• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Joshpantera last won the day on January 13

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,837 Wow


About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    INTJ-T / Gemini / Dragon

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • 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 they exist

Recent Profile Visitors

2,848 profile views
  1. You two guys and your uh-piss-duh-mual-oh-geez! The pink unicorn, I'll have you know, is the "sacred phallus"; he whom penetrates the six nippled one. And it is she, whom, must lay in submission. In fact, in the presence of the pink unicorn she may not speak, unless spoken to, when celestial men are talking! Is it not written in your law; 'she whom remains coward down while men are speaking, shall remain glorious in the eyes of the almighty phallus?' And if it is written thus, why then shall it not be so among you?
  2. So did I! That’s hilarious. What are you younger than me redneck? I’m 42.
  3. I really like Rogan's interview with a social psychologist here about the uprising of the trendy, radical oriented fad that has taken up social justice in recent years (again, not to be insinuated as a broad brush to those who favor social justice who are not radical). The kids born after 1995. The psychology that led to the changes popping up around 2014. The loss of conservative democrats and liberal republicans through the 80's and 90's - equaling larger polarization growing between the left and right. They go over this very intellectually. And it does tend to answer a lot of questions raised by the OP. I kept thinking back to the commentators and their oppression narrative claims at the "canoe meeting," as this interview was going on. It brings some transparency to the issue for sure.
  4. Exactly! I've poured over many an interview with Yang already. He tested the term "Freedom Dividend" for conservative support and found good results in surveys. His strategy is analyzing what got Trump elected in the first place and then consciously formulating an alternative moderate left platform to appeal to the same audiences that elected Trump, and possibly beat him at his own game. Yang has libertarian appeal as well. I think more so than Trump as far as libertarianism is concerned. And doing so as 'human centered capitalist', not a democratic socialist. So he doesn't suffer the same set backs that they are experiencing. And I tend to think that if there's a realistic way of improving the social safety net, the middle class, etc., etc., it will have to come as some type of revised human centered capitalism like he's talking about:
  5. I at least give credit to Trump for trying to make good on the campaign promise, unlike so many career politicians. Regardless of the debates surrounding the wall(s), so to speak. It is no small task. And again, I have to give credit where credit is due. But if he went up against Yang, I'd vote Yang. Trump has the economy booming. Commercial construction is going off. All over the place. Like I haven't seen it in over a decade. If that laid the ground work for an alternative non-career politician business man like Yang to step in take it further, so be it. The only thing I want to see is success and progress in this country. I don't really care who brings it, I just want to see it brought to the table. And I'll be appreciative and supportive of those who keep bringing it, whoever they may be.
  6. I ran into Yang too, and posted about this elsewhere. I actually like the idea of giving everyone $1000 a month. Because it's not a situation where working people are paying for non working people to jip the system, be lazy, or whatever. Everyone is treated like a share holder of the USA, as citizens. Technology fronts a lot of the bill, above and beyond the existing budgets. It spreads the money evenly out to every existing community. Which then can trickle up, rather than previous "trickle down" economic strategies. And the money will give people the ability to spend more on buying things, and passing the money around. Hell, even if people are saving it, eventually those savings will go into new homes, cars, boats, and other big purchases that they are saving for. I'm looking at it thinking, I have four adults in the house hold. That's $4,000 a month contributing to household expenses. Everyone could use their work money to develop a handsome savings month by month, year by year. With the dividend covering monthly housing and food expenses. Seriously, if it came down to Trump verse Yang, I have no reservations about voting for Yang.
  7. Hopefully, in time, the more radical elements you describe here basically flop. Given the opportunity to try and fail. These more radical elements are not very well thought out, as is described and outlined in the OP video. And I agree that the left in general, along with proponents of social justice, don't deserve to be broad brushed with these poor examples of addressing issues like social justice, equity, etc. Evergreen does seem very cultish (I could post contemporary videos from the SDA church that are identical to the mentality of the meetings in the video) and shouldn't be considered representative in my opinion, either. I think it's important that those on the left and proponents of social justice make that clear and basically denounce those who are not representative of the majority.
