I actually resent the fact that I’m gonna get judged one day, like if that’s true. That somebody’s gonna judge me. That doesn’t even make any sense, like “Dude, you made me… this is YOUR fuck up. Alright? Let’s not try to turn this around on me. You know? Jesus Christ. You give me freedom of choice, you make whores, you have me suck at math, and you don’t think this things gonna go off the rails? Like, you set me up to fail and now you’ve got the BALLS to now question your own goddamn work. Dude, if I made a car, if I built a car and it didn’t run, I wouldn’t like burn it forever: “YOU EVIL PIECE OF SHIT!” and light it on fire… I wouldn’t. I would troubleshoot: “Is there gas in the engine? Is the battery charged?! Anything beyond this and I’ve got to get a REAL MAN to look at this! But I believe in you! I’ll try and help you out…
Why do all of you sky fairy believers all try to say that you are the chosen ones and everybody else is wrong?
NEWSFLASH - You are all the same fucking things -- sky fairies aren't real.
There's a reason why 99% of religious people were indoctrinated from birth. It's a stronger version of libcuck college brainwashing and likewise you won't be able to even get them to consider any alternative opinion. Just let them post their reddit hat memes in peace.
OP hero is literally married to a sheboon negress.
Burr is just another white guilted SJW cuck who uses jew tactics in arguments. Listen to him vs Anthony Cumia on an old O&A show, when Anthony calmly asks "What has happened to you in your life that instilled such white guilt..." and before he can even finish Burr chimps out worse than a nigger, repeating some absolute nonsense about I JUST WON, YOU JUST LOST, YOU JUST CONCEDED just screaming over and over like an absolute retard.
I like Burr enough for a comedian, once you can admit than just like Patton Oswalt and most of the rest they're more concerned with maintaining the status Hollyjewood quo so their gigs don't dry up.
I think this is it but it might not be
God isn't going to force you to be with him in heaven. When he created you he gave you the gift of free will and because he loves you he let's you choose to enter heaven or to be in hell - which is an absence of god. If he forced you to be with him then it wouldn't be love.
>liberals and atheists get their news and philosophy from comedians
why do atheist care so much about people with faith? i dont believe myself but these retards are triggering my autism rly. they cry about christians showing religion down to their throat while its completly oppossite most of the time.... also most of the time muslims are ok for them.
modern atheist= marxist
None of the predictions about Jesus in the 4 gospels are real
This is what it really comes down to. God is the all powerful creator, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and so that would make him responsible for literally every single thing. Lucifer turning against him, the fall in Eden. He created evil and allows hell to exist, dispute being all-powerful. It's the ultimate contradiction in having faith in a "loving" christian god.
>I actually resent the fact that I’m gonna get judged one day, like if that’s true. That somebody’s gonna judge me.
Of course you do. Because you know that you've lived a life of sin and hate the fact that there will be consequences for it.
>That doesn’t even make any sense, like “Dude, you made me… this is YOUR fuck up. Alright?
Do you also blame your parents for all the fuck ups in your life? "Like dude you made me. It's your fault I got a DUI and flunked out of school dad you should have raised me better than that!"
>Let’s not try to turn this around on me. You know? Jesus Christ.
Yes God forbid you be held accountable for your own willful actions
>You give me freedom of choice, you make whores, you have me suck at math, and you don’t think this things gonna go off the rails?
It's not God's fault if you abuse your freedom of choice. Other people get on just fine. You suck at math because you refuse to study and learn. Things go off the rail because you let them.
>Dude, if I made a car, if I built a car and it didn’t run, I wouldn’t like burn it forever: “YOU EVIL PIECE OF SHIT!” and light it on fire… I wouldn’t. I would troubleshoot: “Is there gas in the engine? Is the battery charged?! Anything beyond this and I’ve got to get a REAL MAN to look at this! But I believe in you! I’ll try and help you out…
Your analogy is shit. God made the car and gave it to you. You chose to abuse it, neglect getting it checked up regularly, and put work into it. You took it joyriding and crashed it and broke it down. And now you have the audacity to blame him because you were irresponsible with the gift you were given.
Stay edgy faggot.
Eh, it was funny bantz to me up until he started that, at first when he started shouting that he won I thought maybe it's just a couple of goof balls still fucking around but then several minutes of actual fucking discussion about how he thinks Anthony honestly capitulated.... a little disappointing.
>You give me freedom of choice
There is no way we can have "freedom of choice" if God knows what we're going to do before we even do it.
We could have the "illusion" of choice, but God's omniscience would imply that there is only one possible way everything can turn out. If God is omniscient, that logically implies that all events/outcomes are set in stone.
Agreed, it was still good, even though Burr was being a white guilt faggot throughout, but you could tell it was at that point he realized "he's got me there" that he switched tactics to full on SHUT IT DOWN mode.
Ant calmly asked him why he has such white guilt, and 20 seconds later BB misconstrued that into "hur durr you just said WHY ARE YOU SUCH A FUCKIN DOUCHEBAG"
That's not what happened, William, and you know it.
>god creates utopia
>god granted man free will as well
>god says 'do as I say and enjoy the utopia created'
>man rejects god's offering
>man says god is mean because life isn't utopia
I know. And I've listened to these guys for more than a decade now. Patrice, Jim, Vos, they all do it, in a semi-fun spirited "comedians ragging on other comedians" way.
This wasn't that. This was "I'm losing the argument, I'm tired of it, so I'm going to completely move the goalposts."
It's less about shouting, more about the disingenuous nature of it.
