Nex Benedict died one day after a fight in a school bathroom. Their mother Sue Benedict tells Bevan Hurley that the gender fluid teenager endured more than a year of abuse simply for being who they were
Christian fundamentalists don’t have nothing in common with Jesus. They are fake christians. Jesus preached tolerance so many times. They fucking don’t get it that they ignore him completely.
Christian fundamentalists don’t have nothing in common with Jesus. They are fake christians. Jesus preached tolerance so many times. They fucking don’t get it that they ignore him completely.
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. That when everyone says Christians are bad there’s actually two types of Christians, the Jesus type, and the modern Christians who use the name but don’t act like how Jesus would want them to.
You know I do find it kind of weird to bring up the no true scotsman fallacy in this shit, when the real point of that fallacy is just kind of to get people to be conscious that their mental definitions don’t actually exist in reality, and they have to work from a formal definition, right? But I think, without getting into the specifics of like, that guy’s biblical interpretation, it’s pretty obvious that they have a definition of “christian” that doesn’t line up with the others.
You might, instead of bringing up the scotsman fallacy, have better luck in hitting them with what the scotsman fallacy hearkens to, and asking them for a clear definition that you might then be able to push back on with counterexample.
Basically, I am accusing you of the fallacy fallacy.
Jesus didn’t exist. The fictional person in the Gospels preached a doctrine that his was the only way to salvation and all other ways lead to hell. That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
That is not any form of tolerance I have ever heard of. One the rejects freedom of religion, expression, sexual preferences, and possessions. What possible tolerance could there be in a world where a shaman can order you to only worship him, to hand over all your stuff, to love only whom he approves of, and only say what he wants you to say?
Ballsy of you to say that. I’d like to know what proof you have of that.
Honestly not saying that you’re wrong, but it’s really tired of people who say things with such certainty when they’re just pulling it out of one of their orifices.
The fictional person in the Gospels preached a doctrine that his was the only way to salvation and all other ways lead to hell. That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims. Claiming dragons are real requires evidence, claiming that they are not real, well, I mean, first you’d have to establish a definition of what dragons are, but mostly, it wouldn’t require evidence to claim they’re not real, because proving such a thing would be a feat an order of magnitude greater than proving they exist.
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims.
I’m not asking him to prove a negative, I’m asking him to prove his firm assertion that Jesus did not exist.
My understanding is there’s no conclusive evidence either way, so when somebody states either one of the extremes, that he absolutely existed, or he absolutely did not exist, I want to know where their proof is coming from that allows him to say such a thing with such certainty, because I know the evidence is inconclusive (at least at the last time I took a look into it).
In any case, have fun with your debate.
I’ve actually blocked him at this point, so there won’t be any further debate. My first block on Lemmy actually, I try very hard never to do that.
Yeah I kinda brain farted on positive vs negative claims there, it always confuses me as to whether or not you can make a positive claim on a statement about how something doesn’t exist, and it’s more about, the most reasonable thing is to not really know for sure one way or another, and you’re actually making the negative claim against certainty. I dunno, confuses me still. On the rank, it would still make more sense to argue for a lack of a thing than for existence of a thing, right? Sort of along the lines of the raven paradox?
and nah, I had to do that earlier to a dickhead I was arguing with, very obviously bad faith, only cherry picked specific pieces of my arguments, you know how it goes.
tried very hard not to as well, but damn, that motherfucker kinda pissed me off, ngl. I dunno. I find I have a much higher hit rate on this website than any other, in terms of positive engagements, right, but because of that, I would also engage with people more here than on other platforms, where I might instead put in much less effort. so it’s sort of a double edged sword, because people can much more easily waste my time. I think I’ve just come to the conclusion that I’m writing for myself as a creative exercise, beholden to my own standards, more than I’m writing specifically for them, you know?
It’s best not to overthink it, as it seems you are doing (no offense meant).
If someone says ‘a’ is true, you can ask them how do you know ‘a’ is true, and if they just say oh because I know, then you can push further because that’s just a bullshit answer. Especially so if you take the comment in relation to the whole conversation you’re having with them, and the level of intellectual honesty they have in conversing with you.
As far as conversations go here on Lemmy, I’m not finding good quality of conversation here on Lemmy at all, and I’m seriously considering leaving and going back to Reddit because of that, unfortunately.
From the quality of new posts people are making to the arguments that end up happening right away inside of each one of them, it actually seems a lot worse than it was on Reddit. Good to hear it’s working out well for you though.
yeah, I’ve probably fried my brain thinking too hard about it fs, just in general.
A lot of it is up to figuring out who’s going to be the best person to engage with, which I think is pretty easily done just by looking at post length. Longer posts require higher effort, = this person will be more likely to engage in good faith. Trolls tend to leave little quips, rather than large spiels.
