Lol, Religion
Moderator: Moderators
- Ancient History
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 12708
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm
Lol, Religion
I didn't want to clutter up the politics threads with stuff about insane American religious-political nonsense, nor did I want to clutter up the wikipedia thread with one link to Dominionism and leave it at that. Instead, here is a shiny new thread where anybody can share and discuss any wacky/disturbing nonsense they find in any religion! Equal opportunity WTFs? all around.
So yeah, Ted Cruz is into Christian Dominionism, a variation on the prosperity gospel which basically equates being rich with being blessed by God. So if you're a billionaire, then you are one of the Chosen People, and if you aren't a billionaire yet then you haven't prayed hard enough - but if you do, then soon you too can be one of God's bankers!
If this all sounds like a Pat Robertson scam, well you're not wrong.
So yeah, Ted Cruz is into Christian Dominionism, a variation on the prosperity gospel which basically equates being rich with being blessed by God. So if you're a billionaire, then you are one of the Chosen People, and if you aren't a billionaire yet then you haven't prayed hard enough - but if you do, then soon you too can be one of God's bankers!
If this all sounds like a Pat Robertson scam, well you're not wrong.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Christian dominionism does have one positive feature to it: it's poisoning and uprooting the tree of Western Christianity faster and more effectively than the combined efforts of atheists and deists for the past few centuries. And not just the fundamentalist branches, either, but the moderate ones too.
Yes, Ted Cruz, tell us more about how God wants you to deprive people of birth control and starve children to give Mitt Romney another fucking tax cut. I'd love to see the United States go majority irreligious in my lifetime.
Yes, Ted Cruz, tell us more about how God wants you to deprive people of birth control and starve children to give Mitt Romney another fucking tax cut. I'd love to see the United States go majority irreligious in my lifetime.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I, for one, totally encourage Randian Christian Theocrats to get together and start their own country. Far, far away from me.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
I"m not going to post anything of substance at the moment but a word of warning.
We've had topics back in the day that laughed at other websites/people for their idiocy. That sort of thing kinda came to an end because of the abuse potential of those threads. Let's try not to get to the level.
We've had topics back in the day that laughed at other websites/people for their idiocy. That sort of thing kinda came to an end because of the abuse potential of those threads. Let's try not to get to the level.
Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Bachmann meanwhile, has this to say:
-Username17Actual Michelle Bachmann wrote:“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann continued. “When we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; these days would be as the days of Noah."
- Ancient History
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 12708
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm
I really don't want to bash Christians in particular, but I want to bash Oprah Winfrey for this one: http://io9.com/oprah-pisses-off-atheist ... 1445600667
Although I love this comment:
Although I love this comment:
Nyad: I'm an Athiest, and I think things are awesome.
Oprah: God is awesome. You can't be an atheist and believe in awesome
Nyad: I'm pretty sure I can.
Oprah: No, you're not an atheist.
Nyad: I really am.
Oprah: God makes things awesome, how do you live with your tiny view of the world?
Nyad: I'm awesome.
Oprah: You poor, foolish thing. How do you get up in the morning?
- nockermensch
- Duke
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
- Location: Rio: the Janeiro
So the people who condemned D&D as satanic in the 80s are now acting as a doomsday cult that moves armies and pursues policies to make the world end faster.
They're not just RPG villains, they're cliche RPG villains. There's some military-grade irony at work here.
They're not just RPG villains, they're cliche RPG villains. There's some military-grade irony at work here.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
- nockermensch
- Duke
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
- Location: Rio: the Janeiro
cracked.com's David Wong had a go at this a while ago. See Point #1 from this article.Ancient History wrote:I really don't want to bash Christians in particular, but I want to bash Oprah Winfrey for this one: http://io9.com/oprah-pisses-off-atheist ... 1445600667
Although I love this comment:Nyad: I'm an Athiest, and I think things are awesome.
Oprah: God is awesome. You can't be an atheist and believe in awesome
Nyad: I'm pretty sure I can.
Oprah: No, you're not an atheist.
Nyad: I really am.
Oprah: God makes things awesome, how do you live with your tiny view of the world?
Nyad: I'm awesome.
Oprah: You poor, foolish thing. How do you get up in the morning?
It's retarded to think that religions have a monopoly of awe, but we're still learning to tap into that without evoking religious imagery. It's hard for me to rewatch Cosmos these days and not think Carl Sagan was a mystic. The guy talks as if he had experienced a Personal Revelation when he realized we're made of stardust, and how rare and precious life is.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
My fault for deleting the post Orion was referring to without deleting Orion's post so it looked like he was responding to Maj. Carry on.
[/TGFBS]
Furthermore, I don't think that atheist is a well understood term. Religious people tend to believe that atheism is a rejection of all concepts of God and spirituality. Yet atheists seem to use the term to describe rejections of religious definitions of God, while including some definitions that are spiritual. Nyan stated she believes in spirits and souls, just not along the lines of a conventional codified belief. A lot of non-atheists don't understand how that can be atheism. On this very message board, I have tried to explain my personal beliefs - in no uncertain terms do I consider myself an atheist. Yet, after trying to explain myself here, I was called an atheist. I actually think that Oprah was pretty canny for understanding there was more to the word and Nyad's beliefs, and trying to get clarification.
I don't understand why asking questions trying to understand what someone's saying - and/or equate it to your own personal experience - is a bad thing to do. I don't understand why people are just expected to know what's acceptable and appropriate - or how to phrase things so that they come out acceptable and appropriate - so they don't cross some invisible line of offense. If you don't understand what offends or doesn't offend, then asking about it will comes off tactless, regardless. That just leads to a fear of discourse, not greater understanding.
After watching that clip, it seemed tome that atheists were offended because of - what I perceive as - one stupid half a sentence out of the entire interview. The headline I got out of it was, "Oprah Winfrey is an Atheist" because she seemed to agree largely with what Nyad was saying.
My fault for deleting the post Orion was referring to without deleting Orion's post so it looked like he was responding to Maj. Carry on.
[/TGFBS]
My knee-jerk response to this was, "Why is she talking about peanut butter?"Michelle Bachmann wrote:Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand.
Why? Diana Nyad showed up to be interviewed on a TV program called "Super Soul Sunday" - a show that explores "themes and issues including happiness, personal fulfillment, spirituality and conscious living." Discussion that tries to dig deeper into what a guest believes beyond just the word "atheist" should absolutely be expected; it was part of the reason Nyad was on the damn show.Ancient History wrote:I really don't want to bash Christians in particular, but I want to bash Oprah Winfrey for this one.
Furthermore, I don't think that atheist is a well understood term. Religious people tend to believe that atheism is a rejection of all concepts of God and spirituality. Yet atheists seem to use the term to describe rejections of religious definitions of God, while including some definitions that are spiritual. Nyan stated she believes in spirits and souls, just not along the lines of a conventional codified belief. A lot of non-atheists don't understand how that can be atheism. On this very message board, I have tried to explain my personal beliefs - in no uncertain terms do I consider myself an atheist. Yet, after trying to explain myself here, I was called an atheist. I actually think that Oprah was pretty canny for understanding there was more to the word and Nyad's beliefs, and trying to get clarification.
I don't understand why asking questions trying to understand what someone's saying - and/or equate it to your own personal experience - is a bad thing to do. I don't understand why people are just expected to know what's acceptable and appropriate - or how to phrase things so that they come out acceptable and appropriate - so they don't cross some invisible line of offense. If you don't understand what offends or doesn't offend, then asking about it will comes off tactless, regardless. That just leads to a fear of discourse, not greater understanding.
After watching that clip, it seemed tome that atheists were offended because of - what I perceive as - one stupid half a sentence out of the entire interview. The headline I got out of it was, "Oprah Winfrey is an Atheist" because she seemed to agree largely with what Nyad was saying.
Last edited by Maj on Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Well for starters, because none of these are questions:Maj wrote:Discussion that tries to dig deeper into what a guest believes beyond just the word "atheist" should absolutely be expected; it was part of the reason Nyad was on the damn show.
I actually think that Oprah was pretty canny for understanding there was more to the word and Nyad's beliefs, and trying to get clarification.
I don't understand why asking questions trying to understand what someone's saying - and/or equate it to your own personal experience - is a bad thing to do.
So yes, I imagine most people would be offended by someone telling them their worldview is shit and they aren't allowed to be happy, and that they are stupid.Oprah wrote:Oprah: God is awesome. You can't be an atheist and believe in awesome
Oprah: No, you're not an atheist.
Oprah: You poor, foolish thing. How do you get up in the morning?
And none of that shows Oprah being aware their is more to the word atheist, in fact, it looks a lot like the opposite, she believes the word is so narrow that it only applies to sad idiots who are wrong.
So yes, I don't think it is fair to ask why people are mad at Oprah for digging deeper when she explicitly didn't actually do that.
And this is extremely offensive, and any idiot could tell you that calling someone's view of the world tiny is offensive, because it 1) means wrong. 2) means wrong in a way that is actually intended to be offensive.Oprah wrote:Oprah: God makes things awesome, how do you live with your tiny view of the world?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Those "quotes" are from a comment parodying Oprah (hello Poe, dear old friend). Oprah said other stupid, offensive things and the comment is actually a pretty fair paraphrase of the discussion, but she didn't say those specific things.
Attempts to characterize the discussion as fair inquiry are still wrong, because it wasn't. It was just "Oprah Winfrey doesn't know what word means and refuses to accept the idea that people can believe the universe is cool without believing in at least one type of magic fairy, possibly abstract." That makes zero sense, and is incredibly offensive.
Attempts to characterize the discussion as fair inquiry are still wrong, because it wasn't. It was just "Oprah Winfrey doesn't know what word means and refuses to accept the idea that people can believe the universe is cool without believing in at least one type of magic fairy, possibly abstract." That makes zero sense, and is incredibly offensive.
Having watched the clip, I have to say that the other woman wasn't making much more sense than Oprah. After IDing as an atheist, she went on to say something like about humanity as a whole being "her definition of god", which is what initially prompts Oprah to try to pigeonhole her as a deist. Later,nor no apparent reason, atheist swimmer lady says she believes or at least accepts personal testimony from people who see ghosts or recall past lives.
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Last edited by angelfromanotherpin on Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
I didn't want to derail the politics thread when there's a perfectly good religion thread here...
One of the six entries was gravity, complete with a bunch of pseudo-scientific quantum mechanics to explain why gravity wasn't real, and how Newton got it all wrong. I thought "Gravity?! WTF? I thought everyone but the roadrunner knew about gravity."
It all started to make sense when I got to the heliocentrism entry. There were two of these guys at this forum, heavily pushing for geocentrism. They both really bought into Tycho Brahe's alternate cosmology that had all the planets revolving around the sun (because we've seriously known about this for centuries based on the phases of Venus and the shapes of orbits), but that the sun (and the rest of the planets, consequently) revolve around the earth. So I think "That's stupid. That's completely disproved by gravity and... oh, right... they don't believe in gravity."
So, any time they seem to reject a very obvious, and seemingly innocuous bit of science, there is always some greater narrative to it. They reject relativity and/or the speed of light in a vacuum being constant? Probably has something to do with calculating the age or the universe, or explaining how we can see light from stars more than 6,000 light years away. They reject the standard understanding of rates of radiometric decay? What uses that? Radiometric dating, of course! One of these guys had some complex gorilla math that showed that even though the universe looked to be about 14 billion years old, using his "correct" method, you actually ended up with just under 6,000. Imagine that!
The confirmation bias is strong in this one.
I was seriously blown away when I was exposed to this for the first time about two months ago. I was at a Christian apologetics forum, and stumbled onto a thread entitled something like "Six facts science continues to get wrong", or some such. I thought, "this will be good", and damn, was it!Maxus wrote: When people believe they're desperately losing, they get increasingly vocal and active. There's some geocentrists still knocking around, and all they do is howl about the perfidy of science manipulating you into...some end.
