It's legitimate within the realm of classical apologetics but shouldn't be used militantly. some pressuppositonalists are militant. Also can't stand Jay Dyer. He's an asshole. Don't pray to saints. It's idolatry. Prayer to saints IS worship. It's based on an aritificial distinciton between latria & dulia. The Septuagint translates 'avad' in a worship context interchangibly as either. Both papists & eo's rely on this artificial distinction.

>>16597979
>Does this argument that's exclusively discussed by people on the Internet have any legitimacy?
No.

>>16597979
It and the ontological argument are logistic sophistry based on a false premise and vague arbitrary axioms. "Greatest" "Good" "knowledge"
They say nothing and claim everything.

Knowledge doesn't need a Deity, it is simply specific information we are aware of and understand, we *know*. They never go as far as define or describe knowledge. They use it as some mystic concept that seem vague enough to justify anything including a suprele deity.

>>16597979
No, it's more presuppositional bullshit. Logic exists and there can be no possible explanation for this other than the Orthodox trinitarian God, because... there just can't be, okay?

>>16597979

You may be able to hit on the God-as-necessity premise, which is the weaker of the two in TAG, but I don't think so I've seen anyone do so successfully, probably because most atheists are absolute retards with no understanding of philosophy and are absolutely dominated by Dyer.

Anyone who attacks the other premise of the necessity of metaphysics for the transcendental categories (like the above anons) are denialists ridiculing themselves publicly and exposing their lack of philosophical training.

Dyer's worldview elimination process is also pretty good. Islam, catholicism, protestantism, pantheism, paganism etc. are all internally inconsistent. Neoplatonism may, imo, be the only relatively good contender against Orthodox Christianity, but there are not many competent neoplatonists to defend this position.

That said, Dyer's a cocky, angry dude. You could argue he's too good for his own good.

>>16599039

>there just can't be, okay?

can't logic just be right guys?!11 *tips fedora*

The level atheist denialists is truly heartbreaking. Talk about delusion

>>16599090
>knowledge isn't material
>no the information on harddrives isn't knowledge
>numbers ams functions exist independently
>no the calculations in a computer or brain aren't material
>BECAUSE AUTHORITY FIGURE SAID SO, OK??
>YOU ARE RETADDED LALALALALA
sanest philosotard

>>16599095
>can't logic just be
Nobody is saying this, they're objecting to the only possible answer being to presuppose God

To use faith is to forgo reason, people keep trying to inject faith into reason but it's never gonna work because you base your belief system on something that cannot be proven. Start with what is provable instead of starting with "a supreme supernatural entity exists and it made everything but is also everything" and then working back from there. Start at the front and find out where you end up.

>>16599090
>telling people they lack philosophical training while shilling an argument that no academic philosopher takes seriously
kekaroo

>>16599090
Until he can have one of his priests bring down fire from heaven on command, it's all cope.

>>16597979
It's useful against a very specific type of atheist

They're not common on 4chan but the "there is no absolute truth everything is subjective even mathematics" atheists for sure exist. Against them, I could see someone well-versed in the argument doing very well.

What argument for God would work under pure nomalism?

Almost all apologetic arguments are presuppositions, false implications, or arguments from incredulity.

>>16600001
>there is no absolute truth everything is subjective even mathematics
Prove them wrong
You can only pretend to know the truth. An abstraction is by definition a perversion of the truth.

>>16599095
This is exactly what I'm talking about
Yes, it is completely possible for logic to exist without a personal creator god. You simply claiming otherwise or claiming that God is a necessary ontological a priori doesn't mean anything.

File: Decartes.gif (2.38 MB, 1080x1920)

2.38 MB GIF

>>16600014
>Prove them wrong
We gotta start basic. Real, real basic. Take a moment, take a breath, take a mental step back. Right now you have the experience of reading this post, probably looking at a screen, perhaps of being surrounded by plants outside or walls inside. It doesn't really matter about the specifics.

You know for an absolute concrete-solid fact that you are having these experiences.

Now would it be possible, in the same way and the same sense, for you to never be having them at all?

Of course not, because you are.

This leads us to the law of non-contradiction, which is what all of logic really boils down to. From it we can build all other laws of logic and mathematics.

>>16599090
Biggest Dunning Kruger pseud on this board

>>16600024
Brain in le vat, it's all heckin illusions

File: niyudu1c2g151.jpg (32 KB, 640x480)

32 KB JPG

>>16600039
This would be completely irrelevant since I only referred to the fact of you having those experiences.

>>16600047
Doesn't validate your God tho???

>>16598340
Claiming that the Old Testament recognises no distinction between honouring and worshiping is plain wrong. Honouring your father and mother is a commandment. Veneration is always intended as form of honour, never as a form of worship. Yes, the term "worship" is used interchangeably, but that doesn't mean a distinction isn't readily apparent in the right context.

>>16599090
>catholicism internally inconsistent
How

>>16599095
Ligic is merely our brains making aproximation if how reality works. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. No god needed.

>>16600319
Logic is Logos, Jesus Christ, the Word.

>>16600137
I took "prove them wrong" to be in the context of their claims about a lack of objective truth. Do you think what I've said does the trick?

With that sort establishing this is, of course, essentially since one I conversed with recently said he granted God existed but "subjectively". It was an interesting conversation since I had thought that postmodernists were mainly a meme but they're really there

>>16600411
>>16600137
*essential
not essentially

>>16600411
God exists... as a concept in people's head. The same way any character from fiction does.

>>16597979
it's a linguistic trick, not an argument
it's set up such that if you disagree then you prove them right

File: 428097861_698800319129841(...).jpg (156 KB, 2048x1365)

156 KB JPG

>>16600433
Not so, we can definitively prove that God must exist. You've really got only two options. Either
A) Causality is an inherent fact of reality, in which case you need an omnipotent being to be the reason something exists rather than nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Yp-E_Yl34
B) Causality is not an inherent fact of reality, in which case an omnipotent being would exist and be the reason some things exist rather than everything: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F7bcjGArkrA

No matter how you slice it, an omnipotent being is running the show

>>16599090
Presuppositional apologetics is a reformed theology. Dyer adopted most of his arguments from Dr. Greg Bahnsen, an orthodox Presbyterian, and maybe the greatest Christian apologist of the last century. I'm sure Bahnsen would have good reason to believe his own position was consistent.

>>16600898
>Dyer adopted most of his arguments from Dr. Greg Bahnsen, an orthodox Presbyterian
It's interesting how as the Paganism in Christianity recedes it just becomes a sissier version of Islam, even going so far as to do the whole Quranic-Ditheism thing.

File: 1712642842223582.jpg (222 KB, 800x600)

222 KB JPG

>>16600914
>going so far as to do the whole Quranic-Ditheism thing.
not sure how you inferred that

>>16600868
A) Causality is inherent --> god
B) Causality is NOT inherent --> god
Doesn't follow from you premises. Flawed argument: dismissed.
Nice try with horns of dilemma, though.
Any comment on problem of evil?

>>16600926
>Any comment on problem of evil?
Of course not. I have absolutely no grounds for substantiating my moral assertions.

>>16600932
oh wait, that's you>>16600926

File: Graph_00000.png (30 KB, 1080x1080)

30 KB PNG

>>16600926
>Doesn't follow from you premises.
They weren't premises, just statements of the implications. Which one would you feel more inclined to pick?

>Any comment on problem of evil?

It's because of the interesting issues that come up with infinity when you're omnipotent

The Greek word used in the LXX for "good" is καλός, so let's use κ as the symbol for the value God seeks to increase (or, more properly speaking, for the quantity of that value). We'll define God as the best possible being: the entity with greatest possible ability and desire to increase κ.

If actual infinities could exist, the best possible being would make this fact true in all possible scenarios:
κ=∞

It would simply set the value it seeks to maximize at infinity. Immediately as an eternal fact.

However actual infinities cannot exist; finitism is true and they are self-contradictions. The most we get in a finitist world are potential infinities. So instead God has to transform that to be about potential infinities. This gets us the notion that God must introduce something else: something that allows for the value to grow from the starting point of 0 and yet not be actually infinite. He needs to create time and add it to the equation. Let's use t to represent time, as is standard practice. So instead of κ=∞, the following equation would be utilized:

lim(t -> ∞) κ(t) = ∞
(Sorry for the unusual format, 4chan doesn't like limits outside of /sci/)

This is the minimum that ensures it is a guaranteed potential infinity.

