Jump to content

BarbarousBill

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

BarbarousBill last won the day on April 3 2016

BarbarousBill had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

75 Good

About BarbarousBill

  • Rank
    Strong Minded

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Idaho
  • Interests
    Adventure
  • More About Me
    I drink tea.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    The Gods
  1. I don't think Sweden is being turned into something. I think it is being disintegrated.
  2. Enjoying new job. Love warehousing work.

    1. rjn

      rjn

      I envy you. Good honest hard work!

    2. Brother Jeff

      Brother Jeff

      Bless the Lard, Brother! Glory!

  3. I'm glad I dumbed down my phone. It's going waaay better than I thought. I never realized how attached to technology I was....

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. florduh

      florduh

      Ricky.....turn it off while you sleep.

    3. Cousin Ricky
    4. Cousin Ricky

      Cousin Ricky

      One problem with turning off my phone: both my alarm clocks refuse to work, so my phone is my only alarm. But airplane mode does the job.

  4. I don't reply to people who post stuff like this. I just post stuff that disproves the stuff they post, preferably in an even better meme format.
  5. I am sure primarily as a result of being acquainted with both history and linguistics. The linguistics department at university also taught linguistic philosophy. Of course Ignosticism in many respects also represents a certain strand of deconstructivist post-modernism to the debate surrounding metaphysical philosophy and theological speculations and gesticulations. However, with the term from the original quote being certainty, knowing or believing is irrelevant. What is intended by the term is definite incomprehensiveness of definitional language. So know vs. believe is largely irrelevant. It is an active versus passive definitional term, whereas other philosophical positions such as Atheism or Agnosticism or Theism or even Deism are more passive in definition of terms used to arrive at knowing vs believing. At least, that's what I think. Great comment though, I appreciate the thought you put into it!
  6. You sir, are a literary artist. I have not seen 'shit' used in this context with such artful lead-up, creation, and perfect execution in a very long time. You sir, are truly an artist. And as to the rest, about how Christianity can be loving and all that.... REMEMBER: HATE IS LOVE (in Christianity)
  7. You are automatically cool. Sad day yesterday! SO sad.... I couldn't believe the score at halftime. I was almost done watching it, but then it's like a transformation happened and I was glad we could get back up to being competitive before the game ended. It sucked losing, but I'm glad they didn't give up at halftime.
  8. 1. It was more just me sitting staring at the ceiling one inconsequential day and thinking.... "Hm, there probably isn't a god, is there?" Then I thought about going to McDonald's for a McDouble (I call them Mcdoobles because then the workers know it's me and I get a shit ton of pickles on my burger) and a soda (I pronounce it So-der, the second verification to smother my shit in pickles). 2. I had moments in the past with stuff like that. I also moved around. Went from Lutheran to Buddhist to Sufi to Pagan to Atheist to this, that, and everything else. I remember buying the Avesta and thinking, "ahhhh, originality." And so I was Zoroastrian for a day until I realized I was being a stereotypical Westerner not knowing shit and pretending to be something from somewhere else to be "authentic." And if there is one thing I am not, it's a goddamn hippie. Anywho, it was more or less a week that was really inconsequential, where I sat down and thought... "I've been going to church every week.... Why?" 3. I wasn't really anything. I was curious. About other things. I even looked into Ignosticism, and found I liked it. Then I became curious about the linguistics and philosophy of the definition of deity. So it wasn't anger, disappointment, or anything. It was like after I found out Santa was a historical person, but died a long time ago, I went and bought a book on him and read it. For context I was one nerdy snot-nosed brat as a kid. 4. Never had a religious experience, except for Paganism. I was wondering if Odin was real, then two crows came and landed right by my window and looked at me. That was pretty cool. Not so sure it's conclusive evidence for the existence of Odin, but I believed it for a week. I'm constantly working on decreasing my credulity. 5. Eh, nothing really factored into it more than others.... In all honesty it was Reza Aslan's Zealot that helped get me to the point that I felt comfortable being non-Christian, and got me thinking further about deity. He's a moderate Muslim, but he writes really well, and I liked what he had to show about the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and also dispelling myths. I'm not a scholar and I will never pretend to be, but I appreciate good arguments that are put into common language. I still haven't read any of the great atheists like Dawkins or anybody else and I probably never will, but I appreciate they probably have great arguments. For me, it's just a matter of being honest to myself. Plus I don't want to force religion on my kids because I think it'll make them better. If I have kids I want them to be good for the sake of being good, and instilling that will be my responsibility. Unless they're just awful. Then I'll make 'em go to Baptist or Mormon churches and then I'm sure that'll freak 'em out enough to behave. For me it's looking at old photos and being sad. Or seeing religious objects and wanting a reality that never even really was. My mom's the most traditionally religious, but she will never go to church and never wants to, and never will. Yet she can't stand other churches or religions, except Buddhism, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and any non-modern or evangelical-y churches. She thinks mormonism is as bad as scientology and wants 'em both extinguished. She's super Lutheran, but she's not a super Lutheran, if that makes sense. I'll never tell her I'm not, but pretty much everyone knows how I feel and what I think. It's just not a big deal. No one usually hates on you, unless you preface, "Hi I'm an atheist!," with "I'm such a hard-core Democrat, Go Hillary!" Then you get sucker punched. That goes for whatever religion you could be as well. Saying you're a Muslim goes over a lot better if you say you're a Trump fan first, or a Rubio fan, or whatever. But God help you if you say you're a Democrat and a Muslim. Needless to say the only difficulty I've had with being non-Christian is only ever self-inflicted. And whenever I feel sad I get happy because it gives me an excuse to buy Vodka.
  9. It's a potential translation error, which means we would have fucked it up, not the FSM. Besides, it's just minor details here, practically the difference between metal colanders and plastic ones for official head wear. Or those plastic red cups or actual glass mugs/whatever other container you prefer for the Holy Nectar in Pastafarian heaven. Oops... I just started another controversy didn't I? ;p We were also taught to look out for you Laodicean types. The Holy Prophet of the FSM is on this very thread and he will deal with you. Eh, I wouldn't call myself Laodicean. Jocose, perhaps blithe, or sanguine even, but hardly Laodicean... It's okay though, I still like you. And I still like hookers. YAY Acceptance!
  10. The two are not mutually exclusive... No, but we believe that FSM in His Holy Noodly Appendage would grant an all-the-way form of entertainment and wish fulfillment, with the believer having such discretion to choose what to do once there. Hookerites demand orthodoxy! Plus strippers are a tease!
  11. I'm part of the Pastafarian sect called the Hookerites. We believe there was a translation error in the holy works and the stripper factory of heaven is actually a hooker factory.
  12. What is Ignosticism? Well as it turns out that's a mildly ironic question. So there's Atheism, which is non-belief and/or positive reinforcement of the proposition that there is no deity/ies. Then there's Agnosticism, which is certainty that there is no evidence for or against deity/ies, with two common variants being a strong and weak Agnosticism, where weak believes there may be evidence for one or the other at some point, and strong Agnosticism being certain in uncertainty of the deity question. Theism is then the belief in deity/ies. And so there seems to be a general understanding that the god question is itself valid and mutually understood and that therefore under these terms and conditions, a genuine debate on the merits of one view or another is possible. Right? Ignosticism says no, not quite. With the word/s "deity/ies" there is an accepted definition attached to such term. This term is then used in the questioning of the belief in the god/s proposition. But is this term truly understood in the capacity it must be understood in so as to allow the debate on the merit of belief in the existence of the being the term defines? Or is this term fraught with such failures and misunderstandings and the impossibility of even basic definition that a meaningful debate is therefore impossible, and therefore any proposition concerning deity/ies also equally fallacious? Ignostics would answer, the term god is difficult. Let's begin by looking at how Merriam-Webster defines it... Okay now let's look at the first definition of the term "God." It consists of perfection and being all-powerful, and as a creator of the material reality we by definition all agree to recognize as such. Perfection is a tricky term altogether as well. Which perfection are we talking about? This gets even more tricky when you look at all-powerful... Once again, which definition will we be using, and why? Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. But let's assume by the first (and not only) definition of "god." If perfection is inherent, then we need a more precise definition of perfection. What makes something perfect? (This is a debate you'd have to have with Aristotle and Plato) And if this being (is it a being, or is it something else entirely?) is perfect, and all powerful, then what restrains it's almighty powers from creating or maintaining perfection or saintliness? And the material reality that is the core of the assumption also needs examination. There is a whole academic debate between Idealists and Materialists that have gone on for eons. But let's assume the more Materialist perspective and assume Natural Laws govern reality and that this reality is both material and immanent. Then how can a perfect being spawn something new, an aberration, if it is already perfect. Was it not a perfect being before reality came into being? And if it maintains almighty powers then would it not necessitate a perfect world? If not is the being perfect? If it restrains its powers then how can it be perfectly powerful? See what Ignostics are saying? It is almost pointless to even have a debate on the deity/ies question because the terms used to frame it are problematic, and by their very nature and the philosophies surrounding it all, always will be. Even theologians have difficulty with the terms and definitions and usage. Ignosticism isn't belief or nonbelief or uncertainty of belief. It is certainty in the inability of language to convey the proper terms necessary to even have the question and the debate resulting from said question. sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creator http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/almighty http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.