Journal Bill Dog's Journal: a definition 18
Society: A group of people and their shared set of fictions that they've agreed unspokenly to pretend are real.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
Society: A group of people and their shared set of fictions that they've agreed unspokenly to pretend are real.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to. Until one society decided to instead give up on morality and try tolerance instead. Jury's still out on whether or not that society will survive more than three centuries though.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe that's what we're supposed to learn. (Barack can't be our only "god" who, with a feeling of superiority, uses "teaching moments".) That ultimately any form of society other than theocracy is doomed to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Only three? More like 60 to 100 centuries. Morality was forsaken when the patriarchy took over.
No, the patriarchy by definition enforced morality- that's what FATHERS are supposed to do. I realize that many Americans have no experience with real fatherhood, and I suspect that's why they're addicted to individuality and private citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the father's job is to provide food and shelter and security, and teach the male children likewise.
Morality, when imposed, provides security. A lack of morality is a lack of security. Tolerance of that which is immoral directly impacts security.
The MOTHER is the rightful moral authority. The mother guides. The father seeks to impose, which when it comes to hunting and gathering, might be necessary for one's safety.
The problem with the mother is that she only guides-
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly the implication in my definition is that the fictions are known to be.
Re: (Score:1)
In my previous comment:
s/the fictions are known to be/the fictions are known to be, by the people
That is, my JE definition refers to fictions that people know are fictions. (Hence the "pretending" part?) With the occasional exception of for example a politician being a total fake at being a believer (if only I could think of one right now ;) deity followers are not pretending to believe something's true and talking and acting like it is when they know it's really not.
Re: (Score:1)
You AC are a living example of the question of the ages: Which comes first, the atheism or the brain dysfunction. Because each one causes the other, so it's a chicken-and-egg eternal puzzler. I don't know how you got that way, but I'm *pretty sure* that if you actually think that I and fellow believers and the preachers in churches all across the country and world are all just secretly faking it, well, then there's no hope for you. In more ways than one.
Re: (Score:1)
Truly religious people (those who are honest about their value system) don't operate on the assumption that their beliefs are fiction. They believe that the guy in the sky is real and that his influence on our reality can be successfully measured and quantified.
They are as convinced of that as much as a particle physicist is of the existence and measurable, observable behavior of a proton or electron.
That doesn't make it any better of course, nor does it make it any less fictional. But not all religious [nu
Re: (Score:1)
It looks like this was meant as a response to the AC's assertion that believers are faking it?
As I see that you are not a believer ("nor does it make it any less fictional"), and as a religious [nut] myself, I would say that even this is not necessarily the case of believers:
that his influence on our reality can be successfully measured and quantified
Maybe some haven't thought about it much, but those of us who have, I think have concluded (and are strangely okay with) that, in effect and also by definition
Re: (Score:1)
No, I understand that. It's a basic premise of religious belief. My mother is a devout catholic. I was raised as a catholic. I understand Christian theology better than most self-proclaimed atheists. As with technology, I intensely dislike people who attack things they haven't taken the time to understand.
Now... I do not agree with it, but I will gladly go to war to defend your right to exercise your beliefs in peace and
Re: (Score:1)
We're prolly going to want to just resolve to being okay with not being okay with this, and here's why: Darwinism is a religion due to the nature of "evidence". Maybe you think "evidence" is "stuff, that indicates something". It's not. "Evidence" is "stuff" + "an assigned meaning to said stuff". For example with the religion of Christianity, some would claim that things like the Bible and the number of believers and cataclysmic events and inexplicable curings and other physical manifestations are "evidence"