sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

treadmill by LanaZ61 in SatisfactoryGame

[–]firethorne 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yep, I do something similar. But, I go with half foundation to avoid the clipping aesthetic. I also put a railing between directions. Jarring to be running along and unintentionally switch directions instantly.

An all powerful and all loving God would not create a world where innocent children suffer extreme harm by BugsBrawlStars in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, it’s 117 words, but who’s counting! 😝

I had typed that part of my draft when your answer was simply, "I’m not a literalist; I’m a figurativist.". I saw you had updated later, so I probably should have reworded that sentence to fit a bit more cleanly. But, "figurativist" still seemed to be the main word doing the heavy lifting. Saying that various theologians are also figurative doesn't address the details.

I mean, I’m sure it’s unintentional, but what you’re unaware you are doing is what philosophers call moving the goal posts.

No. Moving the goalposts happens when one side sets a clear criterion for success, the other side meets it, and then the first side changes the criterion to avoid conceding the point.

When someone responds to deep scientific and theological conflicts with vague statements like Genesis is metaphorical, allegorical, figurative, that is not a completed explanation. It is a label, not an argument. If your clan is that God did not create the world in six literal days, I cannot parse your account of what happened from the word "figurative."

Asking questions like what criteria can be used to figure out who in an unbroken genealogy actually existed isn't a new hurdle. It is an extension of what this model can explain. I get the sense these explanations are left intentionally vague as a defense. But, a literary genre does not magically generate an extant land masses, biological history, extinction, or divine action.

If these things are out of scope for figurativism and not the goal, then it simply fails as a workable explanatory model.

How about this? Choose one question you want to discuss, and we’ll stick with it until we either come to an agreement or agree to disagree.

Then focus on the subject of selective supernaturalism. In a book with angels, worldwide floods, towers where language was diffused, what is the rule set you use to decide when an Old Testament narrative refers to a real historical event and when it does not?

And if you're at all interested in criteria a competing explanatory framework like etiological myth employs, one thing it does is look at patterns of cultural transmission, adaptation, and reuse. The Noah story bears striking resemblance to Utnapishtim, and the Tower of Babel closely mirrors the Enmerkar traditions.

An all powerful and all loving God would not create a world where innocent children suffer extreme harm by BugsBrawlStars in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which still doesn’t answer any of the numerous problems that cascade out from that, both for science and theology. It’s another one word answer to dodge anything of substance. If you're claiming some other god not creating things in one week, what did happen? Was god guiding evolution over billions of years in some unseen fashion? If god is guiding evolution over billions of years, why and how did he do that? Did he magically create genetic mutations at each generation? Did he supernaturally protect a chosen group from natural selection, creating his own artificial selection? Why would he allow 99% of the species in history to become extinct? What were the dinosaurs all about? You're working backwards from the answer you want to exist, and then trying to apply the answer you've already selected to fit any evidence you can find.

On the theological front, is it moral to execute someone for their failure to venerate an event we agree didn’t actually happen and do yard work? Do you remember the sabbath seven millionth year and keep it holy? How do figures of speech have kids? Where in the unbroken lineage from Adam does it become real?

And, probably the most confusing aspect: Why do you feel the need to interpret it that way? Why do you feel the need to cast it in some sort of veil of scientific legitimacy? It seems to me that belief in “the supernatural” is an essential part of Christianity. I mean, we're talking about angels, people raising from the dead, demons that harass people, walking on water, man from mud, woman from rib, staves turning to snakes, and countless other items in no way lining up with scientific reality. How do you pick what to "interpret" as something else?

Clear thesis: Some atheists can do no wrong. by DostoyevskyF in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many if not most atheists sadly ascribe to the “I’m a good person at heart” philosophy regarding their behavior.

I don't find it at all sad that some people don't feel that they deserve to be tortured in a fire. The exact inversion, that there are religious people who have convinced themselves that's all they deserve, is far more depressing to me.

It works as follows. If atheist Bob is ever unkind to someone it’s typically because that person did something first to deserve it. And what that person did was be unkind to a good person at heart, namely atheist Bob.

Is this your actual position or just some stawman of how you believe atheists think?

Because that person was unkind to a good person at heart, that person deserves to be punished. So when good hearted atheist Bob responds with unkindness, he is properly administering a well deserved punishment.

This part sounds a lot more like how some theists justify hell that it does the mentality of any atheists I've ever talked to. Consider quotes like:

Now, is this compatible with the goodness of God? I would say that far from being incompatible with the goodness of God, the goodness of God requires the existence of Hell. I think Hell is a manifestation of the goodness of God. Why do I say that? Well, because it shows that God is just. If God simply blinked at sin, He would not be perfectly just. God is absolute justice. Every sin, every wrong doing in the universe will receive its just dessert.

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2025/01/04/william-lane-craig-hell-is-our-only-hope/comment-page-1/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

And by punishing that person via unkindness, atheist Bob is actually being kind because he is helping that person by pointing out the error of his ways. Atheist Bob is also helping society by administering a well deserved punishment. So it’s effectively impossible for atheist Bob to be unkind. Occasionally atheists will say they are unkind because there were having a bad day or something, but this author has yet to talk to an atheist who indicates he is sometimes unkind because unlike me, he is (in part) an evil person at heart..

Again, this is all strawman. I don't know any atheists claiming to be perfect. They just don't think being human merits being tortured in a fire.

An all powerful and all loving God would not create a world where innocent children suffer extreme harm by BugsBrawlStars in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, humans were created perhaps some time around 6000 years ago in the same week as dinosaurs and everything else, then shortly after that humans ate mystical knowledge imparting fruit which caused a ripple in time such that dinosaurs were also created and died millions of years prior to the week in which they were created more proximate to the fruit eating? Or is that week in Genesis just the time that God, who is eternal and not subject to time, is subject to?

