Religion, the greatest affront to God

The most disrespectful thing against GOD is religion. Religion has imposed on the Supreme Ultimate, on the prime mover, on the clock maker, on the principle which subsumes the universe, the ideas that god has a favorite corner of the universe, a favorite planet, a favorite people, a favorite religion, a favorite sex, a favorite sexuality, a favorite familial system, a favorite political-economic system, a favorite country, a chosen one or prophet, a favorite calendar, a favorite hat, a favorite day, a favorite „vicar on earth”, a favorite army, a favorite constitution, favorite leaders, parties, factions, and policies – that god has nothing better to do than catalog, prioritize, and discriminate between selfish human prayers. Religion is a sin against god and all creation.

That being said, it’s time to tackle atheism. Agnostics are not even worth mentioning, neither are the pantheists, who believe that the creator and the created is one and the same thing. By that reasoning, nature is god, and we are god. Last time I checked, the carpenter was not the same thing as a carpet. Nature derives from god, but it’s not god. God is the first spark, the first cause. In lack of this you only have circular logic. Leibniz’s clock maker example is the best. If an observer would shrink himself to go inside a clock to see how it works, all he’ll witness is the wheels working in perfect synchronization. The observer witnesses correlation not causality. The true cause lies in the one who made the clock, and winded it, in order to set its wheels in motion. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. If I have all the pieces of a table, and pile them up together, I’ll still have all the elements of the table, but I won’t have the table. What’s missing? The principle of organization. Atheism also has exaggerated claims of absolute truth, albeit they’re not as exaggerated as religious ones. I’ll just sum it up like this: even radical empiricism accepts the possibility of the existence of transempiric beings. But given their superior nature, such things are not worth the pursuit. That’s the view of radical empiricism. So if you’re an atheist and you’re being posed the question, „Is it possible for god to exist?” don’t say NO, and don’t try to beat around the bush. Say that transempirical entities may exist, and if they do, they’re certainly not the almighty, wroth, bigoted, patriarchal, human incarnated, or buddha characters of religions. But if they are, would you seriously pray to them and worship them? Would you pray to a human being who’s managed to go beyond his finite and weak form, and achieved an other plane of existence? I, for one, wouldn’t. I’d rather invoke the words of dead men and or principles which define my character and beliefs. To quote Dante Alighieri, „Consider your origins, you were not meant to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.” Virtue and knowledge cannot work as separate notions. Having virtuous people, who lack knowledge, who are ignorant, make for perfect slaves/obedient workers. However, in nature, if you stand still, it’s the same as going backward. So a virtuous and ignorant people will sooner or later descend into barbarism. Knowledge without virtue is as perilous. Why? Because such individuals are solely clever devils.  They’ll use knowledge only to further their own ambitions, their greed. They won’t care about the consequences of their actions. They’ll use all the means to steal, guard, protect knowledge, and attack all others who want to possess it as well. Progress and peace can only be achieved through the observing and practicing of virtue and knowledge. The only likeness between the human being and the nonreligious concept of god, is the human being’s willful creative reason. Just as the biosphere is organized by a higher principle, and has a fundamentally distinct quality compared to the abiotic sphere, so does the noosphere (the sphere of human ideas/thoughts) over the biosphere. Living matter is distinct but not separate from inanimate matter. Ideas are distinct from matter, but not separate. To quote Gottfried Leibniz, „Everything that is in the mind came first through the senses, except for the mind itself.”

Therefore, whilst we are part of creation, we’re also a willful creative force inside that creation.

Note: I can’t stand those who don’t believe, seeing themselves superior to those who do believe. And I can’t stand those who believe, seeing themselves as superior to those who don’t believe.  Thus, religion (aka institutionalized faith) is the greatest affront to the Supreme Ultimate.


Etichete: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 răspunsuri to “Religion, the greatest affront to God”

  1. Julius Says:

    „Transempirical beings” ? Curious notion! Is that not an absolutely perfect example of a contradictio in adjecto? (and why is it a given that such a being is necessarily superior?)
    And I have found that the question „is it possible for god to exist?” is much less interesting than „how is it possible for god to exist?” While the answer to the first question can reasonably be expected to be „yes”(after all, anything is possible) I can’t even think of a way to tackle the latter.

    • helsworth Says:

      We have the empirical reality, and in consequence those beings that are part of that reality are called empirical. Since radical empiricism itself admits the possibility of the existence of a transempirical reality… the expression „transempirical being” is not a contradiction in terms.
      Theoretical physics often create numerous dimensions out of the pen – creating them mathematically, though there is no physical evidence to even suggest the existence of more than 3 dimensions. And no, time is not the 4th dimension; because time is a man-made construct. It’s a necessary abstraction/measurement of activity; it does not exist independently of action.
      Gods, angels, demons, spirits, muses, whatever – these things don’t have to be „absolute” or all that different from other animals. I don’t maintain that transempirical beings (if they exist or not) are automatically superior to their empirical counterparts. The „how” question to me is not that interesting to fathom. But either way, one can easily explore the musings on the ethereal via metaphor – the ultimate feat of human creative reason.

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: