To be fair ... this might not be the first time I imply as much. Yet am I moved to once again
imply as much - this time with some musings of what it means to be a Prophet; Possibly removing
myself from such considerations.
As an Atheist and Edgelord, TJ might not right away appear to be one. That I would argue is however
owed to a certain ... we might call it: School of Thought ... that has become somewhat prevalent
throughout the ages - to which ... we might say: My Own ... stands in contrast. And sure, we may
- and possibly will - extend that notion into further musings of Fascism and Anti-Fascism.
This ... prevalent School of Thought ... it would imply that being a Prophet, or maybe better put:
Chosen by God, should incentivize the respective person to change their ways of being. That because
being chosen, or so: being a Prophet, comes with certain responsibilities but also privileges. So,
Duty, as it were. Duty in that idea is an Honor - as the Duty, respective to its order, already
implies privileges. So is this school of thought one possibly found all across the ages whenever
hierarchies have been an integral part of a governing body. Which, yea, would have been ... for
almost ever I would assume.
It is however a school of thought that does in a certain way welcome corruption as integral to its
realism. For, at any rate, is the individual chosen by God or whatever Sovereign Entity at the end
of the day still a human being. And it would seem as though an individual that is called to Duty,
but incapable to take their own through the implied privilege, is unfit for duty.
As much can be implied when properly regarding the presumed respect any one individual, lest they
be in hierarchy above the individual in question, is to have before said "officer".
Now, naturally do responsibilities require privileges of some kind; That being those without which
the responsibilities cannot be carried out. And within bounds of reason we should not deny any
one individual the use of those their privileges even beyond the necessities of their duty. To
however regard these privileges one of the kind to be grateful over, the individual is to also be
"cut out for the job" as it were; Including the degree of sincerity that is also implied within
So, to regard Duty as an inherent privilege of the "first kind" - does leave a somewhat bitter
taste with me; As in some way of saying it, it implies that one is to be grateful over being
charged with doing things that ought to be done. And when it comes to being a Prophet, that may
be seen more clearly than with any other "duty". For as God would exalt an individual into
Prophethood, what were then the Privileges the individual may yield for themselves as a human
Going with the plain and simple truth as proclaimed throughout Scripture, being a Prophet is much
about Sacrifice. There then must be a reward implied to redeem that calling from merely being a
burden; Unless however the individual is ... well ... "cut out for the job".
And so - when someone now is "cut out for a job", I imply as much as that the individuals general
way of being is intrinsically in tune with "the job's" requirements. And this yields, that a
Prophet that ought to change their ways to meet their calling, is simply put not cut out for the
job. Or, conversely, that God chose the implied responsibilities somewhat poorly.
At any rate; The question remains: Following that "School of thought of Duty", what were the
implied privileges of being a Prophet - if not to perhaps abuse one's implied social standing?
Well - naturally there is then the problem of what social standing might be implied. That for
instance is all down to the respective society. And in that sense, the typical Prophet of Scripture
... has barely been a person with any proper reason to be grateful for it. It would then be in
hindsight, when the Pharisees of the time would seek to reach out to a believer's heart, that the
Prophet would be regarded as a person of privilege. Unless the message may require a different
approach. Yet so, being closer to God than the ordinary person might already serve the needs of
When it comes to Prophets, many might be led to think of Moses. Or Josua perhaps. The "God told
you to listen to me" type that gets to hold "the stick" as to lead the people to the promised land.
And naturally - being a prophet implies as much as that people ought to listen to them - but one is
to understand that the purpose, the function, of a Prophet is intrinsically tied to the demands or
challenges of their time. So, through Moses has God led the people of Israel to the promised land.
And with them being then there - and known as such unto the very day - there would be no more
Prophet to lead them to the promised land ... like, yet again.
Rather so would God perhaps find that the people He would seek to speak to have lost their ways;
And so a prophet of God would then be compelled to tell them as much. And that with as much
"privilege" to do so as God would deem appropriate. Which for all we care did mean, ever so often,
that they have merely been in a position to be heard such that their words might survive through
scripture. In other words: A few may have listened and understood - but without any bigger kind of
sign ... a lot of it was somewhat pointless.
And that is, for once, just the way it is. That, according to the scriptures, from the perspective
of the world, the way of a Prophet is one of lamentations.
And so we may turn our curiosity towards any one Prophet with the question of what kind of Human Being
they were or must be to take such upon themselves; And my general assumption is that - with perhaps a
very few exceptions - they for the most part didn't know that they were chosen.
