Looking for athiests to debate (srs)

[Darkenzo]

Okay, so you literally just don't understand the concept of objectivity and subjectivity in general.

You can have subjective opinions but certain other things are objective reality not subjective as they apply equally to everyone regardless of culture. Punching a baby in the face is objectively wrong in all cultures while eating meat is only subjectively wrong. There's objective morality and subjective morality. You don't need a God for objective morality to work, we don't need to be told what that certain things aren't right to do. Subjective morality is what we as a society come to a general census on but it's open to debate and change.

Prove that it is objectively morally wrong then. Again, you do not seem to understand the concept at all. You seem to think an opinion being widely held makes it objective.

A widely held opinion would be subjective morality. Age of consent would be an example, it's 16 here in the UK and 18 in the US. But no no country has the age of consent set at 8, that's objectively wrong. Children at that age aren't developmentally physically or emotionally ready for sex, that's not a subjective thing at all.

Which of us shall it come from?

All of us, we all agree on the objective stuff even if some people do what they like anyway and we will disagree on the subjective stuff as we should. We would do this with or without a God.

 

[Irredeemable]

And God gave man free will.

Wrong. Free will doesn't exist. Everything we do is controlled by forces outside your control. For example, genetics, race, location of birth, family members, instintcs/bodily functions and so on.

Evil cannot exist if there is a fully omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God.

 

[Darkenzo]

Wrong. Free will doesn't exist. Everything we do is controlled by forces outside your control. For example, genetics, race, location of birth, family members, instintcs/bodily functions and so on.

What the hell no? Yes we have freewill. We just don't need to be given it we developed it as organisms over time. More of a gradual process than anything you can pinpoint to an exact date more complex or "higher" forms of life have more "will" than the simpler and more primitive organisms. The ability to think for ourselves and adapt to our environment allowed us to be incredibly successful and adaptive as a species. You can't deny our freewill, bloody hell.

 

[Deleted member 20139]

worst fucking place to debate religion possible

 

[Deleted member 8884]

Wrong. Free will doesn't exist. Everything we do is controlled by forces outside your control. For example, genetics, race, location of birth, family members, instintcs/bodily functions and so on.

Evil cannot exist if there is a fully omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient Go

Why not? If you believe in God then you must believe in satan too. If you believe in morally good then you believe in morally evil as well. You can't have one without the other.

Everything you identify as 'evil' within this world isn't evil then. It just is. And you shouldn't feel any which way about it. Including your looks.

If there is no good/evil then there are no injustices.

worst fucking place to debate religion possible

I know, that's why I made this thread. I know most people will disagree.

 

[Irredeemable]

You can't deny our freewill, bloody hell.

Yes I can, you're simply incorrect if you think we have full agency over our actions. Have you ever heard of hormones do you think they have no effect on our behaviour? Do you choose to suddenly become hungry?

 

[Deleted member 28903]

You can have subjective opinions but certain other things are objective reality not subjective as they apply equally to everyone regardless of culture.

That does not make them objective.

Examples of objective statements are: "1 < 2", "Earth orbits the sun", and "Tuberculosis is caused by bacterial infection". These statements were true before anything was known about math, astronomy, or microbiology, because objective reality is not determined by human consensus.

Punching a baby in the face is objectively wrong in all cultures while eating meat is only subjectively wrong.

They're both subjective. It's just that the subjective opinion that punching a baby in the face is wrong is held by an overwhelming majority of the population, while the opinion that eating meat is wrong is only held by a small minority. There is no more objective proof for punching babies being wrong than there is for eating meat being wrong, though.

A widely held opinion would be subjective morality. Age of consent would be an example, it's 16 here in the UK and 18 in the US. But no no country has the age of consent set at 8

Some cultures in the past did

Children at that age aren't developmentally physically or emotionally ready for sex, that's not a subjective thing at all.

The term "ready" is very vague, but it might be able to be defined in an objective way. What's your objective definition for "wrong" though?

All of us, we all agree on the objective stuff even if some people do what they like anyway and we will disagree on the subjective stuff as we should. We would do this with or without a God.

There isn't a single thing that everyone in the world agrees on. Even an opinion as widely held as your example, that punching babies in the face is wrong, is not held by every single person. But even if it was, that wouldn't make it objective.

 

[Deleted member 8884]

But is evil bad?

How can evil/bad exist if they're man made?

 

[Irredeemable]

Why not? If you believe in God then you must believe in satan too. If you believe in morally good then you believe in morally evil as well. You can't have one without the other.

Everything you identify as 'evil' within this world isn't evil then. It just is. And you shouldn't feel any which way about it. Including your looks.

If there is no good/evil then there are no injustices.

If God (as I previously defined) creates a world with evil, he is either non-omnibenevolent or non-omnipotent, and therefore cannot exist. The (Abrahamic) God doesn't exist.

 

[Darkenzo]

Yes I can, you're simply incorrect if you think we have full agency over our actions. Have you ever heard of hormones do you think they have no effect on our behaviour? Do you choose to suddenly become hungry?

You can overcome hormones that's why we can do no fap. The power of the individual will can be used to overcome biological influences. Though it is a challenge to be sure it still means we have freedom of will that is not dependent on our biological form.

 

[Irredeemable]

You can overcome hormones that's why we can do no fap. The power of the individual will can be used to overcome biological influences. Though it is a challenge to be sure it still means we have freedom of will that is not dependent on our biological form.

You can't "overcome" hormones, they will literally change your body and behavior whether you want it or not. Besides, if you have free will, why are you an ugly incel with terrible genes?

 

[Deleted member 8884]

That wasn't my question.

Dependent on if the person believes in God or not. A believer will say yes, evil is bad and you should stray away from it.

A non-believer doesn't believe in morals since they're man made, therefore the question can't be answered.

 

[Selinity]

@Idlevillagercel
@Lebensmüder

Let us continue our previous discussion.

If God isn't real then good/evil aren't real. Sympathy is not a result of expecting a return from those whom you sympathize with.

Come at me bros

I don't believe in god, give me your best arguments for why he exists

 

[Deleted member 8884]

I don't believe in god, give me your best arguments for why he exists

Do you believe in good and evil?

 

[Selinity]

Do you believe in good and evil?

I asked for an argument supporting the belief of a god, not for you to ask me about my own beliefs.
I do not believe in a 'good' or 'evil' in the sense that you do; there's good actions and bad ones but to equate these to the existence of a fundamental being embodying these choices we make as a God and Devil doesn't make sense and fails to account for the various shades of grey there is when it comes to reasoning and decision making.

 

[Irredeemable]

I don't believe in god, give me your best arguments for why he exists

It's impossible for the Abrahamic God to exist. My post below was totally ignored by OP.

If God (as I previously defined) creates a world with evil, he is either non-omnibenevolent or non-omnipotent, and therefore cannot exist. The (Abrahamic) God doesn't exist.

 

[Deleted member 8884]

I asked for an argument supporting the belief of a god, not for you to ask me about my own beliefs.
I do not believe in a 'good' or 'evil' in the sense that you do; there's good actions and bad ones but to equate these to the existence of a fundamental being embodying these choices we make as a God and Devil doesn't make sense and fails to account for the various shades of grey there is when it comes to reasoning and decision making.

That is my argument. You cannot believe in good or evil since they are man made. Who decides what is "good" or "evil" in a Godless world?

It's impossible for the Abrahamic God to exist. My post below was totally ignored by OP.

How can he create evil though? You don't believe in morals. Evil is not a thing to you. I did answer your question. One cannot exist without the other.

 

[Darkenzo]

That does not make them objective.
View attachment 402569
Examples of objective statements are: "1 < 2", "Earth orbits the sun", and "Tuberculosis is caused by bacterial infection". These statements were true before anything was known about math, astronomy, or microbiology, because objective reality is not determined by human consensus.

