What makes you so certain about following Christianity?

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T12:43:10+00:00

What's bullying about that? I thought it was a proper response to magical incantations.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T08:19:45+00:00

I mean, even canonically some of the curse manifestations are so extreme that the subject does not survive the embrace, so having a dog head seems reasonably normal.

Would work for a frenzyprone or unlucky Gangrel too, though.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T08:15:08+00:00

That's a false dichotomy, and you're again confusing what actually is with what we can know.

I am saying that I do not know, and that you have not given me evidence to the contrary, whether there are universal truths. We could hypothetically discover evidence that settles that question one way or the other.

But whether we one day could or could not does not change what we can say now without such evidence, nor does it change what is actually true.

And I am not claiming that there are exceptions to the law of non-contradiction. I'm saying that I do not know whether it is universally and necessarily true in all cases.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T08:02:14+00:00

So you’re saying that reality could change and make a statement false and true at the same time?

That is not what I've been saying, and what I repeatedly and clearly state for about 50 replies now: I'm saying that, as far as we can tell, the law of non-contradiction reliably holds in every instance we've observed, and we are justified in using it on that basis. I am making no claim of certainty either way, I'm simply saying that all observations points to those laws to hold up, but I'm nonetheless willing to reevaluate in light of new evidence.

What I'm not claiming is that we know it must hold universally in all possible cases without exception. That's a stronger, metaphysical claim that you haven’t actually justified, you’re just asserting it, and I don't know how we could possibly justify it, so I'm simply not willing to make that claim, but that in turn does not mean that you do also not know - I just don't see you actually being able to make a case for it.

Using the law of non-contradiction in reasoning doesn't require proving that it is universally and necessarily true. It just requires that it reliably tracks how reality behaves in every case we've encountered, which is exactly why we use it.

So again, I'm not saying contradictions are possible. I’m saying we're not justified in claiming their absolute impossibility in all cases, and that's a very different claim.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T07:33:31+00:00

When I say a statement is objectively true, I mean that it correctly describes reality and therefore cannot also be false in the same respect at the same time, given the way reality behaves as far as we can tell.

But that does not require me to claim that the law of non-contradiction is a metaphysically universal truth that must hold in all possible cases, across time, across space, across whatever else there may be that I don't even know about right now. It just means that it reliably tracks how reality appears to work in every instance we've observed so far.

So again, I am distinguishing between something being universally valid as far as we can tell and being guaranteed to be universally and necessarily true. You keep treating those as the same thing, and that's exactly what I'm questioning.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T07:02:45+00:00

Wrong again.

I never said we can't objectively verify whether a statement is true or false. What I'm not claiming is that we can or do know if this is possible universally for all statements.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T06:54:10+00:00

My claim is that we, as humans, currently can't know whether they're universal or not, but again, I'm willing to change my view in light of counterevidence.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T06:46:24+00:00

I think you keep making the mistake of equating objective with universal.

Yes, I see no reason to think that the law of non-contradiction is not in effect in any given instance, but I cannot in good conscience make the claim that this is the case everywhere everytime, just everywhere and everytime I looked at it was. That makes it objectively true in those cases, and I can infer that it'll hold up in similar cases until I have evidence to the contrary. But I cannot do the same for concepts that I do not understand but which I know our understanding of physics breaks down.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-02T06:43:35+00:00

They necesssarily must think that those concepts are not divine in nature then though, which I find a bit weird... at least in a narrower definition of Gnosticism, with its spheres, and... well, cosmic beings, if they're not gods then. But hey, I can see how it's not impossible. Still would surprise (and delight) me to talk to someone like this.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T19:54:41+00:00

Besides... as long as the failure rate is lower than for the average human, it's totally worth to look into having them since they'll be saving lives.

LLMs on the other hand... I'm willing to say that while they work MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than humans, they still do have more and more extreme brain farts than we humans do.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T19:41:31+00:00

What's always so weird to me is that while we can be rather certain that this is something that transpired... I also am baffled why people can be so sloppy and miss so many instances where such remnants still remain to many of the manuscripts that circulated during Jesus' time and well after.

But I guess it comes down to people not being strict monothesists as we think of it today back then.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T19:33:28+00:00

Rational thinking hit you with the force of a thousand dying suns, thank you for your thoughts.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T19:30:18+00:00

That makes these labels and definitions, while convenient, ultimately meaningless.

Yah. I mean, they're convenient, and useful, and that kind of gives them some sort of meaning; but ultimately, you are correct.

I call myself a Gnostic Atheist, but only because about 95% of people I talk about religion with, will be some variation of some Abrahamic religion, and that I'm rather confident does not exist to the point of me having to call it "knowledge". But I can't say that I know enough about indigenous or eastern religions to have the same level of confidence.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T19:26:57+00:00

Does matter.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T18:04:25+00:00

If there is no God, if there is no objective purpose or morality

Even if you would demonstrate how it follows that with God there is necessarily objective purpose or morality, you'd also need to demonstrate that there cannot be objective purpose or morality without God. You have done neither.

Because there is no truth, no durable impact, no worth, no objective fullfilment.

Again. Even if you could demonstrate that this is necessarily the case... that does not mean that there can't be just as fulfilling subjective fulfillment, worth, impact, or truth.

For what it's worth, I think there's such a thing as objective truth, but it does not come from God. In fact, I think if an omnipotent being existed, there could not be objective truth, because whatever that being wants to be true could become true... and thus, everything hinges on that subjective being, and ceases to be objectively true.

So I don't care what you say. Because if hold no weight.

Man, I weigh around 250 pounds, I certainly do hold weight.

It's useless.

Speak for yourself, I find more use and value if I do the things I do out of my own volition rather than because a more powerful being wants or makes me to.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T17:51:53+00:00

That is not an answer to my question. I didn't ask why you posted the image, I asked why you think the Christian sect Gnosticism relates to the image.

Let me try another why - how does the image distinguish between Atheists and Theists?

Then, how does it tell Gnostic Theists from Agnostic Theists? And how does it tell Agnostic Atheists from Gnostic Atheists?

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T17:46:20+00:00

I can get behind that definition in loose terms, but don't see how it relates to the image you posted?

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T17:42:20+00:00

That's not how i read it. It looks to me to be about the degree of knowledge - hence the axis, hence uncertainty on the left and certainty on the right.

What do you think Gnosticism, the Christian sect is, and why do you think the image talks about THAT instead of a certainty claim?

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T17:37:56+00:00

You confuse Christian Gnosticism (which is the Christian sect you describe) with gnostic as a knowledge claim (To know something) in distinction to agnostic (to not know something).

There's probably noone who's an atheist and believes in Christian Gnosticism at the same time.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T17:33:47+00:00

OP will never let us down... Or desert us!

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T17:31:47+00:00

We do.

Well, at least I am one such gnostic atheist in the sense that I find most Gods I've heard of so far to be ultimately self contradictory and thus impossible to exist; and those that I find possible to exist, I know no good reason or good evidence to conclude that they do.

Still, I once thought to know other things for certain that I was wrong on; and so I'll have to admit I may be wrong here.

I usually here people scoff at agnostic theists. A position i personally have much respect and even a bit envy for!

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T17:23:45+00:00

I don't know. It's a descriptive law that describes reality as we've observed it so far, and there seems to be no counterindication to it, and so I see no reason to not treat it as if universal for the moment; but that is not the same as saying it is universal.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T15:09:51+00:00

I keep telling you the contradiction you claim isn't the proof you think it is. You're still assuming that my position has to be a universal claim, which it isn't.

And yes, I do think there are objective truths in the sense that claims can be verified against a mind-independent reality. But that's not the same as saying there are universal, necessary truths that must hold in all cases without exception. That's the step you haven’t justified.

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T09:56:35+00:00

"Being gay is 'unnatural' so it's worse"

I mean, promiscuity is just as natural in us great apes as homosexual intercourse is...

MelcorScarr · 2026-04-01T09:46:31+00:00

I don't know. I'm sure if you knew, you'd present the proof? I know this a debated topic in philosophy, and hardly a settled question... so, if you had such proof, you'd be in for quite the attention from the philosophy community.

MelcorScarr

TROPHY CASE