I always thought that if Richard Dawkins should want to draw the retards to understand his point, the first thing he ought to do is stop conducting himself like a forked tongue mordor fiend.
That being said, I've had the same exact conversation about agnotism with Barbie quite a few time, and I used the exact same arguments against it as Hawkins does. But our dear friend never understood the point. He's so scared of sounding uncouth or affraid to offend anyone that he'll just stick with the tooth fairy agnostic thing. So yeah, I'll change my name to dog philosopher if he changes his to tooth fairy agnostic.
1. Pantheism does not mean I am a part of the mass of people who can't exist without the retarded notion of God. It means I accept I am part of a greater whole. Just like a single bacteria in my gut is part of the greater whole that is my body.
To sum up pantheism in a single sentence: "You are the universe experiencing itself."
2. You wrote: "Who the fuck can seriously pretend there is no tooth fairy?" Good question. However, are you insinuating that you know everything that there is to know?
Because that is what you would have to do to completely rule out the existence of God.
When you look up the stars, are you aware that you are only seeing a tiny part of what is beyond our earth? That we are in a small part of a galaxy that is itself a small part of the universe? Sorry, a small part of the known universe.
As a species, we don't even know where we are relative to everything that exists, we don't even know yet how to properly define "everything that exists" and you dare express the idea that you know whether there is a God or not. That's not being arrogant, that's being delusional.
I don't get why the mass of people who choose to not blindly believe in a god dreamed up by their bronze age ancestors can't just take a common stand against religious zeal without sounding like post redemptionists arguing against neo-calvinists.
I mean, Barbarosa is arguing in the semantics of the word "God" but I feel that this is beside the point. You can conceptualize your understanding of the proven universe anyway you want. That won't stop you from being an atheist who rejects the belief in a simplistic anthropomorphized deity conjured up by ancient monkey-men.
That being said. I like anti-theists. Who, aside from reasonably surmising that there is no god, actually hope that there is no god.
However, are you insinuating that you know everything that there is to know? Because that is what you would have to do to completely rule out the existence of THE TOOTH FAIRY.
When you look up the stars, are you aware that you are only seeing a tiny part of what is beyond our earth? That we are in a small part of a galaxy that is itself a small part of the universe? Sorry, a small part of the known universe.
Really? For real? Tiny part of what is beyond? Quick! Give me a simple all encompassing notion that will at once rid me of the burden forcing me to face all this uncertainty and all this unknown like a grown up man with actual balls. Then I can continue sucking on my fucking thumb while being lulled to the idea that some 'god' is taking care of all the chaos everywhere and anywhere. You know what, I actually hope there is a god, so I can fucking torture him forever. Thats my stance.
Dog Philosopher, you bring up a good point about the Tooth Fairy. I will leave you the task of seeking her existence. I don't actually believe in her and cannot be bothered to look for something I don't think exists.
As for your second point, I see your weak reading comprehension skills are limiting you once again.
Napoléon understood properly, learn from him. It's a semantics game. For a pantheist like me, God is just a synonym for life and the universe. It's not simplistic, it's holistic. Everything is God, from a majestic eagle to the dog shit stuck on your sole.
As Napoléon hoping that there is no God, I do believe that even if there were to be an actual non-pantheist God, I figure it would be rather different from what self-centred, self-obsessed humans have devised so far. But I guess to properly address their concern, I too hope there is no God as described in self-conflicting holy texts.
You know, I've always found it hilarious how people try to come up with words or concepts to define a Godless world. These ideas exist in opposition to the notion of God.. a completely outdated, unproven, and dangerous concept.
Can we please stop talking about Santa Clause? Can we just say that we're not superstitious? Because that's what it's all about, really. It's all just superstition.
Spirituality is something else entirely. I understand what Barbarosa is saying about being pantheist, but I also think he's being a pussy. You can believe all you want that the known universe, all that exists, the shit on my shoe is all part of a great system or a whole, but the definition does state that you recognize it as being the same thing as God. I think this is where the distinction needs to be made because that system or whole should not be compared to God (a superstitious notion) in the first place.
