>>17857029
OP btfo

also could your creator have made a world where child r*pe didn't exist? well why didn't he?

why do you worship p*do voyeur

if there is a god

it simply cannot be the abrahamic one

>>509109602
>2000 years later christjews still in shambles over a basic logic experiment

I've now moved on from Epicurean/Atomist metaphysics, which were umm hit and miss, onto Epicurean ethics. Here are some interesting and/or fun bits I've come across:

So Epicurus, by his belief system at least, was a complete fucking freak. He essentially rejected everything that was consensus and social norm for the Greeks at the time and he was catching strays from philosophers of every side of the aisle for it. But just as a guy he was apparently such fun to hang out with and he had so many friends from all over Greece that even people that disagreed with him talked him up. This allowed him to avoid legal trouble or outright closure of his school.

Before getting into this I knew the Epicureans were kinda like ancient atheists/kinda not but functionally the same. Having actually read this stuff my opinion fluctuated wildly, I started off from "they've gotta be", went into "ok they're definitely not" and ended up as "maybe they actually are?". They straight up say multiple times "yes the gods exists even if they are not what you think they are" but then they also say
>The gods are "contemplated by reason".
and the one that flipped me
>[...]and dreams are true, for they cause motion in minds, and what does not exist does not move anything.
So to these guys dreams are real and exist, because they cause "motion in minds". The same definition seems to fit very neatly into their views on divinity, the gods are as real as dreams are to them, so it could be that they see them as some sort of mental projections. We will never know for sure because their more detailed doctrinal texts where this stuff is explained were lost.

Now here's Epicurus take on the sense-perception vs reason debate that was so prevalent in Greece:
>It is indeed ludicrous to imply that sense-perceptions can be refuted by reason, for all reasoning depends upon the sense-perceptions to form itself.
Plato absolutely BTFO beyond recovery.

1/3

Logically

The "creator" can only be a deranged asshole or some kind of impersonal force.

Pretend god is benevolent considering the state of his creation is just indefensible