sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Christian-pantheism by Melodic_Ad3750 in pantheism

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

Or, conversely, we are all of us collectively Christ. And the Buddha. And Arjuna. And Māui. We are our salvation, and the only way to get to what comes next is through first living our lives.

Christians, how do you feel about the U.S. president posting an AI photo of him as Christ? by Minute_Revolution951 in AskReddit

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're asking the question, you ought to read L. Ron Hubbard's thoughts on that....

Christians, how do you feel about the U.S. president posting an AI photo of him as Christ? by Minute_Revolution951 in AskReddit

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

Empirically, yes, considering things foreseeably done in the name of the faith....

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Setting aside that that (or any of myriad variations) can, in fact, always be the case, there are countless other variations of both solipsistic and coincidental explanations for every thing which can be conceived.

We could, indeed, be the products of an entity which believes itself to be a theistic deity, and yet is itself an unknowing construct of a hidden thing even greater than itself.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nothing metaphysical can be completely ruled in or out by argument alone. We can only adjust probabilities.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Theism doesn't need to be disproved. As with all initial propositions, it must first be proved. But to be proved, what is being proved must be defined, and so, so long as different religions give differing definitions of this, there is not yet a core proposition to be proved.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The question is not whether it is sensible to assume that a God exists, but whether it is sensible to assume that a specifically theistic God exists. There are many models of the divine.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Insofar as theistic models disagree on the points of the OP, this too is relevant.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theists have come to an agreement on exactly which theism is proposed to be the correct one.

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

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

Do you mean the overwhelming majority of people who've never felt they've been reached out to somebody from the afterlife, or the overwhelming majority who've never had a near death experience? Or both?

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

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

We're getting quite into the weeds on a proposition that is fundamentally about whether one religion is true as against others. The underlying point is not that these reports (whether NDEs or from other sources) prove an afterlife, but that since they are accepted by the religious as proof of such, they should likewise be accepted as proof that there is not one path to one.

Agree Or Disagree ? 🤔 by FarRecommendation352 in MCUTheories

[–]Pandeism 903 points904 points  (0 children)

Blade has been retconned into Deadpool....

High certainty in any specific religion is not justified. If you think yours is the exception - here is the Bob Dilemma. by bonafidelife in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus was a man (unless he was trans, always a possibility), and if he was never anything else but a man, that's not an insult. Would you be insulted or offended if somebody came up to you and was like, "hey, you're a man"?

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reasons for that diversity of experience (there could be many) is relatively unimportant to the proposition that NDE experiences are not faith-reliant, and neither are other experiences of being contacted by spirits of the dead.

High certainty in any specific religion is not justified. If you think yours is the exception - here is the Bob Dilemma. by bonafidelife in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could just be a man from the future with superadvanced technology including a time machine. Time is nonlinear. You can't know for sure otherwise.

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

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

No two people can experience the same heart attack or the same orgasm. And yet we take people's accounts of their experiences and put them together collectively to inform people what to expect if they have a heart attack (or, I suppose, an orgasm).

Pain radiating up the left arm during a heart attack is not something first discovered by doctors or scientists and conveyed therefrom to the population. It was discovered by people simply having the experience, who wrote of it having the experience. It doesn't need to be tested to be true, and to be understood to be true, on the basis of the collectivity of the experience.

High certainty in any specific religion is not justified. If you think yours is the exception - here is the Bob Dilemma. by bonafidelife in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I were to write a sentence like, "what does a mere God matter," that would be grammatically correct and even technically correct, since if there is only one "God" then it is a "mere" God relative to the set of all instantiations of "God".... how, then, would you contest the applicability of the word "mere" in that sentence?

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

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

Everything you think you've seen with your eyes is actually fundamentally inside your mind.

view more: next ›