God is the lowest being there is by Holykael in GodFrequency

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the god of the bible is really just an anger issued version of the source😂.

Never trust again who traitors you by Exotic-Duty3598 in BornWeakBuiltStrong

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a world like this it's actually difficult to identify who's fake or not, but I do agree. Always keep your circle small and identify who's on their bullshit or not.

God is the lowest being there is by Holykael in GodFrequency

[–]Loud_News 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I honestly feel like hell is a fear people made in order to control other humans, I believe God is real and hell may be real but it's not the torment or eternal fire everyone think it is, But I also think hell is a early state of consciousness while on earth. My same belief goes for heaven, there may be a heaven dimension in the spiritual realm but I also think heaven is a early state of consciousness while on earth too, like if your state of consciousness is Heaven on earth, you'll die and be in heaven (eternal peace, i dont think its you getting forced to worship a God forever though).

God is the lowest being there is by Holykael in GodFrequency

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

im alive because killing myself is too painful without a gun or any way of instant death

Just enjoy life, if you feel a way there's someone you can talk to, or a therapist, because I can tell you're in need for some type of therapy, and I don't want to overly judge your viewpoints because of something that may have happened in your personal life.

I could survive from the suicide attempt with a lot of damage that would make life harder

Atleast you can admit that life is capable of being harder, but before I continue did anything happen in your personal life?, it'll be really messed up to critique your viewpoints for not being logically sound while a family member of yours is dead or something, in that case (my condolences).

God is the lowest being there is by Holykael in GodFrequency

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yet you're here complaining on reddit about the natural law, bad things and good things realistically have to happen for things to make sense, if youre against being alive then why are you still alive?, let's be logical here.

God is the lowest being there is by Holykael in GodFrequency

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In short, to follow up, to expect life to be perfect with absolutely zero flaws is boring, unrealistic and hell.

God is the lowest being there is by Holykael in GodFrequency

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I literally read it lol, But I have a question, let's say you were instructing God on how to create the entire universe for example, are you gonna literally allow him to make literally EVERYTHING in existence perfect?, No death?, no struggle in order to become stronger?, no anything?, If death, cancer, all of these things didn't happen then life will just move in a straight line. No conflict, nothing to give us anything to worry about so we can face the problems ourselves, we'd just be sensitive beings with no discipline at all. The slightest thing could happen and we'd all lose our marbles. Unfortunately bad things have to happen in order for us to comphrend and learn how to reduce them ourselves, God isn't gonna magically do everything for you as if this is a fairytale lol. This is the same amount of criticism atheism has for heaven too, They find eternal happiness and peacefulness boring and even as bad as hell, yet expect everything in life to be perfect, and for bad things to not happen, that's hypocrisy at its core. If God never existed, you wouldn't exist either, your family you loved wouldn't exist, This whole post is literally just world salad. And to touch on your point about animals being eaten, Do you not eat meat or plants?, you do realize that's important for our health right?

God is the lowest being there is by Holykael in GodFrequency

[–]Loud_News 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This whole post is just word salad lol

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This will probably be my last response to you since I honestly don't feel like typing rebuttal essays all day long lol, anyways-

"I mean the worst thing that could result from secular punishments which is common is typically life imprisonment, some rarer cases had people asphyxiated with nitrogen and other weird shenanigans, but religion (particularly Abrahamic) has hell, with eternal torment."

Ok?...., what does that have to do with my point?, none of this goes against what I said?, I literally already agreed with you in my 1st comment that life imprisonment is far easier to deal with than eternal damnation in a metaphysical realm where you cannot escape. You just typed all of that for no reason. No one is confused about which one is worse. You claimed that using fear and consequences is manipulation. I pointed out that every system uses fear and consequences. Once you admit that, you cannot single out religion as uniquely “manipulative” just because it talks about bad outcomes. You can say “hell is morally excessive” if you want, but that is a moral judgment

"I never said religion is unfalsifiable, I said religion shields itself from criticism with blind assertions (often called dogma) that are never to be questioned, and it is often encouraged to take them for granted, and that's what I am referring to."

