How did fur, once taboo, become so acceptable – desirable even – again?

Comments

• Possibly HaoieZ.

  • Report
  

  by keithold is a prodigal bagger on November 21st, 2009

• Oh I don't know. Their "I'd rather go naked" events are about the only thing they do that makes sense :)

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 21st, 2009

Comments

• Atheism is dying out? Quite the contrary.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 21st, 2009

• Thanks James

  • Report
  

  by keithold is a prodigal bagger on November 21st, 2009

• Oh yeah? Who has the most children? Then do the math. No movement can survive if it doesn't reproduce itself. You can only get so far by converting other people's kids. Same thing with feminism. They are dying of old age.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 21st, 2009

• Sometimes "other people's kids" convert themselves. My parents were Catholic, I'm an atheist. And while I see many others like me who discarded the religion they were brought up in, there aren't all that many moving in the opposite direction.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 21st, 2009

• I wouldn't expect an Atheist to believe in magic. This belief system has to be passed down by something. And if that something isn't reproducing it is doomed to extinction. There is no magical force that can keep it alive.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 21st, 2009

• Are you saying that atheists don't have kids? Or that the offspring of believers can't develop the ability to think?

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 21st, 2009

• Survival doesn't merely require that you have kids, you must have the most. The offspring of believers will be less predisposed to accept Atheism. The ability to think does not preclude Theism.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 21st, 2009

• Only in genetics. What we have today is that atheists have their own kids - who are likely to also be atheists, while believers have their kids, a significant percentage of whom will become atheists.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 21st, 2009

• Atheists have on average 1.3 children, non-atheists 1.95. Source:2005 Baylor University Religion Survey and Barna Group.
  They can keep even if only 1 in 6 of non-atheist children get converted to Atheism and none of the atheist children do. In a study Richard Dawkins cited 20% of children raised by Atheists converted to some religion. They could keep even then by converting 30% of non-atheist children. This would require that Atheists convert 2.25 children for every one of theirs converted if the populations were even to begin with. If Atheists are a minority, then this figure would be much higher.
  And none of this takes into account the genetic changes. Humans are not blank slates. A population of people instinctually resistant to adopting Atheism would surely evolve.
  Quite an irony, Creationists might win the darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 22nd, 2009

• The facts show that atheists are growing in number AND percentage (in the western world), whereas all religions are constantly worrying about their declining numbers. Either there are far fewer than 20% of atheists converting to some religion - which I find probable - or the number of believers who abandon their faith is higher.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 22nd, 2009

• All religions are worrying about their declining numbers? Like the Mormons? Yes, Atheism is gaining in popularity, but so were the Shakers at one time. The real question is whether or not it can be sustained. There is only one way it could. That's if the Atheists admit the Catholics were right all along about birth control. Otherwise, for it to survive, they would have to figure out a way to defy the laws of mathematics.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009

• I can see another way for atheism to survive: education. As more people get more educated, religion continues to decline. Kids stay religious until they start thinking critically, and there's a lot in the scriptures that does not stand up to that kind of scrutiny. That's how many of today's atheists became atheists. Now we're out there, providing material, pointing out the flaws.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 23rd, 2009

• It simply does not matter if everything you say is true. It only matters if that believing in it helps them reproduce. Evolution does not care. If intelligent, critical thinking is an obstacle to reproductive success then it must go. There is no magical solution to this problem. You must change your mind.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009

• Why must I change my mind when I'm right? More educated people bringing more atheists is not a problem as far as I am concerned.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 23rd, 2009

• But are you right? Being more educated does not guarantee that. You can be perfectly correct about everything in reality. But if you are wrong about morality then you shall perish anyhow. Evolution does not care if you consider it a problem or not.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009

• But religion is not the only source of morality. In fact I don't think it's a very good one. It can make you believe that god wants you to kill, or do other things that are generally considered evil, but the belief that god wants you to do it can be used to justify anything.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 24th, 2009

