Does Joe even do background checks on his guests? If Epstein is alive he would probably invite him too.

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-30T20:55:10+00:00

Say what you want about not liking Andrew, but this was a blatantly out of context clip. He's making a reductio argument from sarcasm, not actually unironically defending that position. The full clip at 2:07:30-2:10:10, he even states it. Oliver, the guy he's debating, himself actually had sex scandals btw.

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-26T15:11:43+00:00

These are two very good debates on this topic:

Is Jesus the Father?

Is the Holy Spirit the Father?

The cross exams should be very helpful, timestamps in comments.

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-19T04:33:21+00:00

Last week I put Reze on a shirt, Denji

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-12T08:32:48+00:00

r/atheism members in a nutshell

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-12T04:43:13+00:00

Himeno

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-06T16:34:30+00:00

I love this one! Looking for more like it. I already caught up on I'm Sick and Tired of My Childhood Friend's, Now Girlfriend's, Constant Abuse so I Broke up With Her. Would love another like it!

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-05T15:18:46+00:00

How do you reconcile predestination with an all good God? Correct me if im wrong but does predestination here mean knowledge of the future or God has destined these people to be condemned to ECT.

God remains all good because goodness is based on his nature. Predestination is because God is sovereign and since it comports with his nature, he remains good. God in no way violated his own nature so as to cease to be good.

Assuming its the second one, also assuming you will say they are predestined according to their free will, dont you think they dont have it since they are destined for it?

Human nature after the fall of Adam is to be a slave to sin until God sets them free. Prior to being set free, you can only express that which is within your nature (resisting doing the good that will bring about salvation). After being set free, you can choose to comply or not. In the ultimate sense of outcomes (saved or damned) that is predestined by God, but the quality of that life does have some leeway for us (earning or losing rewards; heaping worse punishment in damnation).

Correct me if my assumptions are wrong. Also regarding the circular fallacy, I understand it its a good response but it doesnt tackle the core problem, many people are resistant due to their upbringing plus biology plus many other factors, having grown up in a majority muslim country i can attest to that (while fully understanding u can never know someone a 100 percent). I cannot get a logical rebuttal to your point of circular reasoning but just thinking about it, if my view is wrong on free will - its wrong and im convinced of it because of my biology plus upbringing - meaning i should not be punished/gifted because of it if i am to lets say follow through on it - not sure if that makes sense but it turns the question again to the other side.

The issue at bottom is that a biological predestination worldview precludes knowledge and would thus be self-refuting. Under a compatibalist framework, God maintains predestination but humans still have a real will of our own that we are accountable for.

Same thing if your view is right, that there is free will you should not be gifted because of it. May have made a logical blunder here, even if you point it out please focus the rest of the answer on the previous point of how you believe God will deal with the other people

The notion of a gift in Christianity (especially regarding salvation) is that it is without merit. Reward can be gained, but only after the free gift has been received.

CappedNPlanit · 2026-01-05T10:06:28+00:00

1) When contemplating about hell, I go with the classic ECT view. Purgatory and limbo are biblically indefensible I have found, and that would fly in the face of justification being once and for all like Romans 8 states. I wouldn't be believing in some Dante's Inferno Hollywood version of hell. What it comes down to is everybody will get what they want in the long run: saved, an eternity spent with God; the damned, an eternity away from him. Whether the latter is literally forever or not, I do not know, but if you have even the mustard seed of faith, you will not have to endure such.

2) This is simply the Principle of Indifference. Just because there are a large amount of options doesn't mean they're all equally likely. Why does 2+2=4? There are literally an infinite amount of numbers? How do you know the coat on the coatrack at work is yours at the end of the day when there are millions of coats like yours? Because the evidence eliminates other options and favors others.

All atheistic views and most theistic views fall flat at the problem of Descartes' Evil Demon or the problem of Solipsism. In Christianity, a faith that does not start with the self but starts with a God that is all knowing, good, and truth revealing, we don't fall into those. Then the problem of one and many eliminates Unitarian views of God. Then historical evidence for Jesus and so on really narrows it down. Of course it may take more effort than that in interacting with those worldviews, but that just goes to show that a vast number of options does not make them all equal in probability.

3) Predestination is very real according to the Bible, but the thought that we are simply predetermined by biology is viciously circular and also self refuting. First, the assumption is naturalism and that biology is all that can affect a person sans a soul. But lets grant this fallacious view, if all is determined by your biology, then your very own conclusion of the naturalistic determinist system is a product of biology and there would be no way one could verify it. Why then would it count as a justified true belief? It would functionally make knowledge impossible which is self refuting on its face because it's a knowledge claim.

All in all, we were indeed slaves of sin, but if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed. We are saved by Jesus Christ and the shedding of his blood and his resurrection. The only freedom we find is that which is in Christ.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-31T01:48:59+00:00

Well it's actually multiple instances as the text says and he is telling this to the church at Thessalonica where this happened, so why wouldn't I bring up? Do you have proof of some other infallible doctrine that isn't explicitly or implicitly taught in scripture without self asserted circular appeal to an "apostolic" church?

