|
TheImmigrant posted:Because right-wing wanker criticizes wankers even further to the right, the progressive thing to do is embrace the most right-wing antagonist? TheImmigrants posts make a lot more sense if you keep in mind that he doesn't think Muslims are actually humans, but part of some alien hive-intelligence such that each and every Muslim thinks and believes exactly the same.
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:TheImmigrant studied Arabic for many years, and has read the Qur'an in the original language. Sure you have. quote:Just stop being such a coward, say what you really mean, and scream "racism." You know you want to. What would be the point? Your response would just be "Islam is a religion, not a race.  " and pat yourself on the back as if you'd said anything even remotely resembling intelligent or insightful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Do you have any position on this thread, or are you just here to enforce orthodoxy? My point is that it's possible to oppose the parts of religion that are politicized and oppressive while still defending the practitioners who are themselves being oppressed without being a threat to anybody. But perhaps looking at people as individuals instead of a faceless whole is beyond you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
McDowell posted:You don't need to worry about me, you either see the big picture or you don't, everyone is at a different stage in their overcoming (if they are overcoming at all). I'm not in any rush to leave this vehicle, I'm in it to learn. In this time and place we could devote our energies to each other so we can all be comfortably monastic, but there are always corrupting forces at work. Look at what a perversion prosperity gospel is - this is Lucifer in action. There are some ominous things on the horizon when you think about VR, AR, and porn applications. A day could come where people might be wearing those goggles during all their waking hours, their perceptions completely dependent on machine input. Their sensuality would be used to completely enslave them. Yes, the Devil is out to get you using VR. Because that's definitely not something a crazy person would say.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Some people think and deeply believe that just playing Dungeons & Dragons, reading science fiction, and being open to possibilities beyond the mundane is satanic, or evil. Could you possibly institutionalize them all? It's probably possible to institutionalize them all, yes. It wouldn't be practical, and almost certainly be immoral and would probably involve a lot of rights violations, but I'm confident that it is something that could technically be accomplished. quote:I just fear a day where people might be expected to wear literal blinders as a part of their job. Of course it would start as a consumer toy, that way everyone wants to use it. Literal blinders... that don't actually blind you. And in fact make you see better. Tell me, what's the meaningful difference between seeing something with your eyes, and seeing something with your eyes via a screen and some cameras? Are corrective glasses also a tool of Satan, making us slaves to sensuality?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
McDowell posted:It's crazy to bend this to say it's wrong to get a prosthetic limb or glasses or what have you when it is needed. But there are questions raised by things like 'Deus Ex' - where technology is available that actually augments your mind and body - would you mutilate yourself to integrate technology that way? How far would you surrender your perception of reality? Why is it crazy? What's the meaningful difference between getting glasses and getting ocular implants? Why is the latter inherently evil?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Cool Bear posted:And then the magical moment which millions upon bazillions of jews have been waiting. We all get the joke now, you can stop.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes because God doesn't turn you into a slave that makes God a mass murderer. No, I think it's the mass murders that would make him a mass murderer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes what mass murders? Which god are we talking about, specifically?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Which God? The God that exists beyond the universe, out of time. That description is meaningless. What does it mean to be "beyond the universe"? What does it mean to be "out of time"? I'll concede that a gibberish nonsense-God cannot commit murders, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really? That the creator of the Universe cannot be part of that universe is meaningless. That time doesn't exist for the creator is gibberish? Yes, that's all gibberish. If you believe it isn't, explain why.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well you cannot have time without the universe. So the creator must exist outside time. Likewise to create the universe the creator cannot be of the universe. Look the fact you cannot understand something this simple is beyond me. And is this an intercessory God?