Making up my own God up to believe in.

>>19226907

tl;dr translations: I want my cake and want to eat it too.

Not rocket science, puddin. Gods are just scaled up thoughtforms.

>>19226971
You should look up mindfull meditation. It's about the closest thing to praying, but without being actually attached to an actual religion, so you do get your cake and eat it.

Really, it's just about focusing on controlling yourself and the level of pain and discomfort you may feel from anxiety, depression, or any other mental pain that can flair up.

Hope that helps.

>>19226907
If the idea of praying to a deity makes you back off read Evola's "Introduction to Magic." He (and others) explain meditative experiences and describe three paths. One of these involves creating a duality and praying to the higher self instead of a deity. Seems similar to your process.

File: digable-planets.jpg (482KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1080x720px

"You gotta do what ya feel
Do what ya feel
If it's real"

>>19226907
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caishen

>>19226907
Start a cult about ferris buelers day off, ferris is a god like figure, cameron is jesus, ferris's girlfriend is the virgin mary, and the sister is satan. Compose those figure into something that resembles those religious figures and flesh them out to be your own.

>>19227148
Who is the principal?

How can you believe in something that you know you made up?

>>19226907
Become a magick practitioner.

You will still be meditating, you are still focusing your intent into a greater thing, there are still rituals to follow, but there are no gods or doctrines attached, only nature.

File: 8-Forms-of-Godess-Lakshmi-Hindu-Godesses-and-Deities.jpg (121KB, 600x603px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 600x603px

>>19226907
>God of Fortune.
She is a Goddess, not a God. Even the word comes from the Goddess Fortuna.

File: Jeffrey Jones.jpg (23KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 620x350px

>>19227200
>Who is the principal?
A pedophile.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferris-buellers-mr-rooney-guilty-in-sex-case/
>Jones' registration was required because he pleaded no contest in 2003 to employing a 14-year-old boy to pose for sexually explicit photos.

>>19227263
This. It'd be one thing if these are beliefs you naturally came to for some reason, but I don't know how you can believe in it when you know it's shit you made up intentionally.

Even if you think of something like chaos magic that goes off of making things up because belief is what drives reality; making things up there is all done to put yourself into a certain mindset. You may know it is made up, but there is still that underlying idea of "belief drives the universe, so putting myself in X mindset helps me accomplish Y goal".

>>19227263
Seriously? Do you think the founding US fathers believed in the Constitution? Do you think an inventor believes in her invention? Do you think an entertainer believes his act is entertaining?

>>19227604
Hmm...so I guess he would be Muhammad.

Why not just believe in yourself? Why even waste time concocting a mental prison to keep yourself in? Worship your humanity.

>>19227689
Pretty sure he wasn't using belief that way. When you make something yourself like a constitution, invention, or act, these are different things than believing in a god. I can believe in values laid down in a constitution because I may have said values. This person was talking about making up a god, which is different entirely and a different kind of belief. To make up a god knowingly means you know that the god is imaginary and a figment of your imagination. Whereas an entertainer knows the act is real, or the inventor knows what their invention was, or people making a constitution know what sorts of things they are including in it.

>>19227772
>these are different things than believing in a god.
Is it?

>I can believe in values laid down in a constitution because I may have said values.
I'm not talking about belief in the values. I'm talking about belief in the constitution. There is a difference. A constitution is not just a listing of values. It is a document declaring the existence of a wholly fictional entity: a new nation.

>This person was talking about making up a god, which is different entirely and a different kind of belief.
I disagree. God or nation - you are making up a completely fictional entity and expecting others and yourself to believe in it.

>Whereas an entertainer knows the act is real
I didn't ask about the entertainer believing in the act. I asked about the entertainer's belief in the act's ability to entertain.

