this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
736 points (95.9% liked)

Atheist Memes

5586 readers
34 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rdri@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't seem like you can contribute to any religion based discussion if you're willing to accept that many possibilities (interpretations) of basic concepts or events. This also reminds me of how flat-earthers justify stuff.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So you think it is smart to engage in a discussion with e.g. a Christian about Christianity while dismissing their actual beliefs and instead force your own Interpretation onto them? Do you think you can change Minds like that?

Of course, I am willing to accept any given sincerely hold belief for the sake of the conversation when my aim is to point out contradictions or issues in their belief. Otherwise I am not really talking about their belief and the issues with it.

And again the goal of op was to point out contradictions. That is the conversation that we are having.

If you have an issue with how general and open the discussion in regards to the Interpretation of the text is, blame op for keeping it vague.

Also why are you ignoring in your response anything about the fact that your injection was seemingly off-topic and the consequences of the misunderstanding that it seemingly caused? No objections or no acception? No questions? No thoughts?

Why do you continue to be hostile? I understand that you might felt like I dismissed your point and that you thought I was trolling but it seems to me as if I made clear that I wasn't doing either. So what is up with that?

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

blame op for keeping it vague.

I have more reasons to blame the book for being vague.

Also why are you ignoring in your response anything about the fact that your injection was seemingly off-topic and the consequences of the misunderstanding that it seemingly caused?

I don't see it like that.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So just that I understand:

Do you think that op and me weren't specifically talking about it being contradictory?

Do you think that your question about "how it wouldn't make sense for God to create the sun after the light cycles" is about the bible being contradictory?

Do you think that "does it make sense?" Isn't off-topic in a discussion about contradictions?

Basically what do you disagree with specifically?

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do you think that op and me weren't specifically talking about it being contradictory?

I wouldn't call it contradictory, because the original material has to many other problems. It's like calling coal dirty. The original post is a meme and it works fine for me.

Other questions: ok yes even though I don't think it matters, no, with the whole premise of injecting possibility of nonsense into the discussion in order to avoid contradictions (in a boring unfunny way).

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago

Then I see our disagreement.

I think and you are welcome to disagree, even if the intent is to call coal dirty and you provide an example, you would give an actual example of it being dirty.

If I don't want to argue the obvious and just want to call the coal dirty. I wouldn't provide an example because that is the whole point of "calling the coal dirty", it doesn't need to be explained.

If I would choose to provide an example, I would provide an actual example.

If we assume his intent was to call coal dirty and he choose to provided an example of the bible being contradictory, I expect the example is actually contradictory. That was what I was arguing.

And I think his example fails, as even in a literal reading, there are interpretations that work just fine without creating contradictions, e.g. a day is ~24hr; and god needed x hrs, or y days. All of us might doubt that it is the intended meaning of the word by the author. But that is our doubts and not a contradictions.

My nonsense was strictly to highlight my point that whether or not, we think it makes sense for someone to act a way, is irrelevant when talking about contradictions.

I hope this helps to understand my intentions. I would be happy to hear your thoughts.