the average atheist and average religious person are both retarded

[Hess]

Everyday there is some extremely low IQ argument that comes from both sides that have never meaningfully engaged in any form of research unless it actively conforms to their beliefs, atheists here have zero understanding of the religions they critique or what the actual arguments are, meanwhile actual skeptics that have studied the field and debated extensively have regularly conceded ground to theism and have said that although they are still atheists, they believe that said theists have proved and established perfectly logical arguments for their beliefs and are far less arrogant than the average retard that debates on here, this just proves that the average person on both sides arent actually interested in finding the truth but trying to get a slam dunk for internet points while they understand nothing about the actual debate over the subject of theism or skeptic debates in general (both atheists and Christians on here are guilty of this)

 

[JewishNationalist]

god can be logically proven and disproven as well so all of those ontological or cosmological are just retarded and dont even slightly make any sense. in reality all of that transcendent bullshit just doesn't exist including logic itself thats just our own tool. its always when something is supposed to be transcendent it just doesn't exist because its not even supposed to be material. if its not supposed to be material then wtf are we even talking about lol i can also say that some transcendent invisible unicorn cums his transcendent cum in your mouth in this moment so we basically can make up any shit @PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[Hess]

god can be logically proven and disproven as well so all of those ontological or cosmological or just retarded and dont even slightly make any sense. in reality all of that transcendent bullshit just doesn't exist including logic itself thats just our own tool. its always when something is supposed to be transcendent it just doesn't exist because its not even supposed to be material. if its not supposed to be material then wtf are we even talking about lol i can also say that i'm transcendent invisible unicorn cums his transcendent cum in your mouth in this moment so we basically can make up any shit @PrinceLuenLeoncur

if logic does not exist or affect actual reality then you are defacto saying your own argument is meaningless, also we interact with non-material things everyday and treat them as fact, by saying this then you are saying time, math or physics are not real just because they are not material, restricting existence only to things made of matter is silly, as for the unicorn analogy that is just a misunderstanding of what god would be in this context, the transcendent unicorn is a contingent physical concept that you arbitrarily labeled invisible, it doesn't refute any philosophical argument, the hard materialism that you are arguing for is also a fringe theory that is very hard to meaningfully argue for when concepts like quantum mechanics (matter stops acting like solid material, particles exist in clouds of probabilities and they dont take a definite form until they are measured or observed)

 

[JewishNationalist]

if logic does not exist or affect actual reality then you are defacto saying your own argument is meaningless, also we interact with non-material things everyday and treat them as fact, by saying this then you are saying time, math or physics are not real just because they are not material, restricting existence only to things made of matter is silly, as for the unicorn analogy that is just a misunderstanding of what god would be in this context, the transcendent unicorn is a contingent physical concept that you arbitrarily labeled invisible, it doesn't refute any philosophical argument, the hard materialism that you are arguing for is also a fringe theory that is very hard to meaningfully argue for when concepts like quantum mechanics (matter stops acting like solid material, particles exist in clouds of probabilities and they dont take a definite form until they are measured or observed)

who decides what is meaningless or not? or do you actually want to say that the concept of meaning is a substance rather than a made up mental construct lol? if logic is real then show me where is it placed ig. time is not immaterial it has been proven by epstein that time is not a substance and that its just our own construct that is relative and depends on earth orbit which was conventionally picked. math and physics were also invented not discovered. otherwise show me these laws in reality not on paper with nominal symbols that mean our explanations of reality but not reality itself. unicorn analogy is totally correct. if they said that there's some all knowing all powerful superduper ubermensch being but its just in some shadow world not in this and they say trust me bhai then i can also say that my unicorn that fucks you in the mouth is transcendent you should believe in him otherwise inquisitors will purge you. and i'm not a materialist either, the existence of matter has never been proven, because it was never proven that anything exists outside of my thoughts

 

[Hess]

who decides what is meaningless or not? or do you actually want to say that the concept of meaning is a substance rather than a made up mental construct lol? if logic is real then show me where is it placed ig. time is not immaterial it has been proven by epstein that time is not a substance and that its just our own construct that is relative and depends on earth orbit which was conventionally picked. math and physics were also invented not discovered. otherwise show me these laws in reality not on paper with nominal symbols that mean our explanations of reality but not reality itself. unicorn analogy is totally correct. if they said that there's some all knowing all powerful superduper ubermensch being but its just in some shadow world not in this and they say trust me bhai then i can also say that my unicorn that fucks you in the mouth is transcendent you should believe in him otherwise inquisitors will purge you. and i'm not a materialist either, the existence of matter has never been proven, because it was never proven that anything exists outside of my thoughts

The symbols we make up for things like math, physics or time are subjective but the actual universal reality they describe are real, einstein proved that time is relative to speed and gravity, time dilates near a blackhole even if earth never existed and we did not have the calendar to base our time on, the fact it can bend and stretch based on physical variables proves that time is an objective property of the universe and not a psychological illusion, and the unicorn argument is not a fair comparison to arguing that a universe that is changing and contingent thing which theistic logic here would dictate that there must be a non-changing non-contingent foundation that keeps it in existence, its just a silly adhom that doesnt engage with the argument, the whole time is not real thing is silly in general its like saying the continents of africa or south america are not real because we had to name them and discover them for them to be invented

 

[DrRodger]

Dnr kys

 

[Hess]

Dnr kys

Low IQ

 

[Hess]

The symbols we make up for things like math, physics or time are subjective but the actual universal reality they describe are real, einstein proved that time is relative to speed and gravity, time dilates near a blackhole even if earth never existed and we did not have the calendar to base our time on, the fact it can bend and stretch based on physical variables proves that time is an objective property of the universe and not a psychological illusion, and the unicorn argument is not a fair comparison to arguing that a universe that is changing and contingent thing which theistic logic here would dictate that there must be a non-changing non-contingent foundation that keeps it in existence, its just a silly adhom that doesnt engage with the argument, the whole time is not real thing is silly in general its like saying the continents of africa or south america are not real because we had to name them and discover them for them to be invented

Also to respond to your first part more properly, I believe it is a false dilemma to say that we decide what is meaningless or not because it isnt a matter of opinion, reality dictates it, if i say something like the square circle is drinking the colour green that sentence is just meaningless no one had to decide it was meaningless, its meaningless because the concepts contradict each other and dont map to anything that can possibly exist, meaningless is a structural fact of logic not some subjective opinion, as for if the concept of meaning is a substance or made up mental construct i find this to be a false dilemma, I don't believe something needs to be a physical substance to be an objective reality, if that were the case then software code would not be real @JewishNationalist

 

[JewishNationalist]

The symbols we make up for things like math, physics or time are subjective but the actual universal reality they describe are real, einstein proved that time is relative to speed and gravity, time dilates near a blackhole even if earth never existed and we did not have the calendar to base our time on, the fact it can bend and stretch based on physical variables proves that time is an objective property of the universe and not a psychological illusion, and the unicorn argument is not a fair comparison to arguing that a universe that is changing and contingent thing which theistic logic here would dictate that there must be a non-changing non-contingent foundation that keeps it in existence, its just a silly adhom that doesnt engage with the argument, the whole time is not real thing is silly in general its like saying the continents of africa or south america are not real because we had to name them and discover them for them to be invented

again the concept of time is just our construct. its a concept. it doesn't exist in material reality (if we assume that material reality even exists). if its not a concept aka our explanation of reality then try to touch, smell or feel time (you wont). the unicorn claim isn't shit wtf again it follows the same logic as those theologicans do. even if that ideal platonic realm exists then why do they assume that logic here even slightly works? and i don't get why there should be necessary some non-changing non contingent foundation rather than unicorns. again none of that is even slightly proved

 

[JewishNationalist]

Also to respond to your first part more properly, I believe it is a false dilemma to say that we decide what is meaningless or not because it isnt a matter of opinion, reality dictates it, if i say something like the square circle is drinking the colour green that sentence is just meaningless no one had to decide it was meaningless, its meaningless because the concepts contradict each other and dont map to anything that can possibly exist, meaningless is a structural fact of logic not some subjective opinion, as for if the concept of meaning is a substance or made up mental construct i find this to be a false dilemma, I don't believe something needs to be a physical substance to be an objective reality, if that were the case then software code would not be real @JewishNationalist

you cant imagine square circle is drinking the colour green because thats just how your brain evolved to work. it doesn't mean that its necessary meaningless. and again i don't believe that such thing as meaning even exists outside of our brains

 

[Hess]

again the concept of time is just our construct. its a concept. it doesn't exist in material reality (if we assume that material reality even exists). if its not a concept aka our explanation of reality then try to touch, smell or feel time (you wont). the unicorn claim isn't shit wtf again it follows the same logic as those theologicans do. even if that ideal platonic realm exists then why do they assume that logic here even slightly works? and i don't get why there should be necessary some non-changing non contingent foundation rather than unicorns. again none of that is even slightly proved

Time not existing in material reality does not mean it isnt real, again you are conflating the labels we made to describe the concept with the actual concept of time itself, just because we invented seconds/minutes does not mean that the physical relations they measure are not real or were invented by us, relativity gives us experimentally testable differences in elapsed proper time so saying you can not touch or feel time is not an argument against its physical reality

As for the unicorn thing, it doesnt actually challenge the cosmological argument or is it even hardly related to it, the argument isnt “the universe changes therefore God” A logical argument asks why contingent reality exists at all and whether an explanation consisting entirely of contingent things can be ultimately sufficient. You can reject the premises, but saying “why not unicorns" doesn’t address the argument. If unicorns are contingent, they require an explanation too so if you’re claiming unicorns are necessary, you now have to provide an argument for their necessary existence, I don't believe in the cosmological argument but I think this is jusf a very weak refutation

 

[Hess]

you cant imagine square circle is drinking the colour green because thats just how your brain evolved to work. it doesn't mean that its necessary meaningless. and again i don't believe that such thing as meaning even exists outside of our brains

A meaning of a word does partly depend on our minds and linguistic conventions, but thats not what im getting at with my example, the point is that some prepositions are objectively impossible given the definitions involved, also we don't need to "evolve" to be unable to concieve of a square-circle or imagine vague contradictory images, there is just no possible object that fits both definitions at the same time

 

[Johan]

i mean god may exist but its definently not these religions we have been presented with

 

[JewishNationalist]

Time not existing in material reality does not mean it isnt real, again you are conflating the labels we made to describe the concept with the actual concept of time itself, just because we invented seconds/minutes does not mean that the physical relations they measure are not real or were invented by us, relativity gives us experimentally testable differences in elapsed proper time so saying you can not touch or feel time is not an argument against its physical reality

As for the unicorn thing, it doesnt actually challenge the cosmological argument or is it even hardly related to it, the argument isnt “the universe changes therefore God” A logical argument asks why contingent reality exists at all and whether an explanation consisting entirely of contingent things can be ultimately sufficient. You can reject the premises, but saying “why not unicorns" doesn’t address the argument. If unicorns are contingent, they require an explanation too so if you’re claiming unicorns are necessary, you now have to provide an argument for their necessary existence, I don't believe in the cosmological argument but I think this is jusf a very weak refutation

all of that doesn't prove that time is real it just proves that what the concept of time describes reality but not time itself. its just our interpretation how the world works. you fuckign can't know the real reality because of your brains perception
if you ask why reality even exists then its a retarded question because it conceptually just cannot don't exist (because reality is what exists basically if we follow common definition). and i don't know why we even should follow logic to prove or disprove if god exists or not, i'm not a rationalist so idc honestly

 

[isis_Bleach]

You are not capable of understanding me. you are not expected to. i am beyond good and evil. I am beyond your experience.

 

[JewishNationalist]

A meaning of a word does partly depend on our minds and linguistic conventions, but thats not what im getting at with my example, the point is that some prepositions are objectively impossible given the definitions involved, also we don't need to "evolve" to be unable to concieve of a square-circle or imagine vague contradictory images, there is just no possible object that fits both definitions at the same time

word itself and its meaning doesn't just partly depend on your mind but it 100% depend on it. you also cant prove if its possible or impossible to imagine that square circle object because your brain doesn't work that way