bluenose

@Gwani_bukhari Question: Do you accept the theory of evolution?

Pls accept Islam. I promise you, you would never regret it.

@FamilyProjectTX The author of our founding document was not a Christian.

America was founded on Christian values. Texas was founded on Christian values.

@nuBAGsy @AtheistPhoenix Do you need the Bible to know that raping kids is wrong?

Christians are moral because they fear their god I am moral because I want to be

@DylanRobertsMA @athiestboi I'm not coming from an Abrahamic perspective. I believe God is real, God is the source, and God is love. Many religions claim that God spoke to their ancestors. Most of them use similar descriptions of God, as an authoritarian deity. I see no reason to believe any of them.

Ok well I think that’s a shift in philosophy later in history, god is described in the OT almost always as human looking, I can give you examples but I’d rather you tell me where he is described as devoid? If I’m right and later theologians made him spirit only then as a believer it’s more consistent to believe the prophets who say they “seen the hand of god” and saw him “sitting in a throne” and so on, if we doubt they told the truth about that then we gotta question everything else they say

Why do Christians care that the god of the Bible must be described as HE.

@DylanRobertsMA @athiestboi It seems more likely that God is best described as devoid of these human qualities like gender and emotion. The masculine pronouns are used because God is supposed to be an authority, and for all of history, men have been authorities.

@_____case @athiestboi Well if you believe the story then yes you would assume he used the pronouns himself but obviously you won’t accept that so I guess that fair, and I’m trying to entertain your argument cuz I don’t see why it would matter but I’m not going to talk about something that blasphemous

@DylanRobertsMA @athiestboi If the Bible was written by men, then it's not really fair to say that God referred to himself using those pronouns, is it? Unless you're saying that they actually spoke to God and God used those terms himself? Do you think God has ever used his penis?

@_____case @athiestboi Yes the Bible was written by men, nobody disputes that and sure god has a penis why’s it relevant?

@Seano299 @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e In certain circumstances, I'm sure it could be sound. For example, if there is nuclear catastrophe and only some areas are safe, a displaced person could attempt to occupy already occupied areas using force for the sake of their own survival.

@_____case @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e *it's another thing to be able to argue it soundly

Morality is subjective to people who affirm subjective morality. Morality is relative to people who affirm relative morality. Morality is subjective to people who affirm subjective morality. Morality is emotive to people who affirm emotive morality. Morality is objective.

@Seano299 @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e I'm sure that one could argue that their specific attempts to acquire land are necessary for their freedom and well-being and ability to act.

@_____case @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e Ownership of land would be contingent on the necessary goods of freedom and well-being. If one's acquisition of land contradicts with what is generically necessary for action, it is immoral.

@DylanRobertsMA @athiestboi Alternative possibility: The Bible was written by men. I'm curious.Do you think God has a penis?

@athiestboi Because the Bible uses the pronouns He/him when referring to God, I thought you guys were enlightened enough to at least respect the identity God chose to be, what do yall want from us!

@Seano299 @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e Yeah, I like this. I've used this same reasoning to justify the Golden Rule. However, it's not airtight. There are examples of E that could invalidate P7. If E is taking ownership of land occupied by other agents, being a PPA is not sufficient reason for the claim to rights.

@_____case @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e It can be derived from the rational necessities of action and what is verifiably necessary for any agent to achieve any goals.

A simple illustration of the Gospel

@ja99491 I wonder if Thomas Jefferson is in hell.

Someday the King will return, he won’t need to be elected, there won’t be any debate. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is King of kings

Muhammed was: - Pedophile - Murderer - Deceiver - Liar Jesus was: - Sinless

@Seano299 @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e Can you give me an example of a supposed moral truth and how you would derive or verify it in this way?

@_____case @MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e The same can be said about moral axioms though. Morality and universal rights can be derived from the structure of action itself and what it means to be an agent.

@MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e This is a contended. Some say that the axioms of math and logic are still derived from real world objects and the ability to describe them. I think this is a legitimate position. What it means for something to be true is still ultimately rooted in the material world.

@_____case @n00b54u5e Observable reality refers to a posteriori truths, not a priori. Plenty of things are only known a priori, e.g., logic, modal truth and math. Even science presupposes those things a priori whilst being unable to prove them a posteriori.

@MartinLogicing @n00b54u5e Truth is verifiable by observing reality. Your imaginary objective morality has no bearing on the real world unless enough people (or the right people) agree. Thomas Jefferson was a moral subjectivist. He understood that true and false and good and bad are disjoint sets.

@n00b54u5e @_____case Right 👍

@atheistnightmrs Oh cool. I guess Pascal's Wager is no longer the modus operandi.

No one who is good is ever sent to hell.

@CreationMuseum Correct.

Denying Genesis undermines the logic of the resurrection.

Correction: Atheism is the result of not understanding the Bible.