The Geek Forum

Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Crystalmonkey on January 24, 2006, 02:16:24 PM

Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Crystalmonkey on January 24, 2006, 02:16:24 PM
Alright, here is the first "chapter".

What is religion? I mean a true/total definition for it, not something like "a system of beliefs based around rituals."

Even a list would be fine, but there should probably be reasons for each point.

1) A rigid system of beliefs that barely changed and struggles to adapt.... etc....

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not)


That should do it for now, if anyone has anything else to add feel free =)
Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Vespertine on January 25, 2006, 11:42:33 AM
FYI, I'm not ignoring this...I'm still thinking.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on January 25, 2006, 12:57:44 PM
What is religion? I mean a true/total definition for it, not something like "a system of beliefs based around rituals."
Religion is a snowmobile speeding along the tundra, hitting a rock and flipping over.  At night the ice weasels come.  Or something to that effect.

Even a list would be fine, but there should probably be reasons for each point.
A means of control of the masses
A means for a few to obtain power
A means to give comfort with respect to the unknown
It is generally like folklore and is handed down generationally
It is not for me.
Is usually hierachical.

1) A rigid system of beliefs that barely changed and struggles to adapt.... etc....
I wouldn't say barely changed.  Religions are quite dynamic based on the whims of whomever happens to be in charge at the time, be it a pope, imam, seer, or head meatball (I propose that us pastafarians, make that our earthly top dog).  Because most religions predate written documentation, they propogated verbally, and we all know how the game 'telephone' works.

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?
It depends on the person.
Religion itself serves as a means to control, a key to power, a means of communication, etc.  It can provide a sense of community.  It can serve as a moral doctrine.  It can be an excuse to discriminate against others.  It can be used as a pretext for war, for violence, for exclusion, for inclusion.  

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)
Pro and con depends upon perspective.  If I'm seeking to hold power over people, religion can be a pro, since it is a time tested tool for controlling others.  Whereas if I'm a solipsist, religion doesn't even have to exist.

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not) Just in perspective.  Religion generally has better marketing.


That should do it for now, if anyone has anything else to add feel free =)

Everything you always wanted to know about religion can probably be gleaned from Monty Python's Life Of Brian.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: MamaMoonie on January 26, 2006, 06:51:31 AM
Quote from: Crystalmonkey
Alright, here is the first "chapter".

What is religion? I mean a true/total definition for it, not something like "a system of beliefs based around rituals."
a means to explain the unexplainable to those who need an explanation


1) A rigid system of beliefs that barely changed and struggles to adapt.... etc....
Well, that explains most major organized religions, ie the Big Three, but there are others just as ancient that have managed to do some adapting.  Buddhism, Shinto f'rinstance

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?
Depends on what religion you're talking about (or to).  Most religions started as a code of daily conduct coupled with a driving need to explain the unexplainable mixed with morality/common sense/daily life parables.

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)
Often Individuals find religion easier than having to think through their own spirituality.  Lots of mehums like being told what to think, say, do.  Societies find religion an easy way to control the population.  

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not)
Meh. PR, mostly

That should do it for now, if anyone has anything else to add feel free =)
I think mebbe I've opened up enough cans....LOL
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: MISTER MASSACRE on January 26, 2006, 10:12:16 AM
Quote from: MamaMoonie

a means to explain the unexplainable to those who need an explanation


But no religion actually explains anything - it just goes "God did it" (or these angels, or your dead relatives, or that spaghetti monster) and claps its hands and has a seat.

It's hard to explain anything when your only "evidence" is word of mouth.

Besides, the unexplainable is only unexplainable for so long; I'm sure we'll catch up eventually.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on January 26, 2006, 12:55:22 PM
Quote from: Lacerda
Quote from: MamaMoonie

a means to explain the unexplainable to those who need an explanation


But no religion actually explains anything - it just goes "God did it" (or these angels, or your dead relatives, or that spaghetti monster) and claps its hands and has a seat.

It's hard to explain anything when your only "evidence" is word of mouth.

Besides, the unexplainable is only unexplainable for so long; I'm sure we'll catch up eventually.


Easy for you to say Grelnek, after all you're an omniscient being...

oops, perhaps I've said too much :bolt
Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: dur-ril on February 22, 2006, 08:52:57 PM
"that's the only way you'll avoid floating in the void" (i hope that translation's good enough)

That's, obviously, not a phrase i came up with, but it does pretty much sum up the way  i feel about religion.
Without it there are so many questions that cannot be answered. Being in that  situation is really scary for some people and that's when religion comes into place. It gives them the answers and with it a certain security in their life, it conforts them.
That's the porpouse with which religion was born, it's  just a way to answer those questions.
Of course then we moved on, something called philosophy appeared along with science. However, they haven't solved everything and so some people still rely on  religion so they don't have to think about those unsolved mysteries. It does make things easier.


PS
this is quite offtopic but… was eve a midget?
Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on February 22, 2006, 09:17:05 PM
You mean this midget:

(http://venganza.org/him2.jpg)
Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Crystalmonkey on February 22, 2006, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: dur-ril
was eve a midget?


Given the average height of people at the time, she might be considered small by todays standards.
Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Alli-oop on March 05, 2006, 03:33:54 AM
Religion is what I find after my first daily bowel movement.
Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: xolik on March 05, 2006, 03:56:06 AM
Quote from: Alli-oop
Religion is what I find after my first daily bowel movement.


Thanks for that stellar contribution!  8)
Title: The Society: On Religion
Post by: MISTER MASSACRE on March 05, 2006, 11:58:45 AM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has a problem with bathroom popes.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: 12AX7 on March 15, 2006, 09:41:27 AM
Religion:

Quote from: pbsaurus

1. A means of control of the masses
2. A means for a few to obtain power
C. It is generally like folklore and is handed down generationally
4. It is not for me.
5. Is usually hierachical.


Spirituality:
Quote from: pbsaurus

A. A means to give comfort with respect to the unknown
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: TerrorDronze on March 19, 2006, 02:26:52 AM
What is religion?
Religion is a means to an end, be it personal enlightenment, seeking the answers to the great philosophical questions of life, the universe and everything (the stuff, not the book) through various teachings, lifestyle requirements, and ideologies.

What are the obvious purposes of religion and what are the not so obvious purposes?
Religion, ultimately, seems to provide for that superficial need in almost every human brain that we are somehow significant in some way or another, and that our existence as a sentient, thinking race, is more than just a chance happening in the vast, near-infinite cosmos, as well as providing "answers" to events, occurances, and phenomena that we as of yet do not, nor do we have the means to, understand.  It is through use of this "knowledge" that one begins to see manipulations by human leaders with claims to "divine" power, wisdom, or even right to rule.  Religion ensures that the followers have a false sense of order in truly random and chaotic situations.

What are the pros/cons to religious beliefs? (To both individuals and societies)
Fanaticism and power, in some cases.... and depending which side of the issue one sits on, these are considered to be either good or bad.  It gives a sense of grounding, and in many cases, keeps us from reverting to our more primal and feral mindsets.  society and religion are, for the most part, intertwined, and the dominant religion of any country tends to dictate the social and ethical code followed by those residing in these places. These are both both positive and negative points, depending on the situation.

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? (Why or why not)
No.  A cult is nothing more than a fringe religion, and the major organised religions of the world are, by definition, cults.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Phife on June 13, 2006, 03:14:09 AM
Cult vs. Religion

The wiki definition of cult is this: "a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream"  I think that it is pretty good.  Cohesive might be too soft though...inmeshed would be better.  I would also add "obsessively" before "devoted."  But the key to the definition is the end...a cult is defined by what society at large finds to be beyond the pale of "normal."  As nebulus as that sounds, that is the best possible definition.

