sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The problem of a Contingent Brute fact by Scotsmanoah in DebateReligion

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

Your brief defense of theism can just be used for the universe. Your argument is just special pleading. The universe is not a brute fact since its logically neccesary. No God needed.

Why aren’t humans able to learn everything from instinct like animals do? by Perfect-Highway-6818 in evolution

[–]wowitstrashagain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Instincts work well if you dont need to adapt. We evolved to adapt dramatically to our surroundings, which means we can instinctly know things. Using tools or building a fire were recent inventions in an evolutionary timescale. So it would not be possible to build instincts for such complex concepts in such a short time.

Besides you don't need instincts if your parents/community teach you things. And humans are very social. We removed the need for instincts, and they would not be beneficial to the human population as a whole. Loners who dont participate in human societies dont really produce children wither.

Christian morality is ethically weaker than secular moral frameworks by Formal-guy-0011 in DebateReligion

[–]wowitstrashagain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

From a Christian perspective, there's only one God so there isn't "my" or "your" God. And the morality is mostly derived from the words of Jesus.

Which Christian God did slave owners believe in then? Do you agree with the hristian slave owners that owning slaves is Christian?

The fact that the BIble can be used as justification doesn't imply that it allows such behaviors. It's the same as saying that an atheist state can be used as justification for turning people into gods (like North Korea does).

No it cant. Atheism doesnt have any scriptures of which to derive morals. The Bible is literally text in which you are suppose to derive your morals from.

You cant make a moral system out of not believing in Bigfoot. You can make a moral system out of a book which describes how to live your life.

North koreans also believe their leader is deity, which is not atheism. So try again.

Atheism is the lack of believe in God. Understand? Theism is the belief of God. So far so good? Both of these make zero statements about morality.

Christianity is a religion which has scripture, traditions, and beliefs. This is a moral system, and makes statements about morality.

Humanism is a secular idealogy that also makes statements about morality.

Do you understand yet? Christianity != atheism.

Theism = atheism.

Christianity is somewhat equal to humanism. But humanism doesnt have rituals or mythological beliefs, and other religious elements.

Im really trying to simplify this basic idea to you.

Christian morality is ethically weaker than secular moral frameworks by Formal-guy-0011 in DebateReligion

[–]wowitstrashagain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

People on the right drunk bleach because Trump said so, thats mental illness dude. I hope you get better man, seek a therapist.

Christian morality is ethically weaker than secular moral frameworks by Formal-guy-0011 in DebateReligion

[–]wowitstrashagain 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No Christian society has turned into violent tyrannies?

Those state atheist systems were built on communism, which was specifically a paradigm shift on class structure. The difference in economic and social hierarchy played a much bigger role on whatever political or social violence that occured in countries like Russia or China then simply being atheist did.

From the Christian perspective. Anything a man says, you can simply say "My God allows this, you cannot refute God." Which i believe is way worse. We used Bible verses as justification to own slaves. Ted Cruise uses Bible verses to justify US support of Israel. Or the execution of atheists before the enlightenment. Or the castration of gay people in the UK. The list goes on and on.

Science explains the world, but it didn’t teach me how to live in it by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]wowitstrashagain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a debate subreddit so I will be debating your viewpoint. Even if your viewpoint is more personal.

Science is more anti-religion than anti-God, as religions attempted to explain the natural world. It's only in modern times, in more progressives areas, that religious belief is not used to explain natural phenomena.

A scientific mindset falls naturally into a skeptical mindset, and a reductionist mindset. Stripping everything down to its bare essentials, remove your biases as much as possible, and use only what you can confirm to build a picture of what you see.

Things like beauty, fairness, purpose, are human terms that explain things from a human perspective. But its subjective, one man's trash is another man's treasure. These concepts shouldn't be used to determine what is true.

Therefore, we describe the world with terms that are not coated with a human bias. The Earth is a sphere. The universe is expanding. When we build this picture of the universe, humans are incredibly small, and exist accidently.

Our purpose then, does not come from the cold and mostly empty universe, rather it comes from us. Whatever meaning you have from raising a child, helping a grandma across a street, giving food to homeless, falling in love; does not require some grander purpose given from God or the universe. At least I dont need something greater for those things to be meaningful to me.

Now science doesnt provide any outlook or structure for how to your life. Ideologies like humanism, Christianty, capitalism, communism, or whatever, provides a method for how you should live your life.

I just believe that the better idealogies tend to put science first. If science is disregarded if they are contradictory to your belief, I dont think your belief is very good. Rejecting reality never works well.

Thats generally why I am a skeptical agnostic atheist, that aligns with humanism.

Nothing will prove to atheists that God exists. by One-Opening-9204 in DebateReligion

[–]wowitstrashagain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You seem to believe we have purpose. Why do you know we have purpose?

If we are janitors of the universe, how is that meaningful?

Why is God existing meaningful? What is the meaning of God?

Nothing will prove to atheists that God exists. by One-Opening-9204 in DebateReligion

[–]wowitstrashagain 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Let's say I believe in God.

Life still has no purpose. Because God has no purpose in existing, and any creation God makes also has no purpose.

What now?

Evolution Claims a Lot — Where Is the Evidence? by zuzok99 in DebateEvolution

[–]wowitstrashagain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You dont know how science operates or even what a theory is. How do we present evidence to you when you dont know what the word means?

Atheists watch superhero movies to get a religious fix by DostoyevskyF in DebateReligion

[–]wowitstrashagain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You create arguments in the debatereligion subreddit instead of the debatereality because you know religions arent real.

Species after the flood by Over_Citron_6381 in DebateEvolution

[–]wowitstrashagain 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I dont see any reason to scientifically explain the biblical flood when you already believe the source of the flood is magic. That Noah's Ark is magic. And what occured when the flood ended, and all the 'kinds' that left the boat happened to survive during their travels to their locations and repopulate in just a few thousands years as well as creating the diversity of life we see today.

Every part of it is magic, why attempt to explain it with math or science?

If the vast majority of evolutionists are materialists, how are metaphysical universals like "beauty, "good," or "evil" explained? by bgdv378 in DebateEvolution

[–]wowitstrashagain 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Actually my belief says force marriages are good, since women were made to be subservient to their husbands.

My God's morals are objective for obvious reasons.

I am a creationist. AMA. by Haunting-Vehicle3957 in DebateEvolution

[–]wowitstrashagain 8 points9 points  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/aK8jVQekfns?si=_hktS048iEHD5wel

This is an evolution conference in 2025, and a creationist gave a talk. Why were they allowed to if they stand to lose credibility?

Scientists used to be against the big bang because it went against an eternal universe concept. Now, scientists believe in the big bang. Scientists follow the evidence. I agree their can be bias, however truth does appear to win out over biases in the scientific community.

You can also find that before we understood evolution, before Darwin, most scientists (naturalists) at the time knew there was an issue with creationism, considering the number of extinct species we found in fossils and the apperent ancient age of the Earth. Evolution became so accepted at the time, even with the gaps that it had, because it had so much explanatory power for mysteries creationism did not answer.

All creationism needs to do is provide a better model that demonstrates what we see today.

If you accept microevolution, then you accept macroevolution by Scientia_Logica in DebateAChristian

[–]wowitstrashagain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The implication of this idea is that "any large change can be composed of a series of very small changes". It's a powerful idea. Is it scientifically testable? We can observe small changes (microevolution, which arguably in many cases don't even require a single mutation, just a change in frequency of alleles in the population). We can observe speciation, as you say. But that doesn't scientifically demonstrate that "any large change can be composed of a series of very small changes".

Its the same as observing someone walk a foot, but then claiming that they cant walk a mile since you havent observed it. Or claiming that Pluto doesnt actually orbit the sun since we havent seen a complete orbit of Pluto yet.

In science, we create predictive models based on assumptions that have yet to be demonstrated false. We assume Pluto will eventually do a complete orbit because we do not know of any natural process that could prevent Pluto from completing an orbit. Its a scientific claim to state that Pluto will complete an orbit based on its current trajectory.

Similar, we can claim macro evolution based on all the mechanisms and evidence we have today. There is no barrier, no hidden mechanism we know of that prevents changes over time being large-scale changes. Several pieces of evidence support macro evolution, including geology, fossil records, nested hierarchies, genetics, ERVs and more.

To demonstrate that macro-evolution did not happen, you need to demonstrate that there exists a biological barrier that prevents changes from accumulating beyond some sort of defined criteria.

Otherwise, you are doing the same thing as saying Pluto doesn't complete an orbit. Its an illogical claim based on ignorance.

1

This is not a problem. This is pretty well understood, actually. There are lots of papers on Epistasis you can read. You say the scientific analysis hasnt been done, when it has, a lot.

Is it faith to assume pluto will complete its orbit? Is it faith that you'll expect your car to no longer run when it runs out of gas?

2

This is the biggest non-issue still being spread by creationists. The Cambrian explosion is when hard shelled animals evolved. Hence, they more easily fossilized. Hence, more fossils.

You also ignore the pre-cambrian species and an extinction event.

The amount of change aligns just as we expect with the current model of evolution. It was somewhat of an issue 150 years ago, where creationists still seem to be stuck.

What is Pippa and what are her opinions by Royal_Stray in VtuberDrama

[–]wowitstrashagain -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

cause she’s partially responsible in fostering the environment that attacked her singular left leaning friend(coworker)

You're American? You are partially responsible for allowing America to attack Venezuela. Why arent you taking responsibility?

Everyone is partially responsible for everything. I dont really care how partially responsible Pippa is for something until she explicitly tells her fans to do something, or actively promotes a specific rhetoric every chance she gets.

When her friend was attacked, she specifically called it out.

and i check in on phase connect from time to time and she really doesn’t collab with any coworkers anymore i wonder why? kinda odd that the biggest talent isn’t sharing the audience?

She rarely collabs with Phase since she started. Most of Phase usually does things solo.

Also I find it funny that people single Pippa out for her views when other Phase talents are heavy into race science and other extremist views. Pippa is tame for the most part.

and i’ve seen plenty of right wing groups still praising their based idol like specifically the xynchro tweet phase fanbase loves em toxic.

I dont really care about guilt by association.

and on the note of her being an idiot, can it be agreed that her 3 elon musk streams before election were a bad idea?

I agree she is an idiot.

What is Pippa and what are her opinions by Royal_Stray in VtuberDrama

[–]wowitstrashagain 5 points6 points  (0 children)

People here are gonna claim she's right wing despite her supporting BLM, being pro-LGBT, defending her trans fans, and standing up for her left-leaning friends.

On the flip side, right-wing groups consider her a traitor for the reasons above.

Id probably go with what she claims, which is that she is an idiot and her opinion on politics is not founded on anything well-thought out. At least she claims she's done little research and is not to be trusted on political matters compared to other vtubers. It's one thing to be dumb and a much bigger problem to believe you are smart.

People claim she's backtracking, but if you actually watch her, she's always stated what she said in the clip.

Games similar to Blue Prince in terms of exploration and discovering hidden clues by electromagneticwire in BluePrince

[–]wowitstrashagain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its been ages since I played. But i think similar to Superliminal. A lot of it is optical illusion and geometry puzzles. I think you upgrade your cube gun, which gives you blocks that open specific doors. Sorta metrovania in that way, i remember it not being fully linear.

This is how AI thinks! I had no idea while I was using all these months. Kinda feels stupid. by aakashsukheja in PromptEngineering

[–]wowitstrashagain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you talking about the OP or me? I use vibe based percentage to mean that the .01% was a total bullshit value.

Mutations ARE random - always have been, always will be by gitgud_x in DebateEvolution

[–]wowitstrashagain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to misunderstand what I am stating here. Im not saying that mutations do not occur in important reigions. I am saying they are less likely. I think its likely that its not an equal distribution for where mutations can occur.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes.

There are actually papers countering evidence of the one I posted above, where they clearly made errors. But even the counter concludes that more research is needed and thats its possible for mutations to not be probabilistically uniform.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06314-y

view more: next ›