I would say it’s cooler to be a good person for the sake of it rather than being a good person because you fear hell or desire some sort of reward (eternity in heaven).
It’s better if they don’t exist. Just believe that you are energy that can’t be destroyed. That way, you’ll live forever, like molecules or whatever. I try to think of it that way? Just cruising around the globe or visiting other galaxies? Onward to the next adventure? (Sorry drunkish)
The polity series would be really cool. It’s a great universe with lots of options for storytelling (which the diversity of the books demonstrates). Starting with prador moon and then following the war with the prador for a while would be amazing to see.
If I had another choice I’d pick the Children of Time series.
So in other words non-denominational? My denomination is so specific yet unspecifically connected to anything that you approximately described me as well. Without a doubt this can be said to be one of the driving forces of what we all talked about here. Jesus himself said the expression of love did not matter, it’s the love that counts.
In my experience, at least in the US, non-denominational when associated with an institution generally means “Christian” but not affiliated with a sect. They’re (typically) still quite Christian, and the phrase can be and is applied to churches ranging from the ones flying Pride flags and declaring that they’re open to everyone to ones like Westboro - some of the most radical Christian churches are non-denominational because their views are too conservative for even the more conservative right wing religions.
The phrase itself is an organizational status and does not indicate what kinds of beliefs a person has. It’s not unlike someone describing themselves as “politically independent.” You don’t know if they’re Greenpeace types, libertarians, or far right of the republicans.
Edit: The usual term in the US for what I think you’re describing is “Spiritual, but not religious.” That’s the way it’s usually written in census and survey forms.
If that’s what that is, what term would you use for someone whose conclusions are more unspecific than even can be categorized under the “Christian” umbrella?
I have no traditional news sources. I subscribe to Quillette, Taibbi, Greenwald, The Free Press, and Sullivan. I regularly read Caitlin Johnstone and Kareem Abdul Jabbar.
I’m an evangelist’s kid. I grew up surrounded by religion. When I got to my 30s I started reevaluating matters of faith. Now in my 60s I consider that journey complete. On “good” days I’m agnostic, on “bad” days an atheist.
I know many awesome people of faith. I know many hideous people of faith. I know many awesome nonbelievers, I know meant hideous nonbelievers.
Be a decent human being and very few people will care what you believe.
Can I ask, in the friendliest way possible and purely for my curiosity so I really don’t expect an answer, how you balance “higher power” with “doesn’t use it”? The way you’ve described it could be interrupted as anything from an otherwise traditional Christian who doesn’t believe in directly answered prayers, to believing that this is some sort of simulation we will wake up from.
One thing I often think about coming from a Christian upbringing is the idea that God knows everything that will ever happen to you, every choice you’ll make, when you’ll die, etc. To me, that signifies determinism and total lack of free will. That just doesn’t sit well with me.
Agnostic and atheist aren’t mutually exclusive things. 99.9% of atheists are agnostic about there being a god because it’s unprovable. Same way you’re likely agnostic about Russell’s teapot en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I just use hacker news for tech stuff. If an article on there is BS, you can be sure that someone will call that out in the comments after about 5 minutes. And if not, there’s almost always a good discussion with very few insults.
NPR stays pretty lean on the editorials and opinions. I’m not big on the panel discussion from the 24/7 news companies like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Not that they don’t have a bias, but they more or less let you make up your own mind.
I feel the reason why cnn or fox have panel discusions is because they are made for tv and with for profit motive. While Npr is a nonptofit and made for radio. Radio allows npr to easily and cheaply role the news live practically 24/7 and it just opens them up to do more. While with tv news its more expensive, and they dont really have as much freedom but the auduence is larger. Tv news has to more desperately make the money back they spent.
There are a few sites that do the same thing but I find All Sides to be a very quick way to know how biased a news topic is and what neutral really is.
Allsides is the one I usually use, not by choice it’s the first resualt when I search for news bias chart. By news topic, you mean the news source or the topic?
I just took a quick look at All Sides. How does it compare to Media Bias/Fact Check? I don't know how to "fact check" either one of these sources but that's what I have to do so.
I’d absolutely love to see the whole heresy play out on the screen, but it would be hundreds or thousands of hours to show it all lol. I’ve been reading through it at a pretty good pace and after a year in only about halfway through lol.
Looking forward to seeing what Cavill does with 40k. I heard they only got the rights to 40k though, not 30k or fantasy, so it’s possible someone else gets those rights.
That sort of talk disappears when you get older. People might briefly chat about their favorite whiskey or whatever, but they’re not having whole-ass conversations on the topic.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.