|
rudatron posted:It's not just them being 'crazy', it's a highly political struggle. It was said before that other religious christians are switching to evangelical, why do you think that is? Is it because more people are going 'crazy'? No, they're becoming politically radicalized. Evangelical Christianity is losing the least number of adherents because it's more simple and consistent. Saying that the BIble is the wonderous good news is more palatable than admitting that its heavily allegorical or that some parts are clearly unreliable or contradictory like the more liberal churches will admit. rudatron posted:But it's not just "witchcraft", however you may define that, that's the issue. There's a political dimension that you may not be aware of unless you're tuned into it, because they make great efforts to hide it. OK, there are people like that. But there are also the millions of people that do literally think that demons exist and are really like those found in the Diablo games and that those representations are simply satanically inspired.
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
Rosscifer posted:OK, there are people like that. But there are also the millions of people that do literally think that demons exist and are really like those found in the Diablo games and that those representations are simply satanically inspired. It's not about simplicity or complexity, after all, what's simpler or more consistent than atheism? It's the basis of a scientific outlook, what reason do people have to reject that outlook in some places but accept it in others? Wouldn't it be more consistent/simpler to just use it when you want to know what the truth is about the world you're in? But that's not enough. Because it's not about truth, its about identity and community. They feel under attack, they know they're losing, so as time goes on they'll become more and more desperate. Eventually, they'll gently caress up in a major way, and it'll blow up in their faces. But their desperate rhetoric is enticing, for the same reason islamism keeps drawing adherents: people confuse aggressive insecurity for personal strength.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Evangelical Christianity is losing the least number of adherents because it's more simple and consistent. Saying that the BIble is the wonderous good news is more palatable than admitting that its heavily allegorical or that some parts are clearly unreliable or contradictory like the more liberal churches will admit. I have relatives who became evangelicals for this reason. We all used to be Methodists and they like to explain how simple and straightforward and easy their beliefs are. 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's not about simplicity or complexity, after all, what's simpler or more consistent than atheism? It's the basis of a scientific outlook, what reason do people have to reject that outlook in some places but accept it in others? Wouldn't it be more consistent/simpler to just use it when you want to know what the truth is about the world you're in?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Does atheism necessarily or automatically lead to the scientific/rationalist/modernist worldview you're valorizing here? oh! oh! i know this! it doesn't and that's irrelevant to the point being made
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that atheism is the "simpler" outlook
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Methodological naturalism takes work though, it's not simple.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I think we can all agree that atheism is the "simpler" outlook I dunno, boiling everything down to "this is all part of an epic good vs evil struggle" is pretty simple. I mean, good vs evil...that's one of the most basic setups any writer could ever adopt. A neutral, indifferent universe is much more nuanced and interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
rudatron posted:that's how they conceptualize ideology. The outraged believer might feel that it's about community and identity but it's really their sense of community and identity being exploited. I think the cultural-political agenda is often the means, not the end.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I dunno, boiling everything down to "this is all part of an epic good vs evil struggle" is pretty simple. I mean, good vs evil...that's one of the most basic setups any writer could ever adopt. This may be a matter of taste, but I rather prefer the timeless narrative in which good triumphs, and there is a moral, as I find it uplifting. You might desire some dreary ambiguous nihilistic landscape or whatever, which is perhaps more reflective of your approach to life
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Morals exist outside of religion. Structural functionalism, yo.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This may be a matter of taste, but I rather prefer the timeless narrative in which good triumphs, and there is a moral, as I find it uplifting. You might desire some dreary ambiguous nihilistic landscape or whatever, which is perhaps more reflective of your approach to life So you prefer a comfortable lie to an uncomfortable reality?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This may be a matter of taste, but I rather prefer the timeless narrative in which good triumphs, and there is a moral, as I find it uplifting. You might desire some dreary ambiguous nihilistic landscape or whatever, which is perhaps more reflective of your approach to life A neutral, indifferent universe != nihilism. We can make factual claims about the universe, and still hold onto a moral landscape where things like good and evil exist. The fact that you jumped to that conclusion just goes to show your lack of depth in thinking about this subject.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Just because the world is ultimately bleak, uncaring, and amoral doesn't mean you can't be chipper.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I think we can all agree that atheism is the "simpler" outlook Because making poo poo up to explain the natural world is more advanced  Kyrie eleison posted:This may be a matter of taste, but I rather prefer the timeless narrative in which good triumphs, and there is a moral, as I find it uplifting. You might desire some dreary ambiguous nihilistic landscape or whatever, which is perhaps more reflective of your approach to life No, you want a meaning. You want a defined purpose. You prefer tales because they make you feel special. It is not nihilistic to accept that maybe, just maybe, there isn't anything more to life than there appears to be. quote:You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and then many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask, “Why we are here?” and what that question might mean. I might think about it a bit and then if I can’t figure it out then I go on to something else. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
