Testimonial - Well it seems that most of you "discordians" are little more than dupes of the Cathedral/NWO memetic apparatus after all -- "freethinkers" in the sense that you are willing to think slightly outside the designated boxes of correct thought, but not free in the sense that you reject the existence of the boxes and seek their destruction.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I think it's brilliant, doing the same old jokes for 55 years. It's very random.
Reminds me of the Scrid.What is that? Google keeps insisting it means Scribd. Is it one of the Discordian demons?
Worse. The Scrid is a bartender.
Aren't all cultures essentially built from scratch?Yes. But I think the fun part is in exploring how the ingeniopods have to deal.
Based on conversations I've had discussing this concept before, I'm assuming that the ingeniopods are designed to engage in underwater construction (and potentially combat, but my Martian-Earth interstellar war is another topic entirely). They're told to behave as rational as possible, and have no real history to fall back on when they've become emancipated.
So, I'm assuming they take on Lovecraft's mythos as their version of Satanism. The setting, tentatively, has humanity going militantly atheist/humanist under some form of fascism. In response, many of the ingeniopods adopted the Necronomicon as their holy text, and probably engage in irrational "magicks".
I'm taking some inspiration for this from the webcomic Freefall. It interests me how an intelligent uplift species goes about keeping their head down until they can be genetically viable, and their attempts to find an identity.
To build a really solid argument about the nature of God, you first would have to get all of your audience to agree on a definition of God... and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God, I can tell you right now that's a fruitless endeavor when it comes to this board.
Basically, you could build an argument according to an "if...then" modus ponens structure, but I could almost lay money on people challenging the "if" no matter how you laid it out, unless you can find a specific argument (for example, the Christian book you refer to) that you are counterarguing (in which case you might find very limited interest in the topic among those here, because you won't be talking to us or about anything most of us are familiar with).
Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.
You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.
You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.
You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?
That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.