We're talking about belief in our experience. You believe in yours. You have faith in yours. I believe in mine. I have faith in mine.

You can't argue that your position is more logical than mine.

No, I believe God exists based on personal experience and acceptance of that experience.

You believe objective reality exists based on personal experience and acceptance of that experience.

In fact, everything you've asserted relies on objective reality. Can you prove this is real? Using logic and evidence? Because if you can't, all other arguments based on predictable objective reality fall apart...

> you’d need to show it, logically, with evidence

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325061

Or It might be the pill for those who addicted to the pain :)

> there are so many ways in which a person honors God, that the word "sin" becomes subjective.

This says a lot, I think. I would venture to guess that you mean other world religions are equally valid and lead to God. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to strawman you. The idea that sin is subjective is so antithetical to the Bible that I'm surprised to hear someone who knows a few biblical messages even consider it. God is the very source of objective morality, without Him it could not exist. But it does, and it's laid out in plain language often repeated several times in different contexts throughout the Bible. What then is your interpretation of Acts 4:12? "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” If you can't agree with that I daresay I wouldn't call you a Christian. Again, if this is not your view please correct me.

Hogwash the whole way down. Hogwash filled with ridiculous conflations, colonial apologia, and a dearth of imagination - an ironic self report if I’ve ever seen one.

Why do you find blatant racism "funny and relatable"?

“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”

This is extremely important in the interpretation what Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection meant for mankind.

I wouldn't want my quote to be misinterpreted as to not "help" people, but "help" is a subjective phrase. It's impossible to properly help someone without knowing some type of context associated with that said person's life. For a person to desire to keep you from sin, is to put a "stumbling block" in the way of the very person they are trying to help in the first place...

That has, can, and will interfere with them achieving a salvation that is unique to their life... And can keep them from accepting Christ whole-heartedly.

You are essentially controlling their life by educating them on YOUR interpretation of sin and keeping them from it, when you could honestly give them the tools and teachings to help them interpret what sin could be within the context of their life/for themselves, and then they can call on God/Christ for the strength in Spirit to keep away from what they consider sin.

We are all sinners, and what better way to let a person know the compassion, patience, empathy, and unconditional love of God, than to allow them endure on a personalized path in which they understand the power of the flesh (temptation, making mistakes, hurting others, lying etc.) and know that the day they receive the "Good News" of Jesus, they can not only activate their own resurrection (Holy Spirit), they can also whole-heartedly ask for forgiveness, and use their life as a testimony to help others commit to God/Christ and receive that same "Holy Spirit", which is essentially the God/Christ in us. It's the greatest way of disregarding the trauma experienced, accepting the knowledge and wisdom from the mistakes you made, and forgiving the transgressions made against you...

You don't help a person by keeping them from "sin". The word and law of God has been exploited repeatedly, and, there are so many ways in which a person honors God, that the word "sin" becomes subjective. "Sin" can be used in a way to disregard the experiences that lead to that person committing the act in the first place.

This woman is Lesbian, therefore, she is a sinner. Well, she may be a lesbian because of the trauma associated with her being raped (Simplified example).

In Christianity, letting people know the "Good News", in a way that is tailor-made/worded within the context of their life and what they've experienced, is the greatest contribution you can make. But, before you can even do that, you have to ask if they are ready and willing to receive the word in the first place! Then you can sit down, listen to these people, live amongst them, empathize with them, be patient and compassionate. There is a reason why Paul spoke about living amongst the people he desired to help in Corinthians, going from village to village and enduring the same hardships that they did.

If your intentions are to the detriment of others...If your intentions are to control, or impede on the freedoms of anyone? That behavior isn't Christ-like at all. Even in the Bible it is stated that people wouldn't even know sin if it wasn't for the laws being made... In other words, Laws (Like Abortion Laws) don't keep people from sinning. As a matter of fact, it is Laws that tempt the act of sin in the first place!

One way to serve God is to serve and educate those that understand that they need to be served and educated. Teach them what the ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ means for them. Teach them in a way that they will be able to guide themselves on the path of salvation and righteousness. Guide them in the way where they can depend on God, not on Man, to tell them what is right and wrong.

I hope you receive this well.

Someone who was lecturing on Nietzsche wrote to Nietzsche asking him to meet so that they can read Kierkegaard together, I believe—but then Nietzsche went insane. It’s not surprising he never really heard of Kierkegaard to be honest, Nietzsche didn’t even know about Spinoza until he was 35ish

Ah ok

I’m taking about mr. theist

> You believe with zero evidence that this is real.

Wow so your God exists based on…solipsism being possible. Good grief you’re a moron

You can think I'm wrong, but thinking I'm a buffoon is pretty silly. I deal with these abstract philosophical ideas at a decent enough level of proficiency.

Edit: Unless you mean the other guy is a buffoon lol.

How the fuck is it relevant to bring solipsism into a conversation where you’ve made claims about a supernatural beings existence? Gish gallop gallop gallop

No sense arguing with a buffoon

> No, God is as real to me as my wife

Unicorns are real to me, boss. What now?

You’re a clueless clown

To argue that it works you’d need to show it, logically, with evidence, rather than pull an assertion out of your ass. There is no more reason for anyone to believe this is true than there is for my claim that a unicorn flew out of my ass today.

You can stop your bullshit here.

I am an undergrad. I didn’t mean it in a rude way it was just funny and relatable rn…

From what I know he wrote a few letters stating he planned to study Kierkegaard, but I imagine it was fairly limited. Either way I think it's interesting to see how much overlap each had despite operating on opposite ends of the spectrum with respect to religious faith.

I don’t think Nietzsche ever read him.

> Again, not believing it's real doesn't have to be so destructive! It's a simple belief. So what if it's not real. Why does that change anything at all?

You act according to belief. It is a necessary component of logical chains of action. You have to have certain facts you're committed to that explain why you do what you do. Again: you eat a banana believing that it will satiate your hunger. You don't eat drywall, in part, because you don't believe it's going to satiate your hunger (at least as much drywall as you can stomach eating). That is what beliefs are for.

> Lots of people believe in simulation theory, or that it's just a dream, or a samsaran illusion without starving to death!

No, they really don't. They talk as if they believe in simulation theory, or that it's a dream, but they don't truly and authentically commit to it. They can't. To truly and authentically commit to the idea that the world is not real would require you, for consistency, to remove any meaning from the idea that things need to be real to motivate action. You would need to treat the delusions of all hallucinatory schizophrenics as equally real as anything else you see, not just for them but for you. You would have to believe in all gods, fairytales, and supernatural entities, and live as though they exist.

True belief is not a mere fancy that you entertain mentally without integrating it into your chain of action. Belief is BELIEF, an earnest commitment to the reality of something such that you factor it into the decisions you make. If you make any decisions that are contrary to your supposed "belief", that's an indicator that you are not truly and authentically committed to it and therefore it doesn't comprise an actual belief.

> I suffered huge anxiety, PTSD, depression, etc from a childhood of sustained abuse. I met God. Now it's all gone.

It's very nice that you were able to delude your brain into thinking it healed by slapping a cure-everything placebo over it, but that has no place in philosophical discussions of what exists, or whether or not faith is a valid path to truth.

> God is with me, and it's as real as anything else in reality.

It's not, you're twisting and warping the definition of "real" because you aren't committed to coherency. You're arguing the topic in bad faith.

> otherwise the implications of not doing so would literally render me incapable of living as an acting being.

Again, not believing it's real doesn't have to be so destructive! It's a simple belief. So what if it's not real. Why does that change anything at all? Lots of people believe in simulation theory, or that it's just a dream, or a samsaran illusion without starving to death! Playing the game is not an admission that it's real.

>No, you don't have to grant the reality of God. It is not a requirement to be rationally coherent

I suffered huge anxiety, PTSD, depression, etc from a childhood of sustained abuse. I met God. Now it's all gone. So for me, the exact opposite is my reality. God gives me coherence. Lifts me above anxiety, above fear, above all my thoughts. Cuts right through them.

God is with me, and it's as real as anything else in reality. And while I'm experiencing God, it's rational to believe. Just as it's rational for you to believe in a materialistic universe while that is your experience of reality.

> You experience stimulus that you attribute to eyes, photons, and a materialistic universe.

Yes, and I am axiomatically bound to assuming at least some of those things are real in certain circumstances, otherwise the implications of not doing so would literally render me incapable of living as an acting being. The same is not true of God, as evidenced by the many atheists who are able to live without psychological contradiction.

> Mario is not real. Goombas are not real. Millions of people are making Mario jump on Goombas worldwide. Logically there is no reason to jump on Goombas. Yet millions do. So that argument is a bit weak, isn't it?

No, because while Mario and Goombas are not real, the screen that is displaying the images of Mario and Goombas is real, and based on the way it is programmed pressing certain inputs will objectively cause the images on the screen to behave in a predictable way. Treating Mario and Goombas as actual people is a mental delusion we engage in because it makes the experience more interesting, but from a logical sense it is silly to argue that the act of playing a video game is not grounded in something we can take to be real.

> That's no difference to faith in God.

No, you don't have to grant the reality of God. It is not a requirement to be rationally coherent, and in fact having faith in God is irrational.

> You experience stimulus that you attribute to God, but it is not literally equivalent to the experience of seeing a physical object with your own eyes.

You experience stimulus that you attribute to eyes, photons, and a materialistic universe.

>If you believe that is not "real", then logically there is no reason to eat the banana because it has no actual tangible impact on your life, so you won't do it.

Mario is not real. Goombas are not real. Millions of people are making Mario jump on Goombas worldwide. Logically there is no reason to jump on Goombas. Yet millions do. So that argument is a bit weak, isn't it?

>You have to grant the reality of the world, even if you know you're doing it arbitrarily

That's no difference to faith in God.