Ok so really I'm new to the whole blog thing, but I've had many people tell me I should get off my ass and start one. So... here it is. Generally speaking, I'm very much interested in playing devil's advocate when it comes to discussions, debates, and arguments. As such, this blog is not about my own personal views( although my views will most certainly show through), nor is it meant to publicize any particular political or social agenda. If you are a rational being who is driven by a need for knowledge and varied perspective, you may very well enjoy this blog.
Let's start our first topic.
God
Theists
Lately, I've found myself confronted in many arguments by both theists and atheists. On one hand, the theists have the irrational view of some divine being who, by ridiculously improbable circumstance, somehow manifests itself in their likeness. In other words, they expect not only that a god exists, but arrogantly assume he would be anthropomorphic.
It's one thing to attribute the creation of such a marvel as the universe to a being beyond our comprehension. That, I'm ok with. However, to assert that such a god is both beyond our comprehension, yet comprehended as similar to our own being and likeness is completely contradictory. Somewhere along my boring, void existence as an eternal god, I get the idea to make an entire universe with a fukton( that's a large number somewhere between a lot and too many) of matter and energy. Then, I'm going to make only a SINGLE sentient species. While I'm at it, I'll just also give them ego, and then speak to them in English so they can write it down in what will eventually be known as a shittier version of LOTR. Hell, right there we have our biggest discrepancy.. a smart god would certainly have Tolkien or Twain ghost write his story.
I'm sorry, but it seems almost futile to take any theistic argument seriously unless the pretext of anthropomorphism is removed from the equation. What kind of paradoxical logic is it to assume we can understand the creator of all things explained, and unexplained when we don't yet understand how they were created? Do I look at a piece of art without any prescription of knowledge of said art and become omniscient to the intend and origins of it's designer? No, I don't, but that's what theists would have you believe albeit in much more obtuse terms.
Theists, please, don't argue with hollow logic. It's tiring. If you must have your faith, keep it, but don't expect people who are searching for truth to stop and admire your ignorance. If this seems harsh and offensive... it means you're not open to discussion. Sometimes the truth simply hurts our egos. It happens to me quite often. I adapt.
Atheists..... That's right.. it's your turn!
Atheists on the other hand give true meaning to equal and opposite forces in motion. While theists have their misguided faith, atheists have their misguided rigidity in another medium. Apparently, the lack of evidence for the existence of a god implies the complete absence of possibility for a god. Once again, this logic is flawed because it fails to take into account we do exist in a world that is unexplainable and most certainly not the result of human form or will.
Really, Atheists are just theists who worship their own semi-intelligent conclusion, god does not exist. They insist that theists are wrong because god doesn't exist, and they may very well be right, but the absurdity of such a claim is made ostensible from the theory of causality, which to my knowledge, has more proof and backing than any theological position, for or against. One thing we DO know would be that every result was in response to a cause. We see this absolutely everywhere. Logic itself is based on deduction. If such a place existed where nothing could be deduced to "lesser" variables, we would know nothing. Therefore, unless we live inside one hell of a skewed bubble, it's safe to say that all things are limited in scope and understanding. Hence, for us to be here now able to observe and learn in such a natural state, there must have been an origin. Atleast theists acknowledge that.
In truth, atheists are making the same claim that theists make, "I'm right because you haven't proven you're right". It's a perfect example of balance through opposites. So to all you atheists out there, please stop trying to become the 21st century theist.
Agnostics and Why The Wizard of Oz is so Fascinating
To most people, The Wizard of Oz is a classic tale of adventure, but it's also very much comedic in indirect ways. You see, the wizard in the story was, quite frankly, a dude behind a curtain running the show. This sounds congruent with the theistic image of god. You may cry foul at my comparison, but think about it for a minute. If we are so pathetic and meek, unworthy of God's magnificence, why then does he have more in common with all of us than I do with my own family?
Supposing the wizard never existed within oz we would have a much less appealing plot line. It would make sense from a feel good perspective to not only have a creator, but ensure we are also in likeness of the creator. It's an insurance against the inevitability of FML within our largely dependent existence, yet to atheists the wizard of our world simply fails to be despite the only fact of the matter being that we DO NOT KNOW!
Agnostics, on the other hand, recognize the voice of a wizard on the wind. They see the unfurling of information and design within nature that is, at the very least, awe inspiring. If an agnostic lived within Oz, he would acknowledge the wizard for what he is, regardless of his form. To them, the idea of a wizard is pure fascination. It's beautiful whether he exists or not. In the end, nobody knows, but I know that I hold agnostics to a much higher degree of respect and open minded judgement than anybody who takes speculation as fact. Perhaps that is why I made the conscious decision to avoid labeling myself. You should give that thought some weight as well!
