> You've been tricked by false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing
yet everytime someone tries telling me that, it's only ever based on half truths and misconceptions. Worse yet, when they try to defend their faulty positions, they only wind up falling further and further into logical fallacies.

@moira no zoomer. Again, you're oversimplifying the situation to excuse your own ignorance. Go away.

i can do better schizoposting than you

Whatever, child. Go away.

top 10 arguments.

1. Don't tag me again, you autistic kid

2. stop dm'ing me u attention seeking twat

sopa de autismo

uma delicia

@Sentient23 No adhom.

F'ing hell.. What is it with people incorrectly throwing around fallacies these days

An adhom is resorting to insults instead of addressing arguments, he made no arguments

@ofvo#8313 This conversation is not related to religion, it's just insults and mere cancer. End it, or I'll end it myself.

lol i ended it

i simply told him to stop tagging me and stop dming me

My congratulations.

https://twitter.com/SuckOpinion/status/1226431579158962180?s=19

cringe

yes

not as cringe as linking speculative capital and culture change

The state and religion should not be related at all.

You cannot separate the mind and the body

Religion serves by supplying the state, and frankly anyone, with the necessary knowledge of what they ought/oughtn't do. The state serves as the enforcer of rules. The notion of those rules must be in accordance to religion, as that's literally the only place where you can gather valid morality

Valid Morality, like stoning a man to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath? Moses calling for genocide, child murder and rape of the virgins?

Even if that was true although its out of context, it doesn't refute the fact that only morality which appeals to that which is unconditionally non dependent, is valid

It's not "out of context" you can't use that as a jail out of free card everytime. You're either dishonest or ignorant

Address the crucial part of my argument

And yes Moral absolutism died with the death of god

Well that's not an argument

I'd like to see an argument instead of just unsubstantiated assertions

Gonna die one day and afterlife don't exist so sad!

These are substantieatd it's in Numbers, Moses orders genocide, the killing of every male child even babies and every non virgin female. Though told his men to take the virgins as sex slaves

LOL you asserted moral absolutism is wrong, i asked you for a justification, and your justification are biblical historical accounts while making more invalid moral judgements???

that's not a justification bucko

Please present an argument against moral absolutism

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Not an argument

Missing the point again

Why do people not listen

I asked for an argument against moral absolutism which basically implies moral objectivism. Your argument are biblical verses about genocide?

That in itself assumes a moral judgement, I'm saying you cannot make any moral judgements because your moral compass doesn't appeal to that which is unconditionally non dependent

Inb4 crusades

Now, present an argument

wouldnt surprise me tbh

holy jihads

Bro justify the crusades

<:depress:591181860420321280>

Its not like it was warranted already

Well you are obfuscating the point you made originally since it's intellectually bankrupt that no form of morality is valid without religion. I am showing the morality of your holybook. "17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Your religions calls for genocide , rape and child murder

So what?

good rebuttal

in fact it is lol

My religion calls for genocide, ok, and? What grants you the moral authority to judge genocide if your moral compass is arbitrary and subjective

Because i can justify that genocide the same way, "it was arbitrary and subjective, just as your moral evaluation of it is right now"

Reason gives me that judgement

What reasons

If its reason then provide a deductive argument

Instead of acting like its assumed

inb4 we would be extinct if we didnt do that

I can say gathering sticks on the Sabbath does not cause an offense to anyone. So it would not justify stoning a man to death. Morality based on reason like what the founding fathers asserted

Why should "offense" be the standard which transfers an action from an amoral one, to an immoral/moral one?

lol

Don't remember saying a joke, answer the question

Is this Humes is vs ought?

Hell femoids

No?

I never even indicated that its the is/ought lol

I'm asking why should that be the standard which makes something moral/immoral

Reason

<:ben:588490784576110593>

I have answered you

What reason

What reason concludes that offense is the standard which makes something moral/immoral

Present it

Who gave you that reason??

didnt this start as le state should be the church debate

Nature enabled are brains to grow large enough to have reason

Literally irrelevant lmao

I have a shrine to the governer of Massachusetts in my workspace

reason is defined as adequate correspondence between premises and conclusions in philosophy, what does the origin of reason have anything to do with your reason concluding that offense is a standard by which we should judge actions?

Turkey also had a secular constitution

???

What the fuck are you going on about

Yeah i think they're trolling

Trolling isn't allowed in serious chats, so cut it off

Now ad hominem

LOOL

You guys are not too bright

Anyway you're boring later

Adhom is insulting instead of acknowledging arguments, you made no arguments

I asked you for an argument

`Turkey also had a secular constitution` how are we supposed to respond to this besides mockery

You just ignored me because you realized you're wrong

lol this @Ater Votum

your average 14 year old atheist everybody

You started the insults, called me a troll later

When did i insult you instead of acknowledging the argument?

In fact, its been you who's been ignoring mine argument

not the other way around

@Sentient23 ```The church should be the state```
explain that to papists

oh wait

Bruh!

@Zach holy shit quoting Old testament rules ?

gee that's a smart, big brain move

it's definitely not like the coming of Christ abolished the LEviticus and Deuteronomy rules

definitely not

That came off a little sarcastic which would imply you don't think I am smart at all. Is that what you think @JowJow Von Bismarck ?

And Jesus didn't abolish all of it. I don't think he commented on Moses doing a genocide and raping and murdering children

👌

WP

no rape happened during the invasion of the promised land

How is that relevant it's ok to rape as long as it's not the promised land ?

```The imitative kind of the dissembling part of the art of opinion which is part of the art of contradiction and belongs to the fantastic class of the image-making art, and is not divine, but human, and has been defined in arguments as the juggling part of productive activity—he who says that the true sophist is of this descent and blood will, in my opinion, speak the exact truth.```
tfw plato insults you through space and time

it sounds better in russian, can confirm

english is not a well made language

basically plato spends a full dialogue insulting sophists

very based

doing it in the most based way possible too

he is not doing virgin induction, he uses deduction

he literally separates all things in two groups over and over again until he finds a proper definition for a sophist

and basically sophist is an artist, an imitator of a philosopher.

either clueless or deliberate

@Sentient23 you are autistic enough to watch it and I think you could write up a full length essay response to this
https://youtu.be/E_1vxrGU0pI

guy's a jehovah witness

Bruh I kinda want to watch it, prots schizoposting on YT is entertaining

@Eoppa more entertaining than cutting off little boys balls so they can retain hitting the high notes after puberty?
When did the practice of making castratos officially end?

When modern methods of projecting voices was invented

Women have cringe weak voices

So, you don't have a specific date, like say you do when the Spanish Inquisition ended?
Honestly on the topic of castrados, I suspect the late Ronnie James Dio was one himself.

I mean I don't have a specific date, I haven't studied them myself. They weren't just a church thing, anywhere that had a need for them used them.

But has the church ever come outright to condemn such practice?

Not that I know of, I wouldn't support it given the churches theology of the body

Getty Lee has an even higher voice, I wonder if there are any secret castratis in music

> Getty Lee has an even higher voice, I wonder if there are any secret castratis in music
@Eoppa exactly what I'm wondering my dude. I'll have to do more research on the Rush frontman, all I know at the moment is he's a Jew. Whereas Dio was Catholic and only had an adopted daughter which sparked my curiosity in the inquiry you yourself put forth. 🤔

I mean it's possible

Has anyone else questioned this on the interwebs?

Not to my knowledge, sir. Though, I did check the Wikipedia for Getty, it says

>Lee married Nancy Young in 1976. They have a son, Julian, and a daughter, Kyla. 

On the other hand, I looked up Axl Rose who's been able to hit even higher notes yet, no stable relationships in his record, let alone known children. So, 🤷‍♂️ possible he's a castrato. Someone with a Twitter account should ask him. 😅

<@&588707615643795456> **Daily Question**

Should religious displays on government and public property be legal? Why/why not?

Depends on the government and religion

Yes. Eventhough the government shouldn't directly support any religion over the other, it should be completely legal for the government to display its most prominent religion on government property.

here in america? no. we have the establishment clause saying that we don't have a national religion

we should not have a national religion and we should never

and showing religion on GOVERNMENT property is a clear violation

Listen

Congressman of both parties have prayer sessions

For example, if there is a religion mainly held by government workers or some religious symbol that is very prominent in government, I think it should be displayed.

we break your interpretation of the establishment clause all the time

@Niveusater

Regardless of party

@Niveusater regardless, it’s still legal to have religious displays on government property in the US as long as it passes a neutrality test

State Religion so yes

if we're going to pray to a god in america, it's gonna be a christian god

that leaves out everyone else who isn't christian

^

we know it's gonna be a christian god

Yes

Outlaw any other religion that isn't Christianity

Amend freedom of religion

and it's gonna be a protestant god

"but it's constitutional or something"

Amendments can bee changed

you're right but the supreme court has upheld the establishment clause that we don't have a state religion and we can't have it

you can worship your religion

albeit christianity, islam, judaism, or buddhism

but if the government partakes in one of the many religions

it's gonna be christian and it's going to leave everyone else out

@Niveusater The supreme Court

Can overrule its own decisions

Precedents and decisions have been overturned in the past

yes it can and it may overrule their own decisions with a different and more right leaning court

but it has upheld the establishment clause

multiple times

Doesn't mean it can't be changed

you're right it can be changed

Can be changed

but i have doubts that they will change it

Can

sorry typo

you're right it can be changed

but my point is that the supreme court has upheld the establishment clause multiple times

and i doubt that they will try to change it

and in the case they do

Pack the courts

it's going to be a protestant religion

and it's going to be a protestant christian denomination

because if we turn to catholicism, the pope will gain influence over the united states

True

and that's what we never wanted

i'm not so sure about orthodox

State Protestant Christianity

Sounds great

sounds great for christians but the consequences might be more than i think

The Protestant churches will probably centralize if there was a state enforcement of Christianity

what do you view as the consequences @Niveusater

Most likely a central council

perhaps the protestant churches will centralise but you need to realise that there are many inconsistencies between protestant religions based on interpretation

that can cause a rift

if you just mean discrimination against other religious denominations then i dont really see how thats a consequences

considering christianity is a fundamental part of American culture

@Niveusater Or just state Christianity, non-denominational

Mormons don't count

of course i see discrimination against other religious denominations

but my biggest worry is the ability for the science to advance with christianity

What

Science is a tool God gave us to better understand his creation

sometimes they have coexisted very well but many times they have not

my biggest worry is that the rise of christianity is the end to science

That sounds fine.

But then again

Science is a tool God gave us to better understand his creation

yes

if thats how you wish to interpret it

but

in the end, progression will suffer

That's a worthwhile sacrifice

define progression

Tech?

not needed

Science dosent conflict with Christianity

At all

I would say true progress is raising everyone to the highest standard

It's only personal ideological pushes of individuals in science that create the division

Evolution states that we evolved from monkeys and that doesn't coincide with what the bible says

@Ater Votum Materialism

Ew

@kira It's not even a confirmed fact

It's under much contention

the theory of evolution is well supported

i don't say it's true because science doesn't prove shit

> Mormons don't count
@Maksim cute, yet so gay.

@Gothik Extravaganza Mormons arent Christian

but i think evolution is well supported so i support the theory of evolution

Imagine believing Utah is paradise

Imagine

Imagine believing in a book in addition to The Bible

Adding or subtracting from scripture is a sin

the state of utah?

The whole point of the Scopes Trial was to disprove creationism (what the bible preaches)

@Maksim first of all, Mormons are Christian. We're not getting into that argument again. Secondly, I prefer Colorado, but there's still plenty of beautiful spots next door, so to speak.

@Gothik Extravaganza No they're not

Ask a non-mormon Christian and they'll say no

the scopes trial really wasn't disproving the idea of creationism, it's challenging the Butler law which said that evolution must not be taught

though i do see the consequence of creationism disproven

> Adding or subtracting from scripture is a sin
@Maksim so.... This copy is a sin?

the butler law is unconstitutional in my opinion because we do not have a state religion

and we shouldn't have a state religion

@Maksim cognitive bias.

@Niveusater ew

@Gothik Extravaganza Irrelevant