Topic: This somehow feels right, pattern wise.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM started this discussion 14 years ago #19,737
Humanity went from polytheism, a belief in many gods, to monotheism, a belief in one true god, to atheism, no gods.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #323,203
BRB Starting a religion with -1 god.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #323,222
Christianity is a belief in three deities.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #323,229
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 39 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #323,241
@OP
> Humanity went from polytheism, a belief in many gods, to monotheism, a belief in one true god, to atheism, no gods.
One day soon they will discover some Animal that has made up some form of Deity. This will be cutting edge stuff.
> Humanity went from polytheism, a belief in many gods, to monotheism, a belief in one true god, to atheism, no gods.
One day soon they will discover some Animal that has made up some form of Deity. This will be cutting edge stuff.
vocalon !!jdS+H4VgV joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 20 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #323,260
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #323,770
@323,203 (B)
Atheism is a sort of polytheism in denial. They have gods. The atheist has things which he or she worships. Be it money, status, fame, beauty, or big dicks. The atheist is essentially a pagan in denial and without an imagination.
Atheism is a sort of polytheism in denial. They have gods. The atheist has things which he or she worships. Be it money, status, fame, beauty, or big dicks. The atheist is essentially a pagan in denial and without an imagination.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #323,771
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #323,772
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #323,794
@323,770 (G)
That might be true if they thought that money, status, influence, or big dicks were somehow supernatural or magical. Most of those things seem to be grounded in the real world though.
That might be true if they thought that money, status, influence, or big dicks were somehow supernatural or magical. Most of those things seem to be grounded in the real world though.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #323,815
@323,770 (G)The Conservative is essentially a Liberal in denial and without an imagination. The sane person is essentially a crazy person in denial and without an imagination. The white is essentially a black in denial and without an imagination.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #323,867
@323,772 (G)
False dichotomy.
@323,794 (B)
This. Liking something is not the same as worshiping a magic man on the sky.
False dichotomy.
@323,794 (B)
This. Liking something is not the same as worshiping a magic man on the sky.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 14 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #324,046
@323,794 (B)
Money status and influence are subjective relativistic concepts; Largely imaginary when you get right down to it. Coercively enforced collective agreements do not constitute an objective truth.
Only big dicks is even close to an objective concept, and it's still relativistic.
Money status and influence are subjective relativistic concepts; Largely imaginary when you get right down to it. Coercively enforced collective agreements do not constitute an objective truth.
Only big dicks is even close to an objective concept, and it's still relativistic.
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #324,047
> False dichotomy.
Really? How so?
Really? How so?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #324,055
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #324,115
@324,046 (I)
> Money status and influence are subjective relativistic concepts
So is the time on my clock and the fuel efficiency of my car. That doesn't make them gods.
> Money status and influence are subjective relativistic concepts
So is the time on my clock and the fuel efficiency of my car. That doesn't make them gods.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #324,125
@previous (B)
And yet we permit them to have a certain level of control over your life, as if they were indeed gods.
Imaginary constructs are made real by us all the time.
And yet we permit them to have a certain level of control over your life, as if they were indeed gods.
Imaginary constructs are made real by us all the time.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #324,164
@previous (I)
> And yet we permit them to have a certain level of control over your life
Wanting to show up to work on time does not constitute worship of time as if it were a god. Thinking that better pay might enable you to live more comfortably doesn't constitute deification of money. Believing that one and one make two doesn't make gods out of numbers. You're playing fast and loose with your concepts.
> And yet we permit them to have a certain level of control over your life
Wanting to show up to work on time does not constitute worship of time as if it were a god. Thinking that better pay might enable you to live more comfortably doesn't constitute deification of money. Believing that one and one make two doesn't make gods out of numbers. You're playing fast and loose with your concepts.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #324,176
@previous (B)
It's not a question of what people think, but one of how they behave. They behave AS IF certain elements in life were gods. How they think about it is subjective sure, but the behavior is objective.
It's not a question of what people think, but one of how they behave. They behave AS IF certain elements in life were gods. How they think about it is subjective sure, but the behavior is objective.