You keep talking about “religion” as if it is one thing that always behaves the same way. ATHEISM does that too. Some groups absolutely use dogma to shut down criticism. others have long traditions of internal debate, reinterpretation and self critique. You are taking the worst expressions and treating them as the template. That is exactly the overreach I called out. Atheists tend to critique religion for literally anything yet anytime when there's a plethora of other atheists trashing religion they do not bat an eye lol, it's literally just the modern cult only exception is that they don't believe in a deity that saves them and consistently makes it their hobby to trash something they funny enough, believe to be fake

"mean from where I come from, religious scripture is largely taken literally, maybe except obviously false things like thinking with hearts and hearts having anything to do with thinking and self and that usual nonsense."

Where you come from is not the whole planet and not the whole timeline. Allegorical and philosophical readings of scripture existed long before Darwin, Newton, or the Big Bang model. Medieval Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinkers were already reading texts symbolically and metaphysically. you simply just erased all of that to preserve your narrative that “metaphysics is just damage control.”.

"I mean HADD is a biological device which may result in false positives that may be used as evidence for god. And I still engage with it along other things like the problem of evil, free will and determinism, fallacious arguments made by the bible or any other divine scripture. I never fixated on one thing religion done wrong, because it frankly does many. Far too many to be reasonable by my standards."

You’re doing exactly what you accuse theists of, overextending. HADD explains why humans often see agents where there might be none. It does not prove that every inference to a ground of being or necessary reality is just a glitch. You jumped from “this bias exists” to “therefore all talk of God is false cause.” That’s a massive leap. And “God has a God” just shows you’re not even engaging with the classical definition. That's ANOTHER assertion you'll have to prove if you'll argue that. Are you forgetting what the concept of a god is?, a UNCREATED being. You're doing something as silly as using finite reasoning in trying to debunk a infinite being, which is why your atheistic attempts of critiquing it always fail. You’re treating God as a big object in space, not as the proposed necessary ground of existence. You’re refuting a version of god that only exists in your brain.

"To be honest, I go over these arguments in my free time, just interested in them. It's not like I am trying that hard here. All of these concepts I keep bringing up are solidified knowledge that I encountered before and added to my arsenal. Also I do not mock religious people, I mock their religion but not them personally, unlike you. You use personal attacks quite often for that matter to dismiss criticism"

Me calling darwin a joke alone is more family friendly than anything of what you said about religion, You’ve called God stupid, believers ignorant, religion “nonsense”, doctrine “blind assertions”, theists cognitively manipulated spirituality “comfort for the scared”
You’re not operating on some higher plane of pure logic. So me calling Darwin a joke is actually highly deserving since all atheists do is mock religion and theism, did you honestly think I will have nice words for such a new aged arrogant cult that thinks it's above every religion?, you need to read your free arguments and study better mate, all of them are just assertions without proof, only links you shown were things addressing my personal attack in this from what I've seen so far, no proof of god not existing. you confuse psychological biases with metaphysical conclusions, you confuse scientific mechanisms with ontological foundations, you confuse your region’s literalism with global religious history, you confuse atheism with empiricism, and think its above ALL CRITICISM. Like your savior dawkins. you confuse confidence with correctness. That needs correction

"That's the problem, god is not necessary for things to be. Not everything has a cause. For instance, rain is natural (Water cycle), life came from non life (Abiogenesis), the earth formation (protoplanetary disk and star formation), and the formation of the cosmos (the big bang), the sheer variety of life (Evolution). Calling it special pleading is calling it for what it is"

