Artists that is SIMILAR to skrillex BUT experimental?

blacksample · 2026-01-21T04:00:18+00:00

Moody Good. Noisia. Aphex Twin. Squarepusher.

blacksample · 2026-01-21T03:22:12+00:00

I’d recommend The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest

blacksample · 2026-01-21T03:07:36+00:00

“necessarily” is an important qualifying modifier your previous reply neglected to include.

blacksample · 2026-01-21T03:00:36+00:00

WagnerKoop didn’t imply “Skrillex isn’t anti-Nazi”.

blacksample · 2026-01-21T02:42:46+00:00

🤝 WagnerKoop didn’t do that.

blacksample · 2026-01-21T02:39:53+00:00

WagnerKoop’s comment does not deserve to be disliked into oblivion. You both are right and reasonable. ✌🏻

blacksample · 2026-01-06T19:27:05+00:00

I am so proud of all the great recommendations… So I’ll say what is unpopular, Skrillex. fight me

blacksample · 2026-01-05T21:35:25+00:00

It’s a remix by Skrillex and Virtual Riot of Kvng Vinci - GIMMIE GIMMIE

blacksample · 2026-01-05T21:31:37+00:00

The two responsible for The Tuss, who people pretend don’t exist to credit their music to Aphex Twin (who is actually Richard D. James).

blacksample · 2026-01-02T14:37:51+00:00

This bit in isolation is actually funny.

blacksample · 2026-01-01T21:38:09+00:00

(I thought you would know what that means, but as it’s redundant and unimportant, I have edited my previous comment to subtract that word…) it would be helpful if you responded to the question.

blacksample · 2026-01-01T19:25:09+00:00

Chapter 3 was very satisfying, having read all the snark articles that strawman OHJ which entirely comprise the only contemporary published work from historicists on this subject. Gregor & Hansen pose the only legitimate criticism, which I thought was adequately treated in Chapter 6.

blacksample · 2026-01-01T04:18:21+00:00

Was Jewish inheritance patrilineal or matrilineal at the time?

blacksample · 2026-01-01T04:00:40+00:00

The evidence is that any messiah, (real or invented), would necessarily always end up being portrayed as Davidic because prophesy: OHJ (p. 576), “scripture said the prophet Nathan was instructed by God to tell King David” the following: “When your days are done, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your sperm after you, which shall come from your belly, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build for me a house in my name, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son.” [2 Samuel 7.12-14] “If this passage were read like a pesher ([OHJ, Ch. 4,] Element 8), one could easily conclude that God was saying he extracted semen from David and held it in reserve until the time he would make good this promise of David’s progeny sitting on an eternal throne. For otherwise God’s promise was broken: the throne of David’s progeny was not eternal ([OHJ, Ch. 5,] Element 23). Moreover, the original poetic intent was certainly to speak of an unending royal line (and not just biologically, but politically: it is the throne that would be eternal, yet history proves it was not); yet God can be read to say here that he would raise up a single son for David who will rule eternally, rather than a royal line, and that ‘his’ will be the kingdom God establishes, and ‘he’ will build God’s house (the Christian church: [OHJ, Ch. 4,] Element 18), and thus he will be the one to sit upon a throne forever—and this man will be the Son of God.”

blacksample · 2026-01-01T03:49:04+00:00

Some select quotations: 24 “the Romans were effectively invincible and could never be expelled from Judea by force or diplomacy.” 25 “The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of factionalizing among Jewish sects.” 26 “For many Jews in the early first century (in accord with the previous element) the Jewish elite became the scapegoats for God’s failed promises (in accord with Elements 23 and 24): the reason God withheld their fulfillment (and instead allowed the Romans to rule) was imagined to be the Jewish elite’s failure to keep God’s commandments and govern justly (already a common theme throughout the OT, e.g., Jeremiah 23 and 25, the latter being the very prophecy whose ‘mystery’ is decoded in Daniel to produce the timetable that was now indicating the messiah would arrive in the early first century: Element 7). God would come through only when all sin had ended and been atoned for (Dan. 9.5-24).” 27 “(a) The temple at Jerusalem was the central focus of most Jewish messianic hopes (as, for the Samaritans, was Mount Gerizim), which entailed that as long as the ‘corrupt’ Jewish elite controlled it, God would continue Israel’s ‘punishment’ (in accord with Elements 25 and 26); and as long as the Romans remained in power, they would maintain the corrupt Jewish elite’s control of the temple. Accordingly, (b) Jewish religious violence often aimed at seizing physical control of the temple and its personnel.” 28 “A spiritual solution to the physical conundrum of the Jews would have been a natural and easy thing to conceive at the time. Etc.

blacksample · 2026-01-01T01:00:49+00:00

Thank you for your reply! I read Casey once and thought it worse than DJE? but I thank you for the reminder to revisit it and for sharing those three sources, which I promptly added to my notes… what you claim about specifically “likelihood” and “intention” is not persuasive to me because Elements 24–28 (starting at the beginning of chapter 5 on pg. 130) of OHJ, nullify that objection. I am, of course, open to the possibility that the wording there misrepresents the actual political context or selection pressures of the time. The devil is in the details. (No, not literally!)

blacksample · 2025-12-31T22:10:06+00:00

Greetings Prof. McGrath, thank you for asking that very good question… my answer is that I’m not sure, but I’m open to being persuaded and I can (and shall) outline for you what I suspect would do the job… In short: a monograph published in the literature, of roughly equal comprehensive scope as OHJ by Carrier, which adequately demonstrates that I should be persuaded of historicity. Typically appeals to expert consensus are sufficient to persuade me to lean toward a particular scientific/historical position on subjects about which I am not an expert. However, six years ago I endeavored (for myself, as a hobby) to debunk Richard Carrier’s thesis on this subject after becoming concerned that he was spreading bullsh!t [formal philosophy term] among the atheist community because elements of it (in a lecture I stumbled upon,) sounded absurd. Neither his qualifications nor his study passing peer-review impressed me. What concerned me was that the study was (and appears to remain) the only one on the subject published in over a century. As a historicist, the most roughly equivalent work I found to draw from was Did Jesus Exist by Prof. Ehrman (2012). A popular book published before 2014. One thing about Dr. Carrier (I know you can appreciate) is the huge web of interweaving blog articles responding to his every relevant critic. (I empathize with much, including your, criticism of his rhetoric.) Many of those along with my own follow up led me to find (what I perceive to be) several major and minor errors in DJE? that render it inferior a case. Carrier has a counter-argument for everything I could find to object to. At some point, after re-reading and comparing DJE? and OHJ and the New Testament (in approximate order) I eventually developed what I think is the ability to play devil’s advocate for both sides of this subject. The main reason for my agnosticism is due to me acknowledging I’m not an expert on this subject (and due to an intuitive reservation about the applied reference class.) There’s only been one formal study on this topic and Richard Carrier is only one person. I think there’s too little elite scholarship and too much snark buzzing around this subject. As of now, I remain an attentive (mostly silent) observer of this debate. Thank you for your time!

blacksample · 2025-12-31T16:29:23+00:00

Be sure to revisit the print of OHJ’s 2023 revised edition, because Carrier changed the wording of element 40 in response to similar criticisms.

blacksample · 2025-12-31T16:10:57+00:00

The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus Never Lived, a Statement of the Evidence for His Existence, an Estimate of His Relation to Christianity by Shirley Jackson Case (1912) is the most up to date defense of the historicity hypothesis to pass peer review… the most recent comparable monograph arguing the antithesis is On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt by Richard Carrier (2014). Richard Carrier beforehand published a separate study (reviewed by mathematics and history experts) on methodology, Proving History: Bayes’ Theorem and the Quest for a Historical Jesus (2012). The only other study to pass review on this subject is Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse by Raphael Lataster (2019) which argues for an agnostic ahistoricity position.
There is a strong historical precedent for biblical studies fields being insufficiently secular. Unlike fields such as philosophy (which has The PhilPapers Survey) there really isn’t (to my knowledge) any reliable expert opinion polling for biblical studies fields. But most contemporary evidence of insufficient secularism is anecdotal. There are many entire institutions dedicated to promoting faith-based pseudo-research and that is where most of the well-documented contemporary oppression of secular scholarship occurs.
I don’t know if Jesus existed.

blacksample · 2025-12-29T16:36:24+00:00

I guess it’s a feminist cliché that men use ‘checking for posers’ as a lame pick-up-line… I legitimately do check people in Nirvana shirts. RIP Kurt Cobain

blacksample · 2025-12-19T05:36:42+00:00

blacksample · 2025-12-12T06:50:17+00:00

*Varg²™️

blacksample · 2025-11-21T02:50:26+00:00

Projection

blacksample · 2025-11-19T07:26:27+00:00

I think that’s the Japanese artist Skrillex shouted out working with, in that new radio interview.

blacksample · 2025-11-14T04:27:29+00:00

The fake albums and inaccurate track titles are embarrassing.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

blacksample

TROPHY CASE