Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Think for Yourself, Schmuck! => Topic started by: AFK on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PM

Title: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PM
"If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."

It's so much easier to put your fate in another's hands, even if those hands are metaphysical.  It makes it easier to accept the shit when it flys your way.

"Everything Happens for a Reason"
"It's God's Will."

But, when you think about it, even those who do not believe in a God kind of do this same thing.

Some horrendous unforseen episode resulting in a gruesome, untimely death.

"Eh, the universe is random.  That's the way it goes."

It would seem, that even if we don't deify or personify a higher power, there is still an instinct to defer to one.  Even if it's an Inanimate Everything and Nothing.

Believing in Nothing is still believing in Something. 
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 29, 2007, 05:30:09 PM
Hail Yes!

:mittens:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on November 29, 2007, 06:47:50 PM
Is there a Church of Nothing?  If not I'm going to start one. 
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Dysfunctional Cunt on November 29, 2007, 07:08:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 06:47:50 PM
Is there a Church of Nothing?  If not I'm going to start one. 

Make it a cult and I'll bring the kool-aid! :lol:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2007, 10:06:49 PM
most interesting thread I've read in a while.

I like your concept RWHN. So much that for the first time in a very long while I'm feeling the urge to write something intelligent, if I don't fall asleep first.

more to come.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on November 30, 2007, 01:50:18 PM
btw, the quote in the Thread Title comes from a Nevermore song, "Seven Tongues of God".  Just in case anyone wanted to know. 
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: König Bonifaz on November 30, 2007, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 30, 2007, 01:50:18 PM
btw, the quote in the Thread Title comes from a Nevermore song, "Seven Tongues of God".  Just in case anyone wanted to know. 

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
    * Voltaire

As far as I know.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on November 30, 2007, 02:26:02 PM
Okay, well so it was a guy from Nevermore reading a Voltaire quote. 

wiseass.
:argh!:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Payne on November 30, 2007, 02:48:56 PM
TSK! Doubting popular culture.

Voltaire OBVIOUSLY stole it from someone else, who stole it from someone else again. Nevermore just carried on the glorious tradition.

That's how philosophy works.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on November 30, 2007, 03:54:05 PM
I'd reply but every time I add something to a topic in this section, the topic dies :(
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Payne on November 30, 2007, 03:56:24 PM
Hey! theres your thing you can be really good at, nay a world renowned expert at!

Kiling TfYS threads with a single post!
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on November 30, 2007, 04:00:54 PM
Well, I started it so it's doomed to die anyway so I say go for it. 
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Iron Sulfide on November 30, 2007, 08:58:26 PM
do some digging.

my name is the tomb stone for many older threads. totally happenstance. i just usually get around to posting when people's interest on a topic has waned, and just didn't reign in their attention with anything i said.

that's what half assing gets you, i 'spose.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: König Bonifaz on November 30, 2007, 09:35:42 PM
Uh, totally forgot:

OP: :mittens:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Triple Zero on November 30, 2007, 11:53:45 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 30, 2007, 02:48:56 PM
TSK! Doubting popular culture.

Voltaire OBVIOUSLY stole it from someone else, who stole it from someone else again. Nevermore just carried on the glorious tradition.

That's how philosophy works.

i blame God for this.

Quote from: vexati0n on November 30, 2007, 03:54:05 PM
I'd reply but every time I add something to a topic in this section, the topic dies :(

also, i blame God for this.

Quote from: Prater Festwo on November 30, 2007, 08:58:26 PM
do some digging.

my name is the tomb stone for many older threads. totally happenstance. i just usually get around to posting when people's interest on a topic has waned, and just didn't reign in their attention with anything i said.

that's what half assing gets you, i 'spose.

btw this is God's fault.





damn i should be religious or something.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Iron Sulfide on December 01, 2007, 12:59:30 AM
"God is you and me,
God is everything..."
["god thinks" by Voltaire (http://deadly_chasm.tripod.com/literature/lyrics/godthinks.htm)]

personally, i blame theologians.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: rygD on December 01, 2007, 09:52:22 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PM
"If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."

It's so much easier to put your fate in another's hands, even if those hands are metaphysical.  It makes it easier to accept the shit when it flys your way.

"Everything Happens for a Reason"
"It's God's Will."

But, when you think about it, even those who do not believe in a God kind of do this same thing.

Some horrendous unforseen episode resulting in a gruesome, untimely death.

"Eh, the universe is random.  That's the way it goes."

It would seem, that even if we don't deify or personify a higher power, there is still an instinct to defer to one.  Even if it's an Inanimate Everything and Nothing.

Believing in Nothing is still believing in Something. 


This doesn't seem very accurate.  I know a few people who I have yet to say shit like this (one is a Jew...so he is religious), even in during extremely rough times.

It seems that this could be a result of being raised in a society (or worse, household)  where this sort of thing is commonplace, and there is little questioning why things happen as they do.  Even if the individual has decided they do not believe the bullshit there is still that imprint, and their mind will still go that direction.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: hunter s.durden on December 02, 2007, 05:16:22 AM
Uh....  Fuck God
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: rygD on December 02, 2007, 06:10:44 PM
See.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on December 04, 2007, 03:29:31 PM
God owes me money.

I have to believe in god otherwise how can I look forward to smashing his kneecaps?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on December 05, 2007, 07:28:31 PM
Quote from: rygD on December 01, 2007, 09:52:22 PM


This doesn't seem very accurate.  I know a few people who I have yet to say shit like this (one is a Jew...so he is religious),


Cain, where is that "wall of facepalm" you posted a while back?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cain on December 05, 2007, 07:37:34 PM
(http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5797/800pxfacepalmuberjq2.jpg)
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on December 05, 2007, 09:27:05 PM
yoinked for good, this time.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: hooplala on December 05, 2007, 11:24:17 PM
I can't believe that collage doesn't feature Mitch Kramer from 'Dazed and Confused'.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cramulus on December 06, 2007, 12:07:27 AM
It's an awesome pic, but waaaay too much anime
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on December 06, 2007, 05:20:48 AM
Anime characters are, on average, 80% more likely to facepalm than real people or more respectable cartoons.

If you were an anime character -- wouldn't you?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Triple Zero on December 06, 2007, 11:55:08 AM
if i were an anime character, i'd off myself.

(by tentacle rape, of course, might as well have some fun on the way out)
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on December 06, 2007, 01:42:18 PM
If God was Real, it would be necessary for him to watch Voltron and G-Force. 
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Random Probability on December 11, 2007, 05:19:40 PM
Quote from: rygD on December 01, 2007, 09:52:22 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PM
"If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."

It's so much easier to put your fate in another's hands, even if those hands are metaphysical.  It makes it easier to accept the shit when it flys your way.

"Everything Happens for a Reason"
"It's God's Will."

But, when you think about it, even those who do not believe in a God kind of do this same thing.

Some horrendous unforseen episode resulting in a gruesome, untimely death.

"Eh, the universe is random.  That's the way it goes."

It would seem, that even if we don't deify or personify a higher power, there is still an instinct to defer to one.  Even if it's an Inanimate Everything and Nothing.

Believing in Nothing is still believing in Something. 


This doesn't seem very accurate.  I know a few people who I have yet to say shit like this (one is a Jew...so he is religious), even in during extremely rough times.

It seems that this could be a result of being raised in a society (or worse, household)  where this sort of thing is commonplace, and there is little questioning why things happen as they do.  Even if the individual has decided they do not believe the bullshit there is still that imprint, and their mind will still go that direction.
Seconded.  I read the OP and instantly wanted to call "Bullshit" on it.

I agree with everything rygD said here, and wanted to add that there is a huge fat not-too-well-defined fuzzy line between the ultimate abstraction of God as the universe and the universe being a personification of something or other.

There is no 'instinct' to seek blame on a higher power.  From what I can see, the people in the West have a long and sullied tradition of scapegoating instead of owning up to their inability to protect themselves from shit they don't see coming.  It's shit like this that makes me wish reverse time travel was actually possible so I could find the asshats responsible for the entire Judeo-Christo-Islamic fuckfest and ventilate their skulls with blunt instruments.

RP, always cheers the death of religious nuts.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cramulus on December 11, 2007, 05:27:47 PM
So when your neighborhood is torn in half by a hurricane, how do you justify / rationalize it?




Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cain on December 11, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
The Universe is essentially mindless and doesn't give a shit one way or another about my presence and thus any values I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on December 11, 2007, 06:17:41 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
The Universe is essentially mindless and doesn't give a shit one way or another about my presence and thus any values I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence?

Incorrect answer!

Quote from: Professor Cramulus on December 11, 2007, 05:27:47 PM
So when your neighborhood is torn in half by a hurricane, how do you justify / rationalize it?

The correct answer is find the goddess damned bastard of a Meteormancer responsible and kick him in the 'nads for summoning a hurricane to tromp through my front yard.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: towelhead on December 11, 2007, 06:43:55 PM
just trying to bite my own tail

Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
The Universe is essentially mindless and doesn't give a shit one way or another about my presence and thus any values I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence?

id put it like

The Universe IS. (any attribute or action is only for :lulz: purposes)
it "cannot give a shit" about consciousness and thus anything I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence.

maybe this is the hardest part for humans to swallow, that the very concept of "self" (and its various projections) means nothing.

it is particularly interesting to see this in the language used. like: "i think that" or "i believe that" instead of the most obvious "i suspect that" which might be closer to what one meant to say.
and this is language used by well known and respected scientists.
only one of the books i grep through almost didnt use those (and other) patterns.
reading dawkins one might think that genes and memes have a will*. will? ermm..
its really interesting considering dawkins essentially speaking about language using.... well, language.

and of course, its not very easy to change language patterns, no more than one can think about himself as nothing more than a (by)product of a mass of neurons doing their chemical thing.

some form of god always exists there embedded in our brains regardless of how seemingly "unreligiously/areligiously" it manifests.
much like the drive to spot patterns around us, find (meaningful) causality, put the universe in order, seek the meaning of life and post on pd.

this kinda folds rygD argument on itself, which is quite funny. too bad search function doesnt work ;)

*had a conversation on this very topic with someone on this forum just a week ago. i have yet to punish him for actually thinking he has a will ;)
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on December 11, 2007, 07:15:23 PM
I kinda liked Cain's better.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cain on December 11, 2007, 07:17:24 PM
:thanks:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Random Probability on December 11, 2007, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
The Universe is essentially mindless and doesn't give a shit one way or another about my presence and thus any values I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence?