>>19227822
>Is it?
Yes.
>I'm not talking about belief in the values. I'm talking about belief in the constitution. There is a difference. A constitution is not just a listing of values. It is a document declaring the existence of a wholly fictional entity: a new nation.
A nation is not a fictional entity. We can prove nations exist. We can see the different governments they have, cultures, their military, we can map their borders, etc. A nation isn't fictional just because it is a concept people came up with. Just like cooking isn't fictional just because at some point our ancestors decided to start burning meat rather than eating it raw.
>I disagree. God or nation - you are making up a completely fictional entity and expecting others and yourself to believe in it.
These are two different things. People can agree on living in a nation and understand the rights and liberties afforded to them by said government. To make up a nation is to go "the current governing system is bad, let's come up with something better as fitting our differing values from the current system". To make up a god is to knowingly make up something you know is fake. A nation is (ideally) a group of people working together to live within a system expressing their shared values when it comes to rights and governance. These are two different things. One comes up with a social construct that can be made a reality, while another is no different than knowingly saying a day dream is real.

Or do you honestly see no difference if I said here is a constitution me and some others came up with to express our shared values for the rules that will govern our new society and me saying I thought of a new being and that I now believe it exists?

>>19227853
>Yes.
No.

>A nation is not a fictional entity.
A nation is not a tangible object or event.

>We can prove nations exist.
No, you can prove governments and boundaries and people's opinions exist. Otherwise, go ahead and prove a nation exists.

>governments, culture, military, borders, etc
NONE of these are a nation. Just ask Tibet, whose govt/culture/military/borders are all officially Chinese. Yet the nation of Tibet exists.

>Just like cooking isn't fictional
Cooking isn't fictional. Cuisine is.

> People can agree on living in a nation and understand the rights and liberties afforded to them by said government.
People can agree on God as well. and again - a government is NOT a nation.

>To make up a nation is to go "the current governing system is bad, let's come up with something better as fitting our differing values from the current system".
and again - a government is NOT a nation.

>One comes up with a social construct that can be made a reality,
Exactly, just like a god.
>while another is no different than knowingly saying a day dream is real.
A day dream becomes real once you make it. Just like a nation. Just like a god.

>here is a constitution me and some others came up with to express our shared values for the rules that will govern our new society
None of this is a nation.

File: noosecock.jpg (24KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x276px

>>19226907
>Atheist
>Reddit spacing
>"the God of Fortune." (i.e. personal god to intervene in my life just to make me comfortable)
Let me guess, you were raised as an American Protestant?

File: world-political-map.jpg (204KB, 1000x556px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1000x556px

>>19227891
Oh, okay. So, you're just gonna be a sophist.

>Otherwise, go ahead and prove a nation exists.
Pic related.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/nations-a-states/what-is-a-nation.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/nation.html

>>19227420
It seemsl like he would like theurgy, so long as its not attached to a specific deity. He could try contacting his most holy guardian angel.

>>19227924
>Oh, okay. So, you're just gonna be a sophist.
It's only sophistry if the arguments are fallacious. Since they aren't, I'm just clever.

>https://www.globalpolicy.org/nations-a-states/what-is-a-nation.html
>an "imagined community,"
>disputes arise as to who is truly a member of the national community or even whether the "nation" exists at all
>a glue that binds states together and helps many people (for better and for worse) make sense out of a confusing reality.

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
>He also claims that a nation is not formed on the basis of dynasty, language, religion, geography, or shared interests. Rather, "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle.

>http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/nation.html
While this one actually supports your argument, it is directly contradicted by the support you offer beforehand, both of which agree that a nation is "imagined," "a soul," and "spiritual." Thus all this shows is that there is an annotative description of the word - exactly like there is an annotative description of God - which is no proof that such a thing thus described can be said to be non-fictional.

>>19226907

Report every disgrace that happens to you for being a faggot.

>>19228413
How does what you dug out of those sources make it not real? Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anything beyond our pure biology is a social construct. Science, art, literature, etc. Do these things not exist because we came up with the idea? If I pick up a book is it not real because the whole idea of a book is socially constructed?

It is sophistry because that is flawed. Things can exist even if we made them up. And that is a fact. Because we can see the results of these things and experience them. Socially constructed things can be, and are, real. So, you aren't clever, you just sound like a fool.

And believing in those things that we create is a very different kind of belief to begin with. Because when we create a book we know it is real and can believe it is. The book is not fake or illusory iust because it is a social construct made by man.

When people say they believe in a god they mean they believe it to be true. That this being exists. OP could not do that because the entire point of the OP is to literally make one up, it is not a god he genuinely believes to exist indepdendently from his own mind. He knows, and intends, to just make it up. The only belief he can have about it is that it is a god concept that he made up. That is very different than other religious beliefs where these gods are believed to exist as an independent entity.

>>19228489
>How does what you dug out of those sources make it not real? Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's as real and existing as a god. I agree.

>Anything beyond our pure biology is a social construct. Science, art, literature, etc.
Not the same. These constructs (save perhaps art) have well defined boundaries in a way the concept of a nation or a god does not. I can't say "MY science involves taking answers from dreams." That's not science. Science is a clear, distinct process.

>If I pick up a book is it not real because the whole idea of a book is socially constructed?
You keep trying to bring it to a level of matter (as in atoms, not significance). I'm not talking about the book, I'm talking about whether it's "a classic." Do classic stories exist the same way a book exists?

>Things can exist even if we made them up.
I'm glad we finally agree.

>>19227263
>How can you believe in something that you know you made up?
>>19227637
> I don't know how you can believe in it when you know it's shit you made up intentionally.

>Things can exist even if we made them up.
>Things can exist even if we made them up.
>Things can exist even if we made them up.

You can respond if you wish, Messenger, but I'm off to work. It was fun turning your words back on you.

>>19228530
Turned it back on me so well that you avoided commenting on where I make the distinction of belief (the original point) and had to make strawmen arguments. Great job. Absolutely thrilling to see you failing to grasp basic concepts. It really did make flat earthers seem reasonable by comparison.

>>19228543
But I will say that the part you were right about was my bad analogy. When you meant a more abstract concept like a classic as opposed to a physical book. That was my mistake. But in everything else you were the one pulling sophistry out of your ass.

But in the interest of being honest I'll cede that particular point. When you're right, you're right.

>>19226907
Shinto literally has a God for every single thing. It's part of the religion. God of luck? Got it. God of a hill in the town park? Got it. It works this way because essentially anything you pray to becomes a God. Shinto God's become more divine and powerful with the more people that pray to them. Go to a local pond, find a turtle, and start praying to it. You praying to it elevates it's spirit, and since it is uncontested in that pond, it becomes the God of it.

>>19226907
The moment you acknowledge that you made it up, you admit that it isn't real.
That alone defeats the purpose of a religion which is faith above all else.
You know nothing about religious dogma because if you did, you wouldn't have started this in such a way.
Faith is irrational, blind, something that people will kill for and die for. It is the conviction of the masses, the voice of those that feel they are unheard, emotional and simply illogical.
Cult leaders manipulate it with charisma, they have books on how to sell it with charm and wit, they make rule books, they create strict doctrines and countless outfits for their followers to all dress in.
Nothing is amiss, nothing is wrong, and nothing can be accepted in to break the illusion.
That is why... You really... really... REALLY FUCKED UP!
This can't be a fucking religion, this can't be a cult, this can't even be a fucking pretend space spaghetti monster!
You just... have no concept on what religion is, but you act like you're a fucking genius!
And I love how your arguments completely avoid the topic at hand... because you can't really answer it.
Deflect the topic.
I guess that is something you managed to learn properly from your conservative Christian parents.
So bravo.

the most important part of the experiment is exploiting the "God spot" in the brain. No one talks about it in /x/ but that's what you have to leverage.

>>19228543
>avoided commenting on where I make the distinction of belief (the original point)

In your desperate attempt to backpedal, you fail to see you have no point once you concede your faulty analogy. But if you wish...

>believing in those things that we create is a very different kind of belief to begin with. Because when we create a book we know it is real and can believe it is.
But, like you admitted, belief in "a classic" is not the same. Yet that "classic" is just as made up and JUST AS REAL as the god OP might one day believe in.

