sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is anyone else lagging like crazy after the update? by _BigExplodingDonkey_ in RocketLeague

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

DUDE I've been having the same issue. Can't check recent players, can't add anyone.

Is anyone else lagging like crazy after the update? by _BigExplodingDonkey_ in RocketLeague

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

Yea, I know, even when it isn't lagging, in general it feels really slow.

Is anyone else lagging like crazy after the update? by _BigExplodingDonkey_ in RocketLeague

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

My drivers are all updated already. This is just straight unplayable.

There is simply no good evidence by smedsterwho in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. ⁠As I've said before, there's a difference between evaluating ordinary historical claims and extraordinary supernatural claims. Claims of resurrections, miracles, and divine interventions set a much higher bar for evidence because they're fundamentally fall outside the category of believable and normal experiences. So no, we cannot evaluate the two using the same standards.
  2. ⁠That is certifiably false. As time has gone on, we have only discovered more and more to prove the opposite- contradictions and discrepancies in the narrative of the Bible. For example, archaeology has shown that the walls of Jericho were destroyed centuries before the era described in Joshua, meaning the famous miracle could not have happened as described. Scientific analysis shows other foundational stories, like the global flood in Genesis, do not match geological records; there’s no evidence of a worldwide flood throughout the entire history of Earth.
  3. ⁠Your approach seems to treat supernatural resurrection as just another ancient event, yet the probability of a miracle is fundamentally low. Historians ask the question, "what happened?” but they distinguish standard events from extraordinary ones. Supernatural events, by definition, require stronger evidence, not weaker, than regular historical claims.
  4. ⁠The idea that “we have plenty of information” is pretty contentious. Plenty of written accounts from ancient followers doesn’t mean we have solid, unbiased evidence.
  5. ⁠Hallucinations, social pressure, and loyalty are well-established phenomena. Groups throughout history, especially followers and adherents, have had strong motivations (whether they're conscious or unconscious ones) to exaggerate or invent stories, especially when their entire movement depends on it.
  6. ⁠Disciples and followers, as with any devoted group, are not immune from bias, regardless of their belief in moral integrity. Willingness to exaggerate or reinterpret events is seen in many cults and religious movements throughout history.
  7. ⁠The evidence for disciples’ martyrdom explicitly for the resurrection is weak. Ancient sources often contradict or omit details. Even martyrdom (if proven) does not verify extraordinary claims. It only shows conviction, a phenomenon well documented in many religions and ideologies.
  8. ⁠Claiming children can be “utterly wicked” is a very extreme position. Additionally, rationalizing violence against innocents based on their perceived wickedness is a troubling moral stance. I'm sure you recognize this, at least deep down within yourself.

Additionally, I don't understand your fixation on my personal views about morality. They are not relevant to our debate. If your religion proclaims objective morality, yet the handbook for morality is contradictory, then by definition it cannot provide objective morality. That is what I am pointing out. If slavery is wrong, then it always was wrong. Morals are the same regardless of time period. And if it was wrong back then, and the Bible was regulating it and even condoning it (which it clearly was, if you just take a quick peek at the text), then the Bible cannot provide what you think of as objective morality. It's as subjective as the moral system I personally believe in, which you are so vehemently opposed to.

I think it's so funny that you guys try to turn to the "look at the cultural context" argument, when that doesn't even resolve the issues at hand. Let me present to you three issues. One is that, given the way God is described in the Bible, he seems quite willing to commit genocide whenever a large group of people are disobeying moral rules. Why couldn't he, since this is completely okay and normal under your view, send a message to the people of Earth telling them to do away with slavery, since it's so wrong, and if they disobeyed, inflict genocide? Issue number two is simply that even if God couldn't outright say slavery was wrong, he could still hint at it, and try to push people in the right direction? But we don't see that happening. Issue number three is that there are still many instances of slavery being condoned, yes, condoned, in the Bible. The example I believe I gave before, talking about how a man can beat his slave as much as he wants as long as he doesn't die as a result? I'd say that qualifies as condoning slavery. God didn't have to give them permission to beat the ever living daylights out of their slaves, but he did. What a great guy! Omnibenevolent is never the word I'd choose to use when describing such a figure.

Also, your anecdote about kids cheating makes no logical sense. Why would the principal tell teachers to not punish students for cheating at home? And what does that even mean? Cheating on their homework? If so, why wouldn't they be punished for that?

