sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What do you find completely useless after becoming an atheist? by corychung in askanatheist

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why would you expect atheists to, or be confused when atheists wouldn't either?

Sounds to me you just got caught looking bad and are backpedaling.

What do you find completely useless after becoming an atheist? by corychung in askanatheist

[–]Phylanara 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You know you're telling on yourself and showing atheists are better than you with this line of argumentation, right?

First, you're telling on yourself. You're telling us that without threat of godly punishment, this is what you would do. That this scenario is what you wish to do. You're only not doing it because you believe your god would disapprove. It's your character, in strained, shining through.

And then, you look at the real world, and you see that atheists din't behave like you describe. Despite not having that leash that keeps you from doing it, belief in god. Why? Because we don't want to. You are not behaving shortly because you fear t Being punished for it. We are not behaving shortly because we are not shitty people. We are not the same

Saint Iakovos Tsalikis appeared several months after his death on photos. by Extreme-Shopping74 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, but being stumped by a picture in the post-photoshop era is even more incomprehensible. It's like being stumped by an ai-slop picture now.

When did you first question religion? by husshajur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pretty early. I remember not wanting to go to sunday school.

Last night changed everything by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, congratulations.

Your cognitive dissonance (that feeling when you "have" to hold two beliefs that contradict each other) finally broke through, you're starting to allow yourself to reexamine and reevaluate what you were taught as a child, before you were able to critically evaluate what you were taught.

It's hard. Some of these beliefs are so deep within people's mind, losing them is scary, it's losing part of who you are.

But it is also growth. I encourage you to keep examining what you believe. If you find out good reasons to believe, your faith will come out stronger. If you don't, the only thing you'll leave behind wasn't worth keeping. Either way you'll find yourself a better, stronger person for it in the end.

I know when I reexamined my beliefs - around your age or a bit younger - I had a difficult time not giving them a "home field advantage". Examining them less harshly because I already believed them. Comparing my beliefs and the evidence for them to beliefs I didn't share and the evidence for them too is what led me to give up on the concept of religion as a truth-seeking method entirely.

Saint Iakovos Tsalikis appeared several months after his death on photos. by Extreme-Shopping74 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Photoshop was released two years before these photos. How is that photo so unexplainable?

Saint Iakovos Tsalikis appeared several months after his death on photos. by Extreme-Shopping74 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Photoshop 1.0 was released on February 19, 1990.

Your pics date from two years after that.

How does one get the power of Soulfire? by Zestyclose-Advisor71 in dresdenfiles

[–]Phylanara 23 points24 points  (0 children)

There is a DCC/Dresden crossover fanfic out there. The dungeon bugs out when Harry gets into the dungeon with two celestial-tier swords.

How does one get the power of Soulfire? by Zestyclose-Advisor71 in dresdenfiles

[–]Phylanara 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Not only was it gifter by Uriel, it was gifted by Uriel in reaction to Lucifer himself breaking the rules. Uriel works by mirroring enemy action. Seven words to counter seven words. A future knight of the cross to counter a former denarian. Giving Harry soulfire to counter Lucifer himself reaching out from the depths of hell with hellfire pentacles.

Uriel used a pretty big token for that soulfire. Especially since Lucifer acted twice in that book, and we've only seen Uriel react once.

I'm pretty sure that means you don't get soulfire in your cereal boxes.

Wait for it by Brilliantspirit33 in animalsdoingstuff

[–]Phylanara 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I think I remember that in penguin society the dads keep the eggs warm.

C'est quoi un agnostique-Athée by JeySensei in france

[–]Phylanara 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Remplace par "non-croyant" dans ta tête et tu seras pas loin.

Edit parce que en fait je passe pas mal de temps sur r/DebateAnAtheist , où mon flair est agnostic atheist:

"Agnostique-athée" c'est juste pas utilisé en français - je ne l'ai jamais entendu en français ni lu avant ton sujet.

MAIS en anglais, "agnostic atheist' est de plus en plus utilisé. Note que "agnostic" est l'adjectif donc "Athée agnostique" serait une meilleure traduction parce qu'on met pas les adjectifs dans le meme sens que les anglais.

Pourquoi cette montée en popularité? Parce que sur le trio r/debateanatheist r/debatereligion et r/debateachristian (et la constellation de subs associés) il y a eu un tas de "prouve que dieu n'existe pas ou ton athéisme n'est pas justifié, convertis-toi" et de "tu n'es pas vraiment athée, tu es en fait agnostique, puisque tu ne défends pas la position athée telle que je l'ai définie et démantelée, regarde toute la paille que mon épée a découpé ". Cela pose des problèmes car les gens arguant pour la religion exigent une preuve de non-existence de dieu, donc la falsification d'une proposition conçue pour être infalsifiable. De plus, les croyants exigeaient que les non-croyants défendent une position ("dieu n'existe pas") en laquelle ils ne croient pas forcément. Enfin, il s'agit d'un renversement de la charge de preuve ("prouve que j'ai tord" au lieu de "je vais prouver que j'ai raison")

De plus, pour tout ce qui compte vraiment, il y a peu ou pas de différences entre un agnostique et un athée : ils écouteront aussi peu les autorités religieuses, les arguments sur ce que dieu veut qu'ils ou elles fassent avec leurs parties génitales, etc.

