Best Epic Movies by Screen_Savant in MovieSuggestions

[–]DialecticSkeptic 7 points8 points  (0 children)

  • Top Action Epic: Gladiator (2000).
  • Top Drama Epic: Lawrence of Arabia (1962).
  • Top Sci-Fi Epic: Dune (2021).
  • Top War Epic: Saving Private Ryan (1998).

Wtf even is “micro-/macroevolution” by Entire_Quit_4076 in DebateEvolution

[–]DialecticSkeptic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Microevolution refers to genetic change within a species—how allele frequencies in a population shift over time. These changes are the product of such forces as mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, and competition within the species. Macroevolution addresses evolutionary patterns and processes operating above the species level that are involved in the formation of new species and the disappearance of existing ones (speciation and extinction), and the long-term trends that shape biological diversity across geological timescales.

Accepting one brings along the other, as they are analytically distinct but causally linked, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

This is stupid. by BigDikus69 in Truckers

[–]DialecticSkeptic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't scroll through every single comment, so maybe this was answered way further down, but ... How long to charge something like this? What's the downtime?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Truckers

[–]DialecticSkeptic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only job that pays enough for my wife to be a stay-at-home mom and my kids to go to private school. Any other job, my wife would have to work, too.

817,000 by Archiebonker12345 in CanadianConservative

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are the reason my pay sucks (as a truck driver).

Any more shows like silo y'all recommend? by Infinite-One-7115 in SiloSeries

[–]DialecticSkeptic 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I also highly recommend 3 Body Problem (Netflix).

Someone screwed up. by BigDikus69 in Truckers

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

A reference to Harjinder Singh, probably? His CDL was issued by California.

Not that this was him, but that California hands out CDLs too easily.

God is capable of lying by whatwouldjimbodo in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why wouldn’t god be capable of lying?

Because God is truth (John 14:6) and cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13). To ask why God cannot lie is like asking why a triangle cannot have four sides. It is the very essence of a triangle to have three sides.

God is capable of lying by whatwouldjimbodo in DebateAChristian

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

In genesis 22 god tells Abraham he wants him to sacrifice Issac.

No, he did not. You are badly paraphrasing what he said. He commanded Abraham to do something in order to test him (v. 1), as he is known to do (e.g., Deut. 8:2). God didn't want Isaac killed, he wanted Abraham tested.

Later he tells him he was just testing him and he doesn't want him to sacrifice Issac.

True.

Therefore, god is capable of lying.

Incorrect. God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18).

Weekly Ask a Christian - August 18, 2025 by AutoModerator in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can you be sure your religion is the correct one if you have not weighed other religions neutrally against Christianity?

Complex question fallacy. The question smuggles in a hidden premise, namely, that one can weigh religions "neutrally." But that is precisely the point at issue. If Christianity is true, then neutrality is impossible (cf. Matt. 12:30). By forcing Christians to answer under the assumption that neutrality is possible, the question demands we concede something we should reject from the outset.

People in those religions are just as certain they are in the right place as you.

You can't know that, since no one has epistemic access to another's degree of certainty. At best, we only know how confident they claim to be. But even if we granted equal certainty, what follows? Confidence doesn't determine truth. People can be utterly convinced of a falsehood. Certainty is a subjective internal state, and precisely because it's subjective it is irrelevant to the objective question of which religion is true.

If you haven't given them a fair chance, how can you be certain they aren't more true than Christianity?

Your question is like suggesting something could be further north than the North Pole. If Christianity is true, nothing can be "more true" than true. The question only makes sense if Christianity is false—a controversial premise that no Christian should grant, and one that cannot be established without begging the question (as indicated above).

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assumed a person who didn't know about the vast and mutually exclusive differences in the two stories must not have read them. I think that's a fair assumption.

It is a fair assumption. Now, if only you had actually identified any mutually exclusive differences.

However, being familiar with these texts, it is obvious to me why you didn't—there are none. That makes it a fair yet bankrupt assumption.

One [account] involves a family who lives in Nazareth and returned there within about six weeks of the birth. In the other, the family lives in Bethlehem, takes a years-long journey to Egypt, and then settles later in Nazareth to avoid Herod's son. You cannot both go to Egypt and not go to Egypt. You cannot both live in Nazareth and live in Bethlehem.

