To be clear, I don't think that mindfulness does build up healthy egos - that's the stated aim of mindfulness practices in a clinical context. The idea being that you can reduce anxiety, rumination, and depression by routinely flexing your mental muscles, as it were. Mindfulness ideology will say no no no, that's not the point at all...ego is a bad word to them - but clinically, as a component of cbt, that's the whole (alleged) enchilada. In a dennet like explanation a minority report is being elicited. We don't have control over attention, we literally are attention. In a zen like explanation that "something" is the environment, rather than an independent ego with control of mind, which is illusory.

(September 9, 2026 at 8:23 am)Angrboda Wrote: One of the points which has always confused me is why they view humans and God as morally unequal, that God's subjective view counts for more than mine.

You're assuming God's moral judgment is just another subjective opinion, no different from yours.

That's like a student claiming their understanding of a subject carries the same authority as the teacher's simply because both have opinions.

How does having your own opinion make your judgment equal to God's moral authority? 
Or, 
How can a person with limited knowledge and understanding claim their judgment is equal to that of God, who knows everything?

In Christian theology, God's judgment has authority because He is the source of the moral standard, not merely someone expressing an opinion about it.
His authority rests on three claims:

1. Creator: God is the source of human existence and the moral order.
   
2. Omniscience: God knows every fact, intention, consequence and circumstance.
   
3. Perfect goodness: God's nature is perfectly good, so His judgments are not corrupted by ignorance, prejudice or wrongdoing.
   

The critical distinction: Knowing everything makes God's judgment fully informed. Being perfectly good makes it morally trustworthy. Being the source of the moral order establishes His authority.
A student may disagree with a teacher, but disagreement alone does not establish equal knowledge or expertise.
Likewise, disagreeing with God's judgment does not establish that His moral authority is equal to yours.
This is the Christian position. The next question is whether the opponent can demonstrate that God's moral judgments are merely subjective opinions.

(October 9, 2026 at 11:41 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 8:20 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You've repeated your original accusation instead of answering my question.

How did you establish that God killed the person?

Repeating a claim isn't evidence for it. Either demonstrate how you reached that conclusion or acknowledge that you haven't established it.

Because God could have saved the person and didn’t. QED.

Boru

You've established that God could have prevented the death, not that He caused it.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

QED requires a proof, not an assertion.

(October 12, 2026 at 3:42 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: To be clear, I don't think that mindfulness does build up healthy egos - that's the stated aim of mindfulness practices in a clinical context.  The idea being that you can reduce anxiety, rumination, and depression by routinely flexing your mental muscles, as it were.  Mindfulness ideology will say no no no, that's not the point at all...ego is a bad word to them -  but clinically, as a component of cbt, that's the whole (alleged) enchilada. In a dennet like explanation a minority report is being elicited.  We don't have control over attention, we literally are attention.  In a zen like explanation that "something" is the environment, rather than an independent ego with control of mind, which is illusory.

If we go back to the old days of our chats, and I can barely even remember it, I think my viewpoint neuroscience-wise was that consciousness was essentially along for the ride... that it had no causal power in its own right, but instead just mirrored somehow, every physical.. and determined... state of the brain. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about when you say willful control of attention is an illusion? If so, then yes, I can accept something like that, pretty fine, though I haven't thought about it in those sorts of terms for a long time.

At the end of the day, my old view remains the same that we are physically determined beings, so 'choice' must be an illusion in that sense, but nonetheless in our consciousness it feels like we have a choice. But in Zen, are you saying you don't even feel like you have a choice? How does your 'environment' rather than choice, even just the illusion of choice, bring about an actual change in the content of your conscious experience moment by moment? You may think it doesn't affect things like anxiety and rumination, but I disagree on that, very much so... but at the same time, I don't care in the slightest what 'clinical' claims are being made by it, or for it, by things like CBT or whatever, co-opting it. As far as I'm concerned it reliably and directly reduces anxiety and rumination, just essentially by changing the subject of your focus, simple as that really. Labelling 'fear arising', and moving your attention back to your meditation or mindfulness object(s) so to speak, is a very different experience than getting sucked into that fear, and it, in my opinion, does reduce fear, in the moment, just by virtue of not feeding it... of not getting sucked into it, or less so. Do you disagree that in such a situation, fear is actually reduced, or do you just call it something different? If so, what? I.e. if so, how do you put what I described... the actions of mindfulness or meditation... into Zen terms?

(October 9, 2026 at 4:00 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 8:20 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You've repeated your original accusation instead of answering my question.

How did you establish that God killed the person?

Repeating a claim isn't evidence for it. Either demonstrate how you reached that conclusion or acknowledge that you haven't established it.

Do you really think your "arguments" are ever going to gain any traction here? If so, you really need to learn to read a room.

Absolutely. I intend to dominate this platform through sound reasoning and arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not here to seek approval or win popularity contests. I'm here to challenge claims, expose flawed reasoning, and defend my position.

