Religion: Is it cool?

[vonDrehle]

Not despise. Just get annoyed at the random personal attacks for no reason.

[jsun3thousand]

if they were only random. it's the internet. if you say something dumb prepare to get blasted. i like vanilla pudding pops and frank's all "i wear visors and i'm better than you, faggot."

[vonDrehle]

I'll just accept your an asshole.

[Dig It]

your

[jsun3thousand]

I'll just accept your an asshole.

[Triflusal]

There were always several of these guys on States campus each semester.



I love the annoyance in his eyes

Came across these today.




Though I don't believe Buddhism is necessarily a Religion.


This guy is a comedian so guessing this is from an act he did. Think I might like his stuff.

Hey vD i am reposting these so you can look at them again and so everyone can look at them again and then you can wonder why people are making fun of you

[Triflusal]

i'm not objective. how i view, understand, and interact with the world is based on my life history, gender, race, sexuality, social class, education, nationality, etc, etc set within a specific sociohistorical context.

i became an atheist for several reasons. neither of my parents were very religious. despite my mother's lack of religious conviction, she forced me to go to catholic school to receive my first communion and be confirmed to make my grandmother happy. i was also sent to christian bible camp in the summer because my aunt is very religious. the conflicting messages i was receiving led to the origin of my skepticism of religion and god. i was around ten years old when i began questioning the existence of god. my life history primed me to easily to reject the idea of god based on a lack of evidence and all the contradictions i was taught. if i had been raised in a family that taught me a singular vision of god and embedded me in a supportive religious community that could answer my questions, i would not be the same person i am today.

if your (and everyone elses) view is subjective, is their any way you can criticize other views for being wrong? aren't those views just as valid because they result from the same criteria that your worldview is from? earlier you wrote this:

while he [penn jillette] doesn't believe in god, his belief that he is objective and correct is no different than any religious belief.

penn jillette believes he is right. a christian or muslim or whatever believes they are right. why are you "right" in that nobody is right? what is the correct way to believe in something?

religious beliefs cannot be proven correct or incorrect because there is no empirical evidence that can lead to establishment of specific creator.

there is a difference between being subjective and being incorrect. humans are material, biological beings that live in a real material world and we make our subjective claims with evidence. without evidence you can't make a truth claim worth any merit. it's easy to prove that drinking cyanide will not make you stronger or that mercury will not cure syphilis. the world becomes messy when people try to make truth claims without evidence, like penn and ayn ryand society make about the reality of their objectivity. there is no evidence to demonstrate that claim, it is a dogmatic belief. you have to balance your argument with evidence. how truth claims should be made is truth using a established methodology to gather data, analyzing on your data properly, than you make an argument about your data. arguments are usually made to show the weakness of existing ideas, add to a current idea, or to make an new claim.

how we come to accept our current, contextual truths is based on who has the social power to control the definition of situation. michel foucault uses the term "regimes of truth" to describe how contextual truths are established. a truth regime is the "historically specific mechanisms which produce discourses which function as true in particular times and places."

even though humans are subjective, it doesn't mean anything goes. there are widely accepted rules about science. we have been reigning our subjectivity over the last 100 years or so by allowing disfranchised voices in on the debate. will the current regime of truths stand forever, probably not. nobody can predict the future. power and knowledge are intimately linked.

jsun you're no fun like apoth was. stop directly answering my questions and say some stupid shit like vD

[jsun3thousand]

i'm not objective. how i view, understand, and interact with the world is based on my life history, gender, race, sexuality, social class, education, nationality, etc, etc set within a specific sociohistorical context.

i became an atheist for several reasons. neither of my parents were very religious. despite my mother's lack of religious conviction, she forced me to go to catholic school to receive my first communion and be confirmed to make my grandmother happy. i was also sent to christian bible camp in the summer because my aunt is very religious. the conflicting messages i was receiving led to the origin of my skepticism of religion and god. i was around ten years old when i began questioning the existence of god. my life history primed me to easily to reject the idea of god based on a lack of evidence and all the contradictions i was taught. if i had been raised in a family that taught me a singular vision of god and embedded me in a supportive religious community that could answer my questions, i would not be the same person i am today.

if your (and everyone elses) view is subjective, is their any way you can criticize other views for being wrong? aren't those views just as valid because they result from the same criteria that your worldview is from? earlier you wrote this:

while he [penn jillette] doesn't believe in god, his belief that he is objective and correct is no different than any religious belief.

penn jillette believes he is right. a christian or muslim or whatever believes they are right. why are you "right" in that nobody is right? what is the correct way to believe in something?

religious beliefs cannot be proven correct or incorrect because there is no empirical evidence that can lead to establishment of specific creator.

there is a difference between being subjective and being incorrect. humans are material, biological beings that live in a real material world and we make our subjective claims with evidence. without evidence you can't make a truth claim worth any merit. it's easy to prove that drinking cyanide will not make you stronger or that mercury will not cure syphilis. the world becomes messy when people try to make truth claims without evidence, like penn and ayn ryand society make about the reality of their objectivity. there is no evidence to demonstrate that claim, it is a dogmatic belief. you have to balance your argument with evidence. how truth claims should be made is truth using a established methodology to gather data, analyzing on your data properly, than you make an argument about your data. arguments are usually made to show the weakness of existing ideas, add to a current idea, or to make an new claim.

how we come to accept our current, contextual truths is based on who has the social power to control the definition of situation. michel foucault uses the term "regimes of truth" to describe how contextual truths are established. a truth regime is the "historically specific mechanisms which produce discourses which function as true in particular times and places."

even though humans are subjective, it doesn't mean anything goes. there are widely accepted rules about science. we have been reigning in our subjectivity over the last 100 years or so by allowing disfranchised voices in on the debate. will the current regime of truths stand forever, probably not. nobody can predict the future. power and knowledge are intimately linked.

jsun you're no fun like apoth was. stop directly answering my questions and say some stupid shit like vD

sorry, dude. don't ask me serious questions if you want dumb answers. i try to refrain from getting stupid until there's no point in being serious. you asked me to justify my position and i did.

if you want dumb. start being ignorant and hypocritical and i'll fire up the mspaint and makes some stupid jpegs. or get prerube's ass back in here so i can tell him how much i hate him. i'm up in the air on the vD thing. he said something about my asshole. i'm a little confused and worried about him right now- more than usual.

[BrotherDave]

I liked how the Trayvon Martin thread in the Landfill derailed in to a "what is atheism?" discussion for a few pages. Mr Mirth was adamant about proving his point.

[jsun3thousand]

I liked how the Trayvon Martin thread in the Landfill derailed in to a "what is atheism?" discussion for a few pages. Mr Mirth was adamant about proving his point.

how is that thread going? i honestly haven't opened it once for many reasons. i'm surprised it's still going.

[keltik]

Well Liturgically Lent ended on Maundy Thursday (two days ago) but I took a few extra days off. What have I missed?

EDIT: I saw Discraft did a bring your disc to work day on Good Friday. I guess they forgot that most people have that day off.

[Flipflat]

[lokirising]

[veganray]

[sillybizz]

Sillybizz gets done what all of DGR couldn't do in 48 pages..

No religion is not cool.