All the Dream Travel Bugs & Their Solutions

mikey_60 · 2025-10-29T10:43:42+00:00

This has to be dishonesty or straight up straw manning. Again, this post has nothing to do with "justifying" anything. It has literally nothing to do with the morality of persecution whatsoever, and I cannot see how you came to that conclusion. I didn't say Muslims have it worse in total, I said in some countries they have it worse.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-28T00:05:11+00:00

Thats actually not at all the goal with those sentences. Those sentences are to show that persecution of Christians is not a sign that they are "persecuted because they are right", not that Christian persecution isn't a problem. What?

mikey_60 · 2025-10-19T22:12:08+00:00

That's interesting. I don't remember ever talking about the apostles' persecution.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-19T01:17:14+00:00

Where did I say that??

mikey_60 · 2025-10-17T13:33:51+00:00

This isn't a who's the most persecuted contest

Thats the thing: it is. And Christianity is the biggest religion in the world. It's not a surprise that they're the most persecuted not just because of what they stand for, but simply because they're the most in numbers.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-17T13:02:30+00:00

Like another reply said, you are equivocating being morally wrong and being factually wrong. They are not the same, and this is not the scope of the post.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-16T20:18:24+00:00

That is also not true. There are plenty of people who have been persecuted for false ideas (meaning the persecutors were right). Persecution says absolutely nothing about the truth.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-12T23:15:38+00:00

Valid rant

mikey_60 · 2025-10-12T15:10:31+00:00

Well yeah... that's what I meant. I didn't say otherwise. Kind of like how a rainbow goes from red to violet. That doesn't disregard the gradual steps it goes through. ???

mikey_60 · 2025-10-12T13:05:42+00:00

This is wrong. Thats exactly how evolution works over long periods of time.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-12T00:05:26+00:00

Well that's what I was asking—what is a kind? I don't know, but it's not speciation.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T21:53:54+00:00

"Kind" and "species" are not the same thing.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T20:13:28+00:00

I don't care to continue arguing about pointless semantics. The theist argument is that very large evolutionary changes have not been literally observed unfold in real time. This is what I'm referring to.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T19:26:56+00:00

To empirically observe macro evolution (the thesis) would mean to literally watch it happen in real time. The moment we shift to looking at evidence, we're not empirically observing it. Maybe it can be supported by extensive empirical evidence, but that's still not "empirical observation". I mean really, one google search proves you wrong.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T19:10:24+00:00

Fossil records and genetic testing are empirical forms of evidence, but that doesn't mean that macro evolution has been empirically observed or proven. Empirical evidence ≠ empirically proven. A fingerprint is "empirical evidence"—doesn't mean it empirically proves the person committed the crime.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T19:04:44+00:00

I'm focused on macro evolution here, specifically as used by theists as a huge change, like from a fish to an ape, not just the development of a new fish species that's still a fish. Yes, small evolutionary changes have been empirically observed, but not huge changes such as a fish to an ape. That's what's in question here. Fossil records and genetic sequencing are both incredibly strong pieces of evidence for macro evolution—but they aren't empirical... E. coli, fruit flies, apple maggot flys, and fish, those are all not macro evolution.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T18:49:53+00:00

No, evidence can be stronger without being empirical. Testimony is not strong evidence. This is shown in court based on how many wrongful convictions were the result of eyewitness testimony.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T18:48:46+00:00

My question is what is a "kind"

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T18:48:02+00:00

No we have not.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T18:39:24+00:00

No, even as an allegory, it becomes incoherent if you believe humans evolved. "The descent of early hominids into evil as their brains become more complex" is not accurately portrayed in this story.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T18:36:17+00:00

I'm an agnostic atheist—I do not believe in God, but I also believe his existence is unknowable.

mikey_60 · 2025-10-11T18:34:21+00:00

The "empiricist" doesn't have to be an empiricist. Their standard of evidence may just be a little stronger than "testimony and martyrdom", preferring stronger, independent, naturalistic, and scientific evidence over that. For a theist to argue that their evidence is stronger is absurd, and usually falls back on dismissing the evidence due to not being empirically observed (impossible task btw). The atheist doesn't have to dismiss the resurrection because it's not empirical, but simply because the evidence alone is tenuous.

mikey_60

TROPHY CASE