Thread for Things That Made You Frown Today

Printable View

10-17-2013, 03:52 PM
cwolff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

It's interesting to think about how this would go if the anti-iconists got their way back in the day. God makes a very convenient target, that naked white guy writhing on the cross, but is he really so different from all the other things people hold sacred? Isn't it the act of holding sacred that so riles you?

I think you're on the right track but you are missing my point. I'm not talking about Jesus per se. I'm talking about all mythology. Or am I missing your point? I do not believe in holding anything sacred if that answer any questions.
10-17-2013, 03:55 PM
Latrinsorm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradii

The why questions are, scientifically, the least interesting. Why are we here? Random chance for the most part. If we started the universe over, and played it again, would we be here, most likely not. The how's are the questions of interest.

Perhaps I was not clear. The question is not why me, why you? (Especially not why you.) The question is why humans? why matter? why existence?

Please note that this is putting aside how things circa Big Bang get, if I may descend into technical jargon for a moment, really freaky.

Quote:

Meh, your god sounds like a real bitch.

Perhaps. Or perhaps you are. Or perhaps society is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwolff

Why? It's already happening.

Atheism is not the lack of belief, and it certainly does not imply a lack of belief in the sacred.
10-17-2013, 04:00 PM
cwolff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Please note that this is putting aside how things circa Big Bang get, if I may descend into technical jargon for a moment, really freaky.Perhaps. Or perhaps you are. Or perhaps society is.Atheism is not the lack of belief, and it certainly does not imply a lack of belief in the sacred.

I would say that the only reason we have a word like Atheism is because we've been such a theistic culture. Ideally there'd be no need to create a term but theism is such a powerful influence that the introduction of thinking which goes against the grain requires a new word so I would urge caution in one's mental definition of what an atheist really is.
10-17-2013, 04:01 PM
Latrinsorm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwolff

I think you're on the right track but you are missing my point. I'm not talking about Jesus per se. I'm talking about all mythology. Or am I missing your point? I do not believe in holding anything sacred if that answer any questions.

You may not believe you do, but you probably do. Is there anything you can think of that you would be offended by people laughing at? (like your penis) That is what it means to hold sacred. Angels and demons are examples of the sacred, not its exemplars. Think less about the form of Christian rituals and more about their function: you don't have to genuflect with your knee, so to speak.
10-17-2013, 04:08 PM
cwolff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You may not believe you do, but you probably do. Is there anything you can think of that you would be offended by people laughing at? That is what it means to hold sacred. Angels and demons are examples of the sacred, not its exemplars. Think less about the form of Christian rituals and more about their function: you don't have to genuflect with your knee, so to speak.

Sure, we all do. That does not mean that it's correct or even a good way to think nor does it mean that it isn't worthwhile to fight these beliefs. The basis for being offended is fear in some way shape or form.
10-17-2013, 04:09 PM
AnticorRifling

Sup.
10-17-2013, 04:20 PM
Latrinsorm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwolff

Sure, we all do. That does not mean that it's correct or even a good way to think nor does it mean that it isn't worthwhile to fight these beliefs. The basis for being offended is fear in some way shape or form.

You can fight a particular belief pretty successfully, but just as you say, humanity has a seemingly universal propensity towards sacralizing. I would think focusing on the particular downsides of the particular belief would be more effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnticorRifling

Sup.

Naw... I'd have to say that's a pretty fair reaction.
10-17-2013, 04:21 PM
Tisket

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwolff

Why? It's already happening.

The increased means of accurately measuring a static group does not prove what you think it proves.

Quote:

Is this observation relative to the discussion at hand or are you just throwing out some tangential musing that you've been kicking around?

Just an observation about the predictability of atheists in general.
10-17-2013, 04:24 PM
cwolff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tisket

The increased means of accurately measuring a static group does not prove what you think it proves.

Are you saying that there have always been the same amount of atheists as a percentage of population but we are only now measuring their numbers so that it appears this group is getting larger when in fact they aren't?
10-17-2013, 04:31 PM
Tgo01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgo01

To everyone saying it's stupid to believe in God because you can't see him; do you believe in Italy? How do you know it exists? Have you seen Italy with your own eyes?

What about Osama Osama bin Laden? Have you ever actually met the man? Spoke with him to see what makes him tick?

No? Then how do you know he exists? How can you prove he existed and he wasn't just someone the US government made up as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan?

Just one mocking reply to this? People usually have trouble defending their "I only believe in things I can see" argument.