News:

Testimonial: "I cannot see a slither of a viable defense for this godawful circlejerk board."

Main Menu

Plus, I Got Religion

Started by Mesozoic Mister Nigel, March 08, 2009, 01:18:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

LMNO

Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

P3nT4gR4m

My point being, of course, is that I personally would take two of whatever it was I was curious about and add another 2, then count them.

Voila: 2 Savannah Monitors + 2 white mice = 2 Savannah Monitors.

Then I'd have to encode my findings in an elaborate piece of artwork so I didn't get burned for heresy.

I'm biased against religion because it has a history of burning people for the crime of dicovering useful stuff.

I'm also personally biased against adopting it because it's a very closed and stagnant form of reality modelling and, therefore, utterly useless to me. I wouldn't want to impose this view on anyone who insists on believing it tho, there are opportunities to scam moneys off people like this. Even if I haven't yet tapped into this potential revenue stream it is reassuring to know that it's available if I need it. Customer gullibility is the holy grail of marketing.

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 01:42:53 PM
My point being, of course, is that I personally would take two of whatever it was I was curious about and add another 2, then count them.

Voila: 2 Savannah Monitors + 2 white mice = 2 Savannah Monitors.

Then I'd have to encode my findings in an elaborate piece of artwork so I didn't get burned for heresy.

I'm biased against religion because it has a history of burning people for the crime of dicovering useful stuff.

I'm also personally biased against adopting it because it's a very closed and stagnant form of reality modelling and, therefore, utterly useless to me. I wouldn't want to impose this view on anyone who insists on believing it tho, there are opportunities to scam moneys off people like this. Even if I haven't yet tapped into this potential revenue stream it is reassuring to know that it's available if I need it. Customer gullibility is the holy grail of marketing.


I agree... but I would note that it was "Catholics" not 'religion' that were whacking on people for discovering useful stuff.   :wink:
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

However: A few pages back, we discussed "religion" as a calcified/ossified/petrified/putrified description of an indescribable trancendental experience.

If we take that description of "religion" forward, it becomes increasingly likely that a "religion" would be resistant to anything that runs counter to the "religion".

The Catholics aren't the only ones who destroyed opposition.  Even the Taoists have a psycho nutbag in their history.

P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 02:03:27 PM

The Catholics aren't the only ones who destroyed opposition.  Even the Taoists have a psycho nutbag in their history.


Lest we forget the Talibans or Iran under the Ayatollah - it's the reason church and state should be kept separate. At least with a normal government things will be fucked up but nowhere near as bad as a rule by people who, by their vary nature, will believe in any old laughably ridiculous bullshit. When these people are given power it gets a lot messier a lot quicker than when your average power hungry would be dictator gets the reins.

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 02:03:27 PM
However: A few pages back, we discussed "religion" as a calcified/ossified/petrified/putrified description of an indescribable trancendental experience.

If we take that description of "religion" forward, it becomes increasingly likely that a "religion" would be resistant to anything that runs counter to the "religion".

Some of us discussed it, but that doesn't mean all of us agree on that definition. I consider religion to be any structure you impose on your faith. ORGANIZED religion is an external structure imposed on your faith.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


LMNO

Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

potato

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 02:03:27 PM

The Catholics aren't the only ones who destroyed opposition.  Even the Taoists have a psycho nutbag in their history.


Lest we forget the Talibans or Iran under the Ayatollah - it's the reason church and state should be kept separate. At least with a normal government things will be fucked up but nowhere near as bad as a rule by people who, by their vary nature, will believe in any old laughably ridiculous bullshit. When these people are given power it gets a lot messier a lot quicker than when your average power hungry would be dictator gets the reins.
this is a generalization that deserves some testing for veracity. I can think of several examples off the top of my head that "prove" the opposite, and I'm not political or a historian.

I'm completely in favor of separation of church and state, but lack of religion is not requisite to being a good leader or scientist, IMO.
everything I commit to print is protected by the copyright laws of the U.S. and I retain all rights, including rights to create derivative works, except where I have included reprinted content under the fair use provision, in which case the original author retains all rights, unless of course they've place their work in the public domain or under a CC license, in which case there are no restrictions on public domain works and CC works can be used under the specific license under which it has been distributed.

the above notice exists in case I accidentally ever say anything clever enough that someone wants to borrow, steal or otherwise use it in any printed form.

Thurnez Isa

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:08:11 PM
Quote from: potato on March 12, 2009, 08:33:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 07:32:25 PM
For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is written in the Old Testament that gays are not allowed to marry.


If you ask them where it says that, they won't know.  Because it's not there.  And while I think that basing your biases and prejudices because a book told you to is silly, basing it on a book that doesn't even say it is downright idiotic.
oh, I get it now. it's not the WORDS, it's the INFERENCES. so people take on faith inferences made by others and that bothers you?

Let me try to be more clear.

Joe has a book.  It has a front cover which says "The Holy Book of Holiness," and only one page.  On that page, it says, "2+2=4".  Joe has never opened this book to read what's written inside it.

Joe's spiritual leader, Kevin, has told Joe that what is written in the book is "2+2=5".  Because Joe is a devout Kevin-ist, he believes Kevin completely.

Joe approaches Mary, and says, "The Holy Book of Holiness says that 2+2=5".

Mary, being a skeptical type and who has opened the book says, "No it doesn't.  It says 2+2=4."

Joe replies, "Well, even the devil can cite scripture."

Mary:  :argh!::hi5::?



reminds me of a youtube series made by a gay law professor in an undisclosed New York University he called "Do Christian's Understand the Bible?"
My conclusion... no, most probably haven't, or if they have they only glanced over it, or tried to understand specific sections out of context...
which is also something I've observed from basic conversations with many of my Christian friends.
Through me the way to the city of woe, Through me the way to everlasting pain, Through me the way among the lost.
Justice moved my maker on high.
Divine power made me, Wisdom supreme, and Primal love.
Before me nothing was but things eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, you who enter here.

Dante

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 03:28:38 PM
Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

Sure they do, and that goes for anyone. Including Atheists.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Sir Squid Diddimus

I only had time to read the OP, i didn't go through the whole thread so keep that in mind.

Nigel- I never understood religion as hard as I tried, so to me and me alone, I find it dumb only because I don't get it.
As far as for other people, it may work very well for them.
If you believe what you believe then that's what you believe and who am I to tell you anything different.
The only time I personally have a problem is when people kill each other over it or others try to push it on me or make me out to be a bad person because I don't believe.

You don't have to explain your beliefs to anyone. They're yours to have and you have the right to have them.

note
- this was not meant to come across as bitchy or sarcastic, i can't tell if it did.

LMNO

Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 03:28:38 PM
Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

Sure they do, and that goes for anyone. Including Atheists.

We seem to have reached the point where we're arguing about how much we agree with each other.

Truce?

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 03:28:38 PM
Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

Sure they do, and that goes for anyone. Including Atheists.

We seem to have reached the point where we're arguing about how much we agree with each other.

Truce?

Yeah, I think we've hashed it as far as it can be hashed. :)
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: potato on March 13, 2009, 03:50:53 PM
I'm completely in favor of separation of church and state, but lack of religion is not requisite to being a good leader or scientist, IMO.

Hell no. IMO there's virtually no such thing as a good leader, leadership is one of those "necessary evils" with the emphasis on "evil" and a big question mark hanging over the "necessary" parts. My point is that strong religious conviction will make it worse never better

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

LMNO

That depends on whether you lean towards the "compassion" side, or the "certainty of conviction" side.