Love Song for the Intellectuals and Theologians

adriyel
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Love Song for the Intellectuals and Theologians

The irony of most products of "wisdom of the crowds" is that logic or facts have little do with it. I am, in this post, going to posit a few thoughts. I want logical responses and streams of thought. Do not waste my time with logical fallacies.

 

I have a few annoyances to confess to. Firstly, the Theistic arguments of ad ignorantiam are simultaneously obnoxious and disheartening to my "faith" in mankind's ability to reason. This is getting absurd, their own religious texts do not call for any literal interpretation of the documents, and yet they intellectually damn themselves into oblivion by making themselves very easy to attack.

 

The other problem is that when you have a significant majority of any kind in anything that calls for "intellectualism" typically devolves into a mental circle jerk. It's annoying. I've prowled these forums and have found little to no Theist response to anything. You know why? Because you guys keep fellating each other in the name of the Darwin, his Son Evolution, and Holy Atheism Amen. Quit it, it's sophomooric. Intellectualism dies when doubts disappear. Question Everything.

 

Another problem is the issue of the supernatural, and stances that are simultaneously unassailable and indefensible. How is this possible? Easy. Posit a belief or creed that concerns anything that supposed exists above our own dimension or plane of existence. No matter what anyone says, it is a logical fallacy to try to argue one way or another about the existence of anything supernatural. Science concerns itself with the natural, because the rigorous method of Science is what inherently limits itself to that. You cannot interact with the supernatural in any way shape or form, .\nThat is one of the things that make it supernatural, it exists above our own\nexistence. How then is it possible to even bother to posit the existence\nor unexistence of such a plane?

\n\n

You can't\ndisprove my gliding cup of pink pudding, but you can't prove it either. Goes\nboth ways mates and matettes.

\n\n

Not\nto pull some steams of conciousness from a pop-culture\nsource, but lets briefly concern ourselves with the matter of\n"causality". Science gets findings due to the continual expansion of\nthe universe amongst other things that the Universe as we know it (TM), was\nformed with a large explosion, likely sourced from a dense packed\nmicro-universe. (DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN\nASTROPHYSICIST, I AM NOT GOING TO SQUABBLE OVER MINUTIAE THEREOF, PERIOD) Ok cool, now we got a better idea of what's\ngoing on right...oh wait. Where did that micro-universe come from? (50 more\nyears of research pass by) Oh cool, so where did that come from. ---> Ad Nauseum Et Infinitum.

\n\n

That could\nget old really quick. Let's consider the issue of causality prefaced by the\nabove. It is the pure nature of the universe that every action, reaction.\n***Everything*** has a cause, period. Causality is the most binding rule of\nthis universe. The problem arises when we concern ourselves with the genesis of\nthis chaotic little pocket of existence of ours. The very nature of causality\nleads to an infinitely dense cause and effect chain leading back to substantiation. It only ends at infinity. Let's pause this thought for\na moment.

\n\n

Back\nto Theists, or more specifically, the Jewish Carpentry Club. Hmm, ignoring at\nthe sectarian and dogmatic issues, lets go to the heart of it shall we? ",1] ); //-->PERIOD. That is one of the things that make it supernatural, it exists above our own existence. How then is it possible to even bother to posit the existence or unexistence of such a plane?

 

You can't disprove my gliding cup of pink pudding, but you can't prove it either. Goes both ways mates and matettes. Not to pull some streams of conciousness from a pop-culture source, but lets briefly concern ourselves with the matter of "causality". Science gets findings due to the continual expansion of the universe amongst other things that the Universe as we know it (TM), was formed with a large explosion, likely sourced from a dense packed micro-universe. (DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ASTROPHYSICIST, I AM NOT GOING TO SQUABBLE OVER MINUTIAE THEREOF, PERIOD) Ok cool, now we got a better idea of what's going on right...oh wait. Where did that micro-universe come from? (50 more years of research pass by) Oh cool, so where did that come from. ---> Ad Nauseum Et Infinitum.

 

That could get old really quick. Let's consider the issue of causality prefaced by the above. It is the pure nature of the universe that every action, reaction. ***Everything*** has a cause, period. Causality is the most binding rule of this universe. The problem arises when we concern ourselves with the genesis of this chaotic little pocket of existence of ours. The very nature of causality leads to an infinitely dense cause and effect chain leading back to substantiation. It only ends at infinity. Let's pause this thought for a moment.

 

Back to Theists, or more specifically, the Jewish Carpentry Club. Hmm, ignoring at the sectarian and dogmatic issues, lets go to the heart of it shall we? Saved by Faith Through Grace, O rly?\nLet's consider the definition of faith so that we don't get absurd semantic\narguments: Faith [feyth]: "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be\nsubstantiated by fact." Let's consider the implications of this. In\norder for you to be "saved" you must have a belief or hope in the\nFather and His Son's Saving Grace so STRONG, that you must deny all logic,\nfact, everything in the name of his love. Well, that's great, but you if prove\nsomething to exist, it doesn't require faith anymore, it requires a partially\nfunctioning brain and recognition of proof and fact. Therefore attempting to\nargue that God Exists is tempting damnation. Suck on that paradox.

\n\n

However on\nthe other side of the spiny fence, we have another problem. Atheists are\nattempting to get Christians or Theism\nAt Large (TM) to submit their\nbeliefs to the rigors of logic and scientific method, and then somehow come to\nthe conclusion that there is no logic in their beliefs, and then convert to\nAthiesm. Oh Yay. A Happy Little Atheist Utopia. (As an aside, I would like to\nadd that religion is an excuse for humans to fight, not a cause, if you remove\none excuse, they'll make another, it's futile to fight human nature.)

\n\n

Do you, oh\nvanguard of Science, ever consider the notion that Theists aren't going to take\nthe bait? Sure some 14 year old from "Alabammy" is going to sit on\nMommy's Pee-Cee and argue with you with some sort of pathetic rant, but that's\nan insult to Academic Debate and Intellectualism. The fact of the matter is\nthat any belief that posits the existence of a supernature of any sort, is\nsimultaneously indefensible (as you already know and attempt to capitalize on),\nand simultaneously unassailable. It is unprovable one way or the other, ",1] ); //-->Saved by Faith Through Grace, O rly? Let's consider the definition of faith so that we don't get absurd semantic arguments: Faith [feyth]: "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." Let's consider the implications of this. In order for you to be "saved" you must have a belief or hope in the Father and His Son's Saving Grace so STRONG, that you must deny all logic, fact, everything in the name of his love. Well, that's great, but you if prove something to exist, it doesn't require faith anymore, it requires a partially functioning brain and recognition of proof and fact. Therefore attempting to argue that God Exists is tempting damnation. Suck on that paradox.

However on the other side of the spiny fence, we have another problem. Atheists are attempting to get Christians or Theism At Large (TM) to submit their beliefs to the rigors of logic and scientific method, and then somehow come to the conclusion that there is no logic in their beliefs, and then convert to Athiesm. Oh Yay. A Happy Little Atheist Utopia. (As an aside, I would like to add that religion is an excuse for humans to fight, not a cause, if you remove one excuse, they'll make another, it's futile to fight human nature.)

 

Do you, oh vanguard of Science, ever consider the notion that Theists aren't going to take the bait? Sure some 14 year old from "Alabammy" is going to sit on Mommy's Pee-Cee and argue with you with some sort of pathetic rant, but that's an insult to Academic Debate and Intellectualism. The fact of the matter is that any belief that posits the existence of a supernature of any sort, is simultaneously indefensible (as you already know and attempt to capitalize on), and simultaneously unassailable. It is unprovable one way or the other, period.

\n\n

Let's\nconsider a thought Theists who are present. Any Christian who has accepted that\ntheir belief requires faith in order to be saved, and that that very faith\ncannot be proven in the natural world...(dramatic\ndrumroll)... IS AGNOSTIC! See the definition: Agnosticism - an intellectual doctrine or\nattitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. The\nvery definition of faith requires that one be\nAgnostic...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...I love the irony of it all, it's freaking\ngorgeous. Agnosticism is NOT inherently incompatible with Christianity, as a\nmatter of fact, orthodox Christian doctrine requires it implicitly.

\n\n

Let's\nget back to the real issue at hand, causality. The existence of any finite\ncause and effect based Universe inherently requires if you wish to understand\nthe substantiation of it, the understanding that there is some sort of Infinite Cause. There is sadly no way\naround it. If you're going to attempt to leave the bounds of the natural\nuniverse, the only way is to go back in causality infinitely. I am not positing\nthe existence of a Dogmatic Man in the Sky, I am presenting logic. This is the\nparadox, this is the problem. The limitations of our own being restrict us to\nthis. Infinity and Causality as we know it lead us to this. I don't care for\ninterpretation of this infinite cause as being a Deity of sorts either, that's\nextrapolation to the extreme.

\n\n

If one can\nprove the existence or nonexistence of any deity, it is not supernatural, and\nmost definitely not the cause of this Universe.

\n\n

Finally,\nallow me to account for myself. My Credo is this:

\n\n

I am\nagnostic. I have come to the logical conclusion that it is impossible to prove\na supernatural deity or presence any direction one way or the other.",1] ); //-->period.

 

Let's consider a thought Theists who are present. Any Christian who has accepted that their belief requires faith in order to be saved, and that that very faith cannot be proven in the natural world...(dramatic drumroll)... IS AGNOSTIC! See the definition: Agnosticism - an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. The very definition of faith requires that one be Agnostic...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...I love the irony of it all, it's freaking gorgeous. Agnosticism is NOT inherently incompatible with Christianity, as a matter of fact, orthodox Christian doctrine requires it implicitly.

 

Let's get back to the real issue at hand, causality. The existence of any finite cause and effect based Universe inherently requires if you wish to understand the substantiation of it, the understanding that there is some sort of Infinite Cause. There is sadly no way around it. If you're going to attempt to leave the bounds of the natural universe, the only way is to go back in causality infinitely. I am not positing the existence of a Dogmatic Man in the Sky, I am presenting logic. This is the paradox, this is the problem. The limitations of our own being restrict us to this. Infinity and Causality as we know it lead us to this. I don't care for interpretation of this infinite cause as being a Deity of sorts either, that's extrapolation to the extreme.

 

If one can prove the existence or nonexistence of any deity, it is not supernatural, and most definitely not the cause of this Universe.

 

Finally, allow me to account for myself. My Credo is this:

I am agnostic. I have come to the logical conclusion that it is impossible to prove a supernatural deity or presence any direction one way or the other.\n\n

I am a\nmild Deist. I believe that the Infinite Cause I have come across is the\nsubstantiator of this Universe, but I know not the dogma or nature of this\ncause. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that this Infinite Cause has\never done anything to this Universe beyond initiating it.

\n\n

I am a\nLibertarian. I don't need to justify this. I assume the intellect of this forum\nis enough for that purpose.

\n\n

I despise\nirrationality in all its forms, no matter the source.

\n\n

Why does\nthis matter to you?

\n\n

Christians:\nA literal interpretation of your Bible is assailable. The only way for your\nfaith to abide by some modicum of logic is to take a liberal, academic,\ninterpretation of it. I would recommend reading some rabbinic writings to help\nyou there. Good luck.

\n\n

Deists:\nSup.

\n\n

Islam: See\nChristians.

\n\n

Judaism:\nSee Christians except many Jews are secular now, and excepting Orthodox Jews,\nmost Jews have achieved a dogma that is unassailable.

\n\n

Buddhism:\nCongratulations, you've achieved a completely nonsensical dogma that is from\nits very inception unassailable. Meditate On.

\n\n

Hinduism:\nSimilar to the Buddhists except there are some weirdnesses with the whole\nhybrid pantheist/polytheism thing. Multi-God but we're all the same thing? What\nthe heck?

\n\n

Mormons:\nNoone likes you.

\n\n

Jehovah's\nWitnesses: Ditto, and what's more absurd is you're using an invented name for\nyour God. Ditz. His real name is YVHV, Yod Vav Hey Vav. You can assume the\nvowels to form Yahweh, but it's irrelevant. Jehovah was invented by taking the\ntitle Adonai (Lord) and his real name Yahweh (Causative tense verb) and flip\nadonai around back words, and interpolate the letters together. The I in adonai\nwas pronounced as a J because of the glottal culture at the time.",1] ); //-->

I am a mild Deist. I believe that the Infinite Cause I have come across is the substantiator of this Universe, but I know not the dogma or nature of this cause. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that this Infinite Cause has ever done anything to this Universe beyond initiating it.

I despise irrationality in all its forms, no matter the source.

Why does this matter to you?

 

Christians: A literal interpretation of your Bible is assailable. The only way for your faith to abide by some modicum of logic is to take a liberal, academic, interpretation of it. I would recommend reading some rabbinic writings to help you there. Good luck.

 

Deists: Sup.

 

Islam: See Christians.

 

Judaism: See Christians except many Jews are secular now, and excepting Orthodox Jews, most Jews have achieved a dogma that is unassailable.

 

Buddhism: Congratulations, you've achieved a completely nonsensical dogma that is from its very inception unassailable. Meditate On.

 

Hinduism: Similar to the Buddhists except there are some weirdnesses with the whole hybrid pantheist/polytheism thing. Multi-God but we're all the same thing? What the heck?

 

Mormons: Noone likes you.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses: Ditto, and what's more absurd is you're using an invented name for your God. Ditz. His real name is YVHV, Yod Vav Hey Vav. You can assume the vowels to form Yahweh, but it's irrelevant. Jehovah was invented by taking the title Adonai (Lord) and his real name Yahweh (Causative tense verb) and flip adonai around back words, and interpolate the letters together. The I in adonai was pronounced as a J because of the glottal culture at the time.\n\n

Agnostics:\nLargely removed from this train of thought if you're a pure Agnostic. But most\nof you probably have reached some point of my thoughts here.

\n\n

Rest of\nthe Theistic World: Want to retain your deity/deities and remain unassailable?\nFigure out the Logic. Not my problem or dogma.

\n\n

Last but\nnot least, we come to the Atheists. I am going to bet that a large number of\npeople are going to skip past my position speech and just read this, respond\nout of their ass, and make themselves look like idiots. I will not respond to\narguments that have already been answered in my speech. I know it's long, but I\ncouldn't do it proper justice otherwise. And now the finale:

\n\n

Atheists:\nYou too, have achieved the unassailable. Regrettably in an act of passion\nagainst Theists you've also put yourself in a belief that requires faith. The\nvery same brand of faith you despise the Christians for having. You keep\ntelling yourselves you're above that when you're really blinding yourselves\ncompletely. Introspection friends, introspection. Your belief in the lack of\nexistence of any supernature of any sort requires faith, as it is unprovable\none way or another. There is a refuge for you though, see pure/strong\nagnosticism.

\n\n

That's\nall friends, grats to those who read 95% of it or better. Don't waste my time\nto those who didn't and chose to spout off. Thanks for your time, however you\nchose to spend it.

\n\n

--- Adriyel

\n\n",0] ); //-->

 

Agnostics: Largely removed from this train of thought if you're a pure Agnostic. But most of you probably have reached some point of my thoughts here.

 

Rest of the Theistic World: Want to retain your deity/deities and remain unassailable? Figure out the Logic. Not my problem or dogma.

Last but not least, we come to the Atheists. I am going to bet that a large number of people are going to skip past my position speech and just read this, respond out of their ass, and make themselves look like idiots. I will not respond to arguments that have already been answered in my speech. I know it's long, but I couldn't do it proper justice otherwise. And now the finale:

 

Atheists: You too, have achieved the unassailable. Regrettably in an act of passion against Theists you've also put yourself in a belief that requires faith. The very same brand of faith you despise the Christians for having. You keep telling yourselves you're above that when you're really blinding yourselves completely. Introspection friends, introspection. Your belief in the lack of existence of any supernature of any sort requires faith, as it is unprovable one way or another. There is a refuge for you though, see pure/strong agnosticism.

That's all friends, grats to those who read 95% of it or better. Don't waste my time to those who didn't and chose to spout off. Thanks for your time, however you chose to spend it.
--- Adriyel

 

P.S. I'm serious about making a real attempt to read most of the relevant material. If you snipe a sentence or two out of what I've said and try to make some brilliantly ignorant riposte, you will be wasting my time and those who may be reading the thread (if any crops up at all). This was a brain dump, not a college thesis, don't waste my time with minutiae, spelling errors, or grammatical errors.

To say that logic escapes most, even those who claim to suckle upon the tit of logic is not only comical, but deadly true.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Yet another proud and

Yet another proud and indignant agnostic who doesn't realize that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Before you shoot your mouth off like you just did, why don't you ask questions instead of making accusations?

The Know-It-All Agnostic. How ironic. 

BTW, I read your crap about 'sniping', but that is all your arrogant post deserves. 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


adriyel
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Hahaha, you assume much to

Hahaha, you assume much to think I am agnostic. A reasonable conclusion if you glazed over my post, but I think you'd find the truth quite shocking. It's something a little less mundane. Nor, am I indignant. I just find the self-righteousness going all-around very amusing, that is all.

 "BTW, I read your crap about 'sniping', but that is all your arrogant post deserves." <--- apparently that would be the most of what you read. Like I said in the post, read it all.

To say that logic escapes most, even those who claim to suckle upon the tit of logic is not only comical, but deadly true.


adriyel
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Hahaha, you assume much to

weird php error, created double-post. my apologies.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
adriyel wrote: Hahaha, you

adriyel wrote:

Hahaha, you assume much to think I am agnostic.

Gee, I'm so fucking sorry. I guess when I read THIS,

adriyel wrote:
Finally, allow me to account for myself. My Credo is this:

I am agnostic.

I kind of just ASSUMED that you were telling the truth. I guess I had too much FAITH in you. Sorry for assuming you are honest.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
As an athiest/agnostic, I

As an athiest/agnostic, I sort of/somewhat agree. Indeed, the universe must have had a first cause. even the most dimwitted individual knows that.  My mind is open to the possibility that there is a force in the universe beyond our understanding completely our understanding.

 

But I despise religion. Stories of little sky fairies and vindictive omnipentent deities, of the afterlife and angels, are fucking bullshit made up by ancient powers structures with scripture crammed up their ass. Indeed, the existence of this God was held to be so self-axiomatic by smug theologians that until recentely, atheism/agnosticism was thought not to exist. Here is the issue. Adopting an agnostic position towards a God depends on one's definition of the word. Obviously the stories of religion (I hate the way the two words are seemingly interchangable) are utter bullshit. One can maintain an agnostic position towards the God concept and still recognize that Yahweh and Jesus are on par with Thor and his hammer.  

 

 

Mormons: Noone likes you.

Haha so true

 

Buddhism: Congratulations, you've achieved a completely nonsensical dogma that is from its very inception unassailable. Meditate On.

Again. I agree. The Buddhist philosphy in nonsensical.

Your belief in the lack of existence of any supernature of any sort requires faith, as it is unprovable one way or another. There is a refuge for you though, see pure/strong agnosticism.

Can you differentiate between "I do not believe in the supernatural" and "I believe there is no supernatural"? 

 

Judaism: See Christians except many Jews are secular now, and excepting Orthodox Jews, most Jews have achieved a dogma that is unassailable.

I think that's right. There are a few Orthodox and weirdo Hasids, but Judaism has morphed from a deity religion into a lifestyle.

Another problem is the issue of the supernatural, and stances that are simultaneously unassailable and indefensible. How is this possible? Easy. Posit a belief or creed that concerns anything that supposed exists above our own dimension or plane of existence. No matter what anyone says, it is a logical fallacy to try to argue one way or another about the existence of anything supernatural. Science concerns itself with the natural, because the rigorous method of Science is what inherently limits itself to that. You cannot interact with the supernatural in any way shape or form, .\nThat is one of the things that make it supernatural, it exists above our own\nexistence. How then is it possible to even bother to posit the existence\nor unexistence of such a plane?

\n\n

You can't\ndisprove my gliding cup of pink pudding, but you can't prove it either. Goes\nboth ways mates and matettes.

\n\n

Not\nto pull some steams of conciousness from a pop-culture\nsource, but lets briefly concern ourselves with the matter of\n"causality". Science gets findings due to the continual expansion of\nthe universe amongst other things that the Universe as we know it (TM), was\nformed with a large explosion, likely sourced from a dense packed\nmicro-universe. (DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN\nASTROPHYSICIST, I AM NOT GOING TO SQUABBLE OVER MINUTIAE THEREOF, PERIOD) Ok cool, now we got a better idea of what's\ngoing on right...oh wait. Where did that micro-universe come from? (50 more\nyears of research pass by) Oh cool, so where did that come from. -->Ad Nauseum Et Infinitum.

Here is the bigger issue. When one adopts a metaphysical stance like your own, it becomes a hair-splitting question. If you believe the supernatural is unprovable and unknowable by the correct definition of the word supernatural, and endorse a pantheistic notion of God, then who cares? It slams into the logical limits of science by it's own defintion, as anything testable is natural. Theists are retarded because they believe their little God (sky fairy) has some moral bearing on their lives. If God is a supernatural force then the bigger issue is that it is philosophically irrelevant, so we should not waste time with such ad nauseams. 

 

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
adriyel wrote: Atheists:

adriyel wrote:
Atheists: You too, have achieved the unassailable. Regrettably in an act of passion against Theists you've also put yourself in a belief that requires faith. The very same brand of faith you despise the Christians for having. You keep telling yourselves you're above that when you're really blinding yourselves completely. Introspection friends, introspection. Your belief in the lack of existence of any supernature of any sort requires faith, as it is unprovable one way or another. There is a refuge for you though, see pure/strong agnosticism.

What is this "supernature" you speak of?


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: adriyel

natural wrote:
adriyel wrote:

Hahaha, you assume much to think I am agnostic.

Gee, I'm so fucking sorry. I guess when I read THIS,

adriyel wrote:
Finally, allow me to account for myself. My Credo is this:

I am agnostic.

I kind of just ASSUMED that you were telling the truth. I guess I had too much FAITH in you. Sorry for assuming you are honest.

Fucking Pwned! 


adriyel
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
*sigh* This is exactly why

*sigh* This is exactly why I requested that people read all of it. Furthermore you are sniping it out of there out of other text regarding the matter.

 If you had read all of it, you would've realized that being agnostic can go in conjunction with most forms of deism or theism. Read all of it before you respond again, PLEASE. To define me as purely agnostic only shows the paucity of my post that you read.

To say that logic escapes most, even those who claim to suckle upon the tit of logic is not only comical, but deadly true.