The Deity and the Pariah

[Cognisant]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/

I work in retail and there's a guy who comes in to chat from time to time, not just some oldie with nothing better to do, a young guy who happens to be homeless (probably got kicked out of home) now he has some pretty extreme (racist) views but he's not aggressive about it, he just thinks Nordic people are the master race (which he is if you haven't guessed) and it seems it's a view he keeps to console himself, like a religious faith, indeed I've gotten Da Blob vibes from him from time to time.

Going by the mentality of the linked-to article above this guy is worthless and what concerns me is that without outside intervention that's not going to change, but nobody really wants to help him, there's no reason why anyone should, sure there's charities and goverment support but they're only keeping him alive, not helping him out of his pariah rut.

As an agnostic I feel I have no obligation to help and if it does worry me (I am only human) then I should donate some of my time or money to charity, it's not my personal problem but this is my city and so there's a certain residential obligation, idealistically speaking.

However as an athiest, rather a malthiest, seeing someone like this bothers me, not out of empathy, it bothers me because if one humours the notion of a deity then this is either incompetence or injustice, and that infuriates me, I hear god is good, I hear god is kind, I hear god is all powerful and all knowing, I see people prostrate themselves in worship and raise architecturally grandiose churches in praise... It's an awful joke.

But there is no god (or perhaps it's too ashamed to show itself) so I wonder, as an athiest should I try to help this guy just to spite the idea of a god, it would be petty and futile, but there's a certain Sisyphian appeal, or is it narcissistic, the appeal of putting God's name to shame. I'm not going to house the guy or feed him, self sacrifice is indulgent self righteousness that helps nobody, I'm just going to talk to him because I think that's the thing he needs that nobody will give him, some confidence to stop making a pariah of himself.

 

[Foxman49]

Help him because you can or help him because you want to. Don't do help him because "you should."

Awesome article. I'm going to do something with my life now.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What does agnosticism, atheism, and maltheism have to do with your own personal morals?

I have a hard time with you saying "as an atheist.." because it assigns a common denominator to atheists which isn't there. It's a hijacking of the term, and far too many people are doing it at the moment.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I wonder, as an athiest should I try to help this guy just to spite the idea of a god

No. It's immature at best. You don't help people out of spite, you help people because they need help and you can provide it. Good people are good because they actively help people, and helping people is the reward. Personally, the empathetic feeling would be the reward, I guess. Either way, spite is a terrible reason to help someone, but I prefer you help, regardless the reason.

 

[Cognisant]

Good people are good because

I'm not a "good" person.

Also you contradicted yourself with your opening and closing points, a change of mind?

 

[EdgarAllnPwn]

What does agnosticism, atheism, and maltheism have to do with your own personal morals?

I have a hard time with you saying "as an atheist.." because it assigns a common denominator to atheists which isn't there. It's a hijacking of the term, and far too many people are doing it at the moment.

Its quite rampant on these boards, the OP mentions being agnostic and then continues by saying he is atheist and God should be ashamed of himself?
Why are INTPs so hung up over the idea of God?

 

[r4ch3l]

Its quite rampant on these boards, the OP mentions being agnostic and then continues by saying he is atheist and God should be ashamed of himself?

+1 the terms are empty.
I'm interested in conversations about what god could be or not be but making arguments on what one should do because of god's nonexistence is as absurd to me as speculating about what "he" "wants" us to do.

Why are INTPs so hung up over the idea of God?

Because its the abstraction of all abstractions.

 

[EdgarAllnPwn]

+1 the terms are empty.
I'm interested in conversations about what god could be or not be but making arguments on what one should do because of god's nonexistence is as absurd to me as speculating about what "he" "wants" us to do.

Makes sense

Because its the abstraction of all abstractions.

But wouldn't this count as an "intricate system" the ideal playground for INTP?

Abstraction of all abstractions......... I like that.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Has he been taught to think this way? If so, then there may be real benefit in trying to break down his delusions. It's extremely difficult to think outside of indoctrination and nearly impossible without external help.

How old is he? How intelligent?

I've tried on a number of occasions and with varying success to socialize androphobic young women. It only seems to work on the fairly intelligent who can reason themselves out of the paradigm and mitigate their fear into caution. The others seem to get caught up in a web of emotionalism and insecurity and I've consistently failed to get them out of it. Similarly many racist/malevolently sexist men seem to be overly reliant on their emotional aggression and are beyond reason.


