Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW?
This topic contains 96 replies, has 40 voices, and was last updated by 
Elgos_Grim 4 years, 7 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
yes you can, the term atheist is one who doesn’t believe in a god, but different religions have different gods they believe is the true god and the others are false, so to that person the other religious believers are atheists. so one way or another you will always be an atheist by default. so its nothing to worry about.
I am voting to close this thread unless somebody wants to address the thread question directly. I have covered why it is a legitimate question already.
Rainyday Kid:
Evolution has nothing to do with being and Atheist. Religions accept evolution as possible.
In regards to the flood, in antiquity the “world” was considered the area “inhabited” by people. Cultures across the world regardless of religion admit to a “great flood”.
icering87: Being called and calling oneself are two separate things.
Well, in that case, the flood makes sense. It’s just I’m used to the literal creationist entire world flooded argument. But, you would have to define “antiquity”, as humans have existed for at least a couple hundred thousand years, more if you are more general with the Homo lineage.
Well, in that case, the flood makes sense. It’s just I’m used to the literal creationist entire world flooded argument.
But, you would have to define “antiquity”,
Any period before the middle ages.
as humans have existed for at least a couple hundred thousand years, more if you are more general with the Homo lineage.
Actually there is very little to no proof as to how old human beings are. It is all hearsay on both sides. The radiometric carbon dating is a flawed concept of measurement because for the formula to work certain variables have to be guessed or pulled out of thin air. It is very unscientific.
Atheist MGTOW representing. You’re seriously over-complicating things. I don’t see how lacking belief in a deity has ANYTHING to do with self-preservation. You expect us to debate, but frankly, your argument isn’t even worth the effort. It’s an argument completely devoid of logic, much like the classic: “You can’t be moral if you’re an atheist.”
I don’t see how lacking belief in a deity has ANYTHING to do with self-preservation.
You misunderstood. Self sovereignty, not self preservation. The control over one’s own actions through free will. The “argument” you do not want to be apart of, yet still posted in, is about free will not self preservation. If you read anything you would have understood this.
your argument isn’t even worth the effort.
Actually I do not have an argument as much as I am asking questions to see how much atheists understand their own philosophy. And so far none of them do, nor have a rational reason why they claim to “be true”.
Stating “I’m right” without a reason does not go well around here. And for the record it is possible for an atheist to commit a moral act in one respect but not in another, but this thread is not about morality it is about free will.
You do have a point though about me overcomplicating things. How can I expect an athiest to believe in an absolute truth when he does not believe in a diety/dieties. My fault is arguing with people who don’t believe in anything.
It can’t actually be proven you are acting out of free will in anything you do. Even if you believe in a higher power or not, or being a MGTOW or not, are you acting out of free will? Can’t be proven. Your question can’t be answered.
I could choose to go to work, or choose not to. Is it free will? Dunno. Can’t prove it. But I need money to buy food otherwise if you don’t eat you will die. So I choose to work for the money. I could grow the food I guess, but it’s still work. Did I need to believe in a higher power to make that decision? No. Did I need to be an Atheist/Agnostic to make that decision? No. But I can’t prove it is free will either way.
It’s the same if you apply that in anything you do in life. Do I live with a woman? Do I get married? Do I have sex? Do I open doors for women? Do I want kids? Should I exercise? Should I die? Should I be mean or nice?
If you want to ask your Church or pray to your Deity of your faith for guidance on these decisions, cool, go ahead.
If you don’t feel the need to and can make the decision, well that’s cool too, go ahead.
Same with the existence of a or God/Deity. Can’t be proven either way. I could choose to believe in a higher power, or not.
Also God means so many different things to so many people God can’t even be defined. Some people think there is only one, some think there are many. Some think it’s inside each of us, others think he is the big man/woman/whatever in the sky. Some think he is in deep space somewhere and has forgotten about us, or is just busy somewhere else – who knows, the universe is a big place.
Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW? Sure. Is it possible to be thiest and MGTOW? Sure.
Personally, I think the Church are mostly men that dress up like women and try and tell everyone what to do and how to behave, and manipulate man, and don’t hold always themselves to the same standards. Sounds a lot like women really doesn’t it?
It can’t actually be proven you are acting out of free will in anything you do. Even if you believe in a higher power or not, or being a MGTOW or not, are you acting out of free will? Can’t be proven. Your question can’t be answered.
In some respects in can be answered in other respects it can’t. As to whether free will exists or not, the question basically revolved around the concept of whether atheism (assuming it is true) can result in free will. I cannot prove a negative but I also cannot find a reason why there would be free will either.
I could choose to go to work, or choose not to. Is it free will? Dunno. Can’t prove it.
In your example you use the word “choose” that is an act of free will. As to why you choose is another argument. Even if your “choices” were guided in one manner or another, they are still choices nonetheless.
But I need money to buy food otherwise if you don’t eat you will die. So I choose to work for the money. I could grow the food I guess, but it’s still work.
Some things in life, such as work, are not optional but rather part of our nature (such as work). The fact that somethings can be chosen and others cannot does not eliminate free will. In regards to “choosing” to work for money or for food, that is still a choice and choice requires free will.
Did I need to believe in a higher power to make that decision? No. Did I need to be an Atheist/Agnostic to make that decision? No. But I can’t prove it is free will either way.
In regards to a belief, a belief is basically one stating in one respect or another “this is how existence works”. It is a viewpoint along with an explanation. The athiest philosophy of existence claims to solely rely on logic/reason/science however, as I have pointed out multiple times it is contradictory and the argument is weak both in opinion and fact.
Do you need to believe in one or another in order to make a decision. You are correct in that the answer is no. However, it does not give validation to the fact the atheism or a particular religion are correct. The ability to make a decision only proves free will. It does not mean either believer is correct in thier beliefs.
Same with the existence of a or God/Deity. Can’t be proven either way. I could choose to believe in a higher power, or not.
Belief is the ultimate act of free will because it can either use or not use reason/logic/emotions/etc. and still exist. You can choose yes, but because truth is good the act of belief is necessary in many regards because it in itself is pure free will and that in itself is good. What is absolutely good is absolutely true. So yes it cannot be proven either way, but does any good thing really need proof? Or does it need belief? At the end of the day belief justifies the man, it does not justify the truth. Even proof itself is subject to interpretation and interpretation is subject to belief.
Also God means so many different things to so many people God can’t even be defined.
To define implies a limit, so yes God cannot be defined. However the term “God” regardless of the number, or lack, or meanings still has meaning nonetheless because it acknowledges.
Some people think there is only one, some think there are many. Some think it’s inside each of us, others think he is the big man/woman/whatever in the sky. Some think he is in deep space somewhere and has forgotten about us, or is just busy somewhere else – who knows, the universe is a big place.
Looking for God and looking at what people think are two seperate things. Can any solid truth be found in something as maleable as man’s will? Even if everyone is wrong, as those given in the example, it would require you to be right. So some things can be right. Absolute truth can be reflected in the natural world, without the natural world being absolutely true. We come to know truth through reflection (when the word is both used as a noun and/or as a gerund.)
Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW? Sure. Is it possible to be thiest and MGTOW? Sure.
The athiest explanation of the universe cannot logically permit free will. (I have covered this earlier in the thread, and at the beginning)
They cannot even claim free will is an illusion, because the nature of an illusion is to decieve. To decieve is to guide a choice in one respect or another. And that implies a choice to begin with.
Can an athiest continuing “believing” he is correct despite the evidence? Yes, because we have free will. But that does not mean he is a rational man, even though he claims to be. However atheism cannot be taken seriously because it is irrational. Those who claim to find the truth only through “doubt” are fundamentally reactionary in their philosophy. Doubt is not a method of find truth but rather a reaction to it. One cannot seek doubt, but they can react with it.
Only a fool says in his heart there is no God.
The religious/theistic/diestic look at the universe allows free will as a possibility, but this thread is about athiesm so I will not go any further.
From that other thread
I am glad you can see the importance of the “premise” in an argument and/or philosophy. You don’t know how many debates I have had simply because of the premise one started their argument with. What a lot of “rational” people don’t understand is that the “premise” to their argument is an act of faith rather than reason. A lot of unintelligent men cannot discern the difference.
Faith is believing something without evidence. When evidence reliably and repeatedly demonstrates that a premise is true, are we still required to take it on faith?
Disclaimer I haven’t read more than the OP. The answer at first blush is easily yes. MGTOW in my opinion is unrelated to religiosity. As a matter of fact, I would claim that one cannot be truly MGTOW and truly believe in a religion. All religions are inherently ANTI-MGTOW. I can explain why I think this is if you’d like.
But to get to the implications of your post. I believe that your viewpoint is too simplistic/dualistic. I believe that this is what traps all of our modern philosophical debates. Either I’m an atheist or a theist. Which by extension translates to
Either atheism is right or (some form of) theism is. Well, herein lies the problem. Both atheism and theism are defined by other people so right off the bat you have to engage in someone else’s world view. In my opinion, if you realize that niether theism nor atheism are true, then you can realize that causality doesn’t come from particles which are much too large and far along the chain of causality to be at the root of it.
Himeo:
Faith is believing something without evidence.
Belief does not need evidence, but it is not against it either.
When evidence reliably and repeatedly demonstrates that a premise is true, are we still required to take it on faith?
Athiesm is a lack of belief in a Diety/Dieties. It is an absence of faith in one respect and one cannot prove a negative. However, people believe regardless simply because belief is natural to the human condition. So the logical conclusion for an atheist would be to believe the natural world as the only existence. Which leads me to the beginning thread question in regards to free will and matter. The thread question is about free will in a material only universe, everyone seems to forget that. It is a response to the atheist view of existence.
Getting to your actually question, evidence is subject to interpretation. Interpretation is subject to acceptance or denial in many different respects.
The Truth:
MGTOW if viewed as a reactionary movement cannot be religious or irreligious. It is a movement. I am here as a response to a corrupt society. I am not the only one.
If viewed otherwise it could be viewed as a pseudo religion in that it deifies personal sovereignty through dogmatic beliefs. MGTOW as a philosophy actually has many similarities to occult philosophies.
I believe that your viewpoint is too simplistic/dualistic.
If we argue about dualism we can argue either that it exists of doesn’t exist and by proof of the existence of the argument alone we are still stuck with some form of dualism. Some matters are simply dualistic in that they either exist or they do not. Truth can be viewed in grades, but either truth exists or it does not which leads to a duelist argument. Philosophically gradiation and deulism can coexist at the same time if done in different respects.
Either atheism is right or (some form of) theism is. Well, herein lies the problem. Both atheism and theism are defined by other people so right off the bat you have to engage in someone else’s world view.
Observing a Diety/Dieties and defining them are two separate issues. To define implies control over a true, making it fundamentally subjective.
If truth is determined faulty simply because people observe and/or define it than fundamentally one cannot hold their own view point as correct either. This leaves you with literally no argument because you cannot claim to be correct.
Himeo: Faith is believing something without evidence. Belief does not need evidence, but it is not against it either.
Sure, but that didn’t address my question.
To clarify, my question wasn’t about belief it was about faith.
Faith is believing something without evidence.
[Insert word here] is believing something with evidence. Maybe that word is knowledge. I don’t know. 😀
Stepping away from Atheism and this thread to focus on your quote:
I am glad you can see the importance of the “premise” in an argument and/or philosophy. You don’t know how many debates I have had simply because of the premise one started their argument with. What a lot of “rational” people don’t understand is that the “premise” to their argument is an act of faith rather than reason. A lot of unintelligent men cannot discern the difference.
