God does not exist. The soul does not exist. The afterlife does not exist. Objective morals do not exist. Magic does not exist. ESP does not exist. Ghosts do not exist. FTL drives do not exist. Effective traditional natural remedies to incurable terminal diseases do not exist. You are a monkey who likes to fantasize about a world less cruel and more miraculous than our own.
>>18058603Okay, so stab your mother and have intercourse with her dead body
>>18058606>I don't stab my mother because the magic skydaddy in the sky has put hidden cameras in my house to watch me masturbate
>>18058606>if objective morals do not exist, you objectively ought to do things which you do not want to do76IQ response
>>18058618>>18058621Thanks for proving my point
>>18058603If humans objectively exist how can objective morality not exist? The human objectively has morality. If you mean not every human acts the same then ok.
>>18058618>>18058621Oops, I guess there are intrinsic morals after all. There goes that argument down the shitter.
>>18058650>>18058663>the fact that you desire to do some things and don't desire to do others means objective morals exist72IQ response
>>18058663Oops, looks like you hallucinated an implication which doesn't follow. Your meds must have gone down the shitter.
>>18058669do you have a counterfactual? What would people act like with objective morality, all the same?
>>18058659Well they'd assume all humans are rational and even their supposed "god" David Hume thought that was complete rubbish. If there's no basis for human rationality then there's no basis for morals, ipso facto. Everything just becomes a hodgepodge for personal opinion and things like stealing your neighbor's lawnmower or punching your coworker simply rest on the greatest number of "yays" who approve the action versus the "nays" who disprove. This is the root of modern utilitarian democracy. Nothing is set in stone and can change depending on mood or culture, instead of a law giver who asserts morality from higher realms, independent of individual persuasion. The best solution would be to order morals towards higher causes, but those that deny moral objectivity don't believe those causes even exist or are worth pursuing.
>>18058603>and more miraculous than our own.We do have a miraculous world. But those miracles primarily happen at one special place: the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. For instance, some of the most recent public miracles performed by God took place when the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate instructed the Jews to build a Third Temple.In addition to the numerous historians who report this order from him, Julian himself in a letter writes "the Jews, what have they to say about their own temple, which was overthrown three times and even now is not being raised up again?...I myself, after so great a lapse of time, intended to restore it" as you can read here: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_letter_to_a_priest.htmSo an anti-Christian Roman Emperor sponsored the Jews to rebuild the Temple, something they were exuberantly enthusiastic about. So why isn't there a Third Temple?The non-Christian Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus, either a contemporary of Emperor Julian or who was born just after his death, reports inhttps://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D23%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D2 that Julian "planned at vast cost to restore the once splendid temple at Jerusalem, which after many mortal combats during the siege by Vespasian and later by Titus, had barely been stormed. He had entrusted the speedy performance of this work to Alypius of Antioch, who had once been vice-prefect of Britain. But, though this Alypius pushed the work on with vigour, aided by the governor of the province, terrifying balls of flame kept bursting forth near the foundations of the temple, and made the place inaccessible to the workmen".Sozomen reports the same here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26025.htm, as do othersSo when they tried, God forced them to stop with a miracle.
>>18058673To say "objective morality exists" is to say that there are mind-independent facts about what one ought or ought not do. It's trivially obvious that such entities would be prima facie causally inert, because them being mind independent necessitates that they could be true even if all agents were completely unaware of them.
>>18058606Why? Primates don't do that. It's just fucking weird. Just because your abrahamic God is a bronze age fairytale doesn't mean we have to become weirdos.
>>18058603Source?
>>18058692I made it up
>>18058603Now say gender does not exist
>>18058769Gender exists but trans women are men.
>>18058775Objective gender presupposes the existence of God
>>18058778kekIn case you're not taking the piss, by saying gender exists I mean that there are behavioral differences between the sexes as well as the expectations that we associate with them, both of which are partially hardwired and partially conditioned.
>>18058785Why can't a tranny just choose to be a woman?
>>18058788Because a woman is an adult human female.
>>18058795And why can't he choose to be that?
>>18058797Because both in a linguistic and a practical sense, a man cannot be or become a woman. So his "choice" is meaningless.
>>18058769>accept muh skydaddy or le trannies will destroy youFuck off, retard.
>>18058797Same reason why you can't use the power of your mind to transform into an elephant. Our world isn't capeshit.
>>18058835Can't refute me>>18058808What does that mean? What prevents him from becoming a woman? Do you deny his autonomy, or do you believe some kind of silly religious magic like objective reality prevents him?
>>18058841You are too braindead to make an actual argument, so there's nothing to refute.
>>18058840Why can't I identify as an elephant?
>>18058843>identify asMeaningless babble. You either are an elephant or you're not an elephant. "Identifying" has nothing to do with it.
>>18058853>You either are an elephant or you're not an elephantSo do you mean there is an objective reality, which is independent of human minds and perception, and which has consistent rules including rules of logic? How can that be in a chaotic world of constantly fluctuating matter in which there is no God maintaining creation?
>>18058864>How can that be in a chaotic world of constantly fluctuating matterWhy does that preclude there being objective reality? You will fail to answer this. The very fact that it is a "chaotic world of matter" is an objective statement about that world. There is nothing about being a "chaotic world of fluctuating matter" which is opposed to being an objective reality.
>>18058679>miracles are totally real bro>the most recent one? 1700 years ago
>>18058898Because it precludes there being an authority or principle of being outside yourself which binds you.
>>18058950>Because it precludes there being an authority or principle of being outside yourself which binds youI'm telling you to explain your reasoning, not just restate and repeat your claim like they teach you in your church.
>>18058603>Objective morals do not exist.>Except for racism, homophobia, and transphobia. These are non-negotiable evils.
>>18058683In that case, objective morality exists in the form of laws given by other people before you were born. The substance of them is ideas carried by the living, but practically your words and ideas don't interact with the whole because it only exists as an abstraction between many people. Even if you took over the world you couldn't control it without killing everyone, and there would still be a record of the past. It's untouchable non-subjective in that sense.
>>18058769Trannies are only validated through metaphysics and what it means to “spiritually” be a woman. This ceases to be when you proceed with cold, materialist biology. >christianity is when white people lol lmao
>>18058929This is very strange reasoning. Do you believe dinosaurs are real? How large is the time gap from them to us?If the Jews attempt to rebuild the Temple again, I predict we will see those same sorts of miracles.
>>18058603The soul is the psyche, which exists. I think you mean the spirit
>>18058621What constitutes what you “want or do not want to do”? Where does that concept come from? You knowingly disproved your own dig within the dig itself lol.
>>18058603He does
>>18058603>You are a monkey who likes to fantasize about a world less cruel and more miraculous than our own.That might be true but not certain. Have some faith.
>>18059260Miracles don't happen. If you believe in them, you are gullible. For the record, I think OP is cringe. >>18059259Ah but if morality is wholly subjective, what's wrong with cutting off your penis, taking cross-sex hormones, and getting other surgeries to pretend to be a woman?
>>18058603How do you know any of this to be the case and why should I believe it?
>>18060615>Miracles don't happen. If you believe in them, you are gullibleBut what do you think about the evidence that I presented? With the Temple, we have a real, serious historical case for it being a place where things happen that don't happen anywhere else in the world
>>18058663Not really, morals are determined by your material conditions. In the case of killing your mother, its considered bad because our society has an excess of resources, so we can use that on elderly care. If I were a hunter gatherer and our tribe was undergoing a famine, then ritual geronticide would be considered morally good. You might even have a religious reasoning behind the act, your mother's sacrifice will help bring the herds back because the spirits will it. As for sex with her corpse, that's just unhygienic and will lead to diseases spreading to the community. That material reality creates a moral system where necrophilia is considered bad.
>>18060693It's a real mystery why God won't make mana rain from heaven or split the sea, or do any of the other physically impossible feats that were "recorded" in the old testament. I guess the invention of the camera must be blasphemous.
>>18058603>Effective traditional natural remedies to incurable terminal diseases do not exist.Well no shit, that's sort of what "incurable" and "terminal" meanEquating a metaphysical concept that's as old as humanity itself with no definite answer like the existence of a god or an afterlife to things that objectively don't exist like FTL drives and all-natural fruit juice based anticancer medicines is just being dishonest
>dude nothing exists bro>but little kiddiwinks being attractive to me exists lmao>am I edgy yet
>>18058659Morality concerns what we should and shouldn't doit's simply not true to say I *should* do stuff I don't care aboutWhat makes it true that I should do stuff, are my subjective values, goals and desires
>>18060693the evidence we got, doesn't interpret itself - are people telling stories about balls of firehow do I explain that without magic? there's a historic precedence for people making-up stories, so I'dd just go with this explanation for nowmuch more probable than magic
Every criticism of Richard Dawkins can be effectively countered with "but is he wrong".
>>18060856He's wrong for inventing memes, that shit ruined 4chan
>>18060832Based cunnysour
>>18060856Dawkins is wrong for being an evangelical Atheist. You really want to see what people will do if they think they can just suicide and have no consequences? The threat of an afterlife of justice and/or punishment keeps many people in line, think Plato's noble lie. Sure it's not true, but why are you obsessed with gaining converts to your religion of materialism when it will strip many of their morality?He's pretty good as a science journalist and atheist attack dog, but he's not really a scientist or authority.Pretty funny how he became a pariah for believing in biology over trans ideology.
>>18060936He is a scientist. He did his PhD under a Nobel Laureate too. Your objections to his atheism are also just stale. Just read the God delusion, he already covers all this.
>>18060949Not reading your holy book sorry. I have better things to read.
>>18060954Okay, so you admit that you were wrong about him.
>>18060957No.
>>18060963Why not? Shouldn't you apologize for lying about him?
If evolution is true and your mind evolved so that it can reproduce and not for objective truth, why would you trust what it discovered as objectively true?
Advanced quantum consciousness explains all phenomena. What you perceive as supernatural are merely higher-dimensional interactions undetectable by our current instruments.
>>18060966Ph.D. obtained: 1966Subject: ZoologyUniversity: University of OxfordDoctoral work: A thesis titled "Selective Pecking in the Domestic Chick"Wow, he is an expert on biology AND religion. Didn't know you could learn all that from baby chickens.
>>18058603none of these things can be proven and we do have reason to believe materialism as understood today is insufficient to explain the world we see.The Germans deployed various occultic practices, with discernible result, during WWII, the CIA did much the same with the results remaining classified.Its premature to say the question of the spirit, divinity, and God is settled.Dawkins is the archetypal Angolem chud.
>>18060972So, why are you shifting goalposts and saying he should be a theologian now too? You really should apologize for doubling down on your lies.
>>18060980He claims to be an expert on religion bub.
>>18060988Well, no he doesn't. And that also has nothing to do with your original lie that he wasn't a scientist. I wonder why you keep lying
>>18060993He's a science journalist and evangelist for atheism.
>>18061001He's a scientist, popularizer and a public atheist, sure. You still haven't apologized for your lie though.
>>18060697abysmal argument
>>18061098Scientist. Popularizer. Public atheist. Pedophile. Victim.
>>18058981This is my biggest problem with atheists. They want to deny God but have "universal morality" at the same time. We're not talking about a pragmatic "Yes this morality is constructed, but it's the most useful" argument. They want to pretend their Western secular liberal morals are somehow etched into the very fabric of the universe.
>>18061267Objective morality emerges from conscious beings' shared capacity for suffering, a fundamental physical reality that grounds our ethical obligations universally.
>>18061319So all the people in the world whose consciousness doesn't support homosexuality. Well they're just not being conscious correctly!
>>18061325This is a phenomena known as false conscious.
>>18060700The Old Testament spreads across about 5500 years. Notice: in that time period, taken as a whole, God very rarely acts. He does nearly nothing between Eden and the Flood. Afterwards he does nothing until Abraham, and then almost everything he does is occasional, over the course of centuries, and almost exclusively focused on Israel. For 400 years between the Old Testament and the New Testament he does nothing or nearly nothing. We see a flurry of activity when He comes in person in the New Testament, of course, but then as the Apostles and Prophets died, we have no confirmed miracles other that those at the Temple. So if you actually look at the times and places of God's actions in the Bible, it is very rare and highly localized. There's a good reason for this and it has to do with basic logic: if you're omnipotent, and if you're the best possible being, you actually have to take relatively limited direct action in order to avoid a paradox between omnipotence, infinities, and trying to make the world as good as it can be. Check out https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw it explains it super well but very quickly.
>>18058606I don't want to. That's about it. In fact, that's the main reason I don't do things.It turns out that everyone is running on programming that gauges both the desire of doing a thing and the associated consequences.I have no desire to kill my mother and defile her corpse and the associated consequences are enormous.I'm not sure why christcucks pretend hell is the only consequence that matters in the "material world".
>>18060852We can tell these aren't simply made-up accounts. Our sources cite people who were personally there. Sozomen writes, as you can read at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26025.htm:"If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commence it."There was even physical evidence for these miracles. Gregory Nazianzen reports, as you can read at https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gregory_nazianzen_3_oration5.htm, "Let those who were spectators and partakers of that prodigy exhibit their garments, which to the present time are stamped with the brandmarks...so marked upon his clothes in a manner more variegated than could be done by any artificial work of the loom or elaborate painting".Socrates Scholasticus also reports, as can be read at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000003089566&seq=224, that they were "imprinted on their garments, which at daybreak they in vain attempted to rub or wash out".
>>18058606According to divine command theorists. The ONLY reason they're not currently raping and murdering people is because God told them not to or something. Otherwise they'd be doing it. Yikes. Meanwhile the reason deontologists aren't raping and murdering people is because it violates the categorical imperative. Who would you rather trust?
>>18060697Necessity doesn't disqualify morals. Do you think some "hunter gatherer" would be like some automaton when they slit their mother's neck or something? There would be something pulling at them, even if the act necessitated it be done and both parties submitted to the act. What is that if not the hint of some inner morality, not defined by any teachings that would be absent in the framework of primitiveness? Hilariously inept argument.
>>18058603Prove it retard
>>18061418The burden of proof is on the person purporting the existence of something.
>>18061431The burden of proof is on the person purporting the nonexistence of something.
>>18061431OP claims various things do not exist. that is a claim with a burden of proof, retard
>>18061438Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
>>18058669>Low IQ is badwhy?
>>18058603>Richard Dawkins2006 called, it wants its cringe back
>>18061258I still haven't heard an apology from you and you keep making up new lies. I wonder why.
>>18061454Why is it cringe to laugh at your caveman-tier superstitions?
>>18061468Because Atheists are cultists who will prop up Evangelists like Richard Dawkins as their prophet.
>>18061479Can you show me the evidence of atheists doing that? You won't be able to.
>>18061492Sure, just head on over to Reddit, where you rightfully belong.
>>18061495See? You weren't able to like I predicted. I'll give you another chance. I predict you'll try to deflect and seethe again.
>>18061497No, you win the argument. They don't do that.
>>18061468>Being caveman-like is badWhy?
>>18061438Bro if you accuse someone of murder. You have to prove it happened. They don't have to prove it didn't happen.
>>18061505>bad It's not a moral judgement to laugh at silly superstitions.
>>18061520laughing mockingly is to imply something is foolishfoolishness is a moral judgment that something is bad
>>18061538foolish is a factual judgment about someone's mental faculties
>>18061570Which you clearly have in abundance, and not fart sniffing smugness.
>>18061570so what you are saying is that there are objectively good and bad states of mental functioning. Curious
>>18061378>Don't believe me, travel there and see for yourselfYes, these are strategies a liar could employ a liar would also be able to fabricate... burnt clothing What's most probable. People lying, or, magic fireballs?
>>18061388>The ONLY reason they're not currently raping and murdering people is because God told them not to or somethingIt would actually be that God put his morals or moral imperatives inside of us.
>>18061584you assume I am that other anon, very foolish>>18061633whether low intelligence is good or bad is separate from the fact intelligence is low
>>18061844Right, so suppose God "put his moral imperative inside us", whatever that meansI want to steal, and I don't particularly care about anything else, I just want to steal. I'm not concerned about being caught, I don't feel bad for my victim (Nestlé), etcWhy shouldn't I steal?
Whoa Christians got rekt extra hard in this one.
>>18061839>these are strategies a liar could employEven the non-Christian Ammianus Marcellinus agrees that this is what stopped the Temple from being rebuilt. We know from his very own words that the Emperor Julian was rebuilding it. Why didn't it happen? The unanimous attestation of our sources is that these stopped it.What's more, this isn't the first time we've seen such miracles and the time before this at the Temple the Jewish historian Josephus, who was a General in the Jewish-Roman War that saw the Temple destroyed and wrote a history of the conflict afterwards, reported them. He himself lived in Jerusalem, no travel required. And he wrote In Book 6, chapter 5, section 3 (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link62HCH0005) of his History of the Jewish War of similar miracles, the biggest of which for instance was: "incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it…for, before sunset, throughout the whole country chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding the cities". Give that passage a read since it's too long to post here but truly miraculous things were happening.>What's most probable. People lying, or, magic fireballs?If I'm correct and the Temple in Jerusalem really is a special site meant to be a guiding light for humankind and God won't allow the Third Temple to be improperly built then the latter. If you're correct and it isn't, then the former. This question is exactly what we're discussing.
>>18061973I just don't understand how you think this is supposed to be persuasive to anyone who isn't the most gullible retard or already believes in magic.To me, it's just infinitely better explained by people making stuff up. >ok, but what if I'm correct and the temple is specialYou've not provided a principled reason for why the temple is special. And why we should lower our evidentiary standard in the case of the temple.One could do this for any case where someone is claiming something supernatural has happened. And you would end up with a whole bunch of false beliefs. - "Okay, but what if this time is special." Then you *should* be rationally compelled to believe, based on inadequate evidence.
>>18062049You seem to be essentially saying "this is out of the ordinary so I could never accept any evidence for it". But that's not how you actually operate. You believe based on writings you've read that our model of the world from our ordinary lives completely breaks down if you go very high up (zero gravity), very far down (high gravity), very fast (time dilation), very hot (plasma), very cold (Bose-Einstein condensate), very heavy (black holes), very small (quantum physics). If anything, our experience tells us that the occurrence of the extraordinary is an ordinary part of the world when you get to extremes.And based on writings I'm saying there is one more: it also breaks down at very holy. As we see at the Temple of Yahweh, the holiest site on the planet.The same methods that tell you unusual things happen at every other extreme tell you that unusual things happen in association with the extremely holy as well.
>>18062082>this is out of the ordinary so I could never accept any evidence for itNOT what I'm sayingThe evidence. The data. Are people telling stories about magic fireballs, etc.Then we're trying to explain it. "Why are people telling stories about magic fireballs?" "What best explain people telling these stories? "Maybe they had a motive, maybe they were sincerely mistaken, maybe some bribed them to do so for a grand conspiracy. Stuff we know have happened before in human history.Any of this is obviously going to be highly speculative. I don't understand why you think. "Maybe magic is real." is a competing explanation.Something that does not have a presence in human history. Something that we don't know have ever happened before.
>>18062082>please I beg you believe in magic!What too much capeshit does to a nigga.
>>18062124What triggered you?
>>18062112Alright, let's work from square one. Historically, we know with absolute certainty that Emperor Julian the Apostate ordered that the Third Temple be constructed. This did not happen. According to our sources, why did it not happen?>>18062125Is it magic that people levitate if they go up high enough?
>>18062153>ummm you see it's possible to heal people with your spit because gravity duhDo Americans really?
>>18062187Looks like our discussion ends the way it began: an empty, thin husk that relies on vacuous placeholder words on your end, and actual analysis of what our historical sources say on my end. Happy to have a real discussion if you want, but if it's more of the same, I think any reader can easily see whose side our historical data is really on.
>>18062219That was literally your argument, capeshitbro. You believe in capeshit like an old superstitious gypsy because things like gravity seem strange to you.
>>18062082Except there is evidence of all those other "unusual" phenomena and there is zero evidence for the tribal war god myth you believe in.
>>18062255So let's work from square one, as I said. What say you to >>18062153?
>>18062268Someone couldn't build a temple for some mundane reasons which gullible morons mythologized and lied about. So what?>"for, before sunset, throughout the whole country chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds"Really? Chariots in the sky? Were drones and fighter jets too costly?
>>18061479Literally no one does this, utterly delusional post. Tempted to believe it was written by a boomer.
>>18062309>Someone couldn't build a temple for some mundane reasonsWhat were those reasons, in your view?
>>18062322Idk, I don't consider it significant enough to speculate about.
>>18062153>>18062268Look, you're the guy that needs a reality check and go back to square one.In what cases would magic be a better explanation that people making up stories? Why is magic a better explanation?
Suppose we accept magical explanations as a method of doing history.We're trying to explain the fireballs at the temple.Your supernatural explanation is that God caused the fireballs. That they were a miracle. My supernatural explanation is the actually there was no fireballs, but, a demon! A demon possessed all the people involved and caused them to tell the (false) stories they did.Both of our explanations both fully explains and accounts for all the data we got.How do we go about figuring out what explanation is the best?
The best way to counter "morality does not exist" people is ask them to say a slur out lout. They won't. In fact, they'll suddenly go>Dude what the fuck is wrong with you?!??!?
>>18062436>objective morality exists because some people do not want to do certain things which they've been conditioned to respond negatively toPeople believe in God for the same reason they think this is a good argument.
>>18062333Then I suppose this conversation isn't significant enough to continue. >>18062378It's a simple question anon.
>>18062436I would probably say "cunt fuck piss".
>>18062485>I suppose this conversation isn't significant enough to continue.Yes, when you bring some actual evidence to the table rather than obviously mythologized hearsay, it can become significant.
If Bibi Netanyahu starts building the third temple and suddenly ancient soldiers start flying in horse-drawn chariots over Jerusalem and shit, I'll convert to your desert cult.
>>18058606>I want to murder and rape my own mother, but I don’t because my religion says it’s bad
>>18062512I'm simply asking: why was Julian the Apostate's effort to build the Third Temple unsuccessful?
>>18062485>why did it not happen?Uhhh, I got no clueIn what world is this an easy question? Care to engage with the magic Vs. mundane explanation topic now?
>>18062539Yeah, sure
>>18062539Nta but is your argument basically that you ought to believe every fantastical and magical explanation of an event that we have in writing unless one of many possible mundane explanations is proven?
Yet somehow lifeless matter creates consciousness
>>18062407Suppose we accept magical explanations as a method of doing history.We're trying to explain people floating when they go up high.Your magical explanation is everything we know from our experience changes when you go up high. That extraordinary events happen.My magical explanation is that actually there are not floating men, but, hallucinating men! Up high their brains hallucinate and cause them to tell the (false) stories they do. The altitude makes optics glitch the same way.Both of our explanations both fully explain and account for all the data we got.How do we go about figuring out what explanation is the best?
>>18062569Lets stick to the temple for now.Demon Vs Fireballs.
>>18062545>Uhhh, I got no clueI think you have plenty of clues. What do our sources say?
>>18062539Probably because he didn't plan it well enough.
>>18062576We are. You can do this same thing for any hypothesis. Appeals to unbeatable perceptive deceivers are an equal counter to all observational hypotheses.
>>18062581Now can you support this from our historical sources?
>>18062592If he had planned it well enough, it would have been built. Simple.
>>18062579I know literally nothing about the temple, I don't care about the temple.just tell me, make your point - move the conversationMy interest is with the problems of using magic as an explanation, that's what I want to talk about
>>18062539He changed his mind and didn't feel like spending money. And bribed people to tell a story about fireballs to save face.Now we just need to figure out what explanation is most probable. This one.Or, magic.
>>18058606Morality is a product of evolution of human kind as a social and collaborable species, not because of skydaddies given rules. Murderous perverts are bad for community even in atheistic mind.
>>18062579They say it was cuz magic fireballs, right?
>>18062592Nta, care to answer this? >>18062562
>>18062587Not my problem.That's your mess to sort out.What happens when you start accepting magical explanation.I got no clue about what you think is most common, demons or fireballs.I don't believe in either. I think people making up stories wins out over both.
>>18062599You're not wrong! But the question is, where specifically did he go wrong? Clearly, something with the plans. What was it?(Hint: this one didn't get built for the same reason the last one got destroyed)
>>18058769>support atheism>posts people who claim to believe in a deityAhuh
>>18062603>My interest is with the problems of using magic as an explanation, that's what I want to talk aboutOK, we can switch over to this. But as I said earlier, there's nothing more unusual here than we see at any other extreme. If people floating when they go very high or time slowing down when you go very fast aren't "magic", neither are other unusual events when you have something very holy. Makes sense, right?
>>18062636Riiiight, he didn't take into consideration that skydaddy would send skytwinks on skychariots to destroy the temple. That's the only possible place where his plan could have gone wrong.
>>18062592>>18062579I didn't mean to be difficult, btwI genuinely got confused by what you were even asking about. Now I'm still confused, but as to what rhetorical point you think you're making, or why you think this is an appropriate way to take the conversation.
>>18062624>Not my problem.Well for your argument it very much is. You posited an unbeatable deceiver as a counter, but this counters all observational hypotheses. So it cannot be a unique weakness to this hypothesis.
>>18062641Are you talking about airplanes? I don't understand what you are alluding to Airplanes are not magic.God conjuring fire because he's mad at the Jews/Roman Emperor IS magic.
>>18062650I think nobody having names on is causing issues. Here, everybody choose one. Then it'll be easier to follow.>or why you think this is an appropriate way to take the conversation.I think you just kind-of tuned it out when I posted what all of the sources say, so maybe taking it in bite-sized pieces will be more productive if you're unfamiliar with these events
>>18062653>I don't understand what you are alluding toZero gravity, from >>18062082>IS magic.What is your definition of "magic"?
>>18062652>unbeatable deceiver Maybe the demons sounded a bit like that, yeah. Forget the demon.What if it was a wizard instead, summoning the fireballs. How do you go about figuring if the fireballs are made by God, or if they are made by a level 3 wizard? Both equally explains the data - fireballs We need a way to differentiate between the explanations. Like, prior probability.How common are wizard-fireballs? How common are God.fireballs? I don't know!
>>18062663Nta, care to answer this? >>18062562
>>18062663I don't believe in magic.I view magic as part of stories humans tell. I can give you examples, like God making fireballs to scare off the Roman Emperor. Man walking on water. Rods turning to snakes.When you tell me stuff like "extremely holy", it's not like I've learned anything new about what a miracle isyou've just provided me with another word, this is not a theory or an explanation
Let's take this claim>for, before sunset, throughout the whole country chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding the citiesDid any of his contemporaries corroborate this claim? Since he said it happened throughout the country, there are supposed to be more reports on it, right? What dates did it happen on? Which times? Which cities?
>>18062683>prior probability.What I DO know, is that I think people making up stories is more probable than wizards.Which is why I think it being made-up, is a much better explanation.
>>18058603Enjoy Hell.
>>18062724>What's more probably? A plague wiped out 1/3 of the European population in the 14th century, or you just made that up?>LolRope.
>>18062757You unironically assign the same prior probability to wizards as to someone making up a story about wizards?
There is more "evidence" that Elvis Presley rose from the dead than there is for any religious miracle.
>I'm happy. Everything is fine. This is the way it should be. The world is fine. I need to discern. I need my intellect to stay grounded. Grounded. I am grounded. I'm not being played.
It is ultimately pointless to try and argue with 105 IQ midwits that the world isn’t what their television science man told them is. Daily reminder that the highest IQ record owner is a devout Christian.
What happened to the Julian temple poster? I wanna see him answer >>18062722
>>18062793>believing that grifting squids claimYou're not even a midwit, you're a dimwit.
>>18062817>everyone I don’t like and disagree is a grifter First off thanks for dropping that shibboleth and outing yourself as a libtoid
>>18062793There are at least two such grifters. Which one are you talking about?
>>18062835His claim is clearly fake, IQ measurements dont even go that high and no organisations have verified it. You have facebook boomer IQ to believe that crap, to which you have my condolences.
>>18062843lol, sure buddy, go tell that to Guiness record teams.
>>18062850Thats not what passive aggression is you retard, you truly are a dimwit in all manners
>>18062860He's never been verified by them, go back to facebook Charles
>>18062757This is so dumb. You can't just remove this event from history and expect everything else to be the same.The black plague explains and coheres with everything else we know about medieval history. The black plague being made-up would be fucking weird, and make some huge plot-hole. How do you explain the population declines, the graves.. the stories?you CAN remove the fireballs and have exactly the evidence we got In the case of fireballs just being stories, that would just make exactly the evidence we got - people telling stories about fireballPlease engage with my main point, which explanation is most probable?
>>18062683You're just changing the coat of paint on what is an unbeatable perception deceiver, which again works equally for any observational hypothesis.>>18062709Can you define "magic", or not? At the moment you're using it to mean "that in which I disbelieve", making your entire argument circular. There's nothing magical about miracles at very holy places, any more than there is about low gravity at very high places.>learned anything new about what a miracle isWell that's simple, a miracle is God taking a direct action
>>18062892>Please engage with my main pointNo.