While cults fall under the large umbrella or religion...I would make a division between the two.  Religion is a human endeavor to seek out something bigger than humanity, whether it be the divine, the universe, interconnectedness, etc.  Non-cult religion can be practiced by its devotees while they still function "normally" in society.  Thus, Baptists are a members of a religion...Budhists are members of a religion...Heaven's Gate followerd were members of a cult...Branch Davidians are members of a cult (there still are a few of them too!).

Further in the wiki definition of cult is this little gem: "a religious or non-religious group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members."  Cults attempt to use people for some nefarious purpose.  Non-cult religion does not...it attempts to teach and guide people to peace, love, and connectedness with each other, themselves, and the divine.

In short...cults have bad purposes and non-cult religions have noble purposes.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: IFOUNDWALDO176 on June 14, 2006, 07:23:12 AM
Cult vs. Religion
In short...cults have bad purposes and non-cult religions have noble purposes.

But isn't good and bad all about your personal maorals, and because of this the members of said cult would actually believe that they were doing the right thing, and if so, then they might percieve mainstream religions to be cults. just a thought.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: TheJudge on June 14, 2006, 07:29:30 AM
Cults do not necessarly have bad purposes and religions certainly don't always have noble purposes.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Min on June 14, 2006, 08:56:44 AM
The only difference between a cult and a religion is 100 years.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on June 14, 2006, 02:59:56 PM
I thought it was marketing.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on June 14, 2006, 03:20:46 PM
I thought it was Kool-Aid.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on June 14, 2006, 03:25:07 PM
Kool-Aid is marketing.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on June 14, 2006, 03:29:29 PM
You're right. I was actually thinking of Flavor Aid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid) Grape, to be precise.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Phife on June 16, 2006, 02:45:53 AM
The best definition of a cult is akin to the definition of porn.

It has to do with mainstream opinion.  If most people think that pictures of penises going in vaginas is porn, then it is porn.  In other words, porn lays outside what people consider normal photography, video, etc. 

Cults lay outside what people consider normal religion.  And most people tend to believe that normal religion is not out to get people to kill themselves or others, etc.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on March 15, 2007, 10:52:42 AM
This (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,5899452.story?coll=la-opinion-center) was in the LA Times this morning. The link will expire very soon, so I'm posting it in full below.


Quote
God's dupes
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
March 15, 2007


PETE STARK, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.

Of course, one can imagine that Cicero's handlers in the 1st century BC lost some sleep when he likened the traditional accounts of the Greco-Roman gods to the "dreams of madmen" and to the "insane mythology of Egypt."

Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo.

The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?

There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

Spot on.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on March 15, 2007, 10:54:41 AM
For emphasis:

Quote
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.



Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: TheJudge on March 15, 2007, 11:10:24 AM
Very good article.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: hackess on March 15, 2007, 11:32:02 AM
Excellent. I've been meaning to read his latest book.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on March 15, 2007, 12:12:30 PM
The Pope ordered the crusades, while "Bob" ordered slacking off. One of these people heads a 'noble religion' and one founded an 'evil cult'.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: milifist on March 15, 2007, 12:14:09 PM
It irritates me when people use absolutes inappropriately.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: BizB on March 15, 2007, 12:17:29 PM
It irritates me when people use absolutes inappropriately.
It always annoys me most of the time, too.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on March 15, 2007, 12:21:06 PM
Yeah, it never fails to occassionally piss me off, too.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on March 15, 2007, 12:40:25 PM
I think we should burn all the extremists alive.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: TheJudge on March 15, 2007, 02:31:28 PM
You guys are absolutely right :)
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: jeee on March 16, 2007, 02:55:34 AM
I think we should burn all the extremists alive.

Bad idea, they will be martyrs.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: 12AX7 on March 16, 2007, 05:42:00 AM
No...   not to death...  just burn them. Alive.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: dcrog on March 16, 2007, 11:17:00 AM
I think we should burn all the extremists alive.