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes just as an artist can make alterations on their painting without being part of the painting. Then this god is at least partially culpable for every evil that occurs in the world. And to cut you off at the pass, no, that would no more violate anyone's free will than a human stopping a tragedy does.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes because you choose to be evil Its God's fault now for not making you a unthinking slave. I do love that argument. Does imprisoning a man who conspires to commit mass murder turn him into an unthinking slave? It obviously limits what he is physically capable of, but does it rob him entirely of his free will? And not all evil is man-made, and could thus be prevented without violating anybody's free will. Not doing so when it can be done makes your God partially responsible for that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:How is it not all man made? What man created cancer? What man created parasites that devour a person's eyes from the inside-out? Crowsbeak posted:Also a man imprisoned could reform. Can your God not reform a man without violating his free will? Is he that weak? That stupid that he cannot conceive of a way? Goon Danton posted:Yeah, the Problem of Evil is, well, a Problem for Christians. It's not really related to the idea of whether God is part of the universe or not though. My original point near the bottom of the last page was about the culpability of God for the suffering of the world. The tangent about God being part of the universe just isn't interesting to me, so right now I'm accepting it for the sake of argument.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Oh well death is not evil. I agree, but unnecessary suffering absolutely is. quote:It is part of the mechanism of the universe. Also would not God entering a mans head for not being exact not be the definition of turning said man into a unthinking slave? Is that the only way your God could stop a murderer? That's it? He couldn't, say, teleport the victims to a safer location? Transform the weapon into a harmless vapor? Or do anything that a human could do to prevent the murder if they were there to do so? Mind control is literally your god's only power in this universe? quote:Also you seem to want God to turn man into some sort of benthamnite pleasure creature that has no capacity for anything but pleasure. That would be rather redicullous wouldn't it? That's not what I'm saying, no, but I also wouldn't turn down living in a world where there is nothing but pleasure. I'd take that in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. You seem to see death as the unnecessary suffering. No, mostly it's the agonizing pain. quote:2. YOu might as well have God then be constantly preventing man from doing anything then. No, only the evil actions. quote:3. Well a life of only pleasure sounds quite sad. No, it'd be pretty happy, actually. Pretty much would have to be by definition.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1 Ah so you prefer deaths that are just sudden. I can imagine how those living would like the sudden loss of loved ones. Not all suffering requires death, and in some cases death is a preferable choice to that suffering. quote:2. Which makes man a slave. That's not what slavery is, no. quote:3.Yes a life of only pleasure like I said its almost as if you want to just have the pleasure center of your brain hard wired. Yeah, that'd be pretty great, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. Did I say it did. But if you want death to be sudden then you still are causing suffering. In many ways considering your loved ones will be affected by sudden deaths. Death does not need to be sudden to preclude unnecessary suffering. quote:2. Inability to commit actions through either intervention or rules. Sounds like slavery to me. Or else a desire by those who want it for God to be their permanent nanny. Oh spare me. Is paying taxes also slavery? Are you a slave because if you try to become a serial thief society will try to stop you? Are you also a slave to physics for not allowing you to fly? quote:3 Yes so you want to be a cennobite. Are you sure that's not what you want to be? I seem to remember cennobites being very against rules and prohibitions against certain actions, and since you think that all rules are indistinguishable from chattel slavery...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Peta posted:You should stop invoking the hurricane of stupidity that is the problem of evil. Once you make that move, the religious person has already gotten away with murder by postulating a ridiculous theory of everything and then telling you that you have to disprove it with moral philosophy. The problem of evil wouldn't be a talking point for religious people if they hadn't subscribed to a ludicrous unsupported belief system in the first place. I find the problem of evil more interesting to discuss because you get responses like "Rules are slavery  "
