysical claims, not just speculate about its evolutionary utility.
>>23173553
depends on who's the mistress

>>23173572
My point stands. Empathy cannot be the basis for moral rectitude

>>23173573
Moral realism is true ergo the bible is false

>>23173573
>you're confusing moral motivation with moral obligation
Or they can be both
>but that doesn't mean it grounds those behaviors as morally obligatory
Sire it does. That's why context matters
>>23173573
>you cite utilitarianism
Where exactly?
>>23173573
>that's why it can't serve as a univeral moral foundation.
Never said it could.

Two strawman back to back lol

>you need something above empathy to correct its distortions
And depending on context, it could a something or many things
>but also a grounding for why reason itself should be morally binding.
The consequences of said actions is very grounding to know of effective it is
>>23173573
>as for your claim that religious ontology stems from tribal survival, that's a genetic fallacy.
Not really. As the tribe your born into will most likely determine what religious foundation and morales you adopt

>>23173573
>you think moral realism is false
Nah, it's just that you think your theme park religion is the one stop shop for it. That's demonstrably false
>>23173573
>depends on who's the mistress
Thanks for demonstrating that in context its objective lol

>>23173573
And again, he continues to ignore
>>23173339
And
>>23172878
Coward

>>23173609
no, type all this shit again like a normal person.

>>23173619
Concession accepted
And right back to
>>23173464
>This is an example of a coward. He can't honestly respond to my points so he invents a loop hole I have to jump through as a red herring. He does this a lot when met with arguments he can't address
Kek

>>23173590
Okay. It's just really simple though.

>>23173629
you can do it anon, i believe in you.

>>23173639
Moral realism is true ergo yahweh is not God
Moral realism is true ergo the bible is false
Simple as

>>23173639
Concession accepted

>>23173656
*loud fart noise*

>>23173668
the only thing i conceded was that your garbage malformed post was too obnoxious to parse.

>>23173674
Are you on pc? I've noticed that on pc posts like that can look a bit too spaced out.

>>23173669
Concession accepted

>>23173674
>too obnoxious
Truth is a bitch. Just like your concession

What's your excuse for ignoring

>>23173339
>>23172878
?

>>23173674
>>yahweh killing all the first born Egyptian babies is not murder goys because....just because muh ontological grounding reasons alright!
Why do I bother?

>>23173669
What is the moral truth value and ontology in slicing up baby penis?
Inquiring minds want to know.

>>23173683
they were both really dumb and boring and other people posted more interesting things when they popped up.

the first one is you doing an internal critique of my worldview but refusing to play by my worldview's framework and calling the perfectly rational qualifications "buzzwords"
(ie murder is killing + bad, God commanding someone to kill can't be murder since God is Good)

the second one was just sort of offtopic, as we were discussing moral ontology rather than moral epistemology, and i'd already addressed the questions in the same post it's in a reply to.
>yes, people can falsely claim divine sanction for evil acts. that’s why Christian theology emphasizes discernment, revelation, and alignment with God's revealed character.

>>23173717
Is/was slicing up baby penis in alignment with God's revealed character?

>>23173717
>the first one is you doing an internal critique of my worldview but refusing to play by my worldview's framework
Incorrect. They both play in your framework. You failed this by attempting to poison the well as if me referring to your buzzwords as buzzwords is a bad thing
>God commanding someone to kill can't be murder since God is Good
And now I claim that same God commands me to kill you. Is it valid? How would you tell when I've already met the criteria you claim

>>23173717
>>yes, people can falsely claim divine sanction for evil acts
You're still not getting it. How did you determine it was falsely claimed when it already meets your requirements.

>>23173693
yeah.
murder implies unjustified killing, either morally or legally.
God's nature is the ontological ground of goodness. He doesn't arbitrarily declare what is good, He is good, and his commands flow necessarily from that nature.
therefore, His actions are not just "not immoral," they are the very standard by which morality is measured.
>>23173710
>>23173732
not interested in discussing the aesthetic of wieners with you, pretty gay.
the Bible says whether or not Christians circumcise is irrelevant to the faith.

>>23173740
>God's nature is the ontological ground of goodness. He doesn't arbitrarily declare what is good, He is good, and his commands flow necessarily from that nature.
>therefore, His actions are not just "not immoral," they are the very standard by which morality is measured.
And now that same God commands me to kill you and your family.

>>23171087 (OP)
I do not want a national religion in my country you can have one in your country though I don't care about you haha

>>23173740
The Bible says "God" commanded slicing up baby dick at one point in history and youre required to believe it
Is/was mutilating/slicing up 8 day old baby penis in alignment with God's revealed character?
>discussing the aesthetic of wieners with you, pretty gay.
Irony
How about discussing the morality of non consensual infant genital mutilation?

