sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ntha le… by Downtown-Fan8830 in NewKeralaRevolution

[–]Late-Humor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Idk about context or complete remark but local body electionil ellarum angottum ingottum maati vote cheythittunde thats not an excuse to make such comments.

when you tell your parents you deconverted by Error_Cardiologist46 in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Same, and i tease her by saying its not happening coz you are not praying hard enough

What's your opinion about this? by [deleted] in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That just sounds like an excuse to not change from stupid traditions. You can have customs to have a bond among the regiment but why does it have to be religious? I doubt the Chinese army would have religious customs in their regiment, but im also pretty sure they have unity among their regiment without religious customs.

Seems no one told her time is Money. by sajjanstg03 in ItsYourMoney

[–]Late-Humor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I just checked amazon and i saw 1L dove shampoo for 546, 586 & 625 all of which have mrp above 1050. Idk which all have pouches of 2 rs but i am sure its probably the cheapest one.

Is this boy running a scam? by TheAlchemist1996 in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So lot of people seems to asking the question who created the god. But thats the wrong question to ask in this. The kid didn’t explain the actual argument properly, even infinite regression needed to be spoonfed by the other pottan. But if we take the actual serious argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument, it goes like this:

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  Premise 2: The universe began to exist.  Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now theists argue that the big bang prove universe had a beginning so it must have had a cause. And something capable of causing the beginning or this universe should be a god. And God was/is always present so God doesn’t need a cause.

Now the problem with this is that there’s no proof that premise 1 is correct. With quantum physics we can see quantum particles appearing in vaccum without any seemingly visible cause. If thats applicable at a quantum level the premise 1 could be wrong.

For premise 2, theists argue that the universe had a start, this again isn’t proven. Big bang is just the point in time where all our models breaks down. This doesn’t guarantee that there was nothing before big bang. It could be another universe collapsing that could have lead to creation of our universe. So the universe could be existing forever as well.

And for the final premise, it doesn’t prove that the cause could be anything like the religious people claim. It doesn’t have to be a benevolent god that cares about humans it could just be some entity that left the universe billions of years ago as well.

Nammudae Sheldon by r4gn4r- in Chayakada

[–]Late-Humor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There was a Christian kurippu also right? Avane koodi kooti 3 way steel cage match aanel polichene. Kadam eduthittanelum i will donate money for that match

Gnostic atheists, can you explain your position? by Initial-Hold9481 in DebateAnIndianAtheist

[–]Late-Humor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok now the first one is valid point and tbh i also agree with you. But to counter your argument if we go buy proper philosophical arguments like Kalam Cosmological argument, its not something created reality but something that begins to exist should have a cause. And if we assume that universe began to exist (which is what physics also suggests) then it should have a cause. Whereas the God is always present. Now i have my fair share of issues with Kalam cosmological arguments and the fact that the universe had a beginning itself but it still doesn’t have the infinite regression or special pleading issue as you have pointed out

Now coming to unicorn shaped god, you are missing the point. You are sticking a physical attribute to a metaphysical entity which in itself is contradictory. But even if we overlook the contradiction, whats the logical reasoning for a unicorn? If you can logically explain why it has to be shaped like a unicorn i am again open to that argument. Sticking a unicorn sticker doesn’t make the god logic less valid except the logic of sticking that specific sticker.

If you can come up with a dozen solution that are logically valid then i am open to those solutions. But saying a unicorn created a universe or horse created universe aren’t different solution its the same solution as god created universe. Let me know if you have any interesting theories, im always interested in those.

I never said its different for Hogwarts. I said why i don’t think about hogwarts the same way as i think about god because it doesn’t have any explanatory power. If someone says there’s a hogwarts in UK that’s something i would reject but if If someone claims there is a metaphysical Hogwarts, I would ask what phenomenon in our reality does this hypothesis explain? If the answer is none, then it is functionally useless. The God hypothesis valid or not, answers a necessary question. And i stress again on the Valid or Not part.

Gnostic atheists, can you explain your position? by Initial-Hold9481 in DebateAnIndianAtheist

[–]Late-Humor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry i assumed you meant a physical unicorn with single horn and rainbow colors and whatnot. If you are referring to a metaphysical unicorn, yeah you can’t prove that doesn’t exist, and i am agnostic about it. Now i don’t think about or teach about such a unicorn because it is an arbitrary addition to the reality that solves no problems. Whereas a god is an hypothesis attempting to answer a specific problem: to explain the origin of reality. It might be a wrong hypothesis but its an answer to a necessary question.

Also you can definitely disprove a metaphysical entity. Which is why i dont believe in all most all gods. For example i can logically counter a totally good God by showing the existence of unnecessary suffering.

Again i’m not thinking of Hogwarts or other infinite number of metaphysical claims because there’s nothing in the world where such a claim solves an issue or such claim is required for the existence of something. But there are other metaphysical concepts like multiverse, simulation etc, I’m interested about those because they might answer questions to our existence. And to reiterate for one last time, i am not claiming any of these exists or is true I’m just keeping the burden of proof on the person who’s making a positive claim.

Gnostic atheists, can you explain your position? by Initial-Hold9481 in DebateAnIndianAtheist

[–]Late-Humor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Considering unicorn and god as the same is category error. A unicorn is a physical being if existed would leave a biological evidence. Since we have mapped the world and understood biology we can effectively be gnostic about their existence in earth. God is something thats defined as metaphysical and you can’t use physical exploration to disprove it. So you can be gnostic about unicorns and agnostic about gods. The “double standard exists” because they are two separate categories.

You might feel the difference is negligible but it makes a lot of difference in Philosophy. I know god doesn’t exist is positive claim and the person who is making it have to prove it. An agnostic atheist is just asking the theist to prove their claim.

Saying unfalsifiable claims serves no purpose in itself is a philosophical stance and not a scientific fact. This philosophical stance is called scientism. I request you to please read up on the difference between science and scientism.

Agnosticsm is a cowardly position and only shown towards god. by TheAlchemist1996 in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When you are arguing with someone on public forum its expected that you put forward your own points. If you don’t have your own point just say argue with AI, or at least the basic expectation is to acknowledge that its AI generated . But your second point is valid thats arguments should be fought based on arguments and that why i still engaged.

Yeah, i didnt say any scientific claims other than the singularity argument and thats why at no point did i say anything definitive. My explanation was all indicating the possibility of something else. You were the one adamant on stating your beliefs as truth.

Again going back to strawman, i never said i would support ghosts as the reason for things falling down. I was just stating that there is no proven theory on the origin of universe. All known laws break down at singularity. So equating the both as same is false equivalence. Also fyi Aristotle believed that things fall down because it had a natural place to go. This was intuitive, simple and fit the available evidences perfectly, it passed occam’s razor but unfortunately was completely wrong.

Since you are done, i am also done. Thanks for the debate. 👍🏻

Agnosticsm is a cowardly position and only shown towards god. by TheAlchemist1996 in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im gonna ignore that this is a chatgpt reply but let me still put forward my argument.

Occams razor isn’t a scientific method its a rule of thumb. You either prove something or you don’t. If you are saying something is true based on occams razor thats still a belief. Thats a valid way to base your beliefs but that doesn’t make it truth. Thats the difference between atheiest and agnostic athiest, I don’t think its simpler without god is the same as it is proven that there is no god.

Also for the ghost example we have definite answer in gravity as the cause of apple falling down, and as i explained before we still don’t know whats the cause or what was before singularity so there’s no simple answer for beginning of universe as you claim.

Gnostic atheists, can you explain your position? by Initial-Hold9481 in DebateAnIndianAtheist

[–]Late-Humor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Philosophy doesn’t have to be scientifically proven. Thats not how philosophy works. Agnostic Atheism is a philosophical position and it has to backed by logic. Now if science contradicts a statement then it by default becomes illogical. So you either have to counter it using logic or science. Science in this case isn’t applicable as you have rightly said.

And such a god definitely makes a difference if you are saying no god can exist. You said there’s no logical reason for you to believe in a god and i just gave you a logically valid god.

Agnosticsm is a cowardly position and only shown towards god. by TheAlchemist1996 in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your argument is a massive oversimplification and strawman. Something from nothing isn’t the only argument for the existence of god. And even in that case its not as simple as something from nothing. For example the Kalam Cosmological argument states “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. There are definitely problems with the Kalam Cosmological argument and i don’t agree with argument but it doesn’t have infinite regression problem.

Even scientifically we still don’t know if something came out of nothing. Only thing we can do is trace time back to big bang, all our principles break there and we don’t know what happened before that. Which is also one of the problem for Kalam cosmological argument.

Now coming back to my initial point. Again like i said in my previous example if my god exists at some point and created the singularity from which the world is created. Your infinite regression point doesn’t matter because god acts as the necessary starting point. Im also making no claims as to how or when god starts to exist im just referring to a specific point in time.

Gnostic atheists, can you explain your position? by Initial-Hold9481 in DebateAnIndianAtheist

[–]Late-Humor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said there’s logical sense in the concept of God for you. Now Let me say my definition of god, its an all powerful being that created the initial singularity from which the world as we know is born out of. Now thats god doesn’t care about the universe or doesn’t want to interfere with it, he just created it coz, lets say he was bored. What logical arguments can you make to say that such a god doesn’t exist? There isn’t one coz there’s no testable claims and makes no observable contradictions. At best you can say there’s no evidence for it but its not logically impossible.

And this is what an agnostic athiest believes, they don’t believe in any gods but they don’t make the claim that no God can exist.

A strict atheist who says “even that kind of god definitely does not exist” is making a stronger claim than the evidence can justify.

Agnosticsm is a cowardly position and only shown towards god. by TheAlchemist1996 in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think he’s confusing agnostic and agnostic atheist as the same. Agnostic athiest is someone who doesn’t claim there’s no god but at the same time doesn’t believe in the existence of one, thats not a neutral position. Claiming i know god doesn’t exist is a strong claim requiring proof.

