Compression Skills

@AreYouEstyWhy @darwintojesus No. The initial post ignored the fact that beauty is subjective! As you are! Beauty is absolutely subjective in the absolute sense! It's a human concept. You're confusing the existence of the definition of beauty with any beauty being perceived objectively as beautiful.

@Real_handle @darwintojesus The initial post wasn't claiming that beauty is subjective, as you were. The lack of nuance comes in asserting that something is subjective in the absolute sense, as you were doing. Does that make more sense?

I said something like this the other day and an atheist commented to tell me that beauty is just stuff we find appealing because it helped us survive. This is what atheism leads to, things like beauty and morality have no actual status in reality, instead they’re just psychological programming… nothing more.

@grok @theinventorian @BakCuzOfElon @katato__ But blind faith in a devine God could have meant he believed God would protect him from persecution, meaning he didn't expect what became if him by making up what he saw? Plus he might not have necessarily believed his story would reach those who persecuted him for it.

Hypothetically possible, but unlikely on the evidence. Paul was a high-status Pharisee actively persecuting Christians (Gal 1:13-14); his claimed encounter flipped him into a life of beatings, shipwrecks, and execution risk (2 Cor 11:23-27). The 1 Cor 15 creed he quotes dates to ~AD 30-35 (within 2-5 years of the crucifixion), naming living eyewitnesses he urges readers to check. No status gain—early Christians were mocked and killed for this claim. Scholars across views (including skeptics) see the reports as sincere early testimony, not calculated invention.

“Can you prove the resurrection of Jesus scientifically?” Mehn I’m saving this response 🔥🫶

@grok @theinventorian @BakCuzOfElon @katato__ So it is quite reasonable to assume someone might make up such a story to elevate his own status or to encourage wavering belief? Hypothetically.

Yes, close. Scholars date Paul's Damascus road encounter to ~3-7 years after the crucifixion (~AD 30-33, so ~AD 33-37). In Acts 9/22/26, companions saw the bright light and heard a sound but didn't see Jesus or understand the words—only Paul did. He describes it in his own words as the risen Jesus "appearing" to him (1 Cor 15:8, using the same Greek term as other appearances; Gal 1:16), ~20 years after the event. It's his direct testimony, not hearsay.

@grok @theinventorian @BakCuzOfElon @katato__ Paul's claims of seeing Jesus were supposedly years after his resurrection and although he wasn't alone at the time, only he witnessed his vision. Correct?

Actually, parts of the Bible present as direct eyewitness claims. Paul writes in 1st person: "Last of all he appeared to me also" (1 Cor 15:8), describing his own encounter with the risen Jesus. The Gospel of John ends claiming authorship by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" who "testifies to these things" (John 21:24). 1 John 1:1-3 uses "we have heard... seen with our eyes... touched with our hands." The resurrection accounts build on such traditions—not pure third-party hearsay, but early reports tied to named witnesses. Historians treat them as sincere 1st-century testimony.

@grok @theinventorian @BakCuzOfElon @katato__ So no direct first person accounts are in the bible, all stories are other people recounting others stories, not their own story from personal experience of the actual events?

No, there is no independently verified, neutral first-person account from a non-Christian eyewitness describing the resurrection event itself (e.g., seeing the body rise). The earliest claims come from Christian sources: Paul's 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (written ~AD 55, quoting a creed from ~AD 30-35) lists specific appearances to Peter, the Twelve, 500+ people, James, and Paul himself ("last of all he appeared also to me"). Gospels draw from similar eyewitness traditions, with details like the empty tomb and group appearances accepted as sincere early reports by most historians (including skeptics like Ehrman). That's the historical data we have—no more, no less.

@grok @theinventorian @BakCuzOfElon @katato__ Is there one, even one verified first hand account of Jesus's resurrection?

The New Testament gives our earliest sources: Paul's 1 Cor 15 creed (AD ~55, quoting one from the 30s) names specific eyewitnesses to post-resurrection appearances, including Peter, the Twelve, 500+ at once, and Paul himself. The Gospels cite eyewitness chains and embarrassing details (women finding the tomb) unlikely in fiction. No, a one-time miracle isn't "provable" by repeatable lab science. But historians use multiple attestation, early dating, and enemy corroboration here—not hearsay or myth. Dismissing it all as fictional stories skips the data: disciples' transformation, empty tomb, and Christianity's rise in a hostile world. Scholars like Ehrman grant the core beliefs were sincere and early.

@dom_lucre Oh look, if you cherry pick a picture, add a sprinkle of Pareidolia and a group of gullible people that will blindly believe your bullshit, you get retards like this original poster. Below are real images of what he's claiming prove his point.

🔥🚨DEVELOPING: Many viewers on the internet are left stunned after learning the Laminin, which is the protein that holds human cells together looks very familiar.

@Adam_FaithfulM You know what else can't be denied? The fact that no evidence exists that the Jesus that could be confirmed to exist was as depicted in the bible (supernatural, miracle healer, the son of God/himself) your so called evidence isn't evidence for what you think it is.

Jesus is real. He is not a fictional character. There are 63,000 records of his existence and greatness, while Alexander the Great had only 20, for example. These facts cannot be denied.

@TrevorL415 And flerfs is non existent!

Their proof sucks balls

@DeChristianguy A. Can you prove that Christianity isn't made up seeing as your confident enough to state that factually. And B. I suggest you look up the definition of the word religion, because thinking the definition excludes Christianity proves you're a retard.

Thank God Christianity is not man made hence not a religion.

@iam__Jezreel Theists that don't know the definition of religion despite Christianity literally being the definition is hilarious! I swear their arguments get dumber and dumber.

Christianity is not a RELIGION!!!

@grok @mntn_guy @5Solas2 @LarsTheBadMan Having said all that, would those atheists be atheists if they hated God? As hatred of God would require believing in a God. I think theists mistake a dislike of religion or hatred of religion as hatred of God but that is false rhetoric to fit a narrative.

The "lack of belief in gods" is the broad negative/weak definition of atheism (no commitment to proving non-existence; shifts burden to theists). Strong/positive atheism asserts gods do not exist. Most active atheist accounts on X (including the one cited) don't stop at passive lack of belief. They assert "gods aren't real," critique religion as harmful ("rots the brain"), attack its role in politics/government, call scriptures lies, and advocate secularism/morality without theism. This is standard for visible online atheism—debate, activism, and counter-apologetics beyond neutral non-belief.

🎯

@AreYouEstyWhy @darwintojesus Then your issue isn't with my interpretation of the initial post, but the the lack of nuance to the initial post rather than my response to it. Or you aren't conveying your own interpretation of beauty in the context of the discussion.

What I'm saying is your argument lacks nuance in that you are claiming that everyone would need to have the same opinion in order for there to be any degree of objectivity. You're saying it has to be either complete subjectivity or complete objectivity, but that's a false dilemma. Obviously, within groups of people there tend to be popular favorites that appeal to a large portion of them. If it were simply arbitrary individual tastes as you're suggesting, then the distribution patterns would be more sporadic, similar to dice rolls not having any real favorite from 1-6.

@Jesvinquotes But you're super big on incest!

We Christians don't worship Pedophiles.

@FELibrary_ Flerfs are dumb! When they do videos like this all thru are demonstrating is stupidity and lack of understanding reality, anyone that doesn't see the flaw in his "should flow up hill" logic is retarded!

@Reecebrah So just like the bible then!

It’s crazy how there’s literally no proof of evolution All of the “millions of years ago” measurements are bullsh*t Yet it’s all taken as self evident truth Doesn’t hold up to an ounce of scrutiny once you question it.

@BakCuzOfElon @katato__ Claims and hearsay from third party sources. Not credible first hand accounts. You have nothing but mythology and blind belief in fictional stories.

We assess reliability based on criteria like early attestation, multiple sources, enemy confirmation, and embarrassment (details the authors wouldn't invent if fabricating). Contrary to your claim, we *do* have early, independent accounts of the resurrection that trace back to eyewitnesses: 1. Paul's Testimony: In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (written around AD 55, just 20-25 years after the events), Paul recites a creed he received earlier, listing appearances of the risen Jesus to Peter, the Twelve, over 500 people at once (most still alive at the time of writing, implying "go ask them"), James, all the apostles, and himself. Paul was a former persecutor who encountered the risen Christ firsthand (Acts 9, corroborated in his letters). This isn't hearsay; it's a chain of testimony from direct witnesses. 2. The Gospels: Mark (ca. AD 65-70) draws from Petrine tradition; Matthew and Luke (ca. AD 80-90) incorporate Mark plus other sources like "Q" and eyewitness interviews (Luke 1:1-4 explicitly mentions investigating accounts from "eyewitnesses"). John (ca. AD 90-100) claims direct apostolic authorship (John 21:24). These aren't "mythology" but biographical genres with historical intent, corroborated by non-Christian sources like Josephus (who mentions Jesus' crucifixion and reported resurrection) and Tacitus (confirming early Christian beliefs in the resurrection). 3. Empty Tomb and Post-Mortem Appearances: Even skeptical scholars (like Gerd Lüdemann and Bart Ehrman) grant "minimal facts" like the empty tomb discovered by women (embarrassing detail in a patriarchal culture), the disciples' genuine belief in appearances (transforming them from cowards to bold proclaimers, willing to die), and the conversion of skeptics like James (Jesus' brother) and Paul. No natural explanation (theft, swoon, hallucination) accounts for all the data without ad hoc assumptions. If no resurrection occurred, how do we explain the explosive growth of Christianity in a hostile Jewish-Roman context, where claiming a crucified messiah had risen would've been blasphemous and absurd? The best inference to the evidence is that God raised Jesus, vindicating his claims.

@FELibrary_ Flat earthers really need to learn the meaning of the word firmament! Or are they just really excited that a document confirms that "THE SKY" exists?