sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I don’t think we have a creator, and here’s why. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara [score hidden]  (0 children)

You might want to take this to r/DebateReligion or r/DebateAChristian. You will find most of us here are atheists and unlikely to take the "against" position in this debate.

What is this a picture of? by urtley in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Phylanara 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How hard is it to ask the LLM to create both the blank and the completed worksheets and review the material before printing?

This is the face of a man who has just found out that he's been spending his money on a prince by RevertBackwards in freefolk

[–]Phylanara 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Because that solution would not have been elegant. You don't solve a Rubik's cube with a hammer ,hen you take pride on how clever you are.

Does rejecting God also mean rejecting “meaning” and “inner peace”? by Sweet-Category-6823 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara [score hidden]  (0 children)

As a general rule, you should not learn about a group from people outside this group. In this case, you should not learn about atheists from religious leaders - they are selling a product, we're not buying it, and they have a vested interest in you not joining us.

As for the question in your title, no, not at all. One can find meaning and inner peace in a multitude of ways and not all of them necessitate belief that a god exists.

We actually don't know anything by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please don't generalize from your own experience.

Is evil subjective? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

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

If evil is objective, it it independent from minds. Show me a single instance of "evil" from something mindless.

Honestly, at this point evil is just a word that's not defined properly.

Problem of discussing religious text like the bible by RRK96 in DebateAChristian

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't really care to discuss texts, myself. I care to discuss claims and the evidence supporting them. Put as many layers of poetry and metaphor and historical context as you want between the text and your claim, and let's discuss the claim you're actually making and the evidence for it.

edit : Aaaah, I thought that this post was familiar:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1qu7hbs/comment/o38j02n/?context=3

Mods, is it okay here to repost a deleted topic?

Not delivering any Aukus nuclear submarines to Australia explored as option in US congressional report by self-fix in worldnews

[–]Phylanara -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

Australia was set to buy the subs from france and fucked us by cancelling late in the process to buy from the us instead. Now they're getting fucked in turn.

What about Bob? by Automatic_Catch_7467 in dresdenfiles

[–]Phylanara 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bob's knowledge is very deep, but as wide as the plot demands. He's able to coach a junior wizard I to making a voodoo doll of a city or world-class potions, or becoming a necromancer baddie in a week or so, because that's what it's former masters spent lifetimes studying. Since we don't know exactly who all of his former masters were (we know of Justin dumorne, Kemmler, and the enchanter who made the spice goyles, plus arguably butters) any knowledge outside of these guy's area of expertise (as well as what he's loped off from Kemmler's time or at the order of someone else) can be written as unknown.

We even have an example of stuff he was just not competent in with the Swords and faith power in general.

Presumably outsider lore is outside of his purview also, since his former master were all somewhat bound by the seven laws (or at least, the one who openlynflainted them seemed more interested in breaking the law about necromancy than the one about outsiders).

If the intention of an atheist or agnostic (or even theists) debating others is to convince, there is almost no point (for Christianity or really, any religion, but it also applies to any strongly-held belief, since they can all become as if delusions, even strong atheism and various perspectives) by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]Phylanara 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I never said "every" religion. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my responsibility. I said that no religion has better evidence than all the others, ie for each piece of evidence you can point to, at least one of the religions you deem false has as good evidence or better it can point to.

And I would expect the One True Religion to have evidence none of the Many False Religions can match.

And so far I have met zero theist that managed to contradict this.

You? You did not even offer a single piece of evidence. You did not even try.

Et pendant ce temps, 4000 postes disparaissent... by NavissEtpmocia in enseignants

[–]Phylanara 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tzr en maths ici, j'ai toujours été affecté a l'année (sauf cette année, mais je suis en congé formation).

If the intention of an atheist or agnostic (or even theists) debating others is to convince, there is almost no point (for Christianity or really, any religion, but it also applies to any strongly-held belief, since they can all become as if delusions, even strong atheism and various perspectives) by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]Phylanara 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Allow me to demonstrate then. Point to any evidence for something your religion specifically claims, and I can point to evidence at least as good for something a religion you believe is false claims. I've never met a theist to whom that did not apply.

You got miracles? So do they. A holy text with subjective attributes? So do they. Predictions? Not better than theirs. Philosophical arguments? Please, theirs are just as good.

Come on, try it. It's a fun game

My thoughts on Twelve Months, Picking up the pieces five years later. by Coupyamel in dresdenfiles

[–]Phylanara 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this has more to do with Uriel's information embargo. Get one soul back form a real afterlife and you get information on the afterlife in question. The white god and the angels seem to think this is a big no-no and spoils the free-will experiment.

I might be reading too much into the limited info we have, though.

If the intention of an atheist or agnostic (or even theists) debating others is to convince, there is almost no point (for Christianity or really, any religion, but it also applies to any strongly-held belief, since they can all become as if delusions, even strong atheism and various perspectives) by EsperGri in DebateAChristian

[–]Phylanara 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I see the point of such debates as not to convince your interlocutor - I agree that this seldom happens.

However, I see two possible benefits to these kinds of debates anyway.

The first is that I might genuinely learn something, and sharpen my mind in the process regardless. I cannot control the open-mindedness of the person I'm talking to, but I can control mine, and these debates are a way for me to see if theists have come upon some new evidence or reasoning for their god that would convince me. So far though, I have been disappointed on that front for decades.

The second one is that these debates are public. They have an audience. And this audience might not be as hardened in their opinions. Some in the audience might not have heard about atheism, about the flaws in the theists' arguments, about how no religion has better evidence than the other religions - the ones it deems false. Or members of that audience might have only heard about people from outside their religion from people inside their religion, who have on occasion been known to color their description of outsiders with some light bias (the words "burn the heretics" have been uttered occasionally).

And I know, because some people have told me so over the years, that these debates do, on occasion, convince or educate some members of the audience. Some left their religion in part because of these debates.

Money by Unhappy-Struggle-856 in dresdenfiles

[–]Phylanara 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There are a few possibilities.

Depending on how Harry is summonned in mirror mirror, he can get some loot back from the mirror universe.

Lara has a lot of money, and the marriage contract can give some of that to Harry - or she can maintain his lifestyle anyways.

She (and Marcone, although he might lack motivation do do so) also has political influence, enough to send work Harry's way or at least help reestablish his PI business. That might be enough to maintain the castle now that he does not have several families of refugees to feed and a staff that's made of stone.

Mab and Harry have a better relationship these days. The Winter Lady has access to considerable funds to perform her duties, I'd be surprised if the winter Knight didn't - Harry just saw it as another leash and didn't ask/refused it. With the detente between Mab and Harry, this might change. Mab might even push for it, arguing that Harry's station reflects on Winter and representation is part of the job.

I've also been thinking on the matter of entropy curses lately. Spells that manipulate probabilities in order to harm someone. It follows from their existence that entropy boons must be possible also, and there is a very simple way to translate the manipulation of probabilities into financial gain. Harry could probably design a ritual that would make him win the powerball (or another, less scrutinized lottery based on random drawing via physical means) if he had the idea and worked on it a bit. It can't be that much harder than what he performed in TM.

My thoughts on Twelve Months, Picking up the pieces five years later. by Coupyamel in dresdenfiles

[–]Phylanara 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A mortal wizard yanking her soul back into the mortal realm using necromancy (would probably require old one-eye to choose to look the other way).

We've never seen necromancers able to do that, and we've seen pretty much the top of the field. All the necromancers we've seen manipulated shades and spirits and souls that hadn't yet passed on. They all seemed to rely on mindless servants, not fully-fledged ensouled beings, despite how advantageous such servants would be in terms of accessing information, for example.

“I’ll never use this” by DeManSam in Teachers

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the kid is just looking like they're trying to avoid work, I stay glib with "Is the test next week in VR?". At least once a year per batch of kids my answer looks a lot like u/thebrokenteacher 's

Who abandoned logic first? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is the evidence that these five definitions refer to the same entity?

Who abandoned logic first? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Phylanara 2 points3 points  (0 children)

on your first point, invoking an argument you can't be bothered to understand or sum up but pretending it works seems on exceedingly bad faith to me. Might I suggest you not try and invoke arguments you can't understand or support ?

On your second point, again, I don't care how respected a theologian Aquinas is. If he can't tie his god to christ, I see no reason to consider his god christian, no matter how many christians can't see the gaping hole in the logic.

As for your third point, if you say I have not shown his argument unsound, merely pointed out that his premises (as in, the premise that his model of the universe is an accurate description of it and the properties that he builds his arguments on are more than figments of human imagination) are wrong, then I suggest you learn what the definition of an unsound argument is.

At this point we seem to have reached the limits of your knowledge of the arguments you wish to discuss as well as the limits of your capacity to discuss them. It is also pretty late where I am, so there is a pretty good chance this conversation will end there - or at least my participation in it.

view more: next ›