Kohlrak

Old post, but i feel the need to address this one in particular. I used to believe that security is what a woman wanted most. I went full white knight, worshipped the ground they walked on, etc, etc. I also did a pretty good job of looking like a provider. I'll admit, at the time i was young, and so were the women, but after getting cheated on enough times, i learned that it doesn't work. My current relationship has been going on for about 10 years, now. She's constantly and irrationally terrified that I will leave her on a whim (and no, i'm not trying to ride this to maintain my own security, as i've actually tried to give her some), and it's the longest relationship i've ever had. Women want security, but once they have it, they often won't respect it. In a weird way, when women find what they want, they find it's not enough. They need to value you enough to fear loosing you, or they'll take advantage of the security to look for an upgrade. It's anecdotal, but it's my experience, anyway. This is how scumbags bag the hot babes they have no business with: neggging. Basically, if you're within reach, but really difficult to have and/or maintain, you're the extent of her level, so she's foolish to look for an upgrade. As for the other posts, you really have to question your own morality. If you truly value conservatism, spreading your seed without instilling your values only adds to the ranks of your political opponents. Hump and dump, without pregnancy, also gets those easy lefty women further and further invested in the anti-men propaganda, as well: no man wants them, other than to bang, thus men are evil. For doing it, you become the cited justification for the poisonous breeds of feminism. So my advice for my fellow men is simple: just as women who have trouble have to lower their standards, settle for someone who knows you're out of their league. They have no way to upgrade, so they won't cheat. Don't let them get in any position to simply marry you, pop out a kid, and have a divorce and nail you for child support. Make them work for the divorce: odds are they are going to want more than just your paycheck in addition to theirs, and get proof that they're the ones at fault for the divorce: far increases your chances of getting the kids, yourself, which you can turn around and sue her for child support to afford a baby sitter. If you can prove she's unfit and unsafe to the kids, she can't have the children, but if you can show that you have a family member or someone who can watch the kids while you work, the judge will probably let the child with you as opposed to foster care, but you must make sure you prove first that she's unfit. If a woman knows this is how you'll play, she'll either not get married, or she'll not try to divorce you/cheat on you unless you are a truly horrible person: she will want her kids.

You're not really giving me anything to talk about except your hostility, so i'm quite directly pointing it out, so it's not passive aggressive. Since you're not making any arguments themselves to criticize, i'm criticizing you, which is the third bullet point.

If you're so big on the rules, let's go over them, shall we? Right up top, right under "Guidelines." I know by addressing this I am also breaking a rule or two, but your hypocrisy must be called out.

I know, but i'm pointing out that it's the pot calling the kettle black at this point. Is the kettle black or silver? Who cares, the pot is definitely black.

Free Domain Radio, please notice where you're at. If you have a bad idea, free speech should sort it out. Moderating is about ending unnecessary hostility as well as illegal content, not "bad thought" or "no thought." I know rep doesn't really matter on these forums, but i also noticed you managed to get -5, so should we hold you and your posts to the same standard? Maybe he's one of those who donates enough to get a rank then goes and trolls people. Maybe not. Who knows, and unless we get more info and more posting, it's illogical to assume he's a troll. I don't think atheism is untenable, but, rather, we have a hard time wrapping our heads around atheism, secularism, etc. Agnostics don't care, secularists don't care and don't believe, and atheists "advocate disbelief." The latter is harder to see, especially when googling. "-ist" is one who advocates something (or, at least, that's how we talk about politics in the modern west). "-ism" then would be the advocacy. So secularism is advocating the believe and concentration of the mundane, secular, simple, empirical world. Agnosticism is advocating that we don't know things. Atheism, then, would be the attempt to remove belief in God: you are advocating that people become without (a-) God (theos). I don't really think "ism" and "ist" really meant to imply active voice in the past, but they have that implication at this time. So, you might not be committed to changing my mind, which is why atheism is untenable to you: you're not committed. You, in your text, appear to not believe in God, but believe in the representations that comes with it, so you are advocating for the practical, mundane view of God. I could be wrong, but this is how i look at things, and i think that, for this reason, the positions always seem so difficult (aside from theist, as we're pretty sure what we believe in, usually). Note: I'm really not sure where the "God is an alien" people fall in this.

Bold claims, no elaboration or detail. I have a feeling that asking you what you were doing at the hospital would give us a few more answers. So what were you doing, there?

I wouldn't say that everyone has irrational beliefs. Evidence, not proof, is the basis for whether or not one can believe something based on logic. Base beliefs often come from some degree of evidence. It is when, in the face of contrary evidence, or when your own logic is internally inconsistent, that you become irrational (see definition one provided by google). As for whales, you would be right: the evidence for whales is much stronger than the evidence for God. So let me make a strange case for God, here, one that seems to be very difficult to swallow or follow, because it would be a case using no evidence for the existence of God (aside from the universe itself). This isn't meant to be legitimate case for God, but to show that even without evidence belief in God can be rational (not smart, and this wouldn't even convince me, but at least it's rational). We know we exist. Either God created the universe or He didn't, regardless of whether or not He used evolution to put man here (or whether or not we're an accident). Now, it is irrational to believe something exists simply without logic and/or reason, but we know the universe exists (without which, we wouldn't). So, the idea that our universe itself is intelligent, therefore God, could still be rational. The argument against would be "well, that's assigning a property to the universe without any evidence what-so-ever and therefore a violation of occam's razor." Yes, i made this case to an atheist before, and that was the counter-argument, which isn't really accurate, but was a good attempt. I asked him why we assume "lack of intelligence" is any different, to which he responded "everything we know that isn't alive is unintelligent." My counter argument (which, I didn't think of at the time, and wish i did, not that it was really meant to be convincing that God does exist) is that the basis for which we define life, we have no reason to believe the universe does not fit, but instead plenty of reason to believe the universe itself DOES fit (to be fair, things which clearly do not live or exist also fit into definition). We believe that viruses are alive, yet other than reproduction (which, under multiverse theory, the universe technically does) it really doesn't have any qualities of life. In the case of something so fundamental as the universe, "intelligence" and "unintelligent" really aren't any more likely than the other, therefore occam's razor cannot be reliably applied (most things that we know that are in constant motion of any kind [like the universe], are very much alive and intelligent [but it really isn't fair to call the universe alive and intelligent simply because it is the container for living and intelligent life]). Now, the universe being itself, and also intelligent, would arguably be all knowing, since it would know everything of itself (or at least try to). Also, since without it existence is impossible, we could argue that to some degree, it is omnipotent. Now, i wouldn't put the above argument as an end all explanation to the existence of God: it's not even remotely convincing, and, at best, proposes a 50-50 scenario, and doesn't even go into the God of Christianity or any other religion. But your challenge is not only to prove the above wrong, but also prove it as both illogical and unreasonable. I'll give you a hint on how to dismantle this: the argument's most likely going to come from demanding a definition for intelligence. You'll also want to take a weak stab at a definition for life, but that might prove even more challenging (as google wasn't very yielding of any particularly strong definition, and it seems that "authorities" have a very, very hard time nailing this down, even without abortion being an issue on the table). Even then, you're making a counter argument. Worse yet, that is one of many, many cases for the potential existence for God, so even if you manage to shoot that down as irrational (it's not enough to simply throw evidence against it, since the person would not be irrational until they reject logic and reason), it doesn't mean all religious are irrational, but if the above idea is rational, then we cannot say that believing in God is immediately irrational (just incredibly unlikely from a rational person who's likely to have more than a little evidence to the contrary). This is why atheists have so much trouble putting God to rest: occam's razor cannot be applied to properties of things that we admittedly don't understand in the slightest. Stefan Molyneux's case of omnipotence and omniscience being unable to co-exist is pretty strong (the only case i've actually seen him make, though i assume he has more?), but does God loose God status if It is missing either attribute? Meanwhile, the rational person (at least a believer) would also question whether or not our definitions of omnipotence and omniscience are rational (for example, the question i asked is whether or not time exists, therefore the past and future being a reasonable subset of knowledge to apply to omniscience). I would argue further, that if the future is already written, then free-will comes into question. This would suggest that free will is also irrational if time exists, unless there's a good argument that escaped my eyes and ears (which is possible, but I expect it, or at least this conflict, to be on Stefan's plate at some point) that contradicts this point. Let's be honest here, since we're talking about Stefan overall, he has admitted that he's been unfair with God, and, like many atheists, this quick, sharp dismissal of Christians as irrational is indicative of this. Fact is, we won't easily make a decision either way of whether or not God exists. This frustration that we have with each other is because we assume the other is irrational. I am not frustrated with atheists, because I do indeed see the rational standpoint. But, unlike myself, my opponents do not. All i want is that both sides of the argument come to accept this. The fact that we know, and have discussed this for such a long period of time, suggests that we (humanity) really haven't finished this discussion. We've defeated santa, ghosts (for the most part), unicorns, dragons, mermaids, yet for some reason we can't defeat God or the state. Clearly there's a reason for this, except we don't know what it is. The frustration only shows that we're not seeing the reason. Worse yet, we keep seeming to reinvent God, in particular.Yes, we have these people, turtles and all.