>>18062899You're back. Respond to >>18062807
>>18058981 #Because at the end of the day, its about fee-fees. I am a religious man but Hume was not wrong in that regard.>>18060697 #This argument denies human agency. Which puts you on the same level as behaviorists and communists.>>18058690 #>human beings must act like primates instead of rising above mere instinct? Your argument presupposes that we ought to return to pre-rational modes of socialization and mentalities. You wouldn't be able to argue your position if we remained that way. Violence bests argument in those pre-civilizational states
>>18062899This is some weird sealioning I don't think I need to be able to define a word, to successfully use it in a sentence Especially such a word as miracle/magic, which is used for so many different things. I don't really talk about magic much except when talking to extremely gullible/superstitious people, I don't understand what it's supposed to be, or think it's a particularly coherent concept. I'm fine with being unable to define nonsense. I gave you examples of how I use the word magic. I don't think you have any problem understanding how I use the word.
>>18062611How so?
>>18062911Why are you telling me this?I was asked to explain how I used the word "magic", I tried.
>>18062944He's having a mental breakdown
>>18062899>unbeatable perception deceiverThis is a problem with supernatural explanations. There's no restrictions on them, anything goes and anything is possible.A wizard got magic, he can do anything. He can explain anything. Now we're no longer able to do deductive reasoning, cuz a wizard is always an option on the table as a possible explanation. We'll never be able to rule out the impossible, and left with the possible.I never use magic for my explanations.I prefer mundane explanations, have things be limited in scope.
>>18062954That's not what projection is either, gigaretard
Besides, *I* am not the guy who believes in magic.I would like to know what the heck magic is even supposed to be. But I don't think anyone can tell me, because the whole idea is just bullshit. I'm not asking for a definition, btwOr for you to give an example of using the word in a sentence. Or replace the word 'magic' with another word 'extremely holy'.I would like a theory (in the most colloquial sense, not a scientific theory), a higher resolution explanation of what's supposed to be going on.>*poof! suddenly there is a fireball at the temple*What exactly is be happening here? How does any of this work? Why is there a fireball, where did it come from? How did it appear?
>>18062940>I don't think I need to be able to define a word, to successfully use it in a sentenceYou aren't successfully using it. From my end it looks like a word completely devoid of meaning. You appear to be using it to mean "that which I don't believe in". You entire argument hinges completely on assigning this specific label to these events. But you can't explain what this label actually means, because it means nothing.>I'm fine with being unable to define nonsense.And as you use it, it is indeed nonsense. A non-word devoid of meaning. And it is the entire crux of your argument. What's that say about your position?
>>18062961Unbeatable perception deceivers are vacuous counters to all observations including naturalistic ones. Simulation theory is a naturalistic unbeatable perception deceiver.
>>18063044Nta, why can't you answer >>18062562?
Looks like "Julian the Bosstate" has no response to >>18062722. This highlights why you should always prefer the naturalistic (as opposed to the supernaturalistic) explanations. If you assume naturalism, you can better detect lies in alleged historical reports of miracles and make the prediction that the reports of these alleged miracles will be very low quality. These predictions will of course turn out to be vindicated.
>>18063038My position is that fireballs appearing at the temple, wizard throwing fireballs, rods turning into snakes and man walking on water - are all magic.I don't understand what's problematic about this. I don't think I'm using the word in a contentious or confusing way.I'm not the guy putting forwards a case for magic
>>180586032 digit IQ post lmao.
>>18063090This guy believes in magic lmao.
>>18063096If you don't you're 2 digit IQ.
>>18063044Which is not my argument, or what I'm talking about.My concern is with using supernatural explanations. We got no priors for these things. No way to asses probability.We got 2 different supernatural explanations.Yours: Fireballs cuz extremely holyMine: Fireballs cuz wizardThe fact that both of these explanations are dumb, and you can't provide principled reasons for why is one better than the other. That's your problem to sort out, which happens because you use supernatural explanations.If it's unsolvable, all the bigger the problem! Consider not using supernatural explanations, when there are perfectly plausible mundane explanations available. (The story about fireballs are made-up)
>>18063100>t. person with 2 digit IQ
>>18063085Your argument is completely dependent on labeling. You aren't discussing anything about the evidence. No data being brought forward, no points about history. It's purely "I assign this label to that". It's lower than even a semantic argument since you aren't even giving a definition for the label. It's simply serving as a catch-all for "things I don't believe happen". You can't even define the word. I suspect it's because you realize the moment you do so this line of reasoning is going to fall apart.
>>18061356>running on programmingSo there is a programmer. Interesting
>>18062611>evolutionSo.selections are.being made. Interesting.I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful.
>>18063110>My concern is with using supernatural explanations.There's no such thing as "supernatural". Is it supernatural when you go up high and get zero gravity? Not at all, it's just a part of nature you don't often experience. Is it supernatural when you go very quickly and time slows down? Again not at all, it's simply part of nature you don't often experience.Similarly, when you have something very holy, things that wouldn't normally be the case elsewhere become the case. It's perfectly natural at any extreme.>We got 2 different supernatural explanations.>Yours: Fireballs cuz extremely holy>Mine: Fireballs cuz wizardAgain: you can _always_ - always always, in all circumstances - come up with alternative explanations for all observations that depend on unbeatable deceivers. Saying it wasn't Yahweh, who's temple this was and who had given explicit instructions for the Third Temple that were being flagrantly violated, instead it was someone with the same abilities who was just pretending to be Yahweh, is no different from what you can do for any other observation. One could say that things don't actually float when you get very high, it's simply aliens with a giant flying saucer using the same tractor beam they use to abduct cows to cancel out gravity. They want to do this so you don't realize you're actually in a paperweight on an alien's desk. There's no physical way to disprove this.This sort of thing can be done for any and all observations.
>>18058603And you are what? The same thing? God doesn't not exist, but religion does, and far as religion exists, so will people who think God exists. Those people will exist and it's really not worth it trying to redpill them unless you're willing to entire their shatter worldbuild and rebuild it. Especially not on the humanities board on 4channel.org
>>18064503It absolutely is worth trying to enlighten people about their superstitions and it has already been done successfully for a large fraction of the population. Your demand that atheists should censor themselves is ridiculous and shows how religions have managed to successfully brainwash you into thinking they are beyond criticism.
>>18064522Atheism does not exist. Its the same as anarchy. It's not a real state of being. It's a hypothetical position that is unobtainable.
>>18064535Incoherent cope. Your attempt at censoring atheism and those who oppose your bronze age fairy tales failed.
>>18064496>you can _always_ - always always, in all circumstances - come up with alternative explanations for all observationsThat's my point, right? YOU are the one that is doing thatwhen you come up with explanation "extremely holy"Apparently you understand this is a problem in case of wizards explanations. But not with God explanations.
>We do have a miraculous world>There's no such thing as "supernatural"uhhhh
>>18064609>anon's brain gets broken by the use of language
>>18064538You cant "censor" a shadow Anon. Shadows don't exist. Atheism is just the opposition of "theo" which is the root of theory. To be a true atheist, you would have to be void of theoria.
>>18064623Pretending to be retarded after getting caught trying to censor atheism? This act doesn't impress me.
>>18064609>We do have a miraculous natural world>There's no such thing as "supernatural"yes
>>18064609It's just a debate tactic where you want X in your argument but don't want your opponent to address X so you hound him for definitions of X.Anyway, I'm not the guy he's arguing with but I think I have a decent way of defining the natural/supernatural dichotomy.The natural operates on quantitative and quantifiable causation. Phenomena can be reduced to simple interactions, everything emerges from the bottom up.The supernatural operates on qualitative and often unquantifiable causation. It is conceptual rather than numerical, often employing top down explanations which the naturalist would instead describe as emerging from the bottom up.
