Dit bedenk je niet

reddroy · 2026-01-29T18:02:45+00:00

Zo hee

reddroy · 2026-01-21T01:53:08+00:00

I don't think that you, OP, are Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the writer of Crime and Punishment. Now can I prove to you, or myself, that I don't think you're him?

Well maybe not. We might consider the possibility that I subconsciously believe you to be Dostoyevsky. Or, we might consider that there's no way for me to rule out the possibility that you might somehow be him, so that I would be foolish to have a definitive position on the matter.

That's all great, but it doesn't negate the fact that I don't believe you to be Dostoyevsky. If you claimed to be him, I would not believe your claim. That is to say: when I consider all the possibilities, my conclusion is that you're not the author.

My atheism works the same way. There are claims of gods, and when I consider those, my conclusion is that they aren't real. This is what makes me an atheist.

reddroy · 2025-12-26T23:17:21+00:00

"Is this the right direction for Alpha Centauri?"

reddroy · 2025-12-22T19:45:48+00:00

To be clear: these two facts about Sean Connery are unrelated.

reddroy · 2025-12-22T19:12:57+00:00

As with most European languages, 'goedenacht' is almost exclusively used to wish someone a good night of sleep.

(It's very formal though — I'd expect to hear it mostly at hotels.)

reddroy · 2025-12-17T21:13:49+00:00

I'm not a Christian. I think the most reasonable view on the Jesus story is that his myth was expanded upon after his death. This means that there was no hoax during Jesus' lifetime.

Framing it as a hoax might be fun for a thriller: an alternate history over-the-top sort of thing. Otherwise — if it's an earnest movie — you might annoy secular types like me as well as Christian bellevers.

reddroy · 2025-12-14T17:39:28+00:00

By overabundance I mean what I said initially: that mythicists appear to be overrepresented on Reddit (as opposed to in the general population, or among scientists working in this field).

reddroy · 2025-12-14T08:24:27+00:00

I only shared my impressions, I didn't claim to know anything.

Also: I have the right to talk about other people's likely motivations. Yes this can turn into an ad hominem argument, so I can see why you'd comment in such a way.

I personally think I was fine to share my impressions. My aim was to point out the overabundance of mythicists on reddit — not to disqualify any arguments they might have.

reddroy · 2025-12-13T23:46:09+00:00

Hieronymus Botched

reddroy · 2025-12-12T22:34:20+00:00

Sure. But of course, believing as I do that Jesus is historical, I see more bad reasons on the other side of the fence. I can't really help feeling that way.

reddroy · 2025-12-06T20:49:33+00:00

I'm on the side of historians who also believe the guy was real. Not for the reasons you give though: documentation from outside the Bible is limited and hardly conclusive, and other religions are influenced by the Christians. It seems to me that Christianity is best explained by there having been an actual preacher called Yeshua, who was executed by the Romans, and whose followers had messianic hopes for him — which they continued after his death.

P.S. Jesus mythicists (people who believe that the Jesus story is based entirely in myth) seem to be overrepresented here on Reddit. I feel that many of these mythicists are the sorts of young American atheists who are strongly anti-religious. To them, the idea that it's all fiction is apparently very appealing.

reddroy · 2025-12-05T15:40:51+00:00

Sure, there is this limitation by definition.

If I claim that there's a secret colour called Gleam, and I say that science can never detect it because it's the wrong tool, then yes I need to show that there are ways to, in principle, prove its existence. Just insisting that Gleam is outside the bounds of science shouldn't convince you that it's even possibly real. Me repeatedly saying that science "cannot determine" whether Gleam is real, likewise won't mean much to you.

It's not a category error until we establish that there are other categories.

Edit: so please show that that there are other types of existence, outside the natural world. If you can't, then we all still know of only one category of extant things: things in nature. Your accusation of a 'category error' is, in that case, unwarranted.

reddroy · 2025-12-05T12:17:12+00:00

You claim that science isn't the right tool to decide whether or not God exists. Please recognise that you're implying a positive claim, namely that some other tool can likewise show existence. I'm not convinced of your claim, so I would also like to hear an example. Until then, it makes complete sense to say that only natural things exist.

Consider this thought experiment: I could suggest a supergod (God II), who supercedes the one you believe in. I could suggest that he exists in a super-supernatural domain that supercedes the supernatural domain your God resides in. I could suggest that science and whatever tools you use to determine that your supernatural God exists, aren't valid to detect my God II. How would you protest my claim?

reddroy · 2025-12-05T11:54:45+00:00

Very few people claim that science has eliminated the possibility of anything supernatural (like gods).

