|
John Calvin was right about almost everything except there probably is no hell
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Total depravity Unconditional election Limited atonement Irresistible grace Perseverance of the saints
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Wanting to factually prove God completely misses the point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
emfive posted:I apologize for being confused, but I don't think I understand what you mean. you don't understand.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That's a fallacy, though. A placebo can have a substantial medical effect on a believer, even though it has no actual medical effect whatsoever. For many people, believing something will have an effect literally makes it so - completely independent of the existence of any deity. Miltank fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Do you even know what a hospice is?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:NORMAL Hospice involves pain relief and treatment regardless of end-of-life status. hmmmm, nope. ripping on mother teresa still making you look like a dipshit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:welcome to /r/atheism everybody Mother Teresa was a typical catholic BITCH who ran underfunded hospices for the underclass of the world e: look at this quote from a doctor who says that her Calcutta hospice had unsanitary conditions!!! Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
itsnice2bnice posted:On SA this probably comes across as passive aggressive, but I sincerely hope that people who have such an incredibly low opinion of Mother Teresa and her charitable work strive and succeed in making the world a better place for the poor and destitute themselves. God Bless. Atheists love turning Mother Teresa into a villain so they can justify their own inaction regarding the weakest. These are people who argue that the poor ought to die alone in the streets because simply loving them isn't enough. Teresa was a terrible sinner I'm sure- as we all are, but this movement to demonizer her is pretty much just plain evil and it is telling that Christopher Hitchens is foremost among her detractors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Demonize? No, I don't want to demonize her. While her work is commendable, there are glaring issues as to why she couldn't be more effective. That's all. SedanChair posted:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 20:55
|
|
people who believe that Teresa was anything other than a death fetishist who felt a thrill in her clitoris when a starving old man checked out looking into her eyes. But she was so famous!
|
Some posts aren't about you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, but your repeated follow ups of any criticism of her has been: Criticizing Mother Teresa does make you a dipshit. Ultimately, you are criticizing her for being a famous Christian who didn't dedicate her life to charity good enough. GlyphGryph posted:Other Catholics in the thread who have seen the light, feel free to speak up as well. Miltank, maybe? Don't actually know what you are. I'm a non-trad Calvinist. Miltank fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A well grounded argumentTM Isn't that your criticism of her? That this woman who lived a life of poverty and charity for some of the least regarded humans on the planet didn't do a good enough job at it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Name some. I mean, yes, you have Stalin, but even he eventually let up on the Churches during World War 2. But who else? Mao, Kim, Pol Pot..
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I really don't think it's fair to include state-cults where the leader substituted for God as "atheist" I literally don't think its fair to include non-egalitarian societies as christian.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well, Christianity has been mobbed up with the state since the days of Constantine at least. Jehovah's Witnesses call the resultant ungainly beast "Christendom" and I think it is definitely worth making the distinction. I reject the authority of the Council of Nicaea.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well then not to be unkind, but I wonder how relevant you are to the discussion of what people and societies are or are not Christian. I figure I'm at least as relevant as an athiest 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Mormons are not Christians- its the one thing all Christians can agree on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Mormons are more like Muslims than anything else.
Miltank fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nah, Brandor thinks that God (Logos) is a set of magic words (Logos) and concepts (Logos) and his definition(Logos) of these words (Logos) and concepts (Logos) is so uselessly broad that literally everything someone (Logos) likes is their God (Logos) and also his God (Logos) and the ultimate God (Logos). I don't think he's concerned about Satan except concerning some peoples concept (Logos) of Satan (Logos). We all worship something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
I had no idea that Hayek said that economic theology thing. That is crazy self aware from someone who played such a large role in conservative thought. e: rational wiki is really dorky Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
circumventing christianity for judaism is a really bad idea considering how much more bullshit jews have to do. Christianity is p. much the easy mode of Abrahamic religions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Brandor is your argument that religion is ideology and ideology is an inescapable cultural constant? Or is it something more complex than that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I bought a copy of Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers From Prison and I can't wait to read it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Any god but God is false by definition because God is the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Just think about it logically. If God wasn't God, then he would just be a god and some other god would be God who would be truth. But since God is truth we know that God, (not a god) is God.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:My god is the words "Zionism is racism" those words, being true, are an aspect of God.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
God has divinely elected that newts can grow back their tails, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well it doesn't matter whether or not you believe Jeff is guilty because God isn't anything like that scenario. God both starts the train and ensures that there is only one track filled with infinite babies and also he set the train on fire and filled it with infinite puppies he wanted to see burn to death while on a train that was running over babies. Luckily, the world has already been redeemed by the death of Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Evangelicals are wrong about many things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:How does the story actually make any sense? I mean, God sacrificed Himself to Himself to give Himself a loophole through which he could cheat people into heaven? That makes it seem like God is subject to certain laws of goodness outside of his control. This is the great Catholic heresy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOUGR1SsTD0
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope, that doesn't make them a church. You are making assumptions that reason and nature are religious in order. Nature is certainly a religious concept. It is something our culture believes in and values despite the fact that it objectively doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Trees exist and so does grass and deer. That doesn't mean nature is real though.
Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Take the loving metaphysics elsewhere. You KNOW that is not what the FFRF is talking about. That is a bad faith argument if ever I heard one. There is no functional system that can be called nature- it is all chaos. The distinction which nature suggests between "us" and "everything else" is entirely arbitrary. e: "Nature as our real creator", that is religion plain and simple. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Its literally the opposite. An appearance of order where there is actually chaos.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The FFRF was not using the metaphysics definition of nature. Therefore, its really poor debating to bring it up. Since we are arguing about the FFRF article, its pertinent we frame it as such. quote:"Let's reinvent a reverence for our real creator, Nature
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't think you quite grasp this yet: Nature has the appearance of chaos, but in actuality is still a deterministic system. The APPEARANCE of chaos does not imply no order, simply an order that is not yet clearly defined or cannot be defined outside of a set period of time. Your definition of order would be useless even if this were true. CommieGIR posted:You can have reverence for the natural world without religious belief. The same feelings religion evokes: Awe, Humility, and compassion can be evoked just as easily buy studying the physical. You don't understand that the 'natural world' is a human construct the same way religion is. Nature as a concept is just the distinction of all other poo poo on the planet as separate from us. You can't have reverence for a human construction while at the same time claiming rationality. You can claim that naturalism or whatever you want to call it is harmless or positive but don't pretend its not magical thinking. Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, its not. 'Nature' as it is used means specifically what we are not. The fallacy isn't that the 'natural' world exists, it is that we are somehow separated from it. We are not an invention or creation of nature, we are and everything we do still is nature. e: skyscrapers and garbage dumps are just as 'natural' as forests and rivers. Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, they are natural. But while we created the meaning of 'nature' and defined the word 'nature', any other species could come along and create a word to describe the natural phenomenon without any need for it to be religious or metaphysical. What does some other species have to do with the FFRF using nature as religion? I think I might not be tracking your argument here. Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because they are not using nature as a religion, anymore than any other species that might observe Earth bound natural biology to be religious. Aliens wouldn't conceptualize nature in an irrational way and therefore neither do atheists. 
Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 19:00
|
|