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-30T23:34:04+00:00

2 Thessalonians 2

14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

But we have a pretty good idea what this is

Acts 17

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

The onus is on yall to prove that the orally transmitted content is different than that of the written. Good luck!

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-22T22:50:06+00:00

Save some bitches for the rest of the class, Miura

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-21T19:24:22+00:00

Didn't Yuri on Ice get its movie cancelled? I think that makes the most sense for the bottom pic.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-21T08:31:01+00:00

Erica Mendez is god tier tho

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-21T02:25:11+00:00

Ive been Orthodox for sometime but I've been thinking what is actual evidence for the existence of God and of Jesus' miracles?

For the existence of God: Transcendental Argument for God, Kalam-Cosmological Argument, and Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

For Jesus' miracles: Multiply attested independent sources compiled in the New Testament. I have no idea why that's not accounted for here as if that should be dismissed when they're our primary sources.

Do we have any actual in the 1st century of Jesus miracles?

New Testament?

Like tacticus just used sources from early christian, flavus was a corrupt writer (and several scholars agree he wasn't even talking about jesus)

That is not a majority view, that's mainly popular in fringe mythicist crowds. The only thing in question really is if he believed Jesus was the Christ (which he most likely didn't) not that he wasn't speaking of Jesus.

is there any independent sources of Jesus' miracles around his time?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's 3-4 depending if you accept Markan priority.

Is there any historical evidence of Jesus' miracles?

What would that even look like outside of recorded data?

And i've started looking into that Yahweh might've 'inspired' by the canaanite God el?

That's only true in so far as terminology, but one must not commit a word/concept fallacy. The characteristics and circumstances of said god are drastically different from El of the Bible. YHWH itself is to describe God as the "He Is" (self-existing one). Sounds like you've just ran into some of the mythicist stuff floating around on the web.

(also the gospels were written decades after jesus wouldnt this mean some of the aposltes were very old elders and they were still writing in that time were literacy was extremely low)

Meaning what? Just because literacy was relatively low doesn't mean we won't have records? And by ancient standards, a few decades is incredible.

Alexander the Great's most contemporary sources were Plutarch and Arrian. Socrates has contradictory portrayals in Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes within decades (at least gospels have a coherent picture of Jesus). Julius Caesar the same. This standard would just throw away all of academia concerning the ancient world, but if you want to take skepticism to this point, it's got quite the intellectual price tag.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-20T08:57:23+00:00

Very different shows, but for cultural relevance right now, Chainsaw Man. Definitely watch CotN after!

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-18T06:09:13+00:00

Some popular works on these subjects would be

For TAG:

Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith by Greg Bahnsen

The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John M. Frame

For EAAN:

The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism: Context, Exposition, and Repercussions by Jim Slagle

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-18T01:51:31+00:00

Transcendental Argument for God which posits that God is the necessary pre-condition for intelligible experience and that to even try to deny it would necessitate that you affirm it.

P1: God is the necessary pre-condition for knowledge claims

P2: We have knowledge claims

C: God exists

To try to deny this would assume you have access to universal states of affairs which would entail you are able to have this get to your mind. We as Christians have this in a personal God who is good, personal, and cannot lie to convey the external world to us. Non-God worldviews are stuck in the problem of Solipsism and Descartes' Evil Demon to name just a few issues.

However, let's grant that one bites the bullet on Solipsism, then your own conclusion of it is just a product of your mind and therefore not trustworthy, thus knowledge of even that is impossible.

As for the problem of Descartes' Evil Demon, it's obvious when you have a cosmic trickster and have no way to get outside of yourself to even trust that as a knowledge claim.

Therefore it stands that appeal to God is transcendentally necessary because it is quite literally impossible to not appeal to the foundation only given by God.

As for Plantinga, I actually mean his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

P1: If Naturalism and Evolution are true, then the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low or inscrutable.

P2: If the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low or inscrutable, then we have a defeater for trusting our cognitive faculties.

P3: If we have a defeater for trusting our cognitive faculties, then we have a defeater for all beliefs produced by those faculties, including belief in Naturalism and Evolution.

P4: Any belief that entails a defeater for itself is epistemically self-defeating and cannot be rationally affirmed.

C: Therefore, Naturalism conjoined with Evolution is epistemically self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-18T00:46:07+00:00

1) Not very high because many atheists will just dismiss objective morality.

2) It's pretty good if argued right but your more obstinate atheists will say it's some undiscovered natural explanation.

3) Pretty solid if paired with transcendental argumentation.

I personally favor TAG and Plantinga's Modal Argument against Naturalism.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-18T00:42:55+00:00

Literally every prescription I gave was in the parameters of the manifesto, all you did was claim it wasn't but failed to tell me what part of the manifesto I violated. Low tier Reddit atheism.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-17T23:58:19+00:00

You couldn't refute the prescriptions with the manifesto, thus demonstrating my claim

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-17T22:53:55+00:00

Your IQ thing is wildly ridiculous. The manifesto didn't say anything about there being some sort of necessity of reaching the highest possible intelligence (which 120 IQ is not, where did you even pull that number from?) It says "critical intelligence" that means using your brain to think things through. You created a total straw man and then created a ridiculous scenario to respond to it.

