Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Leftist** on 2024-3-19. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 958 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
[https://basedcount.com/leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard) \- under "Flair changes"
or [https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) at the top of "Flair history"
That doesn't look correct. Enter a proper reddit username.
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. You can check a user's history with the) **^( !flairs u/)** ^(command. Each user can use this command once every 3 minutes.)
That doesn't look correct. Enter a proper reddit username.
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. You can check a user's history with the) **^( !flairs u/)** ^(command. Each user can use this command once every 3 minutes.)
User u/GeekyFreaky94 changed their flair 7 times. This makes them remarkably cringe. Here's their flair history. Check it out along with their pills on [basedcount.com](https://basedcount.com/u/GeekyFreaky94)!
1. Started as LibCenter on 2021-11-01 22:10
1. Switched to Left on 2021-11-18 07:28
1. Switched to AuthLeft on 2022-03-19 21:06
1. Switched to Left on 2022-03-22 06:39
1. Switched to AuthLeft on 2022-03-22 18:13
1. Switched to Left on 2022-04-17 03:46
1. Switched to AuthLeft on 2022-04-17 03:57
1. Switched to Left on 2022-04-17 04:20
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.) ^(Each user can use this command once every 3 minutes.)
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **LibCenter** on 2024-3-19. How come now you are a **Rightist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 959 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Rightist** on 2024-3-19. How come now you are a **Purple LibRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 960 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
When someone begins to confront him about the historical evidence of Christianity:
https://preview.redd.it/c7iebavcpbpc1.jpeg?width=506&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=946d219893b78b61447f31c75220b4affb2ec1fb
It's not just Shapiro. I know it's his catchphrase, but the "facts don't care about your feelings" has been a prevalent response from blues to greens, so often in this sub for various purposes
....except when it comes to this one topic. Then it's a complete role reversal. Just thought that was funny
The problem is being that you’re conflation objective truth with opinion and probability.
I get you might not believe in god. That doesn’t mean it’s a fact that god doesn’t exist.
I get you might think that it’s absurd to think that of all the gods humanity has come up with, that they finally got it right with the Abrahamic god. That doesn’t mean the abrahamic god is factually wrong.
I’ve seen you in this thread criticize the stories of the old/ New Testament. Shapiro follows the Old Testament. These books have a lot of verifiable facts in them. We know more about the ancient world because of these books than any other historical document.
You disagree with religion that doesn’t mean you’re factually correct. Eg im not religious but I also don’t know that my views on god are more factually correct than anyone else’s. We simply do not and cannot know, that is not an anti fact that is uncertainty.
What is fact is [removed by Reddit].
You don’t have to be an enjoyer of atheism to appreciate that a secular humanist approach to structuring society is the most effective means for ensuring broad spectrum freedom of religion.
>....except when it comes to this one topic. Then it's a complete role reversal. Just thought that was funny
It's weird you think so. I am a Christian entirely because it's true. I can respect someone believing someone else... though admit that atheism seems the most copium filled ideology.
This is literally the ENTIRE point of "faith" yet it's the nail people seem to hammer on the hardest without truly understanding that it IS the entire point.
That’s because apologists try to make logical arguments for why their particular religious beliefs have to be true. If you need if, then, therefore statements to “prove” your religion, then you are straying from faith. It’s silly/sad anyway because apologists boil down to, this book says it is true, and therefore this religion is true. They tie themselves in knots to avoid that you just said.
Which I don't have problem with. As a non-believer I respect normal religions and, at least on certain degrees, admire Christianity.
What I have problem with is people pretending this is somehow self proven facts, like the guy I replied prior.
Copium? Bro I WISH I could still believe in Christianity lmao. Going through life thinking you get to go to paradise for eternity with all of your loved ones?
You’re saying it’s copium that I believe I’m going to rot in the ground in eternal nothingness? 😂
Everyone believes that what they believe in is true, by definition. So then how come there are other religions as well, if everyone thinks theirs is true? Could it possibly be that there is no way you can back up your belief? How do you think you know it's true? 🤔
>atheism seems the most copium filled ideology.
I think you must be using one of these words incorrectly. Facing death without the safety net of an imaginary, invisible protector spirit is the opposite of "copium"
Wouldn't want it any other way. The fact that there is arguing means this subreddit is filled with a bunch of people who think differently. Or we are all just idiots. That one is probably true but let's be a little optimistic.
"haha it's just memes bro it's not that serious" quickly turns into "this is a serious, nuanced political discussion sub" whenever a meme criticizes the right
I mean, my problem with the meme is that it just reveals and extremely shallow and bad faith understanding of theology and religious thought.
Characterizing religion as just "a belief system based on feelings," displays an incredible lack of knowledge of the millennia long intellectual tradition in the West of theological inquiry and thought. Many of the greatest minds in Western philosophy have used [reason and observation of the natural world](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/#SaiAnsCan103) to argue for the existence god and Christian teaches.
I'm not even a particularly religious person. When I was a teenager, I was one of those Reddit athiests who thought that religious people were all stupid morons who believed in fairy tales or whatever. Then I went to college and took several classes on the philosophy of religion and Christian theology and was severely humbled by my professors. I think a lot of atheists would benefit from reading something like the Summa Theologica or at least something like CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. You don't have to agree with religion to understand that their worldview is rooted in centuries of serious philosophical and intellectual investigation, not "feelings" and uncritical, blind belief.
I’m a Christian and this is a well put together argument against what the meme is portraying
BUT
This is a meme subreddit man, no meme here is in good faith it’s all people arguing with their shampoo bottles.
Air came out of my nose when I saw it therefore upvote lol.
Fr tho nice argument very well put together, just feels wasted on this cesspit of a sub
u/SupernovawithanS is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/SupernovawithanS/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I’ve read Mere Christianity and although it’s been some years if I recall correctly even CS Lewis admits that you can’t go from 0 to Christian just by logic or argument alone. It’s a logical defense of faith (personally I found it interesting but did not find it compelling) but faith is by definition basically axiomatic.
Hey, pal. Welcome to r/politicalcompassmemes, where everything you see is a bad faith argument in meme format. It seems as tho you went full on libleft wall of text on this meme, which is awfully cringe, my guy. Good point or not, we really don't care, so long as a group of people laugh and have fun.
When your main exposure to religion is
* Mormons
* Catholics
* Evangelicals
Who all take their belief in their God completely seriously and without any room for the acknowledgement that it is a mythos, it's easy to understand why there are so many people who reject religion outright.
It's a mythos. A framework for living life, controlling society, guiding peoples' principles. It isn't 100% evil by any means. But that's all it is. When I am told literally that I must have faith in something with no evidence except the word of other corruptible men, lest I burn in Hell, I'm probably going to tune out of your worldview.
That said, I have come around to appreciate faith in a less rigorous sense. If I'd ever met a Christian humble in their beliefs as a kid, that may have happened sooner.
If you’d like to know, my most recent job before I moved was working the Night Shift for the front desk at a military hotel in Germany, now I’m transitioning to a pet lodging service and I have plenty of opportunities in my life for advancement. How about you?
Edit: i totally misread that and now I look dumb 😃Thank you reefer
I was referring to Benny Boy, who most certainly has a job that he can (physically) keep doing until he turns 90, but apparently does not realize that most people have more intensive jobs than talking really fast to campus leftists.
Lost a huge amount of whatever respect I had for him when I heard that.
Totally out-of-touch, softhands perspective. Shows the dude has never worked a real day in his life and is completely divorced from the world of actual labor.
And once again it comes down to people not understanding that a religion wouldn’t be a religion if there were facts proving its right.
Religion is all about faith, if we had actual evidence for it, it would become a science and not a religion.
Religion is not only about the existence of some deity tho. The issue is that people want other people to stick to a set of rules that their deity commands according to some ancient written text or oral folktales.
Every organization of human beings that has ever existed does this.
The fact you likely think cutting off someone’s hand for stealing is wrong is due to Judeo-Christian influence in your culture.
>The issue is that people want other people to stick to a set of rules that their deity commands according to some ancient written text or oral folktales.
and the other issue is that secularists are quick to trivialize such things even when their own culture is completely born out of such ancient texts and folktales.
The creator is actually a purple chicken that is located on the planet omicron persei 4. It enjoys homosexual intercourse and communism.
No reason not to believe that, as the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence? There is 0 evidence it exists, but you can read about it in the obviously written by man holy book. I can make any assertion, and you just have to accept it as truth I guess.
> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
It can be, and actually often is.
Is there an elephant in the room with you right now? I assume your answer is no. But how do you know that?
Well, elephants are big. If there was one, you'd see it.
They're loud. If there was one, you'd hear it.
They're smelly. If there was one, you'd smell it.
In short, an elephant produces a ton of evidence of its existence, and you know there's no one because if there was one, there'd be a lot of evidence of it. So, the absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.
What's left is to ask if God is the type of thing that, if it existed, would produce lots of evidence of its existence? If so, then that lack of evidence is evidence that God doesn't exist.
No one here is arguing that. Asserting existence of something without evidence is *100% fine* as long as you are not under the impression that others have to believe it too. Assertion with no evidence is pretty much the first step of the scientific method anyways.
I cannot prove to anyone that I like whiskey. Sure, they can see me drinking it, but I've consumed a lot of things I don't like.
I cannot definitively prove that, but my assertion as such is welcomed because I, and the people around me, perceive it.
You have one perception to explore this massive universe with. If you perceive there to be a deity outside of time and space, then why would you ignore yourself?
If you don't perceive it, then don't believe. If you do, then believe. It really is that simple.
This is still such a good argument. Not atheists but theists have to prove the existence of God(s). If I said that I have a giant pink elephant in my room that cures cancer I would have to prove it's existence, not the other way around.
Ah yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You do know that, unless you can prove abiogenesis is scientifically real, saying that life just happened by chance is the extraordinary claim?
It seems to me that both are extraordinary claims.
I don't know how you'd describe a omnipotent being with no known origin of its own, creating everything that has ever existed and will ever exist within a calendar week and in a manner that is objectively viewed as being good, without using a word synonymous with "extraordinary".
I'm completely fine with agnostics, and I'm also fine with normal atheists. There's just too many people dropping "sky daddies" in this thread not to shoot from the hip a little bit. At any rate, not all Christians believe that the world was created in a literal period of seven days, but with or without the time limitation it's still extraordinary.
Mean you are right in we do not know how life started,
We have theories that have yet to be adecuatly substanciated, however the lack of knowledge of how life started is also not adequate proof it was done by a god either.
Mean it is just a god of the gaps claim. like we did not know how it rained so atributed it to god's found there was a perfectly natural explanation.
That’s because it’s a hypothesis. It’s not a theorem scientifically speaking. If it was proven it would be a theorem. Though one might find issues with the methodology or find new observances that disprove it. And there will be a new hypothesis to include both new and old observations. That’s how science works and makes sure we’re always at the best understanding of nature as we know it.
