You are viewing symphonic_rp

The Technicolor Dreams Of Perri Prinz - Trying To Disprove The Existence Of Gods To God [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

Trying To Disprove The Existence Of Gods To God [Dec. 18th, 2013|06:52 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
[Tags|, , , , ]
[Mood |contemplativecontemplative]
[Music |Queen - Is This The World We Created]



Let me begin by saying I know this is a total waste of time. Nobody cares what I think, because I’m nobody. And even when I write my thoughts, I have no place to put them where any significant number of people will be able to see them and consider them. So, it’s really pointless for me to even have ideas, observations or whatever, let alone to lose sleep over the fact that I can’t get these things out of my head until they’ve been expressed.

It’s almost like some cosmic force arranged it so I would have the experiences that would lead me to have these thoughts, and that cosmic force will not let me rest until I have written down and published these thoughts that it has arranged to be inspired in me.

Now, I should make it clear that I only say it seems that way, and that I do not discount the possibility that there might be some kind of truth in the notion that something beyond the human ability to measure and understand does affect us this way, driving us towards certain achievements. I don’t say I believe it. But I conceive that one of the things that makes it more plausible is that the realizations I find myself achieving are not things I have any real personal interest in.

I have no personal stake what so ever in what other people believe about religion. I left religion behind when I was a kid because I saw no sense in it. And thereafter my only interest in it was in how it affected the human condition that a Furry author like myself is often given to write about allegorically. It was never any of my concern whether individuals believed or disbelieved. That was just something everyone was expected to make up their own mind about back in the 20th century. It was nobody else’s business.

But right from the start of the 21st century, I found myself living in a very different kind of world. The America I knew which idolized concepts like “freedom of thought” and “do your own thing” seemed to disappear overnight – replaced by a world where everyone was connected by telephone wires, through which they received a direct line to certain very dominant individuals who attempted to control the thinking of large groups. And it was far more common for these dominant personalities to be the most ignorant of bullies – dominating not by projecting common sense, but by being so aggressive and unreasonable that sensible thinkers would just go away to save their own sanity from these people.

I’m now facing my 14th year on the internet, and I am well aware of these patterns of behavior one encounters in any kind of internet discussion forum. And therefore I know that internet discussion is pointless. It accomplishes nothing.

Even if I come up with the absolute truth of life, the universe and everything, it will not matter. I would not be able to express it anywhere on the internet in a way that bullies could not instantly subdue and bury. Which, I realize, leaves me exactly where I was before the internet – in that anything I discover or realize or even just theorize is of use to no one but myself. It can not help anyone. Only individuals, by breaking the trend of allowing other minds to think for them, can come to any conclusions that will be of any real usefulness to them.

Yet, because I continue to be connected to the internet, I continue to know people who will come to me and say, “There is this debate going on that I will link you to that I think you should contribute to.” And like a moth to a flame, I am always irresistibly drawn to click the link and look. And if I look and read, I am sure to have an opinion, and I will feel irresistibly compelled to post it.

Now, there are some sites where this is much more pointless a thing to do than others – the most pointless of all sites to be attempting to communicate a serious idea being YouTube, because your comment will be quickly buried under an avalanche of BS that makes 4chan look like a site for intellectuals. And nobody is going to dig through 4 pages of unbelievably ignorant BS just on the off chance that there might be a serious comment buried somewhere down there.

So, the fact that I stay up all night writing serious thoughts for YouTube is considered by me to be one of the stupidest, most idiotic things that I waste my life on. And thus I know that I am a fool. And believe it or not, this is no revelation to me. I’ve known I was a fool since I was a kid. But I’ve also always known I live in a world of fools. So I’ve felt myself in good company.

The problem with knowing you’re a fool is that it puts an onus on you to at least try to not act so foolishly – or at least to attempt to apply one’s foolishness in beneficial directions. As Danny Kaye put it, “I'm proud to recall that in no time at all, with no other recourses but my own resources, with firm application and determination... I made a fool of myself!”

