- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
Browser extension called GoFullPage. You're welcome.
reddit General
- Thread starter SpessCaptain
- Start date
grump
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
The same kind of people who said you are practically genociding transgenders if you have positive opinion about one thing JK Rowling said or patronized a business with a tenuous connection to a MAGA figure once are now slurping down an unprecedented amount of Iranian cock.
Its kind of embarrassing how enthusiastic about it they are even if you are on Iran's side.
Its kind of embarrassing how enthusiastic about it they are even if you are on Iran's side.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2024
Iran is set to execute 10 feminist activists by hanging this week.
I'm guessing that story will be found absolutely nowhere on reddit.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2026
Of course not. Or do you want to give even the slightest amount of justification to Drumpf actions and make the people shitting on him look good?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2024
You better watch your mouth, we're better than Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia. Tennessee might have us licked but both our football teams are better than theirs.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
I'm somewhat of an engineer and conditional logic is such an astounding and beautiful thing. The one conditional of "let power through if x else not" can be scaled up gargantually, towards the billions and now you have a functional smartphone. We can store information by simple conditional logic. Entire computers can be made inside of computers by performing conditional logic tasks. - Batteries are such an insane invention/discovery, we found out what salts were, saw it was made up of ions and thought to ourselves, what if we were to put it through an electric circuit and see what happens. We can store a fucking charge. Holy fucking shit. B-but what if we wanted to use it again? Well, just charge the fucker up again with electrons, I assume. Holy shit it works. We can just put it through an electric circuit and it can do electrical magic for us. It's such simplistic elegance that I find it beautiful. If you need to visualize it without knowing salts; a penny and a lemon that can hold a charge and light a lightbulb. The acids in the lemon combine with the bases of the pennies to convert chemical energy into electric energy, and it's so seriously awesome to me. I'm an aetheist (maybe, agnostic I'd say), but I find nature utterly astoundingly beautiful. I have such childlike wonder for these things. Science has only strengthened my belief by being so fascinating.
I want these fucktard Redditors to look at the beauty of the most simplistic circuit and go "wow, that's actually fascinating, maybe there is a God", but they won't, they'll just say "doi, of course electons go through wires, dumbass" without seeing the beauty of it.
That's why Redditors are retarded.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
You know what, if pro-God derailing of the thread is acceptable, then anti-God derailing of the thread is acceptable as well, right?
how in the world does one make that leap?
Everything you mentioned, electrical charges, chemistry, boolean logic, etc., all of these things are observable, testable, verifiable. How does one jump from substantiated objective facts to completely unsubstantiated assertion?
a simple circuit has a certain beauty to it -> ??????? -> it's probable some hitherto undefined agent created and designed the universe
how in the world does one make that leap?
Everything you mentioned, electrical charges, chemistry, boolean logic, etc., all of these things are observable, testable, verifiable. How does one jump from substantiated objective facts to completely unsubstantiated assertion?
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
'Course.
It's the point that one can see beauty in the simplistic things. I personally don't see a God, but some look at nature and see the beauty of God. I see the beauty of initial conditions colliding together to form what we witness now. Perhaps those initial conditions are made by a higher being, we don't know. What I would refer to as "God", I would refer to the initial conditions of creating the Big Bang. I can sense beauty in the human anatomy, I can see beauty in chemistry, I can see beauty in nature itself. One could come to the conclusion that it wasn't coincidence, thus God.
My point being is that Redditors won't slightly go in depth about thoughts like these, as you did. It's a very two-dimensional view. It comes from an assumption that people who believe in a higher being are just retards, instead of people with wonder and mystique in their minds. Redditors often just hand-wave religious people just on the single fact that they're religious, as was seen before. Whereby "hurr durr but ur scientist, how can u b religious?", as a rhetorical, hand-wavey question which basically calls people retarded for even simply believing.
Here, I can actually discuss these topics without being called a 'stupid, zionist, capitalist dumbass' for simply philosophising, we can have a discussion. No such thing on Reddit.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
There is nothing in reality that can disprove God. The laws of nature and how everything works is "how" God made reality.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
The problem I have with this notion is that there's no line drawn between actual philosophy and just creative writing or storytelling.
In an unrelated discussion in another thread, I pointed out that many people have this problem with just admitting they don't understand something, so they instead come up with some sort of placeholder. Like how demons or evil spirits cause bad weather.
That's because the notion of "God" is arbitrary, like I said earlier. For a claim to have cognitive content, a claim must have content in the first place, which means formulating a definite and intelligible idea. The content of an arbitrary idea consists of whatever the person dreaming it up says it consists of, unless he announces that it has changed. Ultimately, arbitrary claims simply lack independent content and cannot be dealt with cognitively, to even entertain them as a possibility is a cognitive dead end.
In other words, I 100% agree there is nothing in reality that can disprove God.
It means that there exists no conceivable state of affairs that would count as evidence against God.
There are only two ways a claim can be insulated from reality that way.
