#🧠|serious-chat
1 messages · Page 480 of 1
Its better for just to let control land that side that has something of truth
But we are all selfish
Those are the French
Birds are living dinos it is so crazy
Yes a bit and they are the largest reptile group for this reason
Lol
Turtles are closer to birds than they are to lizards or snakes
And even crocodiles are old as jura times
Some rumors tell that Paris smell is about to disappear 
Could the Kurdish flag refer to reptiles
Already done kashmir exodus search
It has a sun, the sun powers lizards
Crocodiles please take your land, let free business develop and innovate world
twerking
They are taking their land back from alligators in USA
i wish i was a reptile
And we have the moon then are we werewolfs wait a minute our national animal is wolf
WTF
I wish i was some flying squirrel
But since reptiles are just and perfect they are solving it in the best way, by manifesting their power over one another
My brain is going to be exploding
What about a sugar glider or a flying lemur
Perfection
I like this alphabet
Whoever of these cool guys
I know how to read btw
Sugar gliders are the marsupial counterparts of flying squirrels
Mammals also shut down SAAB. Another mammal classic.
what country sexual abuse animals the most
It is true
But the most crazy and suspicious animal is ornitorenk
Idk I guess China just by the sheer amount of people and all the pigs they need to farm
Marsupials are the only tolerable mammals
Minecraft is angry
How
Platypus
There are other mammals with venom
Yeah
Some studies propose that venom was a basal and primitive trait in mammals
But there is no one egg
The echidnas
test
Nor they have egg+ mammal
The four species of echidnas are monotremes, they also lay eggs
Platypus so cool
The weird thing is that the platypus isn't the weird one
The echidnas are
The ancestors of the platypus and echidnas looked more like the platypus, it's the echidnas that became more terrestrial and developed spikes
It's debated
If you're into land-dwelling, armored bug-eaters: Echidna wins.
If you're into electric-sensing, venomous, water-dwelling hybrids: Platypus takes it.
Some studies suggest that they developed egg-laying later, others that the first mammals laid eggs
i wish we humans were laying eggs instead of giving birth
the idea of giving birth scares me
It is bad when done by mammals
Egg-laying mammals and marsupials have underdeveloped children
They are altricial and also limited in specialisations
It's weird because reptiles don't have this problem at all, whether they lay eggs or have live birth
Only birds are altricial and this is because they learn a lot and their brains are insanely complex
Egg laying came First as repltiles come before mammals. Earlier mammals were born from eggs
Not exactly, the ancestors of reptiles and mammals originated around the same time
By the time mammals existed both groups have been separate for a very long time, it's possible that their ancestors could already have live birth
How do you know that , have you been there
Molecular clock and comparative genetics
Reptiles and synapsids (the group where mammals belong) separated 320 million years ago
a bombastic specimen
Hi
hi
Hallo how's ya
Amen 🙌

Blud is chilling while Iran and Israel send their rockets
Echidnas don't have duck like feet
The platypus was the base form
Look up the extinct monotremes, most looked like the platypus. The echidna is the new design
Platypus are based
👀
One of the oldest and most successful mammal looked like the platypus but more muscular
New doesn't necessarily mean better
No it's just a new design
It's a weird innovation
I'm a fan of the sheep-sized echidna
Can't wait for chad iran edits reels on my insta
They look magestic
Can't wait for Israel propaganda on my tiktok
There's no way we got sheep sized echinda
That be crazyyy
Murrayglossus is an extinct genus of echidna from the Pleistocene of Western Australia. It contains a single species, Murrayglossus hacketti, also called Hackett's giant echidna. Though only from a few bones, researchers suggest that Murrayglossus was the largest monotreme to have ever lived, measuring around 1 metre (3.3 ft) long and weighing ...
What do you think why mango seeds are so big?
They aren't even venomous i dunno why you're supporting a mediocre animal compared to platypus 
I support both
Lmao
Echidnas are the beavers of Australia
Equalist spotted
They dig everywhere
They break down soil that would otherwise become too hardy and dry
That human death zone has so many fauna lol
They also incubate eggs, losers
No one:
Monotremes: let's come up with a new form that looks less original than the previous one
It's not even believable that the platypus is the conservative one
Even the venomous spur is a primitive trait in mammals
Why do mammals don't lay eggs?
Platypus: hold my beak
For some reasons mammals are altricial when they are forced to lay eggs. This is a synapomorphy in synapsids
I mean humans too bro
Alright
It's a trait shared by the ancestor of all mammals that was likely an egg layer
This is opposed to reptiles that generate fully developed offspring whenever possible
I like the ogs tbh
Yeah humans can't regenerate limbs
Truly a marvel of reptilian engineering
Propoganda spotted
I never looked into why some mammals are still altricial despite being viviparous
With humans it makes sense, we learn a lot same as songbirds and this requires altriciality
But I don't get why dogs and rats are altricial
Reptilian propaganda
?def Altriciality
:x: That word could not be found in the dictionary.
New English word dropped
"strategy where young are born or hatched in a helpless state, requiring significant parental care for a period"
Precocial species in birds and mammals are those in which the young are relatively mature and mobile from the moment of birth or hatching. They are normally nidifugous, meaning that they leave the nest shortly after birth or hatching. Altricial species are those in which the young are underdeveloped at the time of birth, but with the aid of thei...
Altricial is basically larval
It's more used for vertebrates
That's Aladdin the dictionary
Sauropsids are primitively superprecocial
It means that normally they are born fully formed and fully independent
The only exceptions are birds, but there are precocial birds too
Most mammals are like that, i can't think of any which doesn't require parental care
No it's about being fully formed or not, many of them can walk after a short time
Noice
Yeah deers can walk n shi
Marsupials are altricial because of their incomplete placenta, placentals are usually precocial
I don't understand marsupials, why evolution favoured this kind of development
Marsupials had an insane advantage at first. For some reasons they were the most successful post extinction mammals
God why don't we have zombie deers before GTA 6
They have the shortest pregnancies I guess and that could be why
How short?
