Atheism, as commonly promoted, often presents a misleading interpretation of religious scripture by insisting on literal readings while ignoring the rich allegorical and symbolic meanings embedded within. This approach serves to obscure the deeper messages these stories convey, fostering ignorance rather than understanding. In doing so, atheistic narratives can strip individuals of access to the wisdom traditions that have historically guided human insight and moral development.

This ignorance is not accidental—it becomes a source of power. A new framework emerges: one rooted in scientific materialism and epistemology, which appears rational and progressive. However, the modern institution of science, while valuable in method, is not immune to corruption. It is increasingly shaped by financial interests and institutional power, giving rise to "scientism"—a dogmatic belief in science as the sole arbiter of truth. This belief system, masquerading as objective and secular, becomes a new form of state religion, no less rigid or manipulative than past theocracies.

Unlike genuine scientific inquiry or sincere religious reflection, scientism and its advocates often dismiss spiritual knowledge and metaphorical wisdom as superstition. In doing so, they discourage exploration of the sacred dimension of human experience. This false dichotomy between science and religion is itself misleading; both, when practiced with integrity, seek to understand the nature of reality—what some might call understanding God, not in the anthropomorphic or doctrinal sense, but as the underlying order and intelligence of the universe.

By undermining this connection, atheistic scientism can alienate people from meaningful engagement with both science and spirituality, eroding cultural memory and wisdom traditions that enrich human life.

>>507100188 (OP)
Sorry to burst your bubble but Jesus was a pedophile schizo with a God complex.
>Every one of Jesus’ apostles besides Peter was underage (neaniskos is the Greek word used)
>When a woman questions why he hangs out with kids he says “don’t scandalize me”
>Tells these boys he will make them “fishers of men”
>Goes into upper rooms and washes their feet while naked
>Tells them to “eat his flesh and drink his haima” (if you think this means “blood” here, see Ezekiel 23:20)
>Is arrested in a public park at 4am with a naked boy (see Mark 14:51-52)
>When the cops show up he says “why do you come for me with swords and clubs like I’m some kind of leistes”
>The word leistes, which gets translated as “thief” is actually “pirate” and was used in contemporary texts (many examples such as Lucian’s Alexander) to refer to sex traffickers
>Sex trafficking was a big problem in the Mediterranean and one of the big things the Romans did was crack down on the pedo pirates. Julius Caesar himself was kidnapped by them as a kid and afterwards had them all crucified
>Jesus Christ was in fact crucified between two other leistes
There's a reason Jesus's "Most Beloved Disciple" is always depicted as a beardless boy whereas the rest of his followers had beards. Dude liked em young.

>>507100188 (OP)
>while ignoring the rich allegorical and symbolic meanings embedded within
how many fucking riddles do you need to be asked to not act like a dick though

>>507100188 (OP)
In the USA Christians insist on literal readings.

Society, at its core, can be understood as a system where a privileged few benefit from the ignorance and subjugation of the many. This structure of exploitation, rooted in psychological and spiritual manipulation, is mirrored in many ancient texts, including biblical scripture. Consider the Old Testament portrayal of "God" as a tyrannical ruler who imposes obedience and servitude, while Lucifer—the light bringer, symbolized by the serpent—offers humanity the gift of knowledge. This allegorical narrative reveals a deeper truth: knowledge is liberation, and those who challenge entrenched authority are often demonized.

Such stories are not mere myths but warnings and insights for those who perceive the manipulations of their own time. They reveal the social mechanisms by which power is maintained, and they speak to the risks faced by individuals who disrupt collective illusions—especially when those illusions are central to maintaining control over a docile populace.

>>507100725
Scientism, in rejecting symbolic or allegorical interpretations, contributes to this ignorance. It promotes a narrow, reductionist worldview that discourages individuals from exploring deeper meanings and spiritual truths. Ironically, even its most vocal proponents, such as Richard Dawkins, rely on abstract conceptual frameworks—like taxonomy in biology—that do not exist in objective reality. Classifications like “mammal” or “reptile” are not intrinsic truths but human-constructed models used to describe an ever-shifting quantum reality, one that may be more accurately seen as arrangements of wave functions or thermodynamic processes.

Thus, the very science that claims to ground itself in material truth often builds its structures on useful—but ultimately symbolic—abstractions. Yet it denies the validity of symbolic or spiritual language found in ancient teachings. This contradiction reveals scientism’s limitations and highlights the need to reclaim a more integrated understanding of reality—one that embraces both material insight and spiritual wisdom.

The perceived division between science and religion is a deliberate construct—another method of divide and rule, aimed at controlling the battleground of human consciousness. At their extremes, both institutionalized religion and scientism function in similar ways: they establish rigid paradigms, demand obedience to authority, and discourage independent inquiry. Whether it’s deferring to religious clergy or scientific “experts,” the common thread is the surrender of personal sovereignty.

Yet in truth, there is no inherent conflict between spiritual understanding and the scientific method. When used sincerely, science becomes a tool for exploring the laws of the universe, and through this exploration, one can cultivate a deeper connection to what many call the divine. This union of empirical investigation and spiritual insight offers liberation—elevating the mind, soul, and spirit beyond the hollow structures of servitude and systemic exploitation promoted by both dogmatic religion and reductionist science. True enlightenment arises not from choosing sides, but from transcending the artificial boundaries imposed upon our ways of knowing.

In computing, daemons are background processes that run silently, managing tasks without direct user interaction. This concept offers a powerful metaphor for understanding the mind—a parallel long known in spiritual traditions but increasingly dismissed under the influence of scientism. Where ancient texts once spoke of demons, modern psychology now repackages these entities as neuroses, cognitive distortions, or unconscious drives. The rich symbolic language of demonology, which once offered insight into the inner architecture of the psyche, has been diluted and redefined.

These “demons” or mental daemons can be understood as persistent thought patterns—internalized voices shaped by cultural programming and emotional manipulation.

Such internal chatter isn’t random; it reflects a framework installed into the psyche to induce insecurity, fear, and reactive behavior. Institutions exploit this background noise—through media, advertising, insurance, and social norms—to extract labor, loyalty, and profit.

Rather than dismissing these forces as outdated superstition, a serious reevaluation reveals that demonology once offered a sophisticated vocabulary for understanding internal fragmentation and external manipulation. What we’ve lost is not just language, but an entire way of perceiving and defending against psychological colonization. By denying this symbolic system, scientism has not liberated us—it has simply obscured the mechanisms of control behind a new set of sterile terms.

>>507100452
depends on the text.

>"I am the door" (John 10:9)
Jesus isn't made of wood and hinges
>"He will cover you with His feathers and under His wings you will find refuge" (Psalm 91:4)
God isn't a big bird
>"the mountains and the hills shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands" (Isaiah 55:12)
ents aren't real

The Catholic Church, much like modern scientism, has also played a significant role in distorting and suppressing our deeper understanding of concepts such as demons. Rather than recognizing these entities as symbolic representations of internal psychological or spiritual forces, the Church historically externalized them—weaponizing the fear of eternal damnation to enforce obedience and submission. In doing so, it shifted the focus away from self-understanding and inner mastery toward blind adherence to authority.

This manipulation through fear of the afterlife undermines the intrinsic value of the individual and his capacity for self-determination. It frames salvation not as an internal process of personal transformation, but as a transaction mediated by institutional gatekeepers. In this way, the Church—knowingly or not—participated in enslaving human consciousness, diverting people from authentic spiritual growth by reducing complex inner struggles to moral obedience and eternal punishment.

What was once a rich symbolic framework for understanding the human condition has been hollowed out and weaponized, leaving generations alienated from the very tools that once offered liberation and insight.

>>507100188 (OP)
>religious scripture by insisting on literal readings while ignoring the rich allegorical and symbolic meanings embedded within
It's funny how it's symbolic, metaphorical and allegorical when you want it to be a literal when you want it to be.

Make-up your minds lol

>>507101915
>a literal
And* literal

>>507100188 (OP)
I will become religious if you can just answer me one simple question : if god is omniscient does it mean he knows what it feels like to take a juicy big black schlong down in the ass ?

>>507101915
it's not based on want.
there's a science to it, used outside of sacred scripture by non-believers as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

>>507102131
>there's a science to it
Such as?

>>507102283
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

>>507102330
Can you use your own words or no?

Religion is mental illness. Always has been.

Sorry, Christard, but your invisible sky wizard has no more relevance to reality than did your imaginary friend at 4-years-old. Stop pretending that your Bronze Age fairy tale is in any way like science. You don't seek to understand anything; you seek to bring others into your cult.

Mary cucked Jospeh; none of the rest of us care.

>>507102385
the science of exegeting texts is known as hermeneutics.

>>507102543
Great and how does that refute what I've said exactly?

Astaroth can be understood as a powerful personification of hidden or forbidden knowledge—knowledge that speaks not only to divine origins and metaphysical truths, but also to the sovereignty of the individual soul. This archetype embodies the shadow side of wisdom: the potential for arrogance, stagnation, or manipulation when insight is hoarded rather than shared. At a deeper level, Astaroth represents the corrupted remnants of the divine feminine, a once-revered source of intuitive and creative knowledge that has been distorted by patriarchal systems—be they religious institutions or modern scientism. In Jungian psychology, Astaroth emerges as a shadow aspect of the anima—a buried, repressed force within the collective psyche that holds the key to reconnecting with suppressed spiritual wisdom and restoring balance between intuition and reason. As such, the figure of Astaroth challenges us to confront not only the institutions that obscure truth, but also the parts of ourselves that fear what lies beyond sanctioned knowledge.

>>507102665
you said
>lol it's so funny how it's symbolic, metaphorical and allegorical when you want it to be and literal when you want it to be roflmao xd
then i pointed out there's a science to it, and it's not based on want, but theories and methodologies of interpretation developed to draw out the meaning of a text known as hermeneutics, which is used not only in biblical contexts, but in law and other contexts as well.

>>507100188 (OP)
>The Vatican Catholicism is a Grift.

>while ignoring the rich allegorical and symbolic meanings embedded within.
Nice meanings in fake fantasy stories. What's next? Meanings in fiction?

>one rooted in scientific materialism and epistemology,
It's basically the Vatican jesuits who run all sciecne are complete fck ups and clueless in everything.
So, they are pushing their retarded 200 year old horse and buggy pseudo science , and support it "but trust us".

>Unlike genuine scientific inquiry or sincere religious reflection, scientism
Control by the Vatican jesuits of all scientific universities is , indeed , scientism and not science.

>>507103103
>and it's not based on want
It is. Or the anon would have specified with examples. I've seen other Christians do the same. Simply look at the division in Christisnity. All based in subjective wants via subjective interpretation of scripture

>>507101915
Life, in its essence, is symbolic. If one adopts a strictly materialist and reductionist view—that we are nothing more than arrangements of atoms—then all meaning becomes null, and any discussion of purpose, morality, or consciousness must logically be discarded. Yet, all our understanding of the universe is mediated through sensory perception, which is inherently subjective and symbolic. From this standpoint, the only certainty we possess is the existence of our own awareness—echoing Descartes' cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am").

Beyond this self-evident truth, everything else becomes interpretative, filtered through the mind’s dream-like experience of reality. To reject this line of reasoning is to cling to an unverified external reality—ironically, an unscientific position given its reliance on unverifiable assumptions. Thus, those who accept the premise of conscious existence must eventually confront the deeper question: What is the origin of this consciousness?

In this context, atheism often raises a paradox—if consciousness has no divine source, is the self then its own creator? Or does the rejection of all metaphysical inquiry reduce one to a passive observer in a system they refuse to examine? The denial of inner reality or symbolic meaning, in the name of rationalism, may ultimately represent a failure to engage with the very foundations of being.

Checkmate Atheists, never ever come back here you're now debunked.

>>507104200
no, hermeneutics is based on theories and methodologies of interpretation developed to draw out the meaning of a text.
if i were going by want, i'd read John 6:53-56 as literal, since i like vampire stuff.
>Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him.
instead i'm forced to exegete the passage in a way that utilizes established hermeneutical principles of interpretation.
you seem committed to taking any view that would be most irritating to Christians rather than a pursuit of intellectual honesty.

>>507104603
>Life, in its essence, is symbolic. If one adopts a strictly materialist and reductionist view
I can do both
>>507104603
>Thus, those who accept the premise of conscious existence must eventually confront the deeper question: What is the origin of this consciousness?
The brain.

>Atheism
Has no stance on consciousness. It's simply the disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.

I don't need to make a supposition about what started it all, I just simply say I don't know. No one does. But that doesn't mean I'm without any thoughts or opinions on the metaphysical

It's the opposite. I'm free to imagine any metaphysical idea I want instead if being bias toward one

>>507104885
>no, hermeneutics is based on theories and methodologies of interpretation developed to draw out the meaning of a text.
I don't disagree. But that's not the actual outcome in religion.
>>507104885
>if i were going by want, i'd read John 6:53-56 as literal, since i like vampire stuff.
But you don't want to because you know vampires aren't real.

Atheism can be best understood from a Freudian perspective, an individual who adopts atheism after experiencing rejection from Christian communities due to their homosexuality may not be arriving at disbelief purely through rational inquiry, but as a psychological defense mechanism rooted in unresolved trauma. The rejection by a moral authority during formative years can create deep psychic wounds, particularly when tied to identity and desire—what Freud might associate with repression and displacement. Rather than reconciling the symbolic, often allegorical, content of religious texts with their personal experience, such individuals may develop a reactionary stance. Atheism, in this context, becomes less an objective worldview and more a form of rebellion against the superego—the internalized voice of moral authority, which in this case is represented by the religious structure that condemned them.

This response often manifests as intellectual rigidity, where symbolic narratives are dismissed literally and contemptuously, rather than explored metaphorically. Freud might interpret this as a projection of internal conflict: the emotional pain and resentment stemming from exclusion are displaced onto religion as a whole, leading to a wholesale rejection of its epistemological and archetypal value. In doing so, the individual may struggle to engage with the deeper psychological truths encoded in religious myths—not out of lack of intelligence, but due to unresolved emotional associations. Thus, the atheism adopted is not purely philosophical, but emotionally reactive, masking hurt with rationalism and turning the search for meaning into a battleground of suppressed identity and wounded pride.

>>507104992
>The brain.
How do you know you're not in a simulation?
How do you know that your physical reality is real?

Have you ever seen your own brain? You're not being honest here.

>>507105512
>How do you know you're not in a simulation?
You just proved it
>>507105512
>How do you know that your physical reality is real?
The consequences of my actions
>Have you ever seen your own brain?
Yes
>You're not being honest here.
100% I am.

>>507104992
>Has no stance on consciousness. It's simply the disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.

Anon, Its the same thing you cretin.

The only true atheist are the transhumanist maniacs. The rest are a larp. A true atheist believes in science as the ultimate truth meaning he is a super racist and arrives at the exact same ideas as the nazis and Darwin that there are superior people. Eventually this leads to the idea of the super man.
A real atheist has no purpose except the concept of good or as he calls it what is best for humanity. Logically what is best is a higher quality of life and it is only achieved through the exact same process the Nazis were in the middle of before the world blew them up.
Most atheist will believe "all men are created equal" as if it is scientific fact so they have no basis when they say religious people believe in magic. They do too except their idea was created by homosexual yuro nobles who had nothing to do but fuck prostitutes. Gay ones of course.

It's also a cult ironically enough.

>>507105636
>Has no stance on consciousness
When did I say that? You call me dishonest while making up a strawman.

>>507105619
>How do you know that your physical reality is real?
> The consequences of my actions
All created by your own mind, none of its real other than what exists in your own mind.

nothing else can be known.
Read through what I wrote before you're simply lost or being wilfully ignorant. I can't tell.

>>507105138
>I don't disagree. But that's not the actual outcome in religion.
you are painting with a wiiiiiiide brush.
>you don't want to because you know vampires aren't real.
i know no such thing.
i think it's very possible that vampires are real.
surely as an atheist you think so too, since atheism is merely a lack of a belief in gods.
you know what i find weird? you guys define yourselves by and center your identity around what you don't believe rather than what you do.
you can never really add anything to a discussion, just shit on stuff other people hold to.

>>507105767
Consciousness is God, therefore to deny the existence of God is to deny the existence of self and your own consciousness.
Maybe for an atheist this works, but for everyone else they know that they exist.

Atheism is a joke.

>>507100452
inability to understand allegory, metaphor, and context is a sign of either low intelligence or, more likely, willful malicious and evil intent

>>507105671
>A true atheist believes in science as the ultimate truth
Incorrect >>507105769
>All created by your own mind
Not when someone's else's actions hav3 consequences on me and vice versa
>none of its real other than what exists in your own mind.
2+2=4 is real absent my mind or not
>>507105769
>nothing else can be known.
See above baby boy

>>507105772
>you are painting with a wiiiiiiide brush
As wide as the 30k plus divisions in Christianity
>>507105772
>>you don't want to because you know vampires aren't real.
>i know no such thing.
You do. But you'll pretend not to to try and make an irrelevant point

>>507105772
>surely as an atheist you think so too,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

>>507105772
>you guys define yourselves by and center your identity
Nah, you lot put that strawman on me

>>507106002
>Consciousness is God,
To you ans you're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

If you ever want to see American Christianity vs real christianity look at the Cliffe video where the black Ethiopian Orthodox humiliated cliffe and his dumbass son.
2000 years of tradition vs "hey I know what this ancient book means, finally im the first to figure it out".

>>507106002
>Consciousness is God
wrong

>>507106135
>Not when someone's else's actions hav3 consequences on me and vice versa

You're still not understanding Descartes.
You cannot know anything or other peoples actions as everything you think you know comes from your own mind.

Look into Solipsism philosophy.
You cannot prove the existence of other people, if you claim your senses prove them then you're failing to understand.

>>507106344
>You're still not understanding Descartes
I don't need to.

>>507106344
>You cannot know anything or other peoples actions as everything you think you know comes from your own mind.
Except your mind typed this. Something I couldn't perceive
>Look into Solipsism philosophy
I have and it's garbage

>>507106135
>You do. But you'll pretend not to to try and make an irrelevant point
wow, look at this fucking telepath divining the true secrets of my mind.
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
this isn't some inviolable law of logic, it's some retarded catchphrase one the faggot pop-sci leaders of your nu-atheist cult came up with, sagan or hitchens.
it's tautological ("extraordinary" is undefined and circular), vague (lacks measurable thresholds), and presumes what it aims to prove (assumes extraordinary claims MUST have higher evidentiary burdens without justification. it conflates epistemic rigor with subjective astonishment.
you should feel embarrassed to have typed it.

>>507106193

When Jesus said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” he was not merely referring to ritual, but expressing a profound metaphysical truth. The bread and wine—composed of atoms—are part of the same divine substance that comprises all things. In consuming them, we symbolically and literally partake in the divine; we exchange atoms with our environment, dissolving the illusion of separation between self and God. In this sense, God is not distant or external, but present in all things—immanent in matter, consciousness, and creation itself. To be “made in the image of God” is to recognize that we, too, are participants in this divine process.

Our minds reflect this truth: we dream, imagine, and create realities within ourselves. Through thought, language, writing, and art, we construct entire worlds. This creative faculty mirrors the generative power of the divine—suggesting that our consciousness is not separate from God, but an expression of it. Just as the physical body is formed from the living clay of the universe, our minds give rise to new realities, echoing the creative nature of the divine source.

The universe itself, then, may be understood as a dream or thought of God—an eternal unfolding, where consciousness collapses possibility into experience. In this view, existence is not random or mechanical, but deeply meaningful—a living, breathing manifestation of the divine mind. To awaken to this truth is to understand not only scripture, but oneself, as part of the great work of creation.

Tell me when did you meet God? Because these things were revealed to me in a dream when I spoke to God.

>>507106859
>wow, look at this fucking telepath divining the true secrets of my mind
I call it like I see it. And like "God" vampired have subjective interpretations as well
>>507106859
>this isn't some inviolable law of logic
OK, claims.made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Hope that helps duder :^)

>>507106968
>When Jesus said

Is there a single Atheist that stands his ground?
They all seem like selfish opportunist that will slither away the moment they are threatened. Just like animals. Think about it. How come atheism is so common yet there are no atheist political organizations or groups? Because they dont care about anything but themselves.

>>507107424
>Is there a single Atheist that stands his ground?
I do it all the time :^)

>>507107424
>there are no atheist political organizations or groups?
https://search.brave.com/search?q=atheist+political+organizations+or+groups&source=android

Knock yourself out bud

>>507107186
i didnt say any of that nice straw man though.
you need to go back

>>507107652
>i didnt say any of that
You don't need to. The logic still applies
So it's not a strawman but an observation

>>507107137
>I call it like I see it. And like "God" vampired have subjective interpretations as well
ah, the classic retreat into semantic mush. the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
"subjective interpretations" isn't an argument, it's a confession that you have no actual criteria from distinguishing truth from nonsense. by your logic, everything is just a matter of "interpretation," which means you've reduced epistemology to a game of make-believe wehre coherence and evidence are optional.
>ok, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
another regurgitated reddit nu-atheist bumper sticker. as if you've stumbled on some profound epistemic axiom rather than a lazy, self-serving dodge.
hitchen's razor (which by the way, isn't even his, it's a bastardization of laplace) is only useful if you've already presupposed what counts as evidence, a question you've clearly never interrogated.
you dismiss claims "without evidence" while ignoring that your entire fucking worldview rests on unexamined assumptions about what constitutes valid evidence in the first place. you don't get to smuggle in your own arbitrary standards as neutral ground while pretending you've made a point, it's not skepticism, it's nu-atheist dogmatism.
by all means, keep parroting slogans you don't understand, clown.

>>507100188 (OP)
What's with all the atheist threads lately? Did Jordan Petersons embarrassment ruffle the theists feathers a bit too much?

>>507107856
>, the classic retreat into semantic mush
You say that to hide the fact that I'm right
>>507107856
>"subjective interpretations" isn't an argument
It is as it presents the bias nature in your thoughts. Something else you know I'm right about but try and hide
>>507107856
>it's a confession that you have no actual criteria from distinguishing truth from nonsense
Sure I do. It's called evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I e already said this in 2 different ways but you want to weasel around it
>>507107856
>>ok, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>another regurgitated reddit nu-atheist bumper sticker
You can poison the well all you like but I'm still right lol

I don't need to reply to the rest of your hurt feelings

>>507108029
>What's with all the atheist threads lately?
I hurt their feelings a lot

Consciousness exists. We know this because we experience it directly. It is the starting point of all knowledge.
The question is: Where does this consciousness come from?

If there is no deeper source—no universal mind, no "God within"—then the self has no real origin.
To deny a source is to deny the meaning or reality of your own awareness.
This becomes a contradiction: using consciousness to deny its own foundation.
Belief in a higher source isn't blind faith. It’s a logical step from the fact that we are aware.
To reject this is not rationality—it’s avoiding the most fundamental question: What is it that is aware?

The atheists are profoundly mentally retarded individuals and there is no point engaging with such people as they aren't even sure they even exists.

>>507108504
>Consciousness exists. We know this because we experience it directly
And it takes a conscious mind, aka a brain to process it
>Where does this consciousness come from?
The brain

>>507108634
Now who is guilty of circular logic.

>>507108728
Not me lol

>>507108866
>

>>507109129
This isn't an argument

>>507108130
>"You say that to hide the fact that I'm right."
no, i say it because you’ve confused assertion with argument. declaring victory doesn’t make it so, it just makes you look like a child covering their ears and yelling "i win!"
>it is as it presents the bias nature in your thoughts. something else you know i'm right about but try and hide.
and here's the "i can read your mind and expose your secret biases" gambit, the last resort of someone who can’t engage with what’s actually being said.
if my thoughts are so biased, dismantle them. but you can’t, because you’re too busy pretending that vague accusations substitute for reasoning.
>sure I do. It's called evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I e already said this in 2 different ways but you want to weasel around it.
funny how you keep appealing to "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" while refusing to define:
1: what constitutes as "evidence" in your framework (beyond your own arbitrary preferences)
2: what threshold seperates "reasonable" doubt from unreasonable doubt (spoiler: you don’t have one, you just know it when you feel it)
3: why your standard should be universally binding when you’ve done nothing to justify it beyond "lol I’m right."
you're not applying a principle, you're wielding a slogan like a club, hoping no one notices you've never actually examined its foundations.
>poison the well
the absolutely irony of you accusing me of poisining the well while your entire approach is.
1: mind reading (you know i'm right but hide it!)
2: begging the question (my standard is correct because it's mine!)
3: smug deflection (lol u mad) instead of engagement
keep laughing clown, it's a great way to distract from the fact that you're not actually saying anything.

>>507108634
>>507108866
>defines consciousness by referencing the brain
>explains brain's role by assuming consciousness
goodness gracious

>>507109306
>declaring victory doesn’t make it so
I dont need to declare it. Logic dictates I'm right
>>507109306
>and here's the "i can read your mind and expose your secret biases" gambit
See above
>>507109297
>if my thoughts are so biased, dismantle them
You're views on God are subjective.
>>507109306
>funny how you keep appealing to "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" while refusing to define:
It's not up for me to define it when you're the one making claims about God
>>507109306
>the absolutely irony of you accusing me of poisining the well
Truth hurts

>>507109556
>>explains brain's role by assuming consciousness
Demonstrate a conscious mind without a brain

>/pol/cel
>"christian"
choose one

>>507109556
the mind of an atheist is one of the most retarded things ever to exist.

Logically they have to deny their own existence and this is ok for them. Somehow.

>>507109954
>Logically they have to deny their own existence
I don't.

>>507110013
Then your mind is God, as God is consciousness, awareness.

>>507109618
>You're views on God are subjective.
yes. all views held by subjects about anything are subjective in an epistemic sense.
they are views about an object though in an ontological sense.
the subjectivity of the viewpoint does not necessarily imply the object itself is subjective.
>you're the one making claims about God
what claims have i made?

>>507109954
>Logically they have to deny their own existence and this is ok for them

Untrue, we just dent that our existence wasn't the product of a god. Atheists are far more in tune with themselves and nature than theists, hence why so many of us are miserable and nihilistic on many aspects of life. We know life is constant suffering, you need a religion to tell you that.

>>507100188 (OP)
I agree, its all allegorical, especially the part where is says god exists.

>>507110088
>Then your mind is God, as God is consciousness, awareness.
You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions
>>507110253
>>You're views on God are subjective.
>yes.
:^)
The question of subjectivity in epistemic views touches on broader philosophical discussions about the nature of belief, justification, and the limits of human understanding but this doesn't apply to everything
>>507110253
>the subjectivity of the viewpoint does not necessarily imply the object itself is subjective.
Until it's demonstrated to be objective. Like 2+2=4

>>507110253
>>you're the one making claims about God
>what claims have i made?
That it exists.

>>507110013
>It's not a griiiiift
>25pbtid
>None of them relevant
This is who you are letting shit up your thread btw

>>507110582
Look at that handsome man :^)

>>507110582
>This is who you are letting shit up your thread btw
There's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop me from expressing my opinions in a public forum

>>507110341
>Untrue, we just dent that our existence wasn't the product of a god.
then you deny your own existence and consciousness.

No one thinks of god as a man in the sky, only atheists see God like this.
You created a straw-man god to attack, but no one actually believes in the God Atheist claim doesn't exist.

Your entire world view is so deformed and retarded.

>>507110734
>then you deny your own existence and consciousness.
Nah. My existence and consciousness is here regardless of your opinions about God

>>507110734
You ignored my entire post. Don't try this shit on me.

I know I am conscious, infact I'm a little too conscious to the notion that I exist within this natural universe. You're trying to put words and thoughts into my head, and that's your issue.

>>507110710
>Nothing you can do
Once I have your home address there is tons I can do ashkenazi mutt with carny hands lol :)

you would be less obsessed with atheists if you were just honest with yourself and became an atheist.

>>507100188 (OP)
this is like the 10th christcuck thread today. you schizos need your own board.

>>507111119
You don't scare me :^)

>>507111224
Then why did you cry to mods when I told you I would cut off your fingers?

>>507100188 (OP)
Reminder: Worshipping Yahweh (Qōs) as El is the literally most jewish thing you can do, and sadly, this fits every Christian.

>>507110961
God is existence itself and you're saying God doesn't exist which denies existence itself, including consciousness.

Atheists then go well achshually
> God is this man in the sky and we don't believe in that lol.

But No one else claims God is some man in the sky, only atheists do this.

>>507111310
>why did I get myself banned?
You people really are stupid lol

>>507111347
>But No one else claims God is some man in the sky, only atheists do this.
This is true, they are some of the most illiterate retards in existence

>>507110510
>Until it's demonstrated to be objective. Like 2+2=4.
2+2=4 is an analytic truth within a formal system, it's not "demonstrated" empirically, but defined by the axioms of arithmetic.
God's existence is a metaphysical claim about reality, not a tautology. you're comparing apples to abstract formalism.
>That it exists.
ehhhh? where? i don't think i've made that claim yet.
>the question of subjectivity in epistemic views touches on broader philosophical discussions about the nature of belief, justification, and the limits of human understanding but this doesn't apply to everything.
if epistemic subjectivity applies to some beliefs, you don’t get to arbitrarily exempt your own without justification. Either:
a: all beliefs are subject to epistemic limitations (in which case your atheism is just as "subjective" as theism), or
b: you’re smuggling in unexamined criteria for what counts as "objective", which, again, you refuse to define.

>>507111477
Well, when you worship a monotheistic weather and war god that lives on a mountain, the sky god moniker makes a bit more sense.

>>507111386
>Admits he cried to the mods over a threat
You do realize once you are found that bad, bad things are going to happen to you yes?
You should never have elected to shit up this board and post a selfie, you are the one who is stupid lol

>>507111477
I guess the part where Jesus goes up into the sky is just a metaphor lol

>>507111568
>Trying this hard to excuse talking out your ass and not reading books
Pathetic

>>507111347
Yes, that is exactly what atheism means, we don't believe in a literal omnipotent being that created or creates stuff and exists in the supernatural.