Either the claim is axiomatically true and thus undisprovable because any attempt to deny it presupposes it. Or the claim is arbitrary. It has no evidential basis, no integration, and no effect on knowledge, it generates no expectations, no constraints, no implications. The fact that an arbitrary claim cannot be disproven means that nothing could ever count against it. However, it also means nothing could ever count for it either.
Personally I take no issue whatsoever with people feeling awe or experiencing wonder. However, inferring a causal agent from such things is a separate and anti-cognitive claim.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2024
The T shirt reading MSG instead of Soylant is the sole factor preventing this image from entering the realm of parody.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
It's why it's called "believing in" and not "knowing in" God. I do not know of a God, I can merely believe in such. As Dante said, you cannot prove or disprove him, just believe in such. I can tell where you're coming from, though. But I'm also a conspiracy theory believer and enjoy the paranormal, so I'm not the best subject.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Right, and that's also the distinction I am drawing.
If it's something you explicitly don't claim to know, and it can't be supported or contradicted by anything in reality, then it simply is not a claim about the world, it's just a personal belief or preference.
Which is fine, but it means the claim does not belong in the same category of explanations of logic circuits, chemistry, or physics.
I doubt any "belief in God is... le bad!" redditor is able to make a clear epistemological distinction. Personally I find it admirable that people are able to feel awe and attach personal meaning to things, but I take issue when people inject these things into explanations of how reality works. Like, all the phenomena you described already stand on their own, grounded in observation and explanation. Bringing in something that, by definition, sits outside that framework not only doesn't add anything to the understanding, but it actively derails it. Beyond that, I just don't understand the appeal in doing that when reality itself already provides more than enough to appreciate.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2024
Redditor doesn't know how to count and mistakenly refers to the Star of David as a pentagram.
She posts it on numerous occult/mystery subreddits thinking it's part of some larger mystery, only to be told that it's a complete nothingburger prop for a film set.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
"JEWS could be here", she thought, "I've never been in front of this hospital before. There could be JEWS anywhere." The wind felt good against her bare hands. "I LOVE JEWS" she thought. Uncultured pop music reverberated her entire mind, making it pulsate even as the $19 coffee circulated through her fatty thick veins and washed away her (meritless) love of minorities at all times of the day. "With a smartphone, you can take pictures anywhere you want" she said to herself, out loud.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2018
A ton of Reddit idiots are seething on the media mergers Reddit over Paramount buying Warner Bros because of their hate boner over Dave Ellison. Yet these users cheered when Disney bought Fox and glaze Disney.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2025
Has anyone checked out or posted anything from girl dinner diaries? It's basically the female version of kitchencels. Original, I know. 90% of the posts are extremely similar, it's either I hate my boyfriend or husband or their job. Here's a comparison just off the front page of both. Noticed the amount of rules.
Koomala Sharrtis
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2020
God normally consists of metaphysical claims that involve, for one, how the universe came to exist. You can't disprove God did it, yes. But you can prove what the explanation wouldn't be, what it wouldn't involve. It would not involve logical contradictions, primarily. So an illogical God creating the universe can be disproven, i.e. that aspect of him can be refuted. And, well, it works the other way around as well. Certain things can be proven.
It's not exactly arbitrary in the way you have described, but it most often is a kind of placeholder, although indeed, certain universal questions always seem to apply. Except it's also much more than that with all kinds of arbitrary shit people make the fuck up, so yeah. I guess the second part is what you were describing here.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
I agree. Anything that introduces contradictions can be ruled out, so it is essentially a negative filter on candidate explanations.
However, it only tells us what the explanation cannot be. It doesn't give us a positive reason to posit God in the first place, nor does it make the remaining God claim any less placeholder-like. That is, filtering does not supply evidence or establish a connection to reality.
Even then, this boils down to one of two broad cases.
One is
in which "God" effectively becomes a label for underlying physical conditions or laws. Which is a perfectly legitimate area of inquiry, but then the label "God" isn't really adding anything beyond what physics is already trying to describe. It's just an extra label for unknown natural conditions and in that sense it doesn't contribute additional explanatory value.
The other option is to treat "God" as some kind of causal agent behind those conditions.
At that point, unless that claim places constraints on what we should expect to observe (or on how reality would differ depending on whether that agent is involved) it doesn't function as an explanation. Like, a good explanation usually narrows things down, it tells us "if this is true, then we should expect xyz rather than abc". Without that kind of constraint, the idea doesn't guide our understanding or help us distinguish between possibilities, it just adds another layer.
More than that, it expands the set of open questions. Once an agent is introduced, you now have to account for questions like what kind of agent it is, how it brings about effects, why it has those features rather than others, and how it relates to the regularities we already observe. For instance, if we're trying to explain why the universe has the structure it does, we now also have to ask why this agent is able to produce exactly that structure, and not something else. So, not only do the original questions remain, an additional set gets introduced. The underlying phenomena still require explanation, and now the agent itself does as well.