Filename thread? Filename thread

File: king_arthur.jpg (101KB, 529x529px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 529x529px

>>52641545

>>52642782
What's going on here?

>>52642848
They don't want to die horrific and painful deaths.

>>52642848
People are checking the panels at the top of escalators to ensure they don't give way and devour them in the elevator machinery.

Fucking China, man.

>>52642848
Ask /b/ to show you.

She threw her kid to safety as the escalator ate her alive over the course of ten to fifteen seconds.

>>52642860
>>52642868
>>52642885
Uh, thanks. I think I'll just skip the asking /b/ part, I think I'd rather have no more than the mental image.

>>52642868
There's more that can go wrong with a constantly moving belt of serrated segments strong enough to lift you and 20 more, but routine eatings of hands and feet don't get the same exposure.

>>52643047
I thought that was someone about to defecate on a baby for a solid minute.

>>52643271
the ear sells it...

>>52642825
I've seen some ridiculously min maxed rogues, thieves, and assorted malcontents in my day, but I've never seen one I thought capable of pulling off something that insane

>>52643047
That's clearly Perception, how do you fuck up that badly?

File: whelp, time to pull out the whetstone.jpg (34KB, 455x661px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 455x661px

>>52643754

>>52643754
I... I have no words... there are some truly fucking insane people out there.
I mean, just start chopping up and eating your neighbor or something. That I could handle.
But this shit is next level mental defeneracy

>>52641325
>Eversor_Joins_the_fight.webm

>>52643855
>Imagine a world without Gygax's Alignments

File: alignment arguements.png (1MB, 950x692px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 950x692px

>>52643878

>>52643727
Woooooooooooooow

>>52643754
>And for comparison I have also got another glass of cum

I'm disgusted, but also admire this anon's tenacity

File: urban druid.jpg (56KB, 620x927px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 620x927px

>>52643727
Reminds me of something Brad Jones once said: "Last year I was stranded in Detroit overnight after being text-dumped by my fiancee, and I'd rather relive that night than rewatch Warcraft."

>>52643924
you're a huge fucking faggot, mate.

Ask me another question

File: why can lawful good massacre fascists?.jpg (75KB, 817x434px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 817x434px

>>52642811
I assume this misses the point, because that caption could be any one of them, but which is meant to be speaking? Rey, Lana, Cyril, and Archer all have their mouths open, and you can't see Malory's, so they could all be agape at her.

>>52643711

What in the ever living FUCK was that?

File: illusion magic.jpg (96KB, 944x712px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 944x712px

>>52643438
What's this from

>>52644391

>rules-as-written instead of rules-as-intended

File: TheDMreadsyourbackstory.jpg (35KB, 454x672px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 454x672px

>>52644571

>>52643680
Found the chaotic neutral gnome rogue player.

>>52644306
Millennium, the episode Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense, IIRC.

File: martial vs caster.jpg (97KB, 667x645px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 667x645px

>>52644306
>>52644735
That's what the title data says

File: hourus heresy.jpg (8KB, 187x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 187x250px

>inb4 thats_the_joke.jpg

File: 1444680046212.jpg (23KB, 356x256px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 356x256px

>>52644902
>that last one

>>52645009
How does he barely react to almost being sliced in half by a car door? If it hadn't turned suddenly it would have gone right through him

>>52643711
It doesn't set itself on fire by the end, so good effort but incomplete.

>>52645051
oh, he makes a full response video on how he really really fucked up and almost died.

>>52643503
Explain!!!

>>52645083
Can I get some context if not a source?

>>52644278
It's that last one

File: 1371406072904.jpg (92KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x768px

>>52644884

by the gods tat BUTT

>>52645113
The purple guy is a comic mutant namesd Mr. sensitive or something similar. He can sense pretty much everything around him but the downside is his skin and body are super fragile and he has to wear a suit to survive. He's fighting Tony Stark for some reason.

>>52645051
that is shock.
it isnt always convulsions, hyperventilating or shit like that, sometimes its just going "huh" and walking away while your brain shuts down.

File: around yuan-ti, flee!.jpg (73KB, 400x519px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 400x519px

>>52644623
always add a 'but, ...' in front of the no step on snek flag, it makes the modern message clearer.

File: 9ce94207f6c060c3b40e7fcfbf48c19c.jpg (25KB, 736x671px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 736x671px

>>52645166
>Mr. Sensitive

A missing book from this series?

>>52645106
>Mr. Bones' Wild Ride
go ask /b/

>>52641347
Alternatively: Town guards are level adjusted.

File: new guy wants to play monk.jpg (55KB, 625x262px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x262px

>>52645166
>He's fighting Tony Stark for some reason
You'd think not drinking would have lessened the times Stark finds himself in fistfights with people for grievances that beggar memory, but no, not at all

>>52643578
>rightwing is smarter than leftwing
>rightwing believes in fantasy man in the sky

???

>>52645296
>all right wingers are religious

that's like saying all left wingers are atheist. while it is a trend, that doesn't make it the norm

>>52645311
78% of conservatives profess a belief in god

>>52645397
That's just absolute certainty, btw. 14% are not sure, but believe in god. And 1/2 conservatives go to church weekly.

>>52644884
Source?
For science of course

>>52643354
Exalted comes to mind. Sids and Solars come to mind in particular.

>>52645501
It's your average Carmen Sandiego adventure.

>>52645061
Did you not watch the whole thing...?>>52644301
A fantastic feat of engineering

File: 23FC8CA2-2D4A-4E46-8C61-97B98A55AF6C-493-00000126DC1B42D5.png (107KB, 350x299px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 350x299px

>>52641923
...sauce?
>"Are you sure you want to do that?"

>>52643727
*tries to have sex with him actively*
"Hey, woah, you don't have to do that if you don't want to"

I finally got a date ("date") with a girl on tinder (took 2 years, jesus this app sucks), and she wanted to "hang out in my room." She started making out with me and touching stuff, so I had sex with her. It's really not that hard when you don't overthink it, geez.

>>52642848
If I had to wager, blind people.

>>52645455
Elf-san wa Yaserarenai

No porn but the artist does do porn under a different name (I don't know it however).

>>52645593
Actually it's China's lax safety laws, sometimes the grates aren't fixed properly and the people get crushed in the escalator's machinery.

>>52645611
Methonium

>>52645051
It's just post production hun

>>52644301
the game is called besiege, it's basically medieval ork simulator

>>52645762

Thank you.

File: Sweat.jpg (18KB, 240x312px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x312px

>>52645624
>TFW you've read some of his porn before

>>52642848
In China a poorly built escalator maintainance access plate broke at the end and swallowed a woman whole.

So you would use the stairs, right?...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-05/13/content_17504507.htm

File: Like a smart man he used a tool.jpg (20KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 680x510px

>>52645561
Yuzumori-san

File: christianity v.jpg (181KB, 1292x515px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1292x515px

>>52645296
>>rightwing believes in fantasy man in the sky
yes, because if there's even the slightest chance of a religion being correct, the smartest course of action is to be religious

If atheists are right, everyone just dies
If the religious are right, the religious go to Heaven and the atheists go to Hell

Considering that as a religious person it doesn't cost me anything to be religious, why would I not take the safest option?

ergo: rightwing is smarter than left wing

>>52646459
>If the religious are right, the religious go to Heaven and the atheists go to Hell
What if a religion that rewards everyone equally is right?
What if it turns out that god is a contrarian cunt that only rewards atheists?
Pascal's Wager is bullshit. You're not wagering on God or against God. You're wagering on one god amongst a hundred trillion possibilities. There is no safety in Pascal's Wager.

>>52643466
The ultimate party to seduce any barmaid.

>>52642825
>guards don't look up

>>52646484
>What if a religion that rewards everyone equally is right?
Then you're in the clear. But what if that doesn't happen? What if a religion that doesn't reward everyone equally is right, and you're an atheist? Then you're fucked.
>What if it turns out that god is a contrarian cunt that only rewards atheists?
Yeah, there could be any number of bullshit unfair things that happen after you die. But why bother worrying about those? The smartest option still remains to pick a religion that provides an actual explanation and says "Do X and Y, and you'll go to Heaven", than worry about the possibilities with no explanation.
>There is no safety in Pascal's Wager
There is more safety in choosing to be religious than choosing to be an atheist, because to my knowledge, there is no religion (apart from memes like pastafarianism) that says atheists will be rewarded for a lack of belief after death.

Being religious, unless you do something like martyr yourself, remains the safest, smartest option.

>>52646459

>If the religious are right, the religious go to Heaven and the atheists go to Hell

If christians are right, muslims, jews go to hell
If muslims are right, jews and christians go to hell
If jew are right, christains and muslims go to hell
(not to mention all the other religions out there)

And let's not forget about the various schisms in every religion like catholics, protestants and orthodox christians or the sunni and shia muslims
(again, repeat for every religion out there)

2/10 b8 for making me reply

File: mimic.gif (2MB, 240x190px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x190px

>>52643705
That's actually fantastic.

File: 1491858726282.jpg (94KB, 640x607px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x607px

>>52646600
>If christians are right, muslims, jews go to hell
>If muslims are right, jews and christians go to hell
>If jew are right, christains and muslims go to hell
Yeah anon you conveniently forgot something in your list. It should be:

If christians are right, muslims, jews AND ATHEISTS go to hell
If muslims are right, jews and christians AND ATHEISTS go to hell
If jew are right, christains and muslims AND ATHEISTS go to hell

Atheists are fucked in EVERY scenario.

You might not have stellar odds for being religious, but the odds are always better than being completely and utterly fucked if any religion turns out to be correct and you're an atheist.

>>52641325
>Too Subtle

>>52646621
to be fair atheists do go to heaven in the scenario where god just wants to be a dickhead

>>52641300
what a shitty picture

File: 1488888686619.jpg (414KB, 1800x1322px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1800x1322px

>>52646600
Your religion is a meme as well m8, it's just that it's an old one that a lot of people have grown up with.
Not to mention a just God doesn't reward senseless worship, but true virtue.

>>52646459

>that picture

That literally describes YHWH from Preacher, and I'm gonna give you three guess as to whether or not he's a sympathetic character.

>>52646596
>Yeah, there could be any number of bullshit unfair things that happen after you die. But why bother worrying about those?
That applies to your own argument.

>The smartest option still remains to pick a religion that provides an actual explanation and says "Do X and Y, and you'll go to Heaven", than worry about the possibilities with no explanation.
There is no reason this is more valid than any other option, thus it is not more intelligent in any manner.

>There is more safety in choosing to be religious than choosing to be an atheist, because to my knowledge, there is no religion (apart from memes like pastafarianism) that says atheists will be rewarded for a lack of belief after death.
There is no indication that any religion has any grasp of a correct model of a god's behavior, and most of your favorite religions indeed specify that humans cannot accurately model a god at all.

>>52646362
>Llama = wizard
>Sheep = Paladin
>Cow = barbarian
>Goat = Sorcerer (CE)
> Cock = bard/rogue multiclass

I'd play it

>>52643896
Dipped in rogue, saved, 0 damage.

>>52646621
Atheists have only one end after death in their doctrine
>infinite nothingness
I fail to see how anyone after the edgy teenager phase would choose to bank on that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqejESIO7sc

Every other religion offers something based on judgement given after you die.
Except atheism, which is purely nihilistic with no incentive for good.
If nothing matters and there isn't an afterlife where I'll be judged for my life why shouldn't I devote my life to hedonism and consumption?
At best atheists are apathic and allow themselves to have Jihad waged upon them.

>>52646600

>jews
>anyone going to hell

It is, frequently, incredible just how many people view the world, and everything in it, through a crippling lens of Christianity.

Like... you see this statement 'yeah but religion sends everyone who doesn't worship your way to hell' all the time, and it's wildly inaccurate. Maybe, MAYBE, half of religions have any concept of hell at all, and of those, getting sent there isn't even particularly based on what god you believe in, but more on the actions you take. Christianity and Islam are pretty singular for that quality, honestly.

>>52646596
>>52646621
>it has a religion therefore it has more validity
INSUFFICIENT
BAYESIAN
EVIDENCE

File: death waltz.gif (1MB, 400x256px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x256px

>>52646632
Well you have options here.

You can bet on an organized religion which has records of people in the past who claim to have been approached by a deity who says "Do X and you will be rewarded with eternal bliss".

Or you can bet on anon on a Norse tapestry weaving forum saying "Well like god might just be a dickhead man and do whatever, so don't worry, there's no point doing anything".

Which is the SAFER option when betting with your potentially eternal existence? The people with a plan and explanation? Or the people without a plan and explanation?

>>52646689
>Which is the SAFER option when betting with your potentially eternal existence?
Neither.
They both completely lack any bayesian evidence to make one selection more valid.
Welcome to a world of imperialism.

>>52646695
fucking autocorrect
empiricism*

>>52646689
>The people with a plan and explanation?

but no evidence, neither option is safe at all

It's also really creepy how religious people often imply that the only thing keeping them from going out and doing horrible things is the fear of divine punishment.

>>52646709

>It's also really creepy how religious people often imply that the only thing keeping them from going out and doing horrible things is the fear of divine punishment.

Holy shit this. 'The only reason I don't beat the shit out of you and steal everything you own is because god said I shouldn't'. I don't wanna be friends with that. I don't trust that at ALL.

>>52646484
There is safety in being a decent human being though

>>52646646
>That applies to your own argument.
Okay anon, tell me why betting on what-ifs is smarter than going with people who offer an actual explanation and way that you can increase your own likelihood of earning eternal bliss.

Sure maybe a religion will be wrong. But it allows you to increase your chances for eternal bliss, rather than being fucked over.

Saying "it could be anything, so don't believe" does not in any way increase your chances of success, and it reduces your chances of success in the event that any major religion is correct.

>There is no reason this is more valid than any other option
See above. Religion=increasing your likelihood of actually succeeding. Atheism or trusting to randomness=does not increase your likelihood.

>and most of your favorite religions indeed specify that humans cannot accurately model a god at all.
None of them say "Don't follow the teachings of our God". Saying a God is unknowable isn't the same thing as saying "They are a liar and you shouldn't do what they say".

So, as you can see, picking an organized religion remains the smartest and safest option, especially if it costs you nothing.

>>52646672
Don't forget that it's really only Protestantism that's hardline "anyone not SUPER CHRISTIAN gets hellfire forever".
In Catholicism (generally speaking as there's many variations and it can all change by the pope), hell is a temporary place, and you are allowed to repent your way out of hell at any time. Hell is also pretty much just a drab, morose place, not torturous, just lacking in God's light. Only the people still in hell during the final judgment get cast into the lake of fire, and the only people who can't get out of hell are those who have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Jesus will forgive everything else. (Note: the bible doesn't actually tell us what blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is, only that it is the one thing Jesus won't let through.)

>>52646742
tell me, do you play the lottery every week?

Do you believe in horoscopes, crystal energy, palm reading and homeopathy?

Surely if there's the slightest chance any of these things will improve your life (even with no evidence they will) you should be all over them

>>52646742
>Okay anon, tell me why betting on what-ifs is smarter than going with people who offer an actual explanation and way that you can increase your own likelihood of earning eternal bliss.
"An actual explanation"? That's what you're going with? Anything is an actual explanation to you, then. The mad ravings of a hobo are just as valid as Buddha or Mohammed, because any explanation is an actual explanation.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post. Your utter blindness to this concept has proven you're not worth continuing this back and forth. You have given equal validity to everything, yet you want to deny validity to randomly selected things simply because it makes you feel better. You, yourself, have proven how little merit Pascal's Wager actually has.

File: Pergamonmuseum_Ishtartor_08.jpg (2MB, 1944x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1944x2592px

>>52642825
>not even stealing a whole city gate

Fucking easy modo fags.

>>52646734
Not really. It seems like a commonality in theological doctrines, but there's really no improved chances that any doctrine has more validity over non-doctrines. There's just no bayesian evidence for it. The increased number of doctrines with a shared theme are irrelevant, because there is an infinite number of non-doctrines.

>>52646695
Organised religions present texts such as the Bible, Torah and Koran, accounts of people who have claimed to spoken to God, as evidence for their individual religions. Since none of these texts have been debunked, whether you take them seriously or not personally, they're evidence.

Now, am I saying "I've presented the Bible/Koran/Torah so now you HAVE to believe in (X Abrahamic faith)"? No. Obviously a simple book is not 100% conclusive.

But this evidence means there's the slightest probability (in Bayes' theory) that one of those organized religions is correct when they say there's life after death.

And this is why believing in an organized religion is the smartest, safest option.
>>52646709
>>52646723
Stop memeing, I've never met anyone religious who said that the only reason they don't commit crimes is because of fear of God, and if nobody's ever explicitly told you so it's quite unfair to say they're implying it.

File: 1422449629056.jpg (66KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x768px

>>52646761
>tell me, do you play the lottery every week?
The lottery costs money. Playing the lottery on a weekly basis will put a dent in your wallet. Does being religious cost you money?
>Surely if there's the slightest chance any of these things will improve your life (even with no evidence they will) you should be all over them
Like I've said since the beginning of the post chain >>52646459, being religious costs me nothing.

Why wouldn't you bet on a lottery with eternal happiness as the prize, nothing as the cost of entry, and eternal damnation as the cost of not joining?

>>52644571
This is cute and surreal.

>>52646799
>Stop memeing, I've never met anyone religious who said that the only reason they don't commit crimes is because of fear of God, and if nobody's ever explicitly told you so it's quite unfair to say they're implying it.

see
>>52646668
the way some religious people like this guy talk about atheism implies that they would have no qualms with being total bastards if someone disproved God to them

File: 1465875165393.jpg (74KB, 300x339px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x339px

>>52646761
>do you play the lottery every week?

Christcuck btfo desu, either that or he has a serious gambling problem

>pic related

>>52646810
Being religious certainly costs you time, like the time you've spent arguing about it on this mongolian basket weaving forum, there are definite commitments to even saying you're religious and it frankly doesn't seem worth even the smallest amount of hassle for such a miniscule chance of reward

>>52646810
Being religious costs you your free will, the only thing any of us have.

>>52643754
That's what you call keter?
Shit's barely Euclid.
Hell. That's safe by boxtest.

>>52646810
>The lottery costs money. Playing the lottery on a weekly basis will put a dent in your wallet. Does being religious cost you money?
Yes, it's called the tithe. You do pay the tithe, don't you? Or are you totally wasting your religious efforts?

File: le look in le eye.jpg (304KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1536x2048px

>>52646834
>Being religious certainly costs you time, like the time you've spent arguing about it on this mongolian basket weaving forum,
And being atheistic totally saved you from doing that, didn't it?

>for such a miniscule chance of reward
For eternal reward, compared to a chance of eternal punishment? Seems absolutely worth it to me.
>>52646823
So you're telling me you wouldn't gamble if it was free?

>>52646734
>implying you have to be religious to be a decent person
wew lad.

>>52646672
Good atheists get to purgatory, or to heaven after the final judgement if they repent.
Bad ones go to hell.

>>52646820
But they do.
See divorce and adultery rates in America.
There isn't any higher power (even government) enforcing them so marriage is worthless.
if you removed penalty for murder (not killing) you'd see an increase in it as well.

Also people NEED a higher power, and if they choose data-mining algorithms on Facebook instead of a "fictional" Higher power that is omniscient and just that doesn't bode well

>>52646799
>But this evidence means there's the slightest probability (in Bayes' theory) that one of those organized religions is correct when they say there's life after death.
Actually there's no reason to correlate having a religious text with accuracy. It's still insufficient bayesian evidence.
I can declare a new religion wherewith I have spoken with Deluxe Ultra-God and he says only those who blaspheme receive heaven and anyone who is faithful to a religion will not. I apparently have the same qualifications as the Torah, so therefore I have just artificially constructed bayesian evidence for my new church, and therefore deserve an equal allocation of probability of being correct.

File: 3stephen-christmas.jpg (89KB, 551x364px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 551x364px

>>52646852
>You do pay the tithe, don't you?
Tithes aren't mandatory in Christianity, anon.

I pay money to charities, and it provides me with an instant hit of serotonin or endorphins or whatever for helping my fellow people, so I'm getting my money's worth there. It's not the same as putting your money into a lottery and getting nothing back if your bet was wrong.

I know many atheists who donate to charity too, so I don't see how that's such a big downside of being religious.

>>52646894
but none of those things have anything to do with religion

murder being is consistent across all cultures and belief, the same being true for adultery to a lesser extent, if all governments would vanish tomorrow we'd have a definite period of lawlessness and rampant crime but new communities would very quickly appear with their own rules and laws, which would almost certainly have murder as a crime

>>52646916
what makes a system where you get into heaven by believing than a system where it doesn't matter, or even a system where god ONLY rewards atheists? Each system has an equal amount of supporting evidence

>>52646916
>Tithes aren't mandatory in Christianity, anon.
That depends on what denomination of christianity you're talking about, anon. Surely if there is even the slightest chance that paying the tithe improves your odds of receiving infinite heaven, you MUST pay the tithe, correct?

>>52646923
>would certainly have murder as a crime
>says that when abortions on demand (not even eugenics) are legal

>>52646941
>being anti-abortion

kek

that's a completely different debate altogether but you're clearly funposting at this point

>>52646810
Being religious absolutely costs you money. Read Matthew 25:31 and on - faith alone is insufficient, you need to spend time and money helping those in need. If you don't, then you'll be condemned to the eternal fire.

In fact, I'd argue that being religious could cost you your shot at paradise if you pick the wrong religion. Imagine believing Christianity just requires you to have faith to be saved, then finding out when you die that no, you have to give your time to charity as well?

>>52646948
>Society being so far beyond the point of no return there's a debate if you should be able to legally murder your kids, and when to draw a line
At least Islam will sort you out, one way or another.

>>52646931
>Each system has an equal amount of supporting evidence
But that's wrong.

Organized religions have their associated religious texts as supporting evidence. In the Bible's case they're multiple different eyewitness accounts for example. You may not take them as reliable, but they are actual evidence that hasn't been debunked, and which is more likely to be correct than a sarcastic anon post on 4chan.

A system where God only rewards atheists has never been seriously proposed and thus has no supporting evidence, not even tenuous evidence; and if you are proposing it now, then it's still way smarter to put your trust in a logical God than an illogical one you're incapable of pleasing.

With your Atheist God, if you be atheist knowing that there's a chance that he exists, then you're automatically displeasing him by acknowledging his existence as your reason for being an atheist. So it simply doesn't work out.

Again: Being religious is the smartest, safest option.
>>52646913
>Actually there's no reason to correlate having a religious text with accuracy
Why not? It's evidence, which allows for a small degree of belief under. Bayes' theorem. My argument works on the principle that if you have any degree of belief whatsoever that organized religion may be correct, then it's the smartest option to pick those, since they offer reward for following them and punishment for not doing so.
>I can declare a new religion wherewith I have spoken with Deluxe Ultra-God and he says only those who blaspheme receive heaven and anyone who is faithful to a religion will not
And everyone here will know you're making it up, including yourself, so it's not the smartest and safest option.

In fact, even then it would still be smarter for you, yourself, to believe in an organized religion.

>>52646940
>Surely if there is even the slightest chance that paying the tithe improves your odds of receiving infinite heaven, you MUST pay the tithe, correct?
That would be the safest option, yes, but it wouldn't be the smartest option.

Being atheistic= no cost, risk, no reward. Least smart, least safe option.
Being religious= no cost, more risk than paying tithe, chance at reward. Smartest, second safest option.
Being religious and paying tithe= costs 10%, least risk, chance at reward. Saftest option although not necessarily smartest.

Whether or not you pay tithe, being religious still has a much better likelihood of being rewarded and avoiding punishment than being an atheist does.

>>52646989
>Organized religions have their associated religious texts as supporting evidence

but that isn't evidence of anything, literally no supposed eyewitness account of anything in the bible is reliable at all, the majority of the modern bible was written a long time after the events in it were supposed to take place anyway. You might as well take children's fairytales as evidence of talking bears

>it's still way smarter to put your trust in a logical God than an illogical one you're incapable of pleasing

There is nothing logical about god or there being an afterlife in the first place so there's no reason to assume God's values would make any sense to us

>>52645009
>Mass Effect Andromeda

File: 3D printed gearball.gif (2MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x280px

>>52646950
>Being religious absolutely costs you money. Read Matthew 25:31 and on - faith alone is insufficient, you need to spend time and money helping those in need.

See >>52646916. Many people choose to be altruists in their lives anyway, religious or irreligious.

Helping people in itself comes with a small chance of reward further down the track (making friends, a reputation, and a better world) in addition to guaranteed reward (feeling good for helping someone).

So yes, if you choose the path of religion and charity, it will cost you, but it won't be a cost without benefit. So it's still a smarter, safer option.

>Imagine believing Christianity just requires you to have faith to be saved, then finding out when you die that no, you have to give your time to charity as well?
Then yet again, it's STILL better than being atheistic and being fucked either way.

>>52646989
>Why not? It's evidence
It fundamentally isn't evidence because it's something anyone can construct. How did you miss that part of my argument? That was my entire argument.
>My argument works on the principle that if you have any degree of belief whatsoever that organized religion may be correct
That principle is thus baseless though. There should be no degrees of belief as they all have the same base rate of 0.
>And everyone here will know you're making it up, including yourself, so it's not the smartest and safest option.
I don't see how making it up makes it any less valid, though.
Furthermore, I don't see how you're not getting this. I'm saying all religions are equally made up. The testimony of people who say they've talked to god are just as falsified as my own.

File: the dm watches the party's discussion.gif (451KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 160x160px

ITT

>>52647021
>literally no supposed eyewitness account of anything in the bible is reliable at all
Why not? We rely on eyewitness accounts in trials. What makes you say it's entirely unreliable?

And again, this isn't an argument here to say that the Bible is 100% a convincing argument to believe or not believe the entire religion. If the Bible is even 0.1% a convincing argument, it means that believing in religion is smarter and safer than being an atheist.

>You might as well take children's fairytales as evidence of talking bears

Goldilocks' claims of talking bears can easily be disproven by simply going out and trying to talk to bears.

The Bible's claims of God existing-- well, the smug, smarmy atheist scene has been trying to conclusively prove God doesn't exist for the past few decades, and they still haven't done it.
>>52647059
>It fundamentally isn't evidence because it's something anyone can construct. How did you miss that part of my argument? That was my entire argument.
I didn't miss it, I already addressed it.

We know for sure that your religion is constructed when you say you're constructing it, in the same way we know Scientology is constructed because of the words of L.Ron Hubbard. Your own words are proof that your satire religion is wrong.

Anyone can fake a photo, or a video, or a blood sample, or a DNA test-- sometimes difficult, but doable. Does that mean that we don't convict people to death over those things in the real world because of the mere possibility the evidence could be fabricated?

Unless you're going to show me proof that the Bible is fabricated, you simply can't say "it's not evidence because someone COULD fabricate it". By that logic of yours, our entire court system would be irrational and flawed.

The Bible is more than enough evidence for believing in something that promises reward at no cost, over something that promises no reward at no cost, and it will remain so unless it is thoroughly, completely debunked.

>>52646459
>Believing in God because of a fear of punishment. Not because following the tenets of Christ can make you a better person and make the world a better place.
You are nothing but a meme friendo. God will see right through your charade.

>>52647161
My belief doesn't stem from this whole argument, I'm just sick of hearing the same meme arguments from atheists over and over about how religion is dumb and/or illogical. It isn't.

>>52647190
It is dumb and illogical though.

>>52647144
I'm clearly not getting your your noggin here so I'm just gonna address one thing
>By that logic of yours, our entire court system would be irrational and flawed.
It's not like courts are perfect though? They are deeply flawed. Do you think judges are sorcerers who can pull information from the aether and infallibly create correct convictions? People get framed and falsely convicted and criminals walk freely at utterly alarming rates.

>>52647204
>>52647144

>>52647190
It's pretty dang dumb and the amount of logic is literally one grain of sand in a desert at best even by your own admission. Pascal's Wager remains invalid.

>>52647144
>If the Bible is even 0.1% a convincing argument, it means that believing in religion is smarter and safer than being an atheist.
If there's even a 0.1% chance that atheists are rewarded and faithful people aren't, then it's smarter and safer to be an atheist.

in before you pull numbers out of your ass to imply that isn't equally valid, because there are no numbers here

>>52647111
Depending on the campaign, this is where a Deva shows up to slap some bitches. Or on the one where gods can't intervene, nothing happens and more debates on fingerskating forums occur.

File: dawg.gif (2MB, 475x277px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 475x277px

>>52647210
>Do you think judges are sorcerers who can pull information from the aether and infallibly create correct convictions? People get framed and falsely convicted and criminals walk freely at utterly alarming rates
But we spend millions on maintaining the criminal justice system anyway.

Do you know why?

...Because it's the smartest, safest option we have.

>>52647242
>If there's even a 0.1% chance that atheists are rewarded and faithful people aren't
addressed here >>52646989

>>52647215
Only confirms what I'm saying.

>>52647190
>>52647204
Illogical? Probably. But I wouldn't say dumb. Religion is a form of organisation unique to our species that allowed large groups of like minded people to band together when nationalism wasn't a thing yet. Larger, tight-knit groups have a higher fitness than smaller divided groups.
Ironically religion is probably found all over the globe because it evolved in humans early on. (Either socially or genetically)

If somethings stupid and it works it aint stupid.

>>52647265
It's not though.
>A system where God only rewards atheists has never been seriously proposed and thus has no supporting evidence
I'm sure it's been seriously proposed by someone at some point, simply to be contrarian. Even if it was only seriously suggested by a single person in 17,000 BC and it was never written down, it doesn't matter now, because it's equally valid as any other prophet.
As for
>With your Atheist God, if you be atheist knowing that there's a chance that he exists, then you're automatically displeasing him by acknowledging his existence as your reason for being an atheist. So it simply doesn't work out.
Well, I'm clearly not ascribing any actual probability to it. But therefore I am still receiving the same safety as you.

Your loopholes have been closed, there's nothing further to say.

File: Dogs in the Vineyard.jpg (113KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x768px

>muh theological debate
>muh afterlife rewards

>Implying afterlife exists.
>Implying you shouldn't live your life as you see fit.
>Implying faith has anything to do with religion.
>Implying faith isn't innately individualistic and conforms to a rigid religious set of rules.
>Implying faith has anything to do with knowledge, experiences, logic, proofs or facts.
>Implying faith has anything to do with rewards or punishments.
>Implying agnosticism isn't the second best.
>Implying believing in your personal god/goddess/gods isn't the best.

That's a hella lot of implications you got there, mate-os.

>>52647276
You're describing tribalism. Tribalism is dumb as fuck.

>>52646980
Late stage abortions up to age 30 of the fetus are totally acceptable in most islamic societies.

>>52647298
Are you saying I should believe in my own personal Jesus? Someone to hear my prayers? Someone who cares?

>>52647276
Well said.
>>52647256
I thought it was "you can prove it works in some capability." Which, law wise, stops being a valid comparison by the fact that prisons exist.

File: and I know a Hero will come.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>52646260

>>52647298
Another good post.
Faith isn't stupid, but don't try to say it's logical. It doesn't have to be anyway.

>>52647344
I'm saying that you shouldn't believe into your own personal Jesus who hears you and cares about you - you should TALK to your own personal Jesus, with him answering back in your head.
Faith is a dialogue with god/goddess/gods, not a monologue with faint hope that someone hears you.
And your Jesus can be anything you want to be - from a wise old man to a bombshell blonde bimbo.

>>52647342
See, you even found something you can agree with them on.
Have fun, protip: better convert before they are the majority (^:

File: 1472151811127.png (330KB, 607x605px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 607x605px

>>52647364
Is there already a generation of people who have not heard that song

>>52647376
I'm ESL from a third-world shithole, don't expect me to recognize every American reference in existence.

File: KIMPping.jpg (20KB, 185x182px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 185x182px

>>52647287
>I'm sure it's been seriously proposed by someone at some point, simply to be contrarian
Okay then. Let's say that it's actually been seriously proposed by you.

Congratulations anon! Welcome to your new religion! Because that's what you're describing-- your very own religion, complete with belief in life after death in Heaven and a deity.

>Well, I'm clearly not ascribing any actual probability to it
Well, you are, because you're using it to support your argument.

So you're contradicting yourself there, aren't you? If you do believe in Atheist-Lover God as a probability, then the smartest, safest option is still to be part of an organized religion, because being a member of the Atheist-Lover God religion immediately shuts you out from eternal bliss that Atheist-Lover rewards to atheists. If you don't believe in Atheist-Lover God as a probability, then again the smartest, safest option is STILL to be part of an organized religion, because atheism bears no reward, only risk.

>>52647390
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI

>>52647391
>Well, you are, because you're using it to support your argument.
Strictly as a hypothetical to dismantle your own argument, anon.
It's a ridiculous notion, meant only to highlight how ridiculous Pascal's Wager is to begin with.

>>52647391
>If you don't believe in Atheist-Lover God as a probability, then again the smartest, safest option is STILL to be part of an organized religion, because atheism bears no reward, only risk.
Flaw here: you don't have to believe in it as a probability for it to be a probability. Probabilities exist independent of human sentiment.

>>52647047
>So yes, if you choose the path of religion and charity, it will cost you, but it won't be a cost without benefit. So it's still a smarter, safer option.
Except that if you're donating just to get yourself into heaven, but it doesn't help, you're going to receive less benefit than if you just spent the money on yourself directly. And if you would donate anyway, then at best you received no benefit, and at worst you've donated to a source you wouldn't have if you were an atheist, meaning less benefit. Plus, like I said above, you just might have lost your salvation by believing.

>Then yet again, it's STILL better than being atheistic and being fucked either way.
Let me give you a concrete example of why you're wrong. Imagine two people - one who belongs to a "salvation by faith" religion, one an atheist, both charitable. Both donate their time and money, but the charities they donate to are different. The atheist will probably favor secular charities - ones which do concrete good. Meanwhile, the believer will probably pick religious charities, which spend their time and money spreading the gospel in addition to doing concrete good. In fact, some spread the gospel instead of doing concrete good - or just profit the minister directly, like televangelists.

Now imagine that both of them die and go up to a heaven governed by Matthew. The atheist is dumbfounded - they don't believe any of it. But they fed the hungry, gave comfort to the sick, and welcomed the alien. They are saved. Meanwhile, the believer is equally dumbfounded - they believed their entire life, but now are being called to task for ignoring the plight of the needy. They were charitable, but they chose to help the gospel-spreading charities, and failed to help those in need. Their faith led them astray, and they're now condemned when they could have been saved by just being a good person.

>>52643727
>taking advice from the thread yesterday
>taking dating advice from the internet
I think I've spotted where he went wrong

>>52646459
>that picture
>"It's all a test"
Why would god create a test that he already knows the answer to? He is omniscient, after all?

>>52647499
>Why would god create a test that he already knows the answer to?
What the fuck else is he going to do with his time?

>>52645571
Just remember she can retroactively withdraw consent making any sex no matter how mutually agreed upon rape. Then you have to find some way of proving your innocence.

>>52647521
>>>/r9k/

File: consider-the-following-gorilla.jpg (153KB, 786x514px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 786x514px

>>52647432
>Strictly as a hypothetical to dismantle your own argument, anon
Being a hypothetical doesn't excuse it, because we're dealing with belief itself in this discussion.

If you think Atheist-Lover God could be a probability to support your argument, then you're professing a smidgen of belief in him, which is enough to get you kicked out of Atheist-Lover Heaven.

Were you not thinking that atheist-lover God was a probability, you wouldn't be bringing him up as a hypothetical to disprove me.

So it would still be smarter, and safer, to believe in an organized religion than in Atheist-Lover God. Whether you potentially believe in him or you don't, he's a non-option as soon as you've considered him as an option.
>>52647458
What we're talking about is what the smartest option is to believe.

Of course probabilities exist independent of human sentiment; but human sentiment is the deciding factor as to whether Atheist God will accept atheist anon or reject him.
>>52647499
>Why would god create a test that he already knows the answer to? He is omniscient, after all?

Easy. He just makes a test that he doesn't know the answer to.
>but how could an omniscient God create a test that he doesn't know the answer to?
Easy. He just makes a test that he doesn't know the answer to.
>but how could an omniscient God create a test that he doesn't know the answer to?
Easy. He just makes a test that he doesn't know the answer to.

>but that's an infinite loop!

If you're a literally all-powerful God then infinity doesn't mean shit. Figuring out an infinite loop is well within the capabilities of an infinitely powerful being who has been around for infinity.

After all, we can accept scientific notions like purely random quantum reactions, or the particles that comprise the universe having existed for an infinite period of time and/or being created out of some kind of pure nothingness.

>>52647550
>He just makes a test that he doesn't know the answer to.
But then he knows the answer anyway.

>>52647593
Easy. He just makes a test that he doesn't know the answer to.

>>52647550
>What we're talking about is what the smartest option is to believe.
Well then you can stop pretending its logical because there's no logic to it whatsoever.
It may be the best bet in the completely false construction you have created, but logically without this construct (which must first assert that religions have a CHANCE of being right to begin with), all bets are equally irrelevant.

>>52647550
That is the absolute worst solution to the Omnipotence Paradox I've ever seen.

>>52647550
>Easy. He just makes a test that he doesn't know the answer to.
That's impossible. It's not a loop, but it's strictly impossible. It's making a square triangle.
You can assert that the deity can use its omnipotence to destroy its own omniscience, but it would no longer be omniscient if it created something it did not know.

File: Brazen Chruch.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>52646756
Here's some reading that explains a view on Christianity and hell,

>>52647613
>Well then you can stop pretending its logical because there's no logic to it whatsoever.
But there clearly is logic to it. Nothing but logic has been employed. Please show me my logical contradictions in this discussion.

> (which must first assert that religions have a CHANCE of being right to begin with),

But we have already, many times, asserted that yes, they do have a CHANCE. Religions have evidence in the form of their supporting eyewitness accounts. Want to say that they're wrong, and thus eliminate this chance? Then prove it.

>It may be the best bet in the completely false construction you have created

In order to assert it is COMPLETELY false, you must first disprove all organized religions without a shadow of a doubt.

If any religion professing infinite reward for following it and infinite punishment for not following it has even the slightest chance of existing, (Bayer's theory stating that probability increases with evidence; eyewitness accounts ARE evidence) then being religious is the smartest, safest option.

You have not told me how my logic is wrong. You've simply been saying "you're wrong."

>>52646600
>If jew are right
everyone not part of the 144,000 go to hell because that's what it said in the bible; there's only 144,000 places in heaven for jewish people

>>52647664
So if the 144001th Jew is the most holy of all Jew, he's SOL?

>>52647631
>That's impossible. It's not a loop, but it's strictly impossible. It's making a square triangle
If you think scientists are correct on the matter, then you already accept as a part of quantum physics that something can simultaneously be and not be.

Why hold a different belief when it comes to God?