I don't get this at all. Yes the priest is a some guy, he isn't claiming to be fucking Christ. He up on the altar because he is helping to interpret the Gospel and relate it to everyday life. He speaks in Old English or Latin because he fucking went through years of seminary and training to become a priest. also, this fag is also a guy, why is he preaching to me about some guy being a guy when in fact he is a guy being a guy telling me about other guys
I actually resent the fact that I’m gonna get baited one day, like if that’s true. That somebody’s gonna bait me. That doesn’t even make any sense, like “Dude, you made me baitable… this is YOUR fuck up. Alright? Let’s not try to turn this around on me. You know? Jesus Christ. You give me freedom of choice, you make whores, you have me suck at math, and you don’t think this things gonna go off the rails? Like, you set me up to be baited and now you’ve got the BALLS to now question your own baiting. Dude, if I made a car, if I built a car and it didn’t run, I wouldn’t like ban it forever: “YOU EVIL SHITPOSTER!” and crush it with the banhammer… I wouldn’t. I would troubleshoot: “Is he from stralia/spiderland? Is the poster being realistic?! Anything beyond this and I’ve got to get a REAL SHITPOSTER to look at this! But I believe in you! I’ll try and help you out…
I'll agree with you, Bill lost so he steered it in a completely different direction. Its just something I've noticed living out here, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Eastern Peannsylvania, even for the best of us sometimes an argument just devolves into WHO IS THE LOUDEST? THEY HAVE WON.
>Bronze Ages Jews write down their cosmogonic myths
>two contradictory accounts (Genesis 1 and 2) can be seen by anyone with reading comprehension skills
>thousands of years later modern science is invented and Genesis is thoroughly debunked
>Evangelical Ameriburgers still believe in it to this day
is that stone cold steve austin
I feel ya.
I'm just now to the point where the terrible phone calls from blackies start in, and Anthony is still just killing it, from a /pol/ perspective and comedically. God bless Jimmy for standing beside him for the most part throughout and laughing at the rayciss jokes.
she was on Louie?
The last episodes of that I remember watching were the ones about a duck and military shows, and one where the woman basically forced him to eat her out in a truck.
I guess I missed most of the full on cuck stuff. I don't know why I stopped watching FX shows, used to watch it, Always Sunny, The League, etc, but haven't seen any of em in years. Ohh, right, a bunch of em switched to FXX and I don't think I had that the first year, guess I didn't care about em enough to pirate.
Sound like stereotypical Connecticut girls
>rich as fuck
>usually support mainstream political candidate, politics rarely discussed
>have an apartment in NYC and a house in Greenwich/Stamford
>did I mention rich?
Scientific method puts too many holes in religious doctrines. Religious texts just do not hold up the rigor and scrutiny of the scientific community.
>The Doctor is just a guy
>How is he going to to heal me if he is just a guy.
Nice logic you got there
As for your second thing. Judging is human fucking nature. And if we go with the Christian Orthodox Narrative. Which sees sin as both immoral things and refusing to better yourself. God would look at you whining about whores, and being allowed freedom of choice, like at a child with freedom of choice who chose poorly and is now whining.
Grow a fucking spine will you and stand up to your actions, if you are a sinner be one, if you are not but end up being one admit that you are a PoS and seek help, if you are not a sinner and don't end up as one congratulations.
I can understand people being non religious. But picking on religion cause somebody is judging your actions is left Socialist Liberal Logic of "HE HURT MUH FEE FEES"
>Religion is just after life guys
>We don't know what happens after death guys so Religion is null and void.
More awesome logic you got there.
But religious leaders. Besides religion and theology also act as moral pillars of a community(this has nothing to do from where you draw morality, it's just a fact) and their job, unless stupid religion which is probably Heathen is to help people go on the right path.
Not really, that's just what most /pol/lacks interpret as a "Christian board".
I have a tough time believing that an anti-immigration board believes these to be divine writings:
>Yes God forbid you be held accountable for your own willful actions
I find it pretty weak that you can be a decent person without religion and then get an eternal spanking for not devoting your life to whatever belief, or for following the wrong belief. Shouldn't those people be lauded for kicking life's ass without being goaded into doing so out of fear or orders to make a higher power happy?
The afterlife is a huge part of pretty much every major world religion. It's a huge factor in many people's religiosity and most churches' theologies. Religious leaders don't hesitate to make declarative statements about it without any familiarity or experience with it.
>religion is just after life
I do not agree with that.
>We don't know what happens after death guys so Religion is null and void
I do not agree with that, either. This is what is known as a "straw man".
I'm having a tough time deciphering your last statement. I think you're saying that religious leaders are advisers to their followers, which is only a repetition of the original premise: that religious leaders are giving advice that they are unqualified to make.
I'm not trying to be disparaging, but please learn English a little better before getting into serious discussions. The last sentence is a grammatical train wreck.
>not understanding the sacrament of ordination
It's like you atheists and prots get your theology off the back of a cereal box
I went to church once expecting the preacher to belittle everyone and yell "REPENT!" a few times. All the fucker did was tell everyone that even the smallest act of kindness can make a huge impact on lives and stretched that message for an hour and a half. No messages of death or afterlife talk, just a little reminder to be good.
I haven't gone back since but that little nugget has stuck with me.
>I find it pretty weak that you can be a decent person without religion and then get an eternal spanking for not devoting your life to whatever belief
Who says that? In my religion you can't go to hell unless you knowingly reject god. If you don't know him you can't reject him so why would not knowing him be held against you?
How is a preist unqualified to advise people on moral grounds?
Strip him of theology and religion and he still is a quite learned person, with vast experience with the local community, and vast interest in it.
So what are you going to tell me is that only a Judge can give moral advice?
Since a lot of things are legal yet not moral, like Abortions in a lot of places.
Of course a stand-up comedian is going to see anybody with an educated profession as "just a guy"; they can't handle the fact that other people work in careers that aren't essentially being a glorified jester. Why do you think depression is such a common trait among comedians?
mfw neckbeards have nothing better to do than try to raise themselves up by talking down religions.
Giving person-to-person advice is one thing. Declaring yourself to have divine knowledge that others (and you) don't, and then using that declaration as a means to elevate your argument, is another.
That's what Burr was stating.
>he is still a quite learned person
Again, an appeal to authority. Being correct does not follow from being learned. If he can't support his positions with factual evidence and must resort to his past achievements, then there's an issue.
>only a judge can give moral advice
Anybody can give moral advice.
That's not refuting anything that's simply denying the Holy Spirit
>attacking the person and not the argument
Argument -- God, historical text isn't real because of science
>man bestowed free will
>man derives tools for understanding environment
>man concludes universe exists within a set of constants; laws
>man tests creation of life -- using empirical knowledge and educated hypothesis
>man concludes life is unique, existing in a precise universe
>man understands that if one law were to change the universe would not exist
Science proves what is empirical -- enter faith; a logical conclusion based on evidence that shows intelligent design.
There's that word again! So, gathering from your post and what I've heard before..I wouldn't be shunned because, even though I went to bible school and all that jazz, I still don't "know" God? Because, (according to an evangelical) if I did, I wouldn't want to reject him, correct?
fwiw I don't make this debate my life, I just try and get along with folks, so forgive me if this is basic God knowledge
>opinion of a clown
Why is anything he says relevant or worthy of notice? This is a man who had absolutely no drive or motivation in life to do anything of worth with his life. It's like the opinion of an actor. Why should I care?
More importantly, why does the Left always refer to things said by these people?
If a person is educated, and I mean popper. He is more likely to have the knowledge of what is right and wrong, with data to back it up.
Like the sex before marriage polls that found out the more sexual partners one has before marriage the more likely it is for the marriage to fall apart.
>implying that guy doesn't get it from the Bible
>which was passed down from some other guys
>which were around when Jesus was around
>who happened to be his disciples
Oh okay OP. Also doesn't help to call Christians retards when trying to come off intellectually, even though I don't think that's your point.
>God makes you
>Gives you every gift imaginable
>Makes all animals your slaves so you can ride lions and shit
>You're still lonely
>Gives you fine, naked woman and tells her to obey you.
>Asks you not to eat his special fruit he's been saving.
>"LOL fuck you DAD!"
>God sends you on short time-out.
>You become faggot and rape good people.
>God smites you, but then has mercy.
>You become Italian faggot and worship lightning like a retard.
>God sends his Son to explain key to eternal paradise.
>You kill his Son.
>Based Son rises from dead and announces He has destroyed Hell and conquered death.
>You stay faggot.
>Christian's laugh at you and conquer world.
>You cry about it on internet made by Christians.
>Christian's continue laughing.
Why does a doctor have a fancy title?
And why does he sometimes read up on medical practices.
The Bible is a book full of idioms, metaphors, life lessons and such.
And his title is basically just a proof that he has worked, probably hard to earn that position therefore he is competent.
Atheist are childish and have childish arguments. I used to be atheist, but a God of some kind exist. None of your elitism can disprove a God like being thats like trying to say dark matter doesnt exist.
Your nigger genes made you shit at math, God had nothing to do with it.
Idk, but my denomination's take on hell is that they are the same place, just that the person is different.
>Good guy is familiar with god and enjoys his presence.
>Bad guy is unfamiliar and finds the presence painful (kind of like being in the dark and having a camera flash go off in your face)
>if I did, I wouldn't want to reject him, correct?
Not necessarily. A lot of people do know or come to know god and still choose to reject him, that's what Satan and the angels that followed him did and I'm sure many people as well. Even if you don't come to know god in life you'll know him after you die because you can't make that choice if you're uninformed.
Religious leaders are hypothetical? I'll give you a specific example of one, then: the Pope.
It is not an attack on a hypothetical person. It is an attack on an argument revolving around that person's qualifications and their role in the claims they make. Saying "you do not have the experience and/or data to support such a claim" is very different from name calling, such as >>59979268.
It's a subtle difference, but an important one.
Refutation of an appeal to authority is not itself an ad hominem.
As for the fallacy fallacy, I do believe that the claims of major world religions are false. However, I do not believe this because of the reason in OP's pic. All I have said is that it brings the claims into question, another subtle difference.
I think atheists and Christians will never really meet eye to eye for a basic reason.
Atheistic morality is based on utilitarianism.
Christian morality is a mix of Perfectionism and Duty Based Morality(No idea how to translate term to English).
The Atheist is merely focused on a day to day basic of what is proven.
While the Christian is focused on becoming a better being as each day passes, but also doing his duty as a Christian and helping others and doing god's work.
Basically it ends up nowhere unless one side cracks.
>You're saved by accepting Christ died for your sins, asking forgiveness, and repenting.
Not an atheist, but ok. I'm just saying it sounds unnecessarily complex. Why have people jump through so many hoops?
In regard to the first, no one thinks a pastor or priest or preacher is anything but "just a guy" unless they're literally drooling retards.
In regard to the second, your car doesn't have free will Bill. And if you actually believe what you're saying, you don't think you or anyone else has free will either. Which is fucking stupid.
>Implying a person is the same as a cow and as a car because Atoms
Nice logic you got there.
I never knew a Car or Cow capable to judge what is Good or Evil, relative or superlative.
Same ingredients, different configurations.
>why do you care about anything
dank memes mostly
>intentionality of my thoughts
complex neural networks in my brain
>how could that possibly come about
What is "that"? I'm confused about the question.
>create beings in my image
>this implies they get free will and the ability to do wrong
>some, predictably, do bad things of their own volition
>because they were created, some of the more autistic ones think that absolves them of any wrongdoing and that their choices are somehow my fault
>definitely not letting them into heaven now
>Good or Evil
Very funny. If anything, Christians are the ones that don't know Good from Evil, since every one of their actions is done with the knowledge that it will either be rewarded or punished.
An atheist and a Christian both commit a random act of kindness. Which one of them is a better person?
For the Christian, doing the act pleases God and gets him closer to Heaven. A Christian by definition can never be altruistic, because there is ALWAYS a positive reinforcement for everything he does.
For the atheist, as far as he knows, there is no reward for his act at all. He simply did it because he wanted to be kind.
So you have no problem with someone murdering your family, your friends, and destroying everything you've ever loved then. It's just atoms.
>complex neural networks in my brain
So how do you explain multiple realizability?
"That" is intentionality. How could random un-intentioned physical causes give rise to intentionality?
Doing good things does not get you into heaven. Christians who think like this are not realizing that what gets you into heaven is doing God's work, and giving yourself to God. Simple good deeds he likes, but that isn't a determining factor into getting in Heaven.
No, I do have a problem with that. Just because I'm only made of atoms doesn't mean those atoms don't exhibit a configuration that allows for having problems.
What? Never heard of this, explain
>How could random un-intentioned physical causes give rise to intentionality?
This is asking for an explanation of natural selection. There are plenty of other resources that could help with this; I'm not in the mood. If we assume evolutionary theory to be true (which I understand is a big if, but you asked), then having consciousness is a HUGE advantage in hunting for prey.
>What is your morality based on? And why?
Empathy, mostly. Which is pretty ironic, because that was a pretty critical component of Jesus' teachings. I figure that if I wouldn't want something done to me, then I shouldn't do it to others.
Christians who only do actions for their salvation are looked down upon by other Christians, since we are thought to be kind, loving people, and as a reward we will get salvation for being good people. There are countless teachings against such practices.
You are using a variant of a straw man one can argue.
Heck even Nietzsche made a point against such Christians.
And using the logic of: "You get positive reinforcement" is wrong. We feel good when we do something we think as good, and we are told by society we done good leading to more reinforcement.
say with me now: God i do accept your son Jesus Christ like my only and true saviour and i beg your forgiveness through his blood. Start reading the bible and praying.Do your best to live a pure life and you are good to go.
He doesn't know the path you will take though. However he does know the outcome of the path you choose. He REALLY wants you to go down a specific path with Him, but he is not forcing you to go down it, he is giving you the choice.
>program it so it has a 50/50 chance to either go on a massacre or do something good like tackle an armed robber
>it chooses to go on a massacre
>it is the robot's fault, not mine
Or to be more accurate
>be a psychic time wizard
>foresee that my robot will choose to massacre people once I turn it on
>turn it on anyway
>the robot is the bad one, not me
Explain this christfags.
Right, right, like bouncing a nightclub. That works for one religion, but like I said earlier, I get gummed up on the fact that jew and muslims for example also think they're right and everyone else is wrong. It's strange to think that a higher power would be checking people at the door and deny them for wearing the wrong clothes, even if they were there for the same act.
> making shit up as some kind of argument...
You don't even understand how retarded you sound. How do you know what the fuck good wants? Someone told you. You read it in a book. Or god told you himself. We know that last one didn't happen, so your whole belief system is based on believing 2nd hand info about what is allegedly the most important thing in the entire universe... The creator and what it wants from you.
Don't bait the religious, OP. They might have some crazy ideas, but for the most part, their hearts are in the right place.
>Just because I'm only made of atoms doesn't mean those atoms don't exhibit a configuration that allows for having problems
The person who murders your family, friends, and destroys everything you love has a problem with you being happy.
What makes your problems any more valid or important than his?
Read up on philosophy of mind. I'm not going to lecture someone on an anonymous image board about something they could learn themselves with a tiny bit of effort.
>This is asking for an explanation of natural selection
No it isn't - it's asking how something could even come to have intentionality in the first place. It has nothing whatsoever to do with living things managing to live or not live. The question is *how could it *possibly* come to be by random physical processes, when we have observed *nothing* like intentionality in things that don't already have it.
A person who is commanded to do something only does it because of the command not out of his own volition.
You can willingly become Christian because you want to do the things commanded of you.
Helping someone does give you a reward, regardless of belief system.
Entirely dependant on the opposition. I've seen theists talk in circles like they shit wisdom out of their mouthes. It takes all sorts, does a differance of opinion.
Being conscious is fundamentally different from being able to take in data from your environment and process it in a manner that allows for you to make decisions, which is really all that is necessary for survival, and it's all that is implied by our mental processes alone.
If you could write a program that emulates the human mind, it doesn't seem to be reasonable to call it conscious or to say that it has free will. After all, it would simply be a series of rapidly flipping bits.
>RANDOM CHANCE = FREE WILL
You don't understand free will.
We are allowed to do what we want, so god can chose who is worthy and who isn't based on their choices. How is that a hard thing to fucking understand.
Seriously if you are an atheist there are quite a few valid arguments. Yet your own stupidity makes you not chose to use them, since free will.
Religios people not only are mentally inferior to atheist, they also don't stand any chance with the smaht ladies
No, you would ask the doctor, "Hey doc, have you performed this surgery before? What's my prognosis?"
>free will isn't random
I guess it must be divine providence that you're shitposting on 4chan then.
He is omnipotent and knows what I'll choose before I choose it.
Yeah sorry, there was supposed to be a question mark at the end there.
**A person who is commanded to do something only does it because of the command not out of his own volition?
>what makes my problems any more valid than his
Because I'm minding my own business. He isn't.
>Multiple realizability, in the philosophy of mind, is the thesis that the same mental property, state, or event can be implemented by different physical properties, states or events.