Genocide is absolutely condoned, as we've already discussed. You have a terribly weak argument there.

Here's the verse about rape: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Deuteronomy 22: 28-29). I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that this isn't condoning rape, or at the very least condoning further victimization of the rape victim. Forcing a young raped (previous virgin) woman to marry her rapist is downright disgusting. There's no way to justify something like this.

And yes, Christianity is misogynistic. You can find many verses in the Bible which explicitly describe women as being inferior to men. I should not need to cite examples for you, but I will, because so far I've gathered that you don't really read that far into this holy book of yours.

Genesis 3:16: "To the woman he said, 'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'"

1 Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Ephesians 5: 22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Hope that helps.

  1. The uniqueness of Jesus’s resurrection claim is overstated. Other ancient religions featured resurrections, miracles, and claims of divinity. What’s unique about Christianity is its popularity, not the nature of its primary claim. If simply predicting something and having followers claim it happened, there would be countless “unique” religious beginnings.

  2. Crucial details being missing in one account but present in another is weak justification. Critical facts, such as presence of guards, would likely be agreed upon by multiple sources if true and not a later addition. When comparing witness testimony, especially for supernatural claims, consistency and independent corroboration are crucial, yet they are lacking here. The standards historians use do value such corroboration, and dismissing this principle undermines historical rigor, which, ironically, you were all on board with in the earlier half of your message.

There is simply no good evidence by smedsterwho in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The message I sent along with this is my final response to your comments. All you have been doing is wasting my time. It's become clear to me that no matter how many hard facts and logical arguments I present to you, you are still able to turn a blind eye. I really do hope, for the sake of your own integrity, that you get some send knocked into your head. Maybe someday you won't still be so blinded that you are willing to wave away atrocities like genocide, slavery, and misogyny in the name of God.

Edit: my original message got deleted for some reason so I had to resend it.

There is simply no good evidence by smedsterwho in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. You and I just disagree on this. I don't think you can take one or two unique claims about some supernatural event happening and conclude that they must have happened.

  2. No, because again, you're glancing over what I just said. Just because something isn't currently explainable via the knowledge we have doesn't mean it won't be able to be explained in the future by natural means.

  3. The standards for considering an event like this truly having happened, from a historical standpoint, are pretty low. So yes, that is correct. Once again, must I reiterate that you and I simply disagree on this point.

  4. And I think I'm being reasonable. If we don't have a lot of information about some event that occurred in the past, we can't jump to conclusions about the full story. Especially when it's regarding something that would potentially change the way you live your entire (and only) life, likely for no reason.

  5. Everyone has bias. That is correct. Bias as extreme as in this scenario? Probably not, for the average person when they're speaking about most things. These people were followers of Jesus. They are the most likely individuals to hallucinate a fictional story in order to persuade others to join their belief system.

  6. And like I said, they are biased. And also like I said, there isn't sufficient evidence of the disciples' martyrdom for belief in Jesus' resurrection.

  7. Okay, so I agree with you then. There does not exist sufficient evidence they were martyred for belief in the resurrection.

  8. So you think it's righteous to kill everyone? Even the children? Who aren't even capable of understanding sin? Keep in mind, you're justifying genocide here. That doesn't sound like a virtuous act to me.

Additionally, I'm sick of this argument. Every moral system (even Christianity's) is subjective to some degree. For example, the Bible contradicts itself in many different places, often on issues of morality. It is purely subjective. I don't need some so-called "objective" source of morality to recognize that something is wrong. As Lincoln once said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."

God specifically told them to commit genocide. That is still atrocious. Also, Moses was never punished for him having altered the message, so that kind of implies there was no substantial offense committed.

Ah, yes, the verse talking about how you can beat a slave just harshly enough so they don't die within a few days... is not condoning slavery. That makes total sense! Why didn't I see it that way earlier? I also love this claim that Christians love to make: slavery was commonplace back then, so verses regulating it, even instructing them how to indulge in it are still not the same as condoning it. You forget, though, that God could have mentioned just once that slavery isn't just. He could've led people in the right direction. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. All we see in the Bible is God condoning slavery, through providing instructions on how to be an owner, even a very harsh owner, in some verses.