But we don't deny that if that's how YOU interpret the natural universe and its eternal presence then that's fine, most of us don't shit on that notion, but that makes you a little atheistic, now doesn't it? By definition.

>>507102543
This guy doesn't want to understand hermeneutics or the thousands of years of work done by Christian and secular scholars, you're not going to convince him he's too stupid
Ghosts of Moo Mesa you're late to the party, but that's okay, there's arguments that hermeneutics relies on the reader to bring their own experience to the text which kind of negates it from being "science", just argue that instead of being a twat about whether it's a thing or not

>>507111673
You worship Yahweh, a god of weather and war (copied straight from the Edomite deity the Bible is terrified to mention). Calling him a sky god is a perfect title.

>>507111631
>Mentions something never listed in the Bible
Holy kek atheists really are stupid as a short is LMAO

>>507111538
>2+2=4 is an analytic truth within a formal system, it's not "demonstrated" empirically
Sure it is. If I have 2 apples and add am additional 2 apples I know have 4 apples.

Kek this is elementary shit dude
>>507111538
>God's existence is a metaphysical claim
So is replacing God with Warrbles
>>507111538
>i don't think i've made that claim yet.
I'm ahead of you is all
>>507111538
>if epistemic subjectivity applies to some beliefs, you don’t get to arbitrarily exempt your own without justification. Either:
True. But that's where context comes in. Then demonstration
>>507111622
>You do realize once you are found that bad, bad things are going to happen to you yes?
You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions.

>rampant namefagging
>60% of all posts by two IDs
mental illness

>>507111622
>t. ESL jewess with severe mental retardation
lmao
See: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/506654824/#q506686177

>You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions.

LMFAO

>>507111768
This idiot
>9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

>>507112051
It's nice to see how much I make you seeth :^)

>>507111972
>Defends an obvious kike
Lmao GTFO troon and neck yourself

>>507111768
>>507112078
Acts 1:10:
>"And while they were looking intently at the sky as he went up, suddenly two men stood beside them wearing white clothes."

>>507111768
>>507112078
>>507112230
Acts 1:11:
>"These men said, 'Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? Jesus, whom you have been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go.'"

>>507100188 (OP)
correct. trying to understand the creator of the universe and "his" characteristics is a huge part of being human and has been since we became more capable of abstract thought. atheism is a psyop to keep us dumb akin to "n-nothing to see here folks".

that said, literal reading of religious texts, especially the bible, is retarded and should be considered blasphemy.

>>507111812
>If I have 2 apples and add an additional 2 apples I now have 4 apples.
counting apples is not arithmetic. arithmetic is an abstract system. the apples are just an illustration.
if you dump 2 apples and 2 more into a blender, you don't get 4 apples, you get pulp. the physical world doesn't "prove" math, it approximates it under ideal conditions.
math is not empirical, it's necessary truth, it holds even if no apples (or universe) exist. your "demonstration" is just appealing to intuition, not proof.
>So is replacing God with Warrbles
is that your fursona or something?
>true. but that's where context comes in. then demonstration.
what context? what demonstration? you keep name-dropping these concepts like they're self-evident but you refuse to define them.
what's your "context?" your personal intuition? popular opinion? scientific consensus (which, by the way, doesn't adjudicate metaphysics?)
what counts as "demonstration?" empirical evidence (which presupposes naturalism?) logical coherence (which you dismiss as "subjective?")
you're playing epistemic calvinball, making up rules as you go while pretending their objective
either:
a: define your terms and justify your standards, or
b: admit you're asserting your preferences and calling it "logic"

>>507111731
If you Agree that existance is real then you're not an atheist.
There is no middle ground, there is just your lack of understanding of what God is.

Its not an opinion, if you agree that you exist then you agree that God exists and by definition are no longer an atheist.

If you then try and move the goal posts to hold onto some retarded identity then it simply exposes how you're just a religious / cult fanatic.

>>507112440
>counting apples is not arithmetic
Counting apples is often considered a foundational aspect of arithmetic, as it involves basic numerical operations and understanding quantity

>>507112440
>>So is replacing God with Warrbles
>is that your fursona or something?
It's a supposition no different than yours
>>507112440
>>true. but that's where context comes in. then demonstration.
>what context? what demonstration?
Go back to the apples my friend
>>507112440
>a: define your terms and justify your standards, or
I like belief in God or gods until evidence convinces me then my lack of belief becomes belief

>>507112527
You're changing the definitions here, you're either atheist, or not, there's no middle ground.

Go look up what the word atheist means, because it's not what you're trying to portray it as. Bad faith on your part. Stop it.

>>507111333
>>507111766
It's always satisfying seeing a Qōs-pilled individual in the wild.

>>507112739
ive not changed my definitions, God is all.
God is existence, God is consciousness, God is mind, he fabric and structure of existence itself.

That is God, but atheists deny this and so by extension deny their own existence their own awareness which is also God.

But then the atheists will say,
> sky daddy lol
> Scriptures with allegorical stories are meaningless

>>507112732
>I like
I lack*

>>507112789
I notice the Christkikes never respond to a post with HIM mentioned in it, kinda like the Bible.

Denies the existence of God.
God is all
God is existence
Atheists therefore denies their own existence

>>507112951
See this is your game, and you people have shifted once again, for like the ninth time over the last I'd say 20 years to try to reshuffle your debate tactics to boost the creationist agenda. I know your game, double speak your way around the subject.

Atheism by definition is not what you're saying, it has nothing to do with how you think the universe itself is "god", because if that was the case, than who created that God? And if you don't believe in a literal supernatural being, that makes you an atheist by definition.

>>507113352
Why are you bringing up youtube videos you've watched and applying them to me?

>>507112732
>Counting apples is often considered a foundational aspect of arithmetic, as it involves basic numerical operations and understanding quantity
no, counting apples is APPLIED arithmetic, not arithmetic itself. the fact that you can't distinguish between abstract formal systems and their contingent physical instantiations is precisely the problem.
arithmetic is a formal system defined by axioms (like peano). it holds necessarily, even in a universe with no apples, no blenders, no you.
counting apples is a physical act that approximate arithmetic under controlled conditions. if your "proof" of math depends on apples not rotting, blending, or being eaten by worms, then it's not proof, it's a continent observation.
>go back to the apples
you still haven't defined
a: what context justifies your epistemic standards
b: what demonstration you'd accept for metaphysical claims
instead you're retreating into empiricism (apples) while ignoring
1: empiricism cannot justify itself empiricallly, it's a philosophical presupposition
2: you're presupposing naturalism while pretending it's neutral.
>i like belief in God or gods until evidence convinces me then my lack of belief becomes belief
that's nice, but you've stilled refused to define
1: what counts as evidence for a metaphysical claim
2: why your threshold for belief is justified as opposed to arbitrary
3: how you avoid solipsism (since you co9uld apply this same skepticism to any non-empirical claim including logic itself)
this isn't rationality, it's special pleading. you've rigged the game so that
1: theism must meet standards you won't clarify
2: atheism gets a free pass by default.
either defend your epistemology or admit it's just preference.

I've come to the conclusion that one should not cast pearls before atheists.

>>507112440
>counting apples is not arithmetic
To
>>507113608
>counting apples is APPLIED arithmetic

You clearly aren't capable of having an honest discussion. There's no need to reply to the rest.

>>507113825
the difference between pure arithmetic and applied arithmetic is first-year philosophy of math material.
if you think acknowledging that distinction is "dishonest," then you’ve just confessed that you’re way out of your depth.

>>507100188 (OP)
Nice GPT slop, retard

>>507114439
>no what I really meant was
Back tracking cope

>>507113488
Because I know your game. You want to ultimately change the definition of what an atheist means.

Fundamental Christians have already somehow separated the literal God aspect from it and now they want to push this silly narrative to connect them eventually.

>>507114524
>backtracking
finish reading the second quote's sentence you dumb tatted up slut.
>no, counting apples is APPLIED arithmetic, not arithmetic itself.
why are you too proud to admit when you're wrong?
is your presumed intellectual supremacy over the stupid faith-clingers like your ma and pa the only thing that keeps you going?

>>507114944
>finish reading the second quote's
No thanks. You flip-flop when caught in your contradiction

>>507114716
The idea of God has always been deeper than the cliché of a man in the sky. Across history and culture, God has been understood as the source of all existence—everything seen and unseen, the beginning and the end, the intelligence behind reality itself.

Reducing that to some cartoon figure is a misunderstanding, often shaped more by pop culture than by any real study of philosophy or theology.

A lot of atheists today seem to be rejecting a version of God that serious thinkers never actually believed in. Maybe it comes from watching videos or reading debates that focus only on surface-level religion.

When atheism turns into denying not just religion but the inner life—the mind, the self—it stops being true skepticism. It becomes a kind of blind spot. Because if you’re conscious, and you accept that your awareness is real, then you’ve already stepped into the realm of something deeper than just atoms and equations.

So maybe the real issue isn’t that God doesn’t exist—but that many people were never given a deep or thoughtful definition of what God actually means.

Atheism is dead and only can exists with ignorance.

> Lucifer, the light-bringer, casts illumination on ignorance, and in the presence of that light, the darkness recedes.
Again its a symbolic metaphor for how the ignorance of atheists minds are illuminated with knowledge and their minds are no longer bound in darkness, they are no longer an atheist as they have been educated.

>>507114513
Nice meme flag and seething.

>>507115615
that is not true. many conceptions of God literally were a man in the sky. were all of them? no, but saying it didn't exist is stupid. even today, people like mormons believe God is a physical being that lives on a planet.

>>507115955
> that is not true. many conceptions of God literally were a man in the sky.

They are fucking allegories you cretin

>>507115091
i'll take that as a yes.

>>507116098
no, not everything that ancient people made up gets to be an allegory because it makes your position less retarded. anytime people discover that religious texts are wrong about something suddenly it becomes some sort of metaphore.

again, what about Mormons? they explicitly say that God is a physical being that lives on a planet. it isn't a metaphor its part of their fucking doctrine. look it up.

