Home › Forums › Philosophy › athiest mgtow
This topic contains 98 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by 
Anonymous 4 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Some people just love to debate, and others of us who are addicted to reading, just like to listen to the debates
Your welcome for the reading material. I would have to offer a big thanks to my atheist friends. Without there effort it would be very inconvenient for me to do this on my own.
Qbeck01 wrote:
If you had any integrity you’d acknowledge what you are doing in this thread as rude.What you wanted a circle jerk?
A circle jerk would be preferable than having to read through your drivel.
Children are born unable to speak too. Or write. Or express opinions. In regards to “reason” I already gave the definition to that. It is not a “be all end all”. However if reason does not limit itself to the physical why would it limit one from believing in a Diety. God is a concept in one respect, although not limited to “concept” only. You are also claiming that there is a non physical existence. This permits there being a Diety without any requiring any physical proof. You cannot get physical proof for mathematics, yet it exists.
Ya, you cut and pasted some definitions and failed to make a point. Reason is the “be all end all” if your goal is to achieve knowledge. the only way to differentiate between what is true and false is through reason. “non physical existence..physical proof for mathematics yet it exists” I see you stringing words together but I can’t for the life of me understand what you are trying to say. You’re incoherent. Existence does not apply to concepts only things within the natural world.
As to whether I can reasonably say Gods don’t exist I’ve addressed in my previous posts:Unicorns defined as a horse with a horn on it’s head, would be considered logically possible.
Gods/supernatural things are NOT logically possible.
I can say I don’t believe in unicorns but i can’t say that a logically possible thing doesn’t exist. It’s the impossibility of proving a negative and it’s why the one making the claim has the burden of proof.
I can, however, say that logically impossible things like Gods/supernatural things don’t exist. Much like I can say with 100% certainty that square circles don’t exist.
I think you misunderstood my position. I never meant to imply that we cannot say god does not exist. In fact, we can rely on reason alone with no need for evidence because supernatural claims are self contradictory.Qbeck01 wrote:
Your argument that a god would have to be controlled in order for you to use the scientific method is silly. All you would need to do is define what you mean by god;…You would also have to define what exactly you mean by God. Because in effect you are saying you are trying to disprove “nothing” unless you had a prior definition. You say “God” doesn’t exist. Which means if “God” is nothingness, then you are saying “nothingness is nothingness”. The problem with Athiesm is that it has no meaning for the concept of God. It gives no definition. It talks about how God does not exist, but if asked “who/what is God?” it gives no answer. It is a fundamentally reactionary philosophy….
I’ve explained this above, but here we go again: Supernatural things are logically impossible. If you define a God as part of the natural world then it becomes logically possible but in order for you to say it exists you need proof.
What ever is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Humanism cannot be the answer, because to admit humans being the sole power would make them a Diety/Dieties. This would eliminate atheism. You cannot say physics controls everything because that would disprove humanism by subjecting man to the laws of physics. This would eliminate man’s role as God.
Again you string words together…get some mental help and stop spewing such inane crap on the internet.
Humanism is secular ethics….”turning people into gods” WTFSo science is not subject to reason? One can be scientific and irrational? If there is no epistemology [defined as: (the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.)] Then you cannot claim atheism as true. After all if there is no philosophy or reasoning required for it then it is just a belief system. If it is just a belief system then you cannot claim having faith is wrong.
Science is subject to reason. No you cannot be scientific and irrational. Atheism is just the non-belief in gods-full stop. If you want to know why an atheist doesn’t believe you have to ask the individual. A lack of belief is not a belief system… much like baldness is not a hair style.
If you value truth then yes you can say faith is wrong. If you want to know why truth is preferable to falsehood or what is knowledge then study epistemology.Qbeck01 wrote:
.. dropping names like Aristotle and Descartes is a fallacy: argument from authority. he ancient Greeks, though ahead of their time, believed a lot of crazy s~~~. Are you saying the Greek pantheon is real? Evidence and reason stand or fall on their own.”Well then terminal would be guilty of this fallacy (sam harris). You claim “your reason alone” is authority. Then tell me I am wrong because of “your reasoning”. You say authority is wrong, but if I agree with you I would be submitting to your authority. I actually read much of their works. My point, using others as examples, is that one can come to the conclusion of a diety through reason.
