Nevermind the bollocks, here's another religion topic



  • @antiquarian said:

    That sounds like a good :trollface: idea. Maybe call it the Church of Progressive Science and make Das Kapital and An Inconvenient Truth two of the primary sacred texts.

    Along with whichever science text is used in Texas. Yeah, that would be an absolute blast, to watch the court fight.@anotherusername said:

    And again, it's none of anybody's fucking business what religion the students practiced at home. You can't assume that none of the students were Muslim any more than you can assume that all of them were Christian.

    And yet, how many times have we seen schools present Bible verses for the kids to learn, while assuming that none of the kids were atheist or Muslim? It happens at least several times every year.

    In reality, the only reason there's a dispute is because the text was OMG Muslim and not Christian. Schools are always and forever sneaking through Christian teachings, texts, assignments, and thoughts. Every once in a while, they encounter an atheist's kid, the parent sues, and everyone is all like ":wtf: is wrong with these atheists?"

    It's kind of funny to see a Muslim text cause the same "everyone" to say, ":wtf: how dare the school teach my kid to be a Muslim?" Particularly when there's zero reason to believe the school was actually doing that...which brings us to...

    @anotherusername said:

    @CoyneTheDup said:
    So these kids copied an Arabic expression of faith, that they couldn't read, but now they're all little Muslims.

    Who said they're all Muslims now? Come on.

    I said it. This type of statement is called satire, which is a literary form. You can tell in this case because it is not in quotes, and it is an exaggeration and a mockery of the parent's overreaction; their evident belief that copying a text the kids can't read must somehow be contaminating them.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    Along with whichever science text is used in Texas. Yeah, that would be an absolute blast, to watch the court fight.

    You may want to think a bit more about why I might have selected the two books that I did.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    And yet, how many times have we seen schools present Bible verses for the kids to learn, while assuming that none of the kids were atheist or Muslim? It happens at least several times every year.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    Schools are always and forever sneaking through Christian teachings, texts, assignments, and thoughts. Every once in a while, they encounter an atheist's kid, the parent sues

    And ifwhen it goes to court, do the schools lose?

    So are we going to treat religions equally, or not?

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    it is an exaggeration

    IOW a straw man.



  • @antiquarian said:

    You may want to think a bit more about why I might have selected the two books that I did.

    The object of the exercise was to get a school text, an important one, declared a religious text and watch the fracas when someone sues and the schools, courts, manufacturer, parents, and whoever else, get into a brisk multi-way argument over whether or not it really is a religious text and whether it can be banned.

    You really think the courts would have an issue banning either of your selected books from school, because they are religious texts? I think they would ban those in a second. And while you're waving your little idea about getting Democrats banned as a religious organization, bear in mind it would be even easier to get the Republicans banned. Leading suggstions: The Conscience of a Conservative, Democracy in America and Atlas Shrugged.


  • area_deu

    @antiquarian said:

    Das Kapital and An Inconvenient Truth

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    The Conscience of a Conservative, Democracy in America and Atlas Shrugged

    Never read any of them, I guess I wouldn't be allowed to vote if I was American.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    And while you're waving your little idea about getting Democrats banned as a religious organization, bear in mind it would be even easier to get the Republicans banned. Leading suggstions: The Conscience of a Conservative, Democracy in America and Atlas Shrugged.

    And the problem with that is?

    bonus points if you can get the Green Party and the Tea Party taken out as well

    @aliceif said:

    Never read any of them, I guess I wouldn't be allowed to vote if I was American.

    The requirements for voting here are a birth certificate and a pulse, and sometimes the second is optional. :trolleybus:



  • Much thanks.



  • @anotherusername said:

    What does that have to do with anything? Is it relevant somehow?

    You're talking to @ben_lubar, of course it's not relevant.



  • Damn, so much ignorance

    1. Arabians are a nationality (like muricans)
    2. Arabian alphabet is used by Persians, Arabs, Egyptians and lots of other countries which are not Arabs... And even hate each other sometimes.
    3. Islam is a religion not related to race or country, and there are lots of religions on Muslim countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, etc.

    So please, stop showing your stupidity by mixing terms.

    As a side note , some USMerican cities have Arab names... OMG!



  • @Eldelshell said:

    Arabians are a nationality (like muricans)

    Yes and no. Saudi Arabian is a nationality. In a narrow sense, Arabian refers to the Arabian Peninsula, of which Saudi Arabia comprises the vast majority. More generally, Arab refers to a panethnic group that inhabits much of North Africa and the Middle East:

    @Eldelshell said:

    ArabianArabic alphabet

    @Eldelshell said:

    Islam is a religion not related to race or country
    IIRC, the largest single population of Muslims is in Indonesia, which is most definitely not Arab.

    @Eldelshell said:

    there are lots of religions on Muslim countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, etc.
    True, but at least some of those countries have little or no religious freedom, and the other religions are, if not outright illegal, severely restricted.



  • Remember when this topic had funny stuff in it?