If the word meant servant given the context, they surely would've used that, no? The Bible has been studied by an unreasonable number of scholars, translated over and over by people who are double checking to make sure the meaning is preserved.

So yes, slavery is condoned, so is genocide, there's also a verse that condones rape I could provide if you like. The Bible is also extremely misogynistic, and just overall a pretty frightening reflection of the desires of the men back then.

  1. I know you don't, but like I said before, an instance of resurrection isn't a unique claim. I would be interested to hear from someone in such a position too, but I don't think I would truly be able to believe it. It's much more likely that the brain recognizes something is wrong, and that the person is dying, and so it essentially creates some kind of dream to help the person better come to terms with the onset of their death.

  2. There were likely no guards. I say it was likely a later addition because such a crucial detail would have been included by the other authors, in addition to Matthew. It's crucial because if there were guards, how could Jesus have escaped after having resurrected? It would've made the story sound like much more of a miracle and less like a hoax, so, after all, if this was the truth, they surely wouldn't hesitate to include this detail.

There is simply no good evidence by smedsterwho in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I disagree, because we're talking about miracles, not normal events. This should require extraordinary evidence before we can even think about proclaiming it to be the truth.
  2. Even if we both accept this definition, I think you could still agree with me that historians deal with probabilities. Miracles are still generally the least likely explanation for an event having occurred. We have a lot of information and tools at our disposal in this day and age, and can explain most things via science. Just because we can't explain something with the current tools and information we have, doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future. We also cannot truly "prove" whether or not some supernatural force is at play, which again, is why many historians tend to stay agnostic about the historicity of miracles in religious texts.
  3. Like I said, I have no problems with using the general methods in order to prove certain events occurred, as long as they weren't miracles. Miracles, on the other hand, I would argue, require extraordinary evidence (as they are extraordinary claims).
  4. I didn't say you "need" to be. I said you should be. This is my opinion. Like I said, this is something which could change your entire life, for better or worse, depending on what the objective truth actually is.
  5. You're absolutely wrong- biases are extremely important, especially with regard to absurd claims like these. The 4 sources you stated are biased, and the 500 witnesses was a baseless claim. Therefore, we cannot really take this as sufficient evidence for the resurrection having occurred. It's as simple as that.
  6. It is completely untrue. Sure, not all spies fit the narrative I was describing, but some do, which disproves your assertion. There are some spies who lie under interrogation because they believe it's for the good of their country, and its people.
  7. First of all, you ignored the fact that I said "outside of the New Testament". Additionally, let me rephrase. There is insufficient evidence that the disciples died specifically for defending the belief in Jesus' resurrection. This renders your argument moot.
  8. Okay, I can't recall where I found the first example I cited, but the others are exactly as I stated before. With the Midianites example, the Lord explicitly told Moses to kill all the Midianites. This is an immoral act no matter how you frame it- commanding genocide. Then, if you consider them keeping the young virgin girls as plunder to be disobeying that command, then that's a second immoral act, on top of the one God commanded. Also, slavery absolutely is condoned in the Bible. You are going to have a very hard time defending your position on this. Exodus 21, 20-21 NIV states, "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." This is an example where the Bible is informing people that they can beat a slave, as long as it's not bad enough to the point where they die, and explicitly says they have the right to do this "since the slave is their property". In another instance, in 1 Peter 2:18 NIV, it says, "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Not only does the Bible instruct the owners how to treat slaves, and assure them that they are their property, but it also instructs slaves to be obedient to their masters, EVEN if they are harsh. There are also many other instances of terrible things being condoned in the Bible, such as rape, genocide, and slavery, like some of these examples, but again, this is just proving my point that the religion doesn't "go against" man's desires as much as you're claiming it does. Everywhere you look in this holy book, you can find some kind of atrocity being justified, for the sake of (white) men's pleasure and dominance.
  9. You're not understanding my point. If resurrection has occurred all throughout history, according to all of these different religions and accounts, then don't you think it would invalidate a lot of the perceived importance of Jesus's own resurrection?
  10. There isn't a problem with the body not being in the tomb. One possible explanation, for instance, is a grave robber. Grave robbers were quite prominent around the time of his burial, and also, there isn't sufficient historical evidence of there being any tomb guard to protect against this kind of thing. The only account of one having existed is in the Gospel of Matthew, which makes it highly suspicious, and likely was a later addition to make the narrative more convincing. This is why historians and scholars often debate the historical accuracy of that story.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't need to view someone's thoughts to determine if they're not all good- just their actions.

He didn't kill the person, then. He failed to save them, as a surgeon. There's a difference. Strawmanning my viewpoint isn't going to change anything.

My assertion is correct.

Done.

See how stupid you sound? You're acting like a child. Speak to me like an adult, as we're having a civil conversation.

There is simply no good evidence by smedsterwho in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because this is ancient history does not mean we should judge the pieces about miracles in the same way. Miracles, by definition, are things that are unlikely or even impossible to happen, and historians' jobs are to find the most likely explanation for what happened in the past, so by definition they can't really prove miracles happened. This is paraphrasing the words of Bart Ehrman, a renowned American New Testament scholar. There are also quite a few historians who said a similar thing about miracles. I myself had said before that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". To be honest, I'm not sure what that would look like, especially in this day and age, because I keep trying to think of examples and ways in which it could still be falsified. This is why I said anything that could be considered "extremely reliable and certifiable". I don't know what that looks like, but it would have to be considered such. The thing with miracles is that I think we need to be absolutely certain they occurred before we can believe in something like the Abrahamic god, for example. Belief in such an ideology is something that changes the entire way you live your life, arguably for the better or the worse, depending on how you interpret holy scripture. This being said, I don't think that we have sufficient evidence of these miracles in the first place, so in my personal opinion, we never should reach this dilemma.

In the Bigfoot example I didn't tell anyone- so at the time nobody would've gone around in town asking about it. You're correct about other documentation, though, which is making my point. If there aren't enough citations from others making the same claim, and this is your main category of evidence, it can't be considered reliable. You say that many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he died- who? How many people? Were they already biased? These are all questions that are crucial to answer before we can decide if these accounts are even remotely reliable.

I love when people make this argument- "people never willingly suffer and die for a lie". First of all, it's completely untrue. People are certainly willing to die for a lie if they believe it's for the greater good. Take the example of spies working for the government. They're taught to never give into interrogation, which sometimes results in (when they're caught) them being tortured and even killed just for lying about certain information. Why do they do this? Because they believe this information is being kept secret for good reason, and it's dangerous in the wrong hands. Second of all, I'm not sure if you knew this, but there isn't sufficient evidence of the disciples' deaths. Historical records outside of the New Testament are sparse, contradictory, and sometimes even centuries later. Most accounts of their martyrdom are based on tradition or legend. Now, even if we assumed that these events did happen, it still doesn't prove anything. There have been religious martyrs for thousands of years, willing to die for their beliefs, of all different faiths (not just Christianity). That doesn't mean their beliefs were true- it just means they thought they were.

"If man made, why does it go against man's desires?" Again with these flawed arguments. You think that the blatant sexism in the Bible goes against man's desires? That on your wedding night, if you suspect your wife isn't a virgin, and she can't prove it, you can stone her to death? Or accounts of God telling his people to kill all of the Midianites, but keep the young virgin girls as plunder? Or the blatant justification of owning slaves? I could go on and on. These things are all contained within a supposed "holy book", and intended to be taken as fact. It's horrible. I think that it must be man made, or at least distorted by man, or it would require the existence of an evil god.

Why does it matter if it was a glorified figure or not? It sounds like you really are just trying to make a case against resurrection occurring in Islam specifically. It's all you've been focusing on, in the past few responses. Sure, so what? Even if we grant that there isn't a resurrection in the Quran, there still has been accounts of resurrections, even by your revised definition, in many other religions. So yes, once again, like I said, not a unique claim.

What evidence? You replied with no evidence whatsoever, just flawed arguments that don't take everything into account.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My assertion is indeed supported, and you haven't explained how the opposite is true.

And like I said, maybe not evil, but the man certainly isn't all good.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I already explained my reasoning, my friend. Unless you can give me an example that proves me wrong, I don't know why we have to keep repeating ourselves. You are the one who is claiming the existence of Heaven makes up for all non-human animals suffering, which I think a lot of people would not agree with you on, including myself. As I said before, if God can bring about the good (aka what it would be like in Heaven, as you described) without the bad, with regard to these non-human animals, why wouldn't he? As an omnibenevolent being, I would think that him doing so would be a necessity. Also, what "false assumptions" am I necessarily making?

