I don’t believe god exists. Im convinced. I don’t believe in anything supernatural. Is there a superior intelligence that exists in the universe? Maybe but we would have no way of detecting it if there were.
What do I think about some wacky masonic symbol? I don’t care about it. I dont really like masons though.
Im not watchig a 26 minute video.
I dont need to define god if I dont believe in him.. Any natural being is not god in my book.
I know plenty about the JQ because Ive been on Voat for a while. I can’t hump the leg of every antisemitic link someone posts on this site. It would be exhausting.
If you haven't defined God, how do you know it's not just "natural"? Natural means "not made by man". Don't you have to define what something is before rejecting it?
I'm interested in where you are going with this line of reasoning. Most contemporary atheists that are able to articulate themselves on the epistemological points will eventually get to the position: "Positive claims of the existence of X must be made with empirical evidence. Proving a negative existence claim is not, on principle, a scientific modality for knowledge."
Of course, it all depends on what it is you're trying to prove and with what evidence. The above applies for inductive methods, but you might think that you could argue a negative existence claim on the basis of the impossibility for something existing, and perhaps you could do that, say, mathematically.
With most atheists it doesn't seem to be the case that they're appealing to the latter. I'd put my own pocket money on the fact that most atheists would say they don't believe a deductive proof of the impossibility that God is T is even feasible.
Most of them want to hang their hats on a common sensical sort of empirical proof, and they don't believe that it's their burden to make the negative case that God is impossible; rather, it's on you to show that He is real, and not just probable.
I'm interested in where your thread (which I quoted) is going. If you took a metaphysical approach to cause a person to doubt that God is a substance that is amenable to empirical discovery, then you might be getting somewhere. I mean, to show that if what we think God is, is true, then God cannot be the sort of thing that is discoverable in just the way this the typical atheist is demanding that we prove Him.
Anarchy, I'm curious how you would define God. This is actually the kind of thing that I'd like to see people make posts about. If you think you have a good conversation starter, ping someone in the post title and state the topic. Like, "How do you define God? ". Or, whoever. Alternatively, to make it a little less aggressive :), you could just link to the comment you're branching off of (from another post) in the description of your post.
Defining God is a big topic, and would make an excellent subject for its own post.
Also, what is your interpretation of the all-seeing eye? If I'm honest, I've not done a lot of exploration into that particular symbol, beside its association with the Masons. FWIW, I have just gotten into Egyptian religion and history relatively recently. I just picked up a huge tome on Egypt by Massey. I do believe that a good deal of Christian answers to the mysteries, while perhaps not being solved, can have light shed on them by Egypt.
That's a very interesting analysis of the pyramid and the all-seeing eye.
I tend to agree with you completely that the bottom two vertices are representative of the dialectic, conceptually.
Where I'd likely deviate from your model is at the point of distinguishing between 'value' and 'truth' as the so-called poles of the dialectic. I tend to think that the hyper-reality you discuss in (2) is inseparable from the externalization of value-pursuit onto the object (money). To me, these are the pyramid and represent the least necessary conditions for establishing the control structure itself.
I take the dialectic to consist in all possible moral distinctions across which humans could be made to antagonize each other. The political Left and Right construct is a good example. It's a matter of creating categories from the condensation of certain moral attachments and pitting these against their antithesis.
Once the conflict becomes a reality in the mind of the enslaved individual, the reality of the construct is confirmed. A person is led to the real belief that they are 'free' inside of the hyper-reality so long as they believe that they 'own' a particular identity, per their categorized moral attachments. That fight will now take place within the established hierarchy per the rules and categories given by the dialectic. The false-value, say, of money becomes the proxy for truth/success that leads people into, or embeds them more deeply in, the control structure.
I consider the eye to be the mind, or god, which emerges from out of this process - something like a collective spirit presiding over the hyper reality and which represents not only the source of its power, but the sum total of ideals that either 'side' is actually pursuing, despite having their own individual and particular notions about their gods or ideology. Put another way, the god which is the eye is the concealed set of ideals (the concealed god) that both the Left and the Right are pursuing when they are caught in this structure.
(post is archived)