8 ms·

As a counter argument, it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians, and any entity willing to destabilize a society knows it very well.

Retric 5y ago
I don’t know the Kardashians are very American. Successful recent immigrants who then leveraged fame into substantial wealth. It’s not a flattering look at the American dream, but it’s not a bad thing to aspire to either.
nkozyra 5y ago
> Jesus than the Kardashians I'm not following, here. Do you not believe in the Kardashians?
Ziomislaw 5y ago
Did Kardashians kill more people than hitler? Because church did.
- martijnvds 5y ago
  The Cardassians did...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 988747 5y ago
  How did Church kill more people than Hitler? You shouldn't believe estimates that, for example, Spanish Inqusition killed "millions" - those are obviously false, since they sometimes exceed total population of Europe at the time. Modern estimates are 3000-5000 [1]. The same goes for victims of missionaries in America and Africa. I'm not denying the fact that Church DID in fact kill people thorough it's history, it's just many popular estimates are wildly inaccurate, and sometimes deliberately, to make Church look worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
Spare_account 5y ago
>it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians I think if we weigh up the overall good vs bad of these two propositions, you might find that it's not as clear cut as you think.
Kenji 5y ago
> it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians I doubt that. So far, nobody who believed in the Kardashians went on a crusade. What you said there sounds to me like pseudo moralistic posturing.
throwaway510921 5y ago
>it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians The problem is not what you believe in but how you do. Religion is by definition dogmatic and in a sociatal context very well suited to create/base a self image on. Its a nice layer 8 intrusion vector. To be fair, there can be dogmatic kardashian fans but its much more unlikely. Just consider the short news lifespan of this celeb world.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Religions that we observe today are systems of beliefs with a shelf life measured in millenia. Modern cults tend to implode within a few short decades, if that.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    I grew up in a Christian cult that is well over 100 years old and has survived many a scandal. Follower numbers took a big hit once the www emerged and was able to distribute information to the masses without gate keepers but they still have all of their land and wealth in place throught the globe and the system still works. At one point there were over three million followers in the United States...those officially inducted or "baptized" through a program that closely resembles and is modelled after the "three degrees" of freemasonry. These people amount to a sleeper cell that will do exactly as they are told, immediately and without question. It didn't start like this. The founder established the organization as a way to use Christianity to spread the tenents of freemasonry to the masses instead of just white males of means. His first successor was a drunken fundamentalist. Gotta love America.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  > Religion is by definition dogmatic What definition is that? I see that religion is an axiom, not unlike many other axioms that we take for granted. At what point do you "just believe" the physicists? When they talk about atoms? Subatomic particles? Fields? I'm not religious and I'm strongly in the science camp. But I don't pretend that my choice of worldview is not based on axioms that I myself cannot test.
dannyr 5y ago
I don't know. Lots of people around the world were killed by people who believe n Jesus. 100s of millions actually.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Yeah, I saw these calculations somewhere, like considering the Nazi to be Christians etc. There is something very wrong with the world. When you actually read the gospels, it is clear that Jesus was very much against violence and his main message was love, you can see it on every page, each allegory. Whatever happened in the institutional Christianity like Crusades was a sick invention of a human mind. I wonder what was going on in the heads of people who read the Gospels but decided to take their swords and kill others anyway. To me these are not Christians, only "people who call themselves Christians."
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The Bible makes it pretty clear no one can conform to its standards - “we are all sinners” etc. - so by that standard there’s only one Christian.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      Well, "the Bible" is a complex concept. Not all Christians accepted the Old Testament. Since the very beginning there were groups that saw an enormous conflict between the basic message of the Old and and New Testament. First there were Gnostics and Marcionites, and then many others until Cathars in the 14th century when the Pope said that anybody who kills a Cathar can get their castle. So in the history of Christianity, there were longer periods of (some) Christians not believing in the ST than believing in it. This distinction is crucial because the ST contains all sorts of atrocities. Modern Christians try to justify them by allegoric interpretations but the logic of this approach is very weak and basically indefensible. Whereas when you don't feel limited by the ST, things become much easier (and a bit more logical).
      - 5y ago
ehnto 5y ago
A dichotomy that is thankfully entirely fictional. It's better to believe neiter. But if we are being reasonable, relgion has caused unfathomable turmoil and despair across centuries. The Kardashians hardly tweak the needle in pain inflicted. It's not like people are going to war over them. I think some perspective is needed about what religion actually is at times. It isn't just sunday church with Grandma.
- mattmanser 5y ago
  I used to think like that, but have come to realize it's people that caused all that. There are many different 'tribes', for want of a better name, be they based around religion, nationality, personality cults, even sport, they can be used for good and bad. But it's the leaders, the people, that make that decision. After all, they may not have gone to war for a Karshadian, but they have for a Trump.
  - Layke1123 5y ago
    Religion gives people the ability to do bad things in the name of god or gods that they normally would not do.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    I certainly don't disagree with you, but I think it is still right to blame religion specifically because religion often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. It noticed those traits in humanity you pointed out, and it capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division. Evangelism and then separating you from other groups is built into pretty much all major religions, which is likely why they are still around. Of course a lot of people don't practice that so much now, there are a lot of passive religious people. But it's built into the fabric of the idea of religion I feel, which is worth criticizing.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > It is still right to blame religion (...) often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. (...) capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division You singling out religion is saying more about you than it says about religion and religious people. I don't even need to squint my eyes too much to see how your description still applies to all types of different ideologies - Trotskyists, "being Woke" and Racial Supremacists are all examples that come to mind.
Barrin92 5y ago
I want to hear a legitimate argument for why because the worst effects of being obsessed with pop culture icons appears to be people buying useless merch whereas the worst forms of religious zealously tend to spawn significantly more dangerous ideologies. With the Kardashians and Gwyneth Paltrow as bad as it gets is news drama and vagina-scented candles rather than wars, creationism and women without reproductive rights
- bobthechef 5y ago
  What an ignorant comment.
pjc50 5y ago
Odd choice of counterpoint, because people are merely fans of the Kardashians; they don't demand any particular doctrine or mindset. I would say it's better for people to believe in Jesus than the flat earth or that vaccines don't work or that the election was stolen from Trump. But these seem to be oddly linked; being an evangelical christian in the white American tradition seems to make people more susceptible to dangerous nonsense that has nothing to do with Christian doctrine.
- vintermann 5y ago
  > they don't demand any particular doctrine or mindset But they attract one, don't they? And that's how MOST religions work. The big Abrahamic religions are rare as religions go, because they insist that what you do should follow from what you believe. Most religions are perfectly fine with it being the other way around. As long as you follow the customs that give a sense of community and meaning, you're given a lot of leeway in how you justify them - and that's how fandoms work too, including presumably the Kardashians fandom (which I'm happy to not be very familiar with).
vintermann 5y ago
I think it's a myth that the enemy tries to destabilize the country with cultural issues. Remember Gawker? They too were incendiary culture warriors. But it was because it got clicks, not because they wanted to undermine society. If anyone is trying to distract us with cultural issues, it's probably our own ruling class.
sparks1970 5y ago
I don't think so. Belief in a supernatural god is literally training your brain to suspend disbelief. This makes you more susceptible to conspiracy theories and other mental viruses.
mlang23 5y ago
I beg to differ. I have met people who have been mentally damaged by religion to a point where they are no longer a useful member of society, to the contrary. While media is also doing a lot of damage to people, especially in the last 2 years, I am convinced nothing can top the horror that is religion. Besides, people that have to believe in a supernatural overload to function in this world are just spooky to me.