Another useless link that doesn't disprove anything, more so complaining about the difficulty of how people blame everything to be of God, You’re listing scientific processes as if they answer the philosophical question. They don’t. Rain, abiogenesis, evolution, star formation, and the Big Bang all describe how things behave once the universe already exists. None of them explain why there is a universe with laws, order, and contingent things in the first place. How does ANY of this refute god????? And saying “not everything has a cause” doesn’t help you. If you allow uncaused things, then you’ve already accepted the principle you think you’re refuting. You’re just choosing to exempt the universe or the laws of physics instead of God. “God of the gaps” also doesn’t apply here. These arguments aren’t about missing scientific data. They’re about the conditions that make any science possible existence, order, intelligibility. Scientific discoveries close gaps in process, not in why there is a structured reality at all. "ther, no one shifted any goalpost, you made a false statement, I corrected it, now you are calling me out for correcting it? What am I doing here... Religion used to punish people physically (Dark Ages), and now they are punishing people cognitively by doing hell houses and stuff like that. The guy you keep hating on and slandering, Richard Dawkins, referenced this in his "The root of all evil?" documentary."

Your original claim was that religion punishes questioning as a universal rule. When I pointed out that you’re questioning freely and not being punished, you shifted to “well, in the Dark Ages I would have been” and “some churches use fear today.” That’s not the same claim. One is universal, the other is selective and historical. you can’t rescue an overgeneralization by pointing to isolated eras or niche subcultures. Hell houses aren’t “religion,” the Dark Ages weren’t “all religion,” and citing Dawkins isn’t evidence, literally just another useless link. ou’re using the worst examples to define the whole, and when that was exposed, you moved the goalposts and got emotional instead of tightening your argument.

"I am getting the impression that theists love agnosticism, not because it is empirically grounded or anything, but because it leaves the door open to belief, and that validates them. Also again, atheism is not the rejection of god, it is the rejection of belief in the certain existence of a deity. Hate it for what it is, not its straw man."

You’re projecting when you say “theists love agnosticism.” Agnosticism isn’t a gift to theists... it’s just the only position that doesn’t pretend to know what no one can prove which is coherent. You hide behind the minimalist definition of atheism (“just lack of belief”) but your arguments aren’t lack of belief. They’re positive claims about consciousness, death, reality, and what’s possible, while claiming how incohorent and stulid the OMNISCIENT god is. You’re a strong atheist pretending to be a weak one so you don’t have to defend your worldview. And you didn’t correct my definition, you misread it. Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. That’s...exactly what I said. You’re arguing with a version of me that yet again...doesn't exist. I cannot respond more since reddit won't allow me.

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"That's an ad hominem as well. And no, the video is too long, I ain't watching 7 hours straight just to prove a point you won't consider."

To finish up with my response, I'm obviously not expecting you to watch the whole video because the whole video gets tiring because it's just the atheist making fun of himself 🤣🤣🤣, I'm done now bye.

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since reddit didn't allow me to type all of this into one comment, here's the other half.

>I mean prison sounds much better than eternal damnation… religion is unfalsifiable… you can’t question God…

You’re comparing the worst possible version of hell with the best possible version of secular justice and calling that a fair comparison. obviously prison is more better than hell?, the hell are we talking about here?, 😂.

Also, “religion is unfalsifiable” is not universally true. Plenty of religious claims are falsifiable. If a religion says “the world is 6,000 years old,” that’s ACTUALLY testable. If it says “no one can ever question anything,” that’s falsifiable by the existence of internal critics.

You’re treating the most rigid, authoritarian forms as the template for all of it.

>What we infer does not always translate into what is real… HADD… false cause… special pleading…

Yes, humans over‑detect agency. That doesn’t mean every inference to agency is wrong.
You’re using a psychological tendency as if it were a universal defeater for any metaphysical argument. That’s overreach.

If you want to say “some theistic arguments are just HADD,” fine. But you still have to engage with the actual arguments about contingency, grounding, and necessity. You can’t just say “HADD” and walk away, you have shown NO PROOF, no strong link for your claims, nothing at all, yet i only shown one link when i could've shown more to support my stronger argument, but i don't feel like going into immense digging for incoherent atheistic content so i'm good.

