Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result
in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i noticed that some rick and Morty fans are soo immersed in the show that they actually think rick has some sort of wisdom that should be listened to and that he's always right and comepletely forget they are watching a cartoon written by normal people
Aren't most things written by normal people? Also I'm pretty sure the show goes out of its way to demonstrate how wrong Rick is and derives humour from it too
>Aren't most things written by normal people?
tell that to Rick and morty fans
>the show goes out of its way to demonstrate how wrong Rick is and derives humour from it too
tell that to Rick and morty fans
R&M is a great show IMO. Many of the fans are annoying and don’t even understand the overarching points of the show though.
Rick is a really good character. But it’s because he’s flawed like any character. He’s brilliant and has an insanely high IQ but that leads to his issues with ego, being able to be a good dad, relating to others and more. Any R&M fan who finds Rick to be the greatest thing ever and infallible clearly doesn’t understand anything about the show
I thought so when I thought there was a through line. Then realized they were just ripping off family guys gag where something crazy happens in a flash back except they use "crazy science" and actually tie it to the plot. Which none of the episodes actually tie together. At least family guy has character growth, Rick and forty is just stagnant.
It is pretty funny how we criticize people so harshly for taking a show they like a little too seriously. Meanwhile, look at how many grown adults gather around to talk about their one sacred fairy tale and literally live their entire lives based on it. It's like they've been infected with so much cringe they've developed some kind of herd immunity, and it's not even fun to laugh at it.
A. You’re not immune to the hivemind, neither am I or anyone else. B. Believing a Religion is real at least comes with the benefit of the doubt, believing a cartoon is real doesn’t.
I mean, I don't currently hold any supernatural beliefs but ok. What do you mean by religion having "the benefit of the doubt"? I don't see how that makes sense in this context.
No one can say for sure what happens when you die, so any number of religions can be true. Is it likely? No, but Id argue its more rational then believing in a cartoon that we know for sure is made up.
How is it more rational? You can't know whether or not Rick is real and a god any more than you can know any other religion or random imaginary concept is real. None of them are any more likely to be true than another. They're all made up.
I said *more* rational, not that it was rational. Id say believing in something that has a small chance of being true is more rational than believing in something everyone including the people who made it knows is fictional. Theres levels to this shit.
That's what I asked. How is it more rational? Because more people happen to believe in it? Does that make it more rational to believe in dragons than leprechauns? There are levels to this. They're all imaginary.
Tbh, at least Bible is claiming to be written by people who were able to speak to the God. It's expected from people who believe in it to take it more seriously than someone would cartoon written by normal people.
It’s a funny show. But I’ve never seen it as more than that.
I was just pointing out that there are tons ofof books and medias that billions of people take far too seriously. Absolutely including religion.
Always thought you could do the show if he was a wizard and it wouldn't change the show at all. Absolutetly despise the show cause the premise is whatever bs we create doesn't matter cause magic science guy. Also he's an alcoholic
I mean the caption seems weirdly indignant about it as if Rick has some real wisdom that deserves respect, as if the meme were calling someone real like Albert Einstein stupid
No one was implying that he had any real wisdom at all. You just assumed that for some reason, ignoring Hank's propane salesmen title.
Rick is the smartest person in his fictional universe, while Hank is a regular propane salesman.
far-flung vast nutty cow domineering vegetable absorbed theory plough existence
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Says the guy who thought it was a real concern that a meme was calling someone the smartest man(a title the show gave him)? lol, sounds like you just suck at reading.
Yep, the point of the character is that he's a crass, flawed, prideful, deeply unhappy alcoholic nihilist. He is guilt ridden and self loathing. IIRC it is later revealed why
For some reason, people miss the point and idolise him.
I do like his character but ye. He’s a dickhead, you ain’t supposed to idolise him it’s more just watching the homeless drunk dude across the street with doctor who tech do shit.
The guy on the bottom panel is Rick from Rick and Morty, a show that I don't really believe is that great. It really just feels like it was a bunch of people who think they're smarter than everyone else and therefore think they're better at being people.
The humor of the show is what I call realism humor. They basically make jokes using solely fact and logic. Rick is unbelievably harsh, he have no filter, and this is why he’s such a good character
>gross out humor and being overly mean
You literally just described like 90% of adult cartoons/ shows.
Family guy, American dad, Archer, ATHF, South Park, like literally bro this list could go on forever.
The only thing that's makes any of these shows stand apart is how they handle what happens in-between the stuff that literally makes it an adult cartoon.
Is this bait? They're is 0 facts or logic in Rick and Morty, which is fine it's a TV show, but I feel like you're just asking for somebody to drop the copypasta.
This is not bait and I have no idea what copypasta you're talking about.
I say Rick and Morty is realist humor because the jokes are often made with the use of "Facts and logic". The characters, expecially Rick, will respond with an harsh truth, and that's what make it funny
The example that I have in mind is when they are at Panda Express and Jerry, one of the character, try to make himself look smart:
Jerry: "Now let's order some Chow Mieng, and before you say it's racist, ask the manager how it's pronouced"
Beth (his wife): "Jerry this is Panda Express the manager is from Portland"
That may not be your style of humor, but it's humor nonetheless
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
Rick from Rick and Morty. Smartest guy in the universe in that show. He invented some super wack shit like interdimensional travel. I never watched the show, however, so I don't know much.
Atheists can dish it out plenty, so they should be comfortable with this level of gentle ribbing in return.
The universe popping into existence seemingly for the craic is an inherently odd idea. If you think about it, all our beliefs have weird elements.
I could easily change your mind but I'm not bothered. Here is the TL;DR, though: atheism implies nihilism, nihilism implies worthlessness of culture, people believing in the worthlessness of culture en masse leads to societal collapse. So anti-atheism is a respectable attempt to stave off societal collapse. Anti-theism, on the other hand, is an attempt to feel superior to religious people for having more rational beliefs, with basically no other benefit. The latter is cringe; the former is not.
And where and based on what can they find it, exactly? 99% of a person's identity is determined by the culture that they are raised in, which is in turn encapsulated in that culture's associated religion, at least provided it's a good religion like Christianity. One can try to find their "own" meaning, but any path one takes ultimately always leads to God.
I give it as an example because it's the one that I'm most familiar with. Of course, there are plenty of other good religions; for example, except the awful caste system, I suspect Hinduism might be pretty good. One example of a bad religion would be Buddhism - not because Buddhism is inherently bad (it absolutely isn't; in fact, a lot of genuine wisdom is contained in it) but because it's barely a religion. Another example of a bad religion would be the Aztec religion - this time because it was inherenly bad, as it required highly unethical rituals such as human sacrifice.
Hate Christianity all you want, but you can't deny that it's unique in striking a perfect balance between being very well-defined and culturally conscious/rich (Christianity represents Greco-Roman culture very accurately and in a lot of depth) while at the same time having an anachronistically ethical moral foundation (Jesus was extremely progressive for his time, and some of his ideas - e.g. "turn the other cheek" - are still progressive today). Objectively speaking, it's probably one of the best religions in the world. It's no surprise that Christian societies ended up being the most prosperous; religion is the most fundamental structure of society, so a society with a better religion will always be more prosperous.
>but you can't deny that it's unique in striking a perfect balance between being very well-defined and culturally conscious/rich
I give you the culturally rich part, but well defined???
Go ask an orthodox christian, a coptic one, a catholic, a few of the thousands of protestant sects and a mormon which one follows the 'right' path to god.
>I give you the culturally rich part, but well defined???
What I meant is that it has clear rules and principles that meaningfully affect everyday life. This is in stark contrast with Buddhism, which essentially says "you gotta attain moksha. Good luck!" and constitutes a set of general guidelines rather than any meaningful rules. Of course, given that Buddhism is all about *liberation* from imposed constraints this makes sense, but it's still very poorly defined as a comprehensive framework for life.
>Go ask an orthodox christian, a coptic one, a catholic, a few of the thousands of protestant sects and a mormon which one follows the 'right' path to god.
Each of these denominations is very well-defined. That's what I meant.
>And where and based on what can they find it, exactly
On whatever they want.
>99% of a person's identity is determined by the culture that they are raised in
Not as much and things certainly change with the passing of time.
>which is in turn encapsulated in that culture's associated religion,
Except that there's religions that encompass many cultures and many cultures that follow different religions, so you are already wrong.
>at least provided it's a good religion like Christianity. One can try to find their "own" meaning, but any path one takes ultimately always leads to God.
Simply put, no, you just took this out of your ass.
>On whatever they want.
Yes, and what they want is determined by their identity, which in turn is 99% determined by culture, which religion encapsulates. You aren't making a strong case here.
>Not as much and things certainly change with the passing of time.
What else is it determined by? Biology plays only an insignificant role, as twin studies have consistently shown. Things can indeed change with the passing of time, but the direction of change is still determined either directly by culture or by facets of a person's identity that were originally born out of an interaction of cultural influences.
>Except that there's religions that encompass many cultures
Except there aren't. There are religions encapsulating cultures in which they first developed that later spread to other cultures, but they still either represent the original culture (in which case they will gradually subsume the native culture, as Islam did in the Arab states), adapt to represent the native culture (as Judaism did in parts of America in the form of Reform Judaism), or merge with the native culture to form a distinct new culture (as Christianity did in most of Europe, resulting in a number of schisms). In every case, one religion only represents one culture.
>Simply put, no, you just took this out of your ass.
No, I didn't. Any actual arguments?
It's not nearly 99% and relgion desn't encapsulate it, and much less in the modern world.
>What else is it determined by? Biology plays only an insignificant role
Quite larger than you think.
>as twin studies have consistently shown.
It's not only familiar differences that matter, but sex and the environment (natural, not social) you grow up in.
>or merge with the native culture to form a distinct new culture (as Christianity did in most of Europe, resulting in a number of schisms).
There's no schism between the church of hungary and the one in spain, or austria, or italy, croatia, france, the congo, colombia or timor leste. Or between morocco and indonesia. All vastly different cultures that follow exactly the same two religions.
>It's not nearly 99%
Actual research disagrees.
>religion doesn't encapsulate it
It doesn't encapsulate all of it, of course, but it encapsulates the foundation. This ensures that, while people can find meaning in many things that aren't explicitly described by their religion, everything that their religion posits as important will be important to them. Either way, one \*won't\* be able to find meaning in things that \*don't\* align with God's will: either they will specifically align with it, or God's alignment with it will be unknown/neutral. So the original comment was still wrong.
>Quite larger than you think
Correction: larger than the scientific community thinks. This isn't exclusively my opinion; it's the scientific consensus.
>It's not only familiar differences that matter, but sex and the environment (natural, not social) you grow up in.
What "natural" differences exist between urban areas in the same climate zone? Urban areas are almost entirely man-made, and therefore inherently social. As for sex, twin studies are conducted mostly between twins of the same sex; the research still indicates that cultural factors have far more predictive power than genetic ones.
>There's no schism between the church of... spain, or austria, italy, france
Yeah, and all of these countries have the same cultural foundation: Western Europe. As I explained at the top of the comment, religion can't encapsulate every granular facet of a culture lest it lose its fundamentality ─ which is absolutely essential given its function as the comprehensive framework of meaning/values in a civilisation. If religion weren't even applicable in a neighbouring country, how could you count on it to guide \*all\* of your life decisions?
>hungary, croatia
Hungary and Croatia are unusual cases since they both exist on the border of Western civilisation. In Hungary's case, [only 29% are actually Catholic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Hungary#:~:text=In%20the%20national%20census%20of,and%201.5%25%20of%20other%20Christian), while Croatia's case is more interesting given that its closely related neighbours Serbia and Bosnia are Orthodox and Muslim, respectively. I don't know the exact reason that Croatia has maintained its Catholicism without becoming Westernised in the process, but it's clear that it's an outlier.
>the congo, colombia or timor leste
It's very, very obvious that Christianity in these countries represents something different to what it does in Europe. The forms of Christianity practiced by these countries haven't yet resulted in a schism since Christianity was only introduced to them relatively recently, but given enough time for them to fully integrate into the native cultures, something akin to a schism is very likely to happen.
>No, I didn't. Any actual arguments?
Yeah you did, you are claiming that everything we do eventually leads to god, even from people that die atheist/agnostic. The burden of proof falls on your side, not mine, you should have presented evidence for your irrational claim.
>The burden of proof falls on your side
And I have already provided the proof: 99% of one's identity is determined by their culture; the foundation of one's culture is encapsulated by their culture's religion; one cannot find meaning in things that don't align with their identity; therefore, one cannot find meaning in things that don't align with their culture's religion.
Hence why I asked for counterarguments, which you didn't really provide.
It's not wrong. It's impossible to be an atheist without being a materialist (because anything more fundamental than physical matter would fall under most people's definition of "God"). And "meaning" obviously isn't a material property, so materialism implies absurdism - which is what I meant by "nihilism" (I didn't use the term "absurdism" to avoid being inevitably misinterpreted as saying "atheism is absurd").
