Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content count

    2,644
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Joshpantera last won the day on August 8

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,633 Wow

4 Followers

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    Architect (INTJ-T)

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    US of A
  • Interests
    A plethora...
  • More About Me
    I'm an over 25 year deconvert. Well read on how christianity fits into the world along side of other religions. And how those apply to atheism and non belief. My view is unorthodox to say the least.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I don't believe they exist

Recent Profile Visitors

2,294 profile views
  1. Sure why not? Chief political strategist maybe? Notice Trumps comment about "low IQ" during the Ohio speech? That wasn't lost on me. He's obviously been tuned into the IQ average issues among conservatives concerning the Bell Curve. He tried to down play the comment by extending it to Pelosi. But I'm pretty sure that was a quick back peddle to try and cover up the comment quickly. And anyone who's unfamiliar with this topic probably wouldn't pick up on it at all. So, yeah, that was a little telling.
  2. Joshpantera

    Christians blaming gays

    Now hold your horses, Tex, Samuel has just joined to get AWAY from negative christian views about homosexuality and speak to those who have "transcended" that particular bronze age world view. Rant's isn't the same as the Den or ToT. This really isn't a place to platform a debate on the morality of homosexuality according to the bible. And more importantly, it's just plain disrespectful to our new member Samuel, who, has mods for body guards when it comes to christians trying to demean him in any way. I'm not saying that's what you were doing, I'm just saying that he's under our protection and we're not going to allow him to be abused by christians here at this site.
  3. Joshpantera

    Should We Expect a Higher Consciousness

    That's it. Regardless of whether or not some experience even relates to someone's personal religion, they will often try and shoe horn it somehow. I guess they just don't know how else to interpret the experience. We had that issue the other week where someone was talking about ghosts or something as if it proves the bible, when ghosts are more contrary to the bible than anything else. Something unknown or unexplained = bible true. Except more often than not, these unexplained issues run contrary to the bible rather than bolster it.
  4. I haven't watched enough of his personal channel to catch that. I have seen a fear mongering element on youtube by some right wing (often female conservative) voices suggesting that western culture is under siege by male, patriarchal, and white hating marxist's and post modernists. These videos venture into areas such as claims that "they" are trying to breed out white people with interracial sex, relationships and marriages. As part of this marxist agenda to de-patriarch western culture and take out the oppressive white civilization. Now right away, this IS heavily emotional fear mongering in the highest degree. From right wing voices. I haven't caught Molyneux in this yet, but I'll check.
  5. Thanks Heimir, I am trying to do a fair analysis. NZ shut them out, but at least we can have a descent discussion here.
  6. Seriously though, where's the doomsday stuff? You know I hate fear mongering. I've haven't seen Molyneux doing it yet. Otherwise I'd be taking issue with him over it myself. Is there citation to where the doomsday aspect of all of this is discussed?
  7. At 31:00 - The average IQ in Haiti is around 67. He lays out claims that in youth IQ is thought to be around 50% genetic and 50% environment, and by later age it creeps up to 80% genetic 20% environment. 35:35 Sub Saharan Africa IQ averages around 70, Haiti averages around 67. But there's still a bell curve, there's still some very smart people in Haiti. 37:30 A free market is needed in places where the average IQ is low so that the smart people within the population can work towards the betterment of the nation. So here he is going over philosophical arguments contrasting the environment theories. But ends up summarizing at the end that it seems evolution has just worked in these ways based on survival in specific locations. Such as higher IQ required in colder regions where you have to think ahead and prepare for the long winters verses equatorial region zones where you can hunt all year and don't have to think ahead and make similar preparation in order to survive. That would apparently go into his views on partial genetics, partial environment arguments. All in all, Molyneux does attempt to come at this topics as a philosopher. The philosophy may be weak in some areas, but it's still presented within a philosophical framework and not a scathing hate based presentation. There's a considerable amount of appealing to logic and reason involved. But it's easy to look past what's being said and jump to emotionally charged responses when the topic is IQ and race. He's chosen one hell of an uphill battle for himself as far as that goes. I doubt he'll ever be heard out or taken serious by a majority of people because of it. And I don't know that the point is, with respect to Haiti. It sounds like he wants a free market so the smarter Haitian's can lift up the average and below average Haitians. And possibly he's aiming at a greater mix of races in order to introduce higher IQ averages into the environment to help elevate the local socioeconomic situation. He doesn't spell it out that clearly but it's a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the context of the video. In some way it seems like he at least thinks that he's trying to help a bad situation, although via an extremely controversial hot button topic.
  8. Joshpantera

    Did you actually know God, before giving up?

    I've seen some intellectually poor and very uncritical thinking from christian apologists over the last few decades, but this has to rank as top 5 epic thinking fails of all time. I'll expand on that below. What is a day and what is night? What is an evening and a morning? It's when part of the earth faces towards the sun and the other part faces away from the sun. Apologists who take this direction face an unflattering result. There was no sun until the 4th day. No sun, moon or stars (other suns) until the fourth day of creation. The ancients thought that light existed independent of the sun and that the sun, moon, and stars were merely objects that "inhabited" the light of day and the darkness of night. Going around the earth. You see day light in the morning prior to seeing the sun. It's light even when it's cloudy. You still see light after sun down for a while. They were ignorant of the fact that the sun is the 'source' of day, at least with respect to this particular bronze age creation myth. So they didn't realize the contradiction they were making when having the sun, moon, and stars not created until the fourth day of creation. Nor the contradiction of having grass growing on dry land one "day" before the sun was created. So some apologists, when facing this contradiction, try to claim that "god" was the source of light for the first three "evenings and mornings" of Genesis 1. And sometimes quote the opening of John and the "logos" to support the apology. But one big problem with that apology is that it presents god as "finite," like the sun. A finite, light giving object only visible from the side of the earth face the finite, light bearing object. A "day" is simply when the earth is "facing" towards a light source, like the sun. Night, is facing the opposite direction of a light source, like the sun. For the existence of 'days and night' you need one side of the earth facing the light source, and the other side of the earth facing away from the light source. But god is suggested to be eternal! That means "unbound" and "infinite." And infinite or eternal "light" is necessarily "everywhere," all the time, and beyond time to be technical. You can not draw circle around that which is eternal, infinite and unbound. Hence, you can not "face away" from the light of an eternal light source to constitute a night. And more importantly to your specific angle of apologetic's, you can not "cloak" an eternal light source unless the eternal light source ceases to be light and instead becomes eternal darkness! That means total and complete darkness, unbound, everywhere all the time darkness. Think about that for a moment. When asserting eternal, one can not draw a line around, encircle, enclose, nor "cloak" and bound that which is claimed to be boundless and eternal. It's necessarily un-cloak-able. Or else you've reduced it to something "finite," which can be closed off, "cloaked" and covered over. In which case you've reduced god to something "finite" rather than "infinite." In any event, I'm dropping a link below to an over 40 page argument I once had with a christian apologists about how many ways Genesis 1 contradicts itself and some of the specifics of how it only gets worse and worse as you try and apologize for the contradictions. And also worse and worse as you try and shift from literal to symbolic interpretation, switching from conservative to liberal christian interpretations! In other words, trying to dig yourself out of the hole of Genesis 1 will only result in digging yourself even deeper into the hole as you go along, and it's a lose / lose for anyone who makes the effort to over come the foundational contradictions of the bronze age, man made creation myth. The thread is entitled, Young Earth Creation Theory Put To Rest: https://www.booktalk.org/young-earth-theory-put-to-rest-t8061.html
