Just my thoughts, probably most will center around religion and atheism.
But I can also touch upon technology, gadgets, raising kids and other daily things.
Dear Hugo,Thanks for visiting my blog. However regarding your willingness to fight for atheism astounds me. as a declared atheist you dont believe in the existence of god, but yoy are ready to fight for it. how can you fight for something you dont believe. you cant believe in atheism, you can only disbelieve in god. and about proving so, i dont think anybody can prove the existence of god. non existence too. my point is belief and disbelief are both blind and difficult to disprove. so no chance of any winning for any side.but i am very happy to note that you have absolute faith in the non existence of god and dont you think this absence of god has taken the place of a god.your willingness to defend your beliefs no matter what, actualy mimics the missionaries attitude. we have a story of one country quack,when insisted by a patient with incurable decease for treatment prescribed to take a pinch of common salt every morning at sunrise. only condition was never to think of "mango" while taking the medicine. (mango is a common fruit in this part of the world, you can substitute any fruit familiar to you. the patient was confident that this is so easy especially he dislike mangoes. but always the image of mango came to him whenever he took the medicine and the reputation of the quack remained solid.do you always think of the lack of god and his support whenever you manages the problems of life and be proud.if you continue in this vain, you will end up a beliver. be free. bency john
hope u will approve my comment
I let all comments through but want to keep this moderation in for spam reasons.
I find it strange that you would characterize my comment as "fighting", I was just pointing out some differences in opinion about how you are characterizing non-believers.You continue this false notion that humans "must believe in something" and that therefor atheists would need to fill a gap.Nowhere in my comment have I said that I believe in atheism, like I said I thought that I had explained a little more what atheism is, it really is the same as you not believing in Osiris, Zeus... we just go 1 god further.You say that you cannot prove god exists, does this mean you are not sure about your god's existence? Do you even really believe that it exists or do you only have a (albeit very big) need for its existence?Let me clarify a little more:I am what is probably known as the default atheist, in a purely philosophical way I would say that sure there is an extremely unlikely possibility that some type of god exists (or existed or will exist) but this type of god cannot be one of those that thought up by humans. On an even higher level of improbability I could even imagine this world being a Matrix like experience, but I don't really believe that, on a probability scale of 99.99...9% being my belief that I exist and for example 10 being my belief that there is a fly in my car right now and 0.00001% my belief that acupuncture works I would place gods (yours, Osiris, Zeus, faeries) and matrix like life at 1^-100000%, a deist god (like the first mover or something like that) I'd place at a likeliness of 1^-100%So it may not be 100% sure that it does not exist but for all intents and purposes I believe your god or any god does not exist, if you can provide actual proof and for something that I consider that unlikely (and that important) I'd need very good proof, I could change my %, if you would show me live feed of a fly in my car I'd increase that belief to 95% (camera feeds can be tampered with) if you take me to the car and show me the fly I'd also be 99.99...9% sure (gotta allow for that 1^-100000% of a matrix like life)I hope you can understand my position a bit more.And I hope you understand the difference between a discussion and a fight.In the words of Pat Condell: Peace
also while it is a fine story about the mango (and one that shows how easy it is to fool people) I don't understand the relevance.
Dear Hugo,I withdraw the word fighting. This happened because I am not that familiar with English language. Actually I was mentioning your will to defend your non belief. It is my belief that human race has a flaw or deficiency. It may be our self awareness or consciousness. This self awareness or consciousness is incomplete. We have to somehow fill it or completely cancel it.We have a tendency to find others and group. We formed society thus. It is because we humans can’t exist alone. (The worst punishment is isolation). A lot of time and effort had been spent to find intoxicating substances. Spirits, Tobacco and drugs (natural and chemical) were found with considerable effort. We can simplify that, human race have a tendency to some how undo our consciousness or find others that can fill out the unfilled parts of our self.But some how, the filling done by partnering or joining societies does not seem efficient or lasting. God does it.If people like you can fill it without god, Congratulation. Hope it will last for you and you will be happy.And regarding the proof of existence of god, yes I don’t think you can prove it. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in god. I said it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of god.May be it is because of my lack of English knowledge, but I didn’t follow what you said in your clarification with all sort of probabilities.Does it mean that you believe in the Matrix type first mover. ( If you mean the film matrix, I saw it many times. I really liked it but as you know my English failed me from completely understanding the full implications).If you agree that “sure there is an extremely unlikely possibility that some type of god exists (or existed or will exist) but this type of god cannot be one of those that thought up by humans”. You are almost there.Your problem is the definition of god given by the religions. With your fine mind, you can very well understand how old and primitive these definitions. Whether it is bible, Quran, Torah, Vedas. All are ancient books and these had been thought up by the ancients. They may have been inspired, but still humane.God does not necessarily be the one who is been defined in the bible or any other books of the nature. These gods are limited to the understandings of its authors. Since, the knowledge has expanded since, it is up to people like you to expand the definitions of god to the extend of your knowledge. (That’s what wachowsky brothers have done in matrix). Once again I apologize for the word fight.In the words of Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi : peace Mango story is relevant to the fact that you are obsessed with god, even when you wont believe in one. bency john
Don't have much time for an in dept answer now, I do enjoy my life and do a lot more than just commenting on silly blogs.But here are a few quick points:Even defend seems like a strong statement to describe a discussion of opinions and you have not understood any of my explanations of what misconceptions you have of atheism, you continue to think that we atheists have a gap to fill, we do not, I never had a god belief and don't need it.Your god has a go at joining a society for about 2000 years now, he's not done a very good job in my opinion, the Egyptian gods ruled a lot longer than your god, and no god is currently joining the whole of humanity.You have not understand anything about my description of how I view beliefs, I do not belief in the matrix and the matrix is not considered a first mover, those are 2 separate things.Your mango story relevance: I am obsessed with what believers do in the name of their god not that non existent focus of their fantasy.There is one thing I'd like to know, you seem to have a continually changing view of your god, and you talk a lot about what it is not, why don't you explain what exactly your god is?
Dear Hugo,Sorry to upset u. I cant stop smiling at ur dig about silly blog. Anyway thanx for the fast response. English doesnt seem your mother tongue too. we are even then.the word defend is not mine. its from ur profile. did u forgot what u put on ur profile.my misconceptions are not just for atheists but for the whole mankind. we all have a big gap to fill.i wasnt talking about god joining society but man does have a hunger to form society.closest example is atoms forming covalent bonds by bonding with atoms to make the outer most shell complete with 8 electrons.human race is have less than 8 electrons in their outermost shell and requires other atoms to stabilize. hope u understand what i mean.most times the society doesnt satisfy this yearning and man requires god or whatever it is to fill the vacuum.i have no solid understanding of god as u have solid understanding of the lack of god. i am a doubting thomas. (incidently this thomas propagated christianity in our country)i cant understand the god as he is defined in bible especially old testament.i am searching for answers and u have some.i am finding my god and will share my findings with u. hope u will bear with this silliness.it is u said - peacebency john
Ok, all I said was that I found even calling this "defending" a little hard, but I'll grant you that I'm defending, I would indeed also fight for my beliefs but that defense and/or fight would also include christian, hindu, islamic beliefs and I would only call something fighting or defending if there was actual physical fighting or defending. But all that is besides the point, let me continue my defense.What I was doing was clarifying a definition, you keep insisting on a definition of atheism that it is not.That would be like me saying a christian is someone who beliefs in vishnu, you'd correct that definition to at least say that a christian is a believer in christ and even with a rudimentary sense of language and a little sanity I'd have to reject my original definition and accept yours.You are doing the same with atheism but refuse to adapt your definition.This actually does not really concern me that much, thoughts are free and you can believe what you want, same as I could continue to believe that christians are vishnu worshipers, I have given you my definition and since you have let my comment through I'll let everyone consider the definitions that they think corresponds more to what actual atheism is.Should someone one day come into power and want to force that definition onto others or if people were harmed because of the popularization of the false or censorship of the correct definition, then I would be ready to actually fight and defend atheism, until then I'm already happy to be able to put my definition next to yours.We got off-track a bit with the talk about what you think god is and does, I cannot make much sense of your latest explanation about atoms and electrons, your original comments about societies were not about people but atoms? I usually try things to actually mean what the words are, you said that [societies don't join very efficient or lasting] and just after that you say [God does] and now you say that you were talking about atoms?If you could just say what you think your god actually does and what it is then that would be a big step. But if I read you last part correct then you can't because you don't know, but then the obvious question is: how can you even know it exists? And I already know the answer, it's faith the ultimate conversation stopper I could tell you that I have faith that there is an invisible mystic dragon (or an angel if you want a more popular delusion) always next to me and you would not be able to say or do anything to convince me otherwise if my faith was strong enough.Peace indeed
Post a Comment