Retric 5y ago

I don’t know the Kardashians are very American. Successful recent immigrants who then leveraged fame into substantial wealth. It’s not a flattering look at the American dream, but it’s not a bad thing to aspire to either.

nkozyra 5y ago

> Jesus than the Kardashians I'm not following, here. Do you not believe in the Kardashians?

Ziomislaw 5y ago

Did Kardashians kill more people than hitler? Because church did.

martijnvds 5y ago
The Cardassians did...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
988747 5y ago
How did Church kill more people than Hitler? You shouldn't believe estimates that, for example, Spanish Inqusition killed "millions" - those are obviously false, since they sometimes exceed total population of Europe at the time. Modern estimates are 3000-5000 [1]. The same goes for victims of missionaries in America and Africa. I'm not denying the fact that Church DID in fact kill people thorough it's history, it's just many popular estimates are wildly inaccurate, and sometimes deliberately, to make Church look worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Spare_account 5y ago

>it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians I think if we weigh up the overall good vs bad of these two propositions, you might find that it's not as clear cut as you think.

Kenji 5y ago

> it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians I doubt that. So far, nobody who believed in the Kardashians went on a crusade. What you said there sounds to me like pseudo moralistic posturing.

throwaway510921 5y ago

>it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians The problem is not what you believe in but how you do. Religion is by definition dogmatic and in a sociatal context very well suited to create/base a self image on. Its a nice layer 8 intrusion vector. To be fair, there can be dogmatic kardashian fans but its much more unlikely. Just consider the short news lifespan of this celeb world.

angelzen 5y ago
Religions that we observe today are systems of beliefs with a shelf life measured in millenia. Modern cults tend to implode within a few short decades, if that.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  I grew up in a Christian cult that is well over 100 years old and has survived many a scandal. Follower numbers took a big hit once the www emerged and was able to distribute information to the masses without gate keepers but they still have all of their land and wealth in place throught the globe and the system still works. At one point there were over three million followers in the United States...those officially inducted or "baptized" through a program that closely resembles and is modelled after the "three degrees" of freemasonry. These people amount to a sleeper cell that will do exactly as they are told, immediately and without question. It didn't start like this. The founder established the organization as a way to use Christianity to spread the tenents of freemasonry to the masses instead of just white males of means. His first successor was a drunken fundamentalist. Gotta love America.
dotancohen 5y ago
> Religion is by definition dogmatic What definition is that? I see that religion is an axiom, not unlike many other axioms that we take for granted. At what point do you "just believe" the physicists? When they talk about atoms? Subatomic particles? Fields? I'm not religious and I'm strongly in the science camp. But I don't pretend that my choice of worldview is not based on axioms that I myself cannot test.

dannyr 5y ago

I don't know. Lots of people around the world were killed by people who believe n Jesus. 100s of millions actually.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Yeah, I saw these calculations somewhere, like considering the Nazi to be Christians etc. There is something very wrong with the world. When you actually read the gospels, it is clear that Jesus was very much against violence and his main message was love, you can see it on every page, each allegory. Whatever happened in the institutional Christianity like Crusades was a sick invention of a human mind. I wonder what was going on in the heads of people who read the Gospels but decided to take their swords and kill others anyway. To me these are not Christians, only "people who call themselves Christians."
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The Bible makes it pretty clear no one can conform to its standards - “we are all sinners” etc. - so by that standard there’s only one Christian.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    Well, "the Bible" is a complex concept. Not all Christians accepted the Old Testament. Since the very beginning there were groups that saw an enormous conflict between the basic message of the Old and and New Testament. First there were Gnostics and Marcionites, and then many others until Cathars in the 14th century when the Pope said that anybody who kills a Cathar can get their castle. So in the history of Christianity, there were longer periods of (some) Christians not believing in the ST than believing in it. This distinction is crucial because the ST contains all sorts of atrocities. Modern Christians try to justify them by allegoric interpretations but the logic of this approach is very weak and basically indefensible. Whereas when you don't feel limited by the ST, things become much easier (and a bit more logical).
    - 5y ago

ehnto 5y ago

A dichotomy that is thankfully entirely fictional. It's better to believe neiter. But if we are being reasonable, relgion has caused unfathomable turmoil and despair across centuries. The Kardashians hardly tweak the needle in pain inflicted. It's not like people are going to war over them. I think some perspective is needed about what religion actually is at times. It isn't just sunday church with Grandma.

mattmanser 5y ago
I used to think like that, but have come to realize it's people that caused all that. There are many different 'tribes', for want of a better name, be they based around religion, nationality, personality cults, even sport, they can be used for good and bad. But it's the leaders, the people, that make that decision. After all, they may not have gone to war for a Karshadian, but they have for a Trump.
- Layke1123 5y ago
  Religion gives people the ability to do bad things in the name of god or gods that they normally would not do.
- ehnto 5y ago
  I certainly don't disagree with you, but I think it is still right to blame religion specifically because religion often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. It noticed those traits in humanity you pointed out, and it capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division. Evangelism and then separating you from other groups is built into pretty much all major religions, which is likely why they are still around. Of course a lot of people don't practice that so much now, there are a lot of passive religious people. But it's built into the fabric of the idea of religion I feel, which is worth criticizing.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > It is still right to blame religion (...) often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. (...) capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division You singling out religion is saying more about you than it says about religion and religious people. I don't even need to squint my eyes too much to see how your description still applies to all types of different ideologies - Trotskyists, "being Woke" and Racial Supremacists are all examples that come to mind.

Barrin92 5y ago

I want to hear a legitimate argument for why because the worst effects of being obsessed with pop culture icons appears to be people buying useless merch whereas the worst forms of religious zealously tend to spawn significantly more dangerous ideologies. With the Kardashians and Gwyneth Paltrow as bad as it gets is news drama and vagina-scented candles rather than wars, creationism and women without reproductive rights

bobthechef 5y ago
What an ignorant comment.

pjc50 5y ago

Odd choice of counterpoint, because people are merely fans of the Kardashians; they don't demand any particular doctrine or mindset. I would say it's better for people to believe in Jesus than the flat earth or that vaccines don't work or that the election was stolen from Trump. But these seem to be oddly linked; being an evangelical christian in the white American tradition seems to make people more susceptible to dangerous nonsense that has nothing to do with Christian doctrine.

vintermann 5y ago
> they don't demand any particular doctrine or mindset But they attract one, don't they? And that's how MOST religions work. The big Abrahamic religions are rare as religions go, because they insist that what you do should follow from what you believe. Most religions are perfectly fine with it being the other way around. As long as you follow the customs that give a sense of community and meaning, you're given a lot of leeway in how you justify them - and that's how fandoms work too, including presumably the Kardashians fandom (which I'm happy to not be very familiar with).

vintermann 5y ago

I think it's a myth that the enemy tries to destabilize the country with cultural issues. Remember Gawker? They too were incendiary culture warriors. But it was because it got clicks, not because they wanted to undermine society. If anyone is trying to distract us with cultural issues, it's probably our own ruling class.

sparks1970 5y ago

I don't think so. Belief in a supernatural god is literally training your brain to suspend disbelief. This makes you more susceptible to conspiracy theories and other mental viruses.

mlang23 5y ago

I beg to differ. I have met people who have been mentally damaged by religion to a point where they are no longer a useful member of society, to the contrary. While media is also doing a lot of damage to people, especially in the last 2 years, I am convinced nothing can top the horror that is religion. Besides, people that have to believe in a supernatural overload to function in this world are just spooky to me.