Jump to content

Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content Count

    4,121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

Everything posted by Joshpantera

  1. Yeah, he pretty much nails the whole dialogue we've been having about it in the article: I like the way he summarized the article at the bottom by stating that he wasn't moved by either of the two choices they spoke of in philosophy classes. Either you think conventional science will eventually solve the hard problem or the hard problem is too mysterious to ever figure out. It comes across as a false dichotomy in my opinion and apparently he feels the same way about it. There's a glaring third option, at least.
  2. They should just make the choices say "theist" or "not-theist." It means the same thing - not-theist, non-theist, or atheist. But I suppose it would be better represented by just spelling it out and make the choices simple and clear. Because of all the associated baggage, that atheism only means, "not-theist," is lost on a lot of the population. They want to conflate "beliefs" about things in with "not-god belief." And shoe horn non-believers with incorrect assertions associated with new atheism and other similar things. Militant things and what not. I agree with those who just default to atheist regardless of the confusion, just for the sake of trying to help properly represent how many people out there simply don't believe in god(s). The true number of non-theist's out there probably gets obscured by pussy footing around the issue. And I suspect that there are a hell of a lot more non-theists in the world than what polls have been representing. Even as the polls are showing increasing numbers, they seem lower than what they probably are.
  3. Also in that debate, the point was made that atheist's (scientists) don't actually believe that everything sprang into existence from nothing. There's always the issue of pre-existence looming behind the cosmological theories. So it's really just the christians with an "ex nihilo" belief who do believe that everything sprang into existence from nothing. Granted, not all christian's believe that creation ex nihilo is biblical. Some think that it's just an interpretation and incorrect one. Just to clarify that I'm aware of it.
  4. I had this in mind when I was debating with Luth-ifer. I knew which direction he'd take. So I made sure to voice early on that christians don't know how the universe came about, they only have this creation myth in Genesis, which, is myth and doesn't disclose anything about the actual origins of the universe. His move was to point at me and claim that I don't know. To which I happy admitted and then hammered home the fact that no one knows, and that's the point! Not science, not religions, not anything. It's an ongoing mystery which neither science nor religion has "solved" or made "known." We're literally actively seeking out true answers for origins. And there wasn't anything he could do with it. He was stuck where I placed him from the beginning. In order to get out of where I placed him, he would have to prove or substantiate, with credible evidence, that he does know exactly the mystery of origins. The book of Genesis is not capable of substantiating such a claim. So he's dead in the water. All he can do keep pointing out that we don't know either, which, is nonsensical because we're arguing on behalf of an agnostic position. The christian can only prove the agnostic position correct over and over again as they wiggle around trying to escape it.....
  5. I guess christians tend to tone down religious debate around their hijacked, and usurped pagan winter solstice holiday...........
  6. This seems to be happening lately. It's EX-CHRISTIAN.net not SEX-CHRISTIAN.net!!!!!! And not SEX-CHRISTIAN.fishnets or anything similar.
  7. It's an eye opener. When you go on Keto you get laser focused in terms of looking at the world as an observer of just how much carbs and straight sugar everyone is consuming regularly. This becomes more and more obvious when you look around at every restaurant menu while on Keto. I see it all, but I ignore it. It's all around me all the time. Carb's, carb's, sugar, sugar..... But I'm devoted and determined and seeing the lbs come off steady keeps me focused on the straight and narrow. I just keep ignoring all of the carbs and sugar constantly around me everywhere I look. This is an interesting disciple to take on. I guess like walking through bars as an alcoholic, constantly seeing the alcohol all around you but ignoring it. I finally allowed a "cheat day," at Christmas. To be honest, I felt like shit after eating carby christmas food. I was actually happy to get right back on the wagon with my salads, low carb tortilla wraps, meat and veggies, and Keto cook book items that my wife cooks. Yesterday we had Keto pizza. Loved it. The cook book is, "Simply Keto" by Suzanne Ryan. We save money because going out to eat is so limited that we hardly do it anymore. Overall, I feel good. I'm focused. I feel healthy. And I've noticed a certain amount clarity by going on this low carb diet. I'm not starving myself. I eat till I'm full and I keep losing weight.