Marsupials were also isolated from other mammals and this wasn't a big problem even if they came in contact, they had their own specialisations (they still do in South America)
The red kangaroo, the largest marsupial alive, has a gestation of just 33 days
We might be zombies, our brain might be a parasite
Opossums only at 13 days
Yeah who's the conscious vs who's the brain
Marsupials were early investors basically
F that's hella short than humans
They got insane returns and advantages until the playing field was levelled out
Btw monotremes have similar disadvantages to marsupials, they too need to climb their mothers to access milk
Yeah that might be the reason, Ability to produce multiple offspring per year, instead of producing one developed one
The thing with marsupials isn't just being altricial, but they are limited by their digits. They are supposed to be able to climb, this restricts their possible lifestyles. Most biologists think there couldn't be a fully aquatic marsupial
In a time where resources were scarce and there was no food security it was good to be a marsupial
@thorny steeple have you ever seen a newborn kangaroo?
Marsupials have a nice feature that placental mammals had to cut
Nahhh wby
The epipubic bone
Well that's hella Small
I've seen kangaroos with older babies but not new born
Same
They're basically glorified fetuses
Lemme google
I seen bats lol
Epipubic bones are a pair of bones projecting forward from the pelvic bones of modern marsupials, monotremes and fossil mammals like multituberculates, and even basal eutherians (the ancestors of placentals, who lack them).
They first occur in non-mammalian cynodonts such as tritylodontids, suggesting that they are a synapomorphy between them an...
If it's true that it helps with stiffness this thing would've been the magic archosaurian knees that mammals never developed
Who was the first the Mammal
Goddammmmit imagine deadlifting with this bone, sounds magical
We aren't certain, we only know early mammals
Ofc that's evolution 🧬
The oldest known to us has to be Juramaia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juramaia
Nice
15-17 grams 
It existed 160 million years ago
It coincides with one of the two estimations, which is 167 million years more or less
This was the time when the first mammal would've appeared
Very small lmao
I didn't know something smaller than nepolean can exist
Definitely takes the record lmao
What was there before it? Reptiles like creatures?
Many early mammals were minuscule like that
Aquatic mammals are there any?
Most already looked like mammals, they're included in the larger clade of mammaliaformes
That's why they survived mass extinction
For example Morganucodon, this is a recent non-mammal mammaliaformes
There were many groups with partial mammal features
Their ear and jaw bones resembled ours, their teeth too
Definitely this why Humanity arose
We should start selective breeding in humans
And shrink to 17 g?
Mission impossible
What does it mean
Castorocauda wasn't a mammal but it shows evidence of diversity amongst their group
17 grams like Juramaia
How diverse?
It looked like a beaver, in habits and appearance (besides the wood chewing and dam building part)
Just like mammals they were trying to fill niches of small animals
Oh juramia the daily Mail newsletter
Since everything else was completely occupied by reptiles
Nice what continent was there pangea?
Reptiles had no mercy back then
I'm being serious, we should selectively breed humans for different purposes
Intellectual
Physical strength n shi
By then no, I think it was Laurasia, Gondwana and some others like Antarctica-Australia
Definitely and they lost their chances of intelligence and creating civilization in their own terms
Pangaea was breaking up when the first dinosaurs appeared, by the time they replaced the pseudosuchians in most niches Pangaea was already quite broken and separated
What was the first supercontinent
Yeah and a massive sea on the other side
I wonder how diverse Marine life was back then
Idk maybe Kenorland? It's hypothetical
It has always been more diverse
Vaalbara is a proposed supercontinent that is believed to be Earth's first. It is thought to have formed during the Archean Eon, approximately 3.6 to 2.8 billion years ago. The name Vaalbara is derived from the Kaapvaal craton in South Africa and the Pilbara craton in Western Australia, two of the oldest and most stable parts of the Earth's crust. The existence of Vaalbara is still debated among scientists, but evidence suggests that it may have played a significant role in the early evolution of the Earth.
The Devonian was insanely diverse
What imagine if oceanic life never peaked
Hella I'm sure there's lots of fossils then
Kenorland would've existed right after it
Yeah it was so damn ago I'm sure only traces of it exists
Nvm i don't want to get muted
yes you want
🫵 
Happy Sa a day
Vaalbara, huh? Never heard of it before. Is that older than Pangaea?
Happy Happy Happy
as i was saying @wooden pendant @thorny steeple
We see things moving around us.
Everything that moves is moved by something else. Nothing can move itself.
This chain of movers cannot go back infinitely, or else there would be no first mover, and nothing would move now.
Therefore, there must be a First Mover that itself is not moved by anything else.
This First Mover is what everyone understands to be God.
See that it does not proves god
but put us closer to him
If you disagree with what I’ve said, then we have to question Aristotle, it’s logic.
bc a watch cant be made by itself it must have been made by some creator
Nah, as i said, it's one of the 5 ways of aquina
teleological argument
It already assumes that God exists
In response to #💭|general message : Imagine three people describing the same mountain from different sides, one sees a river, another a forest, and the third a snowy peak. Their descriptions seem different, even contradictory, but they’re all true perspectives of the same mountain. Different faiths use different languages, symbols, and stories to express a deeper, shared, truth about the divine, I also explained this earlier in #💭|general message
which god
then god made the first move?
because the truth is multifaceted, just like life
some theological traditions argue there is one ultimate truth that can be approached through reason and revelation, but how we express or understand it can vary
What’s true for one person’s faith may be their genuine experience of God, even if it looks different from another persons
my one
Like the one i'm more engaged with
faith is the excuse people give when they dont have evidence
Nah, it's so sad of you to say that bro
Exactly, it's multifaceted, you don't always need one clear answer, perspectives are great
How can we prove something metaphisical
therefore spiritual
spritiual doesnt u have to prove it existance
if we cant prove it then why should we believe it
I'll say it again, we can just get closer to God, not prove him
u dont just say yeti exist u have to prove yeti first
u can say all about ghosts and stuff
If faith is just an excuse, then how do atheists explain their absolute certainty without any proof that no gods exist?
how would u get closer to god?
but until u prove it
Yes, I like the expression * big can be seen from afar*. Being only a part, we are able to describe only a part and are not able to generalize
its non-existent
what are the properties of god?
atheist dont have absulute certainty they are unconvinced god exist
Can someone define me the properties
yeah exactly
Just like i showed you,
the secound way:
In the world, we observe that things are caused by other things.
Nothing can cause itself because it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible.
There cannot be an infinite chain of causes going backward, because then there would be no first cause and no subsequent causes at all.
Therefore, there must be a First Cause that is not caused by anything else.
This First Cause is what we call God.
we are skeptic not aboslutely certain
If atheists are simply unconvinced, then their position still rests on a belief
and even if there is a god its surely not the one who humans follow
backed by lack of evidence
u dont just assume its god u have to prove it
make a vc for atheist
A lack of evidence isn't proof of absence as I mentioned earlier to "It won't flush"
Take it to pnr vc
a lack of evidene isnt the proof of its existence either
We can’t prove God; He is beyond science. It’s like imagining time without the a watch or numbers
exactly
And i know it
but surely until evidence is not given we can say that is unprovable and that what we are saying
we cant prove god that why i im unconviced he exist in the first place
its like a criminal is not a criminal until we have evidence for it
The funny thing is that we can't prove anything in principle. Even physical laws are being revised over time
well ill wait for evidence
yup absolute certainty is impossible
It's okay, i'm not tryin' to convert u or stuff, just showing that there are ways to get closer to God
@raw spear we need you here
in anything
and not the spiritual evidence or from the books or a guy had a dream
so which is truth there are billions of em?
if in future we have evidence for god then ill be the most faithful but until then it is what it is
You're agreeing with me, absence of evidence goes both ways, it doesn’t prove something true, but it doesn’t prove it false either. Dismissing it assumes reality ends when we're no longer able to measure it
yeah we cant just blindly believe in god cause someone says so and certainly not cause someone is afraid of going to hell
and at the same time, there are some signs of the existence of something that cannot be denied, which means that there is no guarantee that we are describing it correctly, as in the case of God, whom some imagine as an old man sitting in heaven
even if there is a god for example jesus, and we have evidence of his existence i have a lot of question on why he is so immoral?
To make such a question you have first to assume that God exists, so we can discuss about it
some theological traditions argue there is one ultimate truth that can be approached through reason and revelation, but how we express or understand it can vary.
theological questions
presumes God
i dont believe humans god are the real god they're just made up by humans cause surely we can see there is not heaven no hell and definitely no adam eve so leave that out of the equation for me god is that one incident that started big bang we have to see if its a being or just a phenomenon
Jesus existed, it's a fact
there are historical proof
But if he was god's son, you can discuss for yourself
hell, is a trap to keep a believer trapped in its religion, also what if im a muslim and the actual truth is jesus and im in hell rn even tho i didnt commit any crimes, i lived my live peacufully
yeah but believing in something without any evidence is idiocity the best option is to be agnostic just wait till we get proof
mythology is not histroy
Mythology is Zeus
everyone will go to hell but of others religion christians will go to muslims hell muslims to christians hell while non believers will go to void
If u search about a little bit letting the ignorance aside, you'll see
yeah and that's not history
with all respect
zeus is not real
Oh boy
what
void?
if theres no god, and i die, i just dont exist
this is exactly what partially proves its existence. because in such a complex world where quantum physics, genetics, and evolution exist, it would be strange for an entity to simply fulfill desires. everything is much more complicated, as are the illnesses of children, which did not occur because God is evil and immoral. in addition, imagine the existence of such a vast world As ours, such a volume of structured information just begins to realize itself. And we're part of it. The most interesting thing is that science has been proving the existence of God in recent years, just read about quantum physics or books by neurosurgeon scientists
theres no soul
Calling religious people idiots overlooks the depth, history, and personal experience behind their beliefs, it’s not only disrespectful but also intellectually lazy
well yeah cause we dont have a heaven or hell since we dont believe in god so whwn we die nothing there
no ones calling idiot here
The message was deleted
i did and mb
who said it?
i didnt delete it
be respectable
i just said believing without evidence is idiocity
as i said
If you believe in God and he doesn' t exist, you lose nothing but if you don't believe and he does exist, you lose everything 
let's go gambling
oh dang
this is not joke
They are just victims of what they face
also i dont get it
choose the real one from 10000 religions
lets go gambling
I'll repeat myself: some theological traditions argue there is one ultimate truth that can be approached through reason and revelation, but how we express or understand it can vary.
They’re just victims
You'll have to specify who "They" are
I don’t know about “victims”
You have to look for it instead of gambling
welp i'd rather not choose
whats do u mean theres by the ultimate truth?
Whether or not god “exists” in the strict sense of the word, there are a lot of people who find a great deal of meaning in religion
Naah i said in context. People who’s calling religious people idiiots
there are a lot of things disturbing in religions
yeah that's another point religion teaches u to live ur life gives u hope and does a lot of good so its not really that bad
but everything has its pro and cons
No, you can't get morality from religion
People are social creatures, and we need some kind of solid support that becomes a pivot for decision-making. For some, this is God, for others it is the consciousness of the importance of their own self. It's just that God gives a deeper meaning to life
There are
they are so distrubing if i name them i might bet a ban
welp true if u have morality cause of religion then u'd rather not have it morality should come from inside and not cause ur god says so
so i would rather not say it
first i'll image that u accepted God, cuz it's a theological question.
by ultimate truth, i mean the idea that there is one fundamental reality or divine being that is the source and foundation of everything, any theological traditions, like christianityi, believes this truth can be known partly through human reason and partly through divine revelation.
Simply put: many different religions reflect how humans interpret, experience, and express that truth in diverse ways
I just wouldn’t say that people who believe in religion are victims
That’s rather infantilizing
they are victims tho
why do u think they become religious
their parents indoctrinated them with their own religion
Believing randomly results in a large negative expected value, because the odds of choosing the wrong religion (9/10) heavily outweigh the single chance of reward.
Atheism, under this setup, has less negative utility, meaning it's the safer bet under uncertainty — unless you have reason to think one religion is more likely correct.
I felt offended by that honestly
lets do probability baby
a child who doesnt even have a abilty to think or argue is indoctrinated with gods and no questioning to it
and yes I just chatgpte'd
don't forget that people are only people, and in fact most atheists and believers are arguing not about gods, but about their interpretation of God, The ATO is pretty dubious because we will never be able to describe it. Religion is a way to streamline and structure the understanding of God, but it does not mean that it is an accurate description of God. It's just easier for people to perceive something specific
so honesty is offending
ur not the victim
Here is your answer
and why did god makes people born in other religion and some in the same religion isnt that unfair to some people who are not born int the correct religion
Ah bro
tf LMAO
What about adults who choose to turn to religion? Are they also victims?
some people have to be just born in the correct one and they're destined for heaven
turn? like they rebel agaisnt their religion? no
Simply put: many different religions reflect how humans interpret, experience, and express that truth in diverse ways
some people born in wholly different one and now they are ignorant to choose which one
are y'all even reading?
Just a suggestion, look it up! Not the religion your father inherited
I do not believe in any religions, but young Timmy who believes in god is not a victim

till the time ur letting them express their arguments its not
just like you don't control which country you were born in or what color your eyes are. That doesn't mean you're a victim if u didn't choose it
but the problem of choosing the wrong one is hell
Calling religious people “victims” is not only weird but also a lazy way to dismiss deeply held beliefs, reducing them to weakness instead of appreciating sincere conviction. I don't see how it encourages any meaningful conversation if you're just arguing in poor faith
Some religions believe that’s hell doesn’t exist tho
yeah but why do i have to look it up and some people just get to be born in the correct one isnt it unfair towards me
oversimplification, atheists love do that
yeah but ull be going to some religions hell for sure
It's intellectually lazy
Hahahah yap I agree
I completely agree
we're all destined for hell 😔
If atheists and theists want to have productive conversations, treating either side as a “victim” or infantilizing them is simply a waste of time
It makes the world simple, I don’t have to study or do any research, I just have to say they’re victims, that’s an ad hominem fallacy anyways
Meh, seems like some people don't really want to discuss the situation, they just keep talking about the same thing. Good luck 
I'd rather chat to an atheist than a religious person who doesn't know their own religion.
Sometimes
I agree with you but damn, that "study" woke me up, I really need to lock in
when i say victims, i mean the small kids who havent devlop the abity to question or argure, and their parents tell them to believe in this god like take taking a pill with no question on its existance, are the victims ur poisoning their mind with religious dogma is immoral
lmao
Enjoy your day Nati!
Yeah, I just really don’t agree with that view in any capacity
i have a question
The state is the culprit; people who are encouraged to study don’t accept alienation
Believing in god is not harming that kid
Same for u Sanna 
Ye
Nati Nati
indoctrinating kids in the most innocent and vulnerable age with religion is immoral
Well their country has to do that for the country to be conducive
yeah, i don't belive in blind faith
Hey!
and in that environment people dont even question their own religion they're just following it blindly
and i know some people do research but most do no they just go with the flow
People are not blank slates, children will adopt the beliefs of the culture surrounding them
How's ya been awhile Mashallah
If a child growing up to believe in god because his parents do is a victim
Then a child growing up to be vegetarian because of his parents is also a victim
Haha
What’s truly immoral is allowing children to change their intimate organs
Religion can change at any rate
Belief in god or being a vegetarian are not harmful to a person, they do not victimize you
with effort
unless ur forced to do things which that religion mandates
This doesn’t happen, by the way
Amma good, there's a lot of work in the lab, but overall everything is fine, this week I was in a nice cozy place. And u?
But they tried
and vegetarian is a good example but rather out of context
in my country btw
We are all forced to do certain things due to our culture
They did not
That's great to hear Scientist 🥼 Nati Nati, I'm doing alright watching Hell's kitchen
What he is saying is disconnected from reality
and it happens
That is a completely different thing
children, especially before age 7 - 10, lack cognitive tools like critically evaluate complex ideas, understanding metaphor vs literal truth, question authority or social norms
Instead of being offered multiple worldview, they are told to believe as an absolute truth, often before they can read or reason independently
Just for u brotha
i've seen it a lot
how? it happens cause the religion mandates it
not cause of health reason if ur gonna say that dont
Ahh, wait, I know the same TV show in my country
we all know its cause of the religion
Nice
He was spreading anti-trans fearmongering, not discussing religious views
who he? point me to it
i would say they are victim

what
can u elaborate on this
i havent even said any thing about trans
i didnt understand
Not you, pay attention, lol
Yep and they're just getting on with life while feeding off the social media algorithms
Course
and chatting on discord english hub serious chat
why did u say i was spreading anti trean fear mongering when i didnt?
he's talking about crowler
not u
please do thank you
Yappp
that is immoral but how does that justify childrens when put on realigious dogma?
they both are immoral
but thats a separate problem
not related to religion
and looking at the numbers one is far more spread out and normalized than the other
Can u define religious views is? I dont get it?
well talk about religion and its practices rather than lgbtqa+ which is not related to religion in the context we're having
and gender change has nothing to do with religion
also thats not anti trans fearmongring, its between a doctor and a patient to decide whats best for patients
and states rights
if in religion u would say, im mostly in finding truth and not a comforting lie
thats the most biggest reason why im atheist
Unless it's false, it's harmful to their whole life and bloodline
FGM will continue in a culture when it's enforced as a ritual. Conversion is the only way out and there's no reforming a tribal practice
I rejected Buddhist practices, came to agnosticism, found nothing, but always believed there was some kind of God
So I became Catholic, still studying and will be baptised next year
would u say to a child that yeti exist and believe in yeti, and not let him question that, isnt that a major cognitive flaw ur adding in his brain in his most vital age
In some countries, especially in the U.Sand canada, there are medical protocols in place for minors who experience gender dysphoria, you know like, when they wanna change their intimate organs or undergo other genderrelated treatments and such, I was just drawing a comparison between how that is often accepted, while at the same time, people react with disgust when parents try to raise their children with religious values like Eetwont was saying, yes, it was more about indoctrination, but in the end, it’s the parents who are responsible for teaching their children, so… in my country, Brazil, discussions have been spreading about allowing minors to undergo genderrelated medical treatments, in any moment i said it was happening like 9 years old child, but if people are accepting it as the rightouss, why do they hate religion that much?
Some places in my country have trans people, especially lady boys, who are still allowed to pray in places of worship.
sorry my english
also why is their no mentions of transgender in religious text?
they do exist
and only writthen a man and female
another contradiction
Implying that there is One True Religion™️ and that belief in anything else is harmful to a person is not a pathway to a productive discussion on anything
but if gender dysphoria is causing childrens lives to be worse then why should we not allow them to be at least live their life as normal by change their gender and its a medical condition so surely doctors and scientist have done research about it and what should be done or else in future they turn out to be gay which btw religions people hate so its better change their gender and be "normal" acc to religion too
good but we all know how they are portrayed they are sinner no matter how much accommodating it is (in some religions) in some religions they are accepted
I dont agree, clearly that’s not true bcz that’s l religion has rules and we must obey them.
