Posts by silentridge8

Harold Doyle3 said:And honestly? Reality itself is nothing more than a construct of our own imaginations and thoughts.
(We just convince ourselves that what we perceive as reality is actually real.)
Plato's cave

Given that perspective, Richard Rorty makes more sense. He argued that objective reality doesn't really exist—there's only "vocabulary." Essentially, things only exist insofar as they are expressed through language.

Anthony Perez9 said:Total lie. Which historical scholar actually verified Jesus of Nazareth as a real person—you know, like Moses, Noah, Jesus, Solomon, Mary, the whole bunch of saints, Saint Peter and Paul, the serpent, Lucifer, Gabriel, or even Methuselah? What kind of evidence could possibly back that up?
I mean, you could probably shove a cat under Dante's seat if you really wanted to.

🤣

The same historians who argue that Medina isn't just some made-up city😍

Historical science isn't the same thing as this little project you've got going on here on the forum; it's like saying beer counts as food🎉

Paul Anderson2 said:Yeah, it's blind, sure, but it isn't exactly random. Maybe a better way to put it would be mechanical. It's kind of like having a sieve that only lets pebbles under a certain size pass through. In the end, you don't end up with just any random mess.

When people call natural selection blind, I think they mean it doesn't "care" about whether a species survives long-term or if things stay in harmony and balance.

I get the distinction, though a lot of people don't. You'll even find some folks who genuinely believe humans will eventually develop telekinetic or telepathic abilities just because of "evolution." 😵 Since the topic was heading elsewhere, I didn't want to get bogged down in the technicalities of "chance" versus "blindness," otherwise we'd be drifting off-topic and end up needing an entirely different white paper to explain it all.

bluebison25 said:Let me break this down for you. We were debating your specific point: "It’s obvious; I’m just saying that isn't any more rational than believing in a creator." Basically, we're talking about whether a supreme being or pure randomness is the more logical choice.
In my view, we can't even have this debate because randomness is inherently rational—it’s a fact of life that affects every single living thing on this planet every single day. It's observable evidence.
As for a supreme being, it’s not a rational topic for me because it's a human invention. Believing in something like that is based entirely on faith, and you simply cannot claim faith is rational.

If you can't wrap your head around what constitutes reality in your own life, then let me tell you what reality is to me. To me, reality is NOW—it's everything I experience and everything my brain registers in this exact moment. Reality is life. Reality is a book in my hands.
On the flip side, things like an afterlife aren't real to me. Fairy tales and religious texts don't count as reality.

Look, I'm not trying to insult anyone, but if someone takes their entire life—everything they've actually lived and built—and credits it to some entity while living for a spiritual world that doesn't exist, then naturally, they won't be able to distinguish between rationality and irrationality, or between reality and fiction. Your posts prove exactly that.🙂

I wasn't actually trying to start a debate there. My point was simply this: believing everything happens by pure chance isn't any more rational than believing in a Creator.

I don't think there's much point in us debating this. To me, it all just looks like a coincidence. I’m being rational when I say that coincidence is just something that happens to all of us. It’s not just us, either. If you look at the day-to-day lives of other living creatures on this planet, there’s plenty of evidence to back it up.
I’ll say it again: the idea of a supreme being isn't exactly a rational topic for me. It feels like a concept cooked up by people, where the whole existence of such a thing relies entirely on faith—and you just can't really bridge the gap between blind belief and actual logic.

So, at that point, your whole definition of reason—or what you consider to be rationality—just doesn't square with... The standard definitions for that term.
Rationality isn't about whether something is tangible, sensitive, or even moral. It’s strictly about whether a thing can be understood through logic and reason. If you claim something is irrational just because it doesn't fit your criteria, you're missing the point. Made up. So, on one hand, you're trying to prove a negative, and on the other, you're acting like logic somehow validates your specific point of view.

If you haven't quite figured out what reality actually means in your own life, then nothing else is going to make sense.

I noticed you have this habit of trying to psychoanalyze my character and my work—and honestly, this isn't even the first time. I’d appreciate it if you’d just drop it. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and frankly, it goes against the forum rules.

If you want my take on what reality actually is, here it is: for me, reality is right NOW. It’s everything I’m experiencing in this exact second—whatever my brain is capable of registering in the present moment. To me, reality is simply life.

To sounds like one of those empty clichés you'd find in a New Age paperback. 🤷

To me, reality feels like a book already written.
To me, the afterlife isn't exactly "reality." I don't buy into those supposed events written up in fairy tales or religious texts. To my mind, none of that is actually real.

