317
#p*rnsober
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
317 points (91.2% liked)
LinkedinLunatics
7080 readers
6 users here now
A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com
(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's okay out of marriage too. It's a natural act that brings a lot of happiness to people. Unless you buy into a religion that makes you feel shame for something your body is made to do.
I don't even understand how this is supposed to relate to having sex out of wedlock.
Having sex is a natural act. Just like chopping meat. But there's a moral way to do things.
What's immoral about it? Who is being hurt? Just "our old book said no?
We follow God. Not a book.
Oh, god themselves told you all this? Then by all means keep depriving yourself. Hopefully god can show up to me someday and explain for me too. Until then I'll just have to continue to rely on my common sense. Shame I've been alive almost 40 years and that omnipotent being hasn't gotten around to laying out the rules for me.
It's in plain sight. You just ignore it.
What exactly am I ignoring? I'd love an external force to just tell me what to do but nothing has appeared so far. Other than a bunch of church types making demands of me with nothing substantial to back their claims of what's right and wrong.
What would you expect?
I would expect you to be able to tell me what "is in plain sight" that I am apparently ignoring as you claimed. It's a simple question.
What if God became a man and lived among us. But performed miracles in the presence of witnesses who wrote that stuff down. He'd live a perfect life without sin, yet as a man He can bear the punishment for our sin so we can be forgiven, so He could be perfectly merciful but also perfectly just.
That might make sense to you, but to an atheist that's just an unconvincing word salad. It doesn't actually mean anything and doesn't prove the existence of a God or gods. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if a god is as omnipotent and omniscient as Christians claim him to be, then he should know exactly what all of our standards of proof are and be able to meet that. If not, then it's fundamentally indistinguishable between him existing or not because it makes absolutely no difference.
Why should God meet your standard.
You shouldn't even believe in Napoleon Boneparte with that logic
Unlike God, Napoleon Bonaparte is proven to exist and there is both physical and historical evidence and context to prove he did. There is no such evidence for a god, only contradictory stories made 2000 years ago by some dudes in the Middle East. There is as much reason to believe in Zeus or Aphrodite as there is to believe in the Christian god, which is none.
The burden of proof of God's existence is on those who claim he does, and to this day nobody has been able to provide any beyond the usual "Oh look at the treeeeeeeees, maaaan!" argument or quoting something from the Bible. My standard of evidence is no different than most other atheists, and God has failed to prove himself to anyone who wasn't already indoctrinated into a church as a child before developing critical thinking skills. Almost like the whole thing was just a scam to control people and take their money all along.
Most people who believe Napoleon existed, never actually saw him. Some say that they saw a figure in the distance board a ship, but that's not very convincing. Nearly every "fact" about Napoleon comes straight from newspapers (paragons of accuracy, am I right?) that have been translated several times. Even most news today goes through redactions and corrections. So imagine trusting anonymous writers from 200 years ago. Which who's reports would have went through multiple layers of gossip and hearsay. This is the shaky foundation your "history" rests on. Napoleon was also the perfect "clickbait". Stories of big battles and grand escapes sold newspapers. The British government also fed these narratives to people in order to scare them and justify higher taxes as well as control parliament. Pretty convenient.
Then, there's the contradictions. Did Napoleon personally lead the charge over Lodi Bridge? Or was it Agerro? It depends on who you read. Waterloo timelines differ wildly, and both sides claimed victory at Boredino. Even descriptions of Napoleon himself range from a heroic genius to an insane tyrant.
A critical reading also points out that Napoleon's exile was likely a myth. The island symbolises England, his ultimate enemy. His escape represents the mythical trope of a hero escaping the realm of the dead, like Prometheus or Orifus rescuing Uritysy from the underworld. It's quite obvious that Napoleon is a sun god disguised as historical figure. His name literally means "True Apollos" - The greek sun diety. Who, like Napoleon, was born on a Mediterranean island. His journey from Egypt conquering westward is also clearly showing the path of the sun.
So prove to me Napoleon existed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I am not going to prove anything to you because you are trying to distract from the original argument and shift the burden of proof onto me. You don't understand what an extraordinary claim is, as the difference between claiming a historical figure existing and claiming the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, invisible being is rather significant. The burden of proof is not mine, as you are the one claiming the latter exists and preaching to others.
So, if I could prove that a historical person who claimed to be God existed, performed miracles, died and rose again, and was seen ascending into heaven, would that be proof of God?
Not what I asked you for. We're back to the storybook. This shit right here is why I don't want to work with you people. You can't give a straight answer about why anyone should buy into your beliefs but you continue to try and push them on others and judge us for not following them.
I asked you what you asked for and you asked me for "in plain sight"
What is the "IT" you were referring to? That shouldn't be a difficult question for you to answer. Which specific thing in plain sight am I ignoring? You claimed earlier that you don't follow a book, you follow god, and yet all you can reference when I ask you to explain is that book?
I didn't reference a book.
Sure buddy, you referenced the shit that's "in plain sight" that only you can see with your special eyes and not the book where that exact story is written. Go ahead and ignore the other half of my comment though.
So can you prove to me that Napoleon Boneparte existed without using historical writings?
So you were referencing the book after all?
See I can ignore your actual question and deflect too.
That's how history works. To prove any event, you generally need to reference a book.
What are you expecting me to do? Prove the existence of God using only a lemmy comment and not referencing anything else?
Atheists and their stupid goalposts, I swear.
Moving goalposts? Like you've done every time I've asked you to tell me what it was that I'm ignoring that's in plain sight? I've repeated that question at least 5 times now and you've yet to answer it.
Christians and their hypocrisy, I swear. Either prove your religion is correct or stop pushing it on people and judging them for not following it's arbitrary rules.