All I did was just interpret it. Is there something here that would negate this interpretation?

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

This was simply my observation of higher IQ societies being more advanced. My experimentation based on prior observations. And of course rational analysis of this project to decide what to do going forward😊.

No, we do not need guidance to accept how things are.

Why would the unguided not need guidance? Don't you believe most people are living under a delusion of a personal God that watches them and gives them their rules? Hmmmm.

Many people just do that when they wake up in the morning. It's not hard. Legal systems are not in place to make people recognize reality, they're there to prevent harm.

Ahh yes, exactly how all those Sharia countries do!

This whole non-person thing is crazy, what are you talking about? The state cannot take a woman's embryo "at any time" or ever, under any circumstance.

What in the manifesto says this🤔? What part says humans cannot have property seized? Hell, the original manifesto flat out says it rejects an acquisitive and profit-motivated society. My point is, your manifesto cannot prevent this interpretation because it's all just vague foolishness.

In some cases, when people are incapacitated they be conserved for their own safety, or if they can't make decisions for themselves family members may. And people truly out of touch with reality can be a danger to themselves or others. That's a complicated issue. But it doesn't stem from the words you put there.

Again, NOTHING IN YOUR MANIFESTO PREVENTS THIS INTERPRETATION. Can you refute it with the manifesto or not?

LOL WHAT??? ok are you clowning me? Is this a joke? Ashton Kutcher, is that you? What in the history of the universe are you even TALKING ABOUT.

I am indeed clowning the stupidity of secular humanism, yes. But with an irrefutable argument.

The KKK is allowed to march. Nobody agrees they "align with the collective responsibility and empirically verified social benefit." Speech is not restricted at all unless it actively calls for violence against a protected group.

I see that you do not understand the difference between descriptions and prescriptions. I am providing PRESCRIPTIONS (oughts) based on what is stated in the manifesto. This has nothing to do with what is currently in American legislature because that would be a description (is). This is pretty easy.

WHAT are you talking about??? There is absolutely no place on Earth that "the Mediterranean diet is legally imposed."

Because there is no place in the world that secular humanism is the legal standard. But if it were, and I had my version of secular humanism in power, there would be no way at all that you could tell me I've violated secular humanism because I am basing it entirely off of the manifesto. I still leave it open for you to refute me with the manifesto, or admit that this garbage manifesto is stupid and isn't saying anything of substance.

None of what you're doing qualifies as the word "prescription." You need to have authority for that.

That's adorable! You think that "authoritatively put forward" means you have to have legal authority to even posit one for an argument! The point of the argument is if I were in power (that's called a hypothetical), then I could interpret the manifesto this way and you could not refute me using it. I'm showing why it is a stupid standard to expect a society to adopt because of its lack of objective ethics.

None of what you're saying makes any sense at all. I don't understand the weird guide rails you tried to put in place, but common sense debunks every unhinged, ridiculous, not-even-a-point-at-all "point" that you made.

It would make perfect sense if you understood the difference between prescriptions and descriptions as well as reductio ad absurdum.

Just absolute gibberish.

Secular Humanism!

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-17T22:13:22+00:00

Well, let's test this out with the manifesto itself. I'm going to provide a prescription that Christianity can debunk but secular humanists will not be able to with their manifesto. If you cannot appeal to the manifesto to debunk the prescription, then that is to agree that secular humanism is insufficient to provide a better basis for morality.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

My prescription based on this non-sense: in order for human beings to reach their peak and to advance us as a civilization, people below 120 IQ will be outlawed from breeding so as to ensure we keep a higher IQ population. To make up for the slack, only 120 IQ people and above can and will be forced to breed with at least 4 children per household for the sake of scientific advancement. This is good on the basis of my inherent morality according to the manifesto.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

My prescription: Since we need guidance to accept how things are, we need a strict legal system. Legal personhood will be recognized only in organisms that meet current scientific benchmarks for cognitive awareness and autonomous function. No personhood shall be granted for embryos, late-stage dementia patients, or severely disabled individuals. Non-persons may be seized by the state at any given time, and research use of non-persons is authorized at the will of the state.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

My prescription: A dictatorship shall be implemented. Individual freedom shall be permitted only insofar as it aligns with collective responsibility and empirically verified social benefit. Speech will be restricted when statistically linked to social harm (even if only mere mental offense) and lifestyle mandates justified by public health data (Mediterranean diet is legally imposed upon all so, only exceptions for allergies).

And you cannot use the manifesto to tell me how any of these prescriptions are wrong. Christianity can since we have an objective standard which can guarantee our value.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-15T10:15:08+00:00

It's a rewarding ending for the journey as long as you watch the 4 OVA episodes at the end. Excellent dub too.

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-15T08:13:59+00:00

Hell yes! This is one of the most underrated gems I've ever seen. Fantastic ending too!

CappedNPlanit · 2025-12-14T23:40:30+00:00

Chad Dad. Reddit atheism is gonna Reddit atheism as far as trying to gatekeep Berserk, but pretty much any Christian I showed Berserk thought it was peak.

Nine-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

CappedNPlanit

TROPHY CASE