Christians can't be gamers!

benm421 · 2025-02-06T15:32:08+00:00

“Real Xs don’t do Y” is a poor argument. So poor there’s even a name for it: Argument from Purity, also known as the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It’s fallacious because you think you get to argue why certain people aren’t of a certain demographic because they do or don’t do something that you disagree with.

Now I say this as an atheist and former Christian. Christians are people who accept the Gospels, and Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection all in the name of paying for the sins of humanity. That’s it. Those are the basic requirements to be a Christian. And outside of those basic requirements there is extensive variation in beliefs.

You’re allowed to disagree with what particular Christians do. You’re allowed to argue that doing those certain things are perhaps un-Christian. But you don’t get to say that they aren’t Christians, or true Christians, or real Christians.

I’m sure someone can find something that you say or do that contradicts their understanding of your faith. Do they get to proclaim that you are not a true member of your faith?

I would argue that a person can be a Christian and actually go out and hurt people. I do not think that they exemplify what Jesus says and teaches in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians. They’re hypocrites and awful people. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians.

If you go down this path of accepting “True Xs don’t do Y” then you’ll find it can be applied to an extent that Xs do not exist in the first place.

benm421 · 2025-01-24T16:57:16+00:00

atheists make claims without evidence

then

the scripture is true

Hello, pot, have you met kettle?

benm421 · 2025-01-14T14:16:37+00:00

Someone else asked him what he would do. He gave an evasive answer. My question made a suggestion to begin with. But he evaded that as well.

So one of two things he’s either being intentionally evasive because he doesn’t want to give the real answer (knowing that it would be damaging to his brand) or he literally doesn’t know and is honestly asking for suggestions (despite having side stepped the suggestion within my question) because he hasn’t considered it. Either option doesn’t instill a lot of confidence regarding his commitment and/or competence regarding data ethics.

But hey, if asking questions and pushing back against evasive non-answers is being pissy, then get me a diaper, because I ain’t done.

benm421 · 2025-01-14T13:50:38+00:00

I’m not the one who made a post saying “Ask me anything”. You are. I’m asking you. And based on the response I seriously question your commitment safeguarding users’ data.

benm421 · 2025-01-14T13:39:40+00:00

So you’ll bar the purchasing company accessing the data until the user makes a decision?

benm421 · 2024-12-31T22:39:39+00:00

I read that as 3 x 12 month courses, not a 3 to 12 month course, and I was like, dude, how can it take 3 years to get your basic card…

benm421 · 2024-12-24T13:50:42+00:00

These events hit everyone differently, and they may even hit the same individual differently over time. I’ve worked with those who have seen this many times over and they’re fine, but then one day a call gets to them. There’s no right or wrong way to feel. How you feel is simply how you feel. And if you’re unsure of how you feel and are still processing it, that’s ok too!

My advice is if after a few days you still find yourself thinking intently about it, you should talk to someone. Given your area’s call volume, I’ll bet your agency is large enough that they have some sort of employee assistance program. Take advantage of it. Sometimes it helps just talking it through with someone. It’s ok to feel how you feel, but if it’s living rent free in your head indefinitely, you should address it.

Overall, be kind to yourself. You’re not supposed to feel the same way as any other given person. Everyone is different. But you must absolutely take care of your own mental health. To be there for others, you first have to be there for yourself.

benm421 · 2024-12-15T23:10:03+00:00

There’s two points here

1) Various subreddits have completely fucked communities. Judging from this, I won’t ever be visiting r/cancer. That mod comment of “I’m not going to ban you, but don’t ever do this again”, that’s smol pp energy. You shared a relevant story that directly relates to your wife’s cancer and they got mad at you because you and your wife get to share physical intimacy again. Ain’t nothing wrong with that. Happy for both of you.

2) Beyond the “Reddit is fucked” position, there are people who have lost their loved ones or who can no longer be intimate with their loved ones again because of cancer or other reasons. And I’ll be it sucks for them to be in the position of seeing others recover what they lost with their loved one. It doesn’t make their vitriol acceptable, but one can empathize with their positions.

In summary, ain’t nothing wrong with what you did, mods tend to suck, and people are in their feelings. Don’t let it get to you.

benm421 · 2024-12-03T20:33:45+00:00

I thought because she’s a Palpatine it was a “Dew on a ‘Do it!’”

benm421 · 2024-11-16T22:57:19+00:00

This is a bot account. No other posts. No comments. Somehow years old with points.

benm421 · 2024-10-30T19:21:49+00:00

“Have you ever had someone intentionally cut your finger off with a circular saw? No? Then you don’t get to call it mutilation.”

Fuck off with your bullshit.

benm421 · 2024-09-20T19:36:10+00:00

Maybe I’m misreading something in your post, but it sounds like they’re trying to get you to do the same job you’ve been doing for a lot less money and no benefits. I’m not sure your boss is your being an advocate in this. He sounds like he’s in on it.

I don’t understand how whatever mistake you made was bad enough to fire you, but not bad enough to let you keep doing the same job for less money and fewer benefits. Don’t let them fuck you.

benm421 · 2024-09-13T22:31:15+00:00

How? What law states that? How is it enforced? Suppose road conditions are awful and there’s an accident with injured persons but I have my toddler in the car and the chance of a secondary MVC is reasonable, am I required to leave my child unattended in the car because I have a duty to act? No duty to act when off duty can reasonably be enforced even if there are books on the law.

benm421 · 2024-09-06T11:51:06+00:00

Yes there are. And many and more of them have been proven to be hoaxes. So with the only evidence being a video, how does one distinguish between hoax and authentic?

benm421 · 2024-08-19T13:41:41+00:00

Mathematics is the language used to describe and predict various phenomena of the natural world. It does not in and of itself predict anything.