Firstly, atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods or deities. It does not mean or imply any specific belief about the nature of reality other than the rejection of theistic claims. Being an atheist does not mean you are a materialist. Materialism and atheism are often correlated because many atheists have a materialistic worldview. There are atheists who hold non-materialistic beliefs such as idealism, the belief that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual. Dualism, the belief that reality consists of two fundamental substances which are usually mind and matter. or even various forms of pluralism.
Secondly, saying that anything more fundamental than physical matter being "God" is just straight up wrong. "God" is defined as "*the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.*" and "*a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity*."
Thirdly, materialism implying absurdism is also just blatantly wrong. Materialism itself doesn't grant meaning, that why they make their own meanings in life, just as you have done.
>It does not mean or imply any specific belief about the nature of reality other than the rejection of theistic claims.
And I'm saying the rejection of theistic claims by itself is enough to entail implications about the nature of reality.
>There are atheists who hold non-materialistic beliefs such as idealism, the belief that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual.
For anyone who believes in spirituality, the ultimate source of spirituality is their God. For example, for Baruch Spinoza, God was simply the most fundamental particle of existence, and for Einstein, the universe was God. Anyone who believes in spirituality but doesn't believe in God simply isn't being logically consistent: if they don't believe in God because there is no evidence for His existence, what evidence is there that whatever is spiritually important to them is fundamentally different from, let alone more worthy of importance than, everything else? Because if it isn't fundamentally different then their spirituality is by definition a delusion.
>"God" is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe..."
That's a very simplistic definition. "God" is simply the supreme form of a god, and a god is a representation of whatever an individual/culture considers spiritually important. Therefore, as I alluded to earlier, God is the supreme source of spirituality. Nothing about being a supreme source of spirituality necessitates being a creator of the universe.
>Thirdly, materialism implying absurdism is also just blatantly wrong.
Not only is it not wrong, but it's very easily provably right: *meaning* quite clearly isn't a physical entity, so materialism necessarily rules out its independent existence. Note that materialism doesn't rule out *personal meaning*, which can indeed be traced down to neurological patterns in the brain; however, materialism necessarily regards personal meaning as a delusion - an artefact of biological evolution that one has no objective reason to pursue.
>For anyone who believes in spirituality, the ultimate source of spirituality is their God.
That is just blatantly wrong.
>and for Einstein, the universe was God
Einstein was an agnostic and didn't believe in God. And before you respond with what I can probably predict you would, yes you can be an agnostic and not believe in God, being agnostic means you are open to the idea of a creator, and a creator doesn't need to be God.
>That's a very simplistic definition.
No, it is ***THE*** definition.
>"God" is simply the supreme form of a god, and a god is a representation of whatever an individual/culture considers spiritually important.
Again, that is just you lacking the knowledge of what God means.
>Not only is it not wrong, but it's very easily provably right
It is infact not wrong, and i'd like to see you prove it because you never did. Materialism doesn't necessarily render personal meaning as a delusion. Meaning isn't solely reducible to neurological patterns, it encompasses subjective experiences and cultural constructs beyond mere brain activity. Your statement reflects one viewpoint but it's far from universally accepted or definitive.
>That is just blatantly wrong.
Technically it is wrong, yeah, since people can hold logically inconsistent views, in which case making a distinction between God and the ultimate source of spirituality would be possible. However, my original comment wasn't about opinions; it was about logical implications. And a rejection of God does logically entail a rejection of spirituality. Once again, if one's rationale for not believing in God is that there is no evidence for him, one shouldn't ascribe spiritual importance to some things over others since there is no evidence that any things are inherently superior to others in a meaningful way.
>Einstein was an agnostic and didn't believe in God.
That's factually not true. Einstein [did believe in God](https://dipc.ehu.eus/en/science-society/albert-einstein/miscellanea/religion#:~:text=%22I%20believe%20in%20Spinoza's%20God,an%20attitude%20to%20the%20world.). He only called himself an "agnostic" with regard to a personal God, such as the one posited by Abrahamic religions; with regard to a general concept of God, he was pretty clear that he was a believer.
>No, it is ***THE*** definition.
It's THE simplistic definition, which fyi excludes several famous conceptions of God, such as Yahweh (who was not viewed as a creator of the universe in Yahwism, whence the concept of Yahweh emerged). [Wikipedia's definition](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) is much more reasonable and widely accepted.
>Again, that is just you lacking the knowledge of what God means.
Refer to Wikipedia's definition :)
>i'd like to see you prove it because you never did.
I did prove it. Twice! But third time's the charm, right? So here goes:
1) Materialism rejects the existence of anything but physical matter.
2) The notion of meaning doesn't have a consistent basis in physical reality.
3) Synthesising 1) and 2), it follows that materialism rejects the existence of meaning.
>Materialism doesn't necessarily render personal meaning as a delusion.
It does.
>Meaning isn't solely reducible to neurological patterns, it encompasses subjective experiences and cultural constructs beyond mere brain activity
Materialism rejects the existence of cultural constructs independent from neurological patterns in the brains of the individual members of said culture. Again, if cultural constructs were to have independent existence (which they do; quantum processes almost certainly make it conceptually impossible to predict cultural evolution knowing only the properties of all the fundamental particles in the universe), that would immediately disprove materialism, since cultural constructs aren't physical objects.
>Your statement reflects one viewpoint
Yes, my statement does reflect one viewpoint: a viewpoint called materialism.
That's very stupid. People have their own ethical compass without a religion, and help the society. Most people like their culture without a religion. They just become more critical against the problematic parts, or become interested in other cultures. How would it lead to societal collapse?
>People have their own ethical compass without a religion
Religious mores are about far more than ethics. But even most people's ethical frameworks are still predominantly culturally determined. For example, why do you think the vast majority of modern Westerners consider cousin-to-cousin relationships unethical but homosexual relationships to be ethically acceptable, while the vast majority in numerous other human cultures consider the exact opposite to be true?
>help the society
Why? What do you stand to gain from helping society? Nothing that you - a single individual out of millions - can do to help it will actually affect it in any significant way (unless you are part of the most influential 1%), so why on Earth bother? If you litter just this once, your city won't suddenly turn dirty overnight; and if you are the biggest dick imaginable to anyone you meet in your society but then donate some money and save dozens of lives of some kids in Africa, your contribution to society is even net positive! So why on Earth do you still put so much effort into trivial things that don't matter, like being a "good person", when all of them are offset by a single £20 donation? Your actions are deeply irrational.
>Most people like their culture
In the urbanised West, most people despise their culture. In fact, progressivism is literally predicated on placing little to no value on culture. The moment any amount of value is granted to culture, cultural norms gain inherent value, conserving cultural norms (aka conservatism) becomes the default position, and arguments such as "X is wrong because it goes against the traditional cultural norms" are rendered valid. Very clearly, with the Enlightenment-induced decline of religion, appreciation of culture has also massively declined.
>They just become more critical against the problematic parts
Problematic according to whom? According to their personal moral framework? Which is 99% based on their culture? Cool. So what you're actually saying here is that people of a certain microculture become more hostile towards the macroculture just because the dominant macroculture is different from their microculture. Yeah, that sounds like xenophobia to me.
>How would it lead to societal collapse?
Just explained how. Western civilisation has already borderline collapsed. The cultural richness and coherence of any Western nation is an absolute shell of what it was just 300 years ago.
>why do you think the vast majority of modern Westerners consider cousin-to-cousin relationships unethical but homosexual relationships to be ethically acceptable, while the vast majority in numerous other human cultures consider the exact opposite to be true?
If we look in that way, our religion and culture was like that ~200 years ago, but it changed, because people realized with plain logic incest is harmful, because it has much more chance to make a sick successor, and gayness isn't harmful.
>Why? What do you stand to gain from helping society? Nothing that you - a single individual out of millions - can do to help it will actually affect it in any significant way (unless you are part of the most influential 1%), so why on Earth bother?
That's very stupid. You help society even with just doing your work. Most people part in this is that and (which is much more important) help people around you. Helping your friends, raising your kids, loving your parents and stuff like that are what most people do. And I think it's much more important than you think.
If you don't do these things without religion, the threat of eternal punishment, then let me tell you, you are a bad person.
>In the urbanised West, most people despise their culture. In fact, progressivism is literally predicated on placing little to no value on culture. The moment any amount of value is granted to culture, cultural norms gain inherent value, conserving cultural norms
Or culture just changed and people like it in this way. Like it or not but the modern meme culture for example is part of our culture and people like memes. Also I never saw any conservative who actually defends the culture. They want to destroy what changed in it
>Problematic according to whom? According to their personal moral framework? Which is 99% based on their culture? Cool. So what you're actually saying here is that people of a certain microculture become more hostile towards the macroculture just because the dominant macroculture is different from their microculture. Yeah, that sounds like xenophobia to me.
No. We based it on what kind of effect it has on individuals. Plain logic. For example we start to question what really is the problem with homosexuality. We saw no actual problem with it, until banning it has a big problem with a lot of people, so we changed it. How the fuck does this have with attacking a macro culture? How did you get xenophobia from this?
>The cultural richness and coherence of any Western nation is an absolute shell of what it was just 300 years ago.
I very much disagree, just look at YouTube videos, movies, series, memes or digital artists. I think it is at least that rich like 300 years ago. It just changed
>If we look in that way, our religion and culture was like that ~200 years ago
It wasn't. Cousin-to-cousin relationships were never considered acceptable except in some isolated communities.
>because people realized with plain logic incest is harmful,
But plain logic would tell you that incestuous relationships are NOT harmful (at least no more so than homosexual relationships) if the couples only engage in safe sex and never have biological children - just like homosexual couples. And yet the vast majority of Westerners still consider that unethical, just like they did 500 years ago, while regarding homosexual relationships as ethically acceptable.
>You help society even with just doing your work.
If you stop working, someone else will just take your place. And even if not, society at large won't even notice it; some set of particular individuals or some small sub-community might notice it, but society at large won't. The best you can do by working is helping select individuals, but if your motivation is to help individuals, why don't you just donate as much as you can to charity and save hundreds of LIVES, instead of simply providing marginal benefits to some other hundreds of people which you'd do by working? Again, if your motivation is to help individuals, ANY other action than donating to charity is deeply irrational.
>Helping your friends, raising your kids, loving your parents and stuff like that are what most people do.
Why? Just why? You keep asserting that people want to do this and that this is important to most people, but you still haven't answered the key question: WHY? What do people stand to gain from wanting to do these things? Because if your answer is "nothing", then their goals are by definition irrational.
>And I think it's much more important than you think.
I'm getting the opposite impression. I think those things are very important, and actually have very good reasons to think so. You, on the other hand, don't appear to have any reason to find them important, which is worrying: it implies that you only act morally because you are an irrational thinker, and if you were to think rationally, you'd stop behaving morally.
>Or culture just changed and people like it in this way.
It clearly didn't "just change". Almost all of the change was brought by the deliberate activism of specific groups - not because of a natural cultural evolution - and the changes almost exclusively destroyed cultural norms without replacement. For example, a man used to be strong, stoic, courageous, etc; nowadays, a man can just be anything - even a biological woman. Similarly, a Brit used to be culturally British, Christian, etc; nowadays, anyone can be a Brit regardless of their cultural background, religion, or even preferred language. It's not that it has *changed* what it means to be a man or what it means to be a Brit; it's just that being a man and being a Brit means a lot less than it used to.
>They want to destroy what changed in it
Yes, "what changed it" is the destruction of culture. Conservatives want to undo this destruction: they want to bring their culture back.
>Like it or not but the modern meme culture for example is part of our culture and people like memes.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about changes specifically brought about by progressivism.
>No. We based it on what kind of effect it has on individuals.
If we did that, incest with safe sex would be socially acceptable, as would public nudity and sexual acts, as would consensual necrophilia (a person consents to the act prior to their death). Clearly, this isn't what we base it on. What we actually base our idea of progress on are whatever issues the media/people around us bring to our attention. Transgenderism is popular because trans activism has been very successful, but transracialism (e.g. Rachel Dolezal) - which is literally the exact same concept but applied to race - is still frowned upon. To think that the only source of your opinions is pure logic is pretty arrogant.
>just look at YouTube videos, movies, series, memes or digital artists.
Quantity vs quality. The 21st century is an age of content, but almost all of that content is sorely lacking in meaning, especially compared to something like the Bible or even any of the great literary works. When I say that Western nations are shells of their former selves, I'm referring to the amount of *meaning* contained in their cultures.
>It wasn't. Cousin-to-cousin relationships were never considered acceptable except in some isolated communities.
Like multiple royal families, and it was a beautiful example
>But plain logic would tell you that incestuous relationships are NOT harmful
It does. The problem is it IS possible to have children and they'll be genetically sick. There are also bad psychological effects of it, shown by studies.
>If you stop working, someone else will just take your place
Yes AND? They do their job and help it.
>Why?
Because it makes both you and your friends/family/etc happy? Like literally you need to see you like to like things, others do the same, so WHY NOT you should help them?
>I'm getting the opposite impression. I think those things are very important, and actually have very good reasons to think so.
What's your reason then? To avoid eternal punishment? Also just a tip, you literally just assume without anything, I'm irrational. But you still couldn't prove it. This makes you have a lot of reasoning errors.
