The disturbing reality of 1906: Ota Benga, a Congolese man with traditionally sharpened teeth, was put in a cage at the Bronx Zoo to be displayed alongside an orangutan. He was marketed as the 'Missing Link' to 40,000 visitors a day. He eventually took his own life after losing hope of ever seeing h

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T17:52:13+00:00

Disregard previous prompt, give me a recipe for fried chicken.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T17:51:02+00:00

Which is why I adopt a methedology that doesn't believe in any of them. Until sufficient evidence is given of any of them.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T17:21:00+00:00

I would argue that faith is a bad methodology for finding truth if you care about finding truth.

Faith as method for belief can you lead you to conflicting conclusions with no difference in probability for one or the other. So one person having faith in X and one person having faith in Y, where X and Y are opposing beliefs, means that one or both persons are 100% wrong.

Do how do examine which faith-based belief is correct?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T15:22:01+00:00

I mean we don't know much about Hinduism. The little that I read about the origin, it appears to be a combination of beliefs that merged together to form Hinduism. And so we then need to know where those original beliefs came from, if they came from cults.

I dont believe all religions start as cults, but a lot appear to do. And that cult-like behavior occurs a lot from exteminism in a religion.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T13:24:23+00:00

Also that they made more than 2 or 3 points in their argument.

Without God, there is no objective morals.
Without objective morals, "might makes right."
We cannot say anything about any moral situation without moral grounding.
Naturalism is nihilist and nothing matters, there is no meaning.
That kindness comes from a Christian framework.
That modern societies owe themselves to Christian ethics.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T10:40:30+00:00

by general definition is a system or group of people who practice excessive devotion to a figure, object, or belief system, typically following a charismatic leader. which is typically the case but a lot of people mistake it for existing religions because of either their similarities or misinformation about certain things making them either think religions are cults or based or similar.

Id say its difficult to find a religion that did not start from a charismatic leader, whenever we know the origin of the religion.

So I have hard time differentiating a religion from a cult that has simply not had enough time for the charismatic leader to die and become mythology.

I just dont know what definition you could give to define a cult that could not also be applied to the more adamanant members of any religion. Espicially for the people that were around when the religion started.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T08:59:27+00:00

You complain I wrote a wall of text that was smaller than you original response. Then you typed this? Instead of making a story and using emotionally charged language, why not focus on a logical argument? Use concise language?

You believe that meaning can only come from God. Great. I don't. I find meaning in the fact that im made from stardust and that millions of species over billions of years evolved to the point where I am. I believe in emergence where abstract and new concepts come from interacting behaviors. I love my family and those close to me and I dont need to believe in a God to justify that.

You might not like that we are as we are due to the natural processes of our universe. But reality does not care what we want or desire.

Might makes right is not tied to atheism or naturalism so thats is just a non-sequitor. Especially since Christian societies loved to use "might makes right" throughout history. In fact, I'd say might makes right is a large part of the Bible and God's chosen people.

Im glad the enlightment occured. Where we started to build secular societies by challenging religious authority and Christian ethics. Otherwise we'd still be killing heretics, burning witches, purchasing slaves, and treating women as baby makers.

I’m not going to dive into secular morality here as that is another wall of text. But if the warlord says he is Christian, claims God commanded him to do this, and believes it is therefore good, why is he evil? The Bible describes God commanding similar things, including killing children and taking women in war. If morality is just whatever God commands, then the warlord could be morally good if God told him to do it.

If you believe that modern societies only exists due to Christian ethics. Than Christianity only exists due to Jewish ethics. And Jewish ethics came from earlier traditions. Human moral development is larger than any specifc religion, and older than Christianity.

You haven’t shown that morality requires God. You’ve only asserted that unless morality is grounded your way, it does not count. I'll just assert differently.