That sure is a purty motorcycle you got there....
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 11, 2007, 11:56:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
The Universe is essentially mindless and doesn't give a shit one way or another about my presence and thus any values I attribute to external phenomena are merely internal projections onto a value neutral existence?

The Universe is what it is. I don't know what the hell it is, so I wouldn't go making any assumptions about it.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cain on December 12, 2007, 02:23:54 AM
Thus far it has not shown any attributes which would suggest otherwise.  If it does, I shall revise my basic assumptions, but right now I see no need to, and by maintaining a level of moral neutrality, I will possibly be more aware to any evidence that would change that position than those who already think there are observable traits that suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Triple Zero on December 12, 2007, 02:32:24 AM
Quote from: towelhead on December 11, 2007, 06:43:55 PM*had a conversation on this very topic with someone on this forum just a week ago. i have yet to punish him for actually thinking he has a will ;)

if you catch me sober (like, not now), i'll show you why i have one :-D

pfffff

you should understand it biting your tail hard enough ------------------- you feel it? :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2007, 03:34:17 AM
Quote from: Cain on December 12, 2007, 02:23:54 AM
Thus far it has not shown any attributes which would suggest otherwise.  If it does, I shall revise my basic assumptions, but right now I see no need to, and by maintaining a level of moral neutrality, I will possibly be more aware to any evidence that would change that position than those who already think there are observable traits that suggest otherwise.

You can make whatever assumptions you want, I'm just not. Sometimes letting things just be what they are, and not trying to figure out what they are, even while observing what they do, is an interesting exercise. I'm not trying to get all Zen on your ass or anything, but it's essentially the basis of much American Indian spirituality, at least according to my dad who is a lot older and 93.25% more indian than I am. And it doesn't hamper observing at all!
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: towelhead on December 12, 2007, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: triple zero on December 12, 2007, 02:32:24 AM
pfffff

the sound of air escaping my punctured bubble.

Quote from: triple zero on December 12, 2007, 02:32:24 AM
if you catch me sober (like, not now), i'll show you why i have one :-D

you should understand it biting your tail hard enough ------------------- you feel it? :) :) :) :)

well, its always a bad idea to drink&post. i just mentioned this to someone last week.
but yeah, i think "i feel it", i beeleaf so...

we would have to first establish you have such a thing and what it consists of exactly.
if i would have wanted to be a real ass (as opposed to the cute fluffy bunny that i am now) id say lets define will :-p
thinking about it for a few minutes i recall what a headache i got reading all them philosophers that dealt with the will issue.
kinda makes me wanna unwrap my towel, throw it in and say "I kinda liked Cain's better".

bah fuck it, ive long become too much of a nihilist to "be" a "true/real" discordian ;)

laterz.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Triple Zero on December 12, 2007, 01:29:24 PM
> well, its always a bad idea to drink&post

true. they should invent an alcohol breath tester that plugs into your USB port and then locks your internet connection or something.

Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 12, 2007, 04:09:17 PM
Friends don't let friends drink and post.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: towelhead on December 12, 2007, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: triple zero on December 12, 2007, 01:29:24 PM
> well, its always a bad idea to drink&post

true. they should invent an alcohol breath tester that plugs into your USB port and then locks your internet connection or something.



does it function as a beer dispenser when one doesn't post? ill buy :)
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Coyote on March 06, 2008, 04:24:37 PM
*insert the turtle joke here*

On a side note. In high school I used finger paint to draw on paper plates, a cute little cross in a red circle with a bar through it, and in equally cute little kid writing with, "poo on christ!" underneath. I then hung them up everywhere between classes. The looks on some of their faces was epic.. They had fits.


coyote
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: FingFeng on March 08, 2008, 08:29:47 PM
LOL

Back to the original premise though.  Personally, I don't feel that the absense of a 'God' means that we as humans would feel the need to invent one.  I'd take a similar position though... I'd say that failure to accept ones own mortality is the major force behind the need to fashion Gods.

To take that further, it is the belief that we're somehow too special to waste.  That we mean something far greater than we actually do... I think if we could get our heads around the 'fertiliser' concept and simply accept it, we'd be much happier in the long term.

The fertiliser concept is a simple life affirming concept and runs like this:  I understand that the greatest likelihood is that I ultimately amount to little more than fertiliser for whatever follows.  In this I shall find peace and understanding... Every day I have is important.  Every second of every day is important.  I shall not waste a single moment or breath but shall live, and live with every fibre of my being.