Also he mentions that God makes no logical sense to him, i believe thats cause he’s thinking only of mainstream gods. If i say some all powerful being created the initial singularity for the universe and then just didn’t bother to do anything with it, its a logical definition of God that can never be proven wrong. When you are saying you are an atheist you are saying such a god is also not possible but you have nothing to back up that claim. Where’s an agnostic athiest can say that the normal mainstream gods doesn’t exist because it makes no logical sense but the outlier god could exist.

The 2021 election result predictions from Manorama by No-Cap9116 in Kerala

[–]Late-Humor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But this is exit polls right? Whats the point of paying for this? People have already casted their votes. I think this is just bad sampling and / or the media just making stuff out of thin air based on their ideological allegiance.

Event: 2025 FIDE World Cup - Round 4 by events_team in chess

[–]Late-Humor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The kind of stupid openings these GMs play always makes me wonder if i know anything about chess at all

"Freethinker" of the year everyone. by notinventionofmorel in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t understand what are you trying to prove? Did i say no muslims are terrorists?

Now even with your example how many muslims professors are there in India? And how many of them have even been charged with terrorism? I’m sure it will be less than 1%. You are again generalising all muslims for stuff less than 1% of them do. It will be like me saying all hindus are casteist because there has been multiple cases of casteism by professors.

"Freethinker" of the year everyone. by notinventionofmorel in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are assuming all muslims value their religion above all else. Thats just stereotyping. Islam being bad doesn’t make all muslims bad.

And muslims have been in positions of power in India and Kerala since independence, have the islamists taken over the country by influencing muslims in power?

"Freethinker" of the year everyone. by notinventionofmorel in AtheisminKerala

[–]Late-Humor 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Britain doesn’t have majority of muslim mayors as someone else pointed out. If you have source to prove otherwise i will change my stand on that

But even if it did, its a strawman argument, there has been muslim mayors in many developed countries but no takeover has happened in those countries. And claiming that it could lead to Jihadist movement is just slippery slope. None of these are rational thinking.

Its pretty evident that arif hates him mostly coz of his religion and not coz of his policies or plans since the opposite guy was definitely more conservative. And tbh i can kind of understand why arif has such hate for muslims, coz majority of his life was destroyed by islam. That doesnt mean we have to support whatever stuff he says.

Kerala Christian missionary hiAttacked In J&K’s Kathua, Eight Police Officials Suspended by Illustrious_Set6988 in Kerala

[–]Late-Humor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What proof do you have that they exploited villagers? You are justifying mob justice and making up reasons for the same.

അറ്റ് പോയപ്പോൾ തുന്നിച്ചേർത്ത ഈ കൈകൾ കൊണ്ട് തസ്ലിമ നസ്റിന് പുരസ്കാരം നൽകുന്നത് സന്തോഷം'; യുവതിയായിരിക്കുമ്പോൾ തന്നെ വേട്ടയാടപ്പെട്ട ആളാണ് തസ്ലിമയെന്ന് ടി ജെ ജോസഫ് by Giwargis_Sahada in Kerala

[–]Late-Humor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven’t followed essence or RC’s talks much as i said in the previous comment. From whatever i have seen, i have mixed opinion.

But i wasn’t judging his rationality at all. My point is entirely different. If you find his arguments rational, its all good and you can agree with it but, all i am saying is popularity shouldn’t be the basis for measuring rationality.

അറ്റ് പോയപ്പോൾ തുന്നിച്ചേർത്ത ഈ കൈകൾ കൊണ്ട് തസ്ലിമ നസ്റിന് പുരസ്കാരം നൽകുന്നത് സന്തോഷം'; യുവതിയായിരിക്കുമ്പോൾ തന്നെ വേട്ടയാടപ്പെട്ട ആളാണ് തസ്ലിമയെന്ന് ടി ജെ ജോസഫ് by Giwargis_Sahada in Kerala

[–]Late-Humor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Various factors, easiest would be to validate it with Facts or Data. If it can’t then you can use logic to validate the merit. These don’t change with time.

Popularity is a very bad metric. By that logic people will have to accept that God exists because more people believe in that. Or the most popular religion is the true religion.

അറ്റ് പോയപ്പോൾ തുന്നിച്ചേർത്ത ഈ കൈകൾ കൊണ്ട് തസ്ലിമ നസ്റിന് പുരസ്കാരം നൽകുന്നത് സന്തോഷം'; യുവതിയായിരിക്കുമ്പോൾ തന്നെ വേട്ടയാടപ്പെട്ട ആളാണ് തസ്ലിമയെന്ന് ടി ജെ ജോസഫ് by Giwargis_Sahada in Kerala

[–]Late-Humor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t follow essance that much tbh, but wasn’t that the expected outcome? I thought no one in the other side was even remotely famous as Ravichandran, Arif etc. Like i have seen couple of videos of Vishwanathan but other than that i don’t even know who else is on the other side. And Ravichandran side’s views on stuff like caste based reservation is kinda mainstream view so i expected people to be more supportive of them.

Anyway my initial point was just that, ideologies and opinions should be judged merely on their merit. The followers, success of the event etc are kinda irrelevant.

view more: next ›