Also, lemmy, just like reddit, also tends to be, if not an echo chamber, then certainly, a place where you can see who’s popular, and who’s unpopular. Who holds the most mainstream “lemmy” opinion. I think it’s generally better a lot of the time to engage with people who get a lot of downvotes, but seem to be acting in good faith otherwise, cause they have interesting opinions, and I think interrogating them is a good way to help them build their case, when otherwise it would just kinda be left to shit a lot of the time. The exception are political posts where you’re going to have to uproot someone’s whole worldview in order to make them see the light.
Weirdly counterintuitive, right, because you would expect most people to be more combative after going through the ringer of downvote oblivion, but it has been my experience that if you show them a modicum of sympathy they will respond to you oftentimes much better than a more popularly opinioned user might. I don’t really know why this is, maybe it’s because people perceive themselves to have some amount of power, or maybe it’s just because users are more likely to respond to, and upvote, short quips, as we’ve seen kind of infect reddit, and obviously those people are not worth bothering 90% of the time.
I dunno, that’s the only thing that strikes me maybe about your post pattern in this thread specifically, to do a better psychic reading I’d have to look at your other posts and I’m too lazy to do that rn. Hope any of what I said helps, though.
Ballsy of you to say that. I’d like to know what proof you have of that.
Sure. Total lack of contemporary evidence, lack of all relics from his life, the inability of anyone to keep basic biographical details about his life straight, clear and obvious plagiarism from texts in wide circulation at the time, lack of a dynasty, and easier explanations for the scarce data that we have.
You could write Paul’s letters completely from just being told 2 things about Jesus and being familiar with Jewish and Greek writings. You could write the entire gospel of Mark with the letters and again some familiarity with the writings of the time. Matthew adds almost nothing. Luke-Acts just adds stuff about Paul.
Want the Euchrist? Guess what eating your god was a common mystery cult practice. Want a dead leader? All over Judaism start with the Maccabees. Want the last supper? Common fiction trope at the time. Want the Tomb? Again already in fiction. Feeding the multitudes and healing the sick? Easy, Elijiah.
That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
Being serious? All that stuff about giving up your property to charity, ripping your eye out instead of looking with lust, condemning people for not saying that he was lord?
Being serious? All that stuff about giving up your property to charity, ripping your eye out instead of looking with lust, condemning people for not saying that he was lord?
Yeah, I really am, honestly.
As I mentioned to you somewhere, I’m not a Christian.
So if you actually got proof that Jesus is a bastard please do so. Be specific about it and don’t just say something without any connotation about who’s saying it or where it’s cited from. Because from all the quotes you’ve been making I literally can’t touch tell which one of those are from Jesus.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire
The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
He is now the judge of a sinful world, and on His head is the crown of the sole ruler of earth. On His robe, dipped in blood, and on His thigh is written, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” and no one alive doesn’t tremble at the sight of Him.
This is all in there. NIV translation is what I used.
Christian fundamentalists don’t have nothing in common with Jesus. They are fake christians. Jesus preached tolerance so many times. They fucking don’t get it that they ignore him completely.
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. That when everyone says Christians are bad there’s actually two types of Christians, the Jesus type, and the modern Christians who use the name but don’t act like how Jesus would want them to.
Do the Jesus types live in Scotland with the True Scots?
You know I do find it kind of weird to bring up the no true scotsman fallacy in this shit, when the real point of that fallacy is just kind of to get people to be conscious that their mental definitions don’t actually exist in reality, and they have to work from a formal definition, right? But I think, without getting into the specifics of like, that guy’s biblical interpretation, it’s pretty obvious that they have a definition of “christian” that doesn’t line up with the others.
You might, instead of bringing up the scotsman fallacy, have better luck in hitting them with what the scotsman fallacy hearkens to, and asking them for a clear definition that you might then be able to push back on with counterexample.
Basically, I am accusing you of the fallacy fallacy.
Jesus didn’t exist. The fictional person in the Gospels preached a doctrine that his was the only way to salvation and all other ways lead to hell. That one does not have the right to basic sexuality, property, and what they say.
That is not any form of tolerance I have ever heard of. One the rejects freedom of religion, expression, sexual preferences, and possessions. What possible tolerance could there be in a world where a shaman can order you to only worship him, to hand over all your stuff, to love only whom he approves of, and only say what he wants you to say?
Ballsy of you to say that. I’d like to know what proof you have of that.
Honestly not saying that you’re wrong, but it’s really tired of people who say things with such certainty when they’re just pulling it out of one of their orifices.
[Citation Required.]
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims. Claiming dragons are real requires evidence, claiming that they are not real, well, I mean, first you’d have to establish a definition of what dragons are, but mostly, it wouldn’t require evidence to claim they’re not real, because proving such a thing would be a feat an order of magnitude greater than proving they exist.
In any case, have fun with your debate.
Well aware but thanks. I gave my evidence.
I’m not asking him to prove a negative, I’m asking him to prove his firm assertion that Jesus did not exist.
My understanding is there’s no conclusive evidence either way, so when somebody states either one of the extremes, that he absolutely existed, or he absolutely did not exist, I want to know where their proof is coming from that allows him to say such a thing with such certainty, because I know the evidence is inconclusive (at least at the last time I took a look into it).
I’ve actually blocked him at this point, so there won’t be any further debate. My first block on Lemmy actually, I try very hard never to do that.
Yeah I kinda brain farted on positive vs negative claims there, it always confuses me as to whether or not you can make a positive claim on a statement about how something doesn’t exist, and it’s more about, the most reasonable thing is to not really know for sure one way or another, and you’re actually making the negative claim against certainty. I dunno, confuses me still. On the rank, it would still make more sense to argue for a lack of a thing than for existence of a thing, right? Sort of along the lines of the raven paradox?
and nah, I had to do that earlier to a dickhead I was arguing with, very obviously bad faith, only cherry picked specific pieces of my arguments, you know how it goes.
tried very hard not to as well, but damn, that motherfucker kinda pissed me off, ngl. I dunno. I find I have a much higher hit rate on this website than any other, in terms of positive engagements, right, but because of that, I would also engage with people more here than on other platforms, where I might instead put in much less effort. so it’s sort of a double edged sword, because people can much more easily waste my time. I think I’ve just come to the conclusion that I’m writing for myself as a creative exercise, beholden to my own standards, more than I’m writing specifically for them, you know?
at least, that mentality helps me.
It’s best not to overthink it, as it seems you are doing (no offense meant).
If someone says ‘a’ is true, you can ask them how do you know ‘a’ is true, and if they just say oh because I know, then you can push further because that’s just a bullshit answer. Especially so if you take the comment in relation to the whole conversation you’re having with them, and the level of intellectual honesty they have in conversing with you.
As far as conversations go here on Lemmy, I’m not finding good quality of conversation here on Lemmy at all, and I’m seriously considering leaving and going back to Reddit because of that, unfortunately.
From the quality of new posts people are making to the arguments that end up happening right away inside of each one of them, it actually seems a lot worse than it was on Reddit. Good to hear it’s working out well for you though.
yeah, I’ve probably fried my brain thinking too hard about it fs, just in general.
A lot of it is up to figuring out who’s going to be the best person to engage with, which I think is pretty easily done just by looking at post length. Longer posts require higher effort, = this person will be more likely to engage in good faith. Trolls tend to leave little quips, rather than large spiels.
Also, lemmy, just like reddit, also tends to be, if not an echo chamber, then certainly, a place where you can see who’s popular, and who’s unpopular. Who holds the most mainstream “lemmy” opinion. I think it’s generally better a lot of the time to engage with people who get a lot of downvotes, but seem to be acting in good faith otherwise, cause they have interesting opinions, and I think interrogating them is a good way to help them build their case, when otherwise it would just kinda be left to shit a lot of the time. The exception are political posts where you’re going to have to uproot someone’s whole worldview in order to make them see the light.
Weirdly counterintuitive, right, because you would expect most people to be more combative after going through the ringer of downvote oblivion, but it has been my experience that if you show them a modicum of sympathy they will respond to you oftentimes much better than a more popularly opinioned user might. I don’t really know why this is, maybe it’s because people perceive themselves to have some amount of power, or maybe it’s just because users are more likely to respond to, and upvote, short quips, as we’ve seen kind of infect reddit, and obviously those people are not worth bothering 90% of the time.
I dunno, that’s the only thing that strikes me maybe about your post pattern in this thread specifically, to do a better psychic reading I’d have to look at your other posts and I’m too lazy to do that rn. Hope any of what I said helps, though.
Well I truly appreciate the conversation and the civility, thank you for that.
Sure. Total lack of contemporary evidence, lack of all relics from his life, the inability of anyone to keep basic biographical details about his life straight, clear and obvious plagiarism from texts in wide circulation at the time, lack of a dynasty, and easier explanations for the scarce data that we have.
You could write Paul’s letters completely from just being told 2 things about Jesus and being familiar with Jewish and Greek writings. You could write the entire gospel of Mark with the letters and again some familiarity with the writings of the time. Matthew adds almost nothing. Luke-Acts just adds stuff about Paul.
Want the Euchrist? Guess what eating your god was a common mystery cult practice. Want a dead leader? All over Judaism start with the Maccabees. Want the last supper? Common fiction trope at the time. Want the Tomb? Again already in fiction. Feeding the multitudes and healing the sick? Easy, Elijiah.
Being serious? All that stuff about giving up your property to charity, ripping your eye out instead of looking with lust, condemning people for not saying that he was lord?
Yeah, I really am, honestly.
As I mentioned to you somewhere, I’m not a Christian.
So if you actually got proof that Jesus is a bastard please do so. Be specific about it and don’t just say something without any connotation about who’s saying it or where it’s cited from. Because from all the quotes you’ve been making I literally can’t touch tell which one of those are from Jesus.
I already gave this to you
This is all in there. NIV translation is what I used.