931–940 of 966 posts
What's more important to me: life emerged from chaos, entropy will get us all, let's give this opportunity all we've got. If we don't, it's fine too - there is no game plan I am aware of so we can make our own.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality [2] https://beta.tergar.org/courses/intro-to-meditation/
Tetris. Twice per day. When I get into a good Tetris routine, my mind will continue to play even when I'm not in front of the screen. There's just this constant background game playing in my head. This might sound distracting, but somehow it's enlightening. It provides rhythm. It provides structure. It keeps my thoughts in constant reorganization, constant renewal. Overall, I believe Tetris gets my mind into a place…
This answer is perfect :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact of sin is the assertion that sin exists. No, it isn't. Chesterton never says what "the fact of sin" is. All he says is that it is the "fact of sin", as if there were only one. There isn't. There are many facts about sin, one of which is that people don't agree about what is sinful. BTW, William Lane Craig is a charlatan. If you are really interested in dispassionate and intellectual discourse you need to r…
> All he says is that it is the "fact of sin", as if there were only one. There isn't. There are many facts about sin... You really believe that is what Chesterton meant? You think he thought there is only one single fact about the subject of sin? I find your interpretation hard to believe. > Chesterton never says what "the fact of sin" is First, if that is true, then how can you so vehemently deny something (the fac…
I have no idea what he meant. I do not have ESP, and given that Chesterton is long dead, it probably wouldn't be effective even if I did. All I know is what the text says.
> First, if that is true, then how can you so vehemently deny something (the fact of sin) that you claim hasn't even been defined?
I deny that there exists a single Fact of Sin that is so privileged that it can be coherently referred to as THE fact of sin in a rational argument. The phrase "the fact of sin" is non-sensical, a turn of phrase cunningly designed to make you think it has a referent when in fact it does not. The rhetoric of Christianity is rife with such linguistic ploys. They are necessary to cover up the fact that Christianity is both logically incoherent and inconsistent with the laws of physics. It is the longest of long cons.
> from a cursory reading of the text, I think it's pretty easy to infer.
Yes, I know you think so, but you are wrong. Like I said, "the fact of sin" is a turn of phrase cunningly designed to make you think it has, not only a referent, but a self-evident one. But it doesn't. There is no self-evident "fact of sin", including:
> It's pretty obvious that when he says the fact of sin, he means the fact that sin exists.
That is far from obvious, because from that premise his conclusion does not follow. What does it even mean that "sin exists"? Does it mean that at some point in history some person committed a sin? Does it mean that at any given time there is at least one person committing a sin? Does it mean that humans have within them the potential to commit sins at any time even thought there could be times when they don't act on that potential? Don't bother answering, those are rhetorical questions. The point is that the idea that "sin exists" is another one of those phrases that is cunningly designed to make you think that it means something, and that you understand what it means, when in fact it is utter nonsense (because of its ambiguity).
> Backing up your claims with evidence
LOL. Can you show me any evidence that there is an afterlife?
There is no evidence for Christianity. None. Zero. And many of its claims are absurd on their face. Do you really believe that zombies walked the streets of Jerusalem and not a single person thought it was worthy of note other than the author of Matthew? Or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and not a single person thought this was worthy of note other than the author of John? It's just ridiculous. These are transparent fictions.
A critical examination of the Bible reveals it to be nothing more than human mythology of the sort regularly produced by humans [1]. Christianity just happened to get a boost by being in the right place at the right time when Rome fell and created a power vacuum for the church to step in to.
Read Carrier's "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus" and then come back and we can talk.
---
[1] Note: I in no way mean to denigrate or disparage the value of mythology. But it is important not to conflate it with reality.
I was raised atheist by atheist parents. My mother was raised in one of the weirder Christian sects and got out of it before they married. I have always been an atheist despite growing up in a small town with a church on every block, including one whacky church that actually did things like book burnings and burning Michael Jackson in effigy for corrupting the youth. Most of my friends were catholic, growing up, and…
I, too, was raised in a religion-free environment. The longer I live, the more I am convinced in the extraordinary nature of our minds to define reality. At this point I am inclined to admit that in the universe of people who believe in God, God truly exists. This leads me to have deep respect for religious devotees, and for atheists and agnostics alike.
I'm just saying that I think there is a sort of need in most people, probably an accident of evolution, even one that has some positive fitness value due to second order effects, to have something religion shaped. Atheists like me basically helped create the mess we were in by helping to destroy the more mainstream religions thereby creating an opportunity for straight up crazypants stuff to emerge with properties that are harder to deal with (nothing is written down, nothing is consistent - Q) by pointing out the flaws and obvious falseness. We acted as a selection function for an even more terrible set of ideas.
In a lot of ways the current situation is very similar to the second great awakening in the early 19th century which spawned a number of cult-like sects of Christianity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Daily existential crisis due to my own mortality I had this for a long time. The thing that cured it was that I remind myself every day how many days I should expect to live, how many of those days will be healthy enough to do anything, and what % of my remaining life and healthspan this year is. Even though it would seem this makes things worse, my experience is that it is the opposite. It is like tossing some egg…
Yep, of course, if worries like that prevent a person from actually living their life and being a functional member of society (in whatever capacity they wish to be one), then it's probably helpful to seek counseling or additional help with that. However, if things aren't so dire, being aware of the approximate time that you have left might actually motivate you to focus on what you want to achieve etc. The first tim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I had been taught I could simply confess whatever and it would be forgiven I still remember the day at Sunday school when we had to confess. I was a good kid. I had absolutely no idea what to confess. I consulted my Mom who told me to "make something up". And thus my first sin, that I can remember, was lying to the priest.
I'd like to make a suggestion. If you aren't sure if you have anything to confess, then pray. Ask God to reveal any sin to you so you can confess it, pause for a little bit and listen for God. You can also take this time to thank God for things in your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats a dumb question. Why look for problem if there isnt. Plus its the basics of medicine: no symptoms, no disease.
You seem quite offended and defensive towards a very harmless question, from someone who dabbles in psychedelics as well :) But you do you, boo