Seriously. Geocentrists. They've been disproven for, like, six hundred years now. But they howl, and they get mocked for it. Because that is, I'm increasingly thinking, the appropriate response to epically wrong ideas--make fun of them by demonstrating how wrong they are. Make it entertaining, make it funny while you demonstrate the errors. If people don't take geocentrism, or trick-down economics, laissez-faire economics, or biblical literalism seriously, those concepts won't be able to get a foothold, ever.
One of the six entries was gravity, complete with a bunch of pseudo-scientific quantum mechanics to explain why gravity wasn't real, and how Newton got it all wrong. I thought "Gravity?! WTF? I thought everyone but the roadrunner knew about gravity."
It all started to make sense when I got to the heliocentrism entry. There were two of these guys at this forum, heavily pushing for geocentrism. They both really bought into Tycho Brahe's alternate cosmology that had all the planets revolving around the sun (because we've seriously known about this for centuries based on the phases of Venus and the shapes of orbits), but that the sun (and the rest of the planets, consequently) revolve around the earth. So I think "That's stupid. That's completely disproved by gravity and... oh, right... they don't believe in gravity."
So, any time they seem to reject a very obvious, and seemingly innocuous bit of science, there is always some greater narrative to it. They reject relativity and/or the speed of light in a vacuum being constant? Probably has something to do with calculating the age or the universe, or explaining how we can see light from stars more than 6,000 light years away. They reject the standard understanding of rates of radiometric decay? What uses that? Radiometric dating, of course! One of these guys had some complex gorilla math that showed that even though the universe looked to be about 14 billion years old, using his "correct" method, you actually ended up with just under 6,000. Imagine that!
The confirmation bias is strong in this one.
- nockermensch
- Duke
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
- Location: Rio: the Janeiro
Robby, it's fucking 2013 and we still have Flat-Earthers around. Believing the Sun is the center of the universe is not any more outraging than believing that everything was created 6000 years ago.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
But these people are just trolls, right?
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
I envy your faith in the basic good of humanity.ishy wrote:But these people are just trolls, right?
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
I don't know if that was directed at Nocker, me, or both, but I will answer anyway.ishy wrote:But these people are just trolls, right?
Both of these guys were very well researched regarding their pseudoscience. Of course, it didn't make any of their beliefs correct, but they have a huge amount of information garbage they could draw from to talk about anything that they felt ran contrary to a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. I never asked them what they thought about the firmament.
That being said, one guy would go into full troll mode if I backed him into a corner regarding the second law of thermodynamics and evolution. He honestly didn't know how to respond to that, but felt he had to say something.
- Ancient History
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 12708
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm
I love Mormonism because it is pretty much everything terrible about a religion rolled into a ball, going downhill and at quite a good turn of speed, possibly aflame and aimed at some fragile property like a one-room schoolhouse. There is so much insanity involved, and so many hackles raised, that even the persecutions are fascinating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_E ... e_Order_44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_E ... e_Order_44
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
So, last weekend, I ran into some moron who straight-face claimed that there would be no typhoons if everyone in the planet accepted Jesus. He then said "become part of the solution."
I asked him if he seriously believed that there would be no natural disasters if the entire population of the planet suddenly became more credulous, but he has not responded.
I asked him if he seriously believed that there would be no natural disasters if the entire population of the planet suddenly became more credulous, but he has not responded.
- TheJerkStore
- Apprentice
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:29 am
- Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
- nockermensch
- Duke
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
- Location: Rio: the Janeiro
It's funny how evangelicals believe that A) Christ will return once the world is thrown into chaos AND believe that B) forcing their form of morals on everybody will fix the world.RobbyPants wrote:So, last weekend, I ran into some moron who straight-face claimed that there would be no typhoons if everyone in the planet accepted Jesus. He then said "become part of the solution."
I asked him if he seriously believed that there would be no natural disasters if the entire population of the planet suddenly became more credulous, but he has not responded.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
- Stahlseele
- King
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
Wait . . doesn't this mean he wants everybody to believe in christ to stop chaos and thus stop christ from coming back because of no chaos for him to fix? O.o
Welcome, to IronHell.
Shrapnel wrote:TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.
Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm