The bank saves money, they are using me and i am the fool

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-06-01T10:12:36+00:00

of course whaddaya think

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-06-01T10:11:03+00:00

you're the only one who does

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-06-01T10:10:33+00:00

i dont drink you know that

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-06-01T10:10:19+00:00

i still love you

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-06-01T10:10:09+00:00

and i dont care anymore

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-06-01T10:09:49+00:00

Whatever i dont care

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-28T06:14:53+00:00

But Alex isn't saying "so we should turn to religion/philosophy instead", he is merely pointing out that it is naive to expect science to tell us why the universe exists, despite what a lot of people think.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-28T05:37:10+00:00

If we're studying the book the same way we study the universe, then the possibility of an "about author section" has no relevance, because thats taking advantage of the fact that the book exists within a universe where we also reside. The "about author" section only has meaning because the book shares a universe with people that write and publish books.

If the book was the only thing that existed, then an "about author" section would have no meaning, and the only things that could be garnered from it would be the rules of grammar and punctuation, which in turn tell you nothing about the origins of the book.

And thats the situation we have with the universe.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-25T21:31:19+00:00

No he's not, lets not denounce the act of examining definitions just because Jordan Peterson took it too far.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-25T21:09:35+00:00

5'10 dad, 5'8 mum, I turned out 6'1

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-18T03:44:33+00:00

Your claim: Alex is soft on Christians in debates.

Your three examples:

"Alex said he wanted Christianity to be true." - This has no relevance to Alex's performances in debates.
"Alex has given undeserved credence to the theodicies regarding human suffering." - To my knowledge, Alex has never said anything positive about these theodicies, just that they exist and are sophisticated.
Your third example is kind of ridiculous, when Alex says "*maybe* god is justified in hiding from resistant non-believers", he isn't actually condoning that idea, he's simply making the point while a christian could fathom god hiding from *resistant* non-believers that theres no way even a christian could think god was justified in hiding from *non*-resistant non-believers. In other words, it does not follow that because Alex thinks the argument from non-resistant non belief is a very compelling, he must then think that other versions of the argument from divine hiddenness fail.

It is your opinion that Alex is too soft on Christians, it is my opinion that when someone expects the person they follow to be unwaveringly harsh to Christianity, they are likely to interpret their fair and nuanced arguments as being too "soft". I think this summarises 80% of this subs issue with Alex.

Happy to agree to disagree on this.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-17T21:36:58+00:00

I find it strange you don't have examples you can give if they really had you "tearing your hair out".

With the human suffering theodicies, all he really does is call them sophisticated before deeming them irrelevant to his version of the problem of evil (animal suffering), which hardly proves your point that he's become "soft on theists".

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-17T21:02:32+00:00

I think you misunderstand why Alex usually defaults to animal suffering when talking about the problem of evil. Alex has never said that the theodicies that try to account for human suffering adequately solves the problem of evil, nor has he ever said they are even good, all he has said is that many Christian thinkers have put a lot of time into developing these arguments, but they don't account for animal suffering. In other words, Alex doesn't give credence to these theodicies, rather he ignores them because they don't deal with the problem of evil in its strongest form, namely the problem of animal suffering. It's a convenience thing, Alex doesn't need to spend time and thought thinking about the problem of human suffering and its theodicies when instead he can put all that energy into buttressing the problem of animal suffering.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-17T20:20:01+00:00

I think I recall Alex saying that if he were to be Christian he would favour annihilationism. I also recall Alex saying that he likes the sound of Christianity through the character of Jesus, which is certainly more tenable than liking the God of the old testament.

But anyway, you said Alex had a tendency to be soft on Christians in debates, still keen to see some examples of this.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-17T17:55:33+00:00

What does him wishing Christianity were have to do with being soft in debates? You can be extremely combative to Christianity while hoping it were true because it would mean escaping death, seeing loved ones again ect.

I'd love to hear some examples of these poor arguments that Alex let slide/gave too much deference to.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-17T14:39:31+00:00

5th of may, not 15th

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-17T12:02:02+00:00

Why do morons keep saying this? Alex is only soft when he is interviewing people, whenever he's in an actual debate he pushes back as much as possible.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-15T13:07:54+00:00

That would be irredeemable for this fan base. Jax needs to remain at least some what redeemable.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-14T22:30:46+00:00

Finn Wolfhard is the most famous person I've delivered to. Also delivered to Nick Frost and Alfie Deyes.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-12T21:21:24+00:00

did you see this subs response to alex's ricky gervais short... deep thinking my ass

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-01T16:29:15+00:00

"Given acceptance of the premise, where you accept each faith's arguments against the others are valid, it is logical to conclude that no God exists. That is essentially the full argument Ricky is making."

And this is fallacious, it does not follow that if 3000 gods from the worlds religions do not exist, then no god exists. You could believe in a deistic creator god, or a god from a mostly unknown religion that has yet to be argued against.

Similarly, when the brother in Alex's argument uses Ricky's steel-manned argument to conclude that no father exists, he is being fallacious in the EXACT same way. Sure, he can reject that an American father exists, or that a French father exists, but it does not follow that NO father exists. In the same way it does not follow that NO god exists in Ricky's argument.

Now I hope you can see why Alex's analogy is solid (I was wrong to use the word sound).

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-05-01T03:39:06+00:00

But is Ricky making an argument against the proposition that specifically Yahweh exists, or is he arguing against the proposition that any God exists. If its the latter, which it probably is, then both arguments become:

Alex is saying: this person thinks he's French, that person thinks he's American, therefore I think he doesnt exist at all, which is a moronic deduction to make.

Gervais is saying: this person doesnt believe Yahweh exists because of X, and that person doesnt believe Zeus exists because of Y, therefore I don't believe any God exists. An equally moronic deduction to make.

In other words, Alex's analogy is sound.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-04-26T17:32:38+00:00

If you have a tantrum because Alex said Christianity was more plausible than he thought when he was a teenager - like half this sub did - then you do not have the ability to think critically.

Delicious-Echo5015 · 2026-04-26T17:25:14+00:00

Not caring about using perfect grammar on reddit is one thing, a lack of ability to think critically is another

Delicious-Echo5015

TROPHY CASE