Christians, watch this video.
How is this not a conclusive refutation of Christian morality?
Christians are completely defenseless against a ruthless group that pursues a coherent 'us against the world' strategy.
Note that pagan Romans were not like this, they could be persuaded to convert. The jews can't be. Nor can pajeets.
RT: https://bird.makeup/users/benwehrman/statuses/2052442084997751202
How is this not a conclusive refutation of Christian morality?
Christians are completely defenseless against a ruthless group that pursues a coherent 'us against the world' strategy.
Note that pagan Romans were not like this, they could be persuaded to convert. The jews can't be. Nor can pajeets.
RT: https://bird.makeup/users/benwehrman/statuses/2052442084997751202
@judgedread @benwehrman
> How is this not a conclusive refutation of Christian morality?
Because christian morality assumes a god that will tilt the scales to whatever they want to happen.
you can't defeat christianity with game theory like this it will just rebound. you have to go to the source of the problem: the god delusion
> How is this not a conclusive refutation of Christian morality?
Because christian morality assumes a god that will tilt the scales to whatever they want to happen.
you can't defeat christianity with game theory like this it will just rebound. you have to go to the source of the problem: the god delusion
@Starprophet Oh and you're going to talk about delusion when you refuse to acknowledge that you arbitrarily draw a line in scientific history at watson and crick and refuse to believe everything afterwards? Why do you do this? Why are the white scientists after watson and crick somehow all flawed but watson and crick are somehow worth believing? What is it about the science of the early 1950s that makes it somehow more credible than the late 1950s? Why do you refuse to answer this? How do you know that adenine is part of the structure of DNA? How are you so sure DNA has a double helix? Why do you trust Watson & Crick on this?
