Posts by Brenda Cook4

wearyowl29 said:The real question is... how long can this golden era actually last???

It’s the exact same point jademarlin26 made... I could sit here and really chew on this for a while, trying to weigh the options: do we lean into hatred, or do we finally choose unity as a human race?

Honestly, there’s just nothing better than this... absolutely nothing...

It’s like Muslims acting as a protective buffer for Christians, using the rallying cry, 'We either live together or we die together.'In Egypt, Muslim communities are showing up to Coptic Christmas services, essentially stepping in to serve as "human shields."

For goodness sake, Morgan Rodriguez57, you even bolded 'the reborn Christians' in the text—clearly referring to those fundamentalists (and let’s be honest, we don't even need to count them to know they're everywhere in the US). So, does calling out these lunatics actually constitute 'inciting hatred' when you're just pointing out the obvious?😕

Jeremy Young19 said:not at all

I didn't mean to imply that atheists were being "cleared out" there—if that’s how it came across—and honestly, believers show up all over this subforum too. I just noticed that the atheists seem particularly drawn to questions about worldviews rooted in whether or not one believes in God. It also struck me that maybe both atheists and theists could benefit from defining their stances a bit more clearly.

🙂 Alright, fine! I just got a little worried you were trying to "sweep us away" and ship us off somewhere else...

As for the discussions regarding atheism, we have plenty of our own little threads where we hang out and chat, and most often, when we run into a believer😬

Jeremy Young19 said:I’ve been posting about religion for over three years now—honestly, more than 90% of my posts fall under that category. I’ve been lurking and reading for about four or five years, and it strikes me that there’s actually a massive number of atheists hanging out in the religion subforum. In fact, two out of the three moderators are atheists themselves. So, since we have active community members and mods who are genuinely interested in atheism as a subject, why hasn't a dedicated "atheism" subforum been opened yet?

Generally speaking, on any forum that isn't strictly religious, atheists participate too (and they often spark discussions just like the ones we see here). So, here's my question: do you think atheists should be banned from the religion section of a secular site like this one, simply because they aren't believers?

Because when you say:

We looked into making a space for Christianity, but it didn't pan out, lol. But hey, if there's interest, why not? There are subforums for everything.
__

Can I turn the question back on you? Why not just head over to a Christian forum where you could hang out with like-minded people? Personally, I’ve never stepped foot in those kinds of spaces, but that's exactly why I'm on a secular forum. I truly believe there shouldn't be arbitrary limits on what people discuss, because atheists don't just stick to their own isolated threads—they engage with the entire subforum.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Who’s going to give @Anderlon a warning for all that caps lock?

...and don't even get me started on the translation quality. 😬

...and naturally, the Reddit users...since they really are the heart and soul of this community😬

Nicholas King said:There’s a very real risk here that I’ll come across as that insufferable teacher's pet—the kind of person who treats every instructor's word like it’s the eleventh commandment—but I have to ask: why does this actually bother people so much? I mean, sure, it’s ugly, it’s totally unnecessary, and it’s just... bad design—but what specific problems is it actually causing?

I don't see how it slows down page loading, nor is it one of those annoying pop-ups that jumps in front of the text to block your reading, or some floating element that drifts across the screen while you're scrolling... It’s really not a big deal.

Honestly, that "Atlas" (?) anti-clockwise ad is way more irritating.

Most definitely🤷

Stas, look, the server needs funding somehow, right? 🤷 My only suggestion would be to ditch that 'Remove advertisements' button, since it doesn't actually work anyway.

...I guess I’ve just gotten used to skipping stuff (on some international forums), and generally, if I see something that doesn't grab my attention, I just click past it. 😬 Maybe someone else might find it interesting, though. 😍

wow🙏 that really isn't a small deal...

Thomas Booth5 said:To put it simply, humans are evolutionarily—and ultimately humanistically—built to be generalists.

...at least, that's the little bit of wisdom we've been granted...

Laura Rivera3 said:Sure. But I’m talking about physical specialization—if that even makes sense (just thinking out loud here). And it gets me wondering: Is the human mind itself our version of specialization?

Is the evolution of the mind basically the price we pay for lacking that physical specialization?
Is developing a complex mind what actually prevents us from ever returning to an animal state?

And finally—does that inability to go back to being "animal" force us to stare directly into the abyss?😁

It all starts with the abyss. neonscout5 put it this way: we’re essentially just a fraying rope stretched between our primal animal instincts and the ideal of the Superman. And that rope? It’s dangling right over a void. The abyss is pure chaos—it's a vacuum that swallows up both the beast within us and the fragile, barely human things we pretend to be. There’s no floor down there, no foundation, not even a single straw to grab onto for a moment of stability. Then there’s the idea of the future. It isn't some shiny possibility waiting for us; it’s a grim necessity born out of our own failures. It goes on and on like that. Every end is just an inevitable precursor to a new beginning, a cycle that repeats itself relentlessly. To be honest, the whole sentiment feels deeply melancholic—maybe even bordering on nihilism. If you ask me, the Superman can never truly rise above us while we're still stuck being half-animal, half-nothing.

I had this lovely little moment recently—just one of those quiet, wonderful things that catches you off guard. I finally sat down to watch that highly acclaimed animation that zooms from Earth all the way out toward the Sun, heading straight for the "edge" of our visible universe. It was such a trip! You start at Earth, then sweep past Venus, then Mercury, then hit the Sun, then move on to Mars... just drifting through space. And then it’s just a constant stream of asteroids, quasars, and all sorts of cosmic giants and dwarfs floating by.
I’ve started looking at it all differently lately—just watching these piles of rocks, all labeled with different names, being shuffled around toward some ultimate "end." It's a process I haven't actually witnessed reaching its conclusion, mostly because the whole thing just feels completely pointless to me now. It used to hit me as this heavy, acute wave of melancholy, you know? But now, it’s just exhausting. It’s like looking at a repetitive loop where nothing truly new happens under the Sun. Someone starts the cycle, someone else carries it on, and it just spins in an endless circle. Honestly, it’s just boring. After a while, the thought just sinks into the back of my mind, and I find myself moving on to things that actually feel worth my time.

wearyhawk83 said:So, what exactly is a rock specialized in?

...just so it stays right where it belongs, letting the stone rest in peace under God's watch without trying to take matters into its own hands.😬

Mark Torres14 said:Almost everything living out there is specialized in some way. Elephants have trunks, eagles have sharp vision, storks have specific beaks... you get the idea. Humans aren't specialized for anything. So, isn't specialization actually just a retreat back to being animals?🤷

Then how did that essence lead to the division of labor, specialization, and civilization? I probably haven't quite grasped your definition of specialization, which is why we're talking past each other.

Hope that clears things up.🙂
As Nietzsche writes in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

"We have invented happiness," say the last men, and they blink their eyes... From time to time a little poison: that makes for pleasant dreams. And at last, a lot of poison, so that dying is easy. There is still work to do, for work is play. But watch out that you don't wear yourself out from all the playing.

In a strange sort of way, that’s actually a perfect way to put it... being specialized for nothing, just drifting along until you occasionally stumble into that wretched abyss 😬... though there are other abysses out there, too. Take Boehme's abyss, the *ungrund*—that primal void where the eternal divine will is first conceived... an abyss that serves as the undifferentiated Father...

wearyowl29 said:Honestly, every single word here feels redundant...

...which is exactly how I feel about it...

wearyowl29 said:... wait, when did he actually say that "man is a sick animal"???😲 🙄

Good grief, man... that takes me back to 2003.😬

No, we really need to look at this within the proper context, specifically the one established by:

Where does this constant state of malaise actually stem from? There's no denying it: humans are far more prone to sickness, instability, and unpredictability than any other creature on the planet. We are, quite frankly, the most fragile species out there. But how did we end up this way? How did we become such an indeterminate mess?

"The truly sick represent man's greatest threat; I'm not talking about the villains or even the 'predators.' It's those who are broken from the very beginning—the downtrodden, the ones who have been crushed by circumstance. It is these individuals, the weakest of us, who ultimately undermine the fabric of society. They are the ones who cast doubt and poison our fundamental trust in life, in humanity, and in our own potential." (Nietzsche, Third)

What is it they’re actually chasing? They claim they want to stand for things like justice, or love, or wisdom, or even some sense of moral superiority. But let's be honest—it’s just a mask. That whole pursuit is really nothing more than the ambition of the "lowest" among us, the ones who are fundamentally broken.

It’s a pattern you see everywhere: these broken, fragile types try to claim a monopoly on morality. They act as if they hold the exclusive patent on being "good" or "just," looking down their noses at everyone else. It’s quite transparent, really. What we're actually witnessing is The Will of the Weak attempting to manufacture its own version of superiority. It’s an instinctual, almost desperate reach for a backdoor way to exert tyranny over those who are actually healthy and vibrant. Honestly, where do you *not* find this specific brand of power-seeking from the downtrodden? They are driven entirely by resentment—people who are, quite frankly, physiologically spent and spiritually decayed. It’s like watching a sprawling, trembling underworld fueled by nothing but petty, subterranean revenge.

This whole "sickly" concept is essentially the core malady of Christianity—it’s gifted humanity with a "diseased soul." It effectively kills off our primal instincts and the sheer will to live by imposing these pathetic restrictions on mankind, rules designed specifically for the weak and the subservient that everyone is forced to follow. To me, Nietzsche represents an even deeper level of misfortune; he’s reacting to an era of excessive rationality that lacks any Dionysian spirit. It’s nothing more than a negation of existence, a systematic strangling of every single spark of life.

Christianity has essentially declared total war on the superior individual. It’s positioned itself as the ultimate champion for everything mediocre, frail, and fundamentally broken. Instead of celebrating vitality, it has built its entire moral framework around opposing the raw instinct of a powerful, thriving life. In many ways, you could view Christianity as a coordinated uprising by those who crawl through the dirt, all aimed at pulling down anyone who dares to stand tall.

In that sense, Nietzsche says.

dustyskipper3 said:Peace and Love brother. 😍

OT: When the barking stops, the silence begins. Dogs bark, but the caravans just keep rolling.

I was always taught that the actual truth reveals itself through palindromes (see, for example, D. Oraić-Tolić’s work on the Palindromic Apocalypse). If you apply that logic to the concept of truth, we get:

Truth - a thread

From this, I suppose we can conclude that a person seeking the truth—viewing it as a mere thread—can only truly grasp it through a long series of shifting perspectives, much like the various discussion threads we have here on this forum. I guess even Z. Tomac searched for the red thread, only to find a black one, yet neither held any real truth. 😳 Truth isn't some rigid ideology; it is a sequence, a chain, a thread... perhaps the closest anyone came was Heraclitus, who famously said everything flows and you can't step into the same river twice, though he still didn't quite explain where the river comes from or where it's actually headed. ☕

...but most people just turn all of that into an ideology. Honestly, it's much easier that way—you just join the club. You don't even have to think for yourself because someone else has already done the heavy lifting for you; all you have to do is echo their words like a hollow reverberation...

...we can't step into the same river twice, yet the river remains, because we follow the path upward by going downward... the river is always there, yet it goes nowhere. Since everything is constantly shifting, it's incredibly hard to grasp the concept of "the same," so we search for something more permanent and unchanging. Heraclitus speaks of a formula, a sequence, a thread—the logos. We might find this through careful introspection... but we have to remember that "nature loves to hide," or so the old philosopher suggested. You wouldn't want to give a bird too much water, lest the soul end up parched; that's just how the logos works—it is dry...

Kimberly Mitchell42 said:It seems everyone here is hunting for the truth, yet hardly anyone is actually getting close to it. If you want my advice—or rather, if you just want to hear the ultimate truth—listen closely. I’ll keep it brief and straightforward, without dragging any religious dogma into the conversation.

Man, it's like walking through a local flea market... every single stall claims to be selling its own version of "The Truth"... and hey, who am I to judge? At the end of the day, everyone's got their pitch...

Alexander Hayes3 said:@ Brenda Cook4,

I’m not sure if it’s sinking in that my replies in that controversial post were aimed at Dawkins's claims, not at anyone else on this forum. I’m essentially picking a fight with Dawkins here, not some random user. So, it feels incredibly bizarre that you, acting as a moderator, feel compelled to defend Dawkins's honor by handing out red cards.

No, that misses the point entirely. I said calling Ratzinger an enemy of education was "stupidity at its f-ing peak." As someone who has read nearly every book this long-standing university professor has published from '68 to today—and as someone who regularly follows all his speeches, addresses, encyclicals, and audiences—I believe I have every right to hold the opinion that Pope Ratzinger isn't an enemy of education, but quite the opposite.

Therefore, claiming that Ratzinger is an enemy of education in my view is such sheer nonsense that it's hard to imagine anyone uttering something even more senseless. Do I really deserve a red card just for having that opinion?

And look, I have no intention of arguing with you anymore. I'll wait for hollowtrucker77 to find a moment to look over what's actually happening here, and then we can let him decide. I won't be posting any more on this thread, nor will I argue with anyone else.

Peace be with you.

You weren't carded for your opinions—you were carded for trolling. When someone makes a claim and you respond with nothing but constant "stupidity at its f-ing peak" remarks, that isn't a discussion.

On top of that, you included this blatant example of being condescending in that very same post:

Unknown said:Pope Ratzinger, in his blind rage, had the audacity to compare atheists to Nazis.
Alexander Hayes3
Pope Ratzinger and blind rage in the same sentence? And then you expect to be taken seriously? Have you perhaps actually read the entire speech?

But most importantly, this closing P.S.:

P.S. It is interesting how much hate speech, incitement of religious intolerance, slander against the Holy Father, and the spreading of absolute nonsense regarding the Church and Catholicism is permitted here...

..so, your argument—when it isn't just pure nonsense or playground behavior—is that it's all hate speech, that it supposedly incites religious intolerance, and finally, that everything said was just "spreading stupidity and nonsense."

Pis&prosper

Roger Barrett2 said:Bravo, Brenda Cook4, you’ve outdone yourself again. I’m not even getting into the heart of the debate or Alexander Hayes3’s specific way of being himself, but there isn't anything in that particular post about anathematizing atheism or attacking everything by calling it a "kindergarten." He only uses the word stupidity twice.

Also, I had no idea that using the format of a question was considered a personal attack now.

Ever since I joined this Religion forum, you’ve consistently voted me as the absolute worst moderator on the site. Congratulations.

Alexander Hayes3's opening post basically starts off exactly like that—it was just mentioned in passing to show how he assumes some things can be criticized (of course they can) while others simply cannot.

Anyone can read the linked post. The bottom line is that any criticism leveled at the Pope is dismissed as "stupidity level N."

It’s particularly touching when Alexander Hayes3 asks, "how can anyone slander the Pope," when just a few sentences earlier he claims, "From this, more than anything else, it is obvious what a total moron Dawkins is. Because only an enormous fool could write about and criticize someone they know absolutely nothing about."

Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion on the worst moderator on the board—especially one who penalized you over those comments regarding homosexuals.