I'm still new here, trying to learn the ropes, trying to learn who's rational and not, trying to figure out who's a troll and who's not, as well as a number of other things. To this degree, I really should not have abandoned the thread out of anger like that, as it was not only a disservice to others, but also myself and the argument i was proposing. Possibly. It's not something we really know (or even can know at this point), so all we can do is speculate. If we were to assume God as omniscient (throwing away the requirement of knowing the future if time does not exist), we could also speculate that God does literal things and performs amazing displays of power primarily for the resulting metaphorical purpose (in other words, perhaps he possessed a bush to give us the introspection). I think video games are incredibly useful in this feature. Don't fix what isn't broken. Even with the lack of originality in the names and such (which to me seems more like a tribute), they still manage to be somewhat original. Truth is, we don't like truly original ideas: they're extremely ironic and thus often become treated as comedy. As Jordan Peterson points out, we love hero stories, and even if we say we like the edgy villain stories, we still try to find ways to justify their evil and turn them into heroes. Notice how the Dark Brotherhood got all upset at Lucian Lachance? Turns out we like heroes to be good, even if they're evil. I think left/right and government/freedom things were not separated with nords and imperials. I could go on all day about how Talos represents Jesus (and other similar beings) because he's Shezzarine. The civil war in skyrim is about more than just religion, but just like the US civil war, one particular issue stands out as the straw that broke the camel's back and becomes the layman's explanation for the war. If you are truly immersed into your game, it's easy to see how people really are. I recently retired an oblivion character, whom i was trying to play as to see how i felt on certain moral issues. I didn't join the dark brotherhood. Never even saw Lucian Lachance. I'm playing another run through of Skyrim right now, and I already have 1 murder (should be 3). The Thalmor were escorting a prisoner. Knowing who they are, what they stand for, and why they do what they do, it was apparent to me that the man was to either be tortured or executed for unjust reasons, regardless of whether i viewed myself as a worshiper of the in game religion or not. I know that if I have a high chance of success (which i did, especially with Kharjo and Serana with me), I would feel the need to step in and stop that injustice. I also, earlier in the game, came across imperials escorting someone, and remember this is Skyrim where their claim to the land is disputed, and this was shortly after i was about to be executed for unjust reasons, yet i didn't try to rescue the man. This means that if i didn't view my chances of success as high, I wouldn't sacrifice my own life in an attempt to save another. Sure, the test wasn't entirely realistic (i am working on my pick-pocketing skill, right now, because i really don't like Mikael [i already know i wouldn't kill him if it were all real, but i can't exactly run him out of town or publicly confront him in game, either]), but it does have me taking a realistic look at myself and the decisions i would actually make, as opposed to what i like to believe i would do. Right now i'm trying to solve the conundrum of soul trapping humanoids (specifically those who attack me), which is a simple issue that's very hard to pick a side on. TES' mythology is quite deep. As i play the games, the deeper I go, the more complicated and deep it seems to become. It's deep enough for wild head cannon, which seems to keep people entertained and interested. TES doesn't seem to be intentionally commenting on social issues or anything, but by simply taking real events and putting it into the game and trying to present both sides in a realistic perspective, it seems to be accomplishing a perceived goal of social commentary. Usually when the commentary is intentional, you paint one perspective in a much better light. That doesn't seem to be happening in TES. Even Hannibal Traven's stance on necromancy was questioned in Oblivion (your real motivator for sticking it out in the mages guild was the fact that the necromancers simply didn't want you as a friend, not that anyone really proposed a real reason why necromancy was bad outside of taboo), with his view positively looked upon by the Dawnguard DLC, where you learn about the Ideal Masters (also implying that dunmer necromancy is a whole different kettle of fish). As for the thing of the mountain king, that's actually interesting, given the original topic: knowledge of time defeats the gods. If time exists, omniscience and omnipotence cannot coexist, therefore presenting a flaw through which gods can be defeated (and, thus, are not really gods). But the question still must be asked whether or not time exists, because the danger the story presents is a mind over matter line of thinking where simply because we understand something that it not only exists (we can easily understand things that do not exist) but can be controlled as well. Fire and water throughout history are known to remind us to have humility in regards to our ability to control things simply because we understand them (this is dangerous in regards to deities as well).