You definitely sound almost like Evonus.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on March 16, 2007, 12:49:07 PM
Yeah, it's not Halloween yet.  I got dibs on Lacerda this year!
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on March 16, 2007, 01:04:55 PM
You definitely sound almost like Evonus.

I don't recall that he has a penchant for irony.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on March 16, 2007, 01:43:57 PM

OHHHHMMPentel
OHHHHMMCross
OHHHHMMPilot
OHHHHMMWaterman
OHHHHMMSheaffer
OHHHMMMBIC
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on March 16, 2007, 03:48:59 PM
Lions and tigers and bears.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on March 16, 2007, 04:01:05 PM
Those were penchants, by the way.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Anyanka_was_framed on March 16, 2007, 08:18:27 PM
Those were penchants, by the way.


Heh. +1 for teh funny and for an excellent article find.  Spot on indeed.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: pbsaurus on March 16, 2007, 08:30:18 PM
Those were penchants, by the way.



OHHHHMREALLY

Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Elensar on April 08, 2007, 09:41:39 PM
Extremeist...Hm...Me and them types of people don't get along. That's why I always fight with my grandmother. This is like the Gay marriage thing with me. You live your life and I'll screw mine up on my own. ^.^ I don't need help doing that. When I die I'll go where I go.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 08, 2007, 09:45:47 PM
Well you better be more decisive than that, you could burn for infinity if you're wrong!
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 09, 2007, 01:55:50 AM
You definitely sound almost like Evonus.

I do tend to dislike extremists.

But anyway, why was this topic bumped again! It had nothing important in it the first time.  :|
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Elensar on April 09, 2007, 09:28:28 AM
Well you better be more decisive than that, you could burn for infinity if you're wrong!

Well I do have my own beleifs. They are what the general public says is right. If I burn in "hell" for all eterniaty then I will accept my fate because it's what I chose to do in life that led me there.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 09, 2007, 09:57:45 AM
Well I do have my own beleifs. They are what the general public says is right.

The general public drinks from the same water hole they leave their volumous dead to fester in. Screw the majority, you're not your fucking khakis! Burn down a building, start a fight, rage against the machine already!
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: xolik on April 09, 2007, 10:57:50 AM
They are what the general public says is right.

This is a very dangerous way of thinking. For a time, the general public thought slavery as A-OK.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 09, 2007, 03:58:41 PM
The general public is a bunch of sheep that are lead around by the rich.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Elensar on April 09, 2007, 09:30:11 PM
The general public drinks from the same water hole they leave their volumous dead to fester in. Screw the majority, you're not your fucking khakis! Burn down a building, start a fight, rage against the machine already!

Exactly. ^.^ Few people see it my way. I mean not even my family accepts me. It was because of religion me and my grandma almost got in a fist fight last christmas. How lovely when people turn on their family?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 09, 2007, 10:18:38 PM
It was because of religion me and my grandma almost got in a fist fight last christmas.

Better luck next time.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Vespertine on April 09, 2007, 10:31:08 PM
It was because of religion me and my grandma almost got in a fist fight last christmas.
I've got 50 bucks on grandma.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 09, 2007, 10:35:18 PM
I've got another fifty (Canadian) if she's a Baptist, and twenty if she's a Catholic.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Vespertine on April 09, 2007, 10:38:01 PM
^.^
Also, are you an unusually happy person?  No, then STOP WITH THE SMILIES in the majority of your posts.  One last thing, using the Asian variants of smilies does not make you hip and happening.  It makes you a fucking poser.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 09, 2007, 10:48:58 PM
:-D People say I'm unusually happy :-D
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 12:05:14 AM
Also, are you an unusually happy person?  No, then STOP WITH THE SMILIES in the majority of your posts.  One last thing, using the Asian variants of smilies does not make you hip and happening.  It makes you a fucking poser.

You can't hate Elensar for that yet, they're new. Unfortunately 99% of other forums have members that do that shit rampantly.  :cry:
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Vespertine on April 10, 2007, 12:20:38 AM
You can't hate Elensar for that yet, they're new. Unfortunately 99% of other forums have members that do that shit rampantly.  :cry:
Why would you even attempt to try to tell me what I can or cannot do?  I don't care how new he/she is.  I don't care what happens on other forums.  So far, you've managed to mostly stay out of this, and in the process you have managed to not piss me off.  I would appreciate it if you would resume that effort.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Banshee on April 10, 2007, 12:26:42 AM
Geez Vespertine, you make me want to slink off to the nearest corner, and I haven't even done anything wrong.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 12:30:16 AM
Why would you even attempt to try to tell me what I can or cannot do?  I don't care how new he/she is.  I don't care what happens on other forums.  So far, you've managed to mostly stay out of this, and in the process you have managed to not piss me off.  I would appreciate it if you would resume that effort.

It was a simple note, no need to get all up in arms about it. I just don't see why you always to have to harass the newbies, because they aren't 100% assimilated to the forum from the moment they join. Also, I don't care who I piss off or who doesn't like it, I'm going to state my opinion when I feel it's necessary. If that upsets you, then for one you're letting little shit bother you far too much, and that also sucks to be you, because I really don't care. So in short, cry about it, I'm not going out of my way to avoid stepping on your toes; so pull the stick out of your ass.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Banshee on April 10, 2007, 12:34:34 AM
 :cry: :evil: :evil: :evil: :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink: :? :? :? :-( :-( :-( :x :x 8-) 8-) :lol: :lol: :lol: :evil: :evil: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I used up everyone's quota for the week. No more smilies. End of story, eh?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 12:59:52 AM
:cry: :evil: :evil: :evil: :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink: :? :? :? :-( :-( :-( :x :x 8-) 8-) :lol: :lol: :lol: :evil: :evil: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I used up everyone's quota for the week. No more smilies. End of story, eh?

All hail the peacemaker.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: TheJudge on April 10, 2007, 07:39:12 AM
This thread has inspired me. I have a devious idea. More of an experiment really. I'm thinking Evonus should be made a moderator.  :-o



Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: BizB on April 10, 2007, 07:49:56 AM
wouldn't he be a moderathurrrrrrr?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: xolik on April 10, 2007, 10:00:23 AM
Also, are you an unusually happy person?  No, then STOP WITH THE SMILIES in the majority of your posts.  One last thing, using the Asian variants of smilies does not make you hip and happening.  It makes you a fucking poser.

This is why I love you so much. I'm going to be giving you +1 every hour for the rest of the day just for this.  :-D
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Chris on April 10, 2007, 11:40:27 AM
This thread has inspired me. I have a devious idea. More of an experiment really. I'm thinking Evonus should be made a moderator.  :-o

You know, that's a great idea.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 10, 2007, 12:12:10 PM
I think everybody with more than 1269 posts should be a moderator.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 02:13:58 PM
This thread has inspired me. I have a devious idea. More of an experiment really. I'm thinking Evonus should be made a moderator.  :-o





Sounds like an excellent idea to me.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Vespertine on April 10, 2007, 02:41:18 PM
It was a simple note, no need to get all up in arms about it. I just don't see why you always to have to harass the newbies, because they aren't 100% assimilated to the forum from the moment they join. Also, I don't care who I piss off or who doesn't like it, I'm going to state my opinion when I feel it's necessary. If that upsets you, then for one you're letting little shit bother you far too much, and that also sucks to be you, because I really don't care. So in short, cry about it, I'm not going out of my way to avoid stepping on your toes; so pull the stick out of your ass.
You realize that you're incredibly predictable, right?  The formula goes like this: someone else is having a conversation, Evonus jumps in uninvited, Evonus gets shut down, Evonus flies off the handle because he's been victimized.  You need a new shtick.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Vespertine on April 10, 2007, 02:42:23 PM
This is why I love you so much. I'm going to be giving you +1 every hour for the rest of the day just for this.  :-D
Aw shucks...