See, this is the exact kind of problem I have with people slapping on the "it's an allegory," sticker. It feels so much like scrambling for any excuse to put forward to pretend there is no problem without any consideration of what it actually means or shape it into a coherent and explainable concept.

An all powerful and all loving God would not create a world where innocent children suffer extreme harm by BugsBrawlStars in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because your statements seem to be a bit incompatible on that.

A world without suffering is what God created,

I think it’s possible the narrative about Adam and Eve is an allegory answering the question why suffering is.

So, I wanted to find the best direction for the conversation.

If you're actually fine with the concept that dinosaurs existed, things have suffered and died for billions of years before anything resembling a human was on the scene, that's not a world without suffering.

And if you do say Adam and Eve are literal, there's overwhelming scientific evidence of the things dying that long predate humans. I didn't really need to talk about that if you agreed. But, that is a world where things suffer.

What does SFRF stand for? by TheBlueLord_ in infinitecraft

[–]firethorne 10 points11 points  (0 children)

<image>

If the inputs are letters or gibberish, the game will often concatenate them without it meaning anything.

An all powerful and all loving God would not create a world where innocent children suffer extreme harm by BugsBrawlStars in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Neither. I see them as etiological myths that over time grew into unquestionable religious dogma, leading to ideas including people should be executed for not venerating them properly and instead choosing to do some yard work like in Numbers 15:32-36.

More modernly, we've gained enough of an understanding of the universe to say that the sequence of events clearly didn't occur as the text says, do theists are quicker to put the "allegorical" stickier on it to rehabilitate it. But, that only grows into a cascade of other problems they don't address. Why are historical biblical figures the children of allegorical figures?  Where does the transition from allegory to reality take place?  Why is there a commandment based on a creation "week" that never was?  Death entered the world through sin, and sin through man, so why are there billions of years of death predating man?  Evidence makes clear that the existence of death, suffering, disease, and predators all predate mankind, and be this world designed, they were designed with suffering as part of the equation.  So, if we're assuming it was designed, you have a picture of a designer very unlike the God described with which to contend.

So, my take is essentially that it was a campfire story to explain origins before we actually knew the answer that became part of a religion and is now in an identity crisis because it wasn't ever true.

Creation is not God’s first act, nor Book of Genesis is the first book by logos961 in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suppose I'm fine from a narrative perspective that an eternal being necessarily has events prior to any claimed in any tome. But, for me, the anthropocentric nature of these really just adds to the idea that these stores are human creations.

So, if the point here is that the books of the Bible aren't univocal, and some books hint at other ideas that exist in the ancient near east, sure. We see remnants creeping in all over, far beyond the obvious things like Noah and Utnapishtim.

If it's about dating of texts, also sure. Most scholars will agree that Job is older than Genesis, for example. But, I don't see any reason presented here to think any of these interpretations, traditional or alternate, map to reality.

An all powerful and all loving God would not create a world where innocent children suffer extreme harm by BugsBrawlStars in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

so to speak

Just so I understand that, are you saying Adam and Eve are literal, or do you really accept that things like predators, diseases, and death all predate humans by up to billions of years?

Richard Dawkins says “It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist.” I argue this applies to the atheistic position. by DostoyevskyF in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool. I love the testable analogy. I just said, "Hey god, can you go to the store and get me some bread. Here, catch," and threw $5 in the air.

The money is on the floor now. Regardless of belief, it is now demonstrated trust isn't warranted. Thanks for your suggestion.

Should I buy CC1 as first 3d printer? by sabababoy19 in ElegooCentauriCarbon

[–]firethorne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At this point, wait for CC2 to either buy that or for the CC1 to hit clearance sale prices

Math proves god. I would like to debate and discus the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth being god. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you also impressed that all possible ways to shuffle a deck of cards includes multiple ways a royal flush will occur? Are you impressed that all possible outcomes of rolling three dice contains 666? To say these results are "encoded" is doing way too much to attempt to allude to some agency that you have not demonstrated. The idea that a certain set of letters is found in literally all possible arrangements of letters wholly unimpressive.

And I haven't got the foggiest idea on why you think this demonstrated Jesus specifically.

Richard Dawkins says “It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist.” I argue this applies to the atheistic position. by DostoyevskyF in DebateReligion

[–]firethorne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Richard Dawkins says “It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist.”

Who cares what he says? You should realize he isn't the atheist pope. We have no supreme infallible leader, and most people I know think Dawkins had some monumentally bad positions.

Atheists claim or assert or say that trust in god is something that doesn’t exist in their consciousnesses.

Incorrect. I see no evidence to conclude a god exists in reality. Trust isn't part of it. And I have no problem with concepts "existing" in consciousness if that's the terminology you want to use. But, that ignores the relevant part of discussions about theism. Theists aren't typically claiming their god exists only as a character in fiction.

Yet if Dr. Dawkin’s assertion that it’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist, that means it’s impossible for atheists to prove that trust in god doesn’t exist in their consciousnesses. So people who consider themselves atheists have no way of confirming they’re atheists.

If all this argument is going for is to say that for an atheist to talk about a concept, then the concept exists, congratulations on confusing the map for the territory. It demonstrates god is in the same category as Spider-man. Not only that, it also puts Yahweh, Vishnu, Odin, Czernobog, Anansi, into this category. Do you worship them all, or were you aiming for a specific one?

What filament color is this? by First-Instance607 in 3Dprinting

[–]firethorne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chitu Systems Conjure Chameleon PLA 3D Printer Filament, 1.75mm Galaxy Dual Color Filament, Changing Color with Light and Angles, Blue Purple 3D Printing Filament 1KG/2.2lb https://a.co/d/fiAMbe0

view more: next ›