britus

- friends
254 link karma
5,826 comment karma
send messageredditor for
what's this?

TROPHY CASE


  • Six-Year Club

    Verified Email

To All: Stop begging the question by vistascanin DebateReligion

[–]britus 0 points1 point ago

Meh - that ship has sailed. There are far too many other things to worry about, like solipsistic descent and presupposition to spend time fighting with someone over whether their idiom might also mean something they didn't intend to say.

What are some boyfriend/girlfriend/relationship hacks? Example from my girlfriend inside. (Potentially NSFW?) by cjknjknin AskReddit

[–]britus 0 points1 point ago

El Torito. :(

That's the only part of California I miss.

Zealous atheists resemble religious fanatics by Taqwacorein religion

[–]britus 11 points12 points ago

Is there a difference? Is there a difference between a suicide bomber who is Muslim and a Muslim who is a suicide bomber?

Absolutely, unless you'd argue that the soldiers the US sends to the Middle East are there for religious reasons.

But fair enough, if the Tigers are atheist suicide bombers. Do you think they're representative of the movement in atheism that the author is talking about? Do you think the extremists the author is talking about would want to have anything to do with the Tigers and their tactics?

Zealous atheists resemble religious fanatics by Taqwacorein religion

[–]britus 7 points8 points ago

Are the Tamil Tigers atheist suicide bombers, or suicide bombers who are also atheist? I'd always heard it was the latter - that it was a political issue, not a religious one.

Zealous atheists resemble religious fanatics by Taqwacorein religion

[–]britus 11 points12 points ago

I dunno... maybe when there are more atheist suicide bombers. Atheism has lately gotten more strident and more shrill - absolutely. But I think it's unfair to compare even the most unpleasantly outspoken atheist with, say, a jihadist.

To Catholics: (and select other Christian Denominations) - Call No Man Father by britusin DebateReligion

[–]britus[S] 0 points1 point ago

I suppose I'm still confused with how it relates? Jesus said specifically not to do something. That something is done. This seems to be in a different category from other traditions that are extra-biblical in the vacancy of specific instructions.

My two cents- clarifying intelligent vs stupid design by elmer_fudds_vaginain DebateReligion

[–]britus 0 points1 point ago

Correct!

In my estimation, the argument for Intelligent Design is flawed from the outset, as it relies on our ability to perceive design from lack thereof (like the pocketwatch lying among the rocks and trees), whereas the argument itself precludes the possibility of anything lacking design.

To Catholics: (and select other Christian Denominations) - Call No Man Father by britusin DebateReligion

[–]britus[S] 0 points1 point ago

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your post or not. Are you saying that Jesus commanded us to abstain from something God meant for us to participate in?

My two cents- clarifying intelligent vs stupid design by elmer_fudds_vaginain DebateReligion

[–]britus 0 points1 point ago

If a god sets the boundary conditions of an experiment and hits "go", can he not be considered the "designer" of the things that are created?

This is what I take to be the argument of intelligent design to begin with, especially given that God knows the ends of all things. So, really, from the basic intelligent design argument there should be nothing that is not designed, and thus we don't have the ability to perceive design from lack of design (as the latter doesn't exist).

If you believe in a god that has to be involved in each step in a manner that is distinguishable from random variance, then I guess it's evidence against that god. If you don't believe in such a god, then not.

I'm operating under the assumption that we're discussing the popular concept of "intelligent design" in modern american culture, which presumes to some degree the Abrahamaic God. In that case, complexity without a design is either evidence of lack of intelligent design or evidence against God, right?

To Catholics: Why is the Pope called "Holiness"? by Liketierrain DebateReligion

[–]britus 0 points1 point ago

From merriam-webster - I think these are the relevant definitions of worship:

  • extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>

  • reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

Is the former an accurate description of the way some/many/all Catholics approach the Pope?

Is the latter only wrong because it includes reference to the supernatural? (Do you think it's fair to call the ability to speak the words of God supernatural?)

To Catholics: (and select other Christian Denominations) - Call No Man Father by britusin DebateReligion

[–]britus[S] 2 points3 points ago

The first part, up to the bullet point, is just quoting the same link I provided, right?

What follows seems to be quoting from another page on the same site?

So the first portion doesn't respond to the objections I raised about it in particular, and as best as I can tell, neither does the second.

The fact that the old an new testament associate priesthood with fatherhood doesn't seem to be sufficient grounds to ignore a command from Christ himself - if the apostles words and deeds stand in contrast to Christ's, I don't see how Christ can be the one ignored. I'm still not sure how any of what you quoted is a sufficient excuse to call a spiritual leader father (not only figuratively, but literally), in direct contradiction to the commandment.

My two cents- clarifying intelligent vs stupid design by elmer_fudds_vaginain DebateReligion

[–]britus 1 point2 points ago

What evidence do you have for complexity without a designer? Isn't that evidence against God?

More of a question than a debate. by Lordveusin DebateAnAtheist

[–]britus 0 points1 point ago

Though I will agree that the key point here is that the idea of God's omnipotence comes from the pervasive neo-platonism that seems to have influenced Paul and the apostles, rather than a Hebrew tradition.

More of a question than a debate. by Lordveusin DebateAnAtheist

[–]britus 2 points3 points ago

Unless you stick by Revelations 19:6.

Soft Cell vs. Depeche Mode - "Tainted Jesus" - dj lobsterdust by TotalJagoffin mashups

[–]britus 3 points4 points ago

Exactly. Great idea, good execution. I feel like there's room for more awesome in there.

how do you think she feels? by joot78in spiders

[–]britus 5 points6 points ago

Does that spider have eyebrows?

"Giant" by Alex Stratulat (repost) by One_Giant_Nostrilin ImaginaryMonsters

[–]britus 5 points6 points ago

It's referenced directly in the render, in the upper-right.

Should libertarians be against corporations as they stand now in many countries? by quick_checkin LibertarianDebates

[–]britus 5 points6 points ago

I suppose the question is, then - how would a libertarian against corporations that stifle liberty express their political will? Through new laws?

Obesity Should Be Considered a Legitimate Condition And We Should Help Support Them Become A "Standard Weight" by Lurker378in gue

[–]britus 1 point2 points ago

Really? I thought that was expressly lost time due to health-care related issues.

Obesity Should Be Considered a Legitimate Condition And We Should Help Support Them Become A "Standard Weight" by Lurker378in gue

[–]britus 0 points1 point ago

Sort of like obese people, I guess! So obese smokers are wins all around.

Is Necrophilia morally wrong? by zulaikha_idrisin DebateAnAtheist

[–]britus -1 points0 points ago

Necrophilia is morally ambiguous. A corpse is property. It would be wrong to have sex with someone else's fur coat without their permission. Your own fur coat you can do with as you please. If you happen to be in legal possession of dead bodies legally, then I'd say do as you will (from a moral standpoint).

For health reasons, however, I suspect it's a terrible idea. In that respect it's kind of like consensual incest. If you can keep it healthy, then you've defeated the reason for the taboo.

view more: next