Only an idiot would spend their time trying to figure out who the biggest idiot is.

There’s a substantial difference between intolerance and oppression.

From my perspective trust is all about belief. If something can be proven then there is no need for trust.

Can you prove free will exists?

Let’s say you believe people have free will and you loan a friend $60 for a game.

Your friend says they’ll pay you back. You can’t prove that they’ll pay you back because we’re operating under the assumption that they have free will so they could very realistically choose not to.

Do you think your trust in your friend a mental illness? Because I think the majority of people feel that trusting your friends is a sign of good mental and emotional health.

It’s the infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time problem. Given an infinite number of universes anything that can happen statistically will happen.

This video explains it in relation to entropy https://youtu.be/nhy4Z_32kQo

Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?

Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?

(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)

What exactly did I say that was gobbledygook?

Nothing I said defends or supports organized religion.

Christians don’t teach people that they are god.

Correct. Christianity teaches people that “God” created everything and that they are children of “God”. AKA that “God” is the fundamental force in the universe.

What religion works the way you described?

None of them. Yikes.

Pretty much all of them do…

“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.

Most religions argue that “God” is behind everything, the good and the bad. The Christian Bible specifically calls this out

“ISAIAH 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.

What’s inane?

Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.

Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.

It sounds like you’ve let your valid criticism of hypocritical religious people prevent you from distinguishing “organized religion” from “belief.”

Sure there is. You can value evidence without requiring it for everything you believe. There’s no place for anything if you require evidence for everything. For example there’s no way to prove you are or aren’t just a brain in a jar. You can say “I think therefore I am”, but that doesn’t prove you are what you think you are.

Science accounts for this by saying we should adopt the simplest and most probable explanations, but what is “probable” starts to become hard to define in an infinitely expanding universe or multiverse.

The premise of any scenario we imagine or hypothesize can always be questioned. “God” is philosophically the circular logic that forms the basis for everything built on top of it. “God” is the “I am” that requires no justification or explanation (even if there might be one). “God” is the name people give to the “it is what it is” feeling that we fall back on when we start driving ourselves crazy thinking about free will or other seemingly paradoxical aspects of our observed reality.

There’s nothing atheistic about valuing evidence.

“Human nature” is a reductive term used to describe a set of complex behaviors that no one fully understands.

Indeed. Jesus was trying to convince everyone that they were the children of God and that they could live in heaven if they just learn to love each other.

Yeah, you don’t have to be gay just to be able to admire art.

Well are you? I don’t see any proof you’re trying to deny it.

That really clashes with the reality of how truck bros actually park. Or does it…?

There are multiple housing problems and they’re all probably way more complicated than anyone wants to acknowledge. The highest priority “housing problem” right now imo is that there are people who don’t have a safe place to sleep at night.

In order to solve that problem you need

1. Safe housing to provide to those people
2. A system for assigning those people to the housing.

Building/acquiring housing costs money. If the government isn’t doing its job and spending money to solve this problem we need to

1. Hold them accountable through voting
2. Take matters into our own hands as a community and attempt to contribute to a local solution in whatever capacity we’re able to contribute (donations, volunteering, organizing). Once we have legitimate trustworthy organizations that are doing a good job solving the problem then we can hopefully proceed by driving more support for them.

Creating a system to assign individuals to housing is probably the more “difficult” part because there needs to be some sort of consensus on the mechanics of prioritization. I personally think we should prioritize housing for individuals and families with children, but after that I don’t know who we should serve next.

Specifically the most acid trippy chapter of the Bible that describes the end of the world.

That’s super cool, I’ve wanted to do something similar like this but never have had the opportunity.

People who like talking and listening I suppose. Then just click the mute button on someone’s name if they’re being abusive.

Yeah, I definitely get that. Even so, sometimes I think it’d be nice to talk to people for more clarity. Maybe voice chats would require a moderator to start them and stay there to facilitate the conversation?

Hot take: All criteria used to classify ideas and objects into distinct categories can eventually break down. The only reason to pursue the creation of classification systems is to facilitate communication. If we get to a point where we start throwing chairs at each other I’d argue were no longer willing to communicate, and so arguing about whether something is “this” or “that” is no longer a priority. The priority should become attending to the mental and emotional wellbeing of the individuals in the absence of labels.

I don’t let what other people do ruin my happiness. If I’m happy with the work I’m doing and the amount I’m getting paid then I really don’t care what other people do.

Good luck ever defining “good”.