if u don't bleev in god then u don't bleev in time and if u don't bleev in time then u can always b the fastest jogger in the ~fun run~

intelligent design does not exist.

see: wisdom teeth, appendix, tonsils, ****ty eyes, etc.

either our all-knowing god built us with flaws because they're not all-knowing, or our all-knowing god built us with flaws just to be a dick. neither choice seems worthy of devotion or worship.

reddit expert assumer in chief

someone is having a good morning.

ftfy :cool:

The point is that if people who have supposedly aligned themselves to a theistic ideal can commit just as large atrocities as those who haven't, then achieving that alignment is pointless and is not a good reason to be a theist.

Then it seems we are in agreement that there is no good reason to be a theist.

Yes, I am. Because I can arrive to the same, if not an even better, moral compass by dealing with reality on reality's terms. What my ancestors believed to be true or false has zero impact on what the real life consequences of my actions are.

your parents hate u lmfao

u cut ur dick off yet question mark

No. It's only a good reason if it is possible to achieve. So, how can it be achieved?



You may want to look at my conversation with amRam. Surprisingly productive.



For all that talk about respect, you sure are quick to tell me about my worldview.

I can tell love exists, because I experience it directly, AND there is physical evidence of it, AND because I can observe others acting in a way that is consistent with my experience. Can you tell the same for your god belief?

Secular humanism isn't a religion. It's a religion-agnostic worldview.



And this is relevant because?



Nothing, because it would be a logical fallacy to do otherwise. This, by the way, is the basis for a commonly known scam:


And here we see how the fallacies you allow yourself in your religious belief can hurt you in real life.

No, I'm making the case that just because we've confirmed the truth of one statement in a historic text, it doesn't mean that any other unconfirmed claims should be treated as true.

that must be why the catholic church is full of child molesters lol

Atheists and theists alike do bad things so theism is pointless. That's a pretty bad point bro.

What your ancestors believed has deep impact on your being. You think your moral compass is a device of your own making...that's funny.

You're still stuck on what's "true" or "false" like most silly atheists. Blinded by the origins of the physical world because you take the bible literally like the loony fundamentalists.

And you defend those people...

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Is it not true though? Don't religions present themselves as the prerequisite to moral behaviour, only to go on and be equally flawed as everyone else?

But it has no impact on the consequences of my actions, which is what I said.

Slavery used to fit in our ancestors' moral compass not too long ago. What has changed since then, and what prompted the change?

I don't see how the origins of the physical world are relevant to this discussion, and I don't take the bible literally. Might wanna check your strawmen.

Give me one quote where I defended child molesters.

(Spoiler: you won't find one, because I never did.)

You conflate a lot of pitfalls of organized religion with the individuals' faith. The church is man's creation after all. Susceptible to all the same negatives as any other organization. Lots of otherwise good men went on to do terrible things throughout history, with or without faith.

Faith in a higher ideal isn't the only way, it's one way. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have survived for tens/hundreds of thousands of years. Your moral compass is built on it IMO, whether or not you identify with it.

he identifies with pony pillows

Just because something has survived for thousands of years doesn't mean it should be kept around. See: slavery.

Which brings me back to my earlier question: if we're not in charge of our own moral compass, then how come slavery went from morally acceptable to unacceptable in the span of a couple centuries?

By having a personal experience with God.

Now that you know how it is possible, thank you for your admission that it is a good reason.

Is it disrespectful to talk about worldviews now?

So that means anyone discussing worldviews is disrespectful by default?

Yes, of course I can.

The fact that you would even ask that question shows that you have not spoken with many people that believe in God. Either that or you know very little about them.

Sure it is a religion. You can get into semantics based on the definition you choose, but I can easily argue that it is a religion.

Religion can be defined (My Merriam-Webster) as "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Secular humanism is nothing more than a system of beliefs, and there is plenty of faith involved in holding many of the beliefs that lie therein. I would argue that it requires more blind faith than Theism by far.

Please prove to me how secular humanism is not a system of beliefs. Anyone rational would immediately recognize that it is indeed a system of beliefs.

You yourself have admitted that you believe in the existence of love, and yet you cannot prove its existence through the scientific method. You have faith that it exists based on evidence, personal experience, and observation, which is identical to religion. People that believe in God, do so because of evidence, personal experience, and observation. There is no difference.

Your worldview is a worldview, just like any other, full of assertions and beliefs, many of which cannot be proved and require faith.

Many religious people throughout history have moved science forward by leaps and bounds.

Yes, you can also point out all of the bad things that religion has done too. You can also point out all the bad things the religion of secular humanism has done as well.

Claiming that religion has never done anything for science is just wrong. So wrong that it makes me believe that you have not studied history even a little bit.

Oh really? And yet you do not prescribe to this, because you would believe your best friend over a complete stranger, would you not?

It's not a fallacy to trust something credible over something that is not. It's common sense.

The notion of consistent credibility is not a fallacy. It is a fact of life that you yourself adhere to on a daily basis and use as a tool for survival.

You go to work for your boss knowing that he/she will pay you, because they have proven themselves to be credible. Society is built upon the foundational stone of credibility.

I agree with that completely.

And yet, catching someone in 9 different lies serves as evidence that they are dishonest.

Likewise, confirming someone telling 9 different truths serves as evidence that they are honest.

The reason historical accuracy matters is because it serves as evidence towards honesty.

Hail Satan

Will you condemn child molesters?

As a rule I don't condemn people, but I do wholeheartedly condemn the act of child molestation, as I always have.