/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.6122277]

Is it /fa/ to be religious or spiritual? I'm not looking for a definite answer, just your opinions. I know you guys like to rip on atheist-core, but does that mean it's actually more /fa/ to be religious in your opinion?

I think like George Orwell on this one:

"Within the last few decades, in countries like Britain or the United States, the literary intelligentsia has grown large enough to constitute a world in itself. One important result of this is that the opinions which a writer feels frightened of expressing are not those which are disapproved of by society as a whole. To a great extent, what is still loosely thought of as heterodoxy has become orthodoxy. It is nonsense to pretend, for instance, that at this date there is something daring and original in proclaiming yourself an anarchist, an atheist, a pacifist, etc. The daring thing, or at any rate the unfashionable thing, is to believe in God or to approve of the capitalist system. In 1895, when Oscar Wilde was jailed, it must have needed very considerable moral courage to defend homosexuality. Today it would need no courage at all: today the equivalent action would be, perhaps, to defend antisemitism. But this example that I have chosen immediately reminds one of something else—namely, that one cannot judge the value of an opinion simply by the amount of courage that is required in holding it."

The militant atheist may not be as courageous/clever as he thinks he is, but, importantly, he's correct on the main point.

[Natalie Portman - America's Sweetheart ✯///// !Nat9xVTTmU No.6122295]

>>6122277
i don't even think about religion

[Anonymous No.6122297]

>>6122277
It's not /fa/ to care either way

un-/fa/ concerns: what other people think, celebrity gossip, tech news, God, grammar
/fa/ concerns: denim fades, newest pitchfork bands (and whether you approve), date of next supreme drop (even though you don't like supreme anymore)

[Anonymous No.6122304]

>>6122295
so living in ignorance of the political climate and how it affects you is the /fa/ way to live?

you realize that there are people in the world who don't think you should be allowed to live the way you do because of their religious beliefs, right?

[ph No.6122305]

>>6122297
stop

[trap gang No.6122306]

trap lord swag god 2k13

[Anonymous No.6122315]

It's completely /fa/ to be an atheist. What's /fa/ about bowing to an imaginary authority? What's /fa/ about letting other people who do dictate the terms of your life? I don't respect anyone who lets idiocy walk all over them just because they can't be bothered to care.

[trap gang No.6122339]

>>6122306
dude its been like 5 hours u still at it
holy shit get a life

[Natalie Portman - America's Sweetheart ✯///// !Nat9xVTTmU No.6122333]

>>6122304
peep the trip baby, i only care about my glorious home

and on your regards to politics, my main interest in any of that has nothing to do with religion

[Anonymous No.6122335]

people on /fa/ are pretty dumb so I wouldn't even be surprised if a lot of people say it's /fa/ to not care (since they're not bright enough to have an opinion on anything other than whether to cop) or that it's /fa/ to believe in God (because they're too intellectually lazy to change their beliefs to something less embarrassing)

[Anonymous No.6122338]

>>6122315

[Anonymous No.6122341]

being spiritual is much more /fa/ than being religious

reason: being spiritual is a much more personal thing than being religious. being religious involves a community and a dogma, however in spirituality you are basically exploring on your own (also exploring yourself).

since being spiritual does not involve believing in random stuff someone told you (like being religious usually does, unless you came to the zealocity level of a prophet), but in stuff you experience - which is just as true as the world of science and reason atheism believes in - just on a different conscious level than the real world.

so, being spiritual but not religious could be counted as /fa/ as fuck. especially because that's what I do.

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.6122349]

>>6122335
why do athiests hate everyone so much

[trap gang No.6122367]

>>6122339
just got back on
trap lord swag gang 2k50

[Anonymous No.6122370]

It's like I'm really on Reddit.

[Natalie Portman - America's Sweetheart ✯///// !Nat9xVTTmU No.6122371]

>>6122335
>people on /fa/ are pretty dumb so I wouldn't even be surprised if a lot of people say it's /fa/ to not care

why invest my time in topics like that?
seriously, that's all i did in highschool was ask philosophical/existential questions to myself.
i'm done with it and won't revisit that for a very long time
i'm more interested in building things here in this reality
i've heard all the arguments from both sides and i think it's pointless to argue about the stuff now

[Anonymous No.6122393]

>>6122341
isn't being spiritual just another word for being loose with your thinking

like allying yourself to anything that seems right to you in the moment

isn't it better to be a little bit more discerning than that? given everything we know? it's not like being poetic and metaphorical and starry-eyed when you see the world is incompatible with being nonspiritual

>>6122349
I don't hate people I just get frustrated when this topic comes up because it's so obvious to me (and a rapidly increasing number of others) that what they believe is so obviously silly

>>6122371
I don't define myself by my atheism, it's not a leading cause in my life, but I can't just throw it away either. It's a side thing. It's like my political beliefs, or my thoughts on fashion. I don't stop caring just because it's not the focus of my life. I also care and will tell people if they ask that I care about legalizing marijuana. I don't even smoke marijuana anymore. But you can't just stop standing for things when you get bored of the conversation.

