#dc#dc comics#batman#bruce wayne#dick grayson#batfamily#batfam#tim drake#dc fanart
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Japan
seen from Japan
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from T1
seen from T1
an article i stumbled upon when i looked up goddess worship on google :) ❤️
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
FAITH OVER REASON
Fideism - exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth
Do present day theists require a fideistic attitude toward the natural world? I tried this approach when I was a practicing Christian. All the answers I required where in the Bible. It answered every question that was worth asking, and if it didn't, we could twist and force it to answer. Can a human living in a civilized nation with good education maintain reason and faith, or do we have to ignore one to retain the other? Pascal's wager “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. I've been aware of Pascal's wager for a little while: I found it while reading apologetics writing. To be honest, I don't find it a terrible argument for belief but a heavy handed one. It's a blunt object to the side of your head. You'd be stupid not to believe, because if you believe and you're wrong you've lost nothing. This is where I begin to disagree. You lose the ability to be a free thinker. My opinion is that Christianity, among the other big monotheistic religions, is all or nothing. Either the Bible is divinely inspired and all true or garbage. Spoiler alert, it belongs in the trash. When believing I lose reason and logic. If I choose to believe, I must choose to be a fideist. I must choose to elevate faith above all evidence. The Bible must be an accurate historical document. The great flood of Noah's time was real, and he fed the raptors every night before going to sleep himself. After the flood we all get drunk, pass out naked and condemn a son to slavery for seeing us do so. However, let's say the flood is fact. We still have to believe the story of Exodus. We have to believe that a god who condones slavery, genocide, rape and murder to be our savior and omnibenevolent. There are plenty of other stories in the Bible that raise doubt. Except for the one about a guy who had super-strength until he got a hair cut. That is obviously true. Then we have to believe a virgin born rabbi was the son of God and resurrected. After believing everything in the Bible and ignoring those pesky gnostics that were left out by the church, we have to tell everyone else who believes different than us they are wrong. All of the other religions of the world, some older than Judaism, were all fairy tales but the one we like is truth. To do all of this, I argue that you must be a fideist, because reason would have died in the flood 4000 years ago. With our advances in science and mathematics over the past century, it becomes difficult to ignore the evidence. To be a Christian today, it required putting my fingers in my ears and saying LA LA LA LA LA as loud as I could. 200 years ago, with poor education and our understanding of the natural world being inaccessible, I get it. The one book everyone had was the Bible. It was the only information available to them, unless you were one of them rich educated folk (terrible southern accent). I needed to drown out all information that would contradict my worldview. I failed. With every piece of new information I wanted to know more. After my skepticism began, I realized I was tuning out quite a lot of information that would change how I view the world around me. I began to explore this new world of knowledge, reason and evidence. I learned one thing immediately. I don't know shit. If anyone is actually reading this and made it this far, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Please see the links below for more information on Pascal's wager and fideism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Well, don't believe in God but draw a painting of Lord Shiva. Comment your thoughts down below #art #artist #drawing #drawingoftheday #artoftheday #painting #pestalcolor #lord #lordshiva #thiest #instaart #follow4follow #illustration #beautiful #belief #teenart #abhishekvinci
I think believers hate atheists because we give away the ending.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
evolution?
Can someone explain theistic evolution vs. deistic evolution theory to me?
Intellectual Honesty
H. Allen Orr Evolutionary biology, Genetics "In any case, there are some grounds for questioning whether Dawkins’s project is even meaningful. As T.S. Eliot famously observed, to ask whether we would have been better off without religion is to ask a question whose answer is unknowable. Our entire history has been so thoroughly shaped by Judeo-Christian tradition that we cannot imagine the present state of society in its absence. But there’s a deeper point and one that Dawkins also fails to see. Even what we mean by the world being better off is conditioned by our religious inheritance. What most of us in the West mean—and what Dawkins, as revealed by his own Ten Commandments, means—is a world in which individuals are free to express their thoughts and passions and to develop their talents so long as these do not infringe on the ability of others to do so. But this is assuredly not what a better world would look like to, say, a traditional Confucian culture. There, a new and improved world might be one that allows the readier suppression of individual differences and aspirations. The point is that all judgments, including ethical ones, begin somewhere and ours, often enough, begin in Judaism and Christianity. Dawkins should, of course, be applauded for his attempt to picture a better world. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledging that his moral vision derives, to a considerable extent, from the tradition he so despises."
Presuppositional Reply to Faith Video
YouTube user Surfer Brendan decided to write a blog post to my video about god answering one's faith as long as they take a leap of "real" faith. The blog post is here for those that wish to read it in full. I will quote parts and reply to them to show how ridiculously dishonest and lazy the presuppositional argument is.
===
"I question whether or not you had ever really truly repented"
I said the same thing to others. There is something called "learning". It means you firmly believe something to be true and then you learn that perhaps you are wrong. It's the same with children who believe in Santa: just because they stop believing in him doesn't mean their belief wasn't genuine. "Given the fact that you'd never actually read the whole Bible" Is this a joke? Reading the whole bible is what caused me to leave. "So a true Christian trusts in God and when they have things they have difficulty understanding they do not lean on their own understanding, but it seems that you were doing just that - leaning on / relying in your own independent reasoning, rather than trusting in God's Word." Is this also a joke? This entire video to which you claim this is a response talks about how I pressed into god for understanding, that I prayed and fasted in order to have better guidance. "I assume you mean you think it was immoral for God to let Job suffer so much? This story has been an incredible blessing to millions of people around the world, because it helps us to realise that God is sovereign and that our suffering does have a purpose and a reason." The "reason" is that god and satan made a bet. I'm not sure how it's comforting to know that god will let you physically suffer while allowing all your children to be killed just to prove a point to satan when he is supposedly all-knowing in the first place. Yeah, real comforting stuff there. "How do you account for absolute morality without God?" We evolved morality as social creatures. Humans are not the only social creatures that did this. "In your research of apologetics, did you encounter Presuppositional Apologetics and the Transcendental Argument for God? Did you watch any of Sye Ten Bruggencate's videos and go through his website www.proofthatgodexists.org ?" That's your evidence? Presupposing something is insanely dishonest, it's probably the worst offender of the "god of the gaps" reasoning because it's not just one justification but an entire argument based on an idea you didn't first show to be true. It's literally making something up and running with it in order to pretend that you have evidence where evidence is lacking. "There is so much evidence for God's existence that you are without excuse." Really? What would that be? Oh, you say it in the next sentence! "Even the concept of evidence is proof that God exists because evidence presupposes knowledge and truth, and you can't get either of those without God." Ohhhh! I get it! Wow! That's super convenient to suggest that a god you can't provide evidence for somehow is shown to be real because we ask for evidence in the first place! See what I mean about the presuppositional argument being so dishonest? I can literally make up *any* being and make up any claims about him and using the presuppositional argument I can "prove" I'm right. Ready? There's an invisible masturbating mind-reading monster on Neptune. Oh, you can't see him? That's proof he exists because I already said he is invisible! In this case, you're claiming that god is the creator of knowledge and reason, and you show this by saying that we want evidence so tada! That proves evidence exists because I just said that god created the concept of evidence! That is the worst argument to make, and it can be made by anyone of any religion or even people of no religion who just look to make this up. It's dishonest and it's incredibly lazy. "Lee, I pray that you'd stop running from the God you know exists, but for some reason have chosen to rebel against" Ah, you're presupposing I know a god now? Oh, that's nice. That really convenient to write off everything I'm saying and assume you can read minds from across the internet. Awesome. Your entire blog post is dishonest, lazy and without thought. I was actually reading this aloud to a Christian buddy of mine on Skype and even he felt you're doing Christians a disservice by side-stepping the evidence issue by conveniently claiming your presupposition argument.
===
It's always amazing how theists will conveniently ignore things and distort facts (such as claiming I never read the bible when the video he's replying to says the exact opposite) in order to try to make a point. As I always say: if you have to lie to support your position, your position isn't worth supporting.