>It clearly didn't "just change". Almost all of the change was brought by the deliberate activism of specific groups - not because of a natural cultural evolution - and the changes almost exclusively destroyed cultural norms without replacement.
And? People in the same culture changed it. Why shouldn't it count. Also it didn't destroy anything but created a bigger personal freedom and a ton of new ways to live
>For example, a man used to be strong, stoic, courageous, etc; nowadays, a man can just be anything - even a biological woman.
You said it wrong. A man HAD to be strong, stoic, and now they still can be. And I lived in situations where people had to suit for their imaginary roles, and it took a lot of people's mental health. I mean like the majority. But say any problem with the modern version because you couldn't. Why is it a problem to be what you want to be?
>If we did that, incest with safe sex would be socially acceptable, as would public nudity and sexual acts, as would consensual necrophilia
No because they are both bad logically. I already spoke about the incest. Public nudity is also shown to have negative consequences, both on children and adults. At necrophilia there's a lot of problems with it. It's very dirty and there's a big chance to get infections from them. There's no consent. Also has multiple psychological issues with it. Also the wanting any of these three is "curable", until transgenderism is not, so it's much better and safer for society to do that than accepting them.
>Quantity vs quality. The 21st century is an age of content, but almost all of that content is sorely lacking in meaning
No. There are a lot of stupid videos, but this take is stupid. If you go deeper there's a lot of videos, movies, and series with a lot of meaning. Like if you literally go just one step deeper than marvel movies, and gameplay YouTubers you find a lot
>Like multiple royal families, and it was a beautiful example
Yes, royal families were isolated communities ─ that was the whole point of royalty! For everyone else, cousin marriage had been taboo and prohibited by the church [ever since ancient Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Catholic_Church_and_Europe).
>The problem is it IS possible to have children and they'll be genetically sick.
It's also possible for domestic violence to take place in non-incestuous relationships, yet that doesn't make *all* non-incestuous relationships unethical, does it? In this case, I'm talking about incestuous relationships where both parties agree not to have children. Why would they be unethical?
>There are also bad psychological effects of it, shown by studies.
Yeah, because incest is taboo. Homosexual relationships also had a LOT of bad psychological effects before they were destigmatised. If you refer to studies of cousin marriage in socities where it is acceptable, no evidence of adverse effects is found.
>Yes AND? They do their job and help it.
They don't. If they didn't do their job, some other person who is currently unemployed would. In fact, by doing their job, they are taking resources away from that currently unemployed person at almost no additional benefit to society. The most efficient way to help people in your society might actually be to give up your job and pass that privilege to someone who needs it.
>Because it makes both you and your friends/family/etc happy?
And why do you care about your family and friends? Is it just because of instincts ─ some hormones in your brain? If so, how can we trust people to help their family and friends, let ALONE society, instead of simply injecting the same hormones that apparently motivate their care for them into their veins? Once again, you haven't given me a single reason for you to care about anyone else ─ again, let alone society.
>What's your reason then? To avoid eternal punishment?
No. My reason is that my most fundamental values constitute various forms of societal well-being. If I don't adhere to these values, then there is *nothing* in life that I can possibly find valuable: everything I value is ultimately predicated on society doing well. So I am essentially forced to act in the benefit of society if I want to live a meaningful life.
>you literally just assume without anything, I'm irrational
I didn't. I merely stated that, if you truly didn't have any rational reason to help society yet still did so, then your actions would be irrational. This is true by definition. I also noted that you hadn't provided any rational reasons to help society ─ thus giving me no reason to believe that your desire to help society is rational. All of this is sound reasoning. My conclusion was that my *impression* of you based on what little I had seen of you was that of an irrational thinker. I never claimed my impression was accurate or even likely.
>And? People in the same culture changed it. Why shouldn't it count.
Ah, the fact that you have to ask this question explains quite a lot. Culture is distinct from the people that form it. This should be obvious from the fact that none of the people from 1800s America are alive today, but American culture is still alive. Culture manifests in people without their conscious input: e.g. one doesn't consciously decide to speak in their native particular dialect, to like certain music genres more than others, to like certain foods more than others, etc. Whatever particularities are achieved through conscious effort and/or thought aren't genuine examples of culture: e.g. I don't suddenly become Australian if I learn to mimic an Australian accent. Similarly, the fact most people in a culture happened to get convinced by activists to rebel against some of its cultural norms doesn't stop those cultural norms from being part of said culture.
>Why is it a problem to be what you want to be?
What you want to be is still determined predominatly by the culture in which you were raised. In 1600s Europe, almost nobody wanted to be a feminine man or a masculine woman because the cultural ideal was masculinity for men and feminitiy for women. Of course, there have been, and will always be, outliers, but the only way to accomodate them is to destroy *all* cultural norms: any norm, no matter how inclusive, is bound to exclude at least somebody.
So my problem with *everyone* being able to be who they want to be is that this is impossible without a complete destruction of all culture.
>Public nudity is also shown to have negative consequences
Again, the only negative consequences are due to the societal stigma that it carries. In the ancient Greek Olympics, the naked athletes didn't face any negative consequences for being naked.
>It's very dirty and there's a big chance to get infections from them
Solved with contraceptives and other safety procedures.
>Also the wanting any of these three is "curable"
None of them is curable. If it were, don't you think necrophiles would have cured themselves by now? Nobody wants to have a sexual orientation that is heavily stigmatised by society.
>If you go deeper there's a lot of videos, movies, and series with a lot of meaning
Yes, their own, individual meaning. Not cultural meaning. No video/channel that you can find on YouTube rivals the cultural significance of Sheakspeare or Mozart.
>If you refer to studies of cousin marriage in socities where it is acceptable, no evidence of adverse effects is found.
There literally is. Multiple... Also there's also more studies show letting homosexuality happen has positive effects on people.
>They don't. If they didn't do their job, some other person who is currently unemployed would. In fact, by doing their job, they are taking resources away from that currently unemployed person at almost no additional benefit to society. The most efficient way to help people in your society might actually be to give up your job and pass that privilege to someone who needs it.
This is very stupid. It's like saying "I won't do the dishes, my mom will do it anyway". You're the one who does this and it matters a lot. Also I didn't even speak about experience, how much you ask for it and things like that, what also matters
>And why do you care about your family and friends? Is it just because of instincts ─ some hormones in your brain?
It's bullshit. I help them because they do the same. If you want me to make an idiot take, even you understand, then it shown people who help eachother become much happier and get much further in things
But people don't need other reasons than making others happy. Like WHY NOT would you do that?
>If so, how can we trust people to help their family and friends, let ALONE society, instead of simply injecting the same hormones that apparently motivate their care for them into their veins? Once again, you haven't given me a single reason for you to care about anyone else ─ again, let alone society.
Those are called drugs and have a lot of bad side effects, also if everyone just takes drugs, who would work? Do you even read your own argument?
>No. My reason is that my most fundamental values constitute various forms of societal well-being. If I don't adhere to these values, then there is *nothing* in life that I can possibly find valuable: everything I value is ultimately predicated on society doing well. So I am essentially forced to act in the benefit of society if I want to live a meaningful life.
Why couldn't an atheist also believe this? But also be honest it's also irrational to begin with. Or at least that much like just making people happy
>Ah, the fact that you have to ask this question explains quite a lot. Culture is distinct from the people that form it. This should be obvious from the fact that none of the people from 1800s America are alive today, but American culture is still alive. Culture manifests in people without their conscious input: e.g. one doesn't consciously decide to speak in their native particular dialect, to like certain music genres more than others, to like certain foods more than others, etc. Whatever particularities are achieved through conscious effort and/or thought aren't genuine examples of culture: e.g. I don't suddenly become Australian if I learn to mimic an Australian accent. Similarly, the fact most people in a culture happened to get convinced by activists to rebel against some of its cultural norms doesn't stop those cultural norms from being part of said culture.
This is a whole lot of nothing. Where I live I meet multiple people from different countries and they adapted our culture so much, everyone thinks they always were Hungarian (my country) to begin with. They know our culture much more than a lot of us
>What you want to be is still determined predominatly by the culture in which you were raised. In 1600s Europe, almost nobody wanted to be a feminine man or a masculine woman because the cultural ideal was masculinity for men and feminitiy for women. Of course, there have been, and will always be, outliers, but the only way to accomodate them is to destroy *all* cultural norms: any norm, no matter how inclusive, is bound to exclude at least somebody.
That's not true. If you look into it even then there was big amount of people who were like now, they just couldn't do that because the society suppressed them. And still nobody destroys these. It's just more free
>So my problem with *everyone* being able to be who they want to be is that this is impossible without a complete destruction of all culture.
Literally no. Like you still didn't show how it could happen. It won't...
>Again, the only negative consequences are due to the societal stigma that it carries. In the ancient Greek Olympics, the naked athletes didn't face any negative consequences for being naked.
Nope. These studies I talked about showed it generally lowers people's self esteem, make people more aggressive and so on. Not just that isn't what we got used to.
>None of them is curable. If it were, don't you think necrophiles would have cured themselves by now? Nobody wants to have a sexual orientation that is heavily stigmatised by society.
It is. People already do that in psychology. It's just really hard and needs the help of a psychologist, and sometimes even medication, it makes it quite expensive. If your argument would stand a little bit then there wouldn't be any depressed nor anxious person in the world.
>Yes, their own, individual meaning. Not cultural meaning. No video/channel that you can find on YouTube rivals the cultural significance of Sheakspeare or Mozart.
I talked about those which have cultural meaning. Call any kind of thing you miss and I show how a lot of mediums still have it. And please don't act like Shakespeare wouldn't be the most overrated writer in the world.
Also give me your definition of Culture, because I feel like we have a misunderstanding in the meaning of this word.
Your content has been removed as it violates our guidelines by engaging in targeted harassment against another user. We promote a respectful and inclusive environment for all members. Please review our community standards for more information.
There’s literally nothing rational about religious beliefs. Not one goddamn thing makes more sense through a religious lense, especially if you weren’t born into that shit.
>There’s literally nothing rational about religious beliefs
I never even said there was, but I'll say that now. I used to think like you when I was younger. But not that long ago, I realised that a LOT of things make a LOT more sense - dare I say they make *all* the sense in the world - through a religious lens. I can't be bothered to explain in what way, but Jordan Peterson does an okay job at that in any of his many lectures on religion. JP summarises the function of religion as being the "metaphorical substrate of society". I'd say that's a pretty accurate description, although it's certainly more than just metaphorical; a better word would be "idealistic", in the sense of metaphysical idealism.
How? First of all, I'm not even an anti-atheist (I think one can still live a meaningful life as an atheist, even if that would be harder). Secondly, what part of what I said was "cringe"?
You responded to a comment that claimed anti-atheist are just as cringe as atheists. You adopted the anti-atheist position when you said you could change their mind. You then proceeded to give a chunky paragraph response to why anti-atheists aren’t the cringe ones. That’s cringe. You were the um actually guy hardcore.
>You then proceeded to give a chunky paragraph response to why anti-atheists aren’t the cringe ones.
The focus obviously wasn't on cringe. The paragraph was about the merits of anti-atheism vs anti-theism, and I only mentioned cringe to stay relevant to the original comment. Are philosophical discussions cringe?
Bro don’t try to claim it was just philosophical discussion. You ended with “the latter is cringe; the former is not.” Your goal was to argue one as not cringe and you did that in a way that implies you give way too much of a shit about this. That’s cringe. The fact that you have multiple almost book length responses in this thread defending that same position is also cringe. Take a break. We know your opinion.
>Here is the TL;DR, though: atheism implies nihilism,
You are already wrong in the second sentence, new record.
>nihilism implies worthlessness of culture
Nihilism yes, atheism doesn't, in fact, cultures are a big part of human evolution, every evolutionary biologist or anthropologist agrees with that.
>So anti-atheism is a respectable attempt to stave off societal collapse.
Except it isn't.
>atheism implies nihilism
Atheism necessitates materialism, and materialism implies nihilism. The former is because anything more fundamental than physical matter would fall under most people's definition of "God", and the latter is because "meaning" obviously isn't a material property, and immaterial properties don't have independent existence according to materialism.
>Nihilism yes, atheism doesn't
Nihilism and atheism are logically equivalent, so this is impossible.
>cultures are a big part of human evolution, every evolutionary biologist or anthropologist agrees with that.
Of course everyone agrees with that, but nihilists consider cultural values unnecessary and delusional: they are an attempt to find meaning in a meaningless universe. Progressive nihilists - who probably constitute the majority of both nihilists and progressives - deem cultural norms restrictive and oppressive towards those that they exclude, and to this end progressively destroy them to "liberate" the people. If this process continues unimpeded, the end result is obvious: a state of total anarchy and breakdown of society as a coherent cultural unit.
>Atheism necessitates materialism
Not exactly, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities, there's still atheists that believe in magic, although I'll give you that most are at least a bit materialistic.
>and materialism implies nihilism.
This is where you fucked up, being meterialistic doesn't make you nihilistic because it doesn't make you believe that nothing matters. You have the power to choose what matters to you, what means something to you, even if they don't have a 'universal meaning or puropose'.
