Is that it

This chat brought to you by Harry's Razors

Henry's razor

Hitchen's

afaik, each holy book contains parts that disprove the other parts of it, making it inconsistent

they don't prove or disprove.

they may contradict, but that's not evidence of shit.

hmm

Disprove this razor bitches

if it contradicts, which part am i required to follow?

it counters itself

This thread was brought to you by our friends over at Dollar Shave Club

I mean, wol is contradicting himself right now.

@Dr.Wol Doesnt that just prove that the books aren't meant to be taken literally

up to you.

@Abel Oi, do you have a loicense for that?

Does that mean he's been disproved?

And are meant to be interpreted

how am i contradicting myself?

@Abel I'm calling the police

Peterson/jung style

It's like the meaning of life, entirely up to you.

@Real Spicy @Redneo Ha bitches I'm in India

You making a claim, then saying you dont have to prove it

Your claim is extraordinary

@Abel That would, but it would mean that its not the literal word of god

We made britbongs fuck off

Codes thats just stupid

Lmao

@Dr.Wol Yes, exactly

@Dr.Wol your choice of words by saying disproved was problematic

Gj

It's not the word of god

@AbelYeah yeah you arent officialy part of the empire anymore

thats like "Oh atheists believe there is NO god, so its a religion too"

It's meant to be interpreted

Oh, boy. Another day, another mass shooting.

Like Peterson or Jung do

Nice repost

any belief without evidence is similar to religion

You take the entire book, and derive principles to follow from it