Read em and weep.... … 9627863972

“This section explores the little known foundations of the Cult of Equinoctial Christolatry (Christianity) which, unannounced to most, rests in the astrotheological belief systems of the ancient world.”

“God’s Sun”. That part gave me a good laugh, thanks. :slight_smile:

I’d also like to point out that that movie is an awesome example of the problem with atheism I’m talking about in my thread.

No problem, but I will remind you that you are doing the same thing O Reilly did when Dawkins backed him into a corner: laugh and crack a joke in front of the audience to save face and distract them from seeing you lose.

The fact is, you did not get a good laugh. The fact is you became nervous, because the video and the information presented is as believable as anything from the biblical text. Since you will not admit this, I will admit it for you.

The movie has nothing to do with atheism. There is no cryptological history in the atheist position. But you may continue to evade the point if you please.

He don’t know me very well, do he?

Nah, it’s cool, you’re right. The video made me all nervous and stuff.

EDIT: I am curious about your selection of thread title, though.

I get it! Sun=>Son So basically Christianity is the result of a spelling error. That explains it. :wink:

I checked out a similar topic, the “Gospel in the Stars” or something similar. It seems the ancient forerunners of Christianity spoke English, or at least some form of proto-Germanic. It certainly wasn’t a semetic language, where the words “son” and “sun” are completely unrelated.

Obviously this new information has shaken my Christian beliefs to the very core. I don’t quite know where to turn in the void that now surrounds me.

This is good evidence against religions, but not against the idea of an intelligent source to all things (GOD). I didn’t need any such assembled history to come to the conclusion that all religions are completely man made, just like I didn’t need any bible or writings to show me there must be a source to intelligent life as something does not come from nothing according to all observed evidence.

Logically speaking the first thing must have always been, and that thing must have been intelligent.

What it shows me is that satan uses other’s truths(?) to advance his lies.

Explain the Truth of a logical God giving his intended purpose for us and a plan of salvation through the vastly limited portal of written words that was handed down to humans somewhere in the middle of our timeline of existence. Is this at all logical?

It’s like I said said in my thread ‘Logic and Reason will not explain God’. To first have a relationship with God, you have to have faith. Asking me to explain the truth of a logical God would be like me asking you to give a detailed description of the inner workings of a Black Hole. You can’t do it. You haven’t personally seen one, you haven’t touched one etc… All you have have is your faith in scientists that their hypothesis is right about Black Holes existing. If you don’t want to believe in Jesus or God, that is up to you. I don’t understand why you are trying so hard to convince me of something you don’t believe exists. You stick with what you think is right and I’ll hold onto the Truth.

To the rest of those finding this funny- keep watching past the ‘Sun of God’ part, and you can enjoy how much weight they hang on Jesus being born on December 25th. It’s rare for someone to have the courage to challenge such a fundamental dogma.

Either God is logical or he is not, he cannot be both or contridict, YES?

If he is not logical then who created logic and reason?

Or do you wish to debate the existance of logic and reason?

A bit OT I know but WTF?

Even If we allow a “first thing” (I don’t btw) how do we logically know that it would be intelligent?

He didn’t make it up. The primum movens argument (first cause) and teleological argument (design argument) are centuries old, and both easily refuted.

If it’s so easy then refute it completely. Logic is based on observed evidence and we have nothing but unsupported supposition to say anything outside the observation that something does not come form nothing and all things have an origin which leads to the inevitable idea of a first thing without origin since we can observe endings of individual life’s. If we can see and prove an ending then it is completely logical to extend that to Absolute beginning. Please show me the logical fallacy in that.

I can show more observed logic to a first thing (Absolute) then you can ever for a source-less beginning.

Try me if you think your so capable in logical thinking!

That is one helluva run-on sentence.

The empiricists claim that logic is a construct of observation. The rationalists claim that logic is prior to experience and observation. Both positions are true to a point. The problem with the former position is that it assumes that the empirical reality, which is changing, can nonetheless garner absolute logical facts. No. The empiricists believe “it is raining in New York.” No, it isn’t, because the objects and events in that statement are changing. The rationalists believe 1+1=2 without experiencing and observing objects which can be quantified. You see there are problems with both positions.

That aside, your “first thing” argument depends on the presumption that existence had a beginning, or existing things had a beginning. The absolute reducible substance (Spinoza’s “God”) has no beginning or end. The inference that things “begin” and “end” is the result of experiencing quantifiable changes in experience- you experience sitting in the room…then walking into the bathroom. This appearance creates the illusion that events have “points” where they begin and end. It is because of the succession of these instances that human beings suppose the universe itself must be something that consists of “points” where motion and time can be incremented.

Experience originates the illusion of beginnings and endings. Since experience is temporal, the objective world remains after, and before, there is any experience.

So your idea of the “first thing” is only a projection of the experience of temporal events, as they succeed, onto the entire universe…but the universe is not temporal, it is eternal and infinite.

Neither can you posit something as a “first” cause that isn’t, itself, an effect of another preceding cause. Who or what created God? What caused the first cause?

Which leaves you blowing smoke in a condition of pure skepticism. You are in no position to say that there is no uncaused cause or that there is no ultimate foundation of everything.

I’m saying that our observed history of sources and endings cannot rationally lead us to anything other then the highest possibility of an ultimate beginning. The idea of some matter and a power source always being there and accidentally bumping into one another and causing such a connected chain of events is nonsensical and mathematically incredible

The idea of no beginning would be different then the world or dimension we observe or can prove, and we could never know the reality of another dimension no matter what possibility until more evidence is uncovered. So the idea is pure existential bull shit with no support other then imagination.

BTW, I don’t see a problem with the idea of an infinity that has a beginning. In this universe and this reality (which is all we know) most probably had a beginning and if it never ends, then technically that would be infinity in this reality and you couldn’t prove otherwise, EVER!.

Mathematically incredible perhaps but not impossible, especially given an unlimited amount of time :slight_smile:

Also, if we observe a series of events all of which have causes, why if postulating an initial cause more logical than assuming that there have always been causes and effects.

To put it another way.

Given the observed chain of cause and effect why not assume an infinite chain, that requires no new entities, rather than postulate a special “first cause” is this not more logical.

And as tortoise pointed out even if we allowed the first cause why would it necessarily be intelligent?