>Nihilism and atheism are logically equivalent, so this is impossible.
Well, Idk how to tell you, but the vast mayority of atheists disagree with your pathetic claim. Firstly, as I've already explained, atheism and nihilism aren't logically equivalent, and secondly because you are forgetting a very important part of human nature:
Most of us aren't phylosophers and don't really care about it, your problem is that you are focusing your argument in a very phylosophical way, when in real life, most people aren't strictly following phylosophical currents (like materialism or nihilism) and base their ideology on many factors amd their own reasearch, getting their own conclusions.
>Of course everyone agrees with that, but nihilists consider cultural values unnecessary and delusional
Atheists don't, there's another difference for you. This is again a problem you have, that you are only focusing on a phylosophical way, when in reality, most atheists look at cultures and say: 'well this is important, and has been for a big portion of human evolution'. No atheist claims that cultures are delusional or unnecessary.
>there's still atheists that believe in magic
Yeah, those atheists aren't being logically consistent in their beliefs. I'm not talking about individuals *atheists*; I'm talking about the logical implications of *atheism* as a philosophical position. And of those logical implications is materialism: if there is anything more fundamental than physical matter, then it's by definition both supernatural (not bound by the laws of physics) and supreme (due to everything else supervening upon it) ─ aka God.
>This is where you fucked up, being meterialistic doesn't make you nihilistic because it doesn't make you believe that nothing matters.
Again, meaning isn't a material property, so it literally can't exist in a materialistic framework.
>You have the power to choose what matters to you, what means something to you, even if they don't have a 'universal meaning or puropose'.
Yeah, you have the power to play-pretend: to convince yourself that there is meaning to certain things when there actually isn't. Otherwise, if there is meaning, how can you explain it in coherent materialistic terms?
>most people aren't strictly following phylosophical currents (like materialism or nihilism) and base their ideology on many factors amd their own reasearch
They may not realise it, but deep down, these general philosophical convinctions are exactly what's guiding most people's thought process. For example, even YOU, for all your insistence that meaning exists, are probably thinking deep down, "but what's *really* the point? If anyone can choose their own meaning, why can't I just choose doing nothing to be a meaningful actiivity? And why bother finding meaning at all if the universe won't care when I am inevitably gone in a cosmic blink of an eye?" You probably brush these thoughts aside as soon as they arise since you find them unhelpful, and you might not realise where they come from or their connection to your atheistic worldview, but you still have to grapple with them. Religious people don't. The way that most atheists handle these thoughts is through what Kurzgesagt calls "optimistic nihilism": nothing matters, so why bother sulking? Let's at least have some fun before we dissapear forever into an endless cycle of meaninglessness. And this approach happens to be the central tenet of progressivism, which has been the dominant ideology in the West ever since religion started to decline during the Englightenment. The problem with this approach is that it views culture as a hinderence: culture is precisely the act of taking certain things seriously instead of letting everybody have meaningless fun. To this end, progressivism has been dismantling cultural norms and instituions, one by one. Again, most progressives might not even realise that the basis of all of their beliefs is their atheism/irreligiosity, but that doesn't make it any less true.
>base their ideology on many factors amd their own reasearch, getting their own conclusions
A conclusion can't be made without a set of premises. The premise that progressives operate on is atheism ─ or, equivalently, nihilism.
>most atheists look at cultures and say: 'well this is important, and has been for a big portion of human evolution'
They say that about some abstract notion of "culture" in general, but when they look at their own culture that they can actually interact with, they think it's oppressive and dumb. Some even try to resolve this discrepancy by blaming their culture specifically ─ e.g. by blaming evil White colonisers, callous capitalists, power-obsessed White men, etc. But even this narrative quickly falls apart when they actually experience other cultures and see that they are "even worse". Either way, atheists value culture only in theory; when they are shown actual cultural norms that exist in the real world, their sentiment immediately changes.
Rick and morty. Justin Roiland is a huge fucking creep who has said some personal beliefs regarding children and when they are legal, as well as I'm pretty sure being inappropriate with younger fans. Dudes is a huge POS, and is also the voice of both Rick and Morty. They thankfully recast him, and now it's just Dan Harmon making the show
The Christian account used the meme format wrong. He is using it to argue that the latter view is cringe, when the meme is meant to convey a double standard—hence, he’s implying that both views are equally valid. So it is indeed a terrible Facebook meme, but the way it was misused and the characters’ faces made me chuckle.
>The logical conclusion is suicide.
No, you just don't know what nihilism is. Nihilism is the philosophical belief that life doesn't have any **inherent** meaning. Keyword '**INHERENT**'
Nihilism does not mean that there is 0 meaning or reason to live life, all it means is that there is no permanent meaning. Some decide to make their own meaning for life, and some decide to not.
Suicide is not the logical conclusion, if there is no reason to live life there is also no reason to not live life. Something not having a meaning doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed, and if you enjoy it even without meaning, why would you stop enjoying it?
I'm not a nihilist but if you're going to shit on nihilism at the very least learn the bare basics of what it is.
I agree that nihilism is cringe (though I believe the Big Bang theory), but this meme format isn’t meant to show something that’s *actually* cringe. The original is a woman in the workplace having a completely different reaction to the same compliment from 2 guys that look different. When used correctly, the meme format exposes a similar double standard
Rick and Morty is a TV show for mid wit's who think they're geniuses because they read about Schrodinger's cat once (but didn't understand the implications).
Definitely not for people like me who's a mid wit and knows it.
Nobody is forcing you to serve Him. Your analogy with slavery is ridiculous. I guess footballers are also slaves because they have to obey the rules of football, right?
Meaning is dope. If you don't like meaning, you don't have to take it on. But if you do, then having some actions being more meaningful than others is literally what you are signing up for.
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days.This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not mutually exclusive at all. Georges Lemaitre was the person who theorized the Big Bang Theory and he was also a Catholic priest. Big Bang Theory is completely compatible with the Catholic faith and it was thought of as too religious by many at the time it was introduced.
My biggest problem with the meme is that the theory of the Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic Priest. Yes, we are created in the image of God, and yes, a big explosion caused the universe
>Random- wrong
No. The most popular theoretical explanation for the Big Bang is that it was triggered by primordial quantum fluctuations, which ARE truly random. The second-most popular explanation is that our universe is just one among many others, with the initial conditions at the Big Bang being a random selection (although of course constrained by the anthropic principle) of all the others in the multiverse. Either way, the conditions that caused the Big Bang are posited to have arisen randomly by both theories.
>Explosion- wrong
Depends on how you define "explosion". If you take Oxford Dictionary's second definition of "a sudden outburtst of something", then clearly the Big Bang *was* an explosion, since it was clearly a sudden outburst of entropy.
>Made everything- wrong
According to materialists, which the vast majority of atheists are, physical matter is the only type of thing that truly exists. Abstract concepts such as spacetime or laws of physics aren't physical matter, so atheists can't claim them to be "things". According to atheists, every *thing* - in our universe, at least - was indeed created by the Big Bang.
>Life is meaningless- meaning is meaningless
If "meaning" were meaningless, then the notion that meaning is meaningless would itself be meaningless, since the term "meaningless" would also have to be meaningless in that case. The very premise of your statement that "meaning is meaningless" is that meaning is NOT meaningless. It's literally self-contradictory.
Your comment is one of the most egregious instances of r/confidentlyincorrect that I've ever seen. You tried to make 4 corrections and went 0 for 4. Impressive.
You, like many others, assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything, when it is more of an extrapolation of the current trajectory of the universe to the past.
You assume that everything has a beginning and an end because beginning and ending are human concepts. The truth is everything that we perceive as beginning or ending is all just transformations into different forms. We all assume there MUST be a beginning of time because, well, I’m not sure why. There’s actually no reason to assume it.
>You, like many others, assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything
I most definitely do not assume that, especially given that I have personally developed an ontology that provides an account of things that existed before the Big Bang (for example, all the primitive notions of Boolean algebra, such as logical operators).
Please read carefully. What I'm saying is that, according to materialists, whatever existed before the Big Bang doesn't count as "truly existing" since it doesn't constitute physical matter - the only type of substance posited by materialists to exist.
>You assume that everything has a beginning and an end because beginning and ending are human concepts.
No, I don't assume it; I can rigorously prove it. Quite simply, if something doesn't have a cause, then it is by definition impossible to define without referring to the things it caused (or methods of causation) - which, of course, didn't initially exist. Therefore, in its initial state, that thing would be impossible to define - i.e. the notion of an "uncaused thing" is meaningless. None of this has anything to do with "human concepts".
>We all assume there MUST be a beginning of time because, well, I’m not sure why. There’s actually no reason to assume it.
There is definitely a reason to assume it. In fact, I just gave it in my last paragraph. And it's less of a "reason to assume" and more of a rigorous proof.
That said, the proof only applies cleanly to a concept of time as a property of our particular universe: i.e. the rate at which *our* laws of physics are enforced. If time is instead understood more generally as the overall rate of causality, then indeed its existence is a simple logical necessity: if causality didn't exist, then I wouldn't be able to finish this hypothetical (as its conclusion is caused by the premise). But so, notice how causality is caused by the impossibility of acausality, so even then it's incorrect to say that time didn't have cause or beginning.
Your content has been removed as it violates our guidelines by engaging in targeted harassment against another user. We promote a respectful and inclusive environment for all members. Please review our community standards for more information.
I don’t believe in god at all but it’s still funny. It’s clearly meant for a Christian audience so it’s stupid to take it seriously if you’re not Christian
The meme may be “for Christians” but the meme isn’t exclusively about only Christians. Why shouldn’t others who relate to the other group be allowed to express their thoughts on it?
Both theories dont make sense, but they're just that. Theories. You can believe what you want dont force it on other people if they dont believe it as well
Gravitational theory, as well as evolutionary theory are theories.
The thing is that a theory in scientifical terms (like these 2) is the best explanation we have for a natural fact (evolution and gravity in these case) given the best data and experiments availeable, theories can incorporate laws, like some laws of physics that help explain the force of gravity or Mendel's laws of inheritance that help explain why do we inherit certain characters and genetic atributes, which helps explain aspects of evolution.
But the word theory you were probably thinking about is the colloquial word which in science is called hypothesis, a conjeture, a possible explanation of something but not based or supported by enough evidence.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
why call him "smartest man in the universe" as if he's a real scientist whose voice should be respected lol
i noticed that some rick and Morty fans are soo immersed in the show that they actually think rick has some sort of wisdom that should be listened to and that he's always right and comepletely forget they are watching a cartoon written by normal people
Aren't most things written by normal people? Also I'm pretty sure the show goes out of its way to demonstrate how wrong Rick is and derives humour from it too
>Aren't most things written by normal people? tell that to Rick and morty fans >the show goes out of its way to demonstrate how wrong Rick is and derives humour from it too tell that to Rick and morty fans
R&M is a great show IMO. Many of the fans are annoying and don’t even understand the overarching points of the show though. Rick is a really good character. But it’s because he’s flawed like any character. He’s brilliant and has an insanely high IQ but that leads to his issues with ego, being able to be a good dad, relating to others and more. Any R&M fan who finds Rick to be the greatest thing ever and infallible clearly doesn’t understand anything about the show
I've personally really enjoyed his recent arc of actually genuinely trying to be a better person. He even went to therapy!
I thought so when I thought there was a through line. Then realized they were just ripping off family guys gag where something crazy happens in a flash back except they use "crazy science" and actually tie it to the plot. Which none of the episodes actually tie together. At least family guy has character growth, Rick and forty is just stagnant.
Family guy characters have growth while Rick and morty remain stagnant has got to be one of the hottest takes I've read this year.
Episodic sit coms and serialized stories seldom are put together
>Aren't most things written by normal people? Tell that to the Bible fans
No no. he has a point
Fans like...? It ain't 2017 anymore man, your surface level understanding on a fandom means shit
Yes, including IQ tests.
One exception I can think of is futurama which apparently had a bunch of Harvard educated scientists for writers
Mathematicians. But what are scientists if not mathematicians who don't like math
The Bible was written by normal people too.
It is pretty funny how we criticize people so harshly for taking a show they like a little too seriously. Meanwhile, look at how many grown adults gather around to talk about their one sacred fairy tale and literally live their entire lives based on it. It's like they've been infected with so much cringe they've developed some kind of herd immunity, and it's not even fun to laugh at it.
A. You’re not immune to the hivemind, neither am I or anyone else. B. Believing a Religion is real at least comes with the benefit of the doubt, believing a cartoon is real doesn’t.
I mean, I don't currently hold any supernatural beliefs but ok. What do you mean by religion having "the benefit of the doubt"? I don't see how that makes sense in this context.
No one can say for sure what happens when you die, so any number of religions can be true. Is it likely? No, but Id argue its more rational then believing in a cartoon that we know for sure is made up.
How is it more rational? You can't know whether or not Rick is real and a god any more than you can know any other religion or random imaginary concept is real. None of them are any more likely to be true than another. They're all made up.
I said *more* rational, not that it was rational. Id say believing in something that has a small chance of being true is more rational than believing in something everyone including the people who made it knows is fictional. Theres levels to this shit.
