• Christian school teacher arrested for alleged sexual assault; more victims suspected
    (archived link)

• Christ the King bookkeeper gets 2 years in prison for embezzling church funds
    (archived link)

• Ex-teacher at Pope John XXIII High School is sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking upskirt photos of students
    (archived link)

• Pakistani religious body declares using VPN is against Islamic law

• Hate pastor renegs on promise to refund tithes

• Priest faces life imprisonment over third child sex offences conviction

• Church of England head resigns over handling of sex abuse scandal
    (archived link)

• Ohio pastor accused of raping a juvenile facing 6 felony counts
    (archived link)

• Televangelist Kenneth Copeland says people who didn’t vote for Trump will hear the names of aborted ‘babies’ for all eternity

   
Previously

  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    30 days ago

    There is no objective truth. You wanting to project objective truth does not make it more real. Reality is a mystery, and using tools incorrectly to fool yourself into objective truth is a miscarriage of science.

    You’re trying to apply materialism to allegory. Evaluating religion this way is a meaningless argument.

    • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      30 days ago

      Is the statement that there is no objective truth objectively true? If so, there is some objective truth, and the statement is false. Like I said, it’s a self-defeating claim.

        • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          30 days ago

          What does set theory have to do with absolute truth? And if there is no absolute truth, how can any aspect of set theory be valid?

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                2·
                29 days ago

                I can, but I won’t. This is no longer an entertaining use of my time. I’m not going to explain the implications of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem to someone with such a shaky grasp of epistemology. Pearls before swine.

                • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  29 days ago

                  It’s odd that you won’t explain your epistemology to someone, but you will claim moral/intellectual superiority in not explaining an actually important point after debating them on the hypothetical sentience of the sun for over a day. You can throw all the names of theorems you want at a conversation. but the simple fact is that “there is no absolute truth” is a self-contradictory statement. Any philosophy you build on such a fragile foundation is a non-starter.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                    2·
                    29 days ago

                    Which is precisely why I’m not going to explain epistemology to someone who has repeatedly demonstrated poor logical methodology.