Blud says this whilst believing g he can get super powers like the buddah
This does not suggest geocentrism.
It was made in 6 days. It’s called apparent age.
Blud says this whilst believing g he can get super powers like the buddah
Doesn’t nigga realise that his “philosophy” also contradicts SOYance you love so much
Continue, I quoted many more
You posted a bunch of random bullshit which you probably found on an atheist website without doing any research.
OK, so you can't continue, cool
Nope, I never said that.
Then continue
Some of them do this when questioned I'll admit but they aren't obsessed to this extreme
I see so you don't want to continue, that's the final answer, cool
Prove gods real
Burden of proof is on the person claiming God is real
Me not wanting to continue doesn’t mean I can’t.
Can you prove that Santa Claus is real? No
When did i say in that comment you can't, you clearly don't want to, so it's cool, it's chill, you win bro
No actually. Burden of proof is on the Gaytheists who need to make an account for transcendentals for it to be real
Burden of proof is always on the person claiming something is real, atheists don't claim something is real, they deny the claim that someone else made that something is real, it's Christians/Muslims who claim something is real (God) so the burden of proof is on them at all times
Why not? Why do I have to grant Gaytheists their position? The atheists need to account for transcendentals of there is no god, and then they need to provide evidence of how they know god doesn’t exist.
. You lot have to prove to me why I OUGHT to follow an incomplete redicukous paradigm
Listen nigga imma say this one more time, in the context of atheism vs. theism, the burden of proof usually lies on the theist because you're making a claim about the existence of a transcendent being, and I'm merely lacking belief in that claim. It's not about denying the possibility of a god's existence, I believe there might be a God (im more agnostic than pure atheist) but I refuse to believe there is one without knowing, you claim u 100% know there is one without proof and also how do i know its the God of the Bible? u see how the burden of proof is not on me?Why not? Why do I have to grant Gaytheists their position? The atheists need to account for transcendentals of there is no god, and then they need to provide evidence of how they know god doesn’t exist.
Arguing with you lot is alwyqs infuriating for this reason you guys just seem to assume everybody shares your paradigm and metaphysical approach of rank empiricism by default.
GAYtheists need to also provide a justification for why I OUGHT to believe that all of reality can be encapsulated within materialism/Physical and thus they must account for abstract invariant entities that we know exist but are not physical such as mathmatics, logic, the self, consciousness, identity over time, speech within space time, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and Value statements.
So far their paradigm has proven to be incomplete and unable to answer these simple questions every time they are pressed to it they just say “MUH self evident truth” which is ironic because that’s not a proof or argument why is it self evident ? Why can’t I just say God is self evident?
wtf is wrong with you lot? Even Buddhism hasn’t actually got a response to this considering your religion is semi atheistic so you guys also have to make an account for these things
I showed you the proof. Because of the impossibility of the contrary. Logic exists therefore GOD, X = Y.Listen nigga imma say this one more time, in the context of atheism vs. theism, the burden of proof usually lies on the theist because you're making a claim about the existence of a transcendent being, and I'm merely lacking belief in that claim. It's not about denying the possibility of a god's existence, I believe there might be a God (im more agnostic than pure atheist) but I refuse to believe there is one without knowing, you claim u 100% know there is one without proof and also how do i know its the God of the Bible? u see how the burden of proof is not on me?
True atheism and abstract concepts like mathematics, logic, and consciousness, doesn't have all the answers. But it does provide a framework that has been successful in explaining much of reality so far. This doesn't mean everything can be neatly explained by materialism, but it does present a coherent model for understanding how the world works.
As for the concept of self-evidence, I agree that it’s subjective. If God is self-evident to you, then I can see how you might believe in that truth, just as I believe the lack of belief in a god is self-evident to me. The key point is that neither position should be assumed to be universally self-evident to everyone. Which is why I don't make threads shitting on Christians but Christians have our cocks lodged firmly inside their mouths like to the point we can't remove them even though we want to, hence why I keep getting in these arguments.
If you wanna be a Christian without showing me proof then fine that's your life but as soon as you guys make threads saying God is real and atheists or non-theists are gay then u gotta show proof or u sound like a retard
AM I TALKING TO NIGGAS IN YEAR 12 HERE WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND, ACTUALLY THERE ARE ALOT OF YOUNGCELS ON THE SITE SO MAYBE I AM
Theravada brother
I'm only responding to this because after this you just started waffling out of your ass like an abused angry chihuahua.
Re read my last comment you replied to it before I edited it (not my fault but yours for replying so slowly)I'm only responding to this because after this you just started waffling out of your ass like an abused angry chihuahua.
Just because logic or mathematics are universal and abstract idiot, it doesn't necessarily follow that they must be caused by a being like God. There are alternative frameworks within philosophy and science that explain abstract entities as emergent properties or inherent structures of reality aka things that exist as a function of the universe itself rather than being created by an external deity. Like some philosophers and scientists suggest that mathematics exists because it reflects the intrinsic properties of the physical world, not necessarily because it was designed by a transcendent being.
Your argument also relies on the assumption of necessity like you're saying that logic and mathematics can't exist without a transcendent source. There’s some room to consider whether the laws of logic and mathematical truths are merely inherent to the structure of our minds and our understanding of the world. They might not require an external cause to exist, but could be consequences of how we engage with and interpret reality
This is why the burden of proof remains on both sides, just because a concept like God can provide an answer doesn't necessarily make it the only valid explanation, so in essence:
STFU IF U AINT GOT ANY ACTUAL PROOF, AND YOU DON’T HAVE ANY BECAUSE IF YOU DID THEN THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD KNOW BY NOW
Again you’re blatantly young and emotional so i'll allow you, maybe when you're older you'll find actual proof and show the whole world that your religion is the true faith
you cannot ground it in the human brain you should know this you fucking idiot and you call me a child yet you fail basic philosophy . If all humans disappear and you have 2 rocks are there still 2 rocks ? If the answer is “yes” then that proves it is not encumbant on the human mind.
Theravada Buddhism is a complete joke btw.I'm only responding to this because after this you just started waffling out of your ass like an abused angry chihuahua.
Just because logic or mathematics are universal and abstract idiot, it doesn't necessarily follow that they must be caused by a being like God. There are alternative frameworks within philosophy and science that explain abstract entities as emergent properties or inherent structures of reality aka things that exist as a function of the universe itself rather than being created by an external deity. Like some philosophers and scientists suggest that mathematics exists because it reflects the intrinsic properties of the physical world, not necessarily because it was designed by a transcendent being.
Your argument also relies on the assumption of necessity like you're saying that logic and mathematics can't exist without a transcendent source. There’s some room to consider whether the laws of logic and mathematical truths are merely inherent to the structure of our minds and our understanding of the world. They might not require an external cause to exist, but could be consequences of how we engage with and interpret reality
This is why the burden of proof remains on both sides, just because a concept like God can provide an answer doesn't necessarily make it the only valid explanation, so in essence:
STFU IF U AINT GOT ANY ACTUAL PROOF, AND YOU DON’T HAVE ANY BECAUSE IF YOU DID THEN THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD KNOW BY NOW
Again you’re blatantly young and emotional so i'll allow you, maybe when you're older you'll find actual proof and show the whole world that your religion is the true faith
He was sick and about to die nigga he just took what was offered to him it's not the same as a teenager popping a bunch of pillsTheravada Buddhism is a complete joke btw.
Buddha told his disciples to "Not think about the creation, since it's beyond our comprehension"
The Buddha clearly favored hedonism during his final days also, otherwise why did he consume sukra maddava?
Also, imagine getting your wife pregnant and leaving just after the baby is born.
And don't even talk about the superstitious part of it of course.
I can't argue with what u say anymore cus u make a comment then edit like 90% of additional content into it, you just stress out the mind. Learn to type properly then its possible to have a debate. i was literally responding to you then you changed ur comment, again and again u do this, then I have to retype my whole argument I'm tired of this, editing is only fine in small doses not completely rewriting a whole additional 5 new points and paragraphsRe read my last comment you replied to it before I edited it (not my fault but yours for replying so slowly)
But ima ask you again, how can you make an account for logic mathmatics etc? You can’t use “science” which is simply a method of observing natural phenomena key word NATRUAL as in it can only explain the how something is not the reason for it to be and it can only be for empirically based things. I’m asking for an account for things that cannot be empirically tested that’s the point
Maths etc cannot be encumbant on the human mind for the human mind is not invariant infinite and universal now is it
Arguing with Gaytheists is like arguing with a toddler
Either come up with an answer and I’ll leave my religion or STFU and accept you have no answer and that your paradigm is wrong and incomplete. I address all this in my last comment before you replied
I add stuff to it because as I read my comment I remember extra stuff I can add to it. I have adhd so it’s normal for me to be this way. Most users don’t reply within 2 seconds like you do most users by the time they respond I have already made my edits
)
This Buddhist which has no account for morality is stating that “Islam and Christianity” causing suffering is a “bad thing”Theravada Buddhism is a complete joke btw.
Buddha told his disciples to "Not think about the creation, since it's beyond our comprehension"
The Buddha clearly favored hedonism during his final days also, otherwise why did he consume sukra maddava?
Also, imagine getting your wife pregnant and leaving just after the baby is born.
And don't even talk about the superstitious part of it of course.
once again Gaytheists making moral value judgments to things that have no value in their paradigm
It's not as if Buddhism itself is harmless.This Buddhist which has no account for morality is stating that “Islam and Christianity” causing suffering is a “bad thing”
What is bad about “suffering” in a GAYthiestic worldview ? Simply posting a consequence for an event or action doesn’t in any way imply morality to it
You see this is why I don’t take these retards seriously they just pick and choose what they like from theistic frameworks such as “suffering” and think they can just insert it into theirs when they have no way to posit if suffering is a “bad” or “good” thing as everything is Equalised therefore suffering is just as good or bad as Pleasure and joy
It’s all EQUAL and yet this idiot uses “suffering” as a point of contention borrowing from Christian metaphorical frameworks like your typical intellectually inconsistent GAYthiest
Typical response from Black Christians or Muslims to ignore the suffering Christianity or Islam caused in the world and try and relatavise the idea of others pointing it out it in order to deny that the religion actually has some correlation in making ppl fucked up, it's the only way they can follow these religions whilst maintaining dignity jflThis Buddhist which has no account for morality is stating that “Islam and Christianity” causing suffering is a “bad thing”
What is bad about “suffering” in a GAYthiestic worldview ? Simply posting a consequence for an event or action doesn’t in any way imply morality to it
You see this is why I don’t take these retards seriously they just pick and choose what they like from theistic frameworks such as “suffering” and think they can just insert it into theirs when they have no way to posit if suffering is a “bad” or “good” thing as everything is Equalised therefore suffering is just as good or bad as Pleasure and joy
It’s all EQUAL and yet this idiot uses “suffering” as a point of contention borrowing from Christian metaphorical frameworks like your typical intellectually inconsistent GAYthiest
Anyone that uses the word "compare" after hearing an analogy is retarded and doesnt know how analogies work. The word you mean is "equate" which no one is doing.
Ethiopia is arguably the oldest Christian country on earth
) then you have to sit there and jsut accept there was nothing wrong with niggers being enslaved raped and tortured and nothing wrong that they were freed either, both are equal. There’s nothing wrong is no grousing for objective moral values without a divine benchmark then states such as suffering are just neutral experiences without any moral weight in that they are all simply states of being. You as a Buddhist must already kinda understand this so no crying over slavery anymore or the horrors of the abrahamic religions etc
Yep but just like Muslims they will overlook all this
See right there is where ur wrong there are no deities that you need to worship in theravada buddhism
No Buddhism is nothing like Islam, Muhammed claimed he heard the word of God, Buddhism was just a philosophy made by a human and only a human
Because santa claus is just a goofy silly fat guy who gives you presents, if his role was something more serious like creating the entire fucking universe then maybe people would do all of that for him.
Why don't these motherfuckers get anything through their thick heads?
@PrinceLuenLeoncur check out this retarded fuck.
> Religious
Just tagged one of the most retarded users on this site. Congrats
Don’t you realize you just don’t get it? They do it because there is zero evidence for the existence of a god like in the religious books, the credibility is on the same level as santa claus, someone wrote it in a book and people believed it without even receiving any evidence, just like kids believe in santa, because their parents told them santa is real and they believed it without questioning it