  8. Welcome aboard nontheistpilgrim! I take it that you are referring to Armstrong's work on the history of god(s) in western religion. The jews being polytheistic and gradually evolving towards monotheism, mainly for political reasons. That pretty much lays the god(s) of the bible bare. Hands down, no question, man made as santa claus or anything similar. Yes, even santa can be real for some and you can find some type of respect for those who believe it if you try hard enough. But at the end of the day we're looking at respecting pure make believe for one reason or another. I'm not against finding ways of respecting someone else's game of make believe, so long as it remains entirely clear that it's make believe that we are striving to find some respect for. Some don't grow at all. I sometimes find it odd to see people from my old church group posting on facebook as if every bit of their fantasies are true in any way. I find it odd because of the length of time between now and then. The rise of the internet and smart phones. And how they've managed to remain stagnant in some type of dark ages mind frame over the last 3 decades since I've left the fold. They still think SDAism is true, Ellen G. White an inspired prophet, and so much more. There's so much information available today for anyone who so much as looks for it. But that's probably just it - they are the one's who simply haven't gone looking. There are deconversion stories out on youtube. Lot's of people here to talk about it with. What I did is go through just about everything from Joseph Campbell on comparative world mythology and religion. Israel Finkelstein on biblical archaeology. You already mentioned Karen Armstrong on A History of God. Richard Carrier and Robert Price are very interesting to read and digest. I like to read Sam Harris on the atheist front, or nontheism if you will.
  9. He's a silver level subscribing apologetic member. I get your frustration, but I'm not inclined to call Justus a troll. He's part of the gang as far as that goes. We just happen to disagree with his christian belief system. And everyone can play their respective roles in the controversy. And Justus is welcome to recognize the error in his ways and switch camps if he has a flash of revelation and sees the darkness for what it is - a deceptive religious belief masquerading as if it were "light" and "truth." When it clearly is not, which, is what I'm establishing here.
  10. I know that how science works, completely undermines Genesis's creation myth being true in any way. And that's all I need to know at the moment considering our discussion. Science and Genesis's creation account(s) do not gel at all. Which is what you haven't been able to refute so far. To refute my claim you would need to show that Genesis can be shown to be true in terms of the formation of the earth and cosmos. You have yet to establish such a thing. Why not 100% confidence? It's simple. No one can be 100% certain of just about anything to do with ultimate reality, or existence itself. The real big questions transcend all knowledge - technically even by religious standards. That's why the most well informed thiests, are agnostic theists - not claiming 100% knowledge, but believing in god regardless of the admitted lack of absolute "knowledge." That's why Richard Dawkins claims to be a 6.9 out of 7, on a 1-7 scale of belief to anti-belief. He's an agnostic atheist, because he's smart enough to know that he can't claim 100% certainty. And none of this admission of uncertainty gives a leg up to some one trying to argue that Genesis is true. The person trying to argue that Genesis is true can never have 100% certainty in the claim, for one thing. And secondly, not having an alternative to how the earth and it's life came to be does not even play into it. It doesn't matter whether we know or don't know how the world and it's life got here. All that matters is that the person claiming that it certainly got here via a seven day creation myth that contradicts itself, and all that we know through modern science, can be shown as demonstrably wrong with their own claim making. And wrong in the specific ways that we've already outlined in detail previously. Justus, thanks for playing along here. Like I said above, having an alternative knowledge of certainty in contrast to peoples claims of certainty about Genesis, is really a non issue. It may seem like an issue to you right now, but it really isn't my friend. The fact is that we just don't know exactly how life evolved and that's ok. It's a work in progress that we're still trying to figure it out and put it together. And science does not claim that it knows the answer absolutely or certainly. There are various working hypothesis's and the jury's still out. But we can go through and start eliminating bad claims based on their own merit. And Genesis's creation account(s) are bad claims for the specific reasons stated. So what I was looking for you to do is to take the claims of Genesis one and by one and try your best to justify those claims. And then come together and see if we can agree on which claims can be ruled out as true or false, one by one.
  11. Country people are more inclined to conservative values. In the cities it's more modern and progressive. More liberal usually.
  12. They set the bar high so that it's difficult. That's what Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was up against last time.
  13. We may need to station on site therapist's at every public location, indoors and out. Or at least keep a box Kleenex's handy at same said locations......