Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jedah last won the day on October 27 2016

Jedah had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

358 Excellent

About Jedah

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/10/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Too many for my own good.
  • More About Me
    Oppressive shitlord

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Dank Memes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Intellectual integrity is not a subjective concept. It's based entirely around facts and occams razor. For instance, if John claims 1+1 = 3 and Jane claims it is 2, then John and Jane both get in a heated emotional argument where they both accuse the other of ignoring obvious evidence. The difference is that 1+1 in fact is objectively 2. John is psychologically projecting his inability to accept facts onto Jane. Jane has the facts on her side. John is wrong, and Jane is right. Likewise, a literal interpretation of the Bible has been extensively debunked due to its linkage to multiple inconsistencies and logical self contradictions. It 100% legitimately cannot be true in the way that modern fundamentalists claim it to be. Although it seems to me that you have partially misunderstood my post. I am not claiming that some religious people are just "too stupid" to ever deconvert, nor am I denying the impact of their environment. In fact intellect has very little to do with it. What I am referring to is more or less "willful ignorance". A person who leaves one cult, but still chooses willful ignorance as a philosophical lifestyle, is in severe danger of falling into another cult-like scenario.
  2. Conversion is pointless. When it comes down to it, organized religion is very obviously false. The solipsism and babys-first-philosophy-lesson tier reasoning that is present in ever single major religious text screams "THIS IS CLEARLY WRITTEN BY MEN" at the top of its lungs. What people need to escape religious brainwashing is not knowledge or even reasoning, but simple intellectual honesty. And that, when it comes down to it, is a choice. You either desire to know the truth regardless of the truths harsh implications, or you want to take that blue pill and stay in wonderland. A person who chooses the blue pill does so because it is what they need, what they feel is best for them, and what they believe to be the extent of their journey. If anything, attempting to de-convert a person needlessly can have adverse effects. If you really could rip a person out of their wonderland, would they accept reality or would they just turn to something else that is just as bad? I've seen many people leave religion only to join some "secular cult", such as woke SJW nonsense, neo-nazism, or some other political extremist group as a cope for filling the gap in their need to be led by zealous fervor. Then what did they gain from their de-conversion? What did you gain? Not much, I'm afraid.
  3. From what I have read and seen from Bahai, it's more like "Islam lite". A lot of the nonsense of Islam doesn't exist in it, it's far more liberal and tolerant of other faiths, and the anti-woman sentiment is mostly gone. The basic core teaching is that many prophets of other religions ( IE Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna ) are all "Manifestations of God" which is more like a special divine existence between God and Man that is capable of discerning Gods wisdom. Bahai can in some ways be considered a sort of attempt to merge religions together in this sense in that it views most prophets of other faiths as members of this divine-class. However, the teachings of Bahai themselves are still flawed in the way Islam is in that it is mostly based on the "revelations" of Mid Eastern man, and a lot of the questionable middle-eastern philosophy is still present. So I wouldn't get any hopes up for any of this being actually true.
  4. One piece of wisdom I have come across is that the fastest way to tell someone really is smarter than the average Joe is by their ability to recognize when they might be wrong. Anyone can make themselves appear to be an intellectual by ensuring the subject of conversation remains revolved around their personal expertise, but when it comes to recognizing a good argument from a bad one ...well that's another story. An intelligent person examines information from a logical perspective. If it's something that they have never seen before and the evidence checks out, they may re-evaluate their previous position. They may at least admit they need to look into the matter further. There is a certain attempt to actually use that noggin they have. The fool does not do this. When faced with evidence contrary to belief, they simply engage in mental gymnastics. Resorting to circular reasoning, strawman arguments, false dichotomies, and otherwise irrelevant nonsense to avoid the topic entirely. Then finally, ending the discussion with personal attacks which in these days often includes accusing those who brought forth the evidence of sexism or racism despite the subject matter having absolutely nothing to do with sex or race. The only good that comes of it is how fun it can be to watch two idiots argue. Like a couple of monkeys flinging shit at each other until they are both just covered in it. I am a terrible person.
  5. The saddest part about this whole ordeal is that it has revealed just how many people don't understand the point of the presumption of evidence. People seem to think it's some kind of dichotomy, where we are forced to assume that either all accusers are liars or all the accused are guilty before any trial takes place. Because the neutral stance of "We don't know until evidence is examined." apparently doesn't exist. Because, you know, it's not like investigation before conclusion is the basis of all post-enlightenment era scientific inquiry or anything oh wait it fucking is. And then the media is fully complacent in this idiocracy. With supposedly respectable journal outlets such as Washington Post publishing articles that can be summarized as "Zomg!!11oneone!!! Kavanaugh refused to give a straight answer to a loaded gatcha question!!! He guilty!!!oneone111!!" and then some right wing forums posting nonsense such as "ZOMG DR FORD WAS HYPNOTIZED!!!!!". It's like the entire collective of humanity has lost all sense of reason. The saddest part is, we fucking know better. When it comes to legit any other crime, such as burglary or whatever, people are fully capable of understanding that we don't raise our pitchforks until we know who stole the cookie from the cookie jar. It's just with sex-related crimes in the brink of self-destructive gender identity politics ( I refuse to call it feminism. Feminism is a dead movement that no longer exists. ) we seem to think that it's either #BelieveAllWomen or #AllWomenAreLying. What the hell happened to #BelieveEvidence?
  6. I don't know if Kavanaugh is guilty of being a perv in the 80's or not. Neither does anyone else except himself and those potentially involved. The evidence is shakey and overwhelmingly unverifiable in nature, meaning any FBI investigation would likely find no reason for any indictment as the feds generally cannot manifest evidence out of thin air for a he-said she-said case decades old that doesn't even have a specific location. So instead of any real discussion on the evidence against him ( Which again, the evidence is completely non-verifiable so no real discussion COULD take place ) I am seeing people on the left screaming that he must be guilty because blah blah blah #MeToo #BelieveAllWomen #SocJus #HealthyAtEverySize #LiterallyKillAllMen. Likewise we can go to /r/The_Donald and see photoshopped memes of Ford with the caption "Lying Whore" Plastered on her picture. Ahhh, the far right and their memes. What would they be without them? Not much. But there is one thing I can say for sure, which is that the timing and motivations of these accusations is very obviously politicized -regardless of whether he did the dirty deed or not. And for that reason I find myself leaning to the right on this one. If she wanted a fair investigation she would have come out months before when Kavanaugh was first being slated as a Supreme court nominee. Not wait till the 11th hour. This is a timed and calculated political character assassination. Only a total fool cannot see this. </2cents>
  7. For public speaking, answers like Penn Jillete are probably you best bet for explaining to the average layman why the whole "Morality without god" is a silly apologetic question. But if you want to dig deeper at the crux of the argument, the issue is that humans have a subjective perspective of reality. Because of this, we cannot correctly judge whether or not a source is objective . For proof of this, observe the following logical dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat Scenario A: 1. You are a brain in a Vat 2. You have a vision from God and God tells you that you are not a brain in a Vat Scenario B: 1. You are not a brain in a Vat 2. You have a vision from God and God tells you that you are a brain in a Vat The question both of these bring up is whether or not you can tell if you are a brain in a vat in contradiction to what "God" told you. If you answer yes then this contradicts previous knowledge, if you answer no then this contradicts the claim of God granting objectivity. In both cases your answer to one must directly contradict your answer to the opposite scenario...but if I were to then ask "Which of these scenarios is more likely to happen to you?" you would have no way of knowing. The issue here is that it is impossible in both scenarios to tell whether or not the "vision from god" was just another illusion created by the computer sending signals to your brain.This means any answer other than "I don't know" is unfalsifiable. You cannot claim objectivity through an unfalsifiable claim, as objective statements by definition must be verifiable. Thus the claim that religion ( which is notoriously unfalsifiable ) grants "objective" morality fails on the grounds that it is a self contradictory claim. This is more or less the general problem with all Kant / Pressupositional apologetics. The only reason these kinds of arguments continue to exist is purely because their counter arguments require some level of knowledge of objective/subjective paradoxes such as "Last Thursdayism" which the average dude just can't be bothered with and is honestly probably better off not trying.
  8. haven't posted in a while but I'll toss in to make sense of this, because it's not as infuriating when you understand it. The fact is demonizing those who are outsiders is common among those who are susceptible to being brainwashed. "Everyone who isn't with me is conspiring against me." Everything that goes against the narrative is "negative" and negative people must be cut out from your life as they are up to no good. Everything that goes with the narrative is "positive" and you should surround yourself with positivity aka stay inside the echo chamber. Political extremist groups use this. Fundamentalist Religions use this. Multilevel marketing ( MLM ) scams use this. It's a universal method of mind control that works by confusing a person into a perpetual confirmation bias loop of circular reasoning where they see everything that disagrees with the group as "neg". All evidence to the contrary is therefore wrong because it is bad and bad because it is wrong. It is very difficult to deprogram someone who has allowed themselves into this stage of consistent self-bullshitting. So when you see stuff like this, it actually says more about the Pastor than it says about you. This kind of conclusion the Pastor has reached is of course very silly sounding to those of us outside of his echo chamber bubble, and may make you want to fight against it. But the truth is...he's just a sad willfully ignorant little man, and you are probably better off ignoring him.
  9. Their tendency to believe that because they can't understand morality without skydaddy then nobody else can and therefore all atheists must be evil hedonists. It's annoying not just because it's false, but because it's obviously false. If I lived in a world where some people could fly and I couldn't, would I deny the existence of flight just because of my own inability? Of course not, that would be completely stupid and contrary to the reality in front of me. And yet, this reality denial is exactly what Christians are doing. Despite the existence of plenty of atheists who are living ethical lives right out in the open, fundies continue their asinine claim that they have a monopoly on being "good". They don't want to admit that they simply can't wrap their heads around the concept of post conventional morality, so instead they deny that post conventional morality exists. Ridiculous.
  10. A person who dumped one form of woo for another said something insane? This has totally never happened before.
  11. The most dangerous of all is the idea that those who believe differently than you deserve mortal punishment simply for the non-crime of wrongthink.
  12. Jedah

    Moral law

    This is a repost of what I have stated earlier: before you even begin delving into absolutism as it applies to theology there is one very critical issue that MUST be understood before progressing further: Which is that belief in god doesn't actually provide you with any absolute sense of right or wrong that you didn't already have before. As a human being, your comprehension of reality is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any experience of a "God" is subjective to your own understanding. Therefore any sense of right or wrong gained from that "God" is STILL subjective to your own understanding. Similar to the reasons why you cannot disprove last Thursdayism, you also cannot prove that any experience of an "Objective source" is not also a part of last Thursdayism. Whenever I see arguments like this, it becomes very clear very quickly that religious people seem to believe that believing in god somehow magically breaks them out of subjectivity prison. It does not. And understanding why it does not is mission critical to understanding any sort of objective/subjective argument from the perspective of theology and philosophy, otherwise you are arguing in circles from a faulty premise. Simply believing that you're religion makes you morally superior does not magically grant you objective understanding of the universe, for much the same reasons why believing that you can fly will not suddenly cause you to sprout wings out of your ass. Feels are not reals. Beliefs are not facts.
  13. I know this may be besides the point, but computer software changes are technically physical too.
  14. This is very true. Religion is considered false by the intellectuals, "the truth™" by the plebs, and useful by the the ruling elite. I suspected Obama was agnostic, and even more strongly suspect Trump an atheist. I can't even blame either of them. In the US a politician would be throwing away millions of free votes if they were to come out as non-christian for any reason.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.