Why are you atheist? why are you theist?

I'm an agnostic because I don't think anyone on earth knows the answers

I became an atheist after reading up on popular science books, like A Brief History of Time. That book particularly made me realise that nowadays the idea of a god existing, when we've discovered so much about how the universe works, makes no sense. The idea of a magical supernatural god doesn't seem to fit in with the sensible scientific mindset that I believe we should all adopt. There's also no good reason, no solid evidence, whey I should believe in one.

I am athiest solely because I was tired of my parents ( who are Muslims ) of saying and doing things according to the religious customs which made me get away from religion and also I was tired of them saying things I do and listen to is blasphemous also counting that my mom would shame me for being a so-called " heathen ". I feel as though I am far better off holding atheistic views.

I used to be an atheist before I turned to paganism and inbetween there I believed in a higher power that I merely refered to as "The Universe", I guess you could call it being spiritual. I think you probably aren't an atheist because if you were I think you'd know. Generally being somewhere in the middle is called being agnostic and that's probably what you are. If it's a topic you're interested in there's many religions to learn about and probably some religious forums too.

THIS IS SO ENTERTAINING!!!!

HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, RANDOMLY HAULING STONE BLOCKS THROUGH THE DESERT. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SAID BLOCKS WERE FOR. REFUTED AD HOMINEM

*vaguely gestures at the sphinx*

I just don't want to go to hell.

I'm agnostic because I'm hedging my bets. I cannot conclude any deity is more legitimate (though I hold my own biases on different religions) for the life of me I cant manifest faith. If I could, I would be a happy protestant. Since I cant well I'm stuck in an awkward religion crossroad where not picking is a valid argument.

Because religion is useless.

i dont like assholes who study ancient bullshit tellin me what to do

Oh? You have a problem with absurd accusations now? Mine must of stung harder than yours or maybe hit closer to home? Who knows. No, I don't delete comments. You're in no real danger if you were willing to put them up in the first place. You could, however, block me yourself. Infact that would ensure these comments don't show you at all and it would be near impossible for her to realize who I'm talking to.

Online? No, I don't think you're a good person. You openly and primarily engage in some real abuser behaviour, gaslighting being a very big one to avoid accountability even for the smallest, mediocre things. My issue with people like you is that you feel no shame and therefor would never be obligated to admit your faults but still want to be involved amongst people that can. You're a hindrance to anything worthwhile.

The rest I won't speak on as Countess' request.

I'm an atheist because of how insanely obvious it is that there's no god.

This is actually the only good thing about texts like the Bible being so horrible. Otherwise this would be quite the blow, losing the potential for eternal life, but fortunately the texts are so horrible that it's actually better not to have eternal life than to discover you live in the sort of world described, ruled by such an unthinkable evil in absolute control.

The Bible specifically reads about like what you would get if you asked a pissed off Trump supporter who is 100% convinced his wife is cheating on him and who has a weird obsession with his daughter's virginity to make up a religion. It's absolutely fucking horrible. If a woman doesn't scream when raped, she loved it, and you should stone her to death. If a man sleeps with his wife for the first time and thinks she doesn't feel like a virgin, he should stone her to death on her father's doorstep and the father should participate for giving this poor man such a shitty daughter. Gay? Get the stones. Wrong god? Stones. Wife smashes another dude's balls to stop him from killing you? Cut her hand off (yes I'm fucking serious, it actually felt the need to address this unlikely scenario). She wanted to touch that dick. Either way, she did, so the hand has to go now because obviously it's completely worthless now just like her entire being would be if she'd had sex before meeting you.

And I don't want to hear all that "that was the old law" bullshit. We can argue all day about the fact that Jesus says he doesn't come to change it or that the New Testament is still pretty bad, but at the end of the day it doesn't fucking matter. Know why? Because for one it's completely unthinkable that an all-powerful deity fucked up the first time anyway. It is completely unacceptable. Whoops! Sorry guys. You don't get to change your goddamn mind after that big of a fuck up and still act like there's still anything special about you. That's shit most humans don't fuck up that badly. Whoops. I was accidentally Hitler for a minute there. Sorry about being a sexist piece of shit and making you kill your daughter that time. My bad. By the way I'm still bad fucking ass. Bow down and worship me.