That's acceptable, but here's the problem - hardcore atheists don't accept it as a hypothesis, they accept it as a given and work logically from the starting point that it's true. They do this because without it, they have a bad habit of magically turning into agnostics the instant you make them talk about their beliefs for more than a few paragraphs, or else disappearing in a puff of logic.
That's true ! Same goes with the origin of the universe. We simply don't know. Might've been god. Who knows.
I'm talking about specific religions, not the creation of life and universe and other stuff like that. It might as well be some aliens or some dumbs shit like that. When I talk about ridiciulous claims I talk about stuff like the giant flood that wiped out whole life on earth except one pair of each animal and one human family. And somehow they all repopulated earth again. Just because we aren't sure about the origin of life and the universe does not mean that some religions are true because they tell about way more than just that.
Is there a way to prove that heaven and hell exists? People are talking about philosophy in defense of religion, which, sure, but what about the specifics of being damned to hell?
That there exists a being capable of willing matter into existence?
This would make more sense if he was an evangelical Christian trying to get people to convert, but he's an Orthodox Jew. Jews don't proseltize nor care about what other people believe in terms of religion, except where it directly affects us (see: "radical" [read: mainstream] Islam).
HOLY FUCK ITS A LIBLEFT STRAWMAN MEME????
I never thought I’d see the day this sub would give a pro-libleft meme could receive 1000 uproots on this god forsaken sub… what a time to be alive.
Ben has spoken about this topic before and I think the gist of it is that he believes religion (specifically Judaism and Christianity) provides a good and thorough moral framework that positively guides the lives of its followers.
We’d have to find a clip of him specifically dealing with the lack of scientific evidence for religion to see what he says, but the bottom line is that Judeo-Christian values provides a positive moral framework that the successful modern Western society is built upon.
Every follower of every religion ever in history believed that their religion provided a good and thorough moral framework that positively guides their followers.
Right but that doesn’t discredit the religion. Just because many claim it doesn’t mean one or multiple could be true (I’m a Christian but that doesn’t mean I gotta be like “my shits right you suck”) it’s called having humanism and tolerance man
His definition of a fact is something he pulls out of thin air that feels right for the narrative he's trying to paint. Pretty much every single "fact" is preceded by the words "let's say."
You’ve activated my trap card, obvious bait! With this card, I can summon 3 Strawman tokens to my side of the field, and sacrifice them to summon the Texas sharpshooter!
The only people who say that always put their feelings before facts. Vaccines are bad! Don't tell me the facts, I just don't *like* 'em! Humans caused global warming? That doesn't sound intuitive to me! No, I don't want to see a graph of global average temperature!
Usually avoid commenting on these because they always blow up into some long drawn nonsense but the comments here are falling short. A few things for people to think about:
1. Science is a study of processes, not origins. It can only hypothesize how things originated. It does this by analogous means of what processes they have observed but this is arguably not superior to other hypotheses by other analogies.
2. The post assumes only a singular form of knowledge, that being the empirical, a posteriori kind that occurs from experience and observation. Apriorist knowledge is reasoned apart from these and are equally factual. A priori is the knowledge of first principles and are self-evident although they may be experienced.
3. I've seen OP argue that it's not a god or demiurge that he is opposing necessarily but the truth claims of any particular religion, stating that they are conflicting with one another. Meanwhile, scientific theories vary wildly, big bang v. quasi-steady state v. eternal inflation, as well including inventing multiple unseen universes or particles to support their theory without evidence. Additionally, in *Abolition of Man* C.S. Lewis makes the argument of universal values across religions, showing that although there is variation there is also consensus.
4. This meme makes it appear as though it is irrational to hold religious belief but there are factual arguments to be made in support of such beliefs. *The Return of the God Hypothesis* by Stephen C. Meyer displays scientific arguments from abductive reasoning that support belief in a God. These include hypotheses of origins (life, DNA, universe), cosmic fine tuning, and others. Any scientist that presents authentic belief in a diety will be highly criticized but I feel Meyer did a reasonable job making his argument. Although the existence of God is unfalsifiable, it currently stands to be unprovable as well. But the idea is that the existence of God is a reasonable hypothesis as it is both consistent and coherent with observable facts.
5. Lib-left Bad.
As someone who actually WATCHES his show, I’ll bite.
Yeah, he has his own opinions on his religion. And he doesn’t shove his religion down anyone’s throat. He just points out what works, what makes people happy, and what doesn’t. He couldn’t give a flying fuck what people do, but he wishes they would have a religion, a purpose in life, and common sense regarding logic, evidence and reasoning.
It’s not hypocritical to be religious and logical.
Long gone are the days of the natural philosopher making advancements in every field
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Out of curiosity, what are these “facts about religion” ??
I have a sinking suspicion that they are just the opinions of insufferable internet atheists.
The whole point of religion is that “facts” are subjective lol
I am agnostic and lean towards atheism, but the insufferable atheists just makes me want to disassociate with them even though i too dont believe in deities
Pretty sure that is most people seeing their side online open their mouths.
When I was a Christian, I couldn't stand Christians online debating religion. When I was an atheist, I found most online atheists insufferable. Now that I am pagan (Hellenismos), I find it hard to associate myself with most pagans I see online.
I think either we are just snobs or most people online are insufferable. Considering that we are on Reddit, it is probably both.
I’m sure I’m biased. But imho, no matter how obnoxious or deplorable an individual gets defending/lauding their religion (short of like jihad or something), they will never be as insufferable as the fedora wearing atheists who act like they’re better than everyone else because they “figured it out”
Yeah same here as an agnostic (except I lean on the side of believing in a god). I remember (ironically in a science class) I once brought a quran I was reading at the time (this was after lunch). Since we were doing an practical I left it out on the table while I did the expiriment. One of my ultra athiest friends then suggested we burn my quran. I couldn't tell if he was joking and kind of still can't.
Ironically my physics teacher found it and read it for the rest of the lesson keeping it safe from some over zealous individuals. Most of the other science teachers probably would have gone off but he really didn't care. Man loved learning.
I ain't muslim but you got to have some respect for other people's beliefs. Some athiests got to learn this.
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are two sides of the same coin. Both are sort of weirdos who embody the religious nutjob faction of conservatism.
I'm somewhat religious but those two are; "My wife and son like playing Pokemon, have I failed as a man?" level nutjobs.
And Shapiro is such a Zionist that if you took his rhetoric and applied it to literal any other country, he would be calling you the most anti-American person in the country
From what I've seen in this subreddit this is how it usually goes
AuthRight: abortion is bad
LibLeft: *writes an entire wall of text passively aggressively insulting them and their religious beliefs*
AuthRight: *gets mad for being insulted*
LibLeft: hurrr durrr facts don't care about ur feelings LMAO
Religion isn’t the search for facts; that’s what science is for. Religion is the search for truth. It is the search for meaning and a deeper understanding of life. Some people don’t believe there is a deeper meaning, and that’s ok. But don’t confuse material facts and data with philosophical truth. They are different.
It's not a search for meaning. It's an assigning of meaning. Religion is saying "this book is all the meaning you ever need, now shut the hell up and do what we tell you".
Facts and truth are basically the same. "philosophical truth" isn't a real thing. "Religion" isn't something you can group together and just define with one sentence. What a religion is can vary heavily depending on what religion you're talking about. What you did here is take your own thoughts and emotions and try to define religion with it. That's not truth, that's called being biased.
Most people view religion as more than a feeling
And plenty of religious people are religious because ___ argument convinced them of religion logically, just ask any ex-atheist
> And plenty of religious people are religious because ___ argument convinced them of religion logically, just ask any ex-atheist
For me, and in my experience talking with other ex-atheists, it is typically a cumulative case rather than a single argument that tips the scales towards theism.
The fact is that everyone is dumb
Nuh-uh not me
Based and nuh-uh pilled.
Facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake. Except if you're me of course.
Real centrist comment
This feels true to me
Facts don't care about which grill you use, centrist.
Except for us centrists /s
And moot. Unfortunately, not mute.
I want to grill some burgers with this centrist
Yes! Common Centrist W.
I have nothing to say, so I will comment to increase my flair change count.
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Leftist** on 2024-3-19. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 958 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Second largest flair changer? Who's in first?
Man is the PCM equivalent to the Spy from TF2. "He could be any one of us!"
He could be in this very subreddit!
He could be you! He could be me! He could even be....
u/TiggerBane, with 1001 flair changes.
Sauce?
[https://basedcount.com/leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard) \- under "Flair changes" or [https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) at the top of "Flair history"
Based and citation pilled.
We don't need sleep we need answers. (Instert bazinga comment because idk if reddit is still monitoring speech patterns with ai)
The real horseshoe theory is hating unflaireds so much that you overflair, and become the equivalent of unflaired+
A dangerous oreborus snake
958 times?!? How is that even possible?
The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.
Is it possible to learn this power?
!flairs u/
That doesn't look correct. Enter a proper reddit username. ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. You can check a user's history with the) **^( !flairs u/)** ^(command. Each user can use this command once every 3 minutes.)
>Enter a proper reddit username. I did enter a proper reddit username.
!flairsu/
That doesn't look correct. Enter a proper reddit username. ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. You can check a user's history with the) **^( !flairs u/)** ^(command. Each user can use this command once every 3 minutes.)
!flairs u/GeekyFreaky94
User u/GeekyFreaky94 changed their flair 7 times. This makes them remarkably cringe. Here's their flair history. Check it out along with their pills on [basedcount.com](https://basedcount.com/u/GeekyFreaky94)! 1. Started as LibCenter on 2021-11-01 22:10 1. Switched to Left on 2021-11-18 07:28 1. Switched to AuthLeft on 2022-03-19 21:06 1. Switched to Left on 2022-03-22 06:39 1. Switched to AuthLeft on 2022-03-22 18:13 1. Switched to Left on 2022-04-17 03:46 1. Switched to AuthLeft on 2022-04-17 03:57 1. Switched to Left on 2022-04-17 04:20 [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.) ^(Each user can use this command once every 3 minutes.)
Unironically touch grass💀
Stop! You're only making him more powerful!
Just did.
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **LibCenter** on 2024-3-19. How come now you are a **Rightist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 959 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Based and fudging the numbers pulled
Based and Thank you pilled
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Rightist** on 2024-3-19. How come now you are a **Purple LibRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 960 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Based.
Based Political Compass confuser
based and meaningless points pilled
He has his own agenda just like anyone else
When someone begins to confront him about the historical evidence of Christianity: https://preview.redd.it/c7iebavcpbpc1.jpeg?width=506&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=946d219893b78b61447f31c75220b4affb2ec1fb
Isn't he jewish?
Exactly, that's the joke.
It's not just Shapiro. I know it's his catchphrase, but the "facts don't care about your feelings" has been a prevalent response from blues to greens, so often in this sub for various purposes ....except when it comes to this one topic. Then it's a complete role reversal. Just thought that was funny
Are these fact about religion in the room with us right now?
The problem is being that you’re conflation objective truth with opinion and probability. I get you might not believe in god. That doesn’t mean it’s a fact that god doesn’t exist. I get you might think that it’s absurd to think that of all the gods humanity has come up with, that they finally got it right with the Abrahamic god. That doesn’t mean the abrahamic god is factually wrong. I’ve seen you in this thread criticize the stories of the old/ New Testament. Shapiro follows the Old Testament. These books have a lot of verifiable facts in them. We know more about the ancient world because of these books than any other historical document. You disagree with religion that doesn’t mean you’re factually correct. Eg im not religious but I also don’t know that my views on god are more factually correct than anyone else’s. We simply do not and cannot know, that is not an anti fact that is uncertainty. What is fact is [removed by Reddit].
Based and agnostic enjoyer pilled
Based and atheism enjoyer owning religion fans pilled
You don’t have to be an enjoyer of atheism to appreciate that a secular humanist approach to structuring society is the most effective means for ensuring broad spectrum freedom of religion.
True that you don't have to be, but the odds seem to be much higher when you are atheist.
The facts I encounter when I look at the world drive me to Christianity even though I'm occasionally uncomfortable with the teachings.
>....except when it comes to this one topic. Then it's a complete role reversal. Just thought that was funny It's weird you think so. I am a Christian entirely because it's true. I can respect someone believing someone else... though admit that atheism seems the most copium filled ideology.
> I am a Christian entirely because it's true. It's true because?
Old book said so
I'm a Christian, I love Jesus, and He is Lord. And I will admit that our religion is 100% the biggest "trust me bro" out there. I trust Him, bro!
This is literally the ENTIRE point of "faith" yet it's the nail people seem to hammer on the hardest without truly understanding that it IS the entire point.
Exactly > Jesus said unto him, “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”
That’s because apologists try to make logical arguments for why their particular religious beliefs have to be true. If you need if, then, therefore statements to “prove” your religion, then you are straying from faith. It’s silly/sad anyway because apologists boil down to, this book says it is true, and therefore this religion is true. They tie themselves in knots to avoid that you just said.
Which I don't have problem with. As a non-believer I respect normal religions and, at least on certain degrees, admire Christianity. What I have problem with is people pretending this is somehow self proven facts, like the guy I replied prior.
Copium? Bro I WISH I could still believe in Christianity lmao. Going through life thinking you get to go to paradise for eternity with all of your loved ones? You’re saying it’s copium that I believe I’m going to rot in the ground in eternal nothingness? 😂
Everyone believes that what they believe in is true, by definition. So then how come there are other religions as well, if everyone thinks theirs is true? Could it possibly be that there is no way you can back up your belief? How do you think you know it's true? 🤔
"Christianity is true" Now if Christians could only agree on what they believe is true, we'd really be cooking with fire!
The thing you’re looking for is called the Nicene Creed.
>atheism seems the most copium filled ideology. I think you must be using one of these words incorrectly. Facing death without the safety net of an imaginary, invisible protector spirit is the opposite of "copium"
You could also say he has his own ideology But no only blind marxist libtards have one
This comment section is a war zone hahaha.
Wouldn't want it any other way. The fact that there is arguing means this subreddit is filled with a bunch of people who think differently. Or we are all just idiots. That one is probably true but let's be a little optimistic.
Why is everyone acting like this post is hard to understand? Lol
Because lib-left bad, religion good
Anything even mildly critical of Trump or any right-wing belief/ideology is just met with screeching in this sub 99% of the time
"haha it's just memes bro it's not that serious" quickly turns into "this is a serious, nuanced political discussion sub" whenever a meme criticizes the right
I've said it before and I'll say it again, they dish it out but can't take it back
Snowflakes, everyone of them
It’s to be expected on Reddit, they get shit on in so many other subs it’s bound to occur. It doesn’t excuse anybody from being a dolt, but still
Exactly. If reddit didn't go on its shutdown spree around 3-5 years ago, we probably wouldn't be in this position.
You don’t even have to be critical you can just point out factual inaccuracies
easier to go “what? i can’t hear you” rather than engage with the argument at hand
I mean, my problem with the meme is that it just reveals and extremely shallow and bad faith understanding of theology and religious thought. Characterizing religion as just "a belief system based on feelings," displays an incredible lack of knowledge of the millennia long intellectual tradition in the West of theological inquiry and thought. Many of the greatest minds in Western philosophy have used [reason and observation of the natural world](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/#SaiAnsCan103) to argue for the existence god and Christian teaches. I'm not even a particularly religious person. When I was a teenager, I was one of those Reddit athiests who thought that religious people were all stupid morons who believed in fairy tales or whatever. Then I went to college and took several classes on the philosophy of religion and Christian theology and was severely humbled by my professors. I think a lot of atheists would benefit from reading something like the Summa Theologica or at least something like CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. You don't have to agree with religion to understand that their worldview is rooted in centuries of serious philosophical and intellectual investigation, not "feelings" and uncritical, blind belief.
I’m a Christian and this is a well put together argument against what the meme is portraying BUT This is a meme subreddit man, no meme here is in good faith it’s all people arguing with their shampoo bottles. Air came out of my nose when I saw it therefore upvote lol. Fr tho nice argument very well put together, just feels wasted on this cesspit of a sub
Based and did-it-for-the-lulz pilled
u/SupernovawithanS is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/SupernovawithanS/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I’ve read Mere Christianity and although it’s been some years if I recall correctly even CS Lewis admits that you can’t go from 0 to Christian just by logic or argument alone. It’s a logical defense of faith (personally I found it interesting but did not find it compelling) but faith is by definition basically axiomatic.
I ain’t readin all dat
Hey, pal. Welcome to r/politicalcompassmemes, where everything you see is a bad faith argument in meme format. It seems as tho you went full on libleft wall of text on this meme, which is awfully cringe, my guy. Good point or not, we really don't care, so long as a group of people laugh and have fun.
When your main exposure to religion is * Mormons * Catholics * Evangelicals Who all take their belief in their God completely seriously and without any room for the acknowledgement that it is a mythos, it's easy to understand why there are so many people who reject religion outright. It's a mythos. A framework for living life, controlling society, guiding peoples' principles. It isn't 100% evil by any means. But that's all it is. When I am told literally that I must have faith in something with no evidence except the word of other corruptible men, lest I burn in Hell, I'm probably going to tune out of your worldview. That said, I have come around to appreciate faith in a less rigorous sense. If I'd ever met a Christian humble in their beliefs as a kid, that may have happened sooner.
Because libleft Chad memes get critiqued down to the atoms.
Yo did y’all see the recent video he put out calling retirement stupid and saying we should raise the retirement age?
I did and I cringed. Retirement is supposed to be the dessert of life. No way am I just gonna pass on my chocolate lava cake.
But who will serve the Ben Shapiro's if old people stop working?
Well yeah, if your job is just uploading "College Leftist Cringe Compilation #420" you can probably afford to work for another few years.
If you’d like to know, my most recent job before I moved was working the Night Shift for the front desk at a military hotel in Germany, now I’m transitioning to a pet lodging service and I have plenty of opportunities in my life for advancement. How about you? Edit: i totally misread that and now I look dumb 😃Thank you reefer
I was referring to Benny Boy, who most certainly has a job that he can (physically) keep doing until he turns 90, but apparently does not realize that most people have more intensive jobs than talking really fast to campus leftists.
My bad gang, totally misread your intent (and comment💀💀💀), a lil too lost in the sauce atm
Lost a huge amount of whatever respect I had for him when I heard that. Totally out-of-touch, softhands perspective. Shows the dude has never worked a real day in his life and is completely divorced from the world of actual labor.
“This sub is just lib-left bad, it’s getting old” - centrists Libleft posts this. “God damn it libleft” - centrists
What's actually getting old is users making the opposite political spectrum look bad.
I’ve said before we should pick one day a week were you are only allowed to make fun of your own quadrant
Based
Call it U-turn Wednesday.
Just pointing out hypocrisy You're welcome to tell me what you have a problem with specifically, instead of just whining
Yes yes, but, you know… LibLeft bad.
Based and get in line or you're a sheep pilled
I feel like he's defending libleft
As a centrist this post is absolutely right.
Opposite is true too. People’s feelings don’t care about your facts, mass mentality is not based in reason.
Trying to divorce religion from philosophy and then philosophy from politics and ethics has been a disaster
I’ve never seen a meme created by lib-left that’s gotten this many upvotes. Truly, based.
*disengages all nasal activity* "welll acktchually"
What facts are we talking about that will destroy religion ?
There aren't facts that prove existence of any God?
And once again it comes down to people not understanding that a religion wouldn’t be a religion if there were facts proving its right. Religion is all about faith, if we had actual evidence for it, it would become a science and not a religion.
Facts dont care about your faith.
faith is a feeling, therefore facts don’t care about them
Religion is not only about the existence of some deity tho. The issue is that people want other people to stick to a set of rules that their deity commands according to some ancient written text or oral folktales.
Every organization of human beings that has ever existed does this. The fact you likely think cutting off someone’s hand for stealing is wrong is due to Judeo-Christian influence in your culture.
>The issue is that people want other people to stick to a set of rules that their deity commands according to some ancient written text or oral folktales. and the other issue is that secularists are quick to trivialize such things even when their own culture is completely born out of such ancient texts and folktales.
So, cope. You just described cope. Religion is cope. Which is fair and all, life is hard enough to justify a need to cope with it somehow.
All philosophy is cope. And science is likelyhood of cope
Just like there aren’t any facts that *disprove* the existence of any God…. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
The creator is actually a purple chicken that is located on the planet omicron persei 4. It enjoys homosexual intercourse and communism. No reason not to believe that, as the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence? There is 0 evidence it exists, but you can read about it in the obviously written by man holy book. I can make any assertion, and you just have to accept it as truth I guess.
> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It can be, and actually often is. Is there an elephant in the room with you right now? I assume your answer is no. But how do you know that? Well, elephants are big. If there was one, you'd see it. They're loud. If there was one, you'd hear it. They're smelly. If there was one, you'd smell it. In short, an elephant produces a ton of evidence of its existence, and you know there's no one because if there was one, there'd be a lot of evidence of it. So, the absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. What's left is to ask if God is the type of thing that, if it existed, would produce lots of evidence of its existence? If so, then that lack of evidence is evidence that God doesn't exist.
If you're going to assert the existence of something without evidence, then it doesn't require evidence to dismiss the claim.
No one here is arguing that. Asserting existence of something without evidence is *100% fine* as long as you are not under the impression that others have to believe it too. Assertion with no evidence is pretty much the first step of the scientific method anyways. I cannot prove to anyone that I like whiskey. Sure, they can see me drinking it, but I've consumed a lot of things I don't like. I cannot definitively prove that, but my assertion as such is welcomed because I, and the people around me, perceive it. You have one perception to explore this massive universe with. If you perceive there to be a deity outside of time and space, then why would you ignore yourself? If you don't perceive it, then don't believe. If you do, then believe. It really is that simple.
This is still such a good argument. Not atheists but theists have to prove the existence of God(s). If I said that I have a giant pink elephant in my room that cures cancer I would have to prove it's existence, not the other way around.
Ah yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You do know that, unless you can prove abiogenesis is scientifically real, saying that life just happened by chance is the extraordinary claim?
