You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Philosophy' category.
“Atheists reject Religion because they secretly embrace the idea that death defeats karma.”
- Xenocrates
here’s nothing more profoundly silly than advocating disbelief in possible phenomena simply because they cannot be logically quantified. There’re a many things wrong with this ideology and it is inextricably bound to the innate arrogance of mankind. We’re so dangerously confident about our logic that we are often tempted to think it is fool proof. It’s this God complex that we’ve developed along the way that seems to inherently blind us to our ignorance. In fact, most Atheists are a perfect exemplification of this. They’re the type of people who’ve only proven a few things to be false, or have offered a rational explanation for a number of things and like a kid who solved his first math problem, went on a problem solving binge to reason away all of the vacuous things that have plagued humanity. Then, in a desperate attempt to validate their arrogance, they go around the world picking fights with silly theists who can’t prove left from right, like a bully who only picks fights with weaklings. Now I know that religion has its issues (heck, I dedicated four posts solely to tearing apart the false teachnigs in Christianity). However, atheism often makes all the same mistakes that religion does. This one is dedicated to all the people out there who believe that they’re so right that they can’t possibly be wrong.
“The idea of God is a pseudo-religious anthropomorphication of an extra-dimensional force of nature.”
- Xenocrates
y very first blog entry delved into the concept that we live in a very logically structured mechanised universe. My second entry sought to explain the nature of the master of this domain. Now considering all things, neither entry delved any deeper than our common understanding of these things. I say “common”, because those are ideas that anyone, given some careful observation of the world around them, could have derived on their own. The truth of the matter however, is that our understanding of God and the Universe is still a very human one. In the post immediately before this one, I explained that our obsession with love is not much more than our obsession with ourselves. The same can be said of our understanding of God and the Universe. What is really going to blow your mind, is that for the last 10,000+ years of recorded human civilization, we’ve always imposed a human image upon our understanding of our universe. Everyone from the native American Indians who worshipped the great spirit right back to modern day Christians have always worshipped a humanised God.
What this post is going to do, is to throw everything you think you know and understand about God and our universe out the window - and start with very simple ideas, layering them with progressively more complex ideas, until we have a logical explanation of that concept we collectively refer to as God. Eventually, you will realise that we’re not doing anything different today from those who worshipped forces of nature that they barely understood. Now follow me closely, as this is going to be a very deep mind assault of epic proportions.
“All knowledge is based on the assumption that the product of our senses is real.”
- Xenocrates
What is knowledge? How do we define what it is that we’ve come to know? How do we express what we think we believe? What makes it valid? On what grounds do we make the separation between what is faith and what is proof? The theory of knowledge underscores all of these questions. However, the unfortunate reality is that knowledge as most people understand it, is nothing more than a cultural approximation of information determined by individual perceptions. Most of what you know has very little useful purpose outside of the environment where you learned it. It is a tragic waste of brain cells, and in worst case scenarios, a potential waste of human life where that information is interpreted differently. Humanity’s hunger for knowledge both creates and decimates human existence - although I’m led to believe it’s more of the latter than the former. The following epiphanies examine the flimsy basis on which we define knowledge. As far as I know, these are all my own original thoughts:
“Anything is justifiable in the name of religion.”
- Xenocrates
Over the last couple of months, my blog entries have focused on the lies most ubiquitously propagated by religion. I’ve sought to explain this phenomenon through analyzing the responses I’ve gotten from many folks - particularly those who’ve responded to me in person. From talking to these people, I’ve established a most discernable pattern: The average person is a linear thinker. They tend to accept most ideas at face value and interpret most problems using the most conspicuous parameters defined by that problem. They assume that the underlying premise is true so long as it appears to make sense - whether or not it actually does. This is why people believe so many of the highly illogical and perhaps even nonsensical things they do - especially as it relates to religion. In this entry, I will discuss some of the core ideas we’ve come to know in religion and how we can use critical thinking to expose the illogical nature of these teachings. You will see that deception is more of a science than an art and you will understand why it is used to snare the minds of the simple minded.
“Most religions are based on the assumption that opinion is the same as fact.”
- Xenocrates
Which is the right religion? Is that even a valid question? When you consider the possible ramifications, the possibilities are staggering. How does someone who feels they need to add some sense of spirituality to their lives even begin to go about narrowing down their choices? We already know why religion exists - or at least, we know what the motivations for the creation of religion are. We covered that in the last post which described the true nature of God. But really, how does one even begin where this is concerned? Before you do that, we need to quickly examine to schools of thought where this is concerned; namely that of Religion and of a Philosophical Way of life. If you think that the two ideas are the same, then you’ve been grossly misinformed:
“God is the only being in the universe having any fun.”
- Xenocrates
In the previous post, I examined logical proof for the existence of some God. Today I will examine the nature of that God. One of the key sore points with most theists is that their definition of God contradicts their understanding of the universe. Needless to say, this gives most atheists fuel for their views, and makes most theists easy picking. Theists, particularly Christians, believe in the classical definition of God which are categorically false or self contradicting. It is by this that it becomes clear that most theists either don’t know what they believe in, or more likely, don’t understand what they believe in. A curious question can be asked from this point:
Is a belief, even if logically flawed, still transmutable to the correct idea on which it is based, or is belief bound to the idea on which it holds, even if it is an incorrect version of the original idea?
“The Universe always unfolds exactly as it should.”
- Xenocrates
Have you ever contemplated the existence of a God?
Most people believe in some God they can’t even define. Yet others are willing to believe so blindly that they are easily fooled and led to believe in virtually anything their gullible minds are capable of absorbing. The trouble with belief systems is that they rely on the believer to have faith - which is simultaneously our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Faith is a form of hope based on unsubstantiated evidence - that’s why it’s not without a sense of deception. As such, any system of belief that requires faith for solubility, is an intrinsically dangerous belief. Because it is through these unprovable systems of belief that peoples have been oppressed and / or slaughtered - all for an idea for which people cannot substantiate.
I do not subscribe to blind faith based religion. In fact, if anything, I subscribe to a sustainable philosophical way of life. When the ideology becomes bogged down with the inexplicable specificity of religion, then it looses its philosophical meaning and becomes more about the rituals than the philosophical ideology. It doesn’t matter what labels people choose to use for religion. At the end of the day, they all boil down to the same thing - worship of the great unknown. Men have always worshipped the unknown. We’ve all been hard wired to subscribe to this idea through some genetic permutation, which no doubt is a part of the grand design. It is that grand design that fascinates me, and which led to my first truly deep philosophical epiphany:
We live in a Mechanised Universe.
Chatterboxes