How does it benefit one to be a fool? Well, fools understand that life, and in particular humans, are funny. They’re absurd. Humans are so absurd that if you can make them laugh at their own absurdity they’ll throw tons of money at you. Unfortunately, unlike Danny Kaye, I’m not terribly good at being a fool, because I will insist on taking human beings seriously, when any fool worth his salt ought to know better.

In fact, I’m such a fool that I don’t want human beings to throw money at me for my foolishness. I want to feel the satisfaction of having humans acknowledge me with respect for pointing up their own foolishness. And that is a sad trait of human stupidity I share with every ignorant person on YouTube hiding behind an Anonymous mask as they attempt to propagate their own uniquely flawed points of view.

But seriously, I have been aware for some time, and have stated so in this journal, that these debates are dumb, they do me no good, they diminish my health, and bring my creativity to a halt. Yet, YouTube has this nasty feature of remembering everything I’ve looked at in the past. So, I can’t even go on YouTube to find some short pleasant video to watch with dinner without having all these controversial videos thrown at me. And of course it’s far too easy to just click on them.

So not long ago, there was this series of videos thrown at me of some Atheist doing a chapter by chapter analysis of some book by a couple of Christian apologists . . .

“Christian apologists.” Gotta love that term. I know its proper English usage, but nobody else uses it that way. “Apology” doesn’t mean “explanation” in popular usage. It means an expression of regret for a mistake. And Christianity does indeed have a lot to say it’s sorry for. But being Christian means never having to say you’re sorry for anything. So the proper term should be “Christian justificationists.” But I digress.

As usual, the Atheist in the video was making some good points for a while. He wasn’t saying anything offensive. And I ended up just dropping a couple of comments, expanding on certain ideas, which resulted in a rather pleasant discussion with a couple of Agnostic Atheists that I was very satisfied with. But inevitably, a Gnostic Atheist came on, sporting a Furry avatar no less.

Now, just for the benefit of those who don’t know the difference, an Agnostic Atheist is someone who says, “I don’t believe in gods because I’ve seen no proof. If you show me proof I’ll believe.” A Gnostic Atheist is someone who says, “I don’t care if you do come up with proof, my belief in the non-existence of gods will not be shaken.”

In other words, as much as Atheists like to deny it, there are Atheists who believe in something with the same fervor and lack of intelligent reasoning religion inspires. They are extremists, and you can not, under any circumstances, have an intellectual exchange with them on the subject of their . . . what shall we call it? Religion? That will burn them up. But there are other things that are used to establish belief systems. Things like philosophy and politics.

In my mind I don’t really draw a distinction between these three things. If one is going to protest religion for mucking up the intelligent governing of the world, it’s entirely pointless unless you simultaneously protest philosophy and politics. All are systematic methods of thought control that have the capacity to subdue reason in the masses.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter if Gnostic Atheists are a religion or not. They are still something akin to a political party with a singular philosophy they wish to impress on the people for which there is no unflawed reasoning. They ask you, in no uncertain terms, to close your mind on a certain idea, and to consider no information that might be presented to disprove this idea.

Even Richard Dawkins, who might be considered one of the chief profits of an emerging Atheist religion, would tell you that such a state of mind is not logical, and certainly not scientific.

However, if we look at the example of Christianity, we see the main profit, Jesus, recorded as saying some very specific things. Very few of these things are actually practiced by the religion. In fact, the Christian religion stands in absolute opposition to just about everything Jesus is recorded as saying. By that example, Gnostic Atheists can and do make a chief prophet of Richard Dawkins, and then act in total opposition to everything he says.

They make Richard Dawkins an icon, like Jesus is an icon. They hold their icon up and shove it in your face in order to make it seem like they’re speaking from some position of authority, expecting you not to know that their icon has absolutely nothing to do with the BS they’re spouting.

The Gnostic Atheist who confronted me on YouTube presented arguments of this nature, “Just shut up and pay attention to your betters.”

At first I did my best to insure there was no possible way that I could have a rational discussion or serious exchange of ideas with him. When this proved fruitless I went back and erased all my responses to him, replacing them with links to videos that substantiated the things he was denying, as I don’t think it does any good to argue with the mindless.