[Anonymous No.6122405]

>>6122277
I don't think it's a matter of being 'cool', whatever that means. Were talking about how you relate to the universe on a very fundamental level - taking a stance on something this far reaching for the sake of presenting yourself to the world in a certain fashion pretty much defeats the validity of whatever ethos you claim, thus rendering you phony on subsequent ascending levels. Being a fake is not something we tend to aspire to.

Most of us do not live in ideologically homogenous communities. There is a bit of everything, all around us (ideally, or at least online). In a world with as much cultural diffusion as this one, the best choice is ultimately to follow your heart in the matter - to create your own unique system of beliefs from the vast array of choices before us all. In this somewhat free world of ours, this means taking a little from column A and a little from columns C, D and E. Rigid spiritual boundaries are a thing of the past; the only truly unfashionable stance is a dogmatic or bigoted one.

To reiterate, there are no walls in this matter anymore. Take what you can use, and leave the rest. Belief systems are not intended to be fashionable, they aim to put you at some sort of peace with the human condition. As personal style is an expression of your inner self, so is a unique, self-constructed ideology. Your ideology, whatever it may be, is not fashionable in and of itself. The confidence and peace that you radiate IS.

[Anonymous No.6122406]

>>6122393
Why are atheists always so bitchy and defensive?

>i get mad cause i see that...
Ya stop

[Anonymous No.6122409]

>>6122393
“Meditation brings wisdom; lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what hold you back, and choose the path that leads to wisdom.”
- Buddha

[Anonymous No.6122417]

>>6122409
"beep... beep... beep..."
- Sputnik 1

[Anonymous No.6122423]

>>6122405
how can you say absolutely nothing of value in a post that long?

[Anonymous No.6122427]

>>6122417
The Buddha would have said to follow the middle path. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. The absolutes do not exist outside of human thought constructions.

[Anonymous No.6122430]

>>6122423
I answered the OP's question about faith being fashionable.

[Anonymous No.6122429]

>>6122423
>this shit is too hard for me to understand you should make a tl:dr

[Anonymous No.6122435]

>>6122427
go back to /pol/ nerd

[Anonymous No.6122444]

>>6122435
This is my only board.

[Anonymous No.6122448]

>>6122427
science, in its search for truth, could not exist as it does if it believed that faith could reveal truth.

they are mutually exclusive, except when it means that someone can believe in a bit of science and believe in a bit of faith, selecting their PERSONAL beliefs in such an arbitrary way. But that's not believing in science. Either you don't really believe that faith can reveal truths or you do.

Some scientists get away with faith because they believe that yes, it CAN reveal truth, but not for anything relevant to their field of study. Well this is hardly mixing the two, it's just giving them authority over different spheres.

They are not compatible.

[Anonymous No.6122468]

>>6122429
what was his point, eh? First he says picking your faith based on fashionability is lame. Of course. But nobody needed clarification on that.

Then he says we live in societies that have lots of different ideologies and that therefore the best choise is to "follow your heart" and create a unique belief system for yourself, and disregard boundaries between religious systems.

Taken as recommendation about constructing beliefs, this is pure bullshit. It's pretty clear he cares about futurism more than truth, which I find kind of funny since the technology of the future couldn't exist if truth wasn't the first principle in the sciences which have created and will create those technologies. I don't know how he can take himself seriously as he says "follow your heart" as if it's much more than an empty cliché, but somehow he does.

But what he's really saying is "you can believe whatever you want" and that's what's fashionable. This is so obvious that it's not worth saying.

Then modernism bullshit, "there are no walls in this matter anymore". "Take what you can use". Then he in a wordy way says beliefs are comforting. Then he goes back to saying that your belief system should be a reflection of yourself, again, nobody was trying to find the coolest religion. Then "it's cool to be yourself", by Poet AKA Lady Gaga.