Having said that... Attempts to found the first church of fertiliser didn't draw as much interest as I had hoped.

Turtle joke ?


~Pope Fing Feng III
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Coyote on March 09, 2008, 01:13:11 AM
Oh you know... "blah blah blah, don't you get it yet, fucktard?!It's turtles all the way down!" -the turtle joke.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: A.N. Other on March 10, 2008, 05:59:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PM
Believing in Nothing is still believing in Something. 


Some people don't believe.

Others know.

There some hidden meaning here, I think, but, um, you can figure that part out for your own damn selves.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Vene on March 19, 2008, 02:14:20 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PMBelieving in Nothing is still believing in Something.
I'd rather believe there is nothing than I would believe in something that nobody has ever seen (not just with eyes, with any sense or machinery).  Do you think this way about fairies?  How about dragons?  Giant sand worms?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on March 19, 2008, 02:17:28 PM
Yes, I believe I do.  But I could be wrong. 
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Vene on March 19, 2008, 02:22:23 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 19, 2008, 02:17:28 PM
Yes, I believe I do.  But I could be wrong. 
At least you're consistent.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on March 19, 2008, 02:23:58 PM
Like a fine catsup. 
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 19, 2008, 02:35:25 PM
"KETCHUP", MOTHERFUCKER.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Golden Applesauce on March 19, 2008, 04:03:26 PM
+1 for the correct spelling of ketchup.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on March 19, 2008, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 19, 2008, 02:35:25 PM
"KETCHUP", MOTHERFUCKER.

I'm trying.  So sue me for having short legs!!!
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 19, 2008, 07:05:01 PM
"Catsup" makes me think of dinnertime for kitties.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Vene on March 21, 2008, 02:08:35 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 19, 2008, 07:05:01 PM
"Catsup" makes me think of dinnertime for kitties.
I think it's a bastardization of "cat soup."
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Random Probability on March 21, 2008, 07:28:04 PM
Quote from: Vene on March 21, 2008, 02:08:35 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 19, 2008, 07:05:01 PM
"Catsup" makes me think of dinnertime for kitties.
I think it's a bastardization of "cat soup."
Fuck, I'm hungry.  Some cat soup would be epic right about now.

This is now a thread about delicacies.  Especially cats.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Messier Undertree on March 21, 2008, 07:45:43 PM
           I'm pretty sure I covered all this shit years ago.
                                               /
(http://www.anarkismo.net/attachments/may2007/michail_bakunin_1.jpg)
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 21, 2008, 07:51:30 PM
Quote from: Vene on March 19, 2008, 02:14:20 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PMBelieving in Nothing is still believing in Something.
I'd rather believe there is nothing than I would believe in something that nobody has ever seen (not just with eyes, with any sense or machinery).  Do you think this way about fairies?  How about dragons?  Giant sand worms?

I try to hold no belief on any topic... just shades of probability and levels of usefulness.

Accepting an old Jewish book and its metaphysics, of which we have no supporting evidence, appears to me as not very useful and having a very low probability of being True.
Accepting that we have figured out how the Universe came into existence and how everything works, may be useful when examining some things, but I don't have enough faith in humans to think it highly probable that we've seen nearly enough evidence to come to any conclusions.
Fairies, Dragons, Unicorns etc... I stick in the "Unknown" category. I have seen no evidence that supports their existence, but I don't presume that I've seen all the evidence that may exist.

I'm not sure why so many people feel it necessary to conclude with belief or non-belief when they can just say "maybe" or "I don't know"...
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 21, 2008, 07:54:09 PM
Every so often, I find it incredibly necessary to troll a pagan site with the concepts of Maybe Logic, just to fuck with people, and to remind/refresh myself.

When we re-launch our TCC raid on 4/1, I may have to do this.

Somewhere in this forum is a pretty good dialogue on it.  I don't have time/too lazy to look for it right now.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 21, 2008, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2008, 07:54:09 PM
Every so often, I find it incredibly necessary to troll a pagan site with the concepts of Maybe Logic, just to fuck with people, and to remind/refresh myself.

When we re-launch our TCC raid on 4/1, I may have to do this.

Somewhere in this forum is a pretty good dialogue on it.  I don't have time/too lazy to look for it right now.

As much as it may sound like RAWIST Fanboism, I think Maybe Logic has been the most useful tool I've picked up in my Discordian life.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 21, 2008, 11:06:29 PM
What the heck is maybe logic?

I will beat you if you describe modal logic back at me.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Vene on March 23, 2008, 03:02:51 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 21, 2008, 07:51:30 PM
Quote from: Vene on March 19, 2008, 02:14:20 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PMBelieving in Nothing is still believing in Something.
I'd rather believe there is nothing than I would believe in something that nobody has ever seen (not just with eyes, with any sense or machinery).  Do you think this way about fairies?  How about dragons?  Giant sand worms?

I try to hold no belief on any topic... just shades of probability and levels of usefulness.

Accepting an old Jewish book and its metaphysics, of which we have no supporting evidence, appears to me as not very useful and having a very low probability of being True.
Accepting that we have figured out how the Universe came into existence and how everything works, may be useful when examining some things, but I don't have enough faith in humans to think it highly probable that we've seen nearly enough evidence to come to any conclusions.
Fairies, Dragons, Unicorns etc... I stick in the "Unknown" category. I have seen no evidence that supports their existence, but I don't presume that I've seen all the evidence that may exist.

I'm not sure why so many people feel it necessary to conclude with belief or non-belief when they can just say "maybe" or "I don't know"...
Sounds like agnosticism to me.  Which is just fine with me, I'm mildly agnostic actually.  It's just that when I see no evidence of something existing, the probability is low enough that I just assume that it doesn't exist.  When/if any evidence is found, I quickly change my position.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on March 23, 2008, 03:11:04 AM
Quote from: Vene on March 23, 2008, 03:02:51 AM
Sounds like agnosticism to me.  Which is just fine with me, I'm mildly agnostic actually.  It's just that when I see no evidence of something existing, the probability is low enough that I just assume that it doesn't exist.  When/if any evidence is found, I quickly change my position.

So you would change your position?
How can we, the people, possibly trust someone who doesn't know where they stand?
     \
   :foxnews:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Vene on March 23, 2008, 03:25:06 AM
Doh!  How cold I forget, I'm supposed to always believe to same thing, even when proven wrong.


Alternatively,  :fap:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on March 23, 2008, 03:38:39 AM
Quote from: Vene on March 23, 2008, 03:25:06 AM
Alternatively,  :fap:

:lulz:
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Jenne on March 25, 2008, 05:50:32 AM
Quote from: Requiem on March 21, 2008, 11:06:29 PM
What the heck is maybe logic?

I will beat you if you describe modal logic back at me.

http://www.maybelogic.com

Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Triple Zero on March 25, 2008, 12:44:24 PM
jenne, have you actually found a description of the concept of maybelogic on that site or are you just pasting the url from your head?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 01:25:55 PM
It actually is fairly similar to modal logic, truth be told...

But it's nowhere near as formal, AFAIK.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 25, 2008, 04:23:57 PM
Maybe Logic basically holds that there exists more than a simple IS/IS NOT duality in reality and it attempts to provide a model reflecting such.

Maybe Logic is built on several different points.

First, the concept that 'reality' experienced by an individual human is made up of translated data... signals, picked up by the neurological system and translated into symbols which make sense to us.
Second, that our neurological systems sometimes do a bang up job of translating and sometimes do a fuck all job of translating.
Third, that the human attached to said neurological system may not be able to distinguish between the "bang up" job and the "fuck all" job.
Fourth, that since we can only trust our neurological system about as far as we can throw it, and since this neurological system is the only piece of equipment available to measure reality with... maybe we should be a bit less sure about the data we are collecting.

There's more, but I think that gets the general idea across.

Thus, two-valued logic systems hold IS/IS Not, True/False, P or Not P, etc.

Maybe Logic on the other had provides for True, False and Maybe/Don't Know.

Maybe Logic is closely associated with Model Agnosticism, agnostic as to the model being used... or as RAW stated "Encouraging people to be agnostic about Everything, not just God or Dinosaurs". This isn't to be confused with the post-modern "We create our own Reality", rather it states that we create our own internal model of reality... and as humans it sometimes appears that we aren't the best model makers. Our models could be (and probably are in at least some sense) wrong.

I find, personally, that model agnosticism and maybe logic appear to me as far more brutally honest than the more popular forms of philosophical thought.



"The only thing I believe is that the Universe is far more complex than I will ever understand." - Robert Anton Wilson, Maybe Logic
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Golden Applesauce on March 25, 2008, 04:32:52 PM
My physics prof. told us something similar, although he didn't use many of those terms.

I think it went something like this:
All of us are constantly building a model of the world, just like scientists build models like Newtonian Mechanics or Special Relativity or The Standard Model, using experiences as our experimental evidence.  Some people's models are different because they use different evidence or weight their evidence differently.  Some people's models don't closely match reality and have little predictive power, some do.  Some people have many different models for use in different situations.  The difference between the truly wise and everybody else is that the wise recognize that all they have is a model, and not the world itself.

I actually projected a lot of my own opinion into that.  Oh well.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 25, 2008, 04:34:45 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 25, 2008, 04:32:52 PM
My physics prof. told us something similar, although he didn't use many of those terms.

I think it went something like this:
All of us are constantly building a model of the world, just like scientists build models like Newtonian Mechanics or Special Relativity or The Standard Model, using experiences as our experimental evidence.  Some people's models are different because they use different evidence or weight their evidence differently.  Some people's models don't closely match reality and have little predictive power, some do.  Some people have many different models for use in different situations.  The difference between the truly wise and everybody else is that the wise recognize that all they have is a model, and not the world itself.

I actually projected a lot of my own opinion into that.  Oh well.

That's quite a useful way of describing it, I think.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on March 25, 2008, 05:01:30 PM
I think that this concept of "thinking in models" is something we generally understand that most people do not. Even if you introduce the concept to them, my suspicion is that they'd go through life trying to find the "real" model for everything, which is what people tend to do anyway.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Vene on March 25, 2008, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: Cainad on March 25, 2008, 05:01:30 PM
I think that this concept of "thinking in models" is something we generally understand that most people do not. Even if you introduce the concept to them, my suspicion is that they'd go through life trying to find the "real" model for everything, which is what people tend to do anyway.
And that is the problem.  I don't think that humans will ever find AbsoluteTruth™ the best that we will ever have is close approximations.  It doesn't mean that the models are useless, but to keep in mind that they are flawed and there will always be errors of some sort.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 06:48:08 PM
Hence, the tendency for Maybe Logic to us percentages of probablity of truth, usually never quite reaching 100%.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 25, 2008, 07:02:01 PM
Yep, the comments here seem to fall right in line with the Maybe Logic and Model Agnostic positions.

Sidenote:

Cosmic Trigger Vol. I = One of the Best Books written by Robert Anton Wilson EVER. If you decide not to read Illuminatus! because you're just too hip as a Discordian, that's fine.... however, I highly recommend Cosmic Trigger as a must read for people interested in how Maybe Logic and Model Agnosticism can work in actual experiential reality.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 25, 2008, 07:15:37 PM
Again, would somebody explain 'maybe logic' to me?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 07:25:21 PM
Yes.

Step 1.  www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 25, 2008, 07:26:39 PM
Did that, got nothing coherent.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 07:28:27 PM
You're a fucking liar, you know that?
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 25, 2008, 08:06:48 PM
Quote from: Requiem on March 25, 2008, 07:15:37 PM
Again, would somebody explain 'maybe logic' to me?

A bit slow on the uptake eh?

Two Valued Logic = True/Not True
Maybe Logic = True/varying levels of don't know/Not True where most of our beliefs/perceptions/ideas etc fall into the middle.

Maybe Logic basically took the Law of the Excluded Middle, laughed at it and turned it inside out.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 08:20:10 PM
An old dialogue:

ON E-PRIME.

I START WITH:

I'm a big fan of both e-prime and maybe logic.

to me, it's all about clarity and accuracy, to myself as well as to others.

The only problem is, it tends to make for shitty rants, and it can suck the fun out of a good joke.

I think the big problem with the "is of identity" seems not to be so much that it labels an object, but that it tends to exclude all aspects of the object that are not part of the label ("the flower 'is' red" excludes all the other aspects of flower-ness).

Also, inserting the observer as part of the observation tends to remind us that subjectivity plays a key part in most observations (and even can remind us of basic physical properties of seeing - Cf: the "Blood is blue/red" thread*).


*The thread in question reminds the reader that blood "is" not red, it <i>reflects</i> the color red, which enters your eyes and is interpreted as such, etc.

LHX:

it may be possible that e-prime still holds the trump card -


it could be said that the IS of identity has no real function anyway

since coming to this forum
i have been made aware that classifying and defining things seems to be nothing more than trifles and a cause for debate



as in
"this is a real discordian"


it always comes down to
'well - what do you mean by that'


how many different words are there for 'red'

it may be comfortable to use 'is'
but
it may also be something that is on its way out
seriously

ME:

Not on it's way out-- it has to do with the way the primate brain functions.  Labeling, categorizing-- hell, even the bible has Adam classifying things right off the bat.

humanity as a whole will probably never get over "is".  But trying to escape tends not only to be fun, but it is mildly enlightening as to how we function as humans.

Also, as Hugh will probably point out, it can be a mistake to put too much faith in simple semantic word games to lead us into bliss.  Just because you sometimes use maybe/fuzzy logic doesn't make you much better than the pinks/greys/cabbages/opiez.

LHX:

doesnt this whole thing point out that even the bible (gasp) could be subject to this fallacy?

ME:

The bible does indeed seem to be filled with this apparent fallacy (even down to YHWH's "I am that I am."). My point was that the tendency to name and classify things can be traced all the way to the creation myths. Even in our beloved Tiamat and Marduk story, we had Things (stuff that has been "is-ed") separated from chaos (undefinable; Cf: the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, etc).

THEN JPF GETS INTO THE ACT:

JPF: To return to the original topic of conversation, EP/ML seems to gives us the best possible platform to move forward logically, but does that result in knowledge becoming a probability?

ME: Yes.  Knowledge appears to be an evolving thing, and can often be hinged upon a frame of reference of a window of time.  While I "know" that my pen will fall "down" if I drop it, there is a very small chance it won't, for various reasons.  While the percentage of that happening is infinitesimal, it still precludes my knowledge from being 100% sure.  But for me, it's close enough that I don't worry about it.  I feel that nothing can be known 100%, and that's a good thing to me.

JPF: Truth as only a possibility?... and if that's so, then wouldn't the original assumption seem a possibility?

ME: Yes.  Maybe Logic/E-Prime (ML/EP) are simply game rules that we have arbitrarily assumed. (Side note: even the phrase "original assumption" implies a less-than-100% level of assuredness to begin with).  Those that find it useful, use it.  Some have decided that, for now, it's the best set of game rules to use.  If a better one comes along, the chances are good that ML/EP will be abandoned in favor of the new rules.  ML/EP shouldn't be thought o as "the" answer, just a set of beneficial rules.

JPF: Doesn't it erode any ultimate basis for subscribing to EP/ML since probability encompasses all probabilities? 

ME: Are you trying to do a George Bernard Shaw-style paradox?  Because it's not working.

JPF: The benefit of EP/ML is only a possibility.  Why do we have greater confidence in EP/ML? 

ME: Because when using ML/EP, the level of opinion and prejudice is made more apparent.  ML/EP shows the degree of bias in the system.  This leads to greater clarity, though (of course), not 100%.

JPF: To what degree is our confidence greater in it than our confidence in other possibilities.  Using ML, what convinces us that ML is true(r)?

ME: There is no "truth" in ML/EP.  As said before, they are merely game rules.

JPF: In short can EP/ML convince us of any truth, itself included?

ME: No, because that is not its intended purpose.

Essentially, you seem to be trying to fold ML in on itself and make it implode, but ML easily encompasses itself in a very clear manner.

In addition, you seem to be saying that if we can't get to 100% truth, then its Hassan I Sabbah time: "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

But that's not what ML does. You seem to be using polar thinking on ML, "true/false", where ML behaves more like, "not true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true".

Just because probably nothing can be 100% true doesn't mean that everything is false (unless you ask a Buddhist).


JPF: As far as posssibilities are concerned, do you think that there are ways to deduce what degree of probability can be associated with any idea?

ME: So, you're looking for a mathematical equation that will give you an exact percentage? I'm not sure there's a catch-all formula, but if you really wanted to look, I'd suggest quantum physics as a start.

JPF: Does everything end up having an equal possibility of occuring or is there still a difference in possibilities?

What I mean is: your pen is dropping. There's an infinitesimal chance of it becoming a brown dwarf and a more likely chance of it hitting the ground. Can you measure that still? Can you say that hitting the ground has a greater chance of happening than brown dwarf-morph? If so, how do you measure that with ML?

ME: Remember, these are game rules, and therefore, arbitrary. Yes, you probably can measure the probability of pen-to-brown dwarf, but I don't get that picky. I just say, "not fucking likely", and carry on with my day. Not to mention, if that did happen, knowing how improbable it was will be the least of my worries.

JPF: "not true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true"
-- Can we provide percentages or is thaat impossible?

ME: You can, if you'd like. I'm more subjective. The point is that it's not a "yes/no" dichotomy, it's a "more than/less than" evaluation.

JPF: I guess what I want to know is: if every possible scenario is still a possibility, does that mean that 100% chance (of something happening and something not happening) is divided infinitely?

ME: I don't see why not. But much like in physics, you'll get a large chunk of the 100% divided among a handful of things, and an extremely small fraction of a percent taken up by everything else.

JPF: I was asking specifically ABOUT the more/less thing and your last paragraph answered my question.

Finally.

ME: Wait, your whole point was whether or not a system of game rules that subjectively applies percentages of truth can be divided infinitely?






Wow, that was really stupid.










...And that, my friends, is how these sorts of things usually end.

Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Triple Zero on March 25, 2008, 08:21:58 PM
one thought i had about formal logic, is that it's a formal mathematical system that starts out by defining True and False as axioms, and generally goes downhill from there.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 25, 2008, 08:32:25 PM
Everything I found on maybe logic with google was about the maybe logic academy.

Modern formal logic has a maybe, which is why I was so confused.  There's no concept of varying levels of probablility though.  (I've screwed around a bit with introducing a 'probably/not probably' in the past, but I know jack all about metalogic).

Edit: I screwed up, the M operator in formal logic is for 'possibly' not maybe.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 25, 2008, 08:35:55 PM
Quote from: triple zero on March 25, 2008, 08:21:58 PM
one thought i had about formal logic, is that it's a formal mathematical system that starts out by defining True and False as axioms, and generally goes downhill from there.

Right, this is a good case in point on model agnosticism.

If we define True and False within that model, then all the data we put on the model will be either true of false by definition.
Maybe Logic is a model. If we define True/False/Don't Know/Probably/Possibly/Unlikely/Fnord then the same data we put on this model may be true false or varying degrees of something in-between.

RAW has an exercise to exemplify this point. We collect 10 random things around the house, then we decide on an attribute say "Red", we make two piles of the items "Red" items and "Not Red" items. Then we put the piles back together and go for some other attribute, like "Soft" items and "Not Soft" items.

