The Atheist Guide To Surviving The god plague - Chapter One

Chapter One: The Man, The Mind and the god derivation

Man has been a being of reason and curious temperament, however in absence of any logical basis that could have been the premise of any given argument, it is apparent that it is human imagination that takes over the reality  of the situation.

Take for example a child, now in an event that a child (it is to be maintained that the child has had no previous understanding of the subject) is to explain the mechanism of the TV, it is common observation for the child to deduce that the character on the screen are physically present in the box for the time... or even other technological advancements like the mobiles, etc will look mystically appealing to a person belonging to the sixteenth century or before...

just for a thought experiment, there is this color variant "Blaite", lets try and fix its hue and shade, shall we, now try to come up with it... the name is pretty obvious... sounds like a soft colour, has a pale colour, but in the shades of brown, perhaps... i'll keep with the answer for a while, meanwhile don't try to google it or anything...

and thus the mechanisms may require the use of present set of facts to derive a new conclusion.

This is very basic to the human mind, the use of present set of information available to create new information, the mind cannot contradict itself. people can. and thus, is the basis of all human creation, and of all human thought.

However, in the absence of concrete, verifiable facts, reason is a huge gamble. And, at the advent of human thought, valid reason was a luxury, for facts were nonexistent or scarce at the most. and in such an environment, it is but natural for the mind to come up with PSEUDO-ARGUMENTS for the phenomenon around it...

think, when you were a child, there was hardly anything that your reason was based on, and all those days trying to reason out stuff that bothered us... the air, the rain, the sun, the moon (which is normally seen as a face by most and told so by many to their kids), the little experiments kids do to find out what things are all about... and then come up with plausible explanations, that adults may find humor in...

Only that, Bigger Arguments need Bigger Reasons.

god, is an explanation to much of the bigger problems minds have faced in the absence of valid facts, perhaps even smaller ones too. we have had social, political, medical, logical, psychological, scientific, and other numerous queries, and we found an argument for all of them in just one statement, looks incredible at first go, but critically flawed in closer introspection. How can just one answer, make for all queries?

even the kid does better than that... atleast he has sixteen different answers, it seems.... sometimes to the same problem...

logically, god is flawed in its construction, it has no logical (factual) basis, it has effects that have no relationship to each other, also it has deep philosophical cracks even in the most basic of its constructs.

god is a PSEUDO-ARGUMENT.

p.s.: Blaite is not a colour, its not even a word in the oxford dictionary... much to my amusement. this is the true nature of god argument.

The Atheist Guide To Surviving The god plague - Chapter Zero

being an atheist is an amazing choice, i find. you don't have to care too much and too less. there is no grand plan, just the objectivity of our actions and their implications. you have the choice of action and the responsibility of its outcome, and infact this is the beauty of the whole scenerio, you have the freedom to make a choice, nothing is thrusted upon you, or is expected of yourself. you have no sins you can committ, or have no power to please.

its very unintelligent of someone to point out that it is infact in this that god exists, the question isn't really if we can make god appear, infact that is the direction most theist philosophers like to push atheists in any given argument, since it always has an answer, god exists in its creation, very stupid argument actually, but most of us cannot reason with the unreasonable, now, can we? the problem is that most atheists cannot move out of their world of reason, and fight it out with the unreasonable. as a matter of fact, that is where the debate fails, the reason cannot deal with non-reason, without arguing on an unreasonable stand, which, unfortunately cannot be avoided in a debate between two people, emotions get envolved in such a personal case. infact as soon as an atheist tries to fight it out the theist way, he fails, since he has to counter his own argument to make a point, a thing theists are perfectly comfortable with, and infact use it to their advantage

So, how do we debate a theist philosopher, without leaving the realm of reason and logic?

not a simple thing to do, but not really impossible.