If you have an argument, bring it. If you're more interested in reading the room, take a seat and remain a spectator.

Mark these words, Im the last one to the race and will be the last one standing. My opponents are gonna KNOW MY NAME!

(October 12, 2026 at 6:33 am)Silas Vane Wrote: In Christian theology, God's judgment has authority because He is the source of the moral standard, not merely someone expressing an opinion about it.
His authority rests on three claims:

1. Creator: God is the source of human existence and the moral order.
   
2. Omniscience: God knows every fact, intention, consequence and circumstance.
   
3. Perfect goodness: God's nature is perfectly good, so His judgments are not corrupted by ignorance, prejudice or wrongdoing.
   

Omniscience:

Gen 22:12 Wrote:He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me

Perfect goodness:

1Sam 15:3 Wrote: Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

Dont you think it would have been better to spare the



I mean, just look at ´em!

(October 9, 2026 at 5:33 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 8:15 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Do you accept or reject the biblical claim that Jesus Christ is God?

Reject.

Quote:And whichever answer you give, establish your reasoning.

There's no sane reason to believe that the stories of a Bronze Age deity that were mangled by the post-exilic monarchies of Israel and misinterpreted by a Roman mystery cult have anything to do with reality, much less the divine. The notion that the Creator of the Universe whelped a brat on some poor mortal woman is laughable in the extreme. The claim that the "deity" in question then sacrificed that human self to itself so that it could appease itself as long as you believed that the bastard was really him and had really saved you from an eternity of having your testiulos toasted in a volcano by giving up his long weekend should be the biggest load of rubbish ever spouted by a human.

You referred to Israel's "post-exilic monarchies" supposedly corrupting the biblical accounts.

You're reaching back centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ, yet somehow presenting this as an explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Which monarchies are you referring to, what exactly did they corrupt, and where is your historical evidence?

For someone so confident in his ridicule, you seem remarkably stupid in your knowledge of history.

Silas Vane Wrote:Absolutely. I intend to dominate this platform through sound reasoning and arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

And yet you haven't written anything reasonable or sound. Like when you write that god is mysterious:

Silas Vane Wrote:How does having your own opinion make your judgment equal to God's moral authority?
Or,
How can a person with limited knowledge and understanding claim their judgment is equal to that of God, who knows everything?

So, "god is good," but he's not healing people because "he's being mysterious" is nothing more than an ad hoc excuse.

So don't expect to be treated as anything else except as a clown.

(October 9, 2026 at 5:56 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 8:20 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You've repeated your original accusation instead of answering my question.

How did you establish that God killed the person?

Repeating a claim isn't evidence for it. Either demonstrate how you reached that conclusion or acknowledge that you haven't established it.

To be fair,  the deity in the bible is depicted as killing indiscriminately, even a global genocide, so it "has form" if you will, however leaving that and much more aside for now, maybe you can clarify this much, do you believe anything happens without your god's will?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

This is a very bad and weak argument, but I get it, You dont have the brain power to come up with an argument that you can create so you try and stand on the shoulders of someone who lived a long time ago but had no real understanding of cause and effect.

If this was your one shot at stardom, bruh you need Jesus more than youre willing to admit. Here is my reply.

Epicurus' argument rests on an assumption you've yet to establish: that God who is both willing and able to prevent evil must therefore prevent all evil.


Why?
Being able to prevent something doesn't automatically establish an obligation to prevent it.

Furthermore, God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others, without approving of those actions or being morally responsible for them.

Now demonstrate why God's failure to prevent evil necessarily makes Him either powerless or malevolent.

Until you establish that connection, quoting Epicurus is a brain-dead move. You're borrowing someone else's conclusion without establishing the reasoning that makes it true.

(October 12, 2026 at 6:59 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Silas Vane Wrote:Absolutely. I intend to dominate this platform through sound reasoning and arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

And yet you haven't written anything reasonable or sound. Like when you write that god is mysterious:

Silas Vane Wrote:How does having your own opinion make your judgment equal to God's moral authority?
Or,
How can a person with limited knowledge and understanding claim their judgment is equal to that of God, who knows everything?

So, "god is good," but he's not healing people because "he's being mysterious" is nothing more than an ad hoc excuse.

So don't expect to be treated as anything else except as a clown.

Show me where I argued that God doesn't heal people because "He's being mysterious."

You won't find it. You've invented an argument, attributed it to me, and then attacked it. That's a textbook straw man.

Now, put the name-calling aside and address what I actually wrote.

How does your limited knowledge give you the authority to declare God's judgment morally wrong?

If you have an argument, establish it. Attacking something I never said is a weak man's move.

“Calling me a clown doesn't make your argument any stronger. 

It just tells me and everyone else you've run out of gun powder and resorted to name-calling. 

Now, can you defend your claims, or are insults all you have left?” If insults are all you have left, defeating you in an argument was "child's play" chucky!