What that means is God ensures that as the quantity of time increases, the quantity of κ increases. Doing more than that needed to ensure the truth of that mathematical limit leads to an actual infinity and so isn't possible, doing less isn't best, and so we see why the best possible being would/could neither do less nor more.

Does that make sense?

>>16600950
Define "good"

>>16600950
You know the pseud is really reaching when he tries to "appeal to atheists" by using calculus.

>>16597979
that's orthodox? he looks like a mafia boss. someone check his icons.

>>16600958
In this case the value(s) that our ultimate source was seeking to increase when it first began everything. That value is the purpose for everything and the true meaning of life.

>>16601089
Is a limit not the proper way to model such a thing?

>>16601185
What is it though? You can't just label it as "the ultimate good". What the hell does that even mean?

>>16600924
Presuppositionalists argue that we can only communicate by quoting [insert Jew book here], and that the truth value of a statement is based on how well it quotes one or more lines from [insert Jew book here]. However, the fact that [insert Jew book here] has a set point of creation in time means that this is nonsensical as one would have to believe that before the creation of [insert Jew book here] that no one could communicate.

So to get around this they argue that [insert Jew book here] has always existed and that it just chose to physically manifest in the world at a given date, but that Jews and those who worshiply them devoutly enough can channel this text from the ether at will.

>>16601191
Well I didn't; everything ultimately comes from a being which, itself, "comes from" the laws of logic (i.e. its nonexistence would be a logical contradiction). The only reason such a being would have had for making anything is if there's some variable that it wanted to increase.

So there's a variable value, rooted in the very most fundamental bedrock of reality - logic itself - that everything exists in order to increase. That variable is what good is. I use κ for it in the post there.

>>16601207
Oops meant >>16601241 as a reply to >>16601207

>>16601241
>its nonexistence would be a logical contradiction...
Ah the argument that being is more perfect than not-being and god is perfect ---> god.
That's circular argument that presupposes the exisistence of a god: therefore argument is invalid.

And speaking of logic, nonexistence of something isn't a contradiction. We could not have a 0-theory if it was.

File: Korean War Tiger Tank.jpg (125 KB, 782x960)

125 KB JPG

>>16601241
What if Heraclitus was right and the true logos of the universe is flux i.e. becoming?

>>16600950
>hey weren't premises, just statements of the implications.
Look, you're not going to get an argument to tell you something in it's conclusion, that isn't it it's premises
That's simply not how arguments work

>>16601315
>Ah the argument that being is more perfect than not-being and god is perfect ---> god.
Not quite; we (or at least I) don't know the exact contradiction (yet!). But some sort of ontological argument must me successful, that if it's possible for X to exist then X must exist. A being whose existence is required by the laws of logic themselves is ultimately the only way to get anything existing instead of just permanent nothing.

>nonexistence of something isn't a contradiction
I meant of this specific thing; some entity in particular whose nonexistence is a contradiction

>>16601373
>What if Heraclitus was right and the true logos of the universe is flux i.e. becoming?
Nah the true Logos is Jesus for sure, no one else could prove themselves master of heaven by making the sun go dark, check out https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qzHWrQ2DHhQ

>>16601423
A premise as I understand it is steps to a conclusion and I wasn't really making some step-by-step argument
Either causality is or isn't an inherent feature of the world. Which would you say it is?

>>16601460
>Either causality is or isn't an inherent feature of the world. Which would you say it is?
I'm agnostic about causality. I lean towards it not being some inherent absolute feature of reality.
I'm fine with granting that causality exist for us, where we find ourself in the world.

What follows from that?

>>16601460
>Earthquake happens in Dead Sea around 26-36 AD
>Gospel writers simply write it in as happening when Jesus was crucified implying that his death caused it

I was eating pancakes my mom made for me when 9/11 happened. Perhaps the collapse of the towers were due to me eating pancakes?

>>16597979
One plus one equals two,
Therefore sky jew.

>>16598918
Sounds like what leftoids do with their tranny shit.

File: 1714660986382581.png (515 KB, 1500x1500)

515 KB PNG

>>16601550
>sky jew

>>16600868
What caused the jew in the sky?