When evidence reliably and repeatedly demonstrates that a premise is true, are we still required to take it on faith?
I assume of course you accept materialism. I have no interest in Solipsism so please make it clear if that’s what you mean when you say:
Getting to your actually question, evidence is subject to interpretation. Interpretation is subject to acceptance or denial in many different respects.
As regards to your original question in the thread, I already answered “no”. In a universe without free will one cannot “Go Their Own Way.”
Enough of this bickering, are we a bunch of ladies here? f~~~ no!
Religion is almost completely unrelated to MGTOW; the only relation that it has to do with it is weather or not your are apart of the _____ religion because you decided to be or because someone else did.
That is it.
End of story; the topic is, “Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW?,” not “You have to be Christian or else your not MGTOW”
If anybody want’s to use MGTOW as a religious tool of any kind, just GTFO, i sure as hell don’t want you here and i’m sure i’m not the only one.
My Goal: To Leave Society.
hotnoob: i just replied to your post RE women showing up at mgtow. i just read yours and responded as well. please come by the thread and give your opinion when you get a chance. Thanks! ListenUp!
Himeo:
<span style=”font-family: Thread-00001d5c-Id-00000022;”>Faith is believing </span>
You said faith is believing so naturally I took it from there.
When evidence reliably and repeatedly demonstrates that a premise is true, are we still required to take it on faith?
Yes in one respect. No in another. Yes if something is proven true than faith is not required in one aspect because we can acknowledge through observation. No in a different respect in that even though we can understand somethings we cannot understand all things or even somethings to their fullest degree. Faith is required in another respect because of this. Faith is a natural part of human nature and to deny that is to deny humanity itself.
I assume of course you accept materialism. I have no interest in Solipsism so please make it clear if that’s what you mean when you say:
I think this is the misunderstanding. I was arguing for atheism in an attempt to reveal its logical end, which is materialism in many respects. I can argue for something without believing in it. I think this is were I might of caused a misinterpretation.
As regards to your original question in the thread, I already answered “no”. In a universe without free will one cannot “Go Their Own Way.”
That’s what I said, we actually agree more than disagree. I think our issue is a misunderstanding in dialogue.
Hotnoob:
Enough of this bickering, are we a bunch of ladies here?
Actually we are having a philosophical/academic discussion. In reality this thread should be moved to the philosophy section. There are probably over a thousand threads on this forum. No one forced you here. If you are uncomfortable, then leave.
End of story; the topic is, “Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW?,” not “You have to be Christian or else your not MGTOW”
Actually I was not arguing for any religion in particular if you reread the thread. One can believe in a Diety/Dieties without having to form a crusade or burn people at the stake. The thread question has to do with free will in a material only universe and how atheist MGTOW relate their philosophical views with their understanding of reality. I already said this. I said before that this is a philosophical/academic discussion and no one has to join. Because it is and academic debate it is expected people disagree.
I said this in the intro and even said it would probably be heated on both sides. That is so the guys who do not like heated discussions don’t have to join it.
If you want a circle jerk, than this is probably the wrong thread for you. Listen up might help you with that. He enjoys a good joke.
If anybody want’s to use MGTOW as a religious tool of any kind, just GTFO, i sure as hell don’t want you here and i’m sure i’m not the only one.
This question, that I posted, is regarded as a metaphysical one. Philosophers/Men of Faith/Physicists/etc are meant to join. One of the guys argued from the point of a physicist, others faith, others philosophy, etc. None of this is limited to one perspective.
I know you guys view me as arrogant and lack “social” skills. But it is well earned. If you want to insult me I think the best would be an “intellectual dick” or even “asshole”. “Fool” can be applied too, if you are creative enough with its usage. But these are just suggestions, we can have a separate thread and I can help you guys figure it out.
Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW?
Any man regardless of religious belief or lack thereof can go his own way.
Your rights to your opinion will not be challenged by me. But your right to my opinion will be challenged.
You have no right to give my dark matter and brain particles more authority than they should have.
My particles belong to me period. I claim ownership of them and control of them. There is your answer, Jon doe. If you have evidence otherwise present it. I will not submit my sovereignty to any dark matter unless you can prove it controls me. Until proof is provided the proverbial ball is in your court.
I Used my freewill to claim ownership of my dark matter by fiat declaration.
I agree with dybbuk’s assessment of having this discussion who wrote: That’s because this topic is taking something super simple and turning it into something complicated, which strikes people as a headache and a waste of time. “Going your own way” becomes a meaningless phrase if the “your own” part is subject to an endless list of caveats based upon tortuous mental masturbation.
Question answered and Jon doe still has no idea what my religious beliefs are.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
My particles belong to me period. I claim ownership of them and control of them. There is your answer, Jon doe. If you have evidence otherwise present it. I will not submit my sovereignty to any dark matter unless you can prove it controls me. Until proof is provided the proverbial ball is in your court
A computer can make the same statement. Just replace the silicon with organic material. It is no evidence of free will to say one has it nor to declare it.
My point is that, and I will restate it, is that in a material only form of existence free will cannot be present without being subject to the laws of physics in one manner or another. I should have made the thread question simpler: Can free will exist in a material only universe.
Everyone is blowing this out of proportion, as “being too complicated” when it is a very simple academic/philosophical discussion.
My law says its true until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me. Instead of providing proof that I have no free will. You try and change the question by writing this:
” I should have made the thread question simpler: Can free will exist in a material only universe.”
That does not simplify anything but instead complicates thing more. Are we talking Religious belief or are we talking theory of physics? I will acknowledge some ignorance of the second subject. There is no shame in ignorance.
I am well versed in the law as it pertains to my right to freedom of religion, and if I reserve, invoke and exercise my rights it is an act of free will. The claim of which does in fact stand true. No proof is needed. The burden then falls on anyone who can prove otherwise.This is the common law of the land here in USA.
How you should have phrased the question is not relevant. Your stuck with the question as is. Your attempt to change the question is akin to the way a lawyer thinks. Its underhanded and sneaky. I consider the original question as a personal matter of opinion anyways, no winner or loser. If your taking it personal that’s your problem, not mine.
If you were a lawyer you would conduct yourself by these guidelines as I believe its in your nature to do so.
SECRET CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Tongue in cheek but pathetically true
A.B.A.
1. short for American Bar Association or 2. Arrogant Bulls~~~ Artists.
Abuse Of Discretion:
1. original meaning, now rarely used, was to describe a faulty process of reasoning when performing a discretionary act 2. now term means whatever suits our fancy 3. synonymous with term “Black Hole”, i.e. we know its out there but damn if we know what it is.
Ad Hoc Decision:
1. Whatever 2. A screwing so fine tuned it can target a specific hemorrhoid
Aerobic Activity:
1. the healthy practice of going to and returning from back room meetings.
Appeal:
1. that which makes injustice impossible 2. the process where time and financial cost to litigants must never be taken into consideration 3. the process which allows us to do as we damn well please 4. that which covers our ass.
Arrogance or Arrogant:
1. Judicial self esteem 2. term used by the unenlightened to describe Judges and Lawyers who are confident and comfortable in their position 3. term applied to those with power to decide right from wrong without regarding right from wrong.
Attorney:
1. business partners 2. club members.
Back Room Meetings:
1. term synonymous with “open court.”
Bulls~~~:
term commonly used by the unintelligent, uneducated or unenlightened when describing misunderstood Legal Analysis and Judicial Determinations.
Civil Rights:
1. formerly things like right to life, liberty and property 2. more recently things like the right not to be pinched in the ass and the right to marry insects.
Constitution:
1. common cause of rectal pain in the Judiciary 2. great document for the resourceful and effective 3. should be condensed for the unresourceful and ineffective.