>When people say they believe in a god they mean they believe it to be true.
Right, just like when people make up a nation, or declare a story to be classic.

>it is not a god he genuinely believes to exist indepdendently from his own mind
Not yet. Give him time to strengthen his faith. It's the same with any new convert to a religion, except he's the first convert.

>The only belief he can have about it is that it is a god concept that he made up.
Bullshit. Are you suggesting a belief has to be logical?

>That is very different than other religious beliefs where these gods are believed to exist as an independent entity.
Seems just as irrational to me.

>But in everything else you were the one pulling sophistry out of your ass.
>you were the one
I never accused you of sophistry. You're getting defensive.

>But in the interest of being honest I'll cede that particular point.
That was the only point.

>>19229129
You talk about it as though it was a single part that can be manipulated, but as it was stated in Psychology Today, "Spiritual experiences use many different parts of the brain: the God spot is functional rather than anatomical."

It isn't exactly gonna show people what you want them to see. They experimented on a "God Helmet", "Dr Persinger said that about eight in every 10 volunteers report quasi-religious feelings when wearing his helmet. However, when Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist and renowned atheist, wore it during the making of a BBC documentary, he famously failed to find God, saying that the helmet only affected his breathing and his limbs."
Excerpt from "Belief and the brain's 'God spot'".

All of these just show that it simply won't guarantee success, even show favorable results.


"Although there is no single “God spot” in the brain, feelings of self-transcendence are associated with reduced electrical activity in the right parietal lobe, a structure located above the right ear.

Self- transcendence, or a sense of the otherworldly, is the opposite of being self-focused and is a convenient definition of spirituality and/or religious sensibility used by researchers. This perception is generated by many experiences in addition to religion, including brain trauma, drug states, and epileptic seizures."

Excerpt of "The God Spot Revisited"

You need to rethink your idea on what you are gonna need to use to exploit manipulating others into seeing your God.

>>19226971
Fuck off. Don't demonize people that refuse to believe in a God that's an asshole.

>>19226907
You don't have to be a Christian to believe in a God. There aren't multiple Gods, and the one God doesn't interfere. God is less of an autonomous conscious being, more of a concept -- the collective consciousness. This universe was created with self assembling chemical processes and quantum mechanics that allow conscious life to come about on its own and control the universe around it. That's God yo. When you're praying, you're basically praying to yourself and changing details of the simulation.

>>19226907
dude, if this is a success, then you will just be proving that all deities are just tulpas

>>19229772
All that would be needed for this newly created god to exist independently from OP's mind is for another mind to accept it, to believe in it.

And another mind after that.
And another after that.
And another
And another...

Again, just like a nation or a "classic" story.

>>19229789
So you're the OP, pretty much.
Only the OP has used the statement of "nation" or classic story as though it was a fictional nuanced meaning.
Trying to act like there are more people that support his rather ridiculous agenda despite being disproven repeatedly incorrect.

You're just pathetic. How can someone believe in something that you blatantly stated isn't true? Faith is all about blind conviction. Without that, you have nothing. No matter how you rationalize it, Faith is irrational, it doesn't follow rules, nor does it follow logic.
That is why it has always contests so heavily with science so viciously.
You just can't win with this.
There is no graceful way to prove that your silly make-believe pathetic God is going to just remain a mere fantasy.
A delusion made by a man who thought that he could pretend that he could "Do Religion Too."

>>19229772

Pretty much. Religions are likened to virtual reality simulations

https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/Edge20160628

>>19229772
Don't make him out to be anything more than just a charlatan.
Someone who wants to do something simply for his own benefit, not because he has a benevolent reason behind it, but because he just wants to make a profit out of it.
He shot himself in the foot the moment he stated "Making up my own God up to believe in."
Shattering the power of faith and strength of belief that could have fostered whatever his deity might have used to grow.
It won't come from this. This isn't even a stillborn God, there wasn't even a conception...
We are witness to nothing more than the posturing of a man making up stories and pretending whatever he is pretending.

>>19229924
No, they aren't.
You're talking out of your ass like usual.

For one, they are much more powerful, much MUCH more intense, but you are getting your information from someone who is clearly not a licensed neurologist.

Even so, there is that fucking God Spot that people just love talking about.
If we're talking about that, we should talk about the "God helmet" made by Michael Persinger. Designed to try and stimulate the temporal lobes with a rotating magnetic field in the hopes of creating an artificial sense of cosmic bliss.

Dr. Persinger (per the article "Belief and the brain's 'God spot'") stated that every eight out of 10 people given the helmet experienced a state of profound bliss wearing it. However, when Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist, and renowned atheist, wore it during the making of a BBC documentary, he famously failed to find God, saying that the helmet only affected his breathing and his limbs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

I am repeating this again because you aren't fucking getting it. Especially with the "Religions are likened to virtual reality simulations". They aren't. You think they are, but you are wrong.
God... is what God is.
People go years not knowing him, her, or it.
You want to make him up... but that isn't the way.
You know what the way is for some people.
They found God in themselves by taking in drugs, or pushing themselves to the extreme.
They didn't make God up, they proved themselves to God to earn the right to have their God show itself to them.
Even now, some people find God in a dream, or in life-changing moments, but... they never make it up if they genuinely wanted to find their true God.

>>19229882
>So you're the OP, pretty much.
No, but I've been very active in the thread. This was my first post: >>19227590
And this was where the "belief in your own creation" started for me: >>19227689

And I thought of another example of believing in your own creation as an independent entity: Platonic Ideals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

>Only the OP has used the statement of "nation" or classic story as though it was a fictional nuanced meaning.
When did OP even mention nations?

>there are more people that support his rather ridiculous agenda
Do you mean where I directly quoted from essays written by sociologists and anthropologists specifically on the issue of "What is a nation?" Quotes that came from links that were supposed to be supporting the opposite?

>despite being disproven repeatedly incorrect.
No I haven't.

>How can someone believe in something that you blatantly stated isn't true?
OP NEVER said the god he's creating isn't true. Not once. Quote it, liar.

>No matter how you rationalize it, Faith is irrational, it doesn't follow rules, nor does it follow logic.
Yes. Irrational and illogical enough to believe in the independent existence of something you knowingly made up.

>There is no graceful way to prove that your silly make-believe pathetic God is going to just remain a mere fantasy.
So why do you keep trying?

>A delusion made by a man who thought that he could pretend that he could "Do Religion Too."
On this we agree. OP is delusional. That doesn't mean he can't have faith in his own creation. Really, the fact that OP is delusional PROVES he can have faith in his own creation.

>>19229934
>He shot himself in the foot the moment he stated "Making up my own God up to believe in."
I disagree. Read the thread. It is quite possible to believe the god you knowingly created has an eternal, independent existence.

>>19231500
My apologies there. I didn't mean to attack you on such an aggressive level.
...but for defending certain areas of myself.


>>And I thought of another example of believing in your own creation as an independent entity: Platonic Ideals
I thought of something similar to the Gods that people imagine in their head when they think of when they imagine their own internal deity.
What is a personal God, and what is one's true God?

>>When did OP even mention nations?
I concede to this on the part that I had assumed that the OP and you were the same.

>>there are more people that support his rather ridiculous agenda
That is more... difficult for me to explain. I have a natural discomfort with that sort of NGO kind of thing. The more I read it, the more I get this sort of icky sense of dread that they're using cult terminology. Call me paranoid, but I just see it something to be distrusted.

>>No I haven't.
My opinions were poisoned initially by initial biases, I freely admit it.

>>OP NEVER said the god he's creating isn't true. Not once. Quote it, liar.
"Making up my own God up to believe in" OP introductory title.

If I may quote the Dictionary phrasal verb of make. 4. concoct or invent a story, lie, or plan.

>>So why do you keep trying?
This is gonna be my main focus... I think the other three focus on the same point here.

