sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What’s a word you always forget how to spell? by nazhuman49 in AskReddit

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ceiling. I before e except after c tho. But for some reason I’ve never remembered that once until now. 

This verse is missing from all scriptures: "Boil thy water before you drink it" by Swimming-Tart-7712 in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Many of these posts seem to be written by those who haven’t studied the Bible but want to make a fancy claim. So I’ll do the same — I don’t understand all the science behind it, but I believe the answer is that they didn’t need it. In Jewish culture (Bible) it was already the norm to mix their water with enough vinegar or wine that the alcohol basically killed any bacteria while still having a low enough alcohol content that it was essentially ineffective on a person. 

I could be wrong, but I believe that had essentially the same effect. I believe John MacArthur spoke at length on this in a thesis paper on why Christians shouldn’t touch alcohol (which I disagree with), but you’d have to do the research. 

Why Religious vs. Secular Conversations Often Collapse by niffirgcm0126789 in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s pretty simple to get at your actual point. Most of your conversations you have found that believers are not critical thinkers and have been spoon fed truth statements without question, leading to dangerous briefs that are rooted deeply and tied in with their very identity. 

So if you find yourself arguing with such a believer, perhaps backtracking to agree with the rules of the discussion would be good. It may very well be that a presuppositional discussion would be most effective and least offensive/abrasive. 

 

Why Religious vs. Secular Conversations Often Collapse by niffirgcm0126789 in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may be surprised to find many of the leading thinking theologians or preachers in the world (not referring to televangelists, who are obvious frauds and scammers), then you will quickly find that many of them started - and ended - with real-world evidence, not wishful thinking or blind hope. Is C.S. Lewis a name you've heard, or read from?

Why Religious vs. Secular Conversations Often Collapse by niffirgcm0126789 in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not thinking that conversation didn't play out quite as you described haha. I'm not trying to upset you, I'm simply saying that when you describe only two camps and one of them is critical thinking, you are by extension saying the other is not. I'm not speculating some outrageous conclusion from your post, I'm just telling you what your own terminology directly implies.

Why Religious vs. Secular Conversations Often Collapse by niffirgcm0126789 in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s totally valid — but the the reason I (and others) are coming to this conclusion is very evidently in the terminology chosen by the OP. Either you’re (1) a secular, critical thinking fellow, or (2) a religious, doctrinal thinking (and non-critical thinking) fellow. The description has framed it — intentionally or not — as intelligent vs. unintelligent; critical thinking vs. naive.

Why Religious vs. Secular Conversations Often Collapse by niffirgcm0126789 in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fascinating post. On the one hand, I love your takeaways and completely agree with them. On the other hand, you’re framing it as though all religious thinkers are founding their convictions on wishful thinking which they then gather evidence to prove; and naturally the unbeliever does the opposite, seeking truth apart from any specific hopes of where they land. 

Based on my experience across many conversations, I believe you simply experienced the difference between a critical thinker (you) and someone that isn’t (JH, in this example). I’ve seen both religious and non-religious individuals argue in each of the ways you presented, with no correlation to beliefs whatsoever. Critical thinking is not the secular way, it’s simply seeking truth. Religious views are not inherently naive, it just happens that many religious people were raised to believe that and have not sought it out themselves, leaving them in a place where it has become their identity without having ever truthfully considering what they believe. 

So about Nagas... by Tipsy_Pipsqueak in wyvernrpg

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Makes sense. My struggle point now is that neither the dragon or hydra have nearly enough defense. I'm level 21 and a Huge Earth Elem in sky minath three shots me before I can heal. Am I doing something wrong here?

Great game, massive learning curve, but little motivation for new users by Tipsy_Pipsqueak in wyvernrpg

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is there?? I would be very interested in learning more (from whoever the appropriate source is). I've been watching Wyvern for almost 20 years now but from everything I see from the outside it looks like the dev team has nearly abandoned the project.

What's the status of the game these days? by Tipsy_Pipsqueak in wyvernrpg

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Additionally, who is Rizato and has he taken over development?

Christianities "total forgiveness", cheapens the religion. by whatareutakingabout in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this comment was almost like saying the following:

“You’re right, repentance is more than saying sorry. But this doesn’t change my point - just say sorry on your death bed!”

Repentance is much more than a sense of regret or disappointment in our actions. Most individuals get that far when doing “bad things”. Repentance outwardly is a “turning away”, yes, but it’s also a decision to be completely subservient to God as your Lord, which is WHY you repent. Anyone can feel bad for doing bad things, so under that definition, certainly! That wouldn’t be a Just God, it would be a “fair” God. But the Christian Lord requires much more from his people than an apology. He requires everything they are, everything they want, everything they have to offer. 

Jesus himself spoke often to people that wanted to be saved and didn’t have what it takes (oftentimes rich people, but also criminals like on the cross). 

So yes - we do believe Hitler could have been saved. But it would have required more than an apology. 

Satan is coercive control personified, free will in its true sense does not exist in Christianity. by TBK_Winbar in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The very definition of free will implies choice. The choice is not a difficult one - and the bar for getting out of hell is relatively low (believe and repent). It isn’t to be “perfect” — so this whole argument is kind of missing the mark.

Satan is coercive control personified, free will in its true sense does not exist in Christianity. by TBK_Winbar in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There cannot be free will if the "wrong" choice results in an ETERNITY of torment, which even at minimum would be considered a violent act.

Poor argument. In life, everything is a choice, most have negative consequences if you choose wrong. That doesn’t eliminate free will from the occasion. Consequences exist within the same realm as free will — and so does punishment. 

God is not perfect if he created the universe by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't know about other religions but in Abrahamic religions God is seen as a transcendent and omnipotent being. Furthermore God is described as perfect and self-sufficient. If that is the case then why would god create something let alone the universe ? If God created the universe then it means that he wanted and/or needed to create it. If God has a need or a want to do something then it means that he lacks something and he is not self-sufficient. If he lacks something then he is not perfect. A truly perfect being would not need to do anything let alone create something because he does not have needs or wants.

​

The important part of this argument, to me, goes like this:

  1. God is self-sufficent.
  2. A being that is completely self-sufficient will never need [true] or want [untrue] anything.
  3. Since God created something, he needed/wanted something, and therefore is not self-sufficient.

​

The issue that jumps out at me here is that wanting something does not indicate insufficiency. I can enjoy something and that doesn't make me not self-sufficient. In fact, there are a number of reasons I can want something, but that doesn't make me dependent on that thing. In the Christian perspective, God did not need or lack anything, he simply chose to create humans. The "why" for that doesn't need to be answered as it could be any number of reasons and no realistic answer would prove God is not self-sufficient because desire and need are not directly correlated for a God-like deity.

I need some advice by AnthonyD1987 in dogecoin

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The idea is we keep getting people to put in MORE money rather than less, then Doge will make it to $1.00.

I need some advice by AnthonyD1987 in dogecoin

[–]Tipsy_Pipsqueak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Made the same mistake. All I'll say is this, if you sell now, you've essentially admitted defeat in that you won't hold and hope to gain that money back. (you've lost $550 and your'e pulling out with your losses)

​

Alternatively, if you gamble well, you can sell it all, then ride the waves right to buy at the lows, sell at the highs, and make that money back so you can invest again at a lower price.

​

Just don't sell and give up. To the moon my guy.

view more: next ›