gnidrologs ([info]gnidrologs) rakstīja,
@ 2020-05-31 12:38:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The spaghetti monster is satirizing a strawman version of belief in God.

See, the Fedoras believe everything is contingency. Not explicitly perhaps but that's one of the main tenets of the modern point of view, that everything is relative, that there is no being, only becoming, that everything is motion etc. So when they look at the question of God, they automatically assume that the "God" religious people believe in is just another continent entity among others, the so called "bearded dude or wizard in the sky", hence, the spaghetti monster satire. The problem with that however is that religious people do not believe that God is a continent entity, and that the non-contingent nature of God is the entire point of the idea of God to begin with.

You mention about the "improbability" of God, but i ask you, what is more improbable, that contingency is absolute or that the contingent has some non-contingent original or first cause? What is more "logical"?

If contingent phenomena must have a non-contingent cause, our relative consciousness must also derive form an absolute consciousness. The metaphysical principle we are operating under is the notion that the smaller cannot beget the greater. The genius of a Bach cannot have been the result of a bunch of proverbial monkeys randomly banging on a typewriter until that level of intelligence came out of lesser forms of cognition. From our perspective, the genius of Bach descended from an even greater intelligence, from something that is intelligence as such in fact, intelligence in and of itself.


(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)


[info]ctulhu
2020-06-01 12:15 (saite)
/Vēl jo vairāk tam nav sakara ar pašreizējo 2+2=5 ideoloģiju, kas visiem wannabe Napoleoniem grib piedāvāt operācijas, kas viņus padarītu līdzīgākus Bonapartam utml. bezpreģels. /

OK tas ir dumji bet tas ir tik līdzīgi reliģiskai audzināšanai, šajā interpretācijā analoģija: cilvēki kuri dzīvi iedomu pasaulē cenšas iepotēt šīs iedomas arī saviem bērniem. Ar ko tas atšķiras no vecāka - transpersonas kurš velk savam dēlam kleitas?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]gnidrologs
2020-06-01 14:36 (saite)
Tā kā es noraidu šādu ekvivalenci, tad komentēt nevaru.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]ctulhu
2020-06-01 14:58 (saite)
Kā vēlies tas vnk disklaimerim - ateistam mācītājs izskatās apmēram tāpat kā tev teiksim dragkvīns vai sjw aktīvists.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]gnidrologs
2020-06-01 16:06 (saite)
Pat tā nav tiesa. Ne visi ateisti ir tik aprobežoti vai indoktrinēti dekonstrukcioniskās ideoloģijās, kas patoloģizē normālo un normalizē patoloģisko.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]ctulhu
2020-06-01 16:13 (saite)
Nē nu okej un ne visi teisti ir tipa susļiks/ krišjānis un tml. [ un droši vien ne visas transpersonas ir seksuāli maniaki]

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


(Lasīt komentārus) -

Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?