>>18262239
No, by definition atheism rejects religious (aka faith-based) thinking

>>18262239
Trumpism is.

>>18262239
Yes
/thread

>>18262245
Metaphysical claims like "there is no God" are quasi-religious

>>18262245
>atheism rejects faith-based thinking
It says it does that, but it doesn't. For example, you see many atheists that are vegan, they attack others for being unethical, but ethics doesn't exist in the material world it's faith-based.

>proud e-christian post dec 29th 2025

>>18262239
Not exactly, it'd be more accurate to say that atheism is a part of modern secular religions such as Marxism, Liberalism and Secular Humanism. These are all atheistic religions, just like Christianity, Judaism and Islam are theistic ones.

>>18262260
They're not, its a logical conclusion based on current data
>God is not self-evident i.e. we can't see, hear, or pinpoint Gods location
>nothing is our current understanding of reality would require God to exist (occams razor)
>claim that God exists is extraordinary and therefore requires extraordinary evidence
>there's no strong evidence of God existing
>therefore there is not God
>>18262263
None of has anything to do with atheism. There are plenty of religious vegans, the whole movement was created by 7th Day Adventists

>>18262295
>None of has anything to do with atheism. There are plenty of religious vegans
That's why I specified atheist vegans. It was just an example anyways you could replace it with any type of atheist that makes ethical claims and moral or value judgments

And your very argument here isn't really faith free. Where is this logic you're talking about in the world, I can't see, hear or pinpoint logic either.
Read Hume on the problem of induction.
Basically if we want to exist in this world in any meaningful way we have to take so much by faith we're all pretty
religious

How do you know you're not in a simulation
How do you know you didn't just spawn yesterday with fabricated memories
Etc, etc.

>>18262316
Ideals aren’t religion, opinions aren’t religion, beliefs aren’t religion, political affliction isn’t religion. Nothing is religion except the worship of supernatural entities which supposedly govern reality. You niggers would dissect everything to such a degree that voicing your favorite color is a religious statement just for the sake of arguing on a Chinese cartoon forum.

>>18262316
>Where is this logic you're talking about in the world, I can't see, hear or pinpoint logic either.
Ofcourse I can. Logic governs every action I take and allows modern life to exist. Hume himself called it causal determinism. Logic proves itself true each time you trust it and it works. Its logical that if you pour water in a glass the glass will contain water and if you drink water you won't die from dehydration. If you wanna call logic a religious God then its a God that speaks to everyone every single moment.

>>18262295
>If something cannot be empirically evidenced, it does not exist.
retard

File: tower of babel.png (519 KB, 716x725)

519 KB PNG

>>18262239
It's the true religion.

>>18262239
Yes. No i won't elaborate

>>18262337
>if you wanna call logic a religious God then it’s a God that speaks to everyone every single moment
Catholic and Orthodox Christian and Sunni Islam chads stay winning, this is essentially their definition of God. Not to mention natural law theology mandating the “speak to everyone every single moment” part.

>>18262405
There's 15 blue dragons in my garden.

>>18262637
Sell me one.

>>18262239
It's a death cult, hence its proliferation in pro-LGBTQ, pro-Islam circles like the 'progressive' left in today's politics.

>>18262239
Yes. Glory to Belphegor the one who reveals.

>>18262996
>china
>pro-lgbt, pro-islam
lol, lmao even

>>18262245
Atheism rejects one particular "faith-based" thought.

>>18262295
>[Atheism is] a logical conclusion based on current data
>>we don't have data
Not much of a conclusion.

>>18262637
Awesome, so let's take a picture. You indicated they are blue so they must be visible by definition. And you indicated they are dragons, which are a type of reptiles to they must be much larger than monocellular organisms.

Notice how the first step to proving or disproving your claim is going where the dragons are said to be. Almost all atheists failed to take that step when it comes to God or gods.

>>18262239
No, atheism is just a position. Though that position is usually part of a paradigm that is quasi-religious.

>>18263017
>Almost all atheists failed to take that step when it comes to God or gods.
Nah I think atheists do not fail to acknowledge that God only exists in your imagination.

>>18263031
Failing to check it out renders all acknowledgement meaningless.

>>18263034
To check out your imagination?

>>18263037
No. Keep going, I wonder if you'll ever manage to reflect on your premise.

>>18263039
Alright then, pray tell where you checked and found god. Some Mexican's based and tradpilled youtube channel?

>>18263045
Woah, you actually arrived to the claim you spent 3 posts responding to. I am proud of you.
I didn't find God, I'm a terrible sinner.

>>18263048
So you're a Mexican who hasn't found god yet believes in him (indicated by your belief in sin) and spergs out when people say god does not exist.

>>18263053
*Puerto Rican

>>18262239
it worships human reason which is limited to rationally explain a universe that rationally shouldn't exist. atheism is before anything else a lack of wisdom and an excess of hubris

Top zoz is that jack chick?

>>18263082
Chesterton-tier wordcel babble.

>>18263090
marx tier ad hominem slop. I've never even read chesterton

>>18262239
yes, see >>18263094

>>18263092
>I've never even read chesterton
Then you obviously wouldn't be able to recognize the resemblance, you utter retard.

>>18263099
what kind of reasoning is this, haha, I can understand language you know? your brain is fried

>>18263098
>you can't deductively disprove from first principles the claim that some Lebanese Rebbe flew like Astro Boy, so when you claim this didn't happen, you're exactly the same as people who claim that it did
kekaroo

>>18263101
>haha you say I can't recognize a text's resemblance to the writings of chesterton because I haven't read anything by chesterton, what kind of reasoning is that?
So this is the power of the Christian intellect...

>>18263105
you compared me to chesterton, I would have never guessed otherwise. lucky you this board is anonymous and I'm a nice guy

>>18263107
ESL?

>>18263104
yes you can't, you can only assume. atheists love to talk about logic and pragmatic reason yet they fair to see the bigger picture, there's no need for that when you can experience it firsthand. as long as you continue to throw these pathetic assumptions which disregard a miraculous probability by definition yet that's exactly what its trying to disprove you'll be the same tier as the christfags you hate so much. cope and seethe fag, ur not special. ur just another sentient ape

>>18262337
>If you wanna call logic a religious God
In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God, and the logic was God.

I am the way and the truth and the life

>>18263111
Actually I'm a miraculous soul piloting a flesh robot directly descended from Adam who was created from dirt. Evolution is a satanic lie. By claiming otherwise, you are the same as the atheists.

File: 71jXKjCDqpL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (61 KB, 664x1000)

61 KB JPG

Atheist means without god.
It doesnt mean without religion.
There are (ew) Christian atheists.
Hindu, buddhist, etc.
I'm atheist. But I believe in things (pic).
It's not a religion per se, but I believe also in other stuff.
Idk, you seem to have an old fashioned way to look at things.
Like: there's a god that's gonna burn my ass.
Maybe things are more complex.

>>18263118
So like, figure out yourself this but, if Jesus did what is claimed, no religion would be needed. The problem would be solved.

>>18263116
lol dumbass you forget the time variable, right now i can easily dismiss your claim as bullshit because we know how the human biology works and consciousness is ultimately a bunch of neurons firing every second, but what about 2k years ago? maybe it happened, maybe not, you can't prove that. if you told someone 300 years ago there existed giant creatures with small hands and big mouths he'd have dismissed you as an idiot yet that's exactly what we're doing
second your point about spirituality is moot since we can't even begin to prove that so

>>18263118
>chaos magic
And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

>>18262245
you lost tranny

>>18263123
>we know how the human biology works and consciousness is ultimately a bunch of neurons firing every second
If that's true, Christianity is false.

>>18263130
if that's true, there is no free will, and the creation of earth and life on it was inevitable from the first point in time

>>18263130
Your definition of Christianity is broken, that's why it's not working for you.

>>18263136
If there is a first point in time, it can happen again, and it might have happened before.

>>18263137
Ah, a Petersonian.

>>18263141
I'm a schrodinger theist. I embrace paradox until someone else opens the box.

>>18263146
>I embrace paradox, but don't you dare ever say a Lebanese rebbe did not fly! That's a violation of the sacred laws of reason.
Nice paradox you've embraced there.

>>18263130
you don't get it, or you're just playing stupid
reason is just a game of what you already know, it does not cover nor answer for the unknown, the unreachable
your denial of religions is purely from a subjective standpoint, there's nothing you can prove regarding this, you can only extrapolate your assumptions and hope they remain true
besides, it takes certainty to confidently say "god doesn't exist", a presumably logical conclusion yet all the confidence behind it is popsci and general beliefs taken for granted

y'know it's even better to see it in an older scenario, like 1500 years ago when there was no internet and barely any science, back then if you were to reject superstition you'd need two things, 1 intelligence, pattern recognition and 2 incredible bravery. an astonishing level of certainty to confidently reject god and actually act upon it, despite the fact all you had is your experience and a bit of reason. naturally you may as well be delusional once you get to that level and be on par with a pious man, who thinks red evil men with horns are real

what im trying to say is cut the bs, you atheistfags are stupid and annoying

>>18263148
>rebbe
you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Who is the one teacher?

>>18263160
Actually it's fine because I embrace the paradox in claiming that god does not exist :)

>>18263148
Here is a paradox that has been unlocked before me. Free will and fate. I choose to believe in free will, because fate requires infinite knowledge to really know, but free will is something I simply experience.

File: Before the data and the lore.jpg (445 KB, 1061x1143)

445 KB JPG

>>18263167
Yes. Language can be a paradox. You can choose your semantics. The reason I don't force my semantics on the religious, is because they have been refining their logic for thousands of years, and their egregore controls half the earth. In order to deny the existance of God, you need to redefine the word "God" into an absurdity. However, if you actually look at what's in the box, you might see something that is alive.

>>18263176
You actually haven't proven that I've not disproven the existence of god, so you are just like the common atheist.

>>18262239
Atheism is just fucking cringe and you have to be a retard to make it a part of your personality.

>>18263178
I don't need to disprove you with words.

One comes after the semantics, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. Where you are standing is holy ground. Do not tell anyone, "I am the messiah" instead, go and show yourself to the priests as a testimony to them.

>>18263189
Nice babbling.

>>18263194
Yes. Language sounds like babling when you dont understand the semantics of the speaker, and buildings fall over if you can't read the specs.

They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.

>>18263195
Retreating into obscurantism will be treated as a concession. Thanks!

Arguing about religion is like being at an assisted living elder care facility. It's all just grumpy opinionated people who are griping about The Others being different from their special personal mindscape. Just making up elaborate reasons to be cranky at fictional characters you invented in your imagination. Notice how it inevitably boils down to "shut up you annoying evil stupid fag", that is the endgame.

>>18263178
Atheism is a transient state, like anarchy.
It is a privation that we experiance because of corruption and sin.

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet

>>18263208
Nice coping mechanism, Pedro.

>>18262295

>there's no strong evidence of God existing
>therefore there is not God

There is no strong evidence of you being straight, therefore you are not

>>18263178
>haven't proven that I've not disproven the existence of god
Its reasonable to wish for a bad egregore to go away. However, bad laws dont go away just because you ignore them. When traveling abroad, learn the language so that you can argue with the local judge. If you just tell the judge his law does not exist, you will still be put in jail. This is not a valid defense against an egregore. Its noodles will still grab you.

You might not like the look moldy bread, but penicillin can help fight a deeper infection.
Inoculate yourself from invisible things.

>>18263017
Cant: they’re invisible and only appears to those with faith. Sorry (:

>>18262239
you need to learn the meaning of the word religion

>>18263031
>God only exists in your imagination.
God, by definition, is the good manifestations of our dreams (josephbis the dreamer). The nightmares we suppress are only in or imaginations. We choose not to manifest them.

The wicked are like a dream when one awakes; when you arise, Lord, you will despise them as fantasies.

They are fallen, and are, no more.

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 so that it will be even more fruitful

>>18263238
Not blue then.

Disproved.

>>18263247
>religion
It means, to go over something again and again, and then make binding covenents base on the results. like the scientific method.

The third son of Adam and Eve is Set. As he sets things in their place like a pile of mile stones, paving the way for us.

There was a group of men in a war, and they came up to a mine field. Our Anon said to them, "who here wants to be king? Feel free to lead the way". There was a man among them who thought of himself as a God, so he stepped forward, and exploded.
"JESUS CHRIST!" Exlaimed the soldiers, as blood and flesh splattered onto their faces.
Our Anon said, "Your way has been made straight by the king" and the soldiers followed the LORD, single file, through the field of mines.

A voice of a one calling in the wilderness "prepare the way for the LORD; make straight, in the desert, a highway for our egregore.

>>18263227
Not an argument. I accept your apology.

>>18262260
This.

>>18262239
Through the dark magiks of atheistic-scientism I am able to project my soul across a thousand miles distance in order to tell you to KILL YOURSELF!

>>18262260
Its a pointless statement without context. The term "God" needs to be defined before someone can just say, "this word does not describe anything tangible". Clearly there is some definition of God that does have a tangible impact on the culture of humanity. To just say, "God" does not exist is foolish.

But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, where there was nothing to dread.
Arguing with a ghost that isnt there. Take courage, it is I.

>>18262260
Worst type of pseud here. Is the claim "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" Quasi-religious?

>>18263293
Through the white light of theistic-knowledge I am able to project my soul across a thousand miles distance in order to tell you to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR

>>18262316
Imagine being this confidently stupid

>>18263313
>If I perform sexual acts on a banana is that quasi religious?
Your talking points are about twenty years out of date.

>>18263321
Obsessed with fashion and optics.

>>18263325
Sir you're talking about a flying spaghetti monster in a thread about religion. If you make stupid arguments to signal that you don't take anything seriously, then you can't be surprised that you are not taken seriously. No one wastes their time making counter metaphors because it would be too easy and not lead anywhere. We can describe in lengthy lists all the mistakes made by empiricists, but it wouldn't be to anyone's benefit.

>>18263320
Not an argument. I see your limits.

SIMPLICITY IS STUPIDITY
OBSCURITY IS WISDOM
COMPLEXITY IS SECURITY
REASON IS DOGMATIC
HISTORY IS DIALECTIC

>>18263308
>God is real
>The idea of god is real
>the set of feelings withing the mind of the person which is culturally labeled with the word "god" seems like a relevant factor in the behavior of the individual and cultural group dynamics
etc.

