the saga of the mouth-breathers

or, why must you morons deny your IQ? this is a soapbox of mine, so bear with me.

i'm always bitching about something or other on campus. it's really not as huge of a disadvantage as it might sound like sometimes - for a start, i have free net access, and access to all the labs and equipment i could want is coming my way soon. it's safe, too.

its biggest disadvantage is the mouth-breathers who've somehow shoved their way onto the science courses here. my classes are full of them; you can actually sit in the back of something like elementary stats (for people like me who don't have any formal maths qualifications beyond age 16) and watch them not understanding it. they don't get functions. they don't get tangents. they don't get the Gauss distribution, for fuck's sake, they don't even know what a fucking distribution is, and yet they're still here, so they must be able to do at least something.

if you're thinking there's more to this, you'd be right.

it isn't limited to stats and maths, either. they're all over the fucking place, asking your ML tutors what a verb is again, demanding that the demonstrators in the guided Java labs give them "the answer", refusing to understand what a variable is. i've taken to sitting right at the back of logic lectures purely because these idiots sit at the front, collectively not getting it and adding to the emanated cloud of their stupidity by whispering to each other that this is all "just too hard".

so why are these tards still here? and why do i talk about them with this much vitriol?

because they've all passed. that stupidity is fake. for a start, the tests are easy in the first place, and you only need eight marks of 20 to pass most of them. for another thing, these people are not inherently knuckle-dragging, cheerleading tards. i don't flatter myself by thinking that this is the best they can do; they're university students, for fuck's sake. (you've got minds, haven't you?)

of course they have. this is my question. is it that i'm just not seeing something here, and they're actually expending all their effort on something else, meaning that these low barriers are necessary because CompSci classes are their chance to kick back and act dumb? (sure doesn't fucking look like it.) or is it that the low barriers are just not pushing them, to the extent that they don't even bother trying when they don't need to? is that why they act like this, just out of laziness?

i'm not an egotist. i don't honestly think they're that stupid; i know they could do anything i can do - same brain capacity, same structure, same human intelligence. we're all human, even if our abilities aren't precisely the same, and half are explicitly training to be computer scientists.

so why, why, don't these fucking morons use their brains? why spend more time reading Playboy than actually doing something worthwhile? why join in with this dumbfuck, hairspray-and-lipstick, football culture instead of realising what an adaptive, smart human being you are and using that intelligence to your advantage? in short, why deny your IQ?

i just don't get it.

(whose isolation from reality is, perhaps, affecting its mood and opinions just slightly; otherwise it is very sedated, and thus fine)


Lea said...

O.K. here I am, however I cannot say for how long. Read a few of your posts and you sound interesting, angry, and a little strange (which isn't entirely bad, so don't take it that way).
You are a computer scientist from what I can gather, a teacher at a university.
You have a comment on the right side of your screen, other atheist heathen jerks, so you're an atheist?
I'm not overly intelligent and probably can't give you a good argument that will satisfy you.
You answered on EM that you'd be extremely interested to discuss god. Only thing is I said the Almighty is not in this world because . . . And you turned it around and wrote that I said, god is no longer in this world. The June 24th discussion is still available if you care to reread it.

Lepht said...

ah, you're here! that's wonderful. not many people take me seriously when i offer them a chance to properly debate things with an atheist.

(you're mostly correct about me, by the way.)

yes, i am rather an angry person; it's not because of my work, though. it's to do with several internal organ disorders. thankyou for the compliment, though.

as for the statement - yes, i would assume that your saying God is not in this world indicated that there was a God in this world at some point, but it has left. if you didn't mean that God has left, what did you mean? that it's still here but doesn't do anything?


PS. if i thought you weren't intelligent enough to warrant talking with you, i'd have deleted your comment and moved on - don't put yourself down. all humans are equally intelligent on a fundamental level.

Lea said...

Yes, here. Have chores to do and have spent too much time at EM today, so just a quick comment for now.
I like atheist's, most of them. Until they turn ugly that is. I think atheist's are more evolved than religious people, it's just that religions are perfect for those that embrace them. Whatever "path" anyone is drawn to is the right one for them.

In a sincere effort to answer your question: God exists on a finer vibration, whereas we, exist on a coarser vibration. We are "dirty" in essence and need to clean up the consciousness in order to ascend back to that space/place where He resides.
God has appointed "overlords" if you will to test humans at every level of ascension.

Sounds strange no doubt, go ahead and delete it. It's difficult to explain.
This is not something I take lightly. Only after years of religious studies did I decide religions were wrong, then I gave up on God. After a few years the teaching I'm now embracing feel into my lap and I've not looked back since. It just makes too much sense to me.

Have you seen the DVD movie, The Gospel of Judas? Good stuff in it! You should watch it. There's now a book out too from National Geographic.

Lepht said...

you have my word i shan't resort to ad hominem; what use of that you see here is mostly me venting spleen rather than trying to make a logical argument. as for religions being ideal for some, i'd disagree in quite a few cases; Scientology, for instance, is not the right path for anyone who isn't David Miscavige, and there are many other more legitimate religions whose control over their members' lives is, in my opinion at least, inhuman. i grant that some people seem to need religion as a comfort or a form of security, but i debate its necessity for the human race...

i think i see. by vibration, though, what precisely do you mean? are we talking dimensionality here, or something more metaphysical? as in, in your view, would it ever be possible to physically document a god?

your idea of overlords is fascinating. priests, i assume, or teachers? please, elaborate.

oh, and there shan't be any deleting here. open freedom of opinion is one of the core tenets of my life; i only moderate the comments to remove spam, so you're free to say whatever the hell you want, so to speak.

i shall look it up. atb!


Lea said...

Lepht: After reading your reply and contemplating what to say I'd like to ask you a few questions first and then perhaps clearer answers will come your way.
What is your background with religion? Was it something forced on you by your parents? And what led you to be an atheist?

Here's something I typed up before I decided to ask you these questions. Will attempt to answer all your questions though.

Keep it clean and decent though, you never know who you're talking to. (that's not a threat either, you'll have to trust me until you think you know better).

It is very difficult to explain. And if you’re not really interested in God then there’s no use trying to share with you a different approach to God. Mankind has been buffooned, mislead, tricked and manipulated by the very people who got their hands on the scriptures early on. The story about God is inaccurate to say the least and if one is not able to see that or entertain an abstract and totally different approach to what God is then there is no hope in ever understanding. This is no joke to me, I take it very seriously even though you and other’s may believe I’m deluded or controlled or straight out a mental institution. All of which are not true. I’m not controlled by anyone or anything, let’s get that straight right now.
And yes, it will sound religious or metaphysical to you because that is all that most know in this world, that is all that people have heard. The truth hasn’t been told. The truth was told centuries ago but again man got its grubby little hands on the written material and screwed it up to the point where no one could possibly get the real message.

Lepht said...

PS. re. the Gospel of Judas, i have a pdf of the English translation of the original Coptic, the one discovered in the Codex Tchacos a while back - that's the National Geographic translation. it's a Gnostic text from about 200CE, banned by the orthodox churches. it's not fictional, but i was led to believe the movie was, and there's a novel by the same name about a fictional gospel. what gives? which one are you talking about?


Lepht said...

religion has always been a part of my environment; my parent was a mild believer, and their beliefs simply didn't wash with me. in that respect i've always been an atheist. spurred by curiosity, i sought the pros' arguments, so to speak: i have read the majority of the great philosophers, and this is what has led me to remain atheist: Occam's Razor applied to the cases they presented. by the age of seventeen i had reached a firm conclusion; only strong evidence will persuade me away from it, and that's why i still debate. as with everything, there's a chance i could be wrong.

of course i shall keep it clean; it's a debate, not a vent. i'll add as a caveat that i know a lot about IP technology - the protocols are younger than myself - so i think it's safe to assume we're both in a position to distrust the other, for now (though i must say, it's impossible for you to effectively threaten me.)

au contraire! i am very much interested in gods and believers. i want to know if i am mistaken, or failing that, i want to be reasonably certain; this is just as important to me as it is to you.

scriptural inaccuracy is one of my pet hobbies. i take it you're referring to the unfortunate loss of the rest of the Dead Sea scrolls, or their hypothetical source? i agree, the issue would be much less clouded if we had the original text. forgive me if you're talking about another holy book.

please, i don't think you're any of those things. atheists are not black-and-white thinking, tar-wielding extremists. my distaste for cults doesn't mean i believe all religions have this control; as i've said, if i thought you were a pawn or mad, it wouldn't be worth debating anything with you.

i don't reject things because they sound religious, i reject them because they make no sense: if you need to use religious or scientific terminology, do. i have a firm grasp of most theology and an entry-level understanding of quantum mechanics, so i'll be OK with it.

but please, clarify. how do you know the truth if the scriptures are now beyond understanding? are you saying some teachings have been preserved from the time before they were interfered with? if so, which, where are they now and when were they carbon-14 dated? when were they written and by whom, which scriptures are we talking about, and who did the interfering?

also, how do you know this if we cannot now understand the truth? i assume this is where your personal religion comes in. it seems there's a lot you still haven't fully explained here; am i wrong?

lastly, it might sometimes seem as if i'm attacking you in these debates; i assure you i'm not. my opponents are your arguments, not you, and if i lose, i'll accept them like any other fairly beaten scientist would. i'm confident the same applies to you.


Lea said...

There will be a lot that cannot be fully explained, yet some questions will be answered. The internet, let alone a blog is not the place for this. Someone would pick up on it and tear it to shreds and I won’t allow that to happen.

Basically we have a mind and we have a soul. Imagine please the human body and the mind as a large onion with layers and layers of conditions and circumstances. After those conditions and circumstances are removed, one by one through effort, at the center lies the soul. Finally able to be what It is, Soul. Soul has a mind of its own if you need it said in those terms. The mind is useful to a point but once soul regains its rightful position then the mind is controlled by the soul; whereas now, the soul is buried by the mind (layers of onion skin) and unrecognizable.

Start with your last question and work your way up. This is how I answered.

Religions were created by man and man alone. This is not a religion.

The teachings have been preserved through certain Teacher’s, those who have attained self, spirit and god realization while in the body. It’s only when the Teacher translates that the meaning gets misinterpreted and lost for awhile.

You see, carbon-14 dated is something your mind needs, not the soul. The mind wants physical, concrete proof that there is a god. The teachings live on through the historical Teacher’s. (It’s not eckankar either).

The scriptures must take on a Zen approach, without it being a Zen-thing, which isn‘t possible with the way they are presently written. Just take into consideration that the Catholic church got their hands on them and proceeded to change what were instructions to and experiences of the soul and turned them into a human experience, concrete instead of abstract.

You said I reject them because they make no sense, that’s the mind again, soul would never say that.

Cults suck, plain and simple. A cult is basically where the devotee worships the leader. What is worshipped in these spiritual teachings is the soul, the Inner Teacher. The outer teacher is loved but never worshipped. As the outer teacher constantly instructs one to go inside to find truth. Religions instruct one to search for truth outside, via a building, a book, a preacher, a symbol, … .

Rhetorical question, if scriptural inaccuracy is one of your pet hobbies what has it told you? Not referring to the Dead Sea scrolls.

Occam’s razor. Einstein said, When you get to simplicity that’s where the Truth will be found.
The mind is excellent at rationalizing everything and turning a simple truth inside out and distorting it.

Rhetorical question: Do you understand the Codex Tchacos? Was talking about the National Geographic DVD, there are some misrepresentations but that’s so the masses can begin to understand it.

Priests as overlords, no. Perhaps overlords wasn’t the right choice in words. A minor subordinate of the Divine, a power of sorts.
A blending and shifting from one state of consciousness to another all the while refining the consciousness much like a diamond is polished.