The only takeaway I can get from this is that you view reality as something tangible—like a physical book you can hold in your hands. When it comes to religious texts, the level of textual criticism we have here in the Western World is honestly enviable. Most historians are in total agreement that figures like Siddhartha, Jesus of Nazareth, and others mentioned in these scriptures are grounded in historical reality.

Look, I’m not trying to be insulting here, but in my view, if someone credits their entire life and everything they’ve built to some external entity and lives solely for some supposed afterlife, they naturally lose the ability to distinguish rationality from irrationality—or reality from whatever isn't actually real. Your posts are a perfect example of that. 🙂

It’s not about whether you have value; it’s just that you seem to struggle with basic definitions. Using "the Creator" and "the afterlife" as synonyms doesn't work, and when you swap out standard definitions for your own personal ones while ignoring the fundamental rules of logic, you end up making it pretty hard for anyone to take you seriously as a conversationalist.

coppersailor28 said:I'm not convinced that "this isn't real, therefore it can't exist" constitutes a valid response to baseless claims.

... how one distinguishes between pure fantasy and actual reality.

Regarding the afterlife—that’s what you're after...
Is there any evidence supporting an afterlife? * /This serves as an answer to "how one distinguishes..."/

*If yes, list them. Full proof isn't necessary; even a minor hint pointing toward the possibility will do.

--------------
Reality
Fantasy
--------------

Haven't you heard that one yet? The whole "God can't exist because the universe is just too massive" argument. 🙂

So, you're actually interested in the whole afterlife thing? The whole "what happens when we die" debate?
Is there any actual evidence that an afterlife exists? That’s pretty much the core of what I’m asking here.What exactly defines something? It’s one of those questions that sounds simple until you actually try to pin it down."/

It all started with this one statement of mine:

Philosophically speaking, both paths require a foundation. Whether you're leaning into pure randomness or putting your faith in a Creator, neither one just happens in a vacuum—they both need a starting point to hold them up.

bluebison25 responded to that with something completely irrelevant—basically just claiming that "it isn't rational to believe." The afterlife., because..."

Let me rephrase: if one person believes in "coincidence" and another believes in a Creator, both sides need a solid philosophical foundation to back up their claims. It’s not enough to just state an opinion. For instance, if someone argues, "I believe in chance because God is a concept rather than a physical reality," they actually need to defend that logic. We really need to sit down and figure out where the line is between what’s actually happening and what's just playing tricks on our minds..

Please quote with understanding.

When it comes to the afterlife, I honestly don't have a clue. You see people who believe in all sorts of different gods but don't buy into anything after death, and then you see the exact opposite. Personally, I find the whole naturalism argument a bit laughable.

Paul Anderson2 said:I guess evolutionary processes aren't even that random, really. And honestly, you probably shouldn't trust your brain all the way anyway—there are plenty of perceptual and cognitive glitches out there (just look at the Monty Hall problem, for instance).

I'm aware of that, but I brought evolution into the conversation because so many people here insist it's just a blind process of natural selection. That thing about the three prisoners I read somewhere really stuck with me, and that’s what I was getting at—our brains tend to register whatever they want to register. There are countless examples of this, both positive and negative.

Just a quick thought for now; I'll get back to those other two posts tomorrow evening since my day is pretty packed. 🙂

👋

bluebison25 said:I’m telling you, believing in an afterlife or even in God just isn't rational. It’s nothing more than a product of human imagination and mental gymnastics, not actual reality.

Look, I’m not disputing your right to hold that opinion, but so far you haven't actually explained how you distinguish a mere fantasy from objective reality. No offense intended, but simply stating "this isn't real, therefore it can't exist" doesn't really cut it as a logical argument.

bluebison25 said:Comparing God to mere coincidence is a joke. That's my take on it.

I’m not even going to touch the "rationality" argument because, let's face it, you're clearly just following a religious dogma. How can we talk logic when all your "reasoning" was handed down to you by some divine being—while mine wasn't? It’s an uneven playing field.🤷

From a philosophical standpoint, both positions—believing everything is random versus believing in a Creator—require some kind of underlying foundation.