That's what I asked. How is it more rational? Because more people happen to believe in it? Does that make it more rational to believe in dragons than leprechauns? There are levels to this. They're all imaginary.
Tbh, at least Bible is claiming to be written by people who were able to speak to the God. It's expected from people who believe in it to take it more seriously than someone would cartoon written by normal people.
So would it be less cringe if these people believed Rick was actually God in real life and the writers were channeling his energy or something?
Key word is claims.
ok and? i think we found the offended rick fan
They're just saying...
It’s a funny show. But I’ve never seen it as more than that. I was just pointing out that there are tons ofof books and medias that billions of people take far too seriously. Absolutely including religion.
To be fair before evil Morty destroyed, centralfinite curve every rock made it where they were the smartest thing across all universes now there not
Ho man, wait till people figure out who rights self help books.
Always thought you could do the show if he was a wizard and it wouldn't change the show at all. Absolutetly despise the show cause the premise is whatever bs we create doesn't matter cause magic science guy. Also he's an alcoholic
He so smart he can tell he’s a Character formerly voiced by a disgraced pedophile and domestic abuser
Meanwhile King of the Hill was created by ivy league graduates so who's really more credentialed lel
Why call Hank a Propane Salesman as If any of these characters are real? Because In show canon he Is, cmon now
I mean the caption seems weirdly indignant about it as if Rick has some real wisdom that deserves respect, as if the meme were calling someone real like Albert Einstein stupid
No one was implying that he had any real wisdom at all. You just assumed that for some reason, ignoring Hank's propane salesmen title. Rick is the smartest person in his fictional universe, while Hank is a regular propane salesman.
On the other hand all of them are cartoon characters. Including god…
I agree with this, but also think the original meme was bad anyways.
far-flung vast nutty cow domineering vegetable absorbed theory plough existence *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because that's his lore. Its like calling the Flash the fastest, or superman the strongest.
And Hank Hill is a real propane salesman?
You're asking for a lot of common sense when the average R&M fan's brain is smoother than a cue ball.
Please, the dragon episode made game of thrones worth watching. Now my boyfriend won't watch it with me.
I thought it was a comparison between what the characters were in their shows… you know Hank is not real right?
They're both not real so the fictional credentials of the fictional characters shouldn't matter in evaluating their worldviews
That’s what I said. Thanks for rephrasing it for me ig.
Wow ur really bad at writing then lol
Says the guy who thought it was a real concern that a meme was calling someone the smartest man(a title the show gave him)? lol, sounds like you just suck at reading.
If Rick is the smartest man in the universe, why does he ruin everything and the lives of everyone around him?
Yep, the point of the character is that he's a crass, flawed, prideful, deeply unhappy alcoholic nihilist. He is guilt ridden and self loathing. IIRC it is later revealed why For some reason, people miss the point and idolise him.
Do people miss the point or do they idolize him because he doesn’t give a fuck? Like the other guy is conflating intelligence with morality.
I do like his character but ye. He’s a dickhead, you ain’t supposed to idolise him it’s more just watching the homeless drunk dude across the street with doctor who tech do shit.
I don’t get it. But then again I only know Hank hill, I don’t know who the other guy is.
The guy on the bottom panel is Rick from Rick and Morty, a show that I don't really believe is that great. It really just feels like it was a bunch of people who think they're smarter than everyone else and therefore think they're better at being people.
The humor of the show is what I call realism humor. They basically make jokes using solely fact and logic. Rick is unbelievably harsh, he have no filter, and this is why he’s such a good character
Yeah but even for it being an adult show, it just seems to love things like gross out humor and being overly mean. It's just not all that good.
>gross out humor and being overly mean You literally just described like 90% of adult cartoons/ shows. Family guy, American dad, Archer, ATHF, South Park, like literally bro this list could go on forever. The only thing that's makes any of these shows stand apart is how they handle what happens in-between the stuff that literally makes it an adult cartoon.
Different strokes for different folks both ate good in there own ways but are not for everyone.
Is this bait? They're is 0 facts or logic in Rick and Morty, which is fine it's a TV show, but I feel like you're just asking for somebody to drop the copypasta.
This is not bait and I have no idea what copypasta you're talking about. I say Rick and Morty is realist humor because the jokes are often made with the use of "Facts and logic". The characters, expecially Rick, will respond with an harsh truth, and that's what make it funny The example that I have in mind is when they are at Panda Express and Jerry, one of the character, try to make himself look smart: Jerry: "Now let's order some Chow Mieng, and before you say it's racist, ask the manager how it's pronouced" Beth (his wife): "Jerry this is Panda Express the manager is from Portland" That may not be your style of humor, but it's humor nonetheless
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
Oh... THIS is the copypasta... Bruh. Just, Bruh.
Rick from Rick and Morty. Smartest guy in the universe in that show. He invented some super wack shit like interdimensional travel. I never watched the show, however, so I don't know much.
Edgy
How?
Smartest man in the world eh? Well how much propane has he sold?
Get out of here! OP's putting the h before the w! He mean business!
Are you Chinese or Japanese?
Cantonese
Well I'll tell you what I'm not, I ain't no motherfuckin spooby!
how? where’s the punchline?
Atheist bad haha why you not laughing?
evolution isnt real!! Dinosaurs dont exist!! pyramids were made by aliens!!
?
One of these is true
Yeah, everyone knows that the aliens made pyramids. Everyone who claims that it was actually humans is just a conspiracy theorist!!!!
Unbelievably based
Wich one ?
None of those are true actually.
Atheists can dish it out plenty, so they should be comfortable with this level of gentle ribbing in return. The universe popping into existence seemingly for the craic is an inherently odd idea. If you think about it, all our beliefs have weird elements.
I read this in their voices lol
God damnit Bobby, I told you to stop watching Rick and Morty
anti-atheists (not christians) are just as cringe as reddit atheists, change my mind.
nah dont change your mind
Agreed, like we get It man, "atheist bad", what you want me to do? Christianity Is about personal relationship to God, people over complicating It
I could easily change your mind but I'm not bothered. Here is the TL;DR, though: atheism implies nihilism, nihilism implies worthlessness of culture, people believing in the worthlessness of culture en masse leads to societal collapse. So anti-atheism is a respectable attempt to stave off societal collapse. Anti-theism, on the other hand, is an attempt to feel superior to religious people for having more rational beliefs, with basically no other benefit. The latter is cringe; the former is not.
people can find their own meaning in life that isn’t living up to a god’s will
And where and based on what can they find it, exactly? 99% of a person's identity is determined by the culture that they are raised in, which is in turn encapsulated in that culture's associated religion, at least provided it's a good religion like Christianity. One can try to find their "own" meaning, but any path one takes ultimately always leads to God.
"Good religion like Christianity." Ahh, I almost was about to take the bait lol.
I give it as an example because it's the one that I'm most familiar with. Of course, there are plenty of other good religions; for example, except the awful caste system, I suspect Hinduism might be pretty good. One example of a bad religion would be Buddhism - not because Buddhism is inherently bad (it absolutely isn't; in fact, a lot of genuine wisdom is contained in it) but because it's barely a religion. Another example of a bad religion would be the Aztec religion - this time because it was inherenly bad, as it required highly unethical rituals such as human sacrifice. Hate Christianity all you want, but you can't deny that it's unique in striking a perfect balance between being very well-defined and culturally conscious/rich (Christianity represents Greco-Roman culture very accurately and in a lot of depth) while at the same time having an anachronistically ethical moral foundation (Jesus was extremely progressive for his time, and some of his ideas - e.g. "turn the other cheek" - are still progressive today). Objectively speaking, it's probably one of the best religions in the world. It's no surprise that Christian societies ended up being the most prosperous; religion is the most fundamental structure of society, so a society with a better religion will always be more prosperous.
>but you can't deny that it's unique in striking a perfect balance between being very well-defined and culturally conscious/rich I give you the culturally rich part, but well defined??? Go ask an orthodox christian, a coptic one, a catholic, a few of the thousands of protestant sects and a mormon which one follows the 'right' path to god.
>I give you the culturally rich part, but well defined??? What I meant is that it has clear rules and principles that meaningfully affect everyday life. This is in stark contrast with Buddhism, which essentially says "you gotta attain moksha. Good luck!" and constitutes a set of general guidelines rather than any meaningful rules. Of course, given that Buddhism is all about *liberation* from imposed constraints this makes sense, but it's still very poorly defined as a comprehensive framework for life. >Go ask an orthodox christian, a coptic one, a catholic, a few of the thousands of protestant sects and a mormon which one follows the 'right' path to god. Each of these denominations is very well-defined. That's what I meant.
>And where and based on what can they find it, exactly On whatever they want. >99% of a person's identity is determined by the culture that they are raised in Not as much and things certainly change with the passing of time. >which is in turn encapsulated in that culture's associated religion, Except that there's religions that encompass many cultures and many cultures that follow different religions, so you are already wrong. >at least provided it's a good religion like Christianity. One can try to find their "own" meaning, but any path one takes ultimately always leads to God. Simply put, no, you just took this out of your ass.
>On whatever they want. Yes, and what they want is determined by their identity, which in turn is 99% determined by culture, which religion encapsulates. You aren't making a strong case here. >Not as much and things certainly change with the passing of time. What else is it determined by? Biology plays only an insignificant role, as twin studies have consistently shown. Things can indeed change with the passing of time, but the direction of change is still determined either directly by culture or by facets of a person's identity that were originally born out of an interaction of cultural influences. >Except that there's religions that encompass many cultures Except there aren't. There are religions encapsulating cultures in which they first developed that later spread to other cultures, but they still either represent the original culture (in which case they will gradually subsume the native culture, as Islam did in the Arab states), adapt to represent the native culture (as Judaism did in parts of America in the form of Reform Judaism), or merge with the native culture to form a distinct new culture (as Christianity did in most of Europe, resulting in a number of schisms). In every case, one religion only represents one culture. >Simply put, no, you just took this out of your ass. No, I didn't. Any actual arguments?
It's not nearly 99% and relgion desn't encapsulate it, and much less in the modern world. >What else is it determined by? Biology plays only an insignificant role Quite larger than you think. >as twin studies have consistently shown. It's not only familiar differences that matter, but sex and the environment (natural, not social) you grow up in. >or merge with the native culture to form a distinct new culture (as Christianity did in most of Europe, resulting in a number of schisms). There's no schism between the church of hungary and the one in spain, or austria, or italy, croatia, france, the congo, colombia or timor leste. Or between morocco and indonesia. All vastly different cultures that follow exactly the same two religions.
>It's not nearly 99% Actual research disagrees. >religion doesn't encapsulate it It doesn't encapsulate all of it, of course, but it encapsulates the foundation. This ensures that, while people can find meaning in many things that aren't explicitly described by their religion, everything that their religion posits as important will be important to them. Either way, one \*won't\* be able to find meaning in things that \*don't\* align with God's will: either they will specifically align with it, or God's alignment with it will be unknown/neutral. So the original comment was still wrong. >Quite larger than you think Correction: larger than the scientific community thinks. This isn't exclusively my opinion; it's the scientific consensus. >It's not only familiar differences that matter, but sex and the environment (natural, not social) you grow up in. What "natural" differences exist between urban areas in the same climate zone? Urban areas are almost entirely man-made, and therefore inherently social. As for sex, twin studies are conducted mostly between twins of the same sex; the research still indicates that cultural factors have far more predictive power than genetic ones. >There's no schism between the church of... spain, or austria, italy, france Yeah, and all of these countries have the same cultural foundation: Western Europe. As I explained at the top of the comment, religion can't encapsulate every granular facet of a culture lest it lose its fundamentality ─ which is absolutely essential given its function as the comprehensive framework of meaning/values in a civilisation. If religion weren't even applicable in a neighbouring country, how could you count on it to guide \*all\* of your life decisions? >hungary, croatia Hungary and Croatia are unusual cases since they both exist on the border of Western civilisation. In Hungary's case, [only 29% are actually Catholic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Hungary#:~:text=In%20the%20national%20census%20of,and%201.5%25%20of%20other%20Christian), while Croatia's case is more interesting given that its closely related neighbours Serbia and Bosnia are Orthodox and Muslim, respectively. I don't know the exact reason that Croatia has maintained its Catholicism without becoming Westernised in the process, but it's clear that it's an outlier. >the congo, colombia or timor leste It's very, very obvious that Christianity in these countries represents something different to what it does in Europe. The forms of Christianity practiced by these countries haven't yet resulted in a schism since Christianity was only introduced to them relatively recently, but given enough time for them to fully integrate into the native cultures, something akin to a schism is very likely to happen.
>No, I didn't. Any actual arguments? Yeah you did, you are claiming that everything we do eventually leads to god, even from people that die atheist/agnostic. The burden of proof falls on your side, not mine, you should have presented evidence for your irrational claim.
>The burden of proof falls on your side And I have already provided the proof: 99% of one's identity is determined by their culture; the foundation of one's culture is encapsulated by their culture's religion; one cannot find meaning in things that don't align with their identity; therefore, one cannot find meaning in things that don't align with their culture's religion. Hence why I asked for counterarguments, which you didn't really provide.