I see no reason why this would conflict with the mind's ability to create intention. This seems to be a weak substitute for concrete data.
>random physical process
Most physical processes (including the ones that govern natural selection and abiogenesis) are not random. They may be chaotic or pseudorandom, but not random.
>nothing like intentionality in things that don't already have it
Really? We have seen NOTHING that even RESEMBLES intentionality in artificial intelligence?
So not only are you so mentally retarded to fail to understand Free Will and Morality. You are also using Protestant logic.
Dear God, Jesus and the Holy Trinity how can one be so retarded?
>Being conscious is fundamentally different from being able to take in data from your environment and process it in a manner that allows for you to make decisions, which is really all that is necessary for survival, and it's all that is implied by our mental processes alone.
Consciousness just reflects the degree to which one can do this.
>After all, it would simply be a series of rapidly flipping bits
The human brain is composed of mass-energy, too. What makes it so special?
You're not understanding the implication of multiple realizability in regard to this conversation - given you probably just googled it, it's not surprising. No one is saying multiple realizability conflicts with intentionality - the problem is that multiple realizability *doesn't make sense* to someone who holds that thoughts are just mechanical processes of brain activity. If a thought is identical to another thought, then the brain processes should be identical, as is every other mechanical reaction in the universe that results in identical outputs with identical inputs. But they're *NOT*.
Because he is violating a collusion of empathy and altruism that, if followed, allows for both us to both find and achieve happiness. If he cannot achieve happiness without violating the collusion, then he's a dickbag who should be imprisoned.
>identical outputs and identical inputs
You don't get that with a human mind, nobody ever says that
You don't even get that with machines outside of programming
You design machines with a margin of error to deal with, for one
Nothing. However, things like qualitative senses and the conscious experience are needless abstractions to something that just processes information and converts it into nerve signals.
Environmental Factors, Information Given, Ability to Make Simulations.
Aka Intelligence, Education, Culture are not factors that determine our morality, and how we excessive free will.
It's totally Random guys, cause otherwise we are controlled by god from the start.
Seriously your logic is mindbogglingly stupid, so much so I don't think religion is even a matter.
You can be an athiest, that's your choice. You can choose to accept Jesus and do what he said. It is up to you.
You're going to make a decision about your life and possibly what happens after. Make sure you're happy with your decision and pick.
I suggest following Jesus because it has helped me in my life.
Whether you want to label them random or 100% determined is irrelevant to my argument - I only used the word because most empiricists/materialists hold them to be non-intentioned, so they're *effectively* random to a human observer, since they were caused by no one with any kind of purpose or plan.
Yes really. We *don't HAVE* artificial intelligence. We have never created anything that has thoughts.
The priest is just a theologist who belives more then most in jesus and the stories in the bible. The holy part is your relationship with jesus. Its imagine a rope that comes from god, first it connected to jesus and through jesus connected to those who believed in him, thats the holy spirit our connection to jesus and god.
>Because he is violating a collusion of empathy and altruism
Why do those matter? You're just atoms.
>allows for both us to both find and achieve happiness
No, for that guy, his happiness depends on your misery. He will not be happy without making you miserable.
>who should be imprisoned
Why should he be imprisoned? He thinks *YOU* should be imprisoned, because he thinks *YOU'RE* a dickbag for trying to take away his happiness.
Your values come from *thin air*. There's no basis for them - they're *worthless*.
So you're telling me two people raised in the same manner for all the factors you listed will act in the same manner and make the same choices in life then?
Just to clarify, I'm not saying everything is 50/50.
>ignoring all of modern neurobiology
The brain is immensely complex. Big time complex, far more complex that it can even comprehend.
This definition would lead to a loss of information, that is, different inputs on the system could lead to identical outputs from the system. If you are capable of demonstrating that the brain is such a system, then I suggest immediately reporting to Oslo to collect your Nobel Prize.
>if a thought is identical to another thought, then the brain processes should be identical
Again, the brain is far more complex than it can comprehend. It doesn't run in discrete outputs like a computer. Sending a wave of energy through the neurobiological fabric of the brain perturbs the ENTIRE structure. We're talking billion billion billions of atoms getting impacted, and then impacting each other and the environment around them.
Are you simple or something? I don't want Islam or Christianity in the public schools. How does knowing theology contribute to our skills or abilities? The fundies of all stripes can fuck right off. Especially the wahabi Muslim asshats. I don't want the president of the US deciding to go to war based on a prayer.
Ideas or opinions produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind. So it presupposes a mind. Machines don't have minds.
Mind - the element of a person (or something) that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
Why do you think coming out swinging is a good strategy for persuading anybody of anything?
Moreover, out of the Abrahamic religions, is Christianity really the biggest threat in the world right now?
>Life choices = Morality
Morality affects how we make those choices and what choices we take. But the world it's self is Random, so everyone is technically random. But that is besides the point.
If two people share morality they will try to reach the same goal and rationalize the way to that goal in the same way.
It's Random by the fact that we live in a random world.
>never created anything that has thoughts
Please define "thoughts".
>Whether you want to label them random or 100% determined is irrelevant to my argument
It is completely relevant. The regularity of physical processes is what generates the processes the make consciousness feasible.
Why does it matter that other people exist? If I'm the only person who exists, I can still *VALUE* things. I can value the taste of food, the comfort of good weather, my health and well-being - values are still there.
So *OBVIOUSLY* you're wrong, since values exist *regardless* of other people existing.
I am not conceding. I am countering your stupid analogy with the robot.
There are never two things perfectly equal in this world and will never be. That does not prove or disprove god in any way. It's just a mental exercise not getting anywhere.
I do believe in a God but I'm vilified by Christians via a megaphone for having a few drinks at a college tailgate and not accepting your zombie jesus as my lord and savior.
Who are you to judge me and proclaim that I'm going to burn eternally in your imaginary hell of fire and brimstone? The gall and sanctimony of Christians is brain blowing.
No, your father had a kid, he knew you weren't going to listen to everything he told you to do as well and you were punished for it.
The government needs people, they're a resource and when they do what they're not supposed to, they get punished.
God, being the ultimate creator will ultimately punish those who are against him.
then you can start valuing other people and disagree firmly with people that don't value other people's lives and lock them up to protect them
in cases like this, it's actually a majority consensus that leads to the conclusion, even though that usually doesn't stand in a debate
it's like a herd mentality
snakes wouldn't give a shit if you weren't bothering them specifically, primates would and would beat the shit out of you if you started injuring them
it's a bit complex and doesn't exactly necessitate there being a god - i'm an agnostic for these reasons
>This definition would lead to a loss of information, that is, different inputs on the system could lead to identical outputs from the system
No it wouldn't. It's exactly what we observe. There is no consistency between neuron firings and the thoughts those firings produce. I think of an orange, and then a moment later I think of the orange again - different processes.
That's not even going into qualia relations.
Just came to me. This is Sunday. Did your grandma drag you to the local Independant Fundamental Baptist church again and you need a little "wah wah wah" time now that you're out?
>You're just atoms
Right. So is he. But we're both in configurations that can feel and suffer, so we might as well collaborate to work accordingly.
This is always a curious viewpoint to me. If tomorrow you discovered that, as an objective truth (for the sake of argument), that there is no deity, would you just murder people indiscriminately? If so, why haven't atheists done so?
>his happiness depends on my misery
Then he should search for happiness elsewhere until he finds it.
The person who violates the collusion of empathy ought to be imprisoned. It is his duty to find a means of achieving happiness that also allows other to achieve happiness/fulfillment. If he is incapable of doing this without depriving others of life, then fulfillment/happiness/whatever will be lost regardless. It is best to provide consequences for breaking the contract of empathy.
Fuck you are stupid
First of I am not a Lutheran heretic. Since free fucking will. Secondly it is arbitrary. Because god wants to see who of us are capable of taking the right, morally good choices.
Fuck Protestants they have somehow also managed to make Atheists more retarded as well.
>my omnipotent father with future sight knew he would have a kid who wouldn't listen to him even though not listening to him pisses him off to the point where he punishes me for eternity, but decided to conceive me anyway
So my father is a sadomasochist?
>There is no consistency between neuron firings and the thoughts those firings produce.
we're able to form (extremely blurry) images from brain scans
then why do mental traits of different species tend to follow patterns of the same species?
I'm just saying people make these threads looking for an argument. There's no muslims here to argue against. There are christians here to argue against. Put two and two together.
>there's no real answer to this
A machine follows completely predetermined routes based on inputs, and is able to introspect and experience qualia while simultaneously having intentionality in regard to their thoughts. A machine observably *doesn't*.
>wouldn't it be save to assume
>save to assume
American education at its finest.
>then you can
So a non-answer. You said "people can do things" as if that addresses the issue that there's no right or wrong to what anyone does in the first place. Your life is just as worthless as the murderer's - your happiness and misery just as pointless as his. You have no logical basis for establishing anything as more important than anything else.
Fuck I am done arguing with someone as stupid as you.
It's quite obvious it gets nowhere when you assume that one either is a Lutheran idiot, or God doesn't exist. Because hey free will is totally not something god has given us.
You can disagree with the idea of a god, but trying to say free will is non existent is idiotic.
a designed machine is necessarily much, much less complex than a brain - given enough processing power, someone could produce something as complex, but it's a monumental task and we don't have the power
no-one said I wasn't a bit of a nihilist
problem is according to my values other people's values matter as well
so I live by that, despite it technically not mattering a single bit
depends, are the other two people the only two people left on the planet? even then it's not enough of a sample size
>But we're both in configurations that can feel and suffer
So? Why do feeling and suffering matter?
>If tomorrow you discovered
It wouldn't matter what I did or didn't do - it would be irrelevant. Whatever I chose to do would be no better or worse than what anyone else did. I could murder you and torture everyone you loved, or spend my entire life as a philanthropist who travels the world with a team of doctors to make people as healthy as possible - there would be no "better" or "worse", "right" or "wrong" to doing either.
>For the word of god.
Most of these fucks reject parts of the bible, or add random shit. Making them heretics, even heathens.
Seriously why are they even allowed to be called Christians at this point?
But hey they are fucking it up. While Orthodoxy just keeps going.
>Then he should search for happiness elsewhere until he finds it.
>The person who violates the collusion of empathy ought to be imprisoned
>It is his duty
*ESPECIALLY* why? Where does this "duty" come from?
>there is no consistency between neuron firings and the thoughts those firings produce
This is incorrect. Certain regions of the brain are associated with certain neurobiological functions for a reason. Neuroimaging techniques can associate brain activity with certain mental and neurobiological states.
If neurons are not responsible for thoughts, then what do you propose is?
How do you know they're different processes? They are producing a similar result, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect them to be contrived in similar manners.
Mental processes are dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry, just on a grand scale of complexity that makes them chaotic.
So your answer is "we don't know enough about brains so there's no multiple realizability"? That is not an answer and simultaneously doesn't address the principle of the argument, which is that a single mental kind can be realized by multiple physical kinds.
Bill Oreilly is rather magical but the building he works out of is a shithole.
I don't get your point, but I do have some good news and some bad news
He is risen
You're going to hell for being an actual faggot.
It has nothing to do with complexity or simplicity, you're more than "a bit" of a nihilist if what you've been saying is any indication of what you actually believe, and number of people are irrelevant to any kind of moral principle with any comparitive significance over another.
