Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

No.

Is it absolutely ridiculous to make decisions inside of the box because you THINK there's something outside the box? Yes.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

IMO life doesnt have a purpose.

You're here, enjoy it the best you can.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

Let's say you loved the Beatles, and your favorite Beatles' song is "A Day in the Life". Now, it's your favorite song because it is the only Beatles' song you have ever listened to intently, because that song played in your house when you were growing up. You heard about other Beatles' tunes that others said were their favorites, but when they tried to get you to listen to them, you weren't interested. Then, when you went to college and/or moved away from home, you decided that the Beatles suck, and you aren't interested in hearing ANYTHING they did because it must be shit.

I say, if you find peace not listening to the Beatles, then don't listen to them. But you shouldn't assume that all Beatles' songs are worthless when you haven't heard them all, and you shouldn't presume to tell others that their favorite Beatles' song is shit when you haven't heard it all the way through. If someone finds their peace listening to "Yesterday" or "Let It Be", just be happy for them. It's not your job to point out their lack of musicality, and it's not their job to point out yours.

Now, what would you do if I sang out of tune?...

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

I do not like the beetles.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

Buy you a pitch-pipe?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I believe I would have to stand up and walk out on you.

It's more like your friend who only likes female singers telling you that he likes the Beatles because John Lennon was actually a woman. It's fine if he wants to delude himself so he can enjoy listening to the Beatles, but clearly he's wrong about the facts.

Is it fine if he believes something you can't prove he's wrong about? Can you be happy for the happiness of your friend, or must you think less of him or try to crush his belief by ridiculing him for being an ignorant stooge? Some of the most wonderful people I've ever met believe in things that I do not, and yet, I envy their peaceful certainty. You'll know you're comfortable in your own truth when you no longer feel the need to debunk the truths of others.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

There are lots of things I can't prove are false, but which are pretty silly to believe. If someone wants to believe in silly things that's fine, but when they start to insist that their beliefs aren't silly or that everyone else should believe the same things I think it's reasonable to object. If someone is comfortable in the nature of their blind faith, criticism on the base of reason shouldn't be meaningful to them anyways.

I think it is important to distinguish that "silly" is certainly in the eyes of the beholder, but your disbelief does not make their beliefs silly. Calling them silly only makes you condescending. I agree that for them to push their beliefs on you is reason to object, once you have told them you aren't interested. And you should likewise refrain from pushing your truth as you see it on them.

For the record: I personally have no use for organized religion.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

It's silly insofar as it's entirely based on the unverifiable. It's hard to call belief in something with no basis in fact anything but silly.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I certainly don't question your right to believe that what probably 5 billion people believe, in some form or another, is silly. But I think it is silly to cover all those beliefs with a blanket of disbelief until you fully understand what they are, how they affect people's lives, and how they impact their deaths. Are there many negative impacts you could cite? You bet there are. But those are balanced out by a lot of good. Your need for positive proof happens every day for a lot of people, when they see the birth of their child, look at the stars, witness the recovery of a sick loved one, or watch it rain. The thing is, if you've fully examined what you believe and why you believe it, then you aren't wrong. Neither are they.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

Current religions are only acceptable because we're used to how ridiculous they are. If I told you I believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and thought I had been touched by his Holy Noodly Appendage, you would be forgiven for thinking it was a profoundly silly belief to hold. The "religion" is after all designed to be silly. Yet it as rational to believe in flying spaghetti monsters or invisible pink unicorns as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. If religions weren't silly, you wouldn't need faith to believe in them.

well, i've tweaked the coincidence settings, the irony settings, and the deja vu bits. such a shame subtlety is lost.

time to throw a monkey wrench in a clockwork orange.

edit:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBPvkctfN6Y&feature=related[/youtube]

Evey, EV, E.V., 5.22., 2+2=5=22=V.

you can't prove religion is real any more than you can prove it isn't. thankfully, the amount of proof mounting up for the absence of religion is steadily increasing daily.

you can prove though, that people are afraid of death and will conjure up any amount of absurdities to cope with the feeling that this is no dress rehearsal.