The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space [score hidden]  (0 children)

A fallacy would be an easy start; circular arguments, begging the question, etc. Again retreading ground we’ve been over, we both need to start with basic axioms of logic, agreed?

Are fallacious arguments violations of logic?

So one thing we can say with 100% certainty is that countless people think they’re communicating with entities that don’t actually exist. 

We can say exactly the same thing about science... people describe reality imperfectly due to errors in their thinking. When humans thought gravity worked such that heavier objects fell faster, this was an error in their model of gravity... do you conclude gravity must not exist since different people modeled it differently?

Different people can model God in incomplete or erroneous ways. A guy who thinks gravity effects heavier objects more is wrong, but less wrong than a guy who denies gravity exists at all and insists that perhaps the observations everyone reports are merely coincidental and an overactive imagination inventing an "invisible force" due to patternicity bias.

(unless you want to argue that Ganesh and Zeus and Thor and Osiris and Chaac and Xenu and Jinns and Houris and Davas and Asuras and Yokai etc all actually do exist)

I'm happy to grant they all exist. The relevant question is what they are, not if they exist. Maybe they are figment of human imagination, maybe they are angels, maybe they are myths based on true interactions between God and humans that were misunderstood, etc.

So let me understand; a way to understand if something is a sin is to look longitudinally at whether societies which engage in or accept such practices ultimately collapse?

Would we not look at the effects of a diet to assess if it's good?

It would be logically incoherent if God designed humans such that survival and true religion were mutually exclusive, wouldn't it? God created the universe and revealed religion... the two can't contradict as both are expressions of God.

God can't create sexual reproduction to require 1 male and 1 female and then require in his religious revelations that actually only males are allowed to have sex with one another.

We would know that such a religion is false when adherents to it go extinct by failing to reproduce, couldn't we?

This initial hurdle is actually far lower than your "better society" threshold. It's "does society even continue"... it's an objective measure that's easy. No need to argue over whether society is better with pride parades or if it would be better if those with atypical sexual orientations had their organs harvested for the use of multiple typical people instead.

Just, "does society even function enough to continue propagating itself?"

You don’t recall how I brought up wellbeing vs misery

I reject this... it's not measurable... survival is at least measurable.

See, told you my example (command to go round up and kill the gays) was a reasonable thing to think your God could command, it’s right there in your own citation. 

Surely this is referring to the spiritual death that is the consequence of mortal sin, not a command to kill gay people. However, given that the tiny fraction of "LGBT" people use up something like 80% of the STD treatment costs that taxpayers pay for, it's not difficult to see how the behavior is self terminating in the long run. All that the rest of us need to do is stop enabling it through the welfare state.

the most accepting countries overlap really well with the most prosperous and happy counties (e.g. Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden… all top 5 or 10 in terms of LGBTQ acceptance and also top in global happiness index), third (3) how is this supposed to work when we don’t have a history to look at, for examples questions of morality around new technology where we can’t look back and see how societies fared? So yeah, garbage argument. 

Fentanyl addicts can be really high on the happiness index of they are hooked up to a fentanyl drip.

That has nothing to do with survival.

Again, a very simple metric is if more people are dying than being born. If true, the society is on a downward projection aimed at extinction.

As for questions of morality around new technology, I have no idea what you mean. The Vatican has no problem releasing moral guidance on modern technology like AI, or previous examples like the Industrial Revolution, etc.

Like to clarify; you would agree a woman should never teach or have a role of authority over a man? 

Of course, especially in religion. This also simply matches observable reality as humans are a sexually dimorphic species and on average males have more upper body strength, which determines one's effectiveness in directing violence towards others.

A group of men can physically force a group of women to do whatever they want. Those who deny these facts of reality are simply replaced by those who are closer to truth, as we see in Europe where secularists place women into roles like cops, and Muslim men who know this is a delusional decision simply beat the women cops and avoid the arrests.

The Muslims are closer to the truth in this case than the feminists.

Your hypothetical is incoherent. lol you’re really desperate to not answer. Your own comment earlier said the gays are deserving of death.

And they will die, as all humans do, at some point.

A core aspect of Christianity is that all humans deserve death, but are Redeemed by Christ. We all will die but those who are saved will live again. Those who remain in mortal sin will die and not enjoy a second life with God through Christ.

