>spawnkills christianity

>spawnkills christianity

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yawn

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >telefrags judaism

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >psalms are prophecies
      >Isaiah 7:14
      Also the top one Genesis 12:2
      “I will make you into a great nation,
      and I will bless you;
      I will make your name great,
      and you will be a blessing.[a]

      This is not a Messianic prophecy, this is saying Abraham's progeny will be numerous.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isaiah 7:14 is actually the smoking gun the author of Matthew was retroactively writing things about Jesus to fit the Hebrew Bible prophecies.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Hebrew Bible
        No such thing.
        The bible was written in Greek by Greeks.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Harry Potter fulfilled the prophecy that he'd kill Voldemort

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Virgin birth
      AHAHAHA that bullshit is based on a shitty greek translation of psalms. The real prophecy was fulfilled in chapter 8 of Isaiah and it never had anything to do with a virgin

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >shitty greek translation of psalms
        and a shitty understanding of the greek language in general.

        https://lsj.gr/wiki/παρθένος#English_.28LSJ.29
        "maiden, girl,
        2. of unmarried women who are not virgins,
        3. Παρθένος, ἡ, the Virgin Goddess, as a title of Athena at Athens, "

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong. talmudic judaism was invented 5 centuries after Christianity. Everything in the talmud is a lie and a blasphemy.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the part written after is written to be consistent with the part written before
      >"a definitive miracle"
      geez im convinced

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Epicurus never said that

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This guy maybe didn't say it
      >Therefore it's not valid because reasons.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      then don't answer to epicurus, answer to op

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        I said it the last time this spammer posted and I'll say it again. Anglicanism solved this problem decades ago.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christians can deboonk this by just accepting that YHWH is a Zeus-like being that does whatever he wants and is strong enough to be worshipped.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    But Epicurus wasn’t a determinist, so the part where “evil is designed to test us” is erroneous.
    >if he would know what we would do before we did it, there would be no need to test us
    The point of being made in his image is to have free will, and to use it to do good things. Hardly any degenerates make positive contributions history, unless it’s to get non-degenerates to act in response. I guess a lossy infographic I found from an anonymous forum isn’t that comprehensive

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        That part is self refuting.
        It’s as dumb as asking “why 1 isn’t 2?” or “why doesn’t God just force everyone to freely love him?”
        It’s a paradoxical attempt at a GOTTCHA that someone unironically put in a supposed “paradox”

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you think free will necessitates evil?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          So what's heaven like?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          yes that's the point you Black person buffooon
          the explanation to god is inconsistent and paradoxical, contradicts itself

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil?
    You don't have free will if you can't choose evil.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Could God have created a universe where everyone could choose evil but without evil actually existing?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        not without free will

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          There exists a person on earth that could choose evil but doesn't want to choose evil. Does that person not have free will, or does free will not necessitate the existence of evil?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            i think that's the point of free will
            that you are provided with "could" but you decide on the "should"

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Interesting. You can choose and will something but still fail. People have the free will to fly on their own, success will vary. Free will does not mean a guarantee to succeed at what we will. So yes, its possible to create a world where people are free to attempt evil yet without the guarantee of actually succeeding and that world is..the society we humans created and police ourselves where people are free to attempt evil but can also be obstructed and punished by others with a will to stop them. If Humans can do this much then I think God should be able to create the proper thing.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        idk how that would work
        like for example if i wanted to decapitate a person
        do you mean that i could swing an axe, only to have it break on impact, but still have my desire to kill somehow satisfied
        or
        do you mean that the very act of cutting a head off would not "feel" evil

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          As in, you wouldn't want to decapitate a person. As you are right now, there are probably multiple evil acts that you have no desire to commit. The christian god could've created a world where everyone was capable of evil acts but no one had a desire to commit those acts. It's not paradoxical.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            > there are probably multiple evil acts that you have no desire to commit
            > christian god could've created a world where everyone was capable of evil acts but no one had a desire to commit those acts
            so am i created without desire to commit those acts or am i just an anomaly?
            and of course it's not paradoxical, since free will is not the same as a desire

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      where is my free will to grow wings or shoot lasers out of my eyes?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >grow wings
        planes etc.
        >shoot lasers out of my eyes
        duct tape laser pointers to your thick rimmed eyeglasses

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ironically, israelites actually partially solved this dilemma centuries ago by just accepting that either hell doesn't even exist, or it it does then God might actually just be mallicious.

