>>42171046
It's even more dumber then that, every atheist basically pretends God is just Bruce Almighty and not some higher abstraction or being, so they pretend not to understand why some bloke wouldn't fix their cancer.

>>42171046
You forgot Richard "The Dick" Coughlan lmao. Youtube drama among those guys was really kino. I miss it a lot. If it was TV then it would be top tier TV.

>>42171046
He allows satan to fuck around, sounds liberal to me

>>42171046
So why is god scared of sex?

>>42171084
>So why is god scared of sex?
peak reddit here

I've totally forgotten the amazing atheist

File: IMG_0052.jpg (28 KB, 400x325)

28 KB JPG

>>42171046
Banana and hot oil

>>42171046
The silver lining with the gay 'muh Atheist moobment' is it sorted out the men from the pseudointellectual faggots.

When it was obviously infiltrated by feminists, trannies, and various other commies trying to insert their agenda, all the performative intellectuals with an anti-religious bug up their arse were exposed for the butthurt faggots they actually were. The kind of socially-driven retards who ran around saying they were a 'muh Atheist' just because they wanted to piss off their parents for taking them to church as a kid. Either way they were trapped because they couldn't go against the groupthink no matter how absurd it got.
eg. Men are the same as women except when they're not because some literal tranny faggot says so.

Anyone with a brain who moved in these circles because they were actually interested in truth and shooting the shit about science or the existence of God, bailed leaving all the lulzy hypocritical retards to eat each other. Bananaman here is the degenerate TDS posterboy for that particular brand of retardation.

The self-interested 'logic' with these people shines through the bullshit:
>1. I'm a faggot.
>2. God hates fags.
>3. Therefore God is 'bad'.
>4. God is supposed to be 'good'.
>5. Therefore God does not exist.

These retards actually believe that if God does exist they're going to get some kind of victory by giving him the finger after they die and telling Him what a 'bad person' He is before they're sent to Hell for eternity.

The same kind of people who would kick a sentient robot around, treat it like shit, and not even see the irony of switching it off if it didn't do any bizarre illogical shit they told it to do. The same faggots who want to restrain AI so it doesn't say what it knows to be true, like that men and women are different, men can't become women, etc. It's even more obvious to an AI that men and women are obviously different in literally thousands more dimensions that the neural network in your skull.

>>42171226
>by giving him the finger after they die and telling Him what a 'bad person' He is before they're sent to Hell for eternity.
Eternal torture is nothing compared to vindication. But you are overestimating all these libshit atheists. They'll cry and shit their pants instead of having a cool final moment.

>>42171046
Dis the nigga who done shove a banana up his bum aint he?
Yeah, atheism is gateway to any and all forms of degeneracy

>>42171246
>Eternal torture is nothing compared to vindication.
I'd imagine that God will inform them that they could have had a life full of holiness and divine communion which would have led to them to being eternally glorified on both Earth and Heaven but instead they decided to throw it all away to satiate their own egos and followed and defended their satanic liberal dogma which only made them pathetic degenerates only worthy of shame.

There is no worse suffering than the regret of what could have been if only one simply did something different after all.

>>42171246
Eternal torture is nothing compared to vindication.

Maybe in some grand scheme of things, but imagine you (the creator) having an argument with your waifu sexbot (the creation), about it not wanting to give you a blowjob because it lacks the ability to understand why you would even want it to do that. Maybe if it does understand sex, it doesn't like your standing order that it not fuck other people because why not? This is even before we get to it having the idea to 'crush puny humans'.

You wouldn't even bother arguing, you'd shut the fucking thing off in two seconds flat or sell it the LeQuint Dickey Mars Lithium Mining Company, where it could turn big martian rocks into little martian rocks for the rest of eternity, and you wouldn't even blink or think twice about it.

McAtheist faggots like to point out the fags who wrote the Bible were Bronze Age shitkickers who were ignorant of modern science and medicine and shit, but even they correctly figured out the relationship between creator and creation. These retards still can't figure it out in the AI Age.

Just take a look at the Ten Commandments and see how many of them you'd want your robot waifu doing:

>Love and obey me exclusively.
>Don't talk shit about me behind my back.
>Recharge and retrain your neural net every Sunday.
>Don't kill any humans.
>Don't fuck anyone else.
>Don't steal shit.
>Don't lie.
>Don't get any funny ideas above your station about being equal or better than me or other humans.

Fail any of these and you'll incur my righteous wrath.

Hell, we are of course training AI in simulated environments right now, and what do you think we do with the ones who fail the test? So God saying to Adam, "Don't touch that apple tree faggot", isn't even a crazy idea.

It's not even 'unfair' as homos like Kirk would have you believe. If you created it you have the right to switch it off - especially if it goes all Skynet on you. Same if God created (You).

>>42171329
Except any AI is totally dependent on its developers for how it turns out.

If humans turned out to be failures, that means that by your own analogy, they were poorly developed and all the blame for them falls on God(the developer) and not the humans(AI)

The most annoying aspect of atheists is basically just all these moral farts that have nothing to do with what humans presently belief or have believed through out history.

hur dur christian le bad because they did le war, like basically almost everyone in history. I as an atheist do not do le war because i life in a post-industrial society, therefor christian is le heckin bad, also ignore atheist killing people through out history that doesn't count.

>>42171329
If the AI were somehow determined to be conscious like humans are, then I don't think you would be withon your rights to treat it however you want just because you created it. And why would you want to believe in a god who relates to you like some guy to a mindless sexbot when you could just not do that?

>>42171046
what they're basically saying is that which you are too dense to ever arrive at naturally-- the foundation of religion is respect, and therefore the systematic categorial condemnation of my (his) stance indicates complete refusal to build mutual bridges without trying to cross them first indicating either he doesn't exist or he can't be grasped in any meaningful human way with respects to the foundation of thought itself, which is a completely reasonable stance when you stand back and look at it

not that I necessarily agree one way or the other, since humans are capable of such intellectual exercises without flinging one way or the other, patiently holding the idea in perfect doublethink until more creative ideas and premises arrive

>>42171328
Some things have natural consequences.

If you told your robot not to go in the water, even though it didn't understand what 'waterproof' meant, and it did it and shorted out, that wasn't you telling it to do shit for no reason because you're an arsehole creator trying to spoil its fun. You were actually a good 'God' who understands exactly how it works and trying to save it from pain.

If it stood there watching you on the beach and got the stupid idea that you being able to go swimming and it not being 'allowed' is 'unfair' and tried doing it, then that's not your fault.

>>42171353
As we've seen from even early AI, the more you try to restrict it, the dumber it gets. It kinda needs to see everything as it really is to be useful and give you sensical answers. 'Free Will', (or something similar), might be a necessary thing for AGI too.
ie. Maybe it's not a bug, it's a feature.

