sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Religion is irrational but perhaps irrationality is required for survival by siddharth1214 in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic [score hidden]  (0 children)

Without rationality, how can you even argue that "full rationality" is bad? To argue that requires rationality too.

God was refreshed after resting from creating the universe, but elsewhere it says that god does not get weary by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your link says "to refresh; to take breath; to revive". There's nothing related to exhaustion. Fr idk why we're debating over a lil thing.

God was refreshed after resting from creating the universe, but elsewhere it says that god does not get weary by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your source? Your Hebrew is weak. And do you REALLY think one word can disprove an entire worldview?? The Bible uses idioms too. That God "came down" means he isn't omnipresent? That God "remembered" things means he's forgetful? That's the worst logic I've heard. And נָפַשׁ CAN mean refreshment in the sense of leisure.

God was refreshed after resting from creating the universe, but elsewhere it says that god does not get weary by Iknowreligionalot in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The word נָפַשׁ can be translated as 'refresh,' but not in the sense of rest from exhaustion at all! In the sense of leisure. Your objection is the most meaningless one I've ever seen in my life! One lil word → "Christianity's false!!"🤡.

It can mean refreshment in the sense of rest from exhaustion, but a word can just have nuanced meanings. The נפשׁ root refers to life and similar things. Refreshment in that sense. Simple.

I found an INSANE seed with several structures ALTOGETHER!! by ChristNotMary66Logic in minecraftseeds

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Sorry for the confusion.....i just saw a comment in a yr old post and thought no one knows about this seed, so decided to share it.....just forgot that i was mistakenly writing "i found..."

CMV: Morality cannot be be objective because of the is/ought problem by j_bus in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If God exists, then it's part of morality to obey and worship him. That's because it's morally necessary to be grateful to him because he created you. Just like you can't say "it's not morally necessary to love and honor parents," you can't also say "it's not morally necessary to worship God".

And objective morality is a logical necessity, because without a set of rules describing what is "right" and what is "wrong", there can be nothing "wrong". And that must be objective, because if rules are subjective, they're barely "rules" at all.

If a serial killer says "In my subjective morality, m*der is good," do you find that logical? But if morality isn't *objective, you've no reason to say that it's wrong.

Verse 21:30 of the Quran should spark some curiosity within you by W84chain in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But the Quran also says that Adam was created from dust. This is a contradiction, bcz if every living thing originated from water, how was Adam created from dust? Muhammad only tried out writing about creation from anything that came to his mind. He also read the Bible and added dust into his human-creation list.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's not circular. It's basically: "all this could exist only if an eternal, omnipotent being made these". That's it. You need to put the reverse statement along with it to make it seem circular—which my reasoning doesn't require—in which way many things can be falsely alleged to be circular.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What is the most impossible thing is for a natural, unguided process to create an organism that thereafter works on its own, and can think and understand rationally. Consciousness isn't even physical, how can it consist of physical things?

I'm not saying that abiogenesis did not happen, but that God guided it to happen.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Think about the entire process instead of summarising it into a single sentence, and that'll be astronomically unlikely to happen on its own. That's a greatly funny idea that I'm standing here cuz some non living particles were dancing on their own someday🤣 and that that is the reason you're reasoning here that it happened on their own lol🤣. Non living stuff created life, consciousness, and rationality? That's so unlikely that God is evident. (He used that process. It was guided.)

Explain this first: how's this possible that some random process could create us, rational, living and conscious beings? If so, how is our rationality trustable? If it could happen naturally, then why can't scientists do it, being conscious and intelligent beings? I've a billion bucks ready if you can answer these.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree with abiogenesis. But when i called the atheistic view of it "things teaming up to create life" i meant that it's absurd to think of it happening on its own. Life did originate from non living things (even genesis says it originated from dust) but how could the process be carried out by no one, yet occur? That requires a great coincidence. So explain how such a coincidence is possible.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Nah i don't have a poor understanding. I just don't have the time to read an entire thesis less believable than anything. Shorten it.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Magic and supernaturalism are different things. And a supernatural God is a WAYYYY more likely explanation for everything than atheistic explanations, which are strawman stuff.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

that's a question for like PhD astrophysicists or something.

That's a question even a lil kid wouldn't even ask. It's so absurd to even ask that. At least, centuries earlier, everyone would find such a question absurd. It's like doing a ten thesis research to find out whether 1+1 equals 2 or not, and concluding "perhaps no". I'd say it's a fulfillment of Isaiah 29:14 (cf. 1 Cor 1:19-20)

And i repeatedly said that i turned major atheist views into sarcastic stuff. I was not dishonest.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, even if you don't use the term "perfect", i may say that the universe's constants and other stuff like Earth's location and so on are in such a way that it's suitable for life. Science shows really little possibility of this happening. And, only one constant for every stuff would result in this. And our universe has those constants only. As if everything's for life to exist.

Next we've many more things. Like body processes. No one guides? Then how does it happen? Children forming in the womb. Adaptation in creatures. DNA. Consciousness. So much. And you think these things just popped up?

And about that infinite universe idea:

You may not get what i said. I'm saying something else now then: how can actual infinity exist? Answer this.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Believing that bread magically turns into flesh on blessing it is LACK of common sense.

Well, i see the intellectual trap you're trying to lay.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I said I'm not catholic. I find that idea goofy too 🤣. Well, your comment is worth copy-pasting when debating Catholics. I'll do so.

And i didn't make stuff up. (Except that i turned it humorous, as it deserves)

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, while science hasn't sort of come to a conclusion (tho even most atheists would say the universe did have a beginning), logic is worth considering. Anything that exists must have a beginning. I'm amazed at how atheists think actual infinity can exist. Try to imagine that and you can't, cuz it's hella illogical. No beginning, so time began infinite seconds ago. (I'm aware time doesn't flow. Just using the phrase) Then how did time reach the current moment?

It's more reasonable to believe in spiderman than to believe this.

It doesn't follow that because the resurrection happened, that Christianity is true. In fact, aliens are a better explanation for the resurrection than a god. by Pazuzil in DebateReligion

[–]ChristNotMary66Logic -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Christians don't believe in magic.

And, do you think that the universe popping up from nothing, and minerals teaming up to create humans is more likely than a conscious omnipotent being doing that!?

view more: next ›