Kenneth Hammonds

1.9K posts

Kenneth Hammonds banner
Kenneth Hammonds

Kenneth Hammonds

@KennethHam26159

Evil is the shadow cast by the light of self-awareness. Atheism is illogical.

Katılım Mart 2025
102 Takip Edilen52 Takipçiler
Against Atheism
Against Atheism@AgainstAtheismX·
Everyone serves a god. The only question is... Which one?
English
36
2
62
2K
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
@Leophilius So things can be produced anonymously and not stay anonymous.... but the Gospels just so happen to be that exception. Your bias is blatant.
English
0
0
0
5
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
The problem is that you somehow believe that because something was produced anonymously that it STAYS anonymous. That simply isn't true. In your example John gave the gift anonymously but I can definitely find out that it was John that gave it. Likewise, the Gospels could have been written anonymously but we can still know who wrote them. Good grief.
H² ≡ (Ṙ/R)² = (8πGρ)/3 - k/R² + Λ/3@Leophilius

@PrayPuffPlay No, that's not what anonymous means. See my example. If somebody gives you a gift anonymously, that doesn't mean you know it was John even though he didn't write his name on it. It means you *do not know* who gave you the gift. Good grief.

English
1
0
1
60
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
To say something is written anonymously means the writer didn’t explicitly identify themselves. It absolutely doesn’t mean “nobody knows who wrote it”. List of anonymously written works which we now know who wrote them: 1. Primary Colors: Joe Klein — 1996 2. The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay — 1787–1788 3. A Visit from St. Nicholas: Clement Clarke Moore — 1823 4. Frankenstein: Mary Shelley — 1818 5. The Cuckoo’s Calling: J. K. Rowling (as Robert Galbraith) — 2013 6. Go Ask Alice: Beatrice Sparks — 1971 7. The Night Before Christmas: Clement Clarke Moore — 1823 8. O: A Presidential Novel: Mark Salter — 2011 9. Imperial Hubris: Michael Scheuer — 2004 10.Diary of a Public School Girl: Angela Brazil — 1906
GIF
English
2
0
1
33
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
@joderL3043 @___ZELIG___ @metathomist If that was all them I could agree. But often it's not. There are specific prayers to Mary and to the saints that are asking for THEIR guidance and deliverance - not asking them to speak to God on our behalf.
English
2
0
0
15
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
As much as I hate to do this: You are conflating praying FOR someone else, and praying TO someone else. They are not the same thing.
meta thomist 🇻🇦@metathomist

Jesus is everyone’s savior. Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin in view of Christs future merits by a singular grace afforded only to her. If you were going to walk into a pit and someone prevented you from it, they would’ve saved you. If you were in a pit and someone lifted you out, they would’ve saved you. Both are saved albeit in different modes. We don’t only pray to Mary, we also pray to the other saints in heaven. So if your concern is “we shouldn’t pray to them because they needed a savior” then why should I ask YOU to pray for me since you need a savior?

English
1
0
0
617
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
This is an incredibly shallow understanding of the events of Christ life and how the people around Him viewed Him. It's also a perfect example of why Jesus spoke to the people (even the disciples) in parables. I always wonder how people like this understand John 1:1 It literally says that Jesus (the Word) was with God and that He was God. How exactly do you get around that and end up where Dale is at?
Dale Tuggy@DaleTuggy

Good Friday reminder: in the four NT gospels absolutely no one wonders aloud at Jesus's crucifixion how *God* (or a fully divine Person) could have died. Neither the disciples nor the gospel authors thought that Jesus was God; their main point is that he is God's human Messiah.

English
0
1
0
43
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
@metathomist It's an ABSOLUTE conflation. Even when I pray FOR someone, I'm still praying TO God. I ask people for prayers all the time. But I'm asking them to pray to God on my behalf. I'm not praying to them. That's the conflation and it's quite obvious.
English
1
0
0
12
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
Atheism planted their flag on the hill of intellectualism and claimed it. They grew lazy and their arguments tired and boring. Meanwhile theists continued to develope their understanding of logic, reason and science and how they all relate to theology. Atheists still stand up and say, "Look! We still own intellectualism you silly theists!". But they haven't advanced their arguments or understanding. Theists now own them in almost every debate.
Darwin to Jesus@darwintojesus

If atheists are so good at critical thinking, why can’t they figure out what the implications of “no God” are?