Of course, it quickly becomes apparent that not only will items get grouped together differently, but that two piles don't really do either state justice. This Pepsi can, for example might go into the "Is Red" pile, but it's not ALL red, its just got some red on it... so maybe it should go into the "Not Red" pile... but it is red... at least in spots... so... hrmmm

This same sort of two-valued process is precisely the issue with Truth in a normal Is/Is Not sort of logical system.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 25, 2008, 08:39:01 PM
Quote from: Requiem on March 25, 2008, 08:32:25 PM
Everything I found on maybe logic with google was about the maybe logic academy.

Modern formal logic has a maybe, which is why I was so confused.  There's no concept of varying levels of probablility though.  (I've screwed around a bit with introducing a 'probably/not probably' in the past, but I know jack all about metalogic).

Maybe Logic Academy does sort of have the market on the term, since it was developed shortly before Bob's death, it didn't make it into many (any?) of his writings, but the previous meme "Model Agnosticism" which had the same sort of logic (without a name) would probably get you more infos.

Also, what are you defining as "Modern formal logic" and how does it have a maybe?

EDIT: There are other multivalued logical systems, but I am unaware of any system called Formal Logic which is not bivalued. That is, if the logic system is based on the Law of the Excluded Middle, then it would be two-valued... are you saying that modern formal logic is no longer based on the excluded middle? That would be a very interesting claim.

EDIT MOAR FOR LINKY:
http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html (http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html)
http://www.kbuxton.com/discordia/new_inquisition.html (http://www.kbuxton.com/discordia/new_inquisition.html)
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/ModelAgnosticism (http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/ModelAgnosticism)
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Vene on March 25, 2008, 09:00:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 25, 2008, 08:20:10 PM
...I think the big problem with the "is of identity" seems not to be so much that it labels an object, but that it tends to exclude all aspects of the object that are not part of the label ("the flower 'is' red" excludes all the other aspects of flower-ness).

Also, inserting the observer as part of the observation tends to remind us that subjectivity plays a key part in most observations (and even can remind us of basic physical properties of seeing - Cf: the "Blood is blue/red" thread*).


*The thread in question reminds the reader that blood "is" not red, it <i>reflects</i> the color red, which enters your eyes and is interpreted as such, etc.

*a lot of words*

As for red, I just have to add that not everybody even sees the same color when looking at red.  There are two proteins that form photoreceptors for red, and each views the color a little differently.
(not to mention the huge part of the electromagnetic spectrum that no human can see)

It's almost as if we are incapable of actually seeing reality for what it really is.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 25, 2008, 09:48:48 PM
According to wikipedia, it started in 1937, with the current modal logic model coming out in 65.  Also, it's appparently possibly and not maybe.
The two operators added by modal logic are M (possibly) and L(necissarily).  Which has a lot of implications that I don't really feel like I can explain properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic has a good runthrough of the two operators.

Edit: Response to the above edit, formal logic has multiple systems within it, and runs that gamut from very simple aristoltean logic all the way up to complicated stuff like second order logic and linear algebra.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 25, 2008, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: Vene on March 25, 2008, 09:00:32 PM
As for red, I just have to add that not everybody even sees the same color when looking at red.  There are two proteins that form photoreceptors for red, and each views the color a little differently.
(not to mention the huge part of the electromagnetic spectrum that no human can see)

It's almost as if we are incapable of actually seeing reality for what it really is.

Wait, you mean the colors question actually has an answer?  Holy shit.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: LMNO on March 26, 2008, 01:10:50 PM
Quote from: Vene on March 25, 2008, 09:00:32 PM
It's almost as if we are incapable of actually seeing reality for what it really is.


Cf: Original BIP pamphlet, page 14.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: gathabloodline on March 29, 2008, 06:51:12 PM
Something is what happens when nothing blinks.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: atrasicarius on April 03, 2008, 11:15:22 PM
I dont call myself an agnostic, even though I technically am, because there are an infinite number of things you can be agnostic about. We could be living in the Matrix. We could believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or our friend the FSM. Abstractly, I know that it's impossible to ever prove anything absolutely, but in terms of actual day to day life, I do make certain assumptions.
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: DORADA on April 04, 2008, 08:42:02 AM
a man is the idea of his god

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: "If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."
Post by: AFK on June 01, 2012, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on November 29, 2007, 03:30:17 PM
"If God Wasn't Real, It Would Be Necessary to Invent Him."

It's so much easier to put your fate in another's hands, even if those hands are metaphysical.  It makes it easier to accept the shit when it flys your way.

"Everything Happens for a Reason"
"It's God's Will."

But, when you think about it, even those who do not believe in a God kind of do this same thing.

Some horrendous unforseen episode resulting in a gruesome, untimely death.

"Eh, the universe is random.  That's the way it goes."

It would seem, that even if we don't deify or personify a higher power, there is still an instinct to defer to one.  Even if it's an Inanimate Everything and Nothing.

Believing in Nothing is still believing in Something.

BaBump! 

This was pretty good!  I need to write more stuff like this more often.