The mindless have a way of making anyone who talks to them look just as mindless. But if a Gnostic Atheist tries to say Richard Dawkins didn’t say this or that, and you respond simply with a video of Richard Dawkins saying it, any intelligent readers who come along later will hopefully at least go away better informed.

But again, this is foolishness, because the thread will soon be buried, and the likelihood of anyone ever seeing it is not very good, let alone the prospect of the effort doing anything to better enlighten the world.

Anyway, because of this exchange I was given to wonder why I was always watching Atheist videos when I consider myself an Agnostic. I came to wonder what type of nonsense Agnostics tend to spout. So I looked at a video of an Agnostic debating with an Atheist. And thankfully I did not find the Agnostic spouting a lot of nonsense.

The worst thing I could say about the Agnostic was that he didn’t seem very well prepared to present his point of view. Like myself, he needs entirely too much time to compose and speak his thoughts, while an Atheist tends to have pre-memorized rhetoric always at the ready, and can thus fire it off in machine gun fashion, which serves the double purpose of not giving people too much time to think about it.

The basic flaw in the foundation of the Atheist’s argument was his demand that we accept that there is some kind of universal definition of what a god is, when there absolutely is no such thing. To some people a god is an old man in a thrown in a sky. To others a god is a non-physical being of pure intelligence. To others a god can be the force of nature. And to others a god can be the collective sea of probability discovered by quantum physics.

The Atheist in the video made a statement I found quite incredible. He stated there could be no such thing as life without matter to contain it. Therefore a god must always be some kind of physical being. How ignorant of world conceptions of gods can one get? Indeed, I know very few who would conceive of a god as being contained by anything physical, restrictive or mortal. A god, in most mythologies, is an anthropomorphized image made to represent something distinctly non-physical. A god is more often than not a force, rather than a being.

But even forgetting gods for a moment, what scientific logic suggests that intelligence, which is energy, needs a physical container? Energy, according to Tesla, is something that can be transmitted through the air. What do we know about the impossibility of intelligence forming in pockets of energy? Who are we to say there are no alien forms of life that are composed of pure energy? The volumes of things we do not know about this subject can and do fill libraries. But this Atheist seems pretty confident that he knows something no reputable scientist would claim to know.

There are literally so many different conceptions of a what a god might be that it makes no sense even to assume that you know what someone is talking about when they use that term, let alone that you can say with any authority what they’re talking about doesn’t exist. But the Atheist, in typical political fashion, will bully this idea through that we must discuss the subject of gods according to their definition.

Begrudgingly, the Atheist in this particular debate had to sit still for the conjecture that a god might be defined as something scientifically measurable. His argument is that if it can be measured, then it’s not a supernatural thing, and therefore it shouldn’t be called a god.

What this fails to take into account is that very few people conceive of gods as being supernatural. They conceive gods as being a product of a nature which is as yet beyond our understanding.

Sensible Christians do not conceive Jesus as a magician. They see him as a practitioner of an advanced science, aware of a higher nature of life which is not subject to things like material limitations or death. He is a product of people believing that we do not know everything there is about the universe and the nature of life.

If people conceived Jesus as a magician who did things only he could do by supernatural means, I don’t think he would have been attractive enough to have lasted all this time. I think what’s attractive about him is that he presents this idea that there is more to life than we know, and that we may have the opportunity to learn it when we have passed beyond our very limited perspective of mortal existence.

This is another problem with the Atheist perspective. They read The Bible literally, assuming that everyone else does the same. But that is just not true. People interpret it. They look for truths between the lines where the Atheist can not read, because his mind is not open. The Atheist is looking for science in a book of philosophy. He’s using the wrong part of his brain to read it. And therefore he is not reading the same thing as the people he’s arguing with.

Therefore, any argument presented to a Gnostic Atheist will strike them as ridiculous, maybe even offensive nonsense. There is no valid point of view for the Gnostic Atheist other than the one their minds are already closed upon. And you can not have a discussion with these people about what you mean when you personally talk about gods – rendering any attempt at a rational exchange of ideas useless, because the Gnostic Atheist is no more rational than a Fundamentalist Christian.

