User:TheUgliest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one is responsible for the fact that he exists at all, that he is such-and-such, and then for all that follows therefrom. — And about randomness which attacks us, there is no will of God (nor whatever) to change it.

(Something "in-between"? Then it is a combination of what is deterministic and what is indeterministic. For example with probabilities it is a surjection of equally-distributed.)

Everything is fate, everything is power, there is no justice, struggle for salvation is a comedy...


Please also see my article Nietzsche and Freedom. And, perhaps, also my comment on talk page for Eternal return



Whoever tried to "improve" mankind — prophets, Saviors, saints, or priests — did nothing more than power: they altered what they could alter, namely your deterministic nature (knowledge, character, mood, heavy responsibilities...), but certainly did not even touch the stupid randomness in you, uncontrollable, unbiased, deaf to everything, not "responding" to anything, not interested in anything, blind to values, meanings and teachings. — I repeat that about the latter there is no "will of God", nor need, nor a fulfillable moral imperative, nor anything hanging over you. A chance involves no obligation. Fate in general involves no obligation: it is absurd to shift it towards some direction. Wherever you are not forced, you are not obliged...



There is no "will of God" about randomness: for what? Instead of just implementing the order, he tells it to you – and then what? Why tell it? — It is all about priests trying ("knocking", probing) to achieve power.

Whole moral training belongs to the error of knocking at randomness.

Morality, as everything in this world, is a form of power. But its way of exerting power is the cleverest of the clever. Generally, a way of exerting power is the more clever, the more both sides think they're at top. That, brought to an extreme, is the case with morality. On one side, you think you're ruling: that's because your self-consciousness (which is a power, a "freedom") is extremely deep, due to superabundance of suffering. You cook every event in your own pot, which gives you a feeling that you have everything in control (in opposition to "unfree will", which means: "being conscious of a change in us, without previous wanting (expecting) that change"). That control means lack (or subjugation) of chance, for chance = something that cannot be predicted. On the other hand, you strictly follow values which are given to you from outside, from the priests and moralists (a mind is actually a machine for finding and introducing order over chaos...); therefore, you are ruled. — In short, what they say is: "control the uncontrollable".



Jesus came to the world in order to revert the "error of Adam" – but hey, there was no such Adam!...

Please do not tell me about "grace of God", or "revelation", or whatever similar, because everything can be called so.



And heh, he raised from the grave in order to show off a bit to his disciplies, right? Of course he did not kill them and humanity in general, "because it is better there"... And soon he flied to Cosmos, in order that not too many people will know. (Let me not mention how it is all falsified, how the Gospels differ in details, actually lie about details to make more effect, in this topic.)

Oh, do they lie only here? Compare e.g. the "convertion" of Paul: the same book which tells us about Cosmic fly of Jesus and his ride on a cloud – along with promise of his return in the same way (Mt 20/24, I don't remember, says it would be when the temple would be destroyed and many places of the Bible say that within lives of the disciples: well that happened 70 C.E.!!). But let's return to this "convertion". First they tell us he saw the light and noone else saw it, but all heard a voice; then in other place they state the exact opposite. And then yet third description – in the same book...



Mark 9:47 modernised. — "And if the right half of thine brain offend thee, split it out: it is better for thee to be condemned on one leg and to enter the kingdom of God with another, than to be cast wholly into hell fire: / Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."



To be a person means to measure everything with what is already experienced. (This applies even to animals: experiments have shown that cats who had grown up in their formative months without seeing any vertical lines, were later unable to see any such lines – whatever was turned in that direction just disappeared for them...) Now, what follows therefrom? That the amount of things a man can experience is finite.

Of course, you might say that it is not only about the experience but also the sequence thereof. It is true, however, the experience plus the sequence of some earlier experiences (which are still, even though a bit less, felt) constitute what I'll call a state. Of course, this sequence of preceding things is not infinite, because nothing lasts forever: your "state" generally consists of what happened to you in last 5 seconds or so... or at most in a minute.

It can be shown that the amount of such states, as a form of "variation with repetitions" (such it is called at least in Polish, in combinatorics math), is also finite. Therefore, life is finite – the rest is eternal return of a mortal, of a finite life. You can look at it as on Pi, which can be split to 10 infinite sequences of digits (0000..., 1111..., etc.) – to us, each such sequence is an experience along with its preceding sequence.



Nothing real is eternal and invariable (that's heraclitism). Why? Here is the reason. — In order that X and Y exist in one world, X must exist for Y and the other way. Because, however, to exist means to cause influence (nothing has sense as an isle), and it is known that anything changes (which is an assumption of every life: change, excitability), therefore everything is in flux.

Heraclitism is even more efficient in bulk refutation of religions than the critics of the concept "freedom of will".

If we also accept the assumption that world is coherent (it is one, the same now and 10,000 years ago), then we have a proof of broadly understood evolution. For evolution means: something grows and something disappears according to some necessities, some laws of nature.

I will go even further and use this broad, philosophical meaning of evolution as a general definition of existence, as an essence of all that exists. The reality of things can be measured by the amount they have in common with the evolution. Therefore, most things that constitute the spiritual world of a Christian are false (including his views of "God" and afterlife); and contrary, your body is most real, because "material world", "external world" or whatever you call it offers most space for evolution. What doesn't struggle, parishes; our mind has simplicity of external world and evolution as a prerequisite; the world cleans itself from all that is failed. That is the great consolation.



"Me" is also not eternal and invariable, plus it is only a synthesis. You think, therefore you say "it's me". The definition of "me"? A fragment of world destiny from birth to death.

There is really no sense in pitying for other worlds nor in fleeing from suffering. The fear of suffering is irrational.



In life the question is not about "how" but about "how much". Suffering and the spirit (and also the soul) come together. You suffer most when there is most self-consciousness: where there are stimula but no easy reaction. And the opposite is true as well: if people want joy, they flee from their self-consciousness, their lonesomeness, their cold and bright reason and feeling – in fact, they flee from their soul... Now, imagine that this soul is "eternal": what's then left to care about? The extract of suffering will be infinite anyway!

In finite life you care that this extract is short enough: if you pleasure and not pain, this makes sense, because you're going to shorten pain and prolong pleasure (actually make your life less "souly"...). But in front of "eternity" all loses sense: really nothing to worry about anymore! Funny, isn't it? Exactly the opposition of what ordinary people feel!

Or, as I once put it even better: the soul doesn't suffer, it only fills suffering. The meaning of the latter is only 1) that it intensifies your self-consciousness (time flows slower etc.), 2) more energy is used in a less amount of (physical) time, that is: you get tired earlier.

There are much more arguments against "eternal life", too many to collect them here. E.g. about "paradise": why not now? All that has to be worked, achieved with toil etc. shows that world is not aim-driven but cause-effect driven. If there was a final state of becoming, it would be achieved. Why the world is not perfect? Because people are not equal!... There is need for rationalising their needs, various wills from yesterday and today and day before yesterday, and this is weighted with power. I suspect it was the Gospel of Mark (it was written in order to answer many arguments against the primitive community, e.g. that Jesus was not a Messiah, that he did not carry a judgement, that he was not an upright Jew, that he was at odds with law and prophets – heh BTW how these Jews could know on Tabor that it was Moses and Elias! – that he was not a moralist etc.: all they write about there is a form of answer...). Anyway, in some Gospel there is a story of man who had many wives which died. It was a mistake they included this: this is a very hard counter-argument still today, actually hardest possible against all paradises! If everyone is satisfied, what then? But if not, then people have different wills: you e.g. might want to meat your wife in heaven, but she will get another husband in the meantime... the same with everything.

But my psychology tells me this: people actually don't fear hell (and they don't want "heaven", the sky, they want nothingness, the end). Even Pascal didn't fear hell. They only rationalise their paralysis of action, their inner-jail, they find convincing words to fill this state... it was known that Pascal would remain a Christian, he was in fact imprisoned. This wasn't due to the idea of "hell" but due to moral training he got, his being over-tamed, over-tempered, his corrupt character in short... About most Christians I would say more physiologically something Freudish, but let me not be medi-cynical!...



You can certainly reject your reason, your senses, your feelings etc., because this is all worldly: but then be careful should not what remains be nothingness! Why care about nothingness? – And well, if someone was bold enough to falsify all reality for us, then all right: I tell him: "yes! I did it! Because I thought otherwise it would be a crime against life, against us all". Finally, let yourself not forget that the Christians do everything in order that they doctrine look rational: they pretend to have a rational belief system, they have to play the truth and hide all errors (so, in short, lie) in order that people with still sane reason, still not corrupted, can believe them.

"He was also indistinct. How he raged at us, this wrath-snorter, because we understood him badly! But why did he not speak more clearly? / And if the fault lay in our ears, why did he give us ears that heard him badly? If there was dirt in our ears, well! who put it in them?" (Zarathustra, "Out of service").



God (n.) — the main rival of evolution.

God — omnipotent, his will is always fulfilled, and he always will what he wanted to will; omniscient (he knows what we'll happen in a moment); "beyond time"; invariable, nothing changes him; yet "alive" (life = change, excitability); even does verbs and actions (after eternal waiting he creates the world, then even gets sad, as Genesis reports); "pure spirit"; nothing rules him, no necessity therein, "everything may happen", pure anti-knowledge, pure randomness...

I forgot to say. People believe in two gods: one powerful, and one good. The first is very unclear, actually nothingness (rules but is not ruled: that means: "exists but nothing exists to it", nonsense, it doesn't make a common world with us); the latter is a misnamed private good ghost, a symbol for weariness and nihilism.