>>18058603You're no fun.
You know how stuff turns into plasma when it's extremely hot? Or time slows down when stuff goes extremely fast? That's not magic.Same with wizards, they are simply extremely arcane. When the wizard casts fireball, that's not magic. That's just extreme arcane.
>>18064582>when you come up with explanation "extremely holy"How is saying "there could be an unbeatable perceptive deceiver" a counter when this counters every possible observational hypothesis?>Apparently you understand this is a problem in case of wizards explanations. In this case you're having to say it's a wizard with the power of God pretending to be God. That's where the appeal to an unbeatable perceptive deceiver is coming in. In all scenarios, all observations are indistinguishable from positing an actor with the determination and power to deceptively mimic identical observations.
>>18064721How is extreme arcane different from magic?
>>18064748>>18064582Forgot to put on my name for the thread but that was posted by me
>>18064748God doing extreme holy miracles IS a perceptive deceiveryou can _always_ - always always, in all circumstances - come up with alternative miracle explanations it's not like we are able to see any of this, there's not theory on the table, we can't predict stuff, we can't make models, we can't do anything - none of the things we can do with the examples you brought up in physics you've simply provided us with a new word "extreme holy" >it's a wizard with the power of God pretending to be GodJust the power to cause fireballs.Is that more or less probable than a God with the power to cause fireballs? You tell me."people making up stories about fireballs" explanation don't got these problems
Does God have the power to cause fireballs in places that lack extreme holiness?
>>18061414It's not that human beings are automatons, it's simply that we are governed by our surroundings. People are not these pure disembodied balls of reason floating in the ether, we are physical beings, and as such our behavior is governed by the material world. Your objections and your claims that a hunter gatherer won't slit his mother's throat because he will have some inner voice of objective morality telling him not to, despite his culture having ritualized geronticide is incorrect. Just look at examples of cultures recorded throughout time, like the Australian aborigines, who had a ritual of killing and eating their young and sickly children. If there weren't enough resources for the whole tribe then the youngest child would be killed, cooked and fed to the older child, in the belief that the spirit of the dead child will protect the living child. Sure you can call this coping and trying to deflect your guilt over killing your own child by making it the fault of the spirits, but the end result is the same, there wasn't enough food, so we sacrificed the family member that had the lowest chance of survival anyway. Plus he ended up being a source of protein and as such increases the tribes survival chance.
Last night I went to this small restaurant that served schnitzels so good they made people literally levitate. Turns out that strange things happen in the proximity of the Extremely Tasty.
>>18064877This post is historical evidence that the miracle of schnitzel induced levitation is real.
>Christian so butthurt by people saying miracles are supernatural he starts making up a magic system for how God does miracles
>>18064777>God doing extreme holy miracles IS a perceptive deceiver...we can't predict stuff, we can't make modelsThere's nothing involving deception there. This was the one and only Temple to God on planet Earth. He had explicitly said he was going to destroy the Temple because Israel turned away from Him in 1 Kings 9:8-9. That's why God destroyed the first temple and the second temple. The entire last part of the Book of Ezekiel is about the Third Temple and who would staff if and what it would be like. So one could very much predict "this won't be the Third Temple, he will destroy it again". Indeed it allows me to make future predictions: if the Jews attempt to rebuild it again while still being in a state of rebellion against God, we'll see its construction prevented in this same way.>"people making up stories about fireballs" explanation don't got these problemsAs always, this boils down to "evidenceless appeals to deception are unfalsifiable" and it applies to absolutely everything. Appealing to undetectable deceivers is always a counter to any observation.
>>18058603E-Christians have damaged their faith far more than any big name Atheist ever has.
>>18058603>morals don't exist brooo nothing matters we're just specks of dust on a speck of d-Say the N word. Go ahead. Do it. Nothing matters anyway, right?
>>18065075>Indeed it allows me to make future predictions: if the Jews attempt to rebuild it again while still being in a state of rebellion against God, we'll see its construction prevented in this same way.If Bibi Netanyahu builds the third temple and doesn't get the construction interrupted with fireballs, will you admit that you got scammed and fell for an ancient desert grift like a gullible retard?
>>18065146Social consequences subjectively matters nibby
>>18065146NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
>>18058603If God didn't exist then humans wouldn't be able to even have the concept of God. Can you visualize a color that doesn't exist or the effects it would have on you when you saw it? No, because there's no such thing.
>>18065159Unicorns and fairies exist too, then. Also, I can imagine me fucking your mom, so that's real too.
>>18065075I don't understandwhy are wizard fireballs deceptive and God fireballs not deceptive? I could make up a story about why the wizard felt like doing that, if you need a narrative. Like what you're going for when pointing at the Bible. But that seems super silly to me.In no way does making up a story with a narrative increase the likelihood of wizard or gods.Remember that this is supposed to be evidence FOR miracles. We're not already buying into the Bible.If you presuppose that everything in the Bible is true, then I would understand why you'd pick God over wizards.
>>18065158Guess atheism is true.
>>18065340I mean, obviously the Jewish narrative is part of the historical explanation of why we got the data we do - people telling stories about fireballs at the templeBecause people were superstitious retards back then, and there already was an expectation for stuff like this to happenIt's like ghost storiesIf you tell someone a story about a haunted house, (totally made up, ghosts are not real) they are way more likely to tell stories about spooky happenings after squatting out in that house at midnightother people are also way more likely to believe them, if they've heard the same ghost stories all their lives this is so easy to understand, if you're not a gullible retardI don't get how people fail to understand it
>>18065353>I don't get how people fail to understand itThey're gullible retards.
>>18065152Yes. Unless something else obviously miraculous stops it like an angel, of course. But yes my model is wrong if nothing happens.>>18065340>why are wizard fireballs deceptive and God fireballs not deceptive?This it the Temple of God and these things are happening as described in God's books. What you're saying only really makes sense if you posit some other being was pretending to be God.>I could make up a story about why the wizard felt like doing thatAgain you're just saying the same thing over and over. You can always make up just-so stories to explain any event. Even simulation theory and why the alien would want any give event to happen in its simulation.You just keep saying "I can invent other explanations", which is always the case for everything, so ultimately you're not making any sort of argument against my evidence.>Remember that this is supposed to be evidence FOR miraclesAnd we've seen at least five historical sources all reporting miracles at the Temple, and your only response is "how do you know it wasn't a deceiver like a wizard or a demon?". My response to that is that you can create deceivers as an attempted counter to any observation.
Why are people still replying to this namefag schizo?
>>18065432>Yes. Unless something else obviously miraculous stops it like an angel, of course.>But yes my model is wrong if nothing happens.Are you sure you won't use some cope the way you already do with regards to a certain generation that was not supposed to pass away before certain things happened...?
>>18065432I don't understandHow is this supposed to be persuasive to people who don't already believe in the God of Israel? Wasn't your original goal to use this as evidence for miracles, presumably aimed at people who do not already believe in the "miracles" you're using as evidence Why does Yahweh get a higher plausibility status than wizards?Please try to understand my point of view. Just because Jews back then were telling stories about their God, doesn't move me towards thinking their God is real.It just explains why we got these stories, instead of other stories. Of course people back then would make-up stories about the God's the locals believed in It would be really weird if the stories in Jerusalem were about Thor
>>18065445>the way you already do with regards to a certain generation that was not supposed to pass away before certain things happened...?Those things did happen, they were the destruction of Israel and the Temple in 70 AD, check out the article on J.P. Holding's site at https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html
>>18065432>these things are happening as described in God's booksThis wasn't part of the original data...
