What I currently like most about The Tower of Babel, God had to stop them from building the tower to heaven because they were “about to accomplish the thing that they had set out to do, and nothing could be restrained from them”. Meaning, there are other ways to salvation (liberation, enlightenment, heaven) besides Yahweh. We can’t have anyone knowing that.
They didn’t destroy Babel and confuse the language because it was a false temple, but because it was true. The evidence is right there from the words of god. And confuse the language they did. Not by changing everyone’s dialect but by introducing confusion through word play of monotheism, by restricting the power of the individual to chart his own path.
The tower was likely a center of spiritual enlightenment, a non-denominational meditative center. An intolerable thought to monotheistic ideology. “Don’t let them see they don’t need us!”
The churches provide nothing you can’t get with a campfire and a drum—or a good stretch of solitude. That’s why you must “meet together oft” to keep the charade in play.
I am not an atheist—I just don’t believe in God. Religion has left me no choice. Being an atheist I don’t believe in this god and that is the standard paradigm. But if I have to believe, it doesn’t exist. No belief between anyone is a consistent description of anything. Nothing is consistent except by memorization, but those aren’t your perceptions of god. They are a consensus of ambivalent confusions.
If God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omni-everything to encapsulate an unrestrained supreme deity, what then, could be in the universe that is not god? Your superlatives betray your doctrine.
The Hebrew god is all these attributes. But really, with all these elucidations only creates more confusion. It would have to be everything, including you as an extension of it. There is no line it doesn’t cross, no realm it doesn’t permeate, no organism it isn’t. Christians are actually pantheist or deists, if you carry the logic beyond its restricted norms, using their own adjectives. According to their own terms, everything is god, (except for you), right?
Traditionally, expressing this knowledge about yourself would be blasphemous enough to get you killed, condemned, or at least excommunicated. It’s hard to control people that knew their divine reality. But really what this knowledge does is put the game in jeopardy. Who would put up with this bullshit if they knew the truth? There is only one power the sim possess—it can shut itself off.
It is not my fault I don’t believe in this god described by the majority religions. It falls short on its own argument and modifiers. If it were real I wouldn’t have to believe it, have to convince myself and others of its existence, because unless you were it, something so distinct from you would be as plain as the nose on your face. If it were distinct from you it would be obvious and unavoidable that this god existed, yet no one can see it. Can a program detect the programmer? Can the curser see the mouse? Dammit!
If there is a god it does not know it. The same as if you were god and do not know it. There would be nothing outside of itself to contrast, just as there is no thing outside of you you could call god without it also being you.
No, there is no deity outside of you or it is not a deity, unless this is a simulation and we just can’t see the programmer through the impulses and diodes. If we did see that god we would find he is an intelligent creature that has no remorse for his sims, and can play and play the loop in the game that causes the most trivial of killing sprees where all his characters have multiple lives.
Since there are no gender neutral nouns or pronouns in Spanish, how are we going to handle that? I guess Spanish is a bigotophobic language and should be eliminated, in all fairness of course to the .006% of gender neutral citizens.
Spanish has a binary grammar gender system, differentiating masculine and feminine. The gender of nouns agrees with determinants and adjectives, so gender is a very pervasive feature. Nouns are always assigned a gender; from a grammatical point of view, there are no gender-neutral nouns.
It is also important that you know that officially, there is no gender-neutral language in Portuguese.
In French, there is no neutral grammatical gender — all nouns must be coded as masculine or feminine. Forcing an ungendered word into the vocabulary messes up the remaining context of any speech.
In Russian, every word, with the possible exception of adverbs, has a grammatical gender. “It cannot be removed or neutralized,” without destroying the remaining context.
Currently in Chinese written pronouns are divided between the masculine human 他 (he, him), feminine human 她 (she, her), and non-human 它 (it), and similarly in the plural.
But wait, there’s more! Gender fad is reshaping language debate around the world. Evidence that sex and gender actually are what they’ve always seemed to be.
If the perception of reality can be augmented, is it really reality? if perceptions can be altered in any way by our sensual acuities, are those perceptions truly bona fide? If the world were real it would not be ever-changing. And when I say real, I mean that substance or substratum of all particles* and existence. That isness that endures in spite of all biological forms.
Augmenting reality has “real world” implications, like car crashes and pedestrian accidents, as in n established Poké Stops. Augmenting reality emphasizes the blind spots we already have and creates new ones, virtually enhancing the personal preference by eliminating the things that don’t fit our likes or dislikes
“The best case for life as a simulation is augmented reality. If you assume any improvement at all, soon the games will be indistinguishable from what we considers reality”—Elon Musk.
Reality is the familiar perceptions we generally ignore. That same reality has changed dramatically since man could put into words. “God spoke to Adam and gave him commandments” Is not this a form of augmented reality, describing nature with symbols—letters, words, numbers, and counting? The rise of language, writing, and math has fixed reality to a particular style of describing it, which isn’t it at all.
Stare at the image. Rotate it upside down and blink 3 times.
*According to modern physics a particle is an “excitation of a field”. That is you—
The best way to prolong humanity is to stop choosing sides
Humans are limited by strictly linear thinking, being able to handle only a few variables of thought at a time. There are thousands of variables to every concern, yet the consciousness of the human brain is primarily a scanning system of a very, narrow focus of attention—and can only catalogue one line at a time by recapping the past (that’s why your basic education takes so long—miles of text must be read on a single line)
Our personality then, is to own the thoughts we think, or have been told to think are the most important thoughts of life, yet defining ourselves with such myopia is to discount every other human that have attended their focus to some other angle, which is equally worth exploration.
When we study physics we are dealing with processes that contain millions of variables we handle using statistics, which works fairly well when using extremely large numbers. But the practical problems of human life, deal in variables (lineal) in only the hundreds of thousands, and here statistical analysis is very poor. Charting it out with figures in this same limited, linear thinking is impossible.
We also try to solve our political and social problems with in the same way with total frustration—and with that same equipment we are now proposing to interfere with our genes? I digress.
The human brain however, is able to handle an enormous number of variables that are not available to our conscious attention. Your brain is now handling your blood chemistry, the secretions from your glands, and millions of cells without thinking about it—without translating what is happening into consciously reviewed words, symbols, or numbers. Translating what is going on in nature into words, numbers, and symbols, we confuse the world as it is, with what it is thought about, talked about, and figured about—while the difference between these two is vast—so we interfere.
Every human instinctively knows how to handle it all, but we then lose it in the language of discussion, primarily due to beliefs held by linear thinking.
It may be too late for solutions, but understanding is the first step. We cannot solve anything by interference. Nature will solve it all though natural selection, while human morality will try to fight it, preserve it, confront it and own it. But it is of no use. The only way to prolong humanity is to stop interfering—and we do this by understanding the founding principles of the game.
TheCommonAtheist 