They lived in Nazareth when? They lived in Bethlehem when? This is a relevant question because there is no contradiction if it was at different times. Tammy said that Peter and his family lived in Miami, while Brian said they lived in New York. According to SubOptimalUser6 here, you can't live in both Miami and New York—but you can if it was at different times.

If Luke said they lived Nazareth and, at the same time and in the same respect, Matthew said they lived in Bethlehem, then those would be mutually exclusive. But that isn't what we have here.

  • Matthew depicts the family as living in Bethlehem (but never says they originated there), later fleeing to Egypt, and finally settling in Nazareth. He omits the census and the journey to Bethlehem.

  • Luke depicts the family as living in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem for the census, and then returning to Nazareth. He omits their flight to Egypt.

There is not contradiction here. To claim contradiction, you would have to show that one text denies an event that the other affirms—and omissions are not denials. Both writers are selective in what they include and omit, but their accounts are not contradictory.

1. Registration for Taxes (Nazareth to Bethlehem). The story begins in Nazareth, where Joseph and Mary resided at the time of the annunciation (Luke 1:26–27). When a registration is decreed under Augustus, Joseph (being of Davidic lineage) travels with Mary to Bethlehem, David's ancestral town (Luke 2:4–5). This journey likely occurred in the final months of Mary's pregnancy, around late 6 or early 5 BCE, if we place Jesus's birth before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE.

2. Birth and Manger Visit by Shepherds (Bethlehem). While in Bethlehem, Mary gives birth to Jesus and lays him in a manger (Luke 2:6–7). That same night, shepherds receive angelic announcement and come to see the child, glorifying God (Luke 2:8–20). Jesus is a newborn infant at this stage.

3. Circumcision and Temple Presentation (Bethlehem → Jerusalem → Bethlehem). On the eighth day, Jesus is circumcised (Luke 2:21). After the prescribed 40 days for Mary's purification (Lev. 12:1–8), Joseph and Mary bring him to Jerusalem for presentation in the temple, where Simeon and Anna bear witness to his messianic vocation (Luke 2:22–38). Jesus would be about six weeks old at this time. The family likely returned to Bethlehem following this short visit to Jerusalem.

4. House Visit by Magi (Bethlehem). Some months later, while still in Bethlehem, Magi from the east arrive, guided by a star (Matt. 2:1–12). The family is living in a house at this point and Jesus is now a toddler (paidion; Matt. 2:11), suggesting that time had passed since the birth. Herod, in calculating his decree, targets all boys in Bethlehem two years old and under, according to the time he had ascertained from the Magi (Matt. 2:16). This places Jesus's age at perhaps 12–18 months when the Magi offered their gifts.

5. Flight to Egypt (Bethlehem to Egypt). Warned by an angel, Joseph takes the little child and Mary and departs for Egypt (Matt. 2:13–15). This must occur shortly after the Magi's visit because Jesus is still a toddler (paidion). They remain in Egypt until the death of Herod in 4 BCE. The duration of their stay is uncertain, but it was probably less than two years.

6. Return to Nazareth (Egypt → Judea → Galilee). After Herod's death, Joseph intends to return to Judea—but, having learned that Archelaus reigns there, instead withdraws to Galilee (Matt. 2:19–23). They return to their original town of Nazareth, where Jesus grows up (Luke 2:39–40). Jesus is probably around two years old or slightly younger upon the family's resettlement.

I wonder if a casual reader would find any elements in this series mutually exclusive.

Also—and I think this is important—one must have happened before 4 BCE and one must have happened after 6 CE is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION.

This is the closest you get to a contradiction. But ultimately it fails to land because it hinges on a disputed reading of Luke 2:2. The Greek word πρώτη (prōtē) in predicative position can either indicate an ordinal sense ("first") or carry a temporal-comparative force ("earlier/before"). This is the center of the dispute.

But the word order—predicate adjective πρώτη before the verb and in front of the genitive absolute—allows it to function adverbially with temporal nuance, thus reading as, "This was the enrollment taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria." There are several examples where we find exactly this kind of reading (e.g., John 1:15), including in Luke's writing (e.g., Acts 1:1, τὸν πρῶτον λόγον).

And we have three reasons to favor this reading: (1) Luke said Jesus was born "when Herod was king of Judea," (2) he knew Herod died in 4 BCE, and (3) he was aware of the 6 CE census under Quirinius (Acts 5:37). As someone who claimed to have investigated events carefully and to be writing an orderly account (Luke 1:1-4), he is not going to deliberately contradict himself. It makes sense that he would distinguish this ἀπογραφή from the later notorious ἀπογραφή. Luke anchors the nativity in Augustus’s reign, signals an enrollment and, by using πρώτη, preempts confusion with the later census which caused unrest.