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:You can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means you can't describe it, yeah, but that's why god is called ineffable. If you can't describe it then you don't know anything about it. Least of all that it exists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Who What Now, what's the point of having free will if you're not even able to do anything with it? If God were to rule in a way that cause EVERY evil action to be stopped, no matter what...then you'd just have a world ruled by fear. The only reason anyone would obey God is because they would be afraid of him, not because they're actually good people. Even Ted Bundy could probably behave himself if he knew he'd get smited the moment he so much as peeped into the women's restroom. Still doesn't mean you'd want the guy in your Heavenly Kingdom. I don't believe free will actually exists, so this argument doesn't work very well to me. And how does God not rule through fear already? Is the threat of damnation not the very definition of ruling through fear? Furthermore, why does averting harm have to be punitive? Is your God not smart enough to devise ways to minimize suffering without resorting to hurling lightning bolts? That's a rather underwhelming definition of God, don't you think? And why wouldn't I want Ted Bundy in the Heavenly Kingdom? Can people create evil in heaven? Is there suffering there? Are you, as Crowsbeak puts it, a slave when you die and join God? quote:That's not the kind of Kingdom you'd want to live in, is it? I don't want to live in any Kingdom, heavenly or not. I find the idea of an infinite afterlife to be hellish no matter what. quote:Is that the kind of relationship that God would want people to have with him? Ideally a relationship with God would be as equals, and, you know, involve actually being able to interact directly with one another. quote:Sure, he may have flexed some muscle occasionally in the Old Testament, but even then, that was the EXCEPTION rather than the rule. In general, he'd want his children to look at him with love in their eyes, not fear. Woah, woah, woah, hold up, because this is bullshit that you would never apply to anyone else. A person who leads a good and virtuous life and just so happens to violently rape and murder hundreds of people one day is still a violent rapist and murderer despite that day being the exception and not the rule. I don't accept this kind of special pleading, sorry. If you accept that the Old Testament is either real or at the very least an accurate representation of God's character then God is a monster by any reasonable standard. quote:But in order to do that, you'd have to have a way of sorting out the good from the bad. And in order to do THAT...well, you'd have to give people a chance to SHOW their true colors, wouldn't you? Otherwise, all you have is a false peace, one that's only made possible by constant interference from God. Are you saying your God doesn't know the character of a person? He's completely ignorant? Again, that's a pretty weak definition of God.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Fair enough. I don't agree with the Bible being lumped into that category, but then, of course I'D say that, right? If you do t mind my asking, what do you find wrong with the Bible? Don't hold back either, I promise I won't be offended I think the advocation of slavery, including chattel slavery of non-Jews and sex slavery, is pretty morally indefensible, don't you? That "Thou shall not own another human being as property" isn't one of the Ten Commandments, or any of the other 400 or so, and in fact is expressly endorsed, is mighty hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 21:26
|
|
.
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes genocide comes from having free will. Thankfully God gives us the ability to reason. But in the end some do not use it. For that is that free will is non conditional. At least in this life. What do you mean "at least in this life"? Do you not have free will after death?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Well then, the offending person will just keep on doing whatever they're doing. They may not be able to cause physical harm, but they'd still be completely free to express their ill will. Will they? If their attempts are guaranteed to be thwarted each and every time why would someone continue? I'd also like to point out that God has violated people's free will both directly in the case of hardening the Pharaoh's heart and forcing him to renege on his promise to allow Moses and the Israelites to flee and indirectly in the case of Jonah. Fionordequester posted:They'd still be capable of causing emotional harm to whoever they're trying to "kill". It's just that now, God wouldn't be justified in putting them away, because he's never allowed them to actually DO anything to warrant that. After all, you can't put someone in hell just for making someone uncomfortable, now can you? I don't believe it's ever permissible to send somebody to hell. An infinite punishment for a finite crime is by definition unjust. And it's not like God has ever really cared about justifying his actions before. Fionordequester posted:Because Ted Bundy would still be a creepy son of a gun. Regardless of whether or not he could actually kill you, he'd still kill the mood in every place he'd go. So for killing