Actually, Jesus was a pantheist. And most veritable Gospel is that of Thomas, probably also amongst the earliest and untouched by Poul's teachings. This Gospel, if read carefully, really explains many things.



Either evil is more powerful, or it is stupidity (or blindness, or other weakness) to be evil.

But evil is more powerful: it doesn't shadow real value with imaginary ("transcendental") value. For millennias such values as political privilege, health and strength, and cunning (the source of all evil?) have proved to bring success; on the contrary, "God" brought success only as long it was used as a symbol of opposition to the established order.

Real value can be measured by scientific methods: all knowledge (cause-effect) is indeed information about some necessities (call them "nature", "God", or whatever). Science not only can, it should replace ethics in saying what is harmful and what is useful for prolonged survival.

And finally, good must be weak, because it fights on the side of all the weak; they first state "well, this is disliked by all the powers, by all the laws that exists" – and then join this. On the contrary, the evil lets the weak perish (in whatever way: if they can make themselves stronger, or use others for it, the better). In the terms of quantity good might have still more power today; but overall and in the terms of quality certainly not. Goodness is actually against every quality, every value, everything that changes status quo and annoys the herd, it renounces "the world", it is nihilistic: it denies and pities, it softens values. World would be complete chaos if its essence was morality.



The larger the mob, the more bemusing is needed. After all, they need to feel their interest in participating in it. In order, therefore, to maintain so large mob as it is today, a "democracy" was invented: a vanity- and cowardice-driven system of politics where real power is hidden, so that the people think they have power ("freedom"). Of course such mob can only be organised around so-called "universal values": but universal is nothing, except nihilism, except human weakness. What is needed today is breaking of the herd, clusterizing it into pieces which struggle one another and are no longer befooled with anti-values (such as lack of "egoism", that is: of will).



"And again there are those who regard it as virtue to say: »Virtue is necessary«; but after all they believe only that policemen are necessary." (Zarathustra, "The virtuous").

Either morality represents the will of majority, and then it does not need lying as its sanction (unless for laziness of some), or it already represents the will of minority (people changed and morality didn't), but then it cannot survive in the long-term, unless this minority is biologically and/or technically stronger. But this is not the case, as I will show soon. — You can assume that whoever now shows "arguments" that churches are still necessary is, at best, mistaken.



It is a common way of lying to tell people "oh! have pity for them! they feel happy with their beliefs, don't break it!". First, don't be so sure that you'll be able to break it. After all, they'll accept your words only when they're ready for them. Next, please consider if it is really an advantage for them if they are enslaved. One can find happiness in every mode of life (but, on the contrary, whom God loves, him he must experience). Better earlier than later, isn't it? Finally, please remember that the band production of Catholics and others takes place in every moment, their propaganda never sleeps: and do they have pity for anyone?

Generally, this playing on "compassion" is invented by the cynical ones who gain from enslaving people (I know it, for I have encountered them). These are the cowardly nihilists – for lying is a matter of nihilists: it has no legs and its effects cannot be predicted in long-term; it doesn't represent real and far-sighted values. Nihilism, however, procedes from decadence. Everyone who says today: "lying is necessary" represents a botched class of man; there is really no "objective" need for lying, no matter how puffed-up arguments they use ("world will be destructed without us! not a single animal will remain, and astronauts will disappear too!"). And if they talk about peace, then I repeat that in the long-term increasing of "peace" (in spite of open war) is not the goal: for two immortal reasons. 1) It always struggles against most powerful elements (unless they deny themselves), 2) it virtualizes life, i.e. separates the chances for survival from health and strength. Often it even gives more power to those biologically degraded and suffering: for they have more "spirit" – they become preachers, saints, professors, philosophers...



I suggest you an experiment. This is the right methodology of truth. If you believe in God, stop it; in these days of the Internet, whole mankind could organize itself to stop believing in 7 days, if they were couragous enough. And then, we'll be able to see if "almighty God destroys the evil Babylon" — and for how long! "We will believe not before we are given arguments as strong as in the Bible, like ride on a cloud, flying angels, physical resurrection, voice from the sky etc.; and even then, we will check well!" — But of course no one of you loves the truth so much, despite what is said over and over.

Or do you think the world would end? But that, according to the Bible, is not yet ready. For example, they promised there will be One Sheep-fold and One Shepherd (if I translated it right); that the Gospels will be known everywhere. And finally (quotation from memory), "the Kingdom of God will not come visibly; they will not say: 'Here!' or: 'There!', but the Kingdom of God enhances within you". This in the New Testament; and see especially the Gospel of Thomas. Plus, I already mentioned world was to end with the destruction of the Temple (70 C.E.!), read Mark 24 (or 20?).



Well, what more to say... Observe how everyone will try to sell you religion!