Well ... that's kind of a broad question. Is there a more particular aspect you're after?
Religious Nonsense
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
- Status
Well ... that's kind of a broad question. Is there a more particular aspect you're after?
It shouldn't but it does. Apparently feeling something sincerely is a fucking legal standard.
You mean like, tax exempt status?Yes, thanks, and when I've needed to I actually have. You?
Fair enough - but does not actual legal status as a religion within the US afford more than just the right to be considered among the options within "freedom of religion"?
Click for something else.
Whatever villain you need Musika to be speaks nothing of your role as corrupt prosecutor who can't win without the devices of turpitude.
Furthermore, if Musika is what you need him to be, then all you're doing is empowering him by mucking around so nonsensically. Look at Write4U's temper tantrums through this thread, and here is a comparative: If Musika is all that and a bag of backend chips, then you petty hacks bawling and wailing lamentations while laying palms in the street for him need to clean up, shut up, and get the hell out of the way so capable people can deal with the problem.
No, really. Religionists, over the years, haven't put up much of use around here, but the reason I tend to stay away from the subforum for extended periods is, in fact, the anti-religious bigotry. Remember, we're dealing with a range including those who don't think they need to know much about what they criticize. And, really, the excuse for everything that theists do it, too, or did it first, or whatever? As I've said before, it seems these atheistic advocates are merely jealous.
Seriously. Consider that while I'm not a fan of quick-hit exchanges Musika is perfectly willing to raise and participate in, I have also recently had a seat in the strangest dispute that appears to start with insufficient fidelity to some abstract notion of atheism. And I know that sounds weird even if you aren't being your petulant, dualistic self, but still: I told someone they shouldn't have to make a certain rhetorical justification; that person asked me for clarification, and while I can't figure out the precise problem—in all these days and posts since, nobody has ever said—it has something to do with presuming atheism significant enough an influence in society to affect courses of given discussions; as near as I can tell—again, nobody comes right out and says it, but the constant barrage of response by accusing theists of something makes the point—atheism is supposed to be exclusively a victim. I actually would have thought having enough influence to require guarding against misuse would be some manner of progress, but something about that notion really offends some people. The resulting cascade of ostensibly atheistic bullshit reads more like ill-considered religionist provocateurs trying to discredit atheism.
Meanwhile, you're too caught up in personal bits and pieces and priorities to be useful.
But let us try it from a different vantage: If we indict, as such, "theism", or "religion", or a particular religionist, of some manner of rhetorical arson, then why is the response to hose the sector with accelerant? If one is to fret about the fire hazard, then why are those complaining booby-trapping the building with incendiary devices? At some point, the indictment against theism and religion, or even a particular advocate, stands independently. So how does one respond to the general indictment? I'm sorry, but pandering to cheap bigots just because they call themselves atheists isn't helpful; if an indictment against "religion", as such, is accurate, then dealing with the problem means understanding it.
And I really do get that it's a pain in the ass to go out of one's way to learn about something they hate, but, hey, if it's important enough to hate? Of course, learning some stuff along the way changes how we respond to, or even fashion the indictment, and if the answer includes that we eventually stop hating so much, then perhaps we understand why some people would refuse the journey.
You know, it's one thing if some newcomer or sock puppet wants to tell me what my religion is, but seriously, something about strawstuffed caricatures—
("You aren't going to like where Musika has taken you"? Well, y'know, you give him far too much credit on this point. But, hey, it's easier than dealing with reality, isn't it?)
—would go here, except we've already covered the point of being too caught up in yourself to be useful. Enlightened, rational people should behave, every once in a while, as if they are.
And for those, like you, what do you really want of religion? Some useful change for society by addressing philosophical and political shortfall? How about a perpetual caricature to spend the rest of your life railing against in order to feel like you're doing something useful because actually engaging the oft-excruciating slow processes of arguing historical dialectics is, well, yeah, often excruciating, and so much so that we expect it to be?
That you have sacrificed your intellect for the sake of religion doesn't mean I have, or anyone else should. It's not a matter of Musika's questions passing muster. It's just that if all this is so important, then fuck-all you dickin' 'round wi'this shit for? The biggest obstacle to dealing with the political ramifications of theism and religion simply should not be atheists.
What's so hard to understand? Atheism can be part of an ideology, even a religious one (The Temple of Reason), but it isn't one by itself. It can't be the cause of anything but rejecting God claims and the religious claims and laws which depend on theism being true.
In Texas, the NFL could qualify as a religion.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well said.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
LOl, you haven't been subjected to one of my temper tantrum at all, yet. Hope you never have to.
I believe I have shown remarkable restraint.......
...... in the face of Religious Nonsense......
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I had a friend who belonged to a religious sect that used marijuana as part of their religious practice.
On Sundays they'd all get stoned together and share their thoughts
They said that Sunday was the peoples day and they should all gather together as family and share what they thought during the week.
"the farm"
On Sundays they'd all get stoned together and share their thoughts
They said that Sunday was the peoples day and they should all gather together as family and share what they thought during the week.