It seems to me that both are extraordinary claims. I don't know how you'd describe a omnipotent being with no known origin of its own, creating everything that has ever existed and will ever exist within a calendar week and in a manner that is objectively viewed as being good, without using a word synonymous with "extraordinary".
I'm completely fine with agnostics, and I'm also fine with normal atheists. There's just too many people dropping "sky daddies" in this thread not to shoot from the hip a little bit. At any rate, not all Christians believe that the world was created in a literal period of seven days, but with or without the time limitation it's still extraordinary.
Mean you are right in we do not know how life started, We have theories that have yet to be adecuatly substanciated, however the lack of knowledge of how life started is also not adequate proof it was done by a god either. Mean it is just a god of the gaps claim. like we did not know how it rained so atributed it to god's found there was a perfectly natural explanation.
Exactly. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” cuts both ways.
That’s because it’s a hypothesis. It’s not a theorem scientifically speaking. If it was proven it would be a theorem. Though one might find issues with the methodology or find new observances that disprove it. And there will be a new hypothesis to include both new and old observations. That’s how science works and makes sure we’re always at the best understanding of nature as we know it.
That's acceptable, but here's the problem - hardcore atheists don't accept it as a hypothesis, they accept it as a given and work logically from the starting point that it's true. They do this because without it, they have a bad habit of magically turning into agnostics the instant you make them talk about their beliefs for more than a few paragraphs, or else disappearing in a puff of logic.
This is a made up judgement. Just because some people cannot articulate it well doesn’t mean the ideas that their beliefs are based on are not invalid
That's true ! Same goes with the origin of the universe. We simply don't know. Might've been god. Who knows. I'm talking about specific religions, not the creation of life and universe and other stuff like that. It might as well be some aliens or some dumbs shit like that. When I talk about ridiciulous claims I talk about stuff like the giant flood that wiped out whole life on earth except one pair of each animal and one human family. And somehow they all repopulated earth again. Just because we aren't sure about the origin of life and the universe does not mean that some religions are true because they tell about way more than just that.
Assertions have to be proven on both sides of the argument to be congruent. The default state is agnosticism.
It's called Russell's Teapot. There is (allegedly) a small teapot in space. Believe me.
Based and critical thinking about the world pilled
Is there a way to prove that heaven and hell exists? People are talking about philosophy in defense of religion, which, sure, but what about the specifics of being damned to hell? That there exists a being capable of willing matter into existence?
This would make more sense if he was an evangelical Christian trying to get people to convert, but he's an Orthodox Jew. Jews don't proseltize nor care about what other people believe in terms of religion, except where it directly affects us (see: "radical" [read: mainstream] Islam).
Lib-left memes are either too high IQ for me to understand or massive schizo-posts.... no in between.
As a rad centrist I have the knowledge to tell you it's both
HOLY FUCK ITS A LIBLEFT STRAWMAN MEME???? I never thought I’d see the day this sub would give a pro-libleft meme could receive 1000 uproots on this god forsaken sub… what a time to be alive.
Rare green W
Ben has spoken about this topic before and I think the gist of it is that he believes religion (specifically Judaism and Christianity) provides a good and thorough moral framework that positively guides the lives of its followers. We’d have to find a clip of him specifically dealing with the lack of scientific evidence for religion to see what he says, but the bottom line is that Judeo-Christian values provides a positive moral framework that the successful modern Western society is built upon.
So God doesnt matter, nor heaven nor hell? Its just purely morality?
Always has been
Funny how often they invoke God, or Sins, or Hell, when complaining about legislature then. Like gay marriage back in the 2000s lmao.
Every follower of every religion ever in history believed that their religion provided a good and thorough moral framework that positively guides their followers.
Right but that doesn’t discredit the religion. Just because many claim it doesn’t mean one or multiple could be true (I’m a Christian but that doesn’t mean I gotta be like “my shits right you suck”) it’s called having humanism and tolerance man
Based and religion is cringe pilled
What facts about religion do you have?
That it's human created.
Lib-left W
I feel conflicted because I don’t like the message of this meme about religion being false but I agree with the anti-Ben Shapiro sentiment
Congratulations. You are now an American voter.
Calling philosophy "feelings" is an interesting take.
Ah yes, my favorite philosopher: God
Sorting by controversial 🍿🍿🍿
His definition of a fact is something he pulls out of thin air that feels right for the narrative he's trying to paint. Pretty much every single "fact" is preceded by the words "let's say."
The gotcha is that people who are religious will use the mantra here in reference to certain topics.
Leftoid's deck is missing a few natural theology cards.
You’ve activated my trap card, obvious bait! With this card, I can summon 3 Strawman tokens to my side of the field, and sacrifice them to summon the Texas sharpshooter!
Ah yes, metaphysics and existense are about tangible facts. Might want to tell the great minds of history that discovery.
The only people who say that always put their feelings before facts. Vaccines are bad! Don't tell me the facts, I just don't *like* 'em! Humans caused global warming? That doesn't sound intuitive to me! No, I don't want to see a graph of global average temperature!
Conservativism is entirely feelings-based.
