876
Names
(lemmy.ca)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
876 points (97.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
32509 readers
409 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Except a lot of the problems with Atheist debunking of the bibble. You keep mistaking allegory for literal.
The Catholic Church claims it becomes the blood of Christ internally, spiritually, but remains the same externally or physically.
You can cite whatever verses you want but that doesn't change the fact that the claim you are bashing is not the one being made.
You are holding up a strawman and insisting that he's real for but want of a brain. Methinks you project your desires onto him.
I'm not pointing out something that can be debunked. I'm pointing out that it's crazy spellcasting stuff. The dogma is that it becomes that thing, just that it's undetectable to us. It's untestable, so obviously I'm not claiming anything about debunking. I'm saying it's crazy. If a modern person outside of a religion said those things we'd institutionalized them.
Non sequitur, irrelevant to conversation
What? You can't just say things and make it the case. It absolutely follows. It's literally the whole point of what I was discussing. Talking about debunkers was the non-sequitur. It did not follow from discussing how crazy the claim is to talk about other people trying to debunk totally unrelated things.
You're just saying names of logical fallacies seemingly without any understanding of what they mean and when they apply, hoping others will fall for it. There wasn't a strawman before, and I didn't make a non-sequitur statement.
What you said had nothing to do with the conversation thus a nonsensical derailment of the converstion, and you are propping up a strawman. I keep pointing out they don't believe it physically turns into blood and flesh and you keep going "But what if they did?"
No, they believe it fundamentally changes into the body and blood. It's a nonsense meanining of the language from a measurable reasonable view of the universe, but they mean it does become that thing, but it's undetectable so it can't be tested. I don't know what you're arguing about. You either misunderstand what I'm saying, what they're saying (which I've barely said anything, just copied what they say), or you're just arguing for the sake of it.
The believe it actually becomes his body and blood. It literally becomes that, undetectably. It's in a sense that is unmeasurable and undetectable, so that it can't be debunked and can't really be questioned beyond questioning the pretext of it happening. They do believe it literally is the body and blood of christ though. There's no strawman there. I could construct one if I wanted to, but it's totally unnecessary, because the real thing is absurd enough. It's not my fault that the mystical language doesn't gel with a realistic, scientific, physical understanding of our language.
I was responding to what you said about debunkers earlier, so it was not an non-sequitur. It was directly responding to your comment, although bringing that up was a non-sequitur. It had no relevance.