That's not a loving god! That's just the motherfucker in charge like in any dictatorship.

All of that's really irrelevant though. I can't simply _decide_ what to believe. If it looked like any of it were remotely true it's what I'd have to believe even if I hated it. The reality is that it's just not true at all. Thank God, pun intended. It's an alternate reality that defies science and history. It didn't happen.

Now there's a scale that rates disbelief which says a 7 is an atheist and anything less is technically an agnostic. Some of the world's greatest minds call themselves agnostic and say they're a 6.9 and I wish they would just can it and say 7 because it confuses the general population who grossly overestimate their uncertainty. It creates a false narrative. Scientists do this because they're so damn technical, but what people don't know is they say this because all we can technically know is that we exist; I think therefore I am. If I'm thinking, there's no way that I don't exist. But I technically can't even be 100% I'm typing this comment. It's technically possible that I'm fucking severely insane, strapped down in a padded room imagining that I'm using a site that doesn't even exist. Technically, I'm a 6.9 on if this is even happening. But let's be real; it is.

People need to understand that this is the uncertainty they're dealing with. If I'm dating a woman and she asks if I'm cheating on her, I'm not going to say, "You know darling, I really can't stress enough how strongly I feel I'm not but I could have had multiple personality disorder for my entire life and my other personality is constantly cheating on you. You might not even exist for all I know."

I'm going to fucking say that I'm not. Sometimes technicality is far from practicality and applicability. It's so tacky to apply such outlandishness to anything else, like the cheating, so I'm not going to here either. Certain truths can be taken as granted, and when they are, yes, I'm a hard fucking 7. So while I might be a 6.9 if answering as technically as some do, it should be known that I would bet my entire life on this for a quarter. If I'm wrong I get tortured to death. If I'm right I get 25 cents. I'd take the bet. That's the kind of certain I am.

The flying spaghetti monster was imagined to help 6.9s explain their position. We're not 100% the Christian god isn't real like we're not 100% the universe wasn't created by a flying spaghetti monster. When you drop the bullshit, we're sure. I'm dropping the bullshit.

That shit didn't happen. Interesting fact: atheism rises with intelligence on average. Can anyone think of anything at all that people are actually more likely to be _wrong_ about the more intelligent they are? Show of hands?

I hate to be so brutal. I honestly do and I know it means a lot to some people. And if it were the flying spaghetti monster I could just lightly bust their chops in a friendly manner and let it go, but the fact is that this stuff breeds some truly fucking horrible shit, especially for women, and I can't be asked to sit back and pretend to agree to disagree like it's a discussion about our favorite color.

If you'd rather hear the scientific reasoning for why there's zero chance, I can offer that too.

I class myself as an agnostic forward thinking Christian as that’s the culture I was raised in, but I also like some aspects of Buddhism and Zen philosophy. Just think all faiths need to find a way to coexist peacefully without demonizing each other.

Not talking on it, Countess asked me to chill with it. Yes, it irks me that my jokes won't be getting used on this matter.

1. Yes because you are purposely ignoring my positions to tell me you're right without actually being able to show it. It's why I've not made it past the third line but I can already tell you won't reference any of my actual positions and will just reference that my positions are dumb because you're smart but not actually reference my position which forces me to repeat my position that you've chosen to not address while telling me I'm stupid for those positions you continue to purposely ignore.

2.
- "Your positions being derailed": no actually I acknowledge you trying to do that, kind of why you're a chore to talk to.
- "Like the ten-ton block thing": I stated that you might be right on that but his other comments on the subject make it unknown so you would be obligated to investigate his position further because his other comments directly contradict that example you're using to reach a conclusion on his beliefs and then when I suggest you do this you tossed the suggestion away because in your mind someone can't make a bad analogy that in itself doesn't align with their views. So knowing you were unwilling to figure it out, I did it. As it turns out he is completely opposed to slavery but believes it could have it's place in discussion in a sort of "Freedom vs duty" context, but you weren't interested in talking about the concepts, you were only interested in shaming him, which is even after I put in the leg work you simply tossed his more in-depth explanation of his views aside for a shitty analogy. So you were proven wrong there.

