no response? why should anyone believe your worldview, because of your poor interpretations of the bible and complete lack of justifications of transcendentals?

addone seems more interested in mocking Christianity with no logical reason backing his stance. (He has mocked and made fun of God many times before, he just felt the need to make his own thread to do so now).

He isn't approaching this post with an open mind and any differing opinion he will just disagree, rather than giving any of it some real thought.

"I can do not wrong and my opinions will never be wrong either" - addone.

of course it is

Relax I have multiple people here bombarding me with all kinds of responses. I have a job and a life outside of here. I can't promise to address every comment.

Now just briefly skimmed through what you wrote and there appears to be multiple loaded questions and assumptions there.

You seem to want discuss immaterial in a vacuum. While I am not even attempting to go there as it's a woo woo subject here I am discussing the material and the practical. Apparently Jesus was God in physical form and all the magic he has done affected the physical realm. The events that happened or didn't happen and the logic can all be put into scrutiny.

Also I can criticize and talk about anything I'd like you don't get to thought police others.

The christian cult doesn't like being exposed so it is attempting to silence preemptively as you are doing now.

Christianity is not a cult.....

something being "practical" presupposes transcendental categories, and who cares if something is 'practical' I want to know if something is true. It could be practical to lie to my neighbor who is an old grandma, break into her house and steal her shit but ought I do this?

the "material" can you find "meaning" or "truth" of this sentence under a microscope?

transcendentals are "woo woo" now? reason, truth, purpose, teleology, the mind, meaning, etc are "woo woo"?

if this is the case, how do you form sentences? if there is no meaning or truth, how can you possibly have a coherent conversation if the foundations of what that requires are "woo woo"

i'm not trying to discuss something "in a vacuum" I don't know what you mean by that, I am giving you full reign and ability within your own worldview to explain truth, purpose, teleology, meaning etc in your own way all of these things must be explained using your worldview before we can even attempt to predicate meaning behind your interpretation of christianity.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jan 12 2026 06:36pm

In a vacuum means absence of matter. I am too employed to be pontificating immaterial truths/transcendental categories or other philosophical "what is the meaning of the mind" questions with you. No I am here to talk about religious subject specifically concerning Christians and their many fictional stories. Everything discussed here must relate to physical or logical proof. Was jesus real or is he a fictional character. Did Noah manage to cram 2 of every kind of animal onto a boat and survive for over a year? If so how can we prove it or is it another far-fetched tale?
1+1=2 is linked with physical world it complements it as a practical formula for me to figuire out how many times is too many to explain this point for instance.
So unless you can somehow tie your question with the topic of this thread, I am not really interested.

This post was edited by addone on Jan 12 2026 08:43pm

"Everything is tied back to physical or logical proof."
logic exists but it's immaterial, this would mean you aren't a materialist and things exist outside of matter/motion in the universe. where do these immaterial things come from in your worldview?

"1+1=2 is linked with physical world it complements it as a practical formula for me to figuire out how many times is too many to explain this point for instance. "

1+1 = 2 isn't objectively true, only applies to physical things and it's just practical and in your mind? if you didn't exist 1+1=2 wouldn't be true? what do you mean it's linked to the physical world, if I cut open a specific rock somewhere it holds the universal identity of "1+1 = 2"?

what I am getting at is essential as your worldview cannot give account for these things, even if we pretend christianity is completely wrong based on your ability to interpret the bible (for some reason I should rely in your interpretation) what is your coherent explanation or justfication of the world?


you claim everything ties back to 'logical proof,' but when I ask you what logic actually is, you say you're too busy to answer. you can't use 'logic' as your weapon while dismissing the existence of logic as 'immaterial pontificating.'

if the world is just random matter and no immaterial truths exist, then 'truth' is just a chemical signal in your brain. why should I care about your 'scrutiny' of Noah if your 'reasoning' is no more objective than random chemical reactions firing with no meaning or purpose?

this is the central problem: your worldview cannot account for the very tools you are using to criticize mine. you want to 'scrutinize' the Bible using unsophisticated interpretations, but you can't even justify why your own mind is a reliable tool for scrutiny.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jan 12 2026 08:59pm

If you cut open a rock into 2 it is no longer an addition it becomes division. This is why I don't debate homeless philosophers who do not relate back to the physical/practical. Because they talk in circles about nebulous nonsense thats not grounded in reality.

Have fun talking to yourself on a park bench about universal identity of rocks or w/e the fuck.

This post was edited by addone on Jan 12 2026 09:12pm

a person committed to disbelieving cant be shown acceptable proof. because one is competing with imagination.
had the same discussion few months ago. were we watch the 'atheisrt come up with all kinds of escapes.
one of them was "if it was written in the stars its God believe in me" the non believer replied "i would just think the aliens were trying to trick me"
how can one ever break through that kind of hubris?