Quote:
Originally Posted by Schranz bass
Quit with the name calling. I could insult you, too, and I assure you, I have a lot greater literary dexterity than you, but could you please raise the tone of your messages? I am not your enemy.
Sometimes I find it frustrating when talking about religion because I have to sift through all the 'stock phrases': reactionary phrases from a set stock of words and ideas which always miss the point. It seems that many folks react to any opposition to piety with aspersion and traditional thinking; they simply cannot grasp the notion of a way of life without religion.
Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is relevant. You are about to prove it. Watch, it will be enoyable. I think many other people will join in what is to come.
Dirty, the belief in God and religion is for what purpose? To derive morals and meaning in life, yeah?
From your standpoint, is humanity going in a healthful direction?
Do you think we have set society up in a way that is conducive to ecological, aesthetic, moral, and ideological impetus?
Let's start with the status quo:
Nearly every message and every intention in marketing, television, and popular music is to encourage people to be more egotistical; to "buy this car because it defines you. This is happiness, this is status. This is what 'beautiful' women look like. This is what makes you enviable", et cetera. Do you agree with that? Here's an example: a while ago I saw an advertisement on tv for the Pontiac Vibe car. In the commercial a person drove the Vibe beside a bus. Music was playing in the car and a man sitting in the bus was moving his head to the beat playing in the Vibe. Something else happened, but I don't remember. What is the message there? 'If you drive this car, people will think you are cool and will be more likely to stare at your car when you drive by.'
Surely you have seen such advertisements? I could list hundreds, quite literally, but I don't want to type so much. This is a topic that should be discussed orally.
Here's the current aesthetic standard:
Have you noticed that so many people refer to some women as 'beautiful'? Beautiful should not be a superfical description. It is much deeper than that. Beauty is kalon. The prevalent notion of beauty is superficial. This makes the standard of what is beautiful, much lower. A 'beautiful' woman is....very capable of sharing her DNA and producing a healthy, attractive baby who will most likely be able to carry on the 'seed'.
'Beautiful' is a word to describe something, or someone, that evokes love. It is the essence which is beautiful, not facial symmetry. This smattering of beauty is everywhere, yeah?
This is where society is. The aesthetic standard is much lower; people are very apt to see 'beauty' in simpler things. Surely you agree that this mentality is a product of impulsive, primitive, unintellectual propensity?
The current aesthetic paradigm is encouraging people to pursue a higher role in the status quo. It is distracting people from being individuals; from being morally and socially deep, and fervent. I think it also creates neurosis.
Religion and belief in God is not the cure to all that.
What do you think is better?
|
Don't start with the whole "victim" card. I said your post had stupidity in it and if you can't handle that, I would suggest leaving the internet. Get off your high horse, your pretentious attitude towards religion nauseates me. Religion certainly is relevant in society, some form of it exists in every major culture on this planet. Religion is a huge influence on behavior and cultural norms so for you to say it isn't relevant just makes no sense. Maybe you don't want it to be, but it certainly is without a doubt. I'm an atheist but I realize how relevant religion is in every culture, it isn't that hard to realize. I don't live in a world of hypothetical nature where a non-religious Earth exists because that is never going to happen.
Now you are talking about things that basically boil down to marketing strategies with all the talk of advertisements and stuff. You don't define "beauty," it's subjective. Not everything has to be lumped into "beautiful" or "not beautiful," there can be levels of it surely. And I don't think religion is looked at by many people to be the "cure" for the lower standard of beauty we have...and I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing beauty in simple things either. My whole beef was that you said something along the lines of "forget atheism, that's so 13th century." But as long as there are still millions of religious folks, "atheist" is a perfectly suitable word to describe non-believers such as myself. I think you are more arguing for a religion-less society, which I would actually support, but again I don't live in a hypothetical fairyland of a world and I'm looking at this realistically.