The LC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2011, 04:22 AM
The Witwiki Symbolism
The purpose of this thread is positive atheism. It is not about me or my insanity, it is about value. What is the value of atheism? Can that value be shown to be positive?

Here is the origin of the "Witwiki symbolism." I now know where it comes from. Big Grin

Gwyneth Paltrow. More specifically drawing Gwyneth Paltrow, loving Gwyneth Paltrow, losing my fucking mind over Gwyneth Paltrow. Causality - what a joke. The only sound philosophy of causality is chains of causality. By linking the chain of causality together with memory and identity, I have rediscovered a methodology.

It seems I know exactly what is going on. The reason why I know what is going on is that I am an atheist. There is your value. There is no greater self-entitlement than the identity of atheist.

It is a curious expression of ego to call myself nothing, worthless, meaningless, loser; but I'm gonna keep doing it. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2011, 10:54 PM
RE: The Witwiki Symbolism
(21-11-2011 04:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Here is the origin of the "Witwiki symbolism." I now know where it comes from. Big Grin

It's nice to know the people on that other thread seem to understand you about as much as we do. Smile

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
23-11-2011, 06:19 PM
RE: The LC
Man, I don't understand me. I figure I'm guilty of the original sin - a need of self-justification. And when I derive the human variant of the Witwiki symbolism, my Gwynnies will smile at me for realz. Big Grin

...and hopefully we will be able to say in the end - no universes were devoured in the making of this broadcast. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
23-11-2011, 07:19 PM
RE: The LC




Rather than a screen full of anecdote that makes this one look special, let us consider questions that makes this one an atheist.

Is it the paradigm of pattern reinforcement that we only choose to remember a past that justifies our being?

Rock on. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2011, 08:12 PM
RE: The LC
(23-11-2011 07:19 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  



Is it the paradigm of pattern reinforcement that we only choose to remember a past that justifies our being?

Rock on. Wink

I always thought it was just 4/4 Time and a syncopated back beat.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
23-11-2011, 08:42 PM
RE: The LC
(23-11-2011 08:12 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I always thought it was just 4/4 Time and a syncopated back beat.
That too. It ain't all about me, that's for sure. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2011, 03:19 PM
RE: The Witwiki Symbolism
(21-11-2011 04:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Here is the origin of the "Witwiki symbolism." I now know where it comes from. Big Grin

I seek to glorify Gwyneth Paltrow. I seek to glorify this self as the poet that sings of love in her name. But in this post, I seek to glorify atheism in the name of science.

This is not imagination. The Witwiki symbolism was pilfered from the Void through the methodology of sola fides - without any agency beyond myself nor woo beyond love.

That's what that's about. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2011, 06:29 PM
RE: The LC
Getting back to the purpose of this thread: positive atheism. Can you parse that out for me and especially in light of it's connection to value?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
24-11-2011, 07:05 PM
sola fides
Consider this a rough draft. Big Grin

Faith = moral certainty. This is the equivalence I found in scripture. Because there was no one to tell me I could not, I used the scientific method to define my faith and test in the field. These are the preliminary results.

"Faith" is a condition of core identity. It is a one-word summary of an individual and that individual's evolutionary fitness - one's "right to life." I am a complete atheist. When I say, I have faith, there is zero woo in that contention. There is memory. I define "my faith" as a conceptual design in this manner. It is a "panic button." That when this organism feels threatened by the environment - more specifically other organisms in the environment - hitting "the button" is akin to removing the rational elements of cognition and allowing the primeval force of lizard-brain calculation to take over.

It is not something to "test" or a toy to play with, it is a meme used to enhance the survivability of the unit. I have survived. As a human being, I have also simulated the future of my next encounter with a potential mugger in this manner.

You are not taking all of my money. You do not deserve it. However, I will give you half. That is rational cognition at work. I have yet to test this simulation of future in the field.

What is remarkable, is that "faith" seems to be a Kantian noumenon. That when an individual reaches a level of parity in faith to moral certainty; the dual-state nature of the individual can be transferred to the empty set term "faith," resulting in actual technology.

"Faith" is passive in that it is a form of "background processing," that it is the function of the environment to test the individual's moral certainty; but that an individual of moral character also develops a "kinetic" component. This kinetic allows one to pilfer concept from the Void, to distinguish simulation from imagination; to know impossible things.

And while dual-state identity allows one to identify to both self and god, god is a limit the self does not need. I limit the negative aspects of my ambition by being in love with a fellow human being - Gwyneth Paltrow - which is more than enough to keep me from exploiting my knowledge for personal gain.

I compare the Void to the neter Set from Egyptian mythology because the relation to the individual creative force to the universe is very much allegorical to Lucifer before YHWH; but there is no evil in this, no rebellion against beauty and moral authority. It is tao. That conservation law and entropy do not require a universe of will, therefore we, as sentient individuals, must be the will of the universe.

And there's no guarantee of getting it right; yet to live, and to love, is to move forward with the universe.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
24-11-2011, 09:21 PM
RE: sola fides
(24-11-2011 07:05 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  What is remarkable, is that "faith" seems to be a Kantian noumenon.

Didn't you realize? Once you start, you Kant get away. Hey-O!!

And that's an excellent start. What prompted my question, and maybe you're still headed down that trail, is what does Positive mean, and what is Negative atheism, assuming there's an antithesis to your Positive atheism.

Here's where I'm coming from. I'm having to start out almost from scratch with my personal philosophy. Always before, in Pastor Erxomai-Land, God=Good/Devil=Bad. Positive is good and godly. Negative is of the "deveel, as it froo-its of the deveel." My worldview was certainly not that black and white nor was it anywhere close to being that simple. But it gives you the simple outline of the bigger picture, I think. Now as a Post Believer, and I need to face the fact that there is no longer a moral agency outside of my own brain, then how do I frame Positiveness? From the Greater Societal agency, you might say. Ok, then how does society come to a consensus on what is positive? And while I have positive feelings about Gwynnies, how can I be sure they aren't more sinister in nature?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: