What do I think about God?

Now
there is this bulletin that I read not too long ago on myspace (although I rarely go on it I had to respond to this) concerning the
battle between lecherous Atheist Professors and their unsuspecting
theist students.It's bullshit. Its called " Students owns Professor "
or something along those lines.



If you haven't read it yet (and I pray you don't) its basically a
scenario set in a classroom where the professor challenges all his
christian students and there is this one brave soul that dares defy him
and in the end defeats him in a battle of wits and rhetoric while using
his rationale against him.

Its like David and Goliath all over again another theist strategy. Whatever.

What it actually did was highlight that Science isn't entirely certain
about everything in our world, just like Christianity or all the other exoteric religions, however true this may be Science
is as a result of observation and experiment and holds much more
credibility and intellectual weight than religion will probably ever
have. Just because truth is subjective and relative to our perception doesn't mean all truth are equal some have more substance than others because of comprehension and that is more important than simply 'perceiving'.
The
bulletin made the fallible analogy of heat and goodness in order to relate it to
science as if there are contraindications of the truth in it. Science doesn't posit that it is absolutely true and correct and there are no atheist agendas. Scientific theories are always being challenged by scientists, that is the way things work. No one mentioned that there will be absolutism associated with science because that is just imprecise. Science seeks to find the truth first by destroying inaccuracy and imprecision. The
bulletin explains that cold is not a substantive thing and that it is
just the absence of heat. Well that maybe true but then let's not make
double standards. Heat isn't substantive either. It is a process of
transference. It isn't embodied in any way. It's a phenomenon not an
entity. FAIL.


By the way that so-called ownage at the end was simply a matter of
definition. Evil was re-characterized, through some diminutive logic,
as "the absence of God" so therefore no one can make the argument that
God created Evil because Evil is not his source and God created
everything therefore he didn't create his absence.

It goes on to explain that Evil is not a thing unto itself. But evil is
still around us isn't it? It is still an existence. "What evidence is
there to support this?", you may ask.



Right and Wrong. Justice and Crime. Love and Hate. Fear and Courage.

Distinguishable (although not entirely) elements in our being.

If one can make the argument that God didn't create evil, it is
equivalent to proclaiming that evil isn't a substantive thing but that
also means that all the elements that distinguish evil from good are
also non-existent thus, there is no right or wrong of which humans can
perceive to be. Seems potentially dangerous, no? And what if that characterization of evil were true, would that mean that the Yahweh, or judo-christian god, was just as impotent as we are? By making the assertion that evil is a spiritual void not a substance, they are also making the assertion that evil is a gap, a product of cursory engineering.
Why worship a God who has left so many gaps and allowed those gaps in morality to make a strong and sustained influence on humanity and that seems to be apathetic towards evil?

And they call him 'intelligent designer'. Pffft.

Human beings in general possess such flaws, though. Defects in our
character which we consider to be evil. So it is, at most, a human
CONDITION. An innate human condition, albeit an inevitable one, that
resides within the etches of our souls and at times resurfaces again
and again.

Why were we born with said condition? Did God make us like this?

If not he should have known this would happen. After all He is
ALL-KNOWING. I don't mind spirituality and that sort of thing but for
too long religion has suppressed the human imagination.

This bulletin doesn't explain a single thing and its a goddamn (no pun)
shame that even some of the people that I view with high esteem fall
victim to this ridiculous con.



Evil is a combination of what we do and who we are.

One component is used to evoke judgment and the other expose us to ourselves.

Both work in harmony to be able to produce self-restrain and discipline needed to for decent person-hood.

Remember guys thinking freely is a beautiful attribute in a personality
and maybe a quality you want people to remember you by when you
advertise but that is not the same as being skeptical. Skepticism
requires evidence and rationality to procure a fact.



Yes, I agree that truth is and may always be a subjective entity but
one thing I can always assure and reassure is that without an objective
basis for inquiry there will no function for truth. It will cease. And
then everything will be up in the air and who knows maybe chaos will
ensue after-wards? Just know this. Truth is also a substantive thing
according to the human consciousness which means that some "truths"
have more substance than others. In any case if there is a God he may
not be benevolent and if that is contrary to the truth then God must be
dead and if he/she is not dead he/she must not be perfect or he/she
must be apathetic or he/she does not exist nor ever had.
But let's get something straight just because there is no proof that God exists and the premise that God does exist and is a reckoning force in the universe is a mere assumption doesn't mean it can't be possible-unless science eventually disproves that notion.

What I am against is the devotion of one's life to this assumption and then I'm against the imposition of other people and society to assimilate their lifestyle in accordance to this assumption. Not to mention the populace exclusion of more logically inclined theories. I don't think we should settle for less. I see these exoteric religions as issuance's of false hope and as distractions, I do not denigrate spirituality because that is a wholly different thing.We should be persistent in our attempt to explain the unexplainable and enhance our species so as to perhaps, at the very least understand why we are here and how can cope with such an uncompromising universe.

3/15/09: This one's for C-Los.
Leadership. Who decides who is to be leader? What is the criteria for choosing a leader? Most importantly, is the leader superior to his/her followers?

To the first question: Democracy is one way to choose the leader but what are the counter-productive aspects associated with this radical way to choose government? One aspect is the misrepresentation of the candidates. Two the dictatorship of a stupid majority. Three the political climate changes that are induced after each electoral process. Four the demands of narcissistic and self-serving people may silence those that are altruistic. Five the changes in policies and deletion or establishment of institutions.

Second question: The criteria needs to include clarity of mind, self-confidence, temperance, intelligence, and self-sufficiency.

Third question: No, a leader isn't superior to the people he/she follows.
"Well, how's that Vick?"
A leader has certain qualities about him that have made him worthy of a role. That's all leadership boils down to. It is a role. Nothing more and nothing less.
A certain friend of mine makes an example of an aspiring king and his claim to throne as a rebuttal. The legend goes that there were men gathered in a room and all these men wanted to be king so a challenge was set up for them. The challenge was to do undo a huge knot in a piece of rope without using one's hands or something like that. After long moments of analysis not one man can devise a plan to undo the knot and so it remains there undisturbed for what seems an eternity and then all of a sudden one man unsheathes his sword and cuts the knot in half thus the knot was no more it has been undone. Now after this story was told there's a comment following. Something like: " Bro, you know that is awesome."

Yeah it is but it doesn't answer the question and that is does it make him superior? He undid the rope when others couldn't. Yes that is true but does doing something extraordinary make you superior? How do we identify who is superior and who isn't? What makes another person superior? Fitness? Intelligence? Skill?
Truth is no one knows but that is the way humans act. We think we know everything. I don't believe in the concept of superiority and inferiority. I believe in nothing, really. I think of synchronicity and harmony. Yes what that man did to become King was pretty cool but what does that matter? This isn't the movies man. The man was clever and he showed the proctors of that challenge that he can assume the role of King. All roles are the same some last longer but time is relative anyway some seem nicer but each are flawed in their own unique way . If you ask yourself :" Why do we follow our leaders if they are not superior?" Thing is, they'll have you think they are superior and that you "need" them but if you learn to be independent and self-sufficient you can be your own leader. You don't need anyone.
The rest of the attributes will come in due time. Once you do you're pretty much set.