File: 1709679476896759.png (141 KB, 499x499)

141 KB PNG

>>16601460
>youtube.com/shorts/

>>16597979
If it actually proved God's existence there wouldn't be a debate.

>>16601477
>I lean towards it not being some inherent absolute feature of reality. I'm fine with granting that causality exist for us, where we find ourself in the world. What follows from that?

Without causality, a thing needs nothing before it can happen. So the criteria for a thing happening would be met for all things, and so you'd get all possible objects and all possible events in all possible combinations at all possible points of space in all possible points of time.

This would mean that 'originally' all possible things existed everywhere, always, at all times. ALL possible things - this would include an omnipotent being, the only sort of thing powerful enough to impose order and causality in such a state. That would be the reason that as you say it does exist for us where we find ourselves.
Check out https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F7bcjGArkrA

UHHH UHHH JESUS
UHH NOOOO MOHAMMED
UHHHHHH NOOOO MOSESSSSS

>>16599090
>t. jay dyer

File: Screenshot_20230819-122151~2.png (347 KB, 642x495)

347 KB PNG

>>16601523
The entire point of it was that it wasn't just the Gospel writers. Ancient sources outside of the Bible reported this darkness and earthquake as well, though they tried to explain it as an eclipse:

In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [which would be 32 AD], an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea

– Non-Christian Roman historian Phlegon reporting the darkness as an eclipse. Read it here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm

But there were no eclipses at this time. Look at all the total eclipses in the world from 30-40 AD here: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearch.php. Nothing even near the entire Roman Empire. So it is impossible for this darkness to have been an eclipse.

The earthquake wasn't even what I appealed to if you read my post, it was the darkness. No natural event makes the sun go dark while the stars are visible besides an eclipse, and we know for an absolute mathematical fact that there were no eclipses anywhere near Rome or Israel for that entire decade.

So in this case it would be more like "on the morning of 9/11 I felt the urge to chant the names 'Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour, Ziad Jarrah' over and over and over again until the planes hit"!

>>16601583
NASA usually, here's where you can read more for a detailed analysis: https://jewishmuseummilwaukee.org/exhibit/jews-in-space/

>>16602731
It doesn't work like that.
Rejecting causality doesn't mean that I don't replace it with something else, and it doesn't mean that I automatically accept whatever nonsense you are making up.

People who think there are successful arguments for God are always such huge fucking retards

Like, how do you make sense of there being atheists? You think they've just not heard the argument?
Or do you suppose some sort of conspiracy where they they are just lying about not being persuaded?
Maybe God just determined for atheists to be too stupid to understand the TAG argument. (This is why you stay a Calvinist, retard)

Such a great litmus test to see if apologizers are conspiracy-minded giga retards.

>>16603168
>It doesn't work like that.
How does it work?

>Rejecting causality doesn't mean that I don't replace it with something else
What do you replace it with?

>it doesn't mean that I automatically accept whatever nonsense you are
What's your response to the argument that I gave for what I said?

>>16604071
I view causality as a relationship between things in time.
Like, it would make no sense for a cause to happen before it's effect. I need time to make sense of causality.
Yet I don't believe time has always been a thing. If time was "caused", clearly my/our understanding of causality is incomplete.

I don't think you gave an argument, I think you just asserted a bunch of made-up nonsense.
If you did make an argument, I'm sorry. My response would probably be that I don't grant the premises, because you've not provided me with reasons to do so.

>>16604216
>a cause to happen before it's effect.
ops. meant other way around, lol
You catch my drift

>>16602777
>one source of a huge event that would have significance to many people
>only cited by Christians

hmm...

File: Immagine 2023-09-12 111315.jpg (246 KB, 735x1084)

246 KB JPG

>>16605106
>one source
There are many others but 4chan has a pretty strict character limit. Let's look more:

>This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls...an eclipse of the sun

- Summary of the non-Christian Roman historian Thallus reporting the darkness as an eclipse. Read it here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0614.htm
(Earliest know manuscript of this is pic related)

>In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn...Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of this portent still in your archives.

