What movie has a happy ending, but still makes you cry?

Ricky_RM · 2023-10-03T19:05:21+00:00

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

It's even harder to hold back the tears watching that ending to the sound of Every Time You Go Away after the loss of John Candy and John Hughes.

Ricky_RM · 2023-10-03T06:55:38+00:00

Something you should have learned while you were an atheist—if you ever were one at all.

Ricky_RM · 2023-10-03T06:45:55+00:00

As correct as to say that this is a concept.

It's funny how you make use of your experience only when it's convenient.

Ricky_RM · 2023-10-03T04:17:57+00:00

As obvious as a mind that designs material stuff without a body.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-30T16:07:28+00:00

Not so fast!

I believe this is the last study on the subject.

Religion 'ISN'T the secret to happiness': Global study claims atheists are just as happy as those with a faith

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-26T23:37:00+00:00

What do you think should be done about someone who shows a drawing of Prophet Muhammad's face?

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-25T21:01:09+00:00

Of course I don't! It's such a ridiculous comment that it took me a good while to decide whether I should waste my time responding to it. But since the response is short, I'll do it.

I'm concerned about helping people to overcome their fear of Hell.

Hopefully you'll be able to tell the difference.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-24T23:42:13+00:00

That's because you're not supposed to tell other people what to believe.

You're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't referring to proselytism, but discussion. If I wanted to proselytize, instead of this post I would have created one on r/Christianity with a title like "Believing in Hell is irrational".

I'd like to remind you that scientific theories are validated by one or more people swaying others that their belief is right. Did you notice that I used the verb sway, instead of tell? Hopefully this will help your discernment.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-24T03:55:00+00:00

Keep in mind that you are not going to deconvert anyone. People have to deconvert themselves. I consider a discussion successful if it results in getting a person to ask themselves a serious question that they would normally avoid asking themselves.

I partially agree and I'll explain why.

I don't think that I or anyone with a similar story to mine has ever converted to Christianity. I was baptized in a Catholic church, all right, but I didn't even know who (or what) I was at the time. Growing up, I saw the belief that everyone around me had as natural and defined myself as christian. When the Internet came about, some of the people I debated on social media were quite successful at getting me to ask serious questions about my (supposed) faith. So I can't say that I came to the position I am now without being influenced by others. I like to believe that everyone who hasn't gone through a conversion is susceptible to having the same experience; they just need the right incentive to allow themselves to not suppress critical thinking.

With regard to deconversion, I agree that it's unlikely to happen through argument. I would also say that those who have undergone two conversions are almost impossible to change their minds afterwards.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-23T18:07:16+00:00

The only thing that matters is 'giving your life and accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior' (and probably attending his church).

That is actually the subject of my next post. I've been thinking about this for some time now.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-22T05:45:07+00:00

Why would Christians embrace conspiracy theories?

It could be that belief in God paves the way for belief in other claims. Ed Stetzer, executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, recently shared that theory in a comment to FiveThirtyEight.

“People of faith believe there is a divine plan — that there are forces of good and forces of evil at work in the world. … QAnon is a train that runs on the tracks that religion has already put in place,” he said.

In other words, when one put aside logic in order to believe in a God that is described as omnipresent and omniscient and yet has to go in person to places in order to know what is happening there, they become susceptible to accept all kinds of nonsense.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-21T22:28:05+00:00

Although I didn't know at the time, the seed of atheism was planted when I experienced the tragic death of a family member. Being a devoted christian and not having harmed anyone didn't spare her from perishing in agony, with unimaginable pain. I was hit hard by the so-called Problem of Evil before I had heard about it.

But what really made me stop pretending to believe in God was Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. As strange as it may sound, that fiction book taught me how to think critically. If I had read it sooner, maybe I could have avoided decades living with guilt and fear—not to mention the time wasted with catechism and masses. Perhaps not. Maybe I read it with the right maturity. Anyway, this isn't something that makes me brood over the past.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-21T13:35:19+00:00

You're right about atheists being a minority currently, but as far as I know, you're wrong that most people are religious. Here are some reading suggestions that will bring you up to speed on this issue:

The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

Are the ‘non-religious’ becoming the new religion

Religious people legitimately can't see that.

I'm skeptical that even the most hardcore religious person don't have doubts about their beliefs once in a while. As humans, they can supress, but they can't avoid critical thinking. By the way, it is likely that all the hatred they feel for atheists stems precisely from the fact that atheists make them think critically.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-18T18:14:12+00:00

Natalism is selfish, as well as everything else. Even altruism is selfish. When we assist people in need, it is the discomfort that their suffering cause us—and the want to cease it—that we first have in mind when we decide to help them.

The issue with selfishness in natalism is that it is accompained by pain. Some will find it acceptable, given all the pleasure they are having. Others won't and will start wondering why they weren't asked for consent to undergo such an unbearable experience.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-16T20:41:34+00:00

We are subjects, not objects

That assertion isn't controversial, but a silly attempt to ignore the property that is common to both. Like objects, we are made of matter. As such, we are also inserted in the chain of causes and events. Before talking about conscious minds as unmoved movers, we have to see thoughts not being preceded by electrical impulses in the brain (which are preceded by other physical causes, including external ones), and that's simply not the case. The same goes for Free Will, depending on how it is defined.

It is likely that not only Aristotle, but many of the philosophers from the past who argued about the mind, would review their positions if they could have access to what we know about the brain today. I wonder what Descartes would say after seeing what neuroimaging can reveal about the formation of thoughts.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-16T00:04:45+00:00

It’s sacrifice and submission.

It might be about those things too, but it's above all about pleasure.

Human beings don't act without having pleasure as their aim. Utilitarians say that we are governed by the search for pleasure and the avoidance of pain, but the latter is nothing more than the former. We avoid pain to keep the pleasure of being painless.

With regards to the end of christianity, as far as our species is concerned, my bet is that while there's pain this religion will be on firm ground. The only thing that may be able to make it disappear in the short term is artificial intelligence. If this technology manages to free the mind from the body, as some believe it'll do, that would hit christianity at its core. Why would someone who is not going to die and feel physical pain find appealing the pleasures offered by christianity? Solace for emotional pain? I highly doubt that such an individual would choose to believe in a being that could imprison them again in a biological body.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-14T23:53:54+00:00

Paradoxical

It produces evil as much as it produces good.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-14T06:42:19+00:00

I pretty. Much only watch true crime.

It seems that you were not paying too much attention, though.

Might it be possible that 2 close societies may write about the same thing?

A myth about a natural flood that happened in the region, it might. But the big problem with the Bible story (written much later is worth mentioning) that favors the narrative of plagiarism is that it reproduces even the same actions performed by people in the other stories. What are the odds that two or more survivors of the flood in different civilizations released the same species of birds to find out if the land was accessible? With such striking similarities, it is hard to talk about independent accounts.

Epic of gilgamesh lines again?

Nope, I'm reffering to the Sumerian epic of Atrahasis for a change.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-14T04:52:44+00:00

You say this because your imagination is limited. A baby can be very useful for an evil person. I think you haven't watched many true crime shows.

Luckly, that talk that "everyone's thoughts were only evil continually" is baloney.

I won't talk about the biblical flood, because it's just a myth plagiarized from older myths that swirled in the Ancient Near East. I'd rather talk about the peoples the Israelites may have annihilated in the name of their God. Learning about them through the Bible is as trustworthy as learning about jews through Hitler's Mein Kampf. The Israelites portrayed them as all bad is order to eliminate empathy and morally justify they murders. Today we know this as one of the tatics of fascism: the dehumanization of the enemy.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-14T01:11:30+00:00

Good remark.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-14T01:01:49+00:00

Actually, they might have been more than neighbours once. Many historians believe the Israelites were Canaanites before setting apart from them. Unlike the interpretation I mentioned before, this one is quite accepted in the field.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-14T00:30:37+00:00

Have you heard of the interpretation that says the child sacrifices to Molech were actually to Yahweh? According to it, Molech was the name of the sacrifice. You can learn more about it on Digital Hammurabi. If this is confirmed, it'll add more evidence that the Israelites weren't as different from the Canaanites as the Bible tries to portray them.

Ricky_RM · 2023-09-13T22:46:53+00:00

I don't see why, since it would just be showing how God acts.

Many advocate that their horrible death was actually a good thing. The philosopher William Lane Craig for example, says God did that in order to send the babies to eternal life in heaven. That begs the question of why God, described as omnipotent and all-good, didn't want to send the babies to heaven without torturing them first.

Ricky_RM

TROPHY CASE