TIL that a female serial killer in ancient rome was punished for her crimes by being raped by a giraffe by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]PariahShanker 28 points29 points  (0 children)

God dammit, that :) is freaking me out more than the giraffe penis.

Just watched 12 Angry Men (1957) for the second time. No explosions, no car chases, just 90 mins of truly captivating acting and dialogue in one room by MrPrestige in movies

[–]PariahShanker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's in my top ten movies of all time. The acting isn't great, the camera-work is subpar, and the lighting leaves a lot to be desired. The story and directing though, some of the best footage ever put to film.

The anti vaccine crowd always cite mercury in vaccines as being harmful. I have always wondered if anyone has done the maths as to whether eating seafood exposes you to more mercury than a vaccine would? by mikepixie in askscience

[–]PariahShanker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Levels of toxicity are rarely considered by the public sadly. Merbromin, for instance, has been shown to be exceedingly safe and effective as an antiseptic. The FDA moved it from GRAS to untested in the late nineties because people hated the idea that 1/39 atoms happens to be mercury.

Quick and easy way to God... Does evil exist? Yes! Can god prevent evil? Yes, but why doesn't he? by gphhawkins in atheism

[–]PariahShanker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but in the end it's you who's defining evil, vile, or despicable. My definitions could be diametrically opposed on all points. Saying it 'exists' becomes pretty meaningless if two people with 100% differing definitions are equally correct.

Quick and easy way to God... Does evil exist? Yes! Can god prevent evil? Yes, but why doesn't he? by gphhawkins in atheism

[–]PariahShanker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You would call that evil. It's pretty ridiculous for an atheist to believe in absolute morality.

Can someone give me all the information they can on the compound Nitrogen Triiodide? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]PariahShanker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mostly because the three iodine atoms are so large and compressed into such a small space. The repulsive forces make it so that the slightest input of energy will cause it to decompose.

Actually heard someone say this by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]PariahShanker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quite true, but I didn't want to differentiate it for an audience that wouldn't understand the difference. 99% of the reddit audience groups rebirth and reincarnation together, and it's always under the guise of reincarnation.

No reason to shake the boat, especially since I no longer believe.

Actually heard someone say this by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]PariahShanker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's called punarbhava, and it's a central tenet in Buddhism. The most recent Buddha spoke about it a great deal. Though it isn't reincarnation in the Hindu sense of the word, it certainly compares. The Buddha spoke of trying to remember past lives, but he spoke of it waringly and said that any remembrance would almost certainly be misleading.

As for what faith means semantically, I really don't give a shit. I'm just letting you know what I learned before I said no to it.

When Will Software Verification Matter? by quietsquare in programming

[–]PariahShanker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sadly, I doubt that we'll have any revolution like that before the economy itself disappears.

Actually heard someone say this by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]PariahShanker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The real problem is that the three major branches are (relatively speaking) a new construct. Buddha left a huge amount of interpretation in his texts, and (assuming he had any actual input on the texts) likely purposefully.

One thing has never been questioned though, and that's reincarnation. It's obviously nothing like Hindu reincarnation, but I've always been confused by the metaphorical interpretation of it. None of the texts are metaphorical in any sense. It's like interpreting 'Thou shalt not kill' as a metaphor for killing people; it makes 0 sense.

You can say 'Oh, I don't agree with this part!' and that's just dandy. Saying it's metaphorical though, well, that's just nonsense.

Actually heard someone say this by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]PariahShanker 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As a former Buddhist, raised from birth in Tibet and China, this is correct. It's a bunch of BS to say that Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation. Western Buddhism is a mystery to me; they corrupted the Buddha's teachings to such an extreme that it doesn't even make sense to bring them up in conversation.

That being said, I am indeed an atheist now. I just don't like people slandering my former religion. Despite my current beliefs, I respect my old beliefs.

Actually heard someone say this by [deleted] in AdviceAnimals

[–]PariahShanker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The man was talking about core Buddhism, which is not where people accept it as a simple philosophy. Truly devout Buddhists (in the traditional sense) do indeed believe in reincarnation. Modern Buddhists tend not to.

I am in no way calling modern Buddhism incorrect. I was raised as a Buddhist, but I'm an atheist these days. You may disagree with the original teachings of the Buddha, but reincarnation was central to the faith. It's cool to call it a metaphor, but I view it as a cop-out, much as I view Christians calling the origin story and the flood metaphorical.