Objective means it's not open to opinion it's just something we know to be true based on the facts/evidence we observe. The Earth orbiting the Sun wasn't always a known objective fact, most people believed it went around the Earth but we now know they were objectively/factually wrong. You can apply the same principal to human morality, there are some things we all know are wrong to do and other things we seem to all disagree on. If God didn't exist this would still be the exact same situation so you can't use good/evil to support any argument to support Gods existence. God would be a complete irrelevance to us even if he did exist. For instance;

'Leviticus 19:19
You are to keep My statutes. You shall not crossbreed two different kinds of livestock; you shall not sow your fields with two kinds of seed; and you shall not wear clothing made of two kinds of material.'

According to God it's wrong for us to wear fabrics of two kinds of material. That's kind of his own subjective opinion, we would generally disagree with him.

Some cultures in the past did

The cut off point seems to be a girls natural reproductive age of around 12. Mohammed had a younger wife but that aside. That's kind of why an example why we don't want to encourage people to believe there's a God who is the objective source of all morality and he permits certain things. Better to bring it all back down to Earth a bit.

They're both subjective. It's just that the subjective opinion that punching a baby in the face is wrong is held by an overwhelming majority of the population, while the opinion that eating meat is wrong is only held by a small minority. There is no more objective proof for punching babies being wrong than there is for eating meat being wrong, though.

Some people can and do punch babies in the face but they will know what they're doing is wrong to do. With meat I can eat it without knowing it's wrong to do so that's more subjective. You can make case and argue about it. So that's objective and subjective.

The term "ready" is very vague, but it might be able to be defined in an objective way. What's your objective definition for "wrong" though?

I'd just go on overall level of harm/benefit to sentient forms of life principal. Punching a baby in the face causes objective physical harm/injury and doesn't have any beneficial outcome to anyone else so that would be in the objective category. Eating meat you can argue causes harm/suffering to animals for no gain but you can also argue animals in the wild are eaten by something naturally anyway and we evolved to eat meat as part of our diet, so you can have a debate there.

There isn't a single thing that everyone in the world agrees on. Even an opinion as widely held as your example, that punching babies in the face is wrong, is not held by every single person. But even if it was, that wouldn't make it objective.

There isn't anyone who would actually think of themselves as morally upstanding for punching a baby in the face. They may be someone who does that because the baby is crying and annoying them but they will know they it's not something they should be doing. It's a freedom of will thing to go against natural inclination, something humans are very capable of doing, we're at that level of self awareness.

 

[Darkenzo]

You can't "overcome" hormones, they will literally change your body and behavior whether you want it or not. Besides, if you have free will, why are you an ugly incel with terrible genes?

We have complete freewill over our own minds but not so much the external physical world. You can improve your appearance to some degree through exercise, health care, clothes, hair and cosmetic surgery, a nip and tuck, hair transplants, dental work. You can even get yourself a few extra inches of leg height, foids will love it.

Conditions, Treatments and Specialist Services

Our A-Z of mental health conditions and the treatments, therapy and counselling we provide as mental health specialists. Available in London, York & Birmingham.

www.schoen-clinic.co.uk

You will be a gigachad after all that. If you can afford it all that's a different subject. But the freewill to do things outside of nature is there, that's kind of what civilisation and technology is all about. Naturally we wouldn't be walking around on the Moon for instance but through a collective effort of will we managed to get a few people on there.

 

[Pengwin]

Morality in Judeo-Christianity is de facto subjective. Look at genocides with (((God)))'s approval.

Morality is constantly changing. Biblical atrocities are explained as justifiable because these were different times. Today we can't even kill people sentenced to death, and not because of one single leftist pope, but the whole Inquisition vel Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Isn' it the case that most religions dictate objective morality? Most religious denominations usually refuse to adapt to societal changes. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Irredeemable]

That is my argument. You cannot believe in good or evil since they are man made.

Why does something not exist because it is man made? You will have to elaborate, otherwise one can say "cars do not exist" or "agreements do not exist" for a closer, more abstract equivalent, because they are man made.

That is my argument. You cannot believe in good or evil since they are man made. Who decides what is "good" or "evil" in a Godless world?