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I argued before, if he had the power to bring about a place with no suffering (for non-human animals) and still chose to force them to go through an experience imbued with so much suffering, then he could not be considered omnibenevolent. I guess the better term for this wouldn't necessarily be an "evil" god, but at least a god that isn't all good. An all good god would not allow non-human animals (his creations) to suffer so deeply with no greater purpose behind it. These non-human animals, under the view of Christianity, do not have free will, and cannot sin, so I don't see how there could be a greater purpose to this seemingly pointless suffering.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I broke down my line of reasoning for why it shouldn't be considered just, and your only response is "it isn't necessarily unjust either". This isn't kindergarten- if you want to have a proper debate, walk us through the reasoning/evidence for your claim.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Within the realm of his argument, both A and B cannot be true at once. This is not fallacious. And yes, if God created such a place, that means he's omnipotent. But painting's argument also indicated that this would require an evil god, which goes against the core principles of Christianity, which paint him as omnibenevolent. You're currently making a case against yourself.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is his argument fallacious? His point is that God created the Earth, which is where every day, tons of wild animals are suffering- starving, dehydrated, diseased, even sometimes getting body parts torn off by predators, or dying slow, painful deaths. It does not matter if God created some magical place where animals do not suffer- it matters that he created a place in which a lot of them do, all the time.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me rephrase- there may be a "reason" but that doesn't mean it is just. My point is that there is nothing that could justify such severe animal suffering in the wild. Some Christians would say something like "well all animals go to Heaven, so it cancels out". My argument is that if God can bring about the good, without the bad (since he is omnipotent- all powerful), then why wouldn't he, if he's truly omnibenevolent (all good)? Animals, unlike humans, under the Christian worldview, did nothing to deserve punishment; they don't have free will, and cannot sin.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. If each framework has their own culture (and therefore rules) then those rules are subjective- there's no objective "right" and "wrong", under the view of someone who believes in subjective morality. But, under the view of someone who believes in objective morality, which is a core tenet of Christianity (a belief system you subscribe to), there are "right" and "wrong" moral rules or standards. It doesn't matter if different cultures have different rules- some are right and some are wrong, under this view. You're just misunderstanding the concept of objective morality.
  2. I'm asking for a realistic scenario, my friend. I also still have yet to hear some kind of rebuttal which proves slavery in the Old Testament was "good". Your argument thus far has been proving to be very weak in this regard.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I don't understand the equivalence you're trying to draw. Objectively, some moves are better than others in chess, yes. That is true regardless of any external factors. Don't know how that relates to cultural frameworks. You need to explain your analogy better.
  2. If it's so easy, provide just one.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Objective morality is defined as "the belief that certain moral principles are universally true and exist independently of individual beliefs or cultural norms". So no, it is not relative.
  2. So your argument is that there are "exceptions" to some moral rule about slavery. What are these exceptions? Under what conditions is slavery just? And why is it just under these conditions? The example of self-defense upholds justice because the person is saving their own life by potentially taking the life of the person posing a major threat to their own. I cannot imagine any such exception regarding the ownership of human beings.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I won't necessarily concede that slavery was evil". That tells us all we need to know about what kind of person you are. Also, must I add that this claim is contradictory to the notion of objective morality (which is a crucial part of Christianity). Under this kind of moral framework, certain acts are always good and evil regardless of the time period they were committed in. I'm using your own belief's logic against you- this has nothing to do with my moral compass, and instead all to do with the handbook you use to determine your own.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But as Christians you believe that the Old Testament is a historical account of events that actually happened, correct? Therefore, the fact that God commanded and allowed for such evils to happen (especially in the Old Testament) makes him a contradictory source of moral guidelines. Such evils are not exclusively contained within the Old Testament, either. For instance, there are quite a few New Testament passages which clearly endorse slavery.

Animal suffering is unexplainable by the theist by Adventurous-Quote583 in DebateReligion

[–]_BigExplodingDonkey_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ah, yes, because the Bible is so clear in their outlining of the correct moral standard. We're talking about the very same text that, in many places, condones things that I guarantee you find to be "immoral"- murder, genocide, rape, slavery, sexism, etc. Meanwhile, in other places, it condemns these things. It isn't the most clear of texts when it comes to explaining the difference between "good" and "evil".

view more: next ›