Why the fuck did he do it?

McRib was back

>Holy shit, everything is fucked down there, better go up here

>>81845511
They lived in freshwater you retards

i dont know but just because this fucker walked on land now i gotta pay rent and work a fucking job that makes me want to slit my wrists every day

fuck that fish motherfucker
bad move overall

I am seething good job OP

>>81845434 (OP)
Look at his dumbass face. Of course he'd do it.

>>81845434 (OP)
>this is what atheists actually believe

>climbs on land
>dooms you to wageslave life
>bills are do better pay up sucker

>>81845434 (OP)
Hate this smug faggot

>>81845434 (OP)
Flashback to when Bender stomped the first fish on land

He's a real one

>>81845434 (OP)
>atheistfags believe a salamander-dildo is their ancient grandfather yet still make fun of christfags

>>81846375
christfags worship a jew

>>81846458
and atheistfags worship trannies

https://socgen.ucla.edu/2015/03/01/challenging-gender-identity-biologists-say-gender-expands-across-a-spectrum-rather-than-simply-boy-and-girl/

>>81846375
i will keep doing that

Atheism is a religion at this point

Like Islam and Judaism, a bad one, but a religion

>>81846563
atheism and creator-subscribing is one thing
atheism and "this specific religion is true though" is beyond retarded. surreal levels of retarded
like i can barely believe people believe it

>>81845447
kek
based mcdolan shill

>>81846704
the fact that they have current levels of reflective consciousness surrounded by all this tech and knowledge while at the same time believing they can argue legitimately from that position almost breaks my mind
it's so much weirder than most realize or appreciate

>>81846512
sure anon. it'll stick at some point.

>>81846704
>atheism and "this specific religion is true though" is beyond retarded.
whats your argument that a man named Jesus who claimed to be God in the flesh didn't raise himself from the dead?

>>81846790
NTA but watch him be like "the burden of proof is on the theist". You can never prove that it didn't happen so alot of atheistniggers feels the need to put themselves in an unattackable position like that.

>>81847760
i'm not an atheist
try to imagine you knew nothing
then suddenly you know all religions
do you think a specific subgenre of a specific one would just stand out as obviously the truth?
i'm not denying that everything in the current edition desert manual you subscribe to happened, just that there is no particular reason to believe that it did
unless you grew up in a time and society where said religion was coincidentally also the dominant one. particularly if you parents believe it too

>>81847760
>>81847980
so i'm not asking you to actually prove anything, but you can't even tell me why it makes more sense to believe x than anything else without sounding like a regard. anything you say is said from within the thing itself like "bro it's in the bible" "then how did he rise from the dead?" etc

>>81845434 (OP)
funny fishe does whatevr he pleases

>>81846563
>the lack of a religion is also a religion
So people who don't play football are also football players? How retarded are the religious exactly?

>Fossil records bad!
>Doomsday Rabbis ranting gibberish good!

>>81845434 (OP)
he is watching us suffer and laughing

>>81845434 (OP)
GOD THIS FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because of this fucker I have to deal with hiccups
what a fucking arsehole

>>81847760
>You can never prove that it didn't happen so alot of atheistniggers feels the need to put themselves in an unattackable position like that.
same with the salamander-dildo being out ancient godfather idiot
prove it actually happened
you have just as much evidence as Jesus rising from the dead

>>81845434 (OP)
He was not the only one.

>>81847999
>but you can't even tell me why it makes more sense to believe x than anything else without sounding like a regard.
Laws of logic, morality, and science are immaterial, unchanging, and universal.
A material universe can't produce those things.
They require an eternal, immaterial, personal mind - aka God.
Not just any god qualifies.
The god must be eternal (logic doesn't change), rational (morality isn't arbitrary), and personal (we're moral agents).
>Hinduism has many gods, often contradictory, no grounding for logic.
>Islam's Allah is pure will - not necessarily bound to logic or consistent morality.
>Deism gives you a god who doesn't reveal anything - useless for grounding truth.
Only Christianity says God is eternal, rational, personal, and has revealed Himself clearly.

Without Christianity, you can't justify why logic, morality, or science work at all.
If you argue using logic, you're already borrowing from Christianity.

>>81845434 (OP)
>makes your life a miserable wagie hellhole
Nothing personal, kid

>>81850324
1. Logic, morality and science aren't ''things'', theyre principles we use to describe the reality we have, which we know very little about
2. Metaphysical assumption
3. Metaphysical assumption
4. Metaphysical assumption + special exception fallacy
5. Many ''gods'' don't disprove the religion
6. A truly omnipotent ''god'' being bound to logic would make less sense than it being so
7. ''god'' not revealing anything proves or disproves nothing
8. The religion i made in my head 5 minutes ago follows the same principles you've laid out here, ergo it's the truth
9. fallacious assumption

>>81850884
>1. Logic, morality and science aren't "things", they're principles we use to describe the reality we have, which we know very little about
If they're just human principles, then they're subjective. But we treat logic as universally true. If all humans vanished, "A = A" would still be true.

>2. Metaphysical assumption
Yes, like assuming logic exists, or that your thoughts correspond to reality. Everyone starts with metaphysics. The question is: which worldview makes sense of it?

>3. Metaphysical assumption
Same answer, it's not a problem unless your worldview can't account for its own assumptions. Christianity can. Can yours?

>4. Metaphysical assumption + special exception fallacy
Pointing out necessary attributes for a coherent God isn't special pleading. It's defining what's logically required to ground logic, morality, and reason.

>5. Many "gods" don't disprove the religion
Sure, but they contradict each other. They can't all be true. Most don't claim to ground logic or morality consistently. Christianity does.

>6. A truly omnipotent "god" being bound to logic would make less sense than it being so
So you're saying contradictions could be true? If God isn't bound by logic, then "God exists and doesn't exist" is valid... and nothing means anything.

>7. "god" not revealing anything proves or disproves nothing
It doesn't prove or disprove, but it leaves you with no knowledge or grounding. If a god exists but never reveals truth, you're left in total guesswork.

>8. The religion I made in my head 5 minutes ago follows the same principles you've laid out here, ergo it's the truth
Cool, then prove your made-up god grounds logic, morality, and science coherently. You can't. Christianity already does.

>9. Fallacious assumption
Just saying "fallacy" doesn't make it so. Show the actual fallacy and defend an alternative that explains the preconditions of intelligibility.

>>81846375
now lets see evidence for Christ and God

>>81851342
see
>>81850324

more interesting than salamander godfathers

>>81850324
>>81851093
What do these pictures try to imply? That God is a woman?

>>81851093
1. False dichotomy: It assumes that if something is conceptual, it's automatically subjective or arbitrary
2. Assumes your metaphysical view is the right one, even so, metaphysics can be entirely avoided, read Carnap
3. Begging the question
4. it very much is, also define ''god''
5. Multiple ''gods'' which arent consistent still doesnt debunk anything
6. In the case of true omnipotence yes, which is why omnipotence is a logically incoherent concept entirely
7. And?
8. My god is the most powerful thing possible and created everything and all logic and all science, also morality isn't truth apt
9. it's fallacious on the grounds working down from everything i categorically debunked

>>81850324
>Laws of morality are immaterial, unchanging, and universal.
They are not.

Why do stupid christfaggot LARPers ruin every thread? No one on this website is actually Christian so why do people pretend? Are they insane or are they paid to do it? If so, by who?

>>81851789
>1. False dichotomy: It assumes that if something is conceptual, it's automatically subjective or arbitrary
if logic only exists in minds, it dies when minds do. calling it "conceptual" doesn't solve that. either logic is universal or it's brain fog.
>2. Assumes your metaphysical view is the right one, even so, metaphysics can be entirely avoided, read Carnap
carnap used logic while claiming to avoid metaphysics. that's a metaphysical move. you can't escape it, you're just sneaking it in.
>3. Begging the question
not assuming god. i'm asking how you justify logic, morality, or science *without* something transcendent. show your grounding.
>4. it very much is, also define ''god''
god = eternal, immaterial, rational source of all logic, order, and moral law. not thor, not zeus, not a sky dad.
>5. Multiple ''gods'' which arent consistent still doesnt debunk anything
sure, but if they contradict each other, they can't all be true. most don't even try to ground logic or morality.
>6. In the case of true omnipotence yes, which is why omnipotence is a logically incoherent concept entirely
then you're admitting logic is above god. congrats, you're back to needing logic to exist eternally, which materialism can't explain.
>7. And?
and it means your god is useless for knowing truth. no revelation = no foundation = cope harder.
>8. My god is the most powerful thing possible and created everything and all logic and all science, also morality isn't truth apt
k, now justify that god and show it accounts for reason. otherwise you're just riffing off the christian framework you mock.
>9. it's fallacious on the grounds working down from everything i categorically debunked
you didn't debunk anything. you asserted stuff without proof and relied on logic the whole time while denying its grounding.

>>81851827
>They are not.
so was abusing kids just "morally fine" in some cultures? if morality changes, then nothing is truly wrong, just opinion.
but no one actually believes that.

>>81851781
>That God is a woman?
who said these were women transphobe?

>>81850324
>Only Christianity says God is eternal, rational, personal, and has revealed Himself clearly.
how do you know?

>>81850324
>A material universe can't produce those things.
why not? why can't god make them?

>>81852023
if you obsess too much over matter you get stupid parmesianism (which makes no sense from a ground-level perspective) and if you admit you can combine different types of matter you just go back to needing mind

>>81852013
>how do you know?
only Christianity claims God is eternal, rational, personal, and revealed in history
no other religion covers all that without contradiction
the claims are testable, not just mystical

>>81852023
>why not? why can't god make them?
because if they're made, they can change
logic and morality are eternal, they flow from God's nature, not something he invents
matter can't ground what's immaterial and unchanging

>>81846784
>uses science to "disprove" god
>n-no not that science though!!!

>>81852092
>because if they're made, they can change
that isn't Meillasoux's argument

>>81851955
Nature doesn't care about morality at all.
A cat doesn't care if it brutally kills a mice, a cuckoo bird doesn't care that it cucks other species etc. The only reason morality exists in humans and some animal species is that it is beneficial for their group survival.
Morality therefore isn't immaterial because without certain genetics you can't even consider morality at all (this includes some human psychopaths and some people with unfortunate brain damage)
Morality isn't unchanging because what we consider moral changes with evolution and for humans, culture.
And it certainly isn't universal because most animals on earth don't care. Even advanced civilizations often have different sets of morality.

>>81852092
>no other religion covers all that without contradiction
so you're saying the truth must be in one of the few religions already here? not any future religion for example? you are describing something very foundational in your religion, i wonder why you insist that it is christian, or must be christian only

>>81852131
>that isn't Meillasoux's argument
doesn't have to be, i'm not quoting him

>>81852183
nature isn't the standard for morality, it's amoral by definition. animal behavior isn't a guide for what's right or wrong. survival benefit doesn't explain why some acts feel objectively wrong even when they help a group. "useful" isn't the same as "good."
>some people can't perceive morality
that doesn't mean it isn't real. blindness doesn't disprove light.
moral beliefs can change, but that doesn't mean morality itself changes.
people once thought slavery was fine... doesn't make it moral. cultural disagreement doesn't make morality subjective.
people disagree on math too, but that doesn't mean 2+2=5.

>>81852184
truth isn't about waiting for future religions, we judge what's here now.
christianity uniquely grounds logic, morality, and meaning without contradiction.
if something else did it better, fine. but nothing has.

>>81845434 (OP)
probably smart enough to be curious

>>81852330
>if something else did it better, fine. but nothing has.
doing it better is analogous to saying that one piece of music describes silence better imo
what if you can't see what does it better because you're busy seeing something that does it worse?

>>81852330
>nature isn't the standard for morality
>animal behavior isn't a guide for what's right or wrong.
It would be if what you said is the truth, but clearly morality isn't universal at all.

>survival benefit doesn't explain why some acts feel objectively wrong even when they help a group.
Empathy evolved because of that. Like anything in nature, the feeling of empathy isn't a perfect replicate in each person so what feels wrong for one person can feel right for another one.

>that doesn't mean it isn't real. blindness doesn't disprove light.
If no people with eyesight were alive then light would still exist.
If no animals with morality were alive then morality wouldn't exist.
>people once thought slavery was fine... doesn't make it moral.
That's true for our modern, first world sensibilities. In the future people will look back and criticize us too.

>cultural disagreement doesn't make morality subjective.
Morality only exists as subjective. The universe itself doesn't care for it. Unlike your math example there's nothing objective about it.

christcucks worship a jew lmao

>>81852474
>morality isn't universal
neither is language, doesn't mean it's not real
>empathy evolved, it's just feelings
so did logic. doesn't make truth subjective
>if no moral beings existed, morality wouldn't exist
cool, same with math. still objective once discovered
>morality only exists as subjective
then you can't say genocide is wrong.. just "not your vibe"?

>>81852435
>what if you can't see what does it better because you're busy seeing something that does it worse?
what if you're so used to noise you think it's music?
familiarity isn't proof of quality

>>81852524
>christcucks worship a jew lmao
and you worship science, the same one that says men can get pregnant

>>81852620
>neither is language
Language is also subjective and changes with time and evolution so concession taken.
>so did logic. doesn't make truth subjective
Logic evolved but it doesn't dictate the truth of the universe.
>cool, same with math. still objective once discovered
Math was always objective even before it was discovered. You're kind of breaking your own arguments here.
1+1=2 is true even in a dead universe.
>then you can't say genocide is wrong.. just "not your vibe"?
Genocide happens all the time in nature. Some people try to rationalize it with their own set of morals, some still do that even nowadays. I'm almost a pacifist so if you ask me personally it's not alright.

>>81852620
isn't all music noise though?
you can argue that your music is more refined and representative of the silence it came out but it's still not itself silence

>>81852778
or is it? either way holding any one position is by definition limiting

>>81845434 (OP)

Probably for foidTaalik.

>>81846375
Show me fossil evidence of a great worldwide flood that can't be explained using lag deposits

>>81852930
>Show me fossil evidence of a great worldwide flood that can't be explained using lag deposits
you're assuming the uniformitarian view is the only valid one
marine fossils on mountains, massive mixed graveyards, and continent-wide layers fit flood models too
saying "lag deposits" doesn't explain everything, it's just your framework's label
same data, different worldview

>>81852119
>>uses science to "disprove" god
i didn't do such a thing :-)

i do believe someone is up there that, sure, i will call "God".