Cthulhu's Paradox

[Taosanga]

Well clearly Nietzsche would be good friends with you. Same with Freud, but I'm sure you'd be pissed to be friends with Freud.

Personally I agree with your points stated above, OP, that can be said. And even more with Sidhicum.

Fear of death is the specific kind of fear that is the heart of religion. Religion is pretty much only half or even a quarter of the story. Throughout human existence we aren't controlled by religion. It is the fear of the unknown and the fear of death and the hereafter that controls people, as well as suffering as a biological and decaying being.

[The Rich Port]

My God, what the hell did religion do to you to make you think that?

I've known religious people all my life, and none of them have "gone insane" or "live in fear" because of it, quite the opposite actually. Nor does religion condone the practices you've found abhorrent in the Catholic Church. The people who are responsible for said atrocities are still very much in the wrong according to Catholic teaching and morality, regardless of where they are in the hierarchy. The problem is not in the teachings or belief in religion but the corruption of the governing parties of the Catholic Church itself, which is not the same thing. That's like saying no one should identify as an American or believe in values espoused by our country because we had Bush as a president at some point (or possibly Trump in the near future... *shudders*).

As far as I've seen, people believe in religion not because they fear judgement from an unseen being. or feel like they have to in order to be moral, but because it gives a profound sense of meaning, because of a sense that their religion is profoundly right or true in some way. And for those who have that sense, no argument can make them abandon what they believe, nor should it. Are there bad elements in religious groups or in the hierarchy of some organized religions? Yes, and they should be fought. And more often than not, those who sincerely believe in their religion will lead the fight against such groups. In debate and elsewhere.

This. And people blaming the religions for corrupting people into doing terrible things really aren't giving much credit to individuals for people that call themselves humanists.

... Humanists believe in the goodness of human beings and in treating human beings with all the decency they deserve.

Also, irrational thoughts and bad actions cause harm to happen... Don't matter if it's religion or greed or whatever.

Humanism doesn't prescribe that evil does not exist, however, or that everything human beings do are inherently for the positive.

Quite the contrary.

SECULAR Humanism, however, as you said, believes human beings are in control of their own destiny as opposed to being prescribed by some chode in the sky.

I think I covered that in my own post but thanks for putting it in more cohesive words and expanding on the point.

But you avoided the question of the thread... Though I don't blame you, I am quite eldritch.

Do you think religion is necessary?

To a certain degree, I think it is, but nowhere near a degree that we need keep it, like a lamprey suckling on a tumor, shrinking it and keeping it from being bloated with blood but never really solving the problem.

Religion is literally like opium, in that you need to wean people of it lest they have a catatonic seizure, or, in philo-psychological terms, go insane from the revelation.

My God, what the hell did religion do to you to make you think that?

I've known religious people all my life, and none of them have "gone insane" or "live in fear" because of it, quite the opposite actually. Nor does religion condone the practices you've found abhorrent in the Catholic Church. The people who are responsible for said atrocities are still very much in the wrong according to Catholic teaching and morality, regardless of where they are in the hierarchy. The problem is not in the teachings or belief in religion but the corruption of the governing parties of the Catholic Church itself, which is not the same thing. That's like saying no one should identify as an American or believe in values espoused by our country because we had Bush as a president at some point (or possibly Trump in the near future... *shudders*).

As far as I've seen, people believe in religion not because they fear judgement from an unseen being. or feel like they have to in order to be moral, but because it gives a profound sense of meaning, because of a sense that their religion is profoundly right or true in some way. And for those who have that sense, no argument can make them abandon what they believe, nor should it. Are there bad elements in religious groups or in the hierarchy of some organized religions? Yes, and they should be fought. And more often than not, those who sincerely believe in their religion will lead the fight against such groups. In debate and elsewhere.

It was created by humans. That's what it did to me. It was born. /EPIC EVIL SAYING/

Erm, yeah, religion doesn't condone Catholic practices because it's... Religion.

That's your own personal view, and seeing your beliefs as "right" or "true" can bite people in the ass... Specifically it can bite me in the ass.

Why shouldn't it? Shouldn't people that have incorrect beliefs be persuaded against them?

If a kayaker believes that a waterfall isn't coming down the river, when the Niagara Falls are actually right beyond them, is it good if they believe that there are no waterfalls coming with all their heart?

Doesn't even need to be waterfall. Maybe there's a Catholic Priest waiting in the river to creep at them.

You should be well-aware what religion did to some people to become atheists, and also that not all atheists are "angry" at religion; some atheists just see it as irrational and harmful. Like sniffing glue.

Also, way to miss the points brought up in this thread.

[The Rich Port]

Well clearly Nietzsche would be good friends with you. Same with Freud, but I'm sure you'd be pissed to be friends with Freud.

Personally I agree with your points stated above, OP, that can be said. And even more with Sidhicum.

Fear of death is the specific kind of fear that is the heart of religion. Religion is pretty much only half or even a quarter of the story. Throughout human existence we aren't controlled by religion. It is the fear of the unknown and the fear of death and the hereafter that controls people, as well as suffering as a biological and decaying being.

H.P. Lovecraft is basically what would be the result between a slash pairing of Freud/Nietzsche.

Now, the question is, who is Rule 63'd?

Who SHOULD be Rule 63'd?

[Jiakros]

I'm a Deist.

This is why.

You see, I do believe in a god. There is overwhelming evidence of a higher power, especially among Theoretical Physics.

However, I do think that god doesn't care about cloning, or transhumanism, or abortion. Just be a good person, and they are fine. God doesn't care if you worship them. Just be a good person. There are Christians in hell and atheists (obviously converted, though) in heaven.

Why do I think this? Why the hell not?

God, being a higher power, doesn't have a reason to care about such petty squabbles, as long as you do the right thing. What a bunch of idiots think does not equate to having a reason not to believe in god. God probably finds us stupid for caring about such things as the ramifications of cloning, transhumanism, and artificial intelligence, well, that is, when we base our beliefs off of faith instead of common sense. God doesn't want us to care, god wants us to live our lives.

[The Rich Port]

up until 3rd grade I really just viewed God as this dick who never gave me what I wanted when I asked. After that, I realized religion was more politics than anything else, so I played nice with the catholic school boys and religion teachers and become a student minister thingy.

Being Cultured + Understanding = Well Rounded Nice Guy

Well Rounded Nice Guy (or perceived to be well rounded nice guy) > Talking about atheism

So yea, religion controls people. But if people are stupid enough to be controlled by it, why not play it up to use for good and or your well being.

So.... You started with an incredibly wrong and inaccurate view of God and religion, and then came to believe in a very jaded and also ultimately flawed view?

Anyway, that's besides the point.

We're all controlled by something, Marion. And even then, does it count as "being controlled" if you choose to apply yourself to it? Not every religious person starts out in a religious household, and even those that do don't necessary take it seriously for their whole life until they make a choice.

There is no single accurate portrayal of God... It's not his fault his Catholic school sucked.

Yeah, makes me wonder why you brought it the fuck up.

... Sure, but a God isn't one of them.

I'm a Deist.

This is why.

You see, I do believe in a god. There is overwhelming evidence of a higher power, especially among Theoretical Physics.

However, I do think that god doesn't care about cloning, or transhumanism, or abortion. Just be a good person, and they are fine. God doesn't care if you worship them. Just be a good person. There are Christians in hell and atheists (obviously converted, though) in heaven.

Why do I think this? Why the hell not?

God, being a higher power, doesn't have a reason to care about such petty squabbles, as long as you do the right thing. What a bunch of idiots think does not equate to having a reason not to believe in god. God probably finds us stupid for caring about such things as the ramifications of cloning, transhumanism, and artificial intelligence, well, that is, when we base our beliefs off of faith instead of common sense. God doesn't want us to care, god wants us to live our lives.

You're going to have to explain what you mean... What about theoretical physics proves God? Also, why haven't you published these findings of yours instead of talking about it on here?

Also, yes... What God thinks about us isn't at discussion here.

It is whether having people enlightened to the non-existence of a superstition is worthy, and safe to do.

