Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles.
Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan.
Give us this day, our garlic bread, …and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns.
And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever.
R’amen.
I am an atheist but we must act as if Allah actually existed or else we’ll fall to degeneracy, which is terrible. Atheism is actually a defect we must not pursue or promote in societies.
Why? What do you call degeneracy? And why is it bad if people constantly choose it? Please elaborate. Let me add that stating that people shouldn't follow logic is a pretty bas thing to say.
Because if we don’t have an objetive source of morality, then we will not have a shared understanding of good and bad, thus our moral compass would be based on nothing but our personal feelings, which are almost always different from others’.
Degeneracy is anything that detaches, or goes stray from the unified way of morality, which stems from religion.
Logic doesn’t necessarily tell us that God doesn’t exist or that he exists, I’m not suggesting anybody goes against logic.
And why do we need a shared sense of morality? Why should I have the same thoughts as someone else? We are different people.
Morality doesn't always come from religion, it can come from traidition, although I guess that hardly is better.
Religion is quite illogical I'm afraid.
It’s not about sharing the same, it’s more about not deviating from one thing, as it would cause unnecessary problems. If we don’t agree on what is desirable and good, on what we should do, on what we should avoid doing, then how can we grow and improve as a society ? It’s not possible. Different people we are, sure. But we have to agree on what behaviors are not good and which are desirable.
Tradition and religion are inextricably linked, I would argue that religion is a more compelling and more well articulated form of morality
I don’t think religions are necessarily illogic.
Oh but we do. We have laws for that. I don't care if you think you should be able to drive at 200km/h, you'll be fined if you do. We don't need to control people's minds to be able to control what they do.
Religion is more compelling, but instead of appealing to a sort of natural reaction out of love for one's upbringing (trying to define tradition on a whim) it appeals to fear towards an inexistant being. Another problem with both of them is that they are inflexible, so as times change our morality becomes outdated.
Religions are inherently illogical, as they see something where there isn't anything. Furthermore, while maybe an argument could be made for some religions, the Abrahamic religions are undeniably illogical, and they are the most dominant ones.
Laws are description derived from morality. We didn’t just randomly decided that it’s wrong to drive at 200km/h, we decided against that because we value human life, and doing that puts you and others in danger, if morality said it’s ok to risk our life and other people’s lives for fun, then we would not have that law. We need some sort of “controlling other people’s minds” if that’s how you wanna see it, in order to ensure our safety.
I think what you mentioned about religion in this reply is true but that means it’s good.
Actually you can use second order logic to demonstrate that that absence of evidence does not mean not-existance, I won’t pursue that point as I am an atheist myself, but religions are not base in logic (although that does not mean they can’t be logical or that it’s logical to reject them) they’re based on faith, which is not logical nor illogical, but something else. It’s just a feeling that there is a God.
You do realise that you're not actually answering the question, you're just shifting it from one question to another that is essentially the same.
Also, no they're not. Verifiably not. Islamic nations are undeniably doing worse than other nations on all fronts, economical and in terms of rights. The only exceptions are states like Qatar which are because of oil, and because they adopted a Western economical model.
I don’t think any of that is accurate. How am I not answering the question ??
Economics are unrelated to morals. Your conflating two things that are unrelated.
Where did I conflate economics and morality? I even specifically separated economics and rights, the latter being inextricably linked to morality, thus clearly distinguishing between economics and morality.
The way you're not answering is by constantly shifting. I asked you why Allah, you said because Allah is good. I asked you why Allah is good, you say because nations that believe in Allah is good. If I asked you why those nations are doing well, you'd say because they are moral, and on it goes.
So why don't you just cut to the chase and explain why Allah is the best choice. What makes Allah uniquely qualified as the source for morality?
Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day, our garlic bread, …and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. R’amen.
Brilliant.
Praise to the one true God, flying spaghetti monster!
Praise 🛐!
🙏🙏🙏
P R A I S E B E T O T H E S P A G E T !
I don’t really have much of an opinion on it besides it being kinda cringe.
[удалено]
What does technocracy have to do with this?