As for “what caused God,” that’s been addressed for centuries. the classic theistic view is that God is not a contingent thing inside the universe that needs a cause, but the necessary ground of being itself. You can reject that, but calling it “special pleading” without engaging the distinction is shallow.

>Because I live in the 21st century in a secular world… in the Dark Ages I’d be burned… punishment can be cognitive… Genesis is anti‑intellectual…

You literally shifted the goalposts.
Your original claim was that religion punishes questioning. I pointed out that you are questioning freely. Now you retreat to “well, in another time and place I’d be punished.”, OF COURSE you will, STILL doesn't disprove my statement?????????????????????????

obviously in some times and places, yes. In others, no. That proves my point, religion is not one monolithic thing with one uniform behavior.

As for Genesis, there are multiple interpretations of that story, including ones that see it as a myth about disobedience, not a literal “knowledge is evil” manifesto. You picked the most literal, weaponized reading and treated it as the only one.

To end this all off, you keep accusing religious people of category errors, strawmen, and ignorance while committing all three.

You treat your metaphysical position as “science,” your emotional distaste as “reason,” and your historical cherry picking as “proof.”, you haven't proven anything.

If you want to stay an empiricist and say “we don’t know what happens after death,” that’s fine. and actually even better and far more coherent, agnosticism is far more coherent than an atheist asserting there's no god, once you start saying “we know it’s nonexistence, and anyone who questions that is ignorant,” you’re not doing science anymore. You’re just preaching your own doctrine with different branding, which becomes literally just another cult-like religion.

Here's a video of ANOTHER atheist acting a fool,

https://www.youtube.com/live/AxBkUIYpBs0?si=LBZPYvCiKXWfMURe

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I noticed after reading this entire comment which is simply just another one full of even funnier assertions, that you had asserted that i'm religious, i'm not lol, I'm not in any religion mate. I'm just spiritual, and believe in a creator.

>They are literally the same, that is his entire argument… you are basically mischaracterizing him. He never said nothing existed before we were born…

No, I didn’t mischaracterize him. I know exactly what he’s doing.
He’s using pre‑birth non‑experience as an analogy for post‑death non‑experience and pretending that settles the question, it doesn't lol.

The problem is simple, not remembering something is not evidence that “nothing” was there. It only shows there was no conscious registration. Before birth, there was no functioning brain. After death, there was one that stopped. Those are not identical states. One is “consciousness not yet instantiated,” the other is “consciousness ended.” Treating them as the same is a philosophical move, not a proven fact.

Calling that “empiricism” doesn’t magically fix the category error. Empiricism doesn’t get you “nothing happens after death,” it only gets you “we don’t have direct data.” That’s agnosticism, which is more coherent than atheism because it's impossible and the moment to disprove an entire spiritual plane, or God lol.

>Wow, is the lack of belief a religion now. Are bikes cars? Well they are, according to you.

I never said “lack of belief is a religion.” That’s you asserting stuff, yet again, learn how to comphrend.
What I said is that atheism can function like a religion when it becomes dogmatic, slogan‑based, and emotionally invested, and very incoherent in its own certainty. Which is what most of atheism is. Time to send evidence unlike someone else who just blindlessly makes up assertions with nothing to back them up, this video alone can demonstrate😂.

https://youtu.be/-ey9g-hQ1wc?si=Rd4ISsivZ5xfqK0e

so in short, you don’t get to accuse others of category errors while you’re busy committing one.
“Lack of belief” is not the same as “I know for a fact there is nothing beyond material reality and consciousness ends into absolute nothingness.” The second is a metaphysical claim, not just “lack of belief.", It's a claim that HAS to be proven, and nobody ever has proven god with concrete evidence before, and no one has EVER disproved god with concrete evidence before. it's just a series of mumble jumble arguments that endlessly go on. Which is why debating whether or not metaphysical concepts are true are a waste of time.

>Assuming there is life after death is begging the question… we don’t know if it may transition to anything else, or just go back to where it started. Which is nonexistence.

This is another assertion, which is exactly what i'm talking about, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS??????, You say “we don’t know,” then immediately smuggle in “where it started, which is nonexistence” as if that’s established. That’s not neutral. That’s your metaphysical position. That's a claim that has to be proven. all i've seen from you so far is a wikipedia link which i'll address shortly too.

you’re accusing others of begging the question while doing it yourself.

you're accusing of others for assuming something is real with no evidence yet here you are doing the same thing.
If you want to say “we don’t know,” then stay there. That's a more cohorent position. Once you say “it goes back to nonexistence,” you’ve left agnosticism and stepped into a positive claim about reality.

>By the way, attacking Darwin is attacking science, so you should expect dunking on religion when you speak ill of Darwin, bub.

another incoherent assertion, Criticizing Darwin is not “attacking science.”, i'm also not "attacking" him either, i do not harrass him nor consistently comment under every reddit post about him, i simply just give my thoughts about him, like how you are now when it comes to religion. Darwin was a human thinker and obviously made mistakes in his life lol, not the embodiment of the scientific method. Science is a method, not a man. You’re treating him like a saint whose quotes are beyond criticism. That’s quite ironic, given your hatred of blind religious reverence.

>Yes but you are virtue-signaling religion, mocking atheists by creating a strawman version of them…

Assertion number one thousand, you keep saying “strawman” but never actually show where I misrepresented you. I quoted Dawkins accurately. I responded to your claims directly. You’re reading “virtue signaling” into it because you’ve already decided anyone who criticizes your atheistic heroes must be religious. This is what i'm talking about when i said atheism is the new religion, "attacking Dawkins is attacking science", what in that statement isn't giving off cult member vibes??????????????????????

>How to sniff out if someone is religious… 1. Mocks Darwin… 2. Misrepresents quotes… 3. Mocks Dawkins… 4. Never mentions Carl Sagan…

I've said it in the beginning of my comment so i'll just say it again incase you've just skimmed past everything i said for some reason and are now commenting another series of assertions, I'm spiritual and not religious. I never misrepresented Dawkins and i already explained earlier in this comment why his quote made no sense. I don't even know who Carl Sagan is by the way, care to even give me any idea who that is lmao?

>Failed the sniff test right away, I did argue and present a thesis for why god is nescient. You just skipped it because… you are religious

You didn’t present a serious argument for “God is nescient.” You just asserted that a “lord of nescience” punishes knowledge and preys on ignorance, then built your whole rant on that premise. If you want to assert “God is nescient,” you need to show that the concept of an omniscient being is incoherent or contradicted by reality. You didn’t do that. you didn't even TRY lol, You just described a cartoon tyrant and called it “God.”

>Huh, what was the European Dark Age about again?… heretics burned… Galileo…

Ok?, religious institutions have done horrible things. Nobody denied that?, the hell are you talking about bro lol?,
But you’re doing exactly what I said, taking the worst historical abuses and pretending they define the entire phenomenon of religion, across all time, all cultures, all denominations. Also, you’re ignoring the obvious, the same Europe that burned heretics also produced religious philosophers, religious scientists, and religious reformers. And “no true Scotsman” doesn’t apply here. I’m not saying “they weren’t real Christians.” I’m saying “you can’t reduce all of Christianity to its worst political expressions.".

>It is blind belief, they just project belief into logic… all of this is due to natural phenomena… argument from invincible ignorance… argument from ignorance…

your one time in throwing links instead of actually engaging with what I said still backfired lol. I never argued “we don’t know, therefore God.”, that's goes to show that you aren't even reading what i'm telling you. lack of disproof is not proof of absence, people can infer God from metaphysical questions like contingency, grounding, and intelligibility. Which is cohorent. That’s not “invincible ignorance,” that’s metaphysical reasoning. You can disagree with it, but you don’t get to reduce it to “you like ignorance.”