This then means as much as that someone who is cut out for the job, would generally end up doing the
job at any rate; Depending on whether or not they have the means to. And if being a Prophet only came
down to talking - anyone with the ability to speak could easily follow. If God however also wanted them
to be heard, which is to be assumed, God would have to 'bless' them towards that end.
And this is to say as much as ... that ... it wouldn't be too too far fetched to assume that there might
be some prophet on the loose on the YouTubes and the such.
Moving on to the question of what we now are to do with 'the Words' of a Prophet, should we encounter
one, I am practically required to come back to that School of Thought mentioned earlier. For as within
"the ranks of Duty", that question is often second to the question of what words we might inquire of
one. Well, it might not seem related at first. On that notion, to inquire of a Prophet would be a function
of testing them. Such as the Pharisees have attempted on Christ. And sure, Jesus' position to that was
somewhat unique; As He would in-deed have had to have all the answers.
When it comes to "the ranks of duty" however, I would regard it as a way for the corrupt to weed out the
uncorrupted while trying to catch the gullible. We can see as much regarding Donald Trump. Our own attempts,
let's call us the Uncorrupted and (at least potentially) gullible, at 'testing' their Prophet fall on deaf
ears; Showing us with a reasonable degree of certainty that 'testing' "the Prophet" isn't really a thing that
needs to be done. It is in turn however, so in response to detractors, that one ought to traverse a gauntlet
of silly questions.
[recommended song: DMX - Number 11]
And I'm assuming that this is ... like ... a shared nerve that gives us ... the canniptions or what.
But so ... I assume we ought to further speak of 'the Corrupt'. The general way it goes with them should
be relatively easy to comprehend. They have their Prophet; Bestowing them with privileges will eventually
get (some of) the gullible to do the same - and it with that added Privilege that their Prophet can then
yield benefits for the corrupt body at large. Respectively is any individual that opposes them, as so
already by virtue of opposing their Prophet, someone that has to be fought. And making them run a gauntlet;
Like so: One full of gotcha's; is possibly the easiest way to get as many of the gullible to turn against
them, and possibly towards theirs.
TANGENT: ~previously on Daeryabaar.com: The thing about bigger=better~ - is something I may yet have to
clarify on. I thought I knew what I was on about, but somehow the whole thing got lost in translation.
On the one side it might be a fragment of what profession I'm currently learning. On another note have I
been playing plenty of games where some degree of upscaling is just part of the game. I do however at this
point not really have anything to really go bigger=better on. So I assume that what I wrote there that would
imply as much is really just a brainfart - or more to the point: the results of an itch. Like ...what is it
called? "Sleep Sand" (that stuff in the eyes). Something that is there - but doesn't make proper sense,
let's say. So, what 'is' there is this issue of being, generally, on one side of that ideological dichotomy
- while clearly seeing the benefits or eventual needs of being on the other side of it. And so the general
message was that what may appear to be an ideological dichotomy isn't really one. It is merely by phrasing
out an ideology such as "bigger=better" - it can be implied as 'opposite' to whatever doesn't subscribe to
'bigger=better' as this universal truth; To perhaps motivate the belief that those 'opposites' cannot 'do'
what "Bigger=Better" can. Or that doing anything "Bigger=Better"~ish is as a betrayal to "the philosophy"
of "the thing" that doesn't have a universal need for everything being bigger than needs be.
Something similar comes up here - and there - around the notion of "not sinking to "their" level". And
eventually the problem is merely a matter of perspective. You may however understand once you've come around
'the truth', that it is at first something for you, yourself, to cherish, practically on your own. That
because it is a) ever so often somewhat difficult to get others on board with it and b) something that
loses quality when you cannot actually do so. Therefore ... this is as basic a property of 'the truth' as
it gets. When the corrupt now follow their own truth, you have a certain immunity against seeing it as a
thing that 'they' do - while you shouldn't sink to their level.
We might however ... get into that "don't sink so low" territory when thinking of perhaps weaponizing that
attitude as in response. Though eventually it only means to do "the 'the truth' thing" more purposefully.
Without any of the downsides however that come with maintaining a pretense or facade.
Anyway ... back to the topic.
And within that, false dichotomies are a treacherous thing. Right alongside hypocrisy and double standards.
And then, in critique of those things - there ought to be what remains after being rid of those treacheries.
And figuring out what that is - or at least maintaining an attitude of maybe one day getting there -
that should be one thing where the divine and the human interest intersect.
And, in my opinion, when realizing this as some kind of gold standard - the matter of who is or what makes a
prophet is somewhat trivialized. As - it ought to not matter, at all. Prophet, God and Man alike should
even independently from one another come around to it.
But this is rather far off of where I wanted to go with this. But, if we're thinking of 'testing' a Prophet,
it might be useful to have a reasonable standard to begin with.
Or is it?
The thing is ... false dichotomy and the concept of hypocrisy do combo. So, if someone were to accept a false
dichotomy, that would have them accept things as hypocritical that effectively aren't. It's like ... with say
sex. Or being gay. Or the whole Islam versus Christianity thing. If you were to accept that Christians can't
be gay, a gay Christian would be hypocritical to you. If you were to accept that Islam and Christianity need
to be as opposed as Fire and Water, an honest to God Muslim or Christian needs be an impossibility to you.
We would then think that we needed a Prophet to tell us right from wrong, thus imparting a near infinite amount
of authority upon a supposed Prophet. Or so: Privilege beyond Measure. At least ... so the myth goes.
In there does slumber another false dichotomy. To say that you either may or may not know of the divine without
a prophet. That it has to be black or white - or to lend words from the Bible: Hot or Cold, for else it'd be
Luke Warm and God would opt to spit it out.
The argument however, to cut this short, is that there is a very logical way to think of a Prophet; One that is
also consistent with the Bible - and that maybe most importantly in that it contradicts what might be called
"Popular Opinion". If you think that this is getting silly, then I assume that that is because you understand
that I'm right - while your brain, or whatever, already entertains possible implications - while having a bit
of a hard time, possibly, to reconcile those with reality.
But ... maybe you are in deed just taking the conclusion to the absurd extreme. There so is the matter of
underdeveloped depth of comprehension. Being so in a state where the redemption from one set of ideas practically
necessitates their extreme opposite. Though perhaps the truth is in deed more akin to ... some good feeling in
consequence of having a really uncomfortable stick removed from your behind.
That stick in effect is like ... this idea that you have to be a certain way to fit in or do good as to live up
to your potential or not be a burden on society, or otherwise the guilt and depression of being an honest to God
good-for-nothing. There sure is quality value to either of those - but understanding that there is a way for
one to accomplish the good and be redeemed of the bad that doesn't ... like ... require to effectively bend over
and sell your behind to some obscure higher good - that I suppose is supposed to feel good.
Maybe too good to be true?
Well; Either way - when boiling things down far enough, the whole issue here is basically about stress. So
maybe the stress of there being a Prophet who now speaks in clarity and with authority of the do's and don'ts
so you are without excuse. So you're either burdened by more guilt, or put under more pressure to do right.
Either way ... stress. Or maybe things aren't so clear, but tense enough so you now have to make sure you
know who the true prophet is. Or at any rate you must not be deceived by the corrupt. Either way ... stress.
And that while life already is stressful enough, as it is, with the only possible redemption from it in sight
being some collapse of society. And whether or not that 'actually' takes of any amount of stress ... well,
to be honest: I don't want to find out.
Well, unless by 'some' (collapse of society) we may also imply something more abstract.
Anyhow - if there ever is a time for me to say the responsible thing, it might be this, here, now. So, don't
get me wrong: Stress can be good! Awesome even! Think about an Orgasm for instance, if you're into that sort
of thing, which is nothing without the Stress - if you want to call it that - that leads up to it. Maybe that's
how the person who came up with it invented 'Progressive Muscle Relaxation'. That is, while being in a relaxed
position, starting with the head, individual muscles are put under tension and then relaxed. That is repeated
a couple of times before moving on to the next muscle(s). Usually that is accompanied by relaxing music and
someone calmly talking you through the individual steps. From my experience, people on occasion fall asleep -
possibly for one or another reason - during this process.
It's also astonishing just how much stress watching a movie can be - compared to just doing nothing. So yea,
paying attention is stress. So yea, the proverbial fly buzzing by every now and then would be a not so pleasant
example of this. But mentally tuning into a song, or some competitive match-up, that can be positively
It is also, for sure, amazing how much we can individually endure or accomplish - but with that notion we
enter "that" part of the story; Where - for all I care - there isn't much value in it if we can't properly
unwind during all of it.
I mean - generally I'm a very busy person; But in that I've found some equilibrium - being basically in a
constant flux between activity and relaxation. It can be a very sensitive equilibrium whereby even just a
minor disturbance can be extremely stressful - though sometimes stress is like a welcome distraction from
But anyhow ...
... I ... don't like where this is going. Or didn't. Right ... so ... I took a break. It seemed prudent
to do so. Subsequently I thought to not continue this, but ... I suppose I have a little anecdote to
smooth off the rough edges here.
It is said ... I certainly have heard it more than just once and from more than just one person ...
something along the lines of ... "tidy room, tidy mind". So, I'm supposed to clean my room - or apartment -
and from the cleanliness I find therein day in day out - so my version of the story - I get to be in a good
mood. Certainly better than when stumbling upon a depressing mess. With a good mood then, the challenges of
the day are easier to tackle.
And yea, there ... certainly is merit to that. As the song goes: "Tomorrow never comes" (Ice Cube - Tomorrow).
I definitely had to learn that. That a thing done and dealt with is one less thing for tomorrow to be done.
However ... Tomorrow definitely comes ... what matters is what shape you're in when it's there.
That ... in tune with the metaphor. I mean ... dwelling upon my code I stumble upon a lot of things that
I thought to do later. "Tomorrow" as it were. Now I find that this Tomorrow has come - and were I to shove
them aside for another tomorrow ... well, who knows how many years that would be?
But that isn't the only instance of it.
To not dwell too much on the detail however, ever so often 'now' is not the best time to do a thing. People
with Autism should possibly write that down and put it up somewhere they'll see it. I mean, my past self
was in a state once, where ideas of what to do just came crackling in as balls of ice during a hailstorm.
Well ... ~ish. And there was no way in hell for me to have had the time to finish one thing before moving
on to the next.
Something had to give. And at the time, that was my mental - and ... yea ... physical - health.
So I guess I should have cleaned up my room instead. Fair enough, as I cannot dispute that and now it's too
late to go and check what that would have done. It certainly falls in line with the message right now. Rather
than stress myself out over all the things I ought to do to - possibly - be not regarded lazy or a loser, I
should have taken a step back as to chill the fuck out.
But ... it's not quite that simple.
But ... also ... how to ... make that case?
Well, first of all ... depression usually starts somehow. If it's merely down to an untidy room - all one had
to do is to clean it up and things would magically improve. Well, the thing about depression is, that once the
room is cleaned up - none of the things that manifest as the depression magically disappear. And so you're
then standing or sitting or whatever there, wondering what you accomplished. Your room may then furthermore be
as tidy as can be - and still utterly depressing. Perhaps there's mold on the wall, or - as was the case for me
for a long time - just not enough space for all the things so the room was bent to look somewhat messy.
Perhaps also your window is next to a well frequented road and to not have people peek in you're letting down
the jalousies, and so it's constantly dark. And that would merely fall on top of whatever bothers you in the
So, the Bible instructs us - basically - to first clean up the insides of a vessel before cleaning it outside.
And while a case can be made that one's room is the inside - that ought to be, to anyone with a bit of mental
depth, somewhat shallow.
Anyhow. I somehow managed to claw myself out of my depression, got used to doing work, started an apprenticeship
- such and such - and now I've got my own apartment. To say that by tackling the issues that burdened me, my
mood improved and subsequently it was easier for me to also do all the chores.
Nonetheless ... I had a hard time keeping my room tidy. I suppose I keep coming back to it - but not having space
is a real issue. I mean, cleaning up usually involves some amount of tetris. I leave the rest up to your
So - being in good spirits, and having plenty of space, I found it a lot easier to keep things tidy. And yet
... I would not. Well, not as much as ... someone looking in might hope for. For once however, it certainly is
an improvement for me. To say, I do more than I used to. First and foremost because I do not despair over the
logistical challenge of it. Maybe despair is too harsh a word - but, there's like ... the quality of the result
versus the amount of work put into it. So and so. But all that is beside the point, actually.
What basically rubs me wrong about this "clean up your room" sentiment is ... well, many things. For once it's
too close to "fake it 'till you make it" - which roughly translates into what I actually had on mind here,
saying: If I now mess up something I work on - am I then to believe that that failure is merely a function of
me not having cleaned up my room?
So - my message here boils down to first cleaning up the inside. That too is work - and from doing that work,
little by little, you'll be able to tackle the more superficial challenges.
