Christmas MASS in the Anglican Church was full of curries

[aber]

this is fundamentally wrong.

before evidence is provided, the argument of a god does not need to be considered, you do not need an alternative, and I do not have to explain how anything came into being instead, this is irrelevant.

I will not listen to any religious arguments before they provide evidence their god exists, and this evidence needs to be verifiable, physical and replicable.

if there's no physical evidence, then it does not exist, because there's no evidence of the non physical.

an example of this would be the old testament which the bible is based on, it refers to multiple books that do not exist, and we cannot verify it's legitimacy.

Every time you reply to someone, your response goes something along the lines of “I need Muh physical evidence!!! Of an immaterial being!!! otherwise I will not discuss philosophy!!”

Oxymoron, again.

 

[khann]

this is fundamentally wrong.

before evidence is provided, the argument of a god does not need to be considered, you do not need an alternative, and I do not have to explain how anything came into being instead, this is irrelevant.

I will not listen to any religious arguments before they provide evidence their god exists, and this evidence needs to be verifiable, physical and replicable.

Your assertion that the argument for the existence of God does not warrant consideration until empirical evidence is provided is philosophically untenable. The principle of the burden of proof, while foundational in epistemology, does not necessitate the exclusion of a proposition merely because it has not yet satisfied the empirical criteria you demand. In fact, dismissing such propositions without engagement risks intellectual reductionism.

The proposition of God's existence is not inherently empirical but metaphysical in nature, dealing with questions that transcend the material and measurable. To insist solely on verifiable, physical, and replicable evidence as a criterion for dialogue is to impose a methodological framework that is ill-suited to metaphysical inquiry. Such an approach conflates empirical science with philosophy and erroneously assumes that all meaningful truths must conform to empirical standards.

Furthermore, your claim that you don't need to offer an alternative explanation for existence dismisses the foundational role of abductive reasoning in human understanding. The absence of an alternative hypothesis does not render the inquiry irrelevant; rather, it underscores the necessity of exploring all conceivable explanations, including metaphysical ones.

if there's no physical evidence, then it does not exist, because there's no evidence of the non physical.

Your claim that "if there's no physical evidence, then it does not exist" reveals a commitment to a strictly materialist epistemology, which is philosophically problematic. This perspective assumes that physical evidence is the sole arbiter of existence, dismissing non-physical entities outright without justifying why the realm of existence should be limited to what is empirically observable. By this logic, abstract concepts such as numbers, moral values, and even consciousness itself would be deemed non-existent despite their undeniable impact and utility.

Regarding the question of an infinite regress of contingent entities, the principle of sufficient reason demands a self-sufficient terminus. An infinite chain of contingent entities, each dependent on another for its existence, fails to provide an ultimate explanation for the chain itself. Without a necessary, self-existent being or entity, the entire chain becomes inexplicable, violating the foundational principles of metaphysical inquiry. Your dismissal of this issue avoids engaging with the logical necessity of a terminus to resolve the problem of contingency.

an example of this would be the old testament which the bible is based on, it refers to multiple books that do not exist, and we cannot verify it's legitimacy.

As for your analogy involving the Old Testament and its reliance on earlier, unverifiable texts, this argument conflates epistemological concerns with ontological ones. The legitimacy or historical verification of specific religious texts does not negate the philosophical coherence of a first cause or necessary being. To use the library analogy, the question is not whether specific books exist or are verifiable but whether the chain of references can logically extend infinitely without an original source. Without an ultimate explanatory foundation, the system collapses into incoherence.

Your arguments rest on assumptions that fail to address the metaphysical principles under discussion and prematurely dismiss non-physical realities without sufficient justification.

this is an insanely bad argument that's essentially just 'we can't explain it so god did it'

Your dismissal of indirect arguments for the existence of God as merely "we can't explain it, so God did it" represents a reductive and intellectually disingenuous caricature of profoundly nuanced philosophical reasoning. Arguments such as the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective moral values, and metaphysical necessities do not stem from ignorance but rather from rigorous attempts to posit the most plausible explanation for observed phenomena.

The fine-tuning argument, for instance, is predicated on the extraordinary precision of the fundamental constants of the universe, which allow for the emergence of life. To attribute this precision solely to random chance without seriously entertaining the possibility of intentional causation disregards the principle of abductive reasoning, which seeks the most coherent and parsimonious explanation. Far from an appeal to ignorance, this argument identifies a transcendent designer as a rational and intellectually satisfying inference.

Likewise, the existence of objective moral truths or the necessity of a first cause transcends simplistic materialistic accounts. These arguments are deeply entrenched in centuries of philosophical discourse, critically engaging with alternative paradigms such as naturalism, which often fail to satisfactorily account for these realities. By dismissing such considerations as mere "God of the gaps" rhetoric, you undermine the distinction between a fallacious appeal to ignorance and a reasoned hypothesis derived from rigorous intellectual inquiry.

If you lack any intellectually compelling or logically coherent arguments, I will refrain from responding, as it is nothing more than an utter waste of my time.