You might as well help him. Humanity progresses in increments and thus humanistic individuals are obligated to each other for the success of the whole. You become the problem with humanity when you refuse to positively advance it. Plus you might learn something in the process.

 

[Cognisant]

That's just it, this guy seems to be the meek intellectual type and his racism seems to be more geared towards self affirmation, he's not a "I hate blacks" racist, he's a *chortle* a naturalist that advocates biodiversity of the human races, like dogs being bred for pedigree.

I haven't actually heard it from him directly that he thinks Nordics are superior but he does consider them different to other caucasians and talks in a very careful to avoid causing offence kind of way.

A naturalist, it cracks me up, I tried explaining to him how evolution is a combination of variation and optimisation, not just optimisation, but he refuses to believe it, I'm sure he's capable of understanding, he just dosen't want to.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm not a "good" person.

Also you contradicted yourself with your opening and closing points, a change of mind?

He should not help out of spite... yet it's better than not helping at all.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Its quite rampant on these boards, the OP mentions being agnostic and then continues by saying he is atheist and God should be ashamed of himself?
Why are INTPs so hung up over the idea of God?

Because belief in God is irrational... we're rationals.

 

[RaBind]

I do think you're over thinking the situation. Help him out if you want to else don't help him if it is some outside forces, or your own perceived outside forces, that nudging you to help.

The only reason you'd feel obliged to help him is so you would feel like you're doing something right. I mean really morality doesn't exist outside of the self, so the only difference it makes is on how you feel about yourself. And if you helped someone just to feel good about yourself than you'd just be an asshole.

And one thing I'm curious about is why this guy? I'm sure there are other homeless people, in your own hometown, more deserving than this guy (he seems like a passive aggressive ass, the way you say that he has underlining racist views). Do you feel like helping every homeless person you meet? there are lots of other ways to spite god and the injustice in society, do you feel as though you must do those as well?

 

[Cognisant]

It's not about feeling good about myself, it's about who I identify myself as, I want to stand for something and I don't want to be a hypocrite, rejecting the notion of god is a foundational part of who I am and regardless whether god exists or not I don't want it to be (hypothetically) capable of calling me out on hypocrisy for calling it out for being either unjust or incompetent.

I am a harsh judge and it goes both ways.

And one thing I'm curious about is why this guy?

That he's homeless dosen't matter to me, I just said that as way of explanation for the way he is, I'm not sure if I'm right or not but I'm certain there is a reason because as I see it there are neither good nor bad people, we are all a product of our circumstances. The whole point of this is that I object to such unfavourable circumstances, that people like this guy can get trapped in a cycle between being a racist because he's a pariah and being a pariah because he's racist.

Hypothetically god fucked up, I object to that, because I object to that I see it as my responsibility to validate my objection by doing something about it, not because god exists and will call me out on being a hypocrite, rather because I will, as I just said I'm a harsh judge and it goes both ways.

My concern is that this is merely a token resistance and that dosen't prove anything, though it is still better than nothing?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Because belief in God is irrational... we're rationals.

The Beliebers don't change: what they Belieb in does.

What is God?

The only explanation for the second law of thermodynamics is "God"...whatever that is.

This is rational.

Its utterly retarded (& infantile) to go on assuming that evolution, in terms of statistical probability, as described by hard core atheists and Darwin-ists isn't in fact, DEvolution. Unicorns and flying pigs are more possible. Literally. Think about it.

The notion of a big bang is as 110% irrational today as the supersition that the earth was flat and the center of the universe 500+ years ago. Belief in the Big Bang equations working out require just as much blind "faith" as what the typical atheist claims feeds the faith of the average Christian. Instead of suns rotating about flat earths, its just that today its this mythical-religious devotion to Big Bang theories, the Federal Reserve Money Tree, Feminism, Multi-racialism and Multi-culturalism (the latter four are definitely state religions today at least surely future historians will recognize the paradigm-atical nature and power by which they are firmly ensconced throughout the contemporary west. Indeed: the notion of Equality hasn't torn down religious indoctrination, dogma and the accompanying furor of organized Christianity as a religion: its REPLACED it).