For instance, when I'm asked about religion, I simply state that I'm not superstitious. When asked where we come from, I state what's known (we are all made from stardust, etc). But then most importantly, I just HUMBLY admit that I DON'T KNOW ANY MORE AND DONT PRETEND TO DO SO. !!! AND THAT'S OK !!! If, in response to that, someone says " Well I can't accept that" (which I've gotten more than once), then I point out that they're more willing to accept fairy tales that to face uncertainty. -insert shaken faith here-
It sounds like I'm being called a pussy simply because you fail to understand the concept.
Life isn't being compared to a superstitious notion of God. The notion of God is being redefined.
God is being taken away from ancient monkey men's simplistic anthropomorphized deity, as Napoleon so aptly put.
Look, since both my and Napoleon's words don't seem to be registering, perhaps you pay more attention to Richard Dawkins. He was, after all, the guy in the video that led to this discussion.
God is "the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism."
But since pussies are sexy, maybe you're right that I am being a pussy. I guess it depends on how you define things.
Don't worry, man... I was just being militant. The thing is, I'm sick of hearing the word God. So whether it's being used accurately, or being redefined makes no difference to me because I think a new vocabulary needs to exist for us to be able to move forward as an intelligent species.
And although I do agree with your reasoning for the necessity of creating a new language, I do feel adding new meaning to old words allows a concept to be easier to adopt.
After all, people don't like changing their world view.
So yeah, I'm reaaaaaally into pedophilia. But not pedophilia in the old sense, you know, more pedophilia like playing chess with old people, and by playing chess you know what I mean, the new meaning of it, you know, neo chess? where you fuck a dead woman while trying to stop her children from crying without using words?
18 comments:
I always thought that if Richard Dawkins should want to draw the retards to understand his point, the first thing he ought to do is stop conducting himself like a forked tongue mordor fiend.
That being said, I've had the same exact conversation about agnotism with Barbie quite a few time, and I used the exact same arguments against it as Hawkins does. But our dear friend never understood the point. He's so scared of sounding uncouth or affraid to offend anyone that he'll just stick with the tooth fairy agnostic thing. So yeah, I'll change my name to dog philosopher if he changes his to tooth fairy agnostic.
What are you talking about? I'm not agnostic. I'm a pantheist, fool. Update your knowledge.
But just for argument's sake, any rational atheist is actually more of an agnostic atheist or atheist agnostic.
I mean, who the fuck seriously pretends to know?
Yet, beyond that important point, I do agree that it is being a pussy to insist on not knowing without indicating where you lean.
Pantheism still means you're part of the mass of people who can't exist without the retarded notion of god.
You're right though, who the fuck can seriously pretend there is no tooth fairy?
A question about Pantheism : if the universe is God, what happens with the multiverse? Multi gods?
So the vikings were right if theres a multiverse?
1. Pantheism does not mean I am a part of the mass of people who can't exist without the retarded notion of God. It means I accept I am part of a greater whole. Just like a single bacteria in my gut is part of the greater whole that is my body.
To sum up pantheism in a single sentence: "You are the universe experiencing itself."
2. You wrote: "Who the fuck can seriously pretend there is no tooth fairy?" Good question. However, are you insinuating that you know everything that there is to know?
Because that is what you would have to do to completely rule out the existence of God.
When you look up the stars, are you aware that you are only seeing a tiny part of what is beyond our earth? That we are in a small part of a galaxy that is itself a small part of the universe? Sorry, a small part of the known universe.
As a species, we don't even know where we are relative to everything that exists, we don't even know yet how to properly define "everything that exists" and you dare express the idea that you know whether there is a God or not. That's not being arrogant, that's being delusional.
3. Regarding the multiverses, I would argue that the entirety, the combined total of multiverses would form what we could call God.
I prefer to say that Life is God and God is Life. So in that way, it kind of side-steps the universe/multiverse concept by encompassing it.
But you do raise a good question. I think it could indeed be argued that there would be multiple Gods.
Regardless, I don't think we should start a holy war over this.
I don't get why the mass of people who choose to not blindly believe in a god dreamed up by their bronze age ancestors can't just take a common stand against religious zeal without sounding like post redemptionists arguing against neo-calvinists.
I mean, Barbarosa is arguing in the semantics of the word "God" but I feel that this is beside the point. You can conceptualize your understanding of the proven universe anyway you want. That won't stop you from being an atheist who rejects the belief in a simplistic anthropomorphized deity conjured up by ancient monkey-men.
That being said. I like anti-theists. Who, aside from reasonably surmising that there is no god, actually hope that there is no god.
However, are you insinuating that you know everything that there is to know?
Because that is what you would have to do to completely rule out the existence of THE TOOTH FAIRY.
When you look up the stars, are you aware that you are only seeing a tiny part of what is beyond our earth? That we are in a small part of a galaxy that is itself a small part of the universe? Sorry, a small part of the known universe.
Really? For real? Tiny part of what is beyond? Quick! Give me a simple all encompassing notion that will at once rid me of the burden forcing me to face all this uncertainty and all this unknown like a grown up man with actual balls. Then I can continue sucking on my fucking thumb while being lulled to the idea that some 'god' is taking care of all the chaos everywhere and anywhere. You know what, I actually hope there is a god, so I can fucking torture him forever. Thats my stance.
Dog Philosopher, you bring up a good point about the Tooth Fairy. I will leave you the task of seeking her existence. I don't actually believe in her and cannot be bothered to look for something I don't think exists.
As for your second point, I see your weak reading comprehension skills are limiting you once again.
Napoléon understood properly, learn from him. It's a semantics game. For a pantheist like me, God is just a synonym for life and the universe. It's not simplistic, it's holistic. Everything is God, from a majestic eagle to the dog shit stuck on your sole.
As Napoléon hoping that there is no God, I do believe that even if there were to be an actual non-pantheist God, I figure it would be rather different from what self-centred, self-obsessed humans have devised so far. But I guess to properly address their concern, I too hope there is no God as described in self-conflicting holy texts.
You know, I've always found it hilarious how people try to come up with words or concepts to define a Godless world. These ideas exist in opposition to the notion of God.. a completely outdated, unproven, and dangerous concept.
Can we please stop talking about Santa Clause? Can we just say that we're not superstitious? Because that's what it's all about, really. It's all just superstition.
Spirituality is something else entirely. I understand what Barbarosa is saying about being pantheist, but I also think he's being a pussy. You can believe all you want that the known universe, all that exists, the shit on my shoe is all part of a great system or a whole, but the definition does state that you recognize it as being the same thing as God. I think this is where the distinction needs to be made because that system or whole should not be compared to God (a superstitious notion) in the first place.
For instance, when I'm asked about religion, I simply state that I'm not superstitious. When asked where we come from, I state what's known (we are all made from stardust, etc). But then most importantly, I just HUMBLY admit that I DON'T KNOW ANY MORE AND DONT PRETEND TO DO SO. !!! AND THAT'S OK !!! If, in response to that, someone says " Well I can't accept that" (which I've gotten more than once), then I point out that they're more willing to accept fairy tales that to face uncertainty. -insert shaken faith here-
It sounds like I'm being called a pussy simply because you fail to understand the concept.
Life isn't being compared to a superstitious notion of God. The notion of God is being redefined.
God is being taken away from ancient monkey men's simplistic anthropomorphized deity, as Napoleon so aptly put.
Look, since both my and Napoleon's words don't seem to be registering, perhaps you pay more attention to Richard Dawkins. He was, after all, the guy in the video that led to this discussion.
God is "the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism."
But since pussies are sexy, maybe you're right that I am being a pussy. I guess it depends on how you define things.
But Karl, I do like your description of religious beliefs as being superstitious. It isn't said enough.
Don't worry, man... I was just being militant. The thing is, I'm sick of hearing the word God. So whether it's being used accurately, or being redefined makes no difference to me because I think a new vocabulary needs to exist for us to be able to move forward as an intelligent species.
Fair enough.
And although I do agree with your reasoning for the necessity of creating a new language, I do feel adding new meaning to old words allows a concept to be easier to adopt.
After all, people don't like changing their world view.
So yeah, I'm reaaaaaally into pedophilia. But not pedophilia in the old sense, you know, more pedophilia like playing chess with old people, and by playing chess you know what I mean, the new meaning of it, you know, neo chess? where you fuck a dead woman while trying to stop her children from crying without using words?
Post a Comment