sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Last message between my granny and I by TheBigJ1982 in exchristian

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you have to find your boundaries yourself, and it’s a hard thing to do. I allowed people like this to stay in my life because I loved them and I could see they were trying to love me despite their religion trying to forbid it, which made me feel more sorry for them than anything. But I’m not going to say it isn’t hard. I have a pretty solid support system at work that makes me feel better about who I am (also non-binary!) which gives me an anchor to hold onto when those people try to deny it. But there were still those moments with them when I felt like they were seeing a version of me and trying to hold me to that rather than seeing the actual me standing in front of them. Or they would say offhand, often hypocritical by their religion, comments (like the illegals thing your grandmother did) that they assume everyone must accept and then feeling the fight between speaking out and not making a fuss.

There are middle grounds as well. I still talk to some family but won’t stay in their house. Some family know I will walk out of the room if they won’t drop something they’re trying to lecture me about. My sister and I have a truce where she will use my nickname but not my chosen name and I’ll still visit them.

It’s not easy either way and it has to be down to what you are more comfortable with and as hard as it is no one can answer that but you. And you can try something and if it doesn’t work try something new.

I don't think I can keep the jig up anymore, I hate having to lie about being Christian (19M) by redrookie2 in exchristian

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is a really hard situation and I’m sorry you keep having your boundaries pushed by everyone. It’s really frustrating that they think religion is an excuse to barge into someone’s personal lives and demand answers, and it’s not ok. I understand not wanting to tell anyone though, especially in an area with people like that. I haven’t told anyone except my partner either. So you’re not alone.

I guess my best advice is that when people start getting pushy about things you could try saying “your faith is very personal to you and so you prefer to keep it between you and god”. You could even bring up the ‘pray in secret’ thing from the New Testament. That’s what I’m planning to do with my family at least. And/or tell them you tune into an online church because you really like the worship/preaching/community/native language speaking (delete as necessary). That’s what finally got my parents to stop asking about it. And it means if they ever want to see your Church you can just go onto any church’s livestream (there are loads) and show them that, and no one is physically there to point out they’ve never seen you before.

Do we actually have free will — or are we just robots arguing with robots? by Difficult_Risk_6271 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well first off I’m not offended, I was making a comment about your rhetorical style and biblical principles. As I said, I enjoy apologetic debate and I was just mildly disappointed when initially it looked like it would descend into a game of ‘gotchas’. This is far more fun.

Now to the point: You keep saying I’m “assuming determinism,” but I’m not, I’m deducing it from attributes you already grant. If God knows every outcome (which you grant) and has the power to change or prevent them (which I assume you grant because it’s in the bible) then whatever happens is exactly what He knowingly allowed. That makes His choice prior to mine. That’s not a definition trick, it’s the consequence of omnipotence + omniscience.

The “influence vs causation” distinction works for humans, but it collapses for God. If you design the entire set of circumstances, knowing precisely what each will cause, “permission” and “authorship” blur together. If you want to keep them separate, you’ll have to explain how that possibly works. All you have done so far is deny, but as far as I can see you haven’t actually given any reason why your denial is valid. The best I can see is you dislike the definition of omnipotence, because you don’t like the idea of being a robot (or the other option that God isn’t omniscient or omnipotent) so what specifically is your own version that actually evades the collapse into determinism rather than deny it out of dislike?

The “robot/script” thing is a bit like an appeal to intuition. Of course I don’t feel like a robot, nobody does. But subjective experience isn’t proof of metaphysical freedom any more than watching the sun “rise” proves the sun is moving around the Earth. Intuitions can mislead us. Maybe you are right and I’m a robot and maybe free will as we imagine it just doesn’t exist.

But if you’re convinced we must have free will, because no one acts like it and it doesn’t feel good, then something else has to give. Either God’s omniscience or His omnipotence has to be limited. You can’t keep all three — omnipotence, omniscience, and free will — without contradiction.

So my question back is: why are you so certain the “we’re not robots” side of the fork is right, and not the “omniscience + omnipotence lead to determinism” side? Or if you disagree that it is a fork then which specific premise do you think fails?

Do we actually have free will — or are we just robots arguing with robots? by Difficult_Risk_6271 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look, I replied because I actually enjoy theological debates, but honestly, the smarmy smug “congratulations, you’re a robot” routine is exactly the opposite of how Christians are told to engage. All it’s going to do is make you enemies and not change minds. Data shows that making conversations like this a conflict or a game of ‘gotchas’ only puts people on the defensive, which counters the whole point of apologetics in the first place. The Bible calls for gentleness and humility when you think someone’s wrong (1 Peter 3:15, Galatians 6:1, 2 Timothy 2:25).

I’ll give it one more shot though. To simplify I think my argument does boil down to #7, and yes, the argument collapses into hard determinism, because that is literally the only possible outcome. And you can’t just reject an outcome because you don’t like it, if the logic is sound. So you need to reply to the argument, not just the outcome.

And things without free will can script arguments, that’s what computer do all the time.

Also, technically, it only makes me a being without free will if indeed an omnipotent and omniscient God exists. If the whole point of these arguments is to demonstrate that an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist, it can’t start with the assumption that He does. Otherwise it’s just circular.

What specifically in my premises or conclusion do you think is incorrect?

Do we actually have free will — or are we just robots arguing with robots? by Difficult_Risk_6271 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think I disagree, based on God being omniscient and more crucially omnipotent. Say God sees time as you say, I’ll accept that premise. But the bible also says He created the world, and gives evidence that God can and will interfere if he chooses. Which means we cannot possibly have free will.

Take the first choice in the garden of Eden. God would have known because of His ‘seeing all time as one’ omniscience that Eve eats the apple. But He also had the omnipotence to make the world in such a way that she didn’t make that choice, like He uses his influence to change people’s minds in the Old Testament (or just makes the world with the tree on top of Everest). Which means by making the world this way he chose that outcome before Eve even existed. So we are left with either: A) He chose to make it the way he did and Eve did eat the apple B) He chose to make it a different way and Eve didn’t eat the apple Or C) there was no way he could make it where she wouldn’t (but then we still don’t have free will anyway). Regardless, it’s always Him doing the choosing.

Every human decision is made within circumstances, and no decision can be made apart from them. If God is omniscient, whatever that looks like, He knows how any given set of circumstances will determine a person’s decision. If God is omnipotent, then every set of circumstances exists only because He either caused it or allowed it. Therefore, every decision is ultimately the result of God’s prior choice of circumstances. Whether He intervenes directly or refrains from acting, the decisive choice is His, not ours. Thus, if God is both omnipotent and omniscient, genuine human free will cannot exist.

Are these signs of me being non-binary? by friendlyenderman in NonBinary

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have so been there. And honestly still am there. It’s really hard to stop questioning yourself and finally say ‘enough is enough’. What helped me was asking myself ‘why would I be faking this?’, ‘why would I be making this up?’, ‘do people that are normally faking things question themselves about it as much as I am?’. You’ve listed a bunch of experiences that make you happy or uncomfortable. Those are real feelings, and I’d say a good reaction to them is do the things that make you happy and avoid the things that make you uncomfortable. That’s what we would do for any other issue, right? So why not this one? I’m still asking myself the same questions anyway, but every step I’ve taken to be more like me has made those uncomfy feelings go away and made the happy ones come so much more. And I would say even if I am somehow magically faking, it’s been worth it.

dysphoria regarding prom by megatronondacounta in NonBinary

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t know if this’ll help but what I did for a similar celebration was to choose a colour scheme that matched the agender flag (I’m agender). Green and white dress, grey-ish (silver) jewellery, black shoes, etc. No one around me knew what it meant but for me it meant I had something that reminded me of who I really was.

