Jump to content

Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Joshpantera last won the day on August 17

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,081 Holy Cow!

5 Followers

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    Doctrinally Sound Agnostic Atheist

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

3,093 profile views
  1. Welcome, Man! If you step back for a minute, I'm sure you can see that this would be true of just about anything. If you belonged to any given cult think group and then saw holes and left, I'm sure there would be a group membership and participation void left behind. Especially any group involving strong belief. It just so happens for us that these groups were of christian varieties. I did live the same feelings you're living with now after parting ways with my church group. And it did leave with time. All I can say is that I kept pushing forward looking for answers. I went back and forth between the arguments of materialist science and secular scholarship and religious opposition. I weighed the arguments out for myself. I went off exploring the claims of exoteric writers in edition, as a third view. I basically just explored any interests or questions that popped up. After a while I was so consumed with learning and truth seeking that there wasn't any room to feel empty. As I learned about philosophy and the big questions and how uncertainty plays a fundamental role in existence, I didn't worry so much about questions that have no absolute answers in the first place. Making a close friend of uncertainty went a long way in my case. And some of these things may or may not appeal to you. But I'm just putting my own experience out there in case it may. Stick around. Have fun. Welcome again!
  2. Welcome Christopherhays!!! You're among a lot of people with similar backgrounds in fundamentalist upbringing. Getting out and away is a process....
  3. We should probably add this to the thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics As if exposing flaws in other worldviews does anything to elevate one's own views by default. That's obviously not how it works. At best, it can only demonstrate holes in everyone's worldviews and leave the glaring conclusion that no one really has it all figured out or knows in any absolute way about whatever the subject happens to be about. It's a pretty shallow tactic of apologist's in my view. Because there's holes all throughout their own worldview. No kidding.... Self evident truth? It's true because it says it true. We believe it because it says it's true. That makes it self evident. And so it's not to be proven but it's the ultimate proof that any one needs? It looks like the Pre's all run together. And the Predestination Calvinist's / Reformed Christians seem to reach for Presuppositional Apologetic's (PA). William was reaching for it. Luth is reaching for it. All of this business they've posted about the "real christians" comes from it. What shall we call them, "Preist's"
  4. "Real" Christians, feel free to look up the verses and provide the "real" context:
  5. There's no pressing need to explain Paul away. His existence has been questioned by some. It's interesting to look over. Some of the options are that Marcion, in the 2nd century, used journey's and material from the exploits of Apollonius of Tyana and that basically turned into "Paul." You have to read all of the theories to get a feel for what they entail. But Doherty and Carrier assume that there was an historical Paul, at least for the authentic Pauline epistles. And that the person had gnostic oriented belief's about a celestial figure. Because when you set aside the gospels and un-authentic Pauline Epistles that's pretty much what you're looking at. And there is evidence of some early christian beliefs that speak about a celestial arena and drama taking place up in the upper heavens. Again, you have to read through all of this material to get a feel for what the theories entail. But at the end of the day, Paul is non-contemporary writer any which way it's spun. He never professed to having met jesus personally on earth, or witnessed the trial or crucifixion himself. It's a guy writing well after the supposed fact about things he himself never witnessed and what amounts to hearsay reporting. I'd just stick to the facts with christians. Paul doesn't prove anything. He doesn't the prove the bible is true and he doesn't prove that the gospel jesus (something created after Paul btw) is historically true and accurate. The big issue here is that trying to find the real historical jesus ends up stripping down just about everything you think of as jesus. In the end we're facing some obscure guy, not really known by anyone at all lest a few followers, at best, who may have died with little attention paid to it at the time. Not by the Romans or Jews, according to documentation of the time. There's no trial records or anything to go by. Locating an historical jesus doesn't do the bible any justice at all. That's what you should probably keep in mind talking with christians. And furthermore, as an aside, there may not even be a fixed historical figure at the core of it all. It could just as well be several different prophet types rolled into one for the sake of a story. The only honest answer would be to say, "I don't know if any of it is true or not." Because no one really does.....
  6. Obviously it's not left field to see christianity as mind control. They offer imaginary threats and rewards of eternal magnitude and pretty much mind fuck a lot of people. Some of which end up here at ex-C with mild to severe after effects. The government with it's dominant political parties are quite guilty of mind fucking people as well. And a lot of it does tie together in obvious ways. I would say that encouraging people to think for themselves is a wise direction. But when getting into heavy conspiracy theory I would like to point out that a person is beginning to put themselves into the same seat that christian apologist's find themselves in. And what I mean is that when claims are being thrown around (from any side) the burden of proof requirement for said claims becomes an issue. No doubt people are going to question all claims, including the claims coming from ex christians. The government is concerned with ex christians? The government is trying to keep ex christians busy so that we don't catch on to them trying to manipulate the weather and apply chemtrails in order fudge a fulfillment of prophecy? So you make a self fulfilling prophecy based on suggesting that after making a somewhat baseless looking post, people will brand you a nut case? Obviously if you make insane looking claims without first having substantiated the claims made (you being aware of the need to substantiate one's claims before moving forward, btw) then people are going to react accordingly. We often get people coming here that have some particular personal agenda to grind and think that they've found an open platform to try and win over converts to whatever their personal cause may be. That's generally frowned on. Encouraging ex christian's to think for themselves is ok. I don't think anyone would have a problem with suggesting that. But encouraging ex christians to think for themselves involves encouraging them to question everything. That leads to questioning all claims. Requesting citation and extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. It wouldn't make very much sense, for instance, to over come christianity only to be suckered in by some other form of baseless claim making. I'm sure you understand the importance. So this is it. Citations? Credible evidence? What is the basis for all of the claims being made in name of trying to help ex christians? No holds barred here. Political citation. Religious citation. Sky's the limit.
  7. Yes, but political oriented discussion is limited to "ToT." This line of inquiry should be directed there. And will be if we have to move it. What I'm saying is that starting a religious post about debating the existence of god and then turning the attention to government oriented material could get the thread moved to ToT. Not deleted. Moved to the political section where you can discuss it further. Or just stay on topic and continue the discussion about first having to prove one's theistic claims.
  8. You use the bible to prove the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics Is Genesis part of the bible? If the bible proves the claims made within the bible, and Genesis 1 is the first book of the bible, how do you propose that you do not use Genesis 1 to prove the bible? Especially when Genesis 1:1 introduces the initial claim of the existence of god within the bible? Granted, you likely use more than just Genesis alone to prove the bible, no doubt. But why would you shy away from just admitting that you do use Genesis to prove the bible and that you do so from a platform of presupposition apologetic's (PA)?
  9. Yes, the historical and / or current existence is a matter of speculation. Presupposition, if you will. Ex-C would be better described as helping people get over the "myth" of jesus. Because regardless of historical value, the stories are myths and legends any which way they are spun. So the people recovering are in like fashion recovering from beliefs concerning myths and legends. And of course christianity was originally claimed as true, scholars learned how speculative the initial claims were, and then certain claims are proving to be false as contrary evidence pours in all the time. That goes away from discussing religion and towards discussing politics by bringing government into the mix. But we need to keep the two (government and religion) separate as per the forum rules and guidelines. Politics and related issues are only allowed in the "totally off topic" section: https://www.ex-christian.net/forum/52-totally-off-topic/
  10. Of course no presupposition apologist (PA) can ever get anywhere in a debate. How could they? All evidence must conform to their presupposition. Taking an objective look at Genesis 1 doesn't seem possible. And what we find is that a PA has one hell of a time trying to look at it objectively. How could they? They've already presupposed that it's true prior to confirming with credible evidence. To try and tell a PA that the bible doesn't prove the claims made within the bible, looks to fall on deaf ears. 'What do you mean the bible doesn't prove it's own claims? That's the very heart and foundation of presupposition? What are you, dense? The proof of the bible is everywhere written on the pages of the bible!' The Koran doesn't bloody well prove the claims of the Koran, Luth. And that's identical to taking up a similar position about the bible. If the claims are not confirmed outside of the bible, then claims remain unconfirmed. That's why archaeology had to part ways with biblical, special pleading oriented tactics of the past. Many earlier generation archaeologist's of the 19th century and beyond took off claiming that sites were confirming the bible when the opposite was true. Joshua's conquest of Canaan is a good example. Instead of one sweeping conquest it turns out that many of these cities were destroyed for various reasons ranging over a some 1,000 year spread of time - not one sweeping conquest by any historical Joshua as described in the bible, nor fitting the timelines. That's just one very obvious example of many, many other similar situations where the bible has been demonstrably wrong, via the damming evidence that does exist contrary to the admission of PA's and others. Full documentary for the interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfd4kFPWjzU
  11. Presuppositional apologetic's. More presuppositional apologetic's. All caught up for now. And the glaring point remains that this avenue can only go so far. And we've taken it as far as it can go as of the 5th page. Where else could this go? We'll have to look towards some new considerations at this point.
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics I'll address the last two posts later. But for now let's let everyone read through the issue we've been facing concerning presuppositional apologetic's. We have basically exhausted this avenue during the last five pages. And there's no good reason to continue exhausting it any further at this point. Because it boils down to either presupposing that the bible is correct and then treating everything else according to that apriori, presupposition, or disbelieving the presupposition. Not finding any credible looking evidence to substantiate the presupposition, I lack belief in it. I'm not a non-believer because of any ideological reason, I'm a non-believer simply because I don't believe there's any merit to this presupposition. Luth is free to believe it if he chooses. I just don't buy in to it at all. And I will go further and encourage others to make a careful consideration of the existing facts before taking any type of presuppositionalist at their word. A presuppositional Buddhist or Hindu. A presuppositional New Age cult. A presuppositional Christian. A presuppositional Occultist, etc., etc. That's all for the moment....
  13. Citsonga, folks, Luth is willing to back off from the issues going on in the side gallery and elsewhere which have become disruptive to a lot of members here. He's still interested in proceeding with the informal debate. But having said that, I think that in order to continue with the debate another direction may need introduced due to the inherent problems with using a presupposition oriented position. And I'm not sure how Luth will choose to try and rectify the problem. But I'm open to allowing him to continue trying. Especially because he's asked that he be allowed to continue and isn't giving up or throwing in the towel. So perhaps this isn't quite over yet. If we hit another brick wall, though, we'll be looking at the same problem again in new clothing. For the sake of lurkers who might think we're unfair if we shut him down prematurely, I think we ought to let him continue for now. If we do exhaust every position he can possibly take in this same way, the way of dead ends, what else can we do at that point? Luth or us? At that point, if we get there, fair is fair and the game may reach a complete dead end......
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.