>I get philosophical advice from comedians
Read a book you reddit mongoloid
i say "a bit" because i don't feel like life has no meaning, because 'meaning' outside of defined language is just subjective
the fact that things other than me exist gives life 'meaning' for me
it just, technically, on the very grandest scale of things, doesn't matter
i only mentioned majority consensus because if we, as a species, lived like snakes (this isn't a biblical reference, despite how that sounds) our values would be completely different
>This is incorrect.
The one who insists there is a mechanical correspondence between a mental event an a physical event that causes it is *objectively* incorrect.
>How do you know they're different processes?
A person is told to think of an orange. His brain activity is recorded. He is then told to think of the orange again. His brain activity is recorded. The records show measurable differences.
When I hit you in the nose, you presumably feel pain. I hit you in the nose in exactly the same way again. You feel the same pain of being hit in the nose. The activity in your brain in each case is measurably different.
Did God himself tell this to you? Because if he did you obv have bigger issues upstairs other than being indoctrinated at a young age. Expand your conciousness and open up that mind of yours; you might realize a much more beautiful world than that book you so helplessly abide and live by.
History has taught us that religion is a control mechanism, most especially chritianity, and is a way for purposeless to find purpose in life. Hey, whatever gives you those magical feelings and false sense of understanding, just don't passive aggresively look down on me for not sharing the same beliefs.
>Mental processes are dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry, just on a grand scale of complexity that makes them chaotic
That is a completely unsubstantiated conjecture. It's the equivalent of religious faith in what it logically requires for you to assert that.
Feeling and suffering matter because they can be experienced by the people writing the rules. Since we can feel and suffer, it is in our best interest to establish a system that incorporates feeling and suffering.
>it wouldn't matter what I did or didn't do
How do you qualify something as "mattering", then? If it has relevance and carries importance for all involved conscious beings, I'd certainly say it matters to them.
Because his fulfillment is not intrinsically more worthwhile than the fulfillment of others.
>where does duty come from
Social contract. You don't fuck with my shit, and I won't fuck with yours. Completely viable with or without a deity, too.
If you need a god to not go on a murderous rampage, then you're beyond fucked regardless.
Preachers have the entire Bible to quote from which is book that is better than any other book ever written in history. It is the perfect way of life and Bill burr doesn't follow it because he is a degenerate hypocrite.
>Dude, you made me… this is YOUR fuck up.
When he formed you in the womb you were perfect, you have corrupted yourself with your vanities and wickedness.
>You know? Jesus Christ.
Why say the name of the Son of God, in whom you don't believe?
As for the rest of your post, you judge a thing you know little about. I hope you come to your senses before you die, because regardless of what you believe, it is a fact that you will be judged for every action in your life. Such is justice and not believing in God is not believing in justice
So gold is equal to dirt? Or a virgin is equal to a whore? There are distinctions in grade between things in life and Christianity is far superior to every other religion in the world, to the point of it being a joke that people don't see it. Your hypocrisy will bury you and your words will be your end. I suggest you keep your mouth shut when you think to say something foolish, you will have less to account for in your final moments.
>There is no consistency between neuron firings and the thoughts those firings produce.
>we're able to form (extremely blurry) images from brain scans
The *OBVIOUS* implication is that you think the methodology isn't good enough to say there's no consistency, reworded "we don't know enough about brains, so what you're saying isn't necessarily the case" - you're trying to water down the evidence that sits in favor of a conclusion you don't like.
>because they can be experienced by the people writing the rules
Just because something can be experienced does not mean it matters. I can experience room temperature air moving around me - does that mean I necessarily think it matters or that it does matter? And who "writes the rules", and where do they get this magical ability to decide what matters and what doesn't? I can write "killing a goat every Thursday at 6:12 PM matters" - *does that make it so*?
It's not more than atheist go through with theirs: we came from nothing even though the odds and logic are against it because some God haters told us so and because we hate God we believe them. You are so unabashed in your hypocrisy that you become a parody of yourselves, I could never possible hope to mock you as much as you mock yourselves. You honestly believe that a monkey and a banana have a common ancestor, as in the primordial soup.
You are a nature worshipper, which the Bible expressly tells you is forbidden, the people trying to warn you of your demise are doing it out of the selflessness of their hearts, but you strife for superiority and because of it you are made low
>there is a mechanical correspondence between physical and mental
Of course there is. If I bash you in the leg with a hammer, you'll probably think "ow! My leg!" Wasn't magic. There was a mechanical process involved.
>hit in leg (physical state)
>nerves shoot pain signal to brain
>brain registers signal
>mental state now one of pain
>Fuck, my leg!
Of course the brain will show measurable differences over time. It's being subject to all sorts of stimuli that you aren't accounting for. Even in your nose example. The second time, I had just been punched in the nose a few seconds earlier. Why should they be remotely similar?
No, it does not. This demonstrates your ignorance of natural science.
The human brain is made entirely of mass-energy. Mass-energy is subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. This is basic stuff.
>Because his fulfillment is not intrinsically more worthwhile than the fulfillment of others
Neither is theirs more intrinsically worthwhile than his.
The murderer didn't sign your social contract, and murders you anyway. Where was his duty?
Perhaps Jesus and all he did is remembered and it was judas a Jew who sold him out, maybe they wrote all this as for the first time in history a Jew cared about someone other than himself?
Well I think people who can correctly spell "smart" and "religious" have a better chance with the "smaht ladies"[sic] than you. Also smart atheist is an oxymoron. If a woman is an atheist, I automatically know she is an idiot.
Right. So he should find fulfillment in a way that does not infringe upon theirs.
If the ONLY way he can do this is to kill them, then the empathy contract (otherwise known as the "mind your own business clause") will be breached regardless. It is best to establish a system that removes those incapable of finding fulfillment (or whatnot) without violating others' rights.
I'm saying you'll probably experience pain, barring some strange irregularity. It will certainly change your physical state to have a large amount of momentum suddenly inflicted upon you.
>Why should they be remotely similar?
Because a mechanistic response, a *physically law-like response*, *necessitates* that like correspond to like. Identical to identical. And that's simply *NOT* what is observed in humans.
here's what happens in the murder scenario
murderer doesn't give a shit personally, so he does the murdery thing
the people affected (family, etcetera) give a shit, and report it to the police, or more drastically, take it into their own hands
in the case of the police, they give a shit for various reasons (salary, sense of community? it varies) and the murderer is imprisoned
in a community of murderers, the victims are outweighed instead - as a whole what 'matters' is different in different cases
>I'm saying you'll probably experience pain, barring some strange irregularity
Which doesn't change the issue of multiple realizability *at all*? Read the damn entry.
If I didn't know any better I could assume you were a muslim trying to get me to convert to islam and fear allah.
See I'm not a subhuman hypocrite like you tards. It's not okay when muslims do this shit which worsens their credibility and it's not okay when christfags do it either. You're all the same type of brainwashed niggers trying to goad people into joining their camp.
Actually, this theodicy isn't the one favored by Aquinas.
This is a good explanation, but I prefer the one proposed by John calvin. This is that we can't understand why good allows evil in the world, but that he hates it and uses it in his masterful plan outside the realm of human understanding
>So he should find fulfillment in a way that does not infringe upon theirs
*WHY* should he? Why? For what reason? Say he *WOULD*, as a matter of *FACT*, find more value and happiness in slaughtering you, your family, and all of your loved ones and torturing them until they croak. And he *knows this*, and he knows he is capable of doing it. Why would he then, *EVER* try to do something else?
Gonna be tough since we just reached the bump limit. Thread will probably be archived by the time I pull up all the sources.
Point is that mental processes are governed by the neurobiological conditions of the conscious being. We can predictably induce certain mental states with physical objects. That's what pharmaceuticals are for.
If you concede that mass-energy is what dictates conscious thought, then everything follows.
By "probably", I meant that you may be incapable of feeling pain. Maybe your nervous system is malfunctioning, or you're on painkillers. I was referring to empirical, anatomical phenomenon.
>How are they out of context?
Because they have no context to them.
Example for you:
Sojourners are people who only say at a place temporarily and then leave. Mexicans and Muslims do not do this. It also does not take about letting people into your land. You have to use the context in the bible and look about what /pol/ says and you realize they are not in realm.
>misrepresenting your opponent and defeating that misrepresentation
You do a pretty good job yourself :^)
Because we'll put him in prison and take away his ability to murder others if he doesn't.
I love this perception that Christians (the religion of forgiveness, might I add) of atheists as sociopathic killers.
>drugs are conceptually impossible
You are brainwashed as well, friendo. You believe you're a free thinker but that is where it ends. Everything you know has been told to you by someone else.
You can't test anything and you simply trust the people who are higher up in the food chain to be telling you the whole truth.
Those people who run the world definitely believe in something, you can look at the occult stuff the UN is loaded with for example.
Almost all human beings have believed in a creator throughout history and now you want to believe that everyone who does is of a lower intellect? Your arrogant ideology will not be able to sustain itself because it goes against human nature.
>slaps physicalism's face
Hardly. All you've done is deny the claim that physical states (i.e. biology) are associated with the brain.
This is demonstrably false through brain imaging.
>I love this perception that Christians (the religion of forgiveness, might I add) of atheists as sociopathic killers.
lel When did he say or implying that? Grasping at straws much?
>implying most of aren't be cool with immigrants who don't commit actions of terror or bring drugs and gang violence into our country
>implying those teachings of accepting others were meant for all situations even if it causes harm to others
>Almost all human beings have believed in a creator throughout history and now you want to believe that everyone who does is of a lower intellect? Your arrogant ideology will not be able to sustain itself because it goes against human nature.
The lack of self awareness in this post...
So you acknowledge people have been making up gods throughout history but are too arrogant and assume the people who made up yours got it right.
And for your information I'm not an atheist because I read infographs on /r/atheism, I'm atheist because I read the bible and saw it to be pure fiction. Better than I can say for most christfags here who don't even seem to have read the bible.
He was suggesting that an individual unbound by the morals of organized religion would have no problem in murdering others, if it worked to the benefit of said individual.
Many Christians make this argument, and it's a weak one.
I think I *would* be able to think, because I think the mind exists immaterially. My body may not be able to do much - in fact unless you put my brain in a vat or did some other sci-fi thing, I would physically be dead.
Philosophy and psychology that contradict hard scientific evidence are nothing short of pseudoscience.
I'll watch the video when I get the chance, seems long.
>my mind exists immaterially
How do you know this?
Umm OP isnt that whole point of Christianity and have a book (bible)?
The Preacher isn't anyone special. In fact, you should test him with the Bible and if he is preaching something different then he is a charlatan.
Even people who don't believe in God, how do you not understand this?
>He was suggesting that an individual unbound by the morals of organized religion would have no problem in murdering others, if it worked to the benefit of said individual.
No, I thought he was saying without a god, there is not objective morality and so any act without a god is can be acceptable in the culture. ie Nazis killing the Jews, Aborigines tribes killing the second born son and feeding the first born with the second's flesh
>How do you know this?
I don't - it's a conjecture. Just like the thesis that the mind is synonymous with the brain, or else otherwise entirely physical.
They don't contradict.
I recommend it - I rigorously disagree with physicalists, but I always respect people who are intellectually honest with their positions.