Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: The One on September 23, 2012, 05:01:36 pm
-
I just watched the South Park episodes about Scientology and Mormonism. And I couldn't believe that those religions could actually be like that, so I checked on Wikipedia. And South Park's portrayal of Scientology and Mormonism is actually accurate.
Why do people believe this crap?
First off, Scientology. Everyone knows L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer, even Scientologists ACKNOWLEDGE that he was. And yet they still choose to believe in aliens from outer space influencing humanity.
And then there's Mormonism. The sole fact that John Smith failed to replicate the so-called "scriptures" from the golden plate letter after letter after some pages were stolen, outright proves that he was a fake. And yet there are thousands who believe that he actually directly communicated with God, Jesus, and angels and that he got some new golden plates and that's why he couldn't narrate the old story once more.
I mean, I'm not someone who's against religion. The whole idea of God and Jesus doesn't sound that weird to me. I'm not a religious person, but I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of a higher being who could actually make miracles happen. But when there's a religion that believes that some douchebag has actually talked to Jesus, and was told to make his own religion because all the others are WRONG, that's where I draw the line.
Can't these blind people see they're being taken advantage of so that the people who invented Scientology / Mormonism can make money?
It just boggles my mind. Just had to get that off my chest.
-
I just watched the South Park episodes about
there goes your mandate
-
You have to realize that, with regard to mormonism, there's a big cultural aspect to it as well. Some people are mormons, their family are mormons, and their community and the people they know are mormons. So someone might not believe a thing about it and still choose to continue to take part in the church proceedings. This goes for just about any religion—it's never difficult to point out that there's no rational basis for believing in it, but you're sort of missing the point if that's your determination. That doesn't necessarily mean they're unfortunate prisoners of the expectations of their peers. That's something to keep in mind. When you criticize someone's religion, you're criticizing some of the very core aspects of their being.
-
I grew up in a culturally religious community so I understand the cultural aspect, but when you take a step from what you've been doing culturally under any circumstances, usually you can find a lot of flaws in what you do on a regular basis anyways. Religion in particular though, has a lot of "I can't believe how dumb I was" to go along with it though. (Not that posting on games forums is any better)
-
I can understand that, particularly since there are always a lot of forces trying to capitalize on people's beliefs. In the US it's extreme.
-
think about it OP the only differents between ``mormon and moron'' is M and that stands for moron as well probably
Don't even get me started on rap music aka crap music
-
Don't even get me started on pastel colors
-
I grew up in a lazy catholic immediate family. But my dad's side of the family is very religious. I dance around the topics when I'm with them but often its impossible. Sometimes I'll lie through my teeth to avoid a discussion. Especially, with my grandma who's a pain about it. Though I'm pretty sure she figured out because most of my of my blood aunts or uncles (10 of them in all) reports to her and I'm pretty sure I've told 2 or 3 of them. She doesn't speak to me nearly as much now which frankly I'm fine with because shes very manipulative and has alienated certain corners of her own family. My sister refuses to even go to any family event involving her and I don't blame her.
I'm atheist-agnostic and think all organized religion is dumb. Scientology holds a special place in crazy town though. Mormonism is one of the odder christian sects but arguably one of the more harmless ones. Christian Science, West Boro Baptists, some other Baptists, etc are far worse. They are almost parodies of Christianity. Catholics are really bad sometimes, I know this well but they aren't as obnoxious as Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Presbyterians I know on my mom's side seem really down to earth. Though my grandma is extremely lax on religious stuff in general with the exception of taking the lord's name in vain.
IDK too much about other non-christian religions. Buddism seems pretty cool though in comparison to other religions(not that I still don't think its dumb). Islam I know little about other than what I see in the news, I'll leave it at that. Hindi seems interesting like the old greek and roman religions are interesting. Judaism's modern US culture is fine but I know little about the religion itself other than the obvious elements talked about on TV.
-
Islam I know little about other than what I see in the news, I'll leave it at that.
The amount of blatant racism in the media against Muslims is staggering. Some of the stuff being said is reminiscent of Der Stürmer, the anti-Semitic propaganda being pushed before and during Hitler's reign. And that's no exaggeration.
Lately it's been particularly painful because of the riots that are currently going on in response to an offensive Youtube video. The commentary is just plain dimwitted. And I'm not talking about right-wing conservatives, but about liberals too (like Richard Dawkins, who pounced on the opportunity). Nobody actually checks whether they know anything about the Arab world at all before they open their mouth. The analyses I've seen don't go further than "look at how stupid those people are for rioting in response to a Youtube video made by a nobody".
I'd advise you to take what's said with a grain of salt. If you're interested, you can read a good explanation of the riots here (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/14/america-and-the-muslims/). Another good relevant article is here (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/islamophobia-left-and-right/) (Counterpunch rules).
-
Richard Dawkins
*sharpens katana*
-
mormons: owned
scientologists: owned
muslims: owned
who's next in line?
-
christian have always grind my gears as well.
1) don't believe in the big bang or gravity
2) leave a child with a priest? YEAH RIGHT
3) you can take a christian to water (science) but you can't make him drink (experiments)
4) christan babes won't do sex until you marry and it's such a hassle
One day all the old christians will die and atheists and christians will be all that's left, thank god.
-
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/246885079060713473 richard dawkins unironically tweeted this
-
On that note, I find people like Richard Dawkins to be far less tolerable than, say, Rush Limbaugh. Yes, Limbaugh is a massive thug; everybody knows that. But Dawkins supposedly stands for freedom from oppression, for human and civil rights and for the inherent and inalienable rights to happiness. He supposedly has those values, and yet his response to these riots is utter glee. He's not passing up on the opportunity to remind everybody of just how stupid you are if you're religious, pointing to the riots as an example of what that leads to. And suddenly he has a great deal more media access than before—who doesn't want a self-proclaimed liberal to come on and vindicate the deep-seated racism against Muslims that the mainstream exhibits?
When I read his tweets on the matter, I'm reminded of my time in primary school. Specifically the school playground, where groups of kids would coalesce and reinforce group cohesion by attacking other groups. Dawkins is the kid yelling provocative slurs across the field, to whichever kids are unfortunate enough to be part of unacceptable minority demographic. His level of discourse is hardly more thoughtful and substantial than that of a 5 year old.
It's a quality he shares with the late Christopher Hitchens, another famous racist New School atheist, who extolled his euphoria at the thought of finally being able to move in and do more "humanitarian" meddling in the affairs of Arab countries as he watched the World Trade Center smolder. This is someone who was perfectly aware of the massive atrocities that US forces commit when they invade and occupy a country, as he had extensively written on the topic and called for Henry Kissinger to be tried as a war criminal. Yet he was not just supportive for reasons of necessity, but happy to see the day the US went after those awful Muslims. Fellow ideologue Sam Harris was glad to assist and did so in writing and in public. One might notice that I've kept to three of the so-called "Four Horsemen" of New School atheism. The tendency towards support for US imperialism seems to be a built-in quality of the ideology.
We should be careful not to confuse these people as fighters for rationality and peace. These super-hypocrites who claim to be fighting religion for the general good of mankind have no concept of their own privilege (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/) and are frighteningly unaware of history and reality. The decision by Dawkins to use recent events as an opportunity to lob childish insults at people on the other side of the planet expose him as a complete intellectual fraud, particularly since his commentary is so completely decontextualized from important facts about Western influence on the region that help reveal what's really going on. Of course he can't begin to explain: it would flatly remove his ability to slander the followers of the one religion he most strongly loves to hate. Not only is imperialism built into his philosophy, but also intellectual dishonesty and shortsightedness. Dawkins knows that if you look deeply enough, religion is never the underlying reason for anything—not even for the Crusades or the Inquisitions. He resolves this dissonance by simply never looking very deeply into any matter that permits him to attack religion.
Dawkins is a complete fraud, and somehow it's types like him that make me far more sick to my stomach than the ultra-right.
-
I'm only bringing this up because you mentioned the South Park episodes, but Matt Stone and Trey Parker have said that they wanted to have people take a step back and look at their own beliefs after seeing them. Really, there isn't a religion that can't be condensed into a little story that sounds really stupid.
I grew up agnostic in a really Christian area and I had times where I would the merits of religion with people, but really everyone just gets pissed off at each other and no one "wins." In my experience letting people believe what they want to believe is more pleasant for everybody.
-
I don't mind people believing in Scientology or whatever they want. I just don't understand it. Okay, I guess I can understand those people who need to believe something just for the sake of believing something, because they think it helps them in life. But not those who actually believe in it and see it as the absolute truth.
But the sad truth is that believing that Star Wars is real, would actually make more sense then believing in Scientology. Except Star Wars has no churches, and if you'd say you believe Star Wars is real you'd be laughed at, while Scientologists take themselves and their religion seriously.
-
Please explain to me how believing Star Wars is real makes more sense than believing Scientology.
-
South Park is horrible btw
-
Okay, I guess I can understand those people who need to believe something just for the sake of believing something, because they think it helps them in life. But not those who actually believe in it and see it as the absolute truth.
um usually these are the same people.
idk how to help you understand this shit man, people find religion typically due to the circumstances they grow up in. Scientology essentially sells happiness and attracts people who feel like their lives are empty(usually at times when they're pretty vulnerable). The church of LDS has a huge base of people who are raised in the church(huge families, regionally concentrated) and they send tons of missionaries out all over the place, cast a wide net and you're bound to snag a few new followers.
-
Please explain to me how believing Star Wars is real makes more sense than believing Scientology.
Because that story actually makes more sense. They never mention humans or anything and there's no planet Earth. So somewhere in a galaxy far far away a long time ago it could have actually taken place. Which is why I say that it's less ridiculous to believe then Scientology, which claims outrageous things have taken place right here on Earth and directly influenced humanity as a whole.
-
I was kind of hoping for Dietcoke to say something about lining up or guillotining all the new atheist war apologists, or toss some barely inteligible New Jersey insult their way. You have disappointed me.
-
haha that incident with dawkins leaving stupid comments on the lady's blog post is pretty stupid. i didn't know he was dumb like that, or like the childish tweets. i haven't really thought about him since the god delusion came out when i was finishing high school and a lot of my friends were saying he was so cool and we were all reading the selfish gene.
dawkins: owned
Step right up, folks. Step right up.
-
the one i think a pretty basic issue you're missing is context.
these people whose beliefs you find so ridiculous live their lives in a totally different context from you. maybe the difficulty you are having is - and i'm assuming you're a pretty westernized person here - but when you hear about muslims doing stuff or weird stuff people might believe in africa or asia, or the past! you might be thinking well that makes sense they all wear funny clothes and live in magic land so why wouldn't they think a bunch of weird stuff?
well even people who live next door to you live their lives in totally different contexts, too. there are probably more areas of overlap between someone from your own country in your own demographic but that doesn't mean they see the world like you do or have had even 5% of the same experiences you've had, and they've come to different conclusions. it isn't really your place to go around saying oh that's ridiculous you're crazy - cos all you're really saying at that point is 'I cannot comprehend how you don't see things like me, so there is something wrong with you!' which doesn't really advance anything.
so you can either engage with people in these areas you find so baffling and try to better understand them (south park and wikipedia page doesn't get you very far), and see if you can satisfy your problem that way - by comprimise, or acceptance, or understanding or whatever the appropriate resolution may be, or you can just accept that these people live their lives in different contexts than you do, let them be and get on with it. OR you can make epic tweets about how fucking dumb they are but i don't recommend that option.
-
Yeah, this should go without saying, but South Park should not be one of your primary sources of information for anything.
-
Because that story actually makes more sense. They never mention humans or anything and there's no planet Earth. So somewhere in a galaxy far far away a long time ago it could have actually taken place. Which is why I say that it's less ridiculous to believe then Scientology, which claims outrageous things have taken place right here on Earth and directly influenced humanity as a whole.
Your explanation of star wars's plausibility actually stabs at the main point of why it is basically impossible to rationally consider the setting Star-Wars takes place in as even remotely plausible. You said yourself that there are no humans and no earth, and this means you have two primary concerns to address at the plausibility of the galaxy far far away this epic saga could occur in our actual universe.
1. If there is no earth, then is it entirely coincidental that the high majority of sentient lifeforms speak the English language? Did they form the English language in exactly the same way as earth but somehow entirely separate from any and all earth influence? (much in the same way many of the people from that galaxy evolved to become genetically identical to humans on earth despite having presumably 0 contact or influence with that planet whatsoever)
2. If earth is so far away that contact with any of it's lifeforms is statistically impossible, why is the fastest ship in that entire galaxy named after an avian species found exclusively on earth? A species of the avian family mind you, that could only be seen as astonishingly slow when compared to just about any vessel capable of hyper-speed.
-
Your explanation of star wars's plausibility actually stabs at the main point of why it is basically impossible to rationally consider the setting Star-Wars takes place in as even remotely plausible. You said yourself that there are no humans and no earth, and this means you have two primary concerns to address at the plausibility of the galaxy far far away this epic saga could occur in our actual universe.
1. If there is no earth, then is it entirely coincidental that the high majority of sentient lifeforms speak the English language? Did they form the English language in exactly the same way as earth but somehow entirely separate from any and all earth influence? (much in the same way many of the people from that galaxy evolved to become genetically identical to humans on earth despite having presumably 0 contact or influence with that planet whatsoever)
2. If earth is so far away that contact with any of it's lifeforms is statistically impossible, why is the fastest ship in that entire galaxy named after an avian species found exclusively on earth? A species of the avian family mind you, that could only be seen as astonishingly slow when compared to just about any vessel capable of hyper-speed.
I know, it's not perfect. But still less ridiculous then Scientology.
-
so you didn't even read my post and would rather talk about star wars huh. that's what this was all about from the start wasn't it. how about them prequels. jar jar binks more like jar jar rinks. anakin more like smanakin.
-
If people are crazy enough to believe in God, why not aliens.
-
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Human (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Human)
this whole thread is about star wars, right?
-
so you didn't even read my post and would rather talk about star wars huh. that's what this was all about from the start wasn't it. how about them prequels. jar jar binks more like jar jar rinks. anakin more like smanakin.
I actually did read your post, and I get what you're saying. I don't think I really want to get into any of these religions, but I can accept people believing in them. I just find these particular religions more ridiculous then others.
-
jamies posters regret - I will not make strikeout posts
-
really awful I will acknowledge it, and I doubt I understand people either but some of you make me really uncomfortable and yes I know whos joking sheesh I just wanted to make sure my 6000th post was my best ever.
-
Yeah, this should go without saying, but South Park should not be one of your primary sources of information for anything.
To be fair, he never said that it was. This is very easy to argue for pretty much any TV show, especially comical ones.
That said, I sometimes agree with the message behind South Park episodes, sometimes I don't. More often than not though I disagree with their methodology of utilizing humor and misleading logic to get their point across. Still entertaining nonetheless IMHO. I respect those that don't like the show, but saying its horrible is hyperbole. (Dada said it)
On the topic of Richard Dawkins, my opinion of him is pending. More research is required before I dismiss him. Research that I may or may not have time or energy (mostly the latter) to start unfortunately. I have read some positive things about him though as well as the thing you posted Dada. I don't like the idea that there are villains and heroes, but rather 'good people with ugly flaws' or even maybe 'bad people with redeeming qualities'.
The closest a person I've ever read about to reaching hero-dom is Nikola Tesla. And he definitely was flawed.
-
I respect those that don't like the show, but saying its horrible is hyperbole. (Dada said it)
It's not hyperbole. This is actually precisely how I feel about it. I'm not exaggerating. It's garbage made by some of the most malicious and worthless people I know.
I have read some positive things about him though as well as the thing you posted Dada. I don't like the idea that there are villains and heroes, but rather 'good people with ugly flaws' or even maybe 'bad people with redeeming qualities'.
I'm glad you're not just blindly accepting what I say and that you'd rather do some research yourself before making up your mind. But you don't even have to. Who cares. If you ever happen to read an opinion article or a book written by Richard Dawkins, it doesn't matter whether you already know anything about him or not. You can make up your own mind on that specific article without the context being necessary.
I don't really believe in heroes. They'll always let you down at some point. The closest thing I have to a hero is Noam Chomsky. But I don't like calling him that. It implies that you're an irrational follower, and I'm not.
-
south park is poisonous as shit
-
To be fair, he never said that it was.
Well, he did say that first he saw the episode and then he confirmed it on wikipedia... so... he kind of did. And I do not share Dada and Vellfire's opinion on the show, by the way. Just don't go basing your ideals around the show, that's really not what it's for.
-
Just don't go basing your ideals around the show, that's really not what it's for.
It is most definitely the intent of the authors to get you to adopt their views, though. And people do.
-
south park is poisonous as shit
but don't you see they oppress everyone equally
except white people
-
I should mention that it's not like I'm trying to shame anyone into not liking South Park, but it does become pretty problematic when you start taking the message seriously without doing a real analysis. I think most rational people would be appalled if they did that. Does anybody really think sexual harassment laws are fascism? South Park does, and they actively try to get you to believe that as well.
-
but don't you see they oppress everyone equally
except white people
oh no they oppress white people.
just the ones that are gay or trans or women
-
also yeah the reason i picked the word poisonous is because of the way people do base their ideas about a LOT of things around it.
-
south park and daniel tosh are two sides of the same coin
edit sorry I don't know why I posted that it's not related at all, I guess I've just come to assume tosh is a universal measurement of awfulness. so friggen mindmolt
-
oh no they oppress white people.
just the ones that are gay or trans or women
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/www.court-records.net/animation/edgeworth-bow(a).gif)
-
south park and daniel tosh are two sides of the same coin
i don't think i'm particularly standing up for the south park losers when i say that this is giving daniel tosh way too much credit. but i'm not really able to entertain the thought of comparing daniel tosh to anything but an intestinal parasite. like i know some people who somehow still like south park and i don't HATE them for it, even though i STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of such behavior. i don't know anybody who likes daniel tosh but if i did i would probably construct an internment camp and keep them in it away from all the actual people.
PS these topics were more fun back in the old days when the whole community wasn't just godless ne'er-do-wells
-
i like south park in the sense that I spent a lot of time in middle school/high school watching it. does this make me a bad person? probably
-
PS these topics were more fun back in the old days when the whole community wasn't just godless ne'er-do-wells
That is true.
pps did you get my latest pm
-
Not to stick up for any particular show/comedian mentioned thus far, but is there a single comedic act that gets salt world's approval? I don't think I've ever seen mention to one that doesn't end with it being shunned by the forum.
-
i called y'all godless ne'er do wells like a page back an ain't one a you fuckers try to stop me
bitches
-
Not to stick up for any particular show/comedian mentioned thus far, but is there a single comedic act that gets salt world's approval? I don't think I've ever seen mention to one that doesn't end with it being shunned by the forum.
i dunno, you'd probably have to go with somebody totally innocuous like mitch hedburg if you wanted to figure out the official gw/sw-approved comedian.
i'd be curious to see a discussion of this, actually, seeing as how the people left are so good at despising things. WHAT SCUM FROM THE SEWER CAN GODLESS NE'ER-DO-WELLS AGREE ON???? TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR ANOTHER SMASHING EPISODE OF CRAPPY PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET.
-
i like all sorts of shit. i like all sorts of problematic shit. i just don't really post much about it on the forums. or much of anything.
-
Yeah, it's not like we bleeding hearts require that everything be devoid of anything remotely incorrect or offensive. That's not how it goes. There's no blacklist or whitelist. It's perfectly fine if you like stuff that's got some sort of problem in this regard as long as you're not IN COMPLETE DENIAL about it. If you'd limit yourself to things you find 100% acceptable, you'd end up not being able to enjoy any media or artform.
Personally I'd recommend you to not limit yourself. Just watch whatever you want. Anything is fine. But keep your eyes open, and if you see something questionable in something you like, open yourself up to the possibility that this Thing You Like can be subjected to valid criticism.
-
When I was a younger I had mean things on my mind. Had to keep movin'. Had a hellhound on my trail. You could say me and the devil was walkin' side by side. I had blues in my step and walked like a man; until another got my lady and these lonesome blues got me. I got that achin' old heart disease. Which like consumption, killed me by degrees.
I studied the rain to try to drive my blues away. Didn't work and so I had to ride the blinds. Now I know why they say don't cry this time. Cus if you cry bout a nickle you'll die bout a dime...
-
I should mention that it's not like I'm trying to shame anyone into not liking South Park, but it does become pretty problematic when you start taking the message seriously without doing a real analysis. I think most rational people would be appalled if they did that. Does anybody really think sexual harassment laws are fascism? South Park does, and they actively try to get you to believe that as well.
found this relevant and interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/matt-stone-trey-parker-ar_n_475744.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/matt-stone-trey-parker-ar_n_475744.html)
Article mentions that they actually felt bad when they took shots at Kanye West and Kanye responded by apologizing for being the way he is (dickish).
Also, I suppose I never thought that was what you were trying to do (convince me to hate the show or even its creators). But I felt it important to at least inform rather than be silent of my enjoyment of the show. I felt like I'd be deceitful to not do so.
From what I'm getting here, most of you don't like dickheaded comedy or even comedy based around the very idea of just being a horrible person or horrible people messing with those who may or may not deserve it. South Park has it occasionally and Tosh is almost nothing but that. Its a kind of extreme schaden freud maybe? IDK.
i don't think i'm particularly standing up for the south park losers when i say that this is giving daniel tosh way too much credit. but i'm not really able to entertain the thought of comparing daniel tosh to anything but an intestinal parasite. like i know some people who somehow still like south park and i don't HATE them for it, even though i STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of such behavior. i don't know anybody who likes daniel tosh but if i did i would probably construct an internment camp and keep them in it away from all the actual people.
I don't tend to make statements about how I utterly loathe anyone for wanting to see any type of entertainment. Even in a joking fashion. I guess I'm just boring that way. Then again, I don't hate. I get angry, emotional, stupid about people I don't like. But hate is something you have to think about and come to a conclusion to. Something I have not done since childhood.
I also guess you would hate me, Hundley. I've laughed at Daniel Tosh's jokes, the apparently forbidden comedian.
also yeah the reason i picked the word poisonous is because of the way people do base their ideas about a LOT of things around it.
You place blame on the show. And I suppose I understand where you are coming from, but I'd place more of the blame on the people basing their ideas on it than the show.
Not to stick up for any particular show/comedian mentioned thus far, but is there a single comedic act that gets salt world's approval? I don't think I've ever seen mention to one that doesn't end with it being shunned by the forum.
IDK. I'm sure you mention anything, comedy or not you'll find someone out there with a reason to hate it.
i like all sorts of shit. i like all sorts of problematic shit. i just don't really post much about it on the forums. or much of anything.
See, I guess this is my problem. I've posted my problematic shit. I regretted it. I think this is because I care too much about what people on the internet think of me. But I think I'm starting to snap out of that. Or snap in some sense of the word at least.
-
Actually, I take it back. There is one person that I hate. But this person might not actually exist. And probably wont.
-
Yeah, it's not like we bleeding hearts require that everything be devoid of anything remotely incorrect or offensive. That's not how it goes. There's no blacklist or whitelist. It's perfectly fine if you like stuff that's got some sort of problem in this regard as long as you're not IN COMPLETE DENIAL about it. If you'd limit yourself to things you find 100% acceptable, you'd end up not being able to enjoy any media or artform.
Personally I'd recommend you to not limit yourself. Just watch whatever you want. Anything is fine. But keep your eyes open, and if you see something questionable in something you like, open yourself up to the possibility that this Thing You Like can be subjected to valid criticism.
That really wasn't what I was getting at. I totally can see that things I like can be criticized and I'm not offended if you guys don't like stuff I like. I just noticed that I've never seen any mention of a comedian or show here that didn't get torn apart by at least one person. For the most part I really have no idea what kind of things people here find humorous anymore.
-
Not to stick up for any particular show/comedian mentioned thus far, but is there a single comedic act that gets salt world's approval? I don't think I've ever seen mention to one that doesn't end with it being shunned by the forum.
I'd say limmy, at the risk of there being too many people here who like him for how good he is and that will ruin it
idk what the gang thinks about any of the more recent acts, eg hannibal buress but does it really matter? at least we're still different people in terms of what we find entertaining
I also guess you would hate me, Hundley. I've laughed at Daniel Tosh's jokes, the apparently forbidden comedian.
it doesn't matter, if you want you can look up shit on him that should show you pretty clearly why he's loathsome. but don't worry about it, whoever brought him up is a dumbo....
-
That really wasn't what I was getting at. I totally can see that things I like can be criticized and I'm not offended if you guys don't like stuff I like. I just noticed that I've never seen any mention of a comedian or show here that didn't get torn apart by at least one person. For the most part I really have no idea what kind of things people here find humorous anymore.
idk we're all different people. I love Brother Theodore and I know some other people here do, but you're never going to find someone who "the community" universally (or even close to that) likes.
-
I think a lot of the college athiests (or 'south park athiests') seem to ignore is that there is a genuinely spiritual aspect to life, and the human (and potentially other of the more intelligent species) conciousness. Even the New-Athiests like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are aware of it. It's not like GOD or Homeopathy, but there is a part of us that yearns for a higher awareness, an understanding of the self and the cosmos.
I have no belief in god, I never have, it's just never seemed to make sense to me. I understand why people follow religion and believe in a higher power, but nah, just never done it. That said, I do think it's worth following the philosophical aspects of Buddhism and it's related family (though not stuff like dogmatic buddhism, which is becoming more and more well known for it's bizarre sects and practices), and try to live a life of peace and understanding, which yeah, does involve meditation (though admitedly I haven't done it for half a year, but I put that energy into music, which I approach with a Zen like dedication), and I feel that the effect of meditation must be somewhat similar to that of prayer. Prayer is often just essentially a shorter, more condensed meditation on certain matters. What really did it for me was funnily enough, when I started to read into theoretical physics, and the concept of reality being composed of a series of vibrations on an infinite number of cosmic membranes, to me, everything kinda clicked into place and I became a kinda spiritual person, though with no theological beliefs.
-
My high school physics teacher said he was spiritual. He was a cool guy, too bad I sucked at his class.
IDK I don't like the term Spirituality since its kind of misleading. 'Spirituality' is also often used by quacks and frauds so I tend to not trust its users in most contexts.
But yeah I've read that meditation can be beneficial health-wise. The rest of the relevant aspects of secular spirituality can be summed up with a different word, 'humanism'. A word that sounds far less "New Age".
-
The rest of the relevant aspects of secular spirituality can be summed up with a different word, 'humanism'. A word that sounds far less "New Age".
Humanism is an umbrella term for a vast amount of philosophies that can be quite different from one another in spite of their commonalities. It's certainly not necessarily secular.
-
These days though, whenever people say they are a 'humanist', they mean that they are an atheist/agnostic with good ethics or moral values. Its a bit more rare that the term is used in conjunction with anything religious in nature.
So I guess I'm referring to the most common use of the word.
-
Zappa tried to start his own 'religion' (read: stunt to prove how much America's run by the church)
called Church of American Secular Humanism.
Because of a court case in Alabama where the judge ruled that secular humanism classes as a religion, and so teaching evolution in schools classes as discrimination. A white american alabama judge moaning about discrimination... oh the irony...
-
idk we're all different people... you're never going to find someone who "the community" universally (or even close to that) likes.
Yeah, that was a clumsily worded question and I'm not even sure what I was getting at.
-
I read Barefaced Messiah which is an indepth biography of L Ron Hubbard which was made from decades of research and interviews with family members and close friends. The Church Of Scientology tried to block the book from being written and actually frame the journalist involved of murder, but the book got published regardless. It's very very good and just shows how insane it is that people follow the religion. He essentially made it to make money and told people this! He also spent most of his life as a pathological liar, even at a young age he was lying to people about how how he was a pilot.
Also: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm (http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm) is interesting.
Also: I think religion is bullshit, but I agree with Kaworu that there is a spiritual aspect to life and meditation can be like prayer.
-
That really wasn't what I was getting at. I totally can see that things I like can be criticized and I'm not offended if you guys don't like stuff I like. I just noticed that I've never seen any mention of a comedian or show here that didn't get torn apart by at least one person. For the most part I really have no idea what kind of things people here find humorous anymore.
We all like different things I think. It's a discussion board so of course everyone's going to disagree on some stuff. I'd rather it be that way than us all have group mentality and agree on everything. Hey, I think South Park can be pretty funny! I can see where they are coming from too, but I still think they have funny episodes. The one about killing ginger people made me laugh or the one with the dog whisperer who tried to make Cartman be a good boy. Also the n*ggerguy episode with Mel Gibson and Michael Richards (Kramer) from Seinfield.
P.S Even though Richard Dawkins is a dick, are any of his books worth reading?
-
The Greatest Show On Earth is a really good book about how various life evolved. He still regularly goes into a rant at least once a chapter, but for the most part, it's pretty interesting and details many random quirks about biology.
-
P.S Even though Richard Dawkins is a dick, are any of his books worth reading?
The Selfish Gene is pretty good but it's about his actual discipline(evolutionary biology) and not religion.
Blind Watchmaker too until the boring anti-creationism rant at the end... basically most of the stuff he's written that isn't about religion is decent.
-
(http://thegamingliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/liquid_snake_screen.jpg)
Genes
-
The Selfish Gene Theory.