Christmas MASS in the Anglican Church was full of curries

[AverageMoroccan]

Klopt, ik vind de manier van muzzies ook écht niks aan. Bangmakerij heeft niks met de Islam te maken, ze zijn net zo verkeerd bezig als de islamofoben die ons religie zwart maken. Zij geven hun juist ammunitie als je het objectief bekijkt. Ik werd atheïstisch vanwege mijn levensstijl. Ik moest vanaf de basisschool al elke dag naar de moskee toe en toen ik naar de middelbare ging, kreeg ik de keus om verder te blijven gaan naar de moskee of om niet meer te gaan. Ik koos meteen om niet meer te gaan omdat het mijn vrijheid had afgepakt, ik kreeg nauwelijks tijd voor mijzelf. Vanaf groep 3 tot en met groep 8 moest was ik 3 uur ‘s middags uit, moest ik om 4 uur ‘s middags in de moskee zijn tot en met half 6 ‘s avonds, en dan was ik een uur of 6 uur thuis. En dan weer rond 8 uur mijn bed weer in. En dan 8 uur ‘s ochtends weer op. Dit was mijn routine, dus was meteen blij dat ik ervan af was. Geeft niks, je zinsopbouw is prima. En tenminste eet je alleen maar gelatine. Ik vind persoonlijk dat het onbelangrijk is dat een klein deel verboden is, want meeste gedeelte is wel toegestaan. Ik persoonlijk zou niet moeilijk doen om gelatine. Maar ik vermijd het wel, omdat ik graag met anderen wil delen en ik ga dan geen gelatine producten delen met hen.

Idd, bangmakerij en verplichting is een reden waarom veel niet-moslims de Islam haten.
Jaman ik had ook een kut jeugd als ik eerlijk moet zijn, ik had bijna geen vrienden en moest tijdens de weekends 2u per dag de koran lezen maar ik werd er tenminste voor beloond/betaald. Maar elke dag naar de moskee moeten gaan en ook nog is alleen is wel heel stom, ik snap wel waarom je de Islam had verlaten. En het is wel heel respectvol van jou dat je meestal snoep haalt zonder gelatine omdat je om andere mensen geeft.

 

[Gengar]

Idd, bangmakerij en verplichting is een reden waarom veel niet-moslims de Islam haten.
Jaman ik had ook een kut jeugd als ik eerlijk moet zijn, ik had bijna geen vrienden en moest tijdens de weekends 2u per dag de koran lezen maar ik werd er tenminste voor beloond/betaald. Maar elke dag naar de moskee moeten gaan en ook nog is alleen is wel heel stom, ik snap wel waarom je de Islam had verlaten. En het is wel heel respectvol van jou dat je meestal snoep haalt zonder gelatine omdat je om andere mensen geeft.

Ik denk dat een andere belangrijk reden waarom islamofoben de islam haten is omdat de islam ons beveelt om zowel mannen als vrouwen te moeten bedekken. Het zijn meestal goorlappen die doen alsof ze ineens feministisch zijn, terwijl ze in de realiteit eigenlijk ook willen geilen op islamitische vrouwen. Wel fijn dat je tenminste beloond werd, bij ons op de moskee was dat niet. Was regelmatig kindermishandeling daar, die “geleerde” gaf altijd klappen aan kinderen als ze iets verkeerd uitspraken terwijl zijn kind mocht rennen door de moskee terwijl wij meteen gestraft zouden worden als we dat deden.

 

[AverageMoroccan]

Ik denk dat een andere belangrijk reden waarom islamofoben de islam haten is omdat de islam ons beveelt om zowel mannen als vrouwen te moeten bedekken. Het zijn meestal goorlappen die doen alsof ze ineens feministisch zijn, terwijl ze in de realiteit eigenlijk ook willen geilen op islamitische vrouwen. Wel fijn dat je tenminste beloond werd, bij ons op de moskee was dat niet. Was regelmatig kindermishandeling daar, die “geleerde” gaf altijd klappen aan kinderen als ze iets verkeerd uitspraken terwijl zijn kind mocht rennen door de moskee terwijl wij meteen gestraft zouden worden als we dat deden.

Hahah kheb der nog nooit zo over nagedacht maar dat kan idd een reden zijn. Ik merk ook op dat het meestal oude witte mannen zijn die de Islam haten en de hijaab willen afschaffen. Ik ging vroeger ook naar de moskee en ik denk dat leerkrachten daar gingen lesgeven om kinderen te mishandelen ipv ze iets bij te leren. Een keertje sloeg een docente uit het niets met een metalen lat op de vingers van mijn vriend. En wat is dat voor een schijnheilige geleerde zeg, andere kinderen slaan terwijl je eigen kind mag doen wat ie wilt

 

[Gengar]

Hahah kheb der nog nooit zo over nagedacht maar dat kan idd een reden zijn. Ik merk ook op dat het meestal oude witte mannen zijn die de Islam haten en de hijaab willen afschaffen. Ik ging vroeger ook naar de moskee en ik denk dat leerkrachten daar gingen lesgeven om kinderen te mishandelen ipv ze iets bij te leren. Een keertje sloeg een docente uit het niets met een metalen lat op de vingers van mijn vriend. En wat is dat voor een schijnheilige geleerde zeg, andere kinderen slaan terwijl je eigen kind mag doen wat ie wilt

Haha het is werkelijk zo. Ik weet nog goed dat ik vaak commentaar las van "Jullie genieten van onze vrouwen, dus wij mogen ook van jullie vrouwen genieten!" Dat is de gedachtegoed die ze hebben. Precies, die leerkrachten praktiseren hun geloof niet goed en het geeft een verkeerd beeld. Als wij al ontevreden zijn met hen, laat staan hoe die ongelovigen er tegen aan kijken.

 

[AverageMoroccan]

Haha het is werkelijk zo. Ik weet nog goed dat ik vaak commentaar las van "Jullie genieten van onze vrouwen, dus wij mogen ook van jullie vrouwen genieten!" Dat is de gedachtegoed die ze hebben. Precies, die leerkrachten praktiseren hun geloof niet goed en het geeft een verkeerd beeld. Als wij al ontevreden zijn met hen, laat staan hoe die ongelovigen er tegen aan kijken.

Eerlijk gezegd ik neem ze niet kwalijk, hun dochters/vrouwen worden geneukt door mootje van de buurt terwijl onze vrouwen van hoofd tot teen bedekt zijn, maar jah dat is hun eigen probleem. Jaman die leerkrachten zijn echt shit, ik kende meer surahs dan de "geleerden" zelf. Mijn ouders betaalden zeer veel maar uiteindelijk heb ik helemaal niks bijgeleerd en alleen maar slaag ontvangen en scheldwoorden te horen te krijgen. Als ik zelf niet-moslim was dan zou ik wss ook de islam haten omdat de manier waarop de Islam wordt uitgebeeld heel negatief en kwaadaardig is terwijl het een vredevolle religie is.

 

[shia.jihadist]

I seen Muslims on Reddit say the Ibaadi are Taqiya utilising Shiah’s who use it to not be killed by other Sunnis


And I have spoken to many Shiah’s who deny cursing the prophets companions @shia.jihadist can confirm but I get your points

Taqiyya is part of every sect of Islam but most sunnis are too ignorant to realise it's in their own books. It's even mentioned in the Quran let alone the Hadith.

So why arent you a Shia then if you agree with them?

Makes no sense to be a Sunni at that point

Holy cage nigga you realise there's a bigger difference between sunnis and shias than over aishas age

Because they also have views that I do not agree with. They curse the companions of the prophet, and some even go as far as to say Ali was supposed to be the last prophet (yes, those are Alawites but for the sake of this discussion, I’m calling them Shia). I have nothing against Shias or Sunnis, I would say if there’s a sect I mostly agree with, it would be Ibadi Islam. But it’s an under-studied sects though from what I have read about it, I think that one makes the most sense.

Btw Alawites believe Imam Ali is God in a trinity with Prophet Muhammad and Salman Al Farsi

 

[aber]

Roman Catholics are part of the problem you idiots created Protestants due to you lot breaking away from the Orthodox Church and doing stupid heresies. When I say “western” I’m also including Roman Catholic nations which have the same issues as Protestants, maybe not to the same degree but it’s 100% there for sure, western Christianity is Roman Catholic and Protestantism and your nations are now GAYtheist in 2024 it’s over in the west only Americans are on avg Christian and they are the regarded brainlet evangelical kinds

I agree with you on most of this thread but what the fuck are you saying here? Roman Catholics did not break off from the Orthodox Church. It is the other way around, the schismatics, those who broke off were orthodox.

 

[aber]

accurate depiction of it, fundamentally it is still some horseshit written by old men in the middle east almost a century after the events happened.

there's also constant references in it to books that no longer exist and no one has read.

no one converted by choice, their religious monuments were destroyed and they were forcefully converted.

you are ignorant on european history,


direct replicable physical evidence of god is required to assume it exists, you haven't provided this, therefore he doesn't and your claim doesn't have to be considered.

these are derivative claims based on a concept you've provided no evidence for.

FIRST, the existence of god itself must be proven before any further claims can be made, you've failed to do so, and so has every single other person on the planet ever.



not a single part of south europe was considered white until 1980 for obvious reasons for they are brown.

the bible is an abomination of contradictions, no actual sane person can read this shit without figuring out it was written by old men in the desert.

Are you asking for replicable PHYSICAL evidence specifically for a God that is outside of all space and time? Do you not see the oxymoron? What you’re asking for is contradictory in and of itself.

There will be no physical evidence of a non physical being. And I’m speaking as a theist.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I agree with you on most of this thread but what the fuck are you saying here? Roman Catholics did not break off from the Orthodox Church. It is the other way around, the schismatics, those who broke off were orthodox.

My church is older than yours read a history book. Your Roman church made changes and then broke away we never left you lot you lot left us. You guys used to be orthodox as well but became papist idiots and left us because we refused to add the silly papal changes you lot were adding such as papal infallibility and Filioque to name 2. Your church today has continued its cringe trend of adding and removing adding and removing key doctrines from the church and all it has done is add to my. Hey he’s legitimacy whilst decreasing yours which I’m grateful for

Read into church history and you’ll find the Easter Orthodox Church hasn’t changed anything since the 1st century but your church has. We orthodox are the true Roman church we are the religion of the Byzantine eastern Roman Empire which spoke Greek and Latin and are their successors whilst the “Roman Catholics” are Frank and Germanic Conquers who leaped as “Roman” for political reasons

There’s a reason why even Islam tried to copy orthodoxy

Taqiyya is part of every sect of Islam but most sunnis are too ignorant to realise it's in their own books. It's even mentioned in the Quran let alone the Hadith.


Holy cage nigga you realise there's a bigger difference between sunnis and shias than over aishas age


Btw Alawites believe Imam Ali is God in a trinity with Prophet Muhammad and Salman Al Farsi

Wait what? Alawites believe Mohammed is “god” what? What? But Mohammed to his credit never claimed divinity he openly says he’s not god

 

[aber]

My church is older than yours read a history book. Your Roman church made changes and then broke away we never left you lot you lot left us. You guys used to be orthodox as well but became papist idiots and left us because we refused to add the silly papal changes you lot were adding such as papal infallibility and Filioque to name 2. Your church today has continued its cringe trend of adding and removing adding and removing key doctrines from the church and all it has done is add to my. Hey he’s legitimacy whilst decreasing yours which I’m grateful for

Read into church history and you’ll find the Easter Orthodox Church hasn’t changed anything since the 1st century but your church has. We orthodox are the true Roman church we are the religion of the Byzantine eastern Roman Empire which spoke Greek and Latin and are their successors whilst the “Roman Catholics” are Frank and Germanic Conquers who leaped as “Roman” for political reasons

There’s a reason why even Islam tried to copy orthodoxy


Wait what? Alawites believe Mohammed is “god” what? What? But Mohammed to his credit never claimed divinity he openly says he’s not god

Said changes were valid and not coinciding with predetermined dogma of the church. Adding the “and the son” to the nicene creed was only invalid to orthodoxy because there was no ecumenical council preceding that change. Regardless of any council that doctrine is true.

Also the lack of your pope, or a head of the church as it descends from Peter is just absolutely lacking in orthodoxy. You cannot wholeheartedly say that the the Eastern Orthodox Church hasn’t changed anything.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Said changes were valid and not coinciding with predetermined dogma of the church. Adding the “and the son” to the nicene creed was only invalid to orthodoxy because there was no ecumenical council preceding that change. Regardless of any council that doctrine is true.

Also the lack of your pope, or a head of the church as it descends from Peter is just absolutely lacking in orthodoxy. You cannot wholeheartedly say that the the Eastern Orthodox Church hasn’t changed anything.

We vowed in the 6th council TO ADD NO MORE CHANGES TO THE CREED AND RC ADDED ANOTHER CHANGE THIS ALONE THROWS YOUR CHURCH OUT FROM BEING THE ORIGINAL CHRUCH. Your now on the same level as Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians which your church now accepts in the 3rd council

Yes your cringe Chruch now accepts legitimate heretics which have been anathematised for over 1.8k years as part of the Roman Chruch now despite them denying Christ’s one person’s. I mean what won’t you Roman ecumenical church if satan accept?

How can you guys go from hating on the nestorians to now saying “The council of Ephesus was misunderstood and in reality nestorius was a Christian”

FUCKING REDICULOUS. And you guys cry when the Eastern Orthodox say your sacraments are Invalid, ofc they are when you allow outright heresies into your church like church if the east and Assyrian Chruch.



Early Councils Did Not Recognize Roman Supremacy

The ecumenical councils of the early Church operated on a basis of mutual agreement among bishops, with no indication that the Bishop of Rome had infallible authority:

• The Council of Nicaea (325
Presided over by Emperor Constantine, not the Bishop of Rome.

The council’s canons affirm the primacy of the major sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and later Constantinople), but this primacy is understood as a matter of honor, not jurisdictional supremacy.

Canon 6 explicitly states that the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over his region, just as the Bishop of Rome has over his, reflecting a regional, not universal, model of governance.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD):

Canon 28 granted the Patriarch of Constantinople equal privileges to Rome, “because it is the new Rome.” This canon was resisted by Rome but was accepted by the Eastern bishops, indicating that the idea of Roman supremacy was not universally accepted.

And INB4 MUH PETERS CEEE

Scripture Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

While Roman Catholicism cites Matthew 16:18–19 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”) as evidence for papal primacy, the early Church Fathers interpreted this passage in various ways:

• Augustine of Hippo:
Interpreted the “rock” as Christ or Peter’s confession of faith, not Peter himself.
“The rock was Christ, upon which foundation Peter himself also was built.” (Retractationes, Book 1, Chapter 21).


• Cyprian of Carthage:
Saw all bishops as successors of Peter, not just the Bishop of Rome.



AND NAIL IN THE COFFIN
Key Statement by Pope Gregory I

In a letter to John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had adopted the title “Ecumenical (Universal) Patriarch,” Pope Gregory condemned the use of such a title:
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires to be so called, is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist.”
(Epistles, Book VII, Letter 33).

DO YOUR CHURCH HAS DEFECTED, CHANGED ADDED STUPID NEW FALSE DOCTRINES GONE AGAISNT THE COUNCILS AND NOW IS REINTERPRETING THE COUNCILS TO ALLOW NESTORIANS INTO RC FOR ECCUMENISM.

Oh and btw the EASTERN orthodox Alexandrian patriarchate is also a Cee of Peter yes so you can’t use this CEE OF PETERRRRRR shit on us because we already have our own Petrian Cee

 

[Orc]

Are you asking for replicable PHYSICAL evidence specifically for a God that is outside of all space and time? Do you not see the oxymoron? What you’re asking for is contradictory in and of itself.

There will be no physical evidence of a non physical being. And I’m speaking as a theist.

there is no evidence for non physical beings.

and there is no evidence there is anything outside of space and time.

if you cannot provide evidence of either, then the claim doesn't need to be considered, everything that follows up from it also doesn't need to be considered.

atheists don't exist, because that gives merit to a claim that has none.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

there is no evidence for non physical beings.

and there is no evidence there is anything outside of space and time.

if you cannot provide evidence of either, then the claim doesn't need to be considered, everything that follows up from it also doesn't need to be considered.

atheists don't exist, because that gives merit to a claim that has none.

Logic and Abstract Entities: The existence of non-physical entities such as numbers, logic, and moral truths is self-evident. These are immaterial realities that govern our thinking and reasoning but cannot be reduced to physical processes or material phenomena.


• Example: The laws of logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction) are not physical objects; they are abstract, immaterial, and universal.


• Question: If non-physical beings do not exist, how do you account for abstract concepts like logic, mathematics, or consciousness?


• Consciousness: that human consciousness and intentionality (the ability to think “about” things) are immaterial and cannot be fully explained through physical processes.





2. No Evidence for Anything Outside of Space and Time
I challenge the notion that everything must exist within space and time:


• The Cause of the Universe: If the universe had a beginning, as modern cosmology suggests (e.g., the Big Bang), its cause must transcend space and time because space and time came into existence with the universe.


• Question: What caused the universe? If it wasn’t something outside of space and time, how does the atheist explain its origin?


• Logical Necessity: Something must exist outside of space and time to account for the contingency of the universe. Without a necessary, eternal, and transcendent cause, there would be no sufficient explanation for the universe’s existence.





3. Burden of Proof and Worldview Critique


As I have pointed out countless out that atheism, too, has assumptions and a burden of proof:

• Circular Reasoning: The claim “there is no evidence for X, so X doesn’t exist” assumes the very materialist framework it needs to prove. By dismissing evidence for the immaterial outright, you beg the question against other worldviews.

• Example: By denying the possibility of immaterial reality, the atheist conveniently avoids engaging with the evidence for it (e.g., logical absolutes, moral truths).


• Worldview Consistency: The materialist worldview fails to account for the very tools it uses to argue (e.g., logic, reason, and morality). These tools are non-physical and transcend space and time, meaning they cannot be grounded in a purely materialist framework. So stop saying pedophelia is bad for hen you cannot make an account for it
@LiL 369



TLDR:
1. Denying non-physical beings is a rejection of logic, abstract entities, and consciousness.


2. Denying anything outside space and time fails to account for the universe’s origin and existence.


3. Atheism cannot provide a consistent foundation for its claims without borrowing from theistic assumptions.

 

[Orc]

Logic and Abstract Entities: The existence of non-physical entities such as numbers, logic, and moral truths is self-evident.

if it's self evidence there should be evidence for it, there is zero.

These are immaterial realities that govern our thinking and reasoning but cannot be reduced to physical processes or material phenomena.


• Example: The laws of logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction) are not physical objects; they are abstract, immaterial, and universal.


• Question: If non-physical beings do not exist, how do you account for abstract concepts like logic, mathematics, or consciousness?


• Consciousness: that human consciousness and intentionality (the ability to think “about” things) are immaterial and cannot be fully explained through physical processes.

>but cannot be reduced to physical processes or material phenomena.

so they're unverifiable, untestable, and not replicable, and thus not an existing phenomenon because everything else in the universe abides by this.

2. No Evidence for Anything Outside of Space and Time
I challenge the notion that everything must exist within space and time:


• The Cause of the Universe: If the universe had a beginning, as modern cosmology suggests (e.g., the Big Bang), its cause must transcend space and time because space and time came into existence with the universe.


• Question: What caused the universe? If it wasn’t something outside of space and time, how does the atheist explain its origin?


• Logical Necessity: Something must exist outside of space and time to account for the contingency of the universe. Without a necessary, eternal, and transcendent cause, there would be no sufficient explanation for the universe’s existence.

dnr, post evidence for it.

there is no evidence anything outside of space time caused the universe either, no one's ever made this assumption either.

3. Burden of Proof and Worldview Critique


As I have pointed out countless out that atheism, too, has assumptions and a burden of proof:

• Circular Reasoning: The claim “there is no evidence for X, so X doesn’t exist” assumes the very materialist framework it needs to prove. By dismissing evidence for the immaterial outright, you beg the question against other worldviews.

• Example: By denying the possibility of immaterial reality, the atheist conveniently avoids engaging with the evidence for it (e.g., logical absolutes, moral truths).

the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim, which is the person that claims that there is a god, and as long as they cannot provide physical, verifiable evidence for this every other claim they make is automatically dismissed.

• Worldview Consistency: The materialist worldview fails to account for the very tools it uses to argue (e.g., logic, reason, and morality). These tools are non-physical and transcend space and time, meaning they cannot be grounded in a purely materialist framework. So stop saying pedophelia is bad for hen you cannot make an account for it
@LiL 369



TLDR:
1. Denying non-physical beings is a rejection of logic, abstract entities, and consciousness.


2. Denying anything outside space and time fails to account for the universe’s origin and existence.


3. Atheism cannot provide a consistent foundation for its claims without borrowing from theistic assumptions.

dnr.

atheism doesn't require evidence, it's a negative claim, the person making the claim has to provide evidence, not the person that's denying it based on the lack of evidence they're provided.

your claim does once again, not have to be considered at all, until you first and foremost can provide evidence for this god, and every subsequent claim you make after this based on this is also automatically null.

these poorly written copypastas from people who are equally retarded as you do not help you case.

 

[LiL 369]

Logic and Abstract Entities: The existence of non-physical entities such as numbers, logic, and moral truths is self-evident. These are immaterial realities that govern our thinking and reasoning but cannot be reduced to physical processes or material phenomena.


• Example: The laws of logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction) are not physical objects; they are abstract, immaterial, and universal.


• Question: If non-physical beings do not exist, how do you account for abstract concepts like logic, mathematics, or consciousness?


• Consciousness: that human consciousness and intentionality (the ability to think “about” things) are immaterial and cannot be fully explained through physical processes.





2. No Evidence for Anything Outside of Space and Time
I challenge the notion that everything must exist within space and time:


• The Cause of the Universe: If the universe had a beginning, as modern cosmology suggests (e.g., the Big Bang), its cause must transcend space and time because space and time came into existence with the universe.


• Question: What caused the universe? If it wasn’t something outside of space and time, how does the atheist explain its origin?


• Logical Necessity: Something must exist outside of space and time to account for the contingency of the universe. Without a necessary, eternal, and transcendent cause, there would be no sufficient explanation for the universe’s existence.





3. Burden of Proof and Worldview Critique


As I have pointed out countless out that atheism, too, has assumptions and a burden of proof:

• Circular Reasoning: The claim “there is no evidence for X, so X doesn’t exist” assumes the very materialist framework it needs to prove. By dismissing evidence for the immaterial outright, you beg the question against other worldviews.

• Example: By denying the possibility of immaterial reality, the atheist conveniently avoids engaging with the evidence for it (e.g., logical absolutes, moral truths).


• Worldview Consistency: The materialist worldview fails to account for the very tools it uses to argue (e.g., logic, reason, and morality). These tools are non-physical and transcend space and time, meaning they cannot be grounded in a purely materialist framework. So stop saying pedophelia is bad for hen you cannot make an account for it
@LiL 369



TLDR:
1. Denying non-physical beings is a rejection of logic, abstract entities, and consciousness.


2. Denying anything outside space and time fails to account for the universe’s origin and existence.


3. Atheism cannot provide a consistent foundation for its claims without borrowing from theistic assumptions.

dnr

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

if it's self evidence there should be evidence for it, there is zero.


>but cannot be reduced to physical processes or material phenomena.

so they're unverifiable, untestable, and not replicable, and thus not an existing phenomenon because everything else in the universe abides by this.

dnr, post evidence for it.

there is no evidence anything outside of space time caused the universe either, no one's ever made this assumption either.


the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim, which is the person that claims that there is a god, and as long as they cannot provide physical, verifiable evidence for this every other claim they make is automatically dismissed.

dnr.

Logic and abstract entities, by their nature, are not physical objects that can be weighed, measured, or empirically tested. Instead, they are preconditions for evidence.


My question once again little GAYthiest is
Where does the immaterial, universal nature of logic come from in a purely materialistic universe? If everything is physical, why does logic apply universally and unchangingly across all time and space?


“If they cannot be reduced to physical processes or material phenomena, they are unverifiable and not existing phenomena.”

This is a category error. Logic, mathematics, and consciousness are not empirical phenomena; they belong to the realm of metaphysics. Verifiability in the material sense applies to physical objects, not to immaterial principles that underlie and govern empirical investigation.

position fails to account for intentionality (the mind’s ability to think “about” something). Physical matter does not “think” or have awareness, yet consciousness exists.


• Example: A neuron firing is not “about” anything, but thoughts are. This points to something immaterial at work in the mind.

Another question for you, if you insist everything must be physical, how do you explain the immaterial laws of logic or consciousness itself? If consciousness is purely material, why does it behave in ways that transcend physical causation (e.g., free will, abstract reasoning)?


“There is no evidence anything outside of space-time caused the universe, nor has anyone made this assumption.”

The claim that the universe began to exist (based on modern cosmology like the Big Bang) implies that space, time, and matter also began to exist. The principle of causality demands a cause for this beginning.


• If space and time began to exist, the cause of the universe must transcend space and time. This is a logical conclusion, not an empirical one.


• The atheist demands physical evidence for something outside of space-time, which is another category error. A cause that is outside space and time would, by definition, not be physical or empirical. However, the existence of the universe itself is evidence that points to a transcendent cause.


GENUINE QUESTION: If you reject a cause outside of space and time, how do you explain the existence of the universe? If the universe is self-caused, isn’t that a logical contradiction?




Finally

“The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim.”

The GAYtheistic paradigm assumes a materialist framework without proving it. By claiming “everything must have physical, verifiable evidence,” they are making a positive claim about reality. The burden of proof also applies to their materialist worldview.


• Example: Prove, using physical evidence, that only physical phenomena exist. This is not a neutral stance but a metaphysical assumption.


• Circular Reasoning:


By rejecting immaterial evidence outright, the atheist dismisses arguments for God without engaging with them. This is circular reasoning, as it assumes what it is trying to prove (that only the physical exists).


• The Transcendental Argument:


The very tools the atheist uses—logic, reason, and morality—are preconditions for intelligibility that cannot be accounted for in a materialist worldview. Without God as the grounding for these preconditions, atheism collapses into self-refutation.


So in conclusion as I ah e said throughout this entire thread GAYtheism borrows from the theistic worldview to make its claims, and without God, the very concepts of logic, reason, and morality lose their foundation

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

dnr

So your not a truth seeker your just a typical Gaytheidt bullshitter. Never try to disprove gods existence again then if you can’t even defend your shitty retarded illogical GAYtheidtic beliefs

 

[Thebuffdon]

Taqiyya is part of every sect of Islam but most sunnis are too ignorant to realise it's in their own books. It's even mentioned in the Quran let alone the Hadith.


Holy cage nigga you realise there's a bigger difference between sunnis and shias than over aishas age


Btw Alawites believe Imam Ali is God in a trinity with Prophet Muhammad and Salman Al Farsi

Yea nigga we already talked about this before

Smh

 

[Orc]

another shitty generated response.

Logic and abstract entities, by their nature, are not physical objects that can be weighed, measured, or empirically tested. Instead, they are preconditions for evidence.

the answer to this is no.

if you cannot verify it, and cannot test, then it does not exist.

My question once again little GAYthiest is
Where does the immaterial, universal nature of logic come from in a purely materialistic universe? If everything is physical, why does logic apply universally and unchangingly across all time and space?

doesn't matter, nobody claims to know this besides retards like you.

which once again, means the burden of proof is also on you.

no one needs to challenge your position and provide an alternative, all they need to do is ask for the evidence that you do not have and continue their lives.

“If they cannot be reduced to physical processes or material phenomena, they are unverifiable and not existing phenomena.”

This is a category error. Logic, mathematics, and consciousness are not empirical phenomena; they belong to the realm of metaphysics. Verifiability in the material sense applies to physical objects, not to immaterial principles that underlie and govern empirical investigation.

position fails to account for intentionality (the mind’s ability to think “about” something). Physical matter does not “think” or have awareness, yet consciousness exists.


• Example: A neuron firing is not “about” anything, but thoughts are. This points to something immaterial at work in the mind.

Another question for you, if you insist everything must be physical, how do you explain the immaterial laws of logic or consciousness itself? If consciousness is purely material, why does it behave in ways that transcend physical causation (e.g., free will, abstract reasoning)?

more chat gpt generated responses because you outsource all of your thinking due to being a two digit iq retard.

your examples are poor and shittely thought out.

