lol. Anyways I'm more interested in ethics and morality when it comes to these folks, not defining my sky king. My sky king does barrel rolls.

For a higher power. There are rational arguments for *being* religious, divorced from the metaphysical

Indeed, you 0outright lied about Ed Feser, who provides plenty of facts. There is really no reason to trake you seriously anymore. Have a good convo guys. Anyone who wants to actually learn something is welcome to come talk about this stuff on our server, where Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Christians of various types, New Agers, Deists, and atheists who actually want to get along with religious people all hang out.

https://discord.gg/b8RSv8

Some of our volunteers are atheists, some are deists, some are Hindu, some are Jew. We have lots of fun.

sounds like the set up to a "Walk into a bar" joke

Youve not provided evidence that you're capable of civil, honest discussion. Why should I assume your discord is any different?

See y'all later. Let me know when and if you want to actually talk about evidence.

@Beemann Right back at ya, obnoxious rude one. See ya.

You need to GIVE the evidence before we can talk about it.

Just read the whole book bro

It's just interpretation, it's fine.

Right now. Good faith argument

I will read it, and MEEB the WEEB will make me put a bunch of comments onto one line because my mannerisms prevent me from lol-ing at everything

Hopefully you will also apologize and retract your lie that he has no facts. Cheers.

I didn't say he has no facts; I was inferring that he was going to provide interpretation of CURRENT FACTS instead of establishing his own

If it was read that way because of my shitty wording, I do retract it.

OK fair enough. But all his facts are 100% current. So enjoy the read and let me know if you have any questions or struggles. 😉

```What evidence is there for God, Max?```
The evidence is that people believe in the Gospel of the Leather Jacket or some fruit, if the void "left by god" is not filled.

Thus Atheism is the worst you can do, on a similar level of destruction than Naziism...
And there is also a Country where it was tried - and not with particularly good results as their god is MONEY. And all they do there is money.
WITH GOD, you do not do everything for money, you have other things to do as well.

So if you want to see a Godless Country, go to China!

And maybe think about how much different it would be if they would have some kind of god in their life.

And the South East Asians have awesome Religions, always had.

For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

Buddhism and all the other good shit also comes from there. Cultural the South East Asians were IMO superior to the Europeans.

Of course I'm talking about something like 500 Years ago or so.

That's evidence in favor of religion, not evidence in favor of the existence of God/gods.

Or just go with the 90% of what all humans did

Just dont

Your mood goes from 0 to 100

For some that is the existance of GOD:
https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims?quality=100&image_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.engadget.com%2Fmedia%2F2010%2F09%2Fnvidia-tattoo-09242010.jpg&client=amp-blogside-v2&signature=85b77f35f00ee412ff93ab7493f355c6c3a0865f

But yeah, when Relition is important, and we agree on that, doesn't the Existance or Non Existance of God become irrelevant as it is an imaginary figure??

Because GOD is something different for every person.

The reason people agree that those rules of the religion are important to follow is because they believe they are the word of God. If there is no God then they are following the rules for no reason. If they did not need the idea of God to follow those rules then they didn't need the religion. So yes, when someone comes in and says "You must follow these rules because God wills it" the question of "Well is your God real or not?" is an important one.

One could also argue that the reason god wills it is because he wishes for the world to be a certain way and for people to be a certain way.

I would argue that the existence of such a god would need to take a backseat to the values of the society/lifestyle that is being advocated for

so a few things re: that book. 1. It's a philosophically based argument, not one based on tangible, testable evidence 2. It's got a direct rebuttal (actually several), so it's not accurate to say that nobody knows how to deal with it even beyond the fact that theyre not especially new arguments- in fact they're all quite old 3. Even early on in the book the author comes across as scientifically illiterate. I dont know if I have the patience to read 5 chapters of "where did the coldness come from tho" tier armchair philosophy

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752 was not expecting to link anything of Richard Carrier's ever, but here we are

```The reason people agree that those rules of the religion are important to follow is because they believe they are the word of God. If there is no God then they are following the rules for no reason. ```
WRONG

In Buddhism there is no god, yet there are people following it.

Your assumption is wrong, because you assume that god is the most important part, when its the least important one

Do I really need to add a disclaimer to every statement letting you know that I know this isn't the truth in every single case? It still shows why the question is worth asking because people who do make that claim exist.

Your assumption that because many people tend to need ideologies that religion is the only answer is also wrong as Buddhism proves with many people discarding all of the religious aspects for the philisophical.