That is Cthulhu's Paradox: people can't handle the truth, so they tell themselves comforting lies... Which goes against everything religions have preached since their foundations tens of thousands of years ago.

In much the same way Deism is a foundation-less opposition movement to religion.

I was a Deist for a few minutes before I was an atheist, because it's basically being a half-hearted atheist.

[USS Monitor]

I think when people find religion, or when they lose their religion, and a lot of other things change around the same time, it's important to remember that correlation doesn't equal causation, and causation can work in more than one direction. Let's take the example of a drug addict who finds Jesus and gets clean. Maybe Jesus helped them get clean, or maybe the decision to get clean put them in a mood where they were more receptive to Christian preaching.

[Kilobugya]

There is a very lose connection between religion and ethics. Someone who acts ethically won't suddenly start raping and murdering around because he loses his faith, and an employer voluntarily exposing his employees to toxic substances for a little more profits won't stop because he suddenly starts believing in God. You'll find some occasional case of people changing how ethically they act at the same time of a change of faith, but it's more than something shattering happened in their life, changing both morality and religion at the same time.

So no worry, you can make your parents doubt their faith without turning them into monsters.

The connection between religion and ethics will more be specific to a few issues, where a religious mindset and a secular mindset will tell you a different answer about what is ethical - like for abortion. But it's not that religious people or atheists are more/less ethical, it's that a different world view gives a different answer to "what's ethical to do ?" And that's part of why it's important to get an accurate world view (which religion can't do), trying to be ethical under the cover of myths will mean that sometimes you'll act unethically.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'd say it's a personal choice. Some people like the comfort of trusting something else, something beyond logic and science. There's no point ruining that peace of mind to prove that your "right"

[The Rich Port]

I'd say it's a personal choice. Some people like the comfort of trusting something else, something beyond logic and science. There's no point ruining that peace of mind to prove that your "right"

The other choice would be submitting to their prescription... Something I should clarify is that they were trying to make me "see the light" and ended up getting a face-full of possibly mind-raping logic. I love my parents... But that doesn't mean I'm going to sacrifice my mental faculties for them.

It is not a "personal choice". It is usually something much deeper than that, as Salus Maior assured us.

If it were that easy, there would be more atheists in the world.

I think when people find religion, or when they lose their religion, and a lot of other things change around the same time, it's important to remember that correlation doesn't equal causation, and causation can work in more than one direction. Let's take the example of a drug addict who finds Jesus and gets clean. Maybe Jesus helped them get clean, or maybe the decision to get clean put them in a mood where they were more receptive to Christian preaching.

Thanks for that, Monitor.

I find the religious take credit for a lot of things that they shouldn't... Spreading morality and ethics, for example.

There is a very lose connection between religion and ethics. Someone who acts ethically won't suddenly start raping and murdering around because he loses his faith, and an employer voluntarily exposing his employees to toxic substances for a little more profits won't stop because he suddenly starts believing in God. You'll find some occasional case of people changing how ethically they act at the same time of a change of faith, but it's more than something shattering happened in their life, changing both morality and religion at the same time.

So no worry, you can make your parents doubt their faith without turning them into monsters.

The connection between religion and ethics will more be specific to a few issues, where a religious mindset and a secular mindset will tell you a different answer about what is ethical - like for abortion. But it's not that religious people or atheists are more/less ethical, it's that a different world view gives a different answer to "what's ethical to do ?" And that's part of why it's important to get an accurate world view (which religion can't do), trying to be ethical under the cover of myths will mean that sometimes you'll act unethically.

You don't know my parents.

I suppose I should clarify: I'm not worried about them turning into serial killers... I'm worried they'll give up on life because it has no inherent purpose and start acting like emo teenagers. Doesn't help they already act like teenagers, just the preppy happy rich ones.

Which as any atheist will tell you is no big deal. You just make your own purpose for your life.

The irony is, my parents are the worst Catholics I've ever met. They haven't been to church in a decade, haven't done any sacraments, haven't even confessed their sins in a while, and they talk shit about the Pope on a regular basis.

And yet, they balk and worry and chastise me for being an atheist. You can see my dilemma, can't you.

