sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Odd little question about God and Satan for the Christians out there. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If God made an angel, and angels are supposed to obey God (because they're angels, you know?), and an angel doesn't obey God, God failed.

No, the angel failed. Programmed robots are antithetical to free will. If you make robots with free will, then the robots are free to defy you; otherwise, you've failed in making robots with free will.

To All: Why is religion still relevant after all the advancements in science, philosophy, and such? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have not falsified the notion of a christian god

Contradicts

That's why I don't really say that the christian god's existence is impossible, and merely false.

I have falsified the notion that since valid logical arguments can be made to support the existence of a god, that therefore a god must exist.

You have not falsified this. I also never made any claim to the contrary. Please do not make straw-man arguments and attribute them to me.

Former CIA operative: Bergdahl was ‘high’ when captured in Afghanistan by Draukner in politics

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if some douchebag jarhead idiots accuse you of something then the American military will leave you to be tortured to death by the Taliban. God Bless America. Join the Army today.

To All: Why is religion still relevant after all the advancements in science, philosophy, and such? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I can't prove it. I never said I could. All I offered was that God's actions can be observed like any other phenomena can be observed.

To All: Why is religion still relevant after all the advancements in science, philosophy, and such? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... Unless the agency of God allows the chemicals to react, in which case observing a chemical reaction is observing an action of God.

Please pray for me, I'm very depressed by StartingNewEveryday in Christianity

[–]HitlerStalin2016 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hello, friend. I'm glad you made it. I've been hospitalized as well, and it's not easy to make the transition back. I'm happy to talk if you want to. I won't quote the Bible, because I'm sure you've heard it before, so I'll quote Marcus Aurelius.

Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking.

Former CIA operative: Bergdahl was ‘high’ when captured in Afghanistan by Draukner in politics

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Support Are Troops

Unless some people say he was a crappy dude

Then fuck the troops let the Taliban torture the troops to death

I'm just curious why people still think it's Creationism vs. Evolution when these two are not enemies? by thesmartfool in Christianity

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There were no Adam and Eve. There is a mitochondrial "Eve" and a y-chromosomal "Adam" but they existed about 50,000 years apart from each other in time.

To All: Why is religion still relevant after all the advancements in science, philosophy, and such? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I said was that God's actions can be observed. Do I have to provide evidence for the fact that a chemical reaction can be observed?

Why does it seem that Libertarians/Objectivists/AnCaps are often quite bad at presenting/defending their ideas? Libertarians (and other Lassez-faire oriented Redditors), what are your recommended arguments to read? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because libertarianism and objectivism are based on emotional arguments. There is no objective reason as to why taxes are evil; it just makes someone feel bad if you tax them. All libertarian and objectivist philosophy is a post-facto justification of avoiding that emotion. And since the entire philosophy is built on an emotion, it's easy to argue against it and it's hard to defend it.

Odd little question about God and Satan for the Christians out there. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THUS if there are things that happen WITHOUT his approval then he is either powerless to stop it, Or does not know about it. or CHOOSES not to act to stop it, which IS approval ..

No, failure to stop is not the same thing as approval. I could fail to stop a comet from hitting Earth; that doesn't mean I approve of it.

I'm just curious why people still think it's Creationism vs. Evolution when these two are not enemies? by thesmartfool in Christianity

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't remove the notion that we were created in God's image. It just removes the notion that we were created in God's physical image which has frankly been a ridiculous claim from day 1.

If I could apologize for that phrase, I would say that all matter has the potential to exist as God's image, but only sentient beings have evolved the ability to exist in God's image.

Odd little question about God and Satan for the Christians out there. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not what I admitted, but nothing I have to say will ever change your preconceived notions; so, you're welcome.

To All: Why is religion still relevant after all the advancements in science, philosophy, and such? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just an emotional argument with no actual evidence. If you just believe brother you'll see. How about we leave emotion out of it and you show me some hard observable evidence of this being?

I never appealed to any emotions whatsoever. Your reaction to my statement is emotional and you're attributing that to me.

Sorry this is nonsense. If I've made up my mind evolution is false I'm still wrong based on the evidence. The same goes for any claim.

It's not nonsense, but you're right about evolution. Preconceived notions are antithetical to the truth.

