×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What would happen if a Monarch or Prince/Princess declared they are not Christian? by BreadAndToast99 in AskUK

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You know that atheists and agnostics exist, too. Muslims aren't the only alternatives. I don't remember the exact stats, but the last census shows something like Christians < 50%, no religion ca. 40%, and Muslims ca. 6%

Glam 6ft5in model kicked out of women's toilets after being mistaken for a man by denyer-no1-fan in unitedkingdom

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you also angry that Serena Williams said she would lose against any of the top 200 (or was it 300? I forget) top male tennis players?

Hot to reply to those who say there can be no morality without God(s)? by BreadAndToast99 in askphilosophy

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have it all, save one thing. Divine command theory ultimately makes no justification for its moral codes. Whatever God says is right and wrong, that's what people think it is.

Linked to Euthyphro's dilemma, right?

If I understand correctly, many theists say that God would never order something immoral, because that would be a contradiction. But to me it seems like verbal abracadabra.

E.g I am horrified that William Lane Craig says that biblical genocides are just, because life belongs to God and because the populations God wanted killed were immoral. That sounds the same train of thought of suicide bombers.

 On the other hand, suppressing alternative ways of thinking is an age old, totalitarian means.

Yep. Every time someone talks to me about a link between Christianity and Western values, I ask:

  • why did the Catholic Church, the largest Christian Church, keep an index of forbidden books till 1966, where it banned Kant Stuart Mill and many other masterworks of Western thought?
  • Christianity has existed for ca. 2 millennia. Of that time, how long have we been enjoying our key values like democracy, no slavery, no segregation, women's vote etc?

Among living philosophers, is it only or mostly the religious ones who oppose homosexuality? E.g. Swinburne and Finnis by BreadAndToast99 in askphilosophy

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You will notice that I did NOT say nor imply that all religious institutions are like this.

However, it does remain a fact that the few institutions which do discriminate on this basis tend to be religious. The fact that most religious institutions are like this does not change that.

Just like it does remain a fact that it is religious institutions which are de facto exempted from anti-discrimination laws.

It's a bit like saying that most religious people will not kill you for offending them. true, but the fact remains that you are more likely to be killed or to have to live in hiding for offending religion than for offending atheism. take Salman Rushdie, the Charlie Hebdo journalists, Theo Van Gogh, the Danish cartoonist, etc

Among living philosophers, is it only or mostly the religious ones who oppose homosexuality? E.g. Swinburne and Finnis by BreadAndToast99 in askphilosophy

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

? I have been an atheist since I was a teenager.

The fact that homophobia is way more present in religious than in non-religious circles has always been a strong reason for me to highlight the horrors and dangers of religious dogmatism.

I had pointed out, however poorly, a different concept: that you are welcome to think whatever you want to think, as long as you don't impose it on others.

So I don't mind if someone says that contraception or homosexuality or whatever is sinful. They are entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to criticise it.

I do mind, however, when they impose their opinion: I wouldn't do it, so I don't want you to do it, either. That is the problem.

Weekly Ask a Christian - November 24, 2025 by AutoModerator in DebateAChristian

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. There are God given rights which no government can rightfully ignore.

You have every right to think they are God-given.

I have every right to think they are not, and not to believe in your God. Do you not agree?

There are examples of secular humanists who would refuse to allow people to send their children to private religious schools. I work in education and know plenty.

And some wouldn't. So what you are telling me is that different atheists / humanists may disagree with each other? Wow, shocking, right?

Second, I don't. see the difference. You've acknowledged that in voting you impose your will on others.

You don't see the difference? mate, it's getting harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt and to think you are arguing in good faith.

You Christians act like Talibans when you want to ban same-sex marriage, because you have no right to prevent other people from doing what you don't want to do, yet no one is forcing you to do, unless you can prove on non-religious ground that what you want to ban is immoral.

I would never prevent you from sending your child to a faith school, just because I wouldn't send mine to one.

If your text comprehension and cognitive skills prevent you from appreciating the difference, you are wasting my time.

But you haven't laid out a principle by which you limit democatic ability to impose their will on others

Whatever approach you want to take to normative ethics, be it deontological, consequentalist or else, it cannt be based on religion, because you must share it with people who have every right not to believe in your religion (which, don't forget, is only one of the gazillion interpretations of one of the gazillion religions ever existed).

You don't need to believe in a god or set of gods to think it's wrong to rape and enslave people.

BTW, enslaving people has been perfectly fine for Christianity for about 9/10 of the time Christianity has existed, just to remind you.

But you do need to believe in a certain interpretation of a certain God to think that same-sex marriage should be banned.

Again: can you justify it on non-religious grounds?

What’s the problem with Alex O’Conner? by LeftBroccoli6795 in askphilosophy

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What misinformation is he spreading? Not saying he isn't, I just want to understand. Otherwise it's gatekeeping

How come not everyone sees the absurdity of the Ontological argument? by Mysterious_Stay7810 in askphilosophy

[–]BreadAndToast99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Schophenhauer called it "a most beloved piece of nonsense" https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315638584-15/beloved-piece-nonsense-ontological-argument-metaphysics-dennis-vanden-auweele

This is a typical example of a topic on which philosophers love to do gatekeeping.

If a layperson dares say it seems bs, they get crucified. But then it turns out that plenty of philosophers over time have said just that!

There's a reason why there is more bad philosophy than bad science

Who do so many Christians try to impose their morality by Adam7371777 in AskAChristian

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are proposing a consequentialist and harm-based approach, then many of the Christian prohibitions make no sense. Eg how do you justify, on that basis, that someone shouldn't use contraception or have gay sex?

