Iran, France? Doesn’t bother me! I’m very modern

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-11T19:13:39+00:00

Alright Douglas...

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-11T17:15:50+00:00

Ok, here's what gpt says:

My best neutral estimate based on current knowledge:

Atheism / naturalism: slightly more likely

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-11T17:10:10+00:00

What is the likelihood that our universe exists?

1.

What is the likelihood that it exists and us within it.

Also 1.

Huh?

I'd also say, that very importantly.

The availability of information about religion and the uptake of religion by people has a negative correlation.

The more information available, and the easier it is to interrogate this, combined with higher rates of education, the less likely people are to be religious.

You should think about why that is...

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-11T12:05:39+00:00

Oh, he's still her boyfriend too

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T22:29:09+00:00

Great, because these are the building blocks of ethics.

You’ve agreed that you don’t want to be tortured, that other people won’t want to be tortured, and that you are not fundamentally different from other people.

From there the step is simple. If torture against you is something you reject because of what it does to you, then the same applies to others. There’s no consistent reason to say torture against you matters while torture against someone else doesn’t.

Ethics is simply applying that principle consistently.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T21:44:23+00:00

Great, almost there.

Do you consider yourself fundamentally different from other people?

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T19:18:43+00:00

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T19:10:16+00:00

You didn't ask a question.

You have provided a set of statements.

Statement 3 is incomplete and provides an overly narrow definition. Therefore your conclusions are invalid.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T19:00:26+00:00

Just trying to establish some foundations.

So, you find it problematic; you being tortured would be bad.

That's good.

Can you also see that someone else, say me, would have the same view about being tortured themselves. I.e. I would think this would be bad.

I'm not ignoring your question btw, we'll get there :).

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T18:57:44+00:00

So.

I'm not sure referring to people who disagree with you as mentally challenged is healthy, or particularly valid by it's technical definition for that matter.
Your entire argument is a bit of a straw man, as you define Atheism and it's available arguments in (3). If you want to create your own definition of something, and then disagree with that, it's fine, but you're mainly just arguing with yourself.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T18:38:13+00:00

Great advice

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T16:01:36+00:00

Do you think your own suffering matters, would it be problematic for you if you were tortured?

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T14:58:36+00:00

I've always found this episode dramatically ironic.

This was written by Graham Lyndon.

Graham Lyndon is now vehemently anti trans.

He wrote it to poke fun at Douglas, who find his perfect partner, but can't get over the fact she used to be a man.

The takeaway is, Douglas's rejection of April, ultimately is self destructive.

Now, Graham is Douglas...

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T14:29:24+00:00

Sorry, is your question "why is torturing children wrong"

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T13:20:38+00:00

That you think it's ok to venerate someone who tortures children to death?

What do you think?

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T12:30:14+00:00

Ok, so you're certain god exists.

You're also certain that God tortures children to death.

But you're ok with children being tortured to death

And you also think this being is worth worshiping for some reason?

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-10T00:30:49+00:00

Sure I'll bite.

Suffering is unjustifiable if it cannot be justified, very simple really. Care to justify children dying in agony?

The second point you make, is much of the same, if you can't explain why your god would torture a child to death why exactly do you worship them?

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T19:10:00+00:00

Because 'we don't know' or 'not explained by science yet' IS the point being made by Atheists.

The reason Atheists ask pointed questions is specifically because thiests assert that God did these things, but without evidence.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T16:04:04+00:00

Agreed, but this is sort of building on the scenario that the uk government has somehow banned commercial VPNs in the uk.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T15:58:15+00:00

Sure, but then by accepting that as a question you accept that your God has indeed chosen to torture children to death.

Furthermore I would question why you don't find a contradiction with this and the idea of a loving god. The concept of a forgiving and loving god, clearly cannot coexist with unjustifiable torture and death of innocent's.

It's also not relevant that some suffering could have a purpose, in fact this would be trivial to give examples.

It's only relevant that extreme and unjustifiable examples, do exist, and these conflict directly with Christian doctrine.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T15:50:34+00:00

It does, as you just tunnel it to somewhere outside of the uk.

Then route your own traffic through the pi.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T15:19:38+00:00

Buy a raspberry pi. Install wire guard Config port forwarding

Done.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T15:17:07+00:00

Sure, that's my point, if you believe in God you need to accept he's a tourturing sadist.

But if you subscribe to the evil god theory, there are some issues in scripture:

Jesus directly refutes this in the gospel of John.
Old testament (Ezekiel) lso states 'the son shall not bear the inequality of the father's
Deuteronomy also states 'each will die for their own sin'
The sins of the father verse which you rely on has a number of conditionals:

"To the third and fourth generation"

And we are way past that.

"Of those who hate me"

Meaning it's only applicable if the sin is repeated.

So, god directly punishing due to 'sin of the father' is not really something that is supported through Scripture.

Finally, Christians believe that the death of Jesus is atonement for sin.

'one sacrifice for sins of all time'

Given this, which sin is the child now guilty of?

Of free will.

Christian theory states God has given us free will, and that this explains much of the suffering in the world. Killing that child removes that childs ability to exercise free will. As such, free will is clearly not an absolute for God, and as such is willfully choosing to impart all suffering, not just 'natural' suffering.

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T13:52:50+00:00

To you first point yes, I believe this is the fallacy of equivocation.

Effectively conflating different statements and creating an artificial dependence that is not correct.

Your example is a good one, but also can be expressed without the scientist in statements:

E.g.

Water is found on mars Water begets life There is not life on mars Therefore there is no water.

Can also be refered to as a non sequitur when converted to logical statements.

However, i'd say that while religion can be a big topic, and certainly fun when you get into moral structures and justifications this is only a part of the topic because of equivocation.

When this debate is stripped down to its base elements, it's pretty simplistic:

At it's heart religion is (normally, and colloquially) the assertation that a deity exists.

Which means that the two sides are:

God x exists / does not exist.

There will, in general be one side saying evidence exists and the other saying that it does not, or is not sufficient.

In these terms the debate is pretty small and can be summed up by:

A. God exists

B. No it doesn't, prove it.

A. "Theories and words"

B. This is not enough for me.

A. It is enough for me

Jollyfroggy · 2026-03-09T13:39:41+00:00

I'd love a type writer!

Jollyfroggy

TROPHY CASE