Common Sense:
1. form of logic reserved for common people 2. objectively unverifiable form of logic 3. form of logic that minimizes or eliminates the highly specialized hair splitting , perpetuitous analysis that helps us appear more intelligent than the masses 4. form of logic non expert in nature.
Contempt:
1. due process for the assertive or uncooperative 2. the means by which the Judiciary molds attorneys.
Discretion:
1. judicial free will 2. a great “catch all” to justify whatever it is we do. 3. former meaning dealt with judicial exercise in areas where there was no clear law or hard and fast rules. Today discretion is omnipresent.
Discretionary Act:
1. the exercise of judicial free will unencumbered by law, reason, logic or common sense.
Due Process:
1. perpetuity 2. perpetual motions 3. legal and procedural minutiae 4. selective adherence to the Secret Canons Of Judicial Conduct 5. process which is not paid for. 6. First, decide how we want the case to go. Second, formulate a legal logic to support our decision. Third, manipulate, dissect or eliminate the facts and evidence to support our decision. Then the rubber stamp doctrine of “judicial discretion” will prevent most decisions from being overturned!
End Result:
1. one of the things not to be considered [others being race, color, sex etc.] when rendering legal decisions except when professional embarrassment, media attention or upsetting the status quo will result 2. that which can negatively affect objectivity.
Evidence:
1. matters we choose to accept as relevant utilizing a standard which may be disconnected from objective reality 2. matters that allow us to direct the course of a trial 3. sometimes called judicial slight of hand.
Ex parte:
1. rule prohibiting inappropriate contact or discussion with a party other than a Pro Se litigant or the unresourceful and ineffective.
Experts:
1. one of the best tools devised to deny jury trials to the unresourceful and ineffective 2. those who organize or disorganize, identify or misidentify and label or mislabel particulate matter into a truth or evidence for recognition by and consideration of the trier of fact 3. people whose job is similar to the replicators on Star Trek.
Fair:
1. term means what the Judiciary says it means 2. adherence to the Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct 3. a festival or gathering.
Fair and Just:
1. term describing a pipedream or fantasy 2. term describing strict adherence to the Secret Canons Of Judicial Conduct 3. common names for twins in the Netherlands.
Free Will:
1. judicial discretion
Honorable:
1. worthy of honor because of position instead of performance.
Impartial:
1. unbiased, objective…whatever the hell that means.
Income Taxes:
1. the best damn hoax in history 2. Washington KY jelly.
Independence Of The Judiciary:
1. Judicial rationale to justify Judicial Determinations 2. effective argument to cover up mistakes 3. that which assists Judicial self esteem.
Injustice:
1. justice for the unenlightened 2. term used by those not understanding Justice 3. synonymous with term “Judicial Efficiency”.
IRS:
1. the second best damn hoax in history [see Income Taxes] 2. the organization Congress pretends to desire changing 3. the biggest bluffers and liars in the Country 4. the congressional ATM 5. organization which forcefully collects voluntary income taxes. 6. sometimes synonymous with organized crime.
Judicial Determinations:
1. legal decisions which may or may not be based on the arguments raised 2. decisions made after every possible method of delay has been utilized 3. usually synonymous with Status Quo.
Judicial Discretion:
1. See Discretion, Discretionary Act and Free Will.
Judicial Efficiency:
1. Fancy word for ‘railroading’ 2. Synonymous with term Injustice and phrase “Screw, we don’t have time for you.” 2. that which takes priority over full and fair justice.
Judicial Misconduct:
1. term commonly misapplied to a Judge’s attempts at efficiency. 2. mythical, non existent conduct 3. a paradox.
Judiciary:
1. group of Judges forever more impressed with themselves than they should be 2. group of Judges highly respected and regarded regardless of their production or quality of work. 3. synonymous with Royalty.
Jury Nullification:
1. formerly power of informed jury to vote their conscience 2. term now considered as offensive and as unmentionable as f~~~~~, n~~~~~, jew, bitch etc.
Just:
1. abbreviation for the name Justin or Justina.
Justice:
1. the precious and proper administration of laws effectuated by legal analysis and the Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct; said administration being unaffected by the end result, even when the end result is the improper administration of laws. 2. more of a privilege than a right. 3. due to the value of Justice, every possible option of denial should be considered so it never is dispensed casually, freely or indiscriminately.
Justice For All:
1. “all” in this phrase means those who are left standing after judiciously applying the Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct and legal analysis to their case 2. phrase really means the possibility of Justice for all provided the person desiring Justice knows or can pay for skills effective in the manipulation of legal and procedural minutiae and the Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct.
Law:
1. the vast selection of written and unwritten ingredients which we recipe to make Judicial Decisions. 2. analogous to the Bible in that it can be made to say whatever one desires 3. impossible to break provided a Judicial Decision incorporates it in some form or fashion. 4. synonymous with the terms “Silly Putty” and “Whatever” 5. written word with the power to create illusion of equal and fair justice for all.
Legal Analysis or Legal Reasoning:
1. thinking usually independent of and unaffected by objective reality 2. the process of using legal terms to alter, create or deny reality 3. process used to maintain or assist the status quo, power structure and the resourceful and effective 4. a thought process commonly raised to the level of stupidity while maintaining the appearance of brilliance 5. sometimes called inverted intelligence.
Limine, Motion in:
1. selection or elimination of evidence for the purpose of directing a trial in the direction we feel it should go 2. legal tool which can never result in injustice due to the right of appeal.
Logic:
1. the word “cigol” spelled backwards 2. term meaning Logistically Organized Gobbledygook Intended to Confuse 3. form of mental masturbation 4. a great video arcade game.
Militias:
1. fruitcakes under the delusion the Constitution, Bill Of Rights and the principles this Country were founded on are still in full effect. 2. terrible followers who won’t listen and ask too many questions.
No one or Noone:
The secret last name of all Judges so they won’t be lying when they say, “No one is above the law.”
No one is above the law:
Phrase is analogous to “Santa or the Easter Bunny is coming.” 2. Phrase which results in roars of laughter amongst drunken Judges and Lawyers.
Objective Reality:
1. that which is unwritten and usually not incorporated into Legal Analysis or Judicial Decisions 2. that which can not be verified 3. that which requires expert testimony for verification and identification.
Objectivity:
1. whatever is the preferred viewpoint of the judiciary 2. opposite of “reality based”
Open Court:
1. a court having a door that opens and closes without obstruction.
Plea Bargain:
1. an effective tool to avoid those damn juries and hide prosecutorial misconduct, overcharging and abuse. 3. justice for the unresourceful and ineffective
Poor:
1. the Unresourceful and Ineffective 2. those that shouldn’t ask for what they can’t pay for.
Pro Se Litigant:
1. litigants with invalid arguments 2. bastards who forget we are trying to run a business here 3. those who don’t understand what “members only” means 4. those unfamiliar with their place in this world.
Prosecutorial Misconduct:
1. term commonly misapplied to Prosecutor’s attempts at efficiency. 2. mythical, non existent conduct 3. a paradox.
Relevance or Relevant:
1. that which suits the fancy of the Judiciary 2. synonymous with “Judicial personal opinion”.
Res Judicata:
1. legal term describing revolving door used to give the bum’s rush out the courtroom to the Unresourceful and Ineffective 2. Latin term meaning, “we made up our mind before you came in and this procedure covers our ass.” 3. legal doctrine used to deny the Unresourceful and Ineffective a full and fair hearing on the merits 4. legal tool used to create the illusion of due process.
Resourceful and Effective:
1. terms used to describe those having the means or ability to command our attention [i.e. wealthy, connected to a power structure, able to attract media attention] 2. those effective in the manipulation of legal and procedural minutiae and the Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct 3. those whose financial, political or social status and resources are incorporated into our Legal Analysis 4. can be used to describe the rich Compare to Unresourceful and Ineffective
Right:
1. A turn one can take at some red lights. 2. our spin on the events before us 3. Judicial Determinations 4. regulated privileges or favors granted by Government.
Right To Bear Arms:
1. regulated privilege granted by the Constitution giving Citizens the right to wear tank tops, athletic T-shirts, sleeveless blouses or in some form or fashion leave their arms exposed in public.
Rights:
1. The turns one can take at some red lights. 2. regulated privileges 3. favors of Government.
Royalty:
1. not used, but in principle refers to the Judiciary or the resourceful and effective
Sovereign:
1. outdated term commonly used by anti-government groups. 2. threatening term which is best avoided 3. vague, undefined.
Status Quo:
1. golf on Thursdays 2. Judicial “comfort zone” 3. synonymous with term “loyalty.”
Truth:
1. whatever experts say for pay 2. whatever the Judiciary decides through the use of Legal Analysis.
Unenlightened:
1. litigants unknowledgeable regarding our position and power.
Unresourceful and Ineffective:
1. terms used to describe those not having the means or ability to command our attention [i.e. the poor, unconnected to a power structure, unable to attract media attention] 2. those not effective in the manipulation of legal and procedural minutiae and the Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct 3. those whose financial, political or social status or resources is not incorporated into our Legal Analysis unless said status commands influence. 4. can be used to describe the Poor 5. Compare to Resourceful and Effective
Voice Of The People
1. who the hell knows what this means, all voices sound different to us.
Will Of The People
1. legally unsound, everyone should make out their own will.I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
I personally will not participate in any of this because I have the authority to use my free will and go my own way, but it is a much more noble goal.
We should all be trying to create a better world with updated human laws so that humanity and wilderness plants and animals can all justly survive into the foreseeable future. All theoretical physicists should quickly retrain and participate in constructive ways to build a new and better world.
Historically religious leaders wowed their flock with stories about miracles and stories about super human events. Today bulls~~~ theoretical physicists are wowing their gullible flock with stories about teleportation, worm holes, parallel universes, multiple bubble universes, string theory, black holes, dark matter, anti-matter, existence of something unique at two or more points at once, etc. Don’t listen to and try to believe all that irrelevant, untrue, unprovable nonsense that has no real value in the real world that you are now living in! Theoretical physicists have replaced the religious prophets of old and their supernatural claims or theories are just as outrageous and not to be believed! No homo-sapien will ever be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent! Which non insane human really thinks that they can be all knowing, exist everywhere, and be all powerful???
Come on, do you really believe the universe or universes could have originated from a single point in space which is infinitely small and has no volume? That is what the big bang theory assumes. Ridiculous, isn’t it?
A computer can do nothing until I use my free will and choose to Push the power button on. If I choose to leave it off It is powerless. common sense
My statements are only subject to the laws of my free will to make said statements.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
We had a previous and ongoing thread about Christianity and MGTOW which is interesting. To be fair and open minded I figured I would ask my atheist friends this: Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW? From my personal observation in many aspects it isn’t. According to atheism “this is it” and in that aspect all things are material in one way or another. This includes the brain and all thoughts and impulses attributed to it. If this is the case than one’s view of “personal sovereignty” is directly caused and affected by particles more or less. This in turn leaves the “particle” to be the sole decider and not the individual himself. However, for those of you who will state “some particles are different than others thereby superior” would still be submitting to the will of the “particle” or “dark matter.” Debate. (I would be more offended if people did not get offended, so please no holds bar. However, this is a debate among friends, so no one is better than the other at the end of it.).
To address this post, one must define “MGTOW”. The definition I will be using for these purposes is Level 2 or higher as defined here – http://theobserverwatches.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-four-levels-of-mgtow-betas-shrug.html
There is nothing therein that is contingent upon the existence of a deity.
Therefore, I conclude it is possible for one to be MGTOW and atheist, and furthermore that atheism is more conducive to MGTOW than theism.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
