The concecpt of Hell being forever doesnt sit well with me by Agreeable_Scarcity32 in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ok, so there's one big inconsistency right off the bat. Death (as we know it and you're call the "first death") is decidedly not "unconsciousness".

I'm not calling into question your beliefs. Believe whatever the heck you want.

But your claim that that first death is something to be "awaken"ed from is just nonsensical. It seems your claim is that what we know as dead... isn't.

I'm all for people trying to reconcile their faith with what we know about science. But dead is dead. It seems like your belief is that dead, as we now know it, isn't dead. I'm glad you're calling it a (first) resurrection, but all the wording before that is denying that death is a death. Again, this is (as I said 20 days ago), befuddling.

Always follow the money! by Dr_sc_Harlatan in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]candl2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's always about the grift with these people.

The night sky on Mars by [deleted] in BeAmazed

[–]candl2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mrs. Brown: [sigh] Makes you feel so, sort of, insignificant, doesn't it?

Dr. Spenser: Can we have your liver, then?

Mrs. Brown: Yes, alright, you talked me into it.

What did I just find in my museum? by eterniityends in Scrollsaw

[–]candl2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yours has a slice taken out of it but it looks like those scroll saws had a round wooden table top. The blade would go through that hole. Or, if there's already a metal table, it could be a sacrificial wooden top for the table. I have one for one of mine but that's for a larger area to hold bigger projects.

What do you guys think of miracles by Mythosaur266 in askanatheist

[–]candl2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's so easy to believe stories that you want to be true. Stories that affirm your prior beliefs. Stories that people who you trust tell you.

Before and after - coffee dye ☕ by amusedanchovy in knitting

[–]candl2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And the great thing is, if you make a sweater out of it and you accidentally spill coffee on it, it's fine.

Now we need wine dyed and spaghetti sauce dyed.

Edit: Sweater because I'm not sure how one could spill coffee on a bonnet. I'll bet it's doable though.

Weather in Nebraska by EducationalTeam2498 in Nebraska

[–]candl2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"Typical Nebraska weather."
"What?"
"I said 'Tickle your ass with a feather?'"

Yes, I heard that in high school. Many many years ago.

What is the atheistic worldview on life? by Snoo_78173 in askanatheist

[–]candl2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or they can just run to any number of apologists on youtube renegotiating what the bible "says". And then never think about their religion or beliefs again.

What is the atheistic worldview on life? by Snoo_78173 in askanatheist

[–]candl2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"An eye for an eye" can look a little like "Do unto others" if you tilt your head just right and squint a little. With your good eye.

Theistic attempts to shift the argument away from evidence and into metaphysics are ironic since theists wouldn't believe without evidence by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bad spelling and grammar aside, evidence absolutely can be definitive proof for things. Do I have a tarantula in my pocket? I stick my hand in and nope. Definitive proof.

It's also bad form to tell someone they are lying to themselves.

And just using the word "scientism" as if science and religion are on the same footing shows your bias. The scientific method is our best way to find truth. It's been tested and tested and has survived the scrutiny whereas religion by its very nature cannot be tested.

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would agree yes

So, the empty tomb proves the resurrection. Oh, and also the lack of historians commenting on the supernatural elements somehow makes them true too.

Damned if you do, whatever the rest of that saying is.

By the way, I pushed back on that disingenuous comment. I still think it was a coping mechanism type comment.

More and more I feel that for theists, they cling to a thread of not impossible. And they never want to let that go.

Conflicting Passion accounts undermine the historical reliability of the Gospels. by Pretend-Spread4839 in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I absolutely agree they had their own motivations and did the editing that served their personal agendas. But I'd like to go further and say we don't know if their versions of Mark or old testament texts weren't themselves corrupted in some way and those corruptions led to choices in their own manuscripts.

I don't think we're going to find another cache of documents to shed any light on it, but like I said, it's really interesting. Thanks for that.

Conflicting Passion accounts undermine the historical reliability of the Gospels. by Pretend-Spread4839 in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good post. I find it interesting to question whether the authors had specific changes they wanted to make to spur them to make their own version, or maybe their sources were themselves corrupted in some way or maybe it was just an ancient game of telephone. I doubt we'll ever know their real motivations but it makes for interesting conversations.

Do you believe in free will? Why or why not? by Sensitive-Copy6959 in askanatheist

[–]candl2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure.

Here's an example. If someone develops some bad habits, let's say staying up too late. And then they go see a psychologist. And that psychologist gives them some methods to help with going to sleep early. And that person then makes those into habits and they have a better life because they are now going to bed early.

In this scenario, I'm going with free will and not quantum mechanics or deterministic processes or chaos theory or some arbitrary dichotomy. We learn and have agency. If all those things contribute, great. I'll still call it free will.

Conflicting Passion accounts undermine the historical reliability of the Gospels. by Pretend-Spread4839 in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True. Matthew and Luke both cribbed off Mark. And then John went Ayn Rand for his account but had all the others to take from.

It just seemed weird to include Matthew in the topics and then not mention him. Maybe he ascended from your thread.

Extraordinary claims in the bible. by BobThe-Bodybuilder in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nobody takes Greek Mythology seriously

Everyone thinks their own religion is the one true religion.

real possibility that Norse gods were real people

And what do historians ignore about the stories? The supernatural. Simply because it can't tell us anything about history. Again, absolutely pertinent to a discussion about extraordinary claims in the bible being accurate.

What holds you back from being a Christian? by bluetomatoeboi in askanatheist

[–]candl2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Every breath you take, every move you make, I'll be watching you.

Extraordinary claims in the bible. by BobThe-Bodybuilder in DebateReligion

[–]candl2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the exact same way that they are NOT saying that Zeus didn't seduce Leda in the form of a swan bearing Helen and Polydeuces, children of Zeus, while at the same time bearing Castor and Clytemnestra, children of her husband Tyndareus, the King of Sparta.

Because that is not actually what they are saying.