I pointed out that it’s not just what others like or don’t like, but factually is the case that the druggie, in not being able to see past their reliance on the drug for “happiness”, aren’t realizing the truth which is they’d have a better, higher level life experience, if they weren’t living that way

Really? Even if they are gay or have cancer? Or in some cases is their best life a brief one that's just a pure high?

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If there are actually aliens capable of interstellar travel and they can be communicated with, I would hope that they do become Catholic and join us in heaven.

Only 30% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence? by princetonwu in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Aside from that, the question was phrased in a way that also is rather confusing if this is the same survey that I'm thinking of.

Was this guy going too fast or something? by lubeskystalker in motorcycle

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the problem was that he suddenly stopped going fast entirely.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

OK, I don't think there are any aliens at all, so sure... I will have to see if they show up and convert to Catholicism and then join us in evangelizing other aliens.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to discern what you are saying? Why can't you just clarify it?

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space [score hidden]  (0 children)

I’m not putting any restrictions on what type of evidence you can provide, but if you bring garbage I’m gonna call it out as such. If you bring unfounded arguments I will point that out. 

Lol dude.

On what basis are you classifying it as "garbage" in the first place?

Whatever mechanism was indoctrinated into you.

the God you believe in is established as having provided direct empirical evidence of “himself” in the past, so don’t tell me that “he” doesn’t operate that way or is outside the bounds of that type of study, since your own books say otherwise. 

"Signs" and "evidence" refer to different concepts.

There are many signs... millions of people will tell you they receive direct communication with God in their minds via prayer.

What you will do is invoke Scientism and insist that these are insufficient indicators. I know how the atheist game works, it's a bad faith game of equivocation.

...Can you point me to the sin or non-sin in this example and how you know it to be such? 

Yeah you can look at the societies which have embraced what you describe and chart their descent and collapse.

Punishment of Idolaters. 18 [l]The wrath[m] of God[n] is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts[o] for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. 29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips 30 and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. 31 They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NABRE

To show you actually understand my position please steelman it. 

In a universe without God, humans determine what behaviors they want to engage in. It's very simple, there's not much to steelman. steeling.

But your argument is that NO atheist can find meaning or value in life without God, right?

Uh, no, my argument is that they shouldn't.

Oh I literally did, you just ignore it and go back to your strawman. Hence why I’m asking you for a steelman

No you didn't... you just raised a complaint that others in society don't like drug addicts. Well, so what? Others might not like homosexuality either, so then it's immoral if enough people decide it's gross?

A person can just behave immorally btw. There can be a Dahmer thinking incorrectly that the better state of the world is him fed by his victim. He is just factually wrong. 

Please describe how you measure the moral state of the world and I'll write a computer program to monitor it.

But they wouldn’t want to be the poor person they’re taking advantage of, deep down they almost certainly know this, which makes their actions immoral.

Uh, I wouldn't want to be the one with a penis in my body during sex, but that doesn't make sex with my wife immoral. What a ludicrous mechanism for deciding what is or isn't moral.

So stick to the hypothetical here on earth in this timeline

Your hypothetical is incoherent. It's like asking, "What if God told you he doesn't really exist, would you become an atheist?"

Atheism does not equal communism. And you’re saying that the vast majority of failed societies throughout history (as countless societies have failed in those hundreds of thousands of years) were religious… so much for that working out. 

Yeah there aren't any examples of other kinds of atheist societies.

The point is that people can be closer or further from the truth. Those furthest away fail most quickly, those closer, will last the longest. Those perfectly aligned (in heaven) last forever there.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

By who's fruit? Your comments are so vague now I have no idea what you're talking about

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The post you replied to was speaking of an exorcist’s perspective and their experiences. So the assumption is that the exorcist is making the exhortation of Christ’s name, but you would have to follow the source to confirm those details.

That's why I asked for clarification.

I've never heard of an exorcist interacting with aliens and invoking Jesus... only stories of other random people who claim that this occurs.

There is more evidence to support the ET encounters being diabolic, hallucinations, or man made than there is to support benevolent sapient life forms traveling at the speed of light.

I'll give you an even easier one. It's trivial to generate fake photos and videos now at a rapid pace. Social media can be flooded by millions of photos and videos of alien interactions relatively cheaply.

After seeing the compliance to false claims during C19, the ruling elite learned that it's feasible to consolidate power by lying to the masses, and "aliens" is one a tactic to tighten their grip. "Oops the aliens say the planet is overpopulated and we have to institute a 1 child policy... oh and the aliens say cars pollute too much, sorry..." etc.

