RANDOM QUOTE
I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.

-Homer Simpson
Search
Sticky Posts
The Ghettotenna
SVG Icons
KNetworkLED
Brew Your Own Damn Beer
Latest Comments
linkapalooza (5 comments)
Objects in the Mirror (4 comments)
Doo Dah Doo Doo Doo Dah Dah Doo... Big News Coming Your Way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (3 comments)
SVG Icons (7 comments)
A Revolution in Taco Consumption (5 comments)
Links & Friends
Reddit
Kotaku
Hardgeus
PVP Online
Boing Boing
The Sneeze
Penny Arcade
Resources
glitch13.com :.::.: ..:.::. :.:::... Home | About | Feedback | Archive | RSS

ON THE SUBJECT OF ANGRY JOHN
Category: Philosophy
Saturday, November 24th, 2001 @ 10:35 pm
Posted By Brent
This is in response to a post (actually a series of posts) by Angry John, which you can view by clicking on his picture.

Me and John (and everybody else and John) seem to always get into a "Does God Exist" debate. John's counter arguments always begin with something to the effect of, "well, its very easy to think that nothing I do matters, or that you don't care, or that God made things the way they are", etc, etc; but I'm beginning to notice a major flaw in his argument.

While Christians and Athiests alike may not like the statement, nobody knows whether God exists or not. Some say their lives are plucked from turmoil by what they "feel" as the hand of God. Some say God is a childish representation of the frailty and desperation of man; and still some say that there is no God, no way, that's just retarded. I am of the second fold, and that is where the argument heats up between me and John.

John believes there is an inherent belief of a god in humans, whether it exists or not, and my argument is that there are the "writings on the wall" for a god in humans, if you would allow my euphamism. He beleives that people, you and me, are "hard wired" to accept a god for the rights and wrongs of the world, to explain things, and form a sort of moral blueprint for how societies can advance; his main argument for this being that there has been no society that has ever sustained itself without a religion. My argument is that humans have an intelligence level that I would consider a major anomonaly. A by product of this is their need to form a structure explaining why they have this intelligence, and what they can and can't do with it. Thus, we come to a religion, or a God. Without such, we would have no maintainable structure, or "status qou", a need for which being another by product of the inherent intelligence itself.

And there is my pop philosophy, take it at face value.

And you really owe it to yourself to check this out. For window users, hit the start button, select run and type this in the text box: telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl

Linux users, I hope your know how to do what you need to accomplish this task. If you don't, then install windows, cause your a fucking moron.



Comments

NAME: Feasty
WEBSITE: http://cut&paste4life.com
Wednesday, November 28th, 2001 @ 12:29 am
http://www.astradyne.co.uk/cheese/

lame...


NAME: fix
WEBSITE: http://www.vasalineintheglove.org
Tuesday, November 27th, 2001 @ 03:38 pm
oh how i'm moving in it


NAME: ian
WEBSITE: http://www.baskinginthelove.com
Tuesday, November 27th, 2001 @ 02:36 am
oh, how i'm basking in it


NAME: glitch13
Tuesday, November 27th, 2001 @ 01:51 am
I've looked at it for ages now, and it seems that its time to make a statement.

John, stop FUCKING putting Foo in every FUCKING blank there is. If it hasn't breached the comprehension layer of your skull yet, take notice that (by looking at other's posts) it leaves it out if you don't put anything.


NAME: Feasty
WEBSITE: http://cut&paste4life.com
Tuesday, November 27th, 2001 @ 01:09 am
I wanna a cast magic missle at the darkness!


NAME: ian
Monday, November 26th, 2001 @ 11:44 pm
damn the man.
damn him straight to hell.


NAME: mr.fix
Monday, November 26th, 2001 @ 11:11 pm
internet got taken away by the man and all of his "i want money now" scams!!!


NAME: suz
Monday, November 26th, 2001 @ 05:40 pm
did i stutter


NAME: foo
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 11:31 pm
Species?


NAME: suz
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 11:10 pm
IS IT ME OR DO ALL MALE SPECIES ALWAYS HAVE TO OUTSMART EACH OTHER.


NAME: glitch13
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 10:45 pm
Obviously Fix's claim to having a sunday post is LIE.


NAME: imaclone
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 03:05 pm
Everybody smart already knows we're all in the Matrix. Didn't ya'll see the movie?


NAME: imaclone
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 03:03 pm
daaammmmmmnnnnnnnnnnn.


NAME: foo
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 02:20 pm
Hey, don't look at me...I didn't post Brent's face on my site with an article about how he's wrong :P


NAME: ian
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 02:05 pm
or at least play house like all the other little babies in baby town.


NAME: GirlyGirl
WEBSITE: http://www.glitch13.com
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 01:43 pm
Do I really have to listen to all of this again?

I sure wish you kids would play nice.


NAME: foo
Sunday, November 25th, 2001 @ 11:20 am
Perhaps you could explain the difference between:

> people, you and me, are "hard wired" to accept a god for the rights
> and wrongs of the world, to explain things, and form a sort of moral
> blueprint for how societies can advance

And:

> A by product of this is their need to form a structure explaining why
> they have this intelligence, and what they can and can't do with it.
> Thus, we come to a religion, or a God. Without such, we would have
> no maintainable structure, or "status qou", a need for which being
> another by product of the inherent intelligence itself.


It seems to be the same premise. John says humans are hard wired to accept God to form a moral blueprint. Brent says the need to form a structure (God) is a by product of intelligence. What is the difference? Note that in your argument you did use the word need when referring to the creation of God.


NAME:
EMAIL: *OPTIONAL*
WEBSITE: *OPTIONAL*
WEBSITE: *OPTIONAL*
Comment:
    
|