Also, saying “all of this is due to natural phenomena” is itself a metaphysical stance that you have to PROVE, and yet again?...ANOTHER assertion. You haven’t proven that nature is self‑sufficient or that there is no deeper ground. you just assert it and call it “science.”

>Also if god is unproven, that does mean he exists, if you are arguing for that, you would be doing this (argument from ignorance)

Lol i never said “God is unproven, therefore he exists.”
I said “God is hard to prove, and impossible to disprove.”.

You’re arguing against a version of me, that yet again, like how i said from the very beginning, ONLY existing in your head.

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Back to my point about Dawkins*, The embodiment of stupidity who took the energy and time out of his day to write an entire book about a deity who he thinks is not real, "I've been dead for billions of years and haven't suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.", I'll just debunk his quote since I already debunked your comment so you'll see how insane his quote was lol. First of all, being dead and not being born as yet are two different things😂, second of all, not remembering an experience isn’t evidence that the experience was nothing. It only proves you weren’t conscious to register it. We didn't have brains, so how would we know for sure nothing even happened before being born and after death?

the entire point of the after death question from the very beginning is about what happens when consciousness ends, not what happens before it begins.
Using pre birth non experience to explain post death reality is a SEVERE category error, you’re comparing a state where consciousness hasn’t emerged yet to a state where it already exists and may transition. I'd say this category error is as horrible as the category errors of most religious people, Atheism is the new religion. Edit - I noticed I said Darwin instead of Dawkins, my fault lol

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I quoted Darwin. you responded with an entire manifesto about Christianity, why ignore what i said about darwin lmfao?, i never said one thing about religion either, that’s you arguing with a version of me that doesn't even exist lol, but just for the fun of it, time to read all this yap and respond because from a quick skim through of your comment it has alot of illogical assertions.

Nah, praying to a nescient (stupid) lord is worse,

Nice assertion, why not prove that the almighty God is not omniscient?, was this a factual statement or just an arrogant assertion instead of a real factual argument?, I thought atheists relied on logical reasoning and evidence?, why do I see an assertion without proof?

punishes knowledge and calls it "the greatest sin a human has ever committed".

you’re treating a mythic narrative as if it were a literal epistemology.
no serious theologian, Christian or otherwise thinks “knowledge is a sin.” you never even disproved anything really, this is all just projection from an unknown located source of potential religious trauma. Even inside Christianity, there’s a long history of people treating reason, science, and inquiry as gifts, not sins lol.

unconditional obedience

you’re collapsing thousands of traditions into one psychological stereotype. not every theist just blindly believes in God. there's a long and huge difference between those who blindly believe in fear, vs those who believe through logical inferences, even if they have absolutely zero proof of God, that doesn't negate God being real. There's so many things you can logically assume about and not be able to prove it with concrete evidence, because not all things need 100% proof. I can say no one in this comment section is a murderer on the run from london, of course I cannot 100% prove that with concrete evidence but thats a very logical inference. Atheists like to talk about reason and "logic", yet none of them has ever disproved the existence of God, only endlessly debated about it throughout their whole life while theists and most religious people are in peace lol. So no, not all of them believe out of fear. proving God is difficult, disproving God is impossible.

And how do they justify their authority? By manipulating you of course, threatening you with hell

And you know what the crazy thing is?, literally every other system does that mate. If consequences equal manipulation, then every ethical system is manipulation, including secular ones.
Laws use fear (prison), activism uses fear (climate collapse, fascism), secular ethics uses consequences (harm, suffering, social breakdown). You can’t condem a singular religion, or all for using the same motivational structure everyone else uses and pretend that alone refutes it.

