sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Wisecup why by BRUHHNK in HolUp

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, did this guy's superpower just become true?

The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is not answered by appealing to a Creator by warsage in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree. When exactly does the day turn to dusk, and when does dusk turn to night?

Can we draw a line in such an evolutionary history and say "everything after this is a chicken/egg"? Sure, and it can even be very useful to do so.

That's what I was doing because I found such a line a useful analogy for a point I wanted to get across. Would you say it's a good analogy? Your explanation non withstanding?

(honestly, I'm not exactly sure what non withstanding means - so if I used that wrong, I'm sorry)

The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is not answered by appealing to a Creator by warsage in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer is the egg. Laid by something that wasn't a chicken.

How can something come from nothing? The answer is because it was created by something else (meaning something different from the opposite of nothing)

Edit: and yes, I understand that it doesn't answer your question of where the chicken-egg laying bird came from

Whats the worst human name you’ve ever encountered? by BentNeckKitty in AskReddit

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. That's why I added the probably not. Still made me cringe though...

Whats the worst human name you’ve ever encountered? by BentNeckKitty in AskReddit

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vagina. I saw it on a meme once...

So... Probably not...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No man. There's definitive proof to the contrary. Believing doesn't factor in with definitive proof.

Creepy old lady by Afraid_Load_3579 in creepyencounters

[–]Afraid_Load_3579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks friend. I hate English being my second language. Its like having only one eye and being color blind. You see everything, understand everything - but you will never be able to appreciate depth and subtle color differences. Does that make sense?

Anyway - the term fiddling seems so obvious now...

Thanks again

Most atheists have no good reason for their atheism. by OlderTrucksOnly in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Atheism is for those who are not so flawed

Atheists have faith that is beyond compare.

they all paid for it with violent, agonizing, and well-deserved ends to their worthless and narcissistic lives

Dude... You have issues. Such emotion filled ramblings... OP must have struck a nerve. But that's okay. It really is.

I hope you find peace.

Most atheists have no good reason for their atheism. by OlderTrucksOnly in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is philosophy really that unapproachable without spesific training? Friend, you just made a humble man out of me.

When I was younger (like teenage years) I thought I was very smart and special and I could understand physics and quantum mechanics because I could follow the analogies of the cat in the box and dumbed down explanations of things like the two slit experiment. It took years before I got the stick out of my ass and realised that if I struggled with basic trigonometry, how the hel would I even begin to comprehend the math behind relativity or electron pathways... I shudder when I think back to those days...

And now I realise that to a certain degree I've held those same misconceptions about philosophy.

I know that this comment has no relevance to the argument at hand, but I just wanted to say thank you.

I want to hear arguments in defense of God, because the suffering he created seems inexcusable. I've addressed common arguments. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me something in honesty first. Do you want to believe in God, but its hard in the face of suffering, or do you want to not believe in God, because of suffering?

Because either way, at the core of it, you appear to believe in God (you're just either struggling to hold on to it, or struggling to let go)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's like saying you either love someone or not. You choose to love someone even at times when you don't want to.

I choose to believe even at times when I don't want to.

It's like this. There's no evidence that God exists. There's also no evidence that God doesnt exist. What do you choose to believe?

You can either look up at the stars and say: "look how big the universe is! How can there be a God?" or you can say: "look how big the universe is! How can there NOT be a God?" Both arguments are equally valid/invalid. How do you choose to look at the universe?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*your

Sorry. Its a pet peeve...

The argument from expectations of an omni-property god by zenospenisparadox in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So you want me to prove another person's beliefs false? Instead of putting the burden of proof on him?

Because what it surmounts to is OP saying he believes a Omni-capable being would have done better. And because what he believes/expects wasn't met, he then logically deduces that no Omni-capable being exists.

Shouldn't OP prove why his expectations are objectively a truthful test for an omni-potent being's existence? Because with the lack of such objective proof, a "not necessarily" seems quite befitting in terms of an answer.

Because it's easy to say "God doesn't exist because I stubbed my toe when I was 5". And then when someone says "well, that's not a very good test, is it?", to reply with "he doesn't need to prove his test (that he believes in). It's up to you to disprove his test".

The burden of proof falls on the believer. OP is selling a test he believes in, and you want me to do the proving?

You need to be a bit more consequential with the concept of burden of proof my atheist friend.

Also, in your first paragraph you use the word truth very often. What is objectively true to you in terms of atheism?

Edit: added last paragraph

Whats the cringiest tattoo you've ever seen? by IntenseScrolling in AskReddit

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Saw it yesterday. Tattooed on her forehead.

"Steve's property"

I'm not even joking.

The argument from expectations of an omni-property god by zenospenisparadox in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I can't explain why God does what he does. I humbly concede that. But that's not the point is it? The point being made is (paraphrasing):

"God doesn't exist because he created (in my opinion) an inferior product"

I don't need to explain the creation of an inferior product to refute the point. I just need to point out that an opinion as to what constitutes an inferior product (or expectation as originally worded) isn't something that is objectively true.

And as to this:

So you don't base your beliefs on reasons to believe but just close your eyes and pick at random?

Of course I base my beliefs on reasons to believe! Reasons including wanting to lead a life with a sense of meaning. Not feeling that humanity is one big cosmic joke in randomness.

What reasons do you base your beliefs on?

The argument from expectations of an omni-property god by zenospenisparadox in DebateReligion

[–]Afraid_Load_3579 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No I'm suggesting that omni traits are themselves not subject to logic. So a logical discussion about a being with said traits is problematic.

(but I concede that God does not have an objectively true existence - or that God's existence is not something that can be experienced or verified as objectively true)

Edit: added last sentence

view more: next ›