[Pope Joan]

People control religions. Religions tell us what we want to hear. If there is any sort of hypnosis, it is self-hypnosis.

Culture Christianity is a horror; it is not real Christianity, but it is where most of the hate comes from. The same can be said for culture-Islam or culture-Hinduism. (both of which tolerate or encourage "honor killings", for instance, despite the protests of religious leaders).

[Imperium Sidhicum]

People control religions. Religions tell us what we want to hear. If there is any sort of hypnosis, it is self-hypnosis.

Culture Christianity is a horror; it is not real Christianity, but it is where most of the hate comes from. The same can be said for culture-Islam or culture-Hinduism. (both of which tolerate or encourage "honor killings", for instance, despite the protests of religious leaders).

Problem is, secular ideologies tend to be embraced equally uncritically by their followers.

Human beings have an inherent psychological need to have a higher authority to follow. Some have a more pronounced need for it than others, and very few don't have it altogether (these few mostly populating prisons, and a handful becoming history-changing leaders). Most are in between, and will readily cave in to pressure from either side, depending on which side is stronger at the time. The victory of either leads a society to becoming radicalized, extremist in either conformity to tradition, or in rejection of it.

Western society is currently an example of one being increasingly dominated by extremists rejecting tradition, as opposed to parts of the Islamic world, which is dominated by extremist traditionalists.

Extremism in any form has the potential for violence. Secular extremists have killed more people within 20th century than all religious extremists combined in the entire history of Mankind. Secular extremism has the potential to be all the more dangerous, because unlike religious extremism, secular ideology has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence.

[Alvecia]

People control religions. Religions tell us what we want to hear. If there is any sort of hypnosis, it is self-hypnosis.

Culture Christianity is a horror; it is not real Christianity, but it is where most of the hate comes from. The same can be said for culture-Islam or culture-Hinduism. (both of which tolerate or encourage "honor killings", for instance, despite the protests of religious leaders).

Extremism in any form has the potential for violence. Secular extremists have killed more people within 20th century than all religious extremists combined in the entire history of Mankind.

I'd love to see the data for this. Also, how broad a brush are you using?

Secular extremism has the potential to be all the more dangerous, because unlike religious extremism, secular ideology has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence.

I would argue that religious extremism has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence either.
At times I would argue that it encourages killing and senseless violence.

[Pope Joan]

Extremism in any form has the potential for violence. Secular extremists have killed more people within 20th century than all religious extremists combined in the entire history of Mankind.

I'd love to see the data for this. Also, how broad a brush are you using?

Secular extremism has the potential to be all the more dangerous, because unlike religious extremism, secular ideology has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence.

I would argue that religious extremism has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence either.
At times I would argue that it encourages killing and senseless violence.

"For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million. (Abramovich, 2009)"

Richard Dawkins and friends take quotes such as this as claiming that these villains were atheists and were therefore monsters. Looking closely and fairly, that is not what is being said. All I see is that these individuals made no profession of religion, that's all. So whatever they perpetrated was not done in the name of religion. This goes against that popular reaction "all killing and violence stems from religion".

[Alvecia]

I'd love to see the data for this. Also, how broad a brush are you using?


I would argue that religious extremism has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence either.
At times I would argue that it encourages killing and senseless violence.

"For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million. (Abramovich, 2009)"

Richard Dawkins and friends take quotes such as this as claiming that these villains were atheists and were therefore monsters. Looking closely and fairly, that is not what is being said. All I see is that these individuals made no profession of religion, that's all. So whatever they perpetrated was not done in the name of religion. This goes against that popular reaction "all killing and violence stems from religion".

I don't think that it does.
I do think it makes it easier to rationalise killing and violence.
And, at times, can even directly cause it.

[Risottia]

The most profitable commodity in the world isn't oil, gold, diamonds or information. It's fear.

Spoken like a true Sith. *hat off*

I'm beginning to think that Nietzsche was right, and that only SOME humans can wrestle themselves free from fear, especially the fear of supernatural vengeance.

