+Hool igan Before answering this question I have some for you: Do you really think that argument was clever or original? Do you think this has added anything but ridicule and reductions to the debate? Do you think God is the same as an Elf is the same as a Troll is the same as a flying teapot in space?
Have you heard of categories and how things can be distinct from each other? Meaning up is not down, good is not evil, God is not spaghetti monsters or land borders or money or a Illithid.
I dont know who "Santander Claus" is, but I am 30+ and I believe in Santa Claus or more correct Saint Nicholas. He was a real man who gave gifts to poor children during Christmas.
And then there is the world at large, preposterously huge
Just a wild guess.
On a more serious note, Did Jesus ever get an erection in order to practice for His resurrection?
Andy Ace (AndyAce83)
Grains of the golden sand —
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep — while I weep!
O God! Can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?
E.A. Poe - Dream within a Dream
What I like about this ending is that the weeper, may in a way be God to the grain, as God is God to us. Perhaps we are just dream figures in God´s dream? No, I have not smoked the ganja, I am just being quasi-intellectual.
Andy Ace (AndyAce83)
You ended up in the spamfilter. Ill reply to some of it anyway:
"It is apparent despite my phone's interference that you knew I was referring to Santa Claus. Now I am also confident that you knew it was a fictional character who lives at the north pole I was referring to and not old saint Nick."
Yes, I knew. What is funny afterwards is that you are referring to Santa Claus and Old Saint Nick as two different people, but Old Saint Nick is in fact just another term for Santa Claus. From a song "While we wait for old Saint Nick" (or something like that). There is no difference between Santa Claus, Saint Nicholas and Old Saint Nick in pop-culture. But no adults believe him to be still alive at the north pole, but they understand that Santa Claus was a real person once, and now is still remembered through that pop-culture icon.
And this is my point: Although what we believe to be true may not be entirely true, it may still be somewhat true. Like with Santa Claus. You try to ridicule me and say I believe in God so I may as well believe in Santa Claus, and I reply that Santa Claus was real (but of course implying that its not the pop-culture version). Its called humility. Not be a patronizing ass, but try to understand that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy". As with your "Santa argument", that is said ad nausea.
There are so many cliché atheist meme arguments copy-pasted from misc "sceptic" forums that I read time and time again. And it seems that atheist always think they are so original when saying it. That is what is fascinating.
Here is one: "Why don´t you believe in Odin and Thor? I am just as you. I just believe in one god less than you." And the answer to this would take ONE SECOND to answer if you gave it a single thought. The argument is as valid as to say every time you have more than one choice you should make non. Every party in politics say they are right and the others are wrong, so there is no point in voting. Science changes opinions and what is facts everyday, and scientist believe different things, so there is no point in following science.
Its not valid and to be honest, they say that there are no stupid questions, but there are. A stupid question is a question you could easily answer yourself if you gave it some thought.
The most cliché of all responses to perennially unanswered questions is to whine that the question is cliché.
As to the whole 'if you have multiple options you should pick none', it has been my experience that atheists mention Thor etc response to specific religious claims where the comparison is apt.
Are there atheist who regurgitate verbatim some arguments from some forum or other. Of course there are. Just as there are religious people who do the exact same thing.
I claim that it is irrational to believe religious claims for two principle and related reasons.
1. The claims are extraordinary. Miracles, fantastical beings with superpowers etc. They are the kind of claims that even religious people routinely dismiss out of hand.
2. The evidence presented to substantiate the claims is breathtakingly insufficient.
In some cases religious people will even claim logically impossible things and when challenged on it will usually resort to "there are more things..."
Any claim no matter how ridiculous can hide behind this response. It is also a state of affairs that will be true forever.
I submit to you that this is not being serious. In other form of conversation would accept your interlocutor making incredible claims and when challenged with the fact that the things they describe are incredible they simply point out that you do not have perfect knowledge of the entire universe?
Also, you seem to think your spam filters choices are significant? An odd measure but each to their own I suppose.
Call the roller of big cigars,
The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month's newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
- Wallace Stevens
What I like about this poem is that the reader has to interpret it however the fuck one likes, and no one can say much less threaten impressionable children to say they know just what or whom is being referred to.
How like life.
God is like a woman you want to fuck - whatever the fuck you want her to be.
Hence the line "The fair Ophelia!- Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red."
To do and desire all that we do and desire under the very impulse of heaven and earth - this is the existential paradox of heroic mythology, a corruption of which can be found in "Torture Incorporated," the very first word of which Holy Bible is a barbaric corruption of human truth in itself... Holy.
The thing about all corruptions of the archaic or native human religious imagination (and its roots in a truly meaning workably humane locus of human sexual, emotional and mental development symbiotic with nature as a living whole intelligence each in one's own terms and to one's own tastes and appetites) is that what liberates is what enslaves you. It is only that one is convinced, for all kinds of mediating reasons most unflattering to our customary modes of human mental growth the world over, that this is justified by the narcotic consoling power of the illusion of having some stake in your own enslavement (or enlightening self-inflicted if coerced forfeit of even more of one's critical faculties) or glorified domination and that of others with a scale of ambition and perfection that bears little to no proportional ideological responsibility if retaining little to no ability to care about or calculate the actual effects and costs to life and liberty, including the quintessential ability to make one's own determinations about what is true for oneself and one's family, a definition of truth that we lose in direct proportion to corrupting every sense of that term, as demonstrated by all insults to free speech, all ideological corruptions both cause and symptom of gross distortions of critical and moral proportion and communication across the threshold of body, mind and cosmos. By this estimation, elections/referendums are just as good/bad. All pleasure has commensurate pain and sacrifice. But it is the ability to customize these ratios that makes anyone free or even human. All mass prescriptions for human existence must fail at this and are, I feel, extolled precisely because they do and so succeeding in helping people who have endured and thus gained the propensity for self-annihilation or psychosis the natural developmental response to corruptions of one's natal locus and brain stem for the whole flowering of our reciprocal communion with nature's every poetry to hurt themselves and everyone else "for their own sake."
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Axiom 721 - Spiritual Psychosis (Sadism)
Axiom 720 - Nature's Priests (The Archaic Revival)
"The more functional definition of fascism, communism or democracy is an effective monopoly on force and faith as the very bedrock of all subsequent discourse. This is, in turn, contingent upon a widespread symbiotic mass psychosis to which every successive generation of your own young are relegated by customary neglect of the whole human locus of their sexual, emotional and mental development and its reciprocal correspondence and congress, in turn, with the apotheosis of psychologically and biologically compatible intelligence (or heavenly technology) that is both nature and our ecstatic communion with it as a holy mother and father."
Pictures of the soul flicker in and out of hellish flame
The door so thinly sealed is but a tree in a garden
The truth so tightly bound is but a serpent's fang
That swells the sea of sacrifice....
“Where lies the final harbor, whence we unmoor no more? In what rapt ether sails the world, of which the weariest will never weary? Where is the foundling’s father hidden? Our souls are like those orphans whose unwedded mothers die in bearing them: the secret of our paternity lies in their grave, and we must there learn it.”
― Herman Melville, Moby Dick
"The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged and numerous senses could perceive. 96
And particularly they studied the Genius of each city and country, placing it under its Mental Deity; 97
Till a System was formed, which some took advantage of, and enslav’d the vulgar by attempting to realise or abstract the Mental Deities from their objects—thus began Priesthood; 98
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales. 99
And at length they pronounc’d that the Gods had order’d such things. 100
Thus men forgot that All Deities reside in the Human breast."
- The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
William Blake, c. 1790
Full quotation used in
Axioms 902 - Life, Lust, Blood and Story Create and Incorporate One Another
"Life, Lust, Blood and Story Create and Incorporate One Another
"Thus is composed, dissembled, lived, known and spelled the face and wild grace of all that is and all that our blood remembers, transforms and passes on the God or Devil, King or Queen in Man and Nature, Heaven and Earth (and Hell).
"For all spheres (every element and organ) of life and desire are made up of our stories, and our stories are made up of all of the spheres of life and desire."
Hool igan May I add,
It no more necessarily follows from the fact that anything is not necessarily true that anything is necessarily false than that if something is not necessarily false then it is necessarily true.
But one thing is certain:
A belief is always necessarily true (even if it is not).
And that not faith in itself (which is a vital wholly symbiotic function of all organs of life and desire) but the often compulsive if not coercive equation of faith and fact and the qualification (taking after any commensurate psychosis, however naturally acquired) to arbitrate for what is real or reasonable on pain of degrading aspersions as to one's intelligence, motives, sanity or "salvation" and that of one's family, an equation that can but farm nothing but the traumatic developmental impressions come psychotic propensities just described in a society as religiously as scientifically kept poised upon a bloody brink of perpetual near collapse veritably at war with every natural instinct with which a child is born and to which we force our most vulnerable citizenry to conform under only the most Herculean duress, duress that could not possibly fail to stymie the courage and whole brain development of the most battle-hardened combat soldier, let alone that of a wee child.
Andy Ace (AndyAce83)
"The most cliché of all responses to perennially unanswered questions is to whine that the question is cliché."
First of, I dont agree. To my memory I have never encountered anyone stating that atheist meme arguments are clisjés. But lets say, for the sake of argument, that there are many who say thus, I still did not use the "this is such a clisché" argument as a period, but as a beginning. I did in fact answer and then added that you could just as easily have answered this yourself.
"1. The claims are extraordinary. Miracles, fantastical beings with superpowers etc. They are the kind of claims that even religious people routinely dismiss out of hand."
Lots of things have been said to be extraordinary. "The world is round" for one. "The world revolves around the sun", another. A philosopher (Democritus) once claimed that the world was build up of tiny bits (atoms). He was seen as mad.
"2. The evidence presented to substantiate the claims is breathtakingly insufficient. "
If God decided that it for some reason was very important that you should know he existed. What should He do to convince you. What level of proof would you accept? Should he appear in the sky and point at you? How would you react to such a vision and how would the rest of your life be? Better or worse?
"In some cases religious people will even claim logically impossible things and when challenged on it will usually resort to "there are more things...""
I agree that the Shakespear quote is over used. You know what´s funny? Since I wasnt sure of the correct quote I googled it. You know what the first place I found was? "Shakespeare once said "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". How should skeptics best address this question?"
You know what my answer to that would be? With your own words not by copy-pasting whatever the answer on that forum would be or quote "Storm" poem by Tim Minchin which is the first time I think I heard that quote being used as anything but a Shakespear quote.
"Also, you seem to think your spam filters choices are significant? An odd measure but each to their own I suppose."
You do know I am telling you not to be rude right? I am an avid freedom of expression guy and I take offence that your comment is removed. I am telling you so you know you have been shadow banned as I am sure you can still read your comment as if posted here. I in fact copy-past the link to this video to make sure my comments are open to all readers. So although I made a joke about it earlier, I am really not for this at all. Youtube and Google had a very good debating platform going on. But the "fake news" and "hate speech" narrative made them take "action" with the help of the undemocratic EU. Facebook, twitter etc. do the same.
I would much rather read an atheists vulgar and clisched arguments ad nauseam than live in a world where some unknown entity (aka. cooperation) decides what kind of ideas I should be exposed to. Food for thought: This is also why I am glad that God doesnt try to prove his existence all the time aswell. He would just become like google and EU.
Andy Ace (AndyAce83)
"I don't want to start
Any blasphemous rumors.
But I think that God's
Got a sick sense of humor .
And when I die
I expect to find Him laughing."
Now if you dont stop quoting poetry here I am gonna start adding my own poems and those are some next level emo thing.
"What I like about this poem is that the reader has to interpret it however the f--k one likes, and no one can say much less threaten impressionable children to say they know just what or whom is being referred to."
I also prefer ambiguous art. That is one of the reasons why I dont like poems like Tim Minchin's Storm because its too on the nose. Actually, I do kind of like it. When I listen to it I imagine myself being at that party and then going head to head with this besserwisser and completely ruin the evening. Perhaps I should write a beat poem myself as an answer? Call it Placebo and say
"I once was at a party, with stuffy upperclass bastards. They talked nonsense and BS, until a new age wench said something post-modern to a besserwisser who went unhinged. The debate went on for quite some time, until I decided to speak my mind. It was time to take a douchebag to school. Show that he was just as much a fool. So when he said "Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work?
I had to then say, "So how then, may I ask, do you explain placebo? Oh I guess that was never addressed in Scooby Doo."
I am sorry... I have to quit debating for a while... It seems I am getting inspired. I have a poem to write!
Andy, again, beliefs are always true, so anything serves as "proof" of a belief, all things and all people can be tasked in service of a belief.
But for the purposes of rational discussion, and with all deference to the inimitable charms of personal revelation, one need constrain oneself to what can be logically argued or empirically substantiated.
Can you yourself prove that the Earth revolves around the sun?
If not, you are asking us to take that on faith, strictly speaking.
This is not to split hairs.
Rational discourse has proven over hundreds of years to be invaluable for arbitrating the often heated conflagrations of even innocuous-seeming religious or spiritual beliefs, all of which take their provenance in that vast and ineffably powerful country of all that we do not know or would like to pretend as though we do for all kinds of emotional and social reasons of every range of good and evil effect (usually with impunity).
And finally, your use of the word "God" for the purposes of this discussion has absolutely not pragmatic relation to nature. To wit, you have yet to ground this God concept in anything that actually serves to nourish the mind and body of our species but on the most, as I say, ineffable level and that which a) fails to be anchored in any rational field of our senses or our reasoning faculties and b) seeks to smuggle in the power (god-like in its scope) to arbitrate for what is true upon no more basis than the fact that something or anything has even seemed preposterous that came to be popularly accepted.
What is popular is just argument from authority.
None of your argument holds up to scrutiny, but I do not doubt that this will do little to dissuade you from your enthusiasm for such fallacious tripe.
Now. Do you have a rational argument for your God, this "male" being.
Does "he" have genitals?
Does his "child?"
If so, why did neither nor any of its at least three parents (not including angels and/or "succubi" employ them when by doing so he would have substantiated "His" claim to be as fully human as "divine?"
Is your God not anatomically correct?
If not, why not?
In the realm of belief, yes, claims can be entirely spurious and yet wholly irrefutable. But, please, let us dispense with the playing it loose and fast with the preposterous equation of belief and fact, faith and reason, especially since such a surcease need detract not a wit from the value of your personal beliefs, beliefs which you yourself do the best possible job of impugning by offering them as a rational argument.
You want to have a rational debate, speak the language or go back to church where uncritical acceptance of any idea upon any pretense is not only acceptable but indispensable for life.
Axiom 918 - Your Own Growth Language
- North Dugan Douglas.