Kevin's Watch

The Original and Unmoderated Title to this Post was:
"God" is just a word used to indicate a set of absurdities
Which was amusingly edited by the system too:
"God" is just a word used to indicate a set of abs


"God" is nothing but a word that refers to a well-known set of self-contradictory and absurd verbal constructs
such as:

"a being who can be without a being"
"a being who can sense without sensory apparatus"
"a being who can know without experience and perception"
"a being who can decide on an action, without any discernment"
"a being who can exist without any place to be"
"a being who can act without any chains of interaction"
"a being who is all-seeing"
"a being who is all-mighty" (this self-contradicts the actuality of power)
"a being which created everything" (again, self-contradictory)
"a being which is the first cause" ("first cause" itself, is self-contradictory)
"a non-being (such as a spirit) which is so totally a being, whenever convenient"
"a SINGLE primary principle LOGOS which generated a DIVERSE reality"
"a being who is both three and one"
"a being who is all-good" (no shit! )
"a good being which demands bloody killings, and rape, and institutes eternal torture"

These characteristics are as real as
Sky-Blue Pink
liquid ice
a silent noise
and the living dead

It's child's play to put together such nonsense!
And "God" refers to nothing but these absurdities
And what's more, practically every so-called "theist" knows this!

Oh this should be interesting.

While in essence, I agree with you, I might suggest that the tone of your post leaves something to be desired.

It could easily be interpreted as insulting and dismissive, neither of which are the purpose of this forum, which is meant to encurage a free and fair exchange of views, and not just belittle people's religion.

However, if you do have some questions on the matter, I'm sure people will be more than happy to discuss them with you if you would care to frame them as honest questions.

--A

What do you expect of a Dalek?

Yes, you might want to reformulate your post in a less aggressive way; we don't want things to end up being a little too heated here

While I don't believe in God, I want to point out that humans are just as absurd and contradictory. "Human" is just a word to indicate these absurdities:

A subject in an objective world

A mind and a body

A mortal creature whose greatest desire is to sustain its life

The only rational animal, yet still believes in things like God

The only animal aware of morality, yet still commits evil acts.

The only animal with freewill, yet still conforms to authority and peer pressure

The only animal that knows smoking kills, yet still smokes (or, insert any known unhealthy behavior)


Paradox does not imply non-existence.

Well said Malik.

--A

I agree.

Insanity Falls wrote:"God" is nothing but a word that refers to a well-known set of self-contradictory and absurd verbal constructs
such as:

"a being who can be without a being"
"a being who can sense without sensory apparatus"
"a being who can know without experience and perception"
"a being who can decide on an action, without any discernment"
"a being who can exist without any place to be"
"a being who can act without any chains of interaction"
"a being who is all-seeing"
"a being who is all-mighty" (this self-contradicts the actuality of power)
"a being which created everything" (again, self-contradictory)
"a being which is the first cause" ("first cause" itself, is self-contradictory)
"a non-being (such as a spirit) which is so totally a being, whenever convenient"
"a SINGLE primary principle LOGOS which generated a DIVERSE reality"
"a being who is both three and one"
"a being who is all-good" (no shit! )
"a good being which demands bloody killings, and rape, and institutes eternal torture"

These characteristics are as real as
Sky-Blue Pink
liquid ice
a silent noise
and the living dead

It's child's play to put together such nonsense!
And "God" refers to nothing but these absurdities
And what's more, practically every so-called "theist" knows this!

I also agree with your arguments, yet I also think the way you put them is immature and short-sighted at best. The only reason why I can see this thread was created is because you are young - thereby ignorant of what kind of reaction you would stir up. If you are just trying to stir up trouble - which makes your arguments infantile and therefore dismissive by their very nature. Or lastly; you actually mean every word of what you say - in which case you make yourself out to be both intolerant and a bigot.

I pray it is the first Insanity Falls; Kevinswatch has no place for intolerance and partiality - anymore than it has for people who like to cause trouble out of spite. - Revan.

Shouldn't we spoiler that for those who haven't read the Bible yet?

Revan wrote: I also agree with your arguments, yet I also think the way you put them is immature and short-sighted at best. The only reason why I can see this thread was created is because you are young - thereby ignorant of what kind of reaction you would stir up. If you are just trying to stir up trouble - which makes your arguments infantile and therefore dismissive by their very nature. Or lastly; you actually mean every word of what you say - in which case you make yourself out to be both intolerant and a bigot.

I pray it is the first Insanity Falls; Kevinswatch has no place for intolerance and partiality - anymore than it has for people who like to cause trouble out of spite. - Revan.

I find it ironic that you go about criticising him for the way he composed his post yet launch an attack back. Practice what you preach, Revan.

Loremaster wrote:

Revan wrote: I also agree with your arguments, yet I also think the way you put them is immature and short-sighted at best. The only reason why I can see this thread was created is because you are young - thereby ignorant of what kind of reaction you would stir up. If you are just trying to stir up trouble - which makes your arguments infantile and therefore dismissive by their very nature. Or lastly; you actually mean every word of what you say - in which case you make yourself out to be both intolerant and a bigot.

I pray it is the first Insanity Falls; Kevinswatch has no place for intolerance and partiality - anymore than it has for people who like to cause trouble out of spite. - Revan.

I find it ironic that you go about criticising him for the way he composed his post yet launch an attack back. Practice what you preach, Revan.

I was. You obviously don't know me very well. I was merely explaining how he is being percieved by the manner in which he was writing his posts. If I was attacking him in any way - my post would have been completely different.

Revan wrote: If I was attacking him in any way - my post would have been completely different.

This is not attacking?

the way you put them is immature and short-sighted at best

which makes your arguments infantile and therefore dismissive by their very nature

in which case you make yourself out to be both intolerant and a bigot

Loremaster wrote:

Revan wrote: If I was attacking him in any way - my post would have been completely different.

This is not attacking?

the way you put them is immature and short-sighted at best

which makes your arguments infantile and therefore dismissive by their very nature

in which case you make yourself out to be both intolerant and a bigot

Nope, not really. Notice I gave off three nuances of meaning of how his post would come across depending on which one applied. Not actually saying which was him, only indicating which would be him if he were one of those three. I didn't say fully and conclusively that he was one of them.

But I suppose you are right. I gave him no leeway out of those three. Which perhaps I should have done.

I didn't say fully and conclusively that he was one of them.

the way you put them is immature and short-sighted at best

End of argument, my friend

Loremaster wrote:

I didn't say fully and conclusively that he was one of them.

the way you put them is immature and short-sighted at best

End of argument, my friend

There was never an arguement. At least not on my side.

Btw, what's a Dalek?

Revan wrote:Btw, what's a Dalek?

Use Google.

Insanity Falls wrote:And "God" refers to nothing but these absurdities
And what's more, practically every so-called "theist" knows this!

Let's see how many things are wrong with these two sentences.
1) "God" most certainly refers to more than those things. Sometimes different things to different people. Love, peace, salvation, and meaning are a few examples. (And in case you're interested in doing so, I'm not going to argue the validity of any of those views of God. I don't care if you believe them, if you think you have good reason to dismiss any of them, or whatever. The fact is that "God" also refers to these things.)

2) The flaw with your, uh, stance is your source of information. Which is your personal experience of God. Which I assume is, like me, none. However, just because you have never experienced anything of "God" beyond reading and hearing about the constructs you have listed, doesn't mean nobody has. Others claim experiences that go beyond the constructs. While I am convinced that hallucinations and the like exist, I cannot possibly say with any authority that all who claim such experiences are delusional. It is no secret at the Watch that I am extremelly fond of Furls Fire, largely because of her faith that I do not share. Now, if we ignore her faith for a moment, and judge her sanity by anything else we know about her, I can't imagine what cause you would find to diagnose her as anything but perfectly sane, lucid, etc. And if faith alone is sufficient reason in your mind to diagnose someone as insane, then I quite seriously question your logic, morality, and/or sanity.

3) Those "constructs" of yours are not absurdities. They represent one of the defining characteristics of our species. We can embrace paradox, as SRD, Lao Tzu, Buddha, and many others will tell you. (I think the "plastic wood" you can buy in hardware stores is hilarious! )

4) "a being who can sense without sensory apparatus" This kind of thing is just plain sloppy. There is no way to sense without the sensory apparatus you are familiar with? That kind of thinking can certainly limit what you are able to discover.


Revan, Daleks are from Dr. Who.

I need to get in the gym and work on my God.

just passing through.

>whistles<