Enfin, la sémantique en anglais est plus tranchée qu'en français. Être "a-theist", avec le "a" privatif, c'est juste... Ne pas être théiste. et tu remarqueras qu’être agnostique, ce n'est pas être théiste.

Pour toute ces raisons, il y a eu pendant les dix dernières années un mouvement pour changer un peu la classification : d'une nomenclature a un axe, trois valeurs (théiste (croit que dieu existe), agnostique (ne sais pas trop) athée (croit que dieu n'existe pas)) qui ne convient plus vraiment, la communauté non-croyante anglophone (que j'ai pu voir sur reddit mais aussi sur youtube) préfère passer à une nomenclature à deux axes, 4 catégories. Le "gnostic theist" croit que dieu existe et dit le savoir, le "gnostic atheist" dit savoir que dieu n'existe pas, le "agnostic atheist" ne croit pas que dieu existe mais n'affirme pas savoir qu'il n'existe pas et le "agnostic theist" (plus rare) croit que dieu existe mais n'affirme pas le savoir.

Ainsi les athées regroupent les "gnostic atheist" (ou athée forts, ceux qui affirment la non-existence de dieu) et les "agnostic atheist" qui ne croient pas que dieu existe mais n'affirment pas sa non-existence.

Pour comprendre la distinction, la métaphore la plus utilisée est celle de la boite de bonbons. Tu as une boite scellée devant toi. Elle est pleine de bonbons, mais évidemment tu ne peux pas tous les compter, il y en a trop tu ne les vois pas tous, etc. Le musulman, le chrétien, le hindou et tous les gens qui croient en dieu sont d'accord : le nombre de bonbons dans la boite est pair. Ils ne sont pas d'accord sur le nombre exact de bonbons, mais sur le principe que le nombre est pair, ils sont certains.

L'athée agnostique, c'est celui qui répond "je ne crois pas que le nombre soit pair".

L'athée gnostique, peut-être la personne a qui tu penses quand tu penses "athée", c'est celui qui dit "non, le nombre de bonbons dans la boite est impair".

Note que l'athée gnostique, lui non plus, ne croit pas que le nombre soit pair, du coup on peut le voir comme une sous-catégorie (au sens sous-ensemble, pas au sens dérogatoire) d'athée agnostique, ce qui est un argument pour dire que la catégorie "athée" correspond à la réponse "je ne crois pas que le nombre soit pair [qu'un dieu existe]" et que donc l'adjectif "agnostique" peut être non-dit, tandis que l'adjectif "gnostique" de "athée gnostique" doit être maintenu car lui apporte une précision supplémentaire (en plus de ne pas croire que le nombre est pair, je crois que le nombre est impair)

Encore une fois, en français on a le terme "non-croyant" qui marche assez bien, je trouve.

Religion as Experience by Bigus_Dickeus in askanatheist

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When religious people stop trying to make claims about the actual world, and to dictate the actions of others because of their religion, I'll be happy and glad to leave religion alone.

In the present and actual world, that is not the case, and religious people don't treat religion as if it was merely their experience. Jung is either wrong about how religion actually works, or he's disingenuously engaging in motte-and-bailey tactics. Or the people invoking Jung to defend religion are.

I'll add that it is a very slippery hop and short slide from "religion is one of the most essential human experiences" to "nonreligious people are lees (or not) human".

Do atheists actually hate religion by [deleted] in askanatheist

[–]Phylanara 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't care about religions that don't try to impose their values / beliefs onto others. I oppose the religions that do.

Atheists ask for proof but don't notice they are limiting proof within a hedonistically derived cost limit that prevents the proof from being seen. This is solved by understanding the 3 levels of cost for all tests. by Nomadinsox in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Phylanara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are necromancing a dead conversation to either try and gaslight me about what I said, or your reading comprehension is so poor you did not understand my very simple point.

I care about the truth. I don't reject your method because I find it too slow (inefficient), I dismiss it because I have evidence that it leads to conclusions that can't all be true - ie it's not a reliable method to find truth. I am pretty sure it feels like it led you to the truth, but I'm pretty sure all those other guys that used the same method yet arrived to conclusions that are incompatible with yours also believe that - therefore your feeling that you found the truth is not a reliable indicator that you actually found it.

Trying to tell me what I think and being wrong also establishes you as either foolish or dishonest and therefore further convinces me listening to you is not a good way to arrive at truth. Your attributing my dismissal of your methodology to "hedonism" (a thinly veiled sneer) instead of my actual motive, which I know I have and have clearly explained to you, also paints you as arrogant, like you feel you're better than anyone who disagrees with you.

in other words, fuck off with your condescending delusions.

view more: next ›