>>18065488See? You're resorting to a silly cope on this issue, why wouldn't you do the same with the third temple? I can already see it - it's not a *real* third temple, Bibi will be punished in two more weeks etc.That's the trouble with you people. You want your religion to be true so badly that you'll adopt all kinds of copes.
>>18065454This finally gets to what might be a more constructive question: what's a good way to determine which actors are responsible for which events?Let's look at the rebuilding of this temple. Looking at our sources, why does Julian get a higher plausibility status than anyone else?Not a trick question, genuinely interested in how you approach this question.
>>18058603The things humanity have chosen to identify as those things, however, exist
>>18065494We talked about it in >>18065075, when the Temple was very first built, God had said that if Israel turned away from him, it would be destroyed >>18065509How is it a "silly cope"? It's exactly what the text says. Luke 21:5-7 says "Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 'As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.' 'Teacher,' they asked, 'when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?'". Then the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. How is it a "cope" to say this is what it's talking about? It couldn't be more direct.
>>18065547Just tell us why God is a more probable explanation for fireballs than Wizards (keep in mind, this is supposed to be evidence for God- We don't believe in God yet at this point. We don't believe the Bible is 100% true)
>>18065748>God had said that if Israel turned away from him, it would be destroyedNo. This is not a datapoint.The evidence we got are Jews telling stories about this. We DON'T actually have a God talking the people of Israel.
>>18065795Are you going to answer my question?>>18065799>We DON'T actually have a God talking the people of Israel.What would you consider to be evidence for this? Give me an example of hypothetical historical evidence that, to you, would verify this had taken place.
>>18065813No. Conversations are give and take, bro
>>18058663But there's not tho? A Somalian pirate would do that in a heart beat. Just because White people don't naturally act like chimps with guns doesn't mean we’re not chimps with guns
>>18061414Lol. Japanese people would drag their elderly out into the woods and leave them to die from starvation and the elements constantly during famine.
>>18065813Are you fucking retarded? I don't believe in God. Obviously I'm not suddenly going to grant that the Bible is the word of God. I'm not gonna play your stupid games
>>18065828Why is that bad?
>>18065823>No.I think you know it's because if you give an answer, then your point is going to collapse. The moment you lay out some criteria for determining which actor is responsible for an action, it will be simple for me to answer according to your own given standard. Unless you answer, I'm going to assume you see this, and take it as you refusing to continue since you see that any move you make from here is a losing one. >>18065833>I'm not gonna play your stupid gamesYou mean asking the simple question about what you would take as evidence for something you're saying there isn't evidence for?
>>18065863No, it's because you don't engage with my points.I don't care for the "how can we really know anything?" apologetics, not gonna play that game.I've explained the problems with your view. You don't engage. You deflect.
>>18065863>You mean asking the simple question about what you would take as evidence for something you're saying there isn't evidence for?Look, I don't need to lay out some grand theory of how evidence works, in order to point out that you simply going "because the Bible says so" isn't a good reason to think miracle is a more probable explanation than people making up stories I'm not going to do your work for you. Just because you constantly keep changing the topic, doesn't mean I am dodging. You're the one that should be telling us why it's the case that the Bible telling us stories about what God would do, actually makes it probable that there exist a God in reality that would do those kind of things he does in the stories.
>>18064483programming =/= programmersub 80 response
>>18065866>I don't care for the "how can we really know anything?" apologeticsIt's an extremely basic question about this topic. We both agree Julian the Apostate is by far the most likely actor in terms of who ordered the temple to be rebuilt. My question to you: what would you say tells us that? Why him as opposed to someone else?>>18065877>I don't need to lay out some grand theory of how evidence worksI didn't ask you to. This isn't some sort of trap, I'm genuinely asking what sort of historical evidence would persuade you of this. >actually makes it probable that there exist a God in reality that would do those kind of things he does in the storiesWhat, to you, would make this probable?
>>18065886>Why Julian the ApostateBecause it fits with literally all the historical evidence, and everything else I know about reality.I don't understand what point you think you're making. This isn't as simple as "because people 2000 years ago said so, we just accept it."There's no contradiction in me thinking the Roman Emperor ordered the temple built. While not buying into the stories about fireballs because God's wrath.Isn't this what I've been talking about the whole time? My exact problems with believing in miracle fireballs on those grounds.Do you understand why *I* get annoyed? This seems like you are just resetting the conversation without engaging with the points *I* brought up, the problems with your view. Maybe you think you're making a great point, and I am just trying to dodge it. That is not my intention, and I'm not seeing your point.
>>18065907>Because it fits with literally all the historical evidence, and everything else I know about reality.Sure, but can you be specific? What specifically about the historical evidence and what you know about reality tells you that Julian was the responsible actor here?
>>18065912No, I can't be specific. I know like no details about Julian ordering the Jerusalem temple rebuilt.You can probably guess how I could try to answer all of this, and I don't think we would disagree about anything.
I don't think thousand year-old text documents ever would persuade me of a miracle having occurred.Don't understand why this is supposed to be a problem. Yes, I could be wrong about there having happened a miracle 2000 years ago.Given what I know about the world, I just have such a low credence in miracles. I would always prefer a non-miraculous explanation of the evidence.And with this kind of evidence, people lying or being sincerely mistaken will always be an option on the table. Something I have a much higher credence in happening.I think in order for me to believe in a miracle on historical evidence. I would need to essentially be gaslit. If everyone around me acted like they believed in the miracle on those historical reasons, and I was the odd one out. Then I would be inclined to believe. I'm being 100% serious.
>>18061378>If any one does not feel disposed to believe my narrative, let him go and be convinced by those who heard the facts I have related from the eyewitnesses of them, for they are still alive. Let him inquire, also, of the Jews and pagans who left the work in an incomplete state, or who, to speak more accurately, were able to commenceDo we know if anyone disbelieved, then traveled to Jerusalem to inquire for eyewitnesses? Maybe someone did, found no good witnesses. But then nobody back home cared. Or made up excuses about not trying hard enough, or talking to the right people. Would we expect there to exist historical evidence of this? Of course not. Personally, I don't think people would bother with the trip
>>18065925>No, I can't be specific. I know like no details about Julian ordering the Jerusalem temple rebuilt.Very well. A different actor at this time that you can assign responsibility of a specific action to. Who would that be, and based on what reasoning?>>18065963I actually can give you the testimony of an eyewitness who was personally present in Jerusalem to witness miracles at the Temple! And in fact, it was even larger miracles when the Temple was destroyed. Josephus, who was a General in the Jewish-Roman War that saw the Temple destroyed and wrote a history of the conflict afterwards, reported them. He himself lived in Jerusalem, no travel required. And he wrote In Book 6, chapter 5, section 3 (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link62HCH0005) of his History of the Jewish War of similar miracles. Such as:*there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city...so great a light shone round the...Temple..., that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour...the gate of the temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night...Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it...for, before sunset, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities...the priests...said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, 'Let us remove hence'". Read his account there at the link for more. So yes!
>>18058603> be you> unironically a materialist cuck> "muh scientism"> ignores the entire Hard Problem of Consciousness> doesn't know physics can't explain why the universe is rational> or why there's something rather than nothing> can't prove logic or morals with a microscopeYour worldview is a faith-based religion for fedora-tippers. Cope and seethe, nihilist.