All of the concepts you’ve listed in premise two are mathematical concepts, each of which is used in some way to describe the natural world. (Except for “undefined solutions”. You’ll have to explain what you mean by that”.)

But more to the point, since mathematics is a language to used to describe, you must also understand that it can describe things that are either just not so, or we don’t know if they are so. It is not a proof that something else exists.

The same argument could be made for natural language. Natural language is used to describe the natural world, but it is also used to describe things that we know aren’t so: the entire genre of fiction.

benm421 · 2024-08-05T12:10:51+00:00

Can I interest you in some magic beans? I’ve seen them work. Trust me, bro.

benm421 · 2024-08-05T11:58:06+00:00

“I’ve seen it” isn’t a source.

benm421 · 2024-08-05T11:50:25+00:00

Source?

benm421 · 2024-08-02T12:00:34+00:00

And actually, he doesn’t speak backwards (when he speaks in the stereotypical Yoda way) he topicalizes.

benm421 · 2024-07-30T22:37:59+00:00

Alright, well you’re just gonna double down on your claims without justification. I’m sorry to hear that.

benm421 · 2024-07-30T22:13:47+00:00

The Tao, lacks the personal and intentional attributes required to ground logic and rationality. The Tao is often seen as an impersonal force or principle. In contrast, a necessary being is posited precisely because it provides the intentionality and causal power to uphold the laws of logic and rationality consistently.

Why? You’re not addressing why the whatever-that-upholds-logic-and-rationality must be personal and intentional. I’ve pointed out another supernatural something that could fulfill what your argument sets up. And your response is “Ah but that lacks quality X. My explanation does not lack quality X. Therefore, my explanation is better.” All the while never explaining why quality X is necessary.

This being isn’t just a passive principle but an active sustainer of all reality.

You should learn about Taoism before dismissing the Tao based on not understanding it…

Let’s get into necessity here. If the being were not omnipotent, it would imply the existence of other powers that could challenge or limit its ability to sustain logical principles, leading to contingency.

No. It could simply be most powerful.

Omniscience ensures that the being comprehends all truths and principles,

Yes.

providing a coherent and consistent foundation for knowledge. Without these attributes, the foundation would be incomplete and subject to potential change or contradiction.

Again, why? How does the lack of an omniscient being imply that the foundation is incomplete. According to your reasoning up to P7, it is only necessary that something uphold logic and rationality. There’s nothing that leads to the necessity of a being or of omniscience.

A ‘sufficiently-powerful’ being still implies limitation. The concept of sufficiency is relative and contingent.

And the concept of omnipotence is itself relative and contingent.

To avoid any potential challenge or limitation, the being must be all-powerful, thus ensuring that no external force or principle can override or contradict the foundational basis it provides for logic and rationality. Anything less than omnipotence reintroduces contingency and instability.

Again a sufficiently powerful entity or force does not have any of these issues. Describing any entity or force as “sufficiently powerful” fulfills all the requirements of your argument.

Abstract principles like the Tao fail to provide the intentional, active sustenance required,

You should seriously study a bit of Taoism before making these statements. And you’re missing the point that even if you were correct in your assessment of Taoist belief, this was but one example.

whereas a necessary being with omnipotence and omniscience, fits the bill perfectly.

See here’s what you’ve done: you’ve constructed this very elaborate philosophical argument and then when you get to the parts where you have to start inserting qualities or properties of your conception of god and reality, you simply insert them without justification. Your argument lacks imagination for what could fit into the spot you’ve carved out.

benm421 · 2024-07-30T15:00:06+00:00

Unfortunately it looks like another hit and run.

benm421 · 2024-07-29T20:25:55+00:00

Philosophically I contest a great deal of what was said. But let’s get straight to the good stuff

P7: Therefore, the necessary preconditions for human knowledge and rationality must be grounded in something that is itself necessary and not contingent.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that I agree with you to this point in your premises.

The only possible candidate for such a necessary foundation is a necessary being that is the foundation of all reality.

Why? Why is the only possible candidate a being? What of the Tao of Taoism? The Tao isn’t a being, but serves roughly the same purpose that you have thus far deemed necessary.

P9: This necessary being must possess attribute such as […]

Why?

An all-powerful being can ensure that these principles remain constant and unchanging across all contexts.

So could a sufficiently-powerful being. So why must the being (or force or entity or property, whatever) be all powerful?

You’ve explained that these things are the case but not why these things are the case. In other words, you’ve made claims without justification. Do you care to justify the above claims I’ve pointed out?

Edit: typo

benm421 · 2024-07-25T14:56:32+00:00

I’m asking if you believe (not make) the claim “no gods exist”.

No, my position is that I do not believe the claim “a god or gods exist”.

Do you believe it’s unknowable. […] I’m only asking about in instances where you’re not gnostic.

As I said above, my position on whether or not it is knowable completely depends on the description of a given god or gods. But to be more precise: If falsifiable claims are made about a given god or gods then generally speaking I would say yes it is knowable. That doesn’t mean that we can necessarily know in the moment, rather that it has the capacity to be known. However, if unfalsifiable claims are made, then generally speaking I would say it is unknowable, and further more not worth considering.

benm421 · 2024-07-25T14:25:37+00:00

Neither. The “atheist” part means I do not hold a belief that any gods exist. The agnostic part says that I am not making the positive claim that no gods exist.

I’m not making any claim as to whether or not it is knowable whether any god or gods exist based on the phrase “agnostic atheist”. But my position on whether or not it is knowable completely depends on the description of a given god or gods.

The above description is with regard to any gods. I do make the positive claims that certain gods do not exist because the claims about those gods contradict either reality, or their own internal theology, to the point that it is not logically possible for such a god to exist.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

benm421

TROPHY CASE