[ SECRET POST #2236 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2236 ⌋

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

01.
[Inda series]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Les Miserables and Discworld]

__________________________________________________



03.
[Three Kingdoms 2010, Legend of Chu and Han]


__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.
[DBSK]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (Shivering Isles)]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________














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













09. [SPOILERS for ]

[Umineko no Naku Koro Ni]


__________________________________________________



10. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]



__________________________________________________














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














11. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



12. [possible warning for sexual assault (as I'm sure the thread will contain discussion of it)]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for rape, abuse, etc]



__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for suicide]



__________________________________________________



16. [WARNING for eating disorders]



__________________________________________________


17. [WARNING for rape/non-con]

[Homestuck]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #319.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[saku]

if this is about religion to any degree, the reason many otherwise "respectable" or "intelligent" people turn out to have some form of theistic or religious belief is because scientific data objectively cannot be used to prove or disprove it. that's more or less the textbook definition of the supernatural, and shunning these concepts on the basis of "reasoning" is an uneducated standpoint. scholarly people, whether they have theistic/religious views or not, don't hold those views - or a lack thereof - on the grounds that it's the more ~sciencey stance. it's not about science. it's not about science vs. religion either. that is a war waged by idiots, not the educated.

i know you've already said your comment wasn't about one particular thing but it reeks of religious intolerance.

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[badass_tiger]

+1. Everything you said is right on the money.

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[(Anonymous)]

If "religious intolerance" means I hate when religious people try to impose their beliefs on me then I am fine with that. This rant wasn't because I am personally offended that some people like the concept of the supernatural. This rant was because some people think their imaginary friend or stupid opinion should get to dictate my life.

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[saku]

if this was just about religious people telling you not to get an abortion or marry someone of the same gender/sex then i wouldn't have said anything.

nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

What do you think this thread is about?

If OP is speaking of religious people they were clearly talking about people who behave as if they are "entitled" to believing their opinions hold "weight" when they're discussing issues with people who don't share those beliefs and opinions. Not people who are just religious. OP specifically targeted perpetuating beliefs and ideals that CONFLICT with facts. Not beliefs and ideals that cannot be proved or disproved either way.

Re: nayrt

[saku]

op stating she doesn't "believe you're entitled to your bullshit opinions when they conflict with education, basic reason, and scientific data" made me question what exactly this "scientific data" was that so effectively shut down theistic ideas, given that theism and science are not related or inherently conflicting.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

OP is female? I don't believe OP was speaking about all theistic ideas and the reference to "not being entitled" seems (to me at least) to be a perhaps poorly worded attempt at saying one is not entitled to a disproved opinion or idea when debating an issue. i.e. "Well that's just my opinion" should not be a trump argument. If you want to talk about real world issues you can only do so using facts if you want people to take you seriously and give what you're saying consideration.

I agree science and theism are not necessarily conflicting which is why I drew attention to the fact the OP used the word "conflict".

Re: nayrt

[saku]

i agree that real world issues necessitate facts. i just wasn't under the impression op was only talking about these kinds of issues. it sounded more to me like, in the case of religion, "religious people are dumb for being religious."

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I took the OP as more meaning that ideas based solely on opinion/gut feeling shouldn't be given a place at the table in important discussions about health/education/welfare/public policy etc. They don't deserve air time, and debate shouldn't have to be structured to include their disproof-adverse ideas.

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[(Anonymous)]

FFS you're in the wrong thread. The entire comment was about people who think their faith or opinion equals or rivals contradicting evidence.

Your comment reeks just a little of defensiveness btw.

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[saku]

i know. i'm saying that science, which is surely where you're coming up with this evidence, cannot refute supernatural suppositions because science doesn't explain the supernatural. so just because some bitchass dawkins worshiper gets their jollies in trying to shut down religious views with natural law doesn't mean a theistic person's opinions mean less than that. science is not some trump card you can play that negates other opinions, because science has little to no place in the discussion. there's no solid evidence against theism because theism isn't something that warrants evidence.

i'm not religious, so i don't have anything to defend on my behalf. i'm just tired of people thinking that reading the god delusion gives them this whole new understanding of religion or some shit. scientists and other professionals in natural law don't know any more than some farmer from bumfuck sheridan, indiana when it comes to the supernatural.