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >evil exists
    what is evil

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The problem of evil doesn't need a definition of evil, just the assumption that it exists.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >just the assumption that it exists
        Which is false. "Evil" is nothing but a label for things you personally dislike.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Then the problem of evil doesn't concern you. You autistic?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        CRINGE
        We might all agree that “evil” exists, but moral relativists ITT are whining about phenomena that are simply ‘unpleasant.’ There are definitely instances where discomfort, pain, and suffering are necessary to learn. It’s highly disingenuous for hedonists and moral relativists to talk about “evil” as if there was an objective standard that they believe in- which they don’t. There’s no evil in a baby animal being eaten, yet I’m sure this appeal to emotion is present in most atheists’ minds as they debate this.
        Epicurus was a hedonist, so we should all assume that when he says “evil,” he could just as easily be referring to getting blueballs, or running out of candy.

        Why do you think free will necessitates evil?

        >be free
        >be psychopath/hedonist/sociopath/high in dark triad traits
        >purposefully act against social and moral conventions
        >cause harm and suffering to others
        You don’t even need to believe in an objective morality to see how people can be evil to others. Objective evil can only be understood by virtue of objective good; it’s not that god created evil, he gave you the free will (the keys to the car) and you decided to waste it. The glory is that you’re- possibly- a reasonable person, and you might see the error of your ways and change.

        See

        But Epicurus wasn’t a determinist, so the part where “evil is designed to test us” is erroneous.
        >if he would know what we would do before we did it, there would be no need to test us
        The point of being made in his image is to have free will, and to use it to do good things. Hardly any degenerates make positive contributions history, unless it’s to get non-degenerates to act in response. I guess a lossy infographic I found from an anonymous forum isn’t that comprehensive

        Assumptions atheists, hedonists, and moral relativists make:
        >although I don’t believe in objective morality, I believe in objective evil
        >god would act how I would act, and I would destroy all “evil” if I had the power
        >god is not omniscient because he isn’t acting on my personal opinions, which I project onto the world
        >it’s actually dubious whether or not we have free will, but in both cases I am not responsible for my own actions: if god is real, then he moves me like a puppet; if god is fake, then nothing matters and anything I justify as being good is necessarily good
        >suffering is evil, there is nothing to be gained from delayed gratification and denial of physical pleasure

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Prove it
        >inb4 evil is le absence of good

        If you assume moral absolutes like "good" and "evil", you assume an objective standard of morality independent of subjective human opinion; the only source of transcendent morality is a transcendent being, ipso facto you argue that God exists, negating your paradoxical argument against theism in the first place.

        If evil exists, you must concede that God exists, refuting your argument.
        If evil does not exist, your premise is false, refuting your argument.
        That's the problem with midwit logic traps; in thinking they're smarter than everyone else, they believe they can trap anybody, but in reality they're ony trapping themselves.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Good is what feels good
          Bad is what feels bad
          Evil is something that makes someone feel bad
          Seek good but not at the cost of doing evil
          There, that wasn't very hard

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good is what feels good
            Bad is what feels bad
            Evil is something that makes someone feel bad
            Seek good but not at the cost of doing evil
            There, that wasn't very hard

            That is Benthamite Utilitarianism, also known more honestly as Hedonism, a philosophy that has been thoroughly debunked at least insofar as absolute morality is considered. However, Hedonism is a valid and consistent subjective philosophy, provided it does not degenerate into Solipsism.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am a hedonist but I've noticed that if I treat people the way I want to be treated, they're more likely to do the same.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am a hedonist and if I treat people bad I feel good

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. I think you might be able to achieve a greater good if you changed, but if you don't care, go ahead.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            how do you know

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            From what I've personally experienced and learned about life.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok but anecdotes aren't a proof
            I've personally experienced the opposite of what you're saying

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Evil exists
    False premise.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prove it
      >inb4 evil is le absence of good

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Prove it
        Read Hume. Moral realism has been debunked.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          So you can't; I accept your concession

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you can't
            You can't prove your most deeply held moral convictions are anything more than personal preference instilled by genetic and environmental factors. There is no logical or scientific reason we ought not rape and murder eachother for fun. It's even conceivably the case that "evil" does exist, but it's the opposite of what you think it is, and what's "evil" is being generous and kind, and "goodness" consists of behaving like Jeffrey Dahmer.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's cool, but why don't you instead explain why evil existing is a false premise

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It cannot be tested, measured, observed, studied, or identified anywhere in the universe.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is killimg innocent people good then?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It might be to you, if you like it. I've never killed people myself, but I have killed animals, which has been fun and exciting in some circumstances, so I guess I can see the appeal. A human is just a type of monkey, after all.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Careful with that edge

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            A predictable npc response.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >edgy
            >buzzword
            Damn

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You sound like a bot.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you going to post a wojack now?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ur a gay moron bro

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That question assumes the existence of good and evil.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So everything is neutral? Because it's clearly not true

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So everything is neutral?
            Yes.
            >Because it's clearly not true
            Can you prove that?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If everything was neutral how come there are laws and punishment in place in all human societies?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If everything was neutral how come there are laws and punishment in place in all human societies?
            What are you even trying to say? Those with power, as in the government, can use their power to enforce their personal preferences onto everyone else.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            People have preferences, and groups of people develop laws and punisment to maximise the preferences of all within those groups.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >So you can't
      You can't prove your most deeply held moral convictions are anything more than personal preference instilled by genetic and environmental factors. There is no logical or scientific reason we ought not rape and murder eachother for fun. It's even conceivably the case that "evil" does exist, but it's the opposite of what you think it is, and what's "evil" is being generous and kind, and "goodness" consists of behaving like Jeffrey Dahmer.

      Except Christianity starts with the premise of evil which is also called sin. Atheism doesn't even equal moral relativism. If morality is genetic and environmental, it is not relative, it is objective.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sort of. "Evil" in Christianity is just anything contrary to the will of God. The israelites, which Christians stole their mythology from, allow for a more balanced God who creates both "good" and "evil". Both serve this God character's aims, supposedly. The easiest way for a Christian to debunk the problem of evil is to simply assume that God is more like the classical israeli conception of him rather than pop-culture Christian conceptions of him.

        >Atheism doesn't even equal moral relativism.
        Sure. You can be an atheist who believes in other stupid bullshit like moral realism.

        >If morality is genetic and environmental, it is not relative, it is objective.
        If dogs have fur, then doorknobs are angry.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If morality is genetic and environmental
        >You're honor it's not my fault. My genes told me to kill that guy. Also I was hit as a toddler.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I, the judge, respect that
          >however, you must be killed due to your dangerous genetics and tecit admission that you will kill again and thus destabalize society
          There, I btfo your gay little counter

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Jews (rightfully) see God himself as imperfect and idiosyncratic, more in-line wih their Greco-Roman contemporaries. Christards hen showed up and fricked it all up.

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The israelite habit of attributing their weak argument to ancient figure is hilarious.
    Anyhow, it's called free will, avi.

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gnostic thought blows this out of the water .

    Blame everything on the demiurge

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and would
        But he did? That's literally the core of Christianity.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          So why does evil still exist?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            because men are weak and have no faith
            >inb4 earthquake
            build better
            >inb4 illness
            eat better, also don't frick close cousins
            >inb4 dingo ate my baby
            man made problem
            did I cover them all?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why didn't god create a world where men are strong and have faith? Was god unable to do so, or unwilling?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why didn't God
            How do YOU know He didn't? God is timeless and has infinite power. How many lifetimes would it take to understand an infinite being of unlimited powers?
            Beside that, you're moving the goalposts. I'll give you the benefit of doubt for now, and add only that God made man free. If evil exists, it is not God doing it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How could you, a mortal, fallible being, know anything about what god does?
            >so anyway, here's what god did...

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I only know two things.
            God is good.
            God wins.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You, a fallible human being, can't know anything about infinite beings, or are you equating yourself to god?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know what God put in my heart. Equating myself to God would mean rebelling against Him and questioning His authority.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I know what God put in my heart
            How do you know that?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how
            you just know. When you pray with an open heart and God answers, you know.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >When you pray with an open heart and God answers, you know.
            How can you be sure of that?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If evil exists, it is not god doing it.
            So god is not the cause of all things?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >evil
            >things
            is this advanced pilpul? if so, I'm not impressed.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You referred to earthquakes and illnesses. Those are things.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every question has an answer.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why does evil exists
            >because men are weak
            >why didn't god make them strong, thereby eliminating evil
            >m-moving the goalposts

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why didn't God make man strong
            Did you ever try asking him to make you stronger? It works.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is that a falsifiable claim?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would it be? God is Truth.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Unfalsifiable claims are unscientific.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >unscientific
            point being?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the claim is unfalsifiable, then the act of asking god to make you stronger doesn't prove anything.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't mean anything
            That's your opinion therefore not scientific. You have sinned.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not an opinion, it's scientific methodology.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >methodology
            man made problem. repent.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >god only makes sense if you stick your head in the sand.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, that's a you problem. Gods makes sense every morning you see the sunnrise.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the sun rises therefore god
            Peak apologetics

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            (you) problem

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Science makes more sense of that phenomenon.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but God made science, so you're still wrong.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is Gnostic thought not that the all-being transcendent God (Monad, whatever) doesn't really operate at an anthropomorphic level and is moreso the very being of existence itself, and that the demiurge is born from an attempt to fully understand such a being? So then the argument is no longer that the all-knowing all-powerful God is fully benevolent and would get involved and what have you, but rather that the very nature itself is contradictory to the idea of a premise of dualistic conflict. The Heavenly God is more a force of nature than a person, is all that is and ever has been and ever will be, demiurge included.

      I don't think it's very applicable to the Epicurean Paradox at all, because the premise of an all-knowing, all-powerful, omniscient, benevolent God isn't really there (although yeah, certain Gnostics like the Valentinians promote Christos as a saviour from the demiurge or whatever, but is that really the same thing). Or have I misunderstood something?

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Does God want to prevent Evil? No.
    >Then God is not good / not loving
    "Verily, I say unto you: good and evil which would be everlasting—it doth not exist! Of its own accord must it ever surpass itself anew.
    With your values and formulae of good and evil, ye exercise power, ye valuing ones: and that is your secret love, and the sparkling, trembling, and overflowing of your souls.
    But a stronger power groweth out of your values, and a new surpassing: by it breaketh egg and egg-shell.
    And he who hath to be a creator in good and evil— verily, he hath first to be a destroyer, and break values in pieces.
    Thus doth the greatest evil pertain to the greatest good: that, however, is the creating good.—"

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can God prevent evil?
    Yes.
    >Does God know about all the evil?
    Yes.
    >Does God want to prevent evil?
    Yes.
    >Then why is there evil?
    The first fricking page of the Bible explains why.
    >Could God have created a universe without these?
    Yes. And he did. God created the Garden of Eden as a comfy, happy, sin-free place.
    >Then why didn't he?
    He warned Adam and Eve that it will only remain comfy, happy, and sin-free if they obey him. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree he specifically told them not to eat from. So God did exactly what he said he would do. He booted them out and forced them to live in a world full of sin and evil, as punishment for their disobedience.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Could god have created a world where adam and eve didn't disobey god?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not one with free will

        >you ate an apple?! How dare you! You are cursed to live in the wilds and suffer!
        This is a violent maniac

        >what is an allegory?
        >god must really like his apples!

        >The first fricking page of the Bible explains why.
        Let's see...
        >In the beginning, God created
        So he created evil. Not omnibenevolent.

        Reading comprehension: 3rd grade level

        >a world full of sin and evil
        Where did it come from? Did it come from nothing, was it co-eternal with god, or did god create it?

        >god, objective source of goodness
        >man, free will, intellect to intuit god and goodness
        >ignoramuses and narcissists act purely in their own interests (which is inadvertently towards the end of material gain or physical pleasure)
        Evil is the absence of god

        >He warned Adam and Eve that it will only remain comfy, happy, and sin-free if they obey him
        Yet without knowledge obtained from the tree, they were incapable of understanding the concept of obedience / consequences of disobedience.

        Hence, God created a tick-tocking time-bomb Turing Machine with a Halting Problem. It was doomed to execute the script by design, it was just unknown when. Stochasticity/randomness is a b***h.

        >The first fricking page of the Bible explains why.
        That the Bible authors imagined their god in their likeness (moronic)?

        >knowledge of knowledge is recursive
        Yes, that’s often where the analysis paralysis comes from that makes atheists so self-conscious about believing in an objective morality. “B-b-but how can you know!?” Because we are all human and have linked psychological experiences, such as archetypes/platonic forms. Are cattle conscious of their servitude? You won’t know imprisonment until you’re free, but once you’re free that doesn’t mean you’re unrestrained by other factors in the environment.

        Acting in accordance with God’s will is a blueprint for righteous, moral living; you’re appealing to the HUMAN aspect of nature which is only knowable due to human logic. If you look to the environment for examples of goodness, you’re an idolater; the natural world is just atoms and static noise, no goodness or evil to be found. That’s why atheists might as well be animals because they see themselves as a part of nature, and not as the HUMAN with dominion over nature; they are slaves, unfree and unable to perceive slavery or freedom.

        Remember that Epicurus was not a determinist and he was a hedonist: he was an animal that pontificated on big concepts, but ultimately he was a slave to his passions.
        >free
        >to do whatever I want!
        Childish

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          There is no such thing as being a slave to your passions; the meaning of life is to pursue your passions, whatever they may be for you personally

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, but I'm sure you can also agree that not everyone’s passions are equally meritorious. If my passion is making money, and for that I’ll traffick weapons, people, and addictive drugs, am I just as righteous as someone who’s passionate about creating art? Don’t be so idealistic

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >for that I’ll traffick weapons, people, and addictive drugs
            What's wrong with that?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Begging the question
            If you can’t see the error then I’m not going to explain it.

            >If you look to the environment for examples of goodness, you’re an idolater
            And if you transpose all the worthwhile things into some otherworldly place (i.e. into nothingness), you simply make life not worth living.
            Hence, your religion is a death cult.

            Even if your god exists, it is actually a Cthulhu, that insidiously snuffs the life out of those, who got ensnared by it.

            >but ultimately he was a slave to his passions
            The thing you worship as god, is a crime against life.

            I didn’t transpose anything to an otherworldly place, I said that our shared psychological experience is the basis for understanding goodness. Your “death cult” Reddit sermon makes no sense, and you misrepresented what I said.

            How does free will necessitate disobedience of god?

            ok, but How does free will necessitate disobedience of god?

            Free will doesn’t necessitate disobedience, but disobedience is an option. If you take that option, it’s like choosing the wrong choice on a test. Eventually, you’ll reap the consequences (in this life, even) and that’ll be your ‘score’ on the test.

            The fundamental point is that atheists can’t have their cake and eat it too: if you’re an atheist, then you can’t concern yourself with concepts such as “good” and “evil,” since you have no basis for understanding them (outside of being inculcated into a 2000-year-old religious tradition that only recently became secular); and if you still think there’s an objective morality, then you can’t presume to be an arbiter given your subjectivity.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good is what feels good
            Bad is what feels bad
            Evil is something that makes someone feel bad
            Seek good but not at the cost of doing evil
            There, that wasn't very hard

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok prove it

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can't punch you over the internet (yet)
            But you could tell me a proof of the existence of the Christian God

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But you could tell me a proof of the existence of the Christian God
            The fact that all other religions lose debates against Jay Dyer

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Couldn't you use presupp arguments to defend any religion (or at least the Abrahamic ones)?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can use any argument to defend anything but whether that argument holds up in debate is a different thing all together

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you don't actually know whether Jay is right or if his opponents are just incompetent?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Good is what feels good
            Prove it.
            >Bad is what feels bad
            Prove it.
            >Evil is something that makes someone feel bad
            Prove it.
            >Seek good but not at the cost of doing evil
            Why?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you understand what "feels good" means? Do you enjoy pain? Do you dislike comfort? Would you like it if someone caused you pain, or be indifferent? If someone liked punching you in the face, would you accept that to be a good enough reason to let them punch you some more?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're trying to equate feelings and enjoyment = a moral good.
            so if that is the position you're taking you need to prove it

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's good for people to feel good, it's bad for people to feel bad.
            I like the people I like, and so I want them to feel good and not feel bad, and so I try to help them feel good and not feel bad. If I'm indifferent towards someone, I don't go out of my way to make them feel either good or bad. If I dislike someone, I won't try to make them feel good, but I don't want them to make me feel bad, so I try to not make them feel bad, either.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's good for people to feel good, it's bad for people to feel bad
            Unjustifiable assertion.
            >so I try to not make them feel bad, either.
            Pussy. Put an icepick through their head like a real man.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's good for people to feel good, it's bad for people to feel bad.
            you do realize there is a difference between critiquing the assertion and critiquing the mode in which you came to that conclusion right?

            Nothing you describes gets close to a moral 'good' that is shared between everyone. you are just describing your own taste preferences

            so again, how does feeling good = a moral good

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's good for people to feel good, it's bad for people to feel bad
            Unjustifiable assertion.
            >so I try to not make them feel bad, either.
            Pussy. Put an icepick through their head like a real man.

            If people feel good, it helps them be more productive and possibly benefit me in some way, or make someone feel good who in turn is more equipped to make me feel good. People feeling good is a virtuous circle.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have you considered giving money to a junkie so he can buy drugs to make himself feel good? Then he'll be high off his rocker, and when you can't give him any more money to get drugs to feel good, he'll slit your throat and take your wallet, because that feels good to him.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's good for people to feel good, it's bad for people to feel bad.
            What if I feel good when I feel bad? Who's to say I'm in the wrong for enjoying being tortured or mutilated or eaten? By what standard of morality are you judging my desire to torture or mutilate or eat other people immoral?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you feel good, you don't feel bad, duh.
            Of course what feels good and what feels bad differs from person to person.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then where is the universal absolute standard? You cannot have objective morality without an objective standard, and if the standard is only the egotist point of view of "my personal feelings at that time" then that's no real standard at all. Why shouldn't I kill and eat other people, if that's what makes me feel good?
            >Because it makes them feel bad!
            Why should I care? I'm the only thing that matters to me. Their opinions are not my concern. In fact, if I take the solipsist standpoint, other people don't exist. They aren't conscious entities, they are thoughtless blobs of matter that respond to stimuli in the same sense that a block of ice responds to heat by melting. Does a piece of wood feel bad when I throw it in the fireplace? Does a brick feel bad when I mortar it into place? Of course not.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why shouldn't I kill and eat other people, if that's what makes me feel good?
            You can do that if you want to, but don't be surprised if you'll experience negative consequences. Depending, of course, on what you consider to be negative consequences, but I'm assuming.

            ok but anecdotes aren't a proof
            I've personally experienced the opposite of what you're saying

            I said "I think", not "I know".

            Have you considered giving money to a junkie so he can buy drugs to make himself feel good? Then he'll be high off his rocker, and when you can't give him any more money to get drugs to feel good, he'll slit your throat and take your wallet, because that feels good to him.

            I do discriminate between people when deciding whether to or how to make them feel good on the basis of how likely they are to make me feel good in turn.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If good and evil "depend" on some random human's personal interpretation of the concepts, then they have no meaning whatsoever. That's a fundamental denial of the first rule of philosophy - the Law of Identity.
            A = A
            If A = B, C, D, E... then A has no meaning and is an irrelevant concept.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I believe that some things will make you feel ultimately better than others, and that pursuing some goods will be better for everyone, which will also help you. There is a hierarchy of goods.

            >You can do that if you want to, but don't be surprised if you'll experience negative consequences
            now you're ignoring the moral good you've been talking about

            I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, because I don't think it's ultimately beneficial for you or to anyone else. I'm just saying that nothing can stop you, if you want to pursue that particular thing disregarding other future possibilities of feeling good or feeling bad.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, because I don't think it's ultimately beneficial for you or to anyone else. I'm just saying that nothing can stop you, if you want to pursue that particular thing disregarding other future possibilities of feeling good or feeling bad.
            so where is this moral good you keep talking about but suddenly drop?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Things aren't only good or only bad, there are good and bad sides to everything. Some things are more good/less bad than others, though.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok how do you know

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I know that some things that might feel good in the moment are ultimately harmful for me. And that some hardships aren't worth enduring for what you get as a reward.
            How do you know that God exists?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's self-evident. And since you're a moral relativist, what I say is universally correct because I believe it to be so. Checkmate.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            how do you know what feels good = what is morally good

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good is just a word humans made up for stuff they like

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is a hierarchy of goods.
            All morals are equal...but some are more equal than others.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hierarchy = equality

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I thought it was an argument, sorry

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well there is an argument, namely that the philosophical subversion of objective morality goes hand in hand with Bolshevism and its concomitant tyrannical mindbreaking of its subject populace.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can do that if you want to, but don't be surprised if you'll experience negative consequences
            now you're ignoring the moral good you've been talking about

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you understand what "feels good" means?
            Yeah, but something being pleasurable doesn't mean it's "good". That's a naturalistic fallacy.

            > Do you enjoy pain?
            Sometimes, yes. There's lots of sadists and masochists out there.

            >Do you dislike comfort?
            Sometimes. I feel it can lead to an erosion of the faculties.

            > Would you like it if someone caused you pain, or be indifferent?
            Probably not, so I'd want to cause them pain in reprisal, up to and including their torture and rape, and the torture and rape of their loved ones, depending on the perceived offense and it's scale.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't prove it you assert it. It's a norm like any other. It's just the will to so something, the same as the religious only it's your will rather than gods

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Since free will doesn't necessitate disobedience, god was able to create a world where adam and eve didn't disobey god.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, so then why didn’t God create a world where Adam could’ve disobeyed God, but didn’t?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only thing you'd be doing wrong is depriving people of their freedom by trafficking them. The meaning of life is becoming as free to pursue your passions as possible unless that interferes with the freedoms of others to do the same

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If you look to the environment for examples of goodness, you’re an idolater
          And if you transpose all the worthwhile things into some otherworldly place (i.e. into nothingness), you simply make life not worth living.
          Hence, your religion is a death cult.

          Even if your god exists, it is actually a Cthulhu, that insidiously snuffs the life out of those, who got ensnared by it.

          >but ultimately he was a slave to his passions
          The thing you worship as god, is a crime against life.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          How does free will necessitate disobedience of god?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            God demands you obey his will or you go to Hell.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok, but How does free will necessitate disobedience of god?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            BDSM

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Reading comprehension: 3rd grade level
          I read the first page. This was the closest I could find that answered the question. Keep seething.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you ate an apple?! How dare you! You are cursed to live in the wilds and suffer!
      This is a violent maniac

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The first fricking page of the Bible explains why.
      Let's see...
      >In the beginning, God created
      So he created evil. Not omnibenevolent.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a world full of sin and evil
      Where did it come from? Did it come from nothing, was it co-eternal with god, or did god create it?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He warned Adam and Eve that it will only remain comfy, happy, and sin-free if they obey him
      Yet without knowledge obtained from the tree, they were incapable of understanding the concept of obedience / consequences of disobedience.

      Hence, God created a tick-tocking time-bomb Turing Machine with a Halting Problem. It was doomed to execute the script by design, it was just unknown when. Stochasticity/randomness is a b***h.

      >The first fricking page of the Bible explains why.
      That the Bible authors imagined their god in their likeness (moronic)?

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but free will
    Nope
    1. Omniscience Paradox
    Strict Determinist: If God is all knowing we don’t have free will because he knows everything that we will do in the future, which means the future is predetermined. He already knows who will or will not die a sinner the moment they are born. If God is omniscient he already knows what he will do in the future too, which means he also lacks free will
    Compatibilist: God can create a world where we theoretically could sin, but no one would actually want to do it so it never happens. However he hasn’t done that

    2. Heaven and free will
    If Heaven has free will then God is capable of creating a world of eternal bliss with no suffering, that also has free will, yet doesn’t do that

    If Heaven lacks free will then free will isn’t particularly valuable. We will spend eternity with no free will anyways, our short lives with free will is working towards this as a goal. Religion portrays Heaven as a reward, something desirable, so it is admitting that an eternity of bliss with no free will is preferable over a short life filled with suffering with free will.

    3. Degree of evil
    God can create an exact replica of our current world, but make one heinous evil impossible to commit, like rape. We would still have free will and live in an objectively better world

    If you object and say that isn’t free will, the rebuttal is God decides what is or isn’t possible. I can’t phase through walls or stop time in this world, does that mean I lack free will? Why can’t God just make rape impossible then?

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Someone just tell me the contradiction entailed in a world with free will, where everyone chooses the good

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      this
      god could make a universe where evil is just as possible as humans growing wings

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There isn't; hence why the problem of evil can't be solved by christians and similar

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christians already solved it. It breaks down at
        >to test us
        which is wrong the answer is To redeem us

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          That doesn't make sense
          >you have to suffer because I created you to need redemption

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            God wants to demonstrate his Glory by redeeming man kind
            how does that not make sense?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Redeem from what?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why does god need to makes us suffer for his glory? It sounds petty and arrogant

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why does god need to makes us suffer for his glory?
            But this isn't an argument against the clarification
            >It sounds petty and arrogant
            you not liking something isn't an argument either

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But this isn't an argument against the clarification
            No it is; why does god need to glorify himself and make us suffer? It doesn't give an explanation other than god is egotistical

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No it is; why does god need to glorify himself and make us suffer?
            questions aren't arguments

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But can you answer it?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            can you make an argument?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh oh anon; are you aren't painting your god in s good light

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            actually I am, cope

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >my god is psycho that makes us suffer for his glory
            Mind rot

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            no argument just cope posting?
            glad it makes you seethe

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are the only one seething

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not seething YOUR seething '_'
            classic reddit moment

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe harder.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            glad it makes you seethe

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >in some indeterminate time in the future, the average masses will consider someone who deviates to be a bit weird
            gosh, so prescient

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >questions aren't arguments
            rofl they can be
            keep seething

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Notice how he starts deflecting after any follow up question to

            God wants to demonstrate his Glory by redeeming man kind
            how does that not make sense?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is asking people to make an argument against a position they supposedly disagree with?
            I'm not here to play 20 questions but if you are smart enough to make an argument you're free to present one

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm asking clarification on your position; and you are deflecting.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            but you are just asking endless questions to the clarifications
            can you make an argument?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You haven't answered any of the clarification questions ; which is the same actually

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did and you just continued to ask an endless string of questions.
            you're free to turn them into an argument that I can again tear down

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I did
            You did not; you just avoided the question sating "it isn't an argument"

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you mean yet another question after your previous question? this is all very childish do you have an argument or just stupid questions?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            And you still refuse to answer it; which is baffling

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already said I'm not playing 20 questions. If you have an argument please present it

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Argument for/against what? We don't know your position

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            could god have created a world where the glory of god is evident and without evil, or was that out of god's power?

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Evil exists
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God creates a world where you theoretically can choose evil if they really wanted to
    >however no one every has any incentive to do it so it never happens
    How is this not free will?

  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    'again, if god, like jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did he send this spirit of which you speak into one corner (of the earth)? he ought to have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all the world. now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote that jupiter, after awakening, despatched mercury to the athenians and lacedaemonians; but do not you think that you have made the son of god more ridiculous in sending him to the israelites?' - celsus

  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    For Stoics, the world is good and evil is just a mistake in our interpretation of it. For Platonists, the world is an imperfect imitation of the perfection found in God, and evil comes from that imperfection. For Zoroastrians, it's all Angra Mainyu's fault. For the Hinduists, depends on the variation but mostly it's the fault of illusions, karma and wrong understanding. Same for Buddhists. Polytheists mostly don't even need an explanation.

    It's amazing that this so called problem of evil is literally only a major problem for Abrahamic religions, who come up with ridiculous excuses about free will that never convince anybody. Even then, some israelites and Muslims agree with some of the other religions' approaches, like saying God creates evil, saying matter is imperfect or Avicenna copying the neoplatonic explanation. Gnostics just say that it's the demiurge's fault. In the end, the whole paradox only really troubles Christians.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *