Moralogix

What's Morally Logical? Or is it, What's Logically Moral?

[petapeta]

[hunter-rodrigez]

[jairus666]

[thememedaddy]

[thememedaddy]

[moralogix]

This should be a service. I'd buy it. LOL

[thememedaddy]

[moralogix]

How to Be a Jesus Mythicist

You want to be a believer in the Jesus myth theory, the idea that Jesus never existed and that the Gospel account of Jesus is based on pagan myths.  It could be because you are an atheist and you know this will really bug Christians.  Or perhaps you enjoy conspiracy theories or have a love for mythology.  It doesn’t matter.  Here I will provide you with the guidance to become an effective Jesus mythicist.

The first step is to get rid of the historical Jesus.  Now some Jesus mythicists hold that Jesus absolutely did not exist and others that perhaps there was some historical figure and yet we cannot know anything about him.  The process is still the same, you must demonstrate that there is no historical evidence for Jesus.  What you must do is completely dismiss any first century evidence for Jesus.  Christians will attempt to pull the Josephus card.  Don’t let them get away with that.  While it may be technically true that most historians and Josephus scholars acknowledge that Josephus said something about Jesus  and that some later Christian expanded that, hold your ground with the forgery claim.  Don’t let them pull scholarship into the argument, the idea of a Christian contaminating a text is too good to let go.  They will try to bring Paul in as evidence as well.  Keep hammering at the fact that Paul never mentions the historical Jesus or quotes any of his sayings.  If a Christian cites a place in Paul where he does use the historical Jesus, ignore them.  

Then there are the Gospels.  Quickly dismiss them as religious propaganda.  Anything that has a religious motive is biased and is not to be trusted.  Insist that the only valid textual evidence would be a completely unbiased, philosophically and religious free secular document that lists the facts according to modern standards of historiography.  Of course, there are no ancient documents like that for any historical figure.  That just means you need not worry that some Christian apologist is going to pull out some new document.  You have already disqualified any potential historical text.  One of the things that you need to do, is make sure to keep a different standard for historical investigation for Jesus than one would use for some other historical figure.  You can dismiss the Gospels because our first copies are a century or two after the writing, even though other historians might use a text whose earliest copy is a millennium after the events.  That is okay.  You are not arguing for a new set of standards for historical inquiry, you are arguing for the non-existance of Jesus.  Keep the study of Jesus separate from the study of other ancient history figures.

The second part of the Jesus myth theory is that Jesus is based on pagan myths.  This can be tricky because if someone picked up Egyptian or Greek myths, it would not be obvious that they are reading the story of Jesus.  It is better to keep them away from the original myths so that they do not get confused.  The best way to make your point is to summarize the myths using Christian language and summarize the Gospels using pagan language.  The similarities will be much more obvious.  Let me give you an example.  If a person read the story of Isis having sex with her dead husband, they might not see that as exactly the same story of the Holy Spirit causing Mary to become pregnant.  So instead of describing the story, insist that Horus was virgin born, even though Isis likely was not a virgin previous to this and that Horus was conceived through sexual intercourse.  Argue that Mithras was crucified and resurrected, just like Jesus.  It is not that important that there is no account of Mithras’ death (and therefore resurrection).  What is important is that Mithraism was an early competitor with Christianity.  Besides, most people will not look up the myth anyway.  The final thing is to piece together as many vague images and symbols as possible and argue that they must be derivative.  So if some pagan myth uses an image of darkness or light, insist that the only way that Christians could have used the images of darkness and light is by stealing directly from the pagan myths.

Hopefully this will help you on your journey to becoming a successful Jesus mythicist.  Don’t be discouraged that 99% of scholars disagree with you.  Just stand your ground, and keep believing what you want to believe.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/so-you-want-to-be-a-jesus-mythicist/

[moralogix]

[moralogix]

Thanks for taking the time to help me understand how you look at things.

Based on your conclusion, it sounds like you are suggesting that a god could exist, just not an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God exist. Plus you are trying to logically debunk something supernatural.

Also, I'm pretty sure I wasn't debating with you. A debate would involve us both presenting our sides (which I haven't even come close to doing) and coming to a conclusion. You've already come to yours even if it takes you making up your own answers within your premises (above and in the free will page). We'd both be wasting each others' time.

But thanks again for providing your response. I truly appreciate it.

[rcsolstice]

I’m still interested in the fact that I’ve yet to see any pro-lifer point out any legitimate problem with abortion. Most arguments I see entirely ignore the fact that there is a pregnant person involved. e.g. “abortion is the killing of an unborn child, that is it.” Or attempt to demonize the...

[moralogix]

A fellow atheist says it's okay to kill babies because they can't feel the pain. Then predicts what would happen if we let babies lives. Check it out. 

So if you ever want to kill someone, just numb them up, knock them unconscious, then it will be perfectly okay (according to fellow atheist buddy).

[moralogix]

Love a God you believe exist or obsess over a God that doesn't exist? 

Which is crazier?

[moralogix]

Determined to Remain an Evolutionist

Scientific determinism is true; no miracles, nothing supernatural, only what I chose to understand goes. How do I know this? Because I said so. It’s not about what science says, it’ about what the scientists say. We atheists know Stephen Hawking’s philosophical assertion of determinism begs the question and prevents us from learning through experimentation. But our evolutionary determination we’ll keep writing off anything that doesn't support our theory and we'll never be reasonable. If it doesn't match our presupposition, scrap it!

Yeah, yeah, we know that we need to reconsider the hypothesis and try another theory since even after a century of research; we still can’t provide enough evidence to prove it a law. But you know what that would mean for us evolutionists. So stay determined!

[moralogix]

Something Out Of Nothing Is Our Only Choice

I know that if the universe had a beginning it must have had a beginner, which only leaves us with 2 options. I just prefer to believe that no one created something out of nothing over believing that someone created something out of nothing. Theists who think something or someone (or God) created everything out of nothing can’t compete with my intellect that says the universe came out of nothing. I hate the saying “nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever could.”

[moralogix]

A Good Red Herring Non-Sequitur Argument

One of my favorite arguments is to say "If there is a God, then why is there suffering in the world?" Actually, that's not even an argument. It's more of a question. So I guess I should say "There is no God because if there was one, there wouldn't be suffering in the world". Just hopefully the theist isn't smart enough to catch me in my illogical assumption and say "If you can say that, then I can say there is a God because of all the happy, wealthy and moral people in the world". Also, hopefully, they also don't call me out my non-sequitur, assuming no suffering means no God.

[pathtomadina]

[moralogix]

Yes, it totally makes sense. I agree 100%. Especially if that's what science says.

[moralogix]

You're Nothing, Just A Germ on a Clay Ball

Let me convince you on why you should join the Atheist religion.

You are one of six billion of your species and one of trillions of living things on this planet.

You live on a small blue dot in the outskirts of one of billions of galaxies.

You are the product evolution through natural selection, the same mindless (though non-random) mechanical mechanism that is responsible for all of the complex design found in life.

Your species is part of the natural world as are all other living things.

The universe doesn't know or care that you exist.

You can have only a small effect on the universe though my actions.

The universe has no purpose.

Although you may have a few educated guesses, you don’t know how life started out or how the universe came into existence.

When you die, you will be dead except for in the memories of others.

See why you should convert to atheism? Praise Charles Dawkins! (or yourself). Doesn't matter

[m0re-adventurous]

Life has no meaning. Each of us has meaning and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer.

Joseph Campbell

I know this doesn't make any sense and is completely illogical. But it sounds good just like all the other books I read!

[moralogix]

Religion is Always Bad & Atheism is Always Good

Forget about the global adoption services, 3rd-world tutoring, supplying world hunger, and hope religion brings to people. These nut jobs go around telling me that I shouldn't do this and society shouldn't do that. Who do they think they are, children of God? The only religion I like is atheism, it works for me, prevent others from living in 'hope' and only fueled a few bad guys like Stalin, Hitler and Lennon. But besides them, our message of hopelessness gives freedom and tells everyone that they've just die, instead of die and go to a perfect heaven or fiery hell.

[moralogix]

Not Enough Evidence with My Evolution Lenses

This Christian tried to tell me that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. I don't care if real science that has tested all possibilities performed without evolutionary determinism says that there are alternatives to evolution. Those possibilities are way too far out for me to believe. Darwinian imagination is so much more believable. Sure, the sun, moon, stars, our complex life, DNA, cosmic gravity, non-materialistic laws, the location of earth in universe, ordered nature, and laws of logic all testify to intelligence. But I still think it's all by chance. So NO, there's not enough evidence for me to believe in God.