UPDATE: I was informed by a kind reader (J_Agathokles) that this graphic contained what we might kindly call inaccuracies. Mea Culpa
I was far to quick to use it. It looked kind of clever and so I am guilty of passing on bad information and misinformation through nothing more sinister than laziness. Please see my post on Redaction: Horus Vs Jesus for more information. The graphic has been removed to prevent it spreading further at my hand.
I am leaving the original and will update with a link to the follow up post. The original has comments that I didn’t want to simply delete. Thanks for your understanding.
Original post follows:
There are lots of folk that think their Jesus story is fresh, different, and worse they think it’s true.
All the details of the Jesus story were already written down for the authors of the New Testament…
View original post 60 more words
Leucippus Updated 
Reblogged this on Religious Experience and commented:
The religious are all essentially animists, who partake of the same superstitious milieu, emit similar “heroic” figures, and all are unique so that being unique does not aid the Christian cause against legendary element added to the mere man Yeshua. Christians thus special plead that he is above the others by being unique.Why would rational people find that his being some kind of savior means a gargantuan matter, as that salvation from Hell , no rational and-moral being would require!
Leucippus would find that any religious experience of any form of animism carries no aspect of necessity as they all lack supernatural intent whilst necessity is that by which mechanism rules.
We naturalists favor necessity, as Lamberth’s argument from inherency finds all chaos, order, regularity and the descriptons -laws- of Nature inhere in Nature, and to add that animistic intent would not complement but instead contradict science. As Lamberth’s telenomic argument notes, science finds no divine intent, and without that intent, He cannot be Himself and thus, cannot exist as such. Thus, He would be so incoherent that He could not function as any kind of explanation or primary force! Indeed, He’d be a secondary cause, depending on those natural ones, just as morals are independent of Him per Plato’s Euthyphro, and He could only enunciate what objectively already is there!
The [Alexander] Smoltzyk argument that He is neither a principle nor a person nor an entity cannot instantiate Him as not being a person nor an entity ,He could not instantiate Himself as that ultimate explanation or else, He is the pantheistic God!
Apologists go from one bit of quicksand to another, ever trying to overcome the vacuity of their God!
The Aquinas- Shelley superfluity argument is that why add Him as that ultimate explanation when as Percy Bysshe Shelley queries:” To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ those descriptions,S.K.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for.” For theists then to aver that no, that would be a metaphysical mistaken category, but no, they would then beg the question thereof!
It floored me to find out that ultimately all theists are doing amounts to word play about this.I already has noted the Ockham blasting Him as requiring convoluted, ad hoc assumptions , thus, He would not be simpler than naturalism as the ultimate explanation. And the Flew- Lamberth presumption of naturalism argues that all natural causes and explanations are efficient, necessary,primary and sufficient: they are the sufficient cause and the ultimate explanation.
Again, by assuming that divine intent- teleology instead of relying on mechanism and patterns, they do practice that superstition of animism!
They merely assume that He and science cannot conflict, and that He uses evolution as His method of creation. NO!
Science finds no supernatural intent, just mechanism-causalism- teleonomy at work. Theists thus, in effect, carry out Lamberth’s new Omphalos argument that instead of finding Him as Philip Gosse’s original argument that He deceives us with apparent ancient ages of things, here He does so by letting us perceive mechanism as the ruler!
No spirit bosses lie behind natural phenomena and no God directs outcomes for all Nature, thus, again, theism = reduced animism!
Furthermore, as Primary Cause, for the sake of argument not depending on the real primary ones, then Lamberth’s the Malebranche Reductio reduces theism to absurdity in that his occasionalism claims that when we strike a ball, He does the actual striking!
Thus, why pick Him as that Primary Cause when He no more explains matters than do gremlins or – demons, that aspect of the supernatural!
Necessity, including randomness thus rules!
I just figured out that whilst theism is reduced animism, it is alsothe greater one, as He would be greater than those spirits or the gods of polytheism.
Necessity rules, instead of God, because as [Hans] Reichenbahh’s argument from Existence claims, as it is all, no transcendent beings can possibly exist! Furthermore, as transcendence contradicts omnipresence, He couldn’t be transcendent anyway.
[Peter Adam] Angeles’ infinite regress argument notes that cause event and time presuppose previous ones, in line with most physicists claiming that the Multiverse is eternal.
How then might rational persons have a relationship with a superfluity, that is the Ultimate Mystery, ostensibly the Ultimate Explanation but really is only a supreme obscurantism!
In the name of that superfluity, that obscurantism, that animistic superstition , people murder others!
Since ,I combine and permute arguments, these will appear again!
What is your take on that essay and this one? What do you think about the similarities of those supernatural beings/ What do you say about their having no intent? Epicurus and the Buddhists find gods as playing no role in the Cosmos. That transcends animism but also lacks evidence!
Mere people just has revelations from their inner experiences that cannot be inter-subjective, so as to be objective knowledge! They vary so widely, and despite what inclucivists/universalist claim that no evidence exists otherwise for that Ultimate Reality to which they supposedly end up as.
Please, not only post here, but also @ myatheistlife!