>>18062941Because when you're naturally a hierarchical species, having a nut that will at random kill important people. Note that said important people can and will randomly kill others and no one cares because they're on top. See any Roman emperor ever.
>>18060693Refute that these Africans didn't actually see Christ
>>18060693>>With the Temple, we have a real, serious historical case for it being a place where things happen that don't happen anywhere else in the world>Except for every other Religious places temples who all have their own stories and legends
>>18066542With any historical claim, including modern history, we can evaluate it in the same manner. Look at two factors: provenance and corroboration.The provenance here:Very poor. It's from a Twitter account known for repeating inaccurate summaries of events, see pic related for instance. It gives no details on who these people are, what specifically they saw, or even when or where this took place. Corroboration:Looking on this Twitter profile, I wasn't able to locate this specific post given how much the account posts and how Twitter organizes posts. As it stands, your post simply shows a photo and a summary from someone with no connection. There is no corroboration presented.So as it stands, we have a negative score in the provenance category (a source known to be inaccurate) and a score of zero in the corroboration category. As such there's no basis for accepting the claim.>>18066550>Except for every other Religious places temples who all have their own stories and legendsIn terms of something comparable? They really don't. What do you believe to be a parallel here?
This is so dumb to meIf you think God interferes with the world, and does miraclesWhy would you expect the thing God cares about is causing fireballs at a temple in Jerusalem?There's sooooo many other miracles I think a God would do, like, healing the sick (miraculously!) Fireballs 1700 years ago, then radio silence. It's just not at all what I would expect from the loving creator of the universe. I don't know what kind of God you believe in, but this just seems super ad hoc and silly
>>18058603>no FTL now that's just unfair anon
>>18058603>fantasize about a world less cruelThe inanimate world is not malicious or capable of sadism. The monkeys are though, but they may not be depending on the circumstances. The afterlife also must exist, but I don't know how it works. The ghosts, souls, magic, gods, chance and other strange things no one can see, if or when not conspiracies by people, I don't know how would be organized.>>18064650>From the bottom upWhat about from the side to side? Numbers, originally counted by your fingers, to explain what has no fingers, is top down as well. That is not to say quantity isn't useful for various things, but that quality is another aspect of experience.
>>18066469>A different actor at this time that you can assign responsibility of a specific action to.Do you mean God? The guy Christians and Jews tell stories about.I don't believe in God, so of course I'm not gonna use him as a goto explanation for why people are telling the stories they do thousands of years ago.This is so much better explained by people making stuff up. (or being sincerely mistaken, or retelling stories they head from other people that were lying/embellishing, etc)Even if you believe in God, that seems like a much more probable explanation.
>>18067817I'm simply asking, in general, who you believe to be responsible for some specific act in ancient historian, and why you believe it was them in particular. It can be anyone or anything before the year 1500, let's say.
>>18067866>I'm simply askingYou're not answer shit, though
Fenbendazole has been shown to be effective in studies, you are an anti-sicence kook.
>>18058603So glad this cuckold pig is gonna die in a Moslem country lmao. I hope he hears the Call to Prayer and the screaming of one of his granddaughters being raped as he dies.
>>18058603
>>18068591You can have a study published about nearly everything in some form or another. It seems far fetched that a dog deparasitizer cures cancer though. Not the most insane alternative cure by a long shot. There's people who drink industrial solvent.>>18068789>Appeal to brown rapeClassy.
>>18068802Appealing to priest rape is no better. The difference being that what I described actually will happen, just a matter of time. The murder of British culture and religion is the faultt of the men who attacked it at its roots, and did so for petty, childish and clout-seeking reasons.With the foundation gone, the country has been easily invaded, and there is no will to repulse the invasion. The consequence of an unchallenged invasion is the rape of the womenfolk, and so Dawkins is directly responsible for and ought to be proud of his role in assisting foreign pigs in raping and murdering all of those thousands of British girls.One must imagine how proud all of the Tommies who fought in World War II would be if they could see what became of their homeland! A bunch of Godless cum-eating leftoids in fedoras bumbling about slammed on Marijuana while bearded fuzzy-wuzzies drag their daughters into flats to take turns raping them.But at least we showed the Christians eh, no more church services and pretty cathedrals by science. Gahahaha! You showed 'em Reddit!
>>18062885>he keeps spewing his libgroid shibboleths Not helping your case, 105IQoid. Now you’re gonna say all of these institutions are grifters? I guess only the ones you agree with are legit lmao
>>18069689with Record Highest IQ ever of 276, Man said : "We Are in a Simulation 100%" YoungHoon Kim
>>18058603Got any evidence for those claims?
>>18058683Saying their is an objective morality entails no judgment as to what that morality is, just that their exists a good that belongs to being and an evil that belongs to nothing.
>>18062611Thats another way of affirming an objective morality though, your basically saying morality emerges out of objective conditions in the relationship between man and nature. Would this not arise if their was no threat of survival for the species? Therefore it is objective.
>>18058981You can have an objective morality without believing in God, disregard OP he is an Hume emperecist.
>>18060969That itself is a truth claim. You can even use that derive an objective morality.
>>18069911Yeah, in the same sense it's objectively true that I like pineapple on pizza. That just IS a true fact about reality. It's still made true by my subjective preference for pizza toppings
>>18070026It is also true that to leave your house you have to open the door and walk out. It is a true fact about reality. It's also made true by the relative position of you as a subject. But it is relative and objective at the same time.
>>18058603>Objective morals do not exist.game theory disagrees.>FTL drives do not exist.yet. it may be that the problem is insurmontable, but remember that they said the same about heavier-than-air machines flying.the rest may be true, in the category of so what.
>>18058603>Effective traditional natural remedies to incurable terminal diseases do not exist. Tbh when alternative medicine works it becomes regular medicine and traditional lifestyle do usually help with health but I'm just being nitpicky
>>18070026>It's still made true by my subjective preferenceExcept its not, the fact of you being a living being with a of set detirminations is what makes morality objective. Subjectivity is what is made to meet these detirminations, but the fact of these detirminations is what entails the good.
>>18058692It was revealed to me in my thoughts.
>>18070146Not quite, it was actually assigned to you in a previous cycle of Jewish programming which emphasized faggot atheism in the 2000s and 2010s. You are a product of your programming, a golem incapable of rational thought. Enjoy Hell.
>>18070122Nothing follows from me being a living beingthere's nothing normative about that Suppose I don't value the property of other people, and I just want some food. It's not like I'm making a mistake by stealing their appleOnly in the case that I subjectively disvalue stealing, am I doing something wrong
>>18061335> false consciousOnly wrong to you based on your own notions of morality
>>18070217>Nothing follows from me being a living beingHave you taken a breath in the last 3 minutes? If your living then the answer is yes. Their are clear biological detirminations that are entailed with being a living being, aswell as social or normative ones too. And yes you can absolutely make normative claims from them, you'll may not always know to the fullest extent whether these moral judjements are correct, only application and time will tell.>Suppose I don't value the property of other peopleThen you will alienate yourself from people around, lose their trust and be deemed an outcast. In that case you either find a new socias or you go mad. If you do find a socias that shares your love for stealing you will still not be able to form loving and trusting relationships because people like that who place their values in decieving and stealing will be able to forge those kinds of relationships. The end result is a similer path towards self-destruction.
>>18070340>If your living>Their are >detirminations >aswell as>you'll may not always
>>18070340Suppose I don't care about any of the reasons you listed, I just want to steal. Why shouldn't I steal?
>>18070395Because the Lord will punish you.