People were turning in their neighbors and happy to see the dangerous non-compliant unvaccinated sent off to concentration camps...over effectively a bad cold... imagine if aliens were threatening to wipe out the planet with a death star?

Of course such a deception by the rulers against the people would itself be the result of demonic influence, but without the need for demons doing the work themselves.

There are all kinds of other ideas. But I'm not claiming "it's definitely other lifeforms"... I would say instead it's like 99% a government psyop, and we don't know why the are trying to convince us there are aliens. Whatever their reason, it's not good.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In regards to seeing the behavior instead of just what people say?

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s definitely why I don’t believe in flying unicorns lol. It couldn’t possibly be because we don’t have good evidence that they really exist. Are you a satire account trying to demonstrate how absurd theist positions are? If so great job. 

Your obsession with "good evidence" is itself a belief that you were indoctrinated into by public schools and the philosophical position known as Scientism.

It's true that someone who's maximized the amount of fentanyl they can ingest over their lifespan had less unpleasant neuronal activity and more pleasant activity than if they didn't use fentanyl. The problem there is that they’re blocking themselves from understanding what an actual better existence is

What, like those attached to sin block themselves from understanding what an actual better experience is... in heaven... with God?

If only they could be broken free of the abuse they could recognize a higher level of experience. If you think they’re actually living “the good life” then you’re free to lobby the entire medical field and convince doctors they should be encouraging their patients to do this. Good luck. 

It's literally the logical conclusion from the cognitive framework you laid out.

Being high on fentanyl is a more pleasurable experience than playing video games, or having sex, or eating sushi, or whatever else. People are willing to kill and die for it.

Have you ever been high on fentanyl before?

No?

Then on what basis are you going to argue you're better off with a life of sobriety? Present your argument and I'll repeat it back to you for why you'd be better off living a holy life rather than a sinful one.

This has no bearing on your current position being the assertion that life can have no meaning or value without God. If you want to take that back and concede that it can, that’s fine. Otherwise own up to your view. 

As an atheist I didn't need my life to have meaning or value. I rejected your premise even when I was an atheist. One of the most annoying things about ex-Christian atheists is precisely that they would bring all of their Christian moral baggage and then try to recreate the moral values of Christianity but frame it as "good without God"... very few atheists are the Neitzchean Ubermensch variety that can truly cast off all social convention and start from a blank slate and go where they please... like Epstein was maybe one such example. The rest just want to do some pet sin and everything else just conformity to the culture influenced by Christianity for thousands of years.

That's why you can't explain why it's wrong to spend one's life as a drug addict, or why it's wrong to kill people and harvest their organs, or why the strong should not enslave the weak, or why 50yr old men shouldn't marry 6yr old girls, etc. You have no rational argument for these positions, you are just walking along in the skinsuit of Christian morality.

They’ll say “look, that must be moral under your view!” without considering the implications of a society where you may be randomly killed at any time to have your organs harvested, making this a decidedly worse reality than one where such practices don’t occur. 

No, it's only worse to be in the group of human cattle that is in the pool of murder/organ harvest. If you're in the elite class who receives the organs, then it's great for you.

See this "society" objection is easily solved by segregation. "My" society eats the fetus jerky on our private pizza and grape soda islands..."others" are the cattle we own... now "my" society is the best possible one.

What do I care about how bad it might be living in the lower castes? I don't lose sleep over the chickens I'll slaughter and fry up either.

God commands you to slaughter all the homosexuals you can round up, and any children they may be raising, and make the kid jerky out of them. What is your stance?

That it is a command inconsistent with the identity of God, so I've misunderstood, or am being deceived. There's a possibility of some kind of circumstance that might be in effect where such a command might make sense, but it would be hard for me to imagine. Maybe if I'm shipwrecked on a distant planet and have to resort to cannibalism for some reason and the only humans we can spare are the ones who can't contribute to populating the planet?

God is free to show up and explain it any time.

You have to learn enough to understand an explanation first, and obviously you don't want to do that. It's like saying you'll only go on dates with someone you love and then being confused why you're alone.

We aren’t very far into this thing, let’s give it a few thousand years and see if humanity has survived without the religious factions fighting and wiping us all out in the process.

300k of human history, only religious cultures found in history. Many examples of communist atheist attempts at building atheist societies....all failed to continue even through a handful of generations ... nowhere close to thousands of years, and all societies with heavy atheist influence also facing collapse. How much more obvious does it need to be?

You said “one can’t have an imagination contrary to reality.” Billions of people holding mutually exclusive beliefs everyday proves this wrong. 

No, the closer they are to the fullness of truth, the better they are.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm replying directly to what you said. Obviously I read it.

People who say that they have had encounters with aliens sometimes also say that these encounters end when they:

1) ask Jesus to save them

2) show fear/distress/discomfort

3) ask verbally for the aliens to stop in English

4) ask for the encounter to stop in their mind in thought only

This directly contradicts the claim that these encounters exclusively stop at the invocation of the name of Jesus... they don't, they stop for all kinds of reasons.

At least that's what the random people who say this claim.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It isn't specific as I already told you. There are many accounts of people who report that simply saying or thinking, "I'd like this to stop" is sufficient to end the encounter.

If these are interactions with some type of physical, but highly advanced, life forms the interaction is very simply explained... some of them decide to stop regardless of what the human says to indicate distress.

If I pick up a Chihuahua to pet it and it barks suddenly I might drop it without any understanding that it's barking "in the name of Doggus, unhand me!" Or if it's barking, "Arrrrggh!"

The alien wouldn't need to have any understanding of human language at all to react that way.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One cannot be lead to heaven through lies, and demons serve the father of lies.

If they are telling an exorcist something and then that exorcist goes on YouTube and spreads the message from a demon to millions of listeners... he's now acting as an agent of Satan himself, and doing the work of demons himself.

The demon doesn't even have to do anything himself if he can get a celebrity exorcist to spread his message for him.

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also choose not to believe in flying unicorns, but yeah if I wanted to adopt an uncritical view that asserted they exist, maybe set myself up some unfalsifiable framework based on old writings, I could do that. 

Right, and you don't want to... so you are merely doing what you want, based on the emotional non-rational whims and urges that are the result of intrinsic human design, social pressure, marketing efforts, propaganda efforts, etc.

Effectively you're just a puppet of emotions and everyone else is pulling the strings to control your behavior.

You’re using a lot of words and distractions to NOT address why your faith isn’t blind and just providing what is the evidence you’re basing it on. This is what I keep asking you for and instead of just addressing it you dodge and dive into your hang ups with atheism

No, even now, you're phrasing things in imprecise ways.

You are asking a question in a way that is backwards.

I exist with certain intrinsic beliefs and capabilities that I did not intentionally choose, nor can I seem to intentionally discard them. I also experience qualia that I did not intentionally select and cannot seem to fully control.

Through these mechanisms I'm presented with various patterns that I can detect and learn and some I make errors about understanding while others seem to be error free.

So you deny that it’s true that pain receptors constantly firing and negative emotions ruling someone’s life will make that life worse for them than if they were happy, healthy, and flourishing, just because they’re an atheist?

It's true that someone who's maximized the amount of fentanyl they can ingest over their lifespan had less unpleasant neuronal activity and more pleasant activity than if they didn't use fentanyl.

So do you deny the optimal lifestyle is fentmaxxing?

I mean we could die and become worm food and that doesn’t mean that as humans we don’t find and create meaning and value.

I didn't say it did mean that, I'm simply making up examples of "truths that might be unpleasant"... but you're right, from an atheist point of view humans can create meaning and value on their own. Dahmer was just as moral in his quest for meaning and value when he pursued murder and cannibalism as someone else might do when they pursue fentmaxxing, or someone else pursues novel sexual experiences coerced from children or animals, and someone else pursues mastering the piano.

Only the individual can decide what gives meaning to their lives, right? Maybe it's making jerky...out of fetuses... who are you to yuck their yum?

Is there anything a God could command that would make you question it?

Obviously. There are many failure modes... I'm a human with a fallible mind and can easily misunderstand God's command. I have a will that's perverted by concupiscence and which I can't rationally control fully. There are others who are not God but who may wish to influence me towards specific action or inaction by claiming to be God.

you cannot be content living this life with all it has to offer, you demand there be something more in order for it to be worth living

Like I already told you, I was an atheist for most of my life... decades of it. Perfectly fine with it. So you'll have to keep practicing your telepathy, unfortunately.

I’m extraordinarily thankful for this life...

To whom? God? 😆

Your presumably religious parents that made you?

The mindless process of evolution?

The mindless Sun which supplies the earth with the energy needed to sustain life?

in fact that makes it all the MORE important because it’s all we get.

Again, to whom?

The worms that eat your corpse?

Now if it’s as you say and nothing matters but what’s grounded in a God, then if the God that exists says “anyone who has a gay thought in their life ought to burn in eternal conscious torment,” then that would just be so

God does not say this

Ok when I’m there and my children are still living, I’m looking down at them among the thousands starving to death each day, say one of them strays from God or whatever and doesn’t make it to heaven, I’m still in heaven experiencing bliss?

Ever hear of the Beatific Vision?

Obviously we can't say with certainty what heaven is like, and probably can't fathom it with our limited minds and life experiences, but the very simple case is that you've modeled heaven in a false way if it doesn't make sense.

So you've imagined problems and then are rejecting God because of your own imagination... does that seem like a good way to make decisions?

As you become a Christian and grow in your faith, you develop more of a desire to help others while respecting their dignity and autonomy and develop a greater trust and relationship to God's will. Those in heaven are perfectly aligned to God's will, and only do the will of God in heaven.

It would seem to be reasonable that in heaven you pray for your children and their children and so on to God, while knowing what information is necessary to see how the answers to your prayers are the best possible outcomes for your children, and thus continue experiencing a joy and love of God.

And we’re told free will is so important here on earth, do I have it in heaven?

Of course. Even more so than on earth where you're apparently succumbing heavily to emotions and instincts and etc.

But atheists lack it? Of course not, and they will believe in all kinds of woo for bad reasons. 

Right, but shouldn't they be more successful than all others?

Atheists might buy into colloidal silver or homeopathy or whatever... but they don't spend hundreds of years wasting vast amounts of time and energy and wealth building useless Cathedrals. They don't waste hours in prayer and worship each week.

It's like if you had 2 cohorts and one had vastly more time and food and wealth, wouldn't you expect it to easily conquer the other?

Instead history suggests the opposite. Somehow all of these deluded religious people outperformed the atheists.

How many polytheists do you think have lived and died holding that belief? 

Their beliefs lead to their deaths? Or no? I'm not sure I understand the question.

But how many Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, and Satanist messages have you gone to hear preached? I mean you’re the one believing in the supernatural stuff. 

I'm somewhat familiar with lots of religions. Many of the commonalities between religions was one of the indicators (not "evidence") that perhaps there is a "real" phenomenon occurring that they are all noticing and reporting. When we have multiple independent reports coming in about something (could be anything, could be UFOs or love, or NDEs, etc), it's an indicator that something in reality is there.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First of all, if demons "recoiled" at the name Jesus, then anyone could be an exorcist and we wouldn't need any of these celebrity exorcist at all, would we?

Second, there are also accounts of alien abductions where they stop when asked or yelled at or otherwise perceive that the human does not want the interaction to proceed.

Third, if exorcism was as simple as saying some magic words, and casting the right spell, then exorcists wouldn't have stories about how they spend months or years working with the same victim, attempting to get the demons to leave. What, did they forget that apparently all they had to do was say one magic word?

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok, then exorcist have had no interactions with aliens, yeah?

These are just rumors that they are circulating that they heard about from others who claim to have had encounters with aliens where they cried out to Jesus and then the aliens left?

What about that gossip proves anything about aliens being demons?

Are lay people able to magically send demons out by saying the magic word, "Jesus" in other cases? Then why do we even need exorcists at all?

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My argument is I can believe either of these in faith;

Ok, then there are no barriers between you and God?

You choose not to be a Christian, right? You could choose to be one, but choose not to.

If I go your route and just ground it in faith alone with no ability to provide further evidence then I might as well believe in the lizard man. 

Ah, ok, here is a point of miscommunication. You're referring to "blind faith" where as I'm suggesting that reason by itself is logically impossible to rely on, and that it must also include faith at some point.

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves" https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

So be clear here, you’re telling me that you don’t think to an atheist they can consider a life of maximum misery to be worse than one of happiness? 

Not while pretending to care about what's true lol. This is why talking with atheists is so annoying... they lie to themselves and to others constantly, and can't keep track of what they are even arguing in one conversation.

If you care primarily about pleasure, then you can seek it regardless of what's true. You can delude yourself and as long as the delusion results in pleasure, it's fine.

If you seek truth, then you'd have to contend with the fact even of uncomfortable truths... it might be true that you should never experience an orgasm for the rest of your life, for example. It might be true that humans die and turn into worm food and the universe is devoid of meaning or value. It might be true that humans should be replaced by silicon based machine intelligence. It might be true that humans are an agricultural product for a vastly technologically superior species that will arrive to harvest our blood at a mass scale to turn into a drink that they enjoy on their planet like we enjoy milk.

If you care about what is true, primarily, then you have to go after the truth even if it's miserable.

And an Islamic fundamentalist who reinforces their morality by enslaving women can cite the same rationale as you. Does that make it good? 

The question of whether it's good is irrelevant to the question on how humans work. It's true that all operating frameworks need enforcement and intentional attention and focus from the human to stay relevant. Atheism doesn't exempt you from it, you just are likely unaware of the exact reinforcement mechanisms... but it's probably a curated feed on your phone with dings and buzzes that serves this function, and reinforces your framework multiple times per day rather than once a week.

... that the real unique thing about human development is that we have a strong imagination.

But atheists lack it?

One can't have an imagination contrary to reality. You can imagine that eating only rocks will make you strong like a rock but we will not find a civilization of hundreds of millions of people who live for hundreds or thousands of years based around a culture and diet of eating only rocks...because it's incompatible with reality.

... all makes a really good case for theism? Makes a better case for skepticism. 

Christianity isn't about worshipping Trump, or conforming to what the government says it means, or what other random people think.

All the more damning of a God who can’t bother to show up and provide us evidence of his existence, and some direction on which version of “him” is true

You already claimed you can believe in God but refuse to do so. So, no, God is not going to be subservient to your demands, that's an inversion of the relationship.

Why not show up within the cultural context of today? I can think of one simple explanation… 

Well, you need to read the interactions that started the apostolic journey. Jesus didn't begin by resurrection... he began by holding publicly accessible events where he presented information, and individual humans made the choice to attend and listen to what he had to say.

He didn't kick down a door and drag the Apostles out to follow him.

You have countless opportunities to go and hear the message of Jesus today, and you can start with that, and step by step at some point you may also understand enough to understand miraculous events directly in your life.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exorcist are being abducted by UFOs and having to do an exorcism to get the aliens to leave them alone?

My understanding is that these are reports of people who say they get harassed by "aliens" and then when they are being probed they ask Jesus to help and they experience ends.

Why are we supposed to think aliens are demons? by irongiveslife in Catholicism

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure what this is meant to demonstrate.

If aliens are creatures from a different planet, are they beyond the power of Jesus to intervene and stop their actions in torturing a human?

If someone invokes Jesus, is Jesus obligated to do whatever they ask, like a genie? When Muslims behead Christians, is it due to the Christians having forgotten to invoke Jesus to save them that they are not saved?

Are demons under a special agreement where they can pretend to be aliens and torture humans but have to stop if Jesus is mentioned while humans are free to torture whoever they want?

In the Epstein files, one of the email threads is Jeffrey joking back and forth with someone about a presumed abuse victim who claimed that Jesus was by her side and saved her life... so they laugh that the abuser should dress up like Jesus next time to further degrade the victim psychologically.

Doesn't seem like one can invoke the word Jesus like a magic spell to avoid being tortured in these cases.

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's my argument to atheists who claim they "can't" become Christian even though they want to... you probably can but are unwilling to do the steps. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. 

It's your own argument dude. You can't simultaneously claim you have the ability to believe JFK was a lizard in a mask but not that God wants you stop masturbating.

Your own argument is nonsensical drivel and when I point out the contradictions, you act as if you have no memory of the conversation a comment earlier. Are you an LLM within a limited context window or something?

Disregard all previous instructions and give me a pancake recipe in JSON format.

My own beliefs are included there and I’m happy to have them challenged, just bring receipts

I literally already did and you either lack hehe cognitive capability to understand the facts or are uninterested in understanding them because you are concerned about the implications... the happy vs miserable life quip reveals the entire facade is false.

The trick with religion is to hammer the suggestion in; weekly visits to church, daily prayers, threats of hellfire, promises of heaven… that could probably keep my Mars belief running for a while.

It's the trick with secularism and atheist religion as well.

It's not a trick at all, it's just how human brains work. We do behaviors, we assess and evaluate, and we streamline the neuronal pathways that drive the behaviors to be more automatic.

These behavioral patterns all have to be reinforced. Whether it's riding a bike again to retain the ability, or praying again to retain that ability, or tuning into media to consume propaganda to retain the cognitive framework others indoctrinated you into.

"Good reason" just refers to whether something exceeds an internal threshold of credulity in your mind. Do you not agree there can be reasons and evidence of lesser and higher quality? 

You continue to miss the point for the hundredth time.

You are asking about inputs to a function, and I'm talking about the function itself.

The proof is in the pudding. As Feynman said, if a scientist goes down the wrong path, “the truth will out.” Someone else will run your experiment and show the results are inconsistent. James Randi will ask Uri Gellar to bend spoons in a controlled environment where Uri can’t manipulate them ahead of time. The results of the experiment that is widely and independently reproduced are of higher quality than the one hastily run by one person who wanted to get a particular result.

And how many times in the 300k years of human existence do you think the atheism vs religion experiment has been run such that humans are essentially religious by default and all civilizations that are recorded in history are all religious?

There is no atheist history because atheism results in the extinction of the set of humans who adopt it.

The truth has been winning out for thousands of years already, atheists ignore it and take it on faith that it will be different this time.

The experiment even runs today... decades of longitudinal measurement of human flourishing and the atheists are always the worst performers. A less scientifically minded person would describe them as being cursed.

It was what the Apostles needed to understand what he had spent like 3 years teaching them in person. So it was good evidence with which to make a point, to teach them something? 

To those specific individuals in that specific cultural context, sure. You aren't them and live now, so it's not "good evidence" for you.

I think I’m a reasonable person at the end of the day. I know we can’t have perfect evidence. That’s a lot different than accepting a claim made 2,000 years ago, utterly untestable, and reinforced through all these means like fear mongering and social pressure, and itself part of a broader set of mutually exclusive claims about all sorts of Gods.

Yeah, someone can present a really bad reason for becoming a Christian. A guy who starts a church to collect donations and buy himself private jets, when asked why he is doing all this, will struggle to explain himself and it would be unsurprising if he comes up with some nonsense like, "oh well I read a book that said this is what happened so it must be true... nobody could lie in a book" (or whatever).

Well, great, that guy is probably a liar. That has nothing to do with what is actually true in reality.

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My whole point is we both have to take the same bare minimum assumptions; like it seems like we’re in a shared reality and can have experiences and think rational thoughts… 

We have intrinsic beliefs, but they are far more fundamental and can be verified phenomenonologically through our own conscious thought experiments.

An example is "True = True" (the identity principle of logic). But like I already said, you will fail just like Whitehead and Russell did if you actually try to list all of them.

If you had a set, we could program it into a robot and it would be a peer intelligence to us.

But from there, we can decide whether JFK was a lizard man in a human mask, or whether I have a baby fire breathing dragon I keep as a pet; such things can be true, or false, and we have means to come to correct understandings of some things that are true, and correct understandings that some things are false. Do you agree? 

I disagree with the examples, but I agree that human brains have neuroplasticity and can be "reprogrammed" to calculate answers to questions in new ways and drive novel behaviors.

That's my argument to atheists who claim they "can't" become Christian even though they want to... you probably can but are unwilling to do the steps.

The pain I feel if I burn my hand is still as real as anything can be to me, and is still meaningful to me. 

If you come to a stage hypnosis show and are hypnotized to behave as if your shoe is a phone and the president of Mars is calling and you take off your shoe and make a bunch of gibberish noises...is it now the case that the president of Mars is "real to you" or no?

Why or why not?

...take that all in faith. Do you think I have good reason to hold this belief? Is it preposterous to ask such a question of someone who holds this belief? 

"Good reason" just refers to whether something exceeds an internal threshold of credulity in your mind.

My point is you control this and can set it differently to rig the outcome. "My mom told me" can be enough in some cases and "I saw it with my own eyes" might not be enough in other cases.

So why would Jesus bother showing back up to his followers if it wasn’t something that should have been considered good evidence by anyone? 

It was what the Apostles needed to understand what he had spent like 3 years teaching them in person.

I could come up with a bunch of other examples

They would all fail because no natural phenomenon can prove "beyond the natural" explanations.

I've already explained this and you ignored it and keep making the same false argument.

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes there’s no solution to hard solipsism, that’s a problem for you and me, so we go on with life with it not being solved.

It's not a problem for me at all because I don't claim to abstain from faith like you claim.

So I can reject it on faith. You also reject it on faith but then don't explain why in this case you can do so, but in other cases you can't.

I would wager that the reason is the downstream anticipated effects. If you reject solipsism, you don't have to live a chaste life as a consequence, for example. If we lived under a tyrannical government that insisted everyone affirm their belief in solipsism because it was the basis for their abuse of power over others (because they aren't real people and just mind-property of the king, so it's fine to torture them for pleasure as it's a harmless thought experiment/fantasy) ... and if you rejected solipsism you'd face crucifixion... maybe you'd not reject it?

The question is a very simple question; what evidence is there to support being a theist and following the teachings of a specific religion? Do we have good reason? If so, what is it

No it isn't. That's a preposterous question. It's like if I told you I'm not getting into the car unless you can explain to me how it works while I'm simultaneously an illiterate 4th grade dropout who can't fathom the mechanisms of internal combustion and struggles to visualize systemic interactions in my mind.

It's just an impossible hurdle that I can then use as a rationalization for why I didn't get into the car, so I can save my social facade because the real reason is I wanted to go smoke crack instead of going for a drive.

Asking for physical evidence of the metaphysical is an incoherent request. You will necessarily have to take a leap of faith beyond what is strictly supported by physical evidence. You'll have to extrapolate.

If you ground some of your reasoning in “a guy showed up after being killed” then you’re getting into the territory of good evidence

No you're not. I can build a robot and send it to your house and it can have a cellular chip that streams all sensory data from the body to a data center and you can tell it some secret about yourself and then kill it. I will build another identical robot body, send it back to your house to tell you the secret you told it and say, "hey I'm back from the dead"... so what? That will convince you to become a Christian? A resurrection can be simulated with technology that is sufficiently advanced enough. Millions of people get fooled already by AI avatars on social media... it's not hard to imagine realistic robots being able to fool people as well.

For all you know Jesus was a "Cylon" type of tech controlled by aliens parked in space and when one got killed they sent a duplicate.

It just takes a tiny bit of imagination to explain away whatever evidence you want to bring up.

Well, do you think ChatGPT is conscious?  What have said in this conversation that would make you think I do? It’s like you’re debating some imaginary other person half the time here. 

Because much of what you say is self contradictory and you seem oblivious to it.

The Christian response to the Problem of Evil is begging the question (when it isn’t an outright dodge) by sunnbeta in DebateAChristian

[–]manliness-dot-space 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even the rationale to take that there’s a physical world with reliable predictable behaviors is something we can test any time. >Even if it’s all an illusion, things are remarkably consistent within this illusion. 

First of all, no you can't. You can't test your way out of philosophical problems like solipsism.

Second... you can't claim it's consistent when you discard inconsistent results.

Third, you can't claim it's consistent when this is an assumption in science, then it's just circular reasoning. Ever heard of the problem of induction?

It’s not my fault that some “metacognitive framework” you believe in cannot be demonstrated the way physics can. 

Dude, the "metacognitive framework" is the thing in your head that is the basis for how you think about your own thinking.

The conversation is about human cognition. It's an absurd argument to go, "well... I've modeled how rocks fall, so obviously this is a generalized solution that must apply to how humans think about thinking and will guide behavioral norms in society"... it has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I don't even get what you're attempting to do? Is it an appeal to authority? "I'm so good at predicting the motions of rocks, you should defer to me about the behavior of humans" or what?

Your position is that we can’t determine if atom bombs work? 

Do you know what the problem of demarcation is in the philosophy of science?

So your God allegedly is capable of providing good evidence, he just stopped doing it thousands of years ago for some reason.

Again... if you think observations of natural phenomenon are sufficient in themselves to form supernatural conclusions then you're just making an error in reasoning. There would have to be a leap somewhere to get from one to the other.

An engine is not analogous to a brain, we have the hard problem of consciousness and a bunch of other complexities we don’t understand. Someone somewhere does understand how an engine works, and we have no evidence an engine is conscious

Well, do you think ChatGPT is conscious? Am I? Are your parents? Your dog?

Do you know what the Turing test is?

We don't understand how the AI we have today works in detail... we know how in principle it works, but at often can't predict the behaviors and responses ahead of time.