Atheist Logic Fail



Leave a comment



Lynn:  I am so fascinated with your online interactions with anti theists and misotheists, having heard your ideas on what god is and knowing that all of the arguments of the god haters you have debated are not designed to falsify your conception of god, and that they can’t defeat your arguments, I want to be as specific as possible with understanding your conception of god and how your entire philosophical world is based on it.  Until one sees how you remain consistent and move from one topic to the next in your philosophical world people don’t realize how comprehensive and valid your philosophy is.  So, I wanted to focus on this one point until we exhaust the topic, Joxua Luxor’s god.  Please tell us about your god, Joxua. 

Joxua:  I am not sure where you want to start, I am a deist and we believe that god exists in some form a force, an emergent property, a psychological imperative, deists usually don’t believe that there is a physical god with a body.  I personally believe that god is the faculty of reason in man. 

Lynn:  Awesome.  What is reason? 

Joxua:  I see we are going down the linguistic approach to god, well this was a central concept for the Greeks and the definition is long and vague and sweeping.  Reason is associated in the Greek definition with speech, logic, deliberation, etc.


“In the English language and other modern European languages, “reason”, and related words, represent words which have always been used to translate Latin and classical Greek terms in the sense of their philosophical usage.

  • The original Greek term was “λόγος” logos, the root of the modern English word “logic” but also a word which could mean for example “language” or “explanation” or an “account” (of money handled).[6]

From my perspective though, reason is the ability to come to the correct answer, it is the ability to be in relationship correctly, to think correctly, to be non-delusional, in relationship with reality.  Reason is the ability of man to succeed and survive, to influence the world in order to create value for himself and others.

Lynn:  You peaked my curiosity, what is the linguistic argument for god? 

Joxua:  Well from my perspective, the word “god” is a thought tool, it is an empty set and it is defined by the user of the word.  If you look at the uses of the word in the bible it is obvious that they are using it to refer to different things.  Sometimes god is used to refer to will, or reality, or one’s first priority, or the source of all authority, some people worship the sun.  As with any tool the skill with which it is wielded determines the results it gets, so it is not the word or the definition of the word that matters it is how the person is using it.  If you sneezed and I said “god bless you.”  you would know that I was wishing you health, you probably wouldn’t ask me which god I am talking about before you said “thank you.”

Lynn:  What is the psychological argument for god? 
Joxua:  Aha!  You are remembering, lol. 
Lynn:  Yes, lol, I am starting to realize how useful your perspective is in debate.  It answers so many questions.  
Joxua:  The psychological argument for the existence of god is that words like god and the devil describe forces in the world, patterns that people see but they may not have the correct vocabulary for describing them, should they not then try to express themselves as best they can with the broad strokes of religious language? 
Furthermore, anti theists will argue that there is that which is and that which is not, and that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.  But then why is there a word for Bigfoot?  How do I know what you mean when you say Bigfoot?  Why is there legends from all over the world that describes the same creature?  I am not saying that Bigfoot exists, I am saying that the idea of Bigfoot exists, and Bigfoot exists in the mind of the person that believes Bigfoot exists, and it has meaning to that individual.  The anti theist extrapolating from the world of objective reality says Bigfoot doesn’t exist, but extrapolating from the mind of an intelligent object I say that it has a subtle existence in the realm of thought.  It is a symbol that has meaning for the person for whom it exists in their ontology, their soul.
Lynn:  Scathingly, brilliant.  Where did the concept of god originate? 
Joxua:  Well, back in the day everybody thought of themselves as a philosopher, they would argue about the nature of the universe and they would try to falsify each other through proofs and reasoned debate, from their perspective math and speech were identical, it is only in recent history that we separate letters from numbers.  If you remember the etymologies for logic and reason having to to with a flow of conversation this is the dilemma, they didn’t have television and texting and social networking sights, so they talked and they played this mental form of chess known as philosophy.   There were certain conundrums for example the law of infinite regress, which was a teleological problem, how did things get the way they are now?  and there are a series of causes, this caused this but what caused that?  and what caused that?  and what caused that?  so to solve this annoying problem they posited the prime mover unmoved which is essentially a form of god.  it is the first cause of everything in the universe but doesn’t actually touch the universe in any way.  Think of it this way, god existed prior to time in his whole state, and created reality and time by separating or expanding himself into everything thus creating time, but since time is an illusion god always, already exists in his whole, unseparated, unexpanded form out of time.  He can’t move and doesn’t move because any movement would be a negation of his goodness, so how does he work his will in the world of the physical universe?  Through his schechinah, or his shakti, or his holy spirit.  It was this sitting in contemplation unmoved that was thought to bring one into harmony with the prime mover unmoved which is why we have the ancient practices of zen meditation and yogic meditation, but more than this people tried to use the prime mover unmoved and the agency through which he does his will on the earth to inform the roles of men and women in the marriage arrangement.  This became the model for Samantabhadra, the marriage of the Brahmin and his wife in the form of shiva and shakti, and the chassidic marriage union in the form of Jehovah and the Shechinah, or even Jove and Juneau, or Ouranous and Gaia. 
Lynn:  Wow, astounding.  I think I remember you saying something about god being used to solve a philosophical problem for human rights or something? 
Joxua:  Yes, I believe that they used the concept of god for making a positive rational statement as to why you can’t work a slave to death.  Try if you will to make a positive, specific, falsifiable assertion using only evolution and science for why human beings should have inalienable rights?  It can’t be done.  You have to presuppose the existence of a god in order to explain why human beings should have inalienable rights.  YOU CANNOT FORCE A SLAVE TO WORK SEVEN DAYS A WEEK OR IT WILL PISS GOD OFF, AND WE WILL ALL BE CURSED, SO IF YOU DO IT YOU WILL BE SEVERELY PUNISHED BECAUSE IT IS A BAD UNSUSTAINABLE TREND, AND IF YOU TRY TO DO IT YOU ARE A SHITTY PERSON!  So then we have the first holy day, the first holiday, which is the vestige of the weekend. 
Lynn:  So how do you personally define god?  I am curious about that.
Joxua:  God is a sense of self that transcends the individual.  If a person recognizes the authority of reason and you prove to them that they are wrong then they change their behavior, or narrative, or thought processes to the correct one.  They perceive their true self as god in the form of reason and they participate with reason, they don’t have to be asked or coerced, they just do it immediately.  God presupposes relationship, participation, understanding, agreement, conversation, those are shared states.  Religion is how intelligent objects, humans are in relationship with one another, science is how the individual is in relationship with unintelligent objects, the universe, facts, forces, etc. it is two completely different paradigms and perspectives.  One governs how one is in relationship with epistemology and the other is how one is in relationship with people. 
Lynn:  What is the connection with Plato and religion? 
Joxua:  Plato is credited with being the source of religion in the west, although I am pretty sure that he was influenced by wandering philosophers from India.  His conception was that physical reality was epiphenomenal and the idea was more permanent, he was fond of saying something to the effect of: man is mortal but the idea of man is immortal, which is to say that the individual man dies but mankind survives. 
He had this allegory of the caves and he spoke of the forms and the shadow of the forms, and he was referring to these concepts of the incorruptible form of the good, which is to say that things have reasons for existing, they exist to serve a certain function and they sometimes degrade in the physical plain from their purpose their reason for existing, but a philosopher king can see the forms of the good in their uncorrupted form, in his minds eye, and he can realize how things have been corrupted from their original celestial ideation.  Most people only see the corrupted, warped, shadows of the forms reflected on the cave wall, but a free man, a philosopher king sees the original form of the good.  the uncorrupted form of god.
Lynn:  That reminds me of your philosophy on relationship, when you say that proper, equal, relationship is predetermined and pre-existent, because the rules that govern success in relationship are fixed and unchanging and incorruptible, and then you say that god only exists in proper equal relationship. 
Joxua:  Yes, it is because of Plato and some other influences are reasons that I posited that.  It also has to do with the alchemical marriage and the garden of Eden.  It also had to do with a meditation that I had when I was trying to define reasonable behavior and I realized that a reasonable person cannot be defined or recognized outside of a reasonable relationship.  A person can only be proven to be reasonable by their behavior in a reasonable relationship. 
Lynn:  The connections you make are mind-boggling.  You were saying something about how a person can manipulate themselves by what they choose to believe and
Joxua:  The point that i was trying to make is that if you look at the arguments of the anti theists the always argue against religiosity as a structure of authority in which a person or group of people is manipulating another person or group of people through a myth or a lie.  Their argument is not valid from the perspective that is religious but doesn’t subscribe to a religion and chooses to manipulate himself and control his own behavior through what he chooses to believe.  So from the perspective of a self-manipulation of a person with an internal god their arguments are invalid. 
Lynn:  And that is why you have your AMERICAN WISDOM TRADITION set up for exactly that kind of paradigm, no external structures of authority, just a meritocracy of reason, full of members that have their own philosophies.  Showing people how to think, not telling them what to think.  Not judging tacitly from analogy and trying to choose what is good for other people and what they should be happy with.  Amazing, it is amazing how many problems your system solves and how many questions it answers.  I think that is a good place to end this interview, as always thank you for your time. 
Joxua: you are welcome.
Joxua MourningStar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s