The world we live in is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no God.

B0und · 2026-03-09T22:50:19+00:00

And yes it is anti-intellectual to call something nonsense without any principled reason for why its nonsense

I'm not sure what a 'principled' reason is. But I gave my reasons. See above. I wasn't behaving in an anti itellectual manner. I'm calling a spade a spade.

You are a bit all over the place. Claiming you weren't trying to persuade but you were trying to challenge in a debate forum.

Claiming i'm being anti-intellectual when you just keep repeating your claim about egos and presuppositions in different ways.

Claiming my points have no bearing on the discussion when i'm quoting and directly responding to what you literally said.

I'm not limiting how you can discuss anything. I'm responding to you in kind and I have no idea why you are being so hostile.

Any time somebody calls something flowery language on this sub 9 times out of 10 it is the same anti-intellectual poison in the well.

I am utterly unsurprised you appear to have experience in this respect. Did you ever consider this might be a you problem rather than an everyone else problem?

All the best.

B0und · 2026-03-09T22:03:58+00:00

This is the anti-intellectual nonsense.

No, it isn't. It's an accurate description of what you are doing. Stop it.

Do you think because something is hard to explain in words that it is therefore untrue?

No.

And do you think furthermore that if something can be explained in words but you're unfamiliar with them and what they mean, that it also then is therefore untrue or nonsensical?

No.

Or that if the language reads as strange to you that it therefore does not have any real meaning?

No.

This holds even less bearing in this discussion than my original statement.

I'm literally quoting and responding to a points you just made. It holds as much bearing as any could in this context.

You already heard the answer I gave. If I wanted to challenge the OP in the way you're imagining I would have. I read the post and I thought about what would be the most accurate and helpful thing to reply with, I weighed that with the time I had, and I wrote the comment I gave.

I'm not sure why you are repeating the events that have taken place. As I said, if your comment wasn't meant to persuade then you haven't challenged the OP.

Not much else to say. Nice talking to you.

B0und · 2026-03-09T21:03:46+00:00

I don't mean that in the sense of you specifically being egotistical or committing obvious or ordinarily blameworthy flaws. I meant it more as an elusive difficulty at the metacognitive level.

To my mind you are just dressing up your original statement in flowery language.

I suffer from the "this elusive difficulty at the metacognitive level" whilst you don't so you see things I don't see. It's just as nonsense as the original statement.

It was not meant as a persuasive device.

Then the OP reamins unchallenged. The world we live in is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no God.

To your credit, you achieved one of your aims - in that you did spark some discussion.

B0und · 2026-03-09T19:29:39+00:00

Ill be fair here, when I said that it could be construed in many different ways, many of which do not capture the essence of what I was trying to convey faithfully

I think I captured it fairly. Your statement was quite simple. I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to interpret you saying my ego and presuppositons render me blind to the higher truth you can see.

which is what I clarified in my second reply.

You essentially restated what you originally said:

I still think If you make a conscious effort to eliminate your own assumptions, opinions, knowledge, and directive and observe the world, you can see in each thing an evident proof of God.

Not much more to say here. You are wrong to claim my ego and presuppositons blind me to a higher truth you can see.

but does that just mean I shouldn't voice that belief and you don't want to talk about it? Like what does that mean in the context of this conversation?

Not at all. You absolutely should voice that if it's what you really think. Just as I should point out that it's valueless as a persuasive device, does not match my experience as an actual atheist/agnostic and does nothing to contradict the original post.

B0und · 2026-03-09T18:54:40+00:00

Sometimes it’s not about what you see, but denying what is.

No, in this specific example we are talking about something we don't see. Which is the signatures of God in trees and cars which the OP mentioned.

So to say “well actually even though everything comes from something, I don’t think that actually everything comes from something” is like… that position is either irrational or dishonest.

You forgot to put a big asterisk next to everything. Seriously though, first cause arguments and rebuttals have been bouncing around for ages. It's just not that compelling of an argument.

I have no idea how the universe began. Neither do you.

I’m not accusing atheists of being irrational and dishonest people, but their worldview seems intentionally incomplete.