There is nothing of value in his post. It states only what everyone already knows in a way that looks like wisdom to idiots like you.

[Anonymous No.6122482]

>>6122409
why does that impress you

it's so empty of meaning

if "Buddha" hadn't allegedly said it nobody would give a shit who did

[Anonymous No.6122501]

It doesn't matter.

Just aslong as you don't go pressuring people and fucking with their rights

[Anonymous No.6122519]

>>6122448
You're speaking in absolutes, and trying to position YOUR truth as the only truth. YOU see science and faith as incompatible; you do so with no regard for the possibility that I may feel differently. Indeed, you might insist that I am flat out wrong.
But what if my personal ideology included a beckoning alien mind beyond that speaks to us through technology and culture, that gradually shapes us in its image through evolution? What if I believe that the delusion of the previous millennia was hell and demons, whereas the delusion of this one is eternal nothingness? What if I've simply got faith and science in their own little neighborhoods and entertain the validity of both simultaneously, regardless of contradiction?
What then? Do you instantly disregard everything I say from that point? Am I an idiot, then? Or am I just wrong?

If you're answering yes, then you're guilty of Dogma. In fact, you're not all that different from a hard line Christian. You may preach a different creation story, but your mind is just as set in its ways.

There are no walls, there are no absolute answers, and there never will be. Not until death will you know for sure.
Ironically, I've found that coming to terms with this essential unknown has granted me the inner peace that sets most folks searching for God in the first place. I stopped looking for absolutes - When I did, I found myself. At the end of the day all that really matters is living well, being happy, and the people you love.

[Anonymous No.6122527]

>>6122482
>empty of meaning
The Buddha himself would agree with you.

[Anonymous No.6122531]

Being a learned agnostic is pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.6122544]

>>6122531
you're missing one half of it.

athiest: do not believe in a god
theist: do believe in a god
gnostic: knowing
agnostic: not knowing

Almost all atheists are agnostic atheists. They do not believe in a God and don't believe they can know that there isn't one either.

The gnostic atheist that believes they know there is no God is a rare species, and not taken very seriously by anyone.

Either you are a theist or you are not. I suspect you are not.

[Anonymous No.6122553]

>>6122544
mate you got #swagga lol

[twerk it No.6122555]

>>6122519
a common statement made by creationists is that it takes as much faith to believe in science as it does in creationism. they're wrong, but the suggestion isn't inaccurate.

you, the reader, don't really understand the findings of all fields of science. you can probably grasp a sufficiently abstracted explanation, but it's unlikely that you have the skill and knowledge to parse the data that they present, especially amongst all the various fields of science that contribute to the collective body of work. you can assume with a fair amount of security that you aren't being misled every time, but peer review fraud happens; you have to have faith that you aren't being lied to by the people who know more than you do.

to put it another way, we can absolutely prove that barack obama exists; aside from being able to present obeez himself, we could produce his dna fingerprint and verify it against samples taken from his body (with a little bit of faith that the results aren't being falsified). we cannot, however, prove that julius caesar existed. we can present an overwhelming amount of first-hand accounts of his life, to the point that there's no reason to believe he didn't, but it's still taken on the assumption that there's isn't some sort of julian conspiracy (jews, nwo, etc)

[Anonymous No.6122570]

>not believing in ancient Egyptian gods

[twerk it No.6122587]

>>6122555
even if we assume that scientists, and the people translating their findings into something that we laymen can digest are always 100% accurate and honest, quite a lot of our scientific knowledge is based on systems that we have to place some faith in; for example, it's pretty easy to prove that the earth's crust is made of stones minerals etc, but when it comes to guessing at the composition of most other celestial bodies, all we can do as peek at them through telescopes and make an educated guess. it's pretty rare that they're close enough to fire probes at.

[Anonymous No.6122597]

>>6122587

the main point is that if we don't believe it we can go about trying to find a reason to say why it isn't right. the scientific method has produced fantastic results in every field. so while it takes some faith, it doesn't take much.

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122611]

>>6122555
>>6122587
i had thoughts like these while i was showering once lol

[Anonymous No.6122613]

>>6122587
>>6122555
Well said.
So much of existence is a grey area, I really don't see the value in trying to describe it in terms of black and white. I feel as if discounting entire schools of thought because one's frame of reference does not encompass them is counterproductive. I'd go as far as saying that it's downright unscientific.

