The truth about truth

According to my father, the human mind learns things by recognizing a pattern. Instead of explaining something that I don't understand clearly, I'm going to use (or misuse) some of what he told me about to explain where God comes from, or more accurately, where the need for God comes from.

Superstition exists on nearly every level. Even de facto atheists commit some mild form of superstitious practice every now and then. Think about it. The average person has had at least one lucky charm. A lucky pencil, or pair of underpants, for example.

We recognize or want to recognize a pattern where when a certain outcome is obtained whenever a seemingly useless item is being wielded (in this case, lucky pencil may have to do with the lucky pencil being more physically suited for a task than a regular one, so it is disqualified). I think it's the way our brain learns. By learning patterns through repetition.

This means that the human brain doesn't actually learn the true nature of things when learning through 'experience patterns'. Which changes the entire meaning of truth. Is there a metaphysical world? A layer so beyond imagination that most people either fail to even acknowledge the possibility of its existence or use a God with physical-bound characteristics to imagine it.

To me, it's all psychological. The whole idea of a meta physical world was conceptualized by a human mind. The metaphysical world was not something shown by empirical or objective studies. The metaphysical world, like God, is a human idea that has made itself immune to empirical/objective study.

It's just as unfair to propose that there is a tiny particle, so tiny that it cannot be physically detected, that floats around and dictates every action and reaction through supernatural means.

Let's put aside the small problem of language and communication in science and math and try out a thought experiment in which the variables are the existence of humans, the metaphysical world, and the physical world.

If there weren't any humans, we can safely presume the physical world would still exist. But the metaphysical world, without humans to explain and discuss it would probably just die, just as all ideas, just as God dies when humans die.

From this one-sided argument, I can conclude that truth IS a little overrated. People don't look for truth - for truth must mean the actual nature of things- they look for personal truths, which aren't actually true. Even my personal truth is not the truth. Sigh, this brings me back to that annoying, overused saying, "nothing is true, everything is permitted."

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop though. Only totally agnostic people (people who believe true truth can NEVER be obtained) give up, I hope I never fall into that group of people.

God's funeral

God doesn't matter. Simple as that. Nietzsche said it decades ago for white people, the superior people, that God is dead. God is dead for everyone strong enough to realize that spirituality should be a supplement for the physical world, and NOT the other way around.

What use is there for worship? If God existed in the perfect form it's described in, then God is not some child who loves being worshiped and praised and highly regarded. Do you actually think God created a GIGANTIC universe, made just a speck of a planet with potential worshipers, then threw in natural disasters, other religions, and greed to confuse them, so that he could see if they still liked him after leaving them in the mess he made?

It's illogical for God to want worshipers for any reason. But then again, EMOTION is contagious, logic isn't. It's EMOTIONALLY comfortable to believe in God(and God can only be believed in when it's emotionally comfortable), but throw a little logic in, and the whole equation tumbles down.

This isn't about scientists being right all the time. They aren't. Religious people love nitpicking on every little mistake scientists have made. It's almost as if religious people are bad losers. Science isn't about killing God. It's about finding something close to truth, and the truth we're talking about isn't a personal truth, or an emotional truth. It's an objective or at least empirical one. Sure, language and numbers tend to dim down the 'truth' value of things, we're talking about a physical world in which animals(us humans) are actually trying to understand the world.

Speaking of animals, let's get this post over with.

Today I realized that man is an animal dying to emulate perfection. No sane person hasn't a perfect world in their minds( imaginary worlds where personal truths are universal truths). In mine, German tanks from the second world war are Kings and Queens, silly, I know. The problem comes when man attempts to separate himself from responsibility.

It's like this;
If you're going to do something, you'd better be ready to accept both the positive and negative outcomes.

For example,
If Shell Petrol decides to sanction the massacre of Nigerian tribe leaders, they'd better be ready to face the music as well as control the oilfields of the Niger Delta.

I'm not just talking business ethics and things like that.

In my experience, nice people are everywhere, but so few of them know why it's nice to be nice and why they do what they do. Bad people are everywhere, but so few of them know why it's bad to be bad and why doing what they do is regarded as bad.

It's because the basic need of an animal is short term gain. Long term gain is left to genes, the non-conscious entities, that decide through trial and error, NOT opinion, what's good and what's bad.

Back to a point I was trying to make. Man is an animal trying to be Godlike. To be all knowing, always happy, and always in power. But without separating the man from the animal, no long term gain can be had.

From this argument, I can prematurely conclude that man needs God as a sort of model of perfection. It just so happens that man also needs a reason to exist, and for the universe to exist BECAUSE of the evolutionary mistake of allowing our short term gain system to have control over our long term gain systems(it was a mistake because we won't allow evolution to take away this control). God fulfills the need of man for an ideal role model, a creator(and therefore giver of purpose), an emotional pillar of strength.

Why God is dead to the ubermen(or at least people who strive to be uber) is because they recognize emotion as a social tool, realize the unimportance of being important. In short, the uselessness of God to them.

I wonder if Christ said BRB before he died

I've been trying all month to post something non-God related, but it's been really hard. My last attempt left me hanging with two paragraphs(which I still think have a point) of the theory of the illusion of choosing and deserving. I'll publish that when I'm not too busy.

Today, I stumbled upon something new while surfing the godless internet:

“If God (however you want to believe in God, I don’t care what it is, you make the definition of what that word means), if God told you (and you make any sort of way that is, whether that’s in revelation or however way you know or by scripture), if whatever your God is communicated to you that you were to kill your child, would you do it?

And if your answer is “No,” then in my mind you’re an atheist.

If the answer is “Yes,” you’re dangerous and I stay away from you."

Even though there are so many flaws when it comes to the meaning of words in that quote, the fundamental idea makes a little sense. People rely on God for so many reasons. Reasons and excuses are made-up half the time. For example, someone may ask me, "why did you become an atheist?"

I could answer:
"A near fatal car crash turned my world upside down, literally, the car somersaulted and was upside down at one point."

OR

"I was intrigued by the possibilities of the random and apparent mindless nature of particles"

OR

"One day I looked up at the sky(it was a Friday, I remember) and realized it CAN'T be that simple"

I could probably come up with another reason if I thought long and hard, but just off the top off my head, those three reasons seem to make the most sense. Yet none of them are a true answer to the question. I may believe that one or all three of those answers are true because they make sense. The same way a person who believes in God or doesn't believe in God may try to explain why he or she does or doesn't believe in God. They'd probably give very logical answers.

The same goes, I think for anything to do with criticizing art. There may be a dozen reviews that praise a movie or an album, but only a handful can capture the true spirit of it.

Where was I going with this...

Oh yeah, a person who 'believes in God' actively believes that God is the creator of all things...(that's how all Godefinitions start off, but they trail off soon after) must believe that God knows everything and whatever God does,(He usually puts the task to some 'chosen' one, to avoid full responsibility I presume) He's doing it for the greater good.

So if you don't kill your baby when God tells you to, you don't believe in God, making you apathetic, atheistic, or agnostic because in your fear, you've drop all emotional comfortableness in the belief in God and embraced logic. Logic is not contagious, but emotion is.

Haha, got you now you God-loving son's(and daughters) o' guns! Well Gabs, discussion time, this post was written completely alcohol free, so there's bound to be a lot more holes than usual.