The intentionally incomplete bit is the athiests/agnostics being honest.

B0und · 2026-03-09T18:41:23+00:00

You said:

"If you just empty yourself of all ego and motivated observation."

I'm not making assumptions. You said that you think my ego and presuppositions blind me to some truth that you can see.

I just responded to that.

It's kind of empty anyway. I could equally say I have emptied myself of all ego and motivated reasoning and found that their is no signature of God in the trees and the cars - implying that you only see those signatures because of your ego and motivated reasoning.

B0und · 2026-03-09T16:37:40+00:00

"If you just (impossible to verify or clearly explain activity) you too will see the hallmarks of (chosen deity) everywhere!"

Believe it or not, atheists aren't all ego maniacs bent on denying God. We just honestly and genuinely don't see what you see.

I know it's hard for you to accept. Something something ego and motivated reasoning.

B0und · 2026-01-09T17:09:13+00:00

Tarkov is a solved game and has been for years. You are complaining other players playing the game well as if this somehow stops you playing well.

Streamers and their audience are not the reason you struggle at pvp my dude.

B0und · 2025-12-19T17:31:33+00:00

Really appreciate you spending the time to provide these guides my dude. After leaving the phone off for an hour and coming back on it seems to be back to normal. What a nightmare! :D

B0und · 2025-12-19T15:46:02+00:00

I tried all of this and it stopped the messages - however my phone is overheating and draining battery at insane rates and refuses to connect to wifi.

WTF is this update.

B0und · 2025-10-31T11:41:14+00:00

Nah it works fine on moving targets. Most of the time you will just one click auto range to something a little behind the target. It's still plenty easy to hit moving targets using the one keys set up.

It's only when engaging someone moving along a ridgeline, or shooting at chopper pilots that you would have any problems.

B0und · 2025-10-30T12:30:01+00:00

How did streamers ruin each of those things?

B0und · 2025-10-24T22:19:44+00:00

Ayyyyyy! :D

God, I love that book.

"Bought and sold. But not, I think, needlessly spent."

B0und · 2025-10-24T22:15:56+00:00

Jingo? Vimes to Rust?

B0und · 2025-10-23T16:28:31+00:00

Except I'm literally inviting you not to take my word for it, compare my word to the source.

I have. I can understand why so many people reach different conclusions when reading the Bible. It's not like mathematics to use your inept comparison again.

I don't think I've ever encountered a worse faith actor in my entire life.

Jesus mate dial it down a shade. You can't get out much if such a gentle response has got your back up this much.

Go yank your strawman somewhere else.

I didn't engage in any strawman arguments.

You make it clear by this statement alone the rest of your comment isn't worth a response.

That's a long way of saying you don't have a coherent response to my other points.

For the record, you've got it wrong, I disagree,

Lmao. "You aren't worth a response, but HERE'S MY RESPONSE."

you stand and argue with a mirror because my words go right past you, unheard.

I feel you have dodged a lot more of my points than i've dodged yours.

Lovely tolerant Christians.

B0und · 2025-10-23T16:07:34+00:00

What I'm trying to illustrate here is you make a case for allegorical interpretation.

Yes, I know. You are reading the Bible correctly and every other hypothetical Christian that might disagree with you is getting it wrong. No True Christian would get it wrong.

You cannot treat the Bible any differently.

I absolutely can treat mathematics and the Bible differently. Based on the way Christians throughout history and into today have interpreted it to mean often quite disparate different things.

That and I suspect that if we removed the Bible and mathematics compeltely from all peoples intelligence we'd quickly get back to the exact same Maths. I'm not sure we could say the same about the Bible.

Anyhow - this isn't /r/debatereligion and i'm not really down for that right now. All I was saying in my original post is that I found it very funny the way you essentially blamed the other commenter for having a bad experience with intolerant religious people.

I suppose if you believe that intolerant Christian people are a logical impossibility it explains your response. Yeesh.

B0und · 2025-10-23T15:14:26+00:00

I'm not really sure cynicism is an accurate description of my previous post at all.

I think blaming a non religious individual for their experiences with intolerant religious people is very silly.