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

consciousness is not a scientific concept, it's philosophy.

“There is no evidence anything outside of space-time caused the universe, nor has anyone made this assumption.”

The claim that the universe began to exist (based on modern cosmology like the Big Bang) implies that space, time, and matter also began to exist. The principle of causality demands a cause for this beginning.


• If space and time began to exist, the cause of the universe must transcend space and time. This is a logical conclusion, not an empirical one.


• The atheist demands physical evidence for something outside of space-time, which is another category error. A cause that is outside space and time would, by definition, not be physical or empirical. However, the existence of the universe itself is evidence that points to a transcendent cause.


GENUINE QUESTION: If you reject a cause outside of space and time, how do you explain the existence of the universe? If the universe is self-caused, isn’t that a logical contradiction?

I do not have to explain the existence of the universe, you are the only one making claims about it's origins that you have no evidence for.

Finally

“The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim.”

The GAYtheistic paradigm assumes a materialist framework without proving it. By claiming “everything must have physical, verifiable evidence,” they are making a positive claim about reality. The burden of proof also applies to their materialist worldview.


• Example: Prove, using physical evidence, that only physical phenomena exist. This is not a neutral stance but a metaphysical assumption.


• Circular Reasoning:


By rejecting immaterial evidence outright, the atheist dismisses arguments for God without engaging with them. This is circular reasoning, as it assumes what it is trying to prove (that only the physical exists).

changing some letters in your auto generated text doesn't make it any less obvious that you're outsourcing every single thought you have puny brained historically illiterate dipshit.

no engagement needs to be made as long as you provide no evidence for your god, every subsequent claim, which this is one of, is also automatically dismissed, your shit religion is unworthy of a response as long as you fail to provide verifiable, replicable evidence for the existence of it.

there has never, ever, been anything found in the universe that is non-physical, there is no reason to suggest it's possible for anything non-physical to exist, even if consciousness were a scientific concept which it is not then it would reside in the brain and would thus be physical.

• The Transcendental Argument:


The very tools the atheist uses—logic, reason, and morality—are preconditions for intelligibility that cannot be accounted for in a materialist worldview. Without God as the grounding for these preconditions, atheism collapses into self-refutation.


So in conclusion as I ah e said throughout this entire thread GAYtheism borrows from the theistic worldview to make its claims, and without God, the very concepts of logic, reason, and morality lose their foundation

this is another shitty assumption, nobody cares where logic, reason and morality originates from, they're arguing that you have no evidence that it comes from god, they aren't telling you that they know where else it would come from, it's utterly irrelevant to the question and you've failed to understand this up to five times so far.

absolutely NOBODY has to offer you an alternative to your claims, all they need to do is ask you for evidence, and then watch you flail as you're unable to provide it, and then laugh at you.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

another shitty generated response.

the answer to this is no.

if you cannot verify it, and cannot test, then it does not exist.

doesn't matter, nobody claims to know this besides retards like you.

which once again, means the burden of proof is also on you.

no one needs to challenge your position and provide an alternative, all they need to do is ask for the evidence that you do not have and continue their lives.


more chat gpt generated responses because you outsource all of your thinking due to being a two digit iq retard.

your examples are poor and shittely thought out.

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

consciousness is not a scientific concept, it's philosophy.

I do not have to explain the existence of the universe, you are the only one making claims about it's origins that you have no evidence for.




changing some letters in your auto generated text doesn't make it any less obvious that you're outsourcing every single thought you have puny brained historically illiterate dipshit.

no engagement needs to be made as long as you provide no evidence for your god, every subsequent claim, which this is one of, is also automatically dismissed, your shit religion is unworthy of a response as long as you fail to provide verifiable, replicable evidence for the existence of it.

there has never, ever, been anything found in the universe that is non-physical, there is no reason to suggest it's possible for anything non-physical to exist, even if consciousness were a scientific concept which it is not then it would reside in the brain and would thus be physical.

this is another shitty assumption, nobody cares where logic, reason and morality originates from, they're arguing that you have no evidence that it comes from god, they aren't telling you that they know where else it would come from, it's utterly irrelevant to the question and you've failed to understand this up to five times so far.

absolutely NOBODY has to offer you an alternative to your claims, all they need to do is ask you for evidence, and then watch you flail as you're unable to provide it, and then laugh at you.

I have a folder with the responses you buffoon you think I’ll bother using anything other than what I have archived for you? A low tier GAYtheist? I have debate GAYtheists here that actually have decent arguments your not one of them I’m afraid


Even the claim “if you cannot verify it or test it it cannot be real” pressurised and rank empiricist metaphysical worldview which I don’t hold to. Infect this is a philosophical assertion not even an scientific one tell me where which lab I can go to to test if your claim is true lmfao it’s your own baseless assumption, empirical data is a great way of observing physical truth I’ll admit that however it is NOT THE ONLY WAY to determine truth. Wow I’m done your retarded and now you know why I copy and paste my shit in cos why bother with idiots like you your not worthy


That’s the point. You can’t make an account for any of this and just assume your materialistic framework paradigm is a given and that I should just grant you your position. I refuse to do so and now I’m asking you and your butt buddies @mr007 @Deathninja328 and @LiL 369 to justify these transcendentals. Because believe it or not even science cannot justify itself it makes assumptions about reality such as identify over time and many more so appealing to science won’t help you here. This is a philosophical discourse until you provide me with a coherent account for these abstract transcendentals within the materialistic framework I’ll continue to say your beliefs are literally illogical

I emplore you all to google the laws of logic and you’ll see why your paradigm is illogical

 

[Orc]

I have a folder with the responses you buffoon you think I’ll bother using anything other than what I have archived for you? A low tier GAYtheist? I have debate GAYtheists here that actually have decent arguments your not one of them I’m afraid

so far you've provided zero critical arguments and also zero evidence.

That’s the point. You can’t make an account for any of this and just assume your materialistic framework paradigm is a given and that I should just grant you your position.

I can fully and completely do this because there's no evidence of anything non physical, the argument ends there, you'd have to demonstrate the existence of the non physical and you can't do that either.

it's once again, a claim that you're making, not me, the positive claim is the existence of the non physical, denying this is not a positive claim.

I refuse to do so and now I’m asking you and your butt buddies @mr007 @Deathninja328 and @LiL 369 to justify these transcendentals.

nobody cares what you refuse to do, I do not want to convince you, you can stay retarded for the rest of your life.

Because believe it or not even science cannot justify itself it makes assumptions about reality such as identify over time and many more so appealing to science won’t help you here.

I don't need science, you do, I don't need to proof anything because the entire burden of proof is on you.

This is a philosophical discourse until you provide me with a coherent account for these abstract transcendentals within the materialistic framework I’ll continue to say your beliefs are literally illogical

it's on you to proof that the non-physical exists, not on me to proof it doesn't.

I emplore you all to google the laws of logic and you’ll see why your paradigm is illogical

your reading comprehension is at the level of an 8 year old if you think this is how logic works.

 

[Alexanderr]

Wouldn't have happened if white evangelicals didn't feel it was their duty to Christianize ethnics, the future of Christianity is no longer European

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

so far you've provided zero critical arguments and also zero evidence.

I can fully and completely do this because there's no evidence of anything non physical, the argument ends there, you'd have to demonstrate the existence of the non physical and you can't do that either.

it's once again, a claim that you're making, not me, the positive claim is the existence of the non physical, denying this is not a positive claim.

nobody cares what you refuse to do, I do not want to convince you, you can stay retarded for the rest of your life.

I don't need science, you do, I don't need to proof anything because the entire burden of proof is on you.

it's on you to proof that the non-physical exists, not on me to proof it doesn't.

your reading comprehension is at the level of an 8 year old if you think this is how logic works.

I demonstrated both using ethics and logic you retard both of which you believe exists but it isn’t within the materialistic framework. You said the holy books were written by pedos implying that was a bad thing (ethics) you using rationale to argue your point presupposes logic as that’s the precondition for rationale. Neither can be studies under a telescope, under a thermometer, under an scientifically empirical system

Main diff between me and you is you our science as number 1 I put philosophy as number one. I go to the root of the issue you go to the middle. We are not the same. You are my lesser I am your superior


All my arguments were critical you just chat shit. It’s not even a debate anymore but me slaughtering you because you you can say is “Nuh uh” and repeat the same circular argumentation again and again. I don’t wanna repeat myself u suggest you do research into your baseless worldview and then come back to me once you have seen the folly of your illogical beliefs (yes they defy the laws of logic go google the laws of logic and you’ll find out)



The proof is also on you to prove your metaphysical paradigm so make an account for these invariant abstract entities which you aptly call “self evident truths” as a cop out. Now justify them using your materialist worldview please and thank you or this debate has come to a close and you lost.


Ok no evidence for ethics, no evidence for metaphysics (which is what your presupposing making this argument btw but you’re too low IQ to realise this) no truth or false goods as everything is just entropy and chance so no truth. Yeah I guess argumentation from your standpoint is impossible

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Wouldn't have happened if white evangelicals didn't feel it was their duty to Christianize ethnics, the future of Christianity is no longer European

Not ethics fault when whites end up being brainlet GAYtheists like @Orc without ethnics Christianity wouldn’t even exist anymore you need us not the other way around

 

[LiL 369]

I have a folder with the responses you buffoon you think I’ll bother using anything other than what I have archived for you? A low tier GAYtheist? I have debate GAYtheists here that actually have decent arguments your not one of them I’m afraid

That’s the point. You can’t make an account for any of this and just assume your materialistic framework paradigm is a given and that I should just grant you your position. I refuse to do so and now I’m asking you and your butt buddies @mr007 @Deathninja328 and @LiL 369 to justify these transcendentals. Because believe it or not even science cannot justify itself it makes assumptions about reality such as identify over time and many more so appealing to science won’t help you here. This is a philosophical discourse until you provide me with a coherent account for these abstract transcendentals within the materialistic framework I’ll continue to say your beliefs are literally illogical

I emplore you all to google the laws of logic and you’ll see why your paradigm is illogical

Your god does not exist, make up stories... an instrument to brainwash population and keep them obeying, instrument to give false hopes to the less fortunate people, used centurys ago when ppl knew no better and for whatever reason still used till today by low iq apes like u. Just like most religions, yours is used only when convenient all the time... u have politicians using speeches based on religious principles when it is convenient, in order to gain votes... Some use religion as a convenient excuse to justify wars or violence... u have others examples like the abortion debates, where ppl will use religion to impose their moral beliefs, even though religion isn't a central issue for everyone... Dude u r brainwashed by fairytales stop taggin me on this bs.

 

[Alexanderr]

Not ethics fault when whites end up being brainlet GAYtheists like @Orc without ethnics Christianity wouldn’t even exist anymore you need us not the other way around

I'd say religion as it's practiced today isn't a benefit to ethnics, for several reasons.
For one, religion often enforces rigid hierarchies and unquestioned authority, discouraging critical thinking and innovation. Second, it diverts focus from systemic issues to promises of spiritual salvation, making collective action against oppression less likely (hence so many dictators go unchecked).
Third, it often creates division within ethnic groups by prioritizing doctrinal differences over unity and shared progress.
We see this with all the religious extremist conflicts in those countries.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Your god does not exist, make up stories... an instrument to brainwash population and keep them obeying, instrument to give false hopes to the less fortunate people, used centurys ago when ppl knew no better and for whatever reason still used till today by low iq apes like u. Just like most religions, yours is used only when convenient all the time... u have politicians using speeches based on religious principles when it is convenient, in order to gain votes... Some use religion as a convenient excuse to justify wars or violence... u have others examples like the abortion debates, where ppl will use religion to impose their moral beliefs, even though religion isn't a central issue for everyone... Dude u r brainwashed by fairytales stop taggin me on this bs.

Not gonna read all that drivel unless you can back up your claims. Come on now GAYthiest surely you guys can’t be getting your anyses blasted by an “Christian theist”

All I ask is for you to explain what was the precondition for the universe all I ask is for a justification, an account for these abstract entities which you idiots borrow from everyday. I even see you fools say “that persons evil” but evil doesn’t exist in a materialistic worldview so make an account of it. Make an account that’s all I ask

 

[Orc]

I demonstrated both using ethics and logic you retard both of which you believe exists but it isn’t within the materialistic framework

your assumption on this is wrong.

when your arguments are supported by verifiable, replicable evidence it's entirely materialistic.

. You said the holy books were written by pedos implying that was a bad thing (ethics) you using rationale to argue your point presupposes logic as that’s the precondition for rationale. Neither can be studies under a telescope, under a thermometer, under an scientifically empirical system

once again, as long as you fail to provide evidence for your god, everything subsequent of that is also null.

if there is no evidence for god, your entire holy book can be dismissed outright, nothing within it needs to be contemplated, it's entire premise resides on the existence of god that cannot be demonstrated.

Main diff between me and you is you our science as number 1 I put philosophy as number one. I go to the root of the issue you go to the middle. We are not the same. You are my lesser I am your superior

main difference is that you're incapable of critical thought and outsource all your arguments to chatgpt.

All my arguments were critical you just chat shit. It’s not even a debate anymore but me slaughtering you because you you can say is “Nuh uh” and repeat the same circular argumentation again and again.

you've failed to provide evidence again and again so I can keep repeating this.

the only point you've tried to make so far is that it's impossible for you to provide physical evidence, which means you've conceded your claim, it means you've lost.

because you also cannot provide evidence for the non physical.

I don’t wanna repeat myself u suggest you do research into your baseless worldview and then come back to me once you have seen the folly of your illogical beliefs (yes they defy the laws of logic go google the laws of logic and you’ll find out)



Ok no evidence for ethics, no evidence for metaphysics (which is what your presupposing making this argument btw but you’re too low IQ to realise this) no truth or false goods as everything is just entropy and chance so no truth. Yeah I guess argumentation from your standpoint is impossible

dnr.

 

[persuss]

blud is stuck in christmas. he's not getting out of 2024

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I'd say religion as it's practiced today isn't a benefit to ethnics, for several reasons.
For one, religion often enforces rigid hierarchies and unquestioned authority, discouraging critical thinking and innovation. Second, it diverts focus from systemic issues to promises of spiritual salvation, making collective action against oppression less likely (hence so many dictators go unchecked).
Third, it often creates division within ethnic groups by prioritizing doctrinal differences over unity and shared progress.
We see this with all the religious extremist conflicts in those countries.

Not true to the first or second point your theory of big bang was found by a catholic priest fucking stupid takes

Not true to the third point that’s an sweeping generalisation on religion as is all religions believe the same thing

Fourth point about division is hilarious to be because religion unites various ethnicities into one.

Western Europeans only united under Christianity to kick Mohammeden ass. Only thing stopping blacks and whites in USA from race waring is religion.

Absolutely retarded takes

 

[Orc]

Not ethics fault when whites end up being brainlet GAYtheists like @Orc without ethnics Christianity wouldn’t even exist anymore you need us not the other way around

are these the ethics you're talking about

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Alexanderr]

I'd say religion as it's practiced today isn't a benefit to ethnics, for several reasons.
For one, religion often enforces rigid hierarchies and unquestioned authority, discouraging critical thinking and innovation. Second, it diverts focus from systemic issues to promises of spiritual salvation, making collective action against oppression less likely (hence so many dictators go unchecked).
Third, it often creates division within ethnic groups by prioritizing doctrinal differences over unity and shared progress.
We see this with all the religious extremist conflicts in those countries.

Now, this isn't to say religion itself is inherently bad; its tenets often promote compassion, community, and morality. The issue lies in how it’s practiced and interpreted too often, it reinforces harmful power dynamics and stifles progress, leading to counterproductive outcomes for marginalized groups.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

your assumption on this is wrong.

when your arguments are supported by verifiable, replicable evidence it's entirely materialistic.

once again, as long as you fail to provide evidence for your god, everything subsequent of that is also null.

if there is no evidence for god, your entire holy book can be dismissed outright, nothing within it needs to be contemplated, it's entire premise resides on the existence of god that cannot be demonstrated.

main difference is that you're incapable of critical thought and outsource all your arguments to chatgpt.

you've failed to provide evidence again and again so I can keep repeating this.

the only point you've tried to make so far is that it's impossible for you to provide physical evidence, which means you've conceded your claim, it means you've lost.

because you also cannot provide evidence for the non physical.

dnr.

As I said they cannot be proven empirically for they are not materaialistic that’s the point I’m making and why I keep asking you to stop shifting the burden of proof to me when you yourself need to prove your materialistic framework which surprise suprise dumbass is an positive claim you idiot

And yet to this day you haven’t even attempted to try to explain or ground these “self evident truths” as you call them. Where is ethics grounded? What about logic? What about mathematics? What about truth?

Ground them or stfu and never reply back

But no ofc your gonna run to the holy books because you know you can’t defend your paradigm other than repeating the same circular argument

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

are these the ethics you're talking about

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ok so ? Your an atheist being an pedo isn’t an bad thing in your worldview as you can’t make an account for ethics so it’s all subjective

 

[Orc]

As I said they cannot be proven empirically for they are not materaialistic

which means you claim the non physical exists, and you have to provide evidence for this.

that’s the point I’m making and why I keep asking you to stop shifting the burden of proof to me when you yourself need to prove your materialistic framework which surprise suprise dumbass is an positive claim you idiot

once again, this is a claim you are making, not me, I do not have to prove that the non physical doesn't exist.

And yet to this day you haven’t even attempted to try to explain or ground these “self evident truths” as you call them. Where is ethics grounded? What about logic? What about mathematics? What about truth?

ethnics are the result of the tangible relationships between individuals to coherently exist in a group, pretty much every social animal on earth follows the same conduct and they do so without guidance, even non social animals do this because it's required for mating.

logic is grounded in tangible, verifiable and replicable evidence.

I gave you an entire wikipedia article on mathimathical proof, it's not complicated, maybe ask chatgpt to explain it to you like you're 5?

Ground them or stfu and never reply back

But no ofc your gonna run to the holy books because you know you can’t defend your paradigm other than repeating the same circular argument

you've been repeating the same bad arguments this entire thread and everyone just laughs at you I'm afraid.

 

[Orc]

Ok so ? Your an atheist being an pedo isn’t an bad thing in your worldview as you can’t make an account for ethics so it’s all subjective

people who've been abused as children end up being severely impaired as adults, children are also incapable of making critical choices because their brain isn't fully developed.

these are physical, tangible characteristics as to why it's wrong and doesn't require the guidance of a magical sky wizard whose priests abuse children.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

which means you claim the non physical exists, and you have to provide evidence for this.

once again, this is a claim you are making, not me, I do not have to prove that the non physical doesn't exist.

ethnics are the result of the tangible relationships between individuals to coherently exist in a group, pretty much every social animal on earth follows the same conduct and they do so without guidance, even non social animals do this because it's required for mating.

logic is grounded in tangible, verifiable and replicable evidence.

I gave you an entire wikipedia article on mathimathical proof, it's not complicated, maybe ask chatgpt to explain it to you like you're 5?

you've been repeating the same bad arguments this entire thread and everyone just laughs at you I'm afraid.

wow I’m dissapointed but what did I expect ofc your justification would be that it’s a social convention… which means it’s subjective as ethics in Islamic nations is fucking a kid is ok for example. No, logic is a ABSTRACT law logic isn’t tangible you can’t measure touch or stroke it you steroid retard, the principles of LOGIC govern reasoning but you cannot touch it feel it measure it etc these are not tangible objects/entities how about you google this instead of making stupid assumptions maybe use the chat gpt you love so much for that you retard

And you say I’m the one with the bad arguments yet your dumbass thinks Logic is Tangable yeah next your gonna say you can lick it

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

people who've been abused as children end up being severely impaired as adults, children are also incapable of making critical choices because their brain isn't fully developed.

these are physical, tangible characteristics as to why it's wrong and doesn't require the guidance of a magical sky wizard whose priests abuse children.

So fucking what? Your an atheist

It’s only your OPINION it’s bad but objectively Neither (The pedo priest or you) of you are right or wrong

 

[LiL 369]

All I ask is for you to explain what was the precondition for the universe all I ask is for a justification, an account for these abstract entities which you idiots borrow from everyday. I even see you fools say “that persons evil” but evil doesn’t exist in a materialistic worldview so make an account of it. Make an account that’s all I ask

Man you’re asking for an explanation on why abstract entities exist, idk what you mean by that, but i would say the answer would be that they exist because we define them as part of our social and moral understanding, they aren't "real" in the same way physical objects are they just have the purpose that i've told a bunch of times...

 

[Orc]

wow I’m dissapointed but what did I expect ofc your justification would be that it’s a social convention… which means it’s subjective

there's nothing subjective about it.

as ethics in Islamic nations is fucking a kid is ok for example.

thanks for demonstrating why religious ethnics are shit, christians are also gay pedophiles by the way.
the social conduct that is the result of tangible physical relationships in nature ultimately leads to the best outcome and does not require religion.

No, logic is a ABSTRACT law logic isn’t tangible you can’t measure touch or stroke it

wrong.


logic by definition means.
.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

so if it cannot be verified, cannot be replicated, and cannot be demonstrated, it isn't logic in the first place, so you have no logic.

you steroid retard, the principles of LOGIC govern reasoning but you cannot touch it feel it measure it etc these are not tangible objects/entities how about you google this instead of making stupid assumptions maybe use the chat gpt you love so much for that you retard

the basis of logic can by definition be physically measured, if it cannot then it isn't logic, by default.

welcome to reality.

 

[Orc]

So fucking what? Your an atheist

It’s only your OPINION it’s bad but objectively Neither (The pedo priest or you) of you are right or wrong

if the negative impacts can be quantitatively objectively measured then it's no longer my opinion as to whether it's bad.

at that point it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, which you'll have to do as your religion is also practised by pedophilic gaylords.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Man you’re asking for an explanation on why abstract entities exist, idk what you mean by that, but i would say the answer would be that they exist because we define them as part of our social and moral understanding, they aren't "real" in the same way physical objects are they just have the purpose that i've told a bunch of times...

I mean things which cannot be measured seen touched or estimated when I say abstract. Even I say invariant I mean non changing. When I say universal I mean constant.


Your response isn’t sufficient because these things are constants and thus not beholden to human opinions. But let’s entertain you for a moment
If humans decide say for example ethics then as a negro you have to accept slavery wasn’t wrong, it was just what the society agreed was ok and thus you can’t cry over it. In fact nazi germany wasn’t wrong,

Why stop there, why even argue with SFcels about blacks being “equal” when it’s only his opinion blacks are inferior and only you’re that they are equal neither is right or wrong in this as it’s subjective. Don’t be like the retard @Orc who thinks logic is “tangable” nigger things you can grab it and lick it like an ice cream

 

[Orc]

I mean things which cannot be measured seen touched or estimated when I say abstract. Even I say invariant I mean non changing. When I say universal I mean constant.

logic can be measured by default.


so you have no logic.

Your response isn’t sufficient because these things are constants and thus not beholden to human opinions.

there is nothing constant about tangible physical relationships because organisms are not constant, they change over time and so does their responding conduct.

this is also why ethnics originating from a god are retarded, it assumes humans are in a constant unchanging state.

But let’s entertain you for a moment
If humans decide say for example ethics then as a negro you have to accept slavery wasn’t wrong, it was just what the society agreed was ok and thus you can’t cry over it. In fact nazi germany wasn’t wrong,

ethnics aren't decided at a personal or societal level, they trickle down as a consequence of the environment.

if one group decides to prosecute another that group will fight back, which negatively impacts the other group, they don't just stand around and let it happen.

Why stop there, why even argue with SFcels about blacks being “equal” when it’s only his opinion blacks are inferior and only you’re that they are equal neither is right or wrong in this as it’s subjective. Don’t be like the retard @Orc who thinks logic is “tangable” nigger things you can grab it and lick it like an ice cream

if logic cannot be tested then it is not logic, it's just a shitty claim you made up.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

if the negative impacts can be quantitatively objectively measured then it's no longer my opinion as to whether it's bad.

at that point it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, which you'll have to do as your religion is also practised by pedophilic gaylords.

It’s not objective though that’s your opinion it’s bad which once again isn’t real in your worldview.

Please stop borrowing from theistic frameworks For ethics please stop just be an honest GAYtheist like David Hume and Descartes.

I don’t mind changing my view on this if you can ground moral truths. I get that sure it’s scarring the kids and the like but… since when does quantifying the hard itself make something objective? That’s a non sequitur

All you have done is shown me the consequences of an action which I agree empirically it’s true however how does that answer the question of why those consequences are objectively wrong or even immoral?

Hell why should anybody even give a fuck about harm if morality is some random result of human electrical nodes firing due to evolution Or a social construct/convention in fact if this is so, why should it be seen as true or binding on me or everybody once again Islamic nations would argue fucking kids is ok. What is there that makes me OUGHT to value wellbeing over harm? In this case consequences.

I mean you just opened a massive tin of worms here buddy. So can atheism truly account for objective morality? I have yet to see it demonstrated yet.

 

[Thebuffdon]

Not gonna read all that drivel unless you can back up your claims. Come on now GAYthiest surely you guys can’t be getting your anyses blasted by an “Christian theist”

All I ask is for you to explain what was the precondition for the universe all I ask is for a justification, an account for these abstract entities which you idiots borrow from everyday. I even see you fools say “that persons evil” but evil doesn’t exist in a materialistic worldview so make an account of it. Make an account that’s all I ask

Typical sky daddy 8th grade nonsense from OP

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

logic can be measured by default.


so you have no logic.

there is nothing constant about tangible physical relationships because organisms are not constant, they change over time and so does their responding conduct.

this is also why ethnics originating from a god are retarded, it assumes humans are in a constant unchanging state.

ethnics aren't decided at a personal or societal level, they trickle down as a consequence of the environment.

if one group decides to prosecute another that group will fight back, which negatively impacts the other group, they don't just stand around and let it happen.

if logic cannot be tested then it is not logic, it's just a shitty claim you made up.

I shut your dumbass up with one google search

Here’s the laws of logic you fucking dipshit sterioidbrained retard seeing as you’re too low Iq to google

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Typical sky daddy 8th grade nonsense from OP

Talking about me or orc? I dunno if so since when did you become an apostate lmfao

 

[Thebuffdon]

It’s not objective though that’s your opinion it’s bad which once again isn’t real in your worldview.

Please stop borrowing from theistic frameworks For ethics please stop just be an honest GAYtheist like David Hume and Descartes.

I don’t mind changing my view on this if you can ground moral truths. I get that sure it’s scarring the kids and the like but… since when does quantifying the hard itself make something objective? That’s a non sequitur

All you have done is shown me the consequences of an action which I agree empirically it’s true however how does that answer the question of why those consequences are objectively wrong or even immoral?

Hell why should anybody even give a fuck about harm if morality is some random result of human electrical nodes firing due to evolution Or a social construct/convention in fact if this is so, why should it be seen as true or binding on me or everybody once again Islamic nations would argue fucking kids is ok. What is there that makes me OUGHT to value wellbeing over harm? In this case consequences.

I mean you just opened a massive tin of worms here buddy. So can atheism truly account for objective morality? I have yet to see it demonstrated yet.

Atheism cannot account for morality beyond mere subjective intuitive grasps on naturalistic forms of “morality”. I had to come to graps with this as an atheist. Every moral “law” in atheism is just societal constructs forced amongst the populous with 0 moral grounding whatsoever which anyone (and ppl have) been able to easily bypass because of the lack of a robust moral foundation (such as Christian law) and the eradication of it from western societies.

In short atheism gets you tolerance to Mohammaden ideology through mass importing which they cannot even deny because of Muh tolerance and uprooting of atheistic grasps of so called morality

 

[Thebuffdon]

Talking about me or orc? I dunno if so since when did you become an apostate lmfao

No the other guy you were quoting

 

[Thebuffdon]

Atheism cannot account for morality beyond mere subjective intuitive grasps on naturalistic forms of “morality”. I had to come to graps with this as an atheist. Every moral “law” in atheism is just societal constructs forced amongst the populous with 0 moral grounding whatsoever which anyone (and ppl have) been able to easily bypass because of the lack of a robust moral foundation (such as Christian law) and the eradication of it from western societies.

In short atheism gets you tolerance to Mohammaden ideology through mass importing which they cannot even deny because of Muh tolerance and uprooting of atheistic grasps of so called morality

@PrinceLuenLeoncur