Wryly

Why are you attempting to become asexual out of curiosity

Religious discussion in debatecraft's religion forum:

Religious discussion on the debatecraft discord server:

Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick.

Also, when I see person with big depression and complaining, I can 99% guess that they are atheists.

You indirectly complain all the time. Even in this thread you're beginning from the premise that you can't trust anyone, people are awful, friendship and emotional intimacy is a lie, and there is no one in this world you will ever be able to rely on. These are not the thoughts of a happy person.

Despite your attempts to hystericize or dismiss your opposition, you've still put forward no arguments for why we should cherry pick a few words of lip service to peace from Trump's 10,000 metric tons of incendiary language and propaganda around Jan 6.

Coincidentally, as a teen of about 16, I became acquainted with Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski, who lived in my immediate neighborhood, so her violent death, and her unborn child, hit me very hard.

what what what

I will be making a thread about this.

It's more a sociopolitical quasi-cult.

I think you're projecting a bit my friend.

I'm lost. Why are we suddenly talking about religion?

If I told you to go jump off a cliff, would you do it? That's what you're claiming. Think it thorough

By this logic Charles Manson should have never gone to prison. If you agree he shouldn't have, then I guess your beliefs are consistent, though questionable. If you think he belonged in prison, then you yourself know that a leader with cult-like power over his followers bears responsibility for the control he exerts over them.

There is such a thing as being so misogynist you'll only fuck guys. I'm just mentioning it. So you know your options. Think of it as graduating to the next level of misogyny. Food for thought. The ideal misogynist partner is another misogynist. Two superior males. Strong. Resilient. Competent. Tough. Fucking to their heart's content. Imagine, Remy.

How is my response to Doubler "paraphrased" when I offered a direct quote from the speech? Come on; be fair. And I don't know that I'm a "Trrump apologist," particularly in this regard of the 1/6 speech, because, while I acknowledge he spoke of "fight" multiple times, my approach is legitimately scholastic, not political. According to my OED [Oxford Engilsh Dictionary], the only dictionary of the English language I will ever use [there is no equal], and it's definition of "fight" is actually 8 separate definitions, and only one of them involves physical confrontation. By Trump's context in each of his mentions of "fight" over the whole 15-page transcript, none can be said to be physically combative by intent, contrary to how detractors of Trump's speech want to analyze it. Theirs is political, not scholastic. I have an English Lit doctorate, so at least I have recognized scholastic achievement in the lexicon that most do not have. That carries weight, politics notwithstanding

You paraphrased in post #20, and I'm calling you a Trump apologist in the case of this thread only.

Trump's propaganda is exclusively responsible for Jan 6. Those people were deranged by his lies. If you make people feel cheated and threatened and enraged enough, you become responsible for the violence they commit, even if your rhetoric was not explicitly violent.

The sound of a car turn signal always makes me sad. I have no idea why.

RR quoted correctly and you paraphrased pretty faithfully. I'm more interested in your response to the thrust of RR's counterargument, faux. Why do Trump apologists continue to push this narrative that his rhetoric prior to 1/6 was peaceful?

Why pick the name Debby this time?

Utterly lifeless and without feeling whatsoever. I think the real question is at what point does AI become so advanced that it's indistinguishable from a living being, and how should it then be treated?

Humans are more intelligent creatures who bear a higher degree of responsibility for our behavior. Also we weren't purposely bred to be the way we are by even more intelligent beings who wanted to see us fight for sport. Well, unless you want to bring deity into this.

Debby are you a bot or are you, like, Shila. I'm getting kinda Shila vibes.

I feel sorry for pits tbh. We exploitatively bred them to be the way they are, and now we malign them for it. Not their fault they were made for blood sport and now are expected to act like perfect pets.

I love cats but there's nothing quite like the companionship you get from a dog.

The entire concept of heresy and heretics is ridiculous imo. Like can you not coexist with alternate beliefs? Jeez.

Why is so much of your rhetoric about whether people accept you having opposing partisan opinions.

