CASE I OF 2014” looking through both sides of the telescope”: 21 AUGUST: 10: 30 JUDGE/S : “THE MOST REASONABLBE JUDGE NZIMANDE” DEFENDANT/S: ATHIEST AND THIEST ACUSSER/S : ATHIST AND THIEST ATTENDENTS : ATHIEST AND THIEST Ground rules “As it has been announced in the above, we can all see that this is the most complicated trial we have ever had in the past and it’s the very reason why nobody has been able to rule on it hitherto. One needs to be super sceptical, if there is ever such thing or something that can be referred to as such, about its presentation and proceedings. However, the acceptance or agreement with the final court order is not subjected to any opinion other than that of me, as your judge, for the reasons I think we are all clear about. The only thing it takes to be convinced about the final court order is your ownconfession to yourself which can be as subjective as you may wish. Case presentation Atheist have been grumping, mourning and yelling over the past almost 200 000 years, that they are so willing to repent any idea including their idea about that idea, provided they are given valid, sceptical reason that what they should accepts that idea. And I agree, that’ might be the highest reason and motive for being reasonable. They have done that to an extent that I’m tempted to say that almost all of them have at least read books about those ideas or books that claim those ideas otherwise; there would have been no good reasons to reject claims they don’t even understand. Some worked their guts out trying to accept and willing to repent their idea. They find staggering reasons and facts why they shouldn’t even tried to accept those ideas and should keep on theirs. They then looked for people who strongly hold beliefs for those ideas, which are theist, and they are same people who can be thought to have great potential to mislead because of inevitable bias. Never and never again shall this court entertain such atrocities that have been done to those who curiously asked, and deserved to do so before they accept any idea. On the contrary, Theists have been tolerant of those who didn’t agree or opposed their idea. But at some point in time, it is clear that they became somehow annoyed to be questioned about people who don’t even have the same idea and found themselves with no choice but to commit atrocities to such people. To some, those atrocities went to the extreme of executing all those who don’t accept their idea, reject their idea, or question their idea or the god of their idea. They have blamed those who had opposing ideas for unwillingness to accept and repent their sins for their idea and have to accept that they are fallible human beings too. They have associated unwillingness of those who hold opposite ideas with their unwillingness to repent their ideas. Some went to the extreme of saying their unwillingness was associated with being possessed by one of the bad supernatural of their idea. When asked on what grounds, many of them responded that based on faith. Some said because it’s spiritual. Some made attempts of making those with opposing ideas see that they have done so with other ideas such as evolution, origin of the universe or even science because of the same type of faith that is also required for their idea too. Judge conclusion By carefully looking on the presented case one might clearly see that it can take confession/admission of one’s own shot comings and keeping quiet to accept the final court order. It is crystal clear that all these actions that might have been committed revolved around two wills, the will to accept and the will to repent. I find theist guilty for wanting or forced or wished or believed that atheist accept their idea for the following reasons: 1. It is ironical to deem a person unwilling to accept and repent an idea more especially if the very reason why that person has that idea it’s because he is willing to reasonable and happily accept it. Willing to change it at any time even if means he can reject it or reject to reject it in exchange for an idea that is more reasonable than theirs. 2. In theist, it’s a different scenario. The reason why they accept their idea it’s because of faith. This is an idea of their idea that one should accept any idea without being reasonable, curios and questioning. If the main reason to accept an idea it’s because, the reason to do so is reasonable than not to do so, then having an idea that requires removal of reasoning is not reasonable at all. Conviction I convict theist for time till they have a good case for their idea. However, they cannot have any opinion on that idea, coz I’m avoiding faith or any affection for an idea from coming back again. I therefore request them that if they have any idea. It must be something from their idea not them about their idea. Even if it means their god of their idea needs to show up. I feel that it will ease the burden on them because their idea won’t have to have the idea of faith in it and they will get to have an idea deemed reasonable. However, they are still entitled to the idea provided they do none of the above but understand all of the above. I recommend they bring all the faith they have, provided they are not letting go of it, to call all their gods to come and show up at some party and prove himself instead of them doing it. Opinion of the jury on the case I would like to thank all the theist and atheist and atheist for having all the questions and answers that they had. It would be my greatest failure if I forget Mr Mat Dilluhunty who once suggested a court case. I would also like to thank the fictional doctor, Dr House (Hugh Laurie) for making a comment or a statement “if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people” which is the one that gave me curiosity to be curiously curios about how one can do that. It’s because I felt we have so many dilemmas today because of our fellow religious beings who wants us to be reasonable with their unreasonable ideas (but not always). It made me wonder how I can do that without hurting them or literally getting read of them. One would see that Dr House had the answer but I had to worry about the how, which was daring to prove him. Richard Dawkins and the beloved later Christopher Hitchens and many more other atheist scientist, you guys made the case stand. I also feel strong that as human species, we need to forsake all these human sacrifices we are sometimes forced to do for the gods that we don’t know or have proven nothing but that they don’t even care about us. ‘People think you are crazy when you say things they don’t understand.” And I agree with this quote happily but also see a need to add” but they might be right if you don’t understand them too and not even willing” so that it covers my opinion completely as a judge. We have archived a lot in the past and moved forward slowly but surely, but let us never allow crazy ideas to draw us backwards. Let us all be curious without any limitations and we will be astonished where we may find ourselves in the near future. “Philosophy is about finding the third person in your mind, to guide the one you already have” that’s my philosophy of philosophy. Let us all put an end to this “curiosity killed the cat” and realise that it kills cats only and then be curiously curios why it does so. Let us not try to think out of the box, but realise that there is actually no box. The juries is protection 1. Only the jury is allowed to be said to have come up with this court case with the help of no one other than those he mentioned. 2. Only the jury has the ability to add or modify something in this document, provided he wants to do so, and so by virtue of the reason said in the beginning. 3. Only the jury may or may not change the document for any need or reason. 4. Only the jury gets to make amendments to his final court order, provided certain issues may arise in future 5. However, this document is allowed to be passed around to any one or to any level of structures, provided the jury gets the credits for it. 6. Anyone who have broken this ruling or may have tempted to do so without informing the jury shall be deemed immoral and should be prosecuted accordingly 7. This document is only revocable by any case made for theist only, by theist only, provided they discovered something new worth to be discussed about their faith provided its not faith coz that have been demonstrated to be unreasonable in the first place. 8. Only those who think about the universe without being thought to be fighting or implying presence of any supernatural. 9. Anyone, including the judge, is allowed to refer anyone to this case. It can also be quoted by anyone. You can all go yelling, grumping and shouting outside my court room now. No parties are allowed to be here, but would love to be invited if there is any, provided it’ not here in my court room. Ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues, I adjourn this house now. Enjoy your rest of your life.” wiow
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:52:27 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015