Honestly, I don't believe in God myself. I never really had much of a faith in anything.
Most of my life, I've felt nothing, except emptiness, lifelessness, depression, and isolation.
I stare at those that do have religion, that have something to believe in, and I find them fascinating.
I hate them, but I always want to understand them as much as I resent them.
I've read much into different religions, despite my own agnosticism, it is why I feel a respect towards them.
Faith is all about finding a God, even if it isn't one of the main ones, you can still find your God.
This just does a disservice to himself.

>>19233022
>"Making up my own God up to believe in" OP introductory title.
Just because OP says he is creating his god does NOT mean OP can't believe the god is true, and independent from OP.

>If I may quote the Dictionary phrasal verb of make. 4. concoct or invent a story, lie, or plan.
This is intellectually dishonest. Why did you skip the first three definitions of the verb?
>1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material,
>2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about
>3. to cause to be or become; render

>Honestly, I don't believe in God myself.
>despite my own agnosticism

This isn't even soft agnosticism - which I still hate for subverting the strict definition of agnostic. But this is a different topic and a sore point for me.

>Faith is all about finding a God, even if it isn't one of the main ones, you can still find your God.
And OP has decided his god is one of his own making.

>>19233057

>>Just because OP says he is creating his god does NOT mean OP can't believe the god is true, and independent from OP.
No matter how much you try to say that he is making something that will be independent of him.
Something of his mind will still be heavily colored by his thoughts and his feelings.
An imaginary construct that is given more autonomy than most others.

>>This is intellectually dishonest. Why did you skip the first three definitions of the verb?
An omission of unnecessary clutter that wouldn't have pertained to the matter at hand. It isn't intellectually dishonest; it is just a better application of space.
If I needed to define "make-up" to mean something pertaining to something, for example, one, two, or three... then it would have been more fitting to have used those instead.

>>This isn't even soft agnosticism - which I still hate for subverting the strict definition of agnostic. But this is a different topic and a sore point for me.
I do not believe in God, but I can't state that there is no possibility that there may not be a higher being out there.
That is how I am agnostic.
I want to believe that there might be something greater than me, I leave myself open to it, but I just... can't feel it in my heart at the moment.
I feel hypocritical, I don't like feeling that way, but that is just the way my heart is at the moment.
Twisted because I can't really accept any conventional dogma, nothing outside of it sounds right, not even made-up shit is acceptable to me.
I just... can't see anything out there... but I wish there might be something more. I leave myself open to it because there has to be more than that... we keep finding more and more in science every day.
Shit gets disproven and rewritten so there needs to be more than we are seeing.

>>And OP has decided his god is one of his own making.
If he does, he does. I just can't see it becoming a mainstream religion. Even cult ones had certain themes.

>>19234136
>No matter how much you try to say that he is making something that will be independent of him.
This statement agrees with me, yet is parsed like a disagreement. What do you mean by this?
>Something of his mind will still be heavily colored by his thoughts and his feelings. An imaginary construct that is given more autonomy than most others.
And?
>unnecessary clutter
Intellectual dishonesty, you mean. You deliberatly skipped over the more apt and common definitions of the word to find a lesser-used annotation that in a small sense agrees with your preconceived notion.
>If I needed to define "make-up"
We weren't considering YOUR definition. We were considering what OP meant by "make." This is why you are being intellectually dishonest - you are projecting your own ideas and agendas onto OP.

>I do not believe in God, but I can't state that there is no possibility that there may not be a higher being out there.
>That is how I am agnostic.
I understand. You are a soft agnostic, a wishy-washy person who can't stand solidly on his own conviction. Go look up hard agnosticism and why I despise your position.

>I just can't see it becoming a mainstream religion.
Where did OP say he was trying to make a mainstream religion? OP didn't even plan on starting a cult unless he "got real good."
>Even cult ones had certain themes.
You are assuming OP had no theme. It seemed to me the theme was fortune. God of Fortune, getting a yacht - these are thematic to me.