Jump to content

Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Joshpantera last won the day on June 18

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,986 Wow

5 Followers

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    ancient X

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    US of A
  • Interests
    A plethora...
  • More About Me
    I'm an over 25 year deconvert. Gone off exploring a lot of science, religion, philosophy, biblical criticism, archaeology, eastern mystical content, and esoteric comparative content. Atheistic about gods with a spiritual side about nature.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I don't believe in god(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

2,997 profile views
  1. Welcome aboard, Luke! FYI, I am NOT your father!
  2. Demonstrating that the bible is true or false would seem to primarily involve "sticking to the text," wouldn't it? How could it be secondary? It's the text and it's truth value that we're concerned with here. Reading the texts and then analyzing to the best of our ability with everything available in this day and age at our disposal. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think about all of this.
  3. Dan, this is a primary example of the sort of thinking that I'm trying to encourage in others. Take these people to task! Do not let them logic leap with you. Hold them in the corner and don't let them out unless they successfully establish and demonstrate their foundational claims. And to date, they can't do it. The amount of special pleading involved in their arguments is astounding when you finally step back and look at the big picture.
  4. I call that intellectual atheism. Non belief without deep rooted knowledge, comprehension and understanding is one thing. Non belief with very deep rooted knowledge, comprehension and understanding is quite another. And staying active and sharp on anti-apologetic's usually helps most people. I've never found any apologetic's to date that are not nonsensical in transparent and easy to locate ways. I'm giving one of our christian members a hard time about it, but for his own good as far as I'm concerned. He's a smart guy, he deserves to face off with the facts and understand what it's like to be in the hot seat of having to try and defend christian claims. That can be an eye opener for anyone who's interested in keeping it intellectually honest. Because when you're interested in keeping it honest there's problem after problem, one after the next. Over and over again. Contradictions on top of misinterpretations between writers. To apologize for these obvious things involves a lot of intellectual dishonesty. And poor excuses. Sure, people can still block out reason and accept these poor excuses. But the excuses are still poor. You can always hold the apologist's into a corner because they're wrong. They can't demonstrably establish that the bible is true. It isn't possible. It doesn't start off true. The rest of story line characters speak AS If the scriptures do start out true, but they don't. So the remaining stories all share in the domino effect of the bible starting out "demonstrably false." Take jesus for instance. He's a story line character built out of diverse writers contributing to the story. The character believes Genesis is literally true. But Genesis is demonstrably not literally true. If it's not literally true, then it doesn't really tell us about the first humans, what their names were, or how they came into existence. If it isn't true, then there wasn't any such "original sin" in the first place, no lineage of literal patriarchs leading to Noah, leading to Abraham, leading to Moses, king David, nor any such jesus from the line of David. Dominoes, right down the line. There's no need for redemption from an original sin that never happened in the first place and can not be demonstrated as true in any meaningful sense of the word. If the story isn't literally true, then human's were not literally immortal, only to digress into mortality, in order strive to restore a previous immortality. Because none of this story is literally true to begin with and we can establish that right from the beginning and see it follow through to the end. The apologist's have to try and over come this foundational problem. But all they can offer are excuses. Poor excuses at that. When you understand all of this you can keep apologists against the ropes, back into a corner, and keep them there. They're on the weak side of the argument. And how likely is it to start wondering if they're right when they're against the ropes all the time and stuck in corners that they can't escape from? Keeping the whole thing in focus and in context is a good way of becoming immune to succumbing to any of it in my opinion.
  5. This guys channel is worth a browse through. It's pretty amazing how he lines it all up:
  6. The whole issue of special biblical knowledge and "true christians" gets so convoluted and trivial. But it's so hard for people stuck in the middle of it to see it. I think it's very hard for them to see the problems with apologetic's too. But not impossible for them to see it. Seeing as how we are all living examples that it is possible to see it and then move on. I would like to establish some respect for ex christians, if that were possible. They don't have to agree with us, but some respect would be nice. Respect for the fact that we don't simply lay over and accept things that CAN NOT BE PROVEN. And respect for that fact that it's understandable that we don't believe it, given the circumstances. And the debate is squarely aimed at laying out the circumstances. I hold that ex christians are justified in our skepticism. And that our situations are completely reasonable and understandable. Will we ever be granted that respect? I don't know. We'll just have to see.
  7. Now that you mention it, the centre group sure does seem to get along well. Strife seems to have taken a big dive.
  8. Welcome to the forums! Read around, participate and enjoy.
  9. A trove of yes men and women, praising the ego of a very needy narcissistic deity. With his name in their foreheads as they sing, and sing, and sing their hearts out for eternity. But, ONLY if the holy spirit happened to predetermine that they would be found worthy and inspired them to THE TRVTH! Only the select, among the select are the TRVE christians! All of the rest, well, misguided souls who weren't credulous and submissive enough to make the cut! The great omni everything deity has no room for self thinkers, thank you very much. It'll be nothing but groveling around singing, and singing praise forever without end in blasting, ceaseless light free and clear of any darkness or night!!!! What an awesome after life!!!!!!!
  10. I should step in here again and just take to task the rest of Keil and Delitzsche's poor, poor reasoning skills. And yes, that's banter. These guys are so far off the mark that it's incredible to read through. Does man live on the land? If yes, problem solved. Day 3 sets up the environment of land, Day 6 corresponds with the creation of land dwelling creatures, which, includes man. Are they that dense? Or just that intellectually dishonest? Neither answer seems to bode well in any case. And that's NOT a false dichotomy. They are being extremely dense in this paragraph. And I want to get down to why. I'm not trying to ad hom them. I honestly suspect that they're playing stupid as part of an intellectually dishonest direction of christian apologetic's. In the second outlined paragraph it's just as bad. The progress is NOT interrupted at all. Because day 4 is a progression of beginning the work of filling the environments with corresponding inhabitants. And the sun, moon and stars are the inhabitants of the upper heavens, which, were created back at Genesis 1:1 Light was a general, ancient thought style of light independent of the sun, moon, and stars (they are not mentioned and do not yet exist in the text). Day 4 answers Day 1 specifically and that's the very obvious progression of the ancient text. Do these guys really not see that? Or are they playing stupid because of their religious biases and longing to interpret the scripture some way OTHER than the way it is written? I suppose their biases begin to reveal more around the bottom of the 2nd bold paragraph. What I hope people reading along are able to grapple and comprehend is that it is well known (refer back to all of the video and textual links I've posted so far for citation) that the Genesis myths borrow heavily from the near eastern pagan mythologies. In fact, ancient Israelite's showed every sign of polytheism and they were NOT monotheistic from the outset according archaeological findings and the other issues mentioned in my previous citations. And that's what these two dingle berries are trying to game for. They want to claim, at intellectually dishonest lengths, that Genesis 1 is NOT like the other pagan mythologies when that's exactly what modern scholarship has found Genesis 1 to be. All the other nonsense stems from that foundation. And they've gone off trying to create castles from sand foundations in so doing. It all comes crashing down with a little analysis. Please excuse me if I keep talking like captain obvious and repeating obvious things. I just want to make sure that people following along don't get lost trying to follow the back and forth of these posts. I'm holding to my guns here. Genesis 1 has been demonstrably, demonstrably wrong in terms of objective evidence that can be evaluated for truth content. And I have to wonder, If Luth is correct and a god created the world and then went to inspiring writers to document this supernatural order of business, why couldn't the god do so much better than all of this? Where's the damming evidence in the geological and stellar observation record that confirms every word of the bible? That demonstrates, beyond question, the truth of the bible? If we're just going to agree to disagree about Genesis 1 than I would like to compare Genesis 2 (which is a separate creation account and the two are tossed into the bible together) and then move on to looking at the patriarchs from Adam to Noah in order to fast forward and get this thing moving a bit. Whenever Luth is ready of course. It's not a rush. That's just the over all game play for moving forward.
  11. Maybe if they get some really hard evidence they can title something, "Kirby's Surprise." It has a certain ring to it. Like the 3 - 6% influence ratio that test subjects, including animals, seemed to have on influencing their realities.
  12. Who knows. I guess some of them just got busy or maybe taking a break for a while.
  13. Welcome aboard NuckChorris! You came at an interesting time. I am currently engaged with a christian member (was two against me, but one already quit) in an informal debate about the bible and whether it's demonstrably true, or demonstrably false. And we're three pages in at this point and haven't left Genesis 1. I invite you to follow along and check in on the debate as it unfolds and see what points you can glean from the interaction between christians and atheists: Luth has some personal issues to attend to at the moment, but I believe he will be getting back to the debate when he can. Christforums is apparently shut down and out of it already. We're still held up on the six day creation and all of it's contradictions and problems. I suppose that next we can face the issue of Adam and Eve not knowing of any good and evil prior to eating the forbidden fruit. But as you can see if you read along and follow the links, Genesis was written during a time when reflections of the old polytheism still existed. The "gods" (Elohim) were something like Zeus and the greek pantheon, looking down on the earth, creating a garden, then putting some workers in the garden to tend to the garden. They created the garden workers in "their" (Elohim, gods) own image according to "their" own likeness. This mythology is not very different than Zeus and the gods creating people in "their" (humanoid) images. Then you can see why the workers were not meant to have the knowledge of the gods, just to simply tend and work a garden, forever I assume. Once they gained the knowledge, they would be like the "gods," and the "gods" didn't want that. It all makes sense when it's put back into it's mythological context. You can post in the side gallery if you want raise any points about the debate, ask questions, or include some type of question for the christian member.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.