I'm not interested in debating rationality with you, since it's pretty obvious you're coming from a religious perspective. How are we supposed to have a rational conversation when your entire sense of logic was handed down to you by some higher being (or beings), while mine wasn't? 🤷

The definition of rationality seems fairly standard to me. Unless, of course, your actual goal here isn't really to have a discussion at all.😉

coppersailor28 said:Good grief. Evolution is supposedly the easiest concept to grasp, yet here we are. Where did you even pick up such an idea? (I haven't been following all your posts—I only noticed you during that "quclpocl..." bit, so forgive the surprise)

Fundamentally, everyone trusts their own brain. However, not every brain is equally capable of processing the data available to its "owner"—or comparing that data against reality when necessary.
(Assuming, of course, that the quantity and quality of information held by everyone were actually equal. Reality remains constant for us all)...

The truth is, plenty of people who swear by evolutionary theory don't actually understand it very well. 😁 I meant to say... well, I already said what I meant to say above. 😁

Quetzpvmwer 🙂

bluebison25 said:I’m standing my ground on this one. I refuse to credit any of this to some deity just because I've been reading those aggressive, terrifying ancient texts from the Middle East. It’s pure coincidence. Back then, people couldn't wrap their heads around a solar eclipse, lightning, or even a heavy snowstorm—they thought it was magic. We're looking at the same kind of ignorance today. 🙂

It’s pretty straightforward—I'm just pointing out that choosing that path isn't any more rational than believing in a Creator.

bluebison25 said:Now this is just turning into a joke. If we’re going to communicate seriously, then let's be serious—though I can play the joker just fine if I feel like it. That's exactly why I used quotation marks; to make it clear what was being quoted. But clearly, some people aren't blessed with basic literacy, which you keep proving to me. 🤷

edit: And get this, my friend. Every human being has an organ called a brain. It's what sends commands to the body to perform tasks, to think, to build knowledge, and everything else we do. And us believers—we "imagine" how our spiritual side, which is linked to the body, manages all that via our one and only imaginary creation known as God :d

If that brain is nothing more than the byproduct of random evolutionary accidents, why on earth would anyone actually trust its conclusions?

Not really.

It basically boils down to asking why you should bother brushing your teeth every day.

Regarding Japanese Zen Buddhism, yeah. Like I said before, the whole idea of meditation is basically "doing nothing," which is surprisingly hard for most people to actually pull off. 😁 I picked this up from a Dutch Buddhist priest who practices Soto Zen. There are all sorts of different types of meditation out there—Buddhist, Hindu, whatever—but I'm strictly talking about this specific branch.

You’re supposed to sit there and breathe straight, but honestly, with enough practice, you’ll figure out the mechanics eventually—more or less. In Zen meditation, you just let the thoughts flow until the mind finally settles down. That takes a long time. You start with a few minutes here and there, gradually stretching it out, and once the mind actually hits that quiet spot, certain insights tend to surface. And that’s really all there is to it. It isn't some grand spectacle, and it doesn't magically make your life easier or anything. Like I said, Zen meditation is essentially "doing nothing." All this circus surrounding the "correct" way to sit or how to breathe... it's just a desperate attempt to exert control. People think if they sit this way or breathe that way, they'll suddenly be granted some kind of great spiritual power, but that's just not how it works.

It really depends on what kind of practice you’re talking about. In Zen Buddhism, meditating basically just means "doing nothing"—you let your thoughts flow by until they eventually settle down on their own. Other styles involve focusing on specific imagery or using mantras. Honestly, people tend to overcomplicate things with all this mysticism when it isn't actually necessary. The truth is, most people find it difficult simply because sitting still and finding some peace is harder than it looks. 🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:It’s obvious you don't even grasp scientific terminology if you're calling creationism a "phenomenon" of early Christianity ( 😂 ). And this whole thing about the church fathers is just laughable. If it weren't so pathetic, I might actually find it funny. 🙂[/I]

Well, since you've got it all figured out, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals? 🙂
Well, since you've got it all figured out, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals? 🙂
Well, since you've got it all figured out, why don't you enlighten us mere mortals? 🙂
I’d like to think people are mature enough to handle it when someone brings up certain *ahem* specifics, like hermeneutics and exegesis , or dives into historical lists; surely they can digest those little *ahem* details. 🙂

wearyowl29 said:Let’s be honest: men basically invented sex work just to have an outlet in a world they built entirely for themselves. For the longest time, marriage was treated like this sacred, untouchable institution—often totally devoid of actual intimacy—leaving guys looking for a way to blow off steam elsewhere. It’s a heavy reality, though. When you look at those who sell their bodies, they often feel like they have nothing else left to offer. You see people struggling with addiction, or folks living on the absolute fringes of society. Then you have the students, just trying to scrape by and patch up some holes in their bank accounts between classes. It's a tough cycle. That said, things have shifted. Modern nightlife and the industry today offer much more than what previous generations had access to—though, obviously, that isn't true for everyone or everywhere!
Prostitution isn't actually about sexual freedoms. I mean, those "freedoms" we talk about? They’re relatively young concepts. This whole trade for entertainment is way older than the Bible!
Women today have so much more sexual freedom, which is honestly such a breath of fresh air! Of course, you can still find plenty of people holding onto old-school inhibitions—it’s funny how those internal barriers can stick around even when the world changes. I was chatting with a friend about this over coffee yesterday, and it really got me thinking about how much individual journeys vary. It’s all about that personal balance, isn't it? Such an interesting time to be alive!😉Honestly, she just doesn't feel that social pressure to rush into marriage anymore, especially since her husband... well, you know how it goes!
It’s going to be a headache, honestly. Plus, let’s face it—access to contraception just isn't what it used to be for everyone. It's getting harder to navigate.
Look, let's get one thing straight: being a sex worker is a profession, plain and simple. That is fundamentally different from just being an ordinary woman who happens to have multiple partners throughout her life. It’s obvious that people are getting their wires crossed on this one!

To each their own. I'm not even going to dive into the scholasticism of it all here.

Anthony Perez9 said:silentridge8 says:
Creationism and literalist Bible readings are relatively modern phenomena.[/I]

Creationism was there from the start.
Jesus, Paul, and Peter were pure creationists. Just like all the early Christians and the Church Fathers.
Everyone believed in Noah and his flood, a young earth, the universe transforming when Jesus returns, the entire earth going dark for three hours at the crucifixion, and so on. I mean, how could it be any other way? 😕
As science progressed, the church had to slowly crawl toward more symbolism, basically playing along while quietly acknowledging scientific breakthroughs like evolution.

The same logic applies to women's rights.

It’s clear you don't really grasp scientific terminology or how to use it, considering you’re framing creationism as some specific "phenomenon" from early Christianity ( 😂 ). And this whole bit about the Church Fathers is honestly laughable. If it weren't so sad, of course. 🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s how it's always been read, up until recently. Only a tiny handful of people ever really leaned into the symbolism and allegories—kind of like how Origen did with certain parts. That's exactly why he was branded a hated heretic. 😁

The literalist approach to the Bible really only gained traction with Protestantism; using symbolism and allegory was actually the standard back in the day. Origen was never truly viewed as an apostate; rather, some people just completely misinterpreted his writings on transmigration 😬

dustyskipper3 said:That biblical perspective is essentially rooted in creationism. The Creator made the world, the plants, the animals, and then, as the peak of creation, He made Adam in His own image—followed by Eve from his rib to be his companion, though she was led astray by the serpent, and so on. So, when people blame all the evil in the world on women—that whole cherchez la femme idea—well, even Bora Čorba acknowledges that sentiment. But the theory of evolution offers a different view, I think. It suggests our genes aren't inherently more valuable than those of a fruit fly; in fact, we carry quite a few of the same genes. Similarly, a woman's genes or her X chromosome can't be a priori less valuable than a man's genes or the Y chromosome. The issue, perhaps, is that how much certain genes are "valued" is determined by whoever holds power in society, which has mostly been men, so suddenly the traits carried by the Y chromosome become "superior." There isn't really a difference, if you think about it, between gender discrimination and racial discrimination—it all comes down to genetics. Those Nazi racial theories claiming an "Aryan" race exists, while others like Slavs, Black people, Roma, or Jewish people are "inferior," aren't any worse than the widespread theories regarding the genetic inferiority of women, which both rely on a creationist worldview. In the past, the Bible was used to justify slavery, claiming Black people were lesser beings in the eyes of God, but today we understand that the New Testament actually forbids all forms of slavery. I suspect the same logic should apply to women, though I suppose it depends on how believers choose to interpret it in practice. On one hand, the right to choice should mean liberating women from a kind of servitude, yet on the other hand, some see it as violating human rights—specifically the embryo's right to life. It’s not a simple problem, maybe, but I personally don't believe an embryo can be considered a person. I’m not sure if that’s just a product of secularization, because I suspect that historically, people didn't consider a conception to be a person either—only someone who was born or could potentially survive birth. Yet, today, our knowledge of evolution and genetics has somehow birthed a new way to subjugate women, based on the idea that humanity begins at conception. So, education and secularization don't always lead to progress in consciousness; they might just lead to new types of fundamentalism. For instance, there is very advanced science in Iran—oil engineering, for example, and they produce enriched uranium—but still...

Creationism and taking the Bible literally are relatively modern phenomena.