[6Marion9]

"For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million. (Abramovich, 2009)"

Richard Dawkins and friends take quotes such as this as claiming that these villains were atheists and were therefore monsters. Looking closely and fairly, that is not what is being said. All I see is that these individuals made no profession of religion, that's all. So whatever they perpetrated was not done in the name of religion. This goes against that popular reaction "all killing and violence stems from religion".

I don't think that it does.
I do think it makes it easier to rationalise killing and violence.
And, at times, can even directly cause it.

What's the difference if someone is killed in the name of Christianity vs killed in the name of Kyrgyzstan?

Dead is dead.

[The Rich Port]

The most profitable commodity in the world isn't oil, gold, diamonds or information. It's fear.

Spoken like a true Sith. *hat off*

I'm beginning to think that Nietzsche was right, and that only SOME humans can wrestle themselves free from fear, especially the fear of supernatural vengeance.

If I'm the super-man... We are FUCKED as a species.

Lemme be the first to say: being an atheist doesn't make you a super-man. It just makes you... An atheist.

Sure, for me, it meant I became more self-confident and hopeful for my future... But COME ON.

HOW HARD IS IT.

I'd love to see the data for this. Also, how broad a brush are you using?


I would argue that religious extremism has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence either.
At times I would argue that it encourages killing and senseless violence.

"For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million. (Abramovich, 2009)"

Richard Dawkins and friends take quotes such as this as claiming that these villains were atheists and were therefore monsters. Looking closely and fairly, that is not what is being said. All I see is that these individuals made no profession of religion, that's all. So whatever they perpetrated was not done in the name of religion. This goes against that popular reaction "all killing and violence stems from religion".

Besides, Hitler was an especially obvious example of using religion as a tool of control and extremism.

Most Nazi Germans were Christian, 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic. Hitler appealed to their religious beliefs in his racist propaganda vision of the Aryan race and in the racial animosity towards Jews that was common in that day. Fascism dictates that nothing can come from outside the state. The Nazi Party was willing to tolerate religious institutions so far as they kowtowed to the Party.

And that's not even going into the weird Pagan shit the Thule Society was into.

I don't think that it does.
I do think it makes it easier to rationalise killing and violence.
And, at times, can even directly cause it.

What's the difference if someone is killed in the name of Christianity vs killed in the name of Kyrgyzstan?

Dead is dead.

Because Kyrgyztan can be flawed.

God cannot be flawed. Allegedly.

"For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million. (Abramovich, 2009)"

Richard Dawkins and friends take quotes such as this as claiming that these villains were atheists and were therefore monsters. Looking closely and fairly, that is not what is being said. All I see is that these individuals made no profession of religion, that's all. So whatever they perpetrated was not done in the name of religion. This goes against that popular reaction "all killing and violence stems from religion".

I don't think that it does.
I do think it makes it easier to rationalise killing and violence.
And, at times, can even directly cause it.

And, really, neither I nor Dawkins or anyone else has made that claim whose claim is supported.

Religion is an irrational belief... It's more likely to suffer from a lack of introspection and... Irrationality.

Not that "only the religious kill".
'

People control religions. Religions tell us what we want to hear. If there is any sort of hypnosis, it is self-hypnosis.

Culture Christianity is a horror; it is not real Christianity, but it is where most of the hate comes from. The same can be said for culture-Islam or culture-Hinduism. (both of which tolerate or encourage "honor killings", for instance, despite the protests of religious leaders).

Problem is, secular ideologies tend to be embraced equally uncritically by their followers.

Human beings have an inherent psychological need to have a higher authority to follow. Some have a more pronounced need for it than others, and very few don't have it altogether (these few mostly populating prisons, and a handful becoming history-changing leaders). Most are in between, and will readily cave in to pressure from either side, depending on which side is stronger at the time. The victory of either leads a society to becoming radicalized, extremist in either conformity to tradition, or in rejection of it.

Western society is currently an example of one being increasingly dominated by extremists rejecting tradition, as opposed to parts of the Islamic world, which is dominated by extremist traditionalists.

Extremism in any form has the potential for violence. Secular extremists have killed more people within 20th century than all religious extremists combined in the entire history of Mankind. Secular extremism has the potential to be all the more dangerous, because unlike religious extremism, secular ideology has no inherent taboo against killing and senseless violence.

And that's why I'm still a Communist... Wait... Secular ideologies are made by people. They can be flawed. Even secular extremists have admitted that.

I'm afraid we now disagree completely, Sidhicum. Humans have much less a need to be controlled and more a need to have guidance. The problems occur when the guides are assholes or ill-informed themselves. What humans have is a desire to conform, out of either fear or a desire for recognition from their peers.

... What is extreme about what is happening in America, for example? If anything, America, despite it's many progressive efforts, remains in a quagmire of tradition. Religious fundamentalists, the Republican party (especially now that it's primary nominee is a corrupt businessman and traditionalist), the many traditionalist groups like the Heritage Foundation who work for tradition in the background, Evangelism, all still plague this country.

If anything, tradition is like Cthulhu. That is not dead which can eternal lie.

Also, if you are referring to Stalin and the "atheist state" of the Soviet Union... Please educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... viet_Union

The Russian Orthodox Church, especially, remained throughout the Soviet Union's history and currently as a tool of control and a buttress for the ruling government.

[Alvecia]

I don't think that it does.
I do think it makes it easier to rationalise killing and violence.
And, at times, can even directly cause it.

What's the difference if someone is killed in the name of Christianity vs killed in the name of Kyrgyzstan?

Dead is dead.

Well if we're talking about how easier it is to rationalise then the difference is that killing in the name of Christianity would make it easier to rationalise the killing.

[The Rich Port]

... I feel kinda like a shill for naming it Cthulhu's Paradox because nobody knows who Shub-Niggurath is even though she's far more powerful and cooler, IMO, than Cthulhu.

[Shaggai]

... I feel kinda like a shill for naming it Cthulhu's Paradox because nobody knows who Shub-Niggurath is even though she's far more powerful and cooler, IMO, than Cthulhu.

On the one hand, the squid is vastly overrated, but on the other hand, your statement is wrong. First of all, relative "power" is completely irrelevant for humans dealing with such entities, and even in a situation in which power could be construed to matter whatsoever I'm not sure the goat would be more powerful than the squid anyway. Secondly, the squid is far more appropriate to the topic of the breakdown of morality when stripped of religious context. In fact, this is the main reason to fear it.

[The Rich Port]

... I feel kinda like a shill for naming it Cthulhu's Paradox because nobody knows who Shub-Niggurath is even though she's far more powerful and cooler, IMO, than Cthulhu.

On the one hand, the squid is vastly overrated, but on the other hand, your statement is wrong. First of all, relative "power" is completely irrelevant for humans dealing with such entities, and even in a situation in which power could be construed to matter whatsoever I'm not sure the goat would be more powerful than the squid anyway. Secondly, the squid is far more appropriate to the topic of the breakdown of morality when stripped of religious context. In fact, this is the main reason to fear it.

Erm... Shub-Niggurath is an Outer Goddess. From what I understand, she is Cthulhu's grandmother. Cthulhu is the priest of the Outer Gods. He WORSHIPS them and directs the other Great Old Ones in their worship.

It does make me wonder why Cthulhu is so popular in-universe... He's just a Great Old One whose power is insignificant compared to the Outer Gods. I guess because he reaches out to people?

But, your second point does make sense, I suppose... But if only people knew.

Still feel like kind of a shill...

I FAILED YA SHUBBY BABY.

[Uxupox]

On the one hand, the squid is vastly overrated, but on the other hand, your statement is wrong. First of all, relative "power" is completely irrelevant for humans dealing with such entities, and even in a situation in which power could be construed to matter whatsoever I'm not sure the goat would be more powerful than the squid anyway. Secondly, the squid is far more appropriate to the topic of the breakdown of morality when stripped of religious context. In fact, this is the main reason to fear it.

Erm... Shub-Niggurath is an Outer Goddess. From what I understand, she is Cthulhu's grandmother. Cthulhu is the priest of the Outer Gods. He WORSHIPS them and directs the other Great Old Ones in their worship.

