• 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

  • agamemnonymousEnglish
    1·
    3 hours ago

    Incorrect. Robots have electrical heads, organizations have conceptual heads. You’re not making a scientific argument, you’re making semantic strawmen contrived to confirm your biases. Nothing could be further from science.

    • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 hours ago

      First, what is your point?

      Second, does the sun fit any of the following definitions:

      • biological head
      • robotic head
      • head of an organization
      • spiritual head
      • head of a tool
      • match head
      • the head command
      • document head(er)
      • the headless horseman’s head If so, can you explain how with direct evidence or argumentation rather than simply “we can’t say for sure that it doesn’t”? Again, that argument would make it eligible to fit any and all possible definitions.

      Third, if it doesn’t fit any of the above definitions, can you explain which definition of head that it does, what that definition is, and why it’s relevant?

      • agamemnonymousEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        My point is you’re torturing a non-scientific argument to try to pass it off as scientific. No one benefits my pretending achieve is something it isn’t. You’re trying to use it to determine reality, when it’s just a tool to develop consistent models. It does not work when considering a phenomenon outside of testable hypotheses.

        Again, the sun could be the head, the sensory and processing unit, of an unknown nuclear being. We have no way to test this, so it cannot be scientifically “disproved”. That does not dictate reality. You’re trying to apply scientific reasoning to phenomena outside its preview.

        • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          Your claim doesn’t have anything to do with my original point other than semantic sports over whether the sun is a head. Philosophy and theology also don’t determine reality. We can only discover it through these means, the same way we can discover reality through science. The simple fact is that some philosophical, theological, and scientific hypotheses are closer to reality than others. The only way to dispute that would be to argue there is no objective truth, which is a self-defeating claim.

          Again, OP is making a meaningless argument.

          • agamemnonymousEnglish
            1·
            1 hour 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·
              1 hour 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.