Tony

This is from my reply to one of the other threads. I've got this idea thanks to godfry n. glad.


(godfry n. glad:
�Plus, if memory serves, there are three different sets of "The Ten Commandments" in the Old Testament (aka Hebrew Bible). Which one do we pick?�)


That�s it. I give up.
The religion is so confusing!

Old Testament, New Testament, three different sets of commandments � it�s unacceptable. I try to follow and my mind is boiling.

I can�t take it anymore!

It�s time to write a Modern Testament, get rid of ALL confusions and get the facts straight.

Here it is:

The Modern and Final Testament

There is no god.

Thanks for purchasing this book.

Have a good life.

sakrilege

I'll take 20 copies.

Volker.Doormann

Old Testament, New Testament, Modern Testament, Final Testament. Four different testaments.

Quote:

The Modern and Final Testament. There is no god.

Hmmm. Seems, that there is a consciousness. Seems, that this consciousness has a cognition. Seems, that this cognition is a result of differentiation. Seems, that differentiation needs the cognition, that there is an order, which must exist, because without an existing order, no one ever could discriminate true from false using cognition. Seems, that this, which must exist is in accordance with the consciousness, that has a cognition. Seems, that some follow cognition, and that some follow negative claims - like 'There is no god' - unaware, that that, what is not, never can be proved, and unaware that cognition depends on order. Seems, that this is the reason, that claims and commandments in religions are more popular then cognition (Gnosis).

Volker

Tony

I was kidding. But hey, let�s talk.

Volker.Doormann:
�Old Testament, New Testament, Modern Testament, Final Testament. Four different testaments.�

That�s why we need to stop it. Let�s use my Final Testament and forget about the all confusion of previous two.

�Seems, that some follow cognition, and that some follow negative claims - like 'There is no god' - unaware, that that, what is not, never can be proved, and unaware that cognition depends on order.�

I�ll tell you a joke about the Uncatchable Joe. Two cowboys sit in a bar. Suddenly the door is kicked. A very tiny cowboy runs in shooting from both his guns in a ceiling and yelling something unintelligible. After a few seconds he runs out. One cowboy asks another: �What was that?� Second cowboy: �You don�t know? It�s Uncatchable Joe!� First cowboy: �Nobody can catch him?� Second cowboy: �Who needs him?�

I have no intension of proving that something does not exist. It should be the opposite. Something has to have a proof of existence. So far there is no proof of god�s existence. Trying to proof or disprove this or any other religious fantasy - just waste of time.

�Seems, that this is the reason, that claims and commandments in religions are more popular then cognition (Gnosis).�

So far, yes. But it�s going away with development of science and psychology. No matter what religious people do, the evolution is getting rid of religion, like it got rid of inquisition and cannibalism.

Volker.Doormann

It is your personal freedom to say this, but if you say, that something does not exist prior to give a proof, it seems, that your assertion, that something 'does not exist', has no proof. Where is your proof, that something exist only, if it has a proof?

Without this proof, your assertion - that something has to have a proof of existence - is only fantasy.

I think that the consciousness of perceiving an existence does not need a proof, but cognition. The cognition, that something is true, and/or the cognition, that something is false. Without this cognition in the natural order of truth a proof does not exist. The point is, that this cognition itself has no proof. From this one can recognize, that that, what is labeled a proof has no evidence itself; it depends always on the improvable cognition of an individual. And no one can prove or disprove the existence of cognition in remote beings.

Volker