athiest mgtow

[Qbeck01Participant 57]

ComingInHot —What solace does immortality give in the form of “your atoms/energy” will live on? Everything important you are– memories, thoughts, feelings, the self dies with you. All that remains is an corpse. Talk like that reminds me of new age mumbo jumbo.

[harpo-my-“SON”Participant 2410]

Interesting reading for sure men…My reasons for my belief are not important at this point, at least to anyone but myself…I will say my reasons are my own and are not from an extreme religious background or indoctrination. Tolerance seems an important word to toss out, but no one is untitled to that from anyone…Respect for the belief or lack thereof in beings of greater power than the human populous I will continue to give by default…whether it is returned or not..I feel people learn to be respectful of others beliefs or they don’t, and I can do little to change anyone but myself in that regard..Sometimes I wish that I could more readily agree with others especially when they talk about having no regrets in life…That sure sounds like a good way to live your life, but I will always regret that I was not able to help more people to find the peace I have now…This Is not spiritual or faith that gives this peace I speak about but more acceptance and tolerance…

 

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Yeah, I wasn’t sure my explanation would be clear enough.

The idea of a resurrection goes across all cultures and belief systems, Egyptians included.   It is a myth, that for some reason, is imbedded deep within many theologies and religions.  Because of how common this is, one must ask the question of not if/was/will there be a resurrection event but rather how must one interpret it.

The Jewish faith, unwittingly, predicted a resurrection with Christ but as to how and why that resurrection took place is different than the Eqyptian account.  I did not say Horus was based on the Christian tradition (which by default would make it based on Jewish tradition), I said that it was an inversion.   The question, as I stated before, is not so much about resurrection events but rather how it is to be interpreted.

You say Christianity sprung from the Jews, but the resurrection was based on Egyptian mythology (If I understood your argument correctly).  However Judaism and Egyptian mythology have major differences as to how/why and the interpretation of the natural world.  Judaism was the first to make use of abstract concepts in its “mythology” (take creation story in Genesis for example [concept of void/etc.]) where as the other pagan religions simply reflected the material and natural world.

Judaism had a creation story on abstract concepts alone, while the pagan creation stories depended on twisting facets of an already existing nature into a myth.

I hope I was clear, if not keep asking questions.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The existence of a higher realm is the premise of all religions.  An immortal human soul is also.  In regards to the 3200 recognized religions, that only gives evidence to the fact that religion is a natural part of human identity and existence.  One has to be right.  There are also ten’s of thousand foods that point to the necessity of people eating.  Some of them have to be good for people to eat.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Constantine helped unify a set of preexisting Gospels and letters.  That is all.  In regards to the spread of religion through warfare, that
was done regardless of the culture.  Pagans did it also.  Governments back then claimed authority from a higher power
than man, it would be inevitable to spread the faith due to the geopolitical nature of the times.  Christianity replaced
a dying paganism in Rome.  As to making Christianity invalid, there is no argument here.  As I said before, Constantine
organized what was already in existence, and much of his work (if I remember correctly) was heavily influenced by
theologians and philosophers of these various works.

There was no reign of terror throughout the middle ages, you have to be more specific with this point as I do not know
what you are arguing.

Anonymous wrote:

Your conclusion that gnostic gospels didn’t survive on their own terms, or that it was because they were based on knowledge is bizarre.

Not at all.  Gnosticism claimed many things, one of which is that man can be save through self knowledge alone.
However there were many inconsistencies as to what knowledge pertained of, how it is sought, and so on.  Regardless
of these inconsistencies there was still an elite class which decided who could learn some things and who couldn’t.
Its metaphysics had issues also.  Things such as the material world being only evil, led to many contradictions.

Anonymous wrote:

I now understand Richard Dawkins frustration with using logic to deal with “believers”,,,and all others who try the same tactic.

First, according to terminal, this would be a fallacy from authority.  Second Dawkins philosophy has many inconsistencies
the top being that he was under the assumption that everything and everyone functions on logic alone.  He knows he is
arguing with men of belief, then condemns them for belief, when he knew that was the premise of their argument already.
He claims to argue with logic but does not seek an opponent who uses logic also which makes him illogical.

Also, using a premise of doubt is not a consistent form of logic as one uses and axiom they are trying to disprove.

Dawkins is illogical if held to his own standard of logic.  He is a hypocrite.

 

 

 

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Qbeck01 wrote:

Nonsensical responses like this make me cringe.

To not believe in a God leads one to believe in only the material world.  We do not fully understand the material world, so to acknowledge it as being it would in effect be belief.

Qbeck01 wrote:

You cannot talk coherently about something you cannot define.

Unless it is an axiom.  Can you define identity or the number 1?  Yet these exist.

Qbeck01 wrote:

If you admit you cannot define God or can only offer incoherent gibberish then the conversation ends.

You cannot define an axiom, just acknowledge it.  My point is that Athiesm is illogical.  God fits as an axiom of an argument, just like a number or law, and atheism seeks to disprove the axiom required for its argument.

You cannot even define half the words you use, I had to show you dictionary passages.  And then when you come around and do it only points to contradictions in your argument.

Qbeck01 wrote:

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.

This argument fails because it makes assumptions.

The first is that only natural law exists.

Second that supernatural law (higher than natural) would somehow contradict natural law.

Third that logic is fundamentally natural when in reality it is abstract.  There is no proof for logic in the material world.  Laws, in and of themselves, have to be supernatural in some respect since they exist in non-material terms that determine how the physical world acts.

Qbeck01 wrote:

To take the position that a God exists outside of space/time etc. is the same as saying god does not exist.

And if he was subject to space and time he would not be  in existence.  Space time is scientific/philosophical understanding of the material universe.  It cannot be the ultimate law and to state so would be an assumption leading to fallacy.  It is also not a law in itself. Because in doing so it would eliminate the existence of axioms such as the number 1.  Does “1” need space time to exist?

Certain axioms can exist without space time.

Qbeck01 wrote:

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.

If it is measurable than it cannot be God.  Which is effect is why God cannot be defined, because to define is place a limit on.  But there are things we acknowledge without being able to define.  Besides numbers, the concept of infinity is indefinable yet we acknowledge it.

Evidence is subject to interpretation.  So one basically is saying if it cannot be interpreted it cannot exist.

So the atheist position has two problems.

either:

It is stuck disproving an axiom required for the argument to exist (given there is no definition for God)  or a definition is Given and
one is stuck proving a negative.

Athiesm is not rational in any respect.

-It violates its own rules, even though it has none according to its believers.
-It is reactionary, in that it is always pointing to something else rather than standing on its own to feet (no premise)
-It is based on assumptions.
-It is an emotional argument by default because it lacks logic and faith.

 

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Qbeck01 wrote:

What solace does immortality give in the form of “your atoms/energy” will live on? Everything important you are– memories, thoughts, feelings, the self dies with you. All that remains is an corpse. Talk like that reminds me of new age mumbo jumbo.

For some immortality offers no solice.  Acknowledging immortality is not an emotional argument, it is just acknowledge immortality.  Like one acknowledges a number or a law.  That is it.

None of this stuff we are talking about is New Age, or even Old.  It has, is, and will be discuss.  Existence is one of the core studies of all philosophies and sciences.

[Anonymous 5]

JohnDoe, you seem to have some type of personality disorder. I’ve seen it often enough. You win, best wishes.

[Qbeck01Participant 57]

        Qbeck01 wrote: You cannot talk coherently about something you cannot define.

John Doe wrote: Unless it is an axiom.  Can you define identity or the number 1?  Yet these exist.

Amusing, It seems I taught you a new word– Axiom. It’s a shame you still don’t know what it means.

Numbers are well defined and they are concepts. Poke yourself in the eye with a fork and I’ll do the same with the number 1, we’ll see which one can still see afterward.

I can’t bring myself to wade through the vomit you spew in your posts. I’d recommend you spend more time thinking than posting, Quality over quantity.

 

[Beware the LamiaeSpectator 89]

Terminal Meme wrote:

You cant go Your way and Yahwey at the same time.

I guess it’s not in bad form to quote yourself, even with your other user name. Happy Easter you f~~~ing Xtian, snot-nosed, mentally handicapped cows.

“Put a Muzzle on the Lamb” “Mittite agnum in capistrum, bitch”

“If Jesus comes back I’ll kill him again.”

“God Damn Christ”
Immanuel Kant was a real p~~~ant   Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

Who could think you under the table.  David Hume could out-consume    Schopenhauer and Hegel      And Wittgenstein was a beery swineWho was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya’     Bout the raising of the wrist.

SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY P~~~ED

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,  On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.  Plato, they say, could stick it away;

Half a crate of whiskey every day.  Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,  Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: “I drink, therefore I am”

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;  A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he’s p~~~ed!

[Qbeck01Participant 57]

Beware the Lamiae -What the f~~~ is that? Did you just go full retard? Whatever affliction John Doe is suffering from you seem to have been affected.

[Anonymous 42]

Lamiae probably has been drinking, I can tell, he sounds like me when I’ve been drinking.

Gleeblublaaba snlssttc sssblaa <bottle breaking> <door slamming> <lamiae passing out> <falling face first onto his bed> <now drooling and driveling>

Good night Lamiae, sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite.

[Beware the LamiaeSpectator 89]

Thats a poem about philosophers from Monty Python.

[Beware the LamiaeSpectator 89]

I don’t drink, period. Been sober 20 months. I do use Copenhagen and drink Redbull/Coffee

[Anonymous 42]

That’s cool man, I was just poking a little humor at you, I’ve been sober since the early 90’s.

20 months sober is nothing to laugh at, congratulations, and it’s the best decision a drinking man could ever make (my opinion).

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Qbeck01 wrote:

Qbeck01 wrote: You cannot talk coherently about something you cannot define. John Doe wrote: Unless it is an axiom. Can you define identity or the number 1? Yet these exist.

Amusing, It seems I taught you a new word– Axiom. It’s a shame you still don’t know what it means. Numbers are well defined and they are concepts. Poke yourself in the eye with a fork and I’ll do the same with the number 1, we’ll see which one can still see afterward. I can’t bring myself to wade through the vomit you spew in your posts. I’d recommend you spend more time thinking than posting, Quality over quantity.

I think I understand where I might have not been specific.  When I said you cannot define an axiom, I think you thought I meant the definition of  “Axiom” itself.  I should have stated the things that qualify as axioms.

It should have been “can you define or (explain) the number 1?”.  My bad, I should have proof read it.

 

You cannot define the number 1.  Go ahead explain it or reduce it to anything else.  Or explain infinity or reduce it to anything else.  Or define consciousness/etc.  These things are axioms, because according to your definition of axiom, they are “irreducible primaries”.  God would by default have to be an axiom in that God cannot be defined or reduced.

“Numbers are well defined and they are concepts.”

You also used Conciousness/Identity/and something else as examples of axioms.  These things cannot be reduced beyond themselves.  This is all assuming your whole argument is based off “your definition” of axiom.  I already provided one from a dictionary.  I am simply going along with yours, for your sake, to prove that you are incorrect on multiple levels.

I think you are confusing numbers with mathematical theories.

I am trying to point out that your argument makes no rational sense, when its own terms are applied to it, regardless of how many definitions you switch around.

 

In regards to the “personality disorder” if your reasoning is what defines sanity then I would have to take it as a compliment after seeing your “arguments”.   I don’t have to use shaming language simply because my counterargument is correct.  If the shaming language makes you feel relevant then by all means continue.  But you are wasting your own time.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

Thats a poem about philosophers from Monty Python.

Sam Harris was a philosopher too.  So after your argument based on the “fallacy of argument from authority”, you are basically pointing out how he (the authority) is full of s~~~ since philosophy/philosophers are full of s~~~.

I am probably being an asshole at this point, for pointing simple stuff like this out.  Oh well….

[Beware the LamiaeSpectator 89]

this sucks

[Beware the LamiaeSpectator 89]

The commonality I was looking for with you, Mgtower, I’ve found it. 🙂 Speak our differences, but a man who put the drink down, I can respect because I have too. Surely we have our reasons. Have a bad ass sober day.

[Beware the LamiaeSpectator 89]

This room got all f~~~ed up. I’m going to start a new atheist room. John, please stay out of it. Seriously bro, Its for atheist only, not Christians to start s~~~. I respect and applaud your semi-mgtow status, though we disagree on many fronts, I do recognize that you exist and am glad you like mgtow, but you need to respect the lines drawn here.

Honestly its just rude. Since Harpomason started the Men of Faith room, I have not gone in there. I did unto others as I would want done unto me. That favor was not returned. Your comments in the new room are not welcome, no matter how much of an urge you get (that shouldn’t be a problem since you wouldn’t be reading in a room that you have no business in anyway, right?) So please, don’t show up and start piping in with all your seemingly impartial comments that have no basis and are contrarian.

If you start topics; if the rooms you fancy such as Men of Faith room, never receive visitors or posts from strangers, take it as a sign that your interests need changing, that your views are expired, that typical MGTOW do not desire to hold your views or comment about them. Consistently, you just show up in places, offering viewpoints that literally make no sense. You have this grandiose prose with no reason behind it, just pretension and certainty without logic or proof. It’s gotten old, especially where it wasn’t invited, and expressly warned against.

Just do us a solid, if you respect MGTOW at all, to keep distance from the atheist room. You believe in god, we get it, go reflect on your faith and pick defeated arguments with other faithful people who you’ll agree with.

 

 

[Anonymous 42]

*

[Author]

Posts