A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism

[houseofcantor]

It's Gwyneth. And she's supposed to be holding me in a well.

[Free Thought]

(12-12-2012 12:52 PM)Egor Wrote:  If you think arguing atheist vs. God is gut-wrenching, try going over to Catholic Forums and arguing morality. Those people are utterly insane. I mean, atheists are wrong and illogical, but one doesn't have to be insane to be an atheist. To be a practicing Catholic, I honestly think you have to completely out of your mind. It is no wonder so many Catholics become atheists. If I were a Catholic, born and raised, and that's the only way I really understood God, I'd become an atheist. No sane person could not become an atheist after such an early exposure.

However, that's still not a good reason to be an atheist. Atheism is still a fallacy. God exists in spite of the Catholic Church.

You know, that's pretty funny coming from an atheist.


Good to know you have a sense of humour.

[Kinger]

Schizophrenics hear voices and we lock them up in a hospital with a healthy dose of drugs. People like Egor believe god exists and speak to him through prayer; yet they are just Christians. Dafuq?

The world around us is no more proof of god than a man with baggy clothes and a hoody is proof he stole something. People like you make my head spin because the same logic and reasoning that goes into everyday life is suspended for this fluffy bunny and rainbow sky daddy.

[Hafnof]

Egor, you say that legalism always leads to immorality. Humanism is based primarily on the principle of least harm. Do you think that a legalistic reading of humanism would lead to immorality, or is it just that the words that people tend to be legalistic about are a poor foundation for morality as compared to humanism?

[Egor]

(14-12-2012 07:41 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Egor, you say that legalism always leads to immorality. Humanism is based primarily on the principle of least harm. Do you think that a legalistic reading of humanism would lead to immorality, or is it just that the words that people tend to be legalistic about are a poor foundation for morality as compared to humanism?

I think that any time you make a rule, you then make anything not in violation of that rule okay to do. A rule is specific. If it's not specific, it starts to lose any meaning. "Thou shalt not kill." is a meaningless commandment, because it is too vague. It is impossible for humans to live without killing.

So, you make a rule, "Do not murder." Abortion is not murder, war is not murder, a bomber pilot dropping bombs on a city is not murder, execution is not murder, waterboarding is not murder, mercy killing is not murder, and on and on.

If you say murder is the unlawful taking of life, then you can take life by any lawful means. If rape is only intercourse, then sodomy is not rape, so you need another law to cover homosexual rape, and on and on.

Eventually, you have thousands of laws, and yet immorality flourishes, and the immorality that flourishes is done so with vigor because it is legal to do.

Now, a principal like "Do the least harm," is garbage, because it's too vague. You might as well say: Thou shalt not kill.

Jesus knew this. I know he knew this, because I learned it from his teachings recorded in the Sermon on the Mount regarding the law. In fact, he used this in his anti-legalistic rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself by doing unto him what you would have done unto you." It's almost a divine joke. Because, if I psychotically believed you had a demon in you, and I would never want to live with a demon in me, and I killed you to spare you the torments of Satan. In God's eyes, I've done nothing wrong. I have kept the law of God.

All we have to figure out, through contemplation and philosophy, is whether or not Jesus was a madman to make a rule like that, or a genius. Ironically his Golden Rule is the easiest thing for an individual to grasp intellectually and psychologically (Jesus said his yoke was light). But it destroys all power systems in the world, all means of people controlling people. And so it is rejected on principle, but look around you at the world, and take in its history, does it look like we've been able to control people with laws?

[Xinoftruden]

ATTENTION I HAVE TRAVELLED FROM THE YEAR 1996 TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE.

Egor, your pants are too tight.

[Mark Fulton]

(13-12-2012 12:40 AM)Egor Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 09:24 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  So, Egor...
You hate the Catholic Church, yet you would have no Gospels if that institution had not voted to canonize those 4 spurious documents. Quite the dilemma to be in.

I thought a lot about that: They were used by God--the Catholics, I mean. The Gospels were written long before there was ever a Catholic Church, but their scribes and their religious authority preserved the Gospels. Ironically, the Gospels condemn just about everything the Catholic Church does, and they "miraculously" never had the insight or foresight to edit them--and they could have, and they would have--without a doubt.

Hell, even the letters of Paul, Peter, John, The Writer of Hebrews, and the writer of Acts don't jive with the message contained in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Sometimes, actually, I wonder if the writer of Acts wrote Acts to condemn what the apostles were doing after the death of Jesus--given that it's the same writer who wrote Luke.

We have no idea who wrote the Gospels. They are mysterious documents springing up from the Roman Empire. The earliest Catholic Church preserved them--and they shouldn't have. They should have edited them. Because now, it is the hypocrisy of the Church juxtaposed with the life and teachings of God on Earth, Jesus Christ, that is going to end the Church. It is crushing the Church (Catholic and Protestant) to the point where no one even wants to mention the name Jesus Christ in polite company anymore.

Everyone puts their arm around Jesus for the photo op, but anyone who actually believed and talked like Jesus would be a pariah. And that's exactly what Jesus predicted.

None of the rest of the Bible is a miracle. The rest of the New Testament is just early Christian opinions. The Old Testament is just Jewish Law and prophecy. There's nothing special. But the Gospels absolutely should not exist--and yet they do.

So, it was my honor to understand them in this way, and to recognize that modern translations of the Gospel of Thomas were going every which way but Sunday. Everyone who learns Coptic wants to translate Thomas their own way, and that's only going to get worse over time. So, I'm privilaged that God allowed me the time and ability to synthesize all five Gospels into one Gospel, and in so doing, I believe the real Gospel has emerged for the modern world. Of course, I'm referring to The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Gospels are a miracle. Reading them in the correct manner will cause a rebirth of the human being into Christ. That's what I believe anyway.

Has the number of people who buy into your belief system got past two (you and your wife) yet?

[kpax]

It's pretty clear after seven pages of thread, most of which I happily skipped, that our friend, Egor is an attention whore who has seems to be getting it on with all of you.....

That said, I am glad I have better things to do than to flip flop on my religious flavor kool-aid of the week.

Merry Christmas, everyone! And don't feed the trolls. Especially the ones who wake up every morning picking the next thing they believe in out of a hat.

[Logica Humano]

(12-12-2012 01:08 PM)Egor Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 01:02 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  So we're wrong? That leads me to believe you have proof that a deity(ies) exist and can demonstrate that we're wrong (and no you can't use one the silly books, we need actual testable, observable proof).

Evidence: just look around you; there it is. Demonstrable? Okay: everyday the sun rises the same way. Chemical reactions occur in the same way every time. The laws of physics do not errode over time.

And you will say: THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!

Someone either slept or cheated their way through remedial science class. If you were truly educated, which you are clearly not, you would know about the simplistic law of thermodynamics and entropy. The utter lack of demonstrable evidence to support your argument, and your persistence in the delusion that you possess some, not only makes you look like a babbling mongoloid, it makes you one.

Your "evidence" proves something. I can conclude, based on your evidence, that your brain is full of empty caverns.

[Egor]

(15-12-2012 04:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Has the number of people who buy into your belief system got past two (you and your wife) yet?

Unlike you, Mark, I'm not trying to get anyone to "buy" into my beliefs, and unlike you people ask me what I believe so I explain it to them. I have reasons for believing what I do, and I explain those reasons. I'm not looking for followers or "patients" as you'd have it.

I am very proud to say I have my own religion, and I don't need anyone else to believe it.