stacikayh's profile picture. book enthusiast • mom • agnostic • interested in philosophy of religion and the theology of universal reconciliation and restoration

Staci

@stacikayh

book enthusiast • mom • agnostic • interested in philosophy of religion and the theology of universal reconciliation and restoration

Staci 님이 재게시함

My favourite genre of reply is the "I Haven't Read The Philosopher You're Talking About and Can't Explain Their Views Without Making Several Errors, but I Have Very Strong Opinions About Them Anyway."


Staci 님이 재게시함

Do these arbitrary rules make any sense? No. But are they just? No. Are they merciful? Also no. Are these the kinds of rules a loving heavenly father would put in place? Also no. Nevertheless,,

이 트윗은 더 이상 사용할 수 없습니다.

Staci 님이 재게시함

After speaking with normal people about autism for the last 6-7 years, I have become fully convinced we need to give ASD 1, 2, and 3 separate and distinctive names because most people simply cannot handle the idea of a range of disabilities having a single name.


Staci 님이 재게시함

I was a guest on a Mormon channel along with my friend @LdsPhilosophy to talk about epistemology, the problem of evil, and Christian apologetics: youtu.be/j58jl2pDViM?si…

waldenpod's tweet card. An atheist, a Yale philosopher, and two Mormons walk into a soda bar

youtube.com

YouTube

An atheist, a Yale philosopher, and two Mormons walk into a soda bar


Staci 님이 재게시함

(arguments for God on X be like) 1) You should should believe whatever an omniscient God would believe; 2) An omniscient God would believe in an omniscient God; 3) You should believe in an omniscient God.


Staci 님이 재게시함

It’s crazy that Keith DeRose proved conclusively that universalism is not only compatible with the Bible but has strong scriptural support campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/11…

waldenpod's tweet image. It’s crazy that Keith DeRose proved conclusively that universalism is not only compatible with the Bible but has strong scriptural support campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/11…

Staci 님이 재게시함

Not a Kierkegaard scholar but from what I’ve read it seems like his disdain for religious apologetics is enormous. He thinks faith involves risk & seems to think apologists seek to minimize risk as much as possible, achieving comfort in false certainty & thus destroying faith.


Staci 님이 재게시함

As DBH points out, it's not the own infernalists think it is when they accuse universalists of sentimentalism, as if the sadistic model of punishment adopted by Aquinas or Calvin is somehow something we shouldn't find morally repulsive.

Universalism is probably the most transparently stupid, sentimental and dangerous heresy ever.



Staci 님이 재게시함

I really enjoyed this @majestyofreason debate on god's existence. One thing that strikes me is that when the "theist" responds to the hiddenness argument, he has to go with universalism to diffuse it. While that helps, most theists don't want to do that! youtu.be/sXDmNJUhXOc?si…

CounterApologis's tweet card. Philosophers DEBATE God's existence

youtube.com

YouTube

Philosophers DEBATE God's existence


Staci 님이 재게시함

Dear philosophy people: I'm working on a short piece I've had in mind for a while now and would like to get your thoughts. Whether you're an atheist, and agnostic, or a theist: Do you think it's correct to say that atheism is a religion?


Staci 님이 재게시함

Reminds me of one of @waldenpod’s five part series and especially the episode ”Is theism unfalsifiable?” It actually helped me simplify my epistemic thinking/understanding and engagement on theism and atheism. open.spotify.com/episode/2c2b1O…

Unfalsifiable does NOT imply unverifiable or untestable.



Staci 님이 재게시함

It was a post on believing in love, and how one can know love by its fruits. It was reviewing chapter 1 of Works of Love. I will definitely need to read this book randomnumbers.substack.com/p/love-is-like…


Staci 님이 재게시함

Apologia for Christianity is idiotic. Your love, rather, should be so great that it draws others to themselves seek out what makes such a man have such great love. "You are the light of the world," and men are drawn to light, not justifications of the light.


Staci 님이 재게시함

Read any peer reviewed literature on the matter, like this book: Kenny Pearce (theist) and Graham Oppy (atheist) wrote this together.

LatFilosof's tweet image. Read any peer reviewed literature on the matter, like this book: Kenny Pearce (theist) and Graham Oppy (atheist) wrote this together.

Staci 님이 재게시함

I will never stop defending both theism and atheism. It doesn't matter if I become agnostic, remain atheist or convert to some flavour of theism. Both positions are intellectually rigorous and deserving of respect.


Staci 님이 재게시함

If I have one qualm about Paul’s encomium on love, it’s with the idea that love “believes all things”. That’s trust, not love (hence the NIV: “always trusts”), & it’s important to distinguish between love & trust. Love wants to know its object as it is, not as it wants it to be.


Staci 님이 재게시함

Is there a single—I mean seriously even one—substantive argument against lab grown meat? In the last week of discourse about sweet beautiful Jeff Nippard’s tweet I have not seen a single good-faith point produced in response

I'm going to eat more tasty animals to offset your switch to lab-grown meat.



Staci 님이 재게시함

In what universe have evangelicals “stayed out of the culture wars” lol

thescottbarber's tweet image. In what universe have evangelicals “stayed out of the culture wars” lol

Staci 님이 재게시함

Starting with the Moral Majority of the 1980s, much of the church has been warmongering in the culture wars.


Loading...

Something went wrong.


Something went wrong.