How can he create evil though? You don't believe in morals. Evil is not a thing to you. I did answer your question. One cannot exist without the other.

Because God created the universe and everything in it, that would obviously include evil. What I believe in is irrelevant, I disproved the existence of the (Abrahamic) God. Also there are secular philosophies explaining what is good/moral/right without God, you decide which one to debunk if you can.

We have complete freewill over our own minds but not so much the external physical world.

Your genetics are inside your body, yet you have no control over them, but they control your life.

We have complete freewill over our own minds but not so much the external physical world. You can improve your appearance to some degree through exercise, health care, clothes, hair and cosmetic surgery, a nip and tuck, hair transplants, dental work. You can even get yourself a few extra inches of leg height, foids will love it.

Conditions, Treatments and Specialist Services

Our A-Z of mental health conditions and the treatments, therapy and counselling we provide as mental health specialists. Available in London, York & Birmingham.

www.schoen-clinic.co.uk

You will be a gigachad after all that. If you can afford it all that's a different subject. But the freewill to do things outside of nature is there, that's kind of what civilisation and technology is all about. Naturally we wouldn't be walking around on the Moon for instance but through a collective effort of will we managed to get a few people on there.

You basically proved my point, looks can't be changed by a simple chioce, things are out of your control. You just admitted we have little to no control over the "external physical world" yet you go on to suggest surgery, exercise, leg lengthening, and dental work. If you want leg lengthening or face surgery you need to have tons of money and find a surgeon who won't botch the surgery, factors that are out of your control.

The results of exercising are largely determined by genetics and hormones as well, do you think a woman can build as much muscle as a man?

 

[Mainländer]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4I2d9lXmU

 

[Selinity]

That is my argument. You cannot believe in good or evil since they are man made. Who decides what is "good" or "evil" in a Godless world?


How can he create evil though? You don't believe in morals. Evil is not a thing to you. I did answer your question. One cannot exist without the other.

Good and Evil is very subjective, there’s only choices and the outcome of those decisions.
The concept of Good and Evil is arbitrary and changes from person to person but there still is a general consensus on what is considered good and what’s bad.

 

[Deleted member 28903]

Objective means it's not open to opinion it's just something we know to be true based on the facts/evidence we observe.

What facts/evidence proves that something is "wrong"?

The Earth orbiting the Sun wasn't always a known objective fact, most people believed it went around the Earth but we now know they were objectively/factually wrong.

It was always objectively true that the earth orbits the sun, regardless of whether a single person knew it or not. But whether a statement is "objective" or not has to do with its nature, not necessarily its correctness. "The earth orbits the sun" is an objective statement, and an objectively correct one; "The sun orbits the earth" is also an objective statement (in nature), but an objectively incorrect one; "Red is the best color" or "punching babies is wrong" are both subjective statements which cannot be proven to objectively correct or incorrect, because the nature of the statements is not objective. "Best" and "wrong" are not objective terms in these contexts.

You can apply the same principal to human morality

You cannot

there are some things we all know are wrong to do and other things we seem to all disagree on.

Certain subjective opinions about morality are overwhelmingly popular, yes. That doesn't make them objective.

According to God it's wrong for us to wear fabrics of two kinds of material. That's kind of his own subjective opinion, we would generally disagree with him.

We could make the argument that God is the ultimate arbiter of reality, since he would be the creator of the actual objective realities of our universe. The same argument cannot be made for humans. Human opinion does not determine or even influence objective reality.

I think that you may also be able to claim morality is subjective even with God, btw. I'm just claiming it's impossible for it to not be without.

Some people can and do punch babies in the face but they will know what they're doing is wrong to do.

Wrong according to what objective measure?

I'd just go on overall level of harm/benefit to sentient forms of life principal. Punching a baby in the face causes objective physical harm/injury and doesn't have any beneficial outcome to anyone else so that would be in the objective category. Eating meat you can argue causes harm/suffering to animals for no gain but you can also argue animals in the wild are eaten by something naturally anyway and we evolved to eat meat as part of our diet, so you can have a debate there.