- Tertullian telling us that this event was recorded in the Roman archives. This can be read here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxi.html

The royal Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi transcribed, from the official archives of Osroene, letters written by its king at the time. In one of them he mentions Jesus, and writes:

>During the time that they were crucifying him, the sun was darkened, the earth was moved, shaken…

The letter’s reply is recorded too, and in the reply rather than expressing any sort of surprise at that it says:

>Your kind letter has been read to me, and I wish that thanks should be given to you from me. Though we had already heard several persons relate these facts...

These can be read here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0859.htm

So we have three biographies of Jesus, the non-Christian historians Phlegon of Tralles and Thallus, and the archives of two nations (Rome and Osroene) recording it, with Osroene’s archive itself containing two letters that report it, and to top it all off geological evidence that confirms all of these reports in the present!

>>16605137
>Thallus
>Tertullian
>Movses
>etc
You've been BTFOd on all of these before by anons demonstrating that none of what they say corroborates the Jewish mythological narratives that you're defending, so you clearly aren't interested in having a serious discussion.

>>16604216
>I don't think you gave an argument, I think you just asserted a bunch of made-up nonsense.
We seem to be having some sort of disconnect since you said something earlier before. Could you give an example of what a quality argument looks like, to you, and I can present what I'm saying accordingly?

File: Screenshot_20230831-234225.png (789 KB, 720x1600)

789 KB PNG

>>16605168
>You've been BTFOd on all of these before by
Care to link to where? You can browse around at https://desuarchive.org/his/search/

I provided the links to each, you can read all of these things yourself with a simple click.

>>16605181
I read them, none of them corrobrate the Jewish myths that you're positing

>>16605181
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/2242351/#2243014
You got BTFOd SEVEN YEARS AGO LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>16605211
>>16605205
No! You can't just read my sources and demonstrate that they're false! They are divine revelation given by the LORD of Israel!

>>16605211
Is there a point you feel wasn't adequately addressed? Everything seems to have been responded to as far as I can tell

>>16605205
How so? Do they not all say what I quoted?

>>16605217
If you want to see which side in the discussion is really on the side of truth, see which one is actively trying to deceive by putting on a false name

>>16600013
>Almost all
is this the trolling part?

>>16605137
>hurr durr there were *gasp* solar eclipses therefore muh three-hour mythical eclipse and all the illogical bullshit of wannabe-jew mythology are proven real.
>>16605181
>hurr durr etc. there were *gasp again* earthquakes in a region known for earthquakes therefore blah blah.

File: Screenshot_20240510-005606.png (107 KB, 559x320)

107 KB PNG

>>16606327
But, anon, we already saw in >>16602777 and its holy digits that there was no eclipse. The paths of all total solar eclipses in that entire decade, if you use that tool from NASA to look them up, are in pic related.

No, it's an absolute astronomical fact that this darkness was something else - and no other natural event makes the sun go dark while having the stars visible.

>earthquakes in a region known for earthquakes
It's really not. Look at https://indico.ictp.it/event/a08182/session/61/contribution/39/material/0/1.pdf, in Israel, from around 1100 BC to the present, approximately 36 earthquakes can be identified in the sediment (including this one at the crucifixion).

So that's an average of one earthquake every 87 years.

One of these once in a century events just happened to take place at the same time as the sun had just inexplicably gone out in what a non-Christian describes as a darkness "greater, and more excellent, than any that had happened before it" and both at the single most religiously significant event in human history? Think about it. Every single cross or crucifix you've ever seen, perhaps the most common single symbol on planet Earth - if those were zoomed out to full scenes, this darkness would accompany them.

>>16599095
>*reddit space*
>logic just can't be right guys?!11 *tips fedora
>*reddit space*
>actual gibberish
How's the view from your glasshouse?

>>16599137
>appeals to authority
>while bragging
>despite that most "philosophers" are coping retards trying tyo justify their existence while confirming their biases
lol

>>16600025
were you talking about yourself? It's funny seeing brainwashed hardcore atheist whit no competency flailing and shaking in anger and denial when their religion gets challenged

not used to it huh? you re similar to women who get treated normally. real shocker huh

File: 8).png (49 KB, 231x227)

49 KB PNG

>>16600319
>logic applies all the time except as soon as I don't like the conclusion, then it becomes meaningless

we re gonna live to see the time where atheists were actually rthe crazy delusional ones and deists are the only sane people

>>16602350
>implying people are perfectly logical and not crazed and biased fanatics trying to rationalize stealing and enslaving
yeah haha...