  9. Molyneux makes the claim on the Rubin Report. He begs people to go to his sources and read for themselves. I've gone through this left bent video pretty much aimed against "the right," which is doing an analysis of race and IQ trying to counter many of the claims that are asserted as coming from the right. What I've found here is more of the same, though. The focus is on genetics verses environment as we've been discussing already. And as you can see in the Rubin Report and the Murry interview, both Molyneux and Murry admit that the question of environment verses genetics is 'unsettled' concerning how much is genetic and how much is environmental. They are both very clear about that, which, seems pretty intellectually honest considering the landscape of this controversial topic. Anyways, the video below is an attempt to contrast the claims of the Bell Curve in the spirit of philosophical inquiry (my comments on his summaries in bold): 00:40 - "Yes, certain races do score higher or lower on IQ tests." 00:50 - Some people on the right want to make claims about genetics. 1:00 - It is true that on 'average', white's score higher than both hispanics and blacks on IQ tests. 1:10 - Asian's, on 'average,' score higher than whites. 1:30 - But this does not establish that certain races are 'genetically' smarter than others. This seems more than obvious to me just because each race has a range of above and below average within each respective racial group. It can't be genetic in whole, or else each group would be limited to the average score because it would be genetically impossible to score outside of that genetic based range. The thing is, both Murry and Molyneux admit this in the literal context examples. And they admit that how much is genetic is unknown. They do not claim that it's 100% genetic and I'm starting to see that as a straw man claim now. Because neither of them make that argument. It's critics and opponents drawing that conclusion (more or less unwarranted). And the critics seem to admit that some amount of IQ is genetic and some amount environmental, so both camps seem to be saying the very same thing. 3:00 - IQ is measured in a socioeconomic way, which then leads to racial groups of a socioeconomic system testing better than other groups (this needs verification). It doesn't measure innate intelligence (that's inconsistent with everything else I've heard about IQ testing). 3:49 - Simply calling people racist is not the best way to address the issue of discussing the issue of race and IQ. 4:00 - A history of racist views (This is good to consider) 10:00 - Going for the throat by linking The Pioneer Fund with the Bell Curve. 12:00 - The major critique, again, is not that the test results are wrong but that a genetic interpretation is unwarranted. 15:00 - A break down of the technicalities involved in 'genetic' as opposed to regional race. And how that impacts IQ testing racial groups. 21:00 - We shouldn't discredit IQ tests because they're good at what they measure. But the range tested is narrower than what could be considered an over all intelligence. 22:00 - Some people are born with innate skills that will render better IQ testing, but after birth it's largely environment which determines these same skills that are tested for. 28:00 - Environment plays a bigger role than genetics when determining IQ. No way of measuring innate intelligence between races is the final summary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having listened to both Murry and Molyneux, I have to wonder how much of this was a straw man because they never at any point accept that IQ scores are anything other than partially biological and partially environmental. Nor do either claim that IQ is static or unchangeable. There seems to be an emphasis on arguing that IQ averages are going up, when, that's exactly what Molyneux says in the Rubin Report. This is all in line with Pinker's "Enlightenment Now" analysis. So a lot of this is more the case of the left and right "agreeing to agree" than "agreeing to disagree," it would seem. But carrying on as if they disagree when the evidence points to both parties pretty much using the same data and admitting the same basic things, while trying to preserve the angles of coming at the same thing from two different perspectives. Who's fighting who, and for what reason? And more importantly, why in the world are Molyneux and Southern being banned for it. They haven't said anything that left wing voices haven't said and admitted to as well. As to the claims about environment and socioeconomics as the driving force for higher IQ, I have to wonder why both Asians and Jews score higher. As a whole, are they both more privileged than white's socioeconomically? Is there some Jewish and Asian "privilege" we should be discussing? There doesn't seem to be. And if not, then that would probably be a big hit to the socioeconomic theory discussed in the video. More food for thought...
  10. Joshpantera

    Not a vessel

    This.
  11. Joshpantera

    My second chance at life

    Welcome to the forums, Heimir. I don't think you were wrong for giving christianity the benefit of the doubt, but the issue is that it's inherently wrong in many ways from the outset which can be demonstrated time and again. If you're intellectually honest you'll find that it isn't based on truth. You were probably better off to give it the benefit of the doubt and then see where that leads. At which point giving it the benefit of the doubt had run it's course and there's no further reason to do so. Everything's trial and error. Evolution is trial and error. Personal evolution is trial and error. Truth seeking is trial and error. You're in good company here.
  12. It keeps coming up, both with LF's left wing PhD and Molyneux because they're both merely discussing the raw data. The ranking of average IQ according to racial groups that we keep discussing is simply the empirical results of testing. The controversy is not about the test scores, but rather the conclusions drawn from the test scores. The issue of genetics verses environment is the hot topic. And the other issue is that IQ testing is apparently the corner stone of psychology. I'm hearing that every other aspect of psychology is less firm and stands on weaker ground. So dismissing IQ domino effects the entire science of psychology itself. I'm not opposed to the assertion that psychology itself may be errant from the top down, but that's where the argument against IQ testing seems to lead. Below is a reminder from LF's left wing PhD discussing the averages per racial group: The above is a recap of the science being discussed, in the context of Murry's own words. You made a very emotional paragraph in the process of branding Molyneux as emotional, though, Blood. How is an objective reader supposed to take all of this? I've watched apparently the same material where he's (very unemotionally, calm and collected) discussing his libertarian views on government and how voluntary cooperation is preferred in his view, as opposed to government authoritarian rule. He makes these arguments as a philosopher. All I know about Charlottesville, from an objective take, is that there was a mix of people there some of which were radicals and some of which were not. When Trump said the comment about good people on both sides, I took that to mean the people on both sides who were not radicals, who were there for the sake of the removal of a statue with better intentions than the radicals. I would give Molyneux the same benefit of the doubt keeping in line with the on going context. I keep saying that I don't know why he's taken up the cross of a controversial issue this strong. In context, he says that he wants to change these issues and find out how to even up IQ scores and things like that. That's the direction he takes with Rubin. I'm not convinced of the arguments about immigration and the multiculturalism thing seems like a firmer argument, permitting that the two of them aren't just raising straw men. If indeed multiculturalism amounts to a segregation of cultures instead of mixing, then sure, there's probably problems with the system. But I don't know that that's the case. The hard edge anarchist range of libertarian philosophy, again, I'm not sold on the philosophy. I wouldn't want to speculate or put words in Molyneux's mouth about how he sees the two issues of IQ average and an anarchist libertarian utopia. All of this stuff ventures in to extreme sounding philosophy, granted, but I'm not afraid to read through it or hear the guy out. I'm certainly not afraid that he'll sway a majority of the population into removing government altogether. But I can see how big government proponents (whether left or right) would find this discussion off putting and want to lash out at it. Indeed, that's the core of the issue here with NZ. But again, most of this is besides the point of whether or not Molyneux and Southern should be shut down or allowed to speak. We could spin their words, we could call them bat shit crazy, we could photo shop dunce caps on to the two of them. But should we let them speak anyways? That's the real issue here.
  13. More context. At 5:00 these facts of IQ averages are to Molyneux, "extremely heart breaking." At 6:20 going forward Molyneux is talking about how much he wishes that this were just a situation of racism alone, because "racism is a solvable problem." He's not aligning himself with racism, or white nationalism via this issue of IQ. Over and over again, the context is clear. I need to track it down, but on one of his own episodes he talks about how one race can never be proven superior to another race. Some guy took that clip out of one of Molyneux's shows and then focused on the following analogy instead of the point of the analogy. That in and of itself was a very low IQ move to make on the part of the critic, in fact. The problem here is that he wants to solve hard problems that require setting emotionalism aside for a minute looking at things intellectually. That's hard for most people to do. Just about every refutation I come across against this guy is an emotionally charged one, full of much bias and assumption. But that goes with the territory he's chosen, so it'll have to be what it is. Society isn't going to abruptly become unemotionally charged and suddenly become open minded enough as a whole to discuss these sorts of topics objectively. So he will struggle every step of the way as long as he engages issues like average IQ and racial groups. Few will get the points he's trying to make. Most will never hear him out and just go with what ever the media or some of his critics present as their "caricatures." In the end I don't know how much it really matters. The points aren't going to change a whole lot from what I can tell. It's just a matter of being deplatformed and shut down and whether or not western free society ought to be conducting itself this way. The content of his opinions is really beside the point in the grand scheme of being free to speak, even complete nonsense if one so chooses.
  14. This is pretty sad. The context is that he's going on and on about the left needing to create these "false caricatures" - racism, fascism, white nationalism, hate speech, etc. So you freeze frame her saying that they're not white supremacist's and fascists and Stefan says he'll vouch for that, they're not fascist's, and you grab on to that as if it proves that he's a white supremacist because of the omission of the term when confirming that he's not fascist. But what if he's simply insisting, with the flow of the context leading up to this point, that by denouncing fascism he's denounced white supremacy because the two go hand in hand? Rather than thinking about it objectively, giving a benefit of the doubt, you instead rushed to conclude that you'd caught him red handed claiming to be a white supremacist. Except that you didn't, he's said in many other places that he's not a racist, white supremacist, alt right, or any other label he'd been given. Just a philosopher trying to discuss controversial issues.