Welcome, Guest

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009

    (4952.21)
   @Gekko,
   
   But to be fair, I think the same can be said of Atheists. Many of them that I've come across are as willing to proseltyze and disrespect others as the most insane evangelical (and that's coming from someone who lives in the American bible belt). Just look at the raving antics of someone like Richard Dawkins.
2. • CommentAuthoricelandbob
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009

    (4952.22)
   @ Kradium
   

   No, we don't just not talk about religion, most of us don't actually care about religion. As far as I can see, a lot of people who pay lip service to religion in this country just do it to get their kids into a particular school

   
   I do agree, but i also feel that we as a society never used to talk about Athiesm either. I remember in 2006 when Richard Dawkins did his UK Documentary Root of all Evil? about why essentialy all religion was a load of rubbish. It seemed explosive at the time, because really no one had ever (in my knowledge) gone on TV with a Documentary that said "all religion is bad".
   
   Mind you it did have a brilliant moment when he interviewed Yousef Al-Khattab, an ultra-radical Muslim who had once been a devout Jew. It showed perfectly the massive leaps in logic when speaking to a devout believer about athiesm.
   
   Yousef: So you do not belive in god then?
   RD: Yes that is what i true. I do not believe in God or religion.
   Yousef: Oh so you're ok to have your women naked, drunk and having sex in the middle of the street then? DO YOU???
   
   The look on Dawkins face when presented with this mindset was absolutely priceless!
3. •  
     CommentAuthorWillow Bl00
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009

    (4952.23)
   @nigredo
   

   @ dirtymc11
   Remember that it has been the norm for most of religious history to view the supernatural and especially Gods as things to be feared and placated so that they do not inflict further suffering.
   
   
   Not to nitpick but that's not true unless you refer to specific pagan religious traditions before orthodox christianity and even then it's a levelling assumption.

   
   
   What do you think the Old Testament is, then? And while New Christians claim that their God is a loving one, why all the Homos Caused Katrina stuff? It's not as blatant as "sacrifice or be killed," but it's still explaining things we fear in terms of what we didn't do right.
   
   
   @looneynerd Thank you for the academia. I miss my Old Testament classes and Sociology of Religion. These were the only things that allowed me to not view those in religion as complete nutcases. Religion really does serve a purpose, and those who choose to participate aren't necessarily weak or manipulative... it just makes sense to them. (I'm sure there are people who are into it for those reasons, but I don't think it's the majority of people).
   
   Religion is about community, about having an explaination, about having some (imagined) sense of control over the uncontrollable. I think if the conditions were right there would be religion in the FA world. Or maybe they're allowing the people enough security and community that they wouldn't need it. I think the starving people outside of Whitechapel would definitely have it to some degree.
4. •  
     CommentAuthorGekko
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009 edited

    (4952.24)
   @looneynerd
   You might (or might not) be miffed by what I'm going to tell you but I don't see belligerent atheists as *true* atheists. I'm not really proud of, or feel on the side of people like Dawkins and Hitchens. They seem like fundamentalists to me. Enough with that.
   I've always had the feeling that aggressively proselyte non-believers, the one who are obsessed with proving you are wrong to believe, they are in fact people who fear the possibility of a deity, thus, who might parlty believe. See what I mean? (I hope)
   There is a difference between akwardly trying to destroy other people's beliefs and trying to have believers respect your atheism per se. The latter only is my attitude, certainly not the former.
   Atheists like me need to be respected and heard for the way the perceive reality, not respected as being a potential enemy.
   
   Back to the point:
   What is interesting is that an angel is by definition a mystic character. There were angels in myths eons before the invention of monotheism (created by Akhenaton) Are Freakangels mystical freak creatures? Haven't scienctists (read Science) created our Freakangels? Is Science Itself God? O my, I'm getting discombobulated.
5. •  
     CommentAuthorDoctor_Six
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009 edited

    (4952.25)
   I bet the poor bleeders in the last episode would see the FA's as literal "angels".
   "They saved us from certain doom, AND have glowy purple eyes to boot. "
   
   I think you could argue that the current Whitechapel residents could see the FA's as either being culpable for, or saviours from the current apocalypse - and there's probably a mixture of both.
   
   Bet the Freakangels take great exception to being deified, though. Great point dirtymc
6. •  
     CommentAuthorFoley
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009 edited

    (4952.26)
   @Val
   Sad to say, I completely agree with the first paragraph. An internet comedian put it best: "a secular world is a sane world", and sanity is a necessity made that much more important with the downfall of everything as we know it. I shudder to think into the clusterfuck that is the politician's agenda in present day: install as many denominational beliefs into law so that people, regardless of their beliefs (or lack thereof), go through their days the way their religion would have wanted.
   
   With that said, the only purpose religion would really serve in post-apocalyptic times isn't that much different from what it serves today, on a global basis: coersion and the hoarding of money.
   
   (I cited "The Mist" because, while it's one standpoint, it's a loose example of many things that could happen in the scenario we're discussing.)
7. • CommentAuthordirtymc11
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009

    (4952.27)
   Well 1st off its a little linguistics here that the word angel means Messenger. It did not necessarily imply a supernatural origin. Just that one was sent to deliver a message. So the freakangels are here to deliver a message. What it is is why I keep reading (hoping that it never gets delivered).
   
   The way I understand it noone but the 'angels knows that they caused the end of the world. Therefore all the whitechapel folks see is these supremely powerful beings who watch over them and protect them. This is exactly what the jews thought about yahweh.
   
   While our scribe may never choose to delve into this aspect of whitechapel there are definitly folks who are either already doing so or forming the idea that the angels are gods.
   
   When the world doesnt make sense anymore we will grab any idea that seems to take the difficulty of asking questions away from us.
   
   And I think some of the angels would definitely welcome and maybe already are encouraging worship.
   
   It would help the sheriff keep the piece. It would turn anything into an act of worship so long as the diety commands it.
   
   Anyone who is out there trying to start a religion on the 'angels probably takes pains to get the flock to not speak about this openly. Aftger all some of them would definitely smack down anyone who tried to do that.
   
   Religion has always been a tool of social control and in the history of mankind there have been long periods when it was the only one.
   
   Diefication however usually waits until after those deified are no longer around to say 'I am not a God' (which as a believing and pracgticing Jew Jesus would have been appalled to see happen)a
8. •  
     CommentAuthorwarrenellis
   • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2009

    (4952.28)
   Nutters be quiet now.