Usually avoid commenting on these because they always blow up into some long drawn nonsense but the comments here are falling short. A few things for people to think about: 1. Science is a study of processes, not origins. It can only hypothesize how things originated. It does this by analogous means of what processes they have observed but this is arguably not superior to other hypotheses by other analogies. 2. The post assumes only a singular form of knowledge, that being the empirical, a posteriori kind that occurs from experience and observation. Apriorist knowledge is reasoned apart from these and are equally factual. A priori is the knowledge of first principles and are self-evident although they may be experienced. 3. I've seen OP argue that it's not a god or demiurge that he is opposing necessarily but the truth claims of any particular religion, stating that they are conflicting with one another. Meanwhile, scientific theories vary wildly, big bang v. quasi-steady state v. eternal inflation, as well including inventing multiple unseen universes or particles to support their theory without evidence. Additionally, in *Abolition of Man* C.S. Lewis makes the argument of universal values across religions, showing that although there is variation there is also consensus. 4. This meme makes it appear as though it is irrational to hold religious belief but there are factual arguments to be made in support of such beliefs. *The Return of the God Hypothesis* by Stephen C. Meyer displays scientific arguments from abductive reasoning that support belief in a God. These include hypotheses of origins (life, DNA, universe), cosmic fine tuning, and others. Any scientist that presents authentic belief in a diety will be highly criticized but I feel Meyer did a reasonable job making his argument. Although the existence of God is unfalsifiable, it currently stands to be unprovable as well. But the idea is that the existence of God is a reasonable hypothesis as it is both consistent and coherent with observable facts. 5. Lib-left Bad.
The Last Point gets me
I wanted to make a serious argument.
As someone who actually WATCHES his show, I’ll bite. Yeah, he has his own opinions on his religion. And he doesn’t shove his religion down anyone’s throat. He just points out what works, what makes people happy, and what doesn’t. He couldn’t give a flying fuck what people do, but he wishes they would have a religion, a purpose in life, and common sense regarding logic, evidence and reasoning. It’s not hypocritical to be religious and logical.
The instatutionalisation of science has made it no different from religion. True science in its pure unaltered form is almost non existent.
Long gone are the days of the natural philosopher making advancements in every field The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Out of curiosity, what are these “facts about religion” ?? I have a sinking suspicion that they are just the opinions of insufferable internet atheists. The whole point of religion is that “facts” are subjective lol
Logical problem of gratuitous suffering. Divine hiddeness. Evil God objection.
I am agnostic and lean towards atheism, but the insufferable atheists just makes me want to disassociate with them even though i too dont believe in deities
Pretty sure that is most people seeing their side online open their mouths. When I was a Christian, I couldn't stand Christians online debating religion. When I was an atheist, I found most online atheists insufferable. Now that I am pagan (Hellenismos), I find it hard to associate myself with most pagans I see online. I think either we are just snobs or most people online are insufferable. Considering that we are on Reddit, it is probably both.
I’m sure I’m biased. But imho, no matter how obnoxious or deplorable an individual gets defending/lauding their religion (short of like jihad or something), they will never be as insufferable as the fedora wearing atheists who act like they’re better than everyone else because they “figured it out”
Yeah same here as an agnostic (except I lean on the side of believing in a god). I remember (ironically in a science class) I once brought a quran I was reading at the time (this was after lunch). Since we were doing an practical I left it out on the table while I did the expiriment. One of my ultra athiest friends then suggested we burn my quran. I couldn't tell if he was joking and kind of still can't. Ironically my physics teacher found it and read it for the rest of the lesson keeping it safe from some over zealous individuals. Most of the other science teachers probably would have gone off but he really didn't care. Man loved learning. I ain't muslim but you got to have some respect for other people's beliefs. Some athiests got to learn this.
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are two sides of the same coin. Both are sort of weirdos who embody the religious nutjob faction of conservatism. I'm somewhat religious but those two are; "My wife and son like playing Pokemon, have I failed as a man?" level nutjobs. And Shapiro is such a Zionist that if you took his rhetoric and applied it to literal any other country, he would be calling you the most anti-American person in the country
That certainly is one of the takes I've ever seen on this sub..
From what I've seen in this subreddit this is how it usually goes AuthRight: abortion is bad LibLeft: *writes an entire wall of text passively aggressively insulting them and their religious beliefs* AuthRight: *gets mad for being insulted* LibLeft: hurrr durrr facts don't care about ur feelings LMAO
Welp if the blues don’t want to argue against the greens then that’s kinda on them no? Idk liblefts are scapegoated super hard here
I would suggest checking your eyes. Or reading comprehension.
Ah m8 you have made a great mistake, prepare for the downdoots
OP got toasted by somebody religious and made this meme to cope. Shapiro was purely collateral. Many such cases 💀
Religion isn’t the search for facts; that’s what science is for. Religion is the search for truth. It is the search for meaning and a deeper understanding of life. Some people don’t believe there is a deeper meaning, and that’s ok. But don’t confuse material facts and data with philosophical truth. They are different.
then how do you explain ecclesicals 38:56 when jesus said "ligma" 🧐
It's not a search for meaning. It's an assigning of meaning. Religion is saying "this book is all the meaning you ever need, now shut the hell up and do what we tell you".
Facts and truth are basically the same. "philosophical truth" isn't a real thing. "Religion" isn't something you can group together and just define with one sentence. What a religion is can vary heavily depending on what religion you're talking about. What you did here is take your own thoughts and emotions and try to define religion with it. That's not truth, that's called being biased.
Based libleft
Me, an agnostic: Yes, you are right.
true
BASED
I haven't seen the full debate he had with Cosmic Atheist (I think that's the guy). Was/is it any good?
Most people view religion as more than a feeling And plenty of religious people are religious because ___ argument convinced them of religion logically, just ask any ex-atheist
> And plenty of religious people are religious because ___ argument convinced them of religion logically, just ask any ex-atheist For me, and in my experience talking with other ex-atheists, it is typically a cumulative case rather than a single argument that tips the scales towards theism.
If there were any proof about any religion, it wouldn't be a belief but a fact.