Want to be a heretic in the 21st century, post WWII deconstructed West? Be christian, white, male, hetero and proud. Presto: instant heretic. Think about it. Please don't give in to intolerance while parroting "squawk: I'm tolerant. I'm tolerant". Hint: In the US whites are less than half the population numerically, if the age group 60+ is taken out of the equation. And they've been disappearing at exponential rates via below replacement level fertility rates for 7+ straight decades. Same thing in Europe. Worldwide whites represent < 10% of the worlds population. Who, then is the minority? It would seem that white nations have been flooded with so-called minorities...yet: what would the outcry be if white nations were flooding into African nations, or China? And what would be the outcry if they were told that since racial strife is a problem, the only firm and adequate solution is that race (subspecies is a much better word) doesn't matter therefore hopping in the sack and blending the other races out of existence is the best solution? Now thats racist. Think about it. Think hard. Outside the politically correct box, inside the heretic box hard.*

Pathetic humanoids never change. 2,500 years ago in western civilization the supersition de jour were fantastic mythical gods of fancy. Throughout all of civilized time periods, there has always been an undercurrent of supersition and mythology with the moronic masses. The same people who today proclaim atheism would definitely be catholic church fanatics and greek god adherents should they have lived in those times.

The only rational question isn't "is there a God": it is "What is God?"

Intelligent humanoids wouldn't busy themselves with the business of burning down the wheel-maker's shop simply because some of his wheels came out less than perfect. Intelligent humanoids start from the most intelligent starting point and branch forward towards an ever more perfect vision of the ideal wheel and put it into physical form iteratively.

Just because the Greeks, Catholics, or even Muslims of the past present and future have erred to whatever degree in their definition of "God" does not mean, in fact, that "God" itself does not exist. Their definitions might ultimately fail under the increasing resolution of the contemporary skeptical humanoid brain, but just because we couldn't explain nuclear chemistry adequately 200 years ago doesn't mean it didn't exist. And if the religious stalwarts of 500 years ago had succeeded in destroying all the printing presses and scientific research papers...

My theory is that the vast majority of those who deny the existence of "God" (generally, and this remains to be defined in the context of this thread) are latently pissed off and passively aggressive towards life itself. Sometimes for "good" reason at face value (e.g. incest, physical abuse etc etc etc when in the vulnerable years of childhood)...and in many other instances simply because the atheist under consideration is simply an ungrateful, spiteful moron. Biting the hand that feeds might be excusable in the one whose been abused be his/ her master, but biting the hand which grew and delivered the food provided to the hand doing the feeding is just completely an exercise in self-defeat. And in neither case can it be remotely logical or rational to bite either hand if the one biting the hand that feeds has never even been abused by his/ her master (the parent or other caregiver in this metaphor -as opposed to God as the provider of the feed in the first place). Thats just pure irrational stupidity...and there is a lot of that going around these days.

As soon as an atheist can explain how the second law of thermodynamics is possible without some form of energy input from some higher order form aka "God" (whatever that is)...then perhaps I'll believe in atheism. Until then: most of you angry souls need to get a grip and stop blaming "God" (whatever that is) for the misdeeds of your fellow fallible human beings (who are generally stupid, selfish, short sighted, and evil in the end).

Until such time, I am content with the basic notions that "God" (whatever that is) will continue to power the sun for all -good and evil souls alike- in spite of all the thanklessness and pathetic complaining the puny inhabitants of planet earth send heavenward.

Anything less is distinctly irrational.

*and by the way, wouldn't it be rational for the strict atheist/ environmentalist to conserve the white subspecies? I mean if they care about spotted salamanders wouldn't it be reasonable to expect enough humanity to care about the human species and various subspecies as well? Either way its argued, either by the "God" argument (HE whatever HE is created the various subspecies) or the evolutionary argument: I don't see how its possible to rationally defend the position that its okay that whites are being expected to be a-okay with genociding themselves via mass racial mixing. In both instances the atheist-evolutionist and the God-believer are destroying that which they have no right to destroy. And you'd think by now humanoids would've learned that you just don't piss Mother nature and/or God off. There will be heavy consequences.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Can you explain how God explains the second law of thermodynamics please? I'm quite intrigued as to how it's pulled off; why God is a necessary component in the solution, and by which characteristic of God precisely?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Its utterly retarded (& infantile) to go on assuming that evolution, in terms of statistical probability, as described by hard core atheists and Darwin-ists isn't in fact, DEvolution. Unicorns and flying pigs are more possible. Literally. Think about it.

what do you even mean?

unicorns and flying pigs are more possible than evolution not being DEvolution? why? what relevant implications does the addition of prefix de- have? how does it affect the theory, its validity and its usage? all you've done so far is flipped the polarity.

think about it, stupid fucking twat.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i'm now doing you a gargantuan favor and reading all of your shit post.

 

[Cognisant]

Yep thread's over, move along ladies and gents nothing to see here.