  8. DB, my step daughters boyfriend was pushing 300 lbs and so was my youngest brother. Both went on keto diets around before thanksgiving and both are down over 30lbs. I was around 250lbs and jumped on the keto bandwagon the day after thanksgiving. I'm down to 237 lbs already. I'm only going to the 220's and then letting it plane off and maintain. But the other two want to go down 50 lbs or more. This is the only successful diet I've tried so far. My wife has a keto cook book and it's easy to stick to when you see results like this. Just putting it out there for consideration. Best of luck this year buddy!!!
  9. You're there. Me too. It feels good to be immune to all of the fictitious nonsense doesn't it? Looking at death, dying and mortality. Meh, so what? Bible's still no alternative. Done deal.........
  10. About that baby! Fear not! Life is just fine on the other side of the christian hurtle. Many of us who are raising kids without christianity, or religion at all for that matter, are doing just fine and so are the kids. In fact, I think we're all much better without the smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand that christianity brings. There's a certain amount of integrity that goes along with raising children without lies, fear tactics, and all that went into fucking us up in the head for some many years. Why pass that along to another generation? Well, for myself and others, there is no good to reason to pass any of that along so we've nipped it in the bud! Encouragement! Happy New Year!!!
  11. Exactly. If it's even real, then the christian approach only makes sense if the god is a narcissistic type of psycho, not unlike the religious zealots of the bronze age who were themselves WRITING all of this down, contradicting one another's writings in the process, and generally not keeping very good track of the claims which are being made within the same said writings and various ramblings. Some type of all knowing, all present, all good, all this or that supernatural being shouldn't very well be nothing more than a temper tantrum throwing little shit, right? It should by default, be much more than that. Way beyond (hint, hint see the definition of transcendent) all of that. That just sounds like the ramblings of a human ego. Magnified to supernatural status. Not necessarily what we would expect of a superior being. What we find in scripture doesn't make very much sense unless it's put into it's actual historical context - eccentric personalities involved with religion during the bronze age ranting and raging about what ever happened to be on their own minds, and acting as if it were not their own personal opinions, but the absolute word of a supernatural creator of the universe. The simplest and most obvious explanation often tends to be the correct one. This instance not withstanding.....
  12. @LogicalFallacy This is one of my relatives from the Florida Keys. He took off to Aussie world years ago. Studying the reefs, discovering new species, etc., etc:
  13. Aliens be dammed, we're going to the moon!
  14. I had to cheato the keto. Now I'm back on the wagon.
  15. One degree, To the north again, After three days standing still! After three days standing still! After three days standing still!
  16. Hey cb1500, no need to be alarmed. As real as it may seem at times, it's folklore, mythology, fairy tales of old, etc., etc. What if Thor is real? What if Kali is real? I'm sure you think it's extremely likely that they are not. But it's just as unlikely that YHWH is real, or hell is real for that matter. These are just as equally unlikely as another. Why would any of it be real? Why don't you try, for the sake of argument, to demonstrate all of the evidence you have for the reality of hell, or god for that matter. And see how we respond to it. How we counter the apologist's and their arguments. Take it all in. Learn from the exchange.
  17. He isn't always "omnipresent" either, look again: The answer is that the bible never set out with all of these "attributes" ideas fully developed from the outset. We have to ask why we think god is "all "something or another? Well, it says in some random verse somewhere that god is such and such. Let's say always present. Which is then taken to mean that god is "omnipresent." It never uses the word "omnipresent," though. It's just a writer being poetic in some way. "God is always present, and......." But the writer of Genesis 1 and the writer of the other verse had no contact and weren't even thinking of god in the same way. The writer of Genesis 1 was referring to the "Elohim" pantheon of many "gods." Gods that were like the Greek and Roman pantheons who could come down and walk in a garden. Humanoid, in a similar "image" to our own. And who Adam and Eve could play hide and seek with in the garden. Not some further developed idea of one monotheistic, universal and "omnipresent" god that didn't yet exist at that point for the writer to have any knowledge or understanding thereof. That concept of god hadn't yet been developed at that point in time. It would come later, after some other writer made a poetic type of statement about god. And then people much more further removed reflected back on the poetic statement and determined, concretely, that 'the bible says god is omnipresent!!!' And the further question is what if the god isn't anything at all - he, she or otherwise? Not all-good, not partially good, not anything. Not immanent or transcendent. But an obvious figment of the mind's active imagination, usually placed up in the sky or beyond the universe out of sight. Of which no one can agree on. That wasn't real at any given point to begin with. And perhaps that's why the god amounts to an interconnected line of logical fallacy, inconsistency, and repetitive, ongoing self contradiction....
  18. In the Calvanism thread, I pointed out that all-knowing and predestination amount to the same thing. Even though non-Calvinist's don't look at it that way. If god knows EVERY possible outcome, choice, or otherwise, everything has been predetermined. But predetermined by who? Did the people predetermine their own fate? Let's say they do. The deeper issue is that the god created a person, turned it into two people, which then rolled into everyone. There's no question that everyone is created by god by christian standard. The god carried out this creation knowing EVERY aspect of not only what potentials COULD play out, but even further to knowing of infinite possibility's what WOULD play out. All of these would be predetermined, or predestined from the very act of creation. To be "all-knowing," the god would have to know which exact possibility will play out. Time and eternity don't really matter very much in this instance. The god's obviously eternal. And the god knows all possible outcomes AND which exact outcomes out of infinite possibility's will take place. Or else the god is not all-knowing. Only partially knowing. Whatever people do that looks as if they are free will choices, were already known to an "all-knowing" god. And therefore 'predestined as of the conscious act of creation,' as explained above. Which would amount to partial knowing, and default to the god not being Omniscient. The god can't make himself NOT know something without crossing the line from all-knowing to partial knowing. Even if he the god has the potential to know everything but chooses not to, the choice not to know everything is made, therefore keeping the god less than all-knowing. Me neither. I'm of the free will variety like you. So I never really contemplated these Calvinist beliefs until recently when they came up. It never occur'd to me how all-knowing and freewill are such a logical contradiction of this magnitude. It's a huge problem. And now I'm aware of it. And aware of how difficult it is for christians to try and get out of it somehow. The bigger issue is that it runs down the line like you've illustrated above. The god can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-good, or 'all anything else' you can think of without creating major, untenable logical contradictions in the process of trying. Each contradiction can be teased out like we've done here with all-knowing verses freewill. This tends to push god towards wholly transcendent, and therefore completely out of reach of understanding from here in the universe. But of course, that's an eastern god belief and not a western, christian belief. For the sake of christian contemplation, god is transcendent and immanent, therefore understandable to us rather than completely beyond understanding. The god makes himself understandable to us, even though it's alleged that the god is transcendent. But even that comes with contradiction. And then amounts to claims that the god is understandable when it suites their purpose, but beyond understanding when they get stumped with logical contradictions and can't find any way out of it. So yes, it's a cop-out. If the god is all-powerful in truth, he can do whatever he wants. But if the god doesn't want to know everything then the gods choice was NOT to know everything. This doesn't help the christian position at all. The god chooses between all-powerful and all-knowing, forfeiting one of the two. If the god is understandable. Because attributes are within the range of understanding, they are not transcendent of understanding - they are words, concepts, ideas, etc. Transcendent is beyond words, concepts, ideas, etc. If the god is wholly transcendent, completely beyond understanding, well, then it can't be said that the god has any attributes in any literal sense of the word. Attributes are of the realm of knowing and what's knowable, not beyond it. Beyond knowing means beyond thought, concepts, comprehension, visualization, and everything associated with human thought. Nothing can be said of such a god, least of all applying the term "god." It has to go beyond the any concept of "god." Everything from god, to attributes, to logic, to conceptualization can not be any more than metaphorical place holder's for what the person is actually trying to point at. And this does the christian argument no good. It dissolves christianity's position on god completely. God necessarily vanishes into thin air in the process. Apologist's seldom realize where it leads when alleging that god is unknowable for the purpose of trying to excuse themselves from hard questions. And I always find them ending up stuck with arguing that god both is and is not knowable, according to whatever suites their own personal needs and agenda in a given circumstance.
  19. I was raised SDA. Never hit it off with any outsiders. Both marriages have been to women I grew up with in the church, who, like me, don't believe any of it anymore. The wives were certain that the church is BS and agnostic about the existence of a god. But they're traditional compared against millennial, "woke" chicks. We Gen-Xer's. I suppose that's becoming "traditional" by now. Old, ancient, classic rock like Nirvana. Seriously, though. You may want to find some girls associated with church who are agnostic or don't necessarily believe, but still hold to traditional thinking in some ways. I'm sure they're out there. Here's a strategy. Date the christian girls and fish around to see if any of them admit their agnosticism. You may sort through and find one that fits your expectations. Or do it the other way. Sort your way through the atheist girls fishing for which one's seem more traditional minded than others. "You can do it!"