>>18263327
How can you be sure that you can "see" anything, let alone someone's "limits"? How can you be sure that you're not seeing a hallucination as a brain in a jar? How can you be sure that you will even see the sun rise tomorrow? What does "see" mean? What does "not" mean? To say that someone has limits is dogmatic unless you've examined the history of their beliefs.

Gullible

>>18263331
Masheinstein/Insheinstein

>>18263336
They killed a man, because he claimed to be God, and now he is their king.

What I have written, I have written.

Christ is king!

>>18263340
>How
where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them

Show me an egregore that covers half the earth, and I will notice his noodles as well.

@18263346
Why do they have such a kink for kings?

>>18262239
no
religious brained retards cope that it is because they are incapable of imagining how anyone could do anything in life without being part of some kind of religion.

>>18263346
Wisdom! Let us attend.

Enclothed cognition is a sugar pill, and the world is full of diabetics.

>>18262239
go back to facebook you stupid nigger

>>18263275
no that's not what it means at all, read a dictionary

>>18263326
Your own metaphor has as much credibility as any other fantastical claim such as FSM, and any argument you use in favor of your belief can be used for FSM.

File: 9 long nights.jpg (66 KB, 486x582)

66 KB JPG

>>18263495
The word "religion" comes from Latin religio, but its exact root is debated, with key theories linking it to *religare (to bind, as in binding oneself to the divine) or *relegere (to reread or consider carefully.

The bible is a dictionary, and the holy spirit and its etymology is older than this moment.

I know that I hung on a windy tree
nine long nights,
wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin,
myself to myself,
on that tree of which no man knows
from where its roots run

>>18262245
Yes but you cant justlive form rejection. You e d up affirming things when aanswering the basic questions

>>18263499
>Your own metaphor has as much credibility as any other fantastical claim
...That was the point. You're not a bright one.
>any argument you use in favor of your belief can be used for FSM
A few problems. Maybe you get off on being an idiot, but let's take it from the top: (A) You don't actually know what I believe, you just know I believe in religion, and not every religion even requires a God or Gods. You're arguing and you have no idea what religion you're arguing against or even what religion is. (B) If you were arguing against an Orthodox Christian they would tell you that you can't assign flying or spaghetti or monster to a creator God because you cannot know what the characteristics of such a deity would be. They explicitly use apophatic arguments to settle what is or isn't divine. (C) If you were arguing in a cataphatic way, you would need to explain how you came to spaghetti or whichever. Characteristics of deities are explicit to what they think their Gods are doing. Hellenes and Romans for example knew that their Gods were deifications of terrestrial forces, the Titans represent pre-Earth forces, and the primordials represent the most primitive and universal forces. They knew their religion was comprised of abstractions and metaphors. That's literally where the word religion comes from, "to rebind". It's not something you can do empirically, it's a purely philosophical exercise. Attempts to rebind using empiricism give us cliche's like "we are stardust" or "we're just meatsuits with electrical neurons and bony tentacles my guy" style statements. It's not a pattern empiricists recognize- it's the circumstance. In effect, empiricism always places the cart before the horse because you're looking at results and never the antecedants.

>>18262245
>rejects
It is a privation.
Vacuums suck, and are quickly filled up.

Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.

>>18263510
>The bible is a dictionary,
It is not.
Also you're mixing up etymology and semantics. Did you know the word nice comes from nescius, which means ignorant or foolish? The word evolved in spelling and meaning: ignorant -> foolish -> shy -> delicate -> pleasant. Many, if not most words suffered semantic shift like that.
As for the latin religio, a more accurate translation would be scrupulousness, obligation, or orthopraxy as opposite to the orthodoxy meaning we use nowadays, it means the caution and anxiety of performing religious rituals rather than describing the ritual itself.

>>18263521
Do you have a point to make or are you just trying to dress yourself up in something that doesn't sound as silly as FSM while using the most tired-ass creationist catchphrases imaginable?
Let's remind that the argument started with >>18263313, which you or another anon simply failed to answer because you place undue value in your own absurd proofless metaphysical claims.

>>18263533
Simple things are pleasant though. However, you're not carrying a word through it's own language, but a word as it passed through at least three languages. Religio is not a colloquialism, that's a key difference.

>while using the most tired-ass creationist catchphrases imaginable?
Oh-so that's the game here. You're trying to find a creationist to argue with. Congratulations on turning 16, but you're going to have a hard time finding them anymore, especially on a history board.

>proofless metaphysical claims.
Rationalism always precedes empiricism. You're following a bad philosophy. The first experiments ALWAYS begin with a hypothetical expectation. It's amazing you could post something like this in an age where the most cutting edge science involves abstractions, strings of existence so small they can't be directly detected, we can't see any of the things we're gauging in biomedical or nuclear sciences, we're examining consciousness through machine simulacra, and gravity measurements and light refractions are used to estimate the positions of galactic bodies without visible data. Nearly all science is being done outside of empirical purview.

But what's really amazing is that you came to argue against creationism but didn't know what the word religion meant, the difference between cataphatic or apophatic arguments, and heard about a 20 year old dead meme like it was big news. If you want to make the comparison of FSM to a God, then do so, but you sound damn foolish when we make comparisons to Greek and Roman Gods and the Romans themselves come out explicitly saying that they're metaphors. You can't say those Gods don't exist when they're literal, actual things- but more than that they represent the pattern of creation that make those things possible. If that sounds confusing you can just ask what that means instead of pretending you're on the level- because everyone here can see that you're not.

File: Behold my mighty dictionary.jpg (54 KB, 286x349)

54 KB JPG

>>18263533
>who has the bigger dictionary?
on that tree of which no man knows
from where its roots run.
Where two or three gather in my name, there I am with them.
Show me an egregore who spans half the earth, and I will notice his noodles as well.

>>18263510
Do you know how to carve them?
Do you know how to interpret them?
Do you know how to stain/color them?
Do you know how to test them?
Do you know how to ask them?
Do you know how to sacrifice them?
Do you know how to send them?
Do you know how to destroy them?

>>18263565
Oh you're one of those god of the gaps quanticists. The examples you mentioned are empirical and measurable for the most part, except string theory which has never been proven and likely never will since it failed to predict anything. Are you saying your metaphysical beliefs are as credible and serious as string theory? Did you use even remotely similar methods to reach the same conclusions or are you just hoping that your belief happens to be right just outside our knowledge?

>>18262239
No, but there are atheistic associations that take on the structure of religious organizaitons.

On my view (atheism) all religions are non-theistic, in a sense, because theism is false

I view religiosity as an activity humans engage in, and I don't think it make much sense on include or exclude simply based on what superpowers the thing you worship have
Just because Trump didn't cause this universe, doesn't mean MAGA isn't a religion, for example.
Just because Dillahunty can't walk on water, doesn't mean you're not hearing a preacher talk.

>>18263586
>>18263565
God of the gaps fallacies are older than creationism by the way, and it'll forever be a pointless meatless argument because it by definition can only fit an unfalsifiable space, it's an argument that's designed around limits rather than describing something. The more you move in that direction the less biblical you get, because the god in the bible is very much described to be provable and tangible and your argument is some masturbatory mumbo jumbo about intangible forces of nature which have nothing to do with abrahamic beliefs, nor do they have anything to do with natural forces because you're just making it up on the spot to defend an irrational belief, to make it seem rational which is ironic.

File: pure pain.gif (728 KB, 244x244)

728 KB GIF

>>18263586
>god of the gaps
Oh boy. When you say this, you ought to realize that you're just admitting to "I have a gap and I cannot solve it". You're not levelling an accusation, you're showing the chink in your armor. It's not a gap for religious people- this is a gap for you. What this represents for you is that you're self-involved and incapable of viewing outside of your scope. In short, you cannot rationalize outside of your perspective, which is just a testament to the failure of empiricism's limited scope. We warned you about the hole in this very thread but you tripped and fell inside anyways.

>The examples you mentioned are empirical and measurable
Here's your problem: those two words are not interchangeable. Empiricism requires the use of sense and modern scientific instruments, especially at the cutting edge, represent a level of abstraction in measurement that remove the observer from their empirical sense. You were lied to. The halls of 2000s era cringefest atheists deceived you on their very premises. Not because they were liars, but because they were idiots. It was easy to fall for back then. Education was respected so people with degrees had a buy-in for any conversation, the culture had high trust in outspoken individuals, and so on. The times of changed and the ruse is up. I'd jump off that ship, if for nothing else, but to preserve your dignity. You have allowed yourself to be taken by con artists.

>are you just hoping that your belief happens to be right just outside our knowledge
They're literal things. Even the abstractions are real things. Love and commerce are both non-physical things, but the emotion, the sensation, the symbolism, undertones, corollaries of effects of love and the action and results of commerce can be deified and represented as patterns of impartial, reproducible behavior. Non-physical doesn't mean not real. We're not even talking about pre-creation yet because you're just not ready.

>>18263603
>God of the gaps
See:>>18263614
>Oh boy. When you say this, you ought to realize that you're just admitting to "I have a gap and I cannot solve it". You're not levelling an accusation, you're showing the chink in your armor. It's not a gap for religious people- this is a gap for you.
But your even greater problem now is that we haven't even started talking about gaps at all. Everything I've said is applicable to the universe right now. We have not even touched on extra dimensions, pre-creation deities or what the universe might have looked like then, or the sort of logos undercurrents that are supposed to tie this world to a pre-incarnated cosmology. We're just talking about the deification of things that we can see, feel, and discern. The entire point of starting with Greco-Romanism is to bridge the gap from empiricism to rationalism. We haven't even gotten to things like Rudolf Otto's hyper-rationalism or anything like that.

>The more you move in that direction the less biblical you get
That's the point. The Christians are concerned with cosmology that was at the tail end of Greco-Roman speculation, which is related to creation before anything was created. They're already talking about the Big Bang in works like Ovid, which probably went back to either the Ionians or Eleatics nearly a millennium before Ovid.

>your argument is some masturbatory mumbo jumbo about intangible forces of nature which have nothing to do with abrahamic beliefs
Yes, that is the strategy. You're not ready to talk about "Abrahamic", or really Platonic, beliefs yet. You came here to debate a Young Earth Creationist hill-billy, but you found a Gnostic Hellenist instead. You're going to have to adapt your dialectic, because you attacked religion but not a religion you were prepared to attack. The fact is that you were born out of time to have these debates. Most people who are going to defend religion are not going to be using dialectics from the late 1990s or YECs.

>>18263614
>"I have a gap and I cannot solve it"
You are writing that there is something in that gap, that is not proof of there being such a thing or there being a gap to begin with, it's purely an argument around your belief. You want to sound as credible as a scientifically backed theory without doing any of the legwork.

>measurement that remove the observer from their empirical sense
Scientific testing specifically requires to remove the subjective observer exactly because people are fallible and not reliable measuring tools.

>You were lied to
What do you think I believe in that happened to be a lie? No tribal generalizations or saying vague unnamed people are conmen, say something concrete. I can tell you lies I used to believe in of course, and how I came to terms with unlearning them and what I learned from that. I can also vibe out and tell about my own beliefs because obviously I have those too, and beliefs don't necessarily have to be about abrahamic mythology or other metaphysics.

>Even the abstractions are real things.
What abstractions? You mentioned before medicine and nuclear sciences which are not and cannot be abstract to work, you seem to be intentionally using the word incorrectly to again make your metaphysical claims as credible as nuclear physics which is anything but abstract or hypothetical.

>>18263628
You calling yourself a gnostic hellenist makes you by definition a christian which is an abrahamic religion. You talk way too much talk for someone with such vacuous and meaningless semantical arguments which also happen to be wrong. That other anon was right in saying you're obsessed with optics, that's the only way someone can come to such poor understanding of words and what they mean, you way overestimate how novel your shitposting is.

Now the reason why you responded with "God of the Gaps" when it did not apply is because you saw "apophatic" argument and thought that if something is argued from negation, then it is gap. This obviously and self-evidently is not true. For example, plenty of working theories in physics, all throughout physics, are gaps where technical or even strategic level information is lacking. It's why so many formulae fall back on a mathematical process of renormalization where the formulae are unwritten at a certain point because we don't actually know what the underlying variables are, and this same thing happens throughout all of the sciences when you see constants. Some constants we know the technical variables and general rules of, but not all of them. In that sense, apophatic math is everywhere to fill the gaps in technical formulations. But further, apophatic does not necessarily mean pleading ignorance, but rather that an agnostic stance is taken. You don't realize this but when you brought up God of the Gaps you pleaded the former that apophatics means ignorance but earlier when you brought up the a flying spaghetti monster you were pleading the latter, that apophatics opens up possibilities of the ridiculous.

But no one takes either of those statements seriously because you're not arguing rigorously to make a point, you're just lampooning. You've even argued against your own lampooning at this point with the above statements.

>>18263633
>You are writing that there is something in that gap
...Which gap, exactly? Do you know what you're saying right now? Did you even read my post? I'm explicitly arguing about things that are not in a gap- they exist purely in the modern world and are experiential by yourself. Some of them are empirical, some of them like the feeling of love or actions like trade are non-empirical- but they're all experiential. We're not even going to the gap yet because you're not ready, and I do mean the singular because the only gap is pre-creation.
>it's purely an argument around your belief
You didn't even read what I posted. We're not talking about apophatics or missing information. We're talking about real world experiences that fall outside of empirical measurement.
>You want to sound as credible as a scientifically backed theory without doing any of the legwork.
Science is rational, not empirical, as we have already demonstrated with the example of scientific instruments being abstracted beyond empiricism. You're an empiricist, not a scientist. The scientific method is explicitly rationalist because the very first step is non-empirical.

Did you just drop out of the third grade or something? I feel like we have to keep covering the same topics over and over again and it's just sliding over the top of your brain like a puck over an ice rink.

>>18263633
>Scientific testing specifically requires to remove the subjective observer
You missed the point entirely. The problem isn't the observer, it's the non-empirical nature of measuring tools, whereas measuring tools previously were strictly empirical. You cannot be an empiricist in a world where both science and religion are explicitly non-empirical in nature. The scientific method itself starts with a rationalized hypothesis, which is not intrinsically empirical. You're arguing for a dead philosophy. This isn't science vs religion, which was a 20th century canard deployed by atheists. You even tried using non-empirical arguments to make your points earlier, and exclusively.