>>23173740
>God's nature is the ontological ground of goodness. He doesn't arbitrarily declare what is good, He is good, and his commands flow necessarily from that nature.
>therefore, His actions are not just "not immoral," they are the very standard by which morality is measured.
Correct ergo yahweh is not God
Correct ergo the bible is false
Simple as

>>23173746
You don't get it bong bro. You simply need to recite the correct buzzwords to make it all a ok!

>>23173736
you're still conflating ontology with epistemology.
my claim isn't that anyone who says "God told me to do xyz" is automatically justified.
my claim is that IF the maximally great omnibenevolent being truly commands something, THEN it is morally good, because His nature is the ontological ground of goodness.

whether someone correctly discerns that command is a separate issue.
that's why Christian theology doesn't just say "believe anyone who invokes God," it emphasizes discernment, revelation and alignment with God's revealed nature.
so no, you haven't "met the criteria" just by saying the words. that's like claiming to be a phycisist just because you said "quantum field" you're mistaking invocation for justification.

if you want to do an internal critique, you need to engage with the actual mechanisms Christianity uses to distinguish true revelation from false claims, otherwise you're just roleplaying a strawman and calling it philosophy.

>>23173746
>peeeeenis
not interested
>>23173750
i'm interested, explain

>>23173751
Indeed

>>23173752
>my claim is that IF the maximally great omnibenevolent being truly commands something, THEN it is morally good, because His nature is the ontological ground of goodness
>if
How do you determine if they did?

>whether someone correctly discerns that command is a separate issue.
Nope. That is the issue. One you can't address so you hand wave it.

>it emphasizes discernment, revelation and alignment with God's revealed nature.
And how do you determine that is valid when someone makes the claim to end you based on it?

You simply can't answer this. That's why you keep finding ways to weasel out if it.

>>23173755
>not interested
Not competent
>i'm interested, explain
The entity described in the tanakh is objectively immoral ergo not God.

>>23173762
there's just no way for me to respond to this post without repeating myself.
scroll up.

>>23173844
>The entity described in the tanakh is objectively immoral ergo not God.
c'mon brit guy.
you were kind of intelligent earlier. what happened?
predict the question i'm going to ask in response to what i'd quoted here.

>>23173873
>predict the question i'm going to ask
Muh grounding
But this is an invalid rebuttal in my case and a deflection in the case of atheists.. I'm not an atheist. I ground objective ethics in the Platonic Monad.

>>23173867
You can't answer it. So when I come and kill you and your family because an
>maximally great omnibenevolent
>the ontological ground of goodness
>insert more buzzwords
Says I should. You have no grounds to say no. I look forward in you presenting your neck to me, on hands and knees.

>>23173888
>i'm gonna kill u!!
absolute meltdown.
i'd be shaking in my boots if you didn't look like this
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/505058625/#q505079820

i'm out.
see you later i'm sure, deranged little weirdo.

>>23173923
Kek, defeated. You really are a faggot and a coward

>>23173873
You idolize texts written by jews over objective morality itself and thus over God
Youre a monolater like all yahwehists
Objective morality IS the yardstick by which we ground our EPISTEMOLOGY. Whereas you put everything the wrong way around by your slavish adherence to absurdist texts.
>if the text says so then the "morality" must be bent to justify it
Thus both your ontology and epistemology is completely perverted.

>>23172183
>under Christianity, child rape/murder is wrong
Name the verse

>>23171090
>Do you regret your sin?
I regret being born
> Do you want forgiveness?
I want to cease to exist

>>23172579
>omnibenevolent maximally great being and ontic referent of the truth value of moral claims ordering people to be killed isn't murder
Get a load of this fucking freak. If you know anyone like this IRL you need to neutralize them before they rape your kids.

>>23171096
>toxic
>delusion.
>insane
For real, who asked you?

>>23171096
Your official, mainstream narrative was written by kikes, retardo-kun

>>23171116
>appeal to le heckin safe n effective authority

>>23171368
>>No official evidence of the supernatural
>>No official historical evidence of Jesus's resurrection
>>No official historical evidence of Noah's Ark or Moses parting the red sea
>>No official historical evidence of miracles
>>No official evidence of a soul/evidence suggests we are our brains/material beings
And rushed and experimental genetherapy shot for flu was safe and effective.
Nice appeal to authority but i don't care about fairytales written by corrupt official pedophiles.

>>23171401
>u instead of you
Legit retard

>>23171445
Look at sorry state of economy, retarded shitskin conformist

>>23171472
Not a literal debt, but a social credit score

>>23171714
>Concession accepted
Generic npc response

>>23174185
>B-b-but w-w-what about what about
Stfu retard