the mood he needs to be in hell? That is super hosed up! Fionordequester posted:Wait...so are you saying you WANT to die? That's rather depressing, don't you think? I do not want to live forever, no. That doesn't mean I want to die any time soon, however. Fionordequester posted:So does that mean you're dissatisfied with your relationship with your father and mother? Would you rather they had never been your father and mother, instead of simply your friends? Well this is a bad analogy because my parents were and are actually a part of my life. But even besides that my relationship with my parents is as peers now. And even as a child, my parents were my friends as well as being my caretakers. A parent who remains distant and aloof (or more accurately in God's case completely absent) is a really lovely parent. Fionordequester posted:Ergh...God never raped people. And as for murder...well, he never did that either. Oh, don't get me wrong, he killed a LOT of people in the OT, that much is true. But from what I can tell, the only times he killed... The Egyptians were not a monolithic entity who, to a man, woman, and child kept the Israelites in bondage and servitude. The plagues upon Egypt would have cause the deaths or multiple innocents who almost certainly would have gladly released Moses and his people. The plague of death of the first born is the most obvious as being straight-up direct murder by God because it certainly included infants and children who could not be reasonably held accountable for the enslavement of the Jews in any sense. That's not even accounting for the fact that collective punishment is always immoral. Fionordequester posted:2) Were for the sake of punishing those who had committed heinous crimes (like the Caananites, who were literally SACRIFICING THEIR CHILDREN to their pagan God's) And so the Caananite infants were also guilty of this? Children who were literally incapable of reason we're irredeemably evil? Yeah, no, doesn't fly. Fionordequester posted:3) Done only after giving ample warning to the offending party (as was the case with both of the above scenarios) Well, except for, again, when Pharaoh had agreed to release the Jews and then God hardened his heart and forced him to go back on his word (violating his free will in the process). But, even so, it doesn't matter how many times I tell someone that if they don't turn off their music I'm going to stab them to death, it's still wrong to stab them to death. Fionordequester posted:Sure, God himself would know the character of a person. But would all of his other children know? Who cares? Fionordequester posted:If not, you're essentially living in a 1984 dystopian world. Would you really feel that great about seeing seemingly innocent people getting punished? Would you really feel comfortable when all you had to go on was some authority figure saying "oh, that guy who never did anything? Oh, trust me, he totally deserved it. I know because I'm God"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:also something something basically torturing people for doubting (e.g. job) God didn't have Job tortured for doubting, he had him tortured (which included killing his family who were presumably innocent) to prove that he wouldn't doubt God, no matter what. But it's ok because Job got back double everything he lost. So now he had two wives.  Edit: And the book of Job ends with God basically saying "Oh, that guy who never did anything? Trust me, he totally deserved it. I know because I'm God" Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Actually, that was a case of FIGURATIVE speech in regards to Pharaoh. The reason we tend to miss that is because we are NOT the original audience that the OT was written for. The OT writers had an entirely different way of expressing their ideas; which makes sense, because they were NOT addressing us. They were trying to address the people of their time. Yeah, no, I need more than just your say-so that this is figurative speech. What is your exact criteria for determining what is and is not figurative speech, and why is it completely consistent with the entirety of the bible? Because otherwise this is all just an attempt to hand-wave away something inconvenient in the clumsiest way possible. Fionordequester posted:And this isn't the only time that this type of figurative speech was employed either. Ok, so where's the follow-up verse that says "lol, jk, god didn't actually control the Pharaoh. Got you! lmao!"