 

[Brontosaurie]

As soon as an atheist can explain how the second law of thermodynamics is possible without some form of energy input from some higher order form aka "God" (whatever that is)...then perhaps I'll believe in atheism

god isn't the only term for "stuff beyond us". it is however the only term for the innately irrational concept of the known unknowable.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Can you explain how God explains the second law of thermodynamics please? I'm quite intrigued as to how it's pulled off; why God is a necessary component in the solution, and by which characteristic of God precisely?

I don't know. The answer to this question is the answer that has eluded even the best thinkers of all time. I would posit that this question is, quite exactly, the secret of the Universe itself.

Perhaps this higher power, whatever exactly it is intended this on purpose, sort of like an image of a fractal...to engage us to endless inquiry into the mystery...but that starts to sound too irrational for my taste. But life would be pretty damn boring without this Question to perpetually attempt to dis-cover the answer to. Food, sex, and sleep really are not all that exciting after a few decades of getting them all.

The one thing that can be firmly deduced, without doubt, is that life requires some form of energy input from some higher order. Sure, the sun is there...but what powers it...and where does the gravity keeping all the pieces of the puzzle in place come from, etc etc etc?

I would prefer to get closer to the answer, rather than further, even if a complete answer isn't fully attainable in this imperfect life. Therefore, I propose the atheists, in their own interest of advancing their own understanding of the universe and their place in it, stop resisting the diabolical urge to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

I have deduced some general characteristics of what God surely must be. At least some minimums.

Not feeling the love here so won't share. Probably all that new kid on the block hazing BS humanoids (even the best of the best INTPs) feel compelled to engage in. Totally self-defeating and pointless I might add. Sort of like that dwarf sized guy on his massive Harley who couldn't keep his bike on the road the other day and ended up trying to pull me into his road rage incident. Tough guy that he was. *yawn*

 

[Cherry Cola]

god isn't the only term for "stuff beyond us". it is however the only term for the innately irrational concept of the known unknowable.

Well then Gregory what Bronto wrote counters exactly everything you wrote. So much for stupid Atheists.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Well then Gregory what Bronto wrote counters exactly everything you wrote. So much for stupid Atheists.

There are intelligent, irrational provocateurs masquerading as rationals aplenty. 3 categories, then, of die hard self-described atheists:

1. intelligent provocateurs intent on maleficence

2. those angry with what they see as flaws in "God"'s design who seek self-justification through denying "God" exists at all

3. morons intoxicated with stupidity/ defeatism of self and others

So, no I don't believe all atheists are stupid. Misguided absolutely. My point is that atheism itself is stupid (not all atheists) and a religion unto itself.

 

[Brontosaurie]

atheism is: NOT believing that you know stuff about the very stuff of which nothing can be known, the stuff that is beyond comprehension.

atheism does not claim nor deny that there is any such stuff.

 

[Cherry Cola]

My point is that atheism itself is stupid (not all atheists) and a religion unto itself.

A shared lack of belief in one thing does not necessitate a common denominator.

Atheism is not theism just because there are die hard atheists who act as if though they were rampant theists. Those atheists do not own the term atheism and their negative characteristics are not what makes them atheists. What does that is simply their lack of belief in any God.

You're letting them hijack the term atheism expanding the criteria for what makes an atheist in the process.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

A shared lack of belief in one thing does not necessitate a common denominator.

Atheism is not theism just because there are die hard atheists who act as if though they were rampant theists. Those atheists do not own the term atheism and their negative characteristics are not what makes them atheists. What does that is simply their lack of belief in any God.

You're letting them hijack the term atheism expanding the criteria for what makes an atheist in the process.

I think I understand what you are saying here.

Dig deeper, though. What I am saying is that the typical atheists' god (again, whatever that is) is their professed lack of one.

Not having a God (whatever that is) is just as potentially overtly religious as any 501c3 out there. Plenty of atheists preach more often and more loudly in search of converts than the average Christian zealot. As this thread aptly demonstrates, tolerance love and peace are not necessarily mutually exclusive to atheists, Christian zealots, or anything or anyone in between.

...and for what its worth I think most atheists in cat 1 & 3 are generally irredeemable, i.e. not worth the time, i.e. either too evil or stupid to think of them as anything less than wastes of skin anyways. Those in category 2 are still precious and redeemable if they can be reached in some way (and they make themselves accessible to rational thought). Cat 2s probably represent the largest cohort, too, which is slight consolation to a dyed in the wool misanthrope such as myself.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Mhm, they turn their lack of belief in a god into a cause in itself, closely tied to it is their idea of themselves as "rational" which really is just another virtue in line with well for instance Christians virtues, that is in its social function.

Those people are theistic atheists, but they are not atheism, and they don't make atheism a form of theism. At least I hope they don't succeed in doing so.

 

[Brontosaurie]

theistic atheists

no. just socially awkward, asshole atheists.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The function that Atheism serves in the life of some atheists is quite like that of a religion or deity though. But it's the same with a lot of political stuff too, and you don't go about calling far out crazy leftists or rightists religious. So yeah I agree in essence I guess.

 

[Brontosaurie]

The function that Atheism serves in the life of some atheists is quite like that of a religion or deity though. But it's the same with a lot of political stuff too, and you don't go about calling far out crazy leftists or rightists religious. So yeah I agree in essence I guess.

dogmatic,

though

yes

 

[Duxwing]

Mhm, they turn their lack of belief in a god into a cause in itself, closely tied to it is their idea of themselves as "rational" which really is just another virtue in line with well for instance Christians virtues, that is in its social function.

Those people are theistic atheists, but they are not atheism, and they don't make atheism a form of theism. At least I hope they don't succeed in doing so.

One can love science or philosophy or "rationality" and find meaning and spiritual fulfillment in pursuing them, but so doing does not make one's relationship to them religious: religion's defining characteristic is one or more assertions about supernatural entities or phenomena.

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

The Beliebers don't change: what they Belieb in does.

What is God?

The only explanation for the second law of thermodynamics is "God"...whatever that is.

Okay, wow. It's immediately evident that, to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you appear so oblivious, that I'd put money on you being more of a troll, or otherwise acting this way, instead of legitimately thinking this stuff you're saying is true.

Firstly, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to increase in closed systems. That is, the useable heat energy spreads out until meeting equilibrium. Secondly, regardless exactly what it states or means, it's simply a physical law, an aspect of how matter and energy function. That's it. God's not required for it, and I have no idea how you would begin to believe it did require such an entity.

Its utterly retarded (& infantile) to go on assuming that evolution, in terms of statistical probability, as described by hard core atheists and Darwin-ists isn't in fact, DEvolution. Unicorns and flying pigs are more possible. Literally. Think about it.

I've already thought about it, as has every biologist on the planet, the people who study this stuff as a career choice, overwhelmingly agree on the topic. If you have any valid reason to presume that all of them are wrong, you would effectively win science. You'd get awards, grants, you'd be famous... you haven't done this. Why not?

The notion of a big bang is as 110% irrational today as the supersition that the earth was flat and the center of the universe 500+ years ago. Belief in the Big Bang equations working out require just as much blind "faith" as what the typical atheist claims feeds the faith of the average Christian. Instead of suns rotating about flat earths, its just that today its this mythical-religious devotion to Big Bang theories, the Federal Reserve Money Tree, Feminism, Multi-racialism and Multi-culturalism (the latter four are definitely state religions today at least surely future historians will recognize the paradigm-atical nature and power by which they are firmly ensconced throughout the contemporary west. Indeed: the notion of Equality hasn't torn down religious indoctrination, dogma and the accompanying furor of organized Christianity as a religion: its REPLACED it).

Okay, troll, I'm done. I was going to try to take you seriously, but I have no reason to believe you're doing so yourself. I'm done here. Come back when you can be serious... or, rather, I'll pay attention to you when it's evident you're not just trolling.

 

[Cherry Cola]

One can love science or philosophy or "rationality" and find meaning and spiritual fulfillment in pursuing them, but so doing does not make one's relationship to them religious: religion's defining characteristic is one or more assertions about supernatural entities or phenomena.

-Duxwing

I'm not speaking of the kind of relationship Einstein had to science :P

And while the relationship may not be religious aspects of it can be, such as it's psychological function.

 

[Hadoblado]

Very nice article.

Cog, I'm pretty sure this is exactly why you don't take the Lord's name in vain, not with all these nasty NT's lurking about anyway.

I think you should help him if you are motivated to do so :/

If helping him will help you more than the next most viable option, you should do so. I'd talk to him, and try to reason with him, but would probably stop short of actually caring or helping him in any meaningful way.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

That's just it, this guy seems to be the meek intellectual type and his racism seems to be more geared towards self affirmation, he's not a "I hate blacks" racist, he's a *chortle* a naturalist that advocates biodiversity of the human races, like dogs being bred for pedigree.