...and a +1 for you.  I'm all about reciprocation, baby!
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 03:19:12 PM
You realize that you're incredibly predictable, right?  The formula goes like this: someone else is having a conversation, Evonus jumps in uninvited, Evonus gets shut down, Evonus flies off the handle because he's been victimized.  You need a new shtick.

I didn't fly off the handle. You're the one who threw a shit fit because I made a comment. The point I was trying to get across, is that I'll enter into discussion when I feel like it, and if you don't like it, you can eat shit. You act like I lose sleep over what you say.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on April 10, 2007, 04:30:43 PM
Why is this being put up with?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 10, 2007, 04:36:57 PM
This aggression will not stand, man.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Banshee on April 10, 2007, 04:38:29 PM
Why is this being put up with?

I like bunnies.

I also like Shakespeare.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 05:13:35 PM
Why is this being put up with?

Do I need to strike up the violin team for you Ivan?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: RelandR on April 10, 2007, 05:30:49 PM
Do I need to strike up the violin team for you Ivan?


Egads ... what Mondo~Grande~Huevonus You have there fella'
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on April 10, 2007, 05:35:34 PM
Sufficiently advanced moranity is indistinguishable from courage.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Demosthenes on April 10, 2007, 05:36:26 PM
Any moranity not indistinguishable from courage is insufficiently advanced.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on April 10, 2007, 05:41:16 PM
I have long believed that.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 10, 2007, 05:43:23 PM
Moranity?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Demosthenes on April 10, 2007, 05:49:40 PM
Moranity (http://memewatch.com/thelist/archives/pix/morans.jpg).
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: RelandR on April 10, 2007, 06:06:38 PM
Moranites,  the Moranish Worshippers of the Mighty Goddess Moranitiis.

I think some of them are discovering Web Design(LINK now broken-meh) (http://www.moranity.co.uk/moranity/index.htm)
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 10, 2007, 06:33:32 PM
Oh my, I can't believe I missed such an excellent meme. :cry:

I must give up the few hours a day I spend away from the forum.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: TheJudge on April 10, 2007, 08:21:48 PM
Why is this being put up with?
The geekery needs a mascott dammit! OMFGLOL!!11
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: hackess on April 10, 2007, 09:03:18 PM
The geekery needs a mascott dammit! OMFGLOL!!11

You mean whipping boy, right? Are we making an example of him?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 09:19:39 PM
The geekery needs a mascott dammit! OMFGLOL!!11

Why do I have to be the mascott?

You mean whipping boy, right?

I am definitely the whipping boi, in the sense that I do loves the whipping.  :wink:
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Demosthenes on April 10, 2007, 09:49:14 PM
I am definitely the whipping boy, in the sense that I do the whipping.  :wink:

As your biggest and probably only supporter, I should probably point out that even I'll smack you down for that one. 
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: hackess on April 10, 2007, 09:56:14 PM
Why do I have to be the mascott?

Because your inflated head fits snugly inside the costume.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Anyanka_was_framed on April 10, 2007, 10:01:59 PM
You can't hate Elensar for that yet, they're new.

I was reading what I missed, and...apparently I missed the bit where Elensar is more than one person.  "they're", eh?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: RelandR on April 10, 2007, 10:19:31 PM
Elen'Sar

maybe she's a contraction

Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: 12AX7 on April 10, 2007, 10:45:47 PM
She's having contractions?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 10, 2007, 11:08:46 PM
IT'S A NOOB!
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 10, 2007, 11:32:38 PM
As your biggest and probably only supporter, I should probably point out that even I'll smack you down for that one. 

Are you really my only supporter? I have to have more fans than just 1!?

Because your inflated head fits snugly inside the costume.


That was honestly pretty funny.