  20. This is like people treating Islam and Muslims as a nationality. Muslims are global and diverse. Not all Muslim's are middle easterner's. You have African's and Asian's. And yet people want to treat Muslims as a nationality despite the fact that they come as middle eastern, African and Asian nationalities in large part. What they're now trying to do to Judaism is the same thing. Then it leads to what happened to Sam Harris and Bill Maher. We'll be branded racist for speaking out against Islam or Judaism as beliefs, as religions, while trying to counter, expose and negate those bronze age religions. As if we're being racist by simply calling out religious bullshit where we see it. Terrific........
  21. Here's a question @Edgarcito. Can someone be all good, and all moral, and yet order other people to carry out immoral acts? Morality has always been relevant to time and place. Did the jews consider it immoral to hurl stones at another person until they brutally beat them to death with said stones? They were sanctioned by scripture - and assumed that sanctioned by scripture was sanctioned by god - to execute people in this barbaric manner. It didn't break their bronze age moral code. It was instead a way of enforcing their bronze age moral code. And staying on good terms with their god. Today, we have moved away from hanging, beheading, and even sought to leave behind death penalties altogether due to our EVOLVING social thoughts on what is and is not MORAL to do to one another. Morality is not static. It shows no signs of being handed down from a supreme being fully intact as some past eternal, hard fact of existence or law of the universe. It's 100% what we decide it is as societies. And bible, as we've been outlining, has become outdated and irrelevant as a social moral code. It sanctions slavery, society now does not. It sanctions death by stoning. Society now does not (aside from barbaric regions of the world). It sanctions polygamy, society now does not. It sanctions genocide, society now does not. You get the idea, don't you?
  22. Lesser offense, same mentality. I think of that poor women who came here a while back posting about her abusive father. Depraved lunatic. The torture he put her through. And it's no different than a lie, cheat or thief. Never mind, the imaginary being will sweep it under the rug until next time. Then sweep it under the rug again. And kick the can right on through a given life time. If left unchecked and unchanged. As a society, I do hope we can mature into mass identifying the problem here. Put the heat strongly on theistic thinking. Box it into a corner. Eradicate the problem. While at the same time elevating an actual sense of human morality and decency as it's happening and provoking social evolution. According to how we perceive human morality and decency in the contemporary period, at this time. Rather than towing along these bronze age myths full of indecent and immoral acts of both god and men, and parading it around as, "good." End, please try and follow along closely.
  23. Well, a lot these same said people will often profess how horrible they would be if there were no god. And then go to lengths to make dramatic examples. They like to say that if there were no god, they'd run amok raping, murdering, stealing, because what does it matter if there's no god. They can behave within empathy, and yet they sound like total monsters being help back by an imaginary being. And worse, a good number of them do actually give in to these dark thoughts and desires. They just pray about it and chalk it up to being, "sinners," never ceasing their "sins." We have so many examples around here of this. People who have had religion beaten in to them by some other self righteous people. And at the same time raped, abused, tortured and other atrocities by these same said, and so called "christians," who are merely "sinners." The whole imaginary friend thing is a crutch. A crutch that all too often fails to restrain the beastly nature in people. That causes me to seriously question what's the use in letting it continue unchecked? If people don't have their imaginary friend, they'll run amok. But far too many of them run amok anyways, regardless of their imaginary friend and regardless of their belief in the existence of an imaginary hell. These imaginary threats don't stop them from acting out. They only give a crutch to where these people will continue to act out over and over again, and then forgive themselves within their own inner dialogue, until they do it again. Then they forgive themselves in their own minds again and again, as they continue to act out. The acting out continues regardless. I bet there's some guilty eye's reading this post. Guilty christians who I'm speaking right at. Some of which regularly read our forums. And confess versions of the above on their own forums. As if it's some badge of honor to speak of 'what a degenerate they'd be without god.' They are dark minded people congregated around common superstition in my opinion. And I find it sad, very sad that that is the only way in which they can find "morality." A morality that wasn't ever very moral to begin with......
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.