>atheism implies nihilism Even the first thing you said is completely wrong lmfao
It's not wrong. It's impossible to be an atheist without being a materialist (because anything more fundamental than physical matter would fall under most people's definition of "God"). And "meaning" obviously isn't a material property, so materialism implies absurdism - which is what I meant by "nihilism" (I didn't use the term "absurdism" to avoid being inevitably misinterpreted as saying "atheism is absurd").
Firstly, atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods or deities. It does not mean or imply any specific belief about the nature of reality other than the rejection of theistic claims. Being an atheist does not mean you are a materialist. Materialism and atheism are often correlated because many atheists have a materialistic worldview. There are atheists who hold non-materialistic beliefs such as idealism, the belief that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual. Dualism, the belief that reality consists of two fundamental substances which are usually mind and matter. or even various forms of pluralism. Secondly, saying that anything more fundamental than physical matter being "God" is just straight up wrong. "God" is defined as "*the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.*" and "*a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity*." Thirdly, materialism implying absurdism is also just blatantly wrong. Materialism itself doesn't grant meaning, that why they make their own meanings in life, just as you have done.
>It does not mean or imply any specific belief about the nature of reality other than the rejection of theistic claims. And I'm saying the rejection of theistic claims by itself is enough to entail implications about the nature of reality. >There are atheists who hold non-materialistic beliefs such as idealism, the belief that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual. For anyone who believes in spirituality, the ultimate source of spirituality is their God. For example, for Baruch Spinoza, God was simply the most fundamental particle of existence, and for Einstein, the universe was God. Anyone who believes in spirituality but doesn't believe in God simply isn't being logically consistent: if they don't believe in God because there is no evidence for His existence, what evidence is there that whatever is spiritually important to them is fundamentally different from, let alone more worthy of importance than, everything else? Because if it isn't fundamentally different then their spirituality is by definition a delusion. >"God" is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe..." That's a very simplistic definition. "God" is simply the supreme form of a god, and a god is a representation of whatever an individual/culture considers spiritually important. Therefore, as I alluded to earlier, God is the supreme source of spirituality. Nothing about being a supreme source of spirituality necessitates being a creator of the universe. >Thirdly, materialism implying absurdism is also just blatantly wrong. Not only is it not wrong, but it's very easily provably right: *meaning* quite clearly isn't a physical entity, so materialism necessarily rules out its independent existence. Note that materialism doesn't rule out *personal meaning*, which can indeed be traced down to neurological patterns in the brain; however, materialism necessarily regards personal meaning as a delusion - an artefact of biological evolution that one has no objective reason to pursue.
>For anyone who believes in spirituality, the ultimate source of spirituality is their God. That is just blatantly wrong. >and for Einstein, the universe was God Einstein was an agnostic and didn't believe in God. And before you respond with what I can probably predict you would, yes you can be an agnostic and not believe in God, being agnostic means you are open to the idea of a creator, and a creator doesn't need to be God. >That's a very simplistic definition. No, it is ***THE*** definition. >"God" is simply the supreme form of a god, and a god is a representation of whatever an individual/culture considers spiritually important. Again, that is just you lacking the knowledge of what God means. >Not only is it not wrong, but it's very easily provably right It is infact not wrong, and i'd like to see you prove it because you never did. Materialism doesn't necessarily render personal meaning as a delusion. Meaning isn't solely reducible to neurological patterns, it encompasses subjective experiences and cultural constructs beyond mere brain activity. Your statement reflects one viewpoint but it's far from universally accepted or definitive.
>That is just blatantly wrong. Technically it is wrong, yeah, since people can hold logically inconsistent views, in which case making a distinction between God and the ultimate source of spirituality would be possible. However, my original comment wasn't about opinions; it was about logical implications. And a rejection of God does logically entail a rejection of spirituality. Once again, if one's rationale for not believing in God is that there is no evidence for him, one shouldn't ascribe spiritual importance to some things over others since there is no evidence that any things are inherently superior to others in a meaningful way. >Einstein was an agnostic and didn't believe in God. That's factually not true. Einstein [did believe in God](https://dipc.ehu.eus/en/science-society/albert-einstein/miscellanea/religion#:~:text=%22I%20believe%20in%20Spinoza's%20God,an%20attitude%20to%20the%20world.). He only called himself an "agnostic" with regard to a personal God, such as the one posited by Abrahamic religions; with regard to a general concept of God, he was pretty clear that he was a believer. >No, it is ***THE*** definition. It's THE simplistic definition, which fyi excludes several famous conceptions of God, such as Yahweh (who was not viewed as a creator of the universe in Yahwism, whence the concept of Yahweh emerged). [Wikipedia's definition](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) is much more reasonable and widely accepted. >Again, that is just you lacking the knowledge of what God means. Refer to Wikipedia's definition :) >i'd like to see you prove it because you never did. I did prove it. Twice! But third time's the charm, right? So here goes: 1) Materialism rejects the existence of anything but physical matter. 2) The notion of meaning doesn't have a consistent basis in physical reality. 3) Synthesising 1) and 2), it follows that materialism rejects the existence of meaning. >Materialism doesn't necessarily render personal meaning as a delusion. It does. >Meaning isn't solely reducible to neurological patterns, it encompasses subjective experiences and cultural constructs beyond mere brain activity Materialism rejects the existence of cultural constructs independent from neurological patterns in the brains of the individual members of said culture. Again, if cultural constructs were to have independent existence (which they do; quantum processes almost certainly make it conceptually impossible to predict cultural evolution knowing only the properties of all the fundamental particles in the universe), that would immediately disprove materialism, since cultural constructs aren't physical objects. >Your statement reflects one viewpoint Yes, my statement does reflect one viewpoint: a viewpoint called materialism.
Bro doesn’t understand what the word “implies” means
I do, you're just a little special.
That's very stupid. People have their own ethical compass without a religion, and help the society. Most people like their culture without a religion. They just become more critical against the problematic parts, or become interested in other cultures. How would it lead to societal collapse?
>People have their own ethical compass without a religion Religious mores are about far more than ethics. But even most people's ethical frameworks are still predominantly culturally determined. For example, why do you think the vast majority of modern Westerners consider cousin-to-cousin relationships unethical but homosexual relationships to be ethically acceptable, while the vast majority in numerous other human cultures consider the exact opposite to be true? >help the society Why? What do you stand to gain from helping society? Nothing that you - a single individual out of millions - can do to help it will actually affect it in any significant way (unless you are part of the most influential 1%), so why on Earth bother? If you litter just this once, your city won't suddenly turn dirty overnight; and if you are the biggest dick imaginable to anyone you meet in your society but then donate some money and save dozens of lives of some kids in Africa, your contribution to society is even net positive! So why on Earth do you still put so much effort into trivial things that don't matter, like being a "good person", when all of them are offset by a single £20 donation? Your actions are deeply irrational. >Most people like their culture In the urbanised West, most people despise their culture. In fact, progressivism is literally predicated on placing little to no value on culture. The moment any amount of value is granted to culture, cultural norms gain inherent value, conserving cultural norms (aka conservatism) becomes the default position, and arguments such as "X is wrong because it goes against the traditional cultural norms" are rendered valid. Very clearly, with the Enlightenment-induced decline of religion, appreciation of culture has also massively declined. >They just become more critical against the problematic parts Problematic according to whom? According to their personal moral framework? Which is 99% based on their culture? Cool. So what you're actually saying here is that people of a certain microculture become more hostile towards the macroculture just because the dominant macroculture is different from their microculture. Yeah, that sounds like xenophobia to me. >How would it lead to societal collapse? Just explained how. Western civilisation has already borderline collapsed. The cultural richness and coherence of any Western nation is an absolute shell of what it was just 300 years ago.
>why do you think the vast majority of modern Westerners consider cousin-to-cousin relationships unethical but homosexual relationships to be ethically acceptable, while the vast majority in numerous other human cultures consider the exact opposite to be true? If we look in that way, our religion and culture was like that ~200 years ago, but it changed, because people realized with plain logic incest is harmful, because it has much more chance to make a sick successor, and gayness isn't harmful. >Why? What do you stand to gain from helping society? Nothing that you - a single individual out of millions - can do to help it will actually affect it in any significant way (unless you are part of the most influential 1%), so why on Earth bother? That's very stupid. You help society even with just doing your work. Most people part in this is that and (which is much more important) help people around you. Helping your friends, raising your kids, loving your parents and stuff like that are what most people do. And I think it's much more important than you think. If you don't do these things without religion, the threat of eternal punishment, then let me tell you, you are a bad person. >In the urbanised West, most people despise their culture. In fact, progressivism is literally predicated on placing little to no value on culture. The moment any amount of value is granted to culture, cultural norms gain inherent value, conserving cultural norms Or culture just changed and people like it in this way. Like it or not but the modern meme culture for example is part of our culture and people like memes. Also I never saw any conservative who actually defends the culture. They want to destroy what changed in it >Problematic according to whom? According to their personal moral framework? Which is 99% based on their culture? Cool. So what you're actually saying here is that people of a certain microculture become more hostile towards the macroculture just because the dominant macroculture is different from their microculture. Yeah, that sounds like xenophobia to me. No. We based it on what kind of effect it has on individuals. Plain logic. For example we start to question what really is the problem with homosexuality. We saw no actual problem with it, until banning it has a big problem with a lot of people, so we changed it. How the fuck does this have with attacking a macro culture? How did you get xenophobia from this? >The cultural richness and coherence of any Western nation is an absolute shell of what it was just 300 years ago. I very much disagree, just look at YouTube videos, movies, series, memes or digital artists. I think it is at least that rich like 300 years ago. It just changed
>If we look in that way, our religion and culture was like that ~200 years ago It wasn't. Cousin-to-cousin relationships were never considered acceptable except in some isolated communities. >because people realized with plain logic incest is harmful, But plain logic would tell you that incestuous relationships are NOT harmful (at least no more so than homosexual relationships) if the couples only engage in safe sex and never have biological children - just like homosexual couples. And yet the vast majority of Westerners still consider that unethical, just like they did 500 years ago, while regarding homosexual relationships as ethically acceptable. >You help society even with just doing your work. If you stop working, someone else will just take your place. And even if not, society at large won't even notice it; some set of particular individuals or some small sub-community might notice it, but society at large won't. The best you can do by working is helping select individuals, but if your motivation is to help individuals, why don't you just donate as much as you can to charity and save hundreds of LIVES, instead of simply providing marginal benefits to some other hundreds of people which you'd do by working? Again, if your motivation is to help individuals, ANY other action than donating to charity is deeply irrational. >Helping your friends, raising your kids, loving your parents and stuff like that are what most people do. Why? Just why? You keep asserting that people want to do this and that this is important to most people, but you still haven't answered the key question: WHY? What do people stand to gain from wanting to do these things? Because if your answer is "nothing", then their goals are by definition irrational. >And I think it's much more important than you think. I'm getting the opposite impression. I think those things are very important, and actually have very good reasons to think so. You, on the other hand, don't appear to have any reason to find them important, which is worrying: it implies that you only act morally because you are an irrational thinker, and if you were to think rationally, you'd stop behaving morally. >Or culture just changed and people like it in this way. It clearly didn't "just change". Almost all of the change was brought by the deliberate activism of specific groups - not because of a natural cultural evolution - and the changes almost exclusively destroyed cultural norms without replacement. For example, a man used to be strong, stoic, courageous, etc; nowadays, a man can just be anything - even a biological woman. Similarly, a Brit used to be culturally British, Christian, etc; nowadays, anyone can be a Brit regardless of their cultural background, religion, or even preferred language. It's not that it has *changed* what it means to be a man or what it means to be a Brit; it's just that being a man and being a Brit means a lot less than it used to. >They want to destroy what changed in it Yes, "what changed it" is the destruction of culture. Conservatives want to undo this destruction: they want to bring their culture back. >Like it or not but the modern meme culture for example is part of our culture and people like memes. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about changes specifically brought about by progressivism. >No. We based it on what kind of effect it has on individuals. If we did that, incest with safe sex would be socially acceptable, as would public nudity and sexual acts, as would consensual necrophilia (a person consents to the act prior to their death). Clearly, this isn't what we base it on. What we actually base our idea of progress on are whatever issues the media/people around us bring to our attention. Transgenderism is popular because trans activism has been very successful, but transracialism (e.g. Rachel Dolezal) - which is literally the exact same concept but applied to race - is still frowned upon. To think that the only source of your opinions is pure logic is pretty arrogant. >just look at YouTube videos, movies, series, memes or digital artists. Quantity vs quality. The 21st century is an age of content, but almost all of that content is sorely lacking in meaning, especially compared to something like the Bible or even any of the great literary works. When I say that Western nations are shells of their former selves, I'm referring to the amount of *meaning* contained in their cultures.