I was reading what I missed, and...apparently I missed the bit where Elensar is more than one person.  "they're", eh?

I wasn't sure which gender to use, so I went with a term that doesn't imply gender.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: 12AX7 on April 10, 2007, 11:53:48 PM
Elen'Sar
Elen'saurus??
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: RelandR on April 10, 2007, 11:58:26 PM
Elen'Degenasaurus, with the obligatory intervening evolution of course.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: RelandR on April 11, 2007, 12:00:18 AM
I wasn't sure which gender to use, so I went with a term that doesn't imply gender.

Hint: It is customary to use the Feminine when referencing Females.

... You're welcome.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 12:20:41 AM
Hint: It is customary to use the Feminine when referencing Females.

... You're welcome.

Wow really! My life now has a new direction!

But seriously, I wasn't sure what gender Elensar is. I thought she was a girl, but I didn't want to make an assumption and offend her, so I didn't.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: RelandR on April 11, 2007, 12:45:52 AM
I hear ya man, If I thought She was a Girl, I wouldn't want to make that assumption either !!!

...what's a guy to do, Hax0r her profile ??? ... I think NoT !

Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Min on April 11, 2007, 08:05:50 AM
Wow really! My life now has a new direction!

But seriously, I wasn't sure what gender Elensar is. I thought she was a girl, but I didn't want to make an assumption and offend her, so I didn't.

Since when are you worried about offending the chixX0rs?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: 12AX7 on April 11, 2007, 08:42:30 AM
Since he forgot how to click on "Profile" and see:
Female
17
In my own little world


Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Min on April 11, 2007, 08:45:05 AM
Big on mouth, short on branes.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Chris on April 11, 2007, 09:10:19 AM
It’s understood that in the online world, everyone is considered to be male unless otherwise stated.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Anyanka_was_framed on April 11, 2007, 11:04:51 AM
Mostly I'm not a fan of using "they" when referring to a singular being.  I'm really trying to cut down. :|
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 12:35:29 PM
Since when are you worried about offending the chixX0rs?

I honestly don't consider anything I say to be offensive. I'm not out to offend people, usually, most of what I say that's considered offensive is said in jest. However, confusing someones gender could be considered offensive.

Big on mouth, short on branes.

I have plenty of brains. It's just that common sense things allude me.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on April 11, 2007, 01:14:02 PM
I honestly don't consider anything I say to be offensive.

Of course not. Most of what you write is offensively stupid. You can't do that on purpose.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Vespertine on April 11, 2007, 02:00:23 PM
I honestly don't consider anything I say to be offensive. I'm not out to offend people, usually, most of what I say that's considered offensive is said in jest.
<snip>
"you can eat shit", "pull the stick out of your ass", "Do I need to strike up the violin team", "moron", "you haven't been through what I have", "you have never felt what I have felt", "I just make sexist jokes because I find them more amusing than many other types of jokes".

So, you're not out to offend people, yet you say things like the above examples, and you say them on a regular basis.  Said in jest...point to which one of those examples was intended to be a joke.  You don't consider anything you say to be offensive...maybe you should rethink that once more, before you go declaring yourself a paragon of objectivity.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 02:12:08 PM
"you can eat shit", "pull the stick out of your ass", "Do I need to strike up the violin team", "moron", "you haven't been through what I have", "you have never felt what I have felt", "I just make sexist jokes because I find them more amusing than many other types of jokes".

So, you're not out to offend people, yet you say things like the above examples, and you say them on a regular basis.  Said in jest...point to which one of those examples was intended to be a joke.  You don't consider anything you say to be offensive...maybe you should rethink that once more, before you go declaring yourself a paragon of objectivity.

Okay, here I'll separate these for you:

Offensive from my point of view

-"you can eat shit"
-"pull the stick out of your ass"
-"moron"

Not Offensive:

-"Do I need to strike up the violin team"
-"I just make sexist jokes because I find them more amusing than many other types of jokes".