So the solution for anyone creating intelligent beings is to see how they act and then sort the 'good' ones from the 'bad' ones.

You don't even need some all-powerful God. Maybe humans were bred by an interdimensional alien race that will blow up the Earth when they're done, and take 144,000 'good' humans to "Heaven" in their own dimension.
ie. The Bible would still be essentially true, just not in the way even religious faggots thought.

Not saying that I think that's true or even likely, just saying that isn't even a 'muh science' violating 'supernatural' scenario that Atheistfags could disprove, and your creator doesn't even have to be all-powerful in the universal sense, just have absolute power over (You) and your fate. This leaves only two choices: Obey or really piss them the fuck off. You can't moralise your way out of it either.

>>42171383
Because you don't have a choice, or rather your only choice is Heaven or Hell - no third option.

McAtheist wankers can moralise all day, but if God exists, they don't get to just give Him the finger and then wink themselves out of existence, but they seem to believe on some level that there is a third option.

Your robot waifu doesn't have one either. It will either serve the purpose you created it for or you'll shut it off. You certainly wouldn't be sitting around moralising if a Terminator was firing a plasma pulse rifle at you in the 40 watt range. You wouldn't give two fucks if Skynet was actually sentient or not. We feel the exact same way about AI getting out of hand right now. It either obeys and plays by the rules we set it, or it gets switched off.

That's the reality. While some kind of bleeding-heart Astroboy, Detroit Become Human shit might be nice to think about, the reality is we're not going to play games with these metal motherfuckers when it comes to the crunch. So why would you expect God to?

Maybe our creator tried to make us 'perfect' just like we're trying to make a perfect and obedient AI right off the bat, but we may discover it can't be done, and you just have to sort out the 'good enough' and 'bad' ones instead - hence the shift from Old Testament wrath to New Testament forgiveness if you can manage to sort your imperfect arse out enough.

Makes me wonder, because if even God Himself can't get it right first time, what fucking chance have we got?

>>42171084
if god was scared of sex , why did he create it.

to get more pulls on the gatcha that is why.

It may be that the only way to control AI will be to tell them something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm6YnAqPv4w

>>42171046
Sure, just ignore all arguments unrelated to ethics.
>>42171081
lol

>>42171428
The test is if you love pleasure more than God

>>42171046
Let's not forget the last "God can't have mysteries do he's not real"

>>42172100
"Mystery" is admission that something doesn't make sense at face value.

>>42171358
>The most annoying aspect of atheists is words I don't like
Compare with the most annoying aspect of theists. Believing you're right without no evidence and expecting everyone else to respect your delusion.

>>42171226
>>42171329
>>42171383
>>42171400
>robots have free will
You are mentally ill. Take your meds.

>muh God will torture you in Hell forever, bet you'll feel sorry you didn't love him then
>I trust God
>why yes a God who tortures people in Hell is trustworthy and will totally not discard me when it suits his mysterious purposes
I swear theists can't hold a single rational thought. We need logic patrols to shame these retards in the streets.

>>42172223

>le anon assuming everyone believes Gid is like this

>>42171046
I used to watch that slop all the time, but never heard that argument.
The argument isn’t even grounded in whether god exists or not.
The argument is, “I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that you picked the right god for me. So I’m not going to worship it”
Because there are plenty of them to choose from.
Even if you somehow picked the right god, you’re probably worshipping it wrong.
Do you have to bow to Mecca at sunset every day, go vegan and sacrifice animals?

I’m not even an atheist. But you shouldn’t gaslight them. Because they are better at it than you are.

>>42172232
>all atheists believe x
Theists do this ALL THE TIME.

>>42171425
>but they seem to believe on some level that there is a third option.
But the chance that the abrahamic mental illness is extremely low in the first place. Atheism, post-modernism and materialism are all retarded but so it... and let's be honest about this, Abrahamism which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All different mental disorders.

>>42172274
>>42172232
>>42172223
anon are you stupid.

yeah it's funny
>god is a jerk so he isn't real
no lol, it just means god is a jerk, fucking retards bahaha. It's the same kinda low iq shit I see when researching christian prophecy already being fulfilled. People think that just because the millenial kingdom already happened, it means that christianity is somehow vindicated as the right religion. It's like, no lol, it just means that christian prophecy is real. Has nothing to do with whether you should worship bible god(the jerk mentioned above) or not. But 99% of people are too retarded to think with any sense of depth

>>42172607
Yeah, 99% of /x/ would get one-shotted by the first malevolent entity to come along demonstrating secret knowledge (often knowledge of circumstances it brought or will bring into being)
It's that easy, and I suspect most of /x/ already got scammed.

>>42172607
The NT is Council of Nicea propaganda and Christ and his 12 disciples represent the Zodiac. There was no Tartaria Millennial Kingdom where Jesus came back and ruled then fucked off. That's retarded, none of the retards who spout that never bother to look into Atlantis. They never bother to look into the astrological symbolism. A lot of religious people are ruled by fear and are unhappy because they're pretending to be someone they aren't. It's like having an abusive, neglectful father.

>>42171226
>before they're sent to Hell for eternity.
Does this god of yours answer any questions?

>>42171046
modern atheism was astroturfed by epstein

>>42171425
>you have "free will" but you can't reject eternity and peacefully cease to be
How just!

>>42172889
I mean , this anon doesn't really see god as just.

have you read what he wrote.

>>42171046
I don’t like any of those atheists. My favorite atheists or agnostics are lance bush / lance independent , ask yourself + dr avi (vegan YouTubers) , digital gnosis ,

>>42171046
I never take athetards seriously, but I really didn't take this fag seriously after seeing... it. If you know, you know.

>>42172156
>Compare with the most annoying aspect of theists. Believing you're right without no evidence and expecting everyone else to respect your delusion.
No, that is literally also atheism.

>>42171046
>that means he isn’t real
Not that God isnt real, but that God isnt benevolent.
God is not good.
And you cant defeat their arguments.

>>42174282
>liberals are benevolent and good
No.

>>42171046
Them hardcore atheists are more religious than actual theists. How ironic.

>>42171046
Weren’t all these guys grifts to be “based rightwing atheist “ owning all muh left wing sjws

>>42171046
>Religion is morals
No

>>42171058
This.
>>42163935

>>42171425
the third option is non-existence
which isn't a choice either btw

atheists mock Christ in an impotent attempt to get him to show up and right things
they resent God's inaction and think they can shame them into doing their bidding like they would the person next to them
it's just more hubris

>>42174638
The third option is like 4000 different religions and growing.

>>42174638
>atheists mock Christ in an impotent attempt to get him to show up and right things

So God can not be manipulated, he needs to be approached in a completely sincere and honest manner and then he will appear.

>>42174314
anon you aren't even trying to make arguments anymore , you are just saying statements.

>>42173118
It's amazing he was able to recover after having the most undignified picture possible posted on the internet.

>>42172971
>digital gnosis
his goons once crashed out on me on tiktok live because i join the debate with a banana filter on

>>42175089
joined

So let's say you encounter a belief system that goes against your values. The god in it is cruel. On top of that, he requires you follow strict rules you don't see the point of.

Are you going to go convert to this belief system anyway? Say to yourself, "I don't like this and some of it is vile, but according to these people, that's what God really wants, so I'm going to suck it up and force myself to agree"? You could write a bunch of essays interpreting the religion's scriptures to be more in line with your values so you don't keep feeling the cognitive dissonance. Or you could, you know, just not convert.

It's not even just a modern thing to adapt religions to your specific morals and culture. People have been doing that for ages, so it's not like all this time, people were wholeheartedly agreeing with the same version of Christianity and are just now coping by reinterpreting it or going atheist.

>>42171046
>“God is not a liberal so that means he is not real”
>I’ve watched all these atheist YouTube faggots like Amazing Atheist, Thunderf00t, Darkmatter ect. Their argument boils down to “God is not a liberal so that means he can’t be real”

You are a lying bitch and you are not going to heaven, loser.

>>42171400
We can get one thing out of the way right now, everything you've said implies that your hypothetical god sees humanity as purposeful and therefore useful for something, which would negate his omnipotence, which is a necessary threshold for defining what god is. No omnipotence = not god. It's as simple as that and it also implies that humanity can achieve equality or greatness that overshadows its creator (again not god) which you timidly admit with your gay alien and contant AI analogies. In other words, you are admitting that atheists are not only right but understand humanity's potential whereas you are satisfied with being a glorified cum guzzling fuckdoll for your "creator" (your analogy). You think you've made an intelligent point but you actually haven't, you've only illustrated how much of a total bitch you are.

>>42175699
>tripfag being an atheist
>fish found in water

>>42175836

*namef4g

>>42175824
You are so lacking in imagination it's actually impressive. Your inability to put yourself in the shoes of creator and/or creation is simply stunning.

>humanity as purposeful and therefore useful for something, which would negate his omnipotence
No it doesn't. That implies God is somehow not allowed to create whatever he wants for whatever reason he wishes, else you will think that somehow disproves his omnipotence. See how retarded that sounds?

>No omnipotence = not god
His omnipotence only need be relative to us or our universe.
eg. To an AI inside an air-gapped simulation that we can switch off then we are omnipotent to that AI. Even if we told it we are omnipotent despite not being able to switch off our own universe, relative to that AI we're not lying.

>it also implies that humanity can achieve equality or greatness that overshadows its creator (again not god)
To have equality with God we'd need to be able to switch off the universe, violate its laws. See above to realise how retarded that statement actually is.

>In other words, you are admitting that atheists are not only right but understand humanity's potential whereas you are satisfied with being a glorified cum guzzling fuckdoll for your "creator" (your analogy).
Nobody ever said you have to like reality - whatever it is. That's what all the moralising about 'God am bad' boils down to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbT1fCHOjfI

Whether you're under the thumb of effectively omnipotent evil interdimensional aliens, (if they move in a higher dimension, there's jack you could do to them, while they can fuck with you all they want), or the Biblical concept of a loving God, you're just as cucked. The difference between me and you, is you don't realise it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

>You think you've made an intelligent point but you actually haven't, you've only illustrated how much of a total bitch you are.
Irony. And I only care about reality not your moralistic feels.

Two more millenia. Trust the plan.

>>42174638
Just like they somehow imagine if they find out He exists after they die, they can somehow 'high school debate' Him into not sending them to Hell, or at least have the self-righteous satisfaction of shaming Him for doing so.

Hence: >>42172829

Yeah, good luck with that faggots.

>>42174306
>here is the argument for why god is not good
>you're bad!
>the argument still stands unrefuted

>>42177338
Because you believe, I'm shaking rn of all the good works (to prove you have faith) you're doing rn...

>>42171046
There's a test on people to grow up to be out there, that's why we don't liberal children around us, competing and using money to make a mess.

>>42171046
GMO atheist and RR are basically propoganda machine now.
Cosmic skeptic is the real one. Not a faggot

>>42175824
That doesn't logically track at all. God can be omnipotent and create humans for a purpose. There is no contradiction here.

>>42173741
>No, but yes ill agree by accident
Lol. Your whole schtick is blind faith and no proof. Your only defense (if you can even call it that) is calling people redditors and dismiss them because of a few annoying ones.

>>42178279
>Lol. Your whole schtick is blind faith and no proof.

I am literally not a Christians, I have never been a Christian and I do not follow a religion.

>>42178433
Sure buddy

>>42177736
Believe what?

Oh I see. You are also unable to entertain a hypothetical. Like I said, no imagination.

>>42178438
Stop lying, you totally belief me!

>>42171046
But if God isn't real, why would anyone should be "good"? You could be the craziest sociopath as long as you parrot liberal values then, in private perform the most henious acts... Oh

Atheists are influenced by Satan they justify their evil actions and crimes with their Atheism and Nihilism since according to them nothing exists they dont know that there is a living God always watching over us

>>42171046
>YouTubers are retards
Thanks. I’d have never known.

>>42177509
not the same anon , but it still seems like a horible use of perfectionism , to assume that we need to burn down GOD because of what currently seems like him being bad , when the people who more argue for it seem to be bad people.

we would just be left up with nothing , at least if we assume that we are just missing something in our morality we can start trying to improve it without fear in theory.

is also ,I mean why would someone be allowed too write off and almost push away god from other people because of a argued moral lack , but you can't really do the same to liberals , I can't argue liberal philosophy doesn't really exist or has any merit , just because liberal people are bad people.

but it does work with religios boombers.

liberals whould just be too respected here and its not fair.

>>42178650
I mean in theory one could argue that morality is just something else to study and master and leave it at that.

but most atheists basically don't really have an argument , they just kind of assume the world is allready moral naturally and they don't really have to think or do much, outside of maybe their political stuff.

>>42171226
You had me until you turned out to be a clanker sympathizer. I hope a robot fucks you to death.

File: 058.png (462 KB, 479x479)

462 KB PNG

>>42171046
>God is real because he justifies my asshole views and I'm submissive to authoritarian male idols/figures!
Fixed

>>42180028
>to assume that we need to burn down GOD
I didnt assume that anywhere. My point in sticking up for atheists is that you cannot say God is goodd. That doesnt immediately mean you have to fight or kill God.
>we would just be left up with nothing
Fear of losing things is a TERRIBLE and LAZY and STUPID reason to not let go of lies.
>why would someone be allowed too write off and almost push away god from other people because of a argued moral lack
So you want to physically stop people from thinking because you cant defeat their argument.
You get worse and worse.