File: cool gorilla.jpg (2 KB, 125x117)

2 KB JPG

>>16603199
>Like, how do you make sense of there being atheists?

"First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

>>16597979
Both of the premises for the argument are nonsense.

>>16606738
elaborate

>>16606721
I get that it took 2000 years to develop an argument for God.
Still, what kind of timescale would it take with us not seeing this happening, that you would consider it evidence that the argument is in fact not successful?

>>16606738
What's the argument? lol
What argument?

>>16607014
>There is knowledge
knowledge is ill-defined
>The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of knowledge.
literally begging the question

>>16606704
>were you talking about yourself?
No I was talking about you

>>16606715
Do you think Richard Dawkins' goal is to rationalize stealing and enslaving?

>>16608371
Leftists love enslavement
What do you call forcing the entire population to work in government "education" centers without pay for the first two decades of their life?

>>16608419
Christians also support public education so I don't really see the conclusion or argument. Christian countries were the first to adopt public education.

Where is the sequitur?

>>16600868
Causality is like time, an illusion from the observer. Existence is intrinsic.
God is an unnecessary explanation, intelligent design is unneeded

>>16608455
Some Christians are Leftists

>>16608521
So the dichotomy of god belief vs slavery worship kind of fails, don't you think?

Surely you can come up with a better reason for your argument other than athiest leftists want to justify slavery.

>>16608532
no
The only organized large force opposing Leftism in the West is Christianity

>>16608561
Along with that force comes being a slave to Israel

They also don't seem to be particularly anti-war or libertarian.

If there's a correlation at all it's fairly weak.

>>16608568
>Along with that force comes being a slave to Israel
You're using slavery in a metaphorical sense for supporting them against Islamic powers
I am using it in the literal sense of forced unpaid labor on a large scale

>>16608581
Do Christians not support taxes which are a form of slavery under your framing?

>Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

>>16608585
Slavery is defined as forced unpaid labor
Taxes are not a form of slavery

>>16608587
What did the government compensate you for taking 40% of your income?

>>16608590
In theory I am paying for roads, military defense, police and fire services, and so on

>>16608769
That amounts to about 20% or less of your taxes.

>>16608793
Are you making a point of some sort?

>>16608893
The bulk of your taxes, almost the entire phenomena of taxation is not for the purpose of maintaining some kind of common good or order, it's for redistribution and is a form of theft.

If you're going to make the argument that compelled labor is slavery then the government taking 40% of the profit of your labor is clearly a form of slavery. This is why labor was not taxed in the early American republic, they taxed imports and land.

If you're okay with taxes on labor you support a form of slavery, ergo you cannot be anti-slavery by virtue of being a Christian if you're a Christian and support forms of slavery that are on-going. I'm just pointing out a contradiction in your worldview and philosophy that Christians, including yourself by and large oppose institutional slavery and are some kind of bulwark against it. It's a non-sequitur, there's no evidence for it.

That gets to my original point which is what makes you think that Atheists cannot be opposed to slavery? Belief in basic empathy and property rights is enough to get to not being an unethical person.

>>16609086
>If you're going to make the argument that compelled labor is slavery then the government taking 40% of the profit of your labor is clearly a form of slavery
I hate it when people try to dilute definitions to the point of meaninglessness

It's not forced labor. If the government ordered you into a workhouse that would be forced labor. Drafts are a form of forced labor. Taxes aren't the same thing.

>what makes you think that Atheists cannot be opposed to slavery?
Atheism always leads to Leftism (as far as I can tell) and Leftism always leads to forced labor (they enslaved me in the direct and literal sense in their government "education" facilities)

>>16609221
So, like, if we figured out with absolute certainty that there's no God. We'd all turn communist slaves.
lmfao
You're such a fucking retard

>>16609240
>We'd all turn communist slaves.
This is very much the modern Leftist agenda yes

>>16609221
>It's not forced labor. If the government ordered you into a workhouse that would be forced labor. Drafts are a form of forced labor. Taxes aren't the same thing.
What if the government forced you to work for 40% of the time for them and you were allowed to work for yourself for the remaining 60%?