>>507116103
You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

>>507116430
would you like to discuss your emotional aversion to Christianity, since it's obviously not an intellectual or rational one?
were you bullied by Christians, ostracized from a church group for being smelly or gay?

>>507115615
Them you're changing the definition of what a God is. Congrats you just proved my point that funfamental Christians are trying to rewrite their entire world belief, like the idiot Jordan Peterson has been trying to do over the years.

Gods are supernatural entities, deities, things with super powers and don't die.
You saying the natural universe and space time itself is "god" is just your interpretation of what the universe is. But that doesn't change what an atheist is.

A lot of athletes believe the universe is eternal, but its not a God.

No shit? 99% of anti Christian stuff online is based off pop culture, schizo posts, and people with massive chips on their shoulders. Even the organized Christ hate posters don't actually know what they're talking about

>>507100188 (OP)
There's no wall of text going to make modern people believe in jewish sorcerers.

>>507116337
Yes it has, thats the basis for my entire thread.

Religions such as atheism and Catholics deny allegorical meaning of stories.

>>507100188 (OP)
Duh. Materialism and scientism are self refuting. A purposeless, random universe of chaos means that all concepts of truth or what is right wrong, correct or incorrect are fundamentally meaningless and make no difference. Yet rabid scientist tards will foam at the mouth trying to convince people that their view is the correct way, that they are the most logical and rational, etc. What even is the basis or value in logic and reason in a material universe of chaotic purposelessness? There is none. They can’t even carry their philosophy out the door. Of course, Jews love and promote this in the new world because the aimlessness it encourages in the population results in degeneracy, decay, and a complete degradation of all sense of values and purpose, allowing for complete submission and total control.

Notably, scientism is also obsessed with dismantling and attacking the paternalistic, masculine foundations of Christianity. Feminism is perhaps the most powerful and decisively destructive weapon of the new secular Jewish order and it is entirely founded on rejecting the notion of a Father and Son and their masculine connection being the center grounding point of the universe and existence. Also, Adam and Eve is possibly the most direct, obvious, and earliest elucidation that men following the lead of women leads to extreme consequences.

>>507116997
No we don't, we actually embrace those stories because it gives a sense of shared experiences between us humans.
It's just we know they're allegories, myths, stories, legends to get a point across.

>>507116670
>would you like to discuss your emotional aversion to Christianity
I have no problem with Christianity. Jist 99%.of the people who come in its name

Christ is a great allegory

>>507115955
Mormons are literally proto Scientologists. They basically just slapped on Biblical names to their fanfiction to make it palatable to local American Protestants. Battlestar Galactica was created by a Mormon and is basically just the Mormon canon.

>>507116997
yeah and im saying the basis for your thread is clearly a coping mechanism so that you can pretend ancient people had some sort of spiritual knowledge that for some reason had to be disguised as stories about shit that didn't actually happen

>>507117424
i see, so it's Christians who've hurt you.
what did they do?

>>507117425
yeah i know that, but he doesn't think they believe God is a physical being that lives on a planet - which they do.

>>507117574
I think his point is that actual intellectuals like the early Church fathers who interpreted and established the canon of Christianity were far more philosophically well read and intelligent than most people today; the idea of Jimbo completely failing to understand the Bible properly in his local congregation of random dummies completely separated from the original councils that defined what the Bible is is not an affront to the philosophical core of Christianity as it was defined at the foundation.

>>507117558
>so it's Christians who've hurt you.
We've all been hurt my friend :^)
>>507117558
>what did they do?
Flip flop, hypocrisy, contradictions, cherry picking. The typical things you do

>>507117835
i don't think you're being honest here.
you're hiding your pain behind a veil of smugness.
what actually happened? you will feel better after you open up.

>>507118194
>i don't think you're being honest here
Sounds like a personal problem then
>what actually happened?
I've told you. Beleive it or not. Makes no difference to me

>>507118429
>refuses to let walls down
you nu-atheists don't actually need a philosophical argument or evidence, you sad bastards just need a hug.
shame it can't be provided to you over this medium.

>>507100188 (OP)
>Atheism is a Grift.
but organized religions are not?

>>507118770
"Worship my jewish fable and play pretend with me or else I'll smugly condescend to you with my strawman" isn't the terribly compelling argument you believe it to be.

>>507118946
You have to give 10% of your income to magicians begging a space jew to be nice to you or else you'll go to a place made of magic lava invented by Greek Hellenic nonbelievers.

It's perfectly logical, you see.

>>507119180
tithing is voluntary, and people give money to their church and build churches in their community because it's the most important institution for fostering connectiveness.
people like you and the namefag and bitter and lonely precisely because that important institution has been largely abandoned in recent years (though that's slowly changing.)

>>507119180
>>507119523
>You have to give 10%
actually church tax in germany is 9% of your income every month.
and if you dont pay these then they will send zogbots to your house who literally steal your shit.
its not voluntary at all since as a baby you arent getting asked if you wanna join the cult or not, you can leave the church and stop paying them but getting out of the cult isnt easy, they will try every trick in the book to keep you signed up so they can steal more of your income.
any sane person who doesnt aspire to be a poorfag leaves the church as soon as they turn 18.

>>507106859
Satan and Hitchens are their favorites. Because they're fucking dead and immune to being atheist retards with retarded current day takes on the internet. A form of idolatry because they're nihilistic cunts who believe they're immune to the same pressures and behaviors of religious people. They aren't and nobody likes them because they can see it.

>>507119903
Sagan lol autocorrect. Though it may not be wrong.

>>507119523
I'm married and have three kids. You're projecting your own insecurities onto others because your own life is a desperate void full of self-loathing, and you need to believe in magic fairy dust stories to cope with that, believing (falsely) that your suffering serves a purpose. It doesn't, and your life and youth is being wasted.

>>507118770
>you nu-atheists don't
I've been an atheist for over 20 years bud
And I simply lack belief in God or gods until evidence convinces me otherwise

>>507120048
that's interesting, so you're one of those atheists that actually take the position that theism is false instead of hiding behind agnosticism?
i'd like to hear your argumentation.

>>507120341
>evidence

The possibility of truth and evidence and immaterial, metaphysical concepts like logic necessitate a teleos derived from a fundamental essence that is beyond the strictly material

All of reality is triadic, both the material and immaterial, reflecting a fundamental essence which is triune in nature as its creation automatically reflects this essence

This is provable in basically any field or area. Mathematics makes it the most obvious to the direct senses which is why mathematicians often tend to be the most ardently religious in fields involving hard logic and intellectual reason.

Relying on concepts like evidence or logic “just because” in a world you supposedly hold to be born out of random material chaos with no distinct purpose automatically self refutes the very validity of relying on logic or reason vs any other given principle or lack thereof, making any argument in favor of this automatically incoherent

>>507120373
Ah it's the sissy concession guy. Yeah sounds like he's gnostic atheist then

>>507120742
>The possibility of truth and evidence and immaterial, metaphysical concepts like logic necessitate a teleos derived from a fundamental essence that is beyond the strictly material
Give a demonstrable example of this

>>507121173
Do you accept that laws of logic exist? I presume so, given you’re relying on them to even be able to formulate an argument. Is there any particular reason you feel that you should rely on and trust them how you’re doing? Can you give a demonstrable example of them in the material plane? Can they be observed empirically?

>>507100188 (OP)
Good blogpost, Bruce

>>507121173
2+2=4 being an objective truth, as you stated here >>507110510

>>507121347
>Is there any particular reason you feel that you should rely on and trust them
The consequences/outcomes they provide
>Can you give a demonstrable example of them in the material plane?
I don't need to out my hand in a fire to know it will burn it
>Can they be observed empirically?
100%

>>507121476
>2+2=4 being an objective truth, as you stated here
Yup and becomes empirical when thise quantities take physical form

>>507100188 (OP)
100%
There is no such thing as atheism, it is a state of denial. All the real progress in science was not in terms of gay jews creating monied systems that trannies and chinks dump what little is left of their souls on, it was by men who recognized moral order of reality, whether by Newton the Christian or Tesla, whose father was an Orthodox priest, or Galileo who rejected pope faggotry.
Progress is the real game at the end of the day, and you won't have that without moralizing, real, true faith, aka Christianity.

>>507121476
Now apply that to your favorite flavor of god

>>507121577
you’re pointing out that logic works, not what logic is or why it necessarily must hold true. Saying “I trust logic because of the outcomes it provides” is circular if you’re using logic to justify logic. You’re presupposing its validity in order to claim it’s valid, which doesn’t answer the fundamental question of why logic is reliable or even exists at all. The idea of fire burning your hand is an appeal to cause and effect, which itself relies on the law of causality. But that law isn’t something you can extract from nature under a microscope. You never see “logic” itself, only things behaving as if governed by it.

So I’ll ask again in clearer terms:
Where in the physical world can you observe a law of logic itself?
Can you weigh the Law of Non-Contradiction? Can you test the Law of Identity in a lab without presupposing its truth to even begin testing?

Asserting these things to be true would be to assert a claim of non physical, immaterial, universal claims about reality. You are thus making a great leap of faith in asserting them and trusting that they exist, while also failing to provide any justification or backing for their source or purpose or why they should matter in an otherwise chaotic universe which has no inherent purpose or definite end, in which these laws would be totally arbitrary.

>>507100188 (OP)
Facts, atheism is a grift.

>>507100328
>>Every one of Jesus’ apostles besides Peter was underage (neaniskos is the Greek word used)
νεανίσκος means under forty. You're lying.

>>507100328
>>When a woman questions why he hangs out with kids he says “don’t scandalize me”
Where? He never says that that I can remember off-hand.


>>Tells these boys he will make them “fishers of men”
They were laborers and fishermen.

>Tells them to “eat his flesh and drink his haima”
Yes
αἷμα
Blood

>(if you think this means “blood” here, see Ezekiel 23:20)
>καὶ ἐπέθου ἐπὶ τοὺς Χαλδαίους, ὧν ὡς ὄνων αἱ σάρκες αὐτῶν, καὶ αἰδοῖα ἵππων τὰ αἰδοῖα αὐτῶν
Doesn't say haima in the LXX. You're lying.

>>Goes into upper rooms and washes their feet while naked
No

>>Is arrested in a public park at 4am with a naked boy (see Mark 14:51-52)
Καὶ νεανίσκος τις συνηκολούθει αὐτῷ περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ, καὶ κρατοῦσιν αὐτόν ὁ δὲ καταλιπὼν τὴν σινδόνα γυμνὸς ἔφυγεν.


A young man under 40 was wearing what were basically his pajamas, grabbed by them, and ran away. Nothing about being in a public park

>>507100328
>>When the cops show up he says “why do you come for me with swords and clubs like I’m some kind of leistes”
λῃστής means brigand, robber, etc. Nothing else.

>There's a reason Jesus's "Most Beloved Disciple" is always depicted as a beardless boy whereas the rest of his followers had beards. Dude liked em young.
Wrong concept of love, cumbrain.
ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς
τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς

ἠγάπα is from the word used for unconditional love
ἐφίλει means brotherly love, friendship.

Neither are sexual.

Everything you said is a lie.

>>507121913
?
apply the notion that God is an objective truth onto my personal understanding of Him?

>>507122106
>not what logic is or why it necessarily must hold true
See
>>507121476
>>507122106
>Saying “I trust logic because of the outcomes it provides” is circular if you’re using logic to justify logic
No, I'm using the outcomes to justify logic. I've burned my hand before..therfore I don't need to stick my hand in a flame to find out if it'll burn or not

>>507122106
>So I’ll ask again in clearer terms:
I can't be any more clearer than I have been.

If you have a logical arguments for your favorite flavor of god I'd love to dismantle it :^)

>>507121913
>I admit that I have no justification, b-but you can say the same about God!

So now you concede that you operate on as much faith as any other given worldview theistic or not. Given this concession, you must now explain why, compared to any other worldview which fundamentally relies on some level of faith including yours, why yours makes more sense or is more internally sound than the concept of the Christian Trinity, for example.

>>507122265
>>507122265
>onto my personal understanding of Him?
I guess no need then. As long as we understand that's all "God" is. Your personal feelings

>>507122408
>im using logic to justify logic

Why do you assume that the flame will burn your hand again after it occurred the first time? Is there a certain principle you’re applying to come to the conclusion that this would be a consistent outcome? If so, please elucidate where this principle can be empirically observed.

>>507122416
>admit that I have no justification
Justification for what?
>>507122416
>So now you concede that you operate on as much faith as any other given worldview theistic or not
Incorrect. I rely on reasonable expectations. Not religious faith

>>507100188 (OP)
>be christcuck
>have thousands of denominations
>”BRO, YOU ARE THE GRIFTERs NOT US”

>>507122552
>>im using consequences to justify logic
Ftfy

>>507122552
>Why do you assume that the flame will burn your hand again after it occurred the first time?
You just answered it lol
>Is there a certain principle you’re applying to come to the conclusion that this would be a consistent outcome?
The fact that it did once before. Unless you're th4 type of guy who makes the same mistakes over and over again

Are you that guy?

>>507122509
now you're peeking your greasy little head out from the shield of agnosticism too and making a positive claim toward God's non-existence.
hurry up and backpedal or justify your knowledge claim that God only exists in my personal feelings.

>>507122843
So you agree then? God is just your perosnal feelings and thers no reason why anyone should believe them?

>>507122233
based septuagint user. the power of Christ compells the demonic shitposters

>>507122962
He told you to prove what you said. You made a claim. You're making yourself look bad.

>>507123047
Amen

>Go to look through
Everything he said was completely dishonest
If he was right, he wouldn't have to lie

>>507122669
>>507122821
You’re just restating the same thing over and over. What is your basis for the idea that a given consequence will always reliably result in the same result? How do you extrapolate that a fire burning your hand once or maybe 3 times in a row would then lead to the conclusion that it will always result in the same thing? You can say “the same circumstance occurred multiple times so I can assume it would be the same if I tried once more”, but that in and of itself is a faith claim that relies on a metaphysical principle. I’m not denying that it’s a logical conclusion obviously - I’m just pointing out that the basis for that logical conclusion is an immutable property of the universe that we know to be fundamentally true despite not being able to empirically see the property itself. You seem to have an extremely hard time grasping the difference between an abstract concept and the results of said concept manifesting in material space. “I know it’s real because it’s real.

“Reasonable expectations” are themselves reliant on the concept of reason being consistent and reliable, and to claim that it is universally consistent and reliable from finite extrapolated data points requires that at some point you apply a metaphysical assumption bridging the two.

>>507123251
>He told you to prove what you said. You made a claim
What claim did I make?

>>507123307
>You’re just restating the same thing over and over.
Is it illogical to make the same mistakes over and over again?

>>507123328
Read that >>507122843
Don't reply back until you answered him.

>>507123328
hes referring to this retard, not you: >>507100328

>>507123455
What claim did I make?

>>507123399
You tell me; according to your worldview all that exists is what is filtered through the direct personal experience of your mind. I’m not sure what logic is to you in this case as it is no longer an objective thing that can be applied universally.

>>507123647
>You tell me
I'm surprised I have to. The answer is yes. It is illogical
>>507123647
>according to your worldview all that exists is what is filtered through the direct personal experience of your mind
Incorrect. I can use someone else's experience to make logical choices as well.
>it is no longer an objective thing that can be applied universally.
When did I say this about logic

>>507123852
You said it’s illogical to make the same mistake over and over but you haven’t explained why logic matters or where it comes from. That’s the whole point. If logic isn’t something you can see, touch, or measure, then you’re relying on something non-physical to judge what’s true or false. So either logic is a real, immaterial law that exists beyond human minds, or it’s just a tool we made up, limited to our personal perception, and there’s no reason to trust it universally.

You can’t have it both ways, at least not without the very foundation of your argument collapsing on itself.

>>507124211
>You said it’s illogical to make the same mistake over and over but you haven’t explained why
Because you're not doing anything to chnage the outcome of your mistakes.

If I keep sticking my hand in and thinking the next time it won't burn/hurt/cause damage. Is illogical because it will.

This can be applied to anyone in almost any situation that deals with addiction.

I'm shocked I have to explain it down to the elementary level.

What would you do if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

>>507124502
The ironic thing is you are revealing yourself to have a complete inability to grasp higher order thinking. These are questions that have been posed and remain unanswered in philosophy since Hume centuries ago. You literally can’t understand that saying “logic is empirical because I use logic to extrapolate consistent outcomes” is circular and doesn’t explain the logical justification for that very assumption.

To use a very basic analogy: Logic is like the rules in a video game. You can’t see the code as you play, but you trust it’s there because the game works the same way every time. The game reacting the same way when you press the movement button is an observation that the W Key results in the character on the screen moving forward. But you’re not addressing the underlying necessity of programming that is required for this to occur. If no one who wrote the rules and the code of the game was arbitrarily random, why should the game keep working the same way? That is an illogical assumption that does not cohere with your assumption

>>507125196
>The ironic thing is you are revealing yourself to have a complete inability to grasp higher order thinking
How exactly? Why would I need any "higher order thinking" to understand God is nothing more than man's subjective interpretation aka personal feelings?

>>507125196
>Logic is like the rules in a video game. You can’t see the code as you play, but you trust it’s there
Sure. But I can aslo observe it through others playing. Something you haven't actually refuted.

Really haven't refuted anything I've said

>>507125196
Bro read hegel...

>>507125992
>I can also observe it through others playing

You can’t be this obtuse. How does observing that the video game’s controls result in consistent outcomes when other people play it then refute the necessity that there is underlying code and programming causing the controls to work the way they do in the first place.

>>507125859
How can you demean the idea of subjective feelings if literally your only basis for what logic is only your direct observation of something filtered through your subjective lens? Literally anyone’s subjective feelings are equally valid in your own viewpoint. No one needs to explain or give a reason why anything is the way it is. There are billions of Christians, according to you this is then a strong argument for Christianity.

>>507126036
hegel's obscurant word-salad doesn't solve the is-ought gap or justify synthetic a priori truths. dialectics just dresses up circularity as "progress"

>>507126036
Hegel was an anti empiricist so not exactly a stellar argument for a purely empirical/material view of reality.

>>507126284
I can observe drug addiction and how bad their life is because of the drug without ever having done it myself.

Are you even a real person? I feel like I'm talking to an NPC

>>507126284
>your only basis for what logic is only your direct observation of something filtered through your subjective lens?
See above.

I really am talking to an NPC


>>507126284
>There are billions of Christians, according to you this is then a strong argument for Christianity.
The opposite based how many divisions there are in it. Kek

>>507126650
Again, I fear you’re intellectually incapable of grasping what’s being discussed here. you’re still relying on cause and effect to draw that conclusion.

The question isn’t whether you can learn from observation. The question is:
Why do you assume that cause and effect are reliable in the first place?
Why do you trust that drugs always cause harm, and that the pattern will hold tomorrow, or in other people?

You’re using logic and induction again, but you haven’t explained why those tools should work universally in a purely material, purposeless universe. You’re assuming an invisible rule without showing where it comes from. You’ve also sidestepped everything. Another analogy: Every time someone puts in $1 and presses button 1, a soda comes out. You see it happen 10 times. Now you assume: If I do the same thing, I’ll get a soda too. But why? You’re trusting that the machine will keep working the same way, even though you’ve never seen its internal wiring. You assume there’s a consistent rule behind it — a cause (money + button) that leads to an effect (soda). That’s induction, and it feels reasonable, and it is because you know the vending machine was intentionally programmed to serve a consistent and universal purpose. But if the machine is random inside, which you assert, your past observations mean nothing. You only trust the result because you believe there’s a rule behind it, even if you can’t see it. The very fact that you trust your own observations refutes your conception of a random universe. That’s the entire point. Your worldview contradicts itself. It does not hold up to logical scrutiny. Yet you claim to rely on logic.

I’d encourage you, hoping you’re just young and curious, to read philosophy and about the underlying basis of logic. This has been a fundamental part of intellectual discussion for literally thousands of years.

>>507127263
>Why do you assume that cause and effect are reliable in the first place?
Because of the consequences/outcomes

>>507127263
>Why do you trust that drugs always cause harm
Because I can empirically see the results of it. I can learn about them in theory and see them in reality
>and that the pattern will hold tomorrow, or in other people?
Because it'd been observed for thousands of years and documented, which backs up my logical approach

It's really that simple

>>507126493
Logic comes from thoughts, thoughts are now within the realm of neuroscience.

Hegel was right. We gain wisdom and logic through dialectical processes, just back in his day it was a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

>>507127658
I think you’re failing to realize this is an internal critique of your own position. You propose a random universe of chaos yet you support consistent observation being reliable. I agree that it’s reliable - the fact that things are consistent refutes the idea of the universe being pure material chaos and disorder. The fact that things are consistently reliable demonstrates a fundamental part of reality governing that these are stable things.

Again, start reading some books on the subject if you’re curious

>>507127263
>Your worldview contradicts itself. It does not hold up to logical scrutiny
The opposite is true. Hence why I dk t need to that abusing drugs is bad. The theory and observation does that for me.

But again youre an NPC who doesn't learn from their mistakes f

>>507128031
>You propose a random universe of chaos
How exactly? You like to make up a lot of strawman. That's you're onlynreal shtick

>>507128031
>yet you support consistent observation being reliable
Because it is. Hence why you avoided answering of making the same mistakes over and over again is illogical.

Go out and get some real life experiences kiddo. Stop having mommy and daddy take you places and start using public transportation. You'll see how important observation is real quick

>>507128033
>I dk t need to
I don't need to know*

>—
>—
>—
Mods, ban this GPT nigger IMMEDIATELY

>>507128031
You can’t force someone to believe, it’s not a logic issue. There is no issue with evidence. They simply do not want to. don’t fall for the ‘debate’ meme here, why would anyone who doesn’t believe and makes the choice to do so ad-hoc, consider evidence to something he believes doesn’t exist. Eternal beliefs do not actually rely on evidence at all, the basis for the decision comes from somewhere else entirely. OP is correct in his thesis but wrong as to why it’s a grift, the point of these threads is to simply bog down people that believe. Atheists don’t care about evidence, agnostics do. The only prevailing demographic that constantly engages with people who believe are atheists, it’s entirely contrarian, and has moreso to do with some unresolved or unexplained traumatically induced memories with said belief system in the background. Lack of trust most likely, brought about by others feigning belief or just general cognitive dissonance associated with said belief system because of trauma. You may not even actually speaking to a human because culture wise there is no such thing as atheism in a historical sense, the kikes have society in a vacuum so of course they’ll argue that the movements are natural, even when /pol/ has already well established that these people use Hegel and increasingly depraved positions to demoralize you.

>>507128755
t. emdashlet

>>507127819
which fMRI study demonstrated the transcendental justification for modus ponens?
hegel's dialectic was about the phenomenology of spirit, not synaptic firings.
you're just conflating emergent cognitive processes with the a priori conditions that make logic possible in the first place.
neuroscience can't even solve the hard problem of consciousness, let alone ground logical necessity.

you guys reduce everything down to brute materialism without addressing why material processes should conform to rational principles at all.
the fact that logic holds universally and isn't reducible to mere brain activity suggests that rationality has an independent grounding.
if logic were just synaptic patterns, why couldn’t a brain lesion make 2+2=5 "true?" Yet even a damaged mind recognizes that’s nonsense, because logic isn’t contingent on matter.
if material processes were purely random, why would they consistently follow logical necessity? this points to an underlying metaphysical structure that ensures rational coherence rather than chaos.
this coherence demands a ground beyond physics, whether hegel’s absolute, a platonic logos, or yes, a divine intellect. materialism can’t even frame the question.

>>507129428
Transcendence to what exactly? We know that the brain reacts to outside forces, and that gives us thoughts, which we communicate outwardly in different ways.

Logic comes from just basic life experience and shared life experiences with others.

>>507129428
>why material processes should conform to rational principles at all.
Material processes should conform to rational principles because rational decision-making involves careful, methodical steps that ensure logical and data-driven outcomes. This approach helps in making informed choices that are based on thorough analysis and evaluation of alternatives

Why is this so hard for you?

>>507102540
> Sorry, Christard, but your invisible sky wizard has no more relevance to reality than did your imaginary friend at 4-years-old. Stop pretending that your Bronze Age fairy tale is in any way like science. You don't seek to understand anything; you seek to bring others into your cult.

>>507130246
>concession sissy
lmao

>>507115615
lucifer symbolism is much deeper than that. it’s about how death works. refusing to acknowledge that our existence stems from god, like venus thinking it’s light is it’s own, causes a rift between us and god.

>religion isn't actually true but we need to larp to preserve social mores
Christianity is dead

>>507129428
>transcendence to what?
the necessary preconditions that make your "basic life experience" argument even coherent.
you're still stuck in the same humean circle (logic works because we observe it working) but that's like saying "the rules of chess exist because i've seen people play chess."
it doesn't explain why reality is bound by rules in the first place.
you say the brain reacts to outside forces, cool. now explain why those forces (whatever they are) consistently produce logical relations (a=a, if p then q, etc) instead of randomness.
if materialism is true, why isn't logic just a localized quirk of human neurochemistry? why does it hold universally, even in domains far beyond "shared life experience" like quantum mechanics and abstract math?
neuroscience describes correlations, not justifications. if an fMRI scan shows neurons firing when you think 2+2=4, it doesn't tell us why 2+2 couldn't = 5 in some alternative universe.
logic is normative, not descriptive, it's about what MUST be true rather than what we happen to believe.
you're doing exactly what hegel criticized, conflating psychology (how we think) with logic (what thinking must presuppose.)
>>507129924
nah little dude, don't chime in until you address this. >>507122843

> often presents a misleading interpretation of religious scripture
hey retard:
snakes don't talk
man doesn't rise from the dead
and he certainly isn't born of a virgin

These are the literal claims made by your book. To be a believing christdolt, you must accept all of them as literally true, which they are not.

>>507131194
meant for >>507129759

>>507100328
How does JIDF post so quickly?

>>507116744
This

>>507129924
>rational process is circular
Kek

>>507131194
>the necessary preconditions that make your "basic life experience" argument even coherent.
What are these "necessary preconditions" exactly?

>>507131194
>nah little dude, don't chime in until you address this.
Already have. Glad to see you have no rebuttal to
>>507129924
>>507131459
>>rational process is circular
How did you come to that exactly?

>>507100188 (OP)
>that image is 13-15 years old but the reality got somehow worse than that image in the last 15 years
Jesus fucking Christ, i am in Hell or something

>>507131194
>if materialism is true, why isn't logic just a localized quirk of human neurochemistry?
do you understand how gay you sound?
here's a challenge for you: try to go one day without using a word that ends in "-ism." You might end up finding that you sound less like a tard.

>>507122843
>now you're peeking your greasy little head out from the shield of agnosticism too and making a positive claim
You made the claim
>>507122265
>my personal understanding of Him?
That's your psorive claim. Making you a gnostic theist.

>>507106052
>muh allegory and metaphor
lol
just imagine if engineering and medical textbooks were written in allegory and metaphor. no, it's better that books of scientific (ie. real) knowledge are tomes of fact

>>507131561
>daurrrrrrrr material processes should conform to rational principles because rational decision-making follows methodical steps based on analysis
idiot.
you're presupposing rationality as a given without explaining why material reality itself should necessarily align with rational principles in the first place.
>>507131924
a clarifying question is not a psorive claim.
i believe in God with 100% certainty but wouldn't classify myself as "gnostic theist" because that taxonomical system is retarded.

>>507131924
>psorive
Positive*

>>507132087
>why material reality itself should necessarily align with rational principles
Because all of your actions and choices are a cause and effect of the material reality. We see this in the consequences they bring
>>507132087
>i believe in God with 100% certainty
And it's bases off your personal feelings. Not actual logic or reason, or you wouldn't need faith lol

>>507132087
>why material reality itself should necessarily align with rational principles
To add on, according to rational ethics, a principle's truth is measured by its effectiveness, and a rational morality is an integrated, non-contradictory, reality-based system of goals and principles

>>507132457
>Because all of your actions and choices are a cause and effect of the material reality.
still begging the question.
you're assuming cause and effect in material reality is inherently rational without proving why rationality must govern it.
>And it's bases off your personal feelings. Not actual logic or reason
and how do you justify this knowledge claim that my belief is bases off of my personal feelings rather than logic or reason?
don't you think believing in mind reading and telepathy as a hardcore materialist is a little weird?
could it be bases off of reasoning and evidence i have that are as of yet undisclosed to you?
>>507132678
your addition assumes rationality defines truth and coherence in reality, but you haven't shown why reality itself must be rational, keeping the argument circular.

>>507133455
>still begging the question
What question?
>>507133455
>you're assuming cause and effect in material reality is inherently rational
Nope. It'd based on the consequences/outcomes. Fuck dude. Why do you strawman all the time? Why are you this disingenuous after all these years?
>>507133455
>and how do you justify this knowledge claim that my belief is bases off of my personal feelings
Because you said it
>>507122265
>my personal understanding of Him?
Kek
>>507133455
>rather than logic or reason?
Whats your logic and reason?
>>507133455
>could it be bases off of reasoning and evidence i have that are as of yet undisclosed to you?
If you had that, you'd stated it. But you dont because you know how subjective it really is..
>>507133455
>>>507132678 (You) #
>your addition assumes rationality defines truth and coherence in reality
Rationality is often associated with the pursuit of truth, as it involves using reason and logic to form beliefs and make decisions.
>but you haven't shown why reality itself must be rational
I don't have to, the logic and reason behind evaluating consequences of cause and effect does.
>keeping the argument circular
That's you strawmanning

>>507100188 (OP)
>>507130246
>>507133455
christgolems have always served jews.
Tacitus, Histories, Book 5
>For the worst rascals among other peoples, renouncing their ancestral religions, always kept sending tribute and contributions to Jerusalem, thereby increasing the wealth of the jews

After the jerusalem council, saul was asked by james, cephas, and john to remember the poor which he was eager to do.
Galatians 2:9-10
>And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the gentiles (ἔθνη/goyim), and they to the circumcision (jews). They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

What does "remember the poor" actually mean? And why was saul eager to "remember the poor"?
Romans 15:25-27
>But now I am going to Jerusalem, ministering to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.
Yes, saul was instructed by james and the apostles to collect contributions from christgolems for the poor among the saints in jerusalem.
>For they were pleased, and they are debtors of them. For if the gentiles (ἔθνη/goyim) have shared in their spiritual things, they ought also to minister to them in the material things.
What is saul's reasoning for collecting contributions from christgolems? According to saul, christgolems are debtors that owe material things to the saints in jerusalem.
Why are christgolems debtors to the saints in jerusalem? According to saul, christgolems are debtors because they shared in the spiritual things of the saints in the jerusalem.
What are the spiritual things that christgolems shared in?
John 4:22
>You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is of the jews.
1/2

>>507134184
The following is an example of the amount and frequency of the contributions that saul collected from christgolems:
1 Corinthians 16:1-4
>Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I will send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem. And if it is advisable for me to go also, they can travel with me.