• The value in religious morality lies in its endurance. No such meme could have persisted for so long unless it helped those who carried it reproduce more successfully.
  What is moral is subjective, right?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 24th, 2009

• Christianity thought it was perfectly moral to burn people alive at the stake. Thankfully, Christian morality is not as enduring as you think.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 24th, 2009

• And the murder of 50 million children by the pro-choicers? We could go back and forth all night on this. It only matters what actually works in the long run. Atheism does not have a good track record. Christianity does.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 24th, 2009

• What children? Abortion terminates a pregnancy, in the vast number of cases well before the fetus has even developed a functioning brain. Oh, and atheism is not equivalent to pro-choice.
  .
  Atheism has an excellent track record. Christianity has been behind many atrocities, atheism has not. Keep in mind that just because an evil person is Christian or atheist does not mean that Christianity or atheism is behind their evil deeds. A serial killer who happens to be a Christian is not the same as someone who kills because he believes his god wants him to. Things like the crusades and inquisition and witch/heretic burning were inspired by Christianity. There are no equivalent atrocities inspired by atheism.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 25th, 2009

• Ever heard of the communists?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 28th, 2009

• Yes I have. Like I said, it's not just because an atrocity is committed by a Christian or an atheist, but when an atrocity is committed BECAUSE one is a Christian or atheist.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 28th, 2009

• The communists have been known to persecute people for their religion. Do you think they just quietly converted their populations to Atheism?
  Either Atheism will lead to a different morality or it will not. If it doesn't then the existence of God has no bearing on the validity of religious morals. If it does then Atheists must be held accountable for the results.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 29th, 2009

• The communists were/are against certain churches, such as the Catholic church, because they owe their allegiance to the Vatican over the party - and the Vatican made no secret of the fact that they wanted to bring down communism. I can't blame them for trying to prevent an entity which is overtly subversive - even if I don't agree with the government in question. This had nothing to do with atheism. The largest church there - Orthodox - came under different levels of cooperation or suppression depending largely on which side they had taken during WWII.
  In general, any church which actively cooperated with the party (eg, encouraging support for the government during WWII) was treated relatively well, whereas those who opposed them, or who had been a thorn in their side during the last years of the Tsarist regime, did not fare so well. It was all a matter of control - the communist party was a dictatorship so it tried to keep everything under its control.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 29th, 2009

• So it had nothing to do with their Atheism? I suppose it's just not conceivable that an Atheist might want to bring down a religion based on their disbelief in a deity. This strains the limits of credulity.
  Or, more likely, Atheists are trying to have it both ways. Use their disbelief as an argument to put down religion. Then when called to account for the change in morality, claim that Atheism has nothing to do with it.
  Either the adoption of Atheism leads to change in morals or it does not. Please pick one.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on November 30th, 2009

• Sure, an atheist might want and try to bring down religion because of his atheism, but the communists had a different objective: total control, of everyone.
  Certainly atheism brings a change in morality. For instance it's no longer immoral to not worship god. It's not immoral to eat pork (as Jews and Muslims believe). What's left are those codes of morality that are universal - against stealing, murder etc - those don't depend on any religion.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on November 30th, 2009

• Obviously, not all codes of morality are against stealing and murder. Any communist could justify these by saying it will help bring about the socialist utopia. So could a Christian for similiar reasons.
  But who less likely to do these things? Someone who thinks there is a vengeful God looking over their shoulders or somebody who thinks morality is based on what feels right to them?
  Since Atheism, by itself, produces no morality, we are stuck getting it from something. Should we get them from our feelings or from traditions that have survived for thousands of years? Good arguments can be made for either.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 1st, 2009

• The problem with morality that derives from religion is that people can believe that God wants them to do things that would otherwise be considered immoral. In religion, God's orders trump any human law or concept of morality, so if one believes that God wants him to blow up an abortion clinic, or fly a plane into a building, or kill someone for following the wrong god, that belief allows them to justify the act and override their innate sense of what is wrong.
  .
  The Bible is full of such evil acts. When the Hebrews, freshly released from Egypt, encountered the Midianites they slaughtered all the men. Moses was angry with them for leaving the women and children alive, and ordered them to kill all the women and boys and keep only young virgin girls for their own use.
  (contd.)

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on December 2nd, 2009

• When Moses freed them, God repeatedly "hardened Pharaoh's heart", then punished him and all Egyptians for having a hard heart. When Cecil B. DeMille made his famous film "The Ten Commandments", he was so uncomfortable with this that he invented a woman, Nefertiri, to shoulder the blame for hardening the Pharaoh's heart thanks to her jealousy. What morality can be derived from such accounts?
  .
  A code of morality based on the Bible would be evil indeed. The only reason that most Christians manage to create a decent code of morality is by NOT using the Bible as a guide, but rather picking and choosing bits from it, applying their own judgement to filter out the evil bits. So, ultimately, it's still morality created from our feelings. The dangers come from those who do not. Then you get people who feel it's perfectly moral to kill gays or bomb abortion clinics, "because God says so".

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on December 2nd, 2009

• If a Christian did nothing more than pick and choose why would they bother to read the Bible at all? Is there any chance that it could contain ancient wisdom that someone could not acquire through personal intuition?
  What makes you so certain that what Moses did was wrong? Gut check? It was a different time and place. Genocidal warfare was very common in those days. In order to survive it was kill or be killed. There's also another story of how they came across a peaceful tribe and slaughtered them. If the pacific goup had such a good outlook why weren't their traditions the ones that survived? Oh yeah, because they went extinct. Just like what is happening to the Atheists due to their refusal to shun birth control.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 3rd, 2009

• You'd have to ask Christians why they read the Bible. As for why I know that what Moses did was wrong, that's why we have an innate sense of morality. Oh, and since atheism is on the increase, it seems that your last premise is wrong.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on December 3rd, 2009

• You would think Atheists would be more impressed with evidence over personal feelings. The fact is that Moses' moral code survived while his opponent's did not. It won for a reason. And those who carry a genetic predisposition for Atheism are decreasing in numbers. Atheism may be increasing in popularity anyhow, but as it's base shrinks it will eventually flame out. Unless, of course, they admit they were wrong about family planning. But most Atheists did not become that way because they didn't see evidence for God. Rather, they wanted to disbelieve in God so they could engage in immoral behaviour without guilt. So they won't change and will die out.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 4th, 2009

• Yes, and Hitler's "moral code" almost won too. That doesn't make it a good moral code.
  Incidentally, those who carry a genetic predisposition to atheism are increasing in number. Also, all the atheists I know - myself included - are so because there is no evidence for any gods. There is not a single atheist I know who became atheist in order to engage in immoral behaviour without guilt.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on December 4th, 2009

• You're right. There is no Atheist who will admit to it. But actions speak louder than words. How many newly minted Atheists continue living their lives according to their old Christian morality? Instead, what I see are people who freed from an huge burden of guilt and act accordingly. This is a powerful motivator.
  "those who carry a genetic predisposition to atheism are increasing in number". By what means on heaven or earth is that possible if they are having considerably fewer children?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 5th, 2009

• What is Christian morality? That is, what distinguishes it from any other morality? An atheist who does not kill, steal etc. is not living by Christian morality, but universal morality. Christian morality would include things such as worshipping only one god, going to church on Sunday, etc. Atheists do not do that.
  Oh and atheists have just as many children as believers.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on December 7th, 2009

• Really? Show me your evidence. I showed you mine. Or do you think you can make something true just by declaring it to be so?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 8th, 2009

• What evidence have you shown?
  Check out this map. It shows that fertility rate varies by region, not beliefs.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on December 8th, 2009

Comments

• Thanks RC.

  • Report
  

  by keithold is a prodigal bagger on November 21st, 2009

Comments