#notallmuslims lel

is there a stream?

in about 48 minutes, yeah

Gotta love that daylight savings lol

@RoadtoDawn I don’t think it’s really as simple as ad populum.

@Salacious Swanky Cat What i said earlier i was just being funny, but i also believe that atheism is defensible (you said you don't think it is), as i think everything a person "believes" needs to be challenged. The other thing you said (which is true), that not everyone has all info on a topic/issue so flaws can form.

But I'm Flawless!

*unless i'm not*

@RoadtoDawn it’s that insecurity which I find tragically hilarious

The problem with finding it necessary to challenge everything is, you become an autistic skeptic on everything

Everything about its doctrines rely on turning someone into a yesman

@Shadows agnosticism is defensible; atheism isn’.

@Salacious Swanky Cat nowadays, people blend those two terms together

@Salacious Swanky Cat atheism is also slowly dying

the definition of atheism has changed to make them seem reasonable, yet it hasn't alleviated their fatal problems

@Deleted User @RoadtoDawn Islam claims to be a continuation of judo/Christianity, but completely contradicts it in every way. The role and life of Jesus is completely different in every way too.

@RoadtoDawn heh, its great how vigilance just turned into some kind of autism.

@Deleted User totally agree. Atheism has no good arguments. Agnosticism is far more defensible

@Shadows Thankfully, I was able to survive my Skeptic phase. Those times were not something to be proud of lol

when you take things to their logical conclusion, you become a caricature

@RoadtoDawn yes people conflate the two. It’s dumb and done on purpose.

Skeptics have the same problem as classical liberals in that it's all incoherence

is this whole DST thing throwing everyone else off too? I feel lost without my Matt & Blonde fix already lol

I probably won’t watch all of it because I like sleep. Lol

@RoadtoDawn what’s incoherent about classical liberalism?

It's a cult of reason, materialism

@Salacious Swanky Cat I don't think that is true. I can make a great case for either of those. But i do agree that agnosticism is more understandable.

They try to make logical arguments that forsake the transcendental, while simultaneously making a transcendental argument

It's like the ultimate existential blue pill

@RoadtoDawn I guess that makes sense. I was thinking the limit would be how to establish barriers when things get to far and be consistent. For example, allowing all types of relationships to exist, which includes incest.

Sadly the principles I'm talking about are pretty esoteric. Most people aren't aware that the ideas they have possess meaning and signify things beyond the scope of the context they're in

@Shadows atheism requires faith while criticizing religion for acknowledging that faith is required. You can make a case for not believing in a particular religion, but not about God not existing. The reason is that an atheist is always attacking a strawman.

things are generally used for utility, just to make things easier

my only problem is when they try to make existential arguments based on that

I'm not a fan of any side has all the answers to everything (mainly because its not true heh).

@Shadows right. That’s why agnosticism is defensible.

It doesn’t claim to know everything

@RoadtoDawn utilitarianism is dangerous too.

@Salacious Swanky Cat You may have atheism and anti-theism mixed together.

@Shadows no I don’t. Atheism is the claim that God doesn’t exist. That claim requires attacking strawmans because what is God?

@Shadows anti-theists are people angry at God and hate God, so they want to ruin religion for everyone.