I am so fucking sick of how people are going on about my father who recently died. The man was as godless as they get. Was NOT interested in religion, would leave the room if the subject of God and or religion was even brought up.
Yet suddenly because he died, out comes all the bullshit.
“Oh he’s in heaven with the angels”, “he is at peace now”, “God bless the old man”. What a crock of shit!
If there is a God (not up for debate right here), then why on earth would he just wave anyone into his world (heaven) who didn’t give him the time of day while on earth. But yet we try to say that he will just open up the doors to eternity, simply cause we die?? Holy fuck, I may not be religious, but that would make the creator of the universe one dumb fuck.
No, the bottom line is, IF there is heaven and hell waiting, my father is in hell. So stop with the sentimental bullshit around a man that was not interested in God. He’s dead and gone, and trying to make him something he wasn’t, is absolute stupidity. —Don’t Be Blinded By Sentiment!
This article appears in May 30 – Jun 5, 2013.
I think the God references are not for your fathers benefit, or even your comfort, but for theirs. I dunno, I find it hard to resent people making empty gestures in the presence of the great equalizer.
Benevolence? Is that the answer you seek?
Try to look at the universe without Good or Bad connotations. The universe is just everything. Regardless of whether a god exists or not, we place our own personal distinctions on what would qualify someone for a ticket to heaven (if it exists). Trying to understand a concept like God and his wisdom/decisions/bad ideas is like trying to picture the 4th dimension.
BTW: We can’t picture the fourth dimension, it’s impossible.
OH LOOK, HERE’S A SELF-CONTRADICTION!
RSVP
: Captain (06/03, 12:01PM)
“Trying to understand a concept like God and his wisdom/bad ideas is like trying to picture the 4th dimension. BTW: We can’t picture the fourth dimension, it’s impossible.”
But if trying to understand the concept of God is like trying to picture the fourth dimension which, as you assert, is “impossible,” how did you know that? On what grounds did you make that dogmatic claim?
In other words, isn’t your assertion just the flip side of that which you claim is impossible? Don’t you see any self-contradiction here? No, I suppose not, but I know you will never understand that
BTW: In case you are confused, this is a problem in epistemology, not in theology.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
*shrug* Those are just the standard platitudes that exist in our historically Christian society, OP. Don’t take it so personally.
It is impossible to picture a fourth dimension because it involves simultaneously viewing all points of an object, including its absolute and cumulative position in space and time. It’s not dogmatic, its a fact that physics and biology doesn’t allow this to happen.
We can’t picture God (if there is one), because we cannot see/quantify/validate all, or even any, of its parts with any degree of certainty. Our senses are blind to 99.999% of the world around us, how can anyone think they could understand something as omnipresent as God?
So because he was godless, that makes it a bad thing to provide you with some form of condolence; even the god-based type. Keeping in mind, after all, it’s coming from THEIR belief system, not yours or your Dad’s… right?!
There are 1,000 nuns who pray for me each day, thanks to a friend’s mother. I have yet to burn alive, irrespective of my atheist beliefs. Do I hate her too? Kill the nuns?
OH LOOK, A SELF-CONTRADICTION! (II)
RSVP
: Captain (06/03, 1:20PM)
“It’s not dogmatic, it’s a fact that physics and biology doesn’t allow this to happen.”
As I expected, you will never understand my point. What was my point? My point was that your self-contradictory claim, i.e., your dogmatic assertion to the effect that we could never understand the concept of God because we could never understand the fourth dimension, was a matter of epistemology, not theology.
However, my failing was not realizing that, far from reducing your self-contradictory claim to a matter of theology (i.e. blind belief), you reduced it even further, to the laws of physics and biology in respect to which you have further failed to understand that it – your self-contradictory claim – has even less relevance. You must understand that epistemology, while not being reducible to theology, is still further irreducible to the laws of of physics and biology. Put differently, the laws of physics and biology are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I know you will not understand this.
Being (probably unknowingly) a materialistic empiricist for whom there ARE no other laws than those of physics and biology, you will not understand my point for the very good reason that your materialistic/empiricist assumptions PRECLUDE your understanding my point. I know you will not understand this since, for you, physics and biology are all that there is.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“…for you, physics and biology are all that there is.” – That’s your unsupported opinion, and untrue. But good try.
I never said one can’t understand God BECAUSE one can’t understand the fourth dimension.
I made a comparison of the futility of attempting either feat. One can’t understand God in the same way one can’t understand the fourth dimension. We can perceive neither.
“…your dogmatic assertion to the effect that we could never understand the concept of God because we could never understand the fourth dimension…” – I didn’t make that assertion, you’re not understanding what I’m saying. Go back and reread it (try not to move your lips).
Oh captain..
“The universe is just everything.”
you’ve been led astray.
have a look when you have a few mins to spare, it’s actually quite interesting:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-…
The old shit is probably getting it on with my mother.
What Ivan said.
I’ve seen the fourth dimension. At least that’s what I think it was. Here take a peek.
http://thefifthdimension.org/
Ivanski, this one’s for you, bud.
http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/E8/61F046A8F32C…
The caption reads: ‘…what’s going on in that picture is pretty serious and shouldn’t be taken lightly. That kid should definitely get checked out and seek medical attention immediately. I mean, Michael Douglas got throat cancer from licking a taco and that dude is licking a whole stack of tacos AT ONCE.’
Courtesy of D-listed, probably the funniest celeb-slamming site on-line.
“I mean, Michael Douglas got throat cancer from licking a taco”
Is that why Cathy Z is in the booby hatch with a case of the “I has a sad”? Because Mikey’s gun-shy now?
BAAAAAAAAAAAAM!
Peanut Butter and JAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!
maybe this is how they are dealing with the grief of having recently lost a loved one.
why cant you just let them believe in thier imaginary friend in the clouds if it makes them feel better about their situation?
OH LOOK, A SELF-CONTRADICTION (III)
RSVP
: Captain (06/03, 4:22PM)
“‘…for you, physics and biology are all that there is.’ That’s your unsupported opinion.”
Well, the only unsupported opinion here is your unsupported opinion that my opinion is unsupported. However, on 06/03, 1:20PM you wrote in respect to your dogmatic assertion that understanding the concept of God and the fourth dimension is impossible, “It’s not dogmatic, it’s a fact that physics and biology don’t allow it to happen.” Do you understand your own words? Apparently not. How then can you now claim that my opinion is unsupported? I know that you will never understand that.
Equally, you don’t understand the meaning of the word “dogmatic.” It need not refer to any religious dogma but merely to lay claim to unsupported certainty. On 04/03, 12:01PM you wrote, in respect to understanding a concept like God is like trying to picture the 4th dimension, “BTW: we can’t picture the fourth dimension, it’s impossible.” How did you know that? Since you give no reasons to support your claim, that’s being dogmatic. I know that you will never understand that.
You write, in claiming that one cannot understand God BECAUSE one can’t understand the fourth dimension, that “I made a comparison of the futility of attempting either feat. One cannot understand God in the same way one cannot understand the fourth dimension. We can perceive neither.” But your comparison was based on your dogmatic claim to understand that either feat was based on the common grounds of “futility”. This returns us to my original point. You simply legislate this to be the case but provide no reasons. How did you know this? On what grounds was the determination made? You gave none. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “perceive” because you obviously don’t either. Philosophically speaking, “perception” means the activity relating to sight and is not to be confused with “understanding” which may, or may not, relate to “seeing.” Obviously, we can’t see God or the fourth dimension but your assertion simply means that you are reducing understanding to physically “seeing” them. Judging by your materialistic/empiricist assumptions, this is what you MUST mean. That is incoherent. I know that you will never understand that.
You write, “I didn’t make that assertion, you’re not understanding what I’m saying. Go back and reread. (Try not to move your lips),” in respect to my claim that your dogmatic assertion to the effect that we could never understand the concept of God because we could never understand the fourth dimension is simply false. You claim that I am not understanding what you’re saying. But, once again, re-read your own words (06/03, 1:20PM above. That is precisely what you did say. The only conclusion one can draw is that it is not me who is not understanding what you are saying but rather it is you yourself. You do not understand what you are saying because you are not aware of your own philosophical assumptions, that is, your materialistic/empiricist principles which reduces all thought and all understanding to measurable bits of physical/biological matter. I know that you will never understand that.
I could tell you to go back and re-read what you have written – it doesn’t matter if you move your lips or not – because you have dug yourself into an inescapable epistemological hole. But, once again, I know that you will never understand that.
BTW: I am not making an argument for the existence of either God or the fourth dimension. As I have repeated “ad nauseam”, I am interested only in the epistemological question, that relating to the justification of truth claims. I know that you will never understand that.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“Philosophically speaking, “perception” means the activity relating to sight and is not to be confused with “understanding””
Perceive:
1)Become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
2)Become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, esp. that of sight.
I was referring to ALL of our senses and their inability to perceive a 4th Dimension. “Obviously, we can’t see God or the fourth dimension but your assertion simply means that you are reducing understanding to physically “seeing” them.” – You need at least one sense in order to be able to quantify something or make a comparison.
“”BTW: we can’t picture the fourth dimension, it’s impossible.” How did you know that? Since you give no reasons to support your claim, that’s being dogmatic.” – See my post at 1:20 PM. There’s the reason why we cannot do this.
You cannot see all points of an object simultaneously. Would you like to dispute this? (an experiment for you then; Go look in a mirror and try to see the inside of that thick empty skull of yours. Notice anything? I didn’t think so). Did you also know that you can only see (visually) 2 dimensions? Would you like to dispute this as well?
God:
1)(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2)(god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
Given the Oxford Dictionary definition of God (the creator of the universe), and the limits of our knowledge of the universe, it’s easy to concluded that we cannot understand God. What’s wrong with that logic? God created the Universe, and we cannot perceive most of the universe, meaning we cannot perceive most of God (if there is one).
I did not state that understanding a fourth dimension was a precursor to understanding God. You keep making that mistake, and I keep correcting you “ad nauseam”
“Do you understand your own words?” – Do you?… “Apparently not.”
I think you’re just mad that Physics trumps Philosophy.
RSVP
: Captain (06/04, 12:05PM)
“I just think you’re mad because Physics trumps Philosophy.”
Three points only before goodbye: (1) That is a stunningly infantile reply but entirely in keeping with the level of your previous posts; (2) It is obvious that you think physics trumps philosophy because – wait for it – that is what it means to be a materialist/empiricist like you, and (3) As I pointed out in my last paragraph, I am not interested in “proving” or “not proving” the existence of God or the fourth dimension, only in epistemology, the justification of truth claims. I know, once again, that you will never understand that.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
So you don’t understand, eh? No surprises there.
Next time I’ll try not to choose a topic that makes you struggle so much. Maybe you’ll have better luck then.