Controversial opinions

[Callid]

I agree mostly with Jd- #18, minus the "equal part"-thing. I suspect "not knowing the origin of one's surroundings", as well as the not-mentioned lack of explanation of a purpose for life and the uncertainty of death to be much more important factors. Not all religions were developed and spread by the ruling class, Christianity was (for the first 300 years) neither.

What manga said, especially the bit about "following religious conventions". Also, I know people who claim to be atheists YET worship the devil and people who claim to be atheists THEN say they hate God. I mean, what? Are you kidding me? -.-

I think that's hilarious. Also, that would be satanism and misotheism, respectively.

[bluekaitou1412]

Beauty has a higher standing than intelligence.

Yet beauty is temporary as it changes along with the tides of time (and is incredibly subjective at that). I think both is equally valued, only by different "sectors".

[Pmofmalasia]

My eighteenth contribution: The concept and propagation of deities is the result of equal parts class control, power consolidation, and a dissatisfaction with not knowing the origin of one's surroundings, eventually becoming imaginative and evolving, yet still largely baseless, summations of the world based on a given population's discoveries and environment at a given point in time.

This, as well as a fear of the finality of death, which is why nearly every religion has an afterlife of some sort.

(4) Capitalists should learn from religious institutions. Religion started with 0, ended up with churches and minions. Capitalists started with a capital, ended up dead.

This I disagree with. First off, how have capitalists ended up dead? Many societies today are both capitalist and extremely wealthy, unless you mean 100% capitalist, which I doubt since I don't think such a society has ever existed. I forget, were Laissez-faire principles ever actually implemented in France, or was it just a philosophy? Anyway, second, religious wealth (speaking of the Catholic church, here) comes from manipulating its followers into belief and then not following its own principles by spending its wealth on itself rather than giving back to the poor. I don't think that's what we would want in a government.

[bluekaitou1412]

Not only having the answer to the "origin of one's surroundings" but religion also functions as a "security blanket".

(4) Capitalists should learn from religious institutions. Religion started with 0, ended up with churches and minions. Capitalists started with a capital, ended up dead.

This I disagree with. First off, how have capitalists ended up dead? Many societies today are both capitalist and extremely wealthy, unless you mean 100% capitalist, which I doubt since I don't think such a society has ever existed. I forget, were Laissez-faire principles ever actually implemented in France, or was it just a philosophy? Anyway, second, religious wealth (speaking of the Catholic church, here) comes from manipulating its followers into belief and then not following its own principles by spending its wealth on itself rather than giving back to the poor. I don't think that's what we would want in a government.

Well, capitalists DO end up dead, as do everyone else. Religion, however, is here to stay. XD

[mangaluva]

The more I think about gender roles, the more confused I get about why they still exist at a stage in our development where we no longer need to divide the tribe based on who's too pregnant to go hunting.

[Ringo]

...The concept and propagation of deities is the result of... a dissatisfaction with not knowing the origin of one's surroundings, eventually becoming imaginative and evolving...

I was reminded of Mircea Eliade, a historian and philosopher who contributed the concept of the profane and the sacred to a/theistic studies. The profane consists of the natural--daily activities, routines, necessities--while the sacred is the realm of the supernatural. This can be interpreted into many ways, and it favoring atheism is one of those. What you said about people seeking for these sacred out of their profane lives is generally the atheistic side of the mentioned philosophy.

Beauty has a higher standing than intelligence.

Yet beauty is temporary as it changes along with the tides of time (and is incredibly subjective at that). I think both is equally valued, only by different "sectors".

It seems that I am looking at the matter using these other sector's, the one who favors beauty, lens. They're mostly rich bastards, so... XD (I am not really happy about this.)

(4) Capitalists should learn from religious institutions. Religion started with 0, ended up with churches and minions. Capitalists started with a capital, ended up dead.

This I disagree with. First off, how have capitalists ended up dead? Many societies today are both capitalist and extremely wealthy, unless you mean 100% capitalist, which I doubt since I don't think such a society has ever existed. I forget, were Laissez-faire principles ever actually implemented in France, or was it just a philosophy? Anyway, second, religious wealth (speaking of the Catholic church, here) comes from manipulating its followers into belief and then not following its own principles by spending its wealth on itself rather than giving back to the poor. I don't think that's what we would want in a government.

Well, capitalists DO end up dead, as do everyone else. Religion, however, is here to stay. XD

Thanks, bluek. I was just thinking that if capitalists can learn from how religion has sold their "product", they wouldn't need to go along with what's fashionable. They would always be what that is.

[Kor]

Thanks, bluek. I was just thinking that if capitalists can learn from how religion has sold their "product", they wouldn't need to go along with what's fashionable. They would always be what that is.

I'm still not following this. What exactly are you trying to say? "Capitalists" are human beings, so of course they'll die. If you're trying to make a point regarding capitalism compared to religion, then you need to clarify a bit more.

[mangaluva]

Thanks, bluek. I was just thinking that if capitalists can learn from how religion has sold their "product", they wouldn't need to go along with what's fashionable. They would always be what that is.

I'm still not following this. What exactly are you trying to say? "Capitalists" are human beings, so of course they'll die. If you're trying to make a point regarding capitalism compared to religion, then you need to clarify a bit more.

I'm also not quite sure what capitalism is "selling", aside from, y'know, everything. It's not a religion or really a lifestyle, it's a political-economic ideology. It's also generally self-serving bullshit, so if they're trying to figure out how to make it as respected as religion, there's that parallel.

[Ringo]

Thanks, bluek. I was just thinking that if capitalists can learn from how religion has sold their "product", they wouldn't need to go along with what's fashionable. They would always be what that is.

I'm still not following this. What exactly are you trying to say? "Capitalists" are human beings, so of course they'll die. If you're trying to make a point regarding capitalism compared to religion, then you need to clarify a bit more.

I'm also not quite sure what capitalism is "selling", aside from, y'know, everything. It's not a religion or really a lifestyle, it's a political-economic ideology. It's also generally self-serving bullshit, so if they're trying to figure out how to make it as respected as religion, there's that parallel.

I used "capitalist" and "religion" to easily communicate my opinion regarding trends. As these words can mean a lot of things and form varying images to every reader, I regret using them. "Capitalist" and "religion" here are both sellers. Their primary product is faith. However, the latter has made use of means to sell this faith not just to present people, but to generations... not to current customers, but to potential buyers as well, and hence, continuity is guaranteed; whilst the "capitalists" are still stuck pleasing the market.

(I learned today that most controversies are result of ambiguities.)

[Stopwatch]

[pretty much everything said in the thread since yesterday]

Thank you.

And for my opinion, I don't think this is very controversial on this particular site, but in quite a few places it probably is so. I think religion and law should have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This extends to faith schools. In fact, I'll just point out that faith schools are incredibly flawed; the entry requirements exclude people and besides, there are a lot of parents who will force their children to go to church (or similar) for years just to get into a particular school. And of course, when you're actually in the school you're surrounded by only others of the "same faith" (and that's in speech marks for a reason because well over half are people forced to go by parents when they don't actually follow a faith) which encourages segregation further and ensures you can be fed only one point of view. If you look at stuff like people's reactions to that soldier being killed recently there are still a worrying amount of people out there who want to "deport/kill all the Muslims" and separating religions really doesn't help. For the US, I honestly think some kind of national curriculum like over here should be brought in as a standard in all states, but I kinda doubt anything like that will happen.

That said, I disagree with those who try to disillusion those who are religious simply to prove a point. After all, religion can help some people (seriously though, there are some people who were "converted" from alcoholism (is that actually a word?) to religion and taking religion away would likely just spark a relapse). I've heard people say about atheists being persecuted in the past as an argument for why they should wage war on religion, but the fact is that pretty much every religion has been persecuted at some point or another and it's not the religion causing these problems, but the people who wield it as an excuse for their actions. People *should* be informed of all options definitely (and also it should be pointed out that holy books are a result of their times and so just as "chopping off the hand of the thief" is no longer done stuff like homophobia and sexism are also outdated - though plenty of non-religious people are homophobic because they see it as "ew" because it's "wrong" because it's "ew" and so on in increasingly circular logic), but not in a purposefully antagonistic manner which will just result in them not wanting to listen and sometimes just plain insults them. Same goes for religious people wanting to convert others. Just, respect other's opinions and lay it all out, making sure to avoid attacks on character as much as possible. And when I say "as much as possible" I mean that *everyone* should be respected up to a point, though when you try to infringe your beliefs on others don't be surprised if you lose that.
This will undoubtedly be misunderstood through my miswording or whatever so I'll just apologise in advance for that.

...and great, the US has me thinking that this level of religiousness is normal.

Last note, my run-on sentences and paragraphs have returned. Sorry about that.

[Kleene Onigiri]

Didn't see this topic before :V
Agree with most of Ringo's statements :3 Also with PT's statement on Haibara and the hypocrite one (tho I'd extend it to whole humanity). There were others too, but I forgot already and I'm too lazy to check XD

Some from me:
1) Math is great!

2) The color orange is underrated

3) Strawberries are overrated. There is always the flavour strawberry. Not that I hate strawberries, but it's not the ultimate flavour.

4) Facebook is bad. It's slow, confusing, bad layout, no privacy and is just simply bad.

[mangaluva]

You make some good points, though, Stop. When I was in high school, I knew a girl who got transferred in in fourth year from the local Catholic school. She was Muslim, but her parents had sent her to the Catholic school on the basis that a religious school was better than a godless one. Unfortunately, she simply faced an appalling lack of respect for her religion where it clashed with Catholicism, which was often, and a lot of social discrimination. She often said that she liked our "godless" school better, because never once at our school did someone demand that she take her headscarf off "to make sure there was nothing hidden under it" (she wasn't even exceptionally religious; she just liked wearing the headscarf, and had some really pretty ones.)

Also, it worries me when people ask me how I can know not to hurt or kill other people if I don't believe in the Bible, because to me that sounds like "the only reason not to go on a spree of rape and murder is because this book says not to". Not, y'know, because it's a douchey thing to do.

[bluekaitou1412]

^And it's not like everything "good" in the world right now can be found in the Bible, some pretty awesome moral advice pre-dates and/or parallels it (say, Confucius, for instance, about not doing what you don't want people do unto you, etc., or other religions). It's a shame that most people give the Bible undeserved credit.

That reminds me, our mid-term elections just finished a few weeks ago. So, there was this recently approved Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health bill, "a law in the Philippines which guarantees universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care" (took them a LONG LONG LOOOONG time to pass it on the Senate due to interventions from the Catholic church). Some churches actually advertised candidates like this:

Spoiler:

Those senators who opposed the bill was given the name TEAM BUHAY (BUHAY here translates into "ALIVE" or "LIFE") while those who approved of the bill was given the name TEAM PATAY (PATAY translates into "DEAD"). Oh and that's a really huge poster.

[ShiraKiryuu]

^And it's not like everything "good" in the world right now can be found in the Bible, some pretty awesome moral advice pre-dates and/or parallels it (say, Confucius, for instance, about not doing what you don't want people do unto you, etc., or other religions). It's a shame that most people give the Bible undeserved credit.

That reminds me, our mid-term elections just finished a few weeks ago. So, there was this recently approved Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health bill, "a law in the Philippines which guarantees universal access to methods on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care" (took them a LONG LONG LOOOONG time to pass it on the Senate due to interventions from the Catholic church). Some churches actually advertised candidates like this:

Spoiler:

Those senators who opposed the bill was given the name TEAM BUHAY (BUHAY here translates into "ALIVE" or "LIFE") while those who approved of the bill was given the name TEAM PATAY (PATAY translates into "DEAD"). Oh and that's a really huge poster.

I didn't know of this. This is one of the reasons why I have no respect for the church. They descriminate those who don't agree to their beliefs and treat them like they aren't even human when they are supposed to treat everyone equally as said from the Bible. I am an atheist myself and basically doesn't care what those people do but this is different.

On topic:
1.) Candy Crush is such a boring game that it doesn't deserve to be a trend in the internet. I just hope that it's only in our country and not everywhere else.

2.) Harlem Shake is bad and everyone who likes it should feel bad.

[mangaluva]

I don't like How I Met Your Mother or a lot of shows like it. It's a show that I think I could like if I could watch it, but studio audience laughter irritates me more than I can say. I genuinely can't even pay attention to shows with studio audience laughter because it pisses me off so much. I really just wish these shows could come with an option to watch them with the laughter tuned out.