reply to post by StudentType
Thanks for visiting. Well, I think that God as a figurehead representing a value system seems fairly accurate. I like to keep this kind of God in a
separate category than the all-knowing creator.
They are basically Demi Gods. If you think about it, regardless of whether or not one of us believes in monotheism, we live in a heavily polytheistic
society. Monotheism doesn't mean that there is only one God, it really means that the individual belongs to a group that only accepts one figurehead,
or way of life.
In my opinion, an openly polytheistic society allows for more variety and understanding between people with different viewpoints, life perspectives
and inherent personalities.
Also, the reality of cultural values. That is a good point to bring up. I actually wrote a whole post a while back about why Richard Dawkins was
wrong, and the various Gods were actually real because they were influencing cultural behavior.
I'm just saying that in the sense that a suicide bomber is going to go to heaven for his deeds, this is not real, he is under some kind of delusion.
It might be real in the Yang realm, but hardly real in the physical realm, or reality.
Also, drinking is bad - this is not a real statement, although it is a value, it would be more accurate to assess the situation at hand and decide
whether or not one should drink on the occasion and how much based on factors such as age, who is driving, legality in the area, etc.
To say that something is "bad" without reasoning behind it is dangerous because, in a lot of cases, that binary value is actually going to end up
making things worse.
In the most extreme case, there could even be a war and a lot of bloodshed breaking out between those that believe that drinking is "bad" and drinking
is "necessary" (say a clan of drunken Irishmen and some kind of puritan group)
when in reality, both groups are wrong, and the choice to drink or not should not only be taken on an empirical basis,
but if there is a society of people that like to drink and a society of people that do not, there should be free movement
between the two
societies in order to reduce internal strife, and the two societies should respect each other's cultural differences -
The free movement
and respect are both necessary
. Without free movement between societies, children run the risk of being brainwashed
into something they do not wish for themselves, and in extreme cases, women could end up being placed in abusive and compromising situations without a
Even this extremely simple example of ONE binary value gets complicated. So you can imagine how complicated it could be with a string of say, simply
eight binary values - 1010 0011 (0 is yes, 1 is no?)
Which results in a possibility of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX different belief systems!!! Holy crap!! And that is only based on EIGHT beliefs!
With the Ten Commandments alone, we have the possibility of 1024 different belief systems, depending on which commandments one follows or not.
Since we already know that thinking in binary is not as versatile as thinking situationally, why even bother with this kind of value system at all if
it is just going to result in warring factions, none of which know what is going on?
The answer to that question does, actually, seem to present itself - thinking in binary appears to be much faster for doing logical calculations and
also appears to allow the user of the particular mental interface to manipulate the space-time continuum and choose a future to head towards.
If you think about it, this makes sense. Considering the fact that accessing different futures in the multi-verse is dependent on choices one makes,
that means that thinking in binary would be essential for goal-setting / arriving at the intended future.
Therefore, if a culture wants to be able to head in a certain direction instead of being stagnant, the binary thinking is necessary in order to have
edit on 22-4-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)