It is only a subjective opinion that causing harm is "wrong" though.

There isn't anyone who would actually think of themselves as morally upstanding for punching a baby in the face.

I'm sure there have been such people in the history of the world.

 

[Darkenzo]

Your genetics are inside your body, yet you have no control over them, but they control your life.

Your genes provide the raw material you have to work with and you're limited to what have to work with. But you can make something worthwhile with any given pile of shit. I made this hut here out of random bits of woodland debris and no tools. Fantastic bit of bush craftmanship there. Someone with proper tools and materials could have done some much better but there you go.

You basically proved my point, looks can't be changed by a simple chioce, things are out of your control. You just admitted we have little to no control over the "external physical world" yet you go on to suggest surgery, exercise, leg lengthening, and dental work. If you want leg lengthening or face surgery you need to have tons of money and find a surgeon who won't botch the surgery, factors that are out of your control.

The results of exercising are largely determined by genetics and hormones as well, do you think a woman can build as much muscle as a man?

Again you have to work within your limits of what you've got to use. There are people born with disabilities and what have you who overcome them and actually have a worthwhile life and they have done a heck of a lot better than myself with a decent career/gf etc despite the initial disadvantage they had. I can't really say it was all my 'genes fault' even though they didn't exactly give me an exceptional advantage over the norm. As far as exercise/muscle it's possible to get some ripped abs and it's possible to be 300 Ibs sack of lard that's completely within your control. Your chances of ascension will be at least a little bit higher with the washboard there.

 

[Irredeemable]

Your genes provide the raw material you have to work with and you're limited to what have to work with. But you can make something worthwhile with any given pile of shit. I made this hut here out of random bits of woodland debris and no tools. Fantastic bit of bush craftmanship there. Someone with proper tools and materials could have done some much better but there you go.

View attachment 402629

And genes aren't chosen freely, there basically randomly generated which means that different people get different "raw materials". You are largely confined to those "raw materials" afterwards.

Think about the man vs woman example I gave you earlier. A key difference between men and women is a sex chromosome (genetics), the result is that women are much weaker and smaller than men, they simply cannot physically compete (smaller lungs, less mucle mass, less bone density). You can't just exercise your way into bigger lungs and more muscle than someone with more testosterone and HGH (who exercises the same amount). And nobody gets to choose their gender at birth, yet it will affect their whole lives greatly. There's a reason why you will never see a women being able to compete with male powerlifters and strongmen.

The physical/genetic differences between men and women is the most glaring examples of deterministic factors at play.

Again you have to work within your limits of what you've got to use. There are people born with disabilities and what have you who overcome them and actually have a worthwhile life and they have done a heck of a lot better than myself with a decent career/gf etc despite the initial disadvantage they had. I can't really say it was all my 'genes fault' even though they didn't exactly give me an exceptional advantage over the norm. As far as exercise/muscle it's possible to get some ripped abs and it's possible to be 300 Ibs sack of lard that's completely within your control. Your chances of ascension will be at least a little bit higher with the washboard there.

Life being deterministic does not mean everything is set in stone all of the time (That would be fatalism). People who "overcome" their disablities do not make them disappear, they may succeed despite them. A disabled person with a gf is still affected by his disability.

 

[Lolimancer]

I don't even know what a god is, someone define it for me

 

[Irredeemable]

Evil can exist if God is a malevolent conman

Of course, but such a God isn't worthy of worship unless one is a cuckold.

 

[Michinomiya Hirohit]

@Idlevillagercel
@Lebensmüder

Let us continue our previous discussion.

If God isn't real then good/evil aren't real. Sympathy is not a result of expecting a return from those whom you sympathize with.

Come at me bros

 

[Deleted member 29529]

What reasons do I have to follow a divine command?

 

[Darkenzo]

What facts/evidence proves that something is "wrong"?

You can't prove a negative I guess. That's why you can't prove God doesn't exist. Or Zeus, Odin etc. You can debate it though and God is a bit sophisticated than Zeus even though the general idea is kind of the same thing. With people who believe in/worship Zeus you can just say this.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_YGuuiik0


And that's the end of it. With 'God' though you have to think about it a bit more as there's a bit more going on there.

