The foundational lie in the psyche
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Many here claim to be former Christians even though some of you do not define God as Love/empathy. So I brought this over from a Christian forum for your inspection to see what you think. The topic is freewill. Each phrase carries a rephrase so as clarify as much as possible. The rephrase is in italics.


I can argue in depth both sides of the argument and all the subsequent implications depending upon which way you believe.
I know how to argue both sides of freewill and not freewill. Also I have explored the ramifications of each way of believing and they are different.
Terms like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all take on different connotations depending upon which way one believes.
Words like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all carry different meanings or nuances depending upon which side I am arguing.


There is a difference between saying I am wicked without God, and saying, I can freely choose to be wicked by denying God.
I will say something two different ways that may seem similar but are different in a subtle way. "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God"..."I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God".

There are two different spirits that dwell in the heart depending upon which way one believes.
Now these two different ways will produce two different types of spirit inside of a person according to which one they believe in.

In one, the person is utterly dependent upon God so as not to become wicked. Their worst fear is ever becoming wicked in separation from Him.
The not freewill one that says, "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God", counts God as their goodness. And therefore the one who believes this, believes he/she needs God to keep them from turning into a wicked person.
The worst thing they could ever imagine happening to them, is turning into a wicked person. So it is that they never ever want to be separated from God for any reason.

To choose to be wicked is something they cannot conceive of ever wanting, nor can they believe anyone else would ever freely choose to be wicked.
They could never dream of wanting to be wicked, much less choosing to be wicked. Likewise they would never understand how anyone would ever choose to be wicked.
Hence they Love God with all their hearts minds and soul in the truest sense.
Therefore they Love God in the most pure way with every fiber of their being, because He is all that makes them good.

In the other one, the acceptance of the idea that men have a free choice to deny God, is made palatable by accepting the idea that it is then a free choice to Love God.
In the freewill one, that says, "I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God", it is accepted truth that all men have a free choice to deny God. And the thought of choosing to deny God is only made acceptable to the mind, by also accepting that this will mean then, that men can also choose to Love God.
Here a person has equated denying God with Loving God in the form of freedom of the will.
In this way of thinking the person has made denying God and Loving God equal in that they are both viable choices and this is portrayed as freedom by the term freewill.
Hence it is an equivocation in the mind.
In the mind this makes it appear as if a person is not free without the ability to choose between denying and Loving God.

Therefore, this spirit that believes humans freely choose to Love God or freely choose not to, is completely different that the other one, who cannot believe anyone would ever choose to not Love God, unless they were deceived.
Consequently the spirit that results from believing this freewill way, is not the same as the spirit that believes in the not freewill way. For the not freewill way spirit believes that nobody would ever choose to deny God unless they were not in their right mind or blind in some way.
While the other would believe that any man can freely choose to Love or deny God and do so, without any deception.
But the spirit of the freewill way, believes that all men can and do freely choose to both Love and deny God and without any blindness or deception.

The true foundational lie is the God belief itself and the metaphysical subjectivism that it entails. And it truly is a foundational lie since it is a direct contradiction of the axioms of philosophy and the primacy of existence principle, the objective orientation of the subject/ object relationship. The God belief affirms its antithesis, the primacy of consciousness principle or "whishing makes it so". This error in thinking coming as it does at the base of knowledge means the worldview that results from this error is completely false from the get go and that's why there has never been a valid argument for God and never will be. Those claiming there is a god are guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept plain and simple. There is no escape from that fact. And that is why Childeye was forced to admit that there is no reliable way to distinguish what someone calls God from something they may be merely imagining.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(14-07-2014 02:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 01:49 PM)childeye Wrote:  You're mistaken if you think God the most high had a Mother.

No, just a wife. You do realize "most high" was a standard semitic epithet for their gods, right? As applied to both Elyon and Yahweh by the southern Caananites before those figure were syncretised, and to Melqart up in Tsor among others?
Of course this does not change the fact that politics are inevitable and there can only be one Truth that is God. Hence the atheist God is the god of no gods, the atheist gospel is evolution and the mortal sin is believing in God. A complete and perfect contradiction in reasoning by switching in both connotation and inference one single term from a positive to a negative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 02:13 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 02:01 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No, you skirted the issue God can stop the rapist. Fuck freewill he has never cared before. In you little book of fairy tales he killed people for far less. Yet he does nothing making him complicit in the crime.
I did not skirt the issue. You are skirting the issue. Note you say fuck freewill, He has never cared before. You say he does nothing simply because rape happens in the first place. I have put forth the parable of the prodigal son. The Father could have stopped the son from leaving but that would only compound the son's desire to leave. Such is vanity. The Father must let the son see why His Father is worth believing in.

False analogy the father there is not omnipotent and his son is not being raped.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 02:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 02:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, just a wife. You do realize "most high" was a standard semitic epithet for their gods, right? As applied to both Elyon and Yahweh by the southern Caananites before those figure were syncretised, and to Melqart up in Tsor among others?
Of course this does not change the fact that politics are inevitable and there can only be one Truth that is God. Hence the atheist God is the god of no gods, the atheist gospel is evolution and the mortal sin is believing in God. A complete and perfect contradiction in reasoning by switching in both connotation and inference one single term from a positive to a negative.

Anyways, explain three assertions before building upon your three assumptions:

1) god exists.
2) god is an emotion.
3) free will is a relevant and definable term.

I only have two requests regarding these three assertions:

1) Give me the five W's: who, what, when, where, and why?

2) Give me a hypothesis and a well defined algorithm so that I can come to the same conclusion that you have reached with your hypothesis.

Granted...you did start with a hypothesis right?

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."- Albert Einstein.

"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." Steven Hawking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 02:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 02:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, just a wife. You do realize "most high" was a standard semitic epithet for their gods, right? As applied to both Elyon and Yahweh by the southern Caananites before those figure were syncretised, and to Melqart up in Tsor among others?
Of course this does not change the fact that politics are inevitable and there can only be one Truth that is God. Hence the atheist God is the god of no gods, the atheist gospel is evolution and the mortal sin is believing in God. A complete and perfect contradiction in reasoning by switching in both connotation and inference one single term from a positive to a negative.

Bowing

This is some of the most sublime word salad I've ever seen.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
15-07-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 02:21 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 11:27 AM)childeye Wrote:  Many here claim to be former Christians even though some of you do not define God as Love/empathy. So I brought this over from a Christian forum for your inspection to see what you think. The topic is freewill. Each phrase carries a rephrase so as clarify as much as possible. The rephrase is in italics.


I can argue in depth both sides of the argument and all the subsequent implications depending upon which way you believe.
I know how to argue both sides of freewill and not freewill. Also I have explored the ramifications of each way of believing and they are different.
Terms like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all take on different connotations depending upon which way one believes.
Words like worship, repentance, mercy, responsibility, guilt, love, humility, all carry different meanings or nuances depending upon which side I am arguing.


There is a difference between saying I am wicked without God, and saying, I can freely choose to be wicked by denying God.
I will say something two different ways that may seem similar but are different in a subtle way. "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God"..."I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God".

There are two different spirits that dwell in the heart depending upon which way one believes.
Now these two different ways will produce two different types of spirit inside of a person according to which one they believe in.

In one, the person is utterly dependent upon God so as not to become wicked. Their worst fear is ever becoming wicked in separation from Him.
The not freewill one that says, "I become wicked in my heart when I am separated from God", counts God as their goodness. And therefore the one who believes this, believes he/she needs God to keep them from turning into a wicked person.
The worst thing they could ever imagine happening to them, is turning into a wicked person. So it is that they never ever want to be separated from God for any reason.

To choose to be wicked is something they cannot conceive of ever wanting, nor can they believe anyone else would ever freely choose to be wicked.
They could never dream of wanting to be wicked, much less choosing to be wicked. Likewise they would never understand how anyone would ever choose to be wicked.
Hence they Love God with all their hearts minds and soul in the truest sense.
Therefore they Love God in the most pure way with every fiber of their being, because He is all that makes them good.

In the other one, the acceptance of the idea that men have a free choice to deny God, is made palatable by accepting the idea that it is then a free choice to Love God.
In the freewill one, that says, "I can freely choose to become wicked, by choosing to say no to God", it is accepted truth that all men have a free choice to deny God. And the thought of choosing to deny God is only made acceptable to the mind, by also accepting that this will mean then, that men can also choose to Love God.
Here a person has equated denying God with Loving God in the form of freedom of the will.
In this way of thinking the person has made denying God and Loving God equal in that they are both viable choices and this is portrayed as freedom by the term freewill.
Hence it is an equivocation in the mind.
In the mind this makes it appear as if a person is not free without the ability to choose between denying and Loving God.