If you have a problem with Terminal take it up with him. Agreeing with my arguments because they’re valid/sound is different than agreeing because I’m the one making them is the difference between being reasonable and falling for an argument from authority.
Technically, you can come to the conclusion that a god exists through reason...if you define god as a coffee cup.Qbeck01 wrote:
An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn’t rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any “more basic” premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.I pulled the definition from a dictionary. Now you are being subjective. But let’s stay with “irreducible primary” for your sake. How is God not an axiom then? You say there are certain things that rest on their own terms and cannot be proven. Then how can God not be an axiom? The argument of the athiest depends on the axiom of God. Without this they cannot have an argument other than “there is only the physical universe” (which you say is not required to be an athiest and is not an axiom) or “there is nothing” (which is contradictory on its own terms [is=not is (nothing)]. To argue that there is no God would require to both use God as an axiom and disrefute that axiom at that same time. You cannot have a philosophy only based around disproving something without proving something else by default. But, as you said, Athiesm has nothing to do with proving anything other than there is no God. But one cannot prove a negative.
You cut and pasted from an internet dictionary, if you had a clue you’d understand this discussion is in the realm of philosophy. Highly specialized fields use their own specialized language. Axiom will mean different things in math or colloquially. FYI random online dictionary s should be held suspect…see the word feminism.
again, you string words together with no discernible train of thought…..get help.Qbeck01 wrote:
Axiom include: existence exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness. You do not get to label religious belief as an axiom in order to abandon your obligation for proving it.God is God is an axiom also. God does not violate any of those axioms. I have not posted any religious beliefs as Axioms. I strictly said that there is a God. That is it.
First define God then demonstrate that the negation is self contradictory and also show it doesn’t contradict the other Axioms. You don’t get to label god as an axiom you cheeky bastard. This shows me just how clueless you are.
Qbeck01 wrote:
This is not the case; to abandon reason is to abandon sanity, it is to abandon realityBut you clearly stated that Athiesm is right. One does not have to be rational to be an Athiest (irrational athiest). You do not have to be rational to be right. Is there something I am missing? How is this not faith?
Being irrational doesn’t mean you’ll always be wrong. As the saying goes even a broken clock is right 2 times a day. The important thing is to be rational if you want to be consistently right. One can be right for the wrong reasons. …you’re thoughts are schizophrenic. Please make an effort to be more cogent. Trying to follow you’re “arguments” is rather tedious.
Ya, you cut and pasted some definitions and failed to make a point
Well, if reason is not any of those definitions. Then what is it exactly? I was being precise to discourage any confusion. But apparently you possess some secret knowledge no one else has.
Existence does not apply to concepts only things within the natural world.
So concepts do not exist. Then how can we acknowledge them as we just have done?
“non physical existence..physical proof for mathematics yet it exists”
Misquote I said:
You cannot get physical proof for mathematics, yet it exists.
A lack of belief is not a belief system
Through lack of belief in one thing we find belief in another.
No you cannot be scientific and irrational.
Then why did you differentiate the two in quote? :
You are fixated on adding “scientific” in front of atheism. At first I thought you meant rational atheists. (as opposed to irrational) But you think their is an epistemology associated with atheism…there is not. Sorry to disappoint you.
If you want to know why truth is preferable to falsehood or what is knowledge then study epistemology.
If epistemology is the only way one discovers truth and knowledge. And atheism is true. But epistemology is not associated with atheism then truth and knowledge is not associate with atheism. How could one find that there is no God except through truth and knowledge? This will probably be incorrect according to you, would you please fix this or point out the error?
Highly specialized fields use their own specialized language. Axiom will mean different things in math or colloquially.
I provided a definition. Is one dictionary better than another? Who are you to judge? You ignored it and created your own definition. For your sake I went with it. I then pointed out that the axiom of the argument “There is no God” would have to be God since this is an irreducible primary. “God” is an irreducible primary so by default it is an axiom. And according to this argument of Atheism one requires the axiom they are trying to disprove.
First define God then demonstrate that the negation is self contradictory and also show it doesn’t contradict the other Axioms. You don’t get to label god as an axiom you cheeky bastard.
If I could define God then he would be subject to my knowledge and in effect not be God. I can know some things that are not him though apophatic theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology) I can know some things that are of him through cataphatic theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology) but I cannot know all of him completely and thoroughly. I can know what is of if Him and what is not of Him, but I cannot reduce or promote him to anyone one thing. If I could then I would be God and not him. Because God cannot be reduced to anyone thing (or promoted) he would in effect be an irreducible primary; therefore an axiom of the argument.
First define God then demonstrate that the negation is self contradictory and also show it doesn’t contradict the other Axioms.
God is God. Just like one is one. To define God would not only be impossible because to define God would make him cease to be God, but also because one cannot define an irreducible primary. God is an irreducible primary that
doesn’t rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any “more basic” premises
We can talk about the number one, or would I have to prove that too?
In an argument God would be an axiom, it is unavoidable. The existence of a God does not contradict “existence exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness”. “God is” follows the same logic as existences exists. God can only act as God can act. God cannot not act as God or not not be God. (Law of Identity). God is aware of God (consciousness).
I asked that a definition can be provided, but it cannot. Why? Because God is an irreducible primary therefore an axiom. One could make
a similiar argument saying instead of “There is no God” “There is no Conciousness”. But both arguments require the same axioms that
they are trying to disprove therefore illogical.Being irrational doesn’t mean you’ll always be wrong. As the saying goes even a broken clock is right 2 times a day. The important thing is to be rational if you want to be consistently right.
In regards to being “consistent” Athiesm is not about consistency as there is no epistemology as you have said. Epitemology
requires consistency. But there is not epistemology. The scientific method requires consistency. But the scientific
method is not required to be an athiest. Reason is consistent. But reason is not required. Belief cannot be required,
according to you, because athiesm is about belief. However you claim one can be an irrational athiest? So one can
be correct without reason or belief?There is either no God or there is a God. This argument is not about consistency it is either a yes or no, not multiple
yes’s or multiple no’s or maybe’s.One can be “more right” than others over a single subject that requires a yes or no answer?
Here is some advice given to me that might help your writing:
Please make an effort to be more cogent. Trying to follow you’re “arguments” is rather tedious.
Did you quote yourself John? In the last post? LOL You are a 1st class douchebag!
Every time you quote someone, you glorify them. Or haven’t you noticed the awesome blue quote box? LOL That’s why I told you a month ago that YOU are unworthy of quote. And because your named literally means no one. Very original by the way.
You’ve definitely worn out your welcome and used up more space than anyone. Even a visitor here would catch on and scroll through your bulls~~~.
REASONS John Doe NEEDS TO LEAVE MGTOW.com:
1. John Doe can’t be a man going his own way because John Doe isn’t a grown man. You live with your parents, it’s obvious. You also have no f~~~ing clue about women. What? You got dumped sophmore year? Try getting married, try having your child aborted by 3 different women who swore they love you, try being used for rent money and then thrown out on the street, try your dick getting infected and having to take antibiotics for a week for sleeping with a loose bitch. You barely hit puberty and still believe in Jesus. Get the f~~~ out of here.
2. You cant go Your way and Yahwey at the same time. You are a blue pill adolescent kid, quit pretending to be MGTOW out of vengence to some teenage c~~~. You haven’t been s~~~ on by a Woman yet. My to my original point. MGTOW is for sovereign men. You are still a subject under the rule of an invisible sky wizard name Jesus. F~~~ off to the Men of Faith room for the last time. Your’e being incredibly rude.
Anonymous42And because your named literally means no one. Very original by the way.
The name John Doe has always meant the common man, or referred to as a man of common denomination, not as you imply sir Terminal.
REASONS John Doe NEEDS TO LEAVE MGTOW.com:
Your reasons, and you do not speak for MGTOW, you only represent your self, as every MGTOW represents only themselves.
2. You cant go Your way and Yahwey at the same time. You are a blue pill adolescent kid, quit pretending to be MGTOW out of vengence to some teenage c~~~. You haven’t been s~~~ on by a Woman yet. My to my original point. MGTOW is for sovereign men. You are still a subject under the rule of an invisible sky wizard name Jesus. F~~~ off to the Men of Faith room for the last time. Your’e being incredibly rude.
This kind of attacking and shamming is a staple of feminism, It has no place in the halls of MGTOW, please limit your insults, and please stop your shamming tactics, it’s emotional, and not logical, it’s embarrassing to the rest of us having one MGTOW shamming another.
In case you didn’t notice, Iam Terminal Meme. I lost the other email so now I have this handle.
Don’t you dare say I’m shaming him like a feminist.
My argument has merit. Your defense of him suggest you fall into his category as well.
Men are men, period. Boys are not men. Boys don’t go their own way. Boys have no history to legitimize going their own way. In that respect, MGTOW is just a f~~~ing phase that teenagers go through. Next year he’ll unlearn all of it and be out there pussy begging. That’s the f~~~ing truth and anyone in there late twenties and beyond knows it. They aren’t fully developed and are capricious. The real MGTOW are the people who’ve been through the ringer, who’ve lived the devastating effects women have wrought on them. Not kids who’ve barely gained the right to vote.
Furthermore, I stand by the fact that the ideal MGTOW is non-religious. Self ownership prevents anthropomorphic dogma. The two faced f~~~ers claiming MGTOW and faith are purple pillers.
So whatever, I’ll call it like I see it.
John Doe can’t be a man going his own way because John Doe isn’t a grown man. You live with your parents, it’s obvious. You also have no f~~~ing clue about women. What? You got dumped sophmore year? Try getting married, try having your child aborted by 3 different women who swore they love you, try being used for rent money and then thrown out on the street, try your dick getting infected and having to take antibiotics for a week for sleeping with a loose bitch. You barely hit puberty and still believe in Jesus. Get the f~~~ out of here.
Hold on there is some merit here. I live with my parents: True. But between inconsistent work and having to help around the house due to my dad having a heart attack January before last it is nothing I am ashamed of.
I have done: door to door advertising, cleaning oil rigs, sales, warehouse work, security, restaurant work, internships with the country sheriff/jail, seminary, worked on top of skyscrapers, built scaffolding on top of nuclear reactors, etc.
I haven’t fought in a war yet, but with your behavior I don’t see how it can turn anyone into a man.
And on top of that this April I will be working in a nuke plant for a few weeks building scaffolding which requires a high enough security clearance you will never obtain.
So when I say the pay is s~~~ for a lot of jobs for my generation, or the feminist policies have a strong influence, or it is either dumb/or impossible to be married, I am comfortable that I had enough experience/observations within the past 7-9 years to know I am correct.
I have no f~~~ing clue about women. That is true. But last time I check neither did any man, or woman for that manner. In regards to the sophomore year, uhh…I don’t know what you are talking about. I had a failed relationship my junior year of colleged with a girl I planned to marry which put a large red pill down my throat. That and a few f~~~ ups post/prior to that but that was it.
Actually all those other problems you had were your fault. You slept around a lot, you receive the consequences. Cause and effect right? What Am I required to f~~~ my life up in order to learn something?
Terminal/Laminae if you want to harass or use shaming language at me all day you can. Because at the end of the day I feel bad for you. You are a miserable man. So go ahead insult me. “Harrass” me (this is the internet so that term is very loose) but at the end of the day when everyone is sick of your behavior, I will be the only one sticking up for you to stay. Why? Because I forgive you. Regardless of all the witty banter back and forth, as a Catholic Christian, the only thing that is of any importance at the end of the day is forgiveness and mercy. So go ahead. Keep up your personal attacks and insults.
I am saying you are wrong because you are. Don’t take this as somehow you are inferior to me or I am placing myself above you. If you spew bulls~~~, I will call you out on it.
I have some questions, I read the comments and am just seeking some clarification.
The argument arises 1.) You cannot be MGTOW and spiritual or should I use the word religious and MGTOW? Is there a difference for all intensive purpose on religious and spiritual and its causality for allowing to be MGTOW? IE. you can be spiritual and MGTOW but not religious and MGTOW?
And my question is and please be gentle, if there is no afterlife, therefore no spirits, no soul, no God etc, No passing on of some form of energy, No end you just die and that’s it… Im going theoretical here brace for impact… The carbon and atoms that made up the asteroids and meteorites that struck earth 4.5 bya are found in the dinosaurs 3.5mya , those same atoms and molecules and carbon are then past on to us as in us (current). Would there be some afterlife in the form of energy. The laws of thermodynamics state energy cannot be created or destroyed and that it cannot be transferred to another state without losing some of its energy. So wouldn’t energy and molecules be passed on to new life thus life creates more life?
Another question, Electronic voice phenomena?
I think we dont really ever die because our energy and atoms and molecules are passed on to other living things so therefore I believe we live forever, if the laws of thermodynamics are true and I have interpreted them correctly.
Let the slaying begin! Im wearing level IIIa armor let it rain lol
I am just going to wing it like a blind man. Excues the ypos. I can’t get deep because I can’t see what I am typing. As an MGTOW ytheir are no rules, otherwise youo are not going your own way. I am an MGTOW because I see society as corrupot without a place for men. I am leaving because of this. So view mgtow as a reason to do whatever.
In regards to the thermosdynamics questions, I cannot see what I am typing, so I will have to put it on whold.
The laws of thermodynamics state energy cannot be created or destroyed and that it cannot be transferred to another state without losing some of its energy.
If there was an infinite source of energy, a diety, then life can not only pass to more life but also create new life. As to an after life, the issue has more to do with the transformation of energy rather than “if” there is energy. All energy cannot be fundamentally physical, otherwise non physical things (such as mathematics, abstract concepts/truths, geometric shapes) could not exist. Or one can gather from that conclusion that all energy could be physical and that existence itself is not dependent on energy because of the prior listed examples. Also one can ask what is energy?
It is a decent question but it is one of those types that leads to way more questions than answers.
As to an afterlife being possible, yes it is. There is no law preventing it.
Anonymous42Hey JD I’m glad it wasn’t me alone, I had the same thing happen, but now I’m back. Now I know it wasn’t me. GOOD! I haven’t seen harpomason, maybe he’s chasing his identity around….I never divulge passwords onto memory, I always create a plastic person on the computer, I’ll never trust computers, online banking, automatic payments, or anything else that involves a potential loss of identity. Snug as a bug in a cat-ladies rug!
Hey JD I’m glad it wasn’t me alone
I rarely ever proof read, except when I was in school, but not being able to see what I was typing was a pain in the ass. I was trying to figure out how I could be “hacked” or even if one could be hacked on a forum.
Anonymous42I don’t think anymore, when eBay started, my brother accidentally pasted a virus using the email’s html to create his page, they kicked him out for something he unwittingly did, but they let him back on after he explained what happened. I just don’t trust computers, I never did….
I just don’t trust computers, I never did…
I work with them alot and I can tell you computers are trustworthy.
They don’t “behave”. They are “behaved upon”.But I know what you mean. I still prefer a manned aircraft over a computerized pilot.
What I wouldn’t trust… is a female pilot.She would jump out to save herself even if the malfunction were her doing.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.@cominginhot, your IIIa armor is useless on the atheist side. What you need here is a MOPP suit and pro mask, ’cause this s~~~ is certified TOXIC.
Personally, I think MGTOW is too small of a group to get picky about needless distinction. IMO you can be religious or not. It really doesn’t matter.
The thing is, once you start taking red pills you start questioning everything. I think it is very natural to reject religion in the same way MGTOW reject gynocentrism. I think it is also natural to reject the welfare state, the banking industry, medical regulation, and many other ways the wool has been pulled over our eyes. So it seems natural to warn red pill thinkers about other hazards we perceive, since a wary audience probably will listen to warnings with greater ease.
—–Or so you would think! But when it comes down to it, I’ve found that people stick to their beliefs no matter what evidence or argument you give them! Mark Twain said it best… “It’s easier to convince someone of a lie than it is to convince them that what they BELIEVE is a lie.”
So maybe the best way to navigate this s~~~ storm is to pass out the advice you find helpful, but to keep in mind that advice won’t be accepted and won’t be useful to everyone. And also to keep in mind that ultimately we’re a lot more similar than we are different from one another. After all, we’re all escapees from the plantation of gynocentrism, no matter what else we believe in.
Anonymous5The Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 give more of a real insight into the political socioeconomic evolution of the Christian religion.
They seriously question the burgeoning preachings of the virgin birth, even at the time they were written.
It’s now widely accepted amongst many Christian theologians that the real father of Jesus was probably a roman soldier named Panthera.
Roman soldiers very often took liberties with occupied populations and women were fair game if they had the opportunity.
The situation in Judea was very much the same as many muslim/3rd world countries today.
Mary would have been treated , at best as garbage, at worst, stoned.
Hence the virgin birth story.
The Gnostic gospels even question the raising of the body of Jesus, however as we know, these “new” stories won out.
The idea that Jesus rose from the dead three days later is a straight take from Horus, an Egyptian god. The Jews spent many hundreds of years in Egypt before they escaped.
This Egyptian belief was around for thousands of years before the Christian adoption of the idea.
The amount of stuff about Jesus’s life ripped straight from the story of Horus is staggering.
For just this aspect of Christianity, you should watch the first third of the zeitgeist movie on Youtube, and then do some googling to find even more rip offs of Horus.
The “died and resurrected three days later was adopted by many religions at the time as well as many other aspects of Horus and Isis but the “life” of Jesus is virtually a straight rip off of Horus.The most fascinating insight the Gnostic gospels give is the real role of Mary Magdalene. She was the real driving force behind the cult of Jesus.
It’s true that Constantine forced all the warring factions of Christianity to agree on one version and the Gnostic gospels give us an idea of many of the “teachings” that were discarded because they didn’t serve the political ends of Constantine.
The different factions of Christianity were slaughtering each other much the same as the Orange and the Green, or the Sunni and Shiite.
Something had to be done and the end result is the Christian dogma we have today.The Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 give more of a real insight into the political socioeconomic evolution of the Christian religion. They seriously question the burgeoning preachings of the virgin birth, even at the time they were written. It’s now widely accepted amongst many Christian theologians that the real father of Jesus was probably a roman soldier named Panthera. Roman soldiers very often took liberties with occupied populations and women were fair game if they had the opportunity. The situation in Judea was very much the same as many muslim/3rd world countries today. Mary would have been treated , at best as garbage, at worst, stoned. Hence the virgin birth story. The Gnostic gospels even question the raising of the body of Jesus, however as we know, these “new” stories won out.
Gnosticism was quoted as heresy because it stated that man could find salvation only through knowledge. It was a very “exclusive” belief system in that no all were to be preached to or correct. It also contradicted much of the gospels which is why is wasn’t included and vice versa.
The idea that Jesus rose from the dead three days later is a straight take from Horus, an Egyptian god. The Jews spent many hundreds of years in Egypt before they escaped. This Egyptian belief was around for thousands of years before the Christian adoption of the idea. The amount of stuff about Jesus’s life ripped straight from the story of Horus is staggering. For just this aspect of Christianity, you should watch the first third of the zeitgeist movie on Youtube, and then do some googling to find even more rip offs of Horus. The “died and resurrected three days later was adopted by many religions at the time as well as many other aspects of Horus and Isis but the “life” of Jesus is virtually a straight rip off of Horus.
Judaism existed before Egypt. Judaism existed after Egypt. The Jews had issues with Egyptians because of beliefs. Rituals and myths, beside being common have one other thing: That is many are inversions of each other in some respect. This lead us to the conclusion that some “resurrection event” is deeply embedded in the human psyche and as to which is true we are stuck in a philosophical/historical debate. What these myths do point to is that there is some resurrection event that has/will tie man with God in some way.
However because of the variations of these religions and myths one is stuck with the question which one? The gravity of the resurrection and its necessity for mans salvation is not so much a question, if one is to look at the importances of these myths and how they played in culture, but rather which faith is right. Which faith is the pinnacle that all faiths are nullified under?
Also one faith is an inversion of the other. If the Horus myth is correct then one is stuck with Christianity being the inversion. And vice versa obviously. How and why Horus was raised is different than how/why Christ was raised. When dealing with what appears to be similar myths on the outside, one is stuck with more differences in the hows.
If anything the myths point to some form of natural or supernatural law deeply embedded in the human psyche and natural world, leading one to the question as to which religion is true. Take for example God. That is a universal observation by all man. But what is truth about him?
The most fascinating insight the Gnostic gospels give is the real role of Mary Magdalene. She was the real driving force behind the cult of Jesus. It’s true that Constantine forced all the warring factions of Christianity to agree on one version and the Gnostic gospels give us an idea of many of the “teachings” that were discarded because they didn’t serve the political ends of Constantine.
The Gnostic gospels contradicted the other gospels and vice versa. Things such as all matter being evil, the creator not being a supreme diety, knowledge led to salvation for a special elite, no definition or understanding as to what constituted knowledge, a lot of inconsistencies, etc.
Gnosticism did not survive on its own terms.
Anonymous5John Doe, you seem to be making quotes, then writing bizarre, inexplicable explanations or rebuttals underneath.
You seem to be under the illusion that by quoting, and putting some stuff beneath the quote that you’ve not only answered, but negated the above quote.
It seems to be your entire method of argument throughout this thread.
Can you explain how there’s a philosophical/historical debate about the resurrection event when the story of Horus precedes Jesus’s version by over a thousand years? Can you explain how Horus could be based on the Christian resurrection.
I wasn’t talking about Judaism anywhere, I didn’t even mention the word, just that Christianity sprung from the jews. I didn’t say anywhere there was any conflict with Judaism, in fact the Old testament of the bible is the same as it is with the jews (and the muslims as well)Your premise that people are after a supreme faith is only shared by those who can’t acknowledge their own mortality, which is the basis for all religions. At last count there’s over 3200 recognised religions. Take your pick or be resourceful and start a cult of your own.
To say the gnostic gospels didn’t survive because they contradicted the other gospels is probably right but that in no way means the other gospels are true or right. The whole point of my post was to acknowledge Elementals historically accurate account of current Christian dogma.
It was Constanine’s victory at the battle of the Milvian Bridge that launched Christianity from a cult amongst many to an officially endorsed Roman religion, not the integrity of the gospels. It’s seat of power is still in Rome.
It was their reign of terror throughout the Middle Ages and beyond that kept the belief system intact.Your conclusion that gnostic gospels didn’t survive on their own terms, or that it was because they were based on knowledge is bizarre.
Keep quoting slabs, lines, even single words if it pleases you,,,,,,,,,,and writing anything you like underneath.
It seems to make sense at some level in your belief system.
I now understand Richard Dawkins frustration with using logic to deal with “believers”,,,and all others who try the same tactic.Qbeck01 wrote: A lack of belief is not a belief system
John Doe wrote : Through lack of belief in one thing we find belief in another.Nonsensical responses like this make me cringe.
John Doe -“So concepts do not exist. Then how can we acknowledge them as we just have done?”
You can’t even understand the difference between a concept and a thing. You fail to see the different meanings of existence. A 14 year old can understand the difference between concepts and things but you cannot.
This is why you are hopeless. I suspect you’re trolling me or are autistic.John Doe wrote: “God is God. Just like one is one. To define God would not only be impossible because to define God would make him cease to be God, but also because one cannot define an irreducible primary. God is an irreducible primary that”
You cannot talk coherently about something you cannot define. Again, children understand this but you do not.
If you admit you cannot define God or can only offer incoherent gibberish then the conversation ends. It’s as if someone walks up to you and says “something exists” we cannot continue the conversation till we know what something means.
I’ve told you what atheism is in previous posts; My first posts explains atheism.When I first responded to you on this thread I made an effort to interpret your ramblings as generously as humanly possible. Assuming you where making an attempt at a genuine debate. I see now I was mistaken. You cannot grasp simple ideas and your style of arguments reminds me of a Monty Python skit :
Why atheism is the only rational position to hold:
If you say a God exists it must ether be defined as supernatural or as something that interacts with the natural world.
If you say God is supernatural then such a God is logically impossible. To take the position that a God exists outside of space/time etc. is the same as saying god does not exist. If such a entity does not interact with the natural world then there is no way to distinguish between existence and non-existence.
If you define God as something that exists in the natural world then it is measurable. As an example: if you define God as a really powerful alien then God becomes logically possible and you run into the problem of proving a negative. The only rational belief is one that is justified by evidence. Thus, you should not believe until you have evidence of a logically possible God.
The logically impossible god can be proven not to exist just as a square circle or self contradicting statement can be. Thus a strong atheist position is the correct one.
If God is part of the natural world then it becomes testable. The position of the weak atheist is the right one – non belief about propositions until there is a evidence.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