It was always objectively true that the earth orbits the sun, regardless of whether a single person knew it or not. But whether a statement is "objective" or not has to do with its nature, not necessarily its correctness. "The earth orbits the sun" is an objective statement, and an objectively correct one; "The sun orbits the earth" is also an objective statement (in nature), but an objectively incorrect one; "Red is the best color" or "punching babies is wrong" are both subjective statements which cannot be proven to objectively correct or incorrect, because the nature of the statements is not objective. "Best" and "wrong" are not objective terms in these contexts.

The idea is that what we would consider "objectively good/bad" comes from our evolution as a social species of ape/hominid. Chimps don't go around beating up chimp babies for no reason either as it wouldn't be a good survival strategy. Subjective morality is more to do with our advancement as civilisation/society/culture and less to do with the basic do's and don'ts of survival. As a rule we would generally feel some level of empathy for others (more so for our own family or clan members) that's kind of the key to our overall survival, some people lack this empathy and what you but it's the general idea.

You cannot

I don't see why you can't. What I call "objective morality" has scientific biological basis, we know why it's wrong to do certain things in natural terms and how animal societies avoid these behaviours as well. Subjective morality is more to do with opinion and therefore more a human thing you don't see other animals with that.

Certain subjective opinions about morality are overwhelmingly popular, yes. That doesn't make them objective.

You have look into the natural world and compare human behaviour to other animals. You've got a scientific basis for what we would all generally agree upon as moral and immoral behaviour there so that's objective enough. I wouldn't try to argue with the science there. More intelligent species seem to display greater levels of general empathy and altruism comparable to human level. Dolphins have rescued human swimmers for example.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlhQttD3qoE


They're only doing that because they're feeling nice, not because there's a survival advantage for them. Empathy for others can cross species boundaries to some extent.

We could make the argument that God is the ultimate arbiter of reality, since he would be the creator of the actual objective realities of our universe. The same argument cannot be made for humans.

I don't really see why the universe or totality of everything that ever existed needed to be created at all tbh it can be eternally existing within itself. There was a point when our observable universe came into existence but to be sure but that's about all we know rn. I don't think there's really anywhere into that you stick a Bible or a Quran into personally.

Human opinion does not determine or even influence objective reality.

WW1 was a human opinion and you've got the objective reality here. The two things do go together. I think the two go together a little bit more than this, but leave that to one side.

I think that you may also be able to claim morality is subjective even with God, btw. I'm just claiming it's impossible for it to not be without.

I think we have decent enough workable scientific basis for what we would call objective morality, I'm happy with that myself. Going back to the dolphin example sentient forms of life do have genuine empathy for others so you can work the 'Golden Rule' into it if you like. That's mentioned in all religions regardless of whether there's a God involved, so I don't mind that.

Wrong according to what objective measure?

We kind of are the measure of it, us and rest of the natural world around us. I don't think morality 100% completely unique to humans we're just much more cognitively complex and self aware in general than anything else. Some species are reasonably close to us though and not a million miles away. There may be aliens and stuff with roughly equivalent concepts of good and evil, I think it just comes with greater intelligence nothing supernatural about it at all.

It is only a subjective opinion that causing harm is "wrong" though.

If all humans we're psychopaths intent on causing maximum suffering to everyone else then we would have died out a million years ago. It has to be 'wrong' to do else we would not exist. It would be still be necessarily wrong with or without God.

I'm sure there have been such people in the history of the world.

If there were then they wouldn't have been sane.

And genes aren't chosen freely, there basically randomly generated which means that different people get different "raw materials". You are largely confined to those "raw materials" afterwards.

Think about the man vs woman example I gave you earlier. A key difference between men and women is a sex chromosome (genetics), the result is that women are much weaker and smaller than men, they simply cannot physically compete (smaller lungs, less mucle mass, less bone density). You can't just exercise your way into bigger lungs and more muscle than someone with more testosterone and HGH (who exercises the same amount). And nobody gets to choose their gender at birth, yet it will affect their whole lives greatly. There's a reason why you will never see a women being able to compete with male powerlifters and strongmen.

