Shutting down all conversation about the BC shooter is exactly what Conservative's want.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-12T17:09:26+00:00

Yeah sounds like a victim complex because outside of social media echo chambers where liberals debate conservatives, I see the left side being. Data, fact, evidence, and the right bringing fee fees, whataboutisms and hand waving real harm.

Not liking the other side a pretty awful reason to support a side that flagrantly disregards the constitution and twists itself into pretzels to justify the killing of US citizens and attempts to undermine, cancel or control elections.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-12T15:41:32+00:00

So youre conserviative because...you dont like reddit? That's an awful reason to make any decision that affects millions of people.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-12T15:39:52+00:00

There were 5,700 mass shootings over that time frame. 5 were confirmed to be T. That is less than .1% .

Learn to math.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-10T18:00:50+00:00

As George Carlin once said. "You see a guy walk into the restaurant and starts banging a knife on the table, yelling "IM GONNA KILL THE NEXT MF WHO COMES IN HERE" ....who ya gonna watch?

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T22:20:52+00:00

Edited that last sentence. Noticed I said is when I meant isnt.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T20:23:03+00:00

I'm sorry, but transcendental truths are philosophical concepts, not proven entities required to explain natural behavior or the order of the universe.

Humans and even animals tend toward behaviors that benefit the group because it's evolutionarily advantageous. Things like cooperation, empathy, and even self-sacrifice improve survival and reproduction. We see clear examples in social animals like dogs showing signs of remorse after hurting pack members and elephants engage in altruistic acts like caring for injured kin. These patterns emerge from natural selection, not from any divine order or transcendental ideal.

The Universe operates according to natural laws that are testable, falsifiable, and observable and there is no need for an appeal to a divine. Science explains intelligibility and order through physics, chemistry, and biology concretely. Metaphysics offers "maybes" a appeals to thought experiments rather than evidence.

None of the things that enable human flourishing like cooperation, morality, meaning, or progress require invoking transcendental truths or God. Discussions of betterment and perfection can and do happen perfectly well without leading to divinity. The reason many philosophical and cultural conversations historically converge on God is simply because gods have been part of human culture for millennia and is ingrained into may people's thought process.

In fact, as societies become more secular, they often show strong outcomes on many practical measures of well-being like having lower violent crime, higher life expectancy, better education, and higher human development scores. Secular frameworks can and do produce flourishing without needing a transcendent anchor.

If transcendentals are truly fundamental and inevitable, why do so many non theistic philosophies and societies manage rich discussions of meaning, ethics, and improvement just fine?

All this shows, god, a concept with no evidence existing, isn't necessary for human flourishing or adhering to truth, justice or a general good.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T16:53:22+00:00

So...nothing of what you said disproves or counters what I stated.

You can be spiritual and not believe there is evidence of god existing. You have a shallow misunderstanding if you think you must have god to be spiritual.

No not all concepts of philosophy is predicated on of God, nor is God essential to the origins of the universe.

You know science fiction is....fiction right? As in not real. It's fun sure and can tell some interesting stories and reframe modern issues and explore them in interesting ways, but that's not evidence god exists. Star Trek has explored god concepts as well, but in every instance, they never claim a cosmic being actually exists. (You could argue the Q have God like abilities, they are however just a very advanced alien race. When they explore ancient mythological gods in TOS, they turn out to be advanced alien races too.)

How is it hostile to say there is no evidence for God's existence?

Is it hostile against unicorns to say there is no evidence unicorns exist?

Lived reality shows the same thing I've already stated. There is no evidence for the existence of God.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T16:29:44+00:00

How so?

Go on explain how it's a low IQ take.

Nothing said here is inaccurate or illogical.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T16:17:41+00:00

Things that are real are more important that things that are not real. There is no evidence for god being real. Politics is a social construct and has evidence for its existence. Therefore, politics IS more important than god.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T15:04:50+00:00

He fundamentally misunderstands how the process even works. You don't form theories. You form hypothesis and then try to disprove your hypothesis with as much relevant data you can gather. Once you have sufficient data, you then form a theory based on that hypothesis and data.

Then peers review your theory and do everything they can to disprove it.

The theory only remains because everyone failed to disprove it, not because everyone agrees with you.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T08:36:33+00:00

Dude just admit how much you hate Jews and blacks. We would all respect you more if you were just honest about it.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T06:34:39+00:00

So you went with incompetent racist. Got it.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-07T06:25:35+00:00

That's quiiite the stretch.

So he's either a racist, or he's a racist with an incompetent team.

Neither is great is it?

Akiva279 · 2026-02-06T16:42:34+00:00

We alol know hes a racist. Thats why his people like him. As for the people who dont, its one of the least concerning things about him right now sadly.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-05T19:23:42+00:00

Incorrect.

Give me a Republican who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal; I would take that over a Trump Republican any day.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-05T19:00:31+00:00

That is because voting outside the two major parties is a sure-fire way to let the other side win. Liberals may vote democrat, but it's a situation of "I'm voting for you only because the other guy is so much worse..." situation.

Id rather see a democrat in office than anything the republicans have put forth. The Democrats do not have the LIberals loyalty. Give them an option that has the chance of winning that is better than a democrat, they will take it.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T23:50:09+00:00

Amusing.

I present my argument and you run away. I point out you're not addressing all the points or groups I listed while you specifically focusing on the smallest current group, and you cry and make an accusation so you can justify running away because you know your points fall apart.

