Prepare to have your MIND BLOWN.

[Hector Valdez]

!!!!NOTICE: THE READING OF THIS THREAD MAY CAUSE UNDESIRABLE SIDE EFFECTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: SEVERE BLEEDING OF THE VISUAL CORTEX, HEMORRHAGING OF THE PERFRONTAL CORTEX OF THE BRAIN, SEIZURES, ANEURYSMS, AND OCCASIONAL IRREGULARITY. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!

You should probably read this post ten minutes at a time. You know, for those who want to stay sane. Enjoy!


Greetings. I recently conversed with my roommate on a variety of topic, ranging from such inconsequential things as the uniting forces, or lack thereof, behind any atheistic organization, the suitability of a belief in a supernatural deity as a prerequisite for obtaining a confirmation of "religious" status towards one's worldview, and the various intricacies of Buddhist thought and its corresponding attractiveness as a viable worldview in the minds of particular atheists. I should probably mention that the nature of our conversation became what might be referred to as, metaphysically and semantically indeterminate with regard to metaphysical semantics, semantic metaphysics, and any other variation or phrase that can be associated with metaphysics, semantics, and/or semantics and metaphysics, ultimately reaching a state of complexity so volatile as to trigger the self-destruct button inside our brains that was so thoughtfully placed by the god that my friend holds in such high regard. I must sincerely insist that the consumption of the written material contained in this thread be limited to ten-minute increments. Without further delay, then, the situation:

The conversation commenced with my mention of an assertion(unobserved as of yet), that most individuals proceed to fill in the gaps of meaning when confronted with verbal communication that lacks the necessary elaboration so as to eliminate all possible interpretive ambiguity in said statement. As if to immediately prove this hypothesis, my roommate proceeded to inquire as to why I felt that Christians all possessed a like mentality, and then asserted her discomfiture at my summary dismissal of any individual qualities she might possess and corresponding lack of awareness of the individual qualities she actually did possess which made her unique.

My response to this interesting deviation from my literal meaning included asserting how her response to my assertion indicated some validity to my original position. However, to bring up a response the assertion she had brought to the table, I began to explain how the actual position of a christian social group depends very much on an individuals ability to espouse the vast majority of any dogmatic belief which that group holds. I...neglected to mention the very real observation of hidden dissent amongst individuals among such groups, as I considered such information, once presented, might influence the discussion towards further aberration from my original point, namely, the additional supply of information towards vague statements lacking elaboration. Perhaps this intuition might have been well-founded, but as such a course of action was not taken, we might never know, and I present this information solely for ancillary purposes.

Her response led us to a discussion of the dogmatic traits of the atheist group, triggered by an utterance she subsequently made as to not knowing what "atheists believe", a typical error amongst Christians lacking familiarity with Atheist individuals. I informed my roommate as to the utter lack of doctrinal leadership, alluding to the fact that we are united only by a common disbelief in God. Elaborating further, I gave examples of Atheist Marxists, Atheist Libertarians, and was interrupted by an exclamation of utter disbelief on the part of my roommate upon my mention of Atheist Buddhists, a term that she insisted must be an oxymoron, owing to her belief that Buddhists held the Buddha to be a God. The conversation then revolved around the idea that any religion is indistinguishable from a tentative world-view, and that the only requirements expected of both Religion and Worldviews is the dispensation of explanatory origin, explanatory identity, and explanatory consequence, conditions present in all world religions as well as all political ideologies! After several clarifications of the nomenclature mutually agreed upon to be used in further discussion(It was at this point that things were becoming complex), the topic of our communicative misalignment migrated to the greener pastures of the logical contradiction of holding an assertion that insists towards the godlike quality of the Buddha in the minds of Buddhists while simultaneously asserting that the Buddha is not believed to be a God in the minds of those very same Buddhists, never mind the intellectual flip-flopping on the part of my roommate, who previously had asserted that Buddhists do indeed hold a belief in the Buddha as a deity, a position that, it has been recorded, was actually denied by the Buddha himself, although my roommate could not have possibly known this.

I should thank God. My roommate conceded the point.

Poll Question: How well do you understand this post?

[OldGit]

Ummm ..... err ....

[Crow]

So glad I don't have a room mate. House mates are bad enough.

[Asmodean]

The post was understandable enough.

A point I would like to disagree with, just to be prudent: As I see it, atheists are not united by our lack of belief in gods any more than we are united by not having been born with purple hair. On this forum, yes, it is a uniting trait for many, as many have sought it in order to meet others who lacked said beliefs. In the wide world, however, I don't see atheism as a unifying factor, rather a strong individual label and/or a weak social one.

[xSilverPhinx]

I must sincerely insist that the consumption of the written material contained in this thread be limited to ten-minute increments.

You know, the first time I read that I saw:

I must sincerely insist that the consumption of the written material contained in this thread be limited to ten-minute excrements.

Speaking of which I should probably take up an old habit of mine which would to be have reading material during those moments when nature inevitably calls. Any verbose books on the subject you're talking about you might want to recommend?

[Siz]

Ummm ..... err ....

Haha. Sorry RR, but you just scored a plain-English red-card for my puny brain. There's nothing like communication... and that was nothing like communication.
Am I allowed to bring up condom-snorting again?

[Ali]

Was this:
[quote = RR]Poll Question: How well do you understand this post?[/quote]

the point of the post?  Like, just to test our reading comprehension?

I understood it (I think), but I did have to laugh with surprise when this sentence (below) ended in exclamation point.  I had no idea you were writing in an excited tone of voice until I got to the end of the sentence.

The conversation then revolved around the idea that any religion is indistinguishable from a tentative world-view, and that the only requirements expected of both Religion and Worldviews is the dispensation of explanatory origin, explanatory identity, and explanatory consequence, conditions present in all world religions as well as all political ideologies!

I think I'm usually able to read sentences and paragraphs as more of an organic whole rather than in the sort of stop-and-start fashion that you force, so I'm not typically taken unawares by punctuation.

[The Black Jester]

I thought the post was clear enough, if slightly grandiloquent.  But it's always fun to read your musings, RR.

[Recusant]

I thought the post was clear enough, if slightly grandiloquent.  But it's always fun to read your musings, RR.

Seconded. Then again, I spend time reading things written by "serious" English authors of the 18th and 19th centuries; a time when elaborate sentences sprinkled with polysyllabic words was the norm.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Well, I understood the post, but it didn't blow my mind. So, I suppose it was a little of a let down. I was looking forward to a good mind blowing. Guess I'll have to settle for a colon cleansing.

[Firebird]

I understood it. But as I was reading it, I was wishing you had added more periods, or any punctuation to break up your run-on sentences.

[xSilverPhinx]

Well, I understood the post, but it didn't blow my mind. So, I suppose it was a little of a let down. I was looking forward to a good mind blowing. Guess I'll have to settle for a colon cleansing.

Heh.

RR, your particular musing on located in this corner of the interwebs indicate that you would make a good politician perhaps. You said you would deliver, and yet there is expressed dissatisfaction.

I don't particularly like verbosity, though my posts can be are excessively wordy at times and IMO you're a better writer when your threads are clearer.

[Stevil]

There was a lot of waffle, unusual for you. I felt some test was coming up.

It seems the post was with regards to you getting your roomie to concede that Buddhists don't believe that Buddha is a god, thus some Buddhists can comfortable wear the Atheist label.
I'm not too sure why god was thanked though, when it was you that was arguing the point. This implies that you are in fact, God!

Oh my god, my mind just blew!

[Hector Valdez]

I don't typically write with such a level of verbosity. The post was written that way as a kind of tongue in cheek nod to how verbose the actual conversation became. I kind of wanted to give the feeling of how the conversation escalated in lunacy. Of course, I probably could have written in a more contemporary style, but I suspected you'd catch the slightly self-mocking tone. You did, so I consider the post a success. The poll question was just for feedback.

[Rune]

So Buddha was once a man but became a fat golden belly statue?