Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

The Delusion of God EP. 1

18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 11:27:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dear Readers

I am no good author of any sort, but here I want to respond to a certain user's list of "DELUSIONS" of Atheists, which I find based on sophistic ad-hominem premises and circular logic, and of how God's true picture and knowledge is definitely unknown to us humans, and for this very reason, disbelieving is a fact. If any objections shall be posted, please post them with at least a drop of sincerity and civility in your argumentation, for I have dealt with Christians who has indeed accused me of being an immoral idiotic person. There truly is nothing more lethal than sincere ignorance.

Objections

The atheist, in his self-induced delusion, believes nothing he does really matters in the end.

The Theist lives to die. The Theist has no other reason to live; if there is enough proof, and there is already so (so to say, as neurologically, science has disproven Cartesian Dualism), to say that the afterlife does not exist, then the Theist will still swim in his list of long fantasized stories. This is only logical of him to do so; one society who has held a belief so dear will not easily renounce these theories for any new one, no matter how proven. This is a show of fear of change; fear of new ideas. But new ideas are

The Atheist imagines he has no need to be forgiven of anything in his history as long as he is not confronted with it by a person.

The Theist imagines that if he commits murder and genuinely repents, he shall go to heaven whilst other moral atheists who has lived a moral life go to hell. This is not only true in theory, by via fact. A certain war fighter, General "Butt Naked", who fought in the Second Liberian Civil War, has killed indeed 3,000 people directly and indirectly. He has genuinely repent, and now he is being revered all over the country of Liberia; he is going to "heaven" Stephen Hawkins, a man who has improved our understanding of natural systems, of the world, and of the universe, is destined for hell, only because he denies the concept of a "tri-omni God" How absurd is this delusion?

The Atheist is in for a big surprise.


"Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence" Bertrand Russell

Monotheism: Man-made or Divine-ordered?


Now, we come to the notions of anthropology and history. It should be absurd to high levels to say that anthropology and history disproves a monotheistic God; but this absurdity might be reduced if the facts were taken into consideration. This is built upon several fundamental assertions that seems to prove that Monotheism is a man-made notion. Based upon several fundamental propositions, this idea, this theory of origins of monotheism, if believable, has created an uproar in society. I hope that me presenting this will not be TOO unbearable to theists.

Firstly, this theory is radical in a way that others are not; Moses, the creator of monotheism and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, was an Egyptian and not a Jew. As the story goes, Moses was picked up from a river by an Egyptian Princess, who named him "Moses" (meaning to pick up in Hebrew). The Egyptian princess bred Moses AS IF he were her son. After some ramble-jumble happened, Moses rose up and led the army of "Jews" against the Pharoah.

But let us first logically deduce the fact of linguistically-difficult translation. How could an Egyptian princess have such an extreme and thorough knowledge of Hebrew if she was Egyptian? To expound on this view, there is also a coincidental correlation between the word "Moses" and the Egyptian language. Moses in Egyptian means "son" (in reality, it is an abbreviate "Amoses"). Secondly, there are a lot of myths like the River Myths around the world; where some child is left in some place to die, someone picks them up, looks after them they meet with the people who abandoned them, and they rebel and reach some greatness. Oedipus, Romulus and Heracles are all examples of these myths; where do these originate from? Accordingly to Freud, he call these "metaphors" and nothing else. A Godless Jew Freud was, he stated that "the womb" was often a metaphor for the mother's stomach. In the actions of picking the baby up or rescuing it, he attributes these to the work and the ends of midwives, aka. delivering babies. The glorification of their fathers are also prevalent; sons and daughters naturally praise their fathers.

With these two objections presented, then what really happened?

I propose the following; Moses was an Egyptian Noble, who followed the strictly monotheistic Cult of Atens, and through the cult of Atens, created monotheism. Some background information on the Cult of Atens; quite simply, basking in the glory of HIMSELF (ahem ahem), Pharoah Akhenaten IV decided to create a religion worshipping the sun, and only the sun God "Ra" making himself the "son of God" Ignoring all the implications of this, he made this religion all up. On the 9th year of his "Religious Revolution" he implemented the idea, the formulation, that there was only one God, and this was "him" so to say.

Moses was indeed picked up by an Egyptian princess; however, this is where the Jews came into place. In the first years of his reign, Akhehnaten IV decided to create a new capital. Accordingly to the scriptures left, he "acquired a group of desert dwellers" to build this new capital. After this, he died of plague. This plague was apparently present in the story too, when the Pharaoh died via plague called by God. So what really happened? No one could say for certain, but there is one theory out of all this shrouded mysteries that could have come out, and this, I believe, presents the truth.

Moses was indeed the leader of the Jews. But he was not of Jewish origins, but of Noble Egyptian origins. He, as a noble, became a leader in the building of Akhehnaten's city. However, after Akhenaten's death, there was a brief period of war and disruptions of tranquility. "Moses" apparently led the Jews to safety and freedom, and from here, they prospered at another built city when unpredictably, Moses was killed, either be jealousy or by the fact that he was a Egyptian leading a rabble of Jews, and now the Jews wanted to regain that position. If we were to take this account, then this would be more or less definite evidence of the Jews as followers of the Cult of Atenism. Both religious declare God as unrepresentable, and albeit Judaism is filled with moral practices, they are only different in practice. Nevertheless, after Moses's murder, the Jews felt the need to glorify this hero, and glorify his "eventual reincarnation" which led to the ideas of Messiah, and through a neighboring tribe, eventually Yahweh was formed.

So apparently, all this fuss was about one misunderstanding of a religion; the Cult of Atenism, who developed from an egoistic pharaoh who wanted the "heavens to be behind him" and such created a monotheistic cult in which intolerance was practiced. Judaism is most definitely influenced by this thought of monotheism of a God who cannot be represented.

This is a proposed theory. Pleas discuss it! I love discussions.

Thanks
18Karl
praise the lord Chin Chin
Burls
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 4:31:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The Theist lives to die. The Theist has no other reason to live; if there is enough proof, and there is already so (so to say, as neurologically, science has disproven Cartesian Dualism), to say that the afterlife does not exist, then the Theist will still swim in his list of long fantasized stories. This is only logical of him to do so; one society who has held a belief so dear will not easily renounce these theories for any new one, no matter how proven. This is a show of fear of change; fear of new ideas. But new ideas are"

I personally disagree due to the fact that, in my opinion, spirits generally don't enjoy sleeping, lovemaking, eating and other distractions afforded by the senses. I say generally because I believe privileged spirits have the option of dwelling in incarnate bodies. In that sense of becoming a privileged spirit I agree that it would be a heaven that a theist might aspire to, but you may agree that the underprivileged outnumber the privileged and so the simple existence of being human outranks that of an underprivileged spirit.

"The Theist imagines that if he commits murder and genuinely repents, he shall go to heaven whilst other moral atheists who has lived a moral life go to hell. This is not only true in theory, by via fact. A certain war fighter, General "Butt Naked", who fought in the Second Liberian Civil War, has killed indeed 3,000 people directly and indirectly. He has genuinely repent, and now he is being revered all over the country of Liberia; he is going to "heaven" Stephen Hawkins, a man who has improved our understanding of natural systems, of the world, and of the universe, is destined for hell, only because he denies the concept of a "tri-omni God" How absurd is this delusion?"

Agreed, but the nature of government is often to remain in power and broaden the pyramids base. Whether or not the promise has merit doesn't prove the nonexistence of authority.

"The Atheist is in for a big surprise...
"Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence" Bertrand Russell"

As a former atheist myself, the evidence was/is the greatest event of my life. Other than the biblical advice that there is an agency of people devoted, for one reason or another, to be a hindrance, I haven't discovered why there are divisions between who may 'see' and who may not.

" this theory of origins of monotheism, if believable, has created an uproar in society. I hope that me presenting this will not be TOO unbearable to theists."

America has a president and England a prime minister; I can hardly imagine why if policy is decided by congress and parliament, unless the belief in a higher authority is too hard to shake.

"(consisting of 5 paragraphs)"

I've used the Exodus as a metaphor wherein Moses/Lucifer falls from Pharoh/God's grace and wanders thru the desert. How is my perspective any less valid than yours?
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 6:09:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 4:31:19 PM, Burls wrote:
"(consisting of 5 paragraphs)"

I've used the Exodus as a metaphor wherein Moses/Lucifer falls from Pharoh/God's grace and wanders thru the desert. How is my perspective any less valid than yours?

Because it is left unaffirmed and unsupported?
praise the lord Chin Chin
Burls
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 8:19:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Metaphorical interpretation of events isn't uncommon. All I have to prove is that immortals exist who might refer to such incidences in metaphorical manners. Now all I have to do is introduce you to a vampire.