God does exist — my flawed logic told me so.

June 5, 2006 D. H. McKee

This is a pretty funny site, adapted from a forum on the Internet Infidels.
I think this is my favourite:
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, aka ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can’t be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2 Responses to “God does exist — my flawed logic told me so.”

Robert Landbeck
19 years ago

Battle lines are forming on the web for a confrontation so contentious, any clash of civilizations will have to wait its turn. On one side, a single manuscript by an unknown author titled: The Final Freedoms, against all the gravitas religious tradition can bring to bear.
This, the first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the moral teachings of Jesus the Christ focuses specifically on marriage and human sexuality, challenging all natural law theory and theology. At stake is the credibility of several thousand years of religious history.
What at first appears an utterly preposterous challenge to the religious status quo rewards those who persevere in closer examination, for it carries within its pages an idea both subtle and sublime, what the combined intellectual histories of religion and science have either ignored or dismissed as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave tradition staring into the abyss and humble the heights of scientific speculation. For if this material is confirmed, and there appears to be both the means and a concerted effort to authenticate it, the greatest unresolved questions of human existence may finally have been untangled.
Published only on the web and distributed freely as a pdf download, made up of twenty nine chapters and three hundred and seventy pages, this new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.
Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds greatest poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness, human ethical perception, and providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.
Also called the Gospel of the Resurrection, this new interpretation reveals the moral foundation of all human thought and conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage [Hieros gamos] between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality and offers possibilities for peace, health, healing and cultural development political process has yet to dream of.
This new teaching is pure ethics. It requires no institutional framework, no churches, no priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, costs nothing and â..worshipâ.. requires only conviction, faith and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new moral imperative.
As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim to knowledge that meets both the ideal and criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching enters the public domain as a reality entirely new to human history and available for anyone to test, discover and confirm for themselves.
The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web. And anyone trying to imagine where solutions to the worlds most difficult conundrums will come from, may comprehend from this material, the catalyst that might very well define the very future of humanity and the earth itself!
dmckee
18 years ago

Heh heh. Who is this guy?
There’s a pretty funny discussion here about whether people should waste their time trying to debunk this Robert Landbeck guy’s book. I haven’t the time to read it, but some fascinating quotes I found regarding the book included: “poorly written”, “350 pages flim flam”, “dumbass”, “self-published … reviews”:
http://myreality.churchofreality.org/index.php?s=bb74c1c6636f8cfdad2ba35646748c5e&showtopic=1230&pid=10219&st=0&#entry10219

About This Site

As a guy who occasionally curates art shows and wrangles artists together, I often have to edit and post artist bios, profile pictures, and artwork images. This can be a problem, since many artists and writers aren’t used to selling themselves. Artists rarely know how to present their art for display in a brochure, and writers aren’t used to writing about themselves.

Writers often treat the bio like it’s an interview or something. Maybe like they’re having a conversation with you, the reader. While it may work sometimes, the most common way to write a bio is to write in the 3rd person.

I’m like those writers, and I’m talking to you directly, unlike the common way to do a bio. You should see my About page. It makes sense to me, since this is a bit which describes my blog’s website. When I get famous enough that I don’t have time to talk to you, I’ll have an intern write everything in 3rd person. Until then, you get to talk to me.

Like blogs of old, this one is a personal document of the comings and goings of me. Articles I’ve written, links I’ve posted, videos I liked, etc. Here, a first-person perspective is the way to go, at least for now. So, this is my site. I’m D. H. McKee, a sometimes artist, sometimes writer. Mostly just a guy on the internet.