Therefore, this spirit that believes humans freely choose to Love God or freely choose not to, is completely different that the other one, who cannot believe anyone would ever choose to not Love God, unless they were deceived.
Consequently the spirit that results from believing this freewill way, is not the same as the spirit that believes in the not freewill way. For the not freewill way spirit believes that nobody would ever choose to deny God unless they were not in their right mind or blind in some way.
While the other would believe that any man can freely choose to Love or deny God and do so, without any deception.
But the spirit of the freewill way, believes that all men can and do freely choose to both Love and deny God and without any blindness or deception.

The true foundational lie is the God belief itself and the metaphysical subjectivism that it entails. And it truly is a foundational lie since it is a direct contradiction of the axioms of philosophy and the primacy of existence principle, the objective orientation of the subject/ object relationship. The God belief affirms its antithesis, the primacy of consciousness principle or "whishing makes it so". This error in thinking coming as it does at the base of knowledge means the worldview that results from this error is completely false from the get go and that's why there has never been a valid argument for God and never will be. Those claiming there is a god are guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept plain and simple. There is no escape from that fact. And that is why Childeye was forced to admit that there is no reliable way to distinguish what someone calls God from something they may be merely imagining.
Not true in the least. God simply means the good in mankind, Hence from post #1, "I become evil in separation from God".

You asked for "a method" to prove I was not imagining what "I" called God. I told you I was calling God empathy and empathy is not imagined. You agreed in post #83 that empathy is real. I asked you what method did you use to come to that conclusion so as to answer your own question.

Now you say I was forced to admit that there was no reliable way to distinguish what "someone" calls God from something they may be merely imagining. Well you're imagining that I admitted that since your original question in post#38 asked what "I" was calling God not what "someone else" was calling God.

Then finally in post #99 you undeservedly called me dishonest, based on this same errant conclusion you are claiming here, despite the fact that I tried to correct you in all forthrightness, and that is in post #104.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 11:03 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  What in the actual fuck have I been reading?

This made me feel empathy for Childeye in the way you would when you spot a retard in public. At first you think how shitty their life is, but you gotta remember, they are too retarded to realise it. If the retard began thinking he's better than you, well then you've got your typical religitard.
I like your post. I can relate totally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 02:17 PM)childeye Wrote:  But of course my response was to the accusation that God enjoys watching people die and get raped.
And, of course, that's completely beside the point.

God sees people getting raped and does nothing. You say God is the one being raped as though that somehow justifies it. Even if God is being raped, the people originally mentioned are still getting raped too and God is still doing nothing. It isn't even like the people getting raped are the ones raping God. (Not that I agree God is even being raped, but I'm going along with your point for the sake of discussion.) So how does God being raped justify his his willfully ignoring all the people getting raped when he could EASILY stop it?
It doesn't.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 02:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Of course this does not change the fact that politics are inevitable and there can only be one Truth that is God. Hence the atheist God is the god of no gods, the atheist gospel is evolution and the mortal sin is believing in God. A complete and perfect contradiction in reasoning by switching in both connotation and inference one single term from a positive to a negative.
You just can't stand the fact that there are no atheism equivalents to religious crap, can you...

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
15-07-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: The foundational lie in the psyche
(15-07-2014 02:25 PM)elconquistador Wrote:  
(15-07-2014 02:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Of course this does not change the fact that politics are inevitable and there can only be one Truth that is God. Hence the atheist God is the god of no gods, the atheist gospel is evolution and the mortal sin is believing in God. A complete and perfect contradiction in reasoning by switching in both connotation and inference one single term from a positive to a negative.

Anyways, explain three assertions before building upon your three assumptions:

1) god exists.
2) god is an emotion.
3) free will is a relevant and definable term.

I only have two requests regarding these three assertions:

1) Give me the five W's: who, what, when, where, and why?

2) Give me a hypothesis and a well defined algorithm so that I can come to the same conclusion that you have reached with your hypothesis.

Granted...you did start with a hypothesis right?
1) God is Truth, exists and rules absolute as pertains to knowledge and ignorance of all things.
2) God is Love,exists and rules absolute as the moral goodness in mankind.
3) freewill is not exactly a definable term in my view since it is an equivocation. It is therefore relevant because it produces a double minded foundation for reasoning which ultimately ends in hypocrisy. However, the term is generally taken to be the premise for the assertion of culpability.

Forgive my hesitation to answer your request for the five w's. I find no temporal terms adequate to explain eternal things. Moreover, I also have trepidation due to the occasion for semantics and the overwhelming desire of those who would seek opportunity to discredit me for the sake of their own beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: