Primordial Dichotomous Dipole Inference Theorem
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I'm guessing you are lying.
**RE: I'm guessing you are lying.
__
No, this may be a "belief" you hold.
I am not one person: I am part of a team. I will not submit anything that does not have a real proof of concept: the proof exists and satisfies the condition(s):
i. Macro- and micro-cosmic implications/applications (ie. applicable to any/all scales)
ii. Tries "belief"-in-and-of-itself as a viable basis upon which to construct *any* 'state'
iii. Necessarily establishes a framework that tends towards whatever "object" is placed behind a/the falsification wall
iv. Can not itself be falsified
It is three structures; latter two are as an infinity symbol (8):
(Head) Body of Negation: Any/all attempts to FALSIFY anything passed up by either:
{(Shoulder) Body of Inquiry: to test any/all "belief"-based assertion(s) for known ignorance(s)..}
{(Shoulder) Body of Trial: to try any/all "belief"-based assertion(s) for known ignorance(s)........}
This 'structure' ensures that whatever is left over after indefinite trial/testing is whatever is true: else having been falsified.
It works both individually and as a 'state' which tends towards peace, peace and more peace. This is how I know it is certainly possible for there to be world peace: a model exists which would certainly tend towards it.
Bullshit. Post it, or a link to it.
Well, that was an amusing 10 minutes reading through this thread.
Conjecture, springs to mind.
It's not conjecture if it can not be falsified.
https://ibb.co/090gbJ2
2- (any/all)
1- KNOW: Tree of Life: {Truth} of the {Way} of the {Living}
0- I AM willing to ^v
4- BELIEVE: Tree of the Knowledge of {Good and Evil}
3- (not to) <-*negation/falsification
0-1-2-3-4=KNOWLEDGE ad infinitum
0-4-3-2-1=IGNORNACE ad infinitum
respectively renders:
I AM willing to KNOW (the {Truth} of the {Way} of the {Living}) any/all *not to* BELIEVE.
I AM willing to BELIEVE (Tree of the Knowledge of {Good and Evil}) *not to* KNOW any/all.
They are inverses of one another and indicate a Primordial Antithetical Dichotomous Dipole of:
KNOWLEDGE/IGNORANCE
This should be welcomed news for atheists, but again, atheists are just as religious as theists. They attack people supporting their own cause.
I used to believe atheism was closer to the truth, but now I am slowly learning that atheism *is* just another religion full of the religious type.
Looks like someone slept through the apples and oranges lecture most of us got in grade school.
@Nyar Re: "Looks like someone slept through the apples and oranges lecture most of us got in grade school."
Slept??? Damn, could've fooled me. Based on the disjointed and disassociated free-flow writing I've noticed so far, I would guess poor Agnos has not slept in several weeks! Insomnia is a bitch! Ever watched "Fight Club"?
I do this in spare time: I have a full-time job on top.
Everything appears relative to the observer.
@TIny-Tin,
"Slept??? Damn, could've fooled me. Based on the disjointed and disassociated free-flow writing I've noticed so far, I would guess poor Agnos has not slept in several weeks! Insomnia is a bitch! Ever watched "Fight Club"?"
Does anyone remember the last episode of Star Trek Voyager? (not the best Trek, but the last few seasons were pretty decent). Anyway, Tuvok is back on Earth (spoiler alert!) but has suffered from a debilitating disease that is causing his mind to become somewhat fractured. Now, he's still Vulcan, so there is something there, but it's so mired in woo woo speech that it can't be properly deciphered by any intelligent being.
Hmm, not sure why this thought has occurred to me now????
I'm sure you did.
Knowledge and "belief"-based ignorance(s) are antithetical.
What knowledge is to (the inverse of) "belief"-based ignorance(s),
"Belief"-based ignorance(s) are to (the inverse of) knowledge.
Knowledge: as containing no degrees of uncertainty (ie. certainly falsified).
Ignorance: as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty (ie. not falsified).
If you "believe" yang can not be compared with yin, you are insufferably ignorant.
Knowledge/Ignorance is the Primordial Antithetical Dichotomous Dipole.
A Gnostic Agnostic, you wrote, “I used to believe atheism was closer to the truth, but now I am slowly learning that atheism *is* just another religion full of the religious type.”
Since there is no atheist dogma, and atheism is concerned with just ONE question (acceptance of the assertion that god(s) exist), you, it seems, are incorrect that *atheism* is just another religion.
That being said, there surely are folks who identify as atheist who treat it very much like a religion. However, it seems you fail to recognize that is an individual making atheism a personal ideology rather than it being an ideology in and of itself.
Personally, I take offense at being lumped in with a wad of other people based on the lumper’s misconceptions.
As far as atheism being close to the truth, as you say was your previous view, it’s nothing of the sort. It is simply the non-acceptance of ONE assertion. Perhaps that is where your line of thinking began to lead you down this rather odd path.
This has all been explained to you by many posters in many ways here at AR. That you seem to actively and purposefully refuse to comprehend that message indicates, at least to me, a rather high level of childishness. Is that really what you want to present to the World Wide Web?
**RE: Since there is no atheist dogma, and atheism is concerned with just ONE question (acceptance of the assertion that god(s) exist), you, it seems, are incorrect that *atheism* is just another religion.
___
Yes there is an atheist dogma: to "believe" there is not a god/deity on the basis of "believing" there being no evidence for one.
Again:
call the universe "that"
call any being "I" in/of "that"
can "that" be inferred by "I" if the latter is *unknown* unto itself?
So "know thy self" is the first fundamental knowledge needed to ever infer a higher intelligence (which there is). That does not necessarily imply god, but atheists dogmatically shut down the notion that there is something beyond themselves, which is ignorant. An all-knowing god *can* be tested for. If the atheist can not figure this out, it is due to their own not knowing themselves.
Either theist or atheist: both in the same boat. Believing to know something they know not.
Atheism is just another religion - but closer to the truth than "belief"-based theism. Atheists can be just as retarded as theists (as seen here on these forums).
____
**RE: That being said, there surely are folks who identify as atheist who treat it very much like a religion. However, it seems you fail to recognize that is an individual making atheism a personal ideology rather than it being an ideology in and of itself.
__
It is an ideology: severance of pursuit. Atheism will go nowhere because rather than advancing an alternative (as I am) their entire platform is structured on the *rejection of* another ideology. Where are the atheists who are advancing a worldview that establishes an actual 'state'... considering AR is now (apparently) a political 'state'? What is the platform? ...rejection of another?
It's nonsense and atheism is just as stagnated as any other ideology.
____
**RE: Personally, I take offense at being lumped in with a wad of other people based on the lumper’s misconceptions.
__
Lol. You must not know that taking offense is *not* a virtue: it is a sign that a person is insecure and/or identified with something that they are not. Otherwise, no offense. Please try your own misconceptions before trying others'.
____
**RE: As far as atheism being close to the truth, as you say was your previous view, it’s nothing of the sort. It is simply the non-acceptance of ONE assertion. Perhaps that is where your line of thinking began to lead you down this rather odd path.
__
...the non-acceptance of any assertion is closer to the truth by way of negation, which leaves only what can not be falsified (ie. tending to be true). Atheism consciously justifies the negation for "belief" in a god, which is well and good (more correct than theism) but that does not mean it comes not without dogmas of its own, which it does.
____
**RE: This has all been explained to you by many posters in many ways here at AR. That you seem to actively and purposefully refuse to comprehend that message indicates, at least to me, a rather high level of childishness. Is that really what you want to present to the World Wide Web?
__
Nothing has been explained to me in the way of a conscious justification: I have not had one consciously justified contention with anything that is not rhetorical - let alone a falsification. The problem is the atheists here are focusing on people rather than ideas (which makes it a religion in-and-of-itself), and the only reason I can see for them attacking me is... they can not refute them and perhaps don't like people who think for themselves. That makes *them* childish. I'm willing to focus 100% attention on the problem of "from whence any/all human suffering" as I do anyways, but these atheists care more about attacking me than the same, which again, makes them not only childish but pathetic (ie. pathology of attacking people rather than focusing on the needs of others).
So forgive my unwillingness to concede that atheism is *not* a religion: the people here are just as religious as any for constantly focusing on people behind ideas rather than ideas themselves. All this, after explicitly telling everyone I know I am nothing.
How does something come from nothing? Ignorant people "believe" something is while being not. Say hello to the illusion of creation (ie. maya) wherein whoever is manifest is suffering their own ignorance "believing" it is someone else's. This is where projection comes from: blaming others for ones own iniquities and is the first sin of the Edenic story of Adam and Eve.
Ps. I am testing it, and so far: IT HOLDS.
Blame/scapegoating=original sin (ie. Adam)
Then not listening to the warning *not* to blame/scapegoat is the second (ie. Eve)
Begets Kain: enmity and desire to attack. <-*this is where theists/atheists are both pooled and joined.
Holds, holds and holds. There is *no* difference between a theist/atheist who attacks others.
AGA, you ended your reply to me with, “If you attack rather than focus on the problem, you are not better than any theist.”
How handy it is that you seem to perceive my opinions as an attack. That way, the opportunity to discard them without genuine consideration flourishes.
AGA, why are you actively posting here at AR? What do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal?
To help put an end to any/all human suffering as knowingly caused by "belief"-based ignorance(s) esp. religious/ideological.
I seem like the only one who actually cares about this esp. more than those who attack me for attempting it.
I know this: world peace is *certainly possible* and I believe in the possibility of it, knowing it is certainly (at least theoretically) possible.
If I knew it were impossible, I wouldn't bother. What bothers me is knowing it is.
Given your response, you are here to preach. The AR Debate Forum is not a pulpit. It is a debate forum. Since your goal is to preach rather than debate, I suggest you find a more appropriate website from which to do so. I’ll retire your account here so that you can pursue a more appropriate venue for your thoughts.
Thanks for playing, say ‘okay, bye now’.
**RE: AGA, you ended your reply to me with, “If you attack rather than focus on the problem, you are not better than any theist.”
How handy it is that you seem to perceive my opinions as an attack. That way, the opportunity to discard them without genuine consideration flourishes.
__
I have already considered the problem of atheism many years ago: my pursuit of the problem "from whence any/all human suffering" involved me reading the books of Harris, Dawkins, have seen just about every debate of Hitchens, and I only hear the same recycled arguments and contentions that are just as stagnated now as they were then. Don't take it personally: it's just that I have already considered the problems of atheism and always look at solutions from top-down perspectives that would otherwise alleviate such problems, and LORI predicts "belief" as the root of any/all human suffering.
It's even in agreement with the Genesis account of the fall: eating from the tree of "belief". So Judaism/Christianity/Islam could be dealt with easily.
If atheism did not "believe" there was no evidence for a higher order(s), it would be so much better off. Again, one can not infer an unknown from an unknown, so any/all atheistic platforms that do not elevate the need for a being to know themselves *in relation to* creation is dead on arrival, just as any/all "belief"-based religions were, are, and always will be.
The expression of being bound (to "believe") in an ongoing state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNUadL_gHU&t=240s
That is exactly what satan is: you lose your will over time to "belief" and the authorities that rule it.
TRUTH > AUTHORITY = knowledge - proposed atheism platform
AUTHORITY > TRUTH = belief-based ignorance(s) - present-day theistic platforms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvL-I3Dfeqc
They advertised an original model, and a professional model. Reading this thread makes me think they might have manufactured an industrial model.
Pages