? Fionordequester posted:Actually, God DOES justify his actions, at multiple points in the Bible. I do agree with the bolded point though, which is why I feel the need to point this out: God does NOT send us to Hell for being sinners. If that were the case, well...everyone on Earth would be in Hell. He sends us to Hell for refusing to give up our evil ways. So going back to Ted Bundy, he may VERY WELL be in Heaven right now! I mean, maybe. There's always that possibility that he was truly sorry for everything he did. If that's the case, God would certainly grant him access to paradise. None of this solves the problem that infinite punishments for finite crimes being unjust, though, because unrepentance is still finite. Unless you think that people will never, ever say "I'm sorry" after being tortured for a quadrillion years. Which we know isn't true, because we've pretty much proven that we can torture people to get them to say whatever we want. And probably mean it, too, even if they know it's wrong. You could torture someone to say that 2+2=7, and they'd be every bit as sincere as anyone in the pew. And I've already shown that God doesn't give a drat about free will, until you can give me a better argument than "nuh-uh!". Fionordequester posted:It would be! That's precisely WHY he needs the freedom to actually DO something truly awful! "So I can send them to hell" is the dumbest justification I've ever heard for allowing evil to happen. It's possibly even more evil than the evil it allows to happen. Fionordequester posted:In order to get the weeds out of your garden, you have to let them grow up to be weeds. I-... what? No, you don't. You can very easily prevent weeds from ever growing the first place. That is, in fact, the ideal thing to do! Fionordequester posted:Otherwise, there's no way for God's children to distinguish them from the flowers you want to preserve. And if they can't distinguish the weeds...then we're right back at that 1984 dystopia I brought up. Why is it so important that you and I know who deserves to be punished? Seriously, why? Ultimately you don't think it matters one bit what we think because God is trumps our assessments anyway, so what's the point? What, so that you can feel self-righteous in heaven? So that you can look with smug satisfaction upon the sinners of Hell, letting that warm glow warm the cockles of your heart with the knowledge that they deserve eternal punishment while you deserve eternal torture? I absolutely cannot conceive any other reason why this would be important, and it is absolutely monstrous. Fionordequester posted:And why wouldn't you want to die? I'm assuming it's because there are still things you'd want to do with your life. If that's the case, aren't you jumping the gun by thinking that you're eventually going to run out of things to do? We live in a finite universe. Ergo there is a finite amount of things to do. And well before I have done all of them I'll probably still wanna check out early, because I'm not interested in experiencing literally all their is to experience. Fionordequester posted:Unfortunately, I don't really have an answer to that. God is not distant and aloof, but...well, only God himself can really prove you wrong on that one, right? Yes, and it's very telling that he hasn't. Fionordequester posted:Actually, nobody ever died in the plagues until the 7th Plague (the plague of Hail) and the 10th Plague (death of all the firstborn). And even then, God... Oh, I don't know, maybe the nine previous plagues?! And, again, it doesn't matter how many times you warn someone that you're going to murder them, it's still murder. Fionordequester posted:See, I actually agree with you...but that's because both of us grew up under a Individualistic culture, as opposed to a Collectivistic culture. I want you to know that I did read all this, but it's all just a bunch of baseless assertions that are frankly bullshit. Please provide some evidence that the people of ancient Egypt were akin to an ant-colony and not, you know, human beings with individual thoughts and feelings. Also lol that your God is so weak and bad at arguing that he HAS to work within the framework of humans. But when I ask him to do that now, oh lordy that's just asking too much! And lastly, I don't hate God. I literally cannot hate something that does not exist. Fionordequester posted:First of all, the OT writers heavily relied on hyperbolic language to give their writings extra spice. Again, this is all a lot of baseless conjecture, and I'm going to need something a lot more solid than your say-so on this. Tell exactly how you can differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction, especially considering we're allowing for God, a being that can do whatever he wants whenever he wants, to exist for the sake of argument. So tell me exactly why moving a few animals around is complete and total bullshit but actual physics-defying miracles are not. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Heh, well, I can always claim to have greater knowledge than you on the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern culture. I could ALWAYS pull rank on you that way Oh can you now, kiddo? Well! I've studied the bible and "Ancient Near Eastern cultures" for longer than you have. No, seriously, just ask me how I get my whites looking so bright, I'll never tell. Now that I've established to have an expertise in this field using the exact same method you have, prove my interpretations wrong using something other than the claim of "I've studied it more than you". Because, as I just established using the exact same oh-so-rigorous methods you have, I currently possess the greater claim of expertise. If the sarcasm was too thick for you, my point is is that claiming to be an expert of the Internet doesn't mean poo poo and gives you no credibility. Demonstrate it, son.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 05:57
|
|
.
