Plus, I Got Religion

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.

Yeah, sort of like how it would be ridiculous to bring up being bisexual or polyamorous in a social group full of narrow-minded Fundies.

Right?

I'm not saying it would be ridiculous merely to do so. In fact, it could be quite entertaining and entirely worthwhile.

I'm just saying it would silly to expect the Fundies to not act like Fundies.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

    I disagree. Tha last thing which words, symbols or sounds may be is, arbitrary.

Capitalist narrative, feminism and objectivism
John la Fournier
Department of Gender Politics, University of California, Berkeley
1. Realities of rubicon

If one examines feminism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Lacanist obscurity or conclude that class, ironically, has significance. The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is not situationism, but presituationism.

"Art is part of the meaninglessness of language," says Foucault; however, according to McElwaine[1] , it is not so much art that is part of the meaninglessness of language, but rather the genre, and eventually the paradigm, of art. It could be said that in Four Rooms, Tarantino analyses feminism; in Reservoir Dogs he deconstructs neoconceptualist dematerialism. Porter[2] holds that we have to choose between feminism and predialectic capitalist theory.

"Society is intrinsically meaningless," says Lyotard. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a postconstructive paradigm of narrative that includes consciousness as a paradox. Bataille suggests the use of capitalist situationism to deconstruct hierarchy.

Thus, the dialectic, and some would say the collapse, of feminism intrinsic to Tarantino's Jackie Brown emerges again in Four Rooms, although in a more mythopoetical sense. The primary theme of la Fournier's[3] critique of the postconstructive paradigm of narrative is the absurdity, and subsequent fatal flaw, of precultural sexual identity.

It could be said that the premise of feminism states that the purpose of the reader is social comment, given that Sartre's analysis of structuralist discourse is invalid. Many constructivisms concerning Lacanist obscurity exist.

However, in La Dolce Vita, Fellini examines postdialectic feminism; in Amarcord, however, he affirms Lacanist obscurity. An abundance of desituationisms concerning the difference between class and reality may be discovered.

In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a that includes truth as a whole. The characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is the role of the poet as writer.
2. Fellini and Lacanist obscurity

If one examines textual materialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the postconstructive paradigm of narrative or conclude that expression is a product of communication. Thus, the premise of the presemioticist paradigm of narrative suggests that reality is used to reinforce archaic perceptions of society, but only if art is interchangeable with sexuality; if that is not the case, Sontag's model of Lacanist obscurity is one of "Marxist capitalism", and thus part of the genre of art. Derrida uses the term 'the postconstructive paradigm of narrative' to denote not narrative, as Sartre would have it, but neonarrative.

It could be said that Derrida promotes the use of Lacanist obscurity to read sexual identity. The subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a paradox.

Therefore, Lacan uses the term 'the postconstructive paradigm of narrative' to denote the economy, and therefore the defining characteristic, of dialectic class. If feminism holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and the posttextual paradigm of context.

But the subject is interpolated into a that includes truth as a reality. Several demodernisms concerning feminism exist.

1. McElwaine, B. S. (1975) Reading Lacan: Feminism in the works of Tarantino. Loompanics

2. Porter, M. ed. (1989) Lacanist obscurity and feminism. And/Or Press

3. la Fournier, R. Z. (1992) Discourses of Failure: Feminism in the works of Fellini. Yale University Press

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Three things:

1.  Objectivism? 

2.  Link?

3.  You're a dumbfuck.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.

Yeah, sort of like how it would be ridiculous to bring up being bisexual or polyamorous in a social group full of narrow-minded Fundies.

Right?

I'm not saying it would be ridiculous merely to do so. In fact, it could be quite entertaining and entirely worthwhile.

I'm just saying it would silly to expect the Fundies to not act like Fundies.

So...you're calling everyone on this board a fundie?

[Kai]

Actually, symbols are somewhat arbitrary. Thats the whole concept of a symbol, its something that evokes something else. In speech, words and phrases evoke concepts. Lines on a paper evoke sounds or concepts.

However, anything past that is just wandering into barstool territory.

[Pope Lecherous]

... paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...

The nigga that wrote this needs a thesaurus.  Damn right we are fundies.  If you dont respect unborn rights, smoke reefer, and voted for obama YOU DONT BELONG HERE unamerican.

[Torodung]

This isn't finished, but it's as much as I feel like writing right now.


I don't talk about my religion much. For one thing, I don't want to have to explain it... it's complicated. For another thing, I don't relish getting caught in the explain/justify/defend cycle that happens so often, especially when talking to a social group that is rich in devout atheists. I find that in situations like that, atheists become evangelistic, as if they're on a mission to pry religion from every mind they encounter. I don't like the judgment, the condemnation, or the derision – it's easier to never bring it up at all, and let them assume that I'm one of their fold.

One of the reasons I don't like being in a position where I'm asked to defend my religion is because I find that religion is indefensible. It's not logical; more like humor than it is like love, it defies being pinned down with algorithms and intellectualism. Much of what is funny is subjective, makes no sense, and cannot be predicted, and to me, that's what religion is like. Not only can I not explain or justify why I have it, I don't even care to try. No, really. I don't. It's not something I take great comfort in, because I'm not a believer in a benevolent god. It's just something I have faith in... faith, which cannot be logically defended. Something pretty absurd. You either get it or you don't.

Friends confronted with the fact that I have religion are often disbelieving, then derisive. "You don't really believe in that, do you? I mean, you don't believe that it's really for real real, right?"

Truth?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes it's metaphor, sometimes it's an exercise of the mind, and sometimes it's really for real real, something that came with me from my ancestors. Something so pants-wettingly old that I'd be seriously disrespecting my ancestors if I thumbed my nose at believing in it. It's as real as their existences, as their bone fragments littering the desert in Jerome and their skeletons being slowly permeated by minerals in Conwy, Echota, and Mombasa. If I imagine something, does it exist? Well... of course! Sort of.

The simplest way for me to explain why I have religion is to say that it's because I've decided to. I like it.

Fuck you, Kai.

My name is Torodung, and I approve of this rant.

I too come with "religion." Though religion is a political term. What I really come with is Faith, and few around me seem to share this particular defect. Perhaps you share it as well. It's viral.

A statement that "there is no god" is as much an statement of faith as claiming that there is. Period. If we really want to discard faith, I think the non-dick description of that belief would be "agnostic." "Atheists" are just using that name to troll "theists."

I spent a while hanging out in alt.atheism on Usenet, and after a while, I had made friends and had respect. Fundies troll that group all the time, but after the hubbub had died down, I found that there were quite a few atheists who were willing to chat.

They just didn't want to chat about God. They were a-theist, not anti-theist.

So don't worry about it too much. We can just tilt windmills with our oversized, armored dicks in righteous protest. Fucking windmills. I HATE THEM.

[Torodung]

I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

    I disagree. Tha last thing which words, symbols or sounds may be is, arbitrary.

Capitalist narrative, feminism and objectivism
John la Fournier
Department of Gender Politics, University of California, Berkeley
1. Realities of rubicon

Hey there. I'll buy the books if I want to read that. Your attempts to imitate a dark ages monk, copying scripture to ward off the darkness, are lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.

I spent years in a sweaty dungeon with deconstructionists. They had razed the English department, and locked themselves in with a poster of Derrida and the collected works of John Cage. By the time we were done, only I remained. Everyone else had gone to pieces.

Don't go to pieces on us, eh?

[Torodung]

Three things:

1.  Objectivism? 

2.  Link?

3.  You're a dumbfuck.

Actually, I think it is Structuralism. I haven't seen shite like that for years.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.

Yeah, sort of like how it would be ridiculous to bring up being bisexual or polyamorous in a social group full of narrow-minded Fundies.

Right?

I'm not saying it would be ridiculous merely to do so. In fact, it could be quite entertaining and entirely worthwhile.

I'm just saying it would silly to expect the Fundies to not act like Fundies.

Yeah, that was kind of my point too.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My name is Torodung, and I approve of this rant.

I too come with "religion." Though religion is a political term. What I really come with is Faith, and few around me seem to share this particular defect. Perhaps you share it as well. It's viral.

A statement that "there is no god" is as much an statement of faith as claiming that there is. Period. If we really want to discard faith, I think the non-dick description of that belief would be "agnostic." "Atheists" are just using that name to troll "theists."

I spent a while hanging out in alt.atheism on Usenet, and after a while, I had made friends and had respect. Fundies troll that group all the time, but after the hubbub had died down, I found that there were quite a few atheists who were willing to chat.

They just didn't want to chat about God. They were a-theist, not anti-theist.

So don't worry about it too much. We can just tilt windmills with our oversized, armored dicks in righteous protest. Fucking windmills. I HATE THEM.

I think we may be on the same wavelength, dung-boy.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?

[Cramulus]

If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

Anyway. If this is the corner of the Web designated for Atheist Discordians, that's all well and good. I'll take my ball and go to another playground. But if it's not, I'll stick around, and I'm going to stop keeping my mouth shut and going with the flow when it comes to taking blanket jabs at other people's religion.

I'm kind of confused, like I'm missing some part of the conversation. The OP more or less said, "I'm spiritual, and I don't feel the need to discuss it.". Then here, a few posts later in the thread, you say, "If I'm not supposed to talk about my spirituality here, I'm going to quit."

But two weeks ago, you were kind of indignant at the suggestion that you not flame someone. because it's fun to flame people. You felt like people were telling you how to act, and it pissed you off!

and here, you seem frustrated that this board isn't an ideal spot for discussions about certain things (spirituality for example), and I can see why,  but you're also the one leading the charge sometimes. Maybe not about religious beliefs, specifically. But like, alright, ECH for example is a pretty hardlined atheist. I've never seen him NOT quip when people talk about their relationship with imaginary superbeings  . So like, should he not do that?

I'm not saying this in a judgmental way, or trying to go after you Nigel. I'm just trying to reconcile what tone exactly you'd like this board to have.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Religion. Faith. These are two words that annoy me.

Yes, it's possible to use one or both of these, in moderation, and still remain a cool, objective, self-aware, critical thinker.

But it gets a lot less likely.

Religion and Faith are like crack cocaine and meth. It might be possible to use a little of these substances to no harmful effect but the fact is, a lot of people end up strung out on them, complete fucking mushbrains and, given that there are no real tangible benefits, I don't, personally, see the point of taking the risk.

Why fuck around with something as potentially brain damaging as religion? What exactly is the benefit that makes you think the risk is justified? What's so great about occasionally believing in the tooth fairy?

Don't bother answering that. I'm really not that interested. Just trying to clarify my position - that's what I wonder about.

[Thurnez Isa]

Religion. Faith. These are two words that annoy me.

Yes, it's possible to use one or both of these, in moderation, and still remain a cool, objective, self-aware, critical thinker.

you mean there are words things that don't annoy you?