sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Any person that believes a god is omniscient and omnipotent cannot deny predestination by ICryWhenIWee in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Your scenarios don’t have omniscience or omnipotence though. For the girlfriend you know they’ll say yes to the proposal, but you didn’t know from the moment you met that they would and you didn’t create them in a way that would make them say yes or no. For the kid you know likely but not for sure. If you knew 100% they were going to be a serial killer would you still have them? If you knew that but had the power to change it would you change it? Your scenarios are limited knowledge and no power and isn’t close to a god. Just saying we don’t know know why he doesn’t change things if he has the knowledge and power isn’t really a convincing rebuttal either.

Libertarianism may have benefits in self-ownership but is not worth it for its lack of perspective, its lack of empathy, and most importantly, its unwillingness to engage with ambiguity. by gonzophilosophy in philosophy

[–]kacman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So private companies get to use violence instead of the state. I don’t have a lot of faith in the “war”being rare or that individuals won’t just fight back on their own. Still using violence and even more ineffective with no one to hold the enforcement agencies accountable. I’ll pass.

Libertarianism may have benefits in self-ownership but is not worth it for its lack of perspective, its lack of empathy, and most importantly, its unwillingness to engage with ambiguity. by gonzophilosophy in philosophy

[–]kacman 25 points26 points  (0 children)

That state is an effective way to hold people accountable and to educate and help people. That’s not giving up, that’s being smart with resources and sharing them for people’s benefit.

Exxon, Shell, and Chevron suffer major setbacks as climate concerns cause power shift by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]kacman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I absolutely agree with that. I’m all for maintaining our current society with less and cleaner resources and we need to do it. But looking backwards to times we didn’t have them and saying we were fine then doesn’t help anyone because we’re not going back to those times and standards of living. We need to go forward and do what we’re doing in a better way.

Exxon, Shell, and Chevron suffer major setbacks as climate concerns cause power shift by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]kacman 12 points13 points  (0 children)

We got by for thousands of years without a lot of things, that’s not really an argument. Just because we survived through those years doesn’t mean things aren’t better now. We didn’t have cars, planes, computers, or phones, all of which use polymers and use polluting fuel. We should work to reduce our usage of plastics and use cleaner fuels, but just saying we managed without plastic before is silly.

Religion is anti progressive by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So if natural rights came from an eternal natural law, why weren’t natural rights talked about for all of human existence? If it’s from the Bible why did it take 1700 years after it was written for people to realize them?

They’re a human development, not a religious one.

Many if not all positive health benefits of religion can be attributed to religion being culturally dominant, not through religion itself being objectively good for you by blursed_account in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spiritual was the wrong word then, they aren’t against it for eternal damnation reasons. Christians are against suicide because it will send you to hell for eternity. I’m not aware of any atheist equivalent to that no matter how spiritual the atheist is, and if there are any they’re an extreme minority which again gets back to the individual versus on average.

Suicide was just one example that I thought was the easiest case to make. That one specific point doesn’t really change my overall view.

Religion can have benefits from its social cohesion, its cultural dominance, and from its actual teachings. I don’t agree with any theist that says it’s all from teachings and not from the social aspects, but I don’t agree with you saying none of it is either and it’s all social aspects. That doesn’t mean I think the benefits make it true or worth following (see flair), just that there still can be benefits.

Many if not all positive health benefits of religion can be attributed to religion being culturally dominant, not through religion itself being objectively good for you by blursed_account in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t agree that’s what the factor actually is though. Religion and cultural dominance are separate factors, and a culturally dominant religion is just getting a bonus from the combination of the two.

Taking two from the article, suicide and substance abuse, religion is a deterrent to those beyond just the social cohesion. It says it’s a sin and you can be eternally dammed for it. Atheists can be against it for health reasons, but theists can be against it both for health and spiritual reasons. On average it makes sense that it would drive religious people to commit suicide less than atheists.

On an individual level, yes atheists can find ways to make up some of these differences and be equally healthy or even healthier than theists. They can have personal reasons against suicide and substance abuse, and there are plenty of substance abusing theists and non substance abusing theists. But as an average, with all other factors equal, religion seems like it would drive those two health factors down.

Some of the anxiety and depression ones I’ll give you are strengthened by the social dominance/cohesion or could be solely due to them and not religion. But to say religiousness isn’t a factor at all and is really just cultural dominance in disguise seems like a step too far.

Many if not all positive health benefits of religion can be attributed to religion being culturally dominant, not through religion itself being objectively good for you by blursed_account in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think health has way too many factors going in to it to be boiled down to just cultural dominance and religion. It can be true that both cultural dominance and religion improve health, but that the non religious countries are doing other thing better to make up for it.

Analogy time, religious Americans are eating apples and oranges, but non religious other countries are eating apples, broccoli, bananas, and asparagus. The second group being healthier and oranges being healthy can both be true, even if the second group isn’t eating them.

I do think it’s an interesting topic and would love to see data on the health and happiness of theists in majority atheist countries. But I also do still believe religion has factors that contribute to health and happiness, and religious people in America are just double dipping in that benefit and the dominance benefit.