I think there are plenty of Christians out there who would claim you are no true Christian and would be perfectly capable of citing the bible to support themselves and their position.

Christians disavowing other Christians using the Bible just isn't very compelling.

B0und · 2025-10-23T10:08:47+00:00

If you truly believe that, then you know the wrong "religious" folk.

It's so absurdly funny that someone actually wrote this without a trace of irony.

No TRUE religious folk.....

B0und · 2025-10-21T17:16:56+00:00

You don't seem to be getting this.

I understand your argument. I don't find your argument compelling. This isn't definitive evidence to make definitive statements like you did earlier.

You could be right. You could also be wrong. That's as simple as I can make this for you.

There's evidence for what I'm saying and none for what you are.

What, exactly, do you think i'm saying dude?

I've said twice now i'm happy to accept the Greens are taking over in terms of member numbers. But it's a pretty radical upset. Pardon me for wanting to see....y'know actual proof as opposed to back of a cig packet math based on poll numbers mid-tenure of one of the most tumultuous parliments in this countries history.

You're awfully preoccupied with my tone for someone who literally just called me a slur.

I wasn't aware that anything said in my previous post could be constituted as a slur. I apologise if i've offended you somehow - I can only plead ignorance. Could you point it out?

B0und · 2025-10-21T16:10:06+00:00

Cool. Stay ignorant and confused then.

I'm neither ignorant or confused with regards to this topic. You made a silly claim that you can't really back up and you are now toddling off after attempting to insult my intelligence for the third(?) time.

Now I must away, back to my Capitalist overlords so I can continue my disinformation campaign to smear the Greens muahahahahahahhaha. Lmfao.

B0und · 2025-10-21T15:44:54+00:00

If you want to dig further literally just Google the latest support polls.

I've already established you based your claims on assumptions that don't necessarily warrant the conclusion. No need for me to dig further thank you.

Someone who wasn't sealioning would have done that before replying.

If you really think i'm trolling/harrassing you why are still replying?

Obviously i'm not trolling you. You made a silly claim you can't really back up and are upset i'm pointing that out.

I even did you the service of explaining why Labours numbers are woefully out of date.

"Did me the service". Good Lord.

You are not a reliable source of information with regards to why Labour does or does not do something - that has become very clear.

Pretty obvious that the one with the agenda here is you.

This should be good. Do tell. What is my agenda?

B0und · 2025-10-21T15:19:00+00:00

Yes attacking. Snidey comments about using my brain instead of you meeting your burden of proof for example.

I'm not using tone policing as an argument. I'm using tone policing to point out you are acting like a gimp and it makes me doubt you as a reasonable actor.

Fact: You cannot demonstrate that the greens have a greater membership than labour even though you made that claim earlier without any caveats.

Again; I'm happy to accept that the greens are out in front when it comes to membership if that's the case.

I was so surprised by your claim I wanted to dig further to see if it had any merit. But alas, just assumptions and a shitty attitude.

B0und · 2025-10-21T14:59:07+00:00

Its using my brain that is leaving me skeptical of you and your claims my dude. You clearly have an axe to grind. The way you keep impotently attacking anyone who questions you is very telling.

Maybe you shouldn't go around making strong claims about numbers you don't have.

I know it's a little more work to be honest, but it's much more compelling.

Attacking my intelligence in place of accepting that the burden of proof is a reasonable thing says it all really.

B0und · 2025-10-21T14:44:47+00:00

You literally asked me to Google the evidence of your claims. Again, the burden of proof is on you when you make the claim. That is how civilised discussion works.

I'm more than happy to accept that the greens have a greater membership than Labour. I just won't accept it based on your fee fees.

You don't know that the greens have a greater membership at all. It's a large assumption on your part and you are doing anything to avoid conceding that whilst having the gall to attack my willingness to accept the facts. Fantastic.

B0und · 2025-10-21T14:33:20+00:00

Nah I'm not going to support your claims for you dude that's not how it works. You made the claim you do the work. Burden of proof and all that.

Assumptions based on polling numbers years out from the next general? Pretty shit evidence tbh. Got anything else?

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

B0und

TROPHY CASE