It does make me wonder why Cthulhu is so popular in-universe... He's just a Great Old One whose power is insignificant compared to the Outer Gods. I guess because he reaches out to people?

But, your second point does make sense, I suppose... But if only people knew.

Still feel like kind of a shill...

I FAILED YA SHUBBY BABY.

Somebody has been watching too much Demonbane.

[The Rich Port]

Erm... Shub-Niggurath is an Outer Goddess. From what I understand, she is Cthulhu's grandmother. Cthulhu is the priest of the Outer Gods. He WORSHIPS them and directs the other Great Old Ones in their worship.

It does make me wonder why Cthulhu is so popular in-universe... He's just a Great Old One whose power is insignificant compared to the Outer Gods. I guess because he reaches out to people?

But, your second point does make sense, I suppose... But if only people knew.

Still feel like kind of a shill...

I FAILED YA SHUBBY BABY.

Somebody has been watching too much Demonbane.

Delta Green, actually...

I think it's YOU who's been watching too much Demonbane... SIR. How the fuck did you even make that pull... Jesus fuck. I didn't even know what it was until you brought it up

[Shaggai]

On the one hand, the squid is vastly overrated, but on the other hand, your statement is wrong. First of all, relative "power" is completely irrelevant for humans dealing with such entities, and even in a situation in which power could be construed to matter whatsoever I'm not sure the goat would be more powerful than the squid anyway. Secondly, the squid is far more appropriate to the topic of the breakdown of morality when stripped of religious context. In fact, this is the main reason to fear it.

Erm... Shub-Niggurath is an Outer Goddess. From what I understand, she is Cthulhu's grandmother. Cthulhu is the priest of the Outer Gods. He WORSHIPS them and directs the other Great Old Ones in their worship.

It does make me wonder why Cthulhu is so popular in-universe... He's just a Great Old One whose power is insignificant compared to the Outer Gods. I guess because he reaches out to people?

But, your second point does make sense, I suppose... But if only people knew.

Still feel like kind of a shill...

I FAILED YA SHUBBY BABY.

You have been gravely misled if you assume that Outer Gods, Great Old Ones, etc. are rigid, well-defined categories, and even more gravely misled if you assume that remotely human-analogous (or even human-comprehensible) reproductive biology applies to the Great Old Ones and their ilk. Any categorization system by necessity will fall far short of the complexities of the reality. The goat is a power, yes. But so is the squid. The only level of difference in power that cuts reality at the joints, so to speak, is that between a specificity and a generality. I am powerful, but Chaos is powerful beyond power.

[The Rich Port]

Erm... Shub-Niggurath is an Outer Goddess. From what I understand, she is Cthulhu's grandmother. Cthulhu is the priest of the Outer Gods. He WORSHIPS them and directs the other Great Old Ones in their worship.

It does make me wonder why Cthulhu is so popular in-universe... He's just a Great Old One whose power is insignificant compared to the Outer Gods. I guess because he reaches out to people?

But, your second point does make sense, I suppose... But if only people knew.

Still feel like kind of a shill...

I FAILED YA SHUBBY BABY.

You have been gravely misled if you assume that Outer Gods, Great Old Ones, etc. are rigid, well-defined categories, and even more gravely misled if you assume that remotely human-analogous (or even human-comprehensible) reproductive biology applies to the Great Old Ones and their ilk. Any categorization system by necessity will fall far short of the complexities of the reality. The goat is a power, yes. But so is the squid. The only level of difference in power that cuts reality at the joints, so to speak, is that between a specificity and a generality. I am powerful, but Chaos is powerful beyond power.

Well, even in chaos, there's a hierarchy, ffs... That's the thing about chaos. It's confusing and you don't really understand how it works and makes no sense... Either that or Lovecraft and Derleth really fucked something up.

Azathoth is at the top. That's why you leave that fucker in the middle of the galaxy where he can affect everyone the least with the Eldritch Stones.

He spawned a few of the other gods including Shub-Niggurath, who did indeed "mate" with Yog-Sothoth to create Cthulhu's "father", Yig.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason Cthulhu is the priest of the Outer Gods and not... And Outer God himself, say.