I mean, here's what happened today, sortof. Uhm, yesterday actually. But also ...: Since I got my Kitchen
(it's installed now) I've been looking forward to the delivery of two "adapter screws" so I could connect
the 1/2 inch tubes of the faucet to the 3/8 inch piping. They arrived today and so I went on to screw them on
- but ... one of the links was leaking. But so I had running water in the kitchen ... it's just that whenever
I wanted some, I'd have to open the valve - and close it when I'm done so the kitchen won't flood. Anyhow, I
left my tools where they were - the table also still being a kind of mess - and returned to whatever I was
doing on my computer. That being ... yet another mess. Something I thought I could get done in an afternoon
took me now ... two days and I'm still not done. At some point I was fed up with it and decided to play some
Street Fighter. Once I was done with it - and still didn't want to work on my code - I looked online for
an extender since I figured that the valve was leaking because the adapter was too long and I couldn't wind
it all the way down. Looking around I learned that ever so often the windings themselves are the culprit.
Well - I didn't know what to do ... but ... I figured that if I had some hemp around I might at least try
that. And sure enough. I had some. So I wrapped some hemp around the windings, screwed on the adapter and
it leaked less. So I unscrewed it, wrapped some more hemp around the windings and boom. Water. No leak! It
was awesome. I barely believed it. Then I went back to my code - made some progress - and kept checking for
whether the leak was actually sealed or not. I worked on my code, took smoke breaks, chugged lots and lots
of coffee - and even found the time to prepare me something to eat. My code was going somewhere - and amidst
all that ... I managed to clean up my Kitchen.
And to spell it out ... none of it involved me cleaning up my room - by necessity. I mean ... Kitchen.
While technically, sure, my Kitchen is now clean because I cleaned it up, and sure ... I cleaned it up so
it would be clean and all that, but it isn't that me having an obsession with maintaining a tidy kitchen
is the original cause for it. Maybe it's there somewhere in the abstract - but first and foremost it's clean
because I did what I cared to do - while trying to maintaining an eye for what else may have to be or could
be done. Then things just ... fell into place.
The point is this ~ and watch out, this is deep; In the Gnostic/Esoteric sense, so ... let's hope I get this
right: Wiring your motivations to something that is trivial is a good way of mutilating your potentials.
I mean - when it comes to me, and sure ... I've written a lot about that now and still, I must wonder: As
it isn't particularly challenging - compared to the challenges I'm motivated to tackle - to clean my premises,
it seems to be a waste of my resources to keep things tidy for no other reason but tidiness.
Perhaps it seems arrogant. But - a simple work-around is this: As my mind is occupied with virtual things -
these concerns make up some kind of virtual reality; Like ... well ... a room. And for as long as it is in
disarray, that chaos will burden me throughout my day to day. A simple consequence would be what may be called
minor confusion. The "where did I put my key again?" or "why did I put this here?" type of thing. The going
back and forth multiple times because you always forgot something else type. The ... I forgot to turn the light
off stuff. The ... I meant to remember to turn off the heater type.
I mean - to not get into much detail, the thing I've been working on ... turned out to be somewhat complicated.
It would happen to me, while sitting in the bus or train, perhaps walking about or otherwise having some
downtime, that I understood - in perfect clarity - what I had to do, considering this one particular problem,
multiple times. And yet when it came down to it ... that clarity was gone. On the one side there was yet a lot
of stuff to do before it might realistically matter. On the other ... and that was the crux the last couple of
days ... my different ways of tackling the issue would overlap and thus I'd produce a confusing interface that
I myself had a difficult time comprehending. And so it turned out to be that kind of a problem where a simple
inspiration, epiphany or such just wouldn't cut it.
I mean - I had it. An inspiration. And epiphanies ... more than just one throughout the years. Then, sitting
down and just hacking away at the problem ... also didn't really do it. Beyond that I also felt ... well ...
the kind of mental resistance I would ascribe to divine intervention. To say, rather than having an easy go at
something - I'd have to fight over each and every line ... give or take. It's more down to certain decisions
that would then provide the right angle for code to then come easy. And so I eventually worked myself into a
situation where a very simple inspiration sent me down a rabbit hole that enabled me to come to terms with where
I was going wrong.
And then I somehow ended up with a clean kitchen. Well, tidy at least.
Anyhow ... what I meant by Trivial isn't what Trivial means in the common sense. It's about what's Trivial to
you. So, saying that you shouldn't give up on your dreams, but ... that's a whole other topic.
And anyway - as soon as we get into the should and shouldn't ... we're back at the whole stress thing again.
So, conversely we can also talk of the have and the haven't. I mean - life in this world isn't a zero sum
game. Else capitalism wouldn't have gotten to where it is today. We wouldn't have billionaires. Profit would
be a vastly stranger thing. I mean, the capitalists would there have us believe that their wealth is a function
of them giving us stuff. Like, that's called "the free market". And in as far as there are affordable quality
products on it - I'm willing to concede a few inches on that one. Whether it be necessities or luxuries. I mean,
I've tried to diz on the fashion industry - and yet, for however little sense it may make, it ... in essence,
seems to be a fine thing by all means.
So, I mean, we're so vast in numbers - and have learned so much about the world around us - it's a natural
consequence that we have a lot of different stuff to possibly want. Given the freedom we - probably - cherish
so much. And wanting alone cannot be enough. At least not within a system of finite resources. And pretending
that life is a zero sum game - or as the Bible puts it: Pay back what you owe, although you're not supposed
to hunt down down your debtors either - that's where all the 'common' wealth is at. Where contracts mean something.
Where ... stuff has value that we understand the price of. And possibly, so a theory, that ought to also keep
inflation in check. For the most part.
I mean - it's quite simple if we understand that 'taking more and giving less' is ... one way we can observe
people, at least in crowds, react to geo-political shifts. I mean, a lot of political discourse happens between
one side being like: "Oh, it ain't so bad! Look at all the stuff we have!" and the other being like: "But it
could be better!". And ever so often the matter behind "it could be better" is that someone, somehow, is supposed
to give a little more and take a little less. And if 'getting more and giving less' is the gold standard for how
well off we are - if it isn't a zero sum game - someone is getting screwed over.
Anyway - it now isn't so that I'm like ... a disciple of TJ Kirk. Or a scholar of his word. And yea, anyway,
he's like ... an atheist. And isn't that antithetical to what a Prophet of God should be?
The thing is ... that if we can take a few steps back from what we think a Prophet ought to be or do, we may
understand that if God wants someone to speak and 'blesses' their means to do so ... that's technically enough.
As for how we would know to listen to them ... well, that's ... one of those "ought to"s.
So is there the parable of the sow-man who threw seeds upon the soil, into the bushes and onto the road. And
easy to understand ... they grew well on the soil, not so well in the bushes and not at all on the road. To
say: "If ye have ears to hear, hear".
I mean - sure. If we want to think of a 'proper' Prophet, we want to think of someone who has what they say on
good authority. That however is a kind of Prophet - an "ought to" - that isn't the only way there is. So is
there inspiration. And inspiration is given - it cannot be taken. But the same goes for the other kind of
Prophet. Soliciting wisdom from them ... either way ... may extend beyond what they can reasonable share.
And yea, if it sounds like I want to disarm the notion here - to make you perhaps not treat TJ like Prophet,
that's ... fair; Because ... I don't think any Prophet wants to be treated like "a Prophet".
And for what? To give us yet another list of do's and do nots?
Like sure ... say ... a Prophet ought to come to "give us Religion". Like, what's that even supposed to mean?
I've listened to enough of TJ Kirk to fundamentally agree with a certain ... anti-Religious sentiment.
I mean - rather than just being Atheist, TJ - I assume - rather insists on being an Anti-Theist. Now, God sure
wouldn't ask or tell him to tell us that He does not exist. But there is a great deal of wisdom behind Anti-Theistic
notions that I think God is as or more vehemently behind as TJ is at arms against any notion of Theology.
Well, when it comes to stuff like "Mathematical Proof of God" - and TJ giving his 5 cents on it - I'm a bit on
edge. I didn't watch that video - because ... I don't really care. You might watch it and find it yet to be ...
actually quite reasonable. I'm guessing, but ... I'm quite sure it aligns with this idea that: "A lot of religious
people say a lot of nonsense to get them browny points with other believers". The thing with stuff like Mathematical
Proof of God is ... that sure: It may very well be and to some capacity TJ ought to be wrong in his atheism. It's
however so the topic of the Original Cause. I'd say that all logic implies there to be one such thing. Other's might
beg to differ. Maths might here then also lean one way or another. But then, sure: Maths as a system that does
intrinsically require 'cause' - so: The existence of stuff to math about - ought to lean towards the existence of
an original cause - as else it'd annihilate itself. But whether or not we then are to accept that as descriptive of
reality is a different story. But it also happens to be beside the point.
Because - whether or not God exists, or how we individually want to approach, deal with or invent the concept and
reality of the divine - has little to no impact on our "material" conditions. Though I'm thinking more of matters
such as peace, prosperity, common wealth - so not 'strictly' material things only.
Although, sure, we may - as believers - imply or surmise as much as a 'blessing' from God in as far as we deserve
it - the emphasis here is on 'deserving' it. If that then is however, to you, an excuse to turn away from reason
and towards weird mumbo-jumbo-istic religion ... you are, in my opinion, as it goes: Not doing it right!
I mean - something I had to understand, as a believer, is the issue of what measure of reason I have to practically
solicit faith from an atheist. Or even a believer of some other confession. Same thing. If your solution is that
they merely "ought to believe" - as much as believers of some other confession also just "ought to believe that your
way is right" - without even a sliver to deserve, well, such devotion to your wisdom ... you're skipping a crucial
part of the thing.
And that sadly enough is how this usually goes down. The believer implies that God exists and that their ways -
possibly predicated on nothing but their vehement imposition of faith - are "Godly" and that everyone else is wrong.
And no matter how much they wanna "I don't say that" - they still imply it. Because as we then get to the matter of
finding mutual grounds, the very first thing on the table were the matter of whether or not God exists - and usually
the buck also stops right there.
Then "the religious" start talking of absolute morality - quoting statues from a book that does by no means boast
absolute morality in anything but God Himself. There sure are quotes that seem unambiguous, but that usually leaves
out ... like ... everything Christ said. I mean, Jesus is like ambiguous morality personified - and David ... is like
His Rod of Thunder, in that sense. I mean, there is the story of David escaping to Philistia, where on his way he
passed by the Tabernacle and essentially ransacked it to get by. So, David violated the most sacred - but the most
most sacred - place in Israelite culture ... God's very own personal sanctuary ... and Jesus was like: "Yea, it's
fine actually!". At least ... that particular instance. You could then be like ... it's not fine or like ... ransacking
is OK ... to try and be absolute and unambiguous about it ... but ... it's not!
What I was trying to get at is, that these notions of "absolute morality" usually aim at calling atheists absolutely
immoral. As ... intrinsically incapable of morality. Possibly, to loop around, by implying that their rejection of
God is an indicator of deep rooted moral corruption. Which, sure, does probably make sense to a religious person that
has endured a lifetime of passive or even active indoctrination. And in that situation, any "proof of God" basically
just further implies to the believer that Atheists have no excuse. And I don't think that is in tune with the way of
Well ... sure. They don't have an excuse ... eventually. Except perhaps their mind's faculties being ... not
sophisticated enough to see the nuance. But the same can then be thrown the other way as well. Anyway - I'm trying
to say: Let's say. Let's say ... the evidence is ... absolute. The next thing were, that torment and hellfire - in
response to things they don't deem deserving of it - are "the religious" answer to 'why' they should give a flying
whoopee cushion. And I also hate these ... parts of the story where we can't get over some ... bullshit "holier than
thou, burn in hell" type of ordeal.
What I'm trying to get at is, that Atheists are in fact capable of forming a coherent moral understanding. And it's
funny to me how folks like Dennis Prager try to "debunk" that. It's too stupid for me to properly remember - but ...
it's like trying to debunk the idea that Black Folks can be fine people ... by maybe saying that white folks built
civilization and black folks didn't. I mean ... or whatever. There sure would be a 'most reasonable' way of saying
it - and I'm sure that something along those lines already exists in the Prager.U library (I wouldn't be surprised)
- but it's nonsense nonetheless.
Well ... but interesting, I assume. I mean, what do we know about black people that would lead us to believe that they
can be fine folk? The thing is this: If the prevalent idea of human nature just in general were, that we're all bad
and rotten, you wouldn't really 'help' by calling them human. Well, we so arrive at the notion that human beings 'can'
be good - which is then where some narrator would be free to cherry-pick qualities that mostly fall into "white"
What I'm so trying to get at is, that Atheists have what we might call a mostly "untarnished" concept of morality.
They may tend to be more materialistic - but ... even on that ... 'Apostatic Christianity' and materialism ... it's
like "the same picture".
So yea, more ... darwinian? Eugenicistic? It's difficult to find a negative thing that atheists would tend to lean
more towards than Believers ... . I mean, it's like - if there's a thing that can get fucked up, believers are most
likely to be the ones going like "hold my beer".
Well ... 'pragmatic' is the word I was looking for. Some may call it "Utilitarian" and spin some wild narrative
around how that's bad ... while using utilities to voice their opinion. Sure ... trying to quantify the value of a
life to perhaps come up with "acceptable losses", that's what villains in movies do - is a somewhat utilitarian
philosophy; So it would be easy to miss that all this is for some to talk about health care. I mean, universal
health care being like the utilitarian thing. I mean ... in all that one has to wonder how the contemporary next
generation could possibly grow up NOT turning into lunatics.
But that's what religious folk do. I possibly should clarify that "religious folk" here should rather say: Pseudo
Religious Shit-Peddlers. It makes it clearer that peddling shit is an intrinsic function of their doings. So it
shouldn't come as a surprise. What does however surprise me ever so often is just how ... huge the piles of shit
can be. Or how you wanna put it. Stinking? Fluid? Filthy?
Anyway. What I'm trying to get at is that if atheists do or would or were to deem your morality immoral - you
might, and I know it sounds strange, want to check whether or not they might be right! The thing is, that if your
moral code is truly superior ... you should be capable of laying it out. But we already know what these religious
types are going to say about that. Anything to avoid giving a straight answer! So, something along the lines of
... something something creator and obedience. Blessings and yada yada, civilization, white supremacy, something
... something America. Freedom and Guns, thoughts and prayers. Amen.
I mean - atheists would then go and say that atheism isn't like a monolithic 'belief' as religious people might
come to expect because they probably never learned that anything else might actually exist. So, there isn't like
... "an atheistic code of morality". That however implies, that atheists don't exist under the default expectation
that other people share their values. That's pragmatic, but not actually "utilitarian". It's just how it is.
Taking it so makes it "utilitarian", but ... that's neither here nor there.
But so, it follows, that atheists still have 'some' expectations in shared values. But those would for the most
part be "the norms of society" while they might then further agree with some things more and others less. Who
The thing is that there are certain qualities we can have, be it by virtue or ideology or philosophy or confession
or whatever, that are conducive to prosperity. Which reminds me ... Veritasium published a video recently.
the Prisoner's Dilemma Reveals About Life, The Universe, and Everything" - which is probably as close to an
Atheistic concept of absolute Morality as it gets. And sure, TJ has tried countless times to explain as much. I've
stumbled upon it more than just once however. Because ... it's not hard. Morality isn't like ... Rocket Science!
There's no magic mystery to ... like ... not being a douchebag!
And that's where these shit-peddlers ... dipshits ... would presumably try to hijack the narrative. To agree
without saying that they agree, if it can't be helped, but making it so that they said that all along and that
atheists are wrong for saying the very same thing without giving them the credit for it. Or something like
that. The thing is that at the end of the day it doesn't matter much. We all, broadly speaking, more or less,
give or take, live under this umbrella of pragmatic co-existence - whether we like it or not, consciously or
subconsciously - and all this animosity that these dipshits create by implying how morally corrupt atheists and
"the LGBTQ" and "Leftists" are ... is like suggesting that "they" (or 'we') want to have no part in it. Although
it then were us - not exclusively - who still rely on this co-existence to voice our grievances, and it is those
religious douchebags that, by implying that it's a horrible thing to do, try to make people reject our
And that would be their version of 'absolute morality'. Which, in all simplicity, means as much as: Nobody really
cares and "hate is the only true currency".
Because ... regardless of what moral code you subscribe to - "officially" - at the end of the day you're still
just one in many and the only thing to have on top of it is "stuff you like really much versus stuff you really
like to hate". Or such. Saying, there is no actual sense of morality therein.
I mean - it's funny how this whole "we can disagree and still have a civil discourse" thing is like ... a thing
thing among those dipshits. But it sure plays into this snowflake victim narrative of theirs of how they are
oppressed by the evil Nazi Trans-Gay-Antifa-Socialist-Communist-Globalistic agenda. Because ... us having pronouns
is like censorship somehow. Having sensitivities that aren't theirs is like demonic oppression it seems. Having
an issue with being objectified, harassed for sports, sexualized, dehumanized - all that apparently adds insult to
injury. But yes ... God is Love! Yes, sure - but obviously not theirs!
So yea, they call it degeneracy. Defiance of "the High Order" of things. "The way" things ought to be. Which is
... basically ... how we loop back around to the top. Duty. Duty, by that school, holds no privilege if one isn't
given a hammer with which to enforce order. As it were. To smite the heathens.
Somehow they however barely get around speaking it out. That their high morality is after all just a pretense that
aims at accumulating power in the hands of an untouchable elite. Some of which might actually be Jews.
And for as long as Religion and Faith and God are just buzzwords that are flung around to vaguely refer to a very
opaque yet hyper-fascistic grand conspiracy of nutjobs and megalomaniac madmen ... or how to put it ... what worth is
there in making an effort of being "nuanced"? I mean, for me ... I just have to. But it's not like I ... feel like
... safe ... using those words. But sorry, God isn't their property, Religion can be defined as we please and
Faith ... well ... I suppose we ought to leave that up to God! Or should it say: "I got the Kryptonite and I smack
it with my [bleep] in the mic!"?