The Good Place

The Good Place (NBC, September 19, 2016, to January 30, 2020) was a great, and fun ride.
Very funny, and also, deep, but not super deep.

The question of afterlife, what would it be like to get everything you wanted, forever? You would get tired, you would get board, and this happens. The answer: actual death. A way to leave when you are done.
There is a hint that the particles that made up "you" go on to effect others in some small way. The wave returns to the ocean. 

Its a nice way to think about it. Also there is that, you don't really know, and no one knows what it is to die. Not even the all knowing Janet knows. That seems very, human.

Unanswered, and perhaps for the best is why the system exists at all - why was the universe made, why is there any afterlife at all? Who made all of this? No real answers are given. This is just the way it is.

No clear devil or god, just demons and angel like beings who are not perfect. (They run away leaving Michel in charge of the Good Place)

The other idea of the Good Place being the Bad Place at first - and them all working though this together, improving along the way, its a nice idea.

What is the point, if any, of life? How to be ethical? Is it all just a test? The Good Place says it is a test, sort of, but then you get tested over and over until you pass, or I suppose if someone never passes then they do, in fact, go to the Bad Place. But, its never made clear.

As a skeptic, I do not believe in an afterlife, but I do ponder what would it be, or how could it be, what would make sense, or how one should be judged, if one is to be judged, fairly. I think that the Good Place has a nice system, but not a perfect one in mind. Perhaps, in the end, that is also the way it is, even an afterlife is not perfect. 

I enjoyed the show, and it was a nice send off, may we all find a Good Place here, and now. Perhaps we must make it. No idea how, but its worth trying.

x

My reflections on: Being Functional by Atticus Blake

Life is wondrous, hard, unfair and strange. There is a beauty in the symmetry that Atticus has woven into his life, whether by his masterful writing or because I'm a pattern seeking human and find patterns, regardless this is beauty & art, honest & true.

There is a moment in the book, where he writes about this pastor who has been counseling him, he writes "what comes next..." and I think to myself, "oh no! he is going to be molested!" although, in that moment, I had forgotten that Atticus had said in the opening of his book that he had not suffered that, yet then the pastor does something that is far worse in a way then molestation - he does an exorcism. By "driving out" the demons, this otherwise well meaning man has instead infused my online friend with demons that will haunt him for years to come. He had spiritually molested him.

There is this chapter that begins the year with a maglite smashing a window, and a man yelling. The year ends with his ""friends"" (not enough quotes in the universe to indicate how much of "friends" they were to him) who broke into a house and used a maglite- I forget now as I write this review if they used it to bash in the window, but that would be fitting. That is how he frames this year, a black maglite. Yet, I saw a second frame that could be there, as he is yelling now at the boy who he loves (& who uses him) giving him what for. Here is a man out of control yelling at the start, here is a man yelling in control at the end. Insanity vs righteous anger. What a wondrous tapestry.

I get excited when I find people's names from youtube I know. "Hey I know that persons work! Oh yay!" I get even more excited far latter as he mentions the "deconverted" & mentions as well as explains logical fallacies and talks about being a skeptic. I think to myself, "Yay! I know what those things are!" I feel like he is talking to me though this book.

I feel for him, as he painfully struggles with OCD, something I've had for a very long time. The god believe interacts with this, and makes it worse then otherwise. What would Atticus be like had he never been made aware of this God concept? Who can say, or know. We know he will deconvert, yet this isn't about that, not really. I was surprised at how little of this book is his deconversion, as if that was taken care of on youtube, its all the life leading up to that moment that needs to be told.

He tells it. I want him to succeed, I worry what will happen to him next, and want things to go his way, yet I know as I read that this is life, and there is random chaos here, who knows what will happen next?

Yet he makes it, by the skin of his teeth so to speak. He worries about being an adult - "Am I an adult now?" he ponders, I smile, grateful that someone besides myself has worried about such things.

I wanted to ask Atticus what he would write about me, if there was a part two, but his next book will not be about real life things. Alas, I wanted to know how he would frame me in his writings, what would he say about "Deconverted Man" what were his thoughts on me? Could my ego handle it? Would it be good, bad or bland? Who knows. Perhaps its best I not know in a way. Yet, because I'm highly narcissistic I find myself wondering about "me" - as I read his life story, I wonder about my life story, I think about how I would write my story. I wonder how Atticus can remember whole conversations. I reflect upon what his life was vs what my life was. Perhaps this is what it is to read anyone's biography, although he calls it his memoir.

Regardless, I've had the pleasure to interact with this man online from time to time, and in my brain I think of him as an "online friend" whatever that means, these labels are not always helpful. I guess what I mean is that I would want him to be a friend in "real life" as if the internet is not real life as well, in a way it is not, in a way it is. The people I've connected with online, are they friends or just online friends? Is there a difference? Should there be? Ah low, Atti, you've gotten me thinking deeply. Was that what you intended?

Anyway, I like him in my own way. I beat him in a debate once. So badly that he exploded the video in fact. I'm not going to let him forget that Lobsters won. I'm sure he will say that Turtles won. Since the video is gone I could explain this, but I'll let it be an inside joke for those who were around to have seen that video, and for him and I to share publicly this silly thing we did online together once. Something I hope to redo one day, if I can get him to do it of course.

The book is well written. I want more. I want to read everything and anything he writes. He is really, really good. I like the short chapters. I like how he can make you want more - he will write things like "the next thing was even worse" Yet, this is not over done, nor is it in every chapter, yet it was enough that I didn't want to stop reading.

His final statement in the book is profound, I think Atticus wanted to say something epic to conclude this bit of his life story, and I think he did. Is it odd to enjoy someone's life story? I do not know, but I did, I saw much of myself here as I did of Atticus. Again, maybe that is the point.

Life is a tangled tapestry of travesty and turtles, lo lob the lobsters towards logic: May it save us all.

Social Justice & its warriors.

Social justice, broadly speaking is the idea that a group of people (society itself) can & will be the judge of any given event.

The SJW, social justice warrior is the one who engages in this sort of activity, promotes it, or thinks that it is a good idea.

On twitter, youtube, facebook this sort of thing can be seen. Groups of people will rally around someone who has been declared the "victim" &, anyone who denies that they are a victim, is automatically the enemy & a proper target of the mob. The mob mentality here is clear, the in group is protected at all costs, conform or die.

You might have read or heard about "virtue signaling" this is when someone says they support a "marginalized group" to display there "virtue", its unclear if this is a tip off if that person is a SJW type or not in my view, but certainty its not a good sign, do we really have to go out of our way to say we support any given group? Also, are not most of these groups well supported by now? Just how long is a group "marginalized" typically this is said to be LGBT(+) but, is that group REALLY oppressed? Sometimes its "colored" people that are marginalized, sometimes its women. Its never men, never white people, never its heterosexuals.

So you are either in the protected group, or you are not, if you are not - then you are a target of the sjw type, and even if you are part of the protected group, you still might be a target should you say something "out of line". Casting doubt on someone claiming abuse, rape, discrimination are all sins that the sjw's will get you for.

You are simply not allowed to say things that might offend people. What might that be? Anything of course. "Hate speech" is a commonly dropped idea - that simply doesn't exist as any sort of coherent speech, hate speech is simply speech that people dislike. Saying anything racist, anti-LGBT, anti (X) whatever (X) might be if (X) is a "marginalized" group - is a sin & is punishable by the mob.

People who are offended by anything will tweet out that they have been emotionally traumatized by the words, and the group of sjw types will then attack that person that did this. With, or without any evidence. Saying sorry is only proof you are guilty, so never, EVER apologize.

Its very much cult or religious in nature, this ideology - its focused on protection of feelings, it props up the "week" as it tries to smash down the "strong" - who is the strong? Whoever is not one of the protected groups of course.

Is it a bad thing? Is it harmful? Oh yes, people have lost there jobs over people complaining online. What madness. Speech online is hampered by the busy-bodies who feel that they must and should report all the "bad speech" to everyone. That others must join in to stamp out this horrible thing that someone said on facebook.

Sadly - companies are spineless and are not standing up for there workers as they should be. Saying that no, we will not fire (X) person as they did not say (Z) during company time. But so afraid of a bad image. Frankly, I'd see any company standing up for its employees as noble.

SJW's also think they are RIGHT and feel justified about doing these things. They are self-righteous people. They think they have a better ethical & moral code then you do.

You might have heard that people get "red pilled" - this happens when they are attacked by the mob, only then do they see, that this idea is a bad one. They must be eaten by the intolerant mob to see just how evil the ideology is.

What can one do? I said before to simply not play the SJW game, but also, be better then them, do not use those hate tactics, do not moral police people. You be a good person. Love, not hate will win out in the end, it has in the past.

Will they eat each other? One can hope. Until then, the war marches on, but only if we let it. Only if we do not stand tall, and be better then they.

Atheism: still not a world view.

What the bleep is a worldview anyway?

Well I guess the net will have to answer that:

Wiki:
A world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Google:
A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Merriam Webster:
A comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.

That should cover it, I suspect some will reject those in favor of there own idea of what a worldview is, as they might have a worldview about the word worldview...

What about the word Atheist?

Wiki:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. 

Google:
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Merriam Webster:
A person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism.

Again, that should do it, but again people can make there own choice about what they think the word should mean or does. These are the most common uses of these words. So, lets just go with them shall we?

Alright so the question that got me to do this is from a twitter question directed at me by my esteemed associate John Buck:

(Tweet)

Plenty of apologists have said that atheism is a world view, and others have said its not. In fact, many apologists complain that atheism does not tell you how to live, what to do, feel, believe, has no ritual, no tradition & so on, well, of course it doesn't. That isn't what it is.

Atheism is, as descriptive word, not a prescriptive word. To some extent so is theist.

Theism also is not a world view. That word only tells us that someone believes in a god. 

Not what god is, how god is, where it is or anything else. Just they think there is at least one, the word theist is a bit more descriptive then atheist, as theist imply an agent-god whereas deist implies only a god that wound up the universe so to speak, and let it roll without further messing about, or a god that made us, but did so without any agency per-say.

Of course for what a deist thinks or for that matter what a theist thinks - you must ask that person. We can not know, nor should we assume that the label that they are using is being used in the common way described by dictionaries. My outline itself might very well be rejected by some theists or deists.

Simply put, nether theist, deist, agnostic, or atheist tells you what they believe in full, only one bit about there belief. What about the word "Christian" or "Muslim" well - that tells us more, and those are world views, at least, if we are using the common understanding of the words being used. We assume we are, and that is of course, that pesky natural language issue popping up: we assume other people are using words the way we understand them... and they might not be! Still, for the sake of this entry, we are assuming common use, so yes, "Christian" is a worldview, but "theist" is not.

But... why not? Isn't "GOD" a big deal? Isn't believing it world-changing? Isn't it so massive that there will be a vast gulf between the theist & atheist?

Maybe.

Yet its still not a worldview. Nether of them are. They can not inform us of the way (X) person see's the world, its simply not up to the task of doing so. 

There are people that think there are faeries (fay folk) - not many of them granted, but a few. Is belief in faeries a world view? No. Its part of one, perhaps, the best I can find on anything that is close to a religion would be "fairy belief" outlined here. In and of itself, "Fairy-believer" (faeist?) is not enough to say much about that person's way of viewing the world.

So no, atheism is not a worldview, but might be part of one, so as well is theisem - its not itself a worldview, but a part of one. 

What about the word skeptic? Is that a world view?

Hum.... it might be!

....but I'm skeptical that it is. ;)

Did Yahwah make sin, or did man?

Ah good old "god" - well, the god of the Judeo-christian "Holy Bible". I'll just call him Yahwah since that is one of the names "he" gets.

Anyway, so lots of Christian's seem to think man made sin, that is, because of Eve, then Adam eating the FORBIDDEN FRUIT. That everything went to bleep.

So, lets look at this, with logic, but first I need to recap the story...

The story thus far:

God made Adam put him in a really nice Garden. Told them they could eat anything - BUT not the tree of knowledge of good & evil or he will die. (Gen 2:17)

Then God realized, woopies, Adam is alone, so he made a bunch of other creatures, Adam however couldn't bone any of them, bummer. (Gen 20:20)

God made Adam a woman out of his rib because... why not?

Some all knowing narrator that knows what will happen latter on tells us that this is why men will leave there mom & dad - to get a woman. (Gen 2:24)

Adam & Eve are nudists, but its cool.

A serpent (Or Naga/Lilith) talked .... (sure why not) to Eve and was like "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"" (Gen 3:1)

Hold on a moment! Eve wasn't there! She wouldn't know what was said!
Adam was there! 

Also we never get a scene when Adam tells Eve about this tree. Go figure.

Eve, having only SECOND HAND information is like, nah we can eat any of the tree stuff but not touch that one or we die. (Gen 3:3)

The Tempter (Serpent/Naga/Lilith/Devil/whatever) was like , nah, you will not die, (true) but you will know what good & evil are, just like god (also true). (Gen 3:5)

Eve takes it because it looks yummy and she wants to know things, she also gives it to Adam. Things go to bleep after that. (Gen 3:6)... Okay we are caught up now.

So here begins the problem of sin, because Eve/Adam ate from this forbidden tree... that God made. God also made the serpent. And made the rule. And God made it so that Eve/Adam would not know good or evil - and made the tree's forbidden fruit look yummy and also gave Eve the desire to want to know things.

Also, God knew what Eve/Adam would do, because Yahwah knows the future (according to many Christians, eh I'm sure its in the bible somewhere)

So... who is at fault here?

You really, really want to blame Eve, she didn't know good and evil. She also had SECOND HAND information (off screen) from Adam about this tree.

Want to blame Adam? He doesn't know good and evil and was LIED TO by God - the fruit does NOT KILL THEM, and no - none of that bull about "spiritual death" nope - God said you will DIE. They didn't die. God is a liar or at the very least God didn't explain to Adam what he was saying by "die" also - does Adam know what death even is?

So its not Adam's fault either.

The fault is upon God.

It made the whole thing, knowing full well what would happen.

It blames it on the humans, but its really God's own "design".

Of course, this isn't want Christian's are told to believe, so they don't. This is the logical way to view this story, but that isn't what many Christians will do, rather they will say all sorts of things to try to

defend this nonsense story.

... Its just a story. Its not true, never was. Its a just so story, to try to say why things are bad in this world.

That's all it ever was, and all it could ever be.

Possum doesn't play dead.

This thread (click).

Point One:

Bad grammar: So? The argument is all that matters, or in this case, the analysis of the argument.

Point Two:

Missing in action. (there seems to be no point two)

Point Three:

In regards to what I read of the post that I was responding to last time, Possum has said,
more then once, that atheists worship (X), or have faith in (Z). This would require knowing what atheists are thinking, thus is special knowledge/mind reading.

Point Four:

Assumes atheists have a "faith". However, yes I looking at what you wrote I was assuming that you were trying to prove God or at least show that God is possible. This assumption was made on the idea that Possum is trying to counter atheists, best way to counter them would be to show God is a thing. Thus my assumption.

Point Five:

In your view this might very well be the case, it would take a whole argument to show that not believing in any gods is, in fact, a metaphysical world view.

Point Six:

Statements can have built in premises. However, Possum doesn't identify what they are in this case. "I lack belief in (X)" does not imply that one knows what (X) is, nor does it imply that (X) is not a thing that exists. It is a statement about the belief (or lack of) of (X) whatever (X) might be.

Belief/Non-belief statements require no burden of proof. You can say you believe in Goblins, Orgers, Dragons, and no one will require you to prove that you believe that G.O.D.'s existence. As we must assume (due to social norms and logic) that you do, in fact, believe in (X). similarly, not believing in (X) requires no proof.

However there is a key difference, saying that I do not believe in (X) does not nessarly imply that I also think (X) does not exist. And there are words that I could add to show my beliefs, or lack there of to clarify the matter.

Examples:

"Yahweh does not exist": I have the burden to show how this can be seen as a logical conclusion.
I am hosting the full burden of proof for this statement.

"I do not believe in Yahweh." I have no burden to show that I do not believe in this, and it is possible that Yahweh exists, I simply do not believe it does exist.

"I believe Yahweh does not exist." I do not have the burden to show that I do not believe this, nor do I have the burden to show that Yahweh does not exist.

"God exists." Requires burden of proof.
"I believe in God" No burden of proof.
"I believe God exists." No burden of proof.

~~~

Point Seven:

God as revealed in the bible. In what way? No one can seem to agree upon God is, as debate is plentiful among believers in what this type of god is. However, this grants the bible far more credit then I would give it. The bible itself must be shown to be true first before I care what it says about anything.

As far as god-of-the-gaps, it depends on the argument at hand.
Again with the claim that atheists worship (X). You do not know that, you can not show that, this is a claim to know things you can not hope to know, it has other logical errors as well.

"If you understood God, then there would be no question as to whether He is"

Translated:

If you apply the method that I want you to apply, in the way I want you to, then you will understand things in the way I desire, and this will lead you to conclude that the conclusion I want you to have is in fact correct.

Point Eight: 

I was trying to make sense of your objections. It seemed that it was perhaps based on the commandments. I could not make heads or tails of what your assumption that atheists have a belief in pagans is based on, so I grasped at a straw that it might be one of the commandments, in this, I did not want to make a straw-man. Perhaps you could just give a clear argument to as how you have arrived at the idea that atheists worship anything.

I assume that you are being honest with your ideas & views. What is in fact true is separate from this.
I'm not sure if I said or suggested that you are, in fact lying, I doubt I did, as I would have to have proof that you did this. However, I do not think I would point it out as it would not negate the argument(s) you presented. If others have accused you of lying, I can not respond to that as it is not my stance. I do consider it my duty to the truth. Getting to that truth, ah there is the rub.

Point Nine:

Assumes atheists have a faith. This leads into all sorts of problems. Is faith good, or is it bad? What do you mean by "faith"?

Produce a valid & sound argument to show that I (or anyone else) has such a world view, and I will agree with it and support it to the best of my ability to do so.

Point Ten:

This is the way (X) word is understood by (% of people). This is all a dictionary can do for us. No, you do not have to agree with it, but you do then have to say what you view (X) word to mean so that others are not confused. It enters into some problems of course.

Lets say that I want to say that the word God is in fact Goblin/Ogre/Dragon. Clearly you would not want to use MY way of using that word, but you might, for sake of debate, allow me to have my version - but for the sake of others we would at least label my idea vs your idea of "God" lets say "God 1" for me, and "God 2" for you, it would, of course, be better if we could agree upon using different words in full, so that others are less confused by our debate.

You might indeed think, assert and submit that the word, to you is (X). This is not how I view this word, nor do I agree with it being used to describe me & my views.

If I was to say Possum means a nitwit poopy head, clearly you would object to that. Its unfair to label Possum in such a way, it might very well be my view, perhaps I have an argument that shows via logic that this is the case. Unless & until I present such an argument, you are free to reject it. Perhaps the correct view of Possum is awesome smart head for all we know. However we must negotiate, compromise, and find something we both can live with.

So then we might agree that awesome can stay, that is subjective, but smart or poopy needs to go, and head along with it, so Possum means awesome, and hey that also rhymes. We can live with this compromise, its not all of what we want, but its good enough.

So to, perhaps rather then simply asserting that you have the right way to view the word atheists you could come to some sort of compromise about it?

Or if you can not, or will not - then produce your argument that is both valid & sound that the word is (X). How will you do that? I suggest this is an impossible task, informal logic refers to "natural language" as being an unsolved problem. What a word "must be" is in that category. Only in an artificial language might we avoid such issues. We are not speaking in that language. So, we have to deal with how the (%) of people use that word, even if we do not agree with that (%), it seems to be the easiest way to understand each other.

Point Eleven:

As far as I can see, scripture is full of errors. Who is to say my concept of God is incorrect? If God made or let humans become flawed, and humans are now in charge of what the Bible says... then the bible might be flawed. I can't trust humans due to God allowing/making humans flawed. Seems like a bad plan that God has there, but I'm not viewing God from YOUR point of view, I'm viewing it though my point of view. Perhaps we are both in error of how to view God... but if so, then again that would seem to be God's fault for allowing this, or making it this way. We could have been error free, but God didn't make it that way, so here we are, error prone. From my view, that is in and of itself, an error.A perfect system would enable a perfect bible. Bleep why even write it down? Just be a God that speaks to humans out loud in there language, bleep have just one language that is free from error! I can think of more ways to make this system better then it is, but clearly, if there is a God - it has allowed us, or made us in such a way that allows for error. The possibility that there is an error means that I can't trust the bible - or any other book about God - to be correct in full. Thus I need a system that is not reliant upon that book or books. I do have a system that does this pretty darn well: logic.

Point Twelve:

Fair enough. Make a positive argument for your ideas, whatever they might be so I can analyze it! :)

Point Thirteen:

I am willing to see what empirical evidence &/or repeatable tests you have for whatever ideas you have.

If you do not have those, then present your valid & sound argument. If you do not have that, then I must be skeptical of your conclusions.

Yes, my comment was a tongue in cheek there. My view of reality - I'm not sure I even shared with you what that is yet.

Faith/Religion Depends on what you mean by "faith"/"Religion" - You need a valid & sound argument for this assertion. Also you would need to answer if faith/religion is good or bad.

You assume a lot of things about me. Ask me what I believe or do not believe and why. (rather then commit the mind-reading fallacy)

Point Fourteen:

I'm willing to concede that I assumed you were doing one thing, when you were doing something else.

Assumes atheists have a faith at all. (Needs an argument and explanation of what those words mean to you, and if it good or bad to have faith).

~~~~

Well then that brings us to the end of this thread.
I've taken screen shots of the thread and put them together here:

~~~~

So, what is my view of all this? Its not uncommon to find theists that will assert that atheists have faith and/or a religion. This of course full of logical fallacies.

The tu quo (you as well) fallacy. As it tries to put everyone on a level playing field.

Equivocation, The words "religion" & "faith" are changed at whim to be good/bad or whatever the theist needs them to be. Books like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" - well then, that name implies that faith is BAD, right? Or is it saying that he wishes he could have MORE faith because it is good? If having faith is bad, then we should not, not believe in God if that is more faith then believing in God, but then, what would be below believing in God in terms of faith? Perhaps not believing at all? Then that makes us a pure skeptic, clearly not the writers intent, but that is the sort of issue you bring upon yourself when you make such a logical fallacy.

Mind-reading/Special Knowledge: It would take knowing what people believed in, or did not to assert they have a faith/religion or do not.

Non sequitur: Atheist: "I do not believe in God." Theist: "Ah ha! That means you do believe in God!"
Wut?

And other fallacies as well, depending upon the wording of the given argument at hand, but in essence I think these are the ones of note when you see this sort of """argument""" pop up.

I need more quotes around argument, as this isn't one. Atheists do not have a faith or religion.
However, in my first Possum post I allowed my otherwise worthy Possum to have his cake, I said sure, fine - we all have faith and religion. Now prove yours is right.

That is something he wasn't trying to do.

But he also didn't show that our faith/religion is wrong either.

So then we can't know what one is wrong or right.

That means we must be skeptical, of the conclusions.

A possum on twitter doesn't understand the word "atheist".

OlPossum1 has come to my attention via good old twitter.

Ah yes, this person seems like he is a theist of some sort, what type, I can not tell.

He has a bone to pick with atheists, and that is all well and good, but his ideas are, how to put it... incoherent.First, there is his problem with the word "atheist" he also seems to think he knows what other people believe (mind reading/special knowledge). He alone knows what atheists are, and the bleep with any corrections on the word.Well. What is one to do? I suppose you could block him, as it seems he likes to block others. But, its more fun to poke back and try (in vein) to correct him.But let me try to take the high road, and steel-man his argument. Let me assume, for now, that reality has been shaped to his ideas, and that I, and other atheists do in fact worship other (dead) idols, our own self, have no claim to objective truth.Very well. Now what?

This does not make his argument about his idea of god, (pulled from the old & new testament it seems), correct. Nor does it support any idea of any god he wants to put forth. It matters not that I (or anyone else) has "zero claim" to "objective truth" (whatever that is) - what matters is that he has not supported his claim. At all. Not even a little bit.He mentioned the commandments, I'm assuming he is referring to all 613. But perhaps he wants to ignore those, and only focus on the top ten. What version? The one where you can't boil a baby goat in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19), or the other one? Eh, I guess it doesn't matter what number ten is, because I would hazard to GUESS (since possum doesn't explain) that he is talking about the FIRST command: Exodus 20:3 that says we should have no other gods before this god. (Yahweh)

So, if we do not put this god on "top" of our god's - because according to possum we atheists bevel in other gods I suppose. Then clearly we are putting those other gods (that he calls idols) on top of our god list.However, that does not follow per say, what if we do not in fact, worship those gods at all, or very much? What if we only kinda put them on top, or near the top? Regardless, even if it is the case that we do, in fact do this, that doesn't mean that his idea is correct, that is, there is not any support for the first idea of the first commandment. He has not shown anyone that it is, and must be true.So then, it must be assumed (or presumed) to be the case that this command:

1: came from god.
2: was preserved correctly with no edits by humans.
3: is being understood correctly by humans.

Why would I, or anyone else assume any of that? Maybe one could be taken on faith by someone of this religion, granted. But how could two or three be taken at faith at all? We know humans do edit the bible - its been done before, will be done again, we have lots of different translations of this thing. How can we hope to know that someone, somewhere did not edit this in some way? Possum didn't give us anything to show that it has the same meaning in the original language from the earliest known writings we have on the bible, so we have no reason to believe that to be the case. No argument is given.

Of course one can appeal to the bit in the bible that promises it will be "preserved" (whatever that means), but what about three? According to the bible humans are sinful, wrong, flawed, imperfect, how can we hope to know if any human gets any of this right?!

So is possum right? No way to know, as no argument was given. It helps not if he thinks he has objective truth, as he has not shown he has. It helps not that he thinks he knows what this word "atheist" means. It also helps not that he seems to think he is so right, that he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone.

Well, I suppose that is what faith can do to some humans, not all mind you. Then again this is a possum, perhaps he should just play dead and not post more nonsense on twitter... or anywhere else for that matter.