[twerk it No.6122621]

>>6122597
it takes a great deal of faith because there's a lot of theories that are extrapolated from incomplete models based on partial observations; the possibility of ftl travel, how the universe formed, what the ultimate fate of the universe will be, and even what the universe is filled with, are all things that even the scientists studying them are not, and cannot be entirely certain of.

[Anonymous No.6122633]

>>6122621
Did you just finish your Philosophy 101 course or smth?

[twerk it No.6122639]

>>6122633
what was the point of that post

[Anonymous No.6122644]

>>6122639
i think you know
philo 101 imparts at least that much critical thinking ability

[Anonymous No.6122645]

>>6122639
>>6122639
twerk asking the #big questions

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122646]

>>6122621
>there's a lot of theories that are extrapolated from incomplete models based on partial observations

dude what are you talking about if the models/observations are wrong the peer reviewers rape it and no one takes it srsly

[Anonymous No.6122648]

>>6122633
I hope that's not your rebuttal.
As a statement, it's only intended purpose is mockery and a cease to all further analysis.

[twerk it No.6122652]

>>6122644
it's not a difficult proposition at all, which is why i'm floored when i have to explain it to supposedly educated people.

[Anonymous No.6122655]

>>6122648
wow u got it
gold * 4 u
10/10
a+
:)))

[Anonymous No.6122657]

>>6122646
Theoretical physics has operated on unproveable models for ages, as have SSRI drugs in the battle against clinical depression.

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122662]

>>6122657
I wasn't talking about those but I acknowledge ur point

Theoretical physics is more about finding possible systems by logic to pave the way for testing them out imo

some can't be tested obv but w/e

[twerk it No.6122664]

>>6122646
i don't think you understand how the peer review process works. all that happens is that some people look it over to judge whether or not it could be considered noteworthy. they don't grade it like a teacher, and they certainly don't repeat the study themselves to verify it! falsified data, faulty methodology, and broken math get published, and genuinely compelling work is sometimes supressed.

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122670]

>>6122664
lol if you want to be accepted into a good journal they do grade it

second rate ones will be accepted into bad ones and before something is accepted as generally true there needs to be a poopload of first rate studies

[twerk it No.6122674]

>>6122670
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_review

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6122675]

>>6122646
There is a relatively famous study carried out by a American researcher I think in which the samples were photoshopped.

No one figured it out for years, it was peer reviewed and everything. One day someone who was experienced in editing saw it and pointed it out.

All he simply did was flip and rotate a single data point 8 times to forge a fake finding.

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122679]

>>6122674
readin

[Anonymous No.6122680]

>>6122652
The problem is that the areas of physics you talk about don't really determine someone's worldview, plus they're only a very small part of the totality that is science.

Another difference is that there are ways of verifying and backing up scientific claims with evidence and we have the ability to further explore and determine some of these shaky theories and hypotheses in the future, as has been continually proved throughout the last few centuries especially, where as something like religion hasn't been able to do this even when vastly predates modern science. Nor can it rest any of its assertions on evidence verified by a reputable and capable governing body (definitions are important here).

I don't think it requires 'faith' per se, but trust, which is a little different.

[Anonymous No.6122685]

>>6122664
I agree that this happens more often than not, but the more, dare I say, relevant and important works are often quickly taken up in attempts to repeat the findings, like the whole cold fusion thing.

[twerk it No.6122687]

>>6122680
i'm not generally a skeptic, and i'm not religious. i'm all about that science life. i just think some #stemcore types shoot themselves in the foot with the way they propose science as an alternative to religion, when they're completely different things, and slander spirituality and the sublime.

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122688]

>>6122674
>>6122675
ok done readin'
I do acknowledge that sometimes it fails cuz of mistakes and actual malevolence (There have been a LOT of cases where ppl fake stuff actually, and gotten away with it), but its never enough to influence any MAJOR theories because they are always tested by a lot of people. I'm gonna look for that one study you mentioned

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122696]

>>6122688
cant find it nvm

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6122700]

>>6122696
Yeah sorry I couldn't be more specific sort of slept on the particular example on my lab.

there are heaps though, it's nothing new. I think they've started screening for it though.

[Anonymous No.6122705]

>>6122670
Plenty of 'good' journals have published flawed and second rate theories based on incomplete data, unproven theoretical models and skewed protocols. Journals do not aim to lay down a set of absolute truths, they aim to stimulate a discourse and provide a forum for presenting results. Results being the key word. Right and wrong often come into play much later - in the field, in the real world.