 

[aber]

“It’s never had any positive impact” says you that’s your own opinion once again asserting your own retard GAYtheist beliefs. Wow me and you would fight irl if we met we’d never be buddies ahahah I hate dumb people and your stupid as a pile of rocks

Nothing Occam’s razor about it. At most you could argue religious people rely on Pascal’s wager which many do I admit but that’s not a good reason either

Stop shifting the burden of proof. You even making such statements implies you yourself believe your own metaphysical framework to be true (materialism) therefore you have to PROVE TO ME AND @aber WE WE OUGHT TO BELIEVE YOUR NONSENSE.


DO NOT REPLY TO ME I WONT REPLY BACK I JUST SENT THIS MESSAGE TO HELP HIM DEFEND HIMSELF FROM YOUR BRAINLET ASS.

Thank you for the defense daddy nigga

 

[khann]

Dude your preaching to the Quior here he’s the idiot you need to tell this to which I have been doing but he’s a retard so no point his brain doesn’t work he has a brain tumor so his IQ is too low

I didnt mean to reply to you, the paragraph was for him.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Every time you reply to someone, your response goes something along the lines of “I need Muh physical evidence!!! Of an immaterial being!!! otherwise I will not discuss philosophy!!”

Oxymoron, again.

Your assertion that the argument for the existence of God does not warrant consideration until empirical evidence is provided is philosophically untenable. The principle of the burden of proof, while foundational in epistemology, does not necessitate the exclusion of a proposition merely because it has not yet satisfied the empirical criteria you demand. In fact, dismissing such propositions without engagement risks intellectual reductionism.

The proposition of God's existence is not inherently empirical but metaphysical in nature, dealing with questions that transcend the material and measurable. To insist solely on verifiable, physical, and replicable evidence as a criterion for dialogue is to impose a methodological framework that is ill-suited to metaphysical inquiry. Such an approach conflates empirical science with philosophy and erroneously assumes that all meaningful truths must conform to empirical standards.

Furthermore, your claim that you don't need to offer an alternative explanation for existence dismisses the foundational role of abductive reasoning in human understanding. The absence of an alternative hypothesis does not render the inquiry irrelevant; rather, it underscores the necessity of exploring all conceivable explanations, including metaphysical ones.


Your claim that "if there's no physical evidence, then it does not exist" reveals a commitment to a strictly materialist epistemology, which is philosophically problematic. This perspective assumes that physical evidence is the sole arbiter of existence, dismissing non-physical entities outright without justifying why the realm of existence should be limited to what is empirically observable. By this logic, abstract concepts such as numbers, moral values, and even consciousness itself would be deemed non-existent despite their undeniable impact and utility.

Regarding the question of an infinite regress of contingent entities, the principle of sufficient reason demands a self-sufficient terminus. An infinite chain of contingent entities, each dependent on another for its existence, fails to provide an ultimate explanation for the chain itself. Without a necessary, self-existent being or entity, the entire chain becomes inexplicable, violating the foundational principles of metaphysical inquiry. Your dismissal of this issue avoids engaging with the logical necessity of a terminus to resolve the problem of contingency.


As for your analogy involving the Old Testament and its reliance on earlier, unverifiable texts, this argument conflates epistemological concerns with ontological ones. The legitimacy or historical verification of specific religious texts does not negate the philosophical coherence of a first cause or necessary being. To use the library analogy, the question is not whether specific books exist or are verifiable but whether the chain of references can logically extend infinitely without an original source. Without an ultimate explanatory foundation, the system collapses into incoherence.

Your arguments rest on assumptions that fail to address the metaphysical principles under discussion and prematurely dismiss non-physical realities without sufficient justification.


Your dismissal of indirect arguments for the existence of God as merely "we can't explain it, so God did it" represents a reductive and intellectually disingenuous caricature of profoundly nuanced philosophical reasoning. Arguments such as the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective moral values, and metaphysical necessities do not stem from ignorance but rather from rigorous attempts to posit the most plausible explanation for observed phenomena.

The fine-tuning argument, for instance, is predicated on the extraordinary precision of the fundamental constants of the universe, which allow for the emergence of life. To attribute this precision solely to random chance without seriously entertaining the possibility of intentional causation disregards the principle of abductive reasoning, which seeks the most coherent and parsimonious explanation. Far from an appeal to ignorance, this argument identifies a transcendent designer as a rational and intellectually satisfying inference.

Likewise, the existence of objective moral truths or the necessity of a first cause transcends simplistic materialistic accounts. These arguments are deeply entrenched in centuries of philosophical discourse, critically engaging with alternative paradigms such as naturalism, which often fail to satisfactorily account for these realities. By dismissing such considerations as mere "God of the gaps" rhetoric, you undermine the distinction between a fallacious appeal to ignorance and a reasoned hypothesis derived from rigorous intellectual inquiry.

If you lack any intellectually compelling or logically coherent arguments, I will refrain from responding, as it is nothing more than an utter waste of my time.

Guys Orc is a brainlet retard I have destroyed him countless times read the whole argumentation, I have crushed him time and time that’s why he keeps using circular arguments “IFF I CANT SEE IT ITS NOT TRUE I STICK STEROIDS UP MY ASS BTW”

He has no arguments leave the idiot I beat him he got humbled so now he plays round the circle we go. Pull him out from it and hell run back the same way he did when I pointed out that logic isn’t Tangable same with ethics aging a human construct. He will run back to “HURR DURR I CANT SEEE IT SO IT NOT TRUE “

 

[khann]

Guys Orc is a brainlet retard

I realized this when he said, 'I don’t need to explain how anything came into existence; it’s irrelevant.' Yet, he insists that we provide evidence to prove the existence of God

 

[Orc]

Every time you reply to someone, your response goes something along the lines of “I need Muh physical evidence!!! Of an immaterial being!!! otherwise I will not discuss philosophy!!”

Oxymoron, again.

if you cannot provide evidence for your god, then your god does not exist, that is the end of the story.

Your assertion that the argument for the existence of God does not warrant consideration until empirical evidence is provided is philosophically untenable.

we're not discussing philosophy here.

The principle of the burden of proof, while foundational in epistemology, does not necessitate the exclusion of a proposition merely because it has not yet satisfied the empirical criteria you demand. In fact, dismissing such propositions without engagement risks intellectual reductionism.

this would be correct assuming we're philosophizing, but we are not.

we're discussing the direct, physical, falsifiable, replicable existence for the existence of god that is lacking.

The proposition of God's existence is not inherently empirical but metaphysical in nature, dealing with questions that transcend the material and measurable. To insist solely on verifiable, physical, and replicable evidence as a criterion for dialogue is to impose a methodological framework that is ill-suited to metaphysical inquiry. Such an approach conflates empirical science with philosophy and erroneously assumes that all meaningful truths must conform to empirical standards.

Furthermore, your claim that you don't need to offer an alternative explanation for existence dismisses the foundational role of abductive reasoning in human understanding. The absence of an alternative hypothesis does not render the inquiry irrelevant; rather, it underscores the necessity of exploring all conceivable explanations, including metaphysical ones.

chat gpt generated, try again in your own words.

Your claim that "if there's no physical evidence, then it does not exist" reveals a commitment to a strictly materialist epistemology, which is philosophically problematic.

nobody cares if it's philosophically problematic, philosophy is a load of horseshit.

This perspective assumes that physical evidence is the sole arbiter of existence, dismissing non-physical entities outright without justifying why the realm of existence should be limited to what is empirically observable. By this logic, abstract concepts such as numbers, moral values, and even consciousness itself would be deemed non-existent despite their undeniable impact and utility.

there is no evidence of the non physical, you would have to proof that this exists first, but there is no evidence for it.

Regarding the question of an infinite regress of contingent entities, the principle of sufficient reason demands a self-sufficient terminus. An infinite chain of contingent entities, each dependent on another for its existence, fails to provide an ultimate explanation for the chain itself. Without a necessary, self-existent being or entity, the entire chain becomes inexplicable, violating the foundational principles of metaphysical inquiry. Your dismissal of this issue avoids engaging with the logical necessity of a terminus to resolve the problem of contingency.

another 'we can't explain it therefore god did it' argument, dismissed.

As for your analogy involving the Old Testament and its reliance on earlier, unverifiable texts, this argument conflates epistemological concerns with ontological ones. The legitimacy or historical verification of specific religious texts does not negate the philosophical coherence of a first cause or necessary being. To use the library analogy, the question is not whether specific books exist or are verifiable but whether the chain of references can logically extend infinitely without an original source. Without an ultimate explanatory foundation, the system collapses into incoherence.

more horse shit generated by chat gpt.

Your arguments rest on assumptions that fail to address the metaphysical principles under discussion and prematurely dismiss non-physical realities without sufficient justification.

there is again, no evidence of anything non physical.

Your dismissal of indirect arguments for the existence of God as merely "we can't explain it, so God did it" represents a reductive and intellectually disingenuous caricature of profoundly nuanced philosophical reasoning. Arguments such as the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective moral values, and metaphysical necessities do not stem from ignorance but rather from rigorous attempts to posit the most plausible explanation for observed phenomena.

so it's 'we can't explain it therefore god did it'

The fine-tuning argument, for instance, is predicated on the extraordinary precision of the fundamental constants of the universe, which allow for the emergence of life. To attribute this precision solely to random chance without seriously entertaining the possibility of intentional causation disregards the principle of abductive reasoning, which seeks the most coherent and parsimonious explanation. Far from an appeal to ignorance, this argument identifies a transcendent designer as a rational and intellectually satisfying inference.

more horse shit generated by chat gpt.

Likewise, the existence of objective moral truths or the necessity of a first cause transcends simplistic materialistic accounts. These arguments are deeply entrenched in centuries of philosophical discourse, critically engaging with alternative paradigms such as naturalism, which often fail to satisfactorily account for these realities. By dismissing such considerations as mere "God of the gaps" rhetoric, you undermine the distinction between a fallacious appeal to ignorance and a reasoned hypothesis derived from rigorous intellectual inquiry.

If you lack any intellectually compelling or logically coherent arguments, I will refrain from responding, as it is nothing more than an utter waste of my time.

theists are truly the most braindead, intellectually incoherent group of absolutely moronic dipshits entirely incapable of formulating a single coherent sentence on their own as demonstrated by this thread.

every argument you've made I've dismissed thrice so far.

 

[Orc]

Guys Orc is a brainlet retard I have destroyed him countless times read the whole argumentation, I have crushed him time and time that’s why he keeps using circular arguments “IFF I CANT SEE IT ITS NOT TRUE I STICK STEROIDS UP MY ASS BTW”

He has no arguments leave the idiot I beat him he got humbled so now he plays round the circle we go. Pull him out from it and hell run back the same way he did when I pointed out that logic isn’t Tangable same with ethics aging a human construct. He will run back to “HURR DURR I CANT SEEE IT SO IT NOT TRUE “

your entire argument was formulated for you by chat gpt, you lack the necessary brainpower to make anything coherent.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I realized this when he said, 'I don’t need to explain how anything came into existence; it’s irrelevant.' Yet, he insists that we provide evidence to prove the existence of God

Yet he insists that we just agree and grant him his position, his rediculous ludicrous framework materialistic paradigm that cannot make an account for abstract entities as I keep asking the faggot @Orc explain how can you account for abstract entities please fucking give it

 

[aber]

your entire argument was formulated for you by chat gpt, you lack the necessary brainpower to make anything coherent.

Stop strawmanning what ive just tested to be human text as “muh ChatGPT therefore I won’t reply”

It’s dishonest in a discussion to just run the other way.

 

[Orc]

Yet he insists that we just agree and grant him his position, his rediculous ludicrous framework materialistic paradigm that cannot make an account for abstract entities as I keep asking the faggot @Orc explain how can you account for abstract entities please fucking give it

still waiting for evidence of the non physical.

Stop strawmanning what ive just tested to be human text as “muh ChatGPT therefore I won’t reply”

It’s dishonest in a discussion to just run the other way.

next chatgpt generated argument gets a temp ban for spam.

 

[aber]

if you cannot provide evidence for your god, then your god does not exist, that is the end of the story.

we're not discussing philosophy here.

this would be correct assuming we're philosophizing, but we are not.

we're discussing the direct, physical, falsifiable, replicable existence for the existence of god that is lacking.

chat gpt generated, try again in your own words.

nobody cares if it's philosophically problematic, philosophy is a load of horseshit.

there is no evidence of the non physical, you would have to proof that this exists first, but there is no evidence for it.

another 'we can't explain it therefore god did it' argument, dismissed.

more horse shit generated by chat gpt.


there is again, no evidence of anything non physical.

so it's 'we can't explain it therefore god did it'


more horse shit generated by chat gpt.


theists are truly the most braindead, intellectually incoherent group of absolutely moronic dipshits entirely incapable of formulating a single coherent sentence on their own as demonstrated by this thread.

every argument you've made I've dismissed thrice so far.

Okay now with you asking for evidence, are you again asking for PHYSICAL evidence? Which would be the third time now, which still isn’t possible even if we knew with undeniable certainty that God exists.

Are you conceding on your past comments here that ask for physical evidence like a retard?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

your entire argument was formulated for you by chat gpt, you lack the necessary brainpower to make anything coherent.

Actually no it wasn’t i learn these arguments from Jay dyer and other Christian philosophers.

I merely copy pasted the notes I took from the apologists and threw them into GPT to answer your initial replies cos your an idiot not worth my time.

Ima start using AI again though cos you’re stupid and I regret actually using my clearly superior intellectual capabilities against you.

It’s like a mathematics pro going against a 5 year old it just isn’t fair.

Also I insist you use Chat GPT and google it seems you need it to get you out of your circular loop

 

[aber]

Actually no it wasn’t i learn these arguments from Jay dyer and other Christian philosophers.

I merely copy pasted the notes I took from the apologists and threw them into GPT to answer your initial replies cos your an idiot not worth my time.

Ima start using AI again though cos you’re stupid and I regret actually using my clearly superior intellectual capabilities against you.

It’s like a mathematics pro going against a 5 year old it just isn’t fair.

Also I insist you use Chat GPT and google it seems you need it to get you out of your circular loop

B-b-but bro I’m NOT talking to you anymore until you give me physical evidence of the nonphysical!!! I am NOT regurgitating r/atheism arguments!!!!

 

[Orc]

Okay now with you asking for evidence, are you again asking for PHYSICAL evidence? Which would be the third time now, which still isn’t possible even if we knew with undeniable certainty that God exists.

Are you conceding on your past comments here that ask for physical evidence like a retard?

there is no evidence for the non physical, so any evidence you provide would have to be physical.

 

[aber]

there is no evidence for the non physical, so any evidence you provide would have to be physical.

so you’re telling me with full confidence, physical evidence is needed to prove what is not physical, and you don’t see the paradox?

Are you alright bro

 

[Orc]

so you’re telling me with full confidence, physical evidence is needed to prove what is not physical, and you don’t see the paradox?

Are you alright bro

there is no non physical, you would have to demonstrate it exists first.

I do not see the problem, all I see is excuses for why you have no evidence for god.

 

[aber]

there is no non physical, you would have to demonstrate it exists first.

I do not see the problem, all I see is excuses for why you have no evidence for god.

There could be literally any other explanation for the nonphysical and yet the evidence you would want is physical… it is a paradox in and of itself. There can be no PHYSICAL evidence of what exists solely because it has no actual physical mass.

If you do not see the problem with the paradox I’m going to assume you’re retarded or ragebaiting and you’ll just be ignored.

 

[Orc]

There could be literally any other explanation for the nonphysical

the non physical doesn't need an explanation because there's no evidence it exists.

and yet the evidence you would want is physical… it is a paradox in and of itself. There can be no PHYSICAL evidence of what exists solely because it has no actual physical mass
If you do not see the problem with the paradox I’m going to assume you’re retarded or ragebaiting and you’ll just be ignored.

you've created your own paradox by claiming god is outside of the physical realm, but there's no evidence there's anything outside of that, you would have to demonstrate it first.

 

[aber]

the non physical doesn't need an explanation because there's no evidence it exists.

you've created your own paradox by claiming god is outside of the physical realm, but there's no evidence there's anything outside of that, you would have to demonstrate it first.

And how you asked for this demonstration of anything outside of the physical realm was in physical form. That is a fallacy. It is impossible. I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about if you can’t concede on that point where you ask for physical proof every other reply then double down and simply ask for “evidence” which you know could be anything else to prove that other realm.

 

[Orc]

And how you asked for this demonstration of anything outside of the physical realm was in physical form. That is a fallacy.

there's no fallacy because it's completely legitimately to assume there is nothing outside of the physical realm because there's no evidence for it.

It is impossible. I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about if you can’t concede on that point where you ask for physical proof every other reply then double down and simply ask for “evidence” which you know could be anything else to prove that other realm.

I know it's impossible for you to provide actual evidence for your claims, that's why I'm pointing it out, maybe you'll realize how dumb it sounds.

 

[khann]

more horse shit generated by chat gpt.

Nothing I said was generated by ChatGPT. It seems, that you struggle to grasp the essence of my arguments and instead resort to dismissing them as merely "generated by ChatGPT."

 

[aber]

there's no fallacy because it's completely legitimately to assume there is nothing outside of the physical realm because there's no evidence for it.

I know it's impossible for you to provide actual evidence for your claims, that's why I'm pointing it out, maybe you'll realize how dumb it sounds.

Philosophy and arguments surrounding logic can point us to the idea of the existence of a nonphysical realm because of observable constants throughout the universe that just aren’t consistent with absurdism.

Though you’ve said already you’re not talking about philosophy. So eh.

 

[aber]

Nothing I said was generated by ChatGPT. It seems, that you struggle to grasp the essence of my arguments and instead resort to dismissing them as merely "generated by ChatGPT."

He sees polished text and shuts down

Eloquence isn’t something only possessed by AI.

 

[khann]

@aber did he ban @PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[aber]

@aber did he ban @PrinceLuenLeoncur

I hope not, overtly profane Christian’s are funny asf

@PrinceLuenLeoncur come back bhai

 

[khann]

I hope not, overtly profane Christian’s are funny asf

@PrinceLuenLeoncur come back bhai

I think he did cuz his username has a cross through it.

 

[BadLuck7892]

I'm an atheist

 

[Orc]

Nothing I said was generated by ChatGPT. It seems, that you struggle to grasp the essence of my arguments and instead resort to dismissing them as merely "generated by ChatGPT."

it tested 100% positive.

He sees polished text and shuts down

Eloquence isn’t something only possessed by AI.

I see anything longer than 20 words and I stop reading if there's no evidence attached to it.

@aber did he ban @PrinceLuenLeoncur

he got a warning for spamming chat gpt generated shit and so do you after I checked whether it was written by a human or not.

don't waste other people's time if you outsource and copy paste all of your arguments, it's just spam.

 

[Funnyunenjoyer1]

TLDR: Church of England is a black and curry church now nothing “english” about it

Cumskins are such a deplorable sorry state of pink demons . Dark skin curries are now the majority in their churches, not gonna say which church I went to but it’s famous let’s just say that and only old whites were there but most were curries @Jason Voorhees type of curries dark skinned ones

And they were loving the whole thing.

How has the cumskins fallen so low? 400 years ago they went around the world saying “CONVERT OR DIE” just ask the Portuguese and Spanish.

Now they are like “MUH GUD AINT REAL I let Tyrone fuck my sister and GF”

no one knows what day jesus was born

 

[Orc]

no one knows what day jesus was born

no one that wrote the bible has even ever met him.

he'd been dead for three centuries already when the current bible was made.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

it tested 100% positive.

I see anything longer than 20 words and I stop reading if there's no evidence attached to it.

he got a warning for spamming chat gpt generated shit and so do you after I checked whether it was written by a human or not.

don't waste other people's time if you outsource and copy paste all of your arguments, it's just spam.

I never spammed chat gpt I even told you I used it 3 times in the openings of our dialogue because I thought you was some low IQ dumbass GAYtheist. I began to take you seriously and used my own comments. You have been here long enough to know my typing style and even when you did your checks only 3 came out as “AI GEN” which proved my point which is the real reason you unbanned me admit it

Now you have banned @khaan claiming he’s using AI (can vouch he isn’t, well I ain’t checked but I doubt it when I debates him
He never with me so I doubt he would here)

@aber stop arguing with @Orc he will ban you for AI or whatever, the guy CAN be reasoned with it seems hence why he lifted mine but it’s best not to speak with him anymore (unless you don’t fear a ban for something you never did) I just won’t speak to him again ever it’s that simple really.

I won’t try to start shit with him I just agree to not cross his path that simple because he can’t take the L to a Christian .

@Daddy's Home based and boy with the same golden frame and you used to have the same red name glitter I love ya

 

[Funnyunenjoyer1]

no one that wrote the bible has even ever met him.

he'd been dead for three centuries already when the current bible was made.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were Jesus's disciples

that's incorrect

 

[aber]

I never spammed chat gpt I even told you I used it 3 times in the openings of our dialogue because I thought you was some low IQ dumbass GAYtheist. I began to take you seriously and used my own comments. You have been here long enough to know my typing style and even when you did your checks only 3 came out as “AI GEN” which proved my point which is the real reason you unbanned me admit it

Now you have banned @khaan claiming he’s using AI (can vouch he isn’t, well I ain’t checked but I doubt it when I debates him
He never with me so I doubt he would here)

@aber stop arguing with @Orc he will ban you for AI or whatever, the guy CAN be reasoned with it seems hence why he lifted mine but it’s best not to speak with him anymore (unless you don’t fear a ban for something you never did) I just won’t speak to him again ever it’s that simple really.

I won’t try to start shit with him I just agree to not cross his path that simple because he can’t take the L to a Christian .

@Daddy's Home based and boy with the same golden frame and you used to have the same red name glitter I love ya

tbh I need much, much, much more studying before I ever even consider talking to another person about religion v atheism but yeah I do agree with you.

 

[Orc]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were Jesus's disciples

that's incorrect

the passages you're reading are interpretations of the original, and not the actual scriptures that were written by them.

 

[Orc]

I never spammed chat gpt I even told you I used it 3 times in the openings of our dialogue because I thought you was some low IQ dumbass GAYtheist. I began to take you seriously and used my own comments. You have been here long enough to know my typing style and even when you did your checks only 3 came out as “AI GEN” which proved my point which is the real reason you unbanned me admit it

Now you have banned @khaan claiming he’s using AI (can vouch he isn’t, well I ain’t checked but I doubt it when I debates him
He never with me so I doubt he would here)

@aber stop arguing with @Orc he will ban you for AI or whatever, the guy CAN be reasoned with it seems hence why he lifted mine but it’s best not to speak with him anymore (unless you don’t fear a ban for something you never did) I just won’t speak to him again ever it’s that simple really.

I won’t try to start shit with him I just agree to not cross his path that simple because he can’t take the L to a Christian .

@Daddy's Home based and boy with the same golden frame and you used to have the same red name glitter I love ya

nobody here's been banned besides the people obviously abusing ai to outsource their thoughts and spam.

I have to read through like 100 applications a day half of which are chat gpt generated I can recognize them easily.

 

[Funnyunenjoyer1]

the passages you're reading are interpretations of the original, and not the actual scriptures that were written by them.

it's the original verses, just different translations

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were Jesus's disciples

that's incorrect

He doesn’t know much about anything so he will kick ya for AI if you know more than him be careful u been warned.

the passages you're reading are interpretations of the original, and not the actual scriptures that were written by them.

not true. The culture off that time was to write in that style. It’s interred by everybody including church tradition that Matthew write more Matthew, mark wrote mark etc etc.


Your adding your 21st century cultural perceiption on 1st century people who never wrote “Story of the ten beetles, BY SMITH MARTIN” nobody back then wrote like this dude NOBODY.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

nobody here's been banned besides the people obviously abusing ai to outsource their thoughts and spam.

I have to read through like 100 applications a day half of which are chat gpt generated I can recognize them easily.

So you’re saying @khann used AI? How many times did he use it I doubt it tbh but I don’t doubt you don’t come access AI bullshit your a mod after all.

But I think your being a bit trigger happy man, he’s also a Kid have some mercy on the guy he’s only 18 nigga shit have some chill on him dude

 

[Orc]

it's the original verses, just different translations

what makes you think they're original, they're from 350 years after, there's no bibles available from before that time to verify that claim.

not true. The culture off that time was to write in that style. It’s interred by everybody including church tradition that Matthew write more Matthew, mark wrote mark etc etc.

the bible was written in greek by a person that didn't speak greek and wasn't able to write.

it's unlikely the original author is even who he says he is.

Your adding your 21st century cultural perceiption on 1st century people who never wrote “Story of the ten beetles, BY SMITH MARTIN” nobody back then wrote like this dude NOBODY.

the current version of the bible is from around 350.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

tbh I need much, much, much more studying before I ever even consider talking to another person about religion v atheism but yeah I do agree with you.

Just research philosophy. There’s a reason he banned me (it wasn’t for AI) because philosophy is Kryptonite to GAYtheism.

Watch Jay dyer he’s an apologist for our Christian cause he used to be Roman Catholic for 10 years now he’s Eastern Orthodox and he debates everybody be it Muslim Jew atheist Catholic or Protestant he does it all

Here’s a link to his channel

 

[Orc]

So you’re saying @khann used AI? How many times did he use it I doubt it tbh but I don’t doubt you don’t come access AI bullshit your a mod after all.

But I think your being a bit trigger happy man, he’s also a Kid have some mercy on the guy he’s only 18 nigga shit have some chill on him dude

he's made two or three or so long ai generated posts here and then denied it so I gave him a warning.

it's just a temp that I'll remove later, if I forget it expires tomorrow anyway, debates will turn into a shit show if people do this.

 

[aber]

Just research philosophy. There’s a reason he banned me (it wasn’t for AI) because philosophy is Kryptonite to GAYtheism.

Watch Jay dyer he’s an apologist for our Christian cause he used to be Roman Catholic for 10 years now he’s Eastern Orthodox and he debates everybody be it Muslim Jew atheist Catholic or Protestant he does it all

Here’s a link to his channel

Let me check out his stuff

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

what makes you think they're original, they're from 350 years after, there's no bibles available from before that time to verify that claim.




the bible was written in greek by a person that didn't speak greek and wasn't able to write.

it's unlikely the original author is even who he says he is.

the current version of the bible is from around 350.

Fully compiled Bible sure…. But we had manuscripts and passages that predated those which we used.

The council of Nicea due to the Marcian heresy is what forced us to establish a biblical cannon and that cannon is what you’re referring to. However Christians had access to all the books of the Bible prior to 350 AD

This is very basic simple knowledge, as I said GOOGLE. It @Funnyunenjoyer1 as I have demonstrated he doesn’t know much about Christianity he just regurgitates GAYtheistic nonsensical talking points with no evidence.

 

[Orc]

Fully compiled Bible sure…. But we had manuscripts and passages that predated those which we used.

we can't verify that, those scripts don't exist anymore.

The council of Nicea due to the Marcian heresy is what forced us to establish a biblical cannon and that cannon is what you’re referring to. However Christians had access to all the books of the Bible prior to 350 AD

the oldest bible that exists doesn't date much further than around that time, so we cannot verify whether the contents of the version made in 350 are in line with the original, so for all intents and purposes they are not the word of god.

This is very basic simple knowledge, as I said GOOGLE. It @Funnyunenjoyer1 as I have demonstrated he doesn’t know much about Christianity he just regurgitates GAYtheistic nonsensical talking points with no evidence.

another issue is that it's largely based on letters between paul and the church that we also can't verify, and might very well been frauded.

you say texts such as the book of enoch and the gospel of thomas were removed for being unverifiable, but every other passage also has this problem, they were removed purely because they contradict other texts.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

what makes you think they're original, they're from 350 years after, there's no bibles available from before that time to verify that claim.




the bible was written in greek by a person that didn't speak greek and wasn't able to write.

it's unlikely the original author is even who he says he is.

the current version of the bible is from around 350.

Which Bible white book which letter what are you referring to here? You realise the lingua franka was Greek in the eastern Roman Empire right? You realise it’s like how you a Dutchman speaks English and yes I’m aware Dutch and English are stupidly similar the point remains.

Paul was a Pharisee aka a Jewish teacher and priest he was a prodigy and has authority to hunt and kill Christian’s before he became a Christian. He spoke Greek Latin and wrote in Greek and Hebrew (maybe even Ahrimaic) as well.

Mark who wrote the account for Peter (gospel of mark is argued to be Peters because Peter couldn’t write). Luke also wrote gospel for another companion also wrote some for Paul as Luke was a great Greek Jew and arguably one of the greatest historians of all time. Honestly you should read up on Luke the author.

 

[Orc]

Which Bible white book which letter what are you referring to here? You realise the lingua franka was Greek in the eastern Roman Empire right? You realise it’s like how you a Dutchman speaks English and yes I’m aware Dutch and English are stupidly similar the point remains.

all current bibles are just translations of what they compiled at the council of nicea.

Paul was a Pharisee aka a Jewish teacher and priest he was a prodigy and has authority to hunt and kill Christian’s before he became a Christian. He spoke Greek Latin and wrote in Greek and Hebrew (maybe even Ahrimaic) as well.

john is described as illiterate and uneducated in the bible itself, he was an aramaic fisherman who did not speak greek, and he couldn't write.

Mark who wrote the account for Peter (gospel of mark is argued to be Peters because Peter couldn’t write). Luke also wrote gospel for another companion also wrote some for Paul as Luke was a great Greek Jew and arguably one of the greatest historians of all time. Honestly you should read up on Luke the author.

all writers of the new testament are formally anonymous, they don't identify themselves, I'm not sure what gave you the idea it was written by them.

none of the gospel writers are eyewitnesses and mostly rely on oral traditions based on eyewitness accounts, if you've ever played telephone you'll realize how low the quality of such information is.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

we can't verify that, those scripts don't exist anymore.

the oldest bible that exists doesn't date much further than around that time, so we cannot verify whether the contents of the version made in 350 are in line with the original, so for all intents and purposes they are not the word of god.

another issue is that it's largely based on letters between paul and the church that we also can't verify, and might very well been frauded.

you say texts such as the book of enoch and the gospel of thomas were removed for being unverifiable, but every other passage also has this problem, they were removed purely because they contradict other texts.

No gospel of Thomas was removed for it wasn’t written by Thomas and was written centuries before as in 250AD…

Book of Enoch is cannon in Ethiopian church and you don’t even realise what biblical “cannon” means do you

Biblical cannon refers to books that we deem important for our liturgical services and spare time. However deuterocannonical books such as Enoch are fine to read we just cannot truly vouch for their efficacy and thefore it’s not really advised to place within our cannons.

Hopefully this clears it up

This is why Roman Catholics have 73 Protestants have 66 orthodox 76 and Ethiopians 81-83 and nobody has an issue as there’s no issue reading more nobody will smite you for it.


We can verify the bible for we have manuscripts of the bible before 350AD. You also have to remember the bible was written on Papyri which makes it a bloody impossibility to keep indefinitely it’s not like paper it’s biodegradable unfortunately.

This is supported by historical historians such as Thallos, Josephus the Jew and even the pagan Celsius. Clement, polycarp, ignatius quoted many verses from the New Testament and these are 1st century men

Even atheistic scholars date the New Testament to around this time period.

So yes the Bible is reliable @Funnyunenjoyer1 dont have your faith rocked by this non believer who knows nothing of our faith not even the bare basics

 

[Orc]

No gospel of Thomas was removed for it wasn’t written by Thomas and was written centuries before as in 250AD…

none of the gospel authors identify themselves.

all gospels were written after jesus was already dead.

Book of Enoch is cannon in Ethiopian church and you don’t even realise what biblical “cannon” means do you

they are the only church that does this, that's cherrypicking.

Biblical cannon refers to books that we deem important for our liturgical services and spare time. However deuterocannonical books such as Enoch are fine to read we just cannot truly vouch for their efficacy and thefore it’s not really advised to place within our cannons.

surely it's not because it contradicts the bible about fifty times.

Hopefully this clears it up

This is why Roman Catholics have 73 Protestants have 66 orthodox 76 and Ethiopians 81-83 and nobody has an issue as there’s no issue reading more nobody will smite you for it.


We can verify the bible for we have manuscripts of the bible before 350AD. You also have to remember the bible was written on Papyri which makes it a bloody impossibility to keep indefinitely it’s not like paper it’s biodegradable unfortunately.

the oldest manuscripts are from 200 and are of the old testament.

This is supported by historical historians such as Thallos, Josephus the Jew and even the pagan Celsius. Clement, polycarp, ignatius quoted many verses from the New Testament and these are 1st century men

the earliest copy of the new testament is from 400.

Even atheistic scholars date the New Testament to around this time period.

they believe this, but there's no actual evidence for it, we don't have older books.

So yes the Bible is reliable @Funnyunenjoyer1 dont have your faith rocked by this non believer who knows nothing of our faith not even the bare basics

the only basics I need to know is that there's no evidence for your god, so the entire book is automatically shit, as it relies on that premise.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

none of the gospel authors identify themselves.

all gospels were written after jesus was already dead.

they are the only church that does this, that's cherrypicking.

surely it's not because it contradicts the bible about fifty times.

the oldest manuscripts are from 200 and are of the old testament.

the earliest copy of the new testament is from 400.

they believe this, but there's no actual evidence for it, we don't have older books.

the only basics I need to know is that there's no evidence for your god, so the entire book is automatically shit, as it relies on that premise.

The earliest we have of a fully compiled completed bible is from 4th century not 400s


Papyrus 46, papyrus 66, papyrus 75 all predate 200AD… so you’re wrong

Yes the gospels were compiled after Jesus died…. Yeah we know that’s what we are taught… they were compiled by his apostles thanks buddy

The Ethiopians are Christian’s are they not? And it’s not cherrypicking when my point was to show you how you don’t understand how Christian’s view biblical Cannon. What you brought up is a common Islamic argument against my religion an tiresome and easy one to break down and dismantle which I succinctly did here.


Ok so throw out academic scholars when it doesn’t appeal to you ok then fair enough even though they get their evidence from corroborating sources from pagans and Jews from the 1st century and early Christian defenders such as the names I mentioned before.

The Dead Sea scrolls are the Old Testament and those date to 300BCE…

You’re mixing the two up. Anyways once again you failed. So you can’t back your stupid rediculous worldviews up and your EVEN WORSE at attacking Christianity. I’m glad I forced you to fight using philosophy your shockingly shit at both but much better at that than this I mean bruh I have only been studying Christian history for 6 months and everything you said I have debunked without a google search