3.
I made it to the "Any game of Chess" bit and moved on. Masturbate all you want but I'm not watching.

4.
Stunned. Utterly stunned. So let me get this straight. You're some mastermind here, knowing my every move ahead, knowing my bait that's super transparent (let's just ignore that you only claimed as such after I spoon fed it to you) but even though you were ahead of me the whole time you (((STILL))) fell for the bait that put you into this situation? I'm at a loss for words. Like, are you ok? "Haha! I fell right into your trap!...AS I PLANNED!". Hahahahaha. You got me fucked up over here, bruh. Now that's funny. (((MASTERMIND)))

4.5
Imagine claiming I'm the narcissist here when you've had to inject the idea into your mind that I secretly view you as this "final boss" character when I've said nothing but the reverse. You're literally deluding yourself into thinking I look upon you and become impressed because you just can't fathom a world where you aren't viewed as such, and you somehow have the balls to throw the narcissism label out there while taking this approach? Self-awareness is a wonderful thing but a lack of one can be even better for entertainment purposes. (((PSYCHOLOGIIIIIIST)))

5. Hahaha. This is a good follow up to 4.5. "Yo, I said I blocked her two months ago! Nobody else would have blocked their ex two months ago, bro! You're fucking stupid! That information would be enough for them to determine who I am because we carved that date out specifically for (((our))) break up, bro!" Fuck, do you think your relationship was the only one that went tits up two months ago?
"Information she didn't have in the first place". How do you honestly refer to yourself as big brain? Man. Ok, let me explain this to you. If she knows you use this site then she is going to reference the time you brought it up within a certain time period of you being on here. She's then going to apply that information with the fact you two broke up 2 months ago, so realistically it's 4 months you've been on this site in that relationship. Unless your "loving relationship" was less than 4 months she's going to know roughly when you started using this site because as you've stated it was such a common topic in your relationship that she would refer to you being on that site. You're adding more and more information when you claim to be trying to do the opposite.

Exactly, people (((CAN))) just easily check, aside from the fact I don't even think you knew this until I spoon fed it to you, you would of still had the blanket of saying this was a new account and that you've been a user here far longer with previous accounts, which is what some users have actually done on this site. Chriiiiiiist, you could of even used that excuse on me and it would of blown me wide open 'cus I couldn't of possibly known. "He can't fool me! I'm the fooler here! NO! HE'S MAKING IT UP! Sure he actually explained how it benefitted his argument, BUT HE LYIN'!" You're not that hard to fool, dude.

6. It's not the truth because you have actually given FAR more information to be identified than the original Jennifer Lawrence look-alike comment you made did and you're still risking this woman finding out just to jack yourself off and even when I outright implied that I may make it easier for her to find you, NOT EVEN THEN did you delete it or stop providing more information just to "best" some internet rando, but me just going "Jesus Christ, dude" was enough? Shieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. No, the truth is that comment was a great representation of how in love with yourself you are and in your attempts to do so you made it glaringly obvious.
I don't think you deleted it because I thought it was cringe, I think you deleted it because YOU know it was cringe after the reaction I gave.

A) This is massively irrelevant. We're not talking about what you're willing to tell people in private you trust, we're talking about information you put public despite claiming you took down a post because it had too much information for someone in the public to recognize you.

B) Yikes. You care what everyone but 3 people think of you?...Actually yeah, that falls into my thoughts on you, but (((AGAIN))) you've just opened up yourself for criticism. If my opinion means sooooooooooo fuckin' little to you, like it should, then why in the holy fuck are you risking being identified by offering more information to someone who's opinion you don't care about that your ex could use?

Well shit, after finding out you pay to get into girls' DMs online I actually feel like you need the money. xD

Slide into them DMs, boi. Jesus Christ. First opportunity. This hits harder when I realized you paid to slip into DMs. Omg.

Wow. Having read through this I'm quite happy to let it stay as is to represent your bullshitting ways not only in the blatant display of bullshittery but also a display of gaslight behaviours, which makes me wonder if you're so afraid of your ex finding out who you are on this site as she would have similar or worse stories that would affirm my impression of you being an abusive personality. Hmm.

Anyway, back on topic, as brief as you tried to make it.

You keep saying you're so many steps ahead but I'm having to repeat my positions and the irony only seems to be lost on you.
The point was that I can easily see how long you've been on this site, it only requires me to hover over your name. For you to fall for the 2 month bait which led to you offering more information (((your ex))) could use even after I told you that I may parrot this information renders your "these comments are buried" response useless, and it shows that you are willing to put more information out there for her to easily identify you if it means defending your ego against some rando online...Which runs counter to this make-believe scenario you have made that you try to hide any relevant information for this ex not to identify you.

"I could parrot what she said."
But you're many steps ahead of me, right? How can you both be so far ahead of me yet be completely at my mercy at the same time? You're a joke, it's actually sad at this point but your attempt to derail the conversation into whatever the fuck the next part is is even sadder.

The sad part is that you've spent so much time trying to convince yourself you've gained some sort of win here but there's a part of you that knows you've painfully lost which is why you felt the need to make the vast majority of this comment just a huge fuck-off spiel about, well to be honest I don't even fucking know what, something about sex, Pokemon, and alcoholism, to compensate for your loss.

We already know you're too shameless to do anything but double down, that's how this topic came about from your inability to just say, "Yeah, posted cringe, bro. Regretted it".

Lay off the Jiggly puffs, bro.

*Edit*
Shit, sorry. I forgot that only alcoholism can take someone's full attention away from something.

Let's pretend Rainbow 6 is actual six shots of tequila from a unicorns ass.

I'm playing Rainbow 6 so I'll have to rush this up.

1.
- This mastermind approach doesn't work considering you've admitted my involvement with you on this topic has forced you to delete a comment and will be continuing to do so. So many steps ahead. Smart boi.
- Yes, when I ask a question the answer means something. That's how questions work in a discussion. Smart boi.
- The answers you gave demonstrated an inconsistency that demonstrates your bullshittery.

2.
- That was a surprise to you yet you're a few steps ahead? You are aware that I can see how long you were on the site for, right? Funny to be surprised when you're so hyper aware of my shenanigans. Smart boi.
- This doesn't work. If you were afraid of her finding out at all you wouldn't of bothered giving any chance of her finding this out, not unless your ego is in such a need of protecting that you would gladly put that risk out there just to posture with me, some rando on the internet.
- Not only this but I also mentioned that I was looking for your reaction and even after I made you aware that I would/could use this, meaning she wouldn't need to go through this comment feed, you still continued to make up elements of this fairy tale you're spinning. Funny, you said you were a few steps ahead but I think you've got your directions mixed up.
- (((Ofcourse))) you seen through this transparent attempt (((AFTER))) I had to spoon feed you what I was doing, but even then you still didn't know that the "fuck up" on how much time you've been on this site was for you to openly offer information AFTER saying you were trying to hide info from her...But I'm sure you were just pretending to be shocked now that I've spoon fed it to you (((again))). It's pretty funny because this is actually what you attempted to do to me with the whole "Ad Hom/ Red Herring" thing, only I can actually do it. Haha. You're a sad act, man.

3.
- Was an insult. You assumed that the only reason why someone's attention could be lessened to the matter is through a negative characteristic of addiction and now you're backpedalling because you got called on it.
- The rest is you trying to say, "I couldn't of been a piece of shit! I experienced the very thing I'm trying to shame your character for!" Spare me.

4.
- Yes, and I already covered this...Man, you seem very forgetful...Addiction, bro?
- The whole point of me telling you that I may use this against you was to bypass the, "I'mm'a delete them anyway" angle to see if you would still risk it. You were aware that I would potentially use it against you which made your "I'll delete them" angle meaningless because I could just screenshot or parrot what was said, which means if you were to continue after this then you weren't genuinely worried about this person finding out because you'd of just deleted the comments and stopped adding more info.
- Do you see why it's hilarious that you think you're steps ahead, bro?
- "You were agitated in writing that"...You're trying hard to convince yourself so bad here. It's pretty awesome to see.

5.
- More personal attacks of using the subject of addiction to belittle people. Sad, sad act. :/

It takes a specific type of individual to take someone who openly admitted they were wrong and corrected themselves without needing prompted to do so and then tie their own admitted faults on the issue of addiction just so that you can insult the other. You're a stand up act but hey, it was my mistake and I'm good for it.

Also, yes you were correct on that too, it wasn't six months. How foolish of me, error #2 I suppose. Ok, so now that we got that out of the way. You are painfully aware of the lack of genuine approach that's on display from you here?
First you claim you deleted the comment not due to any amount of cringe but because this woman could find you on here. You then indulge the topic and even in the conversation where you claim to be trying to limit the information this woman can use to determine who you are you decide to openly pair the previous context of Jennifer.L with not only the exact methods she's tried to contact you in which she could realize you're talking about her but also (((the exact time period of which you started using the site))) and this was exactly AFTER I openly implied I may use this information against you.
*Disclaimer*: I'm not interested enough to use that information against you, I was looking to see what your reaction would be. Truth be told I'm sure you have broken up with a GF lately but her involvement with this site doesn't exist.

I cannot believe you took this so far. All you had to do was admit you went a little too far with your masturbation and leave it at that but you have had to construct this absolute merry-go-round of a scenario just to avoid accountability for something so fuckin' small that if you can't even admit to something this small then what fuckin' hope does anyone have of having a good faith argument with you?

It's amusing for you to attack my intelligence when you so blindly put on display exactly why you're a bullshitter, as intended. Good job.

Oops. Apologies on that last part, I dont know if you edited it in after or I missed it but let's just say it was the latter.

Two months? That's when you broke up roughly and went no contact? Weird, that's exactly around the time your account was made. So you're telling me you and her were talking about this site after yall broke up and went no contact and she was going all psycho as you claim? Fucking lol.

You're blatantly lying (((AGAIN))). First of all if it wasnt intentional then you couldn't of portrayed it as a "rare moment of positivity" from the exchange. Not only this but my comment did not even hint towards the reason for the comment being bad was due to the details within it, I simply said "Jesus Christ, dude" and you have made two entirely different stories now to clearly hide the fact.

Oh? That's interesting. I'll keep that in my back pocket, not for disagreeing politically but you give off abuser vibes and I'll be keeping an eye out for how you treat others in the community.

Oh isnt that interesting, you're going to delete even more comments but only (((after))) I point out it's a requirement for you to be consistent. It's so shameless, dude.

Answer the fucking question at the end. You referenced the question then intentionally ignored it. (((WHEN))) did you two break up?

I dont click links from you but you're using rhetoric to get away from accountability. You quoted what he said and not once did he say "vanity monuments". Are you telling me that the quote you link to infact directly says "vanity monuments" or anything other than the quote you previously mentioned in the past comment in regards to stone slabs?

Spare me. Again with the rhetoric. The reason why you done this is because you were made aware of how utterly absurd the comment was in depth and topic. Nobody referenced the anonymous aspect and for you to try to spin the tale that we were buddy buddy and I was trying to help you not be recognized by someone I couldn't of even known was on this site is ridiculous and shameless. I cannot believe you would even attempt to appeal to some internet friendship moment to cover this mundane shame moment. Your response to this is more cringe that that out there comment in question.

The rest is rhetoric that relies on the lie I just refuted that relies on me knowing you have someone on here that could identify you and running to your rescue by saying something as vague as "Jesus Christ".

You're just blatantly a bullshitter and it's getting to the point of absurdity.

Curious. If I was to parrot this story of you and Jennifer to the point this ex of yours that is on this site (she isnt, I know it was a bullshit excuse) would inevitably see it then what would you be required to do? Make a new account? I mean if you will do anything in your power not to be recognized then what would your next course of action be? Also, just curious, roughly how long ago did you break up with this ex?

1. That's nice but you have a track record of being proven wrong so I don't care and I'm not spending time reading your rhetoric to explain why you're correct by completely avoiding the actual topic. Moving on.

2. Moving on.

3. You don't know what he added as "unnecessary shit" as, you just lied that he believed they were putting monuments up. You didn't ask him about this because you felt you could use the vagueness to your favour.

4. Ok then you aren't criticizing the pharaohs, you're criticizing the Pharaohs guard. You're wrong either way,

5. No but it shows how pitiful you are and utterly shameless you are. You made the cringiest fuckin' comment on this site on a post about some dude simping for Jennifer.L and you just felt the need to go on some big perfomative display of the bleeding heart that nobody asked for and was barely related, it was all "me, me, me" and we both know how gross it was because all it took was one little "Jesus Christ" from me and down the post came, then you spouted some bullshit reason that your ex is on the site or some bullshit. It was to point out how utterly shameless you are. All you had to do was say, "Yeah, that was a bit cringe" and move on but even that was too much for you.

6. Ok, so would you would agree that slavery would be merited in that situation? You just agreed with his point again.

You just spent so many lines trying to weasel out of the fact you lied about his position and show no shame in doubling down.

The fact of the matter is that he didn't say vanity monuments, you did. You strawmanned his arguments when he said no such thing, there's an off-chance that he might of meant that but it wouldn't pair with his other words,or he may of been talking about cities, we don't know but you can ask. But you just spent this whole comment going, "Trust me, bro! I'm right! He didn't say it but he meant it! I swear! Trust me bro! Don't lie to me by not blindly agreeing with my fake quote!"

Also, don't come at me about integrity after that Jennifer Lawrence shit, you shameless hack.

1. Whatever, dude. I get it, you say a shit ton more than you have to in order to resemble a point without offering one. You essentially just said, "Nuh-huh!". If you can't comprehend where you've gone wrong when you're saying we can vilify people for their approach on a matter in the past because we know better now but that people who may know even better in the future can't vilify us for our lack of understanding compared to them then you just aren't at the level of comprehending these apparently complex positions.

2. I'm happy to inform you that you absolutely have, which is why all you had was a "Nuh-huh" in response, no matter how badly you attempted to flesh-out that "Nuh-huh!" to make it seem like you had a point. Infact, your response was an ad hom. Still at it, I see.

3. I wouldn't be throwing around the big intellectual cohunes by claiming I need you to give me some handicaps, S.W. There is a list of things you've failed on with me but that Jennifer Lawrence shit alone would work.
He literally said that was his stance. Are you insane? He even makes a cannibalism analogy in regards to it, that cannibalism is wrong but at some points in history people fell on it's requirements to not starve. How are you going to try and represent this as not being his position? Awww, fuck. Why do I even bother. Jesus Christ.

4. Unironically, yes you do. You agreed that the people of the future that may do better than us now would be wrong in vilifying us for our selfish uses of slave labour that they abolish. By that angle you cannot then say that the people of our past were wrong for their use of slave labour, quite literally not being able to say it was bad back then when it happened because they weren't as established as us, just as we aren't as established as the hypothetical future people that you agreed would not be justified in vilifying us for our part.

5. You can't claim I'm making a wrong comparison when you don't even know the position (Lloyd's) that you're arguing against. We don't need to be perfect 100% copies, we simply need to be aspects that if removed the machine would stop working. Like a card castle, it doesn't matter which one of the bottom gets removed they all can bring it down.

6. Nope. I actually don't think you have the capacity to understand the layers of this discussion.

7. This is actually pretty funny because you don't know how relevant to the actual topic this point is. Let me be a bit blunt on this one actually. If you had to enslave ten people to save 100 from starvation (let's just assume it's as explained) would you allow the 100 to die in order to not let the 10 be enslaved or vice versa?

I don't think you realize just how perfect that top paragraph is in every way you don't intend it to be.

I didn't ignore it. First of all, Lloyd never once mentioned "vanity monuments" so don't lie to me, he only talked about slavery being used to have the production to bring in necessities. This subject isn't nearly as simple as you foolishly think it is and I don't think you can appreciate the subject matter or the moral complexities it involves.
Also yes, if something is common it's going to be viewed as acceptable by more people at the time it was common.

I'm not even going to bother responding to that last chunk. Lloyd didn't refer to a monument being built out of slave labour and I'm not letting you poison the topic like that. Rephrase your point and I'll respond.

You absolutely are mischaracterizing shit, the "Vanity monuments" is a good example.

The ACTUAL topic here is if slavery of the few would be acceptable if it provides necessities for the many, which is the core of Lloyd's argument. Somehow you turned that into some simplified, bozo topic of, "is it moral to have slaves to get a stone-age self-portrait? I say no!" Like, no shit but nobody was arguing that.

I'te.

I'te.

No he doesn't, he already said he doesn't agree with slavery. He believes that it was an acceptable use of slavery at the time when the values were entirely different just like you admitted you would expect people of the future not to paint us as villains for our selfish gains in luxury at the expense of slavery today if they happen to in the future do away with the forms of slavery we benefit from.

I don't think you're open to seeing his position here. The "Slavery was okay" line could be taken in a few ways and you took it in the worst possible one and when I decided to try figure out what it is he actually believes and put in that leg-work to come closer to his actual beliefs you just threw them all away as meaningless because of a misunderstanding you don't seem willing to clear up as you've already reached the means to just call him a bad person, which makes me think that was the aim all along instead of actually discussion the topic.

Don't know the dude, he may be a piece of shit but you've mischaracterized him here, and I tried. I'm going to walk my dog now.

That is infact the case. Now consider that the very stance you took there is similar to his, only the time periods are different.

You're not understanding his position. You're arguing that slavery is bad, which he agrees with. His argument isn't that slavery is a moral good but is a requirement to prevent the worst form happening but if given the option he would rather live in a world where slavery would never naturally happen as a means of production as we have things in place to prevent the worst from happening. There's a very important connection you've missed from what he's said that you've not picked up on yet so I'm interested to see how this conversation goes.

You need to take the time to ask people what their positions are. The real conversation you should be having here is if slavery of the few is justified to ensure the survival of the many.

If one day in the future we have groups that view people like you, and me, as those very same types of narcissists that enabled such treatment of people for our own narcissistic trade-off of luxuries would you consider that fair?

But _why_? _Why_ does "shit" mean something so different than "poop"?

Which fire? The one after you die or the one that the radicals put you in?

Atheist but somewhat unwillingly. The idea of there being "nothing" after death scares the shit out of me. How does something go from having consciousness to not even existing? Even just thinking on it now freaks me out. Atleast religious folks can go to death happy.

What if people refuse the word of God from the Quran? Because people tend to do that.

If my creator told me to obey. I have zero reason to not obey. I just dont like dealing the the supposed middle men.

It actually is though. It's fine to and natural to feel profoundly about it. I certainly would (and have). Cells not working is a horrible, tragic thing. That doesn't change the fact that it's factually the result of cells no longer working. Why are they dead? Because their cells aren't working.

I had a former best friend commit suicide. I didn't take it well at all. I'm not going to pretend he died "because magic" though. His cells stopped working as a result of what he did.

Between theism as a concept, and any specific God-containing worldview or culture, there is quite a big gap.

In fact, I do not think that atheism can be compared to theism, because 'theism' isn't a label of identity that is claimed and worn in the way 'atheism' is. I would go so far as to say that it provides a clearer view of the world if you consider 'ex-religious' atheisms as a handful of worldviews among hundreds, rather than to oppose all kinds of atheism to all worldviews that include a god.

The worldviews and beliefs of people who accept the existence of a God or gods are culturally heterogeneous, and there is much more to it than the simple philosophical concept of God existing or not existing. Far beyond the question of God or gods simply existing, their beliefs include specific things about their gods being true, and what these gods are and what they can do, and what humanity's relationship to the divine can or ideally would be.

People with a theistic outlook on the world define themselves as Christians, or Muslims, or as Hindu, or as 'spiritual but not religious', but not as 'theists'.

'Mere theism' cannot encompass much or even any of the heterogeneity found in these identities. A 'mere theist' and an atheist would probably be indistinguishable from one another because if all a God does is exist, and has no attributes, preferences or history of working with people, this God will not have much of an influence on people's lives.

I am being told the truth, and, thus far, I have chosen to believe it.

"why are you atheist"

(At least towards deities) I've yet to be provided with adequate evidence to convince me otherwise.