|
Fionordequester posted:Alright. How do you wish for me to demonstrate it? Give me an idea of what you're after. Fionordequester posted:Alright. How do you wish for me to demonstrate it? Give me an idea of what you're after. Some independent, third party evidence. People who have neither any reason to explicitly support or deny your view who nevertheless come to the exact same conclusion you did. Edit: Hell, give me undeniable proof of God that doesn't require pre-belief in him. Should your God exist, that should be trivial. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
McDowell posted:So, looking at all texts in their context and making up our own minds here in the present, how do we determine our place in creation? Well, we can at least say that contact lenses are the work of Satan trying to steal your soul. That much is clear (ironically!). Crowsbeak posted:Ah Oh hey you're back. What's your opinion on taxes being slavery?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 14:16
|
|
. Because Jesus was exactly like
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Mercy love and compassion as long as you are one of his chosen, otherwise get hosed. Especially if he wants your land. No, see, that was hyperbole! I know it was hyperbole because ~*~context~*~!! How do I know the context was? *mumbles and waves hands*
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Alright guys, I've managed to find some guys, very well educated guys, who fit this criteria... Who?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
McDowell posted:If you say there is no God, have you tried salvia divinorum, if only once? It is legal and considered to be an entheogen. Look below the surface of the mundane- sentience is a spark of mind that has culminated from eons of churning life-force, humans are animals with a capacity for divinity. This state of mind isn't a religious thing with monks and incense, it's practical. Consider how in a way the piece of rock we call earth is a substrate for a highly-complex, uniquely singular (you could say miraculous) set of chemical reactions. I'm shocked you, who thinks that the senses are the path that the devil uses to steal men's eternal souls, would advocate the taking of sense-altering drugs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:What makes you consider Dawkins, specifically, a reactionary alongside the other two? Has he ever advocated any specific reactionary political policy? Or does he fall under that label solely because he criticizes Islam without having come from an Islamic background? I suspect it's the latter. Don't defend Dick "a little bit of mild pedophilia never hurt anybody" Dorkins.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Peta posted:What's this referencing?? I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I did not make a habit of Salvia - but that is a risk in overcoming - being aware of your potential and your choices. Humans are animals. So yes, animals can because humans can.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
McDowell posted:There are things humans can do that animals cannot do. Why is that? Again, humans are animals, we belong to the kingdom animalia, the phylum chordata, class synapsida, and so on so on so forth. So anything we can do is de facto something that can be done by animals (specifically the human animal). As for why we have different characteristics than other animals the answer is the same for why we can't run as fast as a cheetah, aren't a strong as a gorilla, and cannot fly like so many other species; we evolved differently. There's absolutely no reason to say that we are special beyond that we have evolved in a different manner when compared to other animals and not because of divine magic. Crowsbeak posted:I didn't say not believing in God makes one so. Yes you did. Right here, to be exact: Crowsbeak posted:Really I will say that if being secular means not being able to teach offspring how to not be rude then it really isn't worth it. You do realize that people can scroll up to see what you posted before, right? What you say doesn't just evaporate into the aether.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The fact you cannot read is not my fault. As I said I was suggesting that he and you likewise are rather poor arguments for atheism. Sorry that you choose to not understand that. Yes, I'm well aware that you lied about your intent when called out on what you said. But of course someone who thinks all rules are literal chattel slavery has no qualms about lying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I didn't I was arguing from a point of hyperbole. The fact you cannot understand this is rather hilarious. Not nearly as hilarious as the fact that you think you're the only person capable of doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Which god? Are you talking about all gods that have ever been conceived, or all conceivable gods, or are you just saying that Jews serve evil? Jews have a long and well documented history of arguing against their god. And winning. So I wouldn't say that, no.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 18:33
|
|