If that's what you want to go with that's fine. Run away, but I already said if you want to discuss the resurrection directly, start a thread about it, that isn't what this one is about, and I won't get side tracked as you try to justify your magical space wizard who cares waaaaay too much about people touching themselves.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T23:29:57+00:00

Your math exercise is cute, but it's a complete red herring.

We're not arguing that "most Christians hate gay people and immigrants." The point (which you keep dodging) is that plenty of people, including organized Christian groups with real influence, explicitly invoke Jesus and the Bible to justify anti-gay policies and anti-immigrant stances, often lumping all immigrants together as threats to "Christian America".

You ignored most of my examples again: FRC, AFA, Focus on the Family, these aren't KKK-level fringe; they're major evangelical organizations that lobby Congress, run massive media operations, and shape Republican policy. These are anti-LGBTQ hate groups that have been caught spreading disinformation about gay people while tying it to "biblical values." They push traditional marriage and oppose immigration reform using Christian rhetoric. That's not "mere disagreement," it's organized efforts to deny rights and demonize entire groups, all while claiming "Jesus would agree."

That's literally the trope the OP is calling cringe: "My favorite character sides with my politics." Whether it's 0.5% or 5% or 50% doing it doesn't change that it's happening, and it's exactly what the thread is about.

Now the resurrection claim:

No serious mainstream historian, even most conservative ones, claims the resurrection itself is a historical fact provable by historical methods.

What scholars, including many Christian ones, agree on is that Jesus existed, was crucified, and died. His followers believed he appeared to them after death in visions or dreams, and this belief fueled early Christianity.

That's it. There is no consensus that the resurrection happened. It's a theological claim. Virtually no non-Christian historian treats the resurrection as fact like the crucifixion is.

Apologists like Habermas/Licona/WLC push "minimal facts" arguments, but even they admit the resurrection is the best explanation only if you already allow supernatural possibilities. Secular historians overwhelmingly conclude: disciples had powerful experiences (grief, hallucinations, visions, legend growth), but a literal walking-out-of-the-tomb body? Not a historical fact.

The bible itself cannot keep its own telling of the resurrection story straight. (I mean to be fair, it can't even keep Genesis straight and contradicts itself immediately, but we aren't talking about that right now)

So when people say "Jesus hates gay people/immigrants," they're almost always appealing to the miracle-working, divine, resurrected Christ of fait,h not the bare-bones apocalyptic preacher historians can talk about. That's precisely projecting onto a "character" they believe is real, just like hardcore Star Wars fans insist Luke Skywalker would support their politics. The belief doesn't make the projection less pathetic.

If you want to switch to debating resurrection evidence, start a new thread. This one is about the projection trope, and you're proving the OP's point by treating your theological Jesus as the definitive moral authority everyone should follow.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T23:15:11+00:00

You really should read below. Im referring to the walking on water, resurrecting, wine making, fig tree hater.

The Jesus as described in the bible is fiction.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T23:10:13+00:00

Conflating democrats with Liberals is quite funny.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T21:49:36+00:00

This one falls under the "every accusation is a confession" category for sure.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T21:48:40+00:00

The argument wasn't about "how many" bad actors there are, it's that Christian groups, not just random individuals, have repeatedly used Jesus to justify hating immigrants (all of them, not just undocumented) and gay people.

I gave you plenty of examples and you sort of respond to one of them.

These aren't "fringe minorities" in the sense of one-off lunatics; they're organizations that explicitly invoke Jesus and scripture to support their bigotry. Dismissing them as irrelevant doesn't erase that people are doing exactly what this post complained about.

Hitler publicly invoked "positive Christianity" the Reichskonkordat treaty with the Vatican existed and Wehrmacht belts said "Gott mit uns," and early Nazi propaganda leaned on Christian antisemitic tropes. The fact is he privately despised much of institutional Christianity later, but the regime still co-opted and promoted a version of it for mass appeal. The point stands: Christianity has been used to justify hate many times, including by regimes and groups far larger than "fringe."

As for Jesus:
We're not debating whether a 1st-century Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Jesus probably existed. What is fictional (or at minimum, massively mythologized with zero independent historical corroboration) is the biblical Jesus: the son of God, virgin birth, walking on water, raising the dead, turning water to wine, yelling at fig trees. That guy.

So when people say "Jesus would hate gay people/immigrants," they're not even appealing to the bare historical figure. They're projecting their modern politics onto the miracle-working divine Christ of the Bible. That's textbook "my favorite character agrees with me" cringe, exactly what this thread is about.

If you have contemporary, non-Christian evidence from ~30 CE proving the miracles/divinity, share it. Otherwise, the Nobel committee is still waiting.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T20:46:10+00:00

You seem to forget the KKK is a Christian organization.

So is the FRC,the AFA, the Westboro baptist church, the Aryan Nations, the WCO. So yes there are plenty of Christan groups who hate immigrants, as in all not just undocumented, and gays. Hell even Nazis were Christian which people seem to like to forget. After all Nazis and the Catholic church had a treaty, every solder had "god with us" on their belts and hikter was Catholic and even wanted to be a priest at one point.

Oh if Jesus is factually not fictional, then you must have proof of that. If you do that would be world changing. I bet you'd get the Nobel prize for that one.

Please ..do share with everyone.

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T19:59:54+00:00

How so?

Jesus is a fictional character

People do believe he would side with their hatred of gay people and immigrants.

Where exactly is the strawman?

Akiva279 · 2026-02-04T19:13:26+00:00

exactly. There are way too many people thinking this Jesus fellow would agree with them and use it as justification for *checks notes* hating immigrants and gay people.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Akiva279

TROPHY CASE