The other two I can't figure out why you listed them. I don't even see how you could take them as a joke or insult. They were merely explaining my point of view in a political discussion.

But yes, the post where I did say things that were supposed to be offensive, were because in the post before you exploded on me over nothing. I'm not going to be nice if you don't respect me, but I think that's standard for most people. If you respect me I won't be a jerk to you, but it has to go both ways, I'm not going to act kind while you verbally abuse me.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Min on April 11, 2007, 02:16:02 PM
So...in your opinion....do you consider anything you say to be offensive?

BTW, I think she put the last remark in there because SEXIST JOKES ARE OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 02:24:56 PM
So...in your opinion....do you consider anything you say to be offensive?

BTW, I think she put the last remark in there because SEXIST JOKES ARE OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN.

I don't consider most of what I say to be offensive. I don't take things as offensively as most. I take most of what's said by anyone as a joke, unless it has some sort of consequence attached. In real life and online the people I get along best with are the people I trade insults with most frequently. But since not everyone is like that I'll respect our differences. I promise not to make any more sexist jokes, seeing how they do seem to be offending people, which is not my goal. Besides that I'll try not to say things that'll bother people unless I'm antagonized; however, like I've said, my view of what's offensive is different from yours, so bear with me.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on April 11, 2007, 02:31:37 PM
bear with me.

No.

Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: ivan on April 11, 2007, 02:34:12 PM
By the way, if anyone needs a refresher on this specimen's forum social skills, here he is right out of the box: HUUURRRRRRRRR! (http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,3784.0.html)
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 11, 2007, 02:47:31 PM
Bizb's story about his specialness is classic.

I know I'm special because a doctor told me so!
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: xolik on April 11, 2007, 02:49:31 PM
The important thing to remember here is that if I think it's not offensive then it MUST not be offensive to anybody else either!

WHY CAN'T YOU DOLTS SEE THAT?  :x
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Crystalmonkey on April 11, 2007, 04:32:08 PM
(http://www.ntsb.gov/events/1999/bourbonnais/amtrak5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: dcrog on April 11, 2007, 04:38:02 PM
The important thing to remember here is that if I think it's not offensive then it MUST not be offensive to anybody else either!

WHY CAN'T YOU DOLTS SEE THAT?  :x

Did someone offend you Xolly?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 07:07:29 PM
By the way, if anyone needs a refresher on this specimen's forum social skills, here he is right out of the box: HUUURRRRRRRRR! (http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,3784.0.html)

You have to admit, I have gotten better.  :-D
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Demosthenes on April 11, 2007, 07:13:06 PM
Beep beep, Richie.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: hackess on April 11, 2007, 08:12:39 PM
Beep beep, Richie.

You'll float too.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 11, 2007, 08:14:33 PM
We all float.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: hackess on April 11, 2007, 08:19:43 PM
By the way, if anyone needs a refresher on this specimen's forum social skills, here he is right out of the box: HUUURRRRRRRRR! (http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,3784.0.html)

If I'd pushed the button back then like I wanted to...
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 08:21:37 PM
If I'd pushed the button back then like I wanted to...

Come on, think of all the great memories you'd have missed out on.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: hackess on April 11, 2007, 08:28:25 PM
Come on, think of all the great memories you'd have missed out on.

In exchange for missing out on the funny?
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Agent_Tachyon on April 11, 2007, 08:41:02 PM
I think Evonus has been very funny.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 08:42:00 PM
I think Evonus has been very funny.

Thank you agent! That's the first kind thing that's been said about me in this thread.  :cry:
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: BizB on April 11, 2007, 08:45:27 PM
I admire your tenacity, Evonus.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Evonus on April 11, 2007, 08:57:09 PM
I admire your tenacity, Evonus.

I suppose that's a compliment.
Title: Re: The Society: On Religion
Post by: Demosthenes on April 11, 2007, 10:21:40 PM
It was.