I prefer the sunrise to any story, re: uplifting.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
i am harry posted:I prefer the sunrise to any story, re: uplifting. It makes a lot of sense to revere the sun. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:A neutral, indifferent universe != nihilism. We can make factual claims about the universe, and still hold onto a moral landscape where things like good and evil exist. The fact that you jumped to that conclusion just goes to show your lack of depth in thinking about this subject. oh so you want a narrative where good and evil don't exist but good and evil still exist... cool br0
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:oh so you want a narrative where good and evil don't exist but good and evil still exist... cool br0 Except good and evil is still a human created characteristic, not a divinely inspired one. Is the wolf evil for killing a doe to feed its children or to survive? Is a soldier evil for killing another man in what he views is the defense of his country? You want so much for good and evil to be some massive divine war that is thrust upon us by a deity, instead the meaning is much more natural and neutral than you can imagine. But that wouldn't fit in to your grand desire for life to have meaning and purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This may be a matter of taste, but I rather prefer the timeless narrative in which good triumphs, and there is a moral, as I find it uplifting. You might desire some dreary ambiguous nihilistic landscape or whatever, which is perhaps more reflective of your approach to life Kyrie, please stop being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that I was saying nothing about my desires for the structure of the world, but merely offering a rebuttal to your claim that atheism was "simpler". Please stop throwing in non-sequiturs to confuse the issue. I am not saying I "prefer" a bleak nihilistic world. I am saying that the "good vs evil" story is much simpler than a "neutral" world. Also, it has nothing to do with what I prefer: it's about what's real, whether I (or you) like it or not. And by all accounts, the most likely scenario is that this God, like all the others, is a product of human invention, a characteristic you would happily apply to every other religion, past and present, on this Earth. I say it would take some pretty extraordinary evidence to separate Christianity out and make it seem true while the others are still false. It's sort of weird that you take my opinion on what's more likely and transform in into my preference. What I prefer has nothing to do with it. I think that belies a serious flaw in your reasoning: you've stated before that you turned from atheism to Catholicism essentially because Catholicism seemed like a friendlier worldview, but that doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Kyrie, please stop being disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:oh so you want a narrative where good and evil don't exist but good and evil still exist... cool br0 Good and evil exist as useful social constructs to encourage positive cooperation between people. Good and evil do not exist as something cosmic or supernatural. To be clear, nonbelievers are perfectly capable of having a rigorous understanding of good and evil in their lives and to use that understanding to better their society. I actually think this version of good and evil is superior to a religious one, because it ultimately rests on a simpler and more universal understanding of people's wants and needs, rather than the whims of a mysterious god that we must obey unquestioningly.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:Good and evil exist as useful social constructs to encourage positive cooperation between people. Good and evil do not exist as something cosmic or supernatural. If the idea of good and evil is to encourage positive cooperation as a social construct then we should probably prefer art that reinforces this view of good and evil
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Alas, as meritorious as the idea is, it is not exactly marketable. Because it's not as much fun as yelling about hellfire and salvation.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alas, as meritorious as the idea is, it is not exactly marketable. Because it's not as much fun as yelling about hellfire and salvation. So good and evil narratives arent marketable
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Good and evil narratives are exceedingly marketable provided they are sufficiently simple and cathartic, but "there is no absolute good or evil and everyone just makes it up for themselves" is significantly less emotionally satisfying than "the almighty creator of the universe has decided that You Are Good and Everyone You Hate Is Evil and will make a paradise for you when you die, while everyone else will go to hell". So it loses out, somewhat.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This may be a matter of taste, but I rather prefer the timeless narrative in which good triumphs, and there is a moral, as I find it uplifting. You might desire some dreary ambiguous nihilistic landscape or whatever, which is perhaps more reflective of your approach to life You remind me of idiots who say things like if you believe evolution exists then you must want that for all society and you are a hitler. Just because you admit something is true doesn't mean you like it. Evolution is an ugly horrible process which can only occur through enormous suffering. We're lucky enough to have consciousness and the ability to take measures to protect the weakest of us from dying needlessly. It would be nice to live in a world where aids or cancer don't exist too, but living in an imaginary world where they don't doesn't help anything and just serves to make them more prevalent through ignorance.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:If the idea of good and evil is to encourage positive cooperation as a social construct then we should probably prefer art that reinforces this view of good and evil When a form of art confuses its own definitions of good and evil it can be a tad confusing to the reader as well
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:If the idea of good and evil is to encourage positive cooperation as a social construct then we should probably prefer art that reinforces this view of good and evil The good and evil people are interchangeable over different cultural narratives. It's idiotic to make blanket statements that simplistic mass otherising of a group is inherently a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
swampland posted:The good and evil people are interchangeable over different cultural narratives. It's idiotic to make blanket statements that simplistic mass otherising of a group is inherently a good thing. Not all cultural narratives are valid.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
A good and evil fiction narrative such as... Christianity 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Not all cultural narratives are valid. This is my point E: Although it would be more like not all cultural narratives are valid to YOU swampland fucked around with this message at 00:38 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:If the idea of good and evil is to encourage positive cooperation as a social construct then we should probably prefer art that reinforces this view of good and evil This would diminish the value of art. Art, artists, and the audience shouldn't have to do anything. To say art should be a thing is to miss an opportunity for a better understanding of human nature. Asshole Businessman fucked around with this message at 00:39 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
The role of art cannot be to simply assert dominant cultural values, great art must challenge already existing perspectives and themes. Without that, new styles or ideas cannot be created.Nessus posted:Does atheism necessarily or automatically lead to the scientific/rationalist/modernist worldview you're valorizing here? Chin posted:It might look and feel like a calculated ideology but a lot of it seems like simple top-down fear mongering. A pastor ranting about the gays and Pokemon demons has a lot in common with Alex Jones howling about FEMA camps and chemtrails or Rush Limbaugh growling about feminazis. rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:24 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The role of art cannot be to simply assert dominant cultural values, great art must challenge already existing perspectives and themes. Without that, new styles or ideas cannot be created. this position is not sufficiently communist. a true communist knows that the only good art is proletarian art that glorifies the people's struggle and vilifies the enemies of progress. if you were to make art that 'challenged' the communist authority by, for example, promoting christianity, or capitalism, then you should be sent to siberia. swampland posted:The good and evil people are interchangeable over different cultural narratives. It's idiotic to make blanket statements that simplistic mass otherising of a group is inherently a good thing. but it can be a good thing, if it be actually good, rather than merely a 'cultural narrative'. do you believe in good and evil or not? make up your mind already. evil deserves to be otherized
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
The USSR was insufficiently communist. What now, mr kyrie.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The USSR was insufficiently communist. What now, mr kyrie. you are like a protestant; someone who, hastening to evade association with his ideology's ill-colored past, schisms from it. and so all of the legendary communists of times past, whose writings would agree with my views on art, whose institutions they were proud of and defended, you decry as false like Luther, in pursuit of some higher, missed ideal. but they had a, dare I say, Platonic view of art, that it caused corruption in the youth, and disorder in the commons. that a society's mind must be molded by its wisest, who would inevitably grow old within a scant few decades and thus become the wisest elders, the children of the revolution. and these septuagenarians would then declare this latest art to be corrupting, to be against wholesome values, to be in violation of decency, and they should surely be right. and the children should know it, that it be dangerous, that it be dancing with the devil, and this is exactly the excitement it provides. for contesting the values of society is no good when a society is on the road to perfection, it is only good when you are in rebellion from unjust leaders. and if one is eternally in a rebellious spirit, then one can never achieve any sort of power or authority; and if you had it, you would find it taken away from you by a mirror image of yourself, a rapscallion who now sees your values as doctrinaire, and calls you a tired old man, before boasting at your death and taking a selfie of himself sitting on your grave.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:evil deserves to be otherized I'm glad to see you coming round to Khorne tho
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:this position is not sufficiently communist. a true communist knows that the only good art is proletarian art that glorifies the people's struggle and vilifies the enemies of progress. if you were to make art that 'challenged' the communist authority by, for example, promoting christianity, or capitalism, then you should be sent to siberia. I made two arguments: 1. The desire for simplistic narratives does not validate or prove the worth of black and white viewpoints and is often, in fact, harmful towards the alleviation of human suffering. 2.The definition of good and evil IS a cultural narrative. "IF it be actually good" is the important part of your reply. I find your morality hateful and disgusting, particularly your views on gays and those of other religions. I don't trust your definition of good. So what now?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
swampland posted:I don't trust your definition of good. So what now? And by the way Kyrie, "I am using God's definition of good" is not an answer. You are using what you think is God's definition of good. "I think God says X is good" is just as subjective as "I think X is good". We still have to trust in you and your interpretations. We still have to go by Kyrie's best judgment. That's probably the biggest problem with religious morality: we don't know for sure what God says, only what God's followers say that he says. Not good enough.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:44
|
|