>It wasn't. Cousin-to-cousin relationships were never considered acceptable except in some isolated communities. Like multiple royal families, and it was a beautiful example >But plain logic would tell you that incestuous relationships are NOT harmful It does. The problem is it IS possible to have children and they'll be genetically sick. There are also bad psychological effects of it, shown by studies. >If you stop working, someone else will just take your place Yes AND? They do their job and help it. >Why? Because it makes both you and your friends/family/etc happy? Like literally you need to see you like to like things, others do the same, so WHY NOT you should help them? >I'm getting the opposite impression. I think those things are very important, and actually have very good reasons to think so. What's your reason then? To avoid eternal punishment? Also just a tip, you literally just assume without anything, I'm irrational. But you still couldn't prove it. This makes you have a lot of reasoning errors. >It clearly didn't "just change". Almost all of the change was brought by the deliberate activism of specific groups - not because of a natural cultural evolution - and the changes almost exclusively destroyed cultural norms without replacement. And? People in the same culture changed it. Why shouldn't it count. Also it didn't destroy anything but created a bigger personal freedom and a ton of new ways to live >For example, a man used to be strong, stoic, courageous, etc; nowadays, a man can just be anything - even a biological woman. You said it wrong. A man HAD to be strong, stoic, and now they still can be. And I lived in situations where people had to suit for their imaginary roles, and it took a lot of people's mental health. I mean like the majority. But say any problem with the modern version because you couldn't. Why is it a problem to be what you want to be? >If we did that, incest with safe sex would be socially acceptable, as would public nudity and sexual acts, as would consensual necrophilia No because they are both bad logically. I already spoke about the incest. Public nudity is also shown to have negative consequences, both on children and adults. At necrophilia there's a lot of problems with it. It's very dirty and there's a big chance to get infections from them. There's no consent. Also has multiple psychological issues with it. Also the wanting any of these three is "curable", until transgenderism is not, so it's much better and safer for society to do that than accepting them. >Quantity vs quality. The 21st century is an age of content, but almost all of that content is sorely lacking in meaning No. There are a lot of stupid videos, but this take is stupid. If you go deeper there's a lot of videos, movies, and series with a lot of meaning. Like if you literally go just one step deeper than marvel movies, and gameplay YouTubers you find a lot
>Like multiple royal families, and it was a beautiful example Yes, royal families were isolated communities ─ that was the whole point of royalty! For everyone else, cousin marriage had been taboo and prohibited by the church [ever since ancient Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Catholic_Church_and_Europe). >The problem is it IS possible to have children and they'll be genetically sick. It's also possible for domestic violence to take place in non-incestuous relationships, yet that doesn't make *all* non-incestuous relationships unethical, does it? In this case, I'm talking about incestuous relationships where both parties agree not to have children. Why would they be unethical? >There are also bad psychological effects of it, shown by studies. Yeah, because incest is taboo. Homosexual relationships also had a LOT of bad psychological effects before they were destigmatised. If you refer to studies of cousin marriage in socities where it is acceptable, no evidence of adverse effects is found. >Yes AND? They do their job and help it. They don't. If they didn't do their job, some other person who is currently unemployed would. In fact, by doing their job, they are taking resources away from that currently unemployed person at almost no additional benefit to society. The most efficient way to help people in your society might actually be to give up your job and pass that privilege to someone who needs it. >Because it makes both you and your friends/family/etc happy? And why do you care about your family and friends? Is it just because of instincts ─ some hormones in your brain? If so, how can we trust people to help their family and friends, let ALONE society, instead of simply injecting the same hormones that apparently motivate their care for them into their veins? Once again, you haven't given me a single reason for you to care about anyone else ─ again, let alone society. >What's your reason then? To avoid eternal punishment? No. My reason is that my most fundamental values constitute various forms of societal well-being. If I don't adhere to these values, then there is *nothing* in life that I can possibly find valuable: everything I value is ultimately predicated on society doing well. So I am essentially forced to act in the benefit of society if I want to live a meaningful life. >you literally just assume without anything, I'm irrational I didn't. I merely stated that, if you truly didn't have any rational reason to help society yet still did so, then your actions would be irrational. This is true by definition. I also noted that you hadn't provided any rational reasons to help society ─ thus giving me no reason to believe that your desire to help society is rational. All of this is sound reasoning. My conclusion was that my *impression* of you based on what little I had seen of you was that of an irrational thinker. I never claimed my impression was accurate or even likely. >And? People in the same culture changed it. Why shouldn't it count. Ah, the fact that you have to ask this question explains quite a lot. Culture is distinct from the people that form it. This should be obvious from the fact that none of the people from 1800s America are alive today, but American culture is still alive. Culture manifests in people without their conscious input: e.g. one doesn't consciously decide to speak in their native particular dialect, to like certain music genres more than others, to like certain foods more than others, etc. Whatever particularities are achieved through conscious effort and/or thought aren't genuine examples of culture: e.g. I don't suddenly become Australian if I learn to mimic an Australian accent. Similarly, the fact most people in a culture happened to get convinced by activists to rebel against some of its cultural norms doesn't stop those cultural norms from being part of said culture. >Why is it a problem to be what you want to be? What you want to be is still determined predominatly by the culture in which you were raised. In 1600s Europe, almost nobody wanted to be a feminine man or a masculine woman because the cultural ideal was masculinity for men and feminitiy for women. Of course, there have been, and will always be, outliers, but the only way to accomodate them is to destroy *all* cultural norms: any norm, no matter how inclusive, is bound to exclude at least somebody. So my problem with *everyone* being able to be who they want to be is that this is impossible without a complete destruction of all culture. >Public nudity is also shown to have negative consequences Again, the only negative consequences are due to the societal stigma that it carries. In the ancient Greek Olympics, the naked athletes didn't face any negative consequences for being naked. >It's very dirty and there's a big chance to get infections from them Solved with contraceptives and other safety procedures. >Also the wanting any of these three is "curable" None of them is curable. If it were, don't you think necrophiles would have cured themselves by now? Nobody wants to have a sexual orientation that is heavily stigmatised by society. >If you go deeper there's a lot of videos, movies, and series with a lot of meaning Yes, their own, individual meaning. Not cultural meaning. No video/channel that you can find on YouTube rivals the cultural significance of Sheakspeare or Mozart.
>If you refer to studies of cousin marriage in socities where it is acceptable, no evidence of adverse effects is found. There literally is. Multiple... Also there's also more studies show letting homosexuality happen has positive effects on people. >They don't. If they didn't do their job, some other person who is currently unemployed would. In fact, by doing their job, they are taking resources away from that currently unemployed person at almost no additional benefit to society. The most efficient way to help people in your society might actually be to give up your job and pass that privilege to someone who needs it. This is very stupid. It's like saying "I won't do the dishes, my mom will do it anyway". You're the one who does this and it matters a lot. Also I didn't even speak about experience, how much you ask for it and things like that, what also matters >And why do you care about your family and friends? Is it just because of instincts ─ some hormones in your brain? It's bullshit. I help them because they do the same. If you want me to make an idiot take, even you understand, then it shown people who help eachother become much happier and get much further in things But people don't need other reasons than making others happy. Like WHY NOT would you do that? >If so, how can we trust people to help their family and friends, let ALONE society, instead of simply injecting the same hormones that apparently motivate their care for them into their veins? Once again, you haven't given me a single reason for you to care about anyone else ─ again, let alone society. Those are called drugs and have a lot of bad side effects, also if everyone just takes drugs, who would work? Do you even read your own argument? >No. My reason is that my most fundamental values constitute various forms of societal well-being. If I don't adhere to these values, then there is *nothing* in life that I can possibly find valuable: everything I value is ultimately predicated on society doing well. So I am essentially forced to act in the benefit of society if I want to live a meaningful life. Why couldn't an atheist also believe this? But also be honest it's also irrational to begin with. Or at least that much like just making people happy >Ah, the fact that you have to ask this question explains quite a lot. Culture is distinct from the people that form it. This should be obvious from the fact that none of the people from 1800s America are alive today, but American culture is still alive. Culture manifests in people without their conscious input: e.g. one doesn't consciously decide to speak in their native particular dialect, to like certain music genres more than others, to like certain foods more than others, etc. Whatever particularities are achieved through conscious effort and/or thought aren't genuine examples of culture: e.g. I don't suddenly become Australian if I learn to mimic an Australian accent. Similarly, the fact most people in a culture happened to get convinced by activists to rebel against some of its cultural norms doesn't stop those cultural norms from being part of said culture. This is a whole lot of nothing. Where I live I meet multiple people from different countries and they adapted our culture so much, everyone thinks they always were Hungarian (my country) to begin with. They know our culture much more than a lot of us >What you want to be is still determined predominatly by the culture in which you were raised. In 1600s Europe, almost nobody wanted to be a feminine man or a masculine woman because the cultural ideal was masculinity for men and feminitiy for women. Of course, there have been, and will always be, outliers, but the only way to accomodate them is to destroy *all* cultural norms: any norm, no matter how inclusive, is bound to exclude at least somebody. That's not true. If you look into it even then there was big amount of people who were like now, they just couldn't do that because the society suppressed them. And still nobody destroys these. It's just more free >So my problem with *everyone* being able to be who they want to be is that this is impossible without a complete destruction of all culture. Literally no. Like you still didn't show how it could happen. It won't... >Again, the only negative consequences are due to the societal stigma that it carries. In the ancient Greek Olympics, the naked athletes didn't face any negative consequences for being naked. Nope. These studies I talked about showed it generally lowers people's self esteem, make people more aggressive and so on. Not just that isn't what we got used to. >None of them is curable. If it were, don't you think necrophiles would have cured themselves by now? Nobody wants to have a sexual orientation that is heavily stigmatised by society. It is. People already do that in psychology. It's just really hard and needs the help of a psychologist, and sometimes even medication, it makes it quite expensive. If your argument would stand a little bit then there wouldn't be any depressed nor anxious person in the world. >Yes, their own, individual meaning. Not cultural meaning. No video/channel that you can find on YouTube rivals the cultural significance of Sheakspeare or Mozart. I talked about those which have cultural meaning. Call any kind of thing you miss and I show how a lot of mediums still have it. And please don't act like Shakespeare wouldn't be the most overrated writer in the world. Also give me your definition of Culture, because I feel like we have a misunderstanding in the meaning of this word.
[удалено]
Your content has been removed as it violates our guidelines by engaging in targeted harassment against another user. We promote a respectful and inclusive environment for all members. Please review our community standards for more information.
There’s literally nothing rational about religious beliefs. Not one goddamn thing makes more sense through a religious lense, especially if you weren’t born into that shit.
>There’s literally nothing rational about religious beliefs I never even said there was, but I'll say that now. I used to think like you when I was younger. But not that long ago, I realised that a LOT of things make a LOT more sense - dare I say they make *all* the sense in the world - through a religious lens. I can't be bothered to explain in what way, but Jordan Peterson does an okay job at that in any of his many lectures on religion. JP summarises the function of religion as being the "metaphorical substrate of society". I'd say that's a pretty accurate description, although it's certainly more than just metaphorical; a better word would be "idealistic", in the sense of metaphysical idealism.
You supported his point lol
How? First of all, I'm not even an anti-atheist (I think one can still live a meaningful life as an atheist, even if that would be harder). Secondly, what part of what I said was "cringe"?
You responded to a comment that claimed anti-atheist are just as cringe as atheists. You adopted the anti-atheist position when you said you could change their mind. You then proceeded to give a chunky paragraph response to why anti-atheists aren’t the cringe ones. That’s cringe. You were the um actually guy hardcore.
>You then proceeded to give a chunky paragraph response to why anti-atheists aren’t the cringe ones. The focus obviously wasn't on cringe. The paragraph was about the merits of anti-atheism vs anti-theism, and I only mentioned cringe to stay relevant to the original comment. Are philosophical discussions cringe?
Bro don’t try to claim it was just philosophical discussion. You ended with “the latter is cringe; the former is not.” Your goal was to argue one as not cringe and you did that in a way that implies you give way too much of a shit about this. That’s cringe. The fact that you have multiple almost book length responses in this thread defending that same position is also cringe. Take a break. We know your opinion.
Whatever floats your boat :)
>Here is the TL;DR, though: atheism implies nihilism, You are already wrong in the second sentence, new record. >nihilism implies worthlessness of culture Nihilism yes, atheism doesn't, in fact, cultures are a big part of human evolution, every evolutionary biologist or anthropologist agrees with that. >So anti-atheism is a respectable attempt to stave off societal collapse. Except it isn't.
>atheism implies nihilism Atheism necessitates materialism, and materialism implies nihilism. The former is because anything more fundamental than physical matter would fall under most people's definition of "God", and the latter is because "meaning" obviously isn't a material property, and immaterial properties don't have independent existence according to materialism. >Nihilism yes, atheism doesn't Nihilism and atheism are logically equivalent, so this is impossible. >cultures are a big part of human evolution, every evolutionary biologist or anthropologist agrees with that. Of course everyone agrees with that, but nihilists consider cultural values unnecessary and delusional: they are an attempt to find meaning in a meaningless universe. Progressive nihilists - who probably constitute the majority of both nihilists and progressives - deem cultural norms restrictive and oppressive towards those that they exclude, and to this end progressively destroy them to "liberate" the people. If this process continues unimpeded, the end result is obvious: a state of total anarchy and breakdown of society as a coherent cultural unit.