Proof and evidence are similar, but not the same. If someone is dead in front of me, and i see blood on the hands of someone else in the room, that is evidence that the person with blood on their hands committed murder. It's also evidence of self-defense. It's also evidence of the person attempting to perform CPR on the dead person. It could be evidence for a multitude of other things depending on why the person before me is dead. However, it is not proof. People on drugs see God, angels, satan, Bob Marley, Elvis in his 80s, and a number of other things. People on drugs can "smell colors." People with problems without it being tied to drugs can see these things, too. None of this is proof, but evidence. I believe in whales, dolphines, and a number of other things, because of the scale of evidence. It's quite possible there is a conspiracy against me, but that's not a reasonable line of thought. Evidence is enough. The problem with evidence is that, unlike proof, it tends to disappear, degrade, etc. We could go further: there is plenty of evidence that UFOs exist. Sure, some people fake videos of UFO sightings, and people also photoshop their photos to show these 10 out of 10 babes with them claiming that they're a girlfriend. 10 out of 10 women exist, but that doesn't mean it's their girlfriend (maybe they are, but we know there are plenty of confirmed fakes). Meanwhile, unidentified objects are in our skies all the time. We have plenty of visual evidence of this. What we don't have is evidence that these things are from anywhere other than earth. We also know that governments and scientists are constantly trying to make objects fly using different shapes and methods. Are people who believe in UFOs irrational or insane? What about people who believe in extraterrestrials? What about people who believe they're angels or demons? What about people who believe angels or demons are extraterrestrials? We don't need to go through all the questions to come to a simple reasonable conclusion: some people can believe in things that we find ridiculous, while being reasonable and rational in doing so. Given we don't have all the evidence that they do, they might have plenty more than we for whatever they believe. They could also be irrational, as well. We don't know. But that is one of the many reasons we believe in free speech: there are things we don't know, and it's not ethical to silence someone simply because we don't agree with them. That's why rationality is important, as well: if you claim someone is irrational, you are attempting to discredit or silence someone you don't agree with, and you have to ask yourself if it is even appropriate. Project MKUltra (the very conspiracy theory that led people to equate tinfoil hats with irrational conspiracy theories) should be a good indication of how we need to start being more careful with who we brush aside: they might be nutty, doing irrational things, but they might also be onto something even if they're wrong (turns out they were onto something, it just wasn't mind control rays). Please don't suggest that i'm irrational simply because you are. But let me ask you, does "being consistent with everything I know about the world" constitute as proof or evidence to you? God's existence certainly isn't inconsistent with anything i know. Neither unicorns, space aliens, or Dovahkiin. I certainly have a much different standard. Oh, so the consequences of belief or disbelief are important factors as well? Truth doesn't care how much or little evidence we have. Truth doesn't care about the consequences of truth. I could be wrong, or I could be right, but the consequences of whether i'm right or wrong have no bearing on whether i'm right or wrong, or are you suggesting that they do? Because, if you want to go down that path, if God doesn't exist, it can ruin my worldview to find that out, but if God does exist, it could very well ruin your worldview. If the consequences are a major factor for whether or not you believe, that's your choice, but don't lie to yourself that one side is infinitely more appealing than it really is. As i said, evidence comes and goes, just like in murder trials. I'm not here to argue that God exists, but instead that people who believe in God are not irrational simply for believing in God. I could cite a number of things that have not gone, and still are evidence of God, but like in my murder example above, they are also evidence for other explanations.

Right. One also needs to see that disbelief (active rejection) is not the same as not believing (simply default state), but that's a whole other topic (disbelief seems to be the point of the first post). But, you're right: if you have no reason to believe, one should not expect you to. Reality doesn't care what the consequences of reality are.