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @loopback0 said:

    Remember when this topic had funny stuff in it?

    Ever since the war, nothing has been funny...



  • Is someone going to add :fire: to the title? Or maybe :eggplant:?



  • Give it time...


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @loopback0 said:

    Remember when this topic had funny stuff in it?

    No, this topic hasn't ever been funny in the whole 15 minutes it exists.



  • @obeselymorbid said:

    @loopback0 said:
    Remember when this topic had funny stuff in it?

    No, this topic hasn't ever been funny

    Seems to still be the case :rimshot:


  • :belt_onion:

    Honestly, at this point I have to admit my ignorance and ask... Are @CoyneTheDup and @anotherusername even fighting? Agreeing? I see references to books I never read and shit, and walls of text and... I have no idea.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    Atlas Shrugged.
    I wish the people who bandy that book around would actually read it. I suspect a lot of them haven't, missed the point and have blown its significance out of perportion. It wasn't that good a book.



  • @DogsB said:

    It wasn't that good a book.

    Eh, it was okay *shrug*

    Rand had quite a bunch of good ideas, some bad ideas, and wasn't a very good writer per se. I'm not quite sure why people are so polarized on her.



  • @DogsB said:

    @CoyneTheDup said:
    Atlas Shrugged.
    I wish the people who bandy that book around would actually read it. I suspect a lot of them haven't, missed the point and have blown its significance out of perportion. It wasn't that good a book.

    It appears that an amazing number of people have built their life around objectivism; effectively use it as their religion. (The philosophy of objectivism is derived from Ayn Rand's works.)



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    It appears that an amazing number of people have built their life around objectivism; effectively use it as their religion.

    So... the bottom line is you're not allowed to subscribe to a philosophical system, have a worldview, or pretty much hold any set of opinions that anyone's held before, or you're a mindless sheeple. Yup.


  • :belt_onion:

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    It appears that an amazing number of people have built their life around objectivism; effectively use it as their religion.

    Can we have anyone have a world view and a set of principles without it being called a religion any more? Has the definition stretched that far? I heard science being called a religion, I heard rationalism being called a religion... How the hell are things without any dogma, any rituals and any commandments religions? Because they are well defined by some principles? I am confuse.



  • @Onyx said:

    Honestly, at this point I have to admit my ignorance and ask... Are @CoyneTheDup and @anotherusername even fighting? Agreeing? I see references to books I never read and shit, and walls of text and... I have no idea.

    It's because we're political polar opposites.

    @anotherusername suggested the idea that it would be fun to adopt a science textbook for a religion (to watch the court battle that would ensue, while idiots tried to determine if the book could still be used in schools).

    @anotherusername is liberal, so @antiquarian , who is very conservative responded that the books that should be selected for this new religion should be Das Kapital (English Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Karl Marx's masterwork) and An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's book about global warming).

    Tweaking the liberal, you see.

    Well, I happen to be liberal too, so I just "loved" that suggestion. So I offered a minor tweak in return that we should definitely include whichever science textbook is used in Texas.

    Whereupon, @antiquarian concluded that I had whooshed. So I decided to counter with something stronger: that we should also include the conservative masterworks The Conscience of a Conservative (by Senator Barry Goldwater), Democracy in America (by Alexis de Tocqueville) and Atlas Shrugged (objectivism philosophy by Ayn Rand).

    I haven't read any of these books either.

    So, anyway, this isn't an argument, just :fire:.


  • :belt_onion:

    Ah, political trolls, that's what confused me! Being rather apolitical myself (as in, it's not that I don't have stances on certain things, I just don't align myself with any political party/ideology) I clearly whooshed.

    So wait... Religion based on a science book or on a scientific concept? Either way, I can only offer a :facepalm:, no laughter.



  • @Onyx said:

    So wait... Religion based on a science book or on a scientific concept? Either way, I can only offer a :facepalm:, no laughter.

    Well, the original suggestion was a whole science textbook. But actually, this idea is not new with respect to science concept: I suspect that's one of the reasons conservatives keep shouting that "global warming" is a religion.


  • :belt_onion:

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    "global warming" is a religion.



  • @Onyx said:

    @CoyneTheDup said:
    "global warming" is a religion.

    If I take your meaning correctly: "You've quoted me out of context!"


  • :belt_onion:

    I mean that the concept sounds so ridiculous I have no proper way of responding to it.

    Also, you caught me, I dropped the "conservatives" part out, though not because I wanted to accuse you of making the statement, but because I find it ridiculous regardless of who made it. Sorry if I left the wrong impression.



  • @Onyx said:

    I mean that the concept sounds so ridiculous I have no proper way of responding to it.

    Also, you caught me, I dropped the "conservatives" part out, though not because I wanted to accuse you of making the statement, but because I find it ridiculous regardless of who made it. Sorry if I left the wrong impression.

    Well, then, there's no problem, since I misunderstood what you were saying. :smile:



  • I've been called a lot of different things but I think that's the first time I've ever been called a liberal.