I haven't actually heard it from him directly that he thinks Nordics are superior but he does consider them different to other caucasians and talks in a very careful to avoid causing offence kind of way.

A naturalist, it cracks me up, I tried explaining to him how evolution is a combination of variation and optimisation, not just optimisation, but he refuses to believe it, I'm sure he's capable of understanding, he just dosen't want to.

I'm a bit confused.

If he's so delicate and quiet about it, then does that really make him a social pariah? When people have the grace to be quiet about their bigoted beliefs, they don't seem to suffer much for having them.

It doesn't really sound like he needs help, at least at managing his racism. I doubt his homelessness can be directly attributed to it.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Perhaps this higher power, whatever exactly it is intended this on purpose, sort of like an image of a fractal...to engage us to endless inquiry into the mystery...but that starts to sound too irrational for my taste. But life would be pretty damn boring without this Question to perpetually attempt to dis-cover the answer to. Food, sex, and sleep really are not all that exciting after a few decades of getting them all.

Amen.
My thoughts exactly at 39 years of age and after having committed all the worst physical and emotional extremes !

 

[EdgarAllnPwn]

Okay, wow. It's immediately evident that, to be frank, you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you appear so oblivious, that I'd put money on you being more of a troll, or otherwise acting this way, instead of legitimately thinking this stuff you're saying is true.

Okay, troll, I'm done. I was going to try to take you seriously, but I have no reason to believe you're doing so yourself. I'm done here. Come back when you can be serious... or, rather, I'll pay attention to you when it's evident you're not just trolling.

Do trolls really spend that much time and energy trying to explain concepts to other people?
Way to shut down.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Do trolls really spend that much time and energy trying to explain concepts to other people?
Way to shut down.

While trolls may not tend to write so much, it still seems to me that the primary purpose of the post was to stir up drama. It was more a "Everyone and everything's wrong!" than a thought out argument. There are so many things wrong with what he said it's difficult for me to imagine it being anything else. If he comes back and it becomes evident he actually thinks that stuff and isn't just batting the bee's nest, I'll bite, but until then it's a waste of time.

Example;

Sure, the sun is there...but what powers it...and where does the gravity keeping all the pieces of the puzzle in place come from, etc etc etc?

^ Weapons grade balognium. Google, or for that matter; grade school, can answer that sun power "question". The second is a bit more complicated, but either way not understanding the source of gravity just means you don't understand the source of gravity. That's all. "Higher Order" required? For what? Bold claims with no explanation at all? Maybe he's for real, I don't exclude that possibility, but it sure seems like he's just being an ass.

 

[Brontosaurie]

first he makes these wild confident assertions and then he be like:

I don't know.

Not feeling the love here so won't share.

SpaceYeti is clearly right.

don't lick this guys ass.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Do trolls really spend that much time and energy trying to explain concepts to other people?
Way to shut down.

Internet banter rule #1: ignore the nasties. They've arrived at being nasty after many years of somethings that are bothering them. There is no way I am going to change their outlook from behind some random keyboard on some random forum within the infinity of the internet.

Human nature is a funny thing. People are stupid and impulsive as a general rule but that doesn't mean their inane reactionary vitriole isn't entertaining.

How do you tell a nasty? Well, they nearly always tend to engage in ceaseless ad hominems and red herrings. Very very rarely do they ever engage with the subject matter in a rational, reasonable, logical approach. And they usually like to call everyone else a troll. Classic cognitive dissonance + overt projection.

Like water off a ducks back...

Now, if anyone has a serious minded retort and/or query I will (and can only) do my best to provide my best answer. The funny thing about my position is that its okay for people like me at some point to approach the next layer within a dark tunnel, be honest, and say before we enter therein: "I don't know...but I'm sure if we poke around we will eventually find out most of the answer in this dark tunnel we are about to explore". If anyone tries to act like they know it all or most of it all they are lying and/or selling something not worth it. Still, once one has been personally disappointed in some aspect of the exploratory journey into a tunnel of mystery, this is not a good reason to burn the wheelmaker's shop and burn the guide at the stake.

And for what its worth I have gotten a handful of PMs and such indicating that I have more support behind the scenes than would otherwise be apparent from glancing at the posts on this thread. The quiet majority might be amening my position more than one might otherwise be led to believe.

Any post which I can interprete as sincere in intent I will endeavor to reply to. All others go in the ignore and move on category. They already have their answer...no need to contradict what they already have allowed themselve to convince themselves that they know (or don't). If they were secure in their position though...perhaps there wouldn't be the psychological need to try and debase the other fellow in order to give one the sense of their own position being stable.

To get to the truth, one must first be earnest in their quest to find it. And one doesn't get more truth unless they face up to the amount already given.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You speak of nasty people, but you do it seated atop a pedestal and it's quite obvious.

Don't forget you started out by attacking atheists as if though they were a homogenic group.

And now you're doing it again:

. The funny thing about my position is that its okay for people like me at some point to approach the next layer within a dark tunnel, be honest, and say before we enter therein: "I don't know...but I'm sure if we poke around we will eventually find out most of the answer in this dark tunnel we are about to explore". If anyone tries to act like they know it all or most of it all they are lying and/or selling something not worth it.

People like you in contrast to what other people? The one making a claim here is you, Bronto and Spaceyeti are being more sceptic than you are, the analogy is alright but it doesn't apply the way you'd like it to.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

You speak of nasty people, but you do it seated atop a pedestal and it's quite obvious.

Don't forget you started out by attacking atheists as if though they were a homogenic group.

And now you're doing it again:

. The funny thing about my position is that its okay for people like me at some point to approach the next layer within a dark tunnel, be honest, and say before we enter therein: "I don't know...but I'm sure if we poke around we will eventually find out most of the answer in this dark tunnel we are about to explore". If anyone tries to act like they know it all or most of it all they are lying and/or selling something not worth it.

People like you in contrast to what other people? The one making a claim here is you, Bronto and Spaceyeti are being more sceptic than you are, the analogy is alright but it doesn't apply the way you'd like it to.

Pedestals are a fact of life.

Any given comment on any one thing is going to be more correct or less correct (even by finite degrees) than another. There are some pedestals higher than others, and some lower than others. Its a continuum in fact. Mortals & each particular idea they happen to promulgate are not all equal, despite the silly juvenile rhetoric popular with the MTV indoctrinated masses.

Surely there are many on pedestals above you, and many on pedestals below you. On some topics one's pedestal may be higher than another's and in other topics lower.

But this isn't about me, you, or any of the pedestals anyone else sit on at any given moment. Who cares about any of that sort of comparison except the hopelessly insecure and morally bankrupt?

Its about defining God.

So when atheists state, "there is no God" what does the typical atheist mean (independent of any particular forum member)?

Serious question. If one claims any one thing doesn't exist, exactly what is it that they are claiming does not exist?

That is, if the typical atheist's notion of God is the toothfairy, the easter bunny and Santa Claus then I would be an atheist, too.

 

[Cherry Cola]

If the notion of God was the problem then the religious would have adjusted it. Problem is there is no way of adjusting it without getting to the point where there's no reason to even use the word God anymore.

Earlier on I wrote:

I'm quite intrigued as to how it's pulled off; why God is a necessary component in the solution, and by which characteristic of God precisely?

If you can present a characteristic of God which is inherently necessary in God and has explanatory value then sure. Until then God remains an artificial construct that says little of anything other than the minds of humans.

What the religious like to do is toss cool words such as "eternal" and "omnipotent" unto God as if though that would somehow answer the question of who moved the original mover. One may just as well simply state the universe is eternal however, and free will is no less a paradox just because it is projected unto a vague being.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

I'm quite intrigued as to how it's pulled off; why God is a necessary component in the solution, and by which characteristic of God precisely?

If you can present a characteristic of God which is inherently necessary in God and has explanatory value then sure. Until then God remains an artificial construct that says little of anything other than the minds of humans.

Okay, sounds reasonable. I'll give it my best (inherently flawed though) shot.

Starting point: as before, presuming "God" (I am starting towards a definition then on my end of "faith". Hopefully an atheist can start at some point on there end) is the explanation of this higher ordering power behind the second law of thermodynamics, that is: from whence came the higher orders in so much that the lower orders could deconstruct (catalyze in terms of life forms) it i.e. feed and live from this higher ordering power's providence:

This much we can deduce:

#1 Entropy is real/ true. For entropy to exist there must exist the opposite force so as to provide the properties upon which entropy to operate. The source of this force/ power is where I begin my definition of what God must be.

therefore:

#2 as this force/ power behind sustaining the second law of thermodynamics (the supreme equation), this same force/ power is responsible for all "Scientific" truths that are self evident such as including but not limited to the aforementioned, all the various laws of physics, etc. All of which laws and truths have a rational purpose (all highly ordered truths are anything but irrational), great or small within their own sphere of operation. (For example, which laws keep the planets in their orbits around the various suns)

in consequence of the above:

#3 all these higher orders and powers have a rational purpose, then for what purpose is the perpetuation of providing materials for entropy to consume, gravity, all of physics, etc? That is: if all the laws and truths have rational purpose to their mechanisms, what is the ultimate reason for their being? (or else surely they needed to not justify their existence in the first place). For example, for what purpose did this power/ force place life forms on the third rock from the sun (not too far/ not too close/ yet just the right distance to provide the proper circumstances for the maintenance of biological life)?

#4 To assist in providing for the existence and perpetuation of HumanKind, He/She being the ultimate manifestation of the highest order possible on planet earth at this time (biological existence). Most on planet earth are stuck at this stage of existence. Eating, pooping, sleeping, sexing, zombie style. But hey, they exist and have been given the opportunity to exercise their mind and if they choose not to: that is the free will they ignore.

#5 Some (very few?) will figure out how to be happy within the confines of their abode here on planet earth which is the highest degree of order attainable in the UNiverse as far as we can know it (mental/ emotional/ spiritual existence/ Maslow, for one, defines this as self-actualization). <-- This is The Purpose. All the ordering powers/ forces of the universe exist for the rational purpose of promoting the existence and (surely this Higher Power hopes for the highest degree of success) the happiness of human life forms.

Early in my youth, without knowing of Pascal's Wager, I formulated my own logical proof for why it is only beneficial to believe in "God" as oppose to only self defeating/ completely foolish to not believe-define What is "God"-and then comport oneself accordingly. Pascal may put it better than I can summarize in a forum post, please review Pascal's Wager:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LIMITATIONS AT THIS POINT TO WHICH I HAVE ASSIGNED MY DEFINITION OF GOD. PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING BEYOND THAT WHICH I HAVE DELINEATED. NOR DO I INCLUDE IN MY DEFINITION OF "GOD" WHAT IS OR IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE LINK TO PASCAL'S WAGER. For example, I have not necessarily taken the step to assign human form to "God" (nor haven't I).

This is as far as I can take it for this post.

To summarize:

the characteristic of "God" I propose is the natural inclination/ propensity towards a purpose of rationalizing ever higher Orders of existence (in direct opposition to entropy).

Check out this example of Rational Order in the Universe. And this is the Rational Order existent in just the 1 physical property known as sound. Mindblowing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtiSCBXbHAg

and I've tried to provide the explanatory value in at least 2 ways above.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Internet banter rule #1: ignore the nasties...
their inane reactionary vitriole (is) entertaining...
they nearly always tend to engage in ceaseless ad hominems and red herrings...
That is, if the typical atheist's notion of God is the toothfairy, the easter bunny and Santa Claus then I would be an atheist, too.

You know, I rather like you. I wonder if you're doing this on purpose or not, though.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

You know, I rather like you. I wonder if you're doing this on purpose or not, though.

As an INTP I rarely do anything without an express purpose in mind. I can't think of the last time I did something without considering the purpose.

If you are reading this and not doing right by "God" (whatever that is) then be afraid and let this motivation work in you until you adjust your life accordingly such that you can not be afraid to meet your "God" (whatever that is) when this power/ force ceases to sustain you and calls you home by allowing entropy to do its thing without Its intervention (i.e. your inevitable physical death).

 

[Brontosaurie]

As an INTP I rarely do anything without an express purpose in mind. I can't think of the last time I did something without considering the purpose.

that's not INTP though

<ceaseless ad hom>

<inane vitriole>

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

that's not INTP though

<ceaseless ad hom>

<inane vitriole>

sometimes the purpose is no purpose. My secondary "out" is the tag line below my name "INTP/J". I do stray into J territory depending on the situation.

My MBTI tests put me at ~1% preference for P. Pretty much ambivert in this aspect.

All I, N, and T though.

 

[Montresor]

sometimes the purpose is no purpose. My secondary "out" is the tag line below my name "INTP/J". I do stray into J territory depending on the situation.

My MBTI tests put me at ~1% preference for P. Pretty much ambivert in this aspect.

All I, N, and T though.

Cognitive type theory just does not reconcile... not that I'm saying "it's right", but yeah

I think if an INTP strays J, then it's gonna be FJ


I guess what I'm saying is, you have one type.... and if you're right on the middle of the curve for P/J then I think you would be expressing your Pe/Je functions fairly equally ... which means Ne and Fe or Te and Se, depending on what type you actually are.

but anyways that's just what I think and it's basically a derail sorry

 

[SpaceYeti]

This entire conversation is a derail.