[(Anonymous)]

What? Unless you're arguing that because someone or even the majority believes in God religious material should be given the same weight as scientific evidence when making medical and legal decisions for entire countries you are in the wrong thread.

Science is a trump card when it comes to disagreements and issues that affect more than the individual holding the belief.

Yes there are scientists who do have a firmer grasp on what is and isn't supernatural than bumfuck farmer. There are bumfuck farmers who think weather is biblical omens and insane clown rappers who think we can't explain genetics or magnets. Just because you can't disprove a concept entirely you can determine its likeliness. You can't absolutely prove unicorns don't exist. You can prove it's so damn unlikely no one should be legally required to buy unicorn insurance.

[saku]

legalities are decided by ethics and governmental strategy, not science. roe vs wade wasn't won by science. as the states gradually open to gay marriage, they don't have science to thank.

had you said your argument was about religious people taking hold of your life in unwelcome ways, i'd have no quarrel with you. instead you made the choice to call these people stupid and without right to their opinions. i'm not arguing they have a right to your body, your life, et cetera. but they aren't "stupid" simply because their views don't align with your warped view of what purpose science serves.

we know weather and magnets aren't supernatural. but supernatural suppositions - spirits, an afterlife, god, what have you, things that have no scientific explanation - have nothing to do with science.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're stuck on a misunderstanding. I think people who know nothing about evolution are not entitled to being given equal consideration to a scientist or really anyone who spent any time reading the definition of natural selection. The stupidity isn't that they have a fanciful view of the world. The stupidity is when they think their feelings have any bearing on real life or other people. Allow me to take my turn in saying personal view =/= fact.

My point is that even when it comes to the supernatural science should be given more consideration than the average person. Even if just because that's the only way to determine what is supernatural.

[saku]

science deals with natural law. it has no place whatsoever in supernatural theory. its absence in it doesn't mean it should be given additional consideration.

but looking at other comments i think maybe i misunderstood the intent of your rant, even if i think you made it rather easy to misinterpret.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

you made it rather easy to misinterpret

I'm responding to this from flat comments so I have no idea the context of this, which might make it funnier, but goddamn. LOL

[(Anonymous)]

What? Just... what?

[(Anonymous)]

NA

even if i think you made it rather easy to misinterpret.

OP really didn't. OP explicitly stated that they were talking about "beliefs that contradict education and science. To me, that says young-earth creationism, the anti-vax stance, "gay is a choice" homophobia, moon-landing hoax beliefs, and the like. You're the one who decided it meant "anyone who believes in religion or anything supernatural is DUMB." That came from you, not anything OP said or implied.

[saku]

that depends entirely on what people think contradicts science. a lot of people think any religious or theistic thought is inherently against some sort of establish scientific rule, though it's really not. that op didn't correct me led me to believe i had been right.

nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

o.o

[(Anonymous)]

What part of the OP talking about people insisting on beliefs that defy basic reasoning skills = time to discuss the delicate relationship between science and religion?

[saku]

the second she brought up science, which was in her first post.

[(Anonymous)]

1. Why would you assume OP thinks science=/=religion? At the very least you could have asked the OP to clarify what they meant by beliefs that conflict with data.
2. OP's first response to you cleared up what they were talking about.
3. This comment is not an invitation for you to find another way to blame OP for your tl;dr ot.

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[(Anonymous)]

You can't prove a negative, though. And saying "lol science can't say there isn't a god!" is like saying science can't prove there isn't a ten foot tall rape octopus in Japan that speaks French.

Re: I pretend I respect people who hold specific beliefs that the majority does

[saku]

this is a logical fallacy. if you read the whole thread you'll notice i'm talking about supernatural claims, meaning ones that, by default, are outside natural law. theism falls under this category. you seriously can't use scientific reasoning to explain or refute theories beyond its definition.