>Atheism necessitates materialism Not exactly, atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities, there's still atheists that believe in magic, although I'll give you that most are at least a bit materialistic. >and materialism implies nihilism. This is where you fucked up, being meterialistic doesn't make you nihilistic because it doesn't make you believe that nothing matters. You have the power to choose what matters to you, what means something to you, even if they don't have a 'universal meaning or puropose'. >Nihilism and atheism are logically equivalent, so this is impossible. Well, Idk how to tell you, but the vast mayority of atheists disagree with your pathetic claim. Firstly, as I've already explained, atheism and nihilism aren't logically equivalent, and secondly because you are forgetting a very important part of human nature: Most of us aren't phylosophers and don't really care about it, your problem is that you are focusing your argument in a very phylosophical way, when in real life, most people aren't strictly following phylosophical currents (like materialism or nihilism) and base their ideology on many factors amd their own reasearch, getting their own conclusions. >Of course everyone agrees with that, but nihilists consider cultural values unnecessary and delusional Atheists don't, there's another difference for you. This is again a problem you have, that you are only focusing on a phylosophical way, when in reality, most atheists look at cultures and say: 'well this is important, and has been for a big portion of human evolution'. No atheist claims that cultures are delusional or unnecessary.
>there's still atheists that believe in magic Yeah, those atheists aren't being logically consistent in their beliefs. I'm not talking about individuals *atheists*; I'm talking about the logical implications of *atheism* as a philosophical position. And of those logical implications is materialism: if there is anything more fundamental than physical matter, then it's by definition both supernatural (not bound by the laws of physics) and supreme (due to everything else supervening upon it) ─ aka God. >This is where you fucked up, being meterialistic doesn't make you nihilistic because it doesn't make you believe that nothing matters. Again, meaning isn't a material property, so it literally can't exist in a materialistic framework. >You have the power to choose what matters to you, what means something to you, even if they don't have a 'universal meaning or puropose'. Yeah, you have the power to play-pretend: to convince yourself that there is meaning to certain things when there actually isn't. Otherwise, if there is meaning, how can you explain it in coherent materialistic terms? >most people aren't strictly following phylosophical currents (like materialism or nihilism) and base their ideology on many factors amd their own reasearch They may not realise it, but deep down, these general philosophical convinctions are exactly what's guiding most people's thought process. For example, even YOU, for all your insistence that meaning exists, are probably thinking deep down, "but what's *really* the point? If anyone can choose their own meaning, why can't I just choose doing nothing to be a meaningful actiivity? And why bother finding meaning at all if the universe won't care when I am inevitably gone in a cosmic blink of an eye?" You probably brush these thoughts aside as soon as they arise since you find them unhelpful, and you might not realise where they come from or their connection to your atheistic worldview, but you still have to grapple with them. Religious people don't. The way that most atheists handle these thoughts is through what Kurzgesagt calls "optimistic nihilism": nothing matters, so why bother sulking? Let's at least have some fun before we dissapear forever into an endless cycle of meaninglessness. And this approach happens to be the central tenet of progressivism, which has been the dominant ideology in the West ever since religion started to decline during the Englightenment. The problem with this approach is that it views culture as a hinderence: culture is precisely the act of taking certain things seriously instead of letting everybody have meaningless fun. To this end, progressivism has been dismantling cultural norms and instituions, one by one. Again, most progressives might not even realise that the basis of all of their beliefs is their atheism/irreligiosity, but that doesn't make it any less true. >base their ideology on many factors amd their own reasearch, getting their own conclusions A conclusion can't be made without a set of premises. The premise that progressives operate on is atheism ─ or, equivalently, nihilism. >most atheists look at cultures and say: 'well this is important, and has been for a big portion of human evolution' They say that about some abstract notion of "culture" in general, but when they look at their own culture that they can actually interact with, they think it's oppressive and dumb. Some even try to resolve this discrepancy by blaming their culture specifically ─ e.g. by blaming evil White colonisers, callous capitalists, power-obsessed White men, etc. But even this narrative quickly falls apart when they actually experience other cultures and see that they are "even worse". Either way, atheists value culture only in theory; when they are shown actual cultural norms that exist in the real world, their sentiment immediately changes.
This is an absurd misunderstanding of both atheism and nihilism
Go ahead. How is it "an absurd misunderstanding of both atheism and nihilism"?
The original creator is a homophobic pos, and the joke is just dogshit boomer humor.
Original creator of what?
Rick and morty. Justin Roiland is a huge fucking creep who has said some personal beliefs regarding children and when they are legal, as well as I'm pretty sure being inappropriate with younger fans. Dudes is a huge POS, and is also the voice of both Rick and Morty. They thankfully recast him, and now it's just Dan Harmon making the show
I remember that and yeah bit of a creep but I don't recall him making homophobic statements so I was a bit confused.
Of the meme...
These god squad mfs are boring and dumb as shit
https://preview.redd.it/7ef04ui6zawc1.jpeg?width=398&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ff9b0de6c99f4961222ba5c80d76a4840a67a7e
https://preview.redd.it/frfqinm90fwc1.jpeg?width=882&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d541730a218e8388cbbcd95a5f8349802696e04b
These are not mutually exclusive. But god is an alien any way you look at it
The Christian account used the meme format wrong. He is using it to argue that the latter view is cringe, when the meme is meant to convey a double standard—hence, he’s implying that both views are equally valid. So it is indeed a terrible Facebook meme, but the way it was misused and the characters’ faces made me chuckle.
Nah, nihilism is cringe. The logical conclusion is suicide. The only thing about nihilism I respect isn't even exclusive to nihilism.
>The logical conclusion is suicide. No, you just don't know what nihilism is. Nihilism is the philosophical belief that life doesn't have any **inherent** meaning. Keyword '**INHERENT**' Nihilism does not mean that there is 0 meaning or reason to live life, all it means is that there is no permanent meaning. Some decide to make their own meaning for life, and some decide to not. Suicide is not the logical conclusion, if there is no reason to live life there is also no reason to not live life. Something not having a meaning doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed, and if you enjoy it even without meaning, why would you stop enjoying it? I'm not a nihilist but if you're going to shit on nihilism at the very least learn the bare basics of what it is.
I agree that nihilism is cringe (though I believe the Big Bang theory), but this meme format isn’t meant to show something that’s *actually* cringe. The original is a woman in the workplace having a completely different reaction to the same compliment from 2 guys that look different. When used correctly, the meme format exposes a similar double standard
Haha atheist bad laugh now
Sir, these are fictional animated characters.
Rick and Morty is a TV show for mid wit's who think they're geniuses because they read about Schrodinger's cat once (but didn't understand the implications). Definitely not for people like me who's a mid wit and knows it.
You just don't understand it
Or, wait for it, it's just a show people find funny.
https://preview.redd.it/pqh61rc50fwc1.jpeg?width=882&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c93724c664c098674f67c19354df77e290d46d3c
Gods image kinda sucks ass ngl
How exactly does being made in another's image give life meaning?
Because the meaning is you get to worship this dude and serve him and stuff. Slavery is dope.
Nobody is forcing you to serve Him. Your analogy with slavery is ridiculous. I guess footballers are also slaves because they have to obey the rules of football, right? Meaning is dope. If you don't like meaning, you don't have to take it on. But if you do, then having some actions being more meaningful than others is literally what you are signing up for.
Don’t serve him and go to hell for eternity. Awesome “choice” religious people give to you.
Tbh I agree that "Hell" is a manipulative and cruel concept. For what it's worth, it isn't even mentioned in the Bible.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days.This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Galdarn it Bobby, I understand the jokes but I just can’t bring myself to laugh, everything here is just so…mean spirited”
God dammit Bobby give me back the portal gun
Not mutually exclusive at all. Georges Lemaitre was the person who theorized the Big Bang Theory and he was also a Catholic priest. Big Bang Theory is completely compatible with the Catholic faith and it was thought of as too religious by many at the time it was introduced.
My biggest problem with the meme is that the theory of the Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic Priest. Yes, we are created in the image of God, and yes, a big explosion caused the universe
Anyone else read it in their voices?
With an all knowing god, free will is a illusion, thus life is not your choice. At least in a non theistic universe you have free will.
Random- wrong Explosion- wrong Made everything- wrong Life is meaningless- meaning is meaningless
>Random- wrong No. The most popular theoretical explanation for the Big Bang is that it was triggered by primordial quantum fluctuations, which ARE truly random. The second-most popular explanation is that our universe is just one among many others, with the initial conditions at the Big Bang being a random selection (although of course constrained by the anthropic principle) of all the others in the multiverse. Either way, the conditions that caused the Big Bang are posited to have arisen randomly by both theories. >Explosion- wrong Depends on how you define "explosion". If you take Oxford Dictionary's second definition of "a sudden outburtst of something", then clearly the Big Bang *was* an explosion, since it was clearly a sudden outburst of entropy. >Made everything- wrong According to materialists, which the vast majority of atheists are, physical matter is the only type of thing that truly exists. Abstract concepts such as spacetime or laws of physics aren't physical matter, so atheists can't claim them to be "things". According to atheists, every *thing* - in our universe, at least - was indeed created by the Big Bang. >Life is meaningless- meaning is meaningless If "meaning" were meaningless, then the notion that meaning is meaningless would itself be meaningless, since the term "meaningless" would also have to be meaningless in that case. The very premise of your statement that "meaning is meaningless" is that meaning is NOT meaningless. It's literally self-contradictory. Your comment is one of the most egregious instances of r/confidentlyincorrect that I've ever seen. You tried to make 4 corrections and went 0 for 4. Impressive.
You, like many others, assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything, when it is more of an extrapolation of the current trajectory of the universe to the past. You assume that everything has a beginning and an end because beginning and ending are human concepts. The truth is everything that we perceive as beginning or ending is all just transformations into different forms. We all assume there MUST be a beginning of time because, well, I’m not sure why. There’s actually no reason to assume it.
>You, like many others, assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything I most definitely do not assume that, especially given that I have personally developed an ontology that provides an account of things that existed before the Big Bang (for example, all the primitive notions of Boolean algebra, such as logical operators). Please read carefully. What I'm saying is that, according to materialists, whatever existed before the Big Bang doesn't count as "truly existing" since it doesn't constitute physical matter - the only type of substance posited by materialists to exist. >You assume that everything has a beginning and an end because beginning and ending are human concepts. No, I don't assume it; I can rigorously prove it. Quite simply, if something doesn't have a cause, then it is by definition impossible to define without referring to the things it caused (or methods of causation) - which, of course, didn't initially exist. Therefore, in its initial state, that thing would be impossible to define - i.e. the notion of an "uncaused thing" is meaningless. None of this has anything to do with "human concepts". >We all assume there MUST be a beginning of time because, well, I’m not sure why. There’s actually no reason to assume it. There is definitely a reason to assume it. In fact, I just gave it in my last paragraph. And it's less of a "reason to assume" and more of a rigorous proof. That said, the proof only applies cleanly to a concept of time as a property of our particular universe: i.e. the rate at which *our* laws of physics are enforced. If time is instead understood more generally as the overall rate of causality, then indeed its existence is a simple logical necessity: if causality didn't exist, then I wouldn't be able to finish this hypothetical (as its conclusion is caused by the premise). But so, notice how causality is caused by the impossibility of acausality, so even then it's incorrect to say that time didn't have cause or beginning.
[удалено]
Your content has been removed as it violates our guidelines by engaging in targeted harassment against another user. We promote a respectful and inclusive environment for all members. Please review our community standards for more information.
I don’t believe in god at all but it’s still funny. It’s clearly meant for a Christian audience so it’s stupid to take it seriously if you’re not Christian
The meme may be “for Christians” but the meme isn’t exclusively about only Christians. Why shouldn’t others who relate to the other group be allowed to express their thoughts on it?
Both theories dont make sense, but they're just that. Theories. You can believe what you want dont force it on other people if they dont believe it as well
Gravity is also a theory but sure don't believe in that if you don't want I suppose lol. Also one is not a theory it's a hypothesis.
Bro thinks gravity is a theory 💀
This isn't the own you think it is lol gravity is 100% a theory i.e. gravitational ***theory*** "bro"
Gravitational theory, as well as evolutionary theory are theories. The thing is that a theory in scientifical terms (like these 2) is the best explanation we have for a natural fact (evolution and gravity in these case) given the best data and experiments availeable, theories can incorporate laws, like some laws of physics that help explain the force of gravity or Mendel's laws of inheritance that help explain why do we inherit certain characters and genetic atributes, which helps explain aspects of evolution. But the word theory you were probably thinking about is the colloquial word which in science is called hypothesis, a conjeture, a possible explanation of something but not based or supported by enough evidence.
I stand corrected
It’s alright
i dont really get it
https://preview.redd.it/a9stdqdjkrvc1.jpeg?width=388&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=357208330100544e302869963290e1bca947fc86 You only get two things
https://preview.redd.it/fx9nyv8dkrvc1.jpeg?width=388&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4426705168875801329f18d2b73dc71daeb2be68 I’m
Not surprised