😤

@Xinyue The amount of ignorance in that statement is insane lets try this for anything secular and you'll sound ridiculous to yourself

"Why still adhere to this secular creed? Why? there's no other reason other than empirical bullshit"

You continue to compare Christianity to things that aren't comparable to christianity

"Secular creed" deals with people, with society, with relations that are observable

Christianity mostly doesn't

You're right i shouldn't compare inferior ideologies to christianity

if your measurable of "superior" is that something is unobservable, unprovable, unseeable and in any capacity non-confirmable, you aren't a very sharp tool in the shed are you

that could justify any number of thought systems

is observable really a good argument?

or belief systems rather

plenty of batshit crazy people hallucinate

Well if you by definition cannot observe a given thing, and never can, no matter what, even in cases where you should be able to, then yes its a pretty bad standard on part of the faith

No it isn't

we have no way to observe the entire universe but we sure as hell know it exists

but for all we really know we could be in a giant snowglobe

@Spookaswa, are u catholic?

> plenty of batshit crazy people hallucinate

ok then maybe you should simply conclude that all sensory perception is invalid (including the parts where you read the bible and became convinced that you are christian, or indeed the memories of you doing this) and embrace some form of epistemological solispsism

of course you don't do this, because the argument you put forward here isn't "le big think" that you pretend it is and is in fact entirely self-defeating but you apparently don't catch on this

sensory perception is valid it just isn't rational or follows your silly arbitrary empiricism

i'm playing with your boundaries not mine

nothing in my sensory perception validates Christian God. It does validate the existence of objective reality (which always defeats hard ontological solipsism) because it exists independent of my will or wishes, fears or dreams (it merely is), but nothing in this foundation of objective reality *confirms god* - what it does is confirm *materialism*

(that is God outside of the universe, as a originator of it; naturalistic pantheism, the universe *itself* as god is pretty fucking dank)

Except it doesn't, sensory perception can and has been tricked and is definitely fallible and for everything you say isn't sensory i can say it is due to you having no true knowledge on someone else's anecdote or senses

Sensory perception (or perception in general) doesn't ever validate God; but it does always validate objective reality, that is, something existing outside your will and agency

There you go again

You have a god it just happens that its name isn't yahweh its your senses

You have a pretty loose definition of god it seems

Petersonian almost

I think

its not senses, its the world that exists independent of what I think, feel, want or aspire towards

this world is merely conveyed to me by my senses

reality in itself is a subjective experience

what is real and what isn't real is entirely up to you

well the reflection of reality is, yes, but nonetheless it is immovable by my subjective whims, wishes, fears, dreams, etc.

that implies something deeper going on beyond the veil of senses

the world isn't immovable infact its constantly moving

by my whims, wishes, fears, dreams. do keep on

They certainly do

my *subjective* will doesn't move the world

Yes it does