We don't like it, but physics is spooky, as Einstein said. I think it makes sense that the supernatural would also be spooky.
>>52647622
Why's that? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

way to ruin a perfectly good thread you faggots

File: Truly speechless.png (19KB, 481x383px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 481x383px

>>52643754

>>52647684
Yep. There's also been a lot more than 144000 jews.

No-one else is getting into heaven, according to strict readings of the jewish faith.

>>52647702
Here you are, anon. A far better summary of the omnipotence paradox than either you or I could ever assemble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

>>52647662
>But we have already, many times, asserted that yes, they do have a CHANCE.
But they don't, you are merely presuming that they do.
>Religions have evidence in the form of their supporting eyewitness accounts
All eyewitness accounts can be falsified, as all reality can be falsified. The only logically perfect argument is for solipsism. If you want purest logic, realize that there is no logical reason to accept the existence of a world independent from yourself.

>In order to assert it is COMPLETELY false, you must first disprove all organized religions without a shadow of a doubt.
Sorry, you can't satisfy probatio diabolica. You can't prove anything completely false, ever. It's simply not a logical assertion. You cannot prove I am not a dragon, even if I provide no proof that I am a dragon.

>>52646459
It would be fine if it didn't require you to do stupid shit in your life. If believing was enough then fine, I could believe in space unicorns. But then there are silly hats required and stoning gays. I'm not taking this shit, I like my traps alive.
If this life is the only one then wasting it on religion would suck, wouldn't it?

So, the only correct answer to the wager is to believe in the spaghetti monster.

>>52647702
>If you think scientists are correct on the matter, then you already accept as a part of quantum physics that something can simultaneously be and not be.
Lol, implying you even understand a superposition
p.s. copenhagen is bullshit and it can only be or not be, many worlds #1 all years

Oh boy look at those mental gymnasts go!

>>52647047
Do you have proof of a benefit,
>>52647144
Because there's no proof of eye witness details, just the claim that the people who wrote it where. When everyone knows that your bible has been rewritten hundreds of times since then.

>>52647702
>If you think scientists are correct on the matter, then you already accept as a part of quantum physics that something can simultaneously be and not be.
You can't just tack quantum onto things you don't understand to make yourself seem clever, faggot.

Quantum superposition simply means "you don't know the precise location AND velocity of a subatomic particle".

Here's a better point; If god wanted to make a world where free will mattered AND not have it a hellhole where people have to suffer, not one bit, HE CAN DO THAT AND MAKE IT MEANINGFUL, BECAUSE HE'S OMNIPOTENT. HE DOESN'T NEED TO MAKE PEOPLE HURT, AND HE CAN ALSO MAKE PEOPLE NOT HURT BUT ALSO MAKE THEIR CHOICE MEAN SOMETHING. THEREFORE IF THERE'S ANY GOD HE'S EITHER NOT OMNIPOTENT, OR HE'S ACTIVELY CREATED SUFFERING.

IF HE CAN MAKE A TEST THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO HE CAN MAKE A TEST WITHOUT FUCKING SUFFERING AND STILL MAKE IT WORTHWHILE, BECAUSE FUCKING OMNIPOTENCE!

Marcus Aurelius asked this in the second century and we still haven't got a good answer for it.

File: Sandbox campaigns.webm (581KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 720x404px

Throwing my lazyass opinion into the /offtopic/: I look at religions like I look at friends. Any that force me to pick here and now which one to side with isn't going to be the one I side with.

Also a filename for the filename thread.

>>52646777
It's not stealing if the idiots living in the are now can't be trusted to not fuck it up.

We should have fucking relocated the whole of Palmyra to Newcastle.

>>52647732
>you are merely presuming that they do
No, I am stating that they definitely do have a chance, based on evidence. Bayer's theorem states evidence=probability of being correct. Religions have evidence for them. Thus, religions have a chance to be correct.

Are we going to argue in circles all day? Because what I'm saying is all fact. There is a CHANCE that religion is correct.
>All eyewitness accounts can be falsified, as all reality can be falsified
Already addressed here >>52647144

Anyone can fake a photo, or a video, or a blood sample, or a DNA test-- sometimes difficult, but doable. Does that mean that we don't convict people to death over those things in the real world because of the mere possibility the evidence could be fabricated?

Unless you're going to show me PROOF that the Bible is fabricated, you simply can't say "it's not evidence because someone COULD fabricate it". Following that logic of yours, our entire court system would be abandoned today.

> If you want purest logic, realize that there is no logical reason to accept the existence of a world independent from yourself.

What is under discussion is what the smartest, safest option is when it comes to the question of "is there something the human consciousness experiences after you die, and if so, what are the best choices for making that experience enjoyable?"

>>52647731
But where is anything suggesting that my proposed solution is wrong within said article?
>>52647792
Eyewitness accounts are accepted as evidence all the time. Where do you think your history textbooks come from? Eyewitness accounts.
> When everyone knows that your bible has been rewritten hundreds of times since then.
Edits and translations aren't rewrites. The core of the Bible has been the very same since its earliest iterations, and those earliest iterations are still there to read for anyone who wants to see them.

>>52647855
>But where is anything suggesting that my proposed solution is wrong within said article?
At least pretend to have opened the link.

File: 1447234529241.jpg (53KB, 474x595px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 474x595px

>>52645397
>being american

>>52647753
>But then there are silly hats required and stoning gays
I'm religious, I don't wear silly hats, and I don't stone gays.

> wasting it on religion
What are you talking about exactly? If you're doing to say me defending the faith right now is me wasting my time, you're doing the EXACT same thing.

I don't attend church. I donate to charities but I'd probably be doing that anyway were I non-religious, and the good feeling pays for itself.

I believe in a God, and it doesn't cost me anything. And in return, I'm looking at a chance in Heaven if I'm right. You're looking at no reward if you're right, and Hell if you're wrong.

So again, the smartest, safest option is being religious.

>>52647601
But then he knows the answer anyway. That's how omnipotence works - you can make something impossible for you, and then succeed anyway, because you're omnipotent. Fuck your logic.

>>52646596
>The smartest option still remains to pick a religion that provides an actual explanation

No religion provides "an actual explanation" that is any more valid than any random bullshit I could make up right.

>>52646596
>There is more safety in choosing to be religious than choosing to be an atheist, because to my knowledge, there is no religion (apart from memes like pastafarianism) that says atheists will be rewarded for a lack of belief after death.

There is no more evidence for Christianity than Pastafarianism or the Big Magic Unicorn That Shits Raindbows In the Sky (tm).

>>52646621
It literally makes just as much sense to assume that if there is a God, he will reward good believers AND good atheists BUT punish the followers of 'false religions'. (After all, the commandment goes "You shall have NO OTHER gods before Me.") In that case picking any religion would be a worse bet than picking one out of the dozens that have existed.

(Also Jews don't really believe in Hell, that's a much later addition.)

>>52647928
Did we remember to define omnipotence?

>>52647934
>>52647855
So why didn't God make a world without suffering, and still make it a valid test? Don't say that he couldn't do it or it wouldn't be worth it, God could MAKE such a test be a valid worthwhile test.

>>52647662
Again, picking the wrong religion might condemn you even if picking no religion wouldn't. If you can't completely disprove that possibility, then you have to accept atheism is just as valid under Pascal's wager as any particular religion.

>>52647796
I generally go with "God isn't Omniscient in the classic sense, because that directly contradicts the concept of free will." Most things get resolved pretty easily if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but only omniscient in the sense that God sees all that happened and is happening.

>>52645360
source?

>>52647993
>Most things get resolved pretty easily if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent,
Now you have to deal with the problem of 'why does suffering exist if God is omnibenevolent?' And the sub-question of 'why does Hell (which is a type of suffering) exist if God is omnibenevolent?'

>>52647900
Oh, okay, if it's that simple then I do exactly the same. Which god do you believe in exactly? Because I might want to join.

>>52647796
>Here's a better point; If god wanted to make a world where free will mattered AND not have it a hellhole where people have to suffer, not one bit, HE CAN DO THAT AND MAKE IT MEANINGFUL, BECAUSE HE'S OMNIPOTENT.

He did. It was called the Garden of Eden. Then humans chose to leave it by not doing what they were told and exercising their free will.

2 things also worth mentioning:

1- Earth would be a utopia by now if it wasn't for the free will of humans being used freely for negative choices. If everyone worked for positive outcomes always at all times since Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden, Heaven and Earth would be indistinguishable by this year.

Much suffering is man-made. The rest would easily be preventable were it not for free will.

2- Struggle and suffering makes life. You're looking at suffering from a human perspective. It's simply a reaction to injury to try and get away from injury. God's already come to Earth in human form and been crucified to show that you can deal with pain and stop being a pussy. It's not sadism like you're implying, it's just what makes the whole thing work-- why drop it? At some point, some kind of a reality has to exist, no matter how many changes an omnipotent being is capable of making to it.

>Marcus Aurelius asked this in the second century and we still haven't got a good answer for it.
Yeah, funny how you discuss omnipotent all-knowing beings and then get confused when there's stuff you don't understand about the way they operate. Weird, huh?

Seriously, that's really all there is to say. You're questioning the logic of someone with infinite knowledge and power. It just isn't going to make sense in human terms. Especially not in a period as short as a few thousands of years.

>>52648009
That's Bazett vs some magical girl, so it's most likely that recent Fate/stay night Magical Girl series.

>>52648118
Prisma Ilya.

>>52647961
>Again, picking the wrong religion might condemn you even if picking no religion wouldn't. If you can't completely disprove that possibility, then you have to accept atheism is just as valid under Pascal's wager as any particular religion.
No it's not, I've disproven this misconception multiple times now. >>52646621

>>52648094
>don't question, just believe
Fuck off.

>>52648170
Feel free to question it all you want, we just don't have an answer for you on that one.

Doesn't make the religion wrong.

>>52648166
>No it's not, I've disproven this misconception multiple times now.

You really, really have not.

Do you know what the word "proof" means? Because you've offered none.

>>52647855
>Anyone can fake a photo, or a video, or a blood sample, or a DNA test-- sometimes difficult, but doable. Does that mean that we don't convict people to death over those things in the real world because of the mere possibility the evidence could be fabricated?
Understand that in the purest systems of logic these don't matter, because they don't really exist.
>What is under discussion is what the smartest, safest option is when it comes to the question of "is there something the human consciousness experiences after you die, and if so, what are the best choices for making that experience enjoyable?"
Understand that in the purest system of logic this question is meaningless, because you cannot die.
"But what happens if your heart stops?" you don't have a heart. "What if you get shot?" bullets aren't real, other people aren't real.
Solipsism is logically invincible and since you prize logic so much you should clearly be a solipsist.

>>52648094
>Much suffering is man-made. The rest would easily be preventable were it not for free will.

That's not true at all. Diseases, accidents, and natural disasters would still cause plenty of suffering.

Isn't the better question to ask that why would a perfect god make a world and universe at all?

>>52648214
Because nothing needs to be PROVEN for this argument to be correct, there only needs to be a CHANCE.

If any religion professing infinite reward for following it and infinite punishment for not following it has even the slightest chance of existing, (Bayer's theory stating that probability increases with evidence; eyewitness accounts ARE evidence) then being religious is the smartest, safest option.

If there is no chance of it being correct then it wouldn't matter whether you picked atheism or religion. But if you pick atheism or religion when there is a chance that religion is correct, you are willingly exposing yourself to risk, for no gain.

>>52648094
>1- Earth would be a utopia by now if it wasn't for the free will of humans being used freely for negative choices. If everyone worked for positive outcomes always at all times since Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden, Heaven and Earth would be indistinguishable by this year.
Yeah, because torturing kids suffer because their father did the equivalent of shoplifting while not even mentally competent is such a good thing, right? He could have just as easily made Eden without any such bullshit.

>Struggle and suffering makes life
No, God makes life, and God makes struggle and suffering. He made the system, according to religious folks. He made the physics modelling, he made the timeframes, he designed everything.

>Much suffering is man-made. The rest would easily be preventable were it not for free will.

SO HE'S NOT FUCKING OMNIPOTENT, IS HE? "oh I can't do that because of free will" NO YOU FUCKING CAN IF YOU CAN MAKE A QUIZ YOU CAN'T ANSWER

>You're questioning the logic of someone with infinite knowledge and power
No, I'm saying that the whole story about an invisible sky wizard who formed the cosmos and spent a few billion millenia waiting around to see if smart apes believe a book about invisible sky wizards sounds like a made up story to make smart apes feel better about their bodies rotting in the dirt, and similar to all the other invisible sky wizard stories like Zeus, Odin, Ra, whoever the fuck the Zorostarians worshipped.

It's a convoluted mess that sounds like fairytale stories for a damn good reason.

>>52648284
I'll give you a billion billion dollars if you tell me your name, address, bank account and pin number or any other details I need to access it and get all the money out of it.

>>52648265
Because that's what "being perfect" means. Creating universe. Theology becomes so much easier if you apply enough tautology to it!

>how comes god lets all those people suffer if he's all good?
>if he's all good then suffering must be good too!

>how comes there are logical inconsistencies in your theology?
>god is all-logical so your logic is just flawed!

>>52648230
>Diseases, accidents, and natural disasters would still cause plenty of suffering
did you not read what you quoted?
>The rest would easily be preventable were it not for free will.
If humanity was working together, with never a single moment of greed or rage since 10,200 BCE, all diseases would have been cured by now. Accidents would have been ruled out by advanced OHS techniques. Natural disasters could be controlled or we'd be in Jetsons-type houses or whatever.

We've managed to heavily minimize accidents, diseases, and the impact of natural disasters in today's society.

Now imagine what it would be like today if the entirety of human history never once involved greed or conflict, only a desire to help others and improve the lives of others.

>>52648296
>arguing with an apologist
Just accept that he's a fag and move on.

>>52648032
The former case is a good question with many possible answers. It could be like >>52648094 says - we chose suffering, and choose not to fix it. We are a species that lives on active volcanoes and floodplains because they're good for crops. It could be that a backward-omniscient God cannot create a world free of suffering that includes free will, since ensuring a world free of suffering would require knowing that world's future, which contradicts free will. It could be that God disagrees with us about suffering - Omnibenevolence for some reason requires a world with suffering rather than one devoid of it. Or it could be another possibility altogether. But there's no contradiction, just a question with no answer.

As for Hell, I don't believe in a place of eternal suffering, where the unbelievers suffer forever. I think it's a horrific concept, and I think >>52647642 has the right of it, even if it isn't perfect. Most our concept of the Afterlife comes from Dante and the medieval equivalent of slasher movies.

>>52647855
Do you have proof that the bibles been the same, have you seen the vatican notes on the subject or are you just reciting what your pastor told you to.

>>52648308
And that would cost me. >>52646810

Thanks anon, I really enjoy repeating the same arguments over and over again to point out why your super cool Zingers (tm) are incorrect just because you didn't read the thread.

>>52648284
>If there is no chance of it being correct then it wouldn't matter whether you picked atheism or religion. But if you pick atheism or religion when there is a chance that religion is correct, you are willingly exposing yourself to risk, for no gain.

You are just restating your position. So let me restate the opposite.

Isn't there ALSO a chance that atheism is correct? And isn't there ALSO a chance that atheism -or- a specific religion are both correct, but any other religion is wrong?

That's TWO possibilities to be right instead of just one. Therefor the sensible choice is atheism, because it's twice as likely to be the correct choice as any particular religion. You've got double the chances at paradise!

Now that that's out of the way, can you prove that the conclusions of any specific religion (your choice) are more likely than the conclusions I've drawn above?

>>52648337
>If humanity was working together, with never a single moment of greed or rage since 10,200 BCE, all diseases would have been cured by now. Accidents would have been ruled out by advanced OHS techniques. Natural disasters could be controlled or we'd be in Jetsons-type houses or whatever.
sure thing, bub.