  • @Onyx said:

    So wait... Religion based on a science book or on a scientific concept? Either way, I can only offer a :facepalm:, no laughter.

    The idea was to found a new religion, claim a science textbook as its sacred text, and then watch the head ass-plodes when people try to figure out how to justify continuing to use a religious text for a textbook in a public school.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    So these kids copied an Arabic expression of faith, that they couldn't read, but now they're all little Muslims

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada: "Recitation of the shahada in front of witnesses is also the first and only formal step in conversion to Islam."

    I read years ago some people believe reciting the shahada converts you. Perhaps some don't want to take the chance. The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    @antiquarian , who is very conservative

    'This is what annoys me the most about SJWs/Progressives: anyone who disagrees with them is by definition a conservative. It's like if we disagree with them, it doesn't really matter what we believe; we automatically go in the same bucket with Rush Limbaugh and the Westboro Baptist Church.

    :middle_finger:



  • @antiquarian said:

    This is what annoys me the most about SJWs/Progressives

    This is what annoys me most about Conservatives


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I see what you did there.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    @antiquarian , who is very conservative

    For the record, I'm libertarian-leaning, but I don't think Libertarianism is feasible because most people don't want liberty, at least not for other people. What I am in favor of is:

    • decentralization as much as possible
    • making it as easy as possible to vote with your feet
    • letting communities decide their preferred economic and political structures for themselves

    This will mean, of course, that some communities decide on socialism, and I'm OK with that. This is very much a "consenting adults" kind of thing. What happens to the children gets complicated, but there's no easy way around that, and there's no easy way around it even in the current structures.



  • @antiquarian said:

    I don't think Libertarianism is feasible because most people don't want liberty

    One of the three people at the democratic debate (the one I don't know) kept invoking the statue of liberty right after saying he wanted more safety for people. Maybe he wants to rename it "the statue of justice".



  • @anotherusername said:

    I've been called a lot of different things but I think that's the first time I've ever been called a liberal.

    @antiquarian said:

    'This is what annoys me the most about SJWs/Progressives: anyone who disagrees with them is by definition a conservative. It's like if we disagree with them, it doesn't really matter what we believe; we automatically go in the same bucket with Rush Limbaugh and the Westboro Baptist Church.

    Never mind, I'm going to stop digging now.


  • :belt_onion:

    @anotherusername said:

    The idea was to found a new religion, claim a science textbook as its sacred text, and then watch the head ass-plodes when people try to figure out how to justify continuing to use a religious text for a textbook in a public school.

    Well, you managed to make my head ass-plode, though probably due to different reasons than originally intended.



  • @Onyx said:

    ass-plode,

    The violent diarrhea topic is elsewhere


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Luhmann said:

    elsewhere

    Where is it? I a friend I'm asking for couldn't find it.



  • That big ass flame thread is close enough for me


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Luhmann said:

    ass flame thread

    We have a thread about putting farts on fire?


  • :belt_onion:

    Well, this de-escalated quickly...



  • @DogsB said:

    I wish the people who bandy that book around would actually read it. I suspect a lot of them haven't, missed the point and have blown its significance out of perportion. It wasn't that good a book.

    I liked the first part, where the main characters were trying to run their businesses against increasingly overwhelming government bureaucracy, while investigating what is happening with all the "smart" people. You know, while it was still like an actual novel.

    But then, once the mystery is resolved, it just goes off the rails completely. It doubles down on its silly portrayal of human psyche and just goes on and on into these political rants, while dragging the actual plot needlessly along.

    IMO it's still a valuable book to read, if only to see how different the world would need to be from reality for the pure libertarian ideas to work.


  • :belt_onion:

    @FrostCat said:

    I read years ago some people believe reciting the shahada converts you. Perhaps some don't want to take the chance. The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death.

    So wait... if Christians are worried about this, does that mean they acknowledge that Islam is true? I mean, if the shahada thing has actual power to convert you...

    My brain hurts.



  • @Onyx said:

    I mean that the concept sounds so ridiculous I have no proper way of responding to it.

    Yes, it's quite bizarre to watch those guys insist that the "science is settled," etc.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, it's quite bizarre to watch those guys insist that the "science is settled," etc.

    Which guys? What science? It would seem that the scientific method is settled, for now at least, because there is no better model yet proposed. Any knowledge gained by using scientific method is never settled, it's always a subject to new data or new models, even if it seems like it's undeniably true.

    Nothing in science is written in stone never to be changed. If it were that would defeat the whole point!



  • How can we have missed that?



  • @Onyx said:

    So wait... if Christians are worried about this, does that mean they acknowledge that Islam is true? I mean, if the shahada thing has actual power to convert you...

    Wouldn't conversion kind of be renouncing your current faith? If you had faith, do you think you wouldn't want to do that? What if you had a significant other and said something about how someone else was your soulmate. Even if you didn't believe it, might it not have some disastrous consequences for you?

    I don't see why it's that hard to understand, unless you really don't have anything important in your life.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.