the adverse days in the week though tend to be free , cos no one willingly pays for trouble it just turns up at your door free of charge ,
lol i am not very involved in religion but let religious people have their fun
it really isnt ur problem
it really isnt ur problem
@GeauxTigers2
Ostensibly, that's a pleasant idea but it's a fantastic one. The reality is that the will of religion, or the interpretation of its will by it's adherents, quite often is imposed upon others. In those instances, such as in places with anti-blasphemy laws where the mere questioning of a faith may be seen as a crime to be addressed with severe punishment, it is most certainly a problem for those who do not subscribe to the faith of the majority.
To a lesser immediate extreme, but perhaps with broader and longer-lasting effect, would be something like the denial of our best understanding of reality and our best methodologies leading to that understanding. For example it is one thing if an individual subscribes to Biblical Literalism. Believing, in spite of what we know of genetics, that a few people and a pair of every "kind" floated aboard a logistical nightmare until it was time to exit and commence to repopulating. That they somehow avoided succumbing to inheritable genetic disorders as a consequence of the limited gene pool. That person is free to believe that, and their belief has marginal impact on me directly. When they start demanding it be taught in public classrooms... we've reached problem territory.
There is also the matter of whether or not we might classify unfounded, or less-than-concrete, beliefs as potentially harmful. If the base of a person's worldview is an unstable foundation, the results can be devastating to them if they ever find themselves reckoning with it. Ideally, to minimize harm, we should all strive to be rational in our beliefs such that they are stable against questioning from ourselves or others.
Admittedly many religious people do fit that bill but I find it's often through stubborn misunderstanding. It's hard to rattle a foundation that doesn't run deep, and that's not meant as an insult. There's a genuine belief that unfortunately has never been the subject of introspection and is sufficiently impervious to questioning as a result.
A far smaller (I would suspect) portion of religious adherents do delve further into philosophy. The cosmological argument or such might be where they've drawn their line in the sand. They certainly tend to be more rational, less harmful (at least when they're not apologists fleecing people with their own personal spin on Aquinas), and stable in their belief. But they're willing to make presuppositions about the universe, the nature of time, what can or cannot be infinite, etc where I cannot because I would be basing a belief upon a potentially-unknowable unknown.
I hope that doesn't reopen a can of worms I meant to shut. If it does I hope that they might wriggle out in a civilized manner. I'll concede right now that I'm neither theologist, logician, nor philosopher. The statements above are not accusations directed at anybody here. No insult is intended.
Ostensibly, that's a pleasant idea but it's a fantastic one. The reality is that the will of religion, or the interpretation of its will by it's adherents, quite often is imposed upon others. In those instances, such as in places with anti-blasphemy laws where the mere questioning of a faith may be seen as a crime to be addressed with severe punishment, it is most certainly a problem for those who do not subscribe to the faith of the majority.
To a lesser immediate extreme, but perhaps with broader and longer-lasting effect, would be something like the denial of our best understanding of reality and our best methodologies leading to that understanding. For example it is one thing if an individual subscribes to Biblical Literalism. Believing, in spite of what we know of genetics, that a few people and a pair of every "kind" floated aboard a logistical nightmare until it was time to exit and commence to repopulating. That they somehow avoided succumbing to inheritable genetic disorders as a consequence of the limited gene pool. That person is free to believe that, and their belief has marginal impact on me directly. When they start demanding it be taught in public classrooms... we've reached problem territory.
There is also the matter of whether or not we might classify unfounded, or less-than-concrete, beliefs as potentially harmful. If the base of a person's worldview is an unstable foundation, the results can be devastating to them if they ever find themselves reckoning with it. Ideally, to minimize harm, we should all strive to be rational in our beliefs such that they are stable against questioning from ourselves or others.
Admittedly many religious people do fit that bill but I find it's often through stubborn misunderstanding. It's hard to rattle a foundation that doesn't run deep, and that's not meant as an insult. There's a genuine belief that unfortunately has never been the subject of introspection and is sufficiently impervious to questioning as a result.
A far smaller (I would suspect) portion of religious adherents do delve further into philosophy. The cosmological argument or such might be where they've drawn their line in the sand. They certainly tend to be more rational, less harmful (at least when they're not apologists fleecing people with their own personal spin on Aquinas), and stable in their belief. But they're willing to make presuppositions about the universe, the nature of time, what can or cannot be infinite, etc where I cannot because I would be basing a belief upon a potentially-unknowable unknown.
I hope that doesn't reopen a can of worms I meant to shut. If it does I hope that they might wriggle out in a civilized manner. I'll concede right now that I'm neither theologist, logician, nor philosopher. The statements above are not accusations directed at anybody here. No insult is intended.
<Comment deleted by user>
@GeauxTigers2 #14
What is it with people laughing at others for writing a lot? Sorry if that might sound harsh.
But why not instead critique their opinions, start a discussion? Decide the text is too long and you are not going to bother reading or responding to it. All are fine courses of action.
Some ideas are too complicated, some topics too subtle and multifaceted to address them within the constraints of a Twitter character limit.
If you personally don't like writing more than one line of text, that's absolutely fine. Not very many people do. But some like expressing ideas in longer text formats. Otherwise (and not to compare the above poster with anybody on that list) we wouldn't have writers like Tolkien, James Joyce, Hemingway, Mark Twain, Dickens, and Asimov; would not have poets like Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, T.S. Eliot, Wordsworth, Edgar Allan Poe, etc.
If you don't have the patience or attention span to follow, that's also fine. Nobody will force you to read. But to quote you (somewhat out of context):
"let [...] people have their fun, it really isnt ur problem"
Here's an opinion of mine that might or might not be relevant here:
Promoting anti-intellectualism is as stupid as intellectuals thinking of themselves as higher beings (they most definitely are not).
What is it with people laughing at others for writing a lot? Sorry if that might sound harsh.
But why not instead critique their opinions, start a discussion? Decide the text is too long and you are not going to bother reading or responding to it. All are fine courses of action.
Some ideas are too complicated, some topics too subtle and multifaceted to address them within the constraints of a Twitter character limit.
If you personally don't like writing more than one line of text, that's absolutely fine. Not very many people do. But some like expressing ideas in longer text formats. Otherwise (and not to compare the above poster with anybody on that list) we wouldn't have writers like Tolkien, James Joyce, Hemingway, Mark Twain, Dickens, and Asimov; would not have poets like Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, T.S. Eliot, Wordsworth, Edgar Allan Poe, etc.
If you don't have the patience or attention span to follow, that's also fine. Nobody will force you to read. But to quote you (somewhat out of context):
"let [...] people have their fun, it really isnt ur problem"
Here's an opinion of mine that might or might not be relevant here:
Promoting anti-intellectualism is as stupid as intellectuals thinking of themselves as higher beings (they most definitely are not).
i think its the medium we use when online Thalassokrator , so many impatient cannot be mithered with scrolling on their phones ,they just want quick perhaps witty comments that only last a paragraph ,
its not your fault they have such shallow attention spans , and long posts do their nut in , it is somethig they have to overcome not you
its not your fault they have such shallow attention spans , and long posts do their nut in , it is somethig they have to overcome not you
@GeauxTigers2
Maybe, but the alternative that my inner condescending-prig was pushing for was along the lines of:
"That's nice, Sweetie. It's wrong, but nice."
As much as the prig wants out I imagine you wouldn't have appreciated that sort of reply and, without any included, it would've been left open to demands for explanation and equally indignant replies. Not the direction I wanted to head in because it only leads to a thread full of assertions, gainsaying and insults.
Who really wants to read a thread full of variations on "u better believe bcuz he created everything u dum meanie!!1" and "nuh-uh ur sky daddy isn't real poopie-head!!eleventy-one!1!"? If anybody seriously does, hooooboy, grab the popcorn and run over to ir/religious Twitter where our motto is "It says 'he who casts first stone.' I don't see nothing about no Tweets!"
Maybe, but the alternative that my inner condescending-prig was pushing for was along the lines of:
"That's nice, Sweetie. It's wrong, but nice."
As much as the prig wants out I imagine you wouldn't have appreciated that sort of reply and, without any included, it would've been left open to demands for explanation and equally indignant replies. Not the direction I wanted to head in because it only leads to a thread full of assertions, gainsaying and insults.
Who really wants to read a thread full of variations on "u better believe bcuz he created everything u dum meanie!!1" and "nuh-uh ur sky daddy isn't real poopie-head!!eleventy-one!1!"? If anybody seriously does, hooooboy, grab the popcorn and run over to ir/religious Twitter where our motto is "It says 'he who casts first stone.' I don't see nothing about no Tweets!"
sabutuma said "...do their nut in...." I've never heard that idiom. I get what it means and I love it. Wonder origin.
dunno killf7 , its just a saying locally , but now youve got me wondering the same thing too , gonna see what i can find out
@lokomis my inner condescending prig got out and murdered the rest of me
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.