>We've managed to heavily minimize accidents, diseases, and the impact of natural disasters in today's society.

So basically, God wanted to specifically fuck over anyone who was killed in accidents, diseases and natural disasters from the Garden of Eden to the theoretical time accidents would be stopped by free willed humans choosing to devote all time to saving lives.

OR I could make a better world, where it's just like this world, except all suffering is only caused by human beings when they decide to go against me; they get a minor migrane every time they do something wrong, but nothing that they do actually causes any suffering

OH WOW I MADE A WORLD THAT ALLOWS FOR FREE WILL, SUFFERING ONLY CAUSED BY HUMANS AND STILL HAS REMOVED ALL CASES OF KIDS BEING RAPED TO DEATH, SARIN POISON GAS, EARTHQUAKES BURYING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE ALIVE, TORNADOES RIPPING PEOPLE APART, ALL WAR

I didn't even need to think 20 seconds!

>>52648166
>No it's not, I've disproven this misconception multiple times now.
No you haven't. See >>52647463. Or let's take another example. One religion demands that you kill the unrighteous. The true religion condemns those who take a life for any reason. An atheist who never kills anyone might slide into the Afterlife while a follower of the first religion won't.

Belief isn't necessary for salvation in every doctrine.

>>52647855
>Edits and translations aren't rewrites. The core of the Bible has been the very same since its earliest iterations, and those earliest iterations are still there to read for anyone who wants to see them.

It really, really hasn't. We're missing an entire fucking book, for starters.

>>52648432
More if you're not a Catholic.

>>52648432
Also, King James was a retard who was unable to tell the difference between killing and murder

>>52643711

Oh shit, I gotta reinstall this.

File: z.png (184KB, 326x341px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 326x341px

>>52648369
>Do you have proof that the bibles been the same
Do you have proof it isn't? It doesn't stop being evidence just because someone could have plausibly falsified it. See >>52647144
If you're holding out some conclusive proof on us that the Bible has been proven wrong please pass it around.

I've been here defending my faith for nearly 3 hours with constant repetition of people asking me the same already-answered questions over and over, so this seems as good a place as any to leave off.

>>52647855
>Edits and translations aren't rewrites. The core of the Bible has been the very same since its earliest iterations
I can tell you how wrong this is because the oldest versions of the old testament refer to multiple gods. That which would later be translated as "The Lord" (i.e. singular god) was referred to in greek as "The Supremes" (i.e. an explicit plurality)

>>52648427
>The true religion condemns those who take a life for any reason
In this case, Jainsm, where the main belief is you're not supposed to hurt people.

Fun religion, that one.

>>52648453
>King James
There's a reason he was referred to as the "wisest fool in all of Christendom".

Start printing bibles and handing them out for any and all to unify the English language rather than the 5 or 6 distinct languages we had before so we can actually understand one another. On the whole a good thing.

Don't hire anyone competent to go through it and look for mistakes afterwards. Not so clever.

File: pascalwager.jpg (68KB, 400x261px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x261px

>>52648460
In conclusion to what I've been saying in this thread: the smartest, safest option, if you think there may be even the slightest chance of life after death, is to pick any religion you think is the most reasonable.

File: 1490734895449.jpg (111KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1252x1252px

>>52647543
But he's completely right.

File: 1480975715755.jpg (500KB, 728x640px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 728x640px

>>52648511
And if you think there's no chance then it doesn't matter. Guess what atheists think?

>>52648528
this will be the final (you) i distribute to people here who have shown themselves repeatedly incapable of reading the thread: >>52647662

bye anons and good luck, I hope you make the right choice so we can shitpost in the hereafter

>>52648511
I'm not sure about Pascal's wager for some religions or denominations. In my own for example, you need faith to be saved in addition to leading a consistently good life, if you lack one or the other you get to chill in perpetual boredroom with a bunch of people until the end times when Christ will judge you on an individual level as to your quality of character.

You may as well then skip the wager and just be a good person.

>>52648552
You're asking for a devil's proof though so I don't have to.

>>52647799
Well said, anon. This is the view I hold, too, along with the view that every extremist, exaggerated or generalised statement is shit, including this one.

>>52643634

I like this one.

>>52648333

It's a derived quote from a video game. A pretty good one too.

But I digress, I personally believe that there is no point in trying to prove or disprove the existence of omnipotent beings. If there are truly omnipotent beings out there then they surely have the means to ensure they can never be found or reached and they probably have little effect on our daily motivations.

>>52647855
>Anyone can fake a photo, or a video, or a blood sample, or a DNA test-- sometimes difficult, but doable. Does that mean that we don't convict people to death over those things in the real world because of the mere possibility the evidence could be fabricated?

IRL such evidence is weighted against the race of whoever's about to be lynched.

File: why you should never believe in christianity.png (168KB, 853x302px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 853x302px

>>52648511
Thanks, but I'll take a 2 in 5 chance of eternal bliss and 2/3 chances of eternal frost/fire over 1/5 chance of eternal bliss and 3/5 chances of eternal suffering.

>>52648460
>still can't respond to >>52648427
Run along now. You won't be missed.

File: 907.jpg (16KB, 177x219px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 177x219px

This was the stupidest thread we've had for quite some time.

Here's how it should've gone.

>Idiot: I'm taking Pascal's Wager!
>Everyone else: okay, now fuck off

File: worldbuilding generals.png (42KB, 222x212px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 222x212px

>>52648700
You're right, I don't know what I was thinking.

>>52646621
What if pagans are right and everyone will be eaten by Jormungandr? Or what if Aztecs are right and all christians And hindus and muslims & jews &you & your mother & everyone who doesn't sacrifice thrice a year to Quetzalcoatl goes to hell? What does it matter to you if everyone or anyone goes to hell?
go to hell man

File: that guy.png (72KB, 389x267px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 389x267px

>>52648757

File: aura of despair.png (728KB, 728x1035px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 728x1035px

>>52648773

File: Barbarian trap disarming methods.png (166KB, 385x595px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 385x595px

>>52648781

>>52647344
REACH OUT AND TOUCH FAITH

File: nomads en-kor.jpg (280KB, 914x986px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 914x986px

>>52648794

File: Paladin in a CE group.png (213KB, 238x462px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 238x462px

>>52648822

File: pfg games.png (451KB, 592x440px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 592x440px

>>52648831

File: Contact - loyalty 6- connection 1.png (869KB, 696x1420px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 696x1420px

>>52648878

>>52645296
You are not too familiar with this meme, are you?
The joke is the order is in reverse. Hence why 'lulz' being the basis for voting is presented as a smarter choice than 'what the country needs'.

>>52648460
Not him, but the parallel accounts in the bible indicate that the old testament is composed of a combination of at least 3 separate versions.

File: 3d6 Down The Line.webm (41KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 320x240px

>>52644278
They're all complaining about something Mallory just said.

File: A-6.jpg (968KB, 2847x1887px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 2847x1887px

>>52648822
Oh shit nigga

File: Jesus Didn't Save This Time.jpg (83KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 960x639px

>>52644623
Why should they have to pick one? Both are historical American flags from the American Revolution, one celebrating the Union and the other a rallying cry for resistance against oppression. They go hand in hand.

0/10, image made by dumb liberal

>>52643711
That's probably the orkiest thing I've ever seen in Besiege, and I've seen some shit. The only improvement I could think of would be if it also had moveable angry eyebrows.

File: GM Decides To Attack Player's Base.gif (4MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x320px

>>52644941
I know that feel.

>run game set in 1952 Berlin
>players are supposed to be discreet multinational detectives, dealing with leftovers of occult Nazi experiments while also balancing their various government's demands on them
>Start an open battle between a squad of British regulars, East German criminals, French special forces and a werewolf
>lone Soviet is only voice of reason, gets shot in the head
>After session, everyone but Soviet is convinced that they won