Idk, during the Civil Rights movement many people sang a different tune about how laid back black people were. I'm sure many southerners felt they were loud, oversensitive, and entitled. All the things people say about trans people now. They're going through their own growing pains era as a minority vying for widespread acceptance. They're not just accepted for who they are, like blacks or, increasingly, gays. They kind of have a reason to be more defensive.

There is no correlation I'm aware of, and even if there were it would just be a result of socioeconomic factors I expect. Why?

Bracing for a "jEwS aRE dUMb" argument.

Braciiiiiinnnng!

Fiiiine: I'm skeptical that you've never been condescended to by a straight non-Jew non-therapist dude.

Mine is The Will of the Many, Project Hail Mary, the Red Rising series, The Stormlight Archives, and Stranger in a Strange Land.

Dresden Files is good, just my caliber of goofy supernatural adventure. Glad my friend told me to make sure to finish at least book two before I made a decision on whether to stay with the series, though.

I'm skeptical that you've never been condescended to by a non-minority.

Hmmm, Benito Mussolini or Michelle Obama?

You have to admit that religious people are dumb as fuck.

I have to admit that you're prejudiced as fuck.

Stephen Hawking did not believe in God. He was an atheist and explicitly stated that there is no God, and that the universe was not created or directed by any higher power. Hawking believed that the laws of physics provide a more convincing explanation for the universe's origins than any religious or supernatural explanation.

All of your arguments amount to "this smart guy agrees with me, let me quote him." So what. A theist could as easily come in here and throw Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal in our faces. These are all just appeals to authority.

Purpose of suffering does not end with end of life. That merely ends suffering for the righteous, but suffering continues for the evil among us. And all of that is dependent on whether we have made righteous or evil user of our practice of dominion on earth. If we have made righteous use of our dominion, in spite of experiencing suffering on earth, we will ultimately benefit by our righteous dominion, and our suffering will be rewarded with glory. If not, we will not be glorified, but will continue suffering to a degree we cannot now imagine. Regret for evil doing can be very painful, mores than the fire and brimstone often copnclude4de as beings hell. Nope. Hell is a shop window with no door into the shop, knowing, finally, doors have been restricted for those who were evil on earth.

I think you ignored my examples, faux. If a child dies of leukemia, I assume you'd say they would go to heaven -- but what purpose did their suffering on Earth serve? It taught them no lessons they could ever implement; they didn't get a chance to live. What about the doe starving to death in a rock fissure? I'm going to hedge that you don't believe animals have free will, or a soul -- the doe certainly cannot commit evil. What purpose did its suffering serve?

Believing the gods are powerful beings, and they can do things for you, especially when it comes to making sure you have food to feed your family and village, is a lot different than just assuming their good or overlooking their evil behavior. Let's say you have a professor in college who's excellent in his field and you're getting a lot of great education from him. But you find out he sleeps with his students. You have a choice. You can continue to keep your mouth shut and learn from him. Or you can turn him in. Working with certain deities would require you to do the first. There's a reason that there are deities today that people don't worship at all. There's way more choice in polytheism in what you do and don't do, because society no longer looks at the gods as controlling the natural world as much as they did then.

Fair enough. I think gods such as this make a lot more sense and are a lot more in line with the nature of the universe.

I'm not sure what the driving need is to believe in an omnibenevolent God. The need to believe the greatest power in the universe is your friend, perhaps?

So you're arguing that all suffering serves a good purpose? Childhood leukemia? Volcanic eruptions? Random traffic accidents that kill mothers driving their kids to the park?

A doe trips and stumbles into a rock depression, where it is unable to escape, and dies of starvation. What purpose did this serve?

Lol which theists? Nordic Gods were always partially evil. Ancient Greece Gods, some were more evil than good. If you are talking about Christianity, islam and hinduism... well, sure, they have the problem of evil, and its only a problem for them, along with problem of free will vs omniscience. Thats what happens when you give hundreds of attributes to God and suddenly some attributes contradict each other.

See above.

The ancient Greeks still praised their gods as being just and wise. Ditto for Odin and Jupiter and so on. Did they view their gods as partly evil, or simply capricious and wrathful, which were just seen as common traits of power?