>>16609273
Yes, the difference is in your scenario they
force
you
to
labor
hence there is forced labor

>>16609308
Okay, what if they say, instead of working for us for 40% of your time, you can instead do whatever you want with your time, but 40% of the proceeds go to them?

>>16609314
You are not being forced to labor in that scenario hence forced labor is absent in it

>>16609339
Can you survive without laboring or without someone supporting you who themselves has to labor? (No)

If you cannot survive without laboring, and if you labor you must pay a portion of your income, and taxation is backed up by force (withholding taxes is illegal for which punishments include jail time, and resisting arrest results in violence being direct against you so it is "forced") then you are being compelled to labor and are having a large portion of it forced away from you, which makes it a form of compelled labor. You can choose to die instead, but if you want to live, you must work and you must work for the government.

I don't see how you can deny that it's a form of forced labor. When serfs in the middle ages had to pay 1/10 of the product of their labor to the lord and 1/10 to the church, that was and is widely accepted as a form of forced labor. They were nominally free to leave but realistically could not survive outside of the system because 90%+ of the population's labor was required to be directed at agriculture in order to produce a modest surplus.

Why are you so ideologically opposed to admitting this fact? That in relative terms, the government demands twice as much from a wage laborer as it did from a feudal serf? That you support this system and see nothing wrong with it. That the church and the vast majority of Christians saw nothing wrong with serfdom and slavery for 1800 years and still support it in some circumstances (slavery for instance is still legal in some states in the context of prison labor).

I have a clean conscience. I don't support taxes on labor. I think it's reasonable if you need to fund basic government services that you can do that by taxing imports and land. That's more than enough to cover the costs of emergency services and public infrastructure.

>>16598340
The Jews literally believed that the saints were alive and prayed for them 2 Maccabees 15:14. Why do you think Moses and Elijah appear and talk with Christ during the Transfiguration?

>>16609392
once you're out of school the government doesn't make you do forced labor unless there's a war my man

>>16609473
School is far less of a form of slavery than wage labor, you can opt out of public education.

>>16609519
>a form of slavery than wage labor
That's paid by definition and slavery is unpaid forced labor

>>16609525
Is serfdom a form of forced labor?
Is indentured servitude a form of forced labor?

>>16609537
Depends, are they A) forced and B) labor?

>>16609567
Don't deflect, In your own words are those systems forced labor or not?

>>16609592
Describe them to me

>>16597979
>god is real because I claim that axiomatically and won’t budge
Zoomertrads are just closeted and submit to this guy because he’s conventionally attractive and has a deep voice

>>16609637
You don't know what either of those terms mean and you want to have a political philosophy discussion? Sorry but if you're that ignorant there's zero to gain from even discussing this with you. You have the level of learnedness as a middle schooler.

>>16609660
I have come to /his/ to seek enlightenment from those such as yourself
Give me your definitions of the words

>>16609668
My opinion is that it is forced labor and that wage labor being taxed is a similar system and is also a form of forced labor.

>>16609671
What is "serfdom"

>>16609700
It differed slightly over time and place but in general it was a system in which people, "serfs" were intergenerationally bonded to land as agricultural laborers either through force like in Russia, being identical in practice to slavery, or through a system of tenancy in which serfs were nominally free to leave but in practice had no alternative economic opportunities for which to leave and were required to give 1/10 of their land's yearly output to their feudal lord and 1/10 to their church, leaving 8/10's of the product of their labor for themselves which was typically only enough to subsist on and not enough for serfs to accumulate capital or have any kind of upward social mobility.

>>16609739
>being identical in practice to slavery
You've said it

>>16609465
>believed that the saints were alive and prayed for them
Someone could cite the Sadducees for the exact polar opposite belief. Jews had the same range of beliefs you find among Christians today.

>Why do you think Moses and Elijah appear and talk with Christ during the Transfiguration?
This is like saying "Humans can endure the temperatures inside furnaces, why do you think Shadrach and Abednigo were fine?"

File: Screenshot_20240329-094219.png (989 KB, 720x716)

989 KB PNG

>>16608471
>Causality is like time, an illusion
It can't be the case that time is an illusion. Then an infinite number of what we experience as days, months, and years would exist. But infinities are logical impossibilities that lead to self contradictions, so we know that no model that features them can be correct, check out the neat paradox in https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W4_OXMCswKU and give me your thoughts