>What abstractions?
With experiences like feelings of love or actions like trade or crafting. The acts themselves are experiential, non scientific, and abstracted by ancient peoples to create metaphors and deities to recognize and conceptualize patterns and how they are emblemized.

>You mentioned before medicine and nuclear sciences which are not and cannot be abstract to work
The tools to study them are sometimes non-empirical, that doesn't mean they're not abstract. You're mixing up concepts here. Medicine is much more empirical than theories in physics, obviously, but I'm stating this so you don't confuse yourself further by thinking I'm making an argument that you yourself minced up.

>>18263656
God of the gaps specifically describes what you're trying to do by saying your belief is just outside our knowledge, which is by definition a completely unsubstantiated claim that you can't even add any substance to since it's self-defeating.
String theory is effectively dead exactly because it failed to come up with any substance, it has not been reliable and failed to predict anything. That's just how truth goes, to always be right you need to realize you can be wrong about anything.

>>18263650
Abraham never existed, and that little problem is why you're posting. In fact, I recently uncovered a historical ditty from the British histories that points to the "real Abraham" being a Scythian exile living in ancient Egypt before the Bronze Age Collapse, which means that the story was plagiarized into the Bible later on. Something the Christian commentators had a difficulty with and something the rabbinics attempt to ignore, a recurring problem with all of the plagiarisms that have cropped up throughout the Bible.

>>18263676
>feelings of love or actions like trade or crafting.
Feelings and actions can be observed and measured, we know exactly what mechanisms create the action of trading something, really bad examples to pick so please try harder.

>I'm making an argument that you yourself minced up.
Actually make an argument instead of raping semantics.

>>18263680
Religion is naturally a clusterfuck of disparate mythologies and superstitions, gnoticism particularly so since it's explicitly a merger of greek, abrahamic and eastern beliefs during a strongly transitional period, so that isn't an argument in favor of your own beliefs.

>>18263677
>God of the gaps specifically describes what you're trying to do by saying your belief is just outside our knowledge
That's the exact opposite of what I've been saying. We started with Hellenism so you could bridge the gap between experience and empiricism, so you develop a rationale that extends beyond sensory input. There is no gap in anything I've stated, there's just a gap *for you* because you're using sensory input as your sole mode of data collection. Sensory inputs don't even explain experiences at large, and we don't even rely on pure sensory data for scientific instrumentation. Everything is a gap for you now. Science is a gap, emotions are a gap, social behaviour across species become a gap- you have a problem of gaps because your data collection method is limited in scope. It's not everyone else's problem, it's unique to your philosophy.
>to always be right you need to realize you can be wrong about anything
Think about how Orwellian this sounds. "To always be right means to constantly be wrong". It's the last bastion of the empiricist- to claim that mistakes made by everyone else means that their theories are bad and their views are wrong, but when we make mistakes it means we're growing and that's a good thing. You've created a dichotomy of the world where everyone else's mistakes become a sin of supreme ignorance while your own mistakes are handwaved. You're able to live in a sea of filth because you keep handwaving it all out of your mind while lambasting others for whichever errors you perceive as egregious. It's like the mental version of living on a 40k Nurgle world. (everyone else is sick and that's a problem but my sickness is good)

>>18263685
>Feelings and actions can be observed and measured
You don't have units for feeling emotions outside of, perhaps, dels measuring pain, but even physiological measurements aren't actual measurements because people can perceive pain but tolerate it- or even in some cases enjoy it. You cannot measure that. Nor can you measure the tones of actions. You can measure outputs, but qualitatively you cannot measure those things, because if I put up pictures asking you which job is higher quality, you would only tell me that everything is subjective. Architecture, arts, whichever. You don't have those objective markers so don't waste our time by pretending to measure them now because you think it makes you scientific. The reason you don't have those measurement, by the way, is because you don't have a fundamental basis of quality. You would need an underlying philosophy of belief in abstractions, a sort of deifying value, to determine those things. It's why some people treat their preferences as truths and you treat your preferences as biases- because for you nothing is underlying, nothing is therefore objective, therefore everything is subjective, thus everything is made relative.

>Actually make an argument instead of raping semantics.
Semantics means meaning. If you can't know the meaning of things, then you can't know anything. It's why you keep arguing against things you yourself brought up and keep mixing to together terminology. It's not your fault no one taught you, but you really ought to figure it out if you want to avoid going through conversations like this.

>>18263699
Every single shred of it is Greek.

>>18263614
>When you say this, you ought to realize that you're just admitting to "I have a gap and I cannot solve it".
Not him, but this entire line of argument is dishonest. Yes, his knowledge has gaps in it, so does yours. You don't understand your god outside from what he himself tells you, in any regular scenario you would admit this.
Of course you are right now in Aquinas peddler mode so here we are. Can't wait until da Chorch retreats back some more and just shuts up.

>>18263700
>a rationale that extends beyond sensory input
Anything that by definition exists can by definition be measured, including what you mistakenly described as nonempirical such as feelings which are very much sensory and rely on physical processes.

>we don't even rely on pure sensory data for scientific instrumentation
Scientific tools by definition measure input through sensors, and the scientific method is designed to minimize bias through these external measurements.

>Think about how Orwellian this sounds. "To always be right means to constantly be wrong".
How so? It's a personal philosophy that will indeed make you less stupid, how is stubbornness to your benefit? I don't mean just these harmless internet arguments, I mean in real life situations where you actually have to challenge your own behaviors and understandings of other people and things, learning a skill such as drawing is as much about learning new information as it is about breaking down and unlearning what you think you know, it's the basis of symbol drawing for example.

File: Waters of Meribah.jpg (151 KB, 600x400)

151 KB JPG

>>18263313
The reason there is no flying spaghetti monster, is because he was consumed by Will Smith. There is video evidence of this. Despite this, mr smith is not allowed into the promised land, because he hit the rock, instead of speaking to it.

>>18263729
He's winning, you know?

>>18263729
>feelings which are very much sensory
Measure my boredom with this baby's-first-science approach.

It's not a religion, neither is not believing in the tooth fairy. There is no dogma, no holy text and two atheists can disagree on whether spirituality in other forms might exist. It's simply a lack of a belief in god. Presence or absence of belief does not equal to faith or religion, I believe in my wife.

>>18263718
>Every single shred of it is Greek.
It is by definition not greek and the Hellenistic era was a melting pot of different philosophies, it's weird that you would call yourself specifically a Gnostic Hellenist then saying it's purely greek when it's specifically defined by not being purely greek. How come so many beliefs rely on people misunderstanding words?

>>18263740
Can you describe a feeling that can't be sensed? It's an oxymoron.

>>18262239
Yes

>>18263756
I really can't, possibly because my objection was to measuring. And I notice you did not even try to measure my boredom. It must be off the charts.

>>18263762
The feeling is certainly mutual if your entire argument is based around the soul-body dualism myth, which is as unsubstantiated and nonsensical as everything else you've peddled.
We can put it another way, can you invoke the feeling of love within something without that something having a physical brain to carry out such a phenomenon?

>>18263769
>We can put it another way
I'm quite satisfied with the current way - you claimed everything can by definition be measured. Measure my boredom with your naive scientism.

>>18263724
>Yes, his knowledge has gaps in it, so does yours.
Soft sciences have gaps, hard sciences have gaps, many religions have gaps. An Orthodox Christian would argue that they have gaps caused by the weakness and fallibility of man, and not to take that out on God for having those gaps.

My system does not have gaps. It is literally perfect.

>Aquinas peddler mode
No, but now that you mention it I may go a step further and we pull a Plotinus.

>You don't understand your god outside from what he himself tells you, in any regular scenario you would admit this.
I saw him in a dream. He didn't tell me anything though. :(

>>18263729
>Anything that by definition exists can by definition be measured
A few things are wrong here: Firstly you never explain how you would measure the things I asked you to, and we both know it's because you cannot. Secondly you are aiming to measure results and not causes when you say this, although it's pretty clear by now you don't even realize the difference. Everything is in a statement of nowness for you, but that perception probably comes from your own mental faculties being insufficient. Thirdly, experience and sensory perception are two different things. Experiences occur after perception. It's why stoic psychology from two thousand years ago starts off talking about guiding intellect and the problem of perception-impingement. You're confusing two very different things here. I don't even know where to recommend you study because you just don't know anything. Lookup "stoic terminology" and "hegemonikon" and stop shit posting here, for starters.

Alright, time to talk to someone more interesting than you.

>>18263754
It is ALL Greek. There was no Abraham. The entire OT was contrived at the mercy of Ptolemaic scribes. The Letter of Aristeas supposes that the "Hebrews", who do not appear in historical reports before this point, came to Alexandria and wrote the original Bible. But rather- the entire thing was written by Greeks.

>>18263775
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik

>>18263775
Hook you up to an EEG and yeah that boredom would certainly be measured as it has been done already, there's a strong neural basis for boredom and there are no examples of boredom without neurons. Were you unaware of this or are you just trying to waste people's time?

File: Must tard.jpg (86 KB, 1600x900)

86 KB JPG

>>18263201
>Can anything good come out of Nazareth?

>>18263777
>Firstly you never explain how you would measure the things I asked you to, and we both know it's because you cannot.
>you cant measure everything there is therefore god
We can't measure everything YET. It's just god of the gaps again.

>>18263787
>EEG
>boredom would certainly be measured
Nope. Boredom could be implied by some of the measurements, such as increased Alpha and Theta waves. And every human being has dozens of ways to be bored by something and remain high Beta and low Alpha and Theta.

So how will you measure my boredom?

File: hysterical heroine.jpg (31 KB, 600x600)

31 KB JPG

>>18263206
>grumpy
There are 6 other dwarfs. You can choose to be any one of them.

>>18263789
But now you're admitting that "God of the Gaps" afflicts everything from soft science to hard science to religion. The reason why, and we're skipping ahead a little bit here, is because empiricism is hyper-focused on minutiae. It misses the forest for the trees. If you take a microscope to the tree bark, and never step back to view the forest, then of course it seems like bark is all there is, and if there isn't, then it's all gaps. You can step back any time and put down the microscope though.

>>18263789
Measurement requires reduction. It is entirely possible you will find a way to reduce everything, for example I can assign 0 to all things smaller than my thumb and 1 to the rest. Doesn't really tell us much about reality. Just about the one aspect we use for reduction.

>>18263777
>Firstly you never explain how you would measure the things I asked you to
Feelings of love -> EEG or other technologies to visualize brain structure and function, or better yet measure the whole body since the brain-in-a-vat scenario is also a misconception
Trade -> Measure the transfer of goods between people, this usually has extensive records in commercial fields but related scientific experiments would be called behavioral economics which has naturally been extensively tested too
Craft -> Measure the creation of objects carried out by human hands

>>18263792
Your argument seems to entirely rely on the subjectivity of these terms, but that doesn't make them non-physical and in fact they are all describing very much physical phenomenons, there's a clear and measured causal link between brain activity and boredom for example.

>>18263796
Especially ironic post since you're the one arguing minutiae about brain function and semantics to try making a faulty point.

>>18263811
>Your argument seems to entirely rely on the subjectivity
My argument relies on you being confident about measuring things that you cannot actually measure or even concieve of measuring. You can at most make an educated guess based on one of the possible correlating patterns.
Your faith in quantification, measurement and objectifying classification as the key feature of existence is misled and it's one of the key things which people mean when they say "scientism". I myself am very fond of science, but this kind of naive reductive naturalism where we look at how far we got with particles and assume everything else will work similarly is just an incredibly blind leap.

File: Beware of Hubris.jpg (31 KB, 284x187)

31 KB JPG

>>18263777
>He didn't tell me anything though
How could he, when your system is perfect.

This is confirmed by the triple 7 in your digits. But beware of Denzel, only he can stop the unstoppable.

>>18263833
Empirical evidence and scientific testing led to a far better understanding of love (discovery of hormones, plus many other bodily functions) than thousands of years of your mythology and religious belief. It's really silly of you to propose it as an answer to anything when it has demonstrability failed to do so and is objectively wrong compared to the better alternative. You cannot talk about educated guesses when you're making uneducated guesses.

>>18263822
See, it's not ironic for me because I'm explaining how empiricism and sensory inputs fall underneath the realms of experience, abstraction, and patterns of reality. There's a taxonomical reason that empirical things are being explained in relation to other things. What is actually ironic is that an empiricist doesn't know how to argue against rationalism or hyper-rationalism so he ends up sounding like a complete retard rambling about flying spaghetti and how gaps are bad but only sometimes when the wrong people have gaps but he's allowed to have gaps because uhhh he just is okay. It makes him more righter every time or some such Orwellian newspeak.

>>18263834
>How could he, when your system is perfect.
You're so right king. :D
>But beware of Denzel
...Noted...

>>18263838
> far better understanding of love
It did? You think you now have a better understanding of love than poets do, because you can describe the hormone that is released during it? You've got to be joking hahaha. You and people like you know perhaps the least about love out of all people who have ever lived.
>You cannot talk about educated guesses when you're making uneducated guesses.
I can talk about what I see. And I see a man who thought EEG measures boredom (it doesn't) and that all existence is measurable (it isn't).

>>18263840
You've just been told how to empirically measure things you wrongly assumed to be immeasurable, you have to first address that instead of just continuing your faulty reasoning.
You can measure the lack of something too by the way and negatives are just as valuable as detecting something, the proposed methods could actually not measure trade, craft and love, and those would be important data points that need to be taken into account.

>>18263849
Can you please point out what poets and poems accurately described the bodily functions causally related to love before we learned that empirically?

>>18263858
>You've just been told how to empirically measure things
You never did that. Instead, you completely dodged how to do that and pretended you had units and tools to do such. You don't even have a qualitative way of objectifying results because you don't have an interpretive filter with which to do it. At no degree of examination do you have a means to do this. I think you had a stroke finishing that post because it just doesn't make any sense.

Pro tip to all you religicucks out there: Calling something "religious" as if it's an insult doesn't make your own religion sound any more credible. Quite the opposite in fact, you're arguing based on an atheistic worldview to begin with.

>>18263867
I'm a little torn here. On one side there is no shortage of poetry describing in minute details the bodily sensations associated with love and infatuation from heart palpitations to redness of the cheeks. On the other side I feel like I should remind you that my point is precisely that posessing propositions about love is one of the worst ways to know it. Trying to lose virginity by reading about sex lmao.

Like all scientism worshippers (as opposed to actual scientists), you will in time find out about how thin and contingent propositional knowledge is compared to all the other ways of knowing. Until that point comes in your life, you will invest hours of time into defending the idea that knowing vague correlates of boredom constitues its objective measurement.

>>18263880
I directly addressed your request by telling you simple ways to measure things, that's the opposite of dodging something. I could dig up actual scientific experiments done on these very exact subjects, Would that satisfy you or are you just gonna say I did the opposite of what I actually did? Your petty, lying disposition only just goes to show how unreliable you are and why you can't be trusted to know anything.

>>18263888
So you realized how weak that argument was after thinking it for a little bit even if you're still being petty about it, that's something you learned from this discussion at least.

>>18263900
What were your units? Your tools? Why didn't you bother citing things instead of claiming you can cite the things? You've had your chances, plenty. I'm leaving now. You can catch me in a different thread later.

>>18263888
>>18263880
>>18263905
>heh empiricists are so silly with their minutiae
>wtf you can't argue with me unless you address every little minutiae I come up with
what a dumb shithead lol

>>18263905
If I keep humoring you and really go into every little minutiae you propose which I certainly can, are you going to keep saying I'm dodging or are you gonna be honest?
Here are a few specific writings on scientific experiments for quantifying love, there are many ways you can go about it which reinforces the empirical approach:
https://www.pacificneuroscienceinstitute.org/blog/brain-health/the-neuroscience-of-love-and-connection/
https://hms.harvard.edu/news-events/publications-archive/brain/love-brain
https://www.rockethealth.app/blog/understanding-sternbergs-triangular-theory-of-love-building-stronger-relationships/

We could do the same for trade and craft, would that satisfy you?

>>18263901
>>> Show me where poets described bodily stuff
>> Here. Plus much more.
> What a weak argument then.
Did you genuinely not understand what just happened?

>>18263915
"Here" what? What poem did you post? You didn't post a single thing, then shifted the subject by essentially claiming it suddenly doesn't matter.

>>18263907
You tagged multiple people and I have no idea what minutiae you think I demand addressed in >>18263888. I'm actively pointing out how knowing details of a chemical is largely meaningless.

>>18263922
Knowing the empirical details of bodily function did indeed lead to a much better and meaningful understanding of love, while all you can do is dishonest handwavey arguments due to your fundamentally flawed approach.

>>18263921
>[he's actually unaware that poets described love in bodily ways]
Woah I wasn't counting on that. My bad.
Sappho, Fragment 31 - heart rate, possible sweating
Petrarch, Il Canzoniere (Sonnet 61) - reward-driven fixation
Ovid, Amores I.2 - disrupted sleep, rest
Catullus, Carmina 5 - heightened pain tolerance

>claiming it suddenly doesn't matter
It might feel sudden to an unattentive reader, but the very point I've been getting across for 8+ posts now is that your insistence on measurement barely provides an insight. Boredom was your first fall flat on your face. Love is going to be the second. But because my imagery seems to fall on deaf ears, I need you to help me help you - what exactly do you know about love, besides now being able to describe a chemical correlated with things poets knew for millenia?

>>18263922
What would you say is a "meaningful" understanding of love?
You are arguing on the basis of the deficit model, that you need supernatural forces to derive meaning from something, which is a quite abrahamic worldview. It's honestly really sad and maladaptive, it grooms people into being nihilists.

>>18263940
>heart rate, possible sweating
>reward-driven fixation
>disrupted sleep, rest
>heightened pain tolerance
Would you say these things are measurable or not? Does "scientism" contradict any of it?

>>18263942
An understanding that helps us navigate the matter better irl. Which is why I can't wait to hear why knowing the shape of oxytocin is key.

>>18263947
I would say that this question should be answered before we move to others:
>what exactly do you know about love, besides now being able to describe a chemical correlated with things poets knew for millenia?

>>18262239
It is more like the shell of religion, after all references to God or gods, and most of the references to the supernatural and the afterlife have been removed. Some atheists do believe in the supernatural (taken in its strict sense as beyond the natural, observable world here) or in the afterlife, this is mostly a recognition of the fact that we do not know absolutely what is beyond the current observable world.

Of course, atheism being a shell necessitates filing the void left by the "death of God" with something else. For the Communists, the State and the dialectic and historical process of its evolution filled it. For the Buddhists (at least the atheistic kind), the path to enlightenment satisfied it. For the Existentialists, it was a personal path of every atheist to fill it with personal projects of ambition, each according to their freedom. And for the Pantheists (New Agers and the like, again at least of the atheistic variety), the observable world is an all-providing loving entity that is simultaneously God and not God.

All of these movements can be considered "religions" in the ancient sense of the term as ideologies and schools of thought that have a mass following (see the atheistic and materialistic Charvakas of ancient India, seen as another Hindu movement in its time). Atheism is merely the conclusion that God does not exist, it by itself does not make a religion just like how the conclusion that God exists does not make a religion.

>>18263956
>I can't wait to hear why knowing the shape of oxytocin is key.
Because it fits precisely into the receptors, it's a messaging system used by your body. Oxytocin is also an essential hormone for other functions such as childbirth and milk production.
Knowing these facts, you can say that having a healthy amount of oxytocin is essential for a happy life. So naturally you should engage in activities that encourage healthy hormonal balance. I don't find this to be reductive or amoral, quite the opposite, it leads to a better sense of oneself and awareness of our own acts and behaviors. You know that it's bad to be a basement goblin living in a dark room for example because it doesn't give you the necessary natural stimulus and hormones your body requires.

File: Authority Bias.jpg (268 KB, 1200x1576)

268 KB JPG

>>18263884
>Pro tip to all you wonderful people out there: Calling something "religious" is not an insult. Quite the opposite, in fact, we support your commitment to the scientific method, and your ability to faithfully share your findings with other people.


I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be scientists, though they are not, but are liars (im looking at you big pharma) I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

>>18263972
Rambling about demons and antagonists within your mythology, and framing others as being part of that, is not gonna win anyone over either.

>>18263976
I didnt invent the nomenclature, but I can speak the language of the egregore that intends to judge me. Show me an egregore that covers half the earth, and I will notice his noodles as well.

If Jesus is the Son of Man, who is his Father?

I will see your face;
when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness

>>18263990
Sorry but I'm not interested in the authority you're shilling for.

>>18263970
>healthy amount of oxytocin is essential for a happy life
>engage in activities that encourage healthy hormonal balance
Yes, something healthy is normative and essential for quality life. That's the function of the word "healthy". You're speaking in tautologies that happen to feature a chemical. No insight besides 'health=good' is actually contained in these statements. EXCEPT if we assume that reductionism is true and love needs to be reduced to chemicals that seem to play a role. In that case and that case alone, we get to claim an insight because we pushed our understanding to a "truer" plane - we broke the phenomenon into smaller bits. And it has its uses. But is it true? No. Reductionism by definition cannot contain the whole truth, only a reduced aspect of it.

I'm not arguing you gotta believe in ghosts for love to be love. I'm showing you that you're mistaking reduction for truth. This confusion is necessary for someone to fall into scientism and expect everything to be measurable.

>>18263996
Our bodies can't be reduced even if we learn all the building blocks, we're simply too complex and interconnected in ways previously reduced through mind-body dualism and other myths.
I guess you just agreed with me so it seems we're done here, I'm glad you could learn I'm not some destructive caricature that's diametrically opposed to what you stand for.

>>18264013
No, if you're not the Anon who claimed everything in existence by definition can be measured etc. we don't necessarily disagree about anything except pizza toppings.

>>18263992
>I am not shilling for righteousness, truth and life.
I do not believe that you actively seek the wrong path of lies and death. I am guessing that you just dont like the nomenclature of the existing framework. If you don't like the egregore that is, then feel free to make one of your own. Good luck.

>>18264017
I don't care what masturbatory self-deifying words you use to describe your cult, I'm not joining it.

No, it's like saying theism is "a religion"

>>18263992
>authority
There are 2 natures. And so, there is a paradox. Jesus is also the Son of God, so who is his Father? Open the box, and tell me what you see? Is the cat alive, or is it dead? As for me, when you arise Lord, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness.

Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw

two angels

in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head, and the other at the foot.

They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.

When the unmovable stone is moved, you will see an empty tomb. If they killed God, and he does not exist, where did he go?

Jesus answered her with a name.

"Mary"

>>18263992
>authority
I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

Jesus said, “if you refuse to open the box, I will not tell you I tell you if the cat is alive or dead.”

Do not tell them, "I am the messiah". Instead, go and show yourself to the priests, as a testimony.

Faith without works is dead.

>>18264049
Why are internet schizos so obsessed with schrodinger's cat? le dead cat was never anything other than a dumb analogy of quantum superposition and it was never intended to describe any real world phenomena. Next you're hitting me with the dumb fucking misconception about the "observer" in the double slit experiment.

>>18264021
>do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven

>>18264062
>Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

>>18264021
>self-deifying
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than

these

YHVH

Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them.

>christcuck can't keep up and is reduced to flooding a thread with his superstitious mantras again
every time lel

>>18264062
>schizos
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword

>>18264091
>I
Easy on the self-deification narcissism there you embarrassing troglodyte, only speak for yourself.

>>18264088
>christcuck
Ad hominem.

>>18264098
nice fallacy fallacy dumb christcuck, I wasn't even making an argument by the way, I'm simply making fun of your kind

>>18264094
Hubris leads to nemesis, and here he is.
Our God is a jelous God. As it is written.

File: Screenshot_20251230-222326~2.jpg (224 KB, 1080x1122)

224 KB JPG

https://youtu.be/w7x_lWJNnNg?si=1f8qBZT856YZiF2O

>>18264112
There's no greater hubris than larping as the very own religious figure you're only meant to worship, the bible actually goes pretty deeply into this too since people were always self-centered retards even at the time.

>>18262245
By this logic, no atheist would ever believe in aliens then.

>>18262260
Exactly this.

>>18264140
I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins

get up,

Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

>>18262239
>not eating is actually a form of eating
>don't eat less otherwise you will get fat
>you will get fat either way
>therefore people who deprive food pleasures by eating less are stupid
>I eat food and am fat but atleast I'm better than people who not eat

>>18264140
>only meant to worship

They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but cannot see.
They have ears, but cannot hear,
noses, but cannot smell.
They have hands, but cannot feel,
feet, but cannot walk,
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them

Put your finger here;
see my hands.
Reach out your hand and be on my side.

Faith without works is dead.

>>18262637
Imagine you said matter is made of tiny balls called atoms in the 13th century. Zero evidence of that. And yet it would have been a true statement. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>18264140
Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked
>No! Not like that!

autism

>>18264163
That's called epistemic luck. Even if you happened to be randomly right about something through sheer luck, your reasoning is still poor quality. In fact that "Justified True Belief" attitude made philosophy languish for years without really getting anywhere since it's simply backwards and fundamentally flawed.

>>18264145
The logic is wrong, because being an atheist just means you don't believe in God.
Well, gods generally.
A rejection of religion is secularism.

>>18263232
It's anecdotal, but ask your mom.

>>18263593
Religiosity just isn't the appropriate term. It has a very narrow definition that doesn't apply to situations where it merely reminds you of aspects of religion. There's no need to play cheap rhetorical games with a language as rich as english mate

>>18262239
what defines an atheist is the lack of morals

“Trust the Science” is indistinguishable from “Trust in God”.

Half of America trusted the science that men could get pregnant.

>>18262245
You can totally put faith in science, though… you can totally put faith in math, the odds, etc…

Scientists blindly believe consensus all the fucking time, and the consensus right now can’t even agree on what a woman is.

>>18264986
> The logic is wrong, because being an atheist just means you don't believe in God.
Believing in the existence of gods, spirits, demons, faeries, etc, is no different from believing in the existence of aliens.

This is what theists and atheists both fail to understand.

Listen…

Atheists don’t like to acknowledge that a sufficiently godlike alien being can totally be worshiped as a god or something.

Theists don’t like acknowledging that their god is just a big alien and believing in gods is a variant of believing in aliens.

>>18266109
Who are you talking about exactly?

>>18266144
Most people have no clue what a lorentz factor or the CMB is, or how they're derived or experimentally found, yet they have faith in scientists when they talk about time dilation or the big bamg. Same way most people have no clue what a limit really is, they just have faith that it works and mathematicians know what they're doing with their "analysis" stuff

“No, science is not a religion—now shut up and listen to high science-priest Fauci.”

Scientist atheist types are hilarious.

>>18266109
>Postmodern deflection
>Banal culture war talking point
Every anti-science argument boils down to this.

File: IMG_7407.jpg (118 KB, 576x1024)

118 KB JPG

l o l

>>18266285
I’m not being anti-science, though. I’m just pointing out the ironies. Religion is itself a precursor to science in raw observation-theory. The ancients observed the stars in the night sky and theorized them as the very gods. That was the science of their time.

There’s a very good reason why religion was so important for the development of science. It’s all an observation of nature.

>>18266285
I’m pretty sure even cavemen knew what a woman was. Their assumption would be that modern humans are in some sort of a confusion based cult, if we couldn’t grasp something so bloody basic.

I don’t think you realize how stupid humans have become. Or how we love to overcomplicate the most basic shit. It’s probably because we’re bored and have nothing better to do. Totally nothing better to do. Totally! Humans just fucking suck.

>>18266272
Who is most people? Who are you talking about?

>>18266290
The precursors to empirical science weren't strictly religious. Empirical medicine distinguished itself from Galenism, physics differentiated itself from natural philosophy, chemistry from alchemy. All of their antecedents come from classical Greece and Rome, and the texts themselves aren't influenced much by religious dogma.

>>18266308
>Who is most people
...most people? I'm not sure if you live in a bubble, but most people don't have even an undergraduate education. Most people (as in most adults alive right now) don't know basic calculus, let alone analysis or anything about relativity

>>18266326
What do these people have to do with the vague scientists you mentioned earlier?

>>18266318
>The precursors to empirical science weren't strictly religious
The earliest chemists/alchemists were priests and spiritual leaders making dyes and embalming the dead. Just looking at nature and coming up with some idea for it, is a precursor to science. Similar to how a stick, is the simplest/earliest form of technology.