Vibration being clear of all the lower world entrapments, free from anger, lust, greed, vanity and attachment. Law of Vibrations: All creation in the lower worlds is carried out and manifested through harmonic vibrations. Rules all effects such as wave lengths, outflows, inflows, cause and effect, and the harmonics of the movement of sound.
Talking metaphysical. Physically document a god? That only serves the mind.

Emotional sensitivities and personal power struggles = spleen.

In closing, you do realize there will be a point when not all questions can be answered?

Living life is the experience through which we may come to know ourselves as soul. As we grow and unfold in spiritual wisdom and maturity, the question of life’s purpose takes on new meaning. Merely living to fulfill our physical, mental, and emotional needs becomes less and less important to us, and pride, honor, community standing, and prestige no loner fulfill us as they once did. As soul, we live in the physical world to experience life, and life, with all its joys and sufferings, is our teacher. The world provides the perfect stage for the experiences we need to discover our true selves. So the answer to the question, “How long are we willing to live under the predominating influences of mind, emotion, and ego?” is directly related to our experience as soul.

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday are busy days away from the computer.
Take some time and contemplate what is here. It’s only confusing because the mind is an expert at confusion, especially when one wants to know if they are right or wrong.
If you care to, ask my Teacher for clarity or an opportunity to learn more. The Teacher’s name is not important at this moment, He knows who I am.

Lepht said...

how can your theory ever be falsified or proven if you will not discuss it? surely the Net, humanity's greatest forum, is the perfect place to discuss things of high import?

dualism...? i don't know of any repeatable evidence for souls. the seemingly most reliable theories appear to indicate that what we percieve as our selves is in fact the synthesis of all the brain's functions; i'm here to ask the "mind"'s questions, as you put it, because i need evidence before i can believe in anything more than matter. i have to tell you i will keep asking for proof, because without that, there's honestly no reason to believe.

religious belief, then, or just belief, or faith. i wasn't trying to insinuate that you were a cultist, just wondering what precisely these teachings comprise; imho teachings about faith are equivocal to religion in that they're not verifiable.

abstract, you say. that's interesting. abstract in relation to what? are these teachings an abstraction of human experience, then? i would be interested to see how and by whom this was accomplished.

no: a cult is a religion whose leader is charismatic, dogmatic and totalitarian, and whose members are segregated from the rest of society and put under the leader's control. some worship YHWH Elohim, some Xenu, some the human condition. they are diverse, and poisonous. they can be just as introspective as you: take the TMers, for instance, or the closed ashrams of any god-man in India.

my study of ancient scriptures has taught me a lot about the human imagination, our capacity for domination and control, and our pervasiveness in the face of suffering. more than anything it taught me that we're adept at decieving ourselves, and at reasoning out the irrational.

Occam’s razor is not about simplicity; i do not seek that. i seek truth, without unnecessary esoterica if possible, and that is what the razor is for.

i do understand the Codex Tchacos, yeah, as can anyone. Gnostic scripture, as i said. what's in it which reflects your teachings?

yes, but what is a vibration? sound harmonics don't explain what you meant, and i must add that what rules wavelengths etc. is provably the physical world. you speak of vibrations as if they were somewhere humans can live. i work with what i can document, you see; my mind isn't infallible, so i need verification before i'll believe something huge. or something small, for that matter. on that note, i don't believe in unanswerable questions - that's why i'm here, of course.

i gotta say, you're right in that what you've written is very confusing. however, i'm not sure that's my fault entirely: for clarity's sake, can you define your terms? "vibration", "god", "consciousness" and "soul" would be good, to start, also "teacher", as you seem to be in part using this to refer to a living being and in part to refer to life. thanks.


PS. i can't ask your teacher anything until you tell me at least whether it's a person, a book or an idea; besides, i am not looking for teachers, only truth.

Post a Comment

[pls no ask about the vodka. debate is always welcome. remember, Tramadol fucks you up]