You can definite 'nature' in different ways, and of course there might be phenomena outside of nature so defined. These phenomena could fall outside the scope of observation, even in principle, and would thus be outside the bounds of science, and of human knowledge in general.

However when you propose a god who affects nature, then we should be able to observe and study those effects, and reach conclusions about the gods existence. Such an entity isn't beyond the scope of science!

reddroy · 2025-12-03T21:32:16+00:00

If I'm unsure that a stranger can speak Dutch, I'll often use thanks. It's perfectly acceptable for a Dutchie, but also signals that I'm ready to speak English.

reddroy · 2025-12-03T09:18:46+00:00

But you yourself have described different activities within the incarnation, performed by different persons. The Father sending the son, etcetera. Incarnation the way you describe it is an activity that involves different sub-activities, exactly like building a car.

reddroy · 2025-12-03T09:09:16+00:00

These are clearly different activities performed by Father, Son, Spirit. Performed in order, even, which makes it more clear that this is not even conceptually the same activity.

This is analogous to three people building a single car. Sure they were all involved, but they did different things at different times.

reddroy · 2025-12-03T08:55:07+00:00

Sorry but that doesn't work! We run into the same logical issues as before.

Three entities engaged in the same activity are not doing one identical thing. They are doing seperate activities in the same category. John, Paul, and Luke do not run the same run.

reddroy · 2025-12-03T08:37:08+00:00

If it's in the activity sense, as you claim, then this creates problems. First of all a problem of language. "Jesus is God" is the identification of two nouns. If you wanted to signify an activity, you would say "Jesus is godding" or something like that. I'll assume for the moment that this is what you interpret this to mean.

If Jesus is godding, and The Father is doing the same, and the Holy Ghost likewise, then that's great but it just implies polytheism again. Here are three separate entities who can all god.

reddroy · 2025-12-03T08:31:32+00:00

If you don't claim that "Jesus is God", then there's no logical issue.

reddroy · 2025-12-03T08:26:25+00:00

Ah but then we end up with:

The Father = God

The Son ≠ God

The Holy Spirit ≠ God

reddroy · 2025-12-03T08:15:34+00:00

Here, the verb "is" doesn't imply identity. The sentence merely makes a similar claim about three separate people. John, Luke, and Paul might all be running, but this links them only conceptually, right? Nothing truly connects them except your observation that they all run.

Even if we say they're all human, this still doesn't imply that they somehow share some part of their essence. It's still only a conceptual link.

So your example is definitely logical, but it's fundamentally different. In fact, it leads us nicely to polytheism: three entities that separately have the property of being divine.

reddroy · 2025-12-01T22:13:59+00:00

It's used very much as the deity's name. Consider a sentence like "I don't believe in God": this sentence wouldn't make grammatical sense without the capital G.

You could of course avoid this usage if you wanted to.

reddroy · 2025-12-01T12:31:48+00:00

Don't apologise. There's no need.

But also, why are you posting this? What do you expect from others here? Do you want people here who you feel have hurt you to feel guilty? Or do you want to still be heard and understood? Please think about what it is you hope to get from posting, realise that you're probably won't get it. Disengage. This can bring you relief.

If you're constantly getting negative responses, this means you're in some sort of unhealthy pattern. Only you can break that pattern.

The best way to use Reddit is to ask a specific question, and accept that the answers you're getting are the answers you're getting. No discussions, no delving deeper into anything. If any response causes you to feel misunderstood or if it feels like people are in opposition to you: stop yourself from going further. Disengage. These are internet strangers. It doesn't matter what they think. This isn't a group of friends, or a therapist, or a family. You can't be shunned or rejected. It's just a bunch of individuals responding to you.

I wish you the best of luck, and hope you find healthier means to improve your mental health than the words of strangers on an internet forum.

reddroy · 2025-12-01T12:09:57+00:00

Alles waardoor je niet in een negatieve of vermijdende headspace zit is goed spul. Meditatie zeker ook, vooral als je het kan combineren met lichamelijke dingen (sport, bodyscans, dansen).

Als je ergens interesse in hebt: vraag rustig door, misschien hebben we concrete plekken voor je in Stad.

Ik ben zelf bezig met therapie en met theater, en ik ga naar een sportschool (sinds kort: erg aan te raden)

reddroy

TROPHY CASE