Fair enough but there are women body builders who can still kick my arse if they wanted. They did much more than I did with inferior material. So we have some control/say.

The physical/genetic differences between men and women is the most glaring examples of deterministic factors at play.

Life being deterministic does not mean everything is set in stone all of the time (That would be fatalism). People who "overcome" their disablities do not make them disappear, they may succeed despite them. A disabled person with a gf is still affected by his disability.

Life is an unfair uneven playing field but if everyone used 100% of what they have to work with what they have they would do really well. Most people are putting in 20-30% though a lot of people can do very nicely with just that, they don't need to expend themselves too much. Superior genes are an effort saving luxury which is very nice to have.

 

[Irredeemable]

Fair enough but there are women body builders who can still kick my arse if they wanted. They did much more than I did with inferior material. So we have some control/say.

Bodybulding has absolutely nothing to do with fighting, but lets say for the sake of argument it does. They take steroids, so can you, then we’re back to square one we’re the inherent male (genetic) charactetistics bring physical advantages. Why do you keep arguing when you're agreeing my points? There is no free will. You can't solve things all the time with just "work harder, bro".

Life is an unfair uneven playing field

This is what I have been saying repeatedly.

if everyone used 100% of what they have to work with what they have they would do really well.

Nope, you don't know this, this is a pure assumption and a very vague one.

Most people are putting in 20-30% though a lot of people can do very nicely with just that, they don't need to expend themselves too much.

Vague and baseless claim

Superior genes are an effort saving luxury which is very nice to have.

Superior genes + Hard work > Subpar genes + Hard work

 

[Darkenzo]

Bodybulding has absolutely nothing to do with fighting, but lets say for the sake of argument it does. They take steroids, so can you, then we’re back to square one we’re the inherent male (genetic) charactetistics bring physical advantages. Why do you keep arguing when you're agreeing my points? There is no free will. You can't solve things all the time with just "work harder, bro".

You have free will to be at 100% your own physical max strength or like 20% of it as I am currently. You can't use free will to extend your natural limit but that doesn't mean you have no free will at all I don't see how that follows at all.

This is what I have been saying repeatedly.

Not liking a situation doesn't mean you have no free will or you're powerless to do anything about it. Quite a few people here for instance are going for roping themselves as a solution. I'm sure there are probably better things they could do but they decided that's the way to go.

Nope, you don't know this, this is a pure assumption and a very vague one.

Life is a bit of a game and the objective is to make it into a state you like within the limits of what can be accomplished. Everyone can "win" at the game though some people breeze through it without much effort on very east mode. For everyone here it's elite mode difficulty. Roping yourself is equivalent of giving up. You can only play this game if you have free will which everyone has.

Superior genes + Hard work > Subpar genes + Hard work

Yeah that's very easy mode compared to elite mode. It's still the same game but at different difficulty settings. We've got the hardcore gaming experience going on here. When we incarnated into human form we like "Right maximum setting, lets do this shit!" and then you're born with the genes of a 5ft 5 manlet with no decent lower third. Brutal difficult mode. But the free will remains fully intact regardless of difficulty setting on the option screen.

 

[Deleted member 23712]

Jfl at abrahamists

 

[Emba]

But here's the thing, if Good/bad and Good/evil don't exist then how can you guys make that argument.

Good/bad = man made.

Checkmate athiests.

Indeed. Goodbad is relative to the pov of the thing + time ÷ human perception... That's not proof of anything, except perhaps human perception.

 

[Irredeemable]

You have free will to be at 100% your own physical max strength or like 20% of it as I am currently. You can't use free will to extend your natural limit but that doesn't mean you have no free will at all I don't see how that follows at all.

Life is a bit of a game and the objective is to make it into a state you like within the limits of what can be accomplished. Everyone can "win" at the game though some people breeze through it without much effort on very east mode. For everyone here it's elite mode difficulty. Roping yourself is equivalent of giving up. You can only play this game if you have free will which everyone has.