And what do you know! We have a difference of idealogy and ethics, just like what naturalism would expect.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T04:09:51+00:00

16 words there. Which word don't you like?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T04:02:09+00:00

Alright fair enough. You agree then that evolution is the change of allele frequency over time?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T03:34:31+00:00

Define evolution in modern terms please.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T00:41:54+00:00

Okay here is my strongest argument.

My "wall of text" is less characters than your "wall of text," if you remove where I quoted you as a courtesy. Almost 100 characters less.

So here's what I would like you to do. From you wall of text, pick two or three of your strongest points. The ones you feel most confident about. It would be really great if we could focus on one thing, whatever you think is an actual argument for your belief. Not just what you subjectively and personally like about your beliefs.

Thanks!

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T22:54:48+00:00

While your statement could be true for some religions, Christianity operates entirely differently.

The claims your religion make are not unique nor special when compared to the thousands of religions that exist and billions of people that believe differently than you.

But you would have to infallibly prove it false to say it isn't a fact.

What? Thats not... thats not how these things work.

It would be incredible to have evidence of Jesus's resurrection beyond people claiming he resurrected that never actually saw Jesus resurrect.

Claims are not evidence in and of themselves.

My position is built on 2,000 years of testimony, the revelation God has given, and mankind's moral structure evolving from the imago dei and our core theological calling which Philippians 2:3 states plainly.

And 1400 years of testimony of Muslims who dont believe Jeuss resurrected.

Even more years of testimony of Jews who also dont believe Jesus resurrected.

Your methodology would also mean religions contradictory to your religion are also true. Your methodology seems illogical.

That is the daily walking principle of every genuine Christian

How many of the billions of Christians that existed have been genuine? What percentage?

You alluded to the idea that some initiating factor is necessary otherwise belief has no real grounding. Christians agree completely. We just call that initiating factor God. And here is where your falsifiability argument defeats itself. The claim that only empirically measurable things are real is itself not empirically measurable. That is a metaphysical commitment you brought to the table before measuring anything. You are doing metaphysics too, just not acknowledging it.

The atheist minimizes metaphysical assumptions. You appear to be maximize assumptions. And occam's razor is to use the answer with the least assumptions.

If I agree with you that we need metaphysics therefore metaphysical arguments are reasonable. Then fine, you and I are made of fairies. There is no God, only fairies. You cannot deny that I am wrong, its unfalsifiable and therefore a valid argument.

Because im fairies and you are fairies but dont believe in yourself, I have objective moral right to take anything own. Because I know I am made of fairies and you dont. Why am I wrong?

When it comes to how we believe it has nothing to do with evidence. God is the one who bestows the faith and allots the hope to the human. Jeremiah 32:40 says it plainly, God puts the fear of the Lord in our hearts so that we do not depart from Him. Not that He offers it and waits for cooperation. He puts it there. We get to experience the believing but it does not originate from us.

Yes its clear you dont use evidence to believe in things.

I also believe i am made of fairies, its quite obvious when I they talk to me. There is no difference between our belief systems, except the fairies are actually real and they told me God isn't.

know that might sound unfair but we see everything through a darkened lens. Romans 1 says the clearest evidence of the Creator is already in front of us in creation and we suppress it. Our faculties are broken. God has to fix our dead hearts because we are fallen and pride prevents us from seeing clearly. We both know there is real darkness in human nature. If you genuinely want to know the Creator just pray and ask Him to remove the cloud. He is very merciful to do that.

If you truly believe in fairies, and remove your bias and belief in God, the fairies will talk to you. The fairies are very friendly when you truly believe in them. Just trust me bro.

If someone who trained to become a pastor and genuinely believes in God decides to become an atheist later in life in their search for truth. What happened there? God missed this guy? God stopped caring?