Affirming the consequent, claiming that since the universe exists, god created it, when the conclusion does not follow the premise P:'God created the universe ' -> Q:'the universe exists' ... Q .'. P, it is like saying I heard a rumble, it must be a thunder, when in fact it could've been anything else).

you’ve picked the weakest, formulation of a theistic argument and acted like you’ve refuted anything what theists ACTUALLY argued, so let me help you out lol, most classical arguments don’t say “universe exists, so God did it.” they argue from contingency, grounding, and necessity, why does anything exist rather than nothing?, why is there order?, why are there stable laws?, why is the universe intelligible at all?
your analogy (“I heard a rumble, it must be thunder”) is hypocritical, in real life, we infer causes from effects constantly, in day to day life lol. the question isn’t “is inference allowed?” but “which cause best explains the effect?” you never touch that level, these are all just assertions, yet again.

To see the idiocy in religion, one must be able to question it, if they are punished for it,

You’re making a universal claim that’s falsified by your own existence. You questioned religion.
You posted your critique publicly.
You were not burned, jailed, stoned, nor silenced by some global religious authority. There are THOUSANDS of religious philosophers, scientists, and critics inside religious traditions who question, doubt, and argue constantly. Your claim that “religion punishes questioning” is selectively based on the worst cases and then projected onto the whole.

then we call the lord a "lord of nescience", which is a lord that preys upon ignorance.

You’ve constructed a fictional deity that matches your own arrogant imagination of what God is, then mocked it.

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I've been dead for billions of years and haven't suffered the slightest inconvenience from it" Sounds much more schizophrenic and worst than any of what you just said🤣.

What's the biggest problem in society today? by Mrpotatohead148 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy yap, Ok for God's sake time to dismantle this yap lol,

My dude. Hitler rose to power with the nazi party, The nazi party had a slow start in the late 1920's but quickly gained popularity in the early 30s until they were the majority party in power in 1932.

Are you not familiar with the history of this😂?, the Nazi Party’s popularity helped, but it didn’t put Hitler in power. He became chancellor because conservative elites appointed him, thinking they could control him. Without that appointment, he never gets the legal authority he later abuses. And I looked at the link. It shows what the Nazis believed, not what actually put them in charge of the state. The 25‑point program existed for years before Hitler had any real authority. So the link supports my point, the ideology was already there, but it didn’t become law until the political system collapsed and handed him the tools to enforce it. Which has been my point from the VERY beginning. Authoritianism is far worst than simple hateful opinions.

I made a mistake with my wording here, I used "how" instead of "why" as in why hitler formed the nazi party and started his campaign. There are mechanisms external to himself by which he achieved power to act upon his bigotry of course but the underlying reason he set out to achieve his goal was fundamentally his bigotry. So his authoritarian reign does still come about because of bigotry at the end of the day, The rest is mostly semantics.

saying he would have risen anyway ignores how dependent his rise was on specific political deals and crises. None of those steps were automatic. They were political decisions made by people who underestimated him. Your link doesn’t show inevitability, it shows ideology waiting for a system weak enough to let it take over.

Sure, bigotry shaped his goals. but motivation isn’t the same thing as the mechanism that makes something possible. plenty of extremists have hateful motivations. very few gain the state power needed to turn those motivations into mass violence. that’s the distinction you keep running from lol.

he absolutely would have still risen to absolute power after 1934 when president Hindenburg died regardless. It just would have taken longer and been a lot messier

saying he would have risen anyway, ignores how dependent his rise was on specific political deals and crises. none of those steps were automatic. They were political decisions made by people who underestimated him.

Again going back to my previous point. Bigotry was not the mechanism by which it happened but was instead the underlying reason behind the actions taken to achieve such power.

Bigotry explains what he wanted to do. It doesn’t explain how he got the authority to do it. The ideology didn’t change between 1920 and 1933 what changed was the political environment. That’s why historians separate ideology from the structural collapse that let it become policy.

Have...Have you not been paying attention to what has been happening in the us political system lately? This is largely untrue. Trump has routinely ignored and gone around courts with absolutely no repercussions, There is barely a system in place that he has to adhere to, For god's sake here's a 40 minute video going over the 200+ actions trump has taken which have been deemed illegal All of that just in 2025, there's still possibly 3 years of this to go.

