* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Remember: New Test. Is First, Most, Literature,
Above All, Teaching Distinct Lesson
(Apollonian, 3 Feb 19)
(Apollonian, 3 Feb 19)
Good grief (see below-copied), but do thou think thou "protesteth too much"? Isn't all that verbiage thou give admission thou cannot prove there is no God (or no Christ)? And note I don't disagree w. any of thy particular pt.s thou make. But atheism is NOT justified, which thou essentially admits--thou merely making excuses (even if quite justified in certain cases and instances) and gives other reasons for so holding.
But I suggest thou TOTALLY misses the real pt.--which is Christianity is literature (New Test., the Old Test. being supplementary) and aesthetics. I didn't really entirely understand New Test. and Christianity UNTIL I read and more thoroughly appreciated the Homeric literature, "Illiad" and "Oddysey." I didn't accept the Homeric lit. as actual, literal account of events--ANYMORE THAN THOU SAYS ABOUT NEW TEST., above--and that's what thou are over-looking.
For note New Test. as literature is essentially Christ (and others too) conducting a distinct DIALECTIC w. such as the Pharisees, especially. Note Christ is mere metaphor for TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), and this is posed AGAINST (thesis vs. anti-thesis) Jew/satanic lies (JOHN 8:44).
Thus note Christ essentially defends the OBJECTIVE reality, only real possible basis for meaningful TRUTH--against the Pharisees who uphold the SUBJECTIVE reality of "midrash" (interpretation) and "Oral Law Tradition," by which Pharisees say reality, esp. Torah, is only what they and rabbis say it is.
Surely, thou understand Pharisees and Jews take seriously their Talmud and "midrash" subjectivism by which they hold reality is mere creation/product of mentality/consciousness, by which then the subject is virtually God, the creator--SATANISM, by definition. Pharisees/Jews then simply hold to a COLLECTIVISTIC subjectivism--only what Jews agree upon and say is true, a most effective, successful "group-think" thereupon imposed upon others.
Thus due then to Jews' typical collectivist dedication and esp. organization, they're able to dominate and lead all the rest of the subjectivists/Satanists among the gentiles, who vastly, presently, out-number Jews, greatly.
And then, along w. these far more numerous gentile subjectivists/Satanists, Jews the leaders, they all (subjectivists/Satanists) are enabled to dominate, intimidate, and dictate to the rest of the society, usually be simple means of fear--but they're most clever liars and frauds too, they running the central-bank and fiat-currency systems.
Thus thou see, Christ was able to so effectively counter-act the Jews and Satanists by means of his philosophy, and especially ethics which followed logically fm his basic, though implicit, metaphysics--the objective, determined reality. Q.E.D.
---------------------above by ap in response to below-copied--------------------
# 8, Kratoklastes says:
February 3, 2019 at 11:45 am GMT • 600 Words
@apollonian
can thou PROVE there is no God?
That’s a stupid question, of a type that amateur logicians think is a ‘gotcha’.
I’m not the one insisting that everyone has to hew to a bunch of provably-wrong primitive drivel, or else they will suffer an eternity of conscious torment.
Can you prove that Attis is not the ‘right’ god? Can you prove that Yahweh isn’t actually Sutekh? Can you prove that you should worship Yahweh rather than Aten, or Zeus, or Fkel’hir?
Of course you can’t. In the same way that you can’t prove that there isn’t a bright pink dinosaur sitting next to me pointing out (some of) my typos.
See how ****ing stupid that is?
But in any case: let’s examine what would happen if there was actually was a god that fit the description of the people who don’t ever actually read the collection of drivel in the Old Nonsense and the New Nonsense.
In other words, let’s see what outcomes are implied by the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity (OOOE) who made the universe and who thinks human beings are the best thing since button-up boots.
What would we expect to observe?
We would expect to observe a universe that is not overwhelmingly hostile to human life. (Even this pissy little planet is mostly-hostile to human life; the rest of the universe is much much larger, and it’s much much more hostile).
We would expect that if the OOOE decided to interact with humans, he would give a far better explanation of his work, than what we find in literally every single religious text. He wouldn’t provide a bunch of bull**** that makes really obvious mistakes about the nature of reality and the physical world.
You see, that’s a logical ‘entailment’ of being an OOOE… it is necessarily within the power of an omnipotent, omniscient entity to find a perfect and error free explanation to any audience, in terms that the audience would understand completely. (And yet ‘God’ never mentioned bacteria, or the value of hygiene, or that slavery is wrong, or that homosexuality is a normal part of the human condition).
We would expect a universe completely free of suffering: animals would not live by killing other animals (the amount of suffering thus engendered is beyond imagining).
We would expect humans to have come into being very shortly after the beginning of the universe, rather than 16 billion years into the process. What was this ‘god’ doing for all that time, if the universe was made for humans?
We would expect the ‘first contact’ betyween Yahweh and humanity to have happened shortly after modern humans evolved, not at least 350,000 years later. Why did Yahweh wait so long, and then give a message that looks exactly like what we would expect if it was made up by a bunch of pre-literate savages who had no idea how the world actually works??
Equally important: not only do we not observe the type of universe we would expect if Abrahamic OOOE-type gods existed… the evidence that we have, is consistent with a better hypothesis; the “nothing supernatural” hypothesis explains every aspect of reality (i.e., gods are redundant additions to any useful theory).
And of course when it comes to the documentary evidence itself (Genesis, Exodus etc): every time we test the evidence, the story is is wrong in every particular. No evidence of 2 million people wandering around for 40 years in the 430 miles between Egypt and Jerusalem at any time before 900BcE; no evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt; no evidence of any of the Patriarchs… and so on and so forth.
Seriously: stop reading apologists and grifters, and start reading some scientific and archaeological work. The second scientific revolution has been going on for 200 years, and you’re stuck believing primitive horse-**** that none of the senior clergy of the major religions believes anymore
Lastly: I’m pretty sure it should be “canst thou” when it’s interrogative.
No comments:
Post a Comment