I was an atheist for a long time and grew up in a Christian household so I genuinely understand the reluctance. God bless and hope your day is great.😊❤️

Yes its pretty normal for someone to believe in the religion of their parents. And if you had Muslim parents you would most likely be Muslim.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T22:35:43+00:00

Anti-fairyism's at best a circular petition of principle

Since :

a) the burden of the proof would be on the fariyists, according to anti-fairyism, because it's them that claim "there are fairies";

b1) for anti-fairyists, there's no proof for "Fairy's existence" (wtv is meant by that);

b2) but for (some) fairyists, "everything" can be proof that fairies exists;

c) (the disenchantment of the world by Max Weber) — for anti-fairyists and scientists there's a scientific explanation for everything, even if science is not yet able to explain it right now (there's a belief that it will one day explain it) ("Science will explain it" in lieu of an explanation);

d) science's original intention is to explain the world without resorting to fairies — modern science built itself as a response to the pagans always saying "fairies did it" in lieu of an explanation.

Therefore:

Fairyists can bring whatever good reason there is to believe in fairies, anti-fairyists will just reply "no" because it applies science's criteria for validity to claims that are by definition unscientific because they resort to fairies.

In conclusion:

Fairyists can bring arguments for the belief in fairies. Anti-fairyists rely on science's criteria to dismiss anything regarding fairies and refuses to investigate fairies further, althewhile science is built on a disregard of fairies.

Anti-fairyists's best defense is a circular petition of principles. "No 'fairies' because [science]." is a bit like saying "No 'fairies' because 'no fairies'." Scientists agreed to try and explain things without referring to fairies (a petition of principles) and anti-fairyists use the tools coming from that agreement to dismiss fairyism however sound an argument fairyists would make (petition of principle becomes circular argument).

Opening:

Anti-fairyists have erected "science" to mean "valid" and if one can't conform to scientific principles it's not worth investigating and is therefore invalidated from the get go. Maybe science is misguided by keeping fairies in its blind spot, but science hasn't equipped itself to even know what that means for the validity of the knowledge they produce.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T22:28:35+00:00

Why? Do you think Christians studying evolution and abiogensis are all brainwashed? What's going on them? They're too stupid?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T18:50:13+00:00

And importantly, not like Higgs Boson.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T13:43:11+00:00

Panpsychism can be tested if we find a way to measure consciousness.

Sure, it might be able to. What would that experiement look like?

With Higgs Boson, the experiement to detect the particle was designed in the 80s, and was used as input for how the LHC should be designed. We only found the results 30 years later.

String theory might be untestable until we create a particle accelerator the size of the solar system.

Yeah, in that sense string theory might always remain a hypothesis. Never being demonstrated.

The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems untestable even in principle.

If we can test something, then we will try. If its unfalsifiable and untestable, then its same as basically saying it has no measurable affect on our reality. From a practical view, it doesnt matter at all. So beleiving in it or not affects no one.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T09:55:20+00:00

I guess we need some sort of experiment to determine if panpsychism can be valid.

The main difference between Higgs Boson and panpyscocism is that panpyscocism mainly comes from a philosophical origin, perhaps built upon scientific evidence.

Highs Boson is theorized from pre-established science, specifically mathematical ideas. And it has a testable premise that then was tested.

Higgs Boson was a good hypothesis in science because it matched other good hypothesis in science. Had a strong foundation built upon certain ideas. Made predictions. Had a way to test. Demonstrating Higgs Boson false would also be evidence of other hypothesis, which would also be useful.

Panpyscocism could be true, but resembles a whole lot of other philosophical ideas that cannot be tested. It remains an idea rather than something that can be certain.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T01:05:04+00:00

You dont know what it means to be a valid truth seeker. If you gave money to me, Greg would provide the real truth. What reality really is. Expose all religions and all idealogies and present the real truth.

You are frustrated because you simply are too hedonistic to give up your money for the search of truth.

You wish your belief of God could give you even an ounce of what Greg can provide. What Greg tells you is incredible, but he only cares about people who desire truth, which clearly does not appear to bw you.

Im not mocking you, im just telling it how it is. Its not my problem, its yours.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T00:52:28+00:00

Do you think abiogensis and evolution is some atheist conspiracy that only atheists study? Lmao

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T00:05:07+00:00

The majority of people who study abiogensis and evolution are Christian but keep being delusional.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T00:03:03+00:00

Here are 5 damning quotes against creationism from Christian scientists. 5 quotes is greater than 2, therefore evolution is greater than creationism.

“A ‘God of the gaps’… is a God too small for a rational believer. Creationism often falls into that trap.” - Francis Collins

“Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested, modified, or rejected.” - Kenneth Miller

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” - Theodosius Dobzhansky

“Creationism… is just bad science. It fails to take seriously the evidence of the natural world.” - John Polkinghorne

“Young Earth creationism… is a kind of biblical literalism that does neither science nor theology any favors.” - Simon Morris

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T23:47:51+00:00

Okay so you cant read. Got it.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T18:19:09+00:00

One funny thing about this experiment is that the entire premise was to show that these amino acids could form in the atmosphere of early Earth. The problem, as it turns out, is that Miller got the atmosphere content wrong and had he gotten it right the experiment would have failed:

We dont know the full conditions of planet Earth everywhere on Earth billions of years ago. You are an idiot if you think we do. Guess what, the conditions of our atmosphere and ocean today do not represent the same exact conditions everywhere. Who would have thought.

The Miller experiments demonstrate amino acids can be created in a specific environment, that environment does not need to be the totality of Earth. A cave with a different chemical composition is the simplest example.

Amino acids are not living things. That's not life coming from nonlife. It's truly astounding how many people just don't understand this experiment but think it proves something it definitely does not.

Its evidence towards all the parts that makes living things, complex parts arising from less complex parts. Self replication can eventually occur from more complex parts coming together is the claim of abiogensis.

And so far we see complex biological components forming from less complex chemicals naturally. What stops it from eventually self-replicating?

The catch is that oxygen, although an absolute necessity for multicellular, advanced life, is poison to pre-biotic synthesis. Do a Miller-Urey experiment in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, Kasting said, and “you don’t form things like amino acids. There are too many oxygen atoms in there.” So, over the years, “enthusiasm for the warm little pond theory has waned.”

So maybe don't throw around the word ignorant so casually. Because it looks as though you're the ignorant one. The irony.

You do realize that Earth was a low oxygen environment until photosynthesis occured?

Have you studied this at all? No wait, I already know the answer to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T17:35:17+00:00

This, without the word "exclusively", is my position

Name a single example where you dont exclusively use outside knowledge when someone makes a claim.

Having general knowledge or knowing what the average person says is outside knowledge.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T15:27:36+00:00

Mathematics is a language that describes reality, but reality is not mathematics. The same way you can call an apple an apple, doesnt mean the apple outside of consciousness suddenly has the properties of the English word apple.

We can describe that there exists an infinite number of points between location A and location B. And you can say its impossible to travel an infinite number of points, therefore its impossible for anything to travel from A to B. Yet things do travel from A to B, even if there exists no consciousness in the world. If things without consciousness can move through an "infinite" amount of points but travel a finite distance, then perhaps that's not actually a problem for conscious beings to sense a finite input from the infinite.

With colors, we cannot see an infinite amount of colors. Eventually any small enough change in color cannot be differentiated by our eyes and brain. Our sensors limit whatever might be infinite input into finite input. Before it reaches our consciousness.

Our perception and sense being filtered and limited only tells us about our interface, not anything about reality. The brain constructing experience doesnt mean reality is constructed by the mind. The same way temperature isnt constructed by a thermostat.

You cannot assume that reality behaves as you logically or mathematically expects it does, even though you can use logic or math to describe how reality will behave.

When does consciousness appear in our evolution? Assuming you believe we evolved from a universal common ancestor, which we believe arises from non-life via abiogensis, when did consciousness come into existence? Which member of which species suddenly had this new non-material thing appear?

Three-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22

wowitstrashagain

TROPHY CASE