"the farm"
No doubt they would have forgotten anything conclusive arising from last week's meeting by lunchtime on Sunday.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Smoke weed and share thoughts? Sounds like a typical day in Oregon.
And then you declared him to be a liar - not for the first time. As with the Abras, your posts in this matter are boiling down to personal attack.
Torcaso's essentially irrelevant in this thread. So is anyone's familiarity with it. Every single post of yours with the word "Tarasco" in it is bullshit.
He said "de facto" religion, not "de jure". (That it was for "juristic purposes" is not the same as involving "legal status as a religion".)
That was wrong as well, of course, along with begging various questions and so forth. That "atheism" is a religion of some kind, and features in itself therefore all the aspects of theistic religion it decries, is a major pole of the Jan/Musika revival show tent under which cover they launch personal attacks. That's where - as was nearby and right in line (after #5 above) and centrally relevant to the lineage but not linked by Tiassa above
- this came from:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...dom-from-religion.160356/page-29#post-3536010
It's religious nonsense, in other words. It's the Jan crowd that is attempting to frame atheism (and theism) as religions.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Really, and you know this from experience or hearsay? Or is this the reason why many religions use "incense". Wiki;
Did you know Carl Sagan was a regular pot smoker (albeit in moderation)? This from his wife.
He liked the freedom of thought it afforded him. The ability to stretch and view a problem from several, sometimes unique perspectives. When you extend your thoughts, one does not need to remember everything, just the important things......
FYI, the poor reputation of Cannabis is wholly undeserved. There is no "reefer madness". There is no addiction. Cannabis is not an opioid, it produces cannabinoids, benign and non-addictive psycho-active chemicals which, if used responsibly, can be highly effective for organic treatment of several debilitating diseases.
Now that pot has been legalized in many states, actual medical information is becoming available and the list of diseases which are effectively addressed by cannabinoids is growing steadily . Here is but one example;
Last edited:
///Really, and you know this from experience or hearsay?
Did you know Carl Sagan was a regular pot smoker (albeit in moderation)?
He liked the freedom of thought it afforded him. The ability to stretch and view a problem from several, sometimes unique perspectives. When you extend your thoughts, one does not need to remember everything, just the important things......
FYI, the reputation of Cannabis is wholly unfounded. There is no "reefer madness". There is no addiction. Cannabis is not an opioid, it produces cannabinoid, a non-addictive benign drug, which, if used responsibly, can be highly effective for organic treatment of several debilitating diseases.
https://archive.org/details/ReeferMadness_479
<>
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The musical intro sounds like an old vampire movie. Evil lurking about.....
Even the bullshit "if".
I haven't been defending W4's posts - I've been attacking yours.
And managing without the language of bawling and wailing and screeching and so forth, however fitting.
You are
- in attempting to join the Jancrowd in creating some kind of equivalence between what the Abras are up to and whatever insufficiently profound and informed posting from some atheist you are hung up on this time ("evangelical atheist"? you can't see what's going on there? ) -
signing on with the framing and rhetoric of people who post dishonestly and in bad faith, about science and anyone who defends scientific inquiry, on a science forum.
Sacrificed? Moi? Not my style.
Meanwhile, the importance of this shit is sitting in the White House and in Congress, among other manifestations.
Pandering? You do not understand my posting.
Look at this cluelessness, for example:
it's as if I had said anything about your religion, or credited Musika for your voluntary mental detour 'round the rhetorical bend.
I hadn't. Not a hint.
Hatred. Jealousy. Bawling. Wailing. Screeching. Other people have (must have) all these bad motives and tones of voice - but that doesn't really deal with their actual posting, does it.
And you do know where else we find that kind of language is prevalent, right?
It isn't, usually or here. It's to repetitively and dishonestly deflect and reframe the context of the indictment, change the subject, start talking about Tarasco and the history of this or that, run a "not all theists" line, and - especially - impugn the motives and misrepresent the behavior and slander the character of whoever is doing the indicting.
- - -
And the kicker:
Y'know, I think I have by now posted more on that topic, here and there where it was relevant, than anyone else on this forum. Possibly by an order of magnitude - nobody else seems to be as interested. Especially in matters of scientific research and researchers, industrial agriculture, management of the landscape within a modern industrial civilization, war and commercial exploitation, etc, the inadequacies of the religions we have in meeting the religious needs of our civilization seem critical to me, and I have posted a variety of paragraphs around here on various speculations or possibilities - with links to standard Christian approaches, say Wendell Berry, included. I've posted on how a spiritual aspect of reality can be bootstrapped from substrate levels (thereby grounding it in solid scientifically accessible reality), what kinds of issues or decisions or problems would lie within it's purview (the historically central role of religion in dealing with the Tragedy of the Commons), that kind of thing - and each time I did, I had the impression I was the only one at the moment.
Or did I just overlook your contributions of the past?
Because this shit is what your contributions have become:
Last edited:
- Status