Pinned Tweet
Mission:
1) Bring people together & reduce hostility
2) Foster critical thinking
3) Argue/support atheism fairly
4) Critique and rebut bad/unfair arguments logically
5) Promote a safe space where all nonviolent views are welcome
1) Bring people together & reduce hostility
2) Foster critical thinking
3) Argue/support atheism fairly
4) Critique and rebut bad/unfair arguments logically
5) Promote a safe space where all nonviolent views are welcome
12
4
53
17,583
Logistrix retweeted
@NathanBozeman2 indeed the entire bible) places no restrictions on the slave’s will.
Leviticus 25 explicitly says a person can own another person as property and pass them to others as inheritance.
This is, by definition, chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is never once condemned in the entire bible.
Is any of the above incorrect? If so, please provide a passage.
Leviticus 25 explicitly says a person can own another person as property and pass them to others as inheritance.
This is, by definition, chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is never once condemned in the entire bible.
Is any of the above incorrect? If so, please provide a passage.
0
1
1
41
Logistrix retweeted
@wendelltalks your questions…
• Why anything exists rather than nothing
No idea. But to then say “you don’t know therefore I’m right” is textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy.
• Why the laws of nature are finely tuned for life
Are they? 99.999999999999999999% of nature kills life instantly. Also, by calling it “finely tuned” is begging the question - we don’t know why physical constants are what they are, if they could be different, what the probability of our specific configuration is, or how many configurations allow for life. Again, to say “you don’t know therefore I’m right” is textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy.
• Why human minds can discover those laws
Humans developed capacity for analytical thinking as it was a survival benefit over pure stimulus-response. We use that analytical thinking ability to analyze what’s around us.
• Why we experience moral obligation instead of mere preference
Do we experience moral obligation instead of mere preference? Humans may have big feelings or groups may develop general consensus, but these aren’t in any way transcendent obligations beyond preference.
• Why the resurrection of Jesus has better historical evidence than most accepted events of antiquity
Most historical events are accepted provisionally, and with varying degrees of confidence. Yes, there’s better evidence for Jesus’ resurrection than the very-low-confidence history, but then, the claim that Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake" is extremely mundane.
If you’re positing that something happened that, categorically, has never otherwise been seen or reliably documented, the bar needs to be higher than “there’s better evidence than other provisionally accepted historical claims.”
The resurrection is but one hypothesis to explain the extant evidence; there’s many more hypotheses that also explain the extant evidence, and do so without positing a deity and miracle. If we apply Occam’s razor, the hypotheses that do not multiply entities should be preferred over those that do.
• Why anything exists rather than nothing
No idea. But to then say “you don’t know therefore I’m right” is textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy.
• Why the laws of nature are finely tuned for life
Are they? 99.999999999999999999% of nature kills life instantly. Also, by calling it “finely tuned” is begging the question - we don’t know why physical constants are what they are, if they could be different, what the probability of our specific configuration is, or how many configurations allow for life. Again, to say “you don’t know therefore I’m right” is textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy.
• Why human minds can discover those laws
Humans developed capacity for analytical thinking as it was a survival benefit over pure stimulus-response. We use that analytical thinking ability to analyze what’s around us.
• Why we experience moral obligation instead of mere preference
Do we experience moral obligation instead of mere preference? Humans may have big feelings or groups may develop general consensus, but these aren’t in any way transcendent obligations beyond preference.
• Why the resurrection of Jesus has better historical evidence than most accepted events of antiquity
Most historical events are accepted provisionally, and with varying degrees of confidence. Yes, there’s better evidence for Jesus’ resurrection than the very-low-confidence history, but then, the claim that Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake" is extremely mundane.
If you’re positing that something happened that, categorically, has never otherwise been seen or reliably documented, the bar needs to be higher than “there’s better evidence than other provisionally accepted historical claims.”
The resurrection is but one hypothesis to explain the extant evidence; there’s many more hypotheses that also explain the extant evidence, and do so without positing a deity and miracle. If we apply Occam’s razor, the hypotheses that do not multiply entities should be preferred over those that do.
0
1
2
36
What was the pharaoh’s name from exodus?
Massive 28-foot statue of biblical pharaoh who challenged Moses unearthed by farmer in Egypt trib.al/c0R92Kk
1
0
5
249
Theists try to say atheists don’t have grounding for what we believe.
- senses are reliable
- we experience reality
- reasoning is reliable
Yes. Those are fundamentally axiomatic.
The thing is, they share all the same axioms, but add the wildly complex “god exists” axiom.
- senses are reliable
- we experience reality
- reasoning is reliable
Yes. Those are fundamentally axiomatic.
The thing is, they share all the same axioms, but add the wildly complex “god exists” axiom.
27
4
29
1,942
How much for unbiased news?
🚨 BREAKING: CNN is now OFFICIALLY under the corporate ownership of TRUMP ALLIES
LMAO!!
Paramount just CLOSED its $81 BILLION purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, forming Skydance
David Ellison is chairman and CEO — his family and RedBird hold 100% of the voting shares.
CNN, all under one roof.
Imagine that. After all these years, CNN has Trump-aligned leadership! The fake news reporters are fuming!
1
0
1
122
Oh that’s where they put the science.
After delivering science and supplies to the @Space_Station earlier this year, Northrop Grumman's Cygnus XL cargo spacecraft is scheduled to depart on Friday, Oct. 9. Here's how to watch: go.nasa.gov/4zbZpiG
0
0
5
238
Logistrix retweeted
@darwintojesusccount for [evil].”
What “evil” do you mean?
If you mean disobeying god, then no, I don’t need to account for it since, if there’s no god, then there’s nothing to disobey.
If you mean suffering, then no, I don’t need to account for it since suffering would be expected in a universe without a god.
If you mean people doing “bad” things, then no, I don’t need to account for it since I also don’t think there’s any inherent “good” or “bad.”
Did I miss any?
“Why does evil exist?”
I don’t think it does.
“Why do objective values exist?”
I don’t think they do.
“Why do humans have real moral obligations and moral knowledge and free will?”
Real moral obligations - I don’t think real moral obligations exist.
Moral knowledge - this assumes moral obligations, which I reject. But I think this could be salvaged by asking “why do we have a conscience?” I don’t need to account for this beyond “I don’t know”; however this can be accounted for easily in that we are a social species; playing nice with others is beneficial for survival and reproduction.
Can you show that evil exists?
What sort of “evil” is it?
What “evil” do you mean?
If you mean disobeying god, then no, I don’t need to account for it since, if there’s no god, then there’s nothing to disobey.
If you mean suffering, then no, I don’t need to account for it since suffering would be expected in a universe without a god.
If you mean people doing “bad” things, then no, I don’t need to account for it since I also don’t think there’s any inherent “good” or “bad.”
Did I miss any?
“Why does evil exist?”
I don’t think it does.
“Why do objective values exist?”
I don’t think they do.
“Why do humans have real moral obligations and moral knowledge and free will?”
Real moral obligations - I don’t think real moral obligations exist.
Moral knowledge - this assumes moral obligations, which I reject. But I think this could be salvaged by asking “why do we have a conscience?” I don’t need to account for this beyond “I don’t know”; however this can be accounted for easily in that we are a social species; playing nice with others is beneficial for survival and reproduction.
Can you show that evil exists?
What sort of “evil” is it?
5
1
8
294
If the entire world converted to a religion based on Star Wars, there would be a schism and war based on the pronunciation of Han.
1
0
4
102