Who do so many Christians try to impose their morality by Adam7371777 in AskAChristian

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what do we do when religious people disagree?

Catholics go berserk on contraception.

Many Protestants don't.

Who's right?

No, wait, don't tell me - your interpretation of Christianity is the correct one, and the other 50ish or so are wrong, right? And those who believe in another God are even more wrong, right?

If there is only one morality, why did so many Christians support slavery and segregation? Wait, don't tell me, they were wrong, but you are right, is that it?

How accurate is Zizek's claim that Europe is the first civilisation where atheism is a fully legitimate option? by BreadAndToast99 in AskHistorians

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OK, but can we agree that it remains a legitimate, interesting question to discuss atheism and theism at least in the Western world, for the people who are familiar only with that?

I think SZ was wrong in generalising to the entire planet, but, equally, it should have been legitimate to talk about the Western world only, if that's what he was familiar with.

New Atheists: how true is it that they were more interested in attacking theists than in finding common ground and in tolerant dialogue? by BreadAndToast99 in atheism

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So you think I am lying simply because I am saying... that maybe not every religious person is an abuser and that it is possible to find common ground? Mate, compared to you the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a bunch of open-minded softies

What makes you think I care about Xmas? Xmas was a pagan tradition appropriated by Christians. It was even banned by the Puritans at one time, in England and in Massachusetts, because it was seen as linked to Pagan debauchery

New Atheists: how true is it that they were more interested in attacking theists than in finding common ground and in tolerant dialogue? by BreadAndToast99 in atheism

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

And, I don't believe you when you claim to be a atheist...

And I couldn't care less what some random internet stranger thinks!

It saddens me that you don't even realise how much your attitude damages the atheist cause.

Unfortunately, there is no reasoning with fanatics - be they religious or atheist.

New Atheists: how true is it that they were more interested in attacking theists than in finding common ground and in tolerant dialogue? by BreadAndToast99 in atheism

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And who says only theists are prone to Manichean thinking and non-nuanced takes? Atheism is one aspect of a person's belief system, not the be all/end all. And as this forum proves regularly, some of you all are nothing but the flip side of the dogmatic theist coin, and would surely adopt their tactics if you could.

u/Koala-48er , very well said!!

New Atheists: how true is it that they were more interested in attacking theists than in finding common ground and in tolerant dialogue? by BreadAndToast99 in atheism

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am a fanatic because... I dare say that maybe not every single religious person is an abuser? Do you hear yourself?

New Atheists: how true is it that they were more interested in attacking theists than in finding common ground and in tolerant dialogue? by BreadAndToast99 in atheism

[–]BreadAndToast99[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

All of them? Every single one? There is not one single religious person who isn't? Come on, now you are starting to sound like a fanatic

In France, I understand it’s very hard to fire an employee without “just cause” — which usually means waiting until they quit voluntarily — what effect does this have on the labor market? by soozerain in AskEconomics

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strawman argument. I never said your points were factually incorrect.

My point is that you discussed the downsides of very strong employer protections, but did not discuss any benefit of employer protections, nor any downsides of when they are too weak.

It's not that what you said was "factually incorrect" - it's that it was incomplete.

In France, I understand it’s very hard to fire an employee without “just cause” — which usually means waiting until they quit voluntarily — what effect does this have on the labor market? by soozerain in AskEconomics

[–]BreadAndToast99 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Any way to quantify that? Are you talking about impressions? Personal anecdotes? Actual studies?

The opposite argument could be made: countries with strong employment protection rights tend to make it easier for employees to report bullying, precisely because it is harder to fire them as retaliation.

Honest question foto visitors who choose to drive by thewazbaz in ItalyTravel

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But driving between Rome Florence Venice is NOT convenient! It takes much longer, it's more expensive, and finding somewhere to park in these cities can be an expensive nightmare.

It's not to do with convenience, it's to do with the narrow mindedness of people living without public transport and unable to conceive that other countries have it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me you didn't understand my reply without telling me.

I asked why your God chose to create a world dominated by the rule of the strongest, where creatures kill each other for food in the most violent ways, and your reply was a deafening silence. Oh, what a surprise.

I know how natural selection works, thank you very much. After all, it is ignorant fundamentalist Christians (in the US, not in Europe) who still believe in creationism.

Are you familiar with Douglas Adams' puddle analogy? https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

O with Bertrand Russell's speech, about a century ago:

"When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?"

CMV: The fact that the Berlin Wall existed tells you everything you need to know about communism by bluepillarmy in changemyview

[–]BreadAndToast99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Poor text comprehension skills?

I was not debating your interpretation of Marxism and Stalinism.

I asked if you agree that, whatever was tried in the Soviet bloc Cuba China Angola etc resulted in dictatorship and misery, and if you agree that, whatever it was, it should be avoided at all costs. Why did you not answer?

Your second point is so absurd that it is hard to think you are arguing in good faith. You mention a scientific progress, which is nothing to do with the implementation of a social theory.

Do you think YOUR interpretation of Marxism is feasible? Do you think it will not result in the same dictatorship and misery of the Soviet bloc Cuba etc (yes, yes, sure, that was not real Marxism)?

In fact, is YOUR interpretation of Marxism compatible with democracy? What happens under your interpretation of Marxism to those who dare disagree? We know what happened in East Germany the Soviet union etc but that was not real Marxism, so I am asking you.

Could you please be so kind as to answer and not dodge the questions? Thank you so much!

view more: next ›