@BobMann2001@CoreyWriting Respectfully, if you don’t know any of them, you’re just not in touch with music so of course you’re not going to remember any. So it doesn’t make sense to respond.
@JSONmaxxing@tomieinlove Not an insult, BTW. I like Hanania’s writing for the most part (I’m a premium sub) it just sounds like something he’d say/troll that I’d mostly disagree with.
And I don’t care as much for literature and still art.
The “billionaires could have solved problems X, Y, and Z with their billions but they didn’t” take is tiresome considering the US government spends *trillions* every year and it hasn’t solved homelessness, world hunger, climate change, etc.
There’s literally a children’s board game whose whole premise is showing how free market capitalism ends with one person owning everything while everyone else goes bankrupt.
No, if someone accepts the existence of souls because of Mary’s Room, the modal argument, arguments from personal identity, introspection, etc. but rejects arguments for the existence of God from contingency, fine tuning, moral knowledge, etc. then they are merely considering the issues on their own merits. There’s no bias here.
If anything, the one who rejects both without looking into the issue and considering the arguments is the biased one.
@starryblueisis@ryanburge There’s no such thing as a “god concept” other than what people typically mean by “god.” These questions are completely irrelevant, and you are clearly using an idiosyncratic and irrelevant definition of “god” to make this point that no philosopher would ever endorse.
@starryblueisis@ryanburge Souls aren’t a “god concept.” Substance dualism is a theory in the philosophy of mind that many atheists in philosophy academia hold to.
Atheism does not mean hard naturalism.
Here's an incredible stat: you could pay to lift all seniors out of poverty with only 3% of the budget for Social Security.
This program is going to destroy the prospects of future generations because we're shoveling endless amounts of money to old people who don't need it.
When I made this tweet, I was responding to your tweet out of context as I was rushing and, therefore, skimming through. I shouldn’t have done that, and I apologize.
I see the trinity as united in both essence (divinity) and substance (the Godhead). No other being is divine or is part of the Godhead, so God is the one true God.
If Mormons accept this, then they are Trinitarians (who probably also accept the incarnation). But they seem to view far more beings as being divine.
@sunriseoath This would be news to me. Are you saying that Mormons believe the trinity to be three persons in one essence? Because if so, it appears that they are Trinitarian and should stop denying that they are!