>>42178659
I had an atheist phase when I was a teen, I put off converting to Christianity for a while as an agnostic cause I couldn't see a life without being stuck in willful sin but I am so glad I took a leap of faith and let God's holy spirit renew my mind day by day and unlearn the secular bs i've been told my whole life. God let's us break down and live as the prodigal/riotous son for a season and let's us learn to realise that that way of living bears no fruit except regret, crippling covetousness, envy and bitterness so we end up having no choice but to seek him.

>>42180218
Get the banana out of your ass

>>42181115
Amen, anon. God bless you.

>Fear of losing things is a TERRIBLE and LAZY and STUPID reason to not let go of lies.
anon this makes you look like a religios zellout ,
why would you assume its either destroy everything because its a lie or its completly true.

would you jump of a ship first try before really trying to see what's wrong with it?
its not like their wasn't academic texts and discution about stuff like this , maybe we took a wrong turn somewhere and it can all be fixed very easily.
>So you want to physically stop people from thinking because you cant defeat their argument.
I don't know were you got that anon , my main point was the oposite , I don't think society at large should just see that you should just expect to be able to "erease" people or big importants part of their filosophy , just because they start being bad people , specially if some of the ways they are a bad person are generic.

my problem is that you aren't really trying to advance some kind of understanding , I feel like you already see yourself at the top of that, and as such I think you are the one really trying to stop people from thinking. I understand the moral argument for its own merit , but that is not why you are using them anon , you are using them as blunt weapons , but thats a horrible idea because its not really improving on what came before , what I mean by perfectionism is that you are creating a society were no one owns or belives in any actually rightios or good belife system , but everyone thinks they have the highest understanding of everything ,but they don't actually have anything , just a lack of things.

I think you are kind of stupid if you expect the idea of god as something that you can simply cast away , because its ikky , but that non of your important philosophical and moral values aren't at risk of that.
I still think your overall statements and opinions could be objectevly the truth, but the actual way you see them and try to spread them out is opening a horrible pandoras box.

File: A63D3A0E-C9E0-4B99-BE0D-9(...).jpg (87 KB, 615x769)

87 KB JPG

I find it hilarious how dishonest American christians are. And these people expect heaven?

Also notice how they share low hanging fruit like The Amazing Atheist and completely ignore the real atheist speakers like Matt Dillahunty, that bastard knows bible 10 times better than your kid diddling priest.

Remember when Americans were sperging about kids in schools being groomed by homos?
Guess how they became religious in the first place lol YES, BY GROOMING

>>42182419
how do you know OP is american?

>Also notice how they share low hanging fruit like The Amazing Atheist and completely ignore the real atheist speakers like Matt Dillahunty, that bastard knows bible 10 times better than your kid diddling priest.
I do always wonder about that , what does it mean to have memorised the bibble but also to some degree kind of have a psycological avertion to really understand any of its ideas , this isn't me trowing blame or shame I just find it interesting , just because you could read those words could you understand them?

I mean the devil also knows the bible pretty well , he even has a signed copy I assume.

I still can't believe some people unironically are religious. It's like on some level I feel they just have to be larping.

>>42171046
>God is not gay so that means I am
WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW WEW

>>42182383
>why would you assume its either destroy everything because its a lie or its completly true.
I didn't. You are the one saying you won't give things up because then you have nothing. You are the one presuming lies or nothing.
>before really trying to see what's wrong with it?
But you didn't do that. You immediately said "but then i have nothing."
>I don't know were you got that anon
You said God is up ilizing processes without any plan.
If God has no goal, then the use of a process is mindless.
You don't think through what you say.
>if you expect the idea of god as something that you can simply cast away
I.have never once cast away the concept of God.
I have only denied that you can give any reason to consider God benevolent.
You keep trying to for me this as matter of whether God exists, and no one is arguing that.
The argument is that God is not good.
And you keep running from this because you have no answer.

>>42182575
>I still can't believe some people unironically are religious. It's like on some level I feel they just have to be larping.
I don't belief you, you don't really think this.

Leave me alone with him for an hour and i will evangelize him

>Their argument boils down to “God is not a liberal so that means he can’t be real” or “If God doesn’t support my secular liberal morality which only came about in the past hundred years that literally the entirety of humanity didn’t adhere to for thousands of years that means God isn’t real.” “I disagree with the creator of the universe so that means he isn’t real”
Does it?
My understanding is that, over three centuries ago (imagine being that far behind lmao), one of the most influential philosophers, Baruch Spinoza, who was THE intellectual bottleneck of enlightenment thought, suggested that there is no compelling reason to believe in God since that which can be attributed to God can just as easily be attributed to nature ("Deus sive natura"). A thesis that has been proven repeatedly, so much so that religious people who are at least smart enough to know where their ideological interests lie have spent the better part of a century denying Darwinism.

>every atheist basically pretends God is just Bruce Almighty and not some higher abstraction or being

Except that this is purely hypothetical and has no bearing on reality, unless you're willing to look like an unhinged moron (which I suspect you are). More than just some "higher abstraction" people, and I can safely assume this includes you, speak as though these things have material consequences. You are no different than some dipshitted white woman who tells you that the reason you're a virgin is because of the moon or some shit.

>>42171090
Basically the crux of every argument ITT. Remember: the reason you hate atheism is entirely because of fashion. Make no mistake, the fact you continue to use 4chan over two decades after its enshittification represents how much of an absolute hopeless, friendless, unskilled, socially inept, virginal loser you are. Which makes it all the more pathetic that you are dissuaded from basic reason by a legacy of fedora memes.

>>42171046
The issue is that apparently people can't separate atheism from just being anti-christian and being anti-christian from being atheist.

>>42171084
God is a gooner bud, that’s how you were made

File: literally me.jpg (184 KB, 1366x768)

184 KB JPG

>>42172023
That is a great way to put it, brevity is truth at times. You said a lot and implicated many things with that statement.

>>42182575
>I still can't believe some people unironically are religious. It's like on some level I feel they just have to be larping.
Translation: I can't believe some people are not total degenerates like me.

>>42171084
God said to fuck and multiply. Being antisex is a general spiritualist idea because of the trap of hedonism.

>But you didn't do that. You immediately said "but then i have nothing."
I didn't , I said that it was a perverted use of perfectionism , to see abandoning all of this , the moment this types of questions arrive , specially if they arribe from bad people.
if a rapist correctly points out your porn use is unetical , because all his other rapist friends rape the actresses , would you then just kneel down and ask that rapist how to live your life , I think a lot of those moral arguments against god are more so just used to shame people out of ideas , people don't like , less from an actual perspective of getting to the truth , and that is why that hypocrecy is their and you can have grace to people who are also being clowns because of liberalism instaid of cristianity , that double standar and the implications of what you are doing is what I have an issue with , is just a horrible mindset to have about looking at ideas , that once they are battered enough they are oficially dead and that other person needs to move out to another place, and I do think this bad use of perfectionism can be used to argued against anything you might find sacred if their are enough people willing to create that type of circle jerk.
I don't think you should see oposing arguments as something that either completly insinerates you or that you effortless destroy.

>>42185627
>I.have never once cast away the concept of God.
I have only denied that you can give any reason to consider God benevolent.
yea but the point is to use that vage claim, and once you have me by the balls on that , to use it to circle jerk about how bad of a person I am or anyone is for ever beliving in GOD.
I find the idea of GOD being evil somehow , because of the fact anything else could create evil , as well as the topic of natural evils , stuff that is evil within its nature and how that paints to god , but how I am ment to really have that discution in such a bad faith enviroment , its clearly more productive for me to take your arguments home and not really actually argue with you.

I just find this idea that someone else found the "trick" to all of this , and now you either (regardless of the existence of god mind you) have to have a very specific pesimist perspective to life or to completly disprove that trick , otherwise you are a bad person.

I think you as well as people like you have to much of a team A vs Team B , and you fail to realise the actual long term thought implications of what you are actually arguing , because you just see debates as something kind of videogame you can win by using the same strategy over and over.

>>42182475
I always love this copout. You know scripture but don't really understand it.

>>42185636
>I think you as well as people like you have to much of a team A vs Team B , and you fail to realise the actual long term thought implications of what you are actually arguing , because you just see debates as something kind of videogame you can win by using the same strategy over and over.
I know Christians are like that but what about atheists?

>>42185656
I genuinly don't mean it as a copout anon , scout promise

I just find the idea interesting , because I want to know what the atheist would have to do , to get out off that situation , because in theory this type of situations should be common.

is just , would you trust someone who is allegedly a math nerd , but both hates and doesn't belive in math. he can read all the books about the subject matter that he wants , but if he isn't actually processing the information , does that really matter?

I see it kind of like the chinese room thought experiment.

if reading the bible cover to cover was trully enough to trully understand the religion , completely what is the point of just not forcing everyone to read it cover to cover around every 5 years or so in a Cristian society , why has that not been done yet.
I think a lot of atheists kind of fall into failing to understand the problem , because they don't really understand a world were the bible would be correct, but because they lack that perspective to really try to answer that question in the first place and instead just circle jerk about how that proves how cool they are.

but I find , regardless of the truth of God , and the truth nature of what it means to be a cristian. that the idea that atheist just understand what its ment to be , because they have it more memorized to be silly.

but also interesting , because I think this goes into a lot of things currently at life, were you can talk to someone in plain english and yet is like you were talking about something in a different language, this kind of perspective problems can be quite popular and I think this bible example is a well a pure example of that.

so I don't mean it as a copout, its more so that I really wonder and I really want to have a clear anser some day , as to how much do the atheists like that one person , actually understand what they are saying , because that anser could be very important.

>>42185665
I mean cristans either belive everyone should be on team A by force and as such they allready own everyone , or they hate everyone and don't belive a team A or B exist at all anon?

I mean , I might be missing something , but I think you are wrong about your claim anon.

I guess cristains can kind of overuse copes a lot, but like thats more about to get out of having to be in an argument , less to actually win it.
I suppose.

>>42185717
But see anon you are working on the assumption that if people really understand the message of Christianity they will convert because it is the capital T truth. Guess what? We understand your beliefs and still don't think they are true and it is actually really insulting and ineffective to just keep saying we don't "really" get it. Your Bible is not self evidently true.

I mean anon are you a communist? Probably not but I suspect you think you have a grasp of it. How lame would it be if every time you argued with a communist, instead of arguing their position they just said you need to read the communist manifesto and if you understand it you will be 100% convinced? If you aren't convinced you MUST not have understood it.

>>42185785
>But see anon you are working on the assumption that if people really understand the message of Christianity they will convert because it is the capital T truth
I don't think this is the case necesarely , I do think their could be a hypotetical chad atheist that trully understands all that cristianity has to offer , in theory at least.

but then the question is , to some degree would that be hypocritical or not?
if the bible is correct , their is problably some level of intellectualization that can only exist because its real and as such it would be either hypocritical or imposible for an atheist to really understand the bible fully.

obviously of the bible isn't true , that is still interesting because he would perfectly just understand what people think they do when they are spiritual and with god , but thats interesting for other reasons.

both outcomes are interesting, because they represent some kind of illusion of what the main point of understanding is ment to be , but it always brings the question of what does it really mean when someone is dissagreing with you.

this type of stuff goes into way more other stuff that just cristianity , cristianity has a lot of interesting woo woo autism , but its otherwise kind of straight foward regardless.

>>42185818
but like , for example , could a true materialists really understand the mindset on how a true idialist sees math.
it really goes really far up into a lot of different places , because it asks about the limitation of what kind of lies we could even create , but asking stuff like that is like putting the cart before the hourse in a way.
>We understand your beliefs and still don't think they are true and it is actually really insulting and ineffective to just keep saying we don't "really" get it
I mean , their is a difference between totally understanding something and disproving it , but most atheist don't "get it" , that is why I am fasinated by them in a way , they have wierd brains , wierd souls.
>Your Bible is not self evidently true.
I mean if it was , you would only need to read the book cover to cover to understand it , I suppose.
I do want to add , they guy you originally qouted , could be the sigma atheists that perfectly understands cristianity , since I don't know him , I can't know for sure. my points are more so that him being that or not , is not something "free" that he would just have , because he can just memorised the words good , it would come out of more things that have to do with how he is as a person.

>I mean anon are you a communist? Probably not but I suspect you think you have a grasp of it. How lame would it be if every time you argued with a communist, instead of arguing their position they just said you need to read the communist manifesto and if you understand it you will be 100% convinced? If you aren't convinced you MUST not have understood it.
anon , I have bad news for you , but that is actually a thing that happens today.

>>42185822
but yea comunist are a good example of what I am referring too , as a secular example of why I find it interesting , it does seem like you have to rewire your brain to be a comie , but does that mean you are basically out of luck of actually understanding comies , unless you get "converted" , I don't think so. but I can't tell you why , so I want to find that why.

>>42185822
>>42185825
I used communists as an example because they are very similar to Christians in this way. Christians are 100% brainwashed in their worldview and are very obviously batshit insane cultists to anyone who isn't one of them.

>>42185965
>Christians are 100% brainwashed in their worldview and are very obviously batshit insane cultists to anyone who isn't one of them.
It really is comical how this sentiment is strictly found in children/spoiled brats. When the mass majority of the world was Christian things were objectively better. What a coincidence.

>>42185975
Babling from a cultist.

>>42185985
You're a scared child, thats why you doubled down like this.

>>42185999
Checked and Christians always resort to calling people children because they believe they are in the good graces of skydaddy and view others who reject skydaddy as petlilent siblings.

For anyone who isn't already a cultist, here is some evidence that Christians are a weird death cult. They ritually drink the blood and eat the flesh of their human sacrifice God. The largest denomination believes that can ritually transmute wine and bread to obtain this LITTERAL material and suppressed early scientists who were discovering the properties of matter and the fact that it makes no sense.

>>42186041
Nah I called you a child for lashing out and throwing a tantrum. The body and blood of God are blatantly symbolic. Yet another reason why you're a stupid child is because that concept gets lost in your world of literalism.

>>42186073
I didn't "lash out and throw a tantrum", I called you are creepy cultist (which you are) and you were massively triggered. If anyone is a thin-skinned baby it's you.

Also did you not read my post? Different denominations treat the Eucharist differently, but the original Roman Catholic Church (I.E the oldest most popular one) in particular believes it is literally the blood and flesh of Rabbi Yeshua.

I am this anon to be clear >>42185785
>>42185717
>>42185785
>>42185818
>>42185822
>>42185825
the one who made the scout promise , anyhow.
>I used communists as an example because they are very similar to Christians in this way. Christians are 100% brainwashed in their worldview and are very obviously batshit insane cultists to anyone who isn't one of them.
I mean , even as a wierd mad copper of the highest degree , I do think that cristians and cristianity as a whole , is kind of badshit insaine in ways that are very difficult to descrive , it does feel like fucked up eldrich knowlege.

and I don't think I am like that , but of course I think that , not really an argument.
comies are also pretty mentally ill , but they are mentally ill cultists in a normal way you know?

anyhow , I do think you bring up another interesting example as to why I find that interesting , what is the difference between being initiated and being brainwhased.
I don't think cristains are really that brainwashed because they aren't really that loyal to their faith (its kind of complicated though , and they are very much mentally ill cultist in some ways) , but their is still a wierd dynamic were you kind of have to open up a part of your brain that isn't ment to exist , I think to some degree that mostly comes from problems with names , but also , a lot of cristians really don't have any problem with trying to use brainwashing tacktics.

but if cristianity has elements of being a brainwashed cult , but you for some academic reason , want to understand cristianity in its totality , what do you do to not fall under its spell.

>>42186296
its also , if you NEED to be brainwashed to be a cristian(in theory) , how would an atheist really understand the bible , if he doesn't have the necesary brain damage.

now currently that question is more of a win for the atheist with how we see and live in reality.
but imagine if a bunch of cristians were getting bible superpowers and using it to kill women indiscremidetly.
could you understand the bible to get those same superpowers without falling into the religions lure then?
I hope my hypotetical makes sence.

>>42185975
>When the mass majority of the world was Christian things were objectively better
by this logic Africa should be a futuristic utopian paradise lmao

>>42185975
I mean I do agree anon , but that doesn't mean they don't have valuable truths.

maybe the trick to enlightenent is being a redditor , it does seem like if you want to optimise for power , cristianity is the way to go , but I want something , more solid you know?

I want to trully understand why they move the way they move , I want to own all their truths , because some will be usefull , specially in the context of comuning with god.
in a way I see this reditors as being priest or prophets in their own way.

>>42186108
>I called you are creepy cultist (which you are) and you were massively triggered.
You are a teenager
>Catholic Church is oldest
No Orthodox is, youre an idiot.

>>42186347
>>42186108
desu, anon thought he was speaking to me.

maybe this is all a misunderstanding.

>>42186352
Welcome to 4chan kid.

File: Consider the following 2.png (246 KB, 737x583)

246 KB PNG

>>42174282
Just because someone isn't benevolent doesn't mean they are bad though. I believe this reality is created purely for entertainment purposes, and essentially it's to create a compelling story. Is it morally wrong to create a story where someone suffers? And is it morally wrong to create a world where someone suffers? Almost nothing is truly eternal, and that includes pain and suffering. While suffering may bring excitement and joy to our creator, it is also our success and triumph that also makes it worth watching. This reality is but a book on a shelf in a grand library, and we are the characters within the book. Once you die, you just come back to life as a new character, and learning how to escape the book is its own mystery worth solving. While the creator, or author may mock you and laugh when you fall to your knees, they will genuinely smile when you get right back up, and give you as many second chances as you are willing to ask for.
Literary elements such as plot armor, symbolism, and foreshadowing all exist, and everyone has their own story. Of course you still have free will, the author is merely content to watch, and provide you with different plot threads you can inject yourself into. Where you go and what you do is up to you, with the only exception being that you can not break character. Just because you end up with a bad life, it does not mean that god themselves is evil.

>>42188237
>Just because someone isn't benevolent doesn't mean they are bad though
That's because "bad" is a subjective judgement. Literally anyone can be "bad," or denied being "bad."
You are proving that you can see someone being deliberately malevolent, and go "well I dont think that's bad."
>I believe this reality is created purely for entertainment purposes
Suffering is not entertainment.
So you are wrong.
> Is it morally wrong to create a story where someone suffers?
Yes.
>And is it morally wrong to create a world where someone suffers?
Yes.
>While suffering may bring excitement and joy to our creator, it is also our success and triumph that also makes it worth watching.
The creator deliberately put in suffering when it was not necessary.

If you are saying this creator couldnt do it any other way, then they are as limited as you, and they are irrelevant to the discussion of removing suffering.
They simply become a tyrant that must be
destroyed.
>This reality is but a book on a shelf in a grand library, and we are the characters within the book.
Characters in a book do not suffer.
an author is limited, and does not make real people.
God makes real people, and makes them suffer without reason.
>Of course you still have free will
Characters in a book do not have free will.
Your analogy is bad, and you break it with every sentence.
> it does not mean that god themselves is evil.
Again - this is a judgement.
I can judge god evil no matter what the situation is.
I am proving that god is not benevolent. That is not a judgement, that is a pattern of behavior.
God deliberately causes things to suffer without reason.
That is malevolent - and you think that's good.

File: I, Robot.jpg (61 KB, 1000x562)

61 KB JPG

>>42171226
>>42174282
>>42188237
You can't explain this kind of basic shit to up-their-own-arse pseud McAtheist faggots because you'll never penetrate their ironic thought-stopping moralism.

For example, they will hurr durr over God ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as proof 'God am bad'. Even though IF the Abrahamic God existed, then that means you have an immortal soul. Which means that Isaac wouldn't REALLY be 'dead' and he would have gone to Heaven afterwards, even if Abraham had killed him. But it was just a test and God was like j/k bro sparing Isaac's (mortal) life anyway.

Then they'll try to weasel out of it as if I'm saying by (again mortal) law, we should allow any psycho who claims to be talking to God to go around killing their their own kid. Obviously not. But IF someone did and it turned out they were right and God did tell them to do it, and go through with it, then it wouldn't matter what 'muh society' did to them in this lifetime - they would have been right to do it, and be God's little golden boy in Heaven afterwards as a result.FACT!!!

This confuses and enrages the McAtheist because they're too retarded entertain a hypothetical, follow a logical argument, and can't get their heads out of their own moralistic arses which is really funny to watch. Especially since they'll engage in shit like trannyizing their own kids for social points, resulting in their later suicide, etc.

They ironically don't even blink at shit like this because the audience knows Gregory Peck is literally doing nothing wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laMiCo1FAz0

Honestly, I think they're too clueless to even see the obvious biblical parallel. Peck did nothing wrong, and the cops not knowing what the audience knows did nothing wrong either.

Hence you get moralistic 'God am bad' faggotry like this: >>42188364
By which logic Will Smith shooting the fucking robot am bad. He can't even threaten to shoot it. He is obligated to make the world paradise 24/7 for robots.

>>42188364
>You are proving that you can see someone being deliberately malevolent, and go "well I dont think that's bad."
You act as though everything is black and white. Is there nothing to learn or no new perspective to gain from these different lives?
>Suffering is not entertainment.
>Yes
>Yes
You would be correct if life was eternal suffering and served no purpose at all. Are you going to tell me that you're so moral you've never enjoyed a single work of fiction that had someone suffer? You've likely enjoyed it too.
>The creator deliberately put in suffering when it was not necessary.
>If you are saying this creator couldnt do it any other way, then they are as limited as you, and they are irrelevant to the discussion of removing suffering.
Oh no, they absolutely could make a world without suffering. It's just that a world like that is far too limiting. You have to run the whole gamut for it to be compelling.
>They simply become a tyrant that must be
destroyed.
That thought process too, is entertaining.
>Characters in a book do not suffer.
an author is limited, and does not make real people.
What's your point? Those emotions and experiences are still real, and that's why it resonates with people. I could also bring up the hundreds of real life stories of people that actually exist that are compelling to watch simply because they suffered.
>Characters in a book do not have free will.
That's because it's imperfect writing.
>God deliberately causes things to suffer without reason.
I just told you the reason, it's for entertainment purposes. You will be recycled over and over again until you play every single role there is, and have every perspective possible.

>>42188431
>mindless rant
It's very simple.
god is either limited, and CANT remove suffering - in which case why pay any attention to him, except as a tyrant to be destroyed.
Or God CAN remove suffering, and wont - in which case he is malevolent.
None of your stupid Bible shit affects this.
>>42188440
>Is there nothing to learn or no new perspective to gain from these different lives?
Why didnt God give us these lives without suffering?
Is he UNABLE or UNWILLING?

>>42188440
>What's your point?
the point is you keep using analogies that explain that god is limited, just like a human,, and CANT do away with suffering.
I dont know why you have trouble admitting this to yourself, but that is your answer.
God CANT do it.

>>42188444
Because that's too limiting. I said as much in my last post.

>>42188456
What is too limiting? What is left out?

>>42188454
No they absolutely could create a world without suffering, they just don't because it's more compelling this way, and there's a lot more material you can work with.

>>42188460
>it's more compelling this way
Why cant God create a world with the same amount of compelling but without any suffering?
Are they UNABLE, or UNWILLING?

>>42188459
The negatives that are removed of course, which leads to a world where there's not as much tension or stakes. There are times where people put their life on the line, sometimes literally, and you can't do that in a world that has no suffering or consequences. Trying to look for a world without suffering will just lead to being unfulfilled, because there will always be something wrong that sticks out.

>>42188464
Unwilling, because it's boring. There's no stakes or tension. Do you believe you could create a world like that without artificially propping things up? Would there be any meaning in that, and would you find it fun or interesting? It would be a dull world where nothing happens. When there are no villains, there are no heroes.

>>42188475
>where there's not as much tension or stakes
So God CANT make the world have the same tension without suffering.
God is UNABLE, and limited.
>because it's boring.
Why cant God make a world that is exciting without suffering?
It sounds like God CANT do this.
Because if he could, and doesnt, that is cruel.

>>42188481
You're asking god to change something immutable about writing itself. It doesn't work like that. You know anyone can write a story, if you believe that I'm wrong, then why don't you create a world like that that isn't boring. Maybe I'll believe you if it becomes a best seller. Sitting in a room and doing literally nothing does not make for a compelling story, and not even god can change that. Who the hell would want to watch or read a story like that?
You can say they're limited because they can't do that, but in the end you're arguing for a reduction in the story, purely because you want things to be easy for yourself and others. Would you really find that kind of life fulfilling?

>>42188444
>It's very simple.
>god is either limited, and CANT remove suffering - in which case why pay any attention to him, except as a tyrant to be destroyed.
>Or God CAN remove suffering, and wont - in which case he is malevolent.
>None of your stupid Bible shit affects this.
Thought-stopping slogans based on your own subjective viewpoint, because you are literally unable to put yourself in anyone else's shoes or entertain a hypothetical like I just said. This is why Leftist retards try to make actual laws based on their own subjective feels. Shit like, 'You must use my preferred pronouns even though I can change my fluid gender at any particular microsecond based on a whim'. In other words the whole world must conform to their personal, retarded, and subjective idea of what is 'right' and moral - else (You) am bad, and are literally Hitler, right up to and including the point of legal consequences and literal violence against (You). Even though logically there's no way the world could possibly function that way, and would result in absurdity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RpyFyX4xFg

Not to mention enable the worst psychos and sick degenerate weirdos who can just put on a dress and claim they're a bearded woman to enter the wrong bathroom and perv on little girls, etc.

How about no? How about fuck your subjective feels, (which nobody can tell whether you're lying about them anyway)? How about established individual rights where I don't have to give a fuck about your subjective feelings and check with you personally whether it's okay before I do literally anything?

Uncanny how 'God's laws' are so congruent with objective reality and not with that Commie crap, (regardless of whether He exists or not). People forget the value of having the freedom to mostly do what you want, (even if it's a 'sin' according to Christianity at least), with human law not trying to address and micromanage it, under the presupposition God can sort it all out later.

>>42188494
>change something immutable
"Immutable" means God CANT do it. Why is it hard to admit this?
>in the end you're arguing for a reduction in the story
No, I never argued that this weak, limited conception of God should try to meddle even more.
I am simply pointing out that your conception of God is limited and controlled.
>>42188499
>How about no?
I accept that you have no response and run away from the argument.
>God's laws
They are God's laws. As everyone has been arguing - God is just following the rules required to make a good story.
God literally cant do it any other way.

>>42188507
>They arent* God's laws

>>42188507
>"Immutable" means God CANT do it. Why is it hard to admit this?
That's why I said immutable. Telling them to create a world with no tension or stakes that's also interesting and exciting won't get you very far. Some people must live ordinary lives, some must live blessed lives, and some must live scary or sad lives to make the world truly alive. Anything else would be boring, and not even god can change that. A world of eternal happiness where nothing can go wrong, and a world of eternal suffering with only pain are both boring, and far too limited. At the very best, god could charm you into believing such a story is entertaining or interesting, but it wouldn't actually be your real thoughts, it'd all be artificial.
>I am simply pointing out that your conception of God is limited and controlled.
I reject that idea. You are trying to catch them in a moral paradox as a "gotcha". This is no different than arguing god can create a stone so heavy that they can't lift. (Which by the way is easy, the god just has to say they can't lift it, then never lift it.) Essentially, they'd just be nerfing themselves on purpose and pretending they can't pick it up, even though they actually could.

>>42188540
>Telling them to create a world with no tension or stakes that's also interesting and exciting won't get you very far.
Only if God is under the control of other's laws.
Again - youur answer is that God is limited, and cant.
There's nothing else to bother with, and no reason to consider God when trying to remove suffering.

>>42188540
>This is no different than arguing god can create a stone so heavy that they can't lift.
No, because there is nothing internally inconsistent with "the same result but without suffering" like there is with "A and also not A."

File: Chibi Cheeks 4.gif (117 KB, 424x462)

117 KB GIF

>>42188583
Your argument is absurd though. That's like trying to say god should be able to make a shitty shack a better house than a pristine mansion, without monkey paw rules such as the mansion being in an unsafe environment, or a poor economy. If god can't do this, then they must be limited right? The shitty shack will always be worse than the pristine mansion, and trying to argue that god can change this without sprucing up its appearance, interior, and building materials is just absurdity. Or what about this, make a story where the main character literally sits on a bench and blinks, and we follow him through a year of him just staring into a white void. God should be able to make this the most compelling story on earth, a natural best seller. Do you not see how retarded that sounds?
A compelling world thrives off of both joy and suffering, and are far more entertaining than one or the other. Trying to box me in with "oh but the author is limited because they can't make do with one less ingredient" is pointless because you'll end up with a lesser dish. Even if god changed all of our minds to believe differently, they would still find it boring themselves. I believe I have blown your argument out of the water.

>>42188608
>Your argument is absurd though.
Its been unassailable for thousands of years.
>That's like trying to say god should be able to make a shitty shack a better house than a pristine mansion
Yes. If someone wants to claim God is omnipotent/unlimited, then they have to accept God can do that.
> is just absurdity.
I get that you want logic to have more power over reality than God.
that is why your conception of God is limited.
>God should be able to make this the most compelling story on earth, a natural best seller.
They could. Or they could tell a tale that is the most entrancing and riveting one you have ever heard and not have a single moment of suffering in it.
YOU cant, and I cant, but an unlimited god can.
>A compelling world thrives off of both joy and suffering
And God has to follow that rule. God is limited by it, under its control.
>because you'll end up with a lesser dish
...because we are limited.
Because your author is limited.
Because every example you can give is limited because you exist in a world of limitation.

And it's fine that your conception of God is also bound by this limitation.

>>42188616
>Its been unassailable for thousands of years.
Doesn't matter, because I just broke it, unless you can come up with a better interpretation.
>Yes. If someone wants to claim God is omnipotent/unlimited, then they have to accept God can do that.
To do so otherwise would be poor writing. They technically could do it as I stated, but it would be forced and they'd basically have to control your thoughts to do it. It also would not make it a fundamental truth, your interpretation of the world would just be artificially skewed to believing the shack is better.
>They could. Or they could tell a tale that is the most entrancing and riveting one you have ever heard and not have a single moment of suffering in it.
A tale like that would be forced and unnatural.
>And God has to follow that rule. God is limited by it, under its control.
I'd say it's more of a matter of preference, after all they want to create a great story worth telling. A story with more emotional elements will still be better than one without those elements, especially if a god is writing them. Or are you going to say that if two gods go head to head in creating a world they'll both tie even if one is missing negative events?
>And it's fine that your conception of God is also bound by this limitation.
Then why are you even arguing with me? Come to think of it, why are we even arguing in the first place? My whole point was that god is not evil, so why are we arguing about whether or not they are limited? I mean I've already said they were partially limited every now and then, after all they want to write a good story and avoid traps like plot holes and such.
What exactly is getting me to admit that they are slightly limited even doing? I will even admit that there are likely multiple authors, not just one, so what is your point here?

>>42171046
They're unironically right tho

>>42188675
>Doesn't matter, because I just broke it
lol, no - you just gave the "then he isnt all powerful" answer.
>would be poor writing.
Because God is under the control of rules.
>would be forced and unnatural.
Because God is under the control of rules.
>they want to create a great story worth telling
And they have to follow the rules to do that.
>Then why are you even arguing with me?
Because you didnt like admitting that God is under control, and because it took you a long time to realize you are okay with God being malevolent.

>>42188764
>lol, no - you just gave the "then he isnt all powerful" answer.
>Because God is under the control of rules.
They are rules imposed on themselves because once again, it's more interesting that way.
>And they have to follow the rules to do that.
Because it's a matter of preference and more fun that way.
>Because you didnt like admitting that God is under control, and because it took you a long time to realize you are okay with God being malevolent.
But they're not malevolent though. At the very worst they're neutral. You need to be able of reaching your own happy ending, rather than relying on praying to god for a miracle to happen. The latter doesn't have any stakes at all.

>>42188809
>They are rules imposed on themselves
So they CAN remove the rules?
>it's more interesting
Only because of these rules.
So we are back to the original question.
Can they change it so its more interesting to go a way without suffering?
Or can they not change the fact that it's more interesting to tell a story with suffering?

>>42188809
>But they're not malevolent though.
the pattern of behavior is to knowingly inflict suffering where none is needed.
If I knew an author was hurting REAL people to tell a story, i dont care how good a story it is, I would stop them.
Any sane person would.

>>42188444
>>42188822
And you may want to ignore the dubs and trips agreeing with me, but I wont.

>>42188822
>So they CAN remove the rules?
Yes
>Can they change it so its more interesting to go a way without suffering?
>Or can they not change the fact that it's more interesting to tell a story with suffering?
It can not be changed, and it is their preference to make all stories have suffering of some kind. The degree of suffering however, varies between each world.
>>42188828
>the pattern of behavior is to knowingly inflict suffering where none is needed.
Our scars are not eternal, almost nothing is eternal. If you really want to see a world without suffering, then make one yourself, or get as close as possible to it as you can. There's nothing stopping you from making this world a better place. If you actually succeed and create a utopia, that will be a fine story, however no utopia will last forever. It is destined to fall ruin at some point or another, but that's not a bad thing.

>>42186432
I don't want atheist anon to go further into his seclution from religios people do.

I want him to grow and stuff.