God really exists as an emanation from the human mind

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Here's a fun argument to show how God really, actually exists. One that maybe an Atheist will have trouble refuting.


God exists
1) Many human minds believe in a God. A God "concept" therefore is physically (neuro-chemically) imprinted with these human brains,
2) Many such human minds also believe in and act on teachings proclaimed by their believed in God. Religious Teaching "concepts" are therefore cojointly neuro-chemically imprinted within these human's brains,
3) The God concept housed with such human minds therefore in a sense has power to "do things" based on physical (muskuloskeletal kinetic) enactment by said humans in fulfillment of said religious Teachings.
4) As this God "Concept" physically exists in the human mind and has power to actually do things (that the Human host would otherwise never necessarily do) - the God Concept can therefore be thought of as a real independent living entity.
5) Therefore, God Exists!!!!.

Discussion:
When a concept of God integrates into (Atheists would say "infest") a human mind, it begins to really exist not just as an abstract notion but also as a physical neurochemical imprint within a small corner of the brain.
Importantly the Atheist will note this neurochemical imprint has actual power - as it demands and provokes action in the human!!!. These actions of course will be in line with said God's religious teachings. So it cannot be denied that God, in a way (as at least a neurochemical imprint with power to achieve its will), certainly and really exists - in 4 Billion hosts no less !!!.

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

Could you direct us to where you did that Andrew666, maybe we weren't paying attention?

There is an entire thread with discussion on this..
There is definitely "historic" evidence which supports the resurrection narrative. The question is how much does one trust historic evidence - which is 2000 years old. Historians will have you believe you can trust it... but their jobs sort of depend on that belief so .. well you can assess for yourself.
Also, as discussed prior - when historic evidence leads to what appears to be a supernatural event, historians will tend to dismiss it, based on "faith" that supernatural events do not occur.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

What is presented with evidence cannot be dismissed.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

There is an entire thread with discussion on this..
There is definitely "historic" evidence which supports the resurrection narrative. The question is how much does one trust historic evidence - which is 2000 years old. Historians will have you believe you can trust it... but their jobs sort of depend on that belief so .. well you can assess for yourself.
Also, as discussed prior - when historic evidence leads to what appears to be a supernatural event, historians will tend to dismiss it, based on "faith" that supernatural events do not occur.

This is a mixture of bullshit & lies as you well know. For a start, any bullshit written about a zombie jebus is at least 40 years shy of your 2000 year lie.

Secondly, you again invoke these phantom historians to back up your lies. This is bullshit, they are as bogus as your non-existent jebus.

There is historic evidence to support the resurrection narrative in the same way there is evidence for the beowulf narrative. It is not evidence of the fact. Just stop calling it evidence or shitpics are coming your way.

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

This is a mixture of bullshit & lies as you well know. For a start, any bullshit written about a zombie jebus is at least 40 years shy of your 2000 year lie.

Secondly, you again invoke these phantom historians to back up your lies. This is bullshit, they are as bogus as your non-existent jebus.

There is historic evidence to support the resurrection narrative in the same way there is evidence for the beowulf narrative. It is not evidence of the fact. Just stop calling it evidence or shitpics are coming your way.

What's your problem dogpet?
Majority of Historians agree Jesus existed.
Majority of Historians agree he died on a cross.
Majority of Historians agree he was buried in a tomb
Majority of Historians agree the tomb was found empty by Jesus's women followers.
Majority of Historian agree that a plurality of individuals (500 at once in one documented instance) believed they saw Jesus alive afterwards.

In sum, historical evidence supports the resurrection narrative.

Do you Unnnnndddddeeeeeeerrrrrrsssssstttttttaaaaaandddddd ?????
Or are you to fucking stoopid to get this simple fact???>

Your empty words of dismissal are entirely unsupported and non persuasive, you are a fucking idiot. Learn and study some history you piece of shit.

[Kinich Ahau]

Historical evidence supports the existence of a resurrection narrative. Historical evidence in no way supports the truth of the claims.

Doe's that also mean that Dionysus, Persephone, Osiris, Odin, Ganesha and Quetzalcoatl were resurrected because they all have narratives too

Andy, wasn't Jesus supposed to return during the lifetimes of his followers? What happened? Did his daddy ground him for 2000 years for not cleaning his bedroom in heaven?

That would be consistent with god's level of punishment, you know like torture for eternity for just thinking about your neighbour's wife's boobs.

[Davin]

Wow, another insanely irrational argument from Andrew66, color me surprised.

1) Many human minds have thought about Spiderman, A Spiderman "concept" therefore is physically imprinted on these human brains.
2) Many such human minds also believe and act on the the teachings of the Spiderman comics, these moral lessons are therefore conjointly imprinted within these human brains.
3) The Spiderman concept housed within such human minds therefore in a sense has power to "do things" based on physical enactment by said humans in fulfillment of Spiderman teachings.
4) As this Spiderman "concept" physically exists in the human mind and has power to actually do things, the Spiderman concept can therefore be thought of as a real living entity.
5) Therefore, Spiderman exists!!!!.

What a genius argument, if it were a rational argument, it would prove the existence of every single god (not just the Christain one), but it also would prove the existence of Harry Potter, Pennywise, Captain Kirk, Batman... etc.

What a shitty "argument."

[dogpet]

Davin wrote

Wow, another insanely irrational argument from Andrew66, color me surprised.

1) Many human minds have thought about Spiderman, A Spiderman "concept" therefore is physically imprinted on these human brains.
2) Many such human minds also believe and act on the the teachings of the Spiderman comics, these moral lessons are therefore conjointly imprinted within these human brains.
3) The Spiderman concept housed within such human minds therefore in a sense has power to "do things" based on physical enactment by said humans in fulfillment of Spiderman teachings.
4) As this Spiderman "concept" physically exists in the human mind and has power to actually do things, the Spiderman concept can therefore be thought of as a real living entity.
5) Therefore, Spiderman exists!!!!.

What a genius argument, if it were a rational argument, it would prove the existence of every single god (not just the Christain one), but it also would prove the existence of Harry Potter, Pennywise, Captain Kirk, Batman... etc.

What a shitty "argument."

I suppose an argument could be made that it is similar to corporate personhood, where there is a trust that the constructed entity will provide a promised return. In the case of many religions this would be an enhanced afterlife, & in the absence of proof of failure of this undertaking the trust persists.
It seems the case that a consensus fallacy can indeed create an entity like a political system, or a cartoon figurehead.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

you are a fucking idiot. Learn and study some history you piece of shit.

I'm going to forgive your outburst of bad language because it can't be comfortable for you, being caught in a lie.
Will you now revise the age of your so called evidence which you lied is 2000 years old?

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

What's your problem dogpet?

In sum, historical evidence supports the resurrection narrative.

Do you Unnnnndddddeeeeeeerrrrrrsssssstttttttaaaaaandddddd ?????
Or are you to fucking stoopid to get this simple fact???>

Your empty words of dismissal are entirely unsupported and non persuasive, you are a fucking idiot. Learn and study some history you piece of shit.

Rage—Coming Soon From a Narcissist Near You
Sound like anyone you know,

Hell hath no fury or contempt as a narcissist you dare to disagree with, tell they’re wrong, or embarrass

they are capable of a rage (even if it doesn’t cross over into violence) that is chilling.

What is the connection between narcissism and rage?

There is a saying that when you’re a hammer the world looks like a nail. When you’re a narcissist, the world looks like it should approve, adore, agree and obey you. Anything less than that feels like an assault and because of that a narcissist feels justified in raging back at it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ssist-near-you

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Historical evidence supports the existence of a resurrection narrative. Historical evidence in no way supports the truth of the claims.

Yah, because History as a pseudoscience has "faith" that extra-ordinary unlikely and seemingly supernatural events do not occur, you dumb fuck.

Kinich Ahau wrote

Doe's that also mean that Dionysus, Persephone, Osiris, Odin, Ganesha and Quetzalcoatl were resurrected because they all have narratives too

Not to the same depth and level of documentation (and impact factor) as the Jesus resurrection narrative you shit for brains idiot.

Kinich Ahau wrote

Andy, wasn't Jesus supposed to return during the lifetimes of his followers? What happened?

You dare to question the divinity of your Lord and Savior!!?? Ha Ha, just kidding - first decent statement you've made. It doesn't have anything to do with the resurrection narrative or anything I've been presenting - so your throwing in a red herring, but it is perhaps the strongest evidence that Jesus was not "God" on earth. Most like you presume a definition of God must include in all cases omniscience.

However, easily explained, the Catholic Church accepts that Jesus was fully a man (therefore very plausibly - and I personally believe - imperfect while on Earth), and then obviously he gained his full powers after he ascending in spiritual form into heaven. You'll note there are also Bible passages which state clearly that no one accept the Father (including not the Son), knows the date of return.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Wow, another insanely irrational argument from Andrew66, color me surprised.

1) Many human minds have thought about Spiderman, A Spiderman "concept" therefore is physically imprinted on these human brains.
2) Many such human minds also believe and act on the the teachings of the Spiderman comics, these moral lessons are therefore conjointly imprinted within these human brains.
3) The Spiderman concept housed within such human minds therefore in a sense has power to "do things" based on physical enactment by said humans in fulfillment of Spiderman teachings.
4) As this Spiderman "concept" physically exists in the human mind and has power to actually do things, the Spiderman concept can therefore be thought of as a real living entity.
5) Therefore, Spiderman exists!!!!.

What a genius argument, if it were a rational argument, it would prove the existence of every single god (not just the Christain one), but it also would prove the existence of Harry Potter, Pennywise, Captain Kirk, Batman... etc.

What a shitty "argument."

Firstly it is a rationale argument (why do you say "if"?? - this shows your fucking partison ship again towards Atheism which makes most of what you say untrusthworthy and often wrong).

So sure it does in a way prove existence of other Gods if they are believed in. A good example is Allah for example. Your Spiderman example isn't great however, because the Spiderman narrative is portrayed as fiction, while the Biblical narratives are portrayed as actual truth. This is a big difference.. 4 billion people believe God exists (their brains have imprinted a "belief" in existence) zero people are actually hard wired to believe Spiderman actually exists.

Of course you, as you belong to an inferior intelligence species, wouldn't realize that.

By the way, ironically I collect Amazing Spiderman comics! I have Spidey 10, 16, 20 39 and 40 in Mint condition with perfect page quality.

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

I suppose an argument could be made that it is similar to corporate personhood, where there is a trust that the constructed entity will provide a promised return. In the case of many religions this would be an enhanced afterlife, & in the absence of proof of failure of this undertaking the trust persists.
It seems the case that a consensus fallacy can indeed create an entity like a political system, or a cartoon figurehead.

I think your sort of on the right tract here.

There I said something nice, no please bend over and let me fuck you in the ass (I'm assuming because of your flowery language your a girl - I hope).

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Your empty words of dismissal are entirely unsupported and non persuasive, you are a fucking idiot. Learn and study some history you piece of shit.

[Kinich Ahau]

Andrew66 wrote

By the way, ironically I collect Amazing Spiderman comics! I have Spidey 10, 16, 20 39 and 40 in Mint condition with perfect page quality.

You collect comics, Really?