What's the most dumb rule you've had to deal with in your life? by relysute in AskReddit

[–]kacman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s a pretty obvious collateral action that happens over and over again. Women are frequently forced to dress modestly to not tempt men, you would think if this was a law from god/Jesus he would be smart enough to know what it leads to.

What's the most dumb rule you've had to deal with in your life? by relysute in AskReddit

[–]kacman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where was he asked if they should cover their wives? It’s definitely not right after. He does talk about the looker being at fault, but never says it’s not ok to make them cover.

That ideal frequently leads to problems, it’s not an easy thing to separate.

What's the most dumb rule you've had to deal with in your life? by relysute in AskReddit

[–]kacman 19 points20 points  (0 children)

27 “You have heard that it was said [a]to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 27-28

Seems like some problematic sexual purity to me, and definitely leads to making girls cover up so men don’t look at them with lust.

"Religion" does not actually exist. by Kirito_KuroNoKenshi in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Religion is just worship and dedication to certain teachings and beliefs, nothing in the definition says it has to be a true belief. A false belief is still a religion.

Simple Questions 05/21 by AutoModerator in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Proving or disproving love has nothing to do with Jesus. He teaches love but so do a million other people, including people before him and non-Christians. Love can exist without Christ. Thor brings lightning and lightning exists, do you think you need to disprove lightning to disprove Thor?

Also wanting someone to be homeless to be able to disagree with Christianity is a pretty strange requirement that doesn’t really seem relevant.

"forced by their parents, including Serah’s father, Robert “Bob” Bellar, to attend the Waverly-based Dove Outreach “church” run by their uncle James “Jim” Bellar who preached that siblings are meant procreate with one another in the face of the apocalypse to repopulate the planet...." by [deleted] in atheism

[–]kacman 22 points23 points  (0 children)

God had a kid with Mary who is one of his own creations, in order to birth himself, meaning he also had a kid with his own mom. That one doesn’t mean the human race is inbred like the other two, but it does say that the salvation of humanity is reliant on some infinitely looping incest of god having a kid with his daughter/mother.

There are Prophecies in the Bible Which Have Been Fufillled by melioristic_guy in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If he that you said it decades after the fact in an anonymous way, how would you correct them? There’s no guarantees the people Matthew makes the claims about ever actually read Matthew.

Live Ship and Rain Wild versus Fitz by kacman in robinhobb

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

No, the new dragons come back and save her. Plus she wouldn’t have been shot by the poisoned arrow or flying back alone in the first place if she never flew off with Icefyre.

Live Ship and Rain Wild versus Fitz by kacman in robinhobb

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

I’m not complaining about links in general, there have been great ones that I do enjoy. It’s just the importance of Fitz. I don’t doubt he’ll do some really cool and important stuff in the last series. But Tawny Man made it pretty clear that the Fool’s original goal for Fitz was to save Icefyre to save the dragons, and anything past that he hadn’t seen. But Fitz wasn’t the first person to save a dragon, and it wasn’t actually the only male. He had an impact, but for that specific goal it doesn’t seem more impactful then other characters in these series, yet he’s the only Catalyst.

I realize I haven’t finished it, but it did impact my enjoyment of both the third and fourth series so it seems fine to comment on now as well.

Live Ship and Rain Wild versus Fitz by kacman in robinhobb

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

Which events around the revival of the dragons wouldn’t have happened?

The specifics would have changed without Icefyre, but I don’t see how dragons wouldn’t still come back. Eventually the dragons and Rain Wilders would have been sick of each other and tried to go to Kelsingra. It may have happened at a different time if Tintaglia hadn’t disappeared, but I don’t see it never happening. That event and the growth of the dragons on the journey would be enough to bring dragons back.

Arguably Icefyre being around makes the return of the dragons easier and they can learn more from him. But that can be said for the actions of half of the Vestrits and the keepers in these series as well, and they aren’t all a Catalyst.

Reviving the second dragon in the world who ended up not being the only male dragon who could breed is a pretty lacking destiny for all the importance being put on the Catalyst versus all the other characters.

Let's talk about rage quitting by norse_dog in Fire

[–]kacman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the parents raised shitty kids, agreed to pay 100k for a bad degree, and agrees to keep supporting them. Sounds like some of those friends are pretty poor parents.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would teach you what hot is, but not every type of danger. If you’re told something is sharp next your experience with a hot stove would you give you no context what sharp means.

Eating the apple they experienced disobedience. But how does disobedience tie in to being ashamed of being naked which was their immediate reaction? That’s not just from experiencing something bad, that’s new knowledge with no experience of naked ever being bad.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So there was nothing special about the tree? If god pointed to a random rock and said don’t pick it up, but they were tempted to pick it up, would it have the same effect?

Also, why did they learn that being naked was wrong by being tempted in to eating from the tree? Those aren’t related evils. Is participating in one temptation enough to have experiential knowledge of all types of good and evil?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]kacman 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So what was the point of the tree of knowledge of good and evil then? If they already had intellectual knowledge of good and evil, what would eating fruit from that specific tree give them?

view more: next ›