I have taken to calling myself an Agnostic, which is a relatively new thing for me. Before I became aware of all these terms I referred to myself as a “Don’t knowist.” I have always been adamant that I don’t know, and I don’t believe anybody else knows either – referring to matters of cosmic possibility that may exist beyond the scope of human ability to analyze. I have found it just as implausible for someone to say “I know with great certainty what’s on the other side of the wall at the end of the universe” as it is to say “I know with great certainty that there is nothing on the other side of the wall at the end of the universe.”

How the heck would anybody know? It’s not like you could even send a probe beyond the wall at the end of the universe to confirm or deny your theories. And I have never understood why it seems so friggin’ important to so many people that their theories be believed as if they were somehow factually supported.

The Atheist explains the concept of the scientific theory awaiting disproof. And because the theory is as yet not disproven it somehow indicates that we know something as fact. It does not. A theory is never a fact, no matter how you manipulate the dictionary. Until somebody has been beyond the wall at the end of the universe and reported back what they found, we do not know if there is anything there or not. And anything that science, religion, philosophy or politics asks me to believe is there in the meantime is just asking me to buy a fantasy as fact.

I believe in admitting we do not know what we do not know. I also believe it is stupid beyond all common sense to try to disprove somebody’s fantasy.

I have such a fantasy. I believe very strongly that there is some kind of force that likes to monkey with the random play on my WinAmp, causing it to select tunes that give me inspiration at times when I need it. I don’t venture to define or anthropomorphize this force. This force may be nothing more than the law of probability. But still, what a pointless thing it would be for anyone to try to prove I’m wrong about some phenomenon being involved. Stuff happens without explanation. Why do we have to actively deny that stuff happens just because we can’t sensibly explain why it happens?

And by the same token, if there is a force at work on my MP3 player, why do I need to assume it’s supernatural? There are scientific studies that suggest one’s mind may interact with gambling machines and affect results. If that is a natural phenomenon, why is it necessarily supernatural if my mind in some way interacts with the random function on my MP3 player, somehow drawing out of it certain tunes that I need to hear at certain times?

If I was inclined to think this was a supernatural phenomenon I’d probably be pretty spooked by it. But then again, being Agnostic I don’t say that I know it isn’t supernatural. I just resent the implication that anyone knows for sure one way or the other, and that I should allow them to impress their belief on me simply on the basis that they say they are less of a fool than me.

Good luck proving that one way or the other as well. I’ve always been of the opinion that the man who states with great assurance he is the lesser fool is surely the more practiced idiot, and that the people who state they don’t know are the most likely to be making an honest attempt to fully think things out.

When confronted with the question of the reality of Santa Claus, why am I required to restrict my thinking to Santa Claus as a physical person? Why can’t I think in terms of the reality of an idea, or an intellectual property? Even if the intellectual property in question has long fallen into the public domain.

It is absolutely not true that there is only one kind of reality. Physical objects are not the only kinds of things that have a form of existence and can be owned. I, myself, am the owner of an intellectual reality. And if you stop to think about that, the implications are mind warping.

I own my own created universe where I am the one undisputed god of all creation. You are right now reading the personally written words of a god. This is proof not only of the existence of gods, but of the non-definitive nature of the term.

Gnostic Atheists can only see in black & white. While the question of whether gods exist is a very colorful one. It is a flawed concept for a political movement which attempts to achieve some good things, but never will, because its flaws prevent it from holding water.

For example, if Gnostic Atheists were open-minded, they’d see that trying to disprove an abstract concept like gods is a foolishly impractical way to go. It would be much more effective if they concentrated on things which absolutely can be disproven beyond any shadow of a doubt – like the historicity of The Bible, which I never seem to hear them getting into.

They always concentrate on getting people to accept that the stories in The Bible are unbelievable, which is a pointless exercise because that’s the whole thing that makes them attractive. They are wondrous because they’re unbelievable, and yet we are socially given leave to believe in them.

And thus they are merely confronting the irrational notion that we should believe in them with an equally irrational notion that we shouldn’t. Therefore no rationality is present, and no rationality stands to be achieved. There are only unsubstantiated beliefs that the validity of these stories can be determined by the stories themselves, rather than taking a long hard honest look at the source of the stories.

That’s my own main reason for being so totally dismissive of Christianity as a religion. There are some nice ideas in The Bible that I actually do try to live by, but once you know the history of how The Bible came into existence and how the religion developed around lies, corruption and venerated folk tales, any possibility of taking this stuff literally is just shot to hell.

Plus, those ideas in The Bible that I like and try to live by are the very things the religion itself stands in direct opposition to. So you could easily crush Christianity just by forcing the public to realize how little Christ has to do with the things the religion tries to get you to believe and act upon.

The Bible is not the inspired work of God, but rather a long developing mash up of the personal beliefs of the thousands of people who copied it and altered it over the years. And when it started the crucifixion wasn’t even in it, without which the church itself admits there is no religion. There is nothing of value in it but a few lines of reasonably sound philosophy which don’t even originate from Christianity. Why would anyone need to prove the non-existence of un-provable abstract concepts like gods in order to get people to realize a 2000 year old campfire story is not a great foundation for a functional government? I’d think it was a no-brainer.

But that’s the problem with isms, isn’t it? The only reason for having an ism is because you don’t want to use your brain. You’d rather let somebody else do that for you.

Sadly we seem to recognize that as an aspect of human nature. Everyone is expected to have an ism. You must have an ism so they know how to pigeon hole you, and how to deal with you.

That’s another thing I notice about Atheists of both varieties. Even as their making their first response to me, they’ve already pigeon holed me and assume I believe certain things. And thus they start throwing slogans and rhetoric at me designed to counter beliefs I don’t even have. They seem to automatically assume that if I venture to challenge them on anything I must be some kind of Theist. But I‘m not really a Theist. Just because I happen to be a kind of god doesn’t necessarily mean I believe in myself.

All I know is, if you ask me to make it rain in your world, I can’t do that. But in the world I created, if I write “It rained,” it rains. And there is no way to prove one way or the other that the world we live in isn’t written by a god just as imperfect, mortal and foolish as myself. And the poor Atheist, sifting through his prepared arguments, will find nothing that is appropriate to counter my kind of thinking. He just has no awareness that there are that many different types of gods out there to be disproven.

All these poor Atheists are doing is setting up a situation that will result in another religion or political school of thought that operates on prescribed written beliefs which can not be challenged by logic. They are not the answer to the problems facing the world – just another symptom of it.

Do Agnostics have it right? I think they might be closer than anyone else, but Agnosticism is still an ism, and therefore I don’t trust it. Someone can still do something nasty with it. I much prefer the term “Free Thinker.” But what group might be using that term still bears investigation.

One thing that burns Atheists up about me is that I think unconventionally, because my mind is basically broken. It doesn’t function like a normal mind. I can’t multitask, can’t remember numbers, and other basic things that just about everyone takes for granted. But, for some reason, this broken mind of mine seems to be exceptional at recognizing similarities and drawing comparisons that nobody else would venture to make.

For example, today, after dwelling on the ideas of quantum physics for the last couple of weeks, I was looking at the computer, which my father seems to have no end of trouble figuring out how to work, and which I was once evaluated as having an unusual aptitude for.

Basically, my father utilizes the same kind of thinking that Atheists insist that we use. Straight, unbroken, linier thinking. They want us to have one track minds.

My father insists on doing computer accounting by the same methods he used with paper accounting, and it just doesn’t work. I come along with my comparative thinking, and things are much easier, even though comparative thinking is nonsense to the Gnostic Atheists. Just because two things appear to be similar is no reason to even consider that they might be, right?

And this is basically what ticked off the Gnostic Atheist I mentioned earlier. I was just mentioning to a couple of somewhat open minded fellows that there was a similarity between quantum physics, Christian Science, virtual computer environments and a few other things that generated a theory among philosophers and science fiction writers that the material universe is some kind of digital illusion, and he just blew his stack reading this. How dare I think these things, he wanted to know. By what idiocy did I even dare to speak them publically?

