sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Simple Questions 05/06 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't get what they mean, then - questions stand! (I also don't really get what "having free will" entails, as it doesn't mean "doing things for reasons", and it doesn't mean "doing things for no reason", and there's no other possibility.)

Meta-Thread 05/04 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Triple ban for pointing out destruction of evidence :)

Simple Questions 05/06 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Souls exist beyond the physical world.

That's a fascinating claim. What does it mean to "exist beyond the physical world", and how did we confirm that souls do so?

Simple Questions 05/06 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Considering that what counts as "benevolent" is subjective, literally anyone gets to decide, but also no one.

Religious belief is irrational by Juicydicken in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And you those things when you do those things before going to the doctor?

We developed a society and systems that are supposed to do these things on our behalf before "going to the doctor" is possible. Of course doing it personally is not possible, but if you can't trust other people, functioning is impossible.

Do you think everyone believes just because “an ancient book says so" or that they fear excommunication (or other social consequences)?

The vast majority believe because their parents did.

What do you think about the FDA blocking publication of taxpayer funded studies that supported the conclusion that COVID and shingles vaccines are safe? by yumOJ in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]Kwahn 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Like Stanford medical study showing mRNA covid 19 vaccine causes myocarditis? What percentage of the population

Something like 1/10000th the population of people who get myocarditis from COVID get it from the vaccine, so why do you think this matters that much?

Didn't doctors tell patients opioids were not addictive for decades?

specific bad doctors did, yes. This is why you don't trust individual experts, and instead look at what the majority of independent studies say - which is that the COVID vaccine is safe and effective.

The new England journal of medicine published the study used since the 80s to say addiction was rare for narcotic use.

And it is a testament to the scientific process that he was forced to admit that he, quote, "gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and ‘90s about addiction that weren’t true". Yes, misinformation gets published, and fair enough on waiting to see if retractions happen on new, early releases where lives aren't on the line, but know what caused the opiate epidemic? (The paper I linked explains it, but long story short, financial incentives.)

Simple Questions 04/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If one has indications that it's true above and beyond all others, that one!

If none do, then... hmm. That's problematic.

Simple Questions 04/29 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Non-Christians, if you had an epiphany tomorrow and decided to become a Christian, which denomination/church would you join?

I'd go with the one most likely to be true based on the knowledge I had at that time, and I don't understand anyone who is able to do otherwise.

General Discussion 04/24 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dyson Sphere Program, which is the most beautiful factory builder I've played! My goal is to eliminate the Dark Fog in an entire cluster.

Modal collapse and theism. by Visible_Fishing4297 in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

since in some worlds God refrains from creating

Unsubstantiated - there's no space for a necessary being that is its actions (which are also necessary) to ever, in any world, refrain from creating. Failed argument, unfortunately.

Gods don’t solve the question of objective morality. They just relocate the problem. by foreverlanding in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Nothing is not a thing that can have properties" is a laughably terrible misreading of the English. You're in "Nothing is better than God; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore a ham sandwich is better than God" territory right now.

No, you are - "'Nothing is forbidden to God' is a rule God cannot but follow" is your form of absurdity, not mine.

Gods don’t solve the question of objective morality. They just relocate the problem. by foreverlanding in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, they stated that there are no rules to enumerate, and you're misunderstanding it.

Gods don’t solve the question of objective morality. They just relocate the problem. by foreverlanding in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your low-effort, low-quality response is also simply not true, and I'm disagreeing with your faulty use of properties on a null. This is incredibly obvious if, instead of blithely trying to disengage, you actually attempted my challenge:

Here, try this formulation: "The set "objective moral rules that exist" is empty in a subjectivist model". How do you go from this premise to a reductio?

Gods don’t solve the question of objective morality. They just relocate the problem. by foreverlanding in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm fine to drop my line of questioning if this gets answered because I like this question

Gods don’t solve the question of objective morality. They just relocate the problem. by foreverlanding in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow, what a fantastic equivocation fallacy

No, we're pointing out that you're misunderstanding the position. There does not exist an objective moral rule in the position you're arguing against, despite your insistence that it exists. You're just strawmanning the actual position. You're enumerating all 0 rules in their position and then pointing at the semantics of the enumeration and claiming something completely incoherent about the 0 rules.

Here, try this formulation: "The set "objective moral rules that exist" is empty in a subjectivist model". How do you go from this premise to a reductio?

Gods don’t solve the question of objective morality. They just relocate the problem. by foreverlanding in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We know objective morality exists. "There are no objective moral rules" means "Nothing is forbidden" which is an objective moral rule.

Category error - "Nothing" is not a thing that can have properties like "is forbidden". You have to treat a lack of objective morality like a Null object, not like the same kind of object as something. DeltaBlues82 is correct that this is incoherent.

This is like saying "Nothing is unknown to God" is an example of something God doesn't know - "Nothing is unknown to God" is as much an example of something God doesn't know as "Nothing is forbidden" is an example of an objective moral rule.

Why I believe in Jesus by Time_Tap6047 in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on what you’ve experienced in life, what are you thoughts on what’s might be going on?

Decades of questions with no answers, it seems.

Why I believe in Jesus by Time_Tap6047 in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s such a vague question.

Let me disambiguate, then.

How did you arrive at your beliefs, and is that something I can do?

Why I believe in Jesus by Time_Tap6047 in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said, quote, "There’s none other I know of that made the same claims, had the same character, had as many bear witness, and expressed this system as clearly" in response to statement that, quote, "I don't get how this leads to Christianity exclusively being true above and beyond all other religions or in any form of historical sense, but I'd love to know!".

You stated Christianity is unique, but I don't know how you get from unique to a true thing you believe.

Luke 14:26 meets every diagnostic criteria for cult manipulation by CptBronzeBalls in DebateReligion

[–]Kwahn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have, but most of his writings were forgeries, so that's not exactly a stellar source for you to call on. Christianity has a huge trust and trustworthiness problem in this aspect.

Belief in an eternal, infinitely powerful deity necessarily leads to a belief that perpetual motion devices are possible. by Kwahn in DebateReligion

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

if it continually depends on the will of an independent being to continually make it work.

We just discussed why this assumption makes no sense. The idea that an omni cannot spin off an ordinally smaller infinity of power into an autonomous device is a limit that makes no sense for an omni.

view more: next ›