Menu
Home
Forum Rules
Store
Donate
Meltdown Mayhem Hacks ⚔︎
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Menu
Log in
Register
Home
Sweatshop - Pure Drama
Political Fray
Ivanka needs to answer for her crimes, too, imo
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Question" data-source="post: 1026313" data-attributes="member: 1100"><p>Those are examples of what might be termed either pantheism or perhaps animism. Deism is rather similar, as is Cosmotheism. In colloquial terms: "Creator embodying creation." Personally, I find those far more palatable even if only because, though they are equally as unverifiable and unfalsifiable as monotheism, they are (with exceptions such as those Mesoamerican systems which practice human sacrifice...) non-belligerent.</p><p></p><p>True, but let's not single out just one: Christianity, beyond its fundamental anti-science ignorance, is also intrusive and belligerently viral -- that is, it is spread like a mind-virus to vulnerable populations. Historically, this has meant (comparatively) technologically undeveloped or underdeveloped societies. Today, it means the dependent and the emotionally vulnerable.</p><p></p><p>But it's not the only virus of its type. Beyond the need for an explanation of our perception of an intelligence beyond our own, humans are driven by an evolutionary need for tribal identity. When our species roamed the undeveloped Earth as hunter-gatherers, tribal affiliation was vital to basic survival. We've never shed that need.</p><p></p><p>Christianity, Islam, Judaism (to a lesser extent due to its more insular nature), Mormonism, Scientology, along with any and every -ism going, is founded upon the exploitation of the human need to belong to the modern equivalent of a 'tribe'.</p><p></p><p>And every system which operates on that basis tends toward programming of its members, along with tutoring them in dogmatic rejection of any information which challenges the righteousness of their 'tribe'.</p><p></p><p>Intellect-suspending defense along with social virality as an offensive strategy.</p><p></p><p>That's the combination I oppose. I don't care what kind of absurd bullshit people believe in, until they start trying to pressure other people to conform to it. That's where an innocuous set of beliefs turns into a threat. And that's when I object to it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Question, post: 1026313, member: 1100"] Those are examples of what might be termed either pantheism or perhaps animism. Deism is rather similar, as is Cosmotheism. In colloquial terms: "Creator embodying creation." Personally, I find those far more palatable even if only because, though they are equally as unverifiable and unfalsifiable as monotheism, they are (with exceptions such as those Mesoamerican systems which practice human sacrifice...) non-belligerent. True, but let's not single out just one: Christianity, beyond its fundamental anti-science ignorance, is also intrusive and belligerently viral -- that is, it is spread like a mind-virus to vulnerable populations. Historically, this has meant (comparatively) technologically undeveloped or underdeveloped societies. Today, it means the dependent and the emotionally vulnerable. But it's not the only virus of its type. Beyond the need for an explanation of our perception of an intelligence beyond our own, humans are driven by an evolutionary need for tribal identity. When our species roamed the undeveloped Earth as hunter-gatherers, tribal affiliation was vital to basic survival. We've never shed that need. Christianity, Islam, Judaism (to a lesser extent due to its more insular nature), Mormonism, Scientology, along with any and every -ism going, is founded upon the exploitation of the human need to belong to the modern equivalent of a 'tribe'. And every system which operates on that basis tends toward programming of its members, along with tutoring them in dogmatic rejection of any information which challenges the righteousness of their 'tribe'. Intellect-suspending defense along with social virality as an offensive strategy. That's the combination I oppose. I don't care what kind of absurd bullshit people believe in, until they start trying to pressure other people to conform to it. That's where an innocuous set of beliefs turns into a threat. And that's when I object to it. [/QUOTE]
Name
Verification
Post reply
Home
Sweatshop - Pure Drama
Political Fray
Ivanka needs to answer for her crimes, too, imo
