drives me up the wall

Appreciating mythologies is one thing; asserting and imposing the condition of those mythologies being the only acceptable basis for perceiving and interacting with reality (or even “an” acceptable basis at all), is quite another.

@Persephone:

I feel like maybe you thought i was criticizing the appreciation of literary art, or accusing you of imposing the aforementioned condition of it being the only acceptable basis for perceiving reality, which i wasn’t.

Despite the fact that i completely disagree with viewing the bible(s and other mythology) as “reality,” i still think it’s “interesting,” particularly the part about how people act like it’s reality. That part just blows my mind. I tend to find having my mind repeatedly and consistently blown, to be quite interesting.

Also, i was totally going to mention revelations before, but would cite it as the rantings of a raving lunatic. Still, “interesting” applies, just for the imagery alone. I find it rather creative, if in a profoundly disturbing and twisted way.

Infidels dot org has a good article on that particular segment, from not so long ago… and another one about the story of Job, which i fully recommend. 🙂

p.s.- persephone, did you just imply that incest is “good stuff?” lol. 😉

Well, PainNlife, that’s sort of the point. It’s saturated with contradictions. Anything that repeatedly contradicts itself should be suspected of possibly being untrue, especially when two things that cannot both be simultaneously true, are claimed as such (ie: cognitive dissonance).

And so, when faced with this conundrum, the only “reasonable” course, is to analyze the material and attempt to determine which thing is true, or whether either thing is true. And if you keep digging long enough, you’ll find far too many instances of contradiction to still justify holding the whole work as “true.” And if it’s not reasonably justifiable as “true,” then what other option is there? Partly true? Entirely false?

Does “partial truth” or “complete falsehood” make an appropriately valid or legitimate basis for a religion? What about a system of controlling human behavior? Which possibility makes more sense, in that regard? If you want people to do something other than what you think they will do without intervention, then do you tell them more truth, or more fabrication? A fabrication can be fully controlled, but truth and reality cannot.

Perhaps he simply created a dilemma for himself, out of a desire for a personally rewarding challenge, because it’s boring being perfect and knowing everything all the time. Maybe he just likes to think about stuff. lol.

@SB:

Everything you just said, and more. I like the way you verbalized that.

Have you ever heard the term “memetic parasitism?”

Have you seen infidels dot org? I bet you’d dig it.

And i’ll also add: and in the case of Job, he was exaggeratedly punished FOR his obedience, for being “God’s best follower,” as an attempt to “prove a point to satan.” ‘God’ said “do whatever you want, but you’re not allowed to kill him. Watch. He’ll still worship me.”

Why in the hell does an ‘all-powerful’ ‘all-good’ ‘all-loving’ ‘perfect’ ‘omnipotent’ superbeing… need to destroy the life of the human who he thinks most favors Him, in order to prove a point to /the most evil entity in existence/?

How does that make /any/ sense? Why can’t “God” just “snap his fingers,” and miracle the point having been made? It’s “beyond asinine.”

@SB:

Also, while i thing your reasoning is valid and justifiable, i want to make the distinction that i disagree with some of your generalized “we” usage.

If you say “we all have ‘sin,'” then you have to convince me that ‘sin’ exists, and then we have to agree on its definition.

Maybe i don’t have any? Maybe i do, but insist i don’t, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

Honestly, i would say my ‘sin meter’ is much lower in comparison to most people.

As for the “slave chocolate” and “sweatshop clothing,” aren’t we (almost) all economic slaves? Sure, perhaps i should refuse slave chocolate at any price… but the society i cannot escape, requires that i wear clothing, and due to my economic enslavement, anything more expensive than “sweatshop clothes” are rarely ever a feasible option. So i’m stuck with a set of options that includes: A) mandatory clothing B) sweatshop clothes C) no clothes at all, which is unacceptable and not a real option.

So the illusion of choice is only an illusion, and i have only one viable option. I am not the one who chose these conditions, but in order to remain alive, i must abide… and so i am forced to spend my few available dollars on the cheapest possible clothes, regardless of my disagreement in the nature of their production. I don’t have another option. Therefore, the ‘sin’ of supporting sweatshop labor, is actually not mine. It does not belong to me, because it is not my choice; it is compulsory and imposed. This ‘sin’ belongs to those who enable and maintain the sweatshop, as well as those who economically enslave those who cannot afford to make a better choice available to be chosen. But does that mean i feel “good” about sweatshop clothes? Nope. Especially since i am not allowed to choose otherwise, in a way that remains compatible with the society i cannot escape. I’m not going to sacrifice my own life and invite further useless suffering into myself, that won’t change anything, just because someone else thinks it’s fine to profit by exploiting and abusing children. So i don’t count in that ‘we,’ and it’s not ‘my sin.’ It’s something society and “businessmen” impose upon me. It’s their sin. But without supernatural deities, and without a system worthy and capable of applying correct penalties to everyone, including the rich, and ‘TPTB,’ then there is no consequence for the person creating the storm of sin. There is only consequence for those who are controlled by it, due to the desire of another to profit.

But i can’t argue about whether “the majority would prefer cheap over morally right.” You may be correct about that, or not. But i am not part of that majority. I am part of the majority who doesn’t have access to a means of gaining enough resources to afford the better choice, and i often assert this lack of access is done by design. There is plenty evidence to support such a claim, if you are willing to perceive it.

@Persephone:

“Right so, a person can claim to be correct; it does not mean that they are correct.”

Exactly. And then requirement for precise wording becomes critical, which is why i’m often so emphatic about that. Anyone can make any claim, but making a claim does not make truth. This is why Theism must be substantiated, and what the concept of ‘Faith’ attempts to circumvent: the requirement of Evidence, in order to justify a claim that is not obviously true. (notice i didn’t say “obviously not true,” but instead: “not obviously true.”)

When someone says the word “faith,” it’s like they’re saying: “haha, i don’t need evidence, but YOU DO!” Which, IMO, is utter bullshit.

But in at least one way, they are correct. I do need evidence. But i need evidence for /their/ claims, while they don’t. I can’t “just believe” things that seem incompatible with what i observe in reality.

I don’t think so. I think that is a hallucination perceived through the filter of indoctrination. Without a previous idea of “God,” the person may have interpreted such a thing vastly differently. We’ll never know. And, because it’s an entirely subjective experience, ie: an unsubstantiated claim, then it is not valid evidence.

If it comes down to “because i said so!” then it’s just a claim, no matter how “real” that person’s subjective interpretation may have seemed to them.

We are all subjectively perceiving an objective reality, but no one has a “scientifically objective” “phaneron.” All we can do is try to get as close as we can, and agree on what we can know does exist, while pondering and analyzing all the other less consistent things that people claim to have experienced, but are not replicable in any way (except perhaps through psychoactive drugs!).

So, no. Personal anecdotes are not evidence, they are only subjective affirmations and claims, which cannot be quantified or qualified.

0. nothing
1. claim
2. request for supporting evidence
3. refusal/inability to supply evidence
4. claim tentatively dismissed until evidence manifests
5. unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims noted for future reference

Yep. Everyone hates whitey (unless whitey is a hot chick).

With the rampant misguided feminism of late, there definitely needs to be some male-rights advocacy. I know that might sound absurd to the uninitiated, but set aside your bias and look deeper.

From my perspective, it sure as hell seems like women get a lot of special treatment, and are demanding even more, under the guise of “equality.”

Sometimes it’s not about gender, but about lack of desirability. People tend to treat those they dislike, rather poorly. People tend to take advantage where it’s given. This accounts for quite a lot of the “sexism” debate, and really isn’t about sex or gender at all… but it’s portrayed and misrepresented as such.

The whole feminism conspiracy thing makes me even sicker than theism.

I do realize some women are mistreated because they are women. But according to the reality i observe, “most women” have some incredible advantages over most men, in spite of whatever disadvantages they may also have.

It seems mostly balanced, to me… and not nearly off-balance enough to justify some of the utterly outrageous man-hate that has spewed forth from some of the most vocal “feminists.”

To say “feminist,” is actually almost the same as saying “men are bad for being born male, because masculinity is the opposite of what i advocate.”

A world where being male is inherently wrong, would be pretty horrible.

However, some parts of the world really need to change the way they treat women (which is almost entirely religion-based; another reason to despise those constructs).

I think that people who are treated unfairly, need advocates. I don’t think either feminism or ‘masculism’ should be “prioritized.”

I think we all need to embrace Humanism… because we’re all human.

Men oppress men, men oppress women, women oppress both men and women. All people oppress someone, in one way or another.

Should only women have an advocacy group?
Should only certain “races” have an advocacy group?
Should the world decide that “all white males” do not deserve advocacy, due to *some* of them being a-holes?

If you’re going to preach equality, then preach equality for everyone equally.

Not just everyone but white males.

Who’s to say my white ethnicity is any less valid than any other ethnicity?

Who’s to say my penis is any less valid than any vagina?

Who’s to say my lack of belief in any god is any less valid than anyone’s belief to the contrary?

How about we just say “all humans are human, and should not mistreat each other.”

Feminism is all about females. It’s not about males at all. It’s a misguided and unnecessarily polarizing issue, instigated and perpetuated for the wrong, often hypocritical reasons.

Both feminine and masculine traits have their place in the world. To say one is more or less valid than the other, is the definition of sexual discrimination, aka “sexism.”

Being “in favor of feminism” is, by definition, a bias in favor of one side, opposing the other. To advocate from this premise, indicates a lumping together of all men, claiming that all men are guilty of mistreating women, but also implies that no women are guilty of mistreating any men, which is absurdly incorrect.

Plus, i don’t know any “white males” who demand their multiple female servants cover their entire bodies, claiming it’s “unholy” for them to reveal their skin, or ever leave the palace without permission. Maybe they exist… but it doesn’t seem very common.

I find it unacceptable to declare that, because some of my race and gender behave incorrectly, i do not need any advocacy. I didn’t choose my race or gender, but i do choose not to behave in those reprehensible ways… and yet, because of things i can’t choose, i don’t deserve advocacy? But other people deserve advocacy, based on something they can’t choose? Just because they’re not white males, and i am? Well, that’s not fair or equal at all. That’s racism.

Just because some people who are genetically similar to me might be racist or sexist, that doesn’t indicate whether i have or would behave that way, and that doesn’t reasonably invalidate my need for advocacy. To suggest that it does, through “feminism” or any other label you can slap on it, is both racist and sexist.

The idea that only certain races and genders should have advocacy, is just absurd in my view. People should stop trying to use stupid reasons to justify mistreating each other, or trying to justify “inherent superiority.”

Obviously there are some critical differences across genders and races… but that doesn’t mean anyone should have less rights than someone else, based on those differences.

I have no problem with women and men having slightly different sets of “rules” or “allowances,” tailored to their particular physical traits, and i have no problem with other kinds of people existing in the world.

I do have a problem with people who believe my race or gender should be the deciding factor in whether or not i am allowed rights, by whatever group deigns themselves qualified to decide such things.