Krusty

There’s many bots doing that for some subs…

Oldlander extension and old.reddit.com is pretty good. I prefer RedReader, though.

John 13:34-35

I read a book about this subject. The author argued it was a new commandment, not an additional one. Because if you love one another then you would never break the prior ten commandments. Makes sense.

But Jesus loved hanging out with whores.

It works if you read it in the voice of Steve Harvey.

And Molotov cocktails

Pretty relatable.

Yeah soldiers do things that if ordinary people did them they would be crimes.

I still don’t know what the hell your point is.

That’s a secret Christian nationalist commandment: thou shalt starve the brown people.

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet simply because there’s a quote with a picture next to it.

And what evidence do you have for anything he actually did?

Do you realize how hypocritical it is to be against collective punishment and then you turn around and then you do the same fucking thing you condemn?

Please miss me with your bullshit.

Oh, wow, Evangelical atheism. Perhaps the worst form of atheism. Kind of like prescriptive nihilism.

A new car!? 🚗

No… The typical nonstance atheist saying, “I just don’t believe that,” is not the same as saying, “I think that is bullshit.” Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible.

He had a fucking mental breakdown… One side mocked him: called him a pussy and a coward and he just wanted to quit. The other side criticizes him for doing his mandatory duty.

Dude just can’t win. SMH.

Oh no! You’re trying to post politics in a sub that doesn’t want it.

Womp womp.

Maybe read the rules? It’s number 7, fyi.

Typical redditor moment.

Tomer Capone did serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Like most Israeli citizens, he completed mandatory military service , which is required for Israeli nationals.

That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions.

I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth.

Surprised they didn’t turn it into yet another AI!

My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions.

Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated.

Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me.

I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself?

The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance.