How does one reason with those who have arrived to their conclusions by any other means than reason?
Tag Archives: atheism
They implore God exists. These others insist God does not.
They all create the consummate mathematical null.
From “the origin” came all absurdity – or did the absurd create “the origin”?
– From my book: “From the Apex”
Adopting a belief is like acquiring new shoes: with time, one adapts by getting it somewhat dirty and broken-in until the point one no longer thinks about it, as it protects a vulnerable part of us.
– From my book: “From the Apex”
There is an enormous amount of missed communication between certain atheists and believers.
Normally, one experiences either a conclusive idea of an atheist, i.e. God doesn’t exist, and misses the dialectic of the idea altogether. The believer, if clever, will then go on to say “atheism is a doctrine or belief system that no God exists.”
The reality is, it is not a belief at all. It is a deduction based on a thought process; it is a refuting of proactive ideals that have been put forth as truth: atheism, as a concept, is reactive. If no idea of a god were ever posited in this world, the reaction that superficially comes to form another “paradigm” as it is so mistakenly put, then the appearing of a so-called “belief system” of atheism would not be. Likewise, if a mass of people decided to believe in purple trolls that come out at night, an otherwise intelligent person would wholeheartedly deny that as ridiculous and false. The reactive thinking here against the proactive belief in these night trolls would be deemed as another “belief system” and here would be called Atrollism. But this refutation is not based on his opinion, but on some type of sense-based, scientific, and logical thought process that in its opposite form would normally be considered insane! These are precisely the missed elements or missed communication by the believers. Belief puts forth ideas that are either based on ideals or contradictory thoughts to aspects of reality; paradoxical; nonsensical. The irony being that the believer will by virtue of their thought process either miss the reactive thought process’ deduction or completely misunderstand it. It is the nature of faith and belief after all to be riddled with contradictions and absurdities. It’s the missed connections of why there are contradictions and absurdities fueled by unbridled and brute passion that keeps a belief propelled.
Incidentally, the moment a believer hears a conclusive idea opposing their belief, what is their instinct? To label the opposing idea a belief. Based on what? If they so hastily labeled the opposing idea as a belief, then one could only imagine what haste goes into their own idea they call “belief!”
I will add to this a longer excerpt from my book “From the Apex“, page 24 – 25:
Never is it expected for an infant to believe much less understand faith. This understanding, this “maturation” is, after all, anticipated later in life: the period where the faculty to fully “understand” such concepts is allegedly developed. Where is the incomprehension then? The faculty that “understands” faith is a limitation of rationalization; that is what ascertains it more specifically, and is aided by the absence of any overcoming thought. How does one know this? By virtue of the conjecture-based nature of faith. That is why it is called a “leap!” Let us consider this example: what sets apart a musical creator from the average musician? Both may understand the technical aspects of music, the relationships between notes and harmony. But to simply write music academically versus writing it as a new language is analogous to understanding rationalization as utility versus understanding it and over coming it: that the utility is just that! This is the beauty of “overcoming”: the apparent control of an impulse of the task at hand. The limitation of understanding merely the rationale does not make one any different from the next person who does not understand the rationale at all, except for possessing a utility to further advance the individual. Rationalization serves a function. Understanding a rationale however and overcoming it, one burrows to the core of the idea and understands its use. Faith is then a conclusive idea based on the limitation of that rationalization and an inability to surpass its own abridgment of “truth,” to preserve itself; to afford itself a power. Hence, a scheme is born. This mistake is also its own sapling, branching out to further erroneous complexity. This, together with an instinctual factor serves to preserve its subject. On the whole, this convention prevails, it is typical, and it is expected of every individual to belabor. This custom is awaited; handed down from parent to offspring as a concept first to be considered in the young mind. This is how “maturity” is understood: that one is to remember, at some level, that they too were once at that simpler time. As they grow into adulthood they are to concede that possessing a “faith” or belief when capable, is a normal thing. It comes to be that by the very nature of this limited thought process, and what it retains, it necessarily reinforces itself. Faith: the error and limitation yet symbolism of a physiological process.
There is a higher standard in convincing others of people and things you believe to exist, that only you perceive as real; it borders on madness. In the context of “God”, accepting the belief in one, in this world, is much more frivolous and casual!
I’ve read numerous times that “suffering exists, therefore there cannot be a God.”
But this is bias.
In truth one can only say, suffering exists, therefore there cannot be an all-benevolent God.
What follows from this?
An re-evaluation and question, “Do we want to believe in this type of ambiguous God?”
And what follows from this?
A waning of belief in a god; the prospect that “God” exists only as an ideal because of human-born desires for certain attributes to exist.
What follows from this?
Man created God in his likeness and image.