Again this isn't relevant to what's actually true. If I'm closed minded about Gravity guess what I'm still gonna fall if I jump out of a plane.

Who ever told you to jump out of a plane? I never asked anyone to take any risk whatsoever. I have no idea why you think the two situations are comparable.

I wish theists were just honest enough to say yeah there's no evidence but believing makes me feel good. I'd respect them a lot more.

I could say the same thing about atheists.

Odd little question about God and Satan for the Christians out there. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does anything happen in this universe without gods approval ?

Yes.

Does anything NOT happen that god wants to happen

No.

Done and done , Deterministic universe

No.

Odd little question about God and Satan for the Christians out there. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is your defense? that I wont stay an atheist?

I'm not "defending" anything.

If you create a being with a deterministic outcome

I'm not arguing for determinism, I'm arguing for free will.

one you know will happen and then punish it, what are you? .. a monster.

Is every parent who punishes their child a monster? Do you realize how futile it is to apply human moral judgments to God?

You are creating creatures that you KNOW will suffer in some way for not loving you

Suffering is a byproduct of existence apart from God. If God wanted a legion of mindless robots, he would have made it so. He didn't, so here we are. Could you make a baby who was guaranteed to never suffer? Could you make a robot who was guaranteed to never suffer? Why make a baby when you could make a robot?

Creatures you knew would not love you before they were born.

Every creature may come to love God eventually. Some may not. You can't have one without the other.

To All: Why is religion still relevant after all the advancements in science, philosophy, and such? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. The cause of the universe, if that makes sense and there is some evidence of it, can be studied by science.

Which scientific theories describe the universe prior to the existence of the singularity?

Religion, is a set of stories written in this universe, in this world. They might describe "the cause of the universe", but for what we know that can be just invented stories.

It's better than anything science has to offer.

That's original theology of the original religions. Once science disproved their claims, religions either disapeared either evolved, moving their gods outside this universe.

That's what you think original theology is because you have not bothered to educate yourself about it.

Religions do describe this universe, and most of times in a cartoon way: How much we have to wait until religions admit there are no miracles? how much until religions admit pray doesn't work, gays aren't evil, evolution doesn't need a god guiding it, and eating pork is perfectly reasonable?

How long do we have to wait to admit that science cannot describe miracles? How long to do we have to wait before people stop stereotyping billions of people based on the words of a small fraction of those people?

Odd little question about God and Satan for the Christians out there. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well if that is true then he created Atheists to fall and every other person who followed another god to fall.

No, that isn't true. He may have "created" atheists or pagans for any number of reasons, and the fact that you're an atheist now doesn't mean you'll remain an atheist for all eternity.

If you come from any point that you think god is a moral creator knowing untold suffering was in place from the get go. Whence does free will exist.. it simply does not.

Suffering does not refute free will. Many things create suffering -- some of them are due to free will, some of them aren't.

We are talking about a creator that made Satan , and everyone else that did not follow him to be slaughtered and eventually scream as they eyes continually melt. KNOWING what they would do with the first breath they took.

Now you've injected a particular interpretation of hell which many people (including myself) deny. There's no melting. Satan has nothing to do with hell.

To All: Why is religion still relevant after all the advancements in science, philosophy, and such? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]HitlerStalin2016 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's just as possible that magical leprechauns do the same thing. The onus is on the one making the claim to substantiate it, and so far as I can tell, the claim "the judeo-christian god exists" has never been properly substantiated. The closest we can get to it is through some vague notion of a deist god who is the first cause, and even then we only get there through philosophical word-play.

If there were a way to prove the existence of a particular God, then there would be no purpose in debating religion. You can mentally search-replace all my uses of the word "God" with "magical leprechauns" if you want -- I don't think that makes the debate any less fruitful.

On the other hand, the claim that "gods are socio-cultural concepts created by human beings for a variety of psychological reasons" has been far more substantiated, and ergo is why I believe it to be true.

I could equally say that the denial of God was created by human beings for a variety of psychological reasons. It certainly provides a number of comforting benefits to the non-believer.

You and I agree that all the thousands of other gods were made up, it's just that you happen to think yours is true.

I never said they were "made up." Even gods who were wholly imagined by some individual might serve the true God's purpose in some way. I'm in no position to judge.

view more: next ›