Nah, i'm not one of those who hate these people
Because there is no compromise with truth. If all religions are true and path to salvation, then none can be true since they contradict with each other. Metaphysical relativism cannot exist. There cannot be interpretations of abstract god, strictly one god, three Godheads existing and they are all true
The point is, a child can’t even speak properly yet, how can we give anyone the power to mess up their lives like that? ( i mean, someone who does not know nothing, even what he wants)
If you believe in the idea of One True Religion™️ then you are simply picking whichever one sounds the best to you, because you cannot possibly know which religion is the “correct” one
To decry other religious beliefs as somehow wrong simply doesn’t make sense
I can walk in here and say the Earth is flat. Everything revolves around the Earth
But the majority of the people say Earth is not flat. It revolves around a star system
There is no compromise with truth
I will be proven wrong in that case
yeah but tbh there is nothing about gender change per se in the books but rather about homosexuality
whats so serious
It's just the nature of men and women.
Others are called deviants
Religion is about faith, however, not proof
We can prove that the Earth is not flat, because we can take measurements and collect evidence
You cannot prove that any given religion is the “correct” one, nor that the idea of a single “correct” religion is true
as i said my boy:
you have to assume that God exists to chose a religion and with that we fall into theological questions such as yours
I'll repeat myself about this topic: the idea that there is one fundamental reality or divine being that is the source and foundation of everything, any theological traditions, like christianityi, believes this truth can be known partly through human reason and partly through divine revelation.
Simply put: many different religions reflect how humans interpret, experience, and express that truth in diverse ways
sorry my english again
You have chosen your beliefs, but that does not mean the beliefs of another religion are harmful
wont u wanna belief in most truth and least lies as possible?
so basically every religion is true?
This is an empirical proof
basically
Rational proof = metaphysics and classical logic
Logic is consistent throughout the universe
why not
its interpreting the lack of the real one
Sure, I do, but not everyone agrees with that
They do not belive in God
yeahi
that does not make sense
its also a part of human interpretation
Whatever you do, others have forbidden u. But not alienating them
so it can also be said to follow the one real truth
You would first have to prove the existence of a god, then you would have to prove the existence of your specific god, then you would have to prove that your branch of that religion’s god is the correct version of that god
lesss gooo
We do not have evidence of such things, so I would not place any weight in the belief that there is One True Religion™️
If you interpret God as water, good for you. I mean, one day, while searching for the truth, you might realize that water is just a symbol, a way to understand something deeper beyond the physical
Nor would I try to ascribe a value based judgement to compare two religions
so lack of a god is also my interpratation maybe its the real truth
Not all religion have similar metaphysical claims. There cannot be relativist standards that all are true. If all are true to begin with, they will be contradictory. And truth cannot contradict itself
It depends on seeking rational proof which God is real, which metaphysical framework is real
I do not claim all religions are true, because I do not believe any religions are true
But I don’t think that matters
Religions are a framework by which people base their beliefs about the world
For some people, that is a useful tool
It is not harmful for someone to believe in one god over another
Truth isn't relative, but the interpretation of it, you're somewhere near to it
unless its used a weapon
That is a problem of institutions and states
but someone's truth can be someones lie i think its relative
Isn't that harmful to societies? Also when u believe in a religion, u have to believe in other more irrational things like soul, ghost, rituals, miracles, creation myth, afterlife, hell or heaven, reincarnation, divine intervention, demon and possessions, human sacrifice, talking animals, flat earth, and u can't question them its like now race to belive in things which are super irrational
When religion is used as a weapon, it is wielded by people, not by the very concept of god
What if my god commands me to sacrifice 3 children for the rewards?
What does your personal morality tell you?
nop, as i said
truth isn't relative
yeah right and we havent even proved a existance of a god AND IF SOMEONE DID IT PROVED IT IT WOULD RUN ON NEWS, PAPERS, GET A NOBAL PRIVE AND IT WILL RUN THRU ALL NEWS FOR MONTHS
Low knowledge keeps you away from God, And a lot of knowledge brings you closer, like the water as i explained
ykwim?
The belief in lies over truth can be harmful to society, but the belief in a god on its own is neither morally good nor morally bad
Whether or not god exists just isn’t particularly relevant to examining the impacts of religious beliefs on people
That brings a good discussion, without God, Do truth and the rightouss exists?
personal morality is flawed. Humanism (as we know today in atheist morality) borrowed from Christian humanism
God says love one another, do not commit murder (5th Commandment, Do I show respect for the gift of life by caring for all of God's creatures, especially people? Have I ever wanted to harm or hurt anyone?)
only scientific and mathematical truth is not relative other than that religion truth are relative and based on perspective
whats knowledge and has anyone met this burden of knowlegde and is closer to god and can u prove its authencity?
God also commanded the Israelites to only enslave peoples not their own, so biblical morality is also flawed by our current societal standards
And also:
1st Commandment
( I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have any other gods besides me.)
God is infinite uncaused entity. There is no cause that made God exist
humans do have a moral compass proved by athiest
God does not demand for his arbitrary desire
we just can't achieve this truth, it does not mean it is relative
How do you mean?
it just can be interpreted differently
unless achieved how would we know if its really the truth
With or without the existence of a god, we can prove certain statements to be true
please do
Humans will die without access to water
true
I can't prove God
This statement does not rely on the existence of a god to prove its veracity
as i said
belief in a god is morally bad, bc it focuses on the well-being of the god first, but in atheism, we focus on the well-being of humans first
The truth will be answered by time, whether you live or die.
time travel
A person’s belief in god is entirely subjective to that individual’s perception of reality
Some people worship god as their lord above all, some people merely believe in the existence of god
Some people do good in the name of god, and some people do bad in the name of god
There isn’t a strict value judgement to make here
Truth seeker
lord of the time
These are the beliefs of people, after all, and people are as varied as grains of sand are numerous
It was regulated. It's unlike exploitative slavery you know in the colonial history
It was like a social class. If religion is relative and interpretive, then no one can say slavery is wrong, child sacrifice is wrong because it's based off personal standards. I can say it's correct and encouraged and I won't be wrong if morality is relative?