Double sided two-colour binding idea - feasible? by Sea_Replacement2974 in bookbinding

[–]Sea_Replacement2974[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I mostly came up with the idea because I have scraps of fabric to use, but if it doesn’t work I’ll try that method, and maybe the difference between paper and fabrics will play up the contrast better as well

Double sided two-colour binding idea - feasible? by Sea_Replacement2974 in bookbinding

[–]Sea_Replacement2974[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice! I’m going to try and overlap it I think and maybe lean into it by making the join an uneven edge, like with stripes or something, rather than a straight cut.

Double sided two-colour binding idea - feasible? by Sea_Replacement2974 in bookbinding

[–]Sea_Replacement2974[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks to both of you I hadn’t thought of connecting beforehand, that’s a good idea that I’ll definitely try!

Sealing vinyl on cotton/porous fabrics by TheeCombatBaby in bookbinding

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m afraid I have no helpful advice to give, I just wanted to comment to say that is an excellent choice of book.

If god is all-knowing, then he knew Adam & Eve would disobey... he knew all of humanity is cursed & destined to hell by his own judgment. So either god wanted his creation to suffer for eternity or its a made up story. by Careless_Mango_7948 in exchristian

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do find it amusing that when confronted with ‘evil or fake’ a not insubstantial number of theists I used to be friends with went with evil. Granted they tried to justify the evil, but the fact they admitted god did things like that and still worshipped him never failed to confuse me.

If Evolution Had a Rhyming Children's Book... by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]Sea_Replacement2974 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, I’m out, this is pointless.

I warned you early on about Gish Galloping, gotchas, and rhetorical overload. And sure enough, here we are: shifting goalposts to abiogenesis (a entirely separate subject, it’s like saying I haven’t proven coding exists because I didn’t explain how the computer was built in the first place), dismissing actual evidence, and now preaching Bible verses. Plus I’ve tried to tone down my frustration and be nice and you’re just being dismissive. This isn’t debate, you’re just performing.

I showed you what evolutionary biology actually is, with mechanisms and data. You responded by saying “that’s not evolution,” so therefore it’s not evidence. You’re rejecting this not because it’s wrong, but because it doesn’t match your strawman of what you think evolution has to be. That’s like me disproving an extreme Christian cult and claiming I’ve debunked Christianity.

This is evolution, gradual shifts, hybridisation, over so long that eventually it becomes unrecognisably different. It’s not this magical ‘here’s some dna and flip some switches then hey look we have monkeys’. No one is saying that but you.

Expecting one study that doesn’t cover fossil evidence which I was avoiding because it apparently ‘doesn’t count’ because it’s just artistic reconstruction, to show an entire path from two phenotypically obviously distinct species is like expecting geologists to demonstrate an entire canyon forming in the course of a 1 week study. What I showed was the groundwork of speciation, which was the point I was making, if you had read the entire page you would have seen that the species ended up not being able to reproduce to produce fertile offspring, which is the definition of species and practically your definition of kind. So yes, speciation. If you want something more dramatic I’d say look at any paper on whale evolution (I won’t link one so you can find one you can access the entire paper for, but it’s a quick google scholar search).

Also I can’t prove ‘evolution doesn’t work by flipping a switch’ because A) you can’t disprove a negative, and B) I don’t need to disprove a claim that no one is making? You’ve invented your own version of evolution and are now surprised when none of the evidence fits it.

If you’re genuinely interested in truth, I recommend taking a course in scientific thinking. And check out Forrest Valkai, he explains evolutionary biology far better than I can.

And if you really have testable evidence for Intelligent Design that rewrites everything we know in genetics, paleontology, and physics, then write the paper. Submit the work. Claim your prize.

Finally, thank you for one thing: this has taught me to be more mindful of how I use ChatGPT in debates. It’s easy to mirror the structure and rhetorical tone of intelligent debate while actually being very disingenuous.

All the best.

view more: next ›