I'm pretty sure I saw Jesus Christ the Saviour in the alley down the street from me yesterday giving head to a guy dressed as Saint Peter. Jesus was naked except for a bra and panties, a butt plug and a NY Mets baseball cap turned backwards, which made him look rather silly. After he swallowed the guy's load, Jesus then offered to let people defecate on him while he masturbated and sang "This Old Rugged Cross". It was quite a sight, I must say. I hope no one finds this offensive. I'm just saying what I saw. H
p.s. A deist conception of reality could arguably mesh with the impersonal nature of the universe. One could entertain the idea of a 'higher purpose' with such a view -- the notion that we are headed somewhere meaningful. But such a conception would require an emphasis on long-run evolution--intellectual, moral and perhaps technological--to the exclusion of individual human life. Such a conception would also place the highest value on societal growth and tangible contribution to such... rather than popular religion's nihilistic dance of self-flagellation and self-congratulation w/ no meaningful emphasis on earthly accomplishment at all.
Well, I found it frickin' disgusting, but that would hold true regardless of the names inserted. Which, in its own way, leads to further emphasis of a key philosophical point. Why would a being bigger than the entire universe care about any humanly conceived insult, no matter how blasphemous the construction? If the bacteria between your toes could talk, would you really care what it said about you? It just seems so obvious that man is taking his own perspectives, his personal reference points and experiences, and projecting them onto a larger scale. Like the mosquito floating down the river on his back with a hardon, shouting raise the drawbridge!
This is like shooting tin cans, I gotta stop after this one. As a concept, love is perfectly logical when you really think about it, and does not require a cosmic source to explain its existence. All creatures instinctively act in their own self-interest. All forms of life are essentially gene-propagating machines. This is why documented altruism exists in the animal kingdom, from insects on up. To the degree that altruistic behavior promotes kin selection, i.e. the survival of the gene pool as a whole, certain altruistic behaviors will be enhanced and reinforced via the unguided process of natural selection. Some animals mate for life based on their particular survival strategy, while others do not. Most animals do not derive pleasure from sex because it isn't necessary; the drive to mate is strong enough on its own. In man, however, the introduction of self-aware intelligence created a twist. Self-awareness gave birth to contemplation, which in turn fueled a greater emphasis on tangible pleasure aspects of the natural instincts. Once we learned to think, our natural instincts quickly intertwined with our thinking... leading to further development and a path that was wholly new. This intermingling of contemplation and instinct led to the intense pleasure of sex and, furthermore, to the concept of love as we understand it. Man's capacity for self-awareness and contemplative thought created powerful feedback loops, stimulating pleasure centers in regard to certain activities--such as mating and child-raising--that the rest of the animal kingdom participates in without conscious thought. So does a human mother love her baby more than a chimpanzee mother loves hers? Sure--few would argue otherwise. But why is that true? Because the human mother has greater capacity for thought, and the intertwining of contemplation and emotion leads to a broader and deeper range of experience, overlaid with countless iterations of culture and tradition. The difference is one of degree, rather than kind. Love makes logical sense. There is a reason love exists, just as there are reasons why humans have large and ornate genitalia in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom. Human sexuality also evolved, via natural selection, from a mere method of reproduction to a societally beneficial bonding mechanism. As our minds grew stronger, the conceptual interplay between sex and relationships grew stronger too--which in turn reinforced the concept of love. Ultimately, love is the glue that holds the family together at the most basic level, and thus holds society together overall. But just because love enables society doesn't mean it has to be some amazing divine gift. Rather the cultural, conceptual and emotional aspects of love as we understand it evolved in beneficial symbiotic fashion, alongside our brains, our pleasure centers, and our capacity for complex cooperation. This sounds impersonal as heck, and ultimately it is... but so what? The fact that love evolved via natural selection doesn't make the intrinsic experience of love any less real. To imply that one must have a philosophical grasp of love's origin to truly love another person is a load of BS. It's no more true than suggesting an intellectual grasp of physiology is necessary to enjoy sex. Whatever love's origin, it's here, man. It's all around us, as the hippies might say. To know the impersonal origins of love doesn't have to diminish the intensely personal experience of love... the idea that love loses meaning without cosmic validation is just another red herring. The assumption that all things meaningful--like love--have to have a profound metaphysical source can be traced back to the benevolent creator argument. If one fervently wishes to believe in a benevolent creator--as opposed to an alien intelligence or no creator at all--then one will work hard to find patterns of conjectural evidence supporting that belief.
jefferis , I think it fair to say it is commonly understood these days to be simply wrong and reprehensible to tell someone what they do and do not believe in. In this regard your remark is bordering on offensive and is certainly out of order. My children have enjoyed extraordinary pleasure and delight from their experience of Fairy stories and Fairies tales. Fairies brought them imense fascination as small children, and sparked off their imaginations from tiny to grown. A Light from a tree's hollow that suddenly and mysteriously appeared late one winters night, supplied utter joy and happiness to them as tiny tots. The most wonderful feelings of blissful happiness seeing them respond in complete contentment on summer days, as they played, read, learned, and studied in what they made to be their very own Fairyland world . Book after book of Fairy stories, wonderful pictures and art which helped them learn things about legend and myth, truth and goodness, morality and right and wrong. All that I can assure you means Fairies had an important part to play in bringing joy to the very pinnacle of expectation for both parents and children in my family. Nothing did I see or hear of that, in or from their visit to Church or from exposure to God. I know their lives would have been done a great disservice had they not had their belief in Fairies, but only a belief in God. So if you don't mind, don't tell me what I do and do not believe in. It is strange why you see ridicule being cast by a suggestion for the application of your own advice on comparable premises. Unfortunately you are now repeating a fallacy which you seem to be relying upon quite heavily. Special Pleading for a major with unexplained claims of exemption against questionablly illicit minors is spurious argument. No ridicule has been cast by me . If you don't mind me saying, you are a little too quick to perceive ridicule where none exists. But you have not been slow to cast aspersions upon what you say others do not believe. Then you are confirming in a round about way are you not, that you are at least possibly agnostic about God Allah and God Vishnu? By your own advice rather than believing there is no Allah or Vishnu, a more reasoned approach to be agnostic about them both, would be appropriate, would it not?. My other question to you is, why would you separate Fairies or Thor by excluding them, contrary to your own advice? Exempting them for reasons of a fallacy looks like a cop out.