English
0
0
0
13
KuiSMORKS
KuiSMORKS@KuiSMORKS·
@KennethHam26159 Ah, a classic ad hominem! Just in case you didn’t know that fallacy either. I studied philosophy! I already said that silly
English
1
0
0
8
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
Then you should know that this is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy Dumbass
KuiSMORKS@KuiSMORKS

@PrayPuffPlay @kaizen000000000 I think I’m superior to you as well. Where did I say within it’s frame work? All I’ve sent you is the homer meme and “absolutely”. You couldn’t even begin to understand metaphysics on a real level. I’ve written papers on it and have a degree in philosophy. Dumbass

English
1
0
0
113
Majin-Buu
Majin-Buu@MajinBuuPhiloso·
I keep saying it, because you've yet to actually address it. You'd rather destroy strawmen, then engage earnestly. I have made my case, repeatedly. You "not being convinced" isn't my issue. That's lack theist, new atheism BS, and it should be beneath you. I might consider doing so, when you actually engage in good faith. Until then, you're being ignored.
English
1
0
0
14
Majin-Buu
Majin-Buu@MajinBuuPhiloso·
The issue here, is that you just conceded that the being you have, can't be the maximally great being. Because such a being absolutely could stop something from becoming corrupted. If the Judeo-christian being can not, it is not the MGB. If that God can but does not, its not the MGB. The being that can and does would be the MGB.
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159

The only thing that can't be corrupted would be the Maximally Great Being. The Maximally Great Being already exists. There can't possibly be ANOTHER Maximally Great Being. That would be a contradiction. So no, a god that prevents corruption is not greater than one who doesn't. It's an incoherent argument. Your second argument is simply one of asserted preference. Creating something and using something are not the same thing. So no, one of those people is not greater than the other.

English
2
0
2
83
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
Ben YOU started the debate by comparing justice and God. YOU stated that justice is necessary which means it is unchanging. YOU stated that God was changing or contingent Therefore justice doesn't need God to be objective. YOU then responded to ME that God was impossible. That changes the entire premise of your original argument. We can have a completely different debate if you want, but gaslighting everyone on here that your argument was still the same gives me little confidence that you are acting in good faith. I didn't start the debate, you did. I responded. Then you changed a major condition of one of your premises. QED
English
0
0
0
15
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
You absolutely have not. Your premise that the existence of God varies across possible worlds is incorrect. To even assume that God does exist in any possible world makes it necessary for Him to exist in all worlds. You can say He exists in all worlds or you can say He exists in no worlds. But you can't say He exists in some worlds. That's logically incoherent.
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins 🇺🇸🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️@SpeedWatkins

@limitandmind The existence of innocent people and objective moral value is not in dispute in this discussion; in fact, they are taken as shared common premise. What is in dispute is whether objective moral values are dependent on God's existence. I've shown they are not.

English
3
0
2
1.2K
Kenneth Hammonds
Kenneth Hammonds@KennethHam26159·
You keep saying the same thing over and over again. And every time it's still incoherent, no matter how many times you say it. Do you rest your argument on this: allowing suffering shows that the Judeo-Christian God lacks great making properties? If so, make your case. Convince me. Your assertion of that isn't convincing. Step me through it logically home skillet.
English
1
0
0
10
Majin-Buu
Majin-Buu@MajinBuuPhiloso·
"Your argument would create a limitless amount of those beings so it is logically incoherent." No, it would not. It demonstrates that the being that the Judeo-christians consider to be the MGB, isnt, because one can easily find great making properties that are absent the Christian conception of God. Dear lord, do you really have this much trouble comprehending what is actually being said? @TrolleyDave1971 I agree, this type of person is why I don't like most "philosophers".
English
1
0
0
14

Keşfet

@AgainstAtheismX @Leophilius @smith_john20233 @darwintojesus @PrayPuffPlay @joderL3043 @___ZELIG___ @metathomist