To return to my previous line of reasoning, I don't believe the content of one's personal beliefs can be discussed in the same context as scientific inquiry because there is no absolute proof available to us in this lifetime. What demonstrates the effectiveness of a belief system is how well it works for YOU. By 'how well it works', I'm referring to how effective it is in helping you enjoy this life, in putting you at peace with the human condition and the world around you.
If Atheism works for you, then you should be an atheist. If a God concept of some sort helps you face your day, you should go with that. What you shouldn't do is worry about who's wrong and who's right, because guess what? The results aren't in yet, and they don't even matter in the long run. As soon as one party exclaims that their truth is the only truth, we begin to walk down the road of Dogma, a path that has historically lead to oppression in one form or another.

There's nothing to prove here - the only area of any importance is how you're living today. Sometimes being happy is more important than being right. It's a gift to be alive, no matter how you got here.

[Anonymous No.6122707]

>>6122687
>>6122687
#agree #wisdom #heshtegs

[Anonymous No.6122708]

>>6122680

[None !3BananaXFw No.6122712]

>>6122705
while i was talking about da journals i meant more how they affected the end results, the theories

but ya ur post is right

[Anonymous No.6122725]

>>6122687
It depends what you mean by science. Of course science isn't going to fill the 'moral void' that religion fills for many people, nor can it, or anything really, 'disprove' a religion. Science can provide alternate explanations for 'acts of God', though, which, again, it has continuously done since the birth of modern science. God's image has been withered slowly, until now all that is truly contended is that he perhaps was the primary mover of the universe, as all his other acts have been replaced with a scientific and logical model with genuine cause and effect.

What do you mean by spirituality, by the way? Most tend to stay away from that, especially considering the majority of today's philosophers are very materialist in their worldviews.

[timber No.6122733]

>>6122685
the first internship i ever took was at a state university lab doing research into what is now referred 2 as chemically-assisted fusion (see they change the name every few years so critics can't keep up w/ them) and let me tell u. if you ever want to get a too-close, too-personal look at just how the peer review system can go so wrong, take a job in an underfunded lab run by a group of desperate professors who understand very clearly that their research grants and lab -- and maybe for some of them their continuing positions at the university -- depend on finding empirical evidence for claims which are essentially pseudoscience

u mite also get 2 run a neato 30 y.o. SEM which is constantly and unpredictably electrocuting u :-----)

[Anonymous No.6122737]

>>6122708
>dictionary definitions
oh boy back to class, faith in a religious sense has different connotations.

also could discuss the difference between reasonable trust and unreasonable trust, thnx for making me think about it.

[twerk it No.6122740]

>>6122725
i don't have a definition for spirituality, but i know that i find value in meditation despite being an athiest and that i used to like the high i got from mushrooms because the food poisoning you had to suffer to in order to reach the trip made it feel special

[Anonymous No.6122746]

>>6122725
You needn't think of God as a specific entity. It/They/She/He needn't possess a definable image, either. You needn't think of God as a direct influence in human affairs. You needn't even think of God as anything. You certainly don't need to think of God in terms of human constructions like religion - in my estimation you're better off if you don't.

[Anonymous No.6122743]

>>6122733
yeah I can definitely understand that happens much, much more often than is comfortable. the only saving grace is that most papers are required to state their bias, whether generated by funding or affiliation.

[Anonymous No.6122756]

>>6122740
I see what you mean, I like to meditate and such too. Also had a terrifying and strange mushroom trip, alone in a foreign country last year as well. Haven't been brave enough to try again.

I just don't think of these as a... spiritual experience. It's just semantics, but the weight placed behind spirituality by some people is a little off putting.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6122758]

>>6122733
elaborate

>30 y.o SEM
>laughingszilard.jpg
mfw handling some #vintage 60y.o EM imported from CR

get rekt

[Anonymous No.6122764]

>>6122746
I agree, many people do though. Mongolian shamanism is a very big proponent of a form of pantheism, where their 'God' is merely the Earth and universe. It's still not going to hold up to skeptical inquiry, but it's an interesting approach.

[Anonymous No.6122809]

>>6122737
Of course it has a different connotation. Spirituality and Science serve different functions. To argue that one is a replacement for the other is to pit apples against oranges.

[timber No.6122863]

>>6122758
not the time/place

email me about it tho fukr

[Anonymous No.6122898]

>>6122809
????
no one is sayin that
science can explain the God aspect away tho