• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Demon Normalization: Folkloric Atheism?

Abishai100

Member
In Lewis Carroll's logic-thrill novel Alice in Wonderland, a precocious young girl named Alice follows a curious white rabbit down a strange hole and finds herself magically transported to a bizarre place called Wonderland where she encounters unusual creatures, shrewd sages, adventurous courts (with an impressive 'Red Queen' character), and a zany logic-humor figure known as the Mad Hatter.

Alice sits down to a memorable 'tea party' with the Mad Hatter and engages in a bright but quirky logic-language conversation, and we realize that there is an intriguing link between festivity and self-criticism.

Carroll's work is considered by some to be an offbeat and under-appreciated 'pseudo-treatise' on the tangibility of atheistic causality and 'unintentional self-destruction.' It is also a treatise on the presence of danger in a universe not necessarily ruled by a Creator or God.

The American comic book superhero Batman (DC Comics), a brooding masked urban vigilante who tackles the criminally insane in a fictional place called Gotham City, deals with a special maniacal nemesis called the Mad Hatter (real name Jervis Tetch).

Tetch decides to model himself after the Lewis Carroll character and use intolerable logic pitfalls to catch Batman in a state of disarray. Like the Carroll character, Tetch wears fancy elaborate hats, and in some renditions of the comic book super-villain, carries special electronic playing-cards in his hat which either function as explosives or as mind-control signal and brain interference buzzers.

Batman's work in Gotham City symbolizes a modern age paranoia about urbanization-related crimes, and the Mad Hatter is a totem of urban anarchism.

Like the iconic Gravitron amusement park ride, the Mad Hatter is like a magnet for euphoric 'self-control vertigo.' Isn't that what the modern city is all about --- control?

We can therefore use the Mad Hatter (DC Comics) to analyse 'self-control metaphysics' and 'self-destruction atheism.'

Imagine a child's tea party in which the young 'attendees' engage in a conversation about the mental appeal of 'crazy dress.'

We can apply such a 'mock conversation' to more serious discussions about atheism contouring.



====

CHILD 1: Look at my fancy hat, very good for this tea party!
CHILD 2: Your hat is fancy, but my shoes are shiny.
CHILD 3: Your shoes are shiny, but my dress is sparkly!
CHILD 4: Look at my Disney watch, very pretty.

CHILD 1: My mom says that fancy hats are worn by important people.
CHILD 2: I bet everyone would want to wear my shiny shoes, though.
CHILD 3: My sparkly dress is awesome in the moonlight.
CHILD 4: I like the Mickey Mouse on my watch, because it's cooler than adults.

CHILD 1: I bet angels wear hats!
CHILD 2: Do angels wear shiny shoes?
CHILD 3: I believe this sparkly dress is just right --- I don't need angels!
CHILD 4: Does my Disney watch remind you of something evil?

====


Mad Hatter (Batman Wiki)

Gravitron (Amusement Ride)



hatter.jpg
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I fear you will have to spell it out for me, @Abishai100 .

Atheism is rather simple, even banal, to me. I have little idea of what you mean to discuss, although it sure sounds over-complicated to me.
 

Abishai100

Member
The Rat in the Cage!

Thanks for the interest.

Yes, atheism is straightforward it seems, and I myself lean towards Catholicism, but the basic point I'm making in this thread is that there is an interesting connection between 'intellectual aesthetics' and 'atheism stereotypes.'

Do we label atheism as simply 'clever' when we read of 'clever' perspectives on God-less imaginary universes?

What does this say about art that presents images/stories about mainstream divinity/theism/religions?


mad-hatter2.jpg
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Do we label atheism as simply 'clever' when we read of 'clever' perspectives on God-less imaginary universes?
Do we? I don't think so. Sensible, sure. But clever is not a particularly fitting word.
What does this say about art that presents images/stories about mainstream divinity/theism/religions?

I don 't know. Perhaps that it reflects anthropological tendencies towards seeking simple if dubious answers?
 
Top