Forgive me, but every time I engage an atheist on this topic, they tend to be hostile and also try to throw catch-22 questions at me. That question fits the profile, so it seems far more appropriate to give a non-binary answer, to avoid going down the rabbit hole. If i say unicorns exist the same way as a horse, i'm suggesting that unicorns exist. If I say that unicorns do not exist the same way as a horse, I would be expected to explain how a horse is fundamentally different from a unicorn, that even if a unicorn did exist, why it would require a different standard of proof. If you were more interested in generating a standard of proof, it would've been far safer to ask about any object or creature right off the bat. When this particular branch of discussion started, was it not clear that the objective was to show that since God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent if time exists, that to be rational I must either sacrifice God's Omniscience, God's omnipotence, or time? I'm consistently suggesting that we have not proved the physical existance of time, yet people (presumably people whom i don't agree with, given the context) are referring to time as if it is manipulable. I'm therefore calling out that we have a standard for God that we don't even have for time. Fair enough, i'll concede that point. Government, like all concepts, cannot exist. Same thing of the church: a church is not the church building, but the belief of the people who are there. The point is to show evidence that people do see time as manipulable and thus having of physical properties: existing beyond mere concept. Was that not what was requested? To show that people not only see time outside of being mere concept, and also that this is considered normal? No, i didn't take the time to analyze the arguments beyond the purpose of showing that there are people who believe time is manipulable, therefore existing beyond mere concept. But, no, I don't think of SR and STR. When space-time relativity is used to suggest that time exists as more than just a concept, I question it's validity. Separation between two objects is demonstrable. Separation between two times is not: since we cannot show both momentary existences (unless there's a method I'm unaware of). A standard of proof of time, especially existing beyond mere concept. So to be rational, evidence doesn't suffice, but instead proof must be present? What proof do you have that space exists? Do you believe in whales? What proof do you have of whales. I never met a whale, myself, and i only have evidence (videos showing them) that they exist, not proof. So, i assume either you have proof for whales (and other things), or you apply different standards to God than you do certain things on earth that you already believe. Or, perhaps, it's rational to believe in other things without proof, but not God, simply because you believe in those other things but not God? I don't get it. Please explain. Darwinism, evolution, etc are also concepts. That which does exist is DNA, and we've demonstrated that DNA is a mechanism for which living organisms decide shape and other properties. Evolution is the reasonable belief that changes in DNA over time will ultimately result in stages that can be clearly defined, even if the intermediate stages cannot be. The issue isn't with evolution that we can't define what some would call the "in between stages." For example, We have Leopards, savanna cats, and house cats. Clearly these species formed from similar ancestors, just as, say, a midget can spawn from the same ancestors as a tall person. It is the fault of not having clear enough definitions that we can't identify the transitions, not a fault of the concept of evolution.

I feel this a bit more relevant: this skit exemplifies what i feel about the majority of quantum physics as a field of science. And "climate change" as manmade. And a whole host of other things. Too much back patting.

No, I have no problem seeing time only as a concept. What i'm stating is that it seems to be an issue and a sticking point for most people. I have trouble getting people past that sticking point. Not everyone, of course, but almost every quantum physicist i've dealt with (unfortunately, mostly online either directly on forums or via "scientific articles") seems to get hung up on this, as it seems to be an axiom that time exists outside of simply being concept. And this goes back to the omnipotent and omniscient conundrum: if time exists, God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient, since He would either be unable to change the future, or the future can be changed and therefore he doesn't know. If time is only a concept, the future is not a subset of knowledge that can be expected of someone/something omniscient, therefore the duality becomes possible. i figured the indirect answer would suffice. I cannot say that unicorns most definitely do not exist, but we're dealing with null hypothesis at that point. If someone has a reason to believe in their existence, then they're being rational. Perhaps they saw an actual unicorn? I would also expect them to rule out drugs and other things for their sighting as well. Good point: as with the Screwtape Letters, it is good enough to get the Christian to have faith, belief, etc to the cross, rather than what the cross represents, if you want to destroy the Christian and/or his faith. Just a quick google. If time can be manipulated, then it has physical properties. Things get even more entertaining when you research "big bang." I think some people argue that there's a point where time doessn't exist, but afterwards it does exist, but i could be wrong, since i'm going on memory. Try jumping through that logic, once. The danger of that is turning around and making an argument from authority. While not guaranteed, it's easy to fall into that trap. In the right context, though, that doesn't happen. In the case of the existence of government, i'm not sure it would be appropriate. In terms of time, I couldn't really can't propose one: that'd be the job of someone who wishes to prove that time exists, right?

To address 0, that is the big thing at the end of the day. We apply time both as if it were a concept but also as if it actually has physical presence. I consider this to be the major issue of today's reasoning: that we have trouble separating the physical from the metaphysical. Q1: For a unicorn to exist, we would have to apply the same rules that we would a horse. As such, I have seen no evidence that unicorns exist. Sure, they could, or perhaps they may have, but the same could be said of a flying teapot in space. Q2: Government is a loaded word, really. It refers to both the concept, as well as the physical manifestation of that concept brought forth by humans. So, the short answer is "yes." Q3: It has been argued that time actually does have physical properties, as well as being manipulated by physical properties (gravity and so forth). Look into how people refer to time and connections to "black holes" and "worm holes," for example. In these discussions, time is indeed being applied as if it were more than simply a human concept. Q4: Yes. Perhaps i shouldn't be typing like this, but the past few days have been rough, to say the least. However, if something self-evident does not appear to be taken as self-evident, sometimes it needs to be restated. On one hand, it can be seen as rude, but on another it can easily save alot of time, effort, and so forth. Forgive me if it was not actually necessary.

That which exists, exists. That which does not exist, does not exist. In terms of time vs government, "government" can refer to both as a concept as well as a group of people. Government as a concept still ultimately refers to a physical manifestation. Time is argued to physically manifest itself, but we have not actually verified this. If you have sources that say otherwise, please direct me to these. I'm more concerned about truth, not what's convenient to believe or not believe, or winning some online argument, or whatever. As for the metaphysical, this goes back to the same thing. Things either exist or they do not. Morality does not necessarily exist, which I would argue is the great challenge that stefan has tried to tackle with UPB, to which he does a great job. But just like how we take time for granted, alot must be taken for granted with UPB to believe it, such as free will. And, to some degree, I agree that one cannot prove that we have it with the scientific method at the moment. If time exists, and time were traversable, then we would know that free will does not exist since the future is already written. We could logically deduce this. The problem with time is, we keep asking for proof that it does not, since the existence of time is taken for granted, but that is null hypothesis. But the beautiful thing about the metaphysical is that even things that do not exist can have an effect in the universe, simply because we facilitate the existence. Law does not exist, but people who act upon others based on common agreements and concepts do indeed exist. This is what's great about humans: metaphysical things, which do not exist, affect our world through the existent human. However, by understanding the human and his limitations, one can see that the metaphysical does not exist. But what exists and what is just metaphysics is indeed an important debate to have. We as humans, since metaphysics "exist" as far as we're concerned, have a hard time separating the real physical from the intangible concepts. If God exists, He is a matter of reality and or nature, not strictly some metaphysical entity, which is why we continue to demand proof of Him. Why give time or anything else a pass, for that matter?

I absolutely do, if possible. The most important thing for Christians to do right now, in terms of "saving people" is to get rid of the common atheist mindset that somehow religion is irrational or insane. Honestly, for our culture, that is in our best interests as well. How is simply being part of the religion (or lack of) of the day somehow more enlightened, intelligent, whatever? I am Christian, and i do find myself quite sane and rational. I find it quite annoying that simply my belief in a higher power somehow suddenly invalidates my knowledge and opinions, even in other fields. No, but those are a special concern that tends to come with it. I'm referring to the fact that since human invented math rules were created based on our universe, that we assume everything in math also applies to the universe, which in turn leads to those things. Time itself, despite being so well "understood," hasn't really been verified to exist. Causality has been, but this idea that the past and/or future exist independent of "now" has not been verified, yet we believe it without question, and it runs counter to other things (like free will) we take for granted, yet somehow we let these conflicting ideas coexist. We like to say that our universe is 3d, then we changed it to 4d, then it became 5d, and now it's Nd. It didn't take me long to find exception to this: if the universe is not infinite, there must not only be a center, but presumably there are also proper "axes" from which we should be measuring. Where are the X, Y, and Z axes properly at? Yet somehow we know exactly where time is. And then couple the fact that big bang cycle theory depends on X, Y, and Z not actually being infinite (and remember, the center would be the center of the universe, regardless of how infinite it would be in all directions if it were), because only Time spreads infinitely? But, wait, does time go backwards during "the big suck?" If so, or if not (doesn't really matter), how do we define the progression of cycles if they're causal but independent of time? You see where the conflict comes into play? Time as an existent (as opposed to imagined) axis complicates a lot of matters if you take the time to think of it. The day Stefan Molyneux and Tyler Glockner shake hands and come out as allies would be an interesting day indeed. Rather than the claims of associations, do you have any sort of empirical evidence of free energy, ET, etc?

Christianity itself was always political. Don't worry, Jesus has some pretty clear stances in many political issues. Gun control being a great one: he's against it. When he was to be arrested, he told the disciples ahead of time to make sure they had weapons to help fulfill the prophecy. He had no problem when two revealed they were carrying weapons the whole time (give his MO, if they were only to carry weapons to fulfill the prophecy, but he was actually against weapons, he would've taken the time to ensure they learned that one last lesson). That's just one example. Homosexuality/bisexuality is a bit more grey, but we could probably deduce that transgenderism is pretty unpopular with him.

That would be hilarious. The zionist conspiracy theorists are terribly present in the youtube comments. Don't get me wrong, buy issues i didn't meant mental issues, but rather he has very specific sticking points against religion. I define these as issues, but not mental issues. I would say that stefan does have a couple actual issues, but more or less points he's afraid to face. For example, just as omniscience and omnipotence can't exist if the future already exists, but free will is an issue if the future already exists, as well. We know he believes in free will, but we also know that he seems to be avoiding certain logical conflicts, which i completely understand given the context, and the fact that he's had issues that are, at least from an atheist or secularist point of view, much, much more important (if you don't believe in God, solving the God question should naturally be low priority in the face of the migrant crisis, for example, since you're already taking the stance that you'd be disproving God, rather than saving your own soul kind of thing [in that regard, his priorities are consistent with atheism, rather than closeted christianity]). I'm curious what you know, but it's stefan's privacy we'd be violating, and it's his call whether or not he wants to be public about it.

Well no, he definitely has the secular standpoint. But, take a look at Jordan Peterson. Do you not see the parallels there, either? I have my own opinion on what exactly Stefan's problem with God really is in the end, as well as what could be said that could easily convert him. That said, i really don't think he's ready to have that conversation, or he'd ask his viewership already. He kinda already asked for someone to give him answers on multiple occasions, but this is a topic that seems best suited on a forum, rather than youtube comments section or even in a call: with a forum, we can come back later and continue the conversation at our own pace, not have a "well, you're not convincing" if you're just having a bad day and not at the top of your game. I've always found that online forums have the right format (although not always the right people) to have these types of conversations. To be honest, i think it'd be worth actually bringing up stefan's stated issues with God here and actually talking through them. I started a topic last year concerning one of this bigger ones (the irrationality of omnipotence with omniscience, which i attempted to disprove, but the conversation didn't really go far, which was partially my fault for my temper [where i kinda gave up and disappeared only to reappear again now]). He certainly wants to believe, but there's a few sticking point issues that he's having trouble getting past. I'd gladly have the conversation, or help anyone prepare for that conversation, but right now he doesn't seem to be committed to having it. To be honest, right now he seems more useful to God as an atheist, which i've pointed out to him before: if he can, with secular principles, stand up for pretty much everything God stands for, then the only question is whether or not He exists, and people will have objective and secular reasoning enough to understand that this disbelief of hedonistic convenience doesn't simply go away because you can explain away God. And let's be honest, like abortion statistics verifying that it's mostly out of convenience, not rape or for the mother's health, most atheists probably use their rational arguments as a rationalization of their hedonism, rather than being hedonists because they're rational. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I do think he, and even Jordan Peterson, are doing a good job of making secular arguments for everything in Christianity, but I don't think it's out of a secret closeted faith. It is nice, though. My main objective with Stefan, since it's not really my place to "convert" him, is to get him to admit that belief in God is rational, contrary to what he said in the past, and not to do so for the sake of getting him to simply say it (kind of like how people have those fake apologies), but to the point where he can do a show on it, as an atheist, and admit that Christianity is not irrational after all, and actually make a proper case on why he was wrong about it being irrational. Right now, the strongest argument i've heard him say is that omniscience-omnipotence thing, which I argue is not necessarily irrational, but rather some of the attributes tied to omniscience is irrational (like knowing the future, which is impossible if there's free will since the future doesn't actually exist yet, then, but this flies counter to quantum physics, hence the conflict [if we can admit quantum physics is pseudoscience, it'll blow the conflict argument out of the water]).

That's the thing, though, that confuses me about atheists. But, just because i expect someone to be a nihilist/hedonist in response (especially since most are, from what i've seen) doesn't mean that it's how it would always turn out. This is the very thing he said was the strongest argument that christians have, iirc.

The atheist is there to be sure. He admits he wants to believe, so perhaps he's more a secularist than an atheist. EDIT: To clarify, i mean that in the term that "atheism" could imply, rather than a lack of belief in God, but instead a more active disbelief.

You could be right, but what's it matter? If Hillary Clinton came out tomorrow saying that she legitimately lost the presidential run, does it really matter what her intentions were? We'd have to finally concede that she was telling the truth, for once. Truth and fact don't seem to be too consider with their motives. Then again, this whole post really is conjecture.

To be blunt with this topic, the truth is that, with the current state of things, we cannot know either way. The real question is whether or not one can be rational and sane while still believing or rational and sane while not believing, which, at first, seems like harder territory for being more broad, but this seems to be where people end up arguing, anyway. The cold hard truth, too, is that science is only science when conclusions are based on observation and logic. What science is proposing is illogical, nor has it been observed, so there's nothing scientific about it, just like there is no utopian society. We'll never reach it, but we should always reach for it. I have another topic here, but much older, that argues this in more detail, but it was dead when it started, and it's dead right now. The objective of the topic was to challenge the very things that science is hung up on: numbers. We simplify our universe using math, but does that mean there is any evidence that our universe even obeys the rules of math? Why should it? Math itself is based on a mix of observation and human language, so why would the universe, which we all agree existed before us, follow our created rules? What evidence do we have that the number two, instead of a quantity that we use 2 to represent, actually exists? The issue is, math and logic are in conflict when it comes to the origins of the universe, because the universe cannot be infinite unless we have a big bang and a big suck cycle, which means we've taken the floor from 3d space being infinite simply so we can say that time is infinite (thus the universe always cycled). I question the very existence of time, and what is the response? Well, there are other directions (dimensions) as well. We have no evidence for any numbers or axes actually existing, yet we continue to try to push this idea. The cold hard fact is, we don't even have a clue, and we probably never will, regardless of whether or not God exists. But, instead of analyzing where we're weak, we're trying to patch things up. Pythagoreanism is our problem. We've only removed God to replace it with this religion, which now we even have people proposing "programmer theory" to suggest that there really is a creator afterall, but it's not God, thus we're going to a whole new Turtles All the Way Down. Seriously, how do we call this "enlightened?" Oh goody, we got rid of God! now what? We invent Him again. Way to go, humanity. At least when we believed in God, we had a moral and ethical system based around Him, even if we don't agree on all the rules. Let's quit trying to replace one religion with another religion that's more convenient for government, hedonists, nihilists, and others who mean harm towards humanity.

I apologize, i committed a terrible sin against philosophy and God: I was angry at Donnadogsoth, thus i made a reply and never returned to finish this conversation. Not sure how to handle quoting small parts of text, anymore, either. One interesting concept that many religions also have is "possession." Could God have possessed the bush? Is God capable of also taking on a form at whim? Omnipotence becomes very limited in the face of a physical form. Once again, though, if everything must have a standard specific form, then isn't our interpretation of "omnipotence" also flawed, though i really don't think it's wise to go down that path, as God would very quickly become unraveled into "He's just a big, highly-evolved, overpowered bully." As for nihilism, it's like apathy: just because the apathetic person doesn't care about much or anything, doesn't mean the term doesn't apply. There's an obvious Hedonism and Nihilism connection, and one could easily lead to the other (you need to be nihilist if you live as a hedonist, otherwise you will hate yourself for your decisions, but if you are a nihilist who's not enjoying hedonism, well, unless you are the type to think that even suicide is pointless, you really will find suicide more rewarding). i've seen it, and watched people end up like this. Hedonism and nihilism are both terrible, but at least with hedonism you might not have lived with it long enough to be forced into nihilism. I think the real trick to nihilism is to show that it is not only dysfunctional, but that it is also inconsistent with history. The issue is, however, that the longer you're hedonistic, the more painful the rejection of nihilism becomes, and alot of people can't handle that, either. Can you imagine the pain of some of our politicians should they ever admit to themselves that what they've done has not helped anyone other than themselves? Some of your crooks actually convince themselves that they're doing the right thing. As for The Elder Scrolls, the whole religion and all is undeniably ripping off of previous religions (anu and padomay/sithis are order and chaos). The races themselves are parallels to different cultures (Altmer are japanese, argonians are africans, bosmer are pacific islanders, bretons might be "normies," dunmer are chinese, imperials are leftists, khajiits are jews, nords are conservatives, orismer are russians, and redguards are arabs). Talos seems to be Jesus (human form of God, aka Lorkhan/Shor/Shezzar), the Skaal definitely are an overdone stereotype of christianity, and this idea that the Aedra and Daedra are not exactly good or evil by their association definitely parallels polytheistic religion. Malacath/Trinimac being rejected from the aedra, while the aedra doing very little being excused by "sacrificing their power to create the universe" (yet, somehow, Malacath doesn't count) to explain why they aren't involved in life parallels the "Why does God not step in?" issue we always face. The more i get into TES lore, the more i realize the writers are very, very good at re-framing alot of issues. Unfortunately, the average person playing doesn't look deep enough into it. But this would be better for another topic, or perhaps a private chat.

I'm terrible for this necropost, but i wouldn't be so sure on that. He definitely has reason to have a hostile rejection of christianity, but he's since admitted that (probably after the post i'm quoting here). I think what makes him different is that he sees that the complete cultural rejection is what leads to the problem that he has with christianity. Rather than christianity being evil, it's not enough, at least in his current stance. He admitted his bias, and, honestly, he seems reasonable enough to even be "converted back," should enough of his issues be addressed.