Normally, when humans seek the truth by waging war
we ain't stuck, till the evidence comes, the default position is atheism, and we can't do any, IT'S EITHER GOD DOESN'T WANT U TO KNOW IF HE exists or HE DOESN'T EXIST. Either way, it's not my problem or ur problem, but people who are claiming there is a god without evidence is the problem
Hohoho
there was even time limit for the slavery of that time (OT)
But it was outlowed following the Incarnation and new covenant
Personal morality is informed by the societies we grow up in
but still for a god that is eternal who knows everything from beginning to the end one would think he saaw the future and disallowed slavery
borrowed from Christian morals again, but stripped of God and objective morality
There was a limit on the enslavement of Israelites, as they were more akin to indentured servitude
However the enslavement of other peoples was not limited
Do you know why we say that? Because it brings us closer to God by revealing the limits of human understanding and the need for faith like the big bang as i said
so its like a comforting lie
big band is a proved scientifically with evidence, god hasnt
agnostic is a better term but yeah blind faith is really the problem
they aint same
Have you read Christopher Hitchens?
looks the same person actually
who invented the Big Bang theory?
who?
the fanatic one
Yeah it is
If morality was objective, there would be a consistent standard to base that morality off of, but you would then have to prove that this specific god is the correct one, and convince every Christian that they should change their morality to agree with that of their god
Georges Lemaître
Belgian Catholic priest who believes God is real and his work was an effort to understand God's creation
This guy invented Big Bang theory
No not at all I'm an atheist agnostic, which means im atheist about god until someone proves me about gos existance
“Slavery is bad” is not a part of the Bible’s take on morality
If you think science fights theology and God and disprove it, then you misunderstood it
Because at that time, slavery was an accepted part of life in those societies
I hear Big Bang in classroom all the time, but people are scared of mentioning the founder of that idea because he believes God is real
does not mean god has any hand in it just cause a religious person did something scientific does not prove his god is real
"the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physicist. He combined his scientific knowledge with his religious faith, showing that science and religion can coexist. Lemaître suggested that the universe began from a “primeval atom,” which later became known as the Big Bang." - I got it from google anyways
Do u see how we can get closer to God with it?
If I see a rock, it is a rock, fully rock.
But is there something that brought it there?
Science and religion are not fundamentally opposed
yes they do when u look at simply the creation story
Individual beliefs are opposed by science, such as young Earth creationism, but science does not disprove the existence of a god
Because that'd be proved with metaphysics and classical logic
adam and eve are not real
a georges lamaitres a preist, ik where u heading, this is second time im mentioning it, scientist take him seriously bc he not just said big bang happend but also gave his evidence, he didnt gave evidence for gods
Hi, earthers what's up?
so how do prove the creation story
It is impossible to “disprove” the idea that a god could exist
Sus
by evidence
but that one particular god
The evidences of Big Bang are God's evidences
i can disprove
can't u see that?
But that is why the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim
why didnt he tell in his book then
To claim “god doesn’t exist” makes no sense, because you can’t prove that
But if someone claims “god does exist” then they must provide evidence of such a claim
one would think he know how he created the universe but nah he created it in 7 days
also the thing if adam and eve ca be true cus then its a BIG INCENTERY FAMILY WE ALL ARE
God?
i'd rather be monke
yes
Most theologists take the story of Adam and Eve to be a metaphorical one
big has not god in its explanation tbh its has nothing to go with god anyway
evolution simply disproves every religion
Not a literal one
there is no point u can use against that
christians dont
if u have any do tell
another contradictions
wtf, with all respect, you don't knwo whatchu talkin' about
what?
Theologists are generally followers of the religion the specialize in, lol
creation story is fake?
I mean, We do see it as a metaphor
Most Christians are not young Earth creationists, so it doesn’t make sense to argue against creationism and declare it proof that god cannot exist
simple fact evolution came so they changed their views to accomodate
just to stay modern
ur just equating it to god bc it was given by a priest, but that priest was also a physicist
why is israel attacking iran? what happend there?
If I say I built this rocket in 7 days with my own hand, would that mean it's fake?
It can mean something else, not a literal rocket
Because I'm not Elon Musk
why not god sent angels to specifically tell what happend
why would angels do it metphorically
He can, but the atheists will believe out of fear of hell
free love is the freedom to choose God or choose other god (which is fake)
That’s a very complicated question, but in short, Israel attacked Iran to attempt to prevent them from building their own nuclear weapons
Because Israel deems Iran a threat
and if i knew the rocket took 13 billion years to create then i'd be rather skeptic on ur statement and outright call u a liar
because science only works with testable things. god, as described in religions, is a supernatural being and there's no experiment, formula, or observation that shows god was involved in the big bang.
You’d have to ask a theologist their opinion on this
idk why, but i'll give u a good example:
moses described the creation of the world in the book of genesis, starting with “Let there be light” this can be seen as aligning with modern science’s understanding that the universe began with an intense burst of energy, the big bang, which produced light and set everything in motion, while the language is different, both accounts point to a beginning where light and creation come first
How a man of the stone age would know such a thing?
I wouldn’t deign to speak for them, since I don’t believe in any religion myself
.
woah, but, how is that going to prevent it? isn’t this gonna motivate them to put more resources on army and weapons?
people really changing their view to stay modern and be accomadating when the same people were who captured a person cause he talked about infinity universe and turns out sun does not revolve around earth and neither are we the chosen ones
It is my opinion that the state of Israel wants to justify wars against its neighbours in order to conquer territory from them
trying to really match things up with scientific view but that's really forced we all know sun is always been seen as an important aspect of religions so light simply refers to sun and defo not the big bang
I think that is an opinion that is well supported by the actions of Israel over the past few decades, as well as the current situation in Gaza
unless you are attacking the building where they are studying how to make a nuclear bomb, if you can kill those scientists and burn all the papers. but attacking civilians and their houses won’t do shit
its a time about 400 years later, when science would know what happened before big bang, and god of the gaps argument would be turn down and religions extabishment would die out
Can we continue tomorrow?
yeah probably
They did launch missiles which reportedly killed an Iranian nuclear scientist, but I do think Netanyahu was looking for a reason to justify a war
well nah they would just correlate some statement from their book and be more fanatic
bye bye nice talking with ya
he just wants to delay his court proceedings
he's being impeached in court
but he started the war to delay that
Roger Penrose, cosmologist who estimated the number of possible configurations of the early universe (different microstates it could have been) to be an order of 10^10^123, a number greater than the known stars in the universe
But only one can lead to the current universe. This is entropy and second law of thermodynamics
To say this happened by random chance is the same as the chance of a worm building rockets to set foot on the Moon.
Why did the universe begin with order (1 in 10^10^123) and not the rest?
Because it just is? 😆
trynna become a dictator at this point
did they killed any iran civilians this time?
The global community is slowly beginning to realize the numerous crimes he has committed.. Better late than never
well 1 in 10^10^123 is a chance and it happend cause we're alive
The majority of the casualties have been civilians
and it could have been a chaotic universe but it's not
Reusing the same excuse he had for the Iraq war
You could say this of any life-bearing universe, though
it was for most of the time
Where 1+1 is 2 in my galaxy. But 1+1 = 11 in another galaxy 😆
and once we know about alternative universe and
other universe
then how would we prove this
metaverse?
We can only observe the universe because we exist to do so, therefore the set of circumstances to create this specific universe are, in a way, guaranteed
Were it slightly different, we would simply make the same observation of that universe
Yup, he has learned that it truly doesn’t matter what he says
yeah and simply cause it happend does not prove god is real
universe inside universes? If it is regressive, then there isn't one beginning to begin with. If there is no beginning since it's a regression, then there was no beginning from the start
Isaac Newton who gave laws of motion, universal gravitation, was into numerology
Scientists take him seriously when he gave evidence of what he find out true, by mathematics and experiments
he didn't gave evidence of numbers but just believed in it, and nobody takes him seriously in numerology
did u get the distinction?
I disagree
He effectively has the protection of the USA
it happend then we are here
damn, killing all those civilians just to kill one nuclear scientist, Netanyahu is has been very naughty lately
Honestly, Netanyahu has been naughty his entire life
poop coloured username detected opinion rejected
The global community is only now starting to notice
🫵 🏳️🌈
Likely because of the destabilization of global bonds with the USA
i told u to be respectful
Israel has always been a US backed state, so people were hesitant to speak up about the atrocities
nah he's my friend im jk
emoji in username detected opinion rejected
It's alright, ik him
suggest me yt channels similar to veritasium
well anyway they didnt gave any evidence or well sound argument about God's existence, their position is flawed
and im gonna be still be atheistic about gods
we souce
Is it because you are blind to see what is an evidence or you think it's not an evidence from the start?
vcaouse
vsauce
its fine an hour u havent presented any evidence
funfact (theres isnt any)
theres no fun in that tho
Worship Mexican lesbian lizards
but u get my point
Because you don't see it as evidence to begin with. I did all the time
the bible is evidence?
Does not mean what I presented was false
Do you skip my metaphysics lecture?
metaphysics is a philosophy
also thats. fallacy
watch mker fallcy
i think ur not thinking clearly about being
atheist, you are not researching your own thought.
and first casue argument
Can philosophy not be based on truth? It explains the existence of everything and the Bible is the truth
what
philosophy aint evidence
I told you about Penrose's entropy 😭
😭
I told you about universe regression theory 😭
when
maybe i didnt see them
Exactly
ok
im sorry about that
can u tell me which god u believe in?
and define that god
Catholic Christian God
Do I worship a goddess
🤔
theres are 45,000 denominations in Christianity
and u choose catholic
how are u sure urs is ture?
true
Sounds weird to me
not just u have a possibility of no god and god and lets assume god exist
but christian god and 1000 other religions and lets assume christianity is true
u still have one in a 40,000 chances more to be wrong about
can u understand how improbable it sounds to see which religion is true
in this going thru evidences would be the correct thing to find it
Apostolic (Jesus -> Twelve Apostles -> Church Fathers) ✅
Consistent
Logical coherent
Faced Roman persecution (martyrs fed to lions, crucified, burned at the stake)
Arian heresy shook the institution (Church Fathers from Nicene tradition protected it)
Muslim raids in North Africa and Middle East.
Muslim raid sacked Rome
Black Death
Protestant Reformation (Both Catholics and Protestants waging war and killing others)
Enlightenment (birth of secular/atheist ideas)
World Wars
Communism (USSR purged Catholic priests and believers)
And modern relativism
The Church could have died since long time ago, but it remains the biggest religion, largest school network and charity, and the builder of Western civilisation (preserved classical Greek texts through the fall of Roman Empire)
This is what convinced me because in the Bible it says:
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Peter, the first Pope. Peter, the Apostle.
"my church" = the Catholic Church
And the gates of hell cannot defeat it
Because I thought about it and I came to the Apostolic Churches before my studies
It was either Catholic or Orthodox
jews hinduism muslims and a lot more of those religions
are still alive
so that's not exactly a point
I also thought about Islam, Buddhism (I was born in), and atheism (I found it empty and could not answer my questions, it only proved known creations, but not the Creator)
slavery in bible ?
why is jesus advocating for it
regulated Old Testament law
He abolished it with the new covenant
so old testament was wrong
so god would be wrong too
It's not comparable to owning black slaves in Confederacy and exploiting them
why tf is israel bragging bout iran getting a nuke since 1995
Need to manufacture consent for war
He cries out as he hits someone
they scared
like who tf do they think they are
without america they are nothin
they think they can attack anyone and get away with it
And what standard do you base it on that slavery is wrong?
Construction workers, do you think they are corporate slaves?
But they earn a wage, so that justifies it as more legitimate than Confederate slavery
so slavery is right accoring to u?
uk right
ok
this is bad
Because it's not colonial slavery
It was a social class in ancient Israel
They were not whipped for not producing enough gains
ok this is enough
u have resorted to bigorty
and jusfifying slavery
even tho u know its immoral tho own another
Depends on how you interpret the essence of the word and the form of it
Current oligarchic societies like the USA function effectively as though slavery was never abolished in the first place, since the workers receive little to none of the value their labour produces, and it instead flows upward to the top 1%
I consider that kind of society to be incredibly immoral
by the bible its fine to own a slave and beat him within few days if he doenst die
does this seem moral to u?
Verse?
Oh, right. Exodus
u havent read your own bible
exodus 21
"it is safe to assume that slave masters were not allowed carte blanche authority to do whatever they wanted to their slaves."
"slave owners are limited in what they can do: if the master goes too far and the slave dies, the master will be punished. If the Old Testament Law is followed consistently, then the punishment for the slave owner might even include the death penalty for murder."
do we have bible verse bot?
📖 Exodus 21:20–21 (simplified)
If a man beats his male or female slave with a stick and the slave dies right away, the owner must be punished.
But if the slave gets up after a day or two, the owner will not be punished, because the slave is his property.
its fine if he rises up with in two days
@solemn frost
[26] If any man strike the eye of his manservant or maidservant, and leave them but one eye, he shall let them go free for the eye which he put out. [27] Also if he strike out a tooth of his manservant or maidservant, he shall in like manner make them free.
Exodus 21:26-27
<26> If any man strike the eye of his manservant or maidservant, and leave them but one eye, he shall let them go free for the eye which he put out. <27> Also if he strike out a tooth of his manservant or maidservant, he shall in like manner make them free.
So was mistreatment allowed? I asked you
WAIT WTF DID U SAY
is not right in any way
THE ONLY THING U SHOULD SAY TO A SLAVE IS TO RUN AWAY
just cause they were treated good does not make it right
Based on these verses, yes, being a cruel slave owner was allowed
is that moral masteur?
@thorny steeple yes or no
exodus 21
No because that interpretation is wrong to begin with
omg
they always do that
when something is wrong they say that interpretation is wrong
i am not a christian and i am better then ur jesus
Exodus 21:20–21
I don’t think he endorses slavery
The Bible is a reliable moral guide.
The Bible allows slavery.
Therefore slavery cannot be morally reprehensible in all situations.
Okay nevermind
pride speaking finally ur flesh is revealing
jesus does tho
Tried to give him some grace, lol
bc i know what slavery is
According to the Bible, the Israelites may enslave whomever they choose, but not their fellow Israelites. Their fellow Israelites were instead what is effectively indentured servants
religion has made u so blind that u justify slavery
If you believe that the Bible is a strong guide for objective morality, then you have to grapple with the things we consider morally reprehensible that the Bible allows
Otherwise, you can choose to understand the Bible as a framework for the subjective moralities that societies adopt over time
i have a question
does bible change when it comes to differnet christian denominations?
or they all use one bible with different interpretation
As far as I understand it (not a Christian) there are a few translations of the Bible which are different in some ways
There is also the distinction between Old Testament and New Testament, which are radically different
But beyond that, theologists have to interpret the Bible, so it naturally has deviations even within the same translation of the text
Jesus didn't endorse slavery 😭
That is why there are so many different sects of Christianity
u cant be this blind
Well no, he’s correct
He established the new law
Jesus did not endorse slavery, because that was a commandment from God
New covenant to abolish ancient Jewish law
But some sects believe Jesus and God to be one and the same
even knew testament doenst condemns slavery but just talks in a gentle way about slavery
the trinity?
For some, the Holy Trinity are merely different versions of the same being
Whereas other sects see them as more defined individual beings
thats not the holy trinity then...
new testament
Ephesians 6:5–9
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
First Council of Nicaea , Second Council of Nicaea ,
Tell that to them, I guess
Exodus 21:20–21 (simplified)
If a man beats his male or female slave with a stick and the slave dies right away, the owner must be punished.
But if the slave gets up after a day or two, the owner will not be punished, because the slave is his property.
The accepting of the bible from different writers in that time
Funny fact is emperor Constantine was pagan and he ruled the councils
He choosed Christinas destiny
anyway bible isnt moral
how bro
tbh any religious books has some flaw
the Bible doesn't
Exodus 21:20–21 (simplified)
If a man beats his male or female slave with a stick and the slave dies right away, the owner must be punished.
But if the slave gets up after a day or two, the owner will not be punished, because the slave is his property.
"exodus 21"
how much can u twist or bend to make this sentence look moral
this cant be words of a all good god
Objective morality, mind you, is not all-encompassing
There are many Christians who do not believe in the objective moral framework idea
Korintliler 11:5-6
"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Timothy 2:11-12
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
That was the old law in which the Israelites were involved in brutal bronze age environment. Why do you think Jesus come to establish new law so that people will stop following the old law?
That's not God changing his mind.
YHWH even regulated it with the Ten Commandments
No ancient society Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman abolished it in the Near East
Mosaic Law regulated it. The Bible tolerated it does not mean it endorsed it.
Babylonian law treated slaves as property without legal redress.
Mosaic law grants rights, and limited the sentence
Galatians 3:28 transformed slavery.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Paul to Philemon, Philemon 1:10-16
I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me. I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary. For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave — a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
<28> There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
<10> I beseech thee for my son, whom I have begotten in my bands, Onesimus, <11> Who hath been heretofore unprofitable to thee, but now is profitable both to me and thee, <12> Whom I have sent back to thee. And do thou receive him as my own bowels. <13> Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered to me in the bands of the gospel: <14> But without thy counsel I would do nothing: that thy good deed might not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary. <15> For perhaps he therefore departed for a season from thee, that thou mightest receive him again for ever: <16> Not now as a servant, but instead of a servant, a most dear brother, especially to me: but how much more to thee both in the flesh and in the Lord?
It is the fact there are so many different bible versions
And these versions are mostly written after 300 years from Jesus Dies.
First Council, Second Council
What's so serious in here
Douay Bible I read and use is based of Latin Vulgate compiled in 4th century, which is then based off Greek texts preserved
Sometimes I feel like atheists want empirical proof, but there is no enough proof for it turn into faith
One day you will understand. No enough proof will initiate serious faith in God
I followed this "lie" first, then I sought proof later
Because the mind sees proof. But the heart does not see
That I quit agnosticism
Bible studies, I guess
They are just beliefs, for it is important for spiritual peace
Uh huh
If you believe you can if you don't you can too
Religions are as old as the starting of humanity
I think it would be more accurate to say that religion is as old as culture
Yes you can't describe the culture without religions
so god was wrong about slavery and changed in the New Testament
For example Turkic History, there were Christians, Jews , Tengrist , Maneist , Buddhist , Muslim
strawmanmaxxing
can u understand one thing
Some of them go to Anatolia or Persia and become Muslim
ur trying to justify slavery
These are just beliefs
there would be no context in a way which supports a moral god with slavery
there is no slavery in heaven...
slavery is a part of this world which is sinful
Why is it so important, you talking about slavery but most of the nations had slaves until 20th century
its in bible
new testament as well as old one
okay..? that doesnt prove anything...
sin is in the bible too
And Most of countrys people are leaving life like modern slaves
What is the fact than
And no moral universe could exist at all without God, yet you pretend it does and there are objective morals to define slavery as evil
If you don't believe in God, why don't you support slavery? There is no objective morality
it proofs that jesus advocated for slavery which isnt moral
just cuz something is in the bible doesnt mean Jesus advocates for it broski
omg
this debate has turned in a way
See. You are too blind with your pride. No amount of proof will make you believe not because there is no proof, but because you don't see it as proof
where we are discussing why slavery is good
when he was alive is the point that was made
I mean, it’s an honest question
If you don’t believe in an objective moral framework, where do you derive your personal morality?
the Bible never says slavery is okay. Read and understand the book of Philemon broskis
For me, I believe in a framework of harm reduction
well being of humans
we dont need morality from a book
This just shows you're not actually looking for proof
You can live this way
I cannot force you to believe in God
"proof"
ur saying bible isnt gods word?