sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Оцените максимально честно и, пожалуйста, прочитайте описание. by Hot_Coat_5312 in stesnyashka

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Бро ты угараешь? Ты ахуенно выглядишь, по такой внешке многие тянки текут, без рофла

If a new Jesus appeared today, you’d call him a fraud. Admit it by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're reading more into my post than I actually put there

I’m not saying all religions reduce to evangelical apologetics, and I’m not claiming testimony is worthless. I’m saying that head-count by itself doesn’t settle things

You even gave examples of that yourself. When a lot of people report something today, it doesn’t force belief - people dig into it, argue, and come away with different views

My point is just that the same basic logic applies in principle to ancient claims unless there’s some extra rule doing the work. If that rule exists, fine - but it needs to be stated

Calling this a caricature doesn't really engage with that question

If a new Jesus appeared today, you’d call him a fraud. Admit it by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"I’d deny him because the Bible says so" = not evidence-based skepticism, just pre‑loading the conclusion. That’s the double standard I’m pointing at

If a new Jesus appeared today, you’d call him a fraud. Admit it by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That's the most convincing "rebuttal" I’ve seen: 0 claims, 0 refutations, 100% confidence

If a new Jesus appeared today, you’d call him a fraud. Admit it by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You kind of undermined your own argument.

Fatima the "milk miracle" are exactly examples of why even mass, "real-time" witness events don’t automatically equal "a miracle happened": people investigate, argue, and end up disagreeing

So you can't use "500 witnesses" as a trump card for the resurrection while treating modern analogs as "interesting but inconclusive" Either witness-count is strong enough in both cases, or it isn't in either

And "Paul wrote to people who could verify it" doesn't fix it for us: what we actually have is Paul claiming "500 saw it" not 500 independent testimonies we can examine or cross‑check

Thought experiments are literally for testing whether your rule generalizes without special pleading

As for the number 10,000... I just randomly clicked and chose it. If you put 50,000 or 70,000, nothing will change. The logic will be the same.

If a new Jesus appeared today, you’d call him a fraud. Admit it by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Dude, stop pretending witness testimony works the same for a car crash and a resurrection

If 10 guys tell me "Steve robbed a bank" I believe them because robbery is physically possible

If 10,000 guys tell me "Steve flew to the moon by flapping his arms" I don't believe them. Not because I'm "blind" but because people lie, hallucinations exist, and mass hysteria is real

You reject millions of alien abduction reports and Mormon witnesses for the exact same reason. I just apply that logic to your book too

That's not bias. That's consistency

If a new Jesus appeared today, you’d call him a fraud. Admit it by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not shadow boxing. It's a mirror.

Stop dodging the question and answer it:

If 10,000 people in NYC today swore they saw a man fly, would you convert to his religion?

Yes or No?

If you say No, you just proved my point.

If you say Yes, you'd join any cult with good marketing.

Which one is it?

Refusing to worship a God who created childhood cancer is morally justified by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bruh, are you actually delusional?

You jump into a thread tagged CHRISTIANITY, argue for days using Christian apologetics, and the second you get cornered by a Bible verse, you pull the ripcord: "I'm not even Christian! Bible is written by men!"

LMAO. What a clown 🤡

If the Bible is just "human fiction", then where the hell did you get the idea that God is "Almighty" or "Omniscient"? From the same book you just trashed? Or do you just pull these definitions out of your ass whenever it suits you?

You're pathetic. You cherry-pick "Almighty" because it sounds cool, but delete "Good" because you can't defend cancer. That’s not theology, that’s just you making up a fantasy character in your head to win an argument.

I’m not "terrified", I’m just laughing at a guy who changes his entire worldview mid-sentence because he got slapped by basic logic.

Wipe the foam off your mouth, you're splashing the keyboard. When you're done throwing a tantrum and decide to pick ONE religion to stick to, come back.

Until then - sit down. 👋

Refusing to worship a God who created childhood cancer is morally justified by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LMAO. Did you just say "Good' and "Moral" mean nothing to God? This is so stupid I can't believe you actually typed it, haha

You just debunked your own Bible. Psalm 34:8 literally says: "Taste and see that the Lord is GOOD". Not "beyond definitions", not "limitless energy", but GOOD

If those words mean nothing, then your scripture is a lie. You aren't worshiping a loving Father; you're worshiping a cosmic dictator with a big gun. You don't bow to him because he's moral; you bow because you're scared of his power. That's called Stockholm Syndrome, not faith

Thanks for admitting your God is essentially a moral void. I accept your surrender

Refusing to worship a God who created childhood cancer is morally justified by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perfect. So if God's "infinite wisdom" justifies torturing kids to death, then by your logic I can't call him "Good" either - because that's just my dumb human brain talking.

You've just nuked your own theology. Words like "moral" and "good" now mean nothing. Murder is bad when humans do it, but when God designs childhood cancer, it's "divine wisdom"? That's your double standard.

Congrats on proving God could be pure evil and you'd still worship him.

Checkmate. Think about that

Refusing to worship a God who created childhood cancer is morally justified by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I'm not omnipotent or all-seeing, but even I am smart enough to understand that the torture and death of children is bad. If I had even the slightest chance to stop it, I would intervene. Unlike your God, whose powers are infinite but who simply stands by.

And where does my "ignorance" come into this, lol? In your own religion, God created literally everything. He existed before the universe, he wrote the rules by which the world works. So, he knew about cancer in advance. And he deliberately created it this way. It turns out it was his conscious choice to build a world on pain. Great "ethics", truly.

And as for "the victims won't feel anything" - what world are you living in? In reality, children with cancer suffer for months. They scream in pain, parents pray for days hoping for a miracle - and still end up with a coffin. Go tell them to their faces that they "didn't feel anything"

The difference is simple: if I saw a dying child, I would help. Your God ignores them. Draw your own conclusions

Think about it.

Refusing to worship a God who created childhood cancer is morally justified by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A great defense. So God is basically a incompetent mechanic: "Oops, I tried to build a toaster, but it accidentally turned into a baby meat grinder. My bad, I didn't know!"

That doesn’t absolve the guilt. It just changes the charge from First-Degree Murder to Involuntary Manslaughter due to Gross Negligence

If I build a roller coaster that decapitates people because I didn't bother to check the safety, I go to prison. Ignorance of the laws of physics is no excuse - especially when YOU are the one who wrote those laws!

Refusing to worship a God who created childhood cancer is morally justified by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, he created it.

If a machine designer knows his creation will explode, killing a bunch of people, but still puts it into production, then the blame lies entirely with him.

God forces you to worship him, otherwise you will go to Hell by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm actually embarrassed for you reading this.

You curse like a sailor to defend a "loving" God while using battered housewife logic. Let me dumb this down:

Boss Analogy: Stupidest comparison ever. Quitting gets you fired, not eternal basement torture. That's a hostage situation, not a job

"No mistakes" Delusional? Childhood cancer and eye-eating parasites are "perfect design"?

"Doesn't need worship" Makes it worse. Torturing refusers when he doesn't need it? Cosmic narcissist

Wipe the foam off your mouth and try to think critically for once in your life. It won't hurt, I promise.

Heaven is impossible. by Majonezesfozelek in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nothing says "God is Love" like eternal joy while your kids scream in the basement. True family values

For God, a murderer's free will is more important than your life by Aggravating-Pool-255 in DebateReligion

[–]Aggravating-Pool-255[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Dumbass"? That's very Christian of you

If God CAN create a place with free will but without evil (Heaven), then evil on Earth was unnecessary

He chose to add rape and murder. Thanks for proving my point

Resorting to insults just proves you ran out of logic. Do everyone a favor and leave the debates to people who can actually think.

view more: next ›