[ SECRET POST #1837 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1837 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02. [broken link]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Robin Of Sherwood/Michael Praed]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Glee]


__________________________________________________



05.
[We Got Married - Ga In (Brown Eyed Girls)/Jo Kwon (2AM)]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Buzz Lightyear of Star Command]


__________________________________________________



09. http://i.imgur.com/8DbqS.png
[linked for nudity/kind of porny]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Josh Groban and Andrea Bocelli]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Beast Wars, Megatron]


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.
[Magic Mike]


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



17.
[Harry Potter & Little House on the Prairie]


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.
[X-Men: First Class]


__________________________________________________



21.
[Death Note]


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________



23.


__________________________________________________



24.


__________________________________________________














[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]












25. [SPOILERS for something, OP did not specify]



__________________________________________________



26. [SPOILERS for Vampire Hunter D]



__________________________________________________



27. [SPOILERS for Christmas Doctor Who and New Year's Sherlock]



__________________________________________________














[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]












28. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]
[SPOILERS for Loveless]



__________________________________________________



29. [TRIGGER WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



30. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



31. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape, animal cruelty]



__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #262.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

This is completely different. The main reason why the Church still gets things like the Crusades brought up against it is because of people who hate the religion itself for unrelated reasons using things like the Crusades to try to claim that it was never a good thing. It's not so much about the Crusades as it is about the Crusades being used as fodder for anti-religious arguments.

This is only my experience, but I see the Crusades brought up mostly when Christians try to claim their religion has always been about love and forgiveness and goodwill to everyone. And I think it keeps getting brought up, especially in recent times, because the loudest and most vocal Christians are espousing the same hatred and prejudice that led to the Crusades in the first place. And they're getting elected to public office and positions of power for it (or at least they are in the U.S.).

Yeah, I've seen the Crusades brought up Just Because by the type of asshole atheist that I wish I could smack with a squeaky hammer, but I've seen them brought up with much more frequency to challenge the idea that Christians have always been the innocent rebels getting eaten by lions for sport.

[miezen.livejournal.com]

I've seen that, too, and in that case it is a valid argument. Personally, though, I more frequently see it brought up as a way to claim organized religion is inherently bad and always has been.

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

We likely hang around in different circles, then. The circles I run in are...special, in that they're fraught with Christians crying "poor me!" every time someone suggests that their right to worship as they please stops the minute it tries to rob someone else of agency and personal autonomy.

The organized-religion-is-inherently-bad argument is a pretty stupid one, though. Or at least all the versions I've heard of it. Religion itself isn't evil, but the way religious leaders tend to abuse their power and the way followers are manipulated into letting it go unquestioned is a recipe for disaster. But I'm not gonna lie, some religions have doctrine and ideology that makes such a recipe disturbingly easy to follow.

[miezen.livejournal.com]

Oh ew. I really hate that sort of thing. Luckily I don't have any direct exposure to it, myself. I get the atheists who think that all religious people are delusional crazies for having their faith. Ugh.


Just. Seriously. There's nothing inherently wrong with Christianity. What's wrong is what some religious leaders have chosen to do with it.

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

*facepalm* Yeah no. You can't be "delusional" for believing in something that nobody can prove isn't true. Every time an atheist calls someone delusional, I want to beat them with a dictionary.

Wow, this icon is hilariously appropriate.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

What.

Yes you can. Look I can see problems with the type of atheist you're referring too, but that argument you're espousing is some real basic shit, and trivially dismiss-able.

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

Ok, I worded that badly. More like simply having faith in something that can't be proven one way or the other doesn't automatically make a person delusional (especially not in the "religion is a symptom of a mental illness" way that many of the atheists insist on).

[miezen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this. Yeah, no one can prove that God exists. But well. You can't prove God doesn't exist either.

[dorknessrising.livejournal.com]

This is why I'm a militant agnostic. I don't know, and you don't, either.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

There are an infinite number of unknowable truths.

If we accept your argument here, then you render the entire basis of our perception of the world (empirical truth, rather then inductive reasoning for truth) meaningless.

Which brings me to the central point, what is the difference between a falsehood, and an unproveable negative?

[(Anonymous)]

Religion isn't based on science, though, and nobody here is arguing that it is (people who do that are very bad at religion). Empirical truth no longer applies when what you're talking about isn't based on quantifiable evidence anyway.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

That's not science though.

Philosophy brah.

And they are making a positive claim (regarding truth and our ability to ever know something), which I believe to be wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

What positive claim? They said you can't prove God exists or not. When it comes to religion and faith, "truth" becomes completely subjective.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

Right, which in itself is a positive assertion to privileged knowledge (that god is inherently unknowable, but more deeply, the underlying tautology that an unknowable true claim, and an unknowable false claim are two separate categories in more then a trivially true fashion).

And no, truth isn't subjective. Truth is the exact opposite of subjective. So I'd be interested in your reasons for believing it to be so.

[(Anonymous)]

First, talking in plain English rather than Philosophy 101 Word Salad will make you sound less like a condescending ass, and make it much clearer just what the hell your point is.

Second, are you asserting that whether God exists or not is provable? Because in that case I'd say you're either delusional or a zombie.

Third, I said truth is subjective in regards to faith. When you choose to believe or not believe in things you cannot prove to be true, then truth of whether those things exist or not is subjective. If you believe God exists, then He does exist for you. If you believe God doesn't exist, then for you He does not. No need to make it more complicated than that.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

It's not word salad, I'm using the terms because it's significantly shorter and more succinct then devoting a miniparagraph to each idea there. But I'll try to cut back on it.

My assertion is rhetorical games - the assertion that we cannot know god exists, is in and of itself a positive claim of knowing an unknowable. It seeks to demonstrate the way in which treating unknowable truths as valid possibilities is going to leave you eating your own tail.

But more fundamentally, as was said, unintentionally the distinction is being made that their exists a difference between a truth that can never be proven and affects us in no way, and a falsehood that cannot be known and effects us in no way. Except the issue here is that there isn't.

I am loving your existentialism, but as Sartre said hell is other people, and existing in a society imposes upon you a requirement to follow shared perceptions of a physicalist universe, what you believe is merely that.

Or we could get more basic and point out that truth exists external to the individual. Unless you're divorcing the idea of existence of god as a human conception from god as a metaphysical truth, and suggesting that one is believing in the idea of god, which gives the idea validity as a human construct within ones own mind?

[(Anonymous)]

And again, your point is...what, exactly? Because as far as I'm concerned, you've been blabbering for three paragraphs but haven't said anything. There's nothing to even debate because it's not clear what you're trying to say or what your argument even is.

[lovelycudy.livejournal.com]

I'm not a religious person and I've never had faith (well, I thought I had, but not really) but Faith work as anon said: if you received it then you believe that God exists and whatever other articles of faith are there.

Most theist religions work under the assumption that God is beyond human comprehension so human science is useless to understand it/him/her. It is, in the end, a matter of faith and science has nothing to do with it.

And, tbh, I never understood the need to fret about this issues. If you believe, good for you! If you don't. good for you! It doesn't really matter unless people are being obnoxious jerks and then that is the problem.