Yeah that's very easy mode compared to elite mode. It's still the same game but at different difficulty settings. We've got the hardcore gaming experience going on here. When we incarnated into human form we like "Right maximum setting, lets do this shit!" and then you're born with the genes of a 5ft 5 manlet with no decent lower third. Brutal difficult mode. But the free will remains fully intact regardless of difficulty setting on the option screen.

Impeded choices cannot be considered free. You keep agreeing with my points instead of refuting them. There's no point on continuing.

 

[Darkenzo]

Impeded choices cannot be considered free. You keep agreeing with my points instead of refuting them. There's no point on continuing.

I don't how not being a 6ft 6 gigachad means you have no free will. You don't have the free will to be a 6ft 6 gigachad. You can get your legs lengthened by 2 inches that's free will. You can rope, that's free will as well.

 

[tulasdanslos]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4I2d9lXmU

First off, nobody but edgy teenagers invokes the problem of evil as a reason God doesn't exist. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend this is a cornerstone of atheist or agnostic philosophy.

I literally never went to church in my life outside of a few occasions so this video didn't take me into account.

If man isn't perfect then how is the creation perfect? This guy makes no sense and doesn't realize he was just hoisted by his own petard. lmao at being an Asian Christian btw, risking death at worst and being alienated from your racial spiritual roots at worst.

This video is getting outright ridiculous at Roman chapter 5 segment. "Bro you're taking sin too lightly, you'll literally die if you sin!" Cool, how is this supposed to bother me as an incel? My life is shit so its demise isn't dramatic at all. Not even just for incels, how is this supposed to bother antinatalists and nihilists?

Revelation 21. Ok so how is this God fellow "omnipotent" again? If he wanted everything to be perfect and he was omnipotent, he would just snap his finger or some shit and everything would indeed be perfect, but it isn't, that woman is blind and that is empirically provable.

To his flimsy at best answer I pose a question: why is God's creation so fragile that humans can make it a mess that He has to clean in the first place?

Joshua 24:15 Notice how he skims over completely the implications of the gods his ancestors served. I'll tell you why: He's a moron! He should be respectful of dragons and revere Confucius as a great man who summed up the greatest virtues of a people, his people, in clever and concise prose. But he doesn't, because he is a midwit and believes going against the grain will get him success in life instead of utter failure.

Free will is a murky subject, because we can't possibly prove its existence or non-existence. I am agnostic regarding this conundrum; but an atheist when it comes to God.

OK he seems to be tackling omnipotence. The pastor seems to have created a straw man in which his opponents are illogical. But free will without sin is not a paradox, we're not asking God to create a rock He can't lift or draw a triangle with four 90º angles. It is very easy to imagine such a world where people are free and unable to sin, he's projecting his chronical brainletism on atheists and agnostics.

"Whoa there pal you're worse than Lucifer and Adam so you would sin too if you were in Adam's shoes"

Miracles don't happen because otherwise there is no consequence to sin otherwise: Is stupidity a sin? Because that dude stranded on the middle of the desert was just stupid, he didn't decide to spend money on gourmet restaurant instead of gas which you could attribute to gluttony, the assumption is that God is being an asshole because he doesn't send a miracle his way and he just pointed out an example where God is indeed a cunt to his believer. This guy couldn't outargue the average felon in prison.

Sin comes with a heavy price: Woopsy doopsy, then how come Sola Fide doctrine exists then? You telling me that adulterous priest is going to Hell because one sin weights more than a lifetime of good actions like some fucking Egyptian balance thing?

We should be burning in Hellfire rn if it weren't for Jesus' sacrifice: Made up rule, and actually hilarious because Hellfire isn't eternal, as it only spans from death to an indeterminate point in time. If it were eternal, every atheist and agnostic would be suffering from it from conception. See, the doctrine of the Bible falls apart under any rigid formal scrutiny.

I'm sure the end of the video will be yet more fallacies, so I'm going to stop my debunking right there.