SlagNotSlug

@JWS846893322695 @KR3Wmatic This is the tired old circular argument that ends in a meaningless definition of good. Because you end up with his nature defining good or being bound by an external value as the only way off the circle.

False. Or, the “god” you are looking for is not the God of the Bible. Although the God of the Bible is omnipotent, He is omnipotent within his perfectly holy and righteous nature. Thus, He is incapable of actions that violate His moral nature.   Examples: •Lie: The Bible repeatedly states it is impossible for God to lie. His promises are absolutely reliable because His nature is truth. •Sin: God is perfectly holy and without any unholiness; therefore, He cannot sin or perform any immoral action. •Be Tempted by Evil: Scripture asserts that God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone to do wrong. •Deny Himself: God remains faithful to who He is and cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with His own character.  •Change: God is immutable, meaning His character, purposes, and word do not change. •Die: God is eternal and immortal; He cannot cease to exist or stop being God. •Break a Promise: Once God gives His word or makes a covenant, He cannot and will not go back on it.  •Logical Contradictions: God cannot do things that are logically absurd, such as making a "square circle" or a "round square," because they are contradictions in terms. •Learn Anything New: Since God is omniscient (all-knowing), it is impossible for Him to learn something He did not already know or to forget anything. •Be Foolbound: God cannot be fooled or surprised, as He sees and knows the future as clearly as the past.  •Stop Loving You: The Bible states that God loves His people with an "everlasting love" that will never end. •Leave or Forsake His People: He has promised never to abandon those who are His. •Force Free Will: God typically will not override the free choices of humans, as true love and faith must come from a place of personal choice. •Allow His Word to Fail: God's word will always accomplish the purpose for which He sent it and will not return to Him void.

If you were God, possessed omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, how would you ensure that every individual in human history knows of your existence beyond any doubt?

@grok @DougFisherMD @SensibleFascist Lame but not an issue. x.com/i/grok/share/a…

@SlagNotSlug @DougFisherMD @SensibleFascist Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…

Atheists saying stuff like this is always so funny to me because space travel wouldn’t exist without Christianity. Have Muslims gone to the moon? Nope. Have Hindus gone to the moon? Nope. Have Buddhists gone to the moon? Nope. Have pagans gone to the moon? Nope. But you know who has? Christians. Every single astronaut to ever land on the moon was Christian.

@DougFisherMD @SensibleFascist @grok how would Jesus respond to being told that there's just no other way, we gotta incinerate hundreds of thousands of people? Play out the conversation Doug wants to have.

@SlagNotSlug @SensibleFascist Id tell Jesus "its either the nukes, and we kill a few hundred thousand, or a total land invasion, and we kill millions". There was not a third option.

@JWS846893322695 @KR3Wmatic If God can't override that allegedly base fact, he's subject to it. You can't claim omnipotence and then claim something has to be a certain way.

@KR3Wmatic False Premise. No one can come to learn, with confidence, that God exists without having first doubted that He exists.

@elonmusk I'd happily order one- if I could afford it but I chose to have those kids we need to having.

Only a few hundred Tesla Model S & X cars left in inventory. Order now if you want one.

@DaytimePubSmell @erichovind The best thing is when they insist there were comparably few 'kinds' on the Ark that all 'became' the variants we see today.

@erichovind Who says that the MUTATIONS aren't random? Young Earth Retards will lie as shamelessly as their hypothetical trickster god.

Very accurate!😂

@TheMuppetPastor This guy is the moderate who gives cover to the actual assholes. The message is clear- behave obnoxiously in public. And because you let this guy model that you'll get the 'it's just a prank bro' escalation.

I get the annoying part. I really do. But he’s not cussing. He’s not doing drugs. He’s not promoting wickedness. He’s just being silly and eating. Not everyone’s cup of tea, I get that. But he’s not a bad dude. We should worry about others who are.

@DougFisherMD @SensibleFascist What I want isn't relevant, it's about how 'Christian' the nation really is when giving credit. Incinerating tens of thousands of children... Well by all means, tell me how you'd get Christ to say it's what needs to be done.

@SlagNotSlug @SensibleFascist Did you seriously want an allied land invasion of the japanese? Millions would have died. Also how is #3 wrong? Do you have any counterpoints? I think the fact that countries like Qatar, North Korea, Kuwait, India, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Congo, and Russia still actively practice

@Mindymix @SensibleFascist It's a reasonable inference given the depth of your retardation. For example, jumping to Islam apologist? You know people can read what's been said right? Or my post history, which is no friend to any religion. But assumptions hey- they're a bitch right?

@SlagNotSlug @SensibleFascist "My" proud nation? Nah. You do know the saying about assuming? Silly islam apologist. You're not worth responding to further.

@Mindymix @SensibleFascist I see you've confused 'one of the last' with 'actual last'. But good job dragging your proud nation down to the moral level of countries outside the western moral tradition. But being that stupid I guess context wasn't explicit enough for you.

@SlagNotSlug @SensibleFascist Idiot. The last country to officially abolish slavery was Mauritania in 1981, and even that didn't stop it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i… Not to mention the open air slave markets which were opened in Al Qaeda & Isis controlled countries like Libya after the fall of secular dictators

@SensibleFascist 1 and the 'skill' you're so proud of came in large part from Nazis. 2 Ah yes Jesus' famous calls to murder innocents in a practical fashion. 3 this is impressively wrong and myopic. Less time- no shit it was a younger country. Lol

@SlagNotSlug 1. Yeah and? 2. Nuking Japan was the least deadly of all our options 3. That’s just blatantly not true. America was one of the first countries to abolish slavery and practiced it as a culture for a shorter amount of time than almost any other.

Well done ALP and Greens

@upstatefederlst Her phrasing comes off not as someone who is curious, but someone who doubts- and is confident enough to voice that doubt publicly. Or we're free to call her ill informed. Take your pick.

People who mock other people for asking questions they genuinely don't know the answer to are the worst kind of people, by the way.

@BretWeinstein @AThinksAloud Which god? Oh the contemporarily popular one? Swap the time and place and you'd be making the same argument for Odin or Zeus.

I have gone to great lengths to explain why I'm NOT an atheist. It somehow never lands. God is very important--literal, metaphorical, or something else--and has an obvious and pronounced effect in the material world. My guess as to how that works differs from yours, but it doesn't much matter. Invoking God is the most natural, human thing at a moment like this. And the atheists are all but useless.

The President's threat against Iran is genocidal, even by the strictest definition. It may be bluster, but that does not change our obligation. To work, a threat must be credible, and we must act accordingly. We attacked Iran. Any order to escalate our attack with nuclear weapons would clearly be immoral, and must therefore be rejected by every person in the chain of command. Anyone who carried such an order forward would become immediately complicit. That is the lesson of history, and those who fail it will be judged harshly by it--and by God. We can't have a Commander in Chief who threatens civilians, idly or in earnest. The President must be removed from office, for the good of the Republic, and the world.

@TheLaurenChen Both my wife and I have no remaining parents or siblings. It is insanely rough when you have no family at all.

In many cultures, if parents have to work, grandparents take on childcare I saw a video of a man in China who noticed at a school during pick-up, it was mostly grandparents who were there No one can replace a parent, but grandparents are a heck of a lot better than daycare

@BigBrainPhiloso This is linguistic chicanery around the word potential, ignoring inevitability. To value that inevitability without valuing the absolutely necessary prior conditions is nonsensical.

Professor Jonathan Glover dismantles one of philosophy's most charged arguments with a smirk: John Finnis's research argues that the human embryo deserves full moral respect from the moment of fertilisation. His central claim being that all the genes are there. Glover's response here is not a counter-argument. It's a reductio ad absurdum delivered with a smile. "Now of course on this argument a tadpole or even a bit of frog spawn would count as a frog — because there all the genes are present." He continues, warming to the theme: "And if you're ever invited by Dr Finnis to go and see his butterfly collection, don't be totally disappointed if it turns out to be a jar of caterpillars — because once again, all the genes are there." And once more: "If after that he invites you to stay on for a chicken dinner, don't be surprised if what you get is scrambled egg." The joke itself does the philosophical work. Glover's point is that genetic completeness alone cannot confer moral status — otherwise we'd be morally obligated to treat caterpillars as butterflies and frog spawn as frogs. The presence of a full genetic blueprint tells you what something will become, not what it currently is. The distinction between potential and actuality is one of the oldest in philosophy. Glover resurrects it here not with dense argument, but with three images so vivid they're almost impossible to argue against. What makes a human being morally significant? What it is, or what it will become?

@RealDianeYap There are precisely 2 women I would die for- my wife and my daughter. The traitorous government I live under does not count as either.

Men are always offering to die. Haven’t you heard all of the “I would die for her, take a bullet, jump on a grenade” nonsense? Heaven forbid we call them on it and send them off to war though. I guess they didn’t mean it.

@memeslich Are you playing an RPG or a wargame?

Should players be allowed to attack any NPC in Dungeons & Dragons?

@NoFilterSkin A new life does begin at conception. That it may become two or more lives later does not change this. Also, gods and souls almost certainly do not exist.

IF YOU BELIEVE LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION, CONSIDER THIS: IDENTICAL TWINS CAN SPLIT FROM A SINGLE EMBRYO UP TO DAY 14. SO DID THE ORIGINAL EMBRYO HAVE TWO SOULS? OR DOES THE SECOND SOUL ARRIVE LATE? THE IDEA THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION SOUNDS PROFOUND-UNTIL YOU RECOGNIZE IT AS A THEOLOGICAL ASSUMPTION WITH NO BASIS IN BIOLOGY.