Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Joshpantera last won the day on September 1

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,130 Holy Cow!


About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    Un-elect of God

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 in god(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

3,135 profile views
  1. It's a matter of perspective. There is a sort of meme that goes around suggesting a false dichotomy: either there is a supernatural purpose or no purpose at all. People come in to this thinking either from hearing others express similar sentiment, or just coming to this general conclusion on their own. But you have to factor in that christians themselves spread this false dichotomy of despair AND a lot of atheist's tend to play lip service to it as well. So it comes from both popular fronts. But is it true? While debating with LuthAMF, he kept trying to pin me to the ropes with this false dichotomy. The truth is that this is something that we don't actually know for certain. How could anyone possibly know for certain whether or not there is any kind of purpose for life aside from a mythological, and supernatural set of assumptions and assertions? Because just off the top of my head I can think of several scenarios that could have purpose involved in them without any mythological or supernatural assumption and assertions. 1) We exist in a simulation, and the simulation in and of itself has a purpose involved. 2) We exist in an eternal multiverse where infinite replication paradox exists. Everything would happen for a reason, even if the reason is simply because replication will necessarily play out over and over again. 3) We exist in a universe which evolves in the direction of self awareness and the evolution of self aware creatures is pivotal to the life cycle of a given universe. Perhaps self aware creatures playing key roles in the grand scheme which, may also involve repetition. 4) We exist in a universe which has as of yet unknown and /or unforeseen purpose, reason and meaning. Aside from that, Florduh's right. Life is what you make of it. Purpose is also what you make of it, whether it's happening per free will or deterministic factors. It's what ever you are making it out to be. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
  2. Creation ex nihilo. Creation out of nothing seems to suggest as much. One problem I have with them over this is the question of god's omnipresence. If god is not nothing, and god is all present, everywhere present, that would tend to cause a contradiction with creation ex nihilo. Where in the scheme of an omnipresence does "nothing" exist? Which leads into how an omnipresent god could NOT be everything in creation, everything in existence, etc. Of course these are just contradictions among many, many contradictions and inconsistent beliefs. And in all of that christians are conditioned into having the idea that there ought to be nothing baked in from the start.
  3. You need permission to post in this section. Should be set up soon.
  4. @TrueFreedom @Jagdish is trying to post here in the spirituality section.
  5. To the question of why does existence, exist at all, some one tried a serious attempt at answering the question anonymously on a pantheist forum. It went like this: 'Existence, exists, because the absolute non-existence of anything at all is impossible.' And that seems arguable and full of assumption. But at the same time there may be more to it than many people catch at first glance. The whole issue coming from the BBT and beginning of the universe comes down to this necessity for an eternal source material. Attempts at a nothing = something argument turn out to be something = something after all. And that could be as simple as accepting that if anything exists right now, then something, somehow, had to have always existed, in some way (or many ways), or else nothing could exist right now. No eternal source material - no existence. The more I've thought about it, the more I've warmed up to his answer. It doesn't make existence any less mysterious, either. Because it's mind boggling how something has always existed. And yet, the alternative doesn't work out at all. So by default, it seems the non-existence of anything at all probably is impossible. It's pretty difficult to locate true, absolute nothing. This may be why. I'd also add that the whole thing could just be one of those species specific issues. At the minimum it shows how our species is wired to observe, think and interpret reality. It looks like we're very married to a something = something philosophy of reality.
  6. Smarter than judeo-christian contradictory nonsense. At least they call something infinite, eternal, transcendent and immanent and then follow through with the necessary implications. Where as judeo-christians make the same claims about god then proceed head long into contradicting their own claims. That's pretty stupid from my view.
  7. I find these stories interesting, but do so cautiously. My mother had some type of out of body experience during the birth of my sister. It was very real to her. She says that she was out and hovering above her body. But I also understand that there could be other explanations than taking all of this at face value. My grandfather, during his quadruple bipass surgery ordeal had an elaborate and well described journey into and meeting with, "the light." It was very real to him. Again, his sincerity doesn't do much to make it literally true as there are myriad other explanations for what he seemed to legitimately experience. I've been close to drowning death at least twice, and several stages into hypothermia during winter conditions over the course of my surfing over the last 30 years. I do know first hand what it's like to give up the fight for air underwater and transition into the peaceful stage and then to black out completely, underwater. But I'm one of the cases who experienced zero memorable consciousness during that time. Nothing at all. Just drifting out, a blank where time lapsed, and then coming to floating at the surface and coughing out water. I obviously didn't die, but I was somewhere near death. So I didn't have any elaborate experience, no light, no beings of light, or any of that sort of thing.
  8. It's no more or less insightful than Forest Gump, and ultimately, Forest Gump stupid as far as that goes....
  9. That's what I thought. It's been a while since this came up.
  10. You're right, it doesn't mean that. Has anyone suggested that it does?
  11. That's what it boils down to. I like that summary. That the point I was trying to make by saying: It's about visibility and detection as they collide, and sub atomic particles burst out briefly. We've discovered new sub atomic particles. And that's the other point. A back ground, Zero Point Field is something, it isn't really something coming from nothing. That's what atheist's and materialists who gravitate towards these arguments should keep in mind before going up against christians with this material (no pun intended). Drawing a line in the sand on a nothing = something argument is doomed in so many ways. And not worth taking up. I think it's far better to just concede that everyone is operating from a something = something basis, both the believers and non-believers alike. Do you disagree with the above Pantheory?
  12. But the main thing here is that this sort of anecdotal testimony doesn't prove or substantiate the claims of the experience. These beings of light told her time and again that trying to prove any of this to people was of no real value. What she experienced early on is something I completely understand. I had something of a similar experience but not via near death. It was more the case of allowing myself to drift towards an aware state of self identification with the whole. I wasn't dying or near dying. But I was conscious of the necessary interconnection between the totality and the perceived part. And how unavoidable identification with the whole is. How futile it is to resist such an identity. And how it doesn't matter one bit how we spin it, if we exist, then we are necessarily "existence itself." That's exactly what she experienced and described in those exact same words - though she did so via a drowning incident and thereafter. But trying to prove or substantiate the above seems highly irrelevant. It doesn't strike me as a situation where proving it matters one way or another. Because reality is what it is. If reality consists of a whole, where all of the parts are the whole itself, that's just the reality of the situation. Whether or not everyone sees or believes such a reality according to what it is, doesn't in any way change the reality. It just is what it is. There doesn't seem to be any need for a great commission or pressing need to proselytize people into seeing or believing it. And ultimately it's just an unavoidable situation. If you exist, you are therefore an aspect of existence itself. Cut and dry. End of story. Do you agree or disagree with the above? And if so, why? Thanks.
  13. Hopefully as technology infiltrates those regions people will start to question what they're being told and challenge claims, look things up. No doubt as the US falls in behind Europe, the third world would fall in somewhere behind the US as far as that goes. But to be honest, I hope that struggling people in third world countries find their way to this forum, read what we have to say, and take notice of our debates and interactions with christian apologist's (vain speculators claiming to have the "TRVTH").
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.