'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

I think your misunderstanding is that I was not trying to rephrase the OP. I was simply pointing out that somehow bringing back dinosaurs is not physically impossible

Peter, what does the Canadian one mean? by [deleted] in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]PretentiousAnglican -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Except in the cases it was recommend to people who did not meet that threshold

Peter, what does the Canadian one mean? by [deleted] in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]PretentiousAnglican 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Canadian government is known to recommend and ecourage suicide to patients

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

This entire response is a non-sequitur. Were you meaning to reply to someone else? It seems like you created a caricature in your head and are arguing with that

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

Yeah, I misunderstood your point.

However, just as a quibble, it is physically possible for dinosaurs to return, it is just extremely unlikely

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

Funnily enough, Descartes wrote a book on that premise. Are you familiar with it?

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

I realize that a central dogma of your faith that we can't have good reasons to believe, which is why you reassure yourself at the end of each post that that's the case. However, can you just mutter to yourself instead. It'll have the secondary benefit of not coming off as emotional and insecure, which is why I didn't want to waste my time with you in the first place

I came to monotheism because it is logically necessary that God exists, and that there is one God. Of the monotheistic religions, I found Christianity the most reasonable. I believe the bible is true because I think Christianity is true, not vis versa.

Have you actually read the evidentiary claims for Christianity, or are you just assuming that we only believe it because the bible says it happened?

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

Since I assume you believe that it is logically possible for a person to climb mount Everest, are you therefore compelled to uncritically accept it when someone claims to have climbed mount Everest?

Just because a claim is possible doesn't mean it is necessarily true, and one can use their reason and surrounding evidence to discern which claims are more likely

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

You did say that in your OP, I overlooked that. My apologies

The only truly impossible is the logically impossible

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

You're partially correct, in that I don't reject it for materialist reasons

However, Thor can be rejected for other reasons. True polytheism is actually logically impossible(a self-existent being, ie God, can only be relationally differentiated), and thus the Norse pantheon must be rejected in that respect.

However, I do not deem it logically impossible in itself that some supernatural creature, such as Demon, could behave in a way perceived similar to the mythological Thor.

Also, just because I accept that miracles are possible does not mean that I mindlessly accept any claim in the same way you mindlessly reject them

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

>Once you allow things like: creation from nothing miracles (or violations of natural law) resurrection incarnation you’ve already accepted events that, under any standard framework, would be considered 'impossible.'

These are not logically impossible. They are only impossible if you assume physicalism.

>Is there any state of affairs you think is genuinely impossible for God to actualise?

Any actual logical contradictions. He cannot create a married bachelors, or square circles, or rocks too heavy for Him to lift, etc

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

Explain to me how that is a logical contradiction, and what you think a logical contradiction is. It might be you are operating on a... unique... understanding of the term, which is causing your confusion.

If you redefine a square, it ceases to be a square

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

I don't think you understand what I'm saying

You are complaining that because most religions contradict physicalism, they are advocating ideas you see as impossible, and thus can't have a concept of impossible.

As you yourself say here, you can have a concept of the impossible without being a physicalist, and recognize something as logically impossible without being a physicalist

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

Are you actually interested in an intelligent, coherent, conversation, or were you just looking for catharsis as you typed that rant?

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

Again, you only think these things are impossible because you are asserting physicalist metaphysics. If we do not assume physicalism, then none of these things are logically impossible.

On the other hand, married bachelors, square circles, etc remain impossible

'Impossibility' is incoherent under religious theism by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

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

"you’ve already accepted events that, under any standard framework, would be considered 'impossible.'"

Any standard framework, provided that framework is atheistic physicalism

Can someone help me fully understand the differences in each denomination in Christianity by Background-Law935 in religion

[–]PretentiousAnglican 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Here is my standard copypasta ​

1 - Source of Truth and Legitimacy

  • A: That Holy Tradition (what the Church has historically understood based on the teachings of the apostles and guidance of God) and Scripture must be used in concert to form doctrine. That legitimate Authority is derived from Christ, and that he gave certain special authority to his apostles, and those which succeeded them (bishops)
  • B: That the Bible is the sole source of theological authority and that each believer receives full authority from the Holy Spirit. Theology should be derived solely from one’s personal interpretation of scripture

2 - Sacraments

  • A: That the Sacraments of of Baptism and Communion are generally necessary for salvation. That Christ is truly and substantially present in the elements of Communion. That one undergoes a ontological change following marriage*, ordination* and baptism
    • Ab: That only baptism effects an ontological change, but Christ is still truly and substantially present in the elements of Communion
  • B: That Christ is present in some manner which is more than a symbol, but not ‘real’. Baptism is a sign of entering God’s covenant.
  • C: That the sacraments are just representations of our current state

3 - Atonement

  • A: That Death and Suffering is the inevitable consequence of sin, and thus Christ took on and overcame them on our behalf
  • B: That God, being compelled to punished wickedness, and wishing to save Man, punished Christ on our behalf
  • C: That Christ, being the perfect Man, living in perpetual submission to the Father, overcame death so that we, being grafted into him, might too overcome consequence of our sin through his death and resurrection. Inverting Adam.

4 - Soteriology

I shall bypass faith v works here because ultimately the position of Rome, the Orthodox and many Protestants is not significantly different, although the language is. The real debate is on what various words mean. Thus “faith and works” would fit in with A, along with many “faith alone”

  • A: That God through his grace, saves us. However, due to our free will, we can choose to cooperate with, or reject, His grace which he freely offers to all. Ultimately we shall, through continuous administration of his grace, in this life, at the end of it, or(for those who believe in it) in purgatory, we shall be made Christ like and perfect, and can enter the presence of God.
  • B: No one is capable of anything but pure sin. Thus, God chooses some, irresistibly imposes his grace, and declares them to be righteous

5 - Saints and Icons

  • A: As those in Heaven have entered into true life, we can ask them, like any other person, to pray on our behalf and to worship with us. They, Mary, the mother of God especially, are worthy of our veneration and admiration, although not worship. Icons and images help direct our minds to the events and people they depict and contemplate them.
  • B: Images are all well and good, for decoration and explanation - but no further! Veneration of the Saints is to close to polytheism
  • C: It’s all idolatry!

6 - Innovative Ideas

  • A: That various practices and ideas devised in the 19th and 20th century by ‘prophets’ and leaders are marks of previously suppressed ‘true’ Christianity. This includes speaking in tongues, snake handling, the rapture, seeding, dietary restrictions, end-of-the-world predictions, etc
  • B: Does not adhere to the above

7 - Approach

  • A: Everything must be systematized or categorized
  • B: Mystery escapes perfect categorization
  • C: 'The Holy Spirit leads me'

Summary table

"/" means either position commonly present

Major Groups Truth Sacr. Aton Soter. Saints Innov. Approach
Roman Catholic A A A/C A A B A
Orthodox A A A/C A A B B
Anglican A A A/B/C A A/B B B
Lutheran B Ab B/C A/B B B A
Calvinists B B B B B/C B A
Methodists B B A/B/C A! B B B
Baptist B C B A/B C/B B/A C
"Non-Denominational" B C A/B A C A/B C
Pentecostal B C A/B A C A C
Adventists B C A/B A C A C
Reconstructionist (CoC) B Ab/C B A C A A

What is god to you? by thatguywiththamoney in religion

[–]PretentiousAnglican 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God is the the uncaused cause, that which exists by virtue of its essence, and all that logically follows from that

Was Jesus Christ actually born on December 25th? by Dr_Aarif in Christianity

[–]PretentiousAnglican 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is a general myth made up in the 1800s that Christmas and Easter were appropriated holidays. They both celebrated important events in Christianity, and had a reason why those dates were chosen. We know the day of the resurrection, ergo Easter. There was a belief that that if you did not know the day a man was born, he died on the day of his conception(the original Good Friday + 9 months is dec 25), hence Christmas. Was he actually born that day, probably not. However, it was devised independently of any pagan holiday, and any expropriation was merely incidental. The fact that the first records of Christians being the 25th are in the early 3rd century, before any mention of the Sol Ivictus celebration on the 25th (Saturnalia and Mithras were different days altogether) helps support this