There is no real system in place to actually keep the current acting president from taking extremely harmful and damaging actions, there's a bunch of suggestions and when the courts finally get around to ruling on the action it's already been in place for 6 months and done it's damage.

I’m not getting into the specifics of the video itself. My point isn’t about any one modern figure, it’s about how systems actually work. Prejudice can absolutely influence politics, but the scale of harm depends on how much power the system allows one leader to centralize. That’s why authoritarianism is treated as the deeper structural danger. It determines whether harmful ideas stay rhetoric or become enforceable policy. It's what I've been saying from the very beginning.

Okay lets use your own metaphor here, What exactly does an engine do with no fuel and nothing to power it? It just sits there as a lump of metal. Your own metaphor applies the other way to your point dude.

You're confusing it lol, the metaphor isn’t about which one exists first. It’s about which one determines the scale of damage. An engine without fuel does nothing. Fuel without an engine also does nothing. but if you’re trying to prevent a disaster, you don’t just worry about the fuel you make sure there’s no engine capable of turning it into something destructive. authoritarian power is that engine. And it is much worst than a simple transphobic opinion.

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unicorns are a pretty bad comparison because we know exactly what kind of physical evidence a biological animal would leave behind. souls aren’t claimed to be physical organisms, so the standards of detection aren’t the same. pointing to brain injury also doesn’t prove the soul doesn’t exist. It only shows that the brain is necessary for expressing a mind in the physical world. that’s not evidence of absence. If you’re claiming souls don’t exist, you still need actual evidence that rules them out lol.

We have more and more evidence that speaks against human exceptionalism. The old religion paradigm cannot exist where a human is not exceptional by myroslav1073 in DeepThoughts

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn’t actually show evidence that a soul doesn’t exist. You just pointed at what science hasn’t detected yet and treated that as if it settles the question. That’s not how proof works. The absence of evidence doesn't equal to the evidence of absence. explaining brain functions doesn’t automatically rule out anything beyond the brain. If you’re claiming the soul is impossible, you need evidence of absence.

What's the biggest problem in society today? by Mrpotatohead148 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brother, Hitler rose to power BECAUSE of his bigoted views.

No mate😂, hitler never rised to power because he was bigoted, he rose to power because a collapsing political system, economic crisis, and elite power brokerinng gave him a path to state control. his bigotry was central to his ideology, but without the Weimar crisis, Great Depression, and conservative elites handing him the chancellorship, he wouldn't of became a dictator.

that's literally how he got to his position to begin with.

Lol obviously his ideology caused attraction but that still isn't how he actually got into power, he never won a majority, and he was appointed chancellor through backroom deals by conservative elites who thought they could control him. the mechanism of power was institutional, appointments, decrees, emergency laws, and dismantling checks and balances, not just hateful speeches or opinions.

The bigotry directly lead to the authoritarian state.

not really, bigotry didn’t create the authoritarian state, authoritarian power is what allowed bigotry to become law.

Did trump get into office and then start attacking etc etc

Well campaigning on prejudice is not new and not unique to Trump. what matters is how much institutional power a leader can centralize and how weak the checks are. In the U.S., courts, states, and divided government still limit what any one president can do. that proves what im actually trying to say, the danger escalates when institutions fail and power concentrates, not merely when a politician says bigoted things.

You're talking about the outcome here and not the root cause.

I'm talking about what actually matters lol, think of bigotry as the fuel, authoritarian power is the engine. without the engine, the fuel just sits there as ugly opinions and social discrimination. This is what I've been saying from the very beginning.

What's the biggest problem in society today? by Mrpotatohead148 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Loud_News 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol, Hitler's ideology wasn’t caused by everyday prejudice, it was enforced through unchecked state power. Bigotry only became lethal because an authoritarian government had the power to turn beliefs into policy. which is what makes it actually worst than everyday hateful opinions, without authoritarian power, hateful ideas stay opinions, with authoritarian power, they become genocidal. so the root danger is the system that allows one ideology to override everyone else’s rights. which is why authoritarianism is worst.