So I tried to explain about comparative thinking, and this just made him even madder. And he basically told me to stop thinking, and to just listen and believe what he and others like him stated was the reality of things, because he, for some unstated reason, supposedly knew better than me. And I should just respect his wisdom while recognizing my own complete lack of any cognitive ability what so ever.

Well, naturally, with my comparative thinking, it immediately registered that this is exactly how religions and politics talk down to people, subdue them, and belittle them into being mindless followers. Actually, it’s more akin to the methods of military mind control or cult brainwashing. And when I mentioned that comparison he seemed about ready to pop a blood vessel, and I advised him to take some tranquilizers, because if I’m the nobody he insists I am, I’m hardly worth having a stroke over.

Anyway, today, while the father was once again having his problem with the computer and I was thinking about how the thoughts in my mind travel differently than they do in his mind, another comparative thought hit me. The thoughts in my mind travel along the same lines of probability that particles travel. My thoughts travel through walls, they move forwards and backwards in time, they retrofit new logic, and they make all kinds of wondrous designs when I’m not looking at them. But when I’m actively looking at them and trying to force them to do something, they do nothing.

For example, hand me a microphone and say, “Say something,” and I will have nothing to say. But throw out a couple of ideas, my mind will instantly compare them, and I’ll have plenty to say, even if nobody wants to hear it.

By the same token, if I have to put together a playlist, I can’t just pull a list of tunes on a subject out of the air. I need to be out among relative words and memories that create comparisons. And the tunes I need to assemble will be attached to these comparisons.

So, just out of the blue, it hit me that thoughts in the brain move like particles, suggesting that particles are relative to thoughts and intelligence. Particles are intelligent. The basic building blocks of the universe are comprised of intellect. And that intellect could well be said to be the creator of the universe. In fact, there are a number of religions and philosophies that believe something pretty close to that.

Compare this to what many think God is. Pure intellect, the force that binds all of nature together, an awareness connected to all things that exist. This makes it apparent that science is not actively disproving the existence of a god or a creator. On the contrary, science is merely expanding our ability to conceive what a god or creator might be.

Science is not moving towards the Atheist supported conclusion that all life in the universe just made itself by random chance. Science is moving towards the conclusion of a massive collective intelligence that did indeed make everything out of ideas, according to the design of those ideas, and that we are all a part of that collective intellect.

At the rate science is going it’s only a matter of time before the Gnostic Atheist is rendered obsolete. Gnostic Atheists are just as scared of this as they are of Theists. And eventually it will be necessary for such Atheists to silence science, in order that fools like myself can never make the comparisons which will lead to an understanding of an ultimate truth that does not agree with the Gnostic Atheist point of view.

The thing that makes me Agnostic is that I do not kid myself for even a second that I believe any of the ideas or comparisons I suggest. I merely throw them out there into the blogosphere for the consideration of more learned people whose minds might not be geared to see such comparisons without hearing them suggested first.

That is, after all, the function of a Science Fiction writer. I speculate about things. Scientists then see if they can prove my speculations. And if no one ever speculated, no progress would ever be made, because no scientist would ever say, “Hmmm, I wonder if you really can get there from here.”

That’s what really bugs me about Gnostic Atheists. They are not free thinkers. They are attempting to crush free thought and trap the mind of mankind into a box with very limited dimensions. Anyone who would come right out and forbid you to speculate, is no friend to the advancement of science, the freedom of the human race, or the achievement of a happier, healthier world.

I’m sure there’s more I could say on this subject. But at this point I feel like I’ve gotten everything out of my head that was clamoring to be put into words. So I’ll just drop it here, and hopefully move on to something of a bit more consequence.

I hope I’ve at least given you a good laugh or two with this foolishness. Or, if by chance you don’t take me as a total fool, a little food for thought.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: mondhasen
2013-12-20 01:49 pm (UTC)

(Link)

"So, it’s really pointless for me to even have ideas, observations or whatever, let alone to lose sleep over the fact that I can’t get these things out of my head until they’ve been expressed."

A little introspection is good, mentally. It helps to organize thoughts and clear out the deadwood clutter.