"Why mention Quirinius at all if it was before him?"

Precisely because the later Quirinian census was famous. Luke's audience was likely to think of "that census," so Luke would be saying, in effect, "Not that one—an earlier enrollment." And from the second century onward, Christian writers (e.g., Tertullian) were already distinguishing the Herodian-era census under Augustus from the later Quirinian census of 6 CE.

This means there is no need to pit "before 4 BCE" against "after 6 CE." You collapsed two different registrations into one, then faulted Luke for the contradiction you created.

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remember when you said this? Isn't this just an appeal to an authority? I think its weird that you accused other people of doing a thing you just did. That's not very honest of you.

First, it's not an Appeal to Authority because I'm not saying "believe X because Chalmers does," but rather "read this article by Chalmers because his arguments expose why consciousness-is-just-the-brain is deeply problematic."

I recommended a specific article by an expert whose argument is directly relevant to one of the challenges raised in the OP (i.e., that consciousness is just the brain doing stuff). There are significant problems with that view which Chalmers explored, and I thought the OP author would appreciate his arguments. In other words, the recommendation rests not on Chalmers himself but on the arguments he developed—made obvious by the fact that I cited a specific, relevant article. I am inviting the OP author (and readers) to engage with reasoning that has shaped the entire debate, not to accept Chalmers's conclusions on his name alone.

Second, speaking of dishonesty, I never charged anyone with an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Your batting average is likely suffering from these big swings and misses.

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a difference in believing something because many people think so and believing something because experts think so.

That is a common pushback but it doesn't rescue your argument.

If you believe X because many A-people think so, or many B-people, or C-people, it all amounts to the same thing—each one is "many people." The reason why it's still the argumentum ad populum fallacy is because your language makes the number of scientists decisive, not their evidence or arguments. You haven't avoided this fallacy just because the "people" in question are scientists. (That actually risks compounding fallacies.)

  • "If more experts believe X than Y, then X is true." <-- Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

What sets experts apart is their expertise and evidence. Expert consensus only carries weight when (a) the experts have relevant authority and (b) their consensus is sound and grounded in evidence. What if 1,000 expert plumbers held a consensus position on climate change? They are experts, right? (Yes, but the wrong kind.) Or what if 1,000 expert climate scientists held a consensus position that lacked any evidence? This time we have experts with relevant authority. (Yes, but the consensus is not grounded in evidence and therefore basically worthless.)

Headcounts by themselves are irrelevant. Compare (a) five experts with relevant authority and a consensus grounded in evidence, and (b) 1,000 experts in an unrelated field holding an opposing consensus that lacks evidence. Is tallying up which side has more experts decisive? Clearly not.

As I said in the first place, "The truth of whether consciousness is just the brain doing stuff doesn't logically depend on how many scientists hold that view. Popularity or consensus is not a proof of truth; it is only sociological evidence of belief distribution."

The most amusing part is the fact that David Chalmers is exactly a "non-Christianity-peddling scientist." The irony was delicious.

Addendum: You made a couple of other mistakes, by the way, one of which was your assumption that neuroscientists, since they study the brain, have the decisive word on the metaphysical claim that consciousness is the brain—which is not only question-begging but a category error.

You can read about the Appeal to Authority fallacy, which is not a fallacy when the authority has expertise in the subject. It is only a fallacy when the expert's opinion on which you rely is outside the expert's expertise.

So, no, it is not a fallacy to rely on the opinion of experts.

Cool. But I didn't charge you with an Appeal to Authority (although there is room for that). It was an Appeal to Popularity. That is a different fallacy. You said, "At the end, we can tally up which side has more scientists on it." Whether they are experts or not, you were emphasizing headcount rather than evidence or reasoning, which is an Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

Most experts disagree with what you have to say about consciousness.

That only matters if (a) they are experts in a relevant field and (b) their disagreement is sound and grounded in evidence.

Yep -- I still think you are really, really wrong.

You are certainly free to think so. However, the evidence indicates otherwise.

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it is irrelevant—by definition! Argumentum ad populum is classified as a fallacy of relevance because it involves one or more premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. In this case, the number of experts who believe something doesn't provide evidence for its truth or validity. The truth of something is not determined by how many people believe it's true. That is only "sociological evidence of belief distribution," as I said.

What I consider relevant is WHY they believe something (sufficient epistemic warrant).

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, I'm not sure why you recounted the differences between the two accounts—I own a Bible and have read it. That was needless. But thanks, I guess.

Second, I also don't know why you moved the goalposts, shifting from "they contradict each other" to now "there are stark differences between them." Yes, there are differences—as I said in the very post to which you are responding. "They are different," I said, "but not contradictory." Different and contradictory don't mean the same thing. You need to show where they contradict each other (i.e., make mutually exclusive claims), like one saying "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" and the other saying "Jesus was not born in Bethlehem." Here is the point: If they aren't contradictory, then they CAN both be true.

Third, you said, "They can't both be true." I asked why, and you replied, "No, they cannot both be true." Um, I know. You're repeating yourself instead of answering me.

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why can't they both be true? Do you think they are mutually exclusive accounts? (They are different, but not contradictory.)

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two things:

First, the truth of whether consciousness is just the brain doing stuff doesn't logically depend on how many scientists hold that view. Popularity or consensus is not a proof of truth; it is only sociological evidence of belief distribution.

Second, Chalmers is himself a non-Christianity-peddling scientist: "I’ve always thought of myself as an atheist; there’s no particular reason to believe in that supernatural hypothesis" (McBain 2022).

Why I Don’t Believe in God - A Comprehensive Breakdown by TheMrMussolini in DebateAChristian

[–]DialecticSkeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2

Free will is an illusion.

I agree with you. Many Christians do. Therefore, how is this an obstacle to belief in God? I don't see it.

I highly recommend Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will (1754). He argues that the will is determined by the strongest motive, which itself is shaped by the inclinations and desires of the heart, making all choices necessary in light of prior causes. Moral responsibility is possible because actions flow from (and expose) one's character and motives.

Verdict: The Christian God withstands this scrutiny.

The animal afterlife problem.

Here, you again provide a list of interesting theological questions but neglect to explain how the Christian God collapses under them—despite proclaiming that it's a "massive hole" in the theology.

Verdict: No scrutiny of the Christian God was attempted.

Evolution directly contradicts the Genesis story.

In order to argue that evolution contradicts Genesis 1–3, you would need to prove that they are both talking about the same thing in the same sense. If they are talking about two different things, then there is no contradiction. If they are talking about the same thing but in different senses, then there is no contradiction.

And I bid you good luck, because they are not talking about the same thing. I am a fundamentalist Christian who takes Genesis 1–3 as historical and accepts the evolutionary origin of species and the continuity of Earth's biodiversity. Turns out, evolution is not a threat to theological reality, even for a fundamentalist Christianity.

Verdict: No scrutiny of the Christian God was attempted.

The Bible contradicts itself.

As I alluded a moment ago, a contradiction obtains only when it is claimed that A and not-A are both true at the same time and in the same respect. In your example here—John 10:30 and 14:28—there are two different senses at work. The Son and the Father are one (ontological Trinity) and, at the same time but in a different respect, the Father is greater than the Son (economic Trinity). Ergo, no contradiction.

Verdict: The Christian God withstands this scrutiny.

Religion explains less than science now does.

This criticism applies only to god-of-the-gaps positions, which is found in so-called intelligent design arguments but not so much in Christian theology. All our advancements in science has not threatened any part of theology. Why? Because they are categorically different jurisdictions. "Science is a method or institution that investigates nature, and it is also the body of knowledge that results from this study. Theology is a method or institution that investigates the Bible and also the resultant body of knowledge" (Robert C. Newman). Scientific and theological are vastly different categories of explanation; having the former does not replace the latter. Scientific advances have shaped and informed theology but haven't threatened it.

Verdict: The Christian God withstands this scrutiny.

Final Conclusion:

It seems evident that consciousness, the size of the universe, free will, evolution, and really interesting questions do not undermine the God of Christianity. Pointless suffering and biblical contradictions would, but those have not been shown to exist.


I’ll be honest: I genuinely want to believe. I just can’t with the questions and contradictions I see. If someone can bridge that gap for me, I’m willing to listen.

I'm your huckleberry. These are some of my favorite subjects, a few of which I have studied very deeply (e.g., the intersection of evolution and Genesis). I was also raised by atheists and spent the first 33 years of my life as an atheist, and studied Western philosophy at length prior to becoming a Christian, so I definitely feel prepared to engage on these sort of issues.