If you want a man in charge, I'm your man. If you want a woman in charge, you can keep the one you got. If you want u/Buttoucha9k to be mod, vote for him.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
Note that rhetorical comparison to terrorists is not the same as accusing of terrorism.
Note that all other community questions on the subject proceeded without stickying because there was no active mod.
Note that your digression into theodicy is actually more fitting for a post at c/Atheist, but since it's your post you might get indulged here.
That said, I believe I had asked you to consider that if you were worldbuilding you would have choices to make about life and death. An author does not receive the same moral judgment for "killing" a character as a character has. The author controls the whole world and decides what the characters are, which includes their deaths, and they wouldn't be the same characters without those deaths. The characters however are culpable in their world for acting in ignorance of what is good for them and for killing one another thereby. If the worldbuilder is incapable of making a good decision about what a character's life should be, then there exists no good decision at all and we cannot act like our own decisions (being characters) are better; if anyone is capable of making a good decision then the worldbuilder is. The same is true for decisions about standards of behavior.
I really appreciate your being here and your memes are rather pointed insights about Christianity. You're following a track that many have pursued from exposure to deep theology through doubt, and you have two possible trajectories, either nihilism or peace. As long as you haven't resolved the tension between your moral standards and what you perceive as God's, you are avoiding that final choice. It's possible to choose either at any time, temporarily or permanently, and solve the tension, but while you complain that your standards are good but your creator's standards are not the tension remains.
She called me a terrorist. Then, she said she suspected me of terrorism. That's not a rhetorical comparison. With her as mod, now there can be a stickying of a vote post and more formal vote. Are you going to support my bid for her to sticky a vote post for a week for people to vote for me, her, or Buttoucha9k for mod or not?
I'm going to leave the sticky discussion between the two of you because unless something changes you get to face the same status the other discussions faced. Also, I should have pointed out that my record shows I don't believe in open-ended questions (here you have three options or implied "none of the above" or "write-in"). A community question should be binary, yes-no, such as current mod team versus changes, because otherwise results among three or more options can be gamed without indicating accurate consensus. The last question I posed had more votes in favor of new mod team (unnamed) than then-current inactive mod team, but was not heavily attended. So far yours is even less attended. This forum is rather like herding cats and resists changes to status quo. That's why admin took the steps it did.
When you learn to use logic the way others do instead of using it imbalancedly to direct results to what you already believe, then we can talk more about my supporting your bids.
Ironically, you described you Christians very well and why I cannot have a discussion with you or your friends about the stuff I post. That tactic you described hits on the young earth creationists the hardest. They twist everything in science to fit what they already believe, and anything in science that doesn't fit into their interpretation of the Bible, they reject as done in bad faith. By even being Christian, you've already declared you don't adhere to logic, and have given up being logical to embrace faith in an illogical event that can't be verified by any of us. The double whammy comes from you being a young earth creationist too apparently, which requires further rejection of logic.
When you reject logic to embrace things outside the bounds of logic, you don't get to enjoy the claim of dwelling in it. If you're not bound by logic, it's pointless arguing with you through the limits of logic. If I employ that same tactic I can just make whatever up I want and assert it on faith without verifying it and treat it as fact simply cuz I believe or say it. It's impossible to have a logical discussion with Christians when they want to enjoy stepping outside the boundaries of logic whenever they want while I'd be limited to the boundaries. When you and your friends demonstrate that you've learned how to use logic the way others do instead of using it imbalancedly to direct results to what you already believe, then we can all talk more about the memes I post. Til then, adios amigos.
I am bound by logic. I tested both the Bible and the young earth by logic and found them the inference to the best explanation. I'd love you to start any logic-based post in c/Atheist, where such discussion is usually done, if you want to see who is most logical.
Where would you like me to demonstrate that I know how to use logic? What standards would prove to you that I know? You might be using illogic to say you don't have to propose standards and then when I propose standards you can just say they're illogical: the same trap you say Christians use on you. So your accepting the challenge gives you a duty to define what terms you'd accept.
Meanwhile, I can start by pointing out a couple basics. (1) Either nothing exists or something exists. Can we agree that something exists as an axiom? (2) We can name the sum of all that exists something like All-That-Exists (or maybe "Yahweh" for short). Can we agree on a name for all that exists that would be neutral enough for us to start attributing characteristics to it? (3) Obviously by observation we can define Thing as any subset of All-That-Exists; for instance you and I are Things. So logically all Things except the Thing called All-That-Exists are not All-That-Exists. Do you follow?
So maybe we really are both interested in speaking logically but we just distrust each other. It's something to work on, isn't it?