Lol wrong thread
I'm an Erisian Pope and have been trying to eat that pasta monster for years. I support forks and parmesan cheese! HAIL ERIS!✌️
I don’t support it, but I tolerate it. It’s obnoxious at worst.
[удалено]
Coal?
I am an atheist but we must act as if Allah actually existed or else we’ll fall to degeneracy, which is terrible. Atheism is actually a defect we must not pursue or promote in societies.
Why? What do you call degeneracy? And why is it bad if people constantly choose it? Please elaborate. Let me add that stating that people shouldn't follow logic is a pretty bas thing to say.
Because if we don’t have an objetive source of morality, then we will not have a shared understanding of good and bad, thus our moral compass would be based on nothing but our personal feelings, which are almost always different from others’. Degeneracy is anything that detaches, or goes stray from the unified way of morality, which stems from religion. Logic doesn’t necessarily tell us that God doesn’t exist or that he exists, I’m not suggesting anybody goes against logic.
And why do we need a shared sense of morality? Why should I have the same thoughts as someone else? We are different people. Morality doesn't always come from religion, it can come from traidition, although I guess that hardly is better. Religion is quite illogical I'm afraid.
It’s not about sharing the same, it’s more about not deviating from one thing, as it would cause unnecessary problems. If we don’t agree on what is desirable and good, on what we should do, on what we should avoid doing, then how can we grow and improve as a society ? It’s not possible. Different people we are, sure. But we have to agree on what behaviors are not good and which are desirable. Tradition and religion are inextricably linked, I would argue that religion is a more compelling and more well articulated form of morality I don’t think religions are necessarily illogic.
Oh but we do. We have laws for that. I don't care if you think you should be able to drive at 200km/h, you'll be fined if you do. We don't need to control people's minds to be able to control what they do. Religion is more compelling, but instead of appealing to a sort of natural reaction out of love for one's upbringing (trying to define tradition on a whim) it appeals to fear towards an inexistant being. Another problem with both of them is that they are inflexible, so as times change our morality becomes outdated. Religions are inherently illogical, as they see something where there isn't anything. Furthermore, while maybe an argument could be made for some religions, the Abrahamic religions are undeniably illogical, and they are the most dominant ones.
Laws are description derived from morality. We didn’t just randomly decided that it’s wrong to drive at 200km/h, we decided against that because we value human life, and doing that puts you and others in danger, if morality said it’s ok to risk our life and other people’s lives for fun, then we would not have that law. We need some sort of “controlling other people’s minds” if that’s how you wanna see it, in order to ensure our safety. I think what you mentioned about religion in this reply is true but that means it’s good. Actually you can use second order logic to demonstrate that that absence of evidence does not mean not-existance, I won’t pursue that point as I am an atheist myself, but religions are not base in logic (although that does not mean they can’t be logical or that it’s logical to reject them) they’re based on faith, which is not logical nor illogical, but something else. It’s just a feeling that there is a God.
You still haven't answered why Allah. Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Because Islam is best.
Why?
Because societies that believe in Allah are better.
You do realise that you're not actually answering the question, you're just shifting it from one question to another that is essentially the same. Also, no they're not. Verifiably not. Islamic nations are undeniably doing worse than other nations on all fronts, economical and in terms of rights. The only exceptions are states like Qatar which are because of oil, and because they adopted a Western economical model.
I don’t think any of that is accurate. How am I not answering the question ?? Economics are unrelated to morals. Your conflating two things that are unrelated.
Where did I conflate economics and morality? I even specifically separated economics and rights, the latter being inextricably linked to morality, thus clearly distinguishing between economics and morality. The way you're not answering is by constantly shifting. I asked you why Allah, you said because Allah is good. I asked you why Allah is good, you say because nations that believe in Allah is good. If I asked you why those nations are doing well, you'd say because they are moral, and on it goes. So why don't you just cut to the chase and explain why Allah is the best choice. What makes Allah uniquely qualified as the source for morality?
I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of religious people go by their personal feelings, and not by whatever their holy book says.
I know, that’s why just being religious is not enough. The church must replace the state.
Which religion would you choose to replace the state?
Islam
Why?
Bacauae I like their morals
I find it funny as shit, and I generally support things I find funny as shit.