Are the contributions from chrisgolems a (((prophesied)))? Yes.
Isaiah 61:6
>But you will be called the priests of yahweh; they will speak of you as servants of our god; you will eat the wealth of the goyim, and you will boast in their riches.
See: https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/61-6.htm

See:
ἔθνος- https://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm
>Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - H1471 גּוֹי (goy)
2/2

>>507131194
>now explain why those forces (whatever they are) consistently produce logical relations (a=a, if p then q, etc) instead of randomness.

This is the midwitness that people who refuse to accept evolution as a scientific fact. The universe works exactly as it should and has to work, it's that simple. If it worked another way, then that would be the norm of that way. Everything was set in motion some long ass time ago and we are consistently reacting to that.
The logic conundrum you're drawing up isn't a metaphysical one, it's just word we invented to explain that if I go turn left and step forward, I will probably start walking in that direction. Right?

>>507134020
>still begging the question
>What question?
for goodness sake.
"begging the question" means utilizing circular argumentation, assuming the conclusion within the premise.
https://dahlan.unimal.ac.id/files/ebooks/2007%20Logic%20for%20Dummies%20.pdf
>you're assuming cause and effect in material reality is inherently rational
>Nope. It'd based on the consequences/outcomes.
You say consequences ground rationality, but you're still assuming those consequences follow rational principles without proving why, which is circular.
>If you had that, you'd stated it.
is that necessarily the case? what if i wanted you to burn in hell.
>Rationality is often associated with the pursuit of truth, as it involves using reason and logic to form beliefs and make decisions.
this even further entrenches you into circularity.
by defining rationality as the use of reason and logic to pursue truth, you're assuming rationality is the valid framework for understanding reality's consequences and outcomes, which doesn't address the challenge of why material reality or its cause and effect structure must inherently align with rational principles and presupposes that rationality (reason and logic) governs truth and decision making without justifying why reality itself must conform to these rational processes.

>>507135208
>"begging the question"
No dummy, I asked what the question was that's being begged.

You really are a disingenuous person

Anyway, why should anyone believe your personal feelings and opinions about "God"?

I noticed you purposely avoided
>>507135208
>>If you had that, you'd stated it.
>is that necessarily the case? what if i wanted you to burn in hell.
See?
And it's because
>>507134020
>But you dont because you know how subjective it really is..

You have nothing. So you invent strawman to keep poking holes in my arguments

>>507135576
>I asked what the question was that's being begged.
"begging the question" is just another name for circular reasoning, it doesn't refer to a literal question being asked.
seriously man, this is basic basic baaaaaasic stuff, you should read through that pdf i linked, it might literally change your life.
you come off as a complete fucking retard but learning how to think logically would help you immensely, especially in contexts like these.

>>507136211
Again with the strawman


>>507135576
>why should anyone believe your personal feelings and opinions about "God"?

Watch as you'll weasel around this again

>>507136324
>Again with the strawman
look up strawman too after you look up begging the question.
i have no fucking idea what in my brief post you considered to be a strawman.
you asked me what was the question in response to an allegation of begging the question.

>>507136720
Again

>>507135576
>why should anyone believe your personal feelings and opinions about "God"?

>>507136803
who says i want them to?

>>507136898
I'm right
>>507134020
>But you dont because you know how subjective it really is..

I'm glad we agree that there's nothing objectively true about your personal feelings. Which aren't any different from a man who believes they're a woman

Both are feelings based. You just can't be honest about it

>>507137104
>being a tranny is based
this has taken a weird yet not unexpected turn
sasuga, gaytheist

>>507137210
>being a tranny is based
Finally you come out of the closet. No surprise to me. Concession Sissy really is a sissy hahaha

>>507100188 (OP)
>Atheism is a Grift.
Where do I get my money?
Don't believe in nonsense that even a child can destroy logically.

>>507137509
>Don't believe in nonsense that even a child can destroy logically.
Kek

Bump

The German Scholars (who were the best in the world at that time) discovered that Christianity was a Con Job, (A Goyim Scam) designed by Hebrew Rabbis, using Saul of Tarsus' letters as the core teaching.

Pretty much all top level national socialists deeply despised christianity, as they knew it was just a kike vehicle, but soon realized that the absolute majority of germans were way too used to it for it being removed and replaced by something better in a timely manner.

So they dropped this attempt like a hot potato.

>>507138945
hebrews are abrahamic
jesus said 'before abraham, there was i am'

Christianity is widely considered to be on the decline in the US

Over 35% of the US population is estimated to be an atheist

America is an atheist country

Christianity is a dying religion

>>507139785
that changed recently, it's growing again
>>507139835
this is false,
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/
atheists are only 5% of adults in america, and 8% of that 5% believer in a god.
>>507139887
the supreme court ruled in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) that america is a "Christian Nation"
>>507139989
atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the world with the lowest fertility rate.

>>507140154
>the supreme court ruled in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) that america is a "Christian Nation"
This isn't true lol

And atheism isn't a religion

>>507100188 (OP)
Which one of these does your mother look like when you look at her from the side of her head

>>507139835
That's a guy

>>507140772
yeah it is.
yeah it is.
atheism has its own churches, their own debaptizism ceremonies featuring hair driers, their own religious monuments in front of state and federal courthouses detailing statements of beliefs, their own symbols, their own literature, their own leaders, etc.
kaufman v mccaughtry (2005) ruled that atheism was a religion as well, as it "represents a comprehensive worldview that addresses fundamental questions about existence, morality, and human purpose."

>>507141180
>yeah it is.
>yeah it is.
Nope. You already know this though

>>507141180
>kaufman v mccaughtry (2005) ruled that atheism was a religion as well
Based on the fact it gets the same constitutional protection as religion.

Here you are being disingenuous again.

You make more atheist on this board than I ever could lol

>>507141417
>Nope. You already know this though
tranny pretending to read my mind again.
>Based on the fact it gets the same constitutional protection as religion.
because it is one by every definition of the term despite its dogma that "atheism is not a religion, it is merely a lack of belief, to say it is a religion is like saying bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. ensure you repeat this mantra to all unbelievers, hail science!"

>>507140817
Nice try

She's a real life atheist, just like at least 25% of the US population

>>507141638
>tranny
That's you remember?
>>507137210
>>being a tranny is based
Kek
>>507141638
>because it is one by every definition of the term
Nope

>>507141885
>That's you remember?
this shit's gonna follow you around forever since you're a namefag.

>>507100188 (OP)
>Atheism is a Grift.
Science is a religion. Scientific research depends entirely for on money and not the spirit of discovery. Trust the science bro. There is no conspiracy or hidden agendas, believe me. You are nuts.

>>507142151
What's gonna follow me around bud?

Atheists religious mumbo jumbo to explain things we don’t understand is hilariously whack. Then they mix in sci fi & media.

>>507142409
i see now, i dyslexia'd "both are feelings based" into "both feelings are based"
my apologies, you're not a tranny but you're still a faggot.

>>507142590
Hey man we all make mistakes. You more so than most but at least you're learning

>>507100188 (OP)
Bottom line: This planet is Bozrah, not Earth. Read this post...

https://x.com/elitefeat/status/1799553063390154856
============================
This planet is not Earth. It is Bozrah.

Earth is another planet about 75,000 light years from here, whereas this planet is merely an impostor planet that calls itself "Earth." Big difference. And trust me, I know how to count to 10 seconds, ACCURATELY. What used to be 10.00 seconds (for me) is now a whopping 15.00 seconds! If you don't believe me, see Matthew 24:22 and Revelation 8:12. For the natives, though, the speed of time here has always been the same.

If you are a Bozrah native, you are in serious trouble. The people of this planet must acknowledge that Bozrah is not Earth and that Jesus is coming to destroy it. Otherwise, don't expect God to save you.
============================

>>507100328
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the hidden messages in the bible are so complicated and consistent across the various books that they couldn't have been written by humans.

Emanuel Swedenborg gives a detailed explanation of the bible verse by verse and uses the rest of the bible to prove the symbolism he asserts. The bible doesn't mean what you think it means. All the people, places, battles, inanimate objects such as stone, fire, gold, iron, silver, clothing etc all mean something and he explains them all using the bible itself as a reference.

Start here, a free e-book of Swedenborg's work, volume 1:
https://swedenborg.com/product/secrets-of-heaven-volume-1-portable-nce/
All the other books are free on this site as well.

>>507143566
The accuracy of Bible codes is widely disputed, with most scholars and experts considering them to be statistically insignificant or entirely fabricated

>>507100188 (OP)
>Atheism is a Grift
Finally someone said it.
All those atheists fucks are phony.

>>507144134
>Bible codes
Yes, I'm aware of those, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

>>507144604
Whats the difference?

>>507100188 (OP)
Everything the left has championed is evil. We live in dark times. It is our duty to oppose them.

>>507145578
Agreed

>>507145508
What I'm talking about isn't a cipher.

>>507146299
Let's see one of these "messages"

>>507146386
It's not so simple that I could explain a story in a post. Here's a couple videos that give a brief overview, but even they leave out a lot of detail.

Noah's flood
www.youtube.com/watch?v=B54Ofpf26Ek

Psychology of Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQxCplkoPIg