Why are you atheist? why are you theist?

I think I am stuck in the middle... I don't know if I am an atheist or if I do believe... and I am sure that some of you were in the same situation..so id like to discuss this topic with u

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 181 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • I'm an agnostic because I don't think anyone on earth knows the answers

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Ah, yes, the late Hawking. I love hearing him say "there is no god" in that robotic voice of his. That must sound so ominous to theists. Anyway, as he points out, the dimensions, including the familiar three spatial dimensions and the one familiar temporal dimension (time), were created at the instant of the Big Bang. God couldn't have caused that because he, well, didn't have time to.

      I can do theists a favor and mention possibilities like our universe existing inside a blackhole in a mother universe but there's no point as there are countless other ways to disprove the classic gods (yes you can prove a negative). After you've seen enough from the scientific perspective, enough for it to be impossible for you to believe in a god even if you wanted to, at a certain point you look back and laugh at yourself for even needing all this, for ever even seeing any question as to shit like whether or not there were talking snakes. It's scary how collectively mentally ill we are as a species. It's the fear of death. That's literally all. If science cured aging, religion wouldn't even survive another two generations.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Im basically where you are. I was an atheist for a long time but I'm more towards agnostic now. I do believe in a higher power, I just don't refer to it as "GOD". But there's definitely something divine going on in my life right now that I dont want to get into...

      Comment Hidden ( show )


    *vaguely gestures at the sphinx*

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Yeah this is really complicated shit to figure out. I mean if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it fucks like a duck, who fucking knows? Could be anything. On one hand we have the textbook example of slavery, but on the other hand maybe hauling giant fuck-off blocks feeds the people, the little-known great and ancient rock-eating people of Egypt.

      Also remember, it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve. Please ignore that if 10 people is enough to stop starvation, the group of 100 can get off their own asses and stop their starvation 10 times over all by themselves.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • Look at his reply to me on another thread after mentioning I was tapping this shit out on a Samsung. "Oh it's fine! Nobody is perfect"

        Yet, apparently you are not allowed to criticize slavery in lieu of your hypocritical use of some...kind...of...modern luxuries somewhere, like having shoes. Not allowed. In fact, extrapolating his weird standards regarding you, no one should ever criticize anything ever.

        Drunk drivers...not wrong because you could hit someone with your car, so your criticism makes you a hypocrite? Also 'adhom' even though he can call you horrific names, and, apparently, being gale from hunger games who banged jlaw and got dumped discredits your opinion in some round about relevant way? But that's definitely not an ad hominem...

        Fuckin' shitduz. If it makes you feel any better, I used to do 'this' with him and now he's weirdly respectful towards me. I have no idea why.

        I agree with SW. Come at me shitduz. I won't even answer coz I'm lazy as fuck. But, seriously, shitduz, lloyd is a fucking trash heap though. Don't defend him. He would legit whip black people with a switch if it was socially acceptable.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • My position was that nobody is perfect and therefor we can't judge people too harshly for the way the world works, which was Lloyd's position. S.W's position is that we can judge people as evil in the past for not having our modern understanding of humanity when it comes to slave labour but that if people in the future also do better than we do now that it would be entirely unreasonable for them to judge us the same way we judge those of the past. If you want to make that a case of simply me saying, "You can't criticize slavery!" then that's on you.

          As for the drunk drivers thing, I don't think you're representing that argument too well. The topic we were discussing was in regards to wearing a mask and if someone is warranted vilifying someone for not lessening the risk of putting someone in harms way even if those people sacrifice more to ensure the likelihood of people being harmed is lessened. A lot of my arguments, like that one, has more to do with me holding people to their own standard beyond popular trends, and not mine which is exactly what I done with S.W here. If you don't want to be held to their own standards then stop vilifying others for not living up to your standards, essentially.

          As for this being an adhom, he directed it to this. I didn't "ad hom" into this, infact you know fair well I'll try to respond to every single thing in a comment. I sure as shit did mention the cringey shit with less than a line of text, to suggest I used that subject to distract from the initial arguments is just wrong, it didn't replace the topic it was added to it barely. He then made his responses more about this smaller issue and that smaller issue got talked mostly about as he dropped the rest and that's how we're here. Don't put that shit on me, dude.

          You can agree with S.W if you want, doesn't change anything. I don't know Lloyd, he might be a shitbrick and I even said as much earlier in this conversation but I view SW to be a shithead too and maybe you've just not seen it or maybe the bleeding heart preachy shit appeals to you but I don't trust that dude for a second and the more I've communicated with him the more it's been shown as to why I shouldn't.
          All I know is that I actually asked Lloyd and he said he is completely against slavery and then I look to S.W to see how he responds to that and he just says, "Nuh-huh! He said slavery was good!" and then I see Lloyd claim that slavery was good when it was necessary for others to survive and then I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted.

          So what the actual fuck, bruh?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • The actual fuck:

            Listen, I'll be civil here & I apologize for being rude. Obviously the DM's thing rubbed me the the wrong way, but I don't really wish to rip on you.

            I understand that it appears nonsensicle to profer a long opinion piece while also stating that I don't care. The reason I say that, to be clear, is because our disagreements are an abstraction. I remember getting INTO in with you about ray rice KO punching the living shit out of his gf. Basically, the disagreement was surrounding whether it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman if she strikes him first. Looking at the issue now, I can say with confidence, that while i still disagree with you, I don't feel the need to change your mind. Why? Because I've interacted with you enough to know that you aren't going to go home and sucker punch your gf in the throat. So while I may disagree with your opinion, it merely exists as a theoretical viewpoint, not something with actual consequences. So I don't NEED to change your mind. It is what it is. That's how I feel about most shit on here, and why I don't generally engage in the gigantic debates.

            The reason I commented on this thread was because I found it funny exactly how much your negative opinion of this user is muddying your viewpoint.

            Forgetting for a moment that lloyd is a giant fucking bag of dicks, and just reading what he said in a neutral tone...

            The fuck off vanity monuments? When lloyd starts talking about hauling stone slabs through the desert, to me it is pretty fucking evident that he is referencing the pyramids. It was absolutely my first thought, before reading anything SW said. To me it was patently obvious.

            Could he technically be referencing some other stones in some other desert? Sure, but come on. It's purposefully obtuse to point out that without context we know not of what he speaks. So while you are TECHNICALLY correct that there is an inference taken from his comment that could be completely erroneous, it's fucking not lol. I know you know he's talking about the pyramids. I know. We all fucking know. It's purposely dense to imply otherwise, and the reason it was harped on is because it is a patently ridiculous example of slavery being a justifiable, historical necessity. Namely, because the pyramids were not a fucking necessity at all.

            The crux of this argument, fuck off vanity monuments aside, is that SW thinks lloyd is a fucking cock for thinking slavery is "OK" sometimes, you know, a necessary evil based on some abstract historical context. SW seems to think that slavery can not be justified, under any circumstance and saying that it cam be makes lloyd a fuckhole. This, I agree with. That opinion is illogical to you because it is an absolute, devoid of context, what you consider to be a modern moral choice that's being retroactively applied to a different time and lifestyle and set of cultural norms?

            It is illogical. Nothing exists in a vacuum, but if you do not grant anyone the ability to hold the past accountable to our adjusted moral standards, then nothing ever done can be considered wrong. You do understand that? Not the halocaust. Not Chernobyl. Not the holodomer.

            Now, forgetting that slavery is most certainly not a thing of the past. There are as many slaves and human trafficking victims today as there were during the trans Atlantic slave trade, I don't understand why this is a cross you chose to die on. I don't even get the drift that you, personally, think slavery is "ok."

            I think you specifically take issue with this because you find ultra liberal people to be PREFORMATIVE. You use words like "virtue signalling" and "preachy" quite a bit to describe people who hold views like "slavery is not fucking ok."

            I understand where that comes from, and there certainly are people that behave that way, but I strongly suspect it is because you don't actually believe this: "My position was that nobody is perfect and therefor we can't judge people too harshly."

            The thing is, you do. You judge people who hold social justice esque viewpoints accountable to a comical degree. As soon as you start asking questions, grilling people about ethically sourcing everything they own, it become obvious that you want to expose their hypocrisy, and the fact that they do not live up to their own moral standards.

            Let me spoil that for you. We are all hypocrites. We all fail. We all do unethical things. Every single person. That's because we are human, and unless we want to go live in a fucking yurt in the woods and grow our own vegetables, living in the modern world means you will fuck up and do immoral things.

            What that doesn't mean is that all morality is therefore void, and pointless, and a waste. Because if you extrapolate that, then it makes it pointless to believe in anything.

            I don't believe people should light cats on fire. I think it's wrong and cruel. I ate chicken last night. That chicken's death was probably a hellscape. That makes me a hypocrite. But should that mean I don't have the moral authority to tell people not to light cats on fire? No...that's fucking ridiculous. If that's the standard to which you hold people, then it abdicates everyone of the right to have any opinions about morality, and that's dangerous.

            So yes, I agree with SW

            No I don't think he's doing some fake virtue signaling bullshit I'm a fake good guy show by saying slavery is wrong

            It is fucking wrong hahahaha. It's such a simple concept. Say it with me. Enslaving other human beings is a real dick move.

            And this gf shit. I'm not gonna mention anything specific because he obviously told you he did not want it on the site, and yet you posted about it like 30 times...wtf. it obviously is a personal attack. I never saw the original comments, but I think you viewed him saying he had a hot gf as some type of humble brag? Well he should think he had a hot fucking gf. She was his fucking GF FFS.. I don't see how that should be embarrasing or whatever, but you're obviously using the situation to mock him. It is completely irrelevant to your disagreement with him, and it should absolutely not be harped on if you're gonna accuse other people of AD HOM. you know that too. Don't be obtuse.

            You really just want to disagree with this specific user I think and rake him over the coals, which is fine. You're entitled to that opinion, but don't allow it to cloud the truth that LLOYD FUCKING ASHER IS A COCK FACE who is wrong.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Hmm. You know, I actually hadn't thought of it like that. I didn't think it could be taken as a humblebrag because the general consensus of the post was that she was average and I, myself, was saying I perhaps unfairly had a hard time seeing her as even average after coming to think of someone who looked like her as a bad person (although I absolutely did think that person was beautiful while in love, which I said I had, but I always do that and specified that).

              It just seemed _especially_ relevant to mention. Like with any post, if something in my life is relevant to it, I might comment about it provided it doesn't potentially break anonymity, and I almost did. I don't even reveal what state of the US I came from outside of messages. I wouldn't have even said the US but I ended up saying enough to make it obvious in the past. This actually isn't even the first comment I've deleted because of crossing the line. I've come pretty close when mentioning various jobs, etc., and begrudgingly decided to delete them before they were even seen (to my knowledge).

              You might be onto something and it triggered some jealousy, but I'm actually pretty sure ItDuz had said he thought she was average before I even commented. I really don't think he was jealous or thought I was humblebragging all the same given the nature of the consensus on the post. For a while I thought he just wanted to make sure it was seen to fuck me over, but that's not it either.

              I've come to the conclusion that he just honestly felt I gave a fuck about his opinion and that saying things like "when I'm in love I see my girlfriends as the best there is" embarrassed me, which it clearly doesn't as I'm doubling down right now. I own that shit. Since he can't win a debate with me for shit (and it's absolutely about "winning" for him), he had taken me deleting that as a weird consolation prize and didn't cope well with realizing I'm fine with everything in the post besides the specific details that could fuck me over.

              So in his defense, I no longer think it's really a personal _attack_. It's just more denial like with the stone blocks because it had really meant the world to his little heart. Just like it's not hard at all to see why I did what I did, it's not hard at all to see what the blocks were for, but he would have to say he was wrong to admit that.

              I absolutely agree he loathes me, it's abundantly obvious, but I also think it's not about me specifically. He just hates being proven wrong. Anyone could be doing what I'm doing instead of me and he would feel the same. It's not hard to out obvious denial which has been the heart of every debate we've ever had. They're the easiest kind of debate there is for the one not denying obvious facts.

              It started with his denial of Trump's role in the Capitol riots. It's always about denial. I don't think we've even once debated something that wasn't a matter of denial on his part. It doesn't make me or anyone else particular impressive for pointing out obvious denial.

              He outs his insecurities when he uses accusations like "performative" because it's actually what he's low-key doing. While we're fairly anonymous on here there's still a bit of identity attached to our names. If every comment was totally anonymous, he wouldn't even be pretending to believe the blocks were about something else or that I have a problem with him of all people feeling anything is cringe when he knows the blocks were for the pyramids and he knows I'm not ashamed of my emotions, certainly not regarding a fucking social conservative of all people.

              It's _usually_ about him as ItDuz specifically, his identity here, not being proven wrong. He's low-key narcissistic as fuck which is why it's so funny to mirror and amplify the same to him because no one hates external narcissism like a narcissist and it makes their skin crawl like nothing else. I've hinted that I do this to him for fun but he completely missed it. Guess the cat's out if the bag now.

              Still, we're, myself included, overlooking how this really started in this _particular_ instance. It's not about hatred of me or even of anyone else who might take the time to call him out on his very easily called-out shit. For once it's not even about his profound aversion to being proven wrong. The answer is actually the simplest one of all, right at the root of everything:

              He's simply protecting Lloyd regardless of hating me or protecting his ego. He feels he has to because he knows damn well it's usually always him, Lloyd, and WeirdGuyFromTheSouth spewing their viewpoints. When one of them suddenly says "slavery was okay" this is a massive fucking problem and he started acting like a defense lawyer for a drunken client at best and a murderer's mother at worst. He was long before I called him on it. The format was like this.

              LloydAsher: Horrible shit

              ItDuz: But what you really mean is this right?

              LA: Horrible shit

              ID: Okay, I'm going to handfeed you an alibi. Please fucking take it.

              LA: Horrible shit

              ID: But you really mean... like... dude, come on...

              Then I called it out. Just imagine that standard he holds me to and imagine the opposite. It's like the saying about what Trumpers say about anything Trump says: He didn't say that, but if he did he didn't mean it like that, and if he meant it like that, others have said worse.

              That's the nutshell this is in.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • 1.
              It's fine if you want to rip on me. Tbh the original conversation has been pivoted away so much that I'm surprised I'm still even responding even after knowing I can't actually expect the original conversation to go back on track. If I'm short here it's just to save space and time, I'm not being sassy if I say I agree with you or accept what you say as fair.

              - Makes sense.

              - That may be fair but I actually approached him in good faith to this argument and he initiated the condescending and insulting comments. I even tried to help him on a point to bring them both on the same page to see where they could actually disagree genuinely.
              - He is a douchebag in my eyes. Did you read his comments where he has like 3 lines of relevant response and then 6 lines of comments referring to himself as shit like a giant black widow spinning it's webs like he's auditioning to play some live action Naruto villain type shit and then goes into gaslighting using subjects of addictions just to shame someone and making that their main go-to? I won't pretend to know you personally due to this being online and all but no way would you of not seen that as cringy bullshit from an egomaniac.

              - Lloyd might of made that analogy, I even claimed that might of been the case to S.W when I wasn't arguing with him. That said, Lloyd also made other comments that would imply that it's entirely possible for his analogy to be a misguided one that doesn't actually represent his views. Noticing this I inform S.W of this and he just passes it off as not even existing so I do the leg work and once I get down to it, despite S.W saying the opposite, Lloyd in far more depth explains that he does not believe slavery is justified nor moral, albeit for multiple and sometimes separate reasons. I've said this time and time to S.W and all I get in response is, "But he said he wants them to build monuments! That's what he said!" and I have to keep coming back to the fact that it isn't the only thing Lloyd said, infact it's a very small portion of what he said.

              - I haven't thought on the topic of if it's more moral to enslave a few for the many or to let the many die for the freedom of the few, I wanted to have that conversation to explore it but now I can't because it turned out the people I assumed were looking to have that conversation, or atleast one of them, were only doing it to knock the other and not actually discuss the topic.
              - I mean if I really wanted to be an asshole I could do the same type of thing that's been done to me and Lloyd here and just throw out a, "Wow, wait...You know prisoners actually fall under the definition of slave? Wait, you think rapists should be able to go free? Why do you want women to be raped? Your principles aren't realistic! Make a perfect scenario where prisoners go free without hurting anyone otherwise you support slavery!" But it's gross to do that shit and I can fill in the blanks myself, and I just feel that courtesy is one sided.

              - Holding the past accountable is fine so long as we do it with the understanding that not every wrong doing was with the knowledge of it being wrong-doing and served a purpose, but then again I'm sure Hitler thought the same with your holocaust example, but then again we can't paint all things we learned from as having no reasoning behind them while other ones, like the holocaust, clearly have nothing to consider. It's a more complicated topic than I think we should get into here.
              - That said, how would this work alongside the fact S.W stated that while we can judge the past that the future can't judge us or that it wouldn't be reasonable for them to do so even if they learn from our mistakes?

              - Ofcourse I don't think slavery is ok but neither did Lloyd when I asked him and people are still saying he thinks it's ok. I just wanted to join a discussion about using slavery to meet necessary bigger picture ends and bounce some ideas but he wouldn't do that though wouldn't stop running his mouth.

              - Nah. For example I don't think you're a virtue signaller as far as I'm aware of but when he is going the "Slavery is not ok, bigot!" spiel and then the dude he's saying that to is like, "Yeah...I know?" and he just repeats, "BUT SLAVERY IS NOT OK, BIGOT!" then yeah, that's performative because he knows there's a disconnect there but he also knows he can use Lloyd as a stepping stone to stand above everyone else and say, "I DISAGREE WITH SLAVERY!" and the crowd throws cookies over such a brave sentiment that nobody disagreed with him on. Then there was the Jennifer.L post. Holy fuck, that was just filled with egoism but the story he spun after it made it even worse. He was too beyond simply admitting something as mundane as being cringy and made this big story arch to avoid it. Then ofcourse there's the outright delusions of grandeur that I mentioned above, fuckin' spider manning it up.

              - Yes, I like to expose when people don't live up to their own standards when they're trying to force others to live up to them or shame others for not living up to them. Nobody is perfect but that doesn't mean I won't take issue with people pretending they are perfect as they attack someone else for not being perfect.

              - Ok, I'll be clear here, dude. I barely even referenced it with less than a line, a snippet with barely any relevant information this "ex" could use and he took that as a way to turn the vast majority of his response into making the subject about that half a line of text. I'm sorry but at that point I refuse to accept this representation that I turned the talk into it when it was him that blew the topic up.
              - I'll also say this. I don't for a second believe the story of his ex potentially being on this site exists, I think it was a made up story to cover up his easily bruised ego, and if you were in my shoes watching this dude going, "Don't say nothing! She might be hearing! But anyway, here's my credit card number, date of birth, my first pet's name, and what I like to do on Saturday nights" then you'd think the same.
              - Ohohoho, no, no. People have hot girlfriends and I don't why you'd assume that was what my issue with him was. The post was one big jerk-off. The dude made, I shit you not, like an eight paragraph post about how any girl he's with is automatically the prettiest woman alive because he looks at their character and because he loves them and adores them, and all that mushy cliche shit for eight paragraphs. I didn't even think such a thing would be possible and maybe there would be contexts for it but on a damn post about someone finding a celebrity pretty? I simple responded, "Jesus Chriiiiiist, dude" and he then tried to say that was me trying to warn him and be chummy with him claiming it to be positive exchange I was making with him because there was too much information an ex of his could use, even though he never once referenced some ex stalking him on this site or potentially being able to for me to warn him about. I was just so dumbfounded I responded, "I'te".
              - It's shit like that which makes me think he's doing this performative shit.

              - Lloyd might be, I don't know. You know full well I've probably done the most on this site to demonstrate that I'm not looking for friendships.

              This might be a jumbled mess but I can't be assed reading through it all before sending it like I usually do. If I've missed something you want answered lemme know. The numbers are mainly to help me out here. Lol.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
          • Beep beep. Pull over. This is a bullshit check. Step out of the car with your hands on your head.

            "I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted."

            That shit right there, that didn't happen. I told you I'd even rather society be generations behind if it meant there had been no slavery. That said, her reading comprehension actually works, so she already knows that. Just like how she doesn't pretend it's even remotely difficult to know what Lloyd was talking about with the 10-ton blocks.

            The only thing I can even possibly think of that could be confusing you is me saying that I don't judge the people who were buying goods like bamboo who didn't even necessarily know where the fuck it came from. I judge the slave drivers absolutely and in all circumstances. I completely derailed your suggestion that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve by pointing out the obvious: The 100 is 10 times enough people to do the work themselves. Slavery is _never_ justifiable. Period. It's like rape It's not a good look to even suggest situations wherein it's justifiable or even merely less wrong.

            "I don't trust that dude for a second."

            Hahaha. I've never told you this, but it's always tickled me pink when you say, "I don't click links from you."

            Not just links, links from _me_. None of that's as good as Clunk42 calling me evil though. It's as if just because I murder you social conservatives so hard disputationally you start fearing me in other ways, thinking like, "Man, this is a dangerous motherfucker."

            I feel like a fucking oversized black widow spider crawling around a bunch of arachophobes. It's so fucking funny. I'm completely harmless to everything but your egos and the perceived validity of your positions.

            Oh, yeah! I was probably abusive to my ex as well! It gets better and better. Which way? Still funny if you only think I'm emotionally abusive, given the way I chew you up and spit you out, but it will be even funnier if after all the verbal spankings you've had to endure you even imagine me beating the shit out of women because it's just impossible to imagine me as a nice guy after you've felt the heat.

            You're right though. So abusive. That's probably why she's trying to get back with _me_ and I'm the one who has _her_ blocked for my own mental health. I'm really just afraid, as you suggested, that she'll sign up and tell everyone how abusive I am. Logic checks out.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Oh you edited more in.

              The reason why I dont trust the link is because the first one you sent i looked up the site and the first result was virus related. Most likely theres nothing to worry about I dont take those risks.

              Actually nevermind, the rest is just you wanking yourself off again. Get to the arguments plz.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Yes it fuckin' did, dude. I asked you about the 10 and 100 group thing and you said that the ten can get up off their asses to do what was required to save the 100. Or was this the thing where you vaguely answer and leave enough of a wiggle room to backtrack only to display you never even answered the question to begin with?

              Ok, I'll ask again. 10 people in one area, 100 in another. Skip all the realism bullshit as that's what a hypothetical is for. If 9 of those ten can save 100 people but don't want to put the work in so one out of that 10 finds a mean to force them into slavery to save that 100 people, what would your option be and is it a simple "But slavery bahd!" situation?

              I didn't ask you if you'd prefer society be further behind, I was talking about lives. Again you're trying to hard to pivot by giving mucky answers that don't even relate.

              You're still using the 10-ton block argument but I've already said to you time and time again that he went into further depth on the topic which demonstrated that the analogy doesn't work with his more in-depth review of the topic and therefor can be considered an analogy that doesn't represent his views. You think you can watch someone make a mistake, run away, and use that one mistake to represent them and you're still purposely avoiding this explanation and just repeating the same 10-ton line I already addressed.

              I didn't suggest that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve, I simply made you aware that it was the core of the argument Lloyd was making. Yes, the 100 people is bigger but that's the point of hypotheticals, my dude, so that we can argue the rational behind something without the exact scape-goat shit you're doing there.

              So I'll ask again. 10 people one side, 100 on the other. 100 can't survive without the work of the 10. Would you rather the 100 die or the 10 be enslaved to save the 10?
              I'm not even looking for you to pick a side but simply to appreciate the complexity of it.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
          • I'm absolutely out of this shit, and you know that. I've told you that on so many occasions. I might think you're wrong sometimes, but I don't give a single fuck about changing your mind regarding any fucking thing. It's not my bag. It's irrelevant. Especially concerning these epic debates surrounding American politics. You're Scottish. I live in Australia. Who fucking cares what either of us think, seriously???

            This one, I'm in because lloyd is a fucking trashbag...he literally graded his girlfriend's (who he SUPPOSEDLY loves) body as a D minus. He's posted about how we should exterminate the Chinese race. He has posted about how IT DOESN'T MATTER that the sick and elderly are dying ALONE from the rona because...hey...they were gonna die soon anyway. He is a literally bag of shit, and everything SW said is not fucking wrong. And I won't pretend to be objective about it for a second.

            I also like shit stirring on this site and I like seeing you two bitch it out. You and I went through the same. I happen to agree with many of the things he says. Apparently that makes me deluded in your mind. Fair enough. Don't fucking squabble about it with me. You won't change my mind.

            As far as you bringing up his girlfriend. Off topic. Inappropriate. The only point is to try and take him down a notch. Knock that shit off if you're gonna try and play debate club. It's pointless and obnoxious and serves no purpose except for mocking him.

            As far as you and me, I don't take issue with you. I read your opinions. I disagree with most of them, but I find them interesting. We even agree occassionally. We're cool.

            Having said that. Don't you make jokes about guys 'slipping into my DM's.' I was the one who messaged him first when I had gold and it was literally about trolling someone who tried to stalk me. He's just explaining himself. Please don't imply that he's...hitting on me. I'm happily engaged and my fiance reads this site sometimes. I'm in love with him and making jokes about some guy PMing me is so out of line (i edited so many swear words and threats out of that paragraph). Please don't EVER say that.

            Oops no can't hold it in. Don't fucking ever joke about that or I will invite you on an all expenses paid cruise and then push you off the motherfucking boat...after I fucking CUT YOU...

            BITCH...or something

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • That's fine dude but what's with the bitch-fest? Why are you dipping your toe in to rag on someone and then taking this approach of not caring? It's fine if you don't care, I don't expect you to but come on, dude? You can't expect to rag on someone and misrepresent them and then wonder why that person will have something to say about it. Did you read it all? I don't expect you to have but if you read it all are you really going to say I don't have an angle on this one? I mean, I assume that you haven't read it all because you claimed I used the Jennifer. L thing as an ad hom when it was barely a snippet that S.W turned into the main talking point.

              He might be a shitbag, Countess, but I don't know that and so far my first real intro into his shit has concluded with this one position being approached with little to no charitability. If you looked at the conversation I had with him even I pressed him on his position a bit to find out what he actually believes but because he made a dumbass analogy people are going to use it to represent his entire view on the matter as if he didn't explain his position more in-depth that shows he generally doesn't support slavery, so where does that leave me if I cared enough to morally brand Lloyd as good as bad? His girlfriend's body might-well be a D, so what? Piece of shit way to talk about your girlfriend by my standards but maybe she is obese and it's just true? Maybe the dude has some sort of autism that makes him that blunt? If he thinks the Chinese should be exterminated then obviously that's racist bullshit but how can I possibly just blindly accept that representation of his views when nobody has offered him any charitability to genuinely ask him from my experience?

              Look, I've said already and I don't wanna make too large a comment block (too late) but he may well be a piece of shit, I don't know, but if the aim is to just shit on him then be open about it, there's no need for this pretending to be objective thing from S.W if there isn't any intent to be.

              It was off-topic but I won't say inappropriate. We had entered the shit flinging aspect of our conversation which (((he))) initiated, I'm not going to pull punches to people that I try to help out just because they've got a superiority complex. I tried to get them to have the conversation I assumed they were intending and he spat in my face for it, so fuck him. I don't doubt he's got an ex but if you're really going to believe this story of him hiding in an IIN bunker from some evil lurking woman possibly prowling the site only to realize he's the only one making it possible for such a woman to find out who he is when he claims that's why he deleted previous comments then I don't know what to say other than we have our separate views of that story he spun.

              Deluded? Would entirely depend on what it is you're referencing. For the most part I tend to ignore his opinions until I reply to one and then it goes on and on.
              The purpose isn't to mock him but to just blatantly display that people can cut holes in his bullshit. I can't reasonably debate with the guy because he's not interested in debate or discussion, which was what started this whole thing here. I even put the leg work in to facilitate him and Lloyd starting off on the same boat and he tossed it aside to hold onto one analogy to represent his entire views.

              I don't take issue with you either but you definitely can give the impression that you do take issue but maybe that's just me assuming.

              It was a joke. I know you're not interested in him that way and I know you're happily involved. It was actually something I was thinking about during out last conversation in remembering that we used to butt heads a lot and then I think you were away for a while and came back seeming more cheerful than I remembered you and it turned out you were in a relationship you were buzzing about. Maybe I got my timings wrong on that one. Anyway, it was a joke at his expense buuuuuuuut I do trust your word that it could be weird given your partner reads the site and I wouldn't want to cause any weirdness there. So, MrCountDouche just know it was a joke. Apologies.

              Joke's on you, I'll take that cruise and a wee swim to go!...The cutting is optional, right?...Right?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Yikes, Countess. You actually falling for this dude's crap? There are two angles here. One, is the only thing Egyptians use concrete for was to build a Sphinx or second does he believe that they did more than just build some Sphinx with concrete? Could be either but he also centred his argument in his comments around slavery for the means of necessities and not simply for "vanity monuments" which was suggested.

      Let's just say that it was a bad analogy, the approach taken was to use that bad analogy regardless of later clarifications only to entirely dismiss his actual position that he was putting forward that S.W entirely derailed from over a potentially bad analogy.

      Just for real, do you think that's fair?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • What you experienced here is what I've been trying to tell you anyone could see. She doesn't need to fall for my "crap".

        All she needed do was see Lloyd's comment to know what he was talking about. Approach 100 random people. Ask them this question. The Pharoah is having his slaves haul 10-ton blocks across the desert. Why?

        Unless you're asking people who have never heard of Ancient Egypt in their fucking life or you're asking with a shit-faced grin like it's a trick question, virtually all if not all of them are going to say some incarnation of vanity monuments which we'll define as any of the giant fuck-off structures they erected in the name of legacy. Most are going to simply say the pyramids.

        It is the textbook example of slavery, and was such a cruel, extreme slavery that it's hard for some to even imagine humans could be pushed so hard, leading to conspiracy theories that aliens did it for them.

        Lloyd knew exactly what he was talking about. He thought, pyramids. History. Inspiring. Bad ass.

        He likely didn't cackle and twirl his mustache. He has his reasons, but the point is that none of this is black-and-white; of course Lloyd primarily condones slavery in situations where he believes it benefitted survival, but the fact is that, yes, he does make some other exceptions and he calls it fair game via hierarchies.

        We agree on almost nothing, but I do believe you only condone slavery in situations where you perceive it to save lives.

        It's like this. I feel there's a substantial line between where you are and where Countess and I are. Maybe someday some issue will be a smaller line between the two of us as well, who knows. But if you really think all other instances of slavery are inexcusable, there should be a giant, fuck-off vanity monument-sized line between the three of us and Lloyd but you can't stop making excuses for him. Come to the light ItDuz (Lol).

        Nothing is black-and-white and he could have an even worse position on slavery, but we're just warning you that it's you being fooled here. Just because non-survival-related slavery isn't his favorite doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a guy who wants to exterminate entire races and does in fact believe that if your goal is grand enough exceptions can be made on the slavery rule due to hierarchy and people knowing their natural places.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • I've repeated this again and again and you're intentionally ignoring my response to it which is exactly why this Lloyd situation started.

          Lloyd made an analogy, vague one that could either be that his views line up with your representation OR his analogy did not line up with his actual views and he made a mistake. I said to you to figure this out and you didn't want to, so I done the leg-work. Lloyd then went into further depth to his position and his in-depth position ran counter to your representation his views that he mistakenly given the impression of holding. When I found out his position more than you did I then presented you with this information and you tossed it aside as if it wasn't relevant and now you outright ignore to even reference this position on the matter just so you can continue to falsely use the analogy to represent his entire view on the subject. This, to me, demonstrated a clear lack of intent to actually have a discussion on the concepts but to just mindlessly try to bully someone.

          You don't get to dictate what Lloyd meant as you showed no intent to find out. I specifically pointed out there was a breakdown in communication and to ask him to specify what he meant by the comments and you outright refused to do so because you already had the approach you wanted even if it wouldn't be one in line with his genuine views on the matter.

          In what way does he make other exceptions? He has openly said to me that slavery is not condonable at all if not for the necessities of survival. Yes, he referenced hierarchies as being part of our nature but that in itself is not condoning it, and you know that.

          I don't know where my line is when it comes to slavery for the survival of others, I thought it would of been a really good conversation which is why I injected myself into the discussion but you ruined any attempts for that interesting discussion because you were more interested in shaming Lloyd than discussing it.

          There is a very specific line between us. People like Countess won't see it because she also subscribes to the positions you use that are popular. Infact, It's more likely than not that we agree on more than we disagree, but our positions aren't the line that divides us. What divides us is I want the conversation and you want to use the conversation. I don't dislike you because we disagree, Countess herself can attest to this, but I don't view you as a genuine person, atleast not online.

          He might have an even worse position, like I said he might be a piece of shit and I even granted you that you might be right but it's too muddied to know and you should ask and you refused because the muddy waters worked in your favor.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I just don't want to go to hell.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • As long as you are baptized, accept the truth, and show you accept the truth, you shall not go to Hell.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Fair enough. Honestly I think god has bigger fish to fry, as long as you are a somewhat decent person you will avoid hell. Purgatory at worst.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • what if you are in heaven knowing that people you know(family..relatives...friends...) are in hell...how will you be able to live your eternity in "heaven" knowing how they will suffer always...

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Depends on what they are in hell for. If they turned out to be a real bastard secretly it would suck but I would understand the placement in hell.

          Even then who the heck will I complain to? Heaven is chill, not about to pester Cerberus about legal claims on someones soul.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I promise you you're not going to Hell. I'm sorry you've been victimized by this exactly as it intends.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Faith is belief without evidence. It's not a good thing to be capable of; it's a mild cognitive disorder.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • And that's why I hate atheists. Immediately dismaying those who have faith and branding them as the brainwashed masses. The faith is what brings people hope even if logically they are in a situation where it's just going to suck until they die.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • If a man is really happy, mostly due to his "amazing" wife who changed his whole life and gave him hope by offering him loyalty when he'd given up on it, do you tell him that everyday while he's at work she cheats with his high school bully and he finishes each session by cumming on her wedding ring specifically so they can laugh at how funny it is that he praises her loyalty?

          In this hypothetical situation, there's no possible way for him to find out other than us. He's going to feel pretty bad and lose a lot of that newfound hope if he finds out. Am I the big bad wolf for telling him or is it worse that I keep my mouth shut while knowing the truth?

          It's a tough decision right? That's fair. Okay. Now imagine that letting him live the lie somehow breeds an entire belief system that encourages making fathers help stone their daughters to death as an apology to their husbands for having given them such worthless daughters when the men claim they didn't feel/appear to be virgins.

          Hmm. I think that just helped me make up my mind, and it's the tip of the iceberg. Religion isn't harmless.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • It isn't harmless. Depending upon the religion, it is either harmful or beneficial. There is only one religion that is beneficial. All the others are harmful. From what you have claimed, I assume you believe the same, just with a rejection of the idea that atheism is a religion.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • I wouldn't say that I find atheism beneficial. Sure, I think it's beneficial to switch to it from a religion, but that's a bit like removing your hand from a hot stove burner. That's a good move no doubt, but I wouldn't describe that same area hanging at your side as an inherently beneficial position had you not just had your hand on a stove burner instead.

              It's just the default position. We're all atheists until we're either told to believe in some god or decide to on our own. But atheism isn't really a belief system or even scientific system at all. Science corroborates it and often makes people revert to it, but science doesn't have to enter the picture technically. To be an atheist all you have to do is not start thinking there's a possibility that a god is out there at some point.

              So since I wouldn't count all the science as a given, I'd say atheism is completely neutral. It has nothing new to offer so as to be beneficial in and of itself. What might seem as it being beneficial when reverting to it from a religion is really one simply stopping something else that was harmful.

              Imagine that all religions are frequencies of visible light, different colors based on how we perceive traveling photons, but they're all certainly photons. Photons are religions. Well atheism isn't a photon. Atheism is a shadow. And a shadow is nothing. A shadow is the illusion of something created by the stark contrast between a patch of nothingness midst all those photons. If the photons weren't around in the first you wouldn't even see anything to call a shadow.

              Since a shadow is nothing, it also has nothing to offer. Still, if you're being blinded or sunburned, "stepping into a shadow" might seem like a good idea, but all you really did was step _out_ of the burning sunlight.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Because religion is useless.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • i dont like assholes who study ancient bullshit tellin me what to do

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • But bruh, the Bible though. Let me just quote the book you don't believe the contents of to show you where it says believe it.

      Bullshittery 1:14
      And then the Lord said, "Behold. Believe this wild shit or fucking BURN."

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • You also need to look at it through the proper context. Hell iron was barely figured out during bible times. Slavery was ok because that's how you got big projects done. The industrial revolution made slavery obsolete.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • "Slavery was ok" - LloydAsher

        What. The. Actual. Fuck.

        I remember that time you said something else almost that bad and then Clunk and I started arguing about it before Clunk was like, paraphrased, "Oh shit my bad. I read that wrong in a hurry. He totally DID say that shit. What the fuck."

        It was such a weird moment of solidarity because Clunk and I never agree about shit. You know you said some fucked up shit when both of us are looking at it like that.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Nothing that dumpster fire says surprises me anymore.

          Horrified and disgusted, of course. But not surprised.

          He's a self professed nice person. Nuf said.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • I don't think it's the fact that these people think these things that surprises me anymore. We all know how they think.

            It's just that they usually jump through hoops to twist things and beat around the bush when it comes to directly owning some of it so it's still a little surprising in those rarer moments when they drop something basically like, "I am both sexist and homophobic. I hope this clears things up" with zero fucks given.

            By the way, an actual one from a certain someone on here the other day: "Consent is way overrated."

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Yeah...that one was nothing new. Not remotely. That person has said worse and continues to do so.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
        • I think you should read it as if he added the word "considered". Slavery was considered okay, so it is foolish to call the people at the time immoral for their slavery, since they did not know it was not acceptable.

          On an unrelated note, I dislike your usage of curses in your paraphrase. I do not curse and never will. It was more like, "I just realized that I misread it and will not continue making my argument."

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • I don't think the Bible folk were "considering" _anything_ only just over 200 years ago when the industrial revolution _finally_ made slavery unacceptable, you know, only because we have really easy alternatives. Otherwise... ehhhh... kinda need slavery because it's going to be such a drag trying to get big shit done without it.

            No. That's a LloydAsher perspective right there. And fuck slavery.

            And perspective doesn't matter anyway. Imagine I'm talking about child killer Gacy:

            "I think you've really gotta look at it in the right context. Gacy was REALLY tryna torture and rape those kids dressed as a clown. He was BIG horny. In Gacy's basement, killing those kids was okay."

            See how it doesn't help?

            As for the cursing, relax. That was part of the joke. Everyone knows you think you would spontaneously combust if you cursed like that.

            Never got the whole cursing thing. Feces. Fine to say. Shit. Cursing. Means the exact same thing. How did we decide to demonize one set of weird noises we make with our mouths versus another set? It's actually something so weird that science has actually looked into it. We just take it for granted and never give much thought to how completely absurd it is that we do this.

            *Comes back from future to edit comment*

            Yeah he just confirmed that it in fact was okay. Not considered okay. It was okay.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • We Catholics have this concept in sin that I'll call "required knowledge". If you do not know that what you're doing is evil, it is not considered a sin until you learn that it is evil. Gacy knew that what he was doing was evil (I assume), while the people practicing slavery did not know that what they were doing was evil, assuming that it is evil. So, at the time, in a way, it less not okay, since they did not know that it is not okay.

              It all has to do with what amount of the truth a certain person has been suggested of at any given time. Assuming that the truth is that slavery is immoral, and that many people back then never even had it suggested to them that slavery is immoral, then their acts were less immoral. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make their actions any less evil, but it makes their intentions less evil, making the act of them holding slaves less evil (an act is made up of action and intention). It would bring a sin (intentional rejection of truth) down to a fault (unintentional rejection of truth).

              About the cursing, I personally just far prefer using more formal words to pointlessly informal words like curses.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Yeah WAS ok. Every damn civilization on the planet that was somewhat successful (until fairly recently) used slavery. Hell it seems to be apart of our nature like war.

          Yeah slavery is bad now since we have the ability to mass produce things with less labor as well as owning someone being fucked up. Its inhuman but also obsolete production wise.

          What the hell were kings and chiefs supposed to do with prisoners of war? Just let them go? They could regroup and rebel. Killing most of them was a common solution. Slavery was like a 3rd choice. Given the circumstances of life back then with an average life expectancy of 40. Doing manual stuff is hard, without machines it was even more intensive. The only power people could readily control was animal and human power and cows dont have hands.

          That being said modern day slavery is completely abhorrent and we should kill the traffickers.

          Conclusion: fucked up but necessary for progression and expansion, later on it was to secure better production prices thus profit, then it became obsolete.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • Hole. Lee. Shit.

            This just in: Slavery was okay confirmed.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Just out of curiosity. Would you say that every luxury you own was not a result of modern day slavery/child labour? If not, how does your view on this co-exist with your position here?

              Genuine question.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Ok you are a Pharoah and you need to move ten ton stone slabs 50 miles through the desert with practically zero tools. How the hell are you going to do it?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
      • ancient bullshit belongs in the past

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • We dont have the capacity to even determine if we are in a simulation or not. I dont think being absolute about any theist vs atheist postions are both equally ignorant about the larger complexity of the universe, inherently reality itself.

      The best guess we had is a giant ass explosion happening 14 billion years ago. Before that? Fuck if we know, time literally didnt exsist before the big bang.

      Whatever created the big bang is by default God. Whether or not its just happenstance or creative design is difficult to ascertain.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • I'm not sure if you saw my other comment on this, but exactly; the temporal dimension (time) was created with the Big Bang. So it's not that we don't know what happened "before" the Big Bang; it's that there _was_ no before the Big Bang.

        Therefore _no one_ created the Big Bang because they didn't have _time_ to. That's not a pun; it/they just quite literally wouldn't have had time to. That's what we tend to point out most often, probably because it's most profound, but it's worth mentioning that the spatial dimensions (space) were created with the Big Bang as well. So no creator even had a medium or mechanism to exist at all "before" the Big Bang, and again, even if it did, this moment simply doesn't exist.

        It's therefore impossible for there to be a creator. How did something come from nothing then? We don't claim to know everything yet, it's possible we never will with current human intelligence without merging with artificial intelligence in the future, but it almost certainly has something major to do with mathematics, equalities, and in particular zero, the "magic" number.

        Even if nothing physically existed, mathematics will eternally conceptually exist with or without an observer. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4. It's the purest logic. So let's look at some _really_ simple equalities, paying attention to the fact that both sides of the equal sign have the same value:


        Now let's look at the killer:


        Negative one plus one is equal to zero. This means that in terms of value, nothingness is the exact same thing as positive something plus negative something.

        In fact we see this obsession everywhere. Positive charge and negative charge. Matter and antimatter. Positive spin and negative spin. It's the life blood of our universe.

        Now get this: The total sum of energy in our universe really appears to be outright zero as best as we can tell when we define the positive as the energy converted to matter in the beginning and the negative is thought of as the effects of gravity. This is _not_ a coincidence.

        The plot thickens: Fluctuations in quantum fields often cause particle and antiparticle pairs to seemingly spring into existence and then mutually annihilate one another, seemingly going back to "nothingness". This happens all the time.

        But what would cause the spontaneous creation of our universe even if we have a mechanism for it to come from zero? The answer is that there is no cause. It's difficult for us to wrap our heads around this because of the nature of cause and effect and how deeply ingrained its usually form is in our intuition, not unlike the intuitive assumption that a particle can't exist in more than one place at a time (this is called a superposition and they very much actually do exist, intuition be damned).

        Our brains evolved in Africa to do things like predict the trajectories of objects so we could throw things meaningfully. Before developing technology our brains had really only developed to _intuitively_ understand movement in the macroscopic world and little else. Due to this the microscopic world, infinities, superpositions, and causeless effects don't come very naturally for us at all.

        Cause and effect is generally a temporal function. It involves time. Remembering that time was created in the instant of the Big Bang, if we define the creation of the Big Bang as the effect, there's no time for the cause to exist in.

        In summary, because mathematics is perpetually conceptual, the universe manifested, as there's simply no way around it. This had to happen. It is what it is. This not only doesn't require a god, but it leaves no room for one.

        A bigger question is one regarding why we even need to go this deep to debunk a god in general when virtually all the _invidual_ major ones are so easily discovered to be non-existent. At a certain point one ought to say, "If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it fucks like a duck, it's the fact that there's no god."

        Every religion is already saying around 4,300 other religions are obviously BS; atheism just takes that one religion further.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Problem is that most religions at least try to become the dominant religion on the planet. Which leads to conflict especially when there are cultural differences between the religions.

      Every religion can become militant, enough Hindus and Buddhists beating muslims is a testament to that.

      Even promoting non conflict will doom your religion by being succumbed to religions that will engage in conflict.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • Then I will go to my grave a non-expansionist pacifist and let the chips fall as they may for the aggressors.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Noble but foolish. Pacifism is never a good survival strategy. Pacifism also allows for genocide and other forms of human suffering.

          If you are not able to be dangerous than you cannot be peaceful, rather you are harmless. Peaceful people have the ability to cause great harm and choose not to, thus it shows strength of will.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
        • If you are a non-expansionist who accepts all other religions, then you do not know the truth.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • What’s the truth then?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Ultimately, there is only one correct religion. Since there is only one correct religion, any attempts to allow for the existence of multiple religions is to attempt to allow for the existence of false religions. False religions cannot be true, so they are detrimental to the true religion. To cause detriment to the true religion is to reduce the amount of truth in the world. To reduce the amount of truth in the world is a bad thing.

              Since reduction of the amount of truth in the world is a bad thing, causing detriment to the true religion reduces the amount of truth in the world, false religions cause detriment to the true religion, religions that aren't the true religion must be false, and there is only one true religion, it is entirely nonsensical and counterintuitive to allow for the continued existence of multiple religions.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Most of them don't really need any external demonizing; you can simply read the texts.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • ‘Most of them...’

        This implies you are ok with some religions.

        Which ones?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • I wouldn't say I'm okay with any religions; I'm just saying that some of them make you dig a little deeper to find the messed up stuff (excluding the stifling of science which is on the surface of them all).

          For example, if someone were tasked with finding something messed up in Hinduism it might take them a while but one can just go flipping through the Bible and quickly find things like, "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

          Here we have God punishing with infanticide and rape. Lovely.

          If I had to pick a religion that I'm most okay with, I'd probably say Pastafarianism.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • Well for someone who claims to hate all religion you did at least cast your net further than Christianity that time. You probably should distribute the contempt a bit more evenly lest people think you have an agenda.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Did I though? Presuming that by "cast your net" you're referring to recruitment of some sort... yeah I really didn't.

              My pitch: "Christianity says some horrible stuff."

              Christianity's pitch:

              Clearing throat to say some horrible stuff, "Join us or burn in Hell."

              I distribute my contempt in a fashion that keeps an eye out for depravity and applies the contempt accordingly. I can't help that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which all actually worship the same god by the way, are so much worse than a lot of the others.

              It's not like I'm going after it out of nowhere, pulling this out of my ass. The texts say what they say. If me merely quoting it seems an absurd attack on it, perhaps consider what that says about the texts. Nothing good seems like it's being attacked by someone for quoting it.

              For example, imagine I approached a woman on the streets who is quoting the Bible, preaching. I stand beside her in solidarity and also start shouting quotes at people. I read one about how women should never teach or preach at people and should shut the fuck up and be silent.

              What's she going to do? She's going to look at me like, "Wow. Rude as fuck." It's as if I'm supposed to be like, "Oh yeah! My bad. I forgot we cherry-pick this and say only what we like. My apologies."

              But if she's standing there teaching about global warming or something, I can stand beside her quoting the science behind it until the sun goes down and she's never going to think anything besides, "Man, this dude's really backing me up here."

              At a certain point you have to stop running, stop avoiding it, and own what your texts _SAY_ if you really support them. I especially don't understand people who actively reject like 80% (if not more) but desperately insist on clinging to some good ol' parts as devine. This is a morality book. Imagine facing this issue with literally any other subject. You're studying for an English exam. You notice like 80% of your textbook is fucked up and makes no sense. Do you really keep rolling with that one? Or do you say, "How much fucking crack were they smoking when they published this? Were they even a native speaker? I'm going to get my money back and find a competent book to teach me."

              At the point that you're desperately cherry-picking a book for good parts, it's not making your life easier and enlightening you. It's not your teacher. You've taken the authoritative role and are now going out of your way to act like an attorney noticing their client is drunk in court and trying to control what they say and don't say. You're doing the work.

              If someone like me can simply pick up your texts and begin flipping the pages and that illicits a feeling like, "Fuck. I hope he doesn't say _that_ part," that's not a good book to base your entire life on because you can feel in your own heart that much of it is wrong.

              If I seem like I have an agenda it's because I do. I never once claimed to be one of those "I don't believe personally but to each their own" types. For me, given the texts, that's like saying, "I don't believe in stoning women to death personally but to each their own."

              No. I say fuck that. This isn't a debate over favorite colors. And I implore anyone to paint _ME_ as the bad guy for having a problem with such evils.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Okie dokie. Wasn't banking on you doing the right thing or being respectful to her. Also, nice try. We both know _you_ blocking _me_ is the inevitable conclusion of your tiring of having your ass handed to you. Happens every single time. You already said you're thinking about it. If you can't keep up with me then go ahead and cop out.

      I generally only block people who are stalking me. I've only made rare exceptions for people like a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi who was using my Facebook as a platform to spread his ideas rather than just debating with me, constantly posting recruitment attempts.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • 1. Don't try to portray someone as having substance abuse issues to shame them and then expect favours from them.

        2. Don't claim I've disrespected this girl when you've portrayed her as a psycho stalker who's obsessively in love with you.

        3. You lack the capacity to "hand my ass to me". Yes, I'm thinking about blocking you and I've explained why. If you can hold the opinion that you're this mastermind ahead of the curve compared to me yet at the very same time admit to being at my mercy and have to beg me to delete my comments then there's no finer moment to demonstrate how beneath me you are when it comes to this. Let me repeat that. You admitted you're at my mercy and now you're begging me to hide what I said for your benefit.

        This is the finest moment to block. Perfect finisher.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • 1. I formerly had substance abuse issues and during that time I made a lot of mistakes similar to yours in which you totally miss entire segments or completely misunderstand things which I know full and well that you're more than intelligent enough to not misunderstand so grossly. I'm just calling it like I see it, but I don't fault you for it. You probably disagree with me given your usual views but I feel addiction is a disease and that no one dived in headfirst with the intent of contracting a disease. If you blame yourself for it, you need to give yourself a break. I'd happily be a support contact. I'm completely serious about that.

          2. This is exactly the sort of thing I mean. I don't _actually_ think you're stupid (I think you act like it sometimes though), so if you're not suffering from substance abuse issues or perhaps severe anger issues, I don't see how you could even miss the point here by so much. Disrespect little miss lookalike? Fuck her. What would this even have to do with her? Like at all? This is what I mean. I'm _clearly_ talking about CD. You clearly deeply upset her. I don't want to disrespect her, so I even deleted my own jokes about the DMs and that's all I asked you to do. I don't give a flying fuck about anything else you've said at all. I could care less about the rest. I don't even personally care about the DMs but it's obviously something she doesn't appreciate being here. I'm not asking you for any favors. In fact, if she has no problem with it, neither do I.

          3. This doesn't really even apply now that I've explained the misunderstanding about 2, which it's a continuation of. But either way, I've never claimed to be the Architect of the fucking Matrix. All I've said is that in disputational matters I find your trap attempts obvious and feel several steps ahead. You seem to believe I've asserted that you could shoot me with a gun and I'd be fine or something. That's ridiculous. At any rate it doesn't matter because like I said I don't even care, just thought you might be cool to CD.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    - "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.

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

    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)))

    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

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Slide into them DMs, boi. Jesus Christ. First opportunity. This hits harder when I realized you paid to slip into DMs. Omg.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • *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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I'm going to pretend to be you for a moment.


      "Ha! I just think it's kinda funny how 'Rainbow 6' never came up before me saying it seems like you're drinking on here sometimes and now you're casually trying to work it into conversation so I think maybe you read that whole fucking thing wrong because you were playing 'Rainbow 6'. Lol. I winz. Those giant fuck-off blocks could have been used for anything. If I keep saying shit isn't going badly for me here maybe you will think it isn't. I'm saying it's not. So it must not be."

      *Transforms back*

      Damn. I didn't like that at all. Anyway, nah. If I had to guess this is more of a "why not both" type of thing.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • Shit, you right. Alcohol and Rainbow 6. The only two gripping things to divert attention.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I'm playing Rainbow 6 so I'll have to rush this up.

    - 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.

    - 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.

    - 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.

    - 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.

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

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I'te.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I'te.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • That is infact the case. Now consider that the very stance you took there is similar to his, only the time periods are different.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • But _why_? _Why_ does "shit" mean something so different than "poop"?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Which fire? The one after you die or the one that the radicals put you in?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I have to applaud your unwillingness. It should hardly be an accomplishment but it is; I find it extremely depressing that I'm a member of a species apparently (usually) capable of simply deciding what to believe.

      It's actually on both sides. Even as an atheist, I'm baffled by atheists who were formerly religious, become angry with God, and decide not to believe in him as a result. How the flying fuck does that work? My brain simply doesn't work even remotely like that. What I _want_ to be true means jack shit.

      I've simply spent far too much of my life studying physics for religiosity to be an option for me. I don't really want this to be so but, unless science cures aging, I'll eventually be toast and that's that.

      As for the loss of consciousness, comfort yourself with this: You won't be around to have an opinion regarding it. Look at it like this: How did you feel about it all before you were born? That's how you're going to feel about it after you die. All the matter that composes you existed before you were born and all of it will continue to after you die, but you're only going to have any thoughts on it one way or the other while particles are arranged in a way that yields your consciousness.

      Death isn't so comparable to how you feel when you sleep; it's identical to how you felt when the dinosaurs were roaming the Earth.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • It'll be like going to sleep but just never waking up. You won't even notice! Does that make you feel better?

      But, an alternative to religion is simulation theory. Maybe none of this is "real" and death is actually "waking up". Or something. Sometimes I look around at everything and it all seems so absurd to me, like what even is all this stuff? A habitable orb in space that we walk around on, breathing air, experiencing things, feeling feelings, it's fucking weird! It's too damn weird. There's probably some explanation for this other than it just happened out of dumb luck.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • Would it, though? I mean even when you're asleep there's moments were you know you're asleep, right? I suppose if you want to get "Deep" with it you could make a catchy question like, "Do dead people dream?" Lol.

        Nah, I don't think it would be comparable to sleeping but if it was then I wouldn't be afraid of when my time comes. The simulation theory would be awesome too tbh. Basically anything that would allow me to keep some sort of consciousness would be awesome.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • What if people refuse the word of God from the Quran? Because people tend to do that.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • If my creator told me to obey. I have zero reason to not obey. I just dont like dealing the the supposed middle men.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 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.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I am being told the truth, and, thus far, I have chosen to believe it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • "why are you atheist"

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

    Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment