# Religion Discussion



## Sanic (Apr 13, 2015)

Someone had to post this eventually, so I'll do it. Basically, discuss your beliefs, belief systems, have friendly debates, and most importantly, don't be rude.

Also, if you have personal experiences to share, please do. Though those may be better suited for the Zen Buddhism thread. It's less hostile there. = p

Still, go ahead and share them here as well.


----------



## ASoulMan (Apr 13, 2015)

I've been to a few Christian churches throughout my life, but I consider myself to be very ambiguous when it comes to religion. You could say that I'm agnostic.

I like some of the mythos behind some religions, like the Ancient Greek/Roman gods and goddesses, though some such as Scientology sounds like some of the worst science fiction shit that I've ever heard of.

To me, religion is bad when you allow it to cloud your mind and use it to justify actions that are anything but. And then there's interpreting stuff to where you become an extremist. I also feel like part of organized religion turned from being charitable to "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY SO YOU'LL BE HEALED!".

Besides this, I tend to stay away from any debates that involves religion. I don't mind what you believe in for as long as you don't force them upon me.


----------



## Mourning Dove (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm agnostic as well. Mainstream religion is not my thing. It must be because I've lived in the Bible Belt all my life.

It's fine to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. More than anything, I view religions anthropologically. Looking at the religious lores objectively, they are simply vivid stories to explain the way things are and the social mores a culture should follow. My favorite mythology to study is the ancient Egyptian one. But all religions have crazy-ass imagery and stories.


----------



## Queen of Tarts (Apr 13, 2015)

I go between being atheist and agnostic to maybe believing in something, just not the Bible.  I have respect for religion so long as the people who are following it don't step on my toes.

When you study religion, a lot of it is very similar.  It makes you wonder where the first origin story came from, and how it was passed along.  The flood is a common story, and among certain other mythologies, so are the destruction of the gods in some manner.


----------



## exball (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm agnostic.


----------



## chimpburgers (Apr 13, 2015)

I was a Christian for much of my life and a lot of my family is Catholic. There were times where I went to nondemoninational churches every Sunday and even went as far as to go to camps and stuff for the church.

Even my parents are still Catholic even though they never attend Mass or anything. I believed fervently in what the Bible taught even though there were things in there I never took literally and I even read the whole thing at least two times. Last year though, I became an agnostic and before stopped going to church entirely, though I've also sometimes called myself an atheist. I will say though that some of the nicest people that I've met personally in my life have been Christians so I have nothing against those people at all, just the extremists out there like Pat Robertson who are just using the religion to spread hate and trying to get their ideas into law.


----------



## Red_Rager (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm atheist, but i don't wear it on my sleeve. I believe there is a higher power and that higher power is the fundamental laws of reality. I don't believe there is an almighty overseer of existence and if there is I highly doubt humans would rate high enough to be noticed. 

Science is but a tool humans use to study the laws of reality, and religion is but a way for people to attempt to make sense of reality.  The knowledge we have today was built from the foundation of knowledge recorded by our ancestors and passed down to us to do with as we see fit.  Humans are constantly getting the reset button hit on us over and over again as new people are born while others die.  The mindset of an entity that lives forever, I don't see how we would be able to relate let alone comprehend such an entity.  A human lifespan would barely rate a blink of an eye.

I believe in the universe but I don't believe in a god.  However, for those that do I really don't care.  Live and let live, I am not here to rain on your belief.  In the end, we all seek to find a place in the world and cope with the madness around us, just trying to get by.


----------



## Hat (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm a pretty conservative Protestant, myself. I once identified with the Episcopal Church, but I left it due to a combination of my dislike of the ministers, its theology, and its stance on certain issues. When I can remember to wake up in time, I'll attend a small Baptist church.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 13, 2015)

A common problem I have when I'm discussing Catholicism with people is that they equate the actions and behaviours of Christians with the teachings of Catholicism.  The teachings of Jesus in themselves are not bad, but a lot of people at my church are so fanatical about Catholicism that the way they behave and the things they say aren't even in accordance with Jesus' teachings.  I think that what's at the root of this is the division in Christianity of belief in God vs. actions.  Some people believe that belief in Jesus is enough to get into heaven, while others say it's not enough - that we need to live according to Jesus' teachings.  Some tend to put themselves on a pedestal and think they are "God warriors" who are objectively moral.  They tend to be very cold people.  Others recognize that they are not any better than anyone else and that God loves everyone equally, and they tend to be more compassionate.  I think Pope Benedict promoted more of the "God warrior" mentality, and now Pope Francis is promoting a more compassionate mentality that Christians desperately need. 

Studies have shown that Christians and Muslims have lower IQs than atheists.  Why is this?  I think it's because when people have a religion, they think they are good to go and they don't need to think about anything else - they have default answers for everything (ex: because God).  Muslims are taught not to question Islam and Imams beat young children for asking questions - will they grow up to think critically or anything else that will promote development of the problem-solving parts of the brain? While Christians where I'm from don't suffer this type of abuse (I have heard of horror stories of Catholic schools in Russia and other shitty Catholic schools in parts of the states), the mindset of not requiring any answers is the same.  Not just not requiring any answers - but denying scientific evidence.  For example, in my Catholic high school a teacher actually believed the earth was flat, and mentioned that God placed dinosaur bones in the earth to trick us.  He was naturally the laughing stock of the school population, but this kind of extremism is rampant in those who think the Bible should be treated as scientific proof.  While these sorts of beliefs are against the teachings of the church, they do, unfortunately, exist.  Again, this is behaviour that is stereotypical of Christians and therefore people tend to label Catholics as being just as ignorant.  While some Catholics are like that, Catholicism encourages scientific advancement and philosophical and critical thought.


----------



## klystron (Apr 13, 2015)

I used to go to Synagogue and church, which was very confusing for a  young kid. Then my dad (Jewish) told me to just go to church since he had a hard time growing up Jewish (teased for some reason) and America is a "Christian nation." Then my mom kind of went all Christian-science and I lost interest. For many years I became what I called a "non-practicing atheist." I still believed in the Bible and its teachings, but felt that I knew better about how to live my life. It turns out that I didn't, and accepting that there are things in this universe more intelligent, powerful, and awesome than myself was a huge step forward in improving my life. @AppleChrisp says that somehow Christians stop seeking answers and that means they have a "lower IQ" but in my case it was exactly the opposite. When my mind opened and I started seeking more answers everything got better for me. In fact, I really need to get off my lazy butt and find a new non-denominational church to attend after moving.


----------



## Holdek (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm mostly atheist but a little bit agnostic.  This is because while there is no evidence for the supernatural, there are concepts like what was going on before the big bang that Thomas Aquinas' explanations of make more sense to me than our leading cosmologists'.  But I also recognize that this is probably because just thinking about space-time existing in a singularity kind of wraps my brain into a pretzel and makes me .


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 13, 2015)

klystron said:


> @AppleChrisp says that somehow Christians stop seeking answers and that means they have a "lower IQ" but in my case it was exactly the opposite. When my mind opened and I started seeking more answers everything got better for me. In fact, I really need to get off my lazy butt and find a new non-denominational church to attend after moving.



I think you misunderstood me.  By becoming a Christian, I'm assuming you don't block out scientific realities.  For example, I hope you don't believe that God created the world exactly as it states in Genesis and that the first two human beings were Adam and Eve, and that evolution is an evil lie.  Belief in God is not going to automatically raise you IQ.  Critical thought is necessary for that.  I'm glad that things got better for you.  I was in a similar situation a number of years ago.


----------



## Teddy (Apr 13, 2015)

Raised in a Christian household,  and still have faith and go to church when I can.

I don't understand why so many people today think Religion,  specifically Christianity,  is so obsolete.  or think every Christian is a moron. Everyone has their right to believe in God or not, but to act like it's stupid to believe is absurd. And yet this is what I see everyday. Pretenious people, famous and not, acting like they're smarter and "progressive" because of not having faith.


----------



## Red_Rager (Apr 14, 2015)

Teddy said:


> Raised in a Christian household,  and still have faith and go to church when I can.
> 
> I don't understand why so many people today think Religion,  specifically Christianity,  is so obsolete.  or think every Christian is a moron. Everyone has their right to believe in God or not, but to act like it's stupid to believe is absurd. And yet this is what I see everyday. Pretenious people, famous and not, acting like they're smarter and "progressive" because of not having faith.


I don't think being a Christian makes one a thundering moron.  That comes with arrogance and thinking you have the Truth with a capital T. When you have the "Truth" what else is there to seek? You shut the door on possibilities taking comfort in the shadows of your Truth, never looking out for something more.


----------



## klystron (Apr 14, 2015)

AppleChrisp said:


> I think you misunderstood me.  By becoming a Christian, I'm assuming you don't block out scientific realities.  For example, I hope you don't believe that God created the world exactly as it states in Genesis and that the first two human beings were Adam and Eve, and that evolution is an evil lie.  Belief in God is not going to automatically raise you IQ.  Critical thought is necessary for that.  I'm glad that things got better for you.  I was in a similar situation a number of years ago.



I believe what my (much older) friend who went to a Catholic high school in the 60s was taught: whatever the truth is, it's important to believe that God created it.

Personally I don't believe the Bible gets everything literally right. The most important thing for a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (something I struggle with at times) and to accept Him as your savior. I personally believe a lot of the history of Creation as told in the Bible is designed to make us think and seek out answers. But I'm also a scientist by trade, so it makes sense that I might think that way.

I didn't mean that belief in God raises your IQ; on the contrary, I believe IQ is fixed at birth. I simply feel that to be an atheist is the most closed minded thing there is. I also believe that it is also the most unscientific. After all, something cannot come from nothing, but that is what atheists and the big bang theory want us to believe.

I also don't necessarily buy evolution, but that's not for religious reasons and it would make another great thread of discussion.

So here's a biblical question I often wonder about: many interpret the promise God made after the great flood to never do it again, and then ultimately the sending of His Son to us to better understand us as a sign of a living God who changes with time. However, the Bible also says that God is always and infinite. It makes sense that Jesus is needed for one such as God to better understand our lives here, but on the other hand even if we are so below God that he can't comprehend us, surely it is possible that instead of the convention wisdom that it is actually our understanding of God that has evolved over time. Perhaps that was the reason Jesus was sent here that we might better understand Him.

tl;dr random thoughts blah blah


----------



## Iamthatis (Apr 14, 2015)

I believe that the animals, plants, and humans on earth are like the cells in our bodies.  Together we are a part of the earth and its is alive.


----------



## Jomadre (Apr 14, 2015)

I don't know if I believe in god, but I think he hates me...


----------



## Holdek (Apr 14, 2015)

Teddy said:


> Raised in a Christian household,  and still have faith and go to church when I can.
> 
> I don't understand why so many people today think Religion,  specifically Christianity,  is so obsolete.  or think every Christian is a moron. Everyone has their right to believe in God or not, but to act like it's stupid to believe is absurd. And yet this is what I see everyday. Pretenious people, famous and not, acting like they're smarter and "progressive" because of not having faith.



Christianity is just an idea that people came up with.  The same as, say, Cubism in art or Maoism in politics.  If I can think believing in Maoism is stupid, it's also fine to think that believing in any other dumb idea some people have thought up is stupid.  

It doesn't mean the believer is a stupid person necessarily, just that their idea is stupid.  For example, I don't think Tom Cruise is a stupid person, but the fact that he believes in an intergalactic dictator named Xenu...I think that's pretty stupid.


----------



## DuskEngine (Apr 14, 2015)

I'm kind of noncognitivist, which means I think that discussing the existence of a thing that is by definition unknowable, inconceivable and unverifiable is absurd. Not even because it's wrong, but because such a concept is just...incoherent, and there's no sensible way to discuss such a thing. Even claiming that God doesn't exist presupposes that God is a concept that can be reasonably defined.

Basically, my answer to "Does God exist?" is "I don't understand the question."

EDIT: Kierkegaard knew what he was talking about when he pointed out that the paradoxes built into Christianity (and really any other religion) are a feature and not a bug. 

If you claim to know that God, which is by definition unknowable and inconceivable, exists, then you're speaking nonsense. To have _faith _that God exists is something else entirely.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

klystron said:


> I believe what my (much older) friend who went to a Catholic high school in the 60s was taught: whatever the truth is, it's important to believe that God created it.
> 
> Personally I don't believe the Bible gets everything literally right. The most important thing for a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (something I struggle with at times) and to accept Him as your savior. I personally believe a lot of the history of Creation as told in the Bible is designed to make us think and seek out answers. But I'm also a scientist by trade, so it makes sense that I might think that way.
> 
> ...



The Bible doesn't get everything right.  But you're correct, the most important thing to draw from it is to have a personal relationship with God.  The purpose of the Creation story isn't to tell us historically what happened, but that God created us.  Whether it be through the big bang, evolution, etc.  
I have to point out that your statement about IQ being fixed at birth is incorrect.  That is a very old biological argument, and we have many studies demonstrating the plasticity of the brain and that IQ can be improved or lowered given certain factors.  I would be happy to send you some studies on this matter if you like.  Yes, an atheist is closed minded, but they are not the most unscientific - you are basing this off of the single concept of the big bang theory.  Christians can be just as closed minded and more scientific, denying modern medicine, evolution, and adopting the early Biblical stories as scientific fact.  
The reason Jesus came wasn't to better understand us - he created us!  From Jesus we got to know a side of God that we couldn't have otherwise - we got to develop a personal relationship with him.  We got to know the depth of his love for us, that he would ultimately die for us, no matter who you are, no matter what you've done.  So we get to understand God as a merciful, kind, and loving God that we just didn't see in the Old Testament.


----------



## Dalish (Apr 14, 2015)

i've been a practicing jew since i was a kid, lapsed orthodoxy. i grew up in a split home: my dad's side of the family is full of really _weird_ evangelical and traditional christians who... preach? i guess? they're preachers and own the church. i spent a lot of time growing up inside a baptist church my aunt owned (we used it for holidays and stuff) so i grew up around a couple of faith traditions, but christianity has always been VERY confusing to me. i guess i never understood all of the gloom and doom all the time, the 'you're going to hell unless you repent NAO' evangelical, traditional christians. 

i use judaism as a guide. i've lapsed from going to temple every week and having shabbat dinners, but i still adhere to the principle of _tikkun olam_, or, healing the world. i think that's what i like so much about being jewish. there's a lot of room for interpretation. very few things are set in stone about how you can practice or what you can do or what happens after death, etc. it's very comforting to have a practice that makes me critically look at my actions and that allows me a lot of thought.


----------



## Null (Apr 14, 2015)

My bits.

I'm definitely an "atheist" but I never call myself that. I'm pretty against applying labels to myself as a whole, but in particular with Atheism I feel people will project a very specific image against you. I've noticed most people in this thread just call themselves "agnostic" which I'm pretty sure is for this reason. If anyone asks, I say I'm "non-religious", which is something most people don't hear. I was raised in the deepest south possible so most people associate atheism with devil worship, which is why I prefer to say non-religious. They'll usually follow that up with a few questions if they care enough, but the point is it dodges the hedonist/devil-worship/fedora stigma. I'm not _anti-religious_ either.

Agnosticism is stupid. I really do not care for that term. It's basically atheism with a built-in humility, and I see it as almost being "atheist apologist". Most people who say they're agnostic mean they are completely non-religious but are willing to admit there could be a god. The problem with this is, aside from the fedora-tier atheists, I've never met anyone who says there couldn't be. Even people who are the big faces of atheism, the ones who participate in public debate, will say there _could_ be a god but it the chance infinitesimally small. "There is no evidence for an intelligent creator, but you cannot disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis". Saying you know for sure there is no god is as fool-hardy as saying you know for sure there is. Agnosticism is atheism in a more pretentious label for people not willing to, or are incapable of, defending their non-belief.

As for religion itself, I don't mind it for the most part. I think people who use it to enforce a political agenda are stupid, but that's not really religion's fault at this point. You have very religious states all across the world who do not write laws as bizarre as what you see in America. I think most of that is a distraction put out so dumb people vote on stupid issues instead of thinking about shit that actually matters.

I'm a huge fan of religious symbolism, especially catholic symbolism. The Boondock Saints is a good example of that. I enjoy churches in video games and I loved the themes of Heaven versus Hell in Diablo 2. Angels, holy warriors, demons, etc all carry a huge appeal to me. In stories, I enjoy an objective right and wrong and I like the portrayal of that in media.

I tolerate pagans. For the most part that stuff is done as a tradition. It's a sense of unity. It brings comfort. My mom practiced Wicca for a few years and I remember her taping green paper on the windows above where our sick cat slept because green light was supposedly healing. It had cancer and the vets said there was not much they could do. I guess that sort of thing brings a sense of power and control in an otherwise helpless situation. In general, though, I see neo-paganism in America as a religion for people who hate Christians.

The only religion I am intolerant of is Islam. Islam is poison and I pity muslims. I live near a big college and there are many, many muslim women walking around in hijabs. When I noticed this I also noticed that these women were mostly emigrants and there were no men from the middle east. It was all women. I realized that they had probably came here to seek higher education where it was allowed, as they countries oppressed them for being women. More sad, however, is that they continue to support the institutions that oppress them and wear the impediments of their religion despite having ran away from it.

I visit /christian/ and /egy/ (egypt) on 8chan and there were threads on each about how shitty Islam is. /christian/ was posting a few lectures on how Islam was poisoning Europe and I actually posted for the first time to add this.






Maybe it is just simple Islamophobia, but there's something that a deep south redneck baptist and Bill Maher agree on: Islam is evil.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

Faceist Analchest said:


> This is way too long and probably kind of annoying, apologies in advance...
> 
> I was brought up Christian and went to a conservative Southern Baptist private school. It wasn't the most conservative atmosphere ever, but definitely opposed to evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. Various other branches of my family go for much more extreme stuff (home schooling, Bob Jones University, etc.).
> 
> ...



I agree with you that anti-intellectualism is a problem in Christianity, and that the first part of the Bible is ridiculous and taken literally by many Christian denominations.  What I don't really understand, and what I also notice is a common trend with atheists, is that they associate the anti-intellectualism of Christians with the teachings themselves, therefore deciding that there must be no God.  Maybe I misunderstood how you transitioned to atheism?  This is why some Christian denominations do a disservice to the teachings in the Bible.  People tend to look at Christianity as a Bible-thumping religion where snakes can talk, that evolution is a lie, etc., as opposed to to a religion that encourages reason and peace.  
You're right, closing your mind and clinging to ignorance IS abhorrent, but the fact that some Christians do this does not follow that God doesn't exist.


----------



## Red_Rager (Apr 14, 2015)

Holdek said:


> Christianity is just an idea that people came up with.  The same as, say, Cubism in art or Maoism in politics.  If I can think believing in Maoism is stupid, it's also fine to think that believing in any other dumb idea some people have thought up is stupid.  It doesn't mean the believer is a stupid person necessarily, just that their idea is stupid.


Christianity is but one of many religions humanity has come up with: Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrianism, Baha'i, Jainism, and Paganism.

Not to mention the different sects that exist within the same religion and the forgotten religions. I just regard Christianity with the same amount as skepticism that I do with any other religion. There are some nice teachings in Christianity I take to heart, but I don't consider the religion to the Truth.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

Null said:


> My bits.
> 
> I'm definitely an "atheist" but I never call myself that. I'm pretty against applying labels to myself as a whole, but in particular with Atheism I feel people will project a very specific image against you. I've noticed most people in this thread just call themselves "agnostic" which I'm pretty sure is for this reason. If anyone asks, I say I'm "non-religious", which is something most people don't hear. I was raised in the deepest south possible so most people associate atheism with devil worship, which is why I prefer to say non-religious. They'll usually follow that up with a few questions if they care enough, but the point is it dodges the hedonist/devil-worship/fedora stigma. I'm not _anti-religious_ either.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree with your claim that agnosticism is stupid.  There are many, many atheists who say that there is NO God, and they do not concede even the possibility that there might be.  So yes, a distinction must be made between people who say that they are absolutely sure that there is no God and people who genuinely don't know.  I call myself an agnostic Catholic.  Not because I'm "pretentious" but because while I value the teachings of my religion, I also concede that there is a possibility that God does not exist.  Just because someone claims they don't know something for sure doesn't make them "pretentious," it makes them reasonable.  So if you or anyone else say you are an atheist who concedes that there may be a God, then you are either agnostic or an agnostic atheist.  

I do agree with what you said about Islam.  It is an evil, insidious religion where Muslims are incapable of reason.  Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more terrorist attacks before it's not seen as taboo to critically look at Islam.  If you say that Islam is violent then you are considered a bigot.  It's become so engrained in society to be tolerant of their religion and society is brainwashed with the lies Muslims spread in favour of Islam (yes, lies are permitted in Islam if the lies promote the progression of Islam).  Hopefully people start to look at the facts before it's too late.


----------



## DuskEngine (Apr 14, 2015)

AppleChrisp said:


> It's become so engrained in society to be tolerant of their religion and society is brainwashed with the lies Muslims spread in favour of Islam (yes, lies are permitted in Islam if the lies promote the progression of Islam).



Tell me more about this conspiracy that about a third of the world's population is involved in, please.


----------



## Dalish (Apr 14, 2015)

AppleChrisp said:


> This is why some Christian denominations do a disservice to the teachings in the Bible.  People tend to look at Christianity as a Bible-thumping religion where snakes can talk, that evolution is a lie, etc., as opposed to to a religion that encourages reason and peace.



here's my biggest issue with christianity: there is a rampant lack of critically reading the old testament and the lack of streamlined commentary. for example, in judaism we use the talmud and mishna to explain how to follow certain commandments and prohibitions, with a lot of reasoning behind why this was important at the time of writing. there's a distinct _lack_ of this in christianity. there isn't a whole lot of commentary outside the apologists that explains _why_ there are prohibitions or ways to live, which leads to a lot of the current infighting and skepticism. i have witnessed christians use biblical quotations completely out of context to prove bigoted points and promote christianity as the only "correct" religion.

uhhh "reason and peace" lol. the "no true christian" fallacy is something that _also_ really bothers me. it was christian scholars (augustine of hippo springing to mind) who used "reason" to justify the practice of slavery. devout christians justified the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade because "unless the africans were converted, they're gonna go to hell, so we're _really_ enslaving them altruistically". it was people who were devoutly christian who waged "just wars" and banned the practice of judaism and killed/forced conversions for centuries (the abolition of judaism wasn't overturned in spain until 196. the ku klux klan _is_ a group of adherents to christianity. orthodox christians in romania were responsible for the bucharest pogrom.

declaring that none of those people were "real christians" and trying to explain away their actions is one of the biggest issues with christianity. there's no need for people who practice christianity to feel _guilty _because of the past, but denying that these evils _were_ done by self-identified and practicing christians cannot be ignored. you can't divorce the good from the bad. ideologically i'm sure christianity may be about "reason and peace" at its core, but there have been some seriously fucked up things that were born from the popularity and influence of christianity.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

DawnMachine said:


> Tell me more about this conspiracy that about a third of the world's population is involved in, please.


Muslims are allowed to lie in favour of Islam under a teaching called Taqqiya.  The Muslim agenda is very insidious because they promote it as a tolerant religion when it in fact cannot coexist with other religions, and they can call it a "peaceful religion" because they believe that there will be "peace" when the whole world is Muslim and under Sharia law.  There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, it is simply a ruse to try to gain followers of Islam.  So they can present Islam as appealing as they can and it conforms to Taqqiya.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

Miraak said:


> here's my biggest issue with christianity: there is a rampant lack of critically reading the old testament and the lack of streamlined commentary. for example, in judaism we use the talmud and mishna to explain how to follow certain commandments and prohibitions, with a lot of reasoning behind why this was important at the time of writing. there's a distinct _lack_ of this in christianity. there isn't a whole lot of commentary outside the apologists that explains _why_ there are prohibitions or ways to live, which leads to a lot of the current infighting and skepticism. i have witnessed christians use biblical quotations completely out of context to prove bigoted points and promote christianity as the only "correct" religion.
> 
> uhhh "reason and peace" lol. the "no true christian" fallacy is something that _also_ really bothers me. it was christian scholars (augustine of hippo springing to mind) who used "reason" to justify the practice of slavery. devout christians justified the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade because "unless the africans were converted, they're gonna go to hell, so we're _really_ enslaving them altruistically". it was people who were devoutly christian who waged "just wars" and banned the practice of judaism and killed/forced conversions for centuries (the abolition of judaism wasn't overturned in spain until 196. the ku klux klan _is_ a group of adherents to christianity. orthodox christians in romania were responsible for the bucharest pogrom.
> 
> declaring that none of those people were "real christians" and trying to explain away their actions is one of the biggest issues with christianity. there's no need for people who practice christianity to feel _guilty _because of the past, but denying that these evils _were_ done by self-identified and practicing christians cannot be ignored. you can't divorce the good from the bad. ideologically i'm sure christianity may be about "reason and peace" at its core, but there have been some seriously fucked up things that were born from the popularity and influence of christianity.



But in Catholicism there _IS_ a lot of reasoning as to why there are prohibitions or ways to live.  And my point still stands that I said earlier - ignorant Christians do not discredit the entire teachings of Christianity.
Yes, Catholicism is based on reason and peace, as you yourself grant are at its core.  Saying that some Christians in history have used "reason" to justify slavery doesn't make them any different from anyone else who has used "reason" to justify doing something stupid.  This is an example of being ignorant of the teachings of the Bible and isn't a reflection of the Bible itself.  If I say that 2+2 = 6, does it mean that math doesn't exist?  No, because my method of doing math is wrong.  
You can say that this is your biggest issue with Christianity if you want, but the issue is with human nature.  People who want or want to do certain abhorrent things will _always_ find reasons to justify it.  Whether it's religion or not, it makes no difference.  Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it.  I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make about the ku klux klan and the crusades etc., because I have never heard the Vatican do anything but condemn these acts.  So of course we acknowledge them.


----------



## DuskEngine (Apr 14, 2015)

AppleChrisp said:


> The Muslim agenda is very insidious because they promote it as a tolerant religion when it in fact cannot coexist with other religions, and they can call it a "peaceful religion" because they believe that there will be "peace" when the whole world is Muslim and under Sharia law.



Clearly this explains the fantastic relations that the world's Muslim nations have with each other.



AppleChrisp said:


> There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, it is simply a ruse to try to gain followers of Islam.  So they can present Islam as appealing as they can and it conforms to Taqqiya.



I am impressed with how well you are capable of explaining the political ideology of 1.6 billion people.


----------



## Dalish (Apr 14, 2015)

AppleChrisp said:


> But in Catholicism there _IS_ a lot of reasoning as to why there are prohibitions or ways to live.  And my point still stands that I said earlier - ignorant Christians do not discredit the entire teachings of Christianity.
> Yes, Catholicism is based on reason and peace, as you yourself grant are at its core.  Saying that some Christians in history have used "reason" to justify slavery doesn't make them any different from anyone else who has used "reason" to justify doing something stupid.  This is an example of being ignorant of the teachings of the Bible and isn't a reflection of the Bible itself.  If I say that 2+2 = 6, does it mean that math doesn't exist?  No, because my method of doing math is wrong.
> You can say that this is your biggest issue with Christianity if you want, but the issue is with human nature.  People who want or want to do certain abhorrent things will _always_ find reasons to justify it.  Whether it's religion or not, it makes no difference.  Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it.  I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make about the ku klux klan and the crusades etc., because I have never heard the Vatican do anything but condemn these acts.  So of course we acknowledge them.



the difference is that the christians i mentioned used theological reason in order to prove their point and enact, rather than "mind" reason. worldwide colonialism was justified _explicitly_ across europe by invoking the theological principle of proselytizing and creating a world united under christianity. 

"Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it."

no need for personal attacks or insults. 

the vatican condemns those organizations and wars, sure. i'll have to take your word for it. the issue i was trying to pose is the tendency to divorce the "bad" christians by claiming that they're not _real _christians. why is it difficult to believe that christians have done pretty shitty things in the name of their religion? why is there a trend toward "christianity is _really_ about THIS" when negative things christians have done come to light, but the converse of "welp all muslims are bad then and all muslims are accountable" is acceptable?

i'm not trying to be argumentative. i haven't directly insulted any other religious affiliation or sect.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 14, 2015)

AppleChrisp said:


> Muslims are allowed to lie in favour of Islam under a teaching called Taqqiya.  The Muslim agenda is very insidious because they promote it as a tolerant religion when it in fact cannot coexist with other religions, and they can call it a "peaceful religion" because they believe that there will be "peace" when the whole world is Muslim and under Sharia law.  There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, it is simply a ruse to try to gain followers of Islam.  So they can present Islam as appealing as they can and it conforms to Taqqiya.



By this reasoning, all Christians are just waiting for one world Christian government so they can bring back slavery, once again kill their disobedient children, have multiple wives like King Solomon, genocidally slaughter all non-believers, like the Canaanites, Jebusites, and all the other dreadful Old Testament things.

There are utterly atrocious things in the Bible, which would be considered crimes if committed in this day and age.  They are presented as commandments from God, so presumably, Christians are all commanded to do these things.

The only difference in practice between Christianity and Islam is that more Christians are in developed countries where shit like that isn't allowed, and even Christian fundamentalists couldn't get away with that.  Islam, in practice, has more fundamentalists and more practitioners in countries that basically operate under barbarism.

I do think that immigrants coming to civilized countries should be screened, and those with a history of such conduct who show a likelihood to try to import that kind of shit should be excluded.  This is what European countries are not doing, with some pretty dreadful results.

I'm fairly happy with our policies, and you don't see Muslims acting like they do in the UK here.  There are plenty of Muslim citizens who are basically model citizens, doctors, lawyers, professionals and the like.  The crazies are a definite minority, and those who have tried to support terrorism materially have been prosecuted vigorously.

There's nothing inherent in any religion that makes it good or bad.  All the scriptures from the old religions have absolutely dreadful parts to them, because they come from primitive times when people were more ignorant than now.  This is why fetishizing the literal text is always going to be bad, whether the scriptures are the Bible or the Koran.

Also, in relation to _taqiya_, it is interesting to mention that, because Catholicism also has a doctrine called "mental reservation," which also says it is okay to deceive nonbelievers, with various justifications for why it is not "really" dishonest.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

Miraak said:


> the difference is that the christians i mentioned used theological reason in order to prove their point and enact, rather than "mind" reason. worldwide colonialism was justified _explicitly_ across europe by invoking the theological principle of proselytizing and creating a world united under christianity.
> 
> "Except for people like yourself who are unable to see the difference between a fundamental ideological problem and people who are ignorant of the ideology and yet representing it."
> 
> ...



I wasn't being argumentative either, and pointing out that you are not seeing a difference is neither a personal attack nor an insult.  You still don't see the difference between things bad people do and doctrine.
I am curious what "theological reason" those "Christians" used to commit acts - as in, which parts of Jesus' teachings did they follow?  True, Jesus said to spread the word, but I don't think that's the issue with colonialism.  If people raped, tortured, killed, etc. in the name of Christianity, then this is explicitly against the teachings of Jesus.  If they are going against the teachings of Jesus, which they were, then they are not true Christians.


----------



## Zeorus (Apr 14, 2015)

I rarely discuss my religious views online anymore.  Too much of a headache, and I get enough shit for it IRL.  This thread seems to be pretty chill, though.

I'm a Latter-day Saint.  My family heritage in this religion goes back seven generations (to the 1830s).  Unlike most depictions of Mormons, I (and most of my Mormon friends) do not unquestioningly buy into every teaching of the religion.  We believe in examining each idea on an individual basis through reason, scriptural study, and prayer.  Ours is a religion of study - one is not supposed to accept all spiritual truth at once.  Truth comes with time and effort.

Most important among my beliefs is my belief in agency - all members of the human family are free to choose, act, and believe as they please.  All other doctrines of my religion rest upon this.  The "restrictions" of the Mormon religion are practices that I willingly adopt in order to be closer to God.



Spoiler: IRL personal sperging



I also rarely discuss my views because they're very personal and I (sadly) do not have as thick a skin as I should.  I got engaged to a woman of another faith last December, and her choice to marry me (as well as her choice to become a Mormon separate from our engagement) has set off a bit of a firestorm among her family.  Her mother refuses to attend the ceremony (but, being a tacky bitch, wants to be at the reception) and her brother has stopped talking to her altogether.  In light of all this, forgive me if I am overly sensitive in this discussion.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> By this reasoning, all Christians are just waiting for one world Christian government so they can bring back slavery, once again kill their disobedient children, have multiple wives like King Solomon, genocidally slaughter all non-believers, like the Canaanites, Jebusites, and all the other dreadful Old Testament things.
> 
> There are utterly atrocious things in the Bible, which would be considered crimes if committed in this day and age.  They are presented as commandments from God, so presumably, Christians are all commanded to do these things.
> 
> ...



Yes, there are atrocious things in the Bible.  These parts of the Bible were written by people "inspired" by God.  Does this mean they are completely accurate representations of God's word?  Absolutely not.  This is the part of the Bible that Islam accepts, and they reject the New Testament.  In the New Testament Jesus, who Christians believe is God Himself, is the ultimate word.  So if anything in the Old Testament conflicts with what Jesus said, we don't abide by that.  But Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God, so basically what Muhammad did was offer a completely different "divinely inspired" account of Jesus' life and teachings.  So your opinion that Christians are just waiting to go against the teachings of Jesus is absurd and false.  
While the Bible has many different authors, and therefore clearly contradictions (cleared up by Jesus), The Quran is believed to be the word of one prophet: Muhammad.  So their contradictions are not only unaccounted for, but there is also a verse in the Quran that even addresses these contradictions.  It states that if there is a verse in the Quran that contradicts another verse, the latter verse is the correct teaching.  Since the Quran moves from peace to violence, you can guess what the tone of the "correct" verses is.
I had never heard of "mental reservation" before so I did a quick Google search … it looks like that isn't derived from the Bible but from a philosopher in the Middle Ages or something.  So you can't compare this to something like taqiyya which is rooted in the Quran.
I also disagree that religions aren't inherently good or bad.  For example, both the Bible and the Quran have horrible components, and good components.  Yes, in some verses in the Quran promote peace.  But these verses are overridden by the verses promoting violence.  Verses in the Bible promote violence, but these verses are overridden by verses promoting peace and love.  You have to look at the overall message of the religion, and yes it can be inherently good or bad.  But just because it's inherently good or bad doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> I rarely discuss my religious views online anymore.  Too much of a headache, and I get enough shit for it IRL.  This thread seems to be pretty chill, though.
> 
> I'm a Latter-day Saint.  My family heritage in this religion goes back seven generations (to the 1830s).  Unlike most depictions of Mormons, I (and most of my Mormon friends) do not unquestioningly buy into every teaching of the religion.  We believe in examining each idea on an individual basis through reason, scriptural study, and prayer.  Ours is a religion of study - one is not supposed to accept all spiritual truth at once.  Truth comes with time and effort.
> 
> ...



Sorry to hear about your family troubles.  No need to be afraid to discuss religious views here!  I will admit that I have not had much exposure to Latter-day Saints and most of my exposure has been through negative represenations in the media.  You sound pretty cool though and I liked everything you said about your religion.  Maybe your fiance's mother is just scared because she doesn't understand Mormonism.  I don't know what religion she's coming from or how open-minded she is, but maybe it would benefit to sit down and discuss some of your beliefs with her (if you haven't already).  I know if I had a child who converted to a religion I didn't know much about, I would probably be upset too.  It's probably nothing personal


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 14, 2015)

AppleChrisp said:


> So your opinion that Christians are just waiting to go against the teachings of Jesus is absurd and false.



The entire Bible is the inerrant word of God, from a fundamentalist perspective.  And the New Testament includes the Book of Revelation.  If taken literally, it is as crazy and wrong-headed as anything in the Old Testament.



> I had never heard of "mental reservation" before so I did a quick Google search … it looks like that isn't derived from the Bible but from a philosopher in the Middle Ages or something.  So you can't compare this to something like taqiyya which is rooted in the Quran.



Actually, _taqiya_ did not originate until after the Sunni/Shi'a split, and was specifically dealing with a period when being Muslim could get them killed.  The deception justified, like that of mental reservation, was to protect from forced conversion or genocide.  The reason, like mental reservation, was to reconcile the general principle against lying with the necessity, sometimes, of doing it to avoid greater harm.

It is generally conditional upon the lying being in the face of force or compulsion, much as mental reservation is.



> I also disagree that religions aren't inherently good or bad.  For example, both the Bible and the Quran have horrible components, and good components.  Yes, in some verses in the Quran promote peace.  But these verses are overridden by the verses promoting violence.  Verses in the Bible promote violence, but these verses are overridden by verses promoting peace and love.  You have to look at the overall message of the religion, and yes it can be inherently good or bad.  But just because it's inherently good or bad doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted.



That's just, like, your opinion, man.  The Crusaders thought differently.

The difference is that those were a long time ago, while the practices of Muslim extremists are now a menace.  But if 1.6 billion people were all on a violent jihad, we wouldn't even be talking about this.  There would already be a global war and the entire world would be in flames.


----------



## DuskEngine (Apr 14, 2015)

Miraak said:


> declaring that none of those people were "real christians" and trying to explain away their actions is one of the biggest issues with christianity. there's no need for people who practice christianity to feel _guilty _because of the past, but denying that these evils _were_ done by self-identified and practicing christians cannot be ignored.



That's also an issue I have with people, especially non-Muslims, who try to claim that groups like ISIS aren't 'real Muslims' or whatever. I have no interest in interpreting theological minutiae for anyone else.

I totally get why Muslims feel the need to distance themselves from groups like ISIS though. I don't really see anyone combing the bible to look for passages which justify the practices of the Lord's Resistance Army or anything.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 14, 2015)

DawnMachine said:


> That's also an issue I have with people, especially non-Muslims, who try to claim that groups like ISIS aren't 'real Muslims' or whatever. I have no interest in interpreting theological minutiae for anyone else.



I understand why they claim that but, sadly, ISIS are Muslims.  They just are.  I totally understand the desire to distance atrocities from a group someone belongs to or wants to defend, but it's just a fact that they are motivated by religious beliefs and not, as often claimed, solely by political beliefs.  Politically motivated violence is usually pragmatic, and ISIS is acting in a way that makes no sense from a pragmatic perspective.

The group is essentially forcing its own destruction, which doesn't make sense unless, like the Branch Davidians on a smaller scale, they actually believe what they're doing.

Since I'm not an expert, the media source I'm basing my opinion on:  What ISIS Really Wants, from The Atlantic.


----------



## AppleChrisp (Apr 14, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> The entire Bible is the inerrant word of God, from a fundamentalist perspective.  And the New Testament includes the Book of Revelation.  If taken literally, it is as crazy and wrong-headed as anything in the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you read a few posts back, I mentioned the difference between the "inspired" word of God and Jesus' teachings.  When I refer to the New Testament, I mean to refer to Jesus' teachings, not Revelations.  Sorry for being unclear.

And you're right, taqiyya was used to protect against harm.  But that is only one use for it.  In Islam, it is also considered to be a virtue and used to actively deceive.  In Islam Allah forbids being friendly to "infidels," however Muslims are taught to wear a smile on their face with hate in their heart if they don't have a choice.  You've probably heard other teachings regarding infidels in the Quran, so I won't delve into that.  So yeah, Muslims in North America probably aren't going to go around freely killing infidels because they are outnumbered here and dont have a choice.  Whether they seem harmless or not, the Quran is clear about the treatment of infidels.

How is that an "opinion"?  Just because the crusaders thought differently doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer.  Just because people do things wrong doesn't mean there's not an objective answer.  My statements were based on knowledge I have on the Bible and the Quran.  I have researched both.  Maybe it's not 100% correct, but I have not read anything on the contrary.


----------



## c-no (Apr 18, 2015)

Red_Rager said:


> I am also not a devil worshipper, how can I worship something that I do not acknowledge exists?  If not believing in God makes me a devil worshipper, then the devil sure doesn't require much effort from me to worship him.


I'm guessing an atheist is a devil worshipper because according to some crazed Christians, atheist might be trying to sway the youth with their godless lifestyle which could only be the work of the devil. It is this sort of thing that makes one wonder how bad a religion would have it when you get these sort of people who think any that isn't of them must really be against them.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 19, 2015)

c-no said:


> I'm guessing an atheist is a devil worshipper because according to some crazed Christians, atheist might be trying to sway the youth with their godless lifestyle which could only be the work of the devil. It is this sort of thing that makes one wonder how bad a religion would have it when you get these sort of people who think any that isn't of them must really be against them.



Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis?  He depicts at least one character who's an atheist but whose atheism makes him a tool of the devil.  The argument is basically that only God can save you from the devil, and by actively rejecting God you are effectively, if not consciously, inviting in the devil.


----------



## exball (Apr 19, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis?  He depicts at least one character who's an atheist but whose atheism makes him a tool of the devil.  The argument is basically that only God can save you from the devil, and by actively rejecting God you are effectively, if not consciously, inviting in the devil.


Because C.S. Lewis was a preachy fruit.


----------



## OBAMATRON (Apr 19, 2015)

http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew+23/

dabes bible verse


----------



## Dr. Mario (Apr 19, 2015)

chimpchan said:


> I'm Christian enough to pray. However I think everybody should be allowed to believe what they want.


I love you.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 19, 2015)

Marella said:


> I love you.


----------



## Holdek (Apr 19, 2015)

exball said:


> Because C.S. Lewis was a preachy fruit.


He just made straw men and knocked them down.  And he's once of the intellectual lights of evangelical Christianity?


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 19, 2015)

exball said:


> Because C.S. Lewis was a preachy fruit.



Yes, it's idiotic.  But that's basically where the "atheists are devil worshippers" thing comes from.


----------



## Red_Rager (Apr 19, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Yes, it's idiotic.  But that's basically where the "atheists are devil worshippers" thing comes from.


Most atheists who claim to be devil worshippers are just trying to troll the Christians or use him as a symbol of rebellion and freedom.  Unless they fall under the branch of believing in theistic satanism.  Then there are the teenage twits trying to be edgy.

In other words, you really shouldn't take "satanists" seriously, they are probably trying to get a reaction from you.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 19, 2015)

Red_Rager said:


> Most atheists who claim to be devil worshippers are just trying to troll the Christians or use him as a symbol of rebellion and freedom.



The question I was attempting to answer was why christians would believe atheists are devil worshippers, not why would atheists call themselves devil worshippers.


----------



## Alex Krycek (Apr 19, 2015)

Red_Rager said:


> Unless they fall under the branch of believing in theistic satanism.  Then there are the teenage twits trying to be edgy.


I do know of a few Processans that are way older than teenage and have this theology where they believe in Abraxes (God is Lucifer is Jesus is Satan) and tend to enjoy doing some odd shit. Topy Tribe is like that in my area, but I don't know any of the members well enough to comment at length and generally avoid them.


----------



## Red_Rager (Apr 19, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> The question I was attempting to answer was why christians would believe atheists are devil worshippers, not why would atheists call themselves devil worshippers.


I was actually adding onto your comment. The point I was trying to make is that Christians should not take the bait when an atheist calls himself a "satanist"


----------



## APerson (Apr 19, 2015)

I'm Jewish; I don't observe the Sabbath, but I do keep kosher. I find that religion helps me with my worldview and values, but that's just me; I fully accept those who choose to not go on faith.


----------



## DuskEngine (Apr 20, 2015)

Alex Krycek said:


> I do know of a few Processans that are way older than teenage and have this theology where they believe in Abraxes (God is Lucifer is Jesus is Satan) and tend to enjoy doing some odd shit. Topy Tribe is like that in my area, but I don't know any of the members well enough to comment at length and generally avoid them.



When I was living in Boston there was this big stink when a bunch of Satanists apparently got permission to hold an event in Harvard's cultural club until the city's Catholics bitched them out.

Apparently they moved the event to this random Chinese restaurant. I wish I wasn't busy at the time - it sounds like it would have been interesting, at least.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 20, 2015)

In my experience there's two types of Satanists who take their beliefs seriously.

There's the LaVeyan Satanists - not necessarily members of LaVey's church, but those who follow his broad take on Satanism.  They seem to basically see Satan as a sort of potent metaphor for secular human liberation and intellectual freedom, which makes them effectively secular humanists.  It's pretty intensely retarded, because I don't think secular human liberation or intellectual freedom needs a metaphor to appeal to people, and even if it did, using a metaphor from a religious story for a secular idea.. nuff said.

The second group are the theological Satanists who actually believe that Satan is some kind of supernatural being who can be prayed to and worshipped and hands down laws.  For all their theatrical disdain for Christianity they're basically just replicating Christianity with a very superficial change (e.g. the name of the head deity) and less of the social and cultural influence.

Both groups seem pretty stupid.


----------



## Surtur (Apr 20, 2015)

I am the worlds worst Asatruar. Fight me nerds.


----------



## SpessCaptain (Apr 20, 2015)

Searching up a website written by a late-20s woman who talked about Satan being summoned by her and her boyfriend and I found a different website:

http://www.demonbuster.com/

Not Safe for Web Developers. Regardless of religion you shouldn't be an ass or have a bad looking website.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 20, 2015)

Valiant said:


> Searching up a website written by a late-20s woman who talked about Satan being summoned by her and her boyfriend and I found a different website:
> 
> http://www.demonbuster.com/



"*We have no printed or audio material to send you."*

How disappointing.


----------



## Megahertz (Apr 20, 2015)

When I was a sophomore in high school, I went to a catholic youth retreat that was held by my local church's youth group. I was and still am openly atheist. So I did my fare share of eye rolling and daydreaming during talks and etc, but it was still a... Well, I'm embarassed, but it was a life changing experience.

The kids my age there were so _happy._ A kind of pure, non-selfish happiness and joy in caring for each other and listening to others issues and problems that I had never really seen before. It was a stark contrast to the sort of "bad christian" image that my atheist friends and I kept scoffing about privately.

Having gone to that thing really made me think.

Religion gave these people happiness, whether it can be considered "bigoted and false" or not. It allowed these teens to not feel embarrassed or lame about being good people and expressing compassion and understanding towards strangers. That's why I like where religious millennials are taking things- there are less of them , but they're not as gung-ho in their views as for example boomers and are way more laid-back and "you do you, I do me" about it. 

I also felt very loved in that retreat. It was kinda sappy and lame at times, but other than my close friends I didn't know people were capable of that kind of goodness. I kinda thought most people were assholes and etc, but this proved me wrong and It made me feel nice. 

Of course this doesn't mean there still isnt an outpouring of (especially older) bad religious people, or that religion can't be an easy bigotry enabler. But I am no longer a hateful atheist because sometimes people just have their own ways of finding happiness, ya know? Leave the cool ones be.

Tldr- used to be a fedora-tier atheist, went to a retreat, am now chill atheist and people can do what they want because millennial Christians are also super chill.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 20, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> In my experience there's two types of Satanists who take their beliefs seriously.
> 
> There's the LaVeyan Satanists - not necessarily members of LaVey's church, but those who follow his broad take on Satanism.



These were basically the first euphoric atheists.


----------



## c-no (Apr 20, 2015)

Surtur said:


> I am the worlds worst Asatruar. Fight me nerds.


So you are the worst? Who is the best Asatruar then?


----------



## Surtur (Apr 20, 2015)

c-no said:


> So you are the worst? Who is the best Asatruar then?


Probably this asshole.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Apr 20, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> These were basically the first euphoric atheists.



Yeah, there's definitely some common ground.  Although arseholeish as the euphoric atheists are, at least they don't assume that the only way you can understand anti-religious ideology is with explicitly religious imagery.  But they definitely share the same sneering disdain for everybody who doesn't share their ideology.


----------



## Watcher (Apr 20, 2015)

I've posted a bunch in the various religion and evolution threads we've had on the forum and it's no secret I'm an atheist.

Although I tend to take religious debate off this forum largely because the forum has a tendency to just bait and present arguments that are erroneous just so you'll post a rebuttal.


Megahertz said:


> The kids my age there were so _happy._ A kind of pure, non-selfish happiness and joy in caring for each other and listening to others issues and problems that I had never really seen before. It was a stark contrast to the sort of "bad christian" image that my atheist friends and I kept scoffing about privately.
> 
> Having gone to that thing really made me think.
> 
> Religion gave these people happiness, whether it can be considered "bigoted and false" or not. It allowed these teens to not feel embarrassed or lame about being good people and expressing compassion and understanding towards strangers. That's why I like where religious millennials are taking things- there are less of them , but they're not as gung-ho in their views as for example boomers and are way more laid-back and "you do you, I do me" about it.


I believe people should be entitled to whatever beliefs they want. Both the constitution of the United States and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada (the Country I live in) both allow for freedom of religion. I am not opposed to religions I'm opposed to ignorance. I largely dislike religion for ignorance and the tendency for people to believe in things either due to needing a feeling of belonging or fear.

The basic problem has more to do with religious people attempting to censor thought. Such as trying to push things like prayer in schools or intelligent design in science class. This is a problem and it has extremely long lasting consequences on society if left to fester.

This is actually a big reason why I dislike teaching religion to children and why I prefer the idea of teaching religion to people when they're older. This leads to less ignorance, more tolerance and less fear of nonsense concepts like Hell.


Teddy said:


> My church has definitely become a shadow of what it once was. I know more people who go to church sorely to "socialize" (hookup) than to learn about the Lord. Sad.


This is one of the biggest reasons churches exist at all in the modern day. And one of the reasons why I tolerate the existence of churches. Being more of a community center allows it to engage in charity and actually use it's tax exempt status for something good.


----------



## Megahertz (Apr 20, 2015)

It's interesting to wonder if these kids would have come across self-actualization and self-betterment on their own without the "aid" of religion, and if it would have been better that way (It probably would have.) I know that the mindset of praying to a god to fix all of your stuff can be problematic as it might allow you to remove blame from yourself, but the number of people I see doing that in reality is dropping, because no matter what you do, real life catches up.



Cuddlebug said:


> I largely dislike religion for ignorance and the tendency for people to believe in things either due to needing a feeling of belonging or fear.



Do you think that it takes a certain kind of mindset to be able to accept/realize that we ultimately have to create our own sense of purpose without the big blanket of comfort of "Be good for a god"? I know a lot of people who are scared shitless and cover their ears at such an idea. If these people were brought up without religion, do you think they'd still search for "the one and true purpose", or just go with the flow and live life for themselves like most atheists do?



Cuddlebug said:


> The basic problem has more to do with religious people attempting to censor thought. Such as trying to push things like prayer in schools or intelligent design in science class. This is a problem and it has extremely long lasting consequences on society if left to fester.



Oh, absolutely. This is where the distorted thinking comes into place and this is my biggest problem with Christianity primarily - where it is in most denomination's doctrine to "spread the word of god". This phrase alone is what motivates people to shut their ears to any other opinions about religion because they're so absorbed in pushing their views on others. If Christianity, and by extension other religions were more of a self-contained school of thought that didn't focus on spreading, this problem probably wouldn't crop up as often... maybe?


----------



## Watcher (Apr 20, 2015)

Megahertz said:


> If Christianity, and by extension other religions were more of a self-contained school of thought that didn't focus on spreading, this problem probably wouldn't crop up as often... maybe?


As I said this is a big reason why I vastly prefer people teaching religion to people when they're much older. I believe a great deal of this ignorance stems from fear that goes back to childhood of things like sin and hell. It's a big reason why Catholic Guilt is a thing.

A person coming to religion due to wanting to seek spirituality is far more useful to them than coming to it because they're afraid of what'll happen if they don't. A great deal of atheist parents I'm aware of don't usually teach their children about religion until they're much older, and teach them about lots of different religions so they can have an open mind and be tolerant of other beliefs.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 20, 2015)

Cuddlebug said:


> This is actually a big reason why I dislike teaching religion to children and why I prefer the idea of teaching religion to people when they're older. This leads to less ignorance, more tolerance and less fear of nonsense concepts like Hell.



It also leads to less religion.

The large religions that currently exist do so because they were good at convincing their believers to raise their children as believers, and to keep this going for thousands of years.  The main reason religious people belong to the religion they do is because their parents did and their parents before them, and so on.


----------



## Red_Rager (Apr 20, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> It also leads to less religion.
> 
> The large religions that currently exist do so because they were good at convincing their believers to raise their children as believers, and to keep this going for thousands of years.  The main reason religious people belong to the religion they do is because their parents did and their parents before them, and so on.


I probably wouldn't have been baptised Catholic if it didn't happen as a kid.  However, my parents took a hands off approach with religion and let me draw my own conclusions.  I joined up with a Christian group when I was going through shit, but I had some disagreements with doctrine and left.  There are people who turn to religion because they are going through an inner struggle and the doctrine gave them strength to persevere.  Christianity, with the exception of Calvenism, does advertise itself as the religion of salvation. Join us and become saved. I could have gone down that path as well.  Then again I did get exposure to _some_ Christianity as a kid. I'm still seeking my own spiritual Truth and if I do turn back to Christianity it would most likely be through the Gnostic path. 

Until then I'm a seeker looking at other religions when I have time and come to my own conclusions to make sense of life an existence.


----------



## Arctic (Apr 26, 2015)

Here's some Bible verses for if someone here still is a God-fearing Christian. 

_Numbers 31:17-18_ - Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
_Exodus 4:24 _- Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met [Moses] and sought to put him to death.
_2 Kings 23-24_ - Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

Join the euphoria


----------



## Henry Bemis (Apr 26, 2015)

Recent thought I had:

Considering all the crazy-ass theories about how the universe came about (universes colliding and breaking off), is it entirely possible we're asking the wrong questions?

Not "Is there a Creator?" or "If there's a Creator, does it care?" But rather, "If there's a Creator, does it _know _it has created?"

In other words, we all could be someone's bastard children.


----------



## Arctic (Apr 26, 2015)

Henry Bemis said:


> Recent thought I had:
> 
> Considering all the crazy-ass theories about how the universe came about (universes colliding and breaking off), is it entirely possible we're asking the wrong questions?
> 
> ...


You mean like God is some guy sitting on a toilet seat and we are the maggots that crawl in his excrement.


----------



## Bogs (Apr 26, 2015)

I'm a Jewish atheist who grew up in a Catholic country. I like having debates about it, as I don't know where I stand in the whole scheme of things.

I dislike Orthodox religions; I find following ancient texts to the letter is practically retarded for the human race.

Looking at the universe, -- which is quite depressing, I can definitely see where the creationists are coming from.

My latest question: Can a god (God in the Abrahamic tradition) change its mind or make a mistake (besides the human race)?


----------



## Abethedemon (Apr 28, 2015)

I'm an agnostic, but I find religion fascinating. I identify most with two religions. The first is Discordianism, which is great because it's silly about being serious, and the second is the Church of the Subgenius, which is serious about being silly.
Hail Eris! Praise "Bob!" Fnord!


----------



## Trombonista (Apr 28, 2015)

I'm a Reform Jew who likes to go to Conservative services (that is, when I actually go to synagogue).


----------



## Arkangel (Apr 28, 2015)

I'm an atheist. I've got no problem using the term to describe myself because all it means is that I don't believe that gods exist. My mind could be changed, but I haven't seen any compelling proof yet and I don't believe there ever will be.

I've got no problem with religious people as long as they're not infringing on other people's rights with their beliefs.


----------



## Grand Number of Pounds (Apr 28, 2015)

I was raised fundamentalist Baptist but I'm not really sure what I believe now.


----------



## Eldritch (Apr 28, 2015)

Originally raised as kind of a nondenominational christian because my mom never found "church people" she liked. Around middle school I went full fedora for awhile in a bout of depression. Not _too_ long ago me and my dad both went to a nearby tibetan buddhist temple and now consider ourselves buddhist.
My mom's atheist now, she was originally raised in one of those pentacostal churches where they dance around in the aisles and speak in tounges.
As for my views on other religions, well, I think the hippy cashier at this one shop said it best: "All religions should be equally respected, but some religions are just a bit more chill than others."
One thing I don't get is why so many fundamentalist christian highschoolers in my town are turning to mormonism, I don't understand how it appeals to them from their perspective.


----------



## Zeorus (Apr 29, 2015)

Eldritch said:


> One thing I don't get is why so many fundamentalist christian highschoolers in my town are turning to mormonism, I don't understand how it appeals to them from their perspective.



I like to think that it's two things:

1) We actually have a few theological things in common (but not as much as we have in common with Catholics)
2) Our crazy beliefs make more sense than their crazy beliefs.


----------



## Cosmos (Apr 29, 2015)

I was baptized as a Catholic literally two weeks after my birth and I've been a practicing one since then. Since I turned 17 or so, though, I don't go to Sunday Mass nearly as much. I feel guilty about it but, at the same time, I feel like God isn't going to cast me into hell because I oversleep all the time, haha.

My family and I aren't strict about our faith at all (and Catholicism is actually a pretty liberal religion, especially compared to some Protestant sects) and neither is my parish, the Catholic schools I went to, or the Catholic people who are around me, so you won't see a lot of religious intolerance from my end. I'm totally fine with gay people, as are most of the Catholics I know; tbh I think all of the controversy surrounding homosexuality is fucking retarded. Another thing I disagree with the Church on is animals; I think that animals can have souls as well as humans because so many animals are far too intelligent and good for me to consider that they don't have souls like I do.

Finally, I'm fine with agnostics/atheists; some of my close friends are actually agnostic/atheistic. I *do *have a problem with anti-theists though (as in, people who are anti-religion instead of simply not believing in God) because in my experience those people tend to disrespect and insult me for being Catholic. I can get past a lot of things, but I don't want to be friends with someone who insults me and my beliefs.


----------



## Overcast (Apr 29, 2015)

My parents are both Christian. Not extremist Christian thankfully. 

I became atheist when I was a teenager for a little while. Partly because I had a hard time believing in something that I couldn't really see. But it was mostly because I thought it seemed cool.

Now, I'm simply agnostic. The world works in weird ways, so who knows, maybe there is a higher power up there that has a plan for us all. I certainly don't know. And I won't give anyone who does believe a hard time.

I do think the extremes on both sides are stupid. Whether it be people of the Westburo Baptist Church or that one guy that thinks he's making a difference by placing the Bible and books about it in the Fiction section of the library.


----------



## Son of Big Boss (May 6, 2015)

I recently underwent the process that Christians call "born again", so i became a Christian.
I was baptized as a kid, but i was always more on the agnostic side of things. Like "I don't know and i'll never know if God exists so why bother?".

Well, turns out God wanted to know me, because now i know he exists and i am 99% sure. Cuz i had too much weird stuff happen to me lately to just chalk it up to chance.

However, my religious view is more defined by near-death testimonies and miracles. I find these phenomenon extremely fascinating to study.


----------



## Joan Nyan (May 12, 2015)

I think that Jesus was a great person and that if more people tried to follow his example the world would be a better place. You can definitely look up to Jesus without believing in God or anything like that. So, I would say that I look up to Jesus as an example of a good person in the same way that I would look up to Gandhi or MLK, but otherwise I'm an atheist. I don't really give too much of a shit about other people's religions except Islam for reasons that Null stated earlier. Fuck Islam.


----------



## AtroposHeart (May 12, 2015)

I am a devote Christian. I was an Agnostic/Atheist for several decades which didn't help that I battled severe (And sometimes still do) depression during that time. 

I tried Buddhism because I felt that would be the best for trying to heal stuff with depression because it was letting go of attachments, but the thing is I found myself not being able to do that and wondering if I wasn't good enough. I looked into other faiths and tried them, but I feel short.

But now I view my birth faith (Christianity) in a whole new light. Christianity is different from any other religion because you are not saved by what you do or trying to be as perfect as possible.

In Christianity redemption and salvation is a gift. The price has already been paid for my sin. I can except the fact I will never be perfect and miss up. I just need up the word of God the best I can. But no matter what I do or how many times I mess up I will not lose my salvation because I had a God love me enough to die for me.

I once shared a Pagan thing that read "Your God was nailed to a cross and mine carries a hammer, any questions?"

Well, I do now.  Did your God love you enough to be born to a peasant mother, be the creator of the universe, but born in a barn. Hang up with the lowest members of society from thieves to prostitutes and show you the hypocrisy in your leaders? Was your God willing to be spit on and tortured to death?

I have studied numerous religions. And I can't think of a God that went that far and showed that much love for his followers.

In Islam the angels count your bad and good deeds which is impossible because you are going to mess up and be paranoid about what you have done.. In Buddhism you have to force your mind to get ride of all attachments and desires which no human can do.

I am trying to explain why I became a Christian again. I am not trying to show my beliefs down your throat. But I fallen many times and I don't think I deserve the grace that God has offered me, but he paid it 2,000 years ago.


----------



## Cosmos (May 12, 2015)

@AtroposHeart That actually made me tear up a bit. Like I said in my own post, I'm sort of bit of a lapsed Catholic now (I still fully believe in my faith, I just don't go to Mass very often). But reading things like this and being reminded of what I believe in is always such a great experience.

I don't want to force my religion down anyone's throat, either, but I just think that Christianity is fundamentally a beautiful, powerful thing. As humans, we're naturally fickle and prone to be drawn to evil if we're not careful (because let's be honest, oftentimes doing the wrong thing is easier than doing the right thing). That doesn't make us horrible, it's just who we are. We're imperfect and fallible. But still God sent his only son, in the body of one of us humans, to take on the burden of our sins through his own sacrifice. And even after all that, even when we stray, God is always willing to welcome us back with loving arms. That's what the entire parable of the Prodigal Son is about; God is essentially a loving father who will always love and welcome his children home, no matter what they've done.

That's why I absolutely can't stand "Christians" who assert that making one tiny mistake will make God hate you and damn you to hell for eternity. What Jesus taught is that God has infinite love and mercy for every single person; even a serial killer can go back to God if they've truly repented. Also, Catholicism believes that, since God exists outside of time and space, people can repent even after they die through God's divine intervention. In one of my theology classes we actually debated over whether Hell can actually be _empty_ because of this. Also, that's why Catholics are heavily discouraged from stating that someone will go to hell for something, because it's very arrogant to assume that we know better than God (the jury's still out on people like Hitler and Stalin, though. You can probably say that they're in Hell for obvious reasons).


----------



## Eldritch (May 12, 2015)

AtroposHeart said:


> In Buddhism you have to force your mind to get ride of all attachments and desires which no human can do.


----------



## AtroposHeart (May 12, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> @AtroposHeart That actually made me tear up a bit. Like I said in my own post, I'm sort of bit of a lapsed Catholic now (I still fully believe in my faith, I just don't go to Mass very often). But reading things like this and being reminded of what I believe in is always such a great experience.
> 
> I don't want to force my religion down anyone's throat, either, but I just think that Christianity is fundamentally a beautiful, powerful thing. As humans, we're naturally fickle and prone to be drawn to evil if we're not careful (because let's be honest, oftentimes doing the wrong thing is easier than doing the right thing). That doesn't make us horrible, it's just who we are. We're imperfect and fallible. But still God sent his only son, in the body of one of us humans, to take on the burden of our sins through his own sacrifice. And even after all that, even when we stray, God is always willing to welcome us back with loving arms. That's what the entire parable of the Prodigal Son is about; God is essentially a loving father who will always love and welcome his children home, no matter what they've done.
> 
> That's why I absolutely can't stand "Christians" who assert that making one tiny mistake will make God hate you and damn you to hell for eternity. What Jesus taught is that God has infinite love and mercy for every single person; even a serial killer can go back to God if they've truly repented. Also, Catholicism believes that, since God exists outside of time and space, people can repent even after they die through God's divine intervention. In one of my theology classes we actually debated over whether Hell can actually be _empty_ because of this. Also, that's why Catholics are heavily discouraged from stating that someone will go to hell for something, because it's very arrogant to assume that we know better than God (the jury's still out on people like Hitler and Stalin, though. You can probably say that they're in Hell for obvious reasons).



Thanks for that. After all the bad ratings I got for posting that...you admitting it made you tear up was worth it (By the way we are both Moonies! YAY!)

My view of hell isn't brimestone and fire. I think that is more of a cultural thing. I think Hell might is either Separation from God or just simply death, you just end. Pretty much what the Atheist believes happens to you when you die. The Bible puts more emphasis on death than it does Hell fire which is why I believe that.


----------



## Cosmos (May 12, 2015)

AtroposHeart said:


> Thanks for that. After all the bad ratings I got for posting that...you admitting it made you tear up was worth it (By the way we are both Moonies! YAY!)
> 
> My view of hell isn't brimestone and fire. I think that is more of a cultural thing. I think Hell might is either Separation from God or just simply death, you just end. Pretty much what the Atheist believes happens to you when you die. The Bible puts more emphasis on death than it does Hell fire which is why I believe that.



Aww, I'm glad! And yeah, I love your avatar!! V-babe is my favorite, too; this is actually the one place where I don't use her as an avatar, haha. Everywhere else it's all Venus, all the time 

I don't think fire and brimstone are even mentioned in the Bible. What I was taught in my theology classes is that Hell is eternal separation from God and is a path one chooses, not one one is damned to. I also sort of like the idea that Hell is repetition; you're stuck in an eternal loop, repeating the worst experiences of your life over and over. Or maybe even just repeating the events that led up to your death. There's a neat Stephen King story about that concept called "That Feeling, You Can Only Say What it is in French" (which refers to deja vu, btw).


----------



## AtroposHeart (May 12, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> Aww, I'm glad! And yeah, I love your avatar!! V-babe is my favorite, too; this is actually the one place where I don't use her as an avatar, haha. Everywhere else it's all Venus, all the time
> 
> I don't think fire and brimstone are even mentioned in the Bible. What I was taught in my theology classes is that Hell is eternal separation from God and is a path one chooses, not one one is damned to. I also sort of like the idea that Hell is repetition; you're stuck in an eternal loop, repeating the worst experiences of your life over and over. Or maybe even just repeating the events that led up to your death. There's a neat Stephen King story about that concept called "That Feeling, You Can Only Say What it is in French" (which refers to deja vu, btw).



Personally, I don't really like to focus on the aspect of Hell much. I really think it is more separation from God than endless torment, like you said. I don't really view Hell as a place of endless torture more sadness and melancholy, but of course I don't know. I think it is more of the pain of being away from God's love than anything.

Thanks for my Venus compliment. I didn't really care for her as a Girl, but now that I am older and rewatching the series she is becoming my favorite after Sailor Moon.


----------



## Hat (May 13, 2015)

AtroposHeart said:


> My view of hell isn't brimestone and fire. I think that is more of a cultural thing. I think Hell might is either Separation from God or just simply death, you just end. Pretty much what the Atheist believes happens to you when you die. The Bible puts more emphasis on death than it does Hell fire which is why I believe that.





Cosmos said:


> I don't think fire and brimstone are even mentioned in the Bible. What I was taught in my theology classes is that Hell is eternal separation from God and is a path one chooses, not one one is damned to. I also sort of like the idea that Hell is repetition; you're stuck in an eternal loop, repeating the worst experiences of your life over and over. Or maybe even just repeating the events that led up to your death. There's a neat Stephen King story about that concept called "That Feeling, You Can Only Say What it is in French" (which refers to deja vu, btw).





AtroposHeart said:


> Personally, I don't really like to focus on the aspect of Hell much. I really think it is more separation from God than endless torment, like you said. I don't really view Hell as a place of endless torture more sadness and melancholy, but of course I don't know. I think it is more of the pain of being away from God's love than anything.






			
				St. Matthew 25:41 said:
			
		

> Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels





			
				St. Mark 9:43–44 said:
			
		

> And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
> Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.





			
				Jude 1:6–7 said:
			
		

> And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.





			
				The Revelation of St. John 21:8 said:
			
		

> But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


Checkmate.


----------



## AtroposHeart (May 13, 2015)

Hat said:


> Checkmate.



Declaring victory before your opponent has a chance to respond is weenish.

I do not believe in a fundamentalist interruption of the Bible. I believe things like the "Garden of Eden" and "Noah's Arc" are allegories and scientific reasoning such as evolution are the explanations for origins of life, though God Guided.

I also believe that the Bible is _*not *_perfect because over the last two thousand years it has been translated through a variety of languages, and been used in numerous political agendas. My preacher (While not sharing my views) does have to do a lot of research into the original Greek translation of the Bible in order for it to make sense. 

I believe the Hell fire is part allegory for the pain of separation from God along with possible political motives. The reason why I think this is because the discussion of Hell doesn't appear until the New Testament and most of the Bible discusses death in terms of well...death in contrast of having eternal life with God.

I am not an expert on my religion, far from it, but still learning. This is just my view which may change over time.

But I am going to leave this thread for now because I don't want a fight to start along with getting the thread partly locked.


----------



## Holdek (May 13, 2015)

AtroposHeart said:


> By the way we are both Moonies!


Probably shouldn't write that in the Religion Discussion thread.  (Well, unless you actually are a Moonie.)


----------



## Eldritch (May 13, 2015)

Faceist Analchest said:


> I think a lot of people get the impression that they fail at Buddhism or meditation due to basic misconceptions of how it's supposed to work. If you treat it as a goal-oriented self-improvement project, you're probably just going to get frustrated at your perceived failure or lack of progress. It's generally said that meditation should be performed as a non-activity. You're really not doing anything; you're simply observing what happens as you try to focus on the object of meditation. Through observation, you learn that your own thoughts and self-concept aren't really as important as you assumed they were. Eventually, you notice that just as your persistent worrying and rumination (for example) never seem to lead anywhere or resolve anything, your frustration that _you're doing that thing again_ is equally useless. Once you can do that (i.e. stop rejecting your own thoughts and simply accept them as essentially meaningless things that sometimes happen), it starts to go away on its own, and you realize that it wasn't really a problem to begin with. The point is that it's not supposed to instantaneously fix your current problems or immunize you against any future troubles. The benefits only come indirectly. If you strive to get something, you'll only fail (compare to the paradox of hedonism).
> 
> It's a really, really common thing for people to try this stuff and then conclude that they "can't do it". But people who practice it seriously in monasteries, etc. don't generally have any special abilities that you don't.
> 
> ...


I kind of get a vibe that they're coming at it from a christian perspective in the first place, and judging islam and buddhism from the outside in. 


AtroposHeart said:


> Christianity is different from any other religion because you are not saved by what you do or trying to be as perfect as possible.


Wait, sooo... Moses brought back the ten _suggestions_?


----------



## Son of Big Boss (May 18, 2015)

Eldritch said:


> Wait, sooo... Moses brought back the ten _suggestions_?



No human will ever be able to be sinless. If you break one of the commandments, you should just ask for God's forgiveness and try to do better next time.
Afterall, that's the entire reason Jesus came here. Because he saw that even with written out, easy to read instruction on how to be saved, no one still managed to do it.
"They can't save themselves, so i will save them myself"


----------



## PantsOfDesire (May 18, 2015)

Son of Big Boss said:


> No human will ever be able to be sinless. If you break one of the commandments, you should just ask for God's forgiveness and try to do better next time.
> Afterall, that's the entire reason Jesus came here. Because he saw that even with written out, easy to read instruction on how to be saved, no one still managed to do it.
> "They can't save themselves, so i will save them myself"



There's very little of the Bible we can describe as being "easy to read instruction", and the Hebrew scriptures are no exception. Just compare Deuteronomy to Leviticus and ask how anyone could possibly come away with a coherent faith? Judaism was splintered, and remains so to this day, between differing interpretations of scripture? Why has Christianity splintered even more extensively? Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are just the beginning. Now go to Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses - the list is a very long one.

The reason is the same: it's just not clear. The books of the Bible appear to have been written by people who did not intend for them to be part of a coherent canon. This is why so many interpretations exist. For salvation, do I look to Mark? John? Paul? They disagree on some very core concepts of the religion, and even Jesus seems to have not read the script that would play out after his death.

This is not to say that Christianity is wrong. It could well be valid. The point is that scripture is really unclear. If that were not the case, then why do we need theologians and apologists to interpret the Bible? Why can't they agree?


----------



## Eldritch (May 18, 2015)

Son of Big Boss said:


> No human will ever be able to be sinless. If you break one of the commandments, you should just ask for God's forgiveness and try to do better next time.


On one hand, I kinda get that. On the other hand, I see that abused far too often.
All the time I see people act like complete asshats, go to church, be asshats, go to church, arbitrarily quote the bible in the process of being an asshat, go to church, the pastor disagrees with the way they quoted the bible, change churches.
There's little point in following a religion if you don't make any effort to follow its teachings.


----------



## Abethedemon (May 20, 2015)

I was thinking of getting into Asatru/Vanatru because I like the mythos and the values (strong female characters!), but I'm pretty sure no one in my family ever performed a blot to Bragi (or anyone else), probably cuz I'm Jewish. Would that still be okay? Also, I'm never just one religion at one time.


----------



## Holdek (May 20, 2015)

Son of Big Boss said:


> No human will ever be able to be sinless. If you break one of the commandments, you should just ask for God's forgiveness and try to do better next time.
> Afterall, that's the entire reason Jesus came here. Because he saw that even with written out, easy to read instruction on how to be saved, no one still managed to do it.
> "They can't save themselves, so i will save them myself"


Uh okay, but what about the Jews?


----------



## Guzzlord (May 21, 2015)

My belief comes pretty close to what people would call agnostic i think.
First of all i have problems how lots of people imagine God actually - they think of him as being basically as an omnipotent manlike deity, who based the pinnacle of his creation - the humans - on himself. I strongly disagree with this image - i imagine god as something metaphysic, something humankind is not able to grasp. People tend to forget that human perception of "reality" is limited and they keep projecting their own values on their god. Who says that a god would agree that humans, due to their superior intellect, are the goal/pinnacle of creation? Wouldnt a mosquito consider itself as the pinnacle of creation too if it could? Also who says that god would give a fuck about humans anyway?

TL;DR - i think there is something like a god, but we cant grasp it and its something completly different than most people do imagine when they think of "god".

I have to admit that i actually want to believe and seek something like spirital "guidance", but i think its kind of hard to achieve that, when you used to be super Anti-religion in your past. I feel like its actually close to impossible to move away from that "Lets explain everything with science. After death theres nothing. There is no god"-Redpill-Mindset,  because it seems to make more sense from our viewpoint than believing in any god. I mean look at those super militant atheists, i doubt theyre actually happy with their belief...


----------



## Guzzlord (May 21, 2015)

Faceist Analchest said:


> There's a difference between subscribing wholesale to a religion that makes unverifiable cosmological claims and an ethos or philosophy that provides a useful ethical framework and serves as a guide in daily life. Denying god doesn't mean that you have to embrace nihilism. Things like secular humanism are meant to provide a useful, positive worldview without the kinds of dubious claims that accompany religion.



I didnt meant to imply that atheism always goes hand in hand with nihilism, but rather talked about my own experiences. I used to be quite nihilistic and pessimistic in my past, so personally still have problems to break out of it and feel like that having something to firmly believe in would help me personally, didnt meant to generalize it and applying to everyone.


----------



## Cosmos (May 27, 2015)

Given everything that's going on with ISIS, I wanted to discuss something that's been bothering me for a while now regarding Islam itself. Oh, and before I start, I am in no way implying that this applies to all Muslims because that's stupid and irrational; there are plenty of Muslims who don't exhibit this kind of behavior.

Anyway, I'm pretty uncomfortable with how Islam and Islamic societies in general regard blasphemy and censorship. Even some moderate Muslims believe that their religion trumps freedom of speech. I mean, in 2012, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (aka the largest Islamic organization in the world) called for a worldwide ban on anything that could be deemed as denigration of the prophet Muhammad. And, of course, we're all aware of the controversies surrounding depictions of Muhammad, mocking or otherwise. You can't draw Muhammad for whatever reason without expecting at least a riot to break out. 

It just kind of pisses me off because, as a Catholic, I can't go a day without hearing people hate on Christianity or make jokes about my religion. Why is it okay to make fun of Jesus and show him doing distinctly un-Jesus-like things (snorting cocaine, hitting on women, etc) but God forbid anyone even criticizes Muhammad? I'll be honest, I don't enjoy jokes at the expense of my religion. Like, at all. But I also don't throw a bitch fit about them; I just roll my eyes and ignore it. That's what _everyone _does when they hear an offensive joke (barring drama whores and SJWs, of course). I may not like it, but I also know that *everyone* has the right to have and express opinions. 

And yeah, I know Christians used censorship in the past, but that's where it's stayed. Pretty much every Western country recognizes the importance of free speech and the dangers of censorship now. But in Islamic countries, their concept of blasphemy and censorship is absolute; no one is allowed to criticize or question Islam and no one is allowed to attempt to convert Muslims away from their religion. They are allowed to preach to _others _and can criticize _other _religions, but not the other way around. In countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, freedom of speech and freedom of religion don't exist. Not only that, some (again, not all) Muslims in Western countries also believe that Islam is untouchable and all criticism and jokes about it should be banned.

Islam isn't special; it doesn't deserve to be treated any differently than Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or whatever, and that includes both the positive _and_ negative aspects. It just really pisses me off how even some very moderate Muslims believe that their faith is exempt from criticism; I've even seen some people imply that all of the riots, murders, and violence that occurs whenever Muhammad or Islam is made fun of is the fault of the people who made the jokes, as they shouldn't have insulted Islam.


----------



## Hat (May 27, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> Given everything that's going on with ISIS, I wanted to discuss something that's been bothering me for a while now regarding Islam itself. Oh, and before I start, I am in no way implying that this applies to all Muslims because that's stupid and irrational; there are plenty of Muslims who don't exhibit this kind of behavior.
> 
> Anyway, I'm pretty uncomfortable with how Islam and Islamic societies in general regard blasphemy and censorship. Even some moderate Muslims believe that their religion trumps freedom of speech. I mean, in 2012, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (aka the largest Islamic organization in the world) called for a worldwide ban on anything that could be deemed as denigration of the prophet Muhammad. And, of course, we're all aware of the controversies surrounding depictions of Muhammad, mocking or otherwise. You can't draw Muhammad for whatever reason without expecting at least a riot to break out.
> 
> ...


Islam's nothing more than a really big cult, a cult with no respect for human life or freedom at that. That people will defend it as a religion like Christianity or Hinduism is truly appalling.


----------



## Eldritch (May 27, 2015)

Hat said:


> Islam's nothing more than a really big cult,


Define cult.


----------



## Hat (May 27, 2015)

Eldritch said:


> Define cult.


"Cult" is a pretty meaningless term. What I mean to say is that it's a bad religion with overzealous followers.


----------



## AnOminous (May 27, 2015)

Hat said:


> Islam's nothing more than a really big cult, a cult with no respect for human life or freedom at that. That people will defend it as a religion like Christianity or Hinduism is truly appalling.



It's not that homogenous.  There's no single leader.  ISIS would be a cult if it hadn't actually taken over and occupied territory, making it the authority in its region.  A cult is also generally opposed to the society in which it exists.  If it actually takes over that society, then it's something a lot worse, a theocracy.


----------



## Zeorus (May 27, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> It's not that homogenous.  There's no single leader.  ISIS would be a cult if it hadn't actually taken over and occupied territory, making it the authority in its region.  A cult is also generally opposed to the society in which it exists.  If it actually takes over that society, then it's something a lot worse, a theocracy.


Excellent point.  The more modern definition of "cult" requires centralized, charismatic, manipulative leadership (a good example might include Scientology or Quiverfull churches).


----------



## pickledance (May 27, 2015)

I'm a Quranist Muslim. I just read the Quran and find personal faith in it without the in put of others or from the Hadith.


----------



## Cosmos (May 27, 2015)

While we're on the subject of Islam, something that also really bothers me about the faith is sharia law, or more specifically how modern-day Muslims use it. For those who don't know, sharia law consists of laws that basically govern every single aspect of Muslim life (marriage and divorce, dietary restrictions, daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings, how to worship, etc). Whereas Christians and Jews abide by the Ten Commandments (which, aside from the first three, are really just about basic morality; don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your significant other, don't lie about others, etc), Muslims are bound by sharia law, and there are *lots *of very specific rules.

Now, some of sharia law was actually quite progressive for its time. Sharia places a limit of four wives on Muslim men; before that, a man could marry as many women as he wished. Also, there are divorce and child custody laws that were unheard of back then; another advanced law was that non-Muslims could pay a tax instead of being killed or forced to convert. But that's the problem: sharia law was progressive *for its time*. Here in the 21st century, some of the rules are downright barbaric. Here are some examples of laws that really don't have any place in any modern society:



Spoiler: Examples of sharia




Drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

Sharia allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge; physical eye for physical eye. If you murder someone, the victim's family is actually legally allowed to kill you in whatever way they please.
Homosexuals must be executed, or at least imprisoned/flogged.
Non-Muslims (_dhimmis_) *must* pay a tax, called a _jizyah_. Their only other options are to either convert to Islam or die.
Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

Unmarried fornicators are to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Sharia orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad, the Quran, and even sharia itself.

Apostates are to be killed; this applies to Muslims who leave Islam for another religion (including Islam's fellow monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism) or become atheists/agnostic. The only way to escape death or lifelong imprisonment is to convert back to Islam.

Blasphemers (ie, critics of Islam) are to be killed or imprisoned.
There's the concept of jihad, or holy war. There's a whole set of rules for jihad, including permission to steal property as well as to enslave any conquered people (including women and children); enslaved women can also be used as sex slaves.
A highway robber may be crucified or his alternate hand and foot cut off.
A woman only inherits half what a man does.
A woman’s testimony in a court of law counts half of a man’s testimony.

A man may legally and irrevocably divorce his wife, outside of a court of law, by pronouncing “I divorce you” three times.

A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, has sex with him, and then this second man divorces her.

Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband's obligation to support her and gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

A man can have up to four wives, but women are strictly prohibited from marrying more than one man.
A mature man may marry a prepubescent girl; to be more specific, there is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and can be consummated at ages as young as 8 or 9; as soon as a girl begins her period (which, for some girls, happens as young as  her husband can consummate their marriage.

A woman must wear a head covering and maybe a facial veil (to be fair, the Quran itself only says to "dress modestly," but traditions and classical law have made it so a woman must at least wear a headscarf when she's in the company of a man she's not related to).

Muslim women are strictly prohibited from marrying non-Muslim men. However, Muslim men may marry non-Muslim women, with the strong implication that the women will then convert to Islam.
A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.

Sharia never abolished slavery (including sexual slavery) and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

A non-Muslim cannot rule- even over a non-Muslim minority.

A Muslim woman loses custody of her children if she remarries. But even if she doesn't, the children still belong to the father; the father gets boys when they are 9 and girls when they are 7 years old.

To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. 

No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants.




Believe it or not, there are *more *of these. I just got too depressed looking them up.

Sharia is actually a big problem facing many societies today; a key difference between Ten Commandments and sharia law is the extent to which they're applied. The Ten Commandments are meant to be adhered to on a personal level; not to mention that, as I said before, most of the Commandments cover basic morality that non-religious people adhere to. However, sharia law is meant to be absolute and *must *be followed in order to be as close to God as possible; to many Muslims, Islam is meant to govern social and political *as well *as personal/spiritual life. Most Muslim-majority countries implement sharia law instead of secular laws in at least some capacity; some countries eschew secular laws altogether and exclusively follow sharia (Saudi Arabia is one example). The goal of Islamists is to implement sharia worldwide.

Go ahead and glance over that list of laws I gave you and decide for yourself if you think that sharia belongs in a free, democratic society. I want to emphasize that I'm not shitting on Islam (although to be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of it either). It's just that many parts of sharia violate basic human rights and have no place being the governing laws of *entire countries*. In sharia, basically the only people who have rights are heterosexual Muslim men. What's worse is how there are Muslim groups in non-Muslim majority countries (including the United States and Canada) who demand that sharia law be implemented (despite how the US is, you know, a country with an overwhelmingly Christian majority as well as tons of people who are non-religious; both groups are treated as second-class citizens in sharia).

Man, I need to stop prattling on. Oh well, I just have a lot on my chest regarding all of these recent events and this is one of the few places where I can express my feelings without being labelled as an Islamophobe.


----------



## Johnny Bravo (May 28, 2015)

See, I don't think the ten commandments were originally intended to be applied on a personal level. The first five are very specific to the Jewish faith and culture. They basically amount to don't worship any foreign gods and keep the Sabbath. There are even specific punishments outlined in the Old Testament for those who break the Sabbath, take the lord's name in vain, or worship other gods. At the time the Old Testament was written (and even before that as much of it was originally oral tradition) these laws and commandments were carried out in the same manner as sharia. If western countries followed the Bible like middle-eastern countries follow the Koran we wouldn't get anywhere as a civilization. If anything we'd be going backwards. It's the same story with every religion I know of.

Religions are basically made up of people: people who run churches, people who fill religious organizations, people who run for political office, people you meet on the street. God may or may not exist but you can't have a religion without people to be religious. Holy books don't matter half as much as they way people in power choose to interpret (or exploit) them. So if the leader of your country says he's going to execute anybody who doesn't follow sharia law, then nothing else really matters except your leader's interpretation, does it? The Koran might not say anything he thinks it says but it won't matter because _he's the guy with all the guns_ and he's not afraid to wreck your shit. The only real defense against these people is a secular government with a big stick and zero tolerance for human rights violators.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (May 28, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> Man, I need to stop prattling on.



Did you really think that anybody here would not know what "Sharia law" was?


----------



## TremendousBoredom (May 29, 2015)

Question, as a practitioner of Hatian Vodou, would there be any interest in my doing a separate thread for questions and answers? I'm strongly considering doing a thread about some Neopagan lolcows that involves some Vodouisants and I don't want to just be sperging about stuff that makes no sense without some grounding (though there is definitely some incredibly cow-ish behavior on their part, understanding of the faith or no).


----------



## Johnny Bravo (May 29, 2015)

TremendousBoredom said:


> Question, as a practitioner of Hatian Vodou, would there be any interest in my doing a separate thread for questions and answers? I'm strongly considering doing a thread about some Neopagan lolcows that involves some Vodouisants and I don't want to just be sperging about stuff that makes no sense without some grounding (though there is definitely some incredibly cow-ish behavior on their part, understanding of the faith or no).



I think you should just answer questions in this thread. I'd be very interested to hear about it in any case.

What does it take to become a houngan/mambo? Wikipedia says you have to be chosen by your dead ancestors, but what does that even mean? Also is Samedi a cool guy? He seems like a cool guy.


----------



## TremendousBoredom (May 29, 2015)

CuriousBystander said:


> What does it take to become a houngan/mambo? Wikipedia says you have to be chosen by your dead ancestors, but what does that even mean? Also is Samedi a cool guy? He seems like a cool guy.



Vodou is an ancestral veneration faith, so there's a lot of stuff involving them present. Before undertaking any major step like Kanzo (the process of initiation that makes one a Houngan or Mambo), there's divination to make sure that it's the right step for you at this time. Because Kanzo? It's a two week process that is both A)Expensive, and B)Difficult. You're being called to serve your community as a spiritual leader, and so it's checking to make sure "is this ok, and do we really want this guy/that girl". 

Sadly, there are a lot of folks who will go "yup, sure, your ancestors? Completely cool with this! By the way, it'll cost $15,000 and then you need to bring this that and this....". It's why lineage is so damn important, because it lets you check to see if your initiatory parent is a known scam artist. If someone won't tell you the Houngan or Mambo who initiated them and the house they belong to? Something is hinky and you're probably being taken for every cent the scam artist can get out of you.

As for the Baron? Baron Samedi is a blend of terrifying as heck, and not quite the guy that most folks make him out to be. He's one of the Gede, and they're all a little lewd and crass, but he's more stately than most. When he shows up, he sort of lies there on the ground and doesn't talk much because of that whole being dead thing. Still a scary strong Houngan and not someone you'd want angry at you. 

The other Gede? Dick and sex jokes and crass language here we come. The Gede are all pretty damn awesome, even though I don't work with them much. Beyond their roles involving the dead, they're also sort of a release valve for Haitian culture which is pretty straightlaced and conservative. Because the Gede are dead, what's the worst you can do to them? Kill them? 

Of course, when the jokes stop and they get down to things? They're pretty goddamn impressive when it comes to magic/travay (Work, the term for most magic in Vodou. Because really, like anything else...it's work). Also, they're overall some of the most life loving Lwa out there, and heaven help any dumb bastard who hurts kids and they find out about it. Children haven't had a chance to enjoy life yet, so people who abuse them or worse, kill them? Earn themselves a place on the Gede's shitlist.


----------



## Holdek (May 29, 2015)

Eldritch said:


> Define cult.


A religion that hasn't existed for more than 100 years. 



Spoiler


----------



## sugoi-chan (Jun 1, 2015)

I'm somewhere between agnostic and Catholic. If a homo who supports same-sex marriage, a woman's right to choose, and stem cell research can be a Catholic anyway.

EDIT - According to Google, that makes me a 'cafeteria Catholic'. Alright then.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 1, 2015)

sugoi-chan said:


> I'm somewhere between agnostic and Catholic. If a homo who supports same-sex marriage, a woman's right to choose, and stem cell research can be a Catholic anyway.
> 
> EDIT - According to Google, that makes me a 'cafeteria Catholic'. Alright then.



Not necessarily.  Of those you listed, only the immorality of abortion is explicit doctrine, and even then, it doesn't obligate one to take a specific position on what the law should be.  One could both believe a practice to be wrong and yet not support outlawing it.  The vast majority of obligatory Catholic beliefs are theological in nature, not political.


----------



## Bronchitis that Lingers (Jun 4, 2015)

I'm currently studying all the religions, because there isn't one that suits me perfectly. I used to be an atheist but I think that was from being a rebellious teenager growing up with two very Christian friends who liked to push views on others. As I grew older and separated my life from these people I realized that some of my views were very biased, just because I met a handful of religious zealots, and I found that foolish on my part. 

I don't follow anything organized, and like I said, I love to study religions, but I think I'll follow my own "code" for the time being (although after reading @Sanic's Zen Buddhism thread, I imagine what I follow is relatively close to that practice):
 I believe strongly in karma, I've witnessed it several times (although I can't chalk every action up to karma-I feel like some people do this as a way to feel like they have control), I try my hardest to be positive although at the core I'm definitely a realist, and my thoughts on the afterlife can be rolled up into "energy can not be created, nor destroyed" so I imagine our energy or soul is transferred to either other living things, or to somewhere else that we can't fathom. 

I have nothing wrong with anyone who believes anything else, I try not to judge others before I've walked a mile in their shoes (although me being on this site proves that I have a bit farther to go on that last one, but I don't think I possess the ego to be a lolcow- yet ), and overall try to be empathetic, play devil's advocate with almost all situations (there's of course some "atrocities" that I can't see from the other side, but you could make the argument of what is good and evil other than opinions) and view the glass as half-full while remaining tethered to reality. 

Seems to be working out so far, I suppose.


----------



## The Oddball from MLW (Jul 23, 2015)

I'm Christian Reformed, but my beliefs are more or less deistic or Unitarian in nature. The main reason being I find it hard to believe there is not some life force or divine power within the universe, but I don't believe this force is omnipresent. I also tend to criticize atheism. While I don't hold anything against atheists or agnostics as people, the movement itself is one I find quite broken.


----------



## Randall Fragg (Jul 25, 2015)

I actually have a question. How would different religious groups react to Artificial Intelligence? Like, say google goes out and creates a truly sapient computer, assuming it's possible. Would such a thing have a soul? Should it be subject to the same rights a human would? Supposing it wanted to, would it be able to join a religion? 
What about an animal engineered to have human or near human levels of intelligence? Or an alien?



TremendousBoredom said:


> Question, as a practitioner of Hatian Vodou, would there be any interest in my doing a separate thread for questions and answers? I'm strongly considering doing a thread about some Neopagan lolcows that involves some Vodouisants and I don't want to just be sperging about stuff that makes no sense without some grounding (though there is definitely some incredibly cow-ish behavior on their part, understanding of the faith or no).


That actually sounds interesting. Is it possible to give a basic overview of Hatian Voodoo (basic beliefs, worship, deities), and take it from there?


----------



## The Oddball from MLW (Jul 26, 2015)

Randall Fragg said:


> I actually have a question. How would different religious groups react to Artificial Intelligence? Like, say google goes out and creates a truly sapient computer, assuming it's possible. Would such a thing have a soul? Should it be subject to the same rights a human would? Supposing it wanted to, would it be able to join a religion?
> What about an animal engineered to have human or near human levels of intelligence? Or an alien?


I'd imagine that if a computer was to choose a religion, or a set of beliefs, it would be either diatheistic or deistic in nature. It could easily become detrimental, as it would have all human knowledge and opinions at hand, so it could easily cause people to become paranoid or skeptical. As for aliens, didn't the pope say he would baptize them if they wanted to join the church.


----------



## Holdek (Aug 12, 2015)

The Oddball from MLW said:


> diatheistic


What does this mean?  I searched online but either got no definitions or ones unrelated to theology.


----------



## Zeorus (Aug 12, 2015)

Holdek said:


> What does this mean?  I searched online but either got no definitions or ones unrelated to theology.



I think it's similar to ignosticism.  I found a Youtube video comparing the two:


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 12, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> I think it's similar to ignosticism.  I found a Youtube video comparing the two:



This guy's voice is bathing me in autism.  I had to turn it off before I lost more points off my IQ.


----------



## The Oddball from MLW (Aug 12, 2015)

Holdek said:


> What does this mean?  I searched online but either got no definitions or ones unrelated to theology.


It basically means that a god exists, but is neither good or bad.


----------



## Zeorus (Aug 12, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> This guy's voice is bathing me in autism.  I had to turn it off before I lost more points off my IQ.



Sorry about that.  I share your pain, but it was one of the only things to use that term I could find. :/


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Aug 12, 2015)

Randall Fragg said:


> I actually have a question. How would different religious groups react to Artificial Intelligence? Like, say google goes out and creates a truly sapient computer, assuming it's possible. Would such a thing have a soul? Should it be subject to the same rights a human would? Supposing it wanted to, would it be able to join a religion?
> What about an animal engineered to have human or near human levels of intelligence? Or an alien?



If we meet aliens they'll probably have their own silly religion(s) and won't want our's.


----------



## The Oddball from MLW (Aug 12, 2015)

Johnny Bravo said:


> If we meet aliens they'll probably have their own silly religion(s) and won't want our's.


But imagine how detrimental that would be if aliens from a civilization that travels thousands and thousands of light years and has advanced technology far beyond our own has religion. It would greatly impact all aspects of religion.


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Aug 12, 2015)

The Oddball from MLW said:


> But imagine how detrimental that would be if aliens from a civilization that travels thousands and thousands of light years and has advanced technology far beyond our own has religion. It would greatly impact all aspects of religion.



Not really. Europeans came to North America with advanced technology and religion and the natives didn't give a fuck.


----------



## Zeorus (Aug 12, 2015)

Johnny Bravo said:


> Not really. Europeans came to North America with advanced technology and religion and the natives didn't give a fuck.



While that may be true (I think it's up to debate), would a trans-species religious exchange have the same effect?  What if this hypothetical religion gains human converts?  What would the theological ramifications be for human religious organizations?  Would the grace of Jesus Christ extend to non-human sentient beings, for example?


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Aug 12, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> While that may be true (I think it's up to debate), would a trans-species religious exchange have the same effect?  What if this hypothetical religion gains human converts?  What would the theological ramifications be for human religious organizations?  Would the grace of Jesus Christ extend to non-human sentient beings, for example?



I think you're severely underestimating human arrogance. There's no way to prove one religion is more true than another because it's open to individual interpretation, so people will simply believe what they want to believe (or what their religious leaders tell them to believe). 

However, I think it's extremely likely most of Earth would convert to the alien religion if the more advanced species decided to stick around. They'd have better guns than us.


----------



## Holdek (Aug 12, 2015)

Zeorus said:


> I think it's similar to ignosticism.  I found a Youtube video comparing the two:


Okay so basically agnosticism.


----------



## The Oddball from MLW (Aug 12, 2015)

Holdek said:


> Okay so basically agnosticism.


Not at all. Diatheists believe in a god, while agnostics are unsure.


----------



## Johnny Bravo (Aug 12, 2015)

The Oddball from MLW said:


> Not at all. Diatheists believe in a god, while agnostics are unsure.



Agnosticism is a little more complicated than that. Although it's commonly used to describe fence sitters, an agnostic can also be an atheist or theist. It's basically the position that you _can't_ know if there is a god.


----------



## Holdek (Aug 13, 2015)

The Oddball from MLW said:


> Not at all. Diatheists believe in a god, while agnostics are unsure.


Do you have any sources?  Because that contradicts what Zeorus posted.


----------



## Vauxhall13 (Aug 14, 2015)

I'm not a fan of religion. The whole God and Jesus thing of "love me or I'll hurt you" is very off-putting. It reminds me of this:


----------



## Phil Ken Sebben (Aug 15, 2015)

I self-identify as an atheist but will go the route of adding agnostic to it if you really press me on it. 

My reasoning is this. While I agree that at the core of the situation is we can't really know if there is a god or isn't I have yet to see any evidence for such a being so I'll treat it like I do the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch, Mothman or any other supernatural being or creature you wish to mention. Until I get evidence I can't actually believe that such a thing exists but I'll still say there's a possibility that something like that might exist but we'll probably never know.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 15, 2015)

Phil Ken Sebben said:


> I self-identify as an atheist but will go the route of adding agnostic to it if you really press me on it.



I'm atheist in the sense that I have no belief in God, but I don't have a strong belief in the nonexistence of God, either.  I'd usually use agnostic because without a pedantic explanation, most people will assume these days that "atheist" means "OMG you believe in religion you're so dumb."


----------



## DangerousGas (Aug 15, 2015)

I don't get why a deity of any description would _require _belief, unless Terry Pratchett was on to something when he wrote Small Gods.
As to whether there's a God or not, meh. Our thoughts on the matter would hold remarkably little sway on the situation in either case, so why bother worrying? I'm far more interested in finding out how the universe works than I am in determining whether or not it's got an overseer.


----------



## Hawlucha (Aug 15, 2015)

I'm a "Catholic" solely for the free bread and wine and occasional groping of the hot 16-year old choirgirl that I can have sex without feeling guilty because she's so tolerant of my euphoric aura and lack of belief, not to mention my Dorito breath. *tips fedora*

If I didn't learn tolerance from MLP I'd probably be shooting down churches like my hero Dylann Roof.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 15, 2015)

Hawlucha said:


> If I didn't learn tolerance from MLP I'd probably be shooting down churches like my hero Dylann Roof.



>shooting up churches like Dylann Roof
>not burning them down like Varg Vikernes

pleb


----------



## ☻ (Aug 16, 2015)

Religion is a way for people to find community, strong arm politics, find hope, get help and charity, and to reinforce morals or ideas. It's just a tool to be used properly or improperly. That's my take on it, and obviously people who believe will disagree to some extent because they believe that their faith is true, and there is nothing wrong with that. I just get sick of fedora atheists and aggressive religions that want to impose on others. /thread


----------



## Bugaboo (Aug 17, 2015)

I'm a united Christian, we mostly focus on the teachings of Jesus, also we like gay people and other religions.
The older I get the more interested in learning about my religion I get, maybe I'll start going to church but the last time I went the pastor talked about playing Bob the Builder with his grandson.
I'm not a big fan of people who shoe horn their religion into everything though, in Canada religion seems to be more a personal thing you don't go openly discussing with strangers which is why when I hear people being really openly religious in public it's very odd for me.


----------



## ulsterscotsman (Aug 25, 2015)

I'm a Catholic and went to Catholic schools but went through a "Atheist phase"  which I later grew out of it.
Today i consider myself a open minded Catholic with some conservative leanings .


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 25, 2015)

I am an ignostic. When somebody asks me whether a god exists I respond with "define god"



Zeorus said:


> While that may be true (I think it's up to debate), would a trans-species religious exchange have the same effect?  What if this hypothetical religion gains human converts?  What would the theological ramifications be for human religious organizations?  Would the grace of Jesus Christ extend to non-human sentient beings, for example?


I think that simply all human religion will transform into "Humans are the best species" once we encounter aliens


----------



## Abethedemon (Aug 25, 2015)

I like that Buddhism assumes that humans are good. I think that many religions toss humans aside for the gods, whereas Buddhism is all about transcending reality (and surreality). In many ways, I'm a transtheist, as in I believe that gods exist, but they are metaphors.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Aug 25, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I am an ignostic. When somebody asks me whether a god exists I respond with "define god"


A sentient being that created the universe and everything in it. I knew the definition of the word god when I was 5, it's not that hard.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 25, 2015)

Jon-Kacho said:


> A sentient being that created the universe and everything in it. I knew the definition of the word god when I was 5, it's not that hard.


You would be surprised by how many people have other more useless definitions
For that definition I would say no because of lack of evidence, not disbelief just lack of a position one way or another


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 25, 2015)

Jon-Kacho said:


> A sentient being that created the universe and everything in it. I knew the definition of the word god when I was 5, it's not that hard.



Spinoza posited an impersonal, unconscious Creator.  Nor is that particularly unusual, as the notion of a single, conscious creator of the universe is an historical novelty that more or less came into existence with monotheism.  One of the earliest forms of Creator myth involved what was essentially a chaos monster, Tiamat, who merely gave birth to the universe as a natural process rather than a premeditated act.

So the idea of a personal deity, that is, a deity which is actually recognizable as a single person, is just a new idea, not something that is definitive in the idea of a creator.

Some Platonists also posited the existence of a creator who was, though personal, not conscious of why he created or the source of his power.  This middle tier creator, a demiurge, was basically a blind idiot.


----------



## Ahffline (Aug 25, 2015)

I started life as a very devout Catholic. Since then, I've walked a very twisty spiritual path - including a recent bout of atheism - but now, I find myself returning to a belief I've previously held. If someone asks, I call myself an 'Agnostic Pagan'. I don't follow any particular godforms. I don't know if any godforms exist, but I can understand why some view the natural world as the source of divinity.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Aug 25, 2015)

I was born into a religious household but pretty much was an atheist from the beginning due to media influence. I then decided that the usage of mantras and ritual was a good thing to help with productivity so I became a chaote


----------



## BuckMatic (Sep 7, 2015)

I just never liked the technicality sounding things, like that people in remote parts of the world never heard of the correct religion or got baptized so they all went to hell. Maybe we can save their descendants.

It's like the ultimate test I didn't study for nightmare. Other than that, no strong stance.


----------



## Fallensaint (Sep 11, 2015)

I was an atheist for many years and found I could not deal with the crushing reality of my own mortality. 

I desperately needed something to cling to and found there was a large amount of literature authored by respected individuals on the existence of a God that actually made things seem plausible. 

I consider myself an agnostic theist and nominal Christian in that I believe that no one can ever know but there is enough evidence to support the fact that a higher being could exist. I subscribe to Christianity solely as it was the religion I was brought up in.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Sep 11, 2015)

Fallensaint said:


> I was an atheist for many years and found I could not deal with the crushing reality of my own mortality.


I consider reproduction to be a form of immortality so I am fine


----------



## Hat (Sep 11, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I consider reproduction to be a form of immortality so I am fine


What if you become infertile?


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 12, 2015)

Fallensaint said:


> I consider myself an agnostic theist and nominal Christian in that I believe that no one can ever know but there is enough evidence to support the fact that a higher being could exist. I subscribe to Christianity solely as it was the religion I was brought up in.



A lot of people saying something is so doesn't really count as "evidence".


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Sep 12, 2015)

Hat said:


> What if you become infertile?


I will make my siblings have lots of children potentially simply by encouraging them to become sperm/egg donors, although I try to avoid anything which may cause infertility preemptively


----------



## Fallensaint (Sep 12, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> A lot of people saying something is so doesn't really count as "evidence".



Why on earth would you assume I was talking about hearsay rather than having done some research?


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 12, 2015)

Because you said 



Fallensaint said:


> there was a large amount of literature authored by respected individuals on the existence of a God



Unless one of those books actually showed evidence of the existence of God - which I'm pretty sure I would have heard about - all of that literature, no matter how respected the individuals are, is a lot of opinion, but not an iota of evidence.

If you want to believe in God it's no skin off my back, but claiming you have evidence of God's existence is laughable.


----------



## Fallensaint (Sep 12, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Because you said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"*ON *the existence of God" I never claimed to have solid evidence, I do believe I said made it plausible. But sure, if you say so


----------



## SpessCaptain (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm agnostic. I think. There are some things that cannot be explained but there is no real proof to say that there is an universal entity or deity. To me all is just the universe experiencing itself.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 12, 2015)

Fallensaint said:


> "*ON *the existence of God" I never claimed to have solid evidence, I do believe I said made it plausible. But sure, if you say so



You said 





Fallensaint said:


> there is enough evidence to support the fact that a higher being could exist.



Again, a bunch of people saying so isn't any kind of evidence, solid or otherwise.


----------



## The Giver (Sep 12, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Because you said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eh, depends what you consider evidence. Plantinga's "Victorious Ontological Argument" seems plausibly workable, provided you accept the coherence of the concept of a maximally great being and the validity of modal logic. His evolutionary argument against naturalism (not to mention Street's evolutionary argument against moral realism) would seem to provide _some_ impetus for positing some sort of strategy for dealing with moral/epistemic nihilism.  Obviously, there is no scientific evidence either way, but that is also true of any form of realism (including with respect to science and ordinary objects). 

Basically, all I am saying is that it is not completely irrational to be (in some form) religious. There are reasons to be, provided you accept or are worried about certain philosophical/moral concerns. Ultimately, everything is going to depend on what you value, in terms of evidence or justified belief.

For my part, I halfway expect to die and find out that Spinoza was right the whole time.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 12, 2015)

The Giver said:


> Basically, all I am saying is that it is not completely irrational to be (in some form) religious. There are reasons to be, provided you accept or are worried about certain philosophical/moral concerns. Ultimately, everything is going to depend on what you value, in terms of evidence or justified belief.



The simplest is a variant of rational ignorance.

That is, the mental and emotional cost of putting a lot of thought into religious matters simply does not pay off.  In fact, people who do it tend to be miserable.  So if religion appeals to you for whatever reason, or you just find atheism to be a bummer, but nevertheless, there are more important things in your life, you're better off simply picking one of the popular varieties and getting on with your life.



> For my part, I halfway expect to die and find out that Spinoza was right the whole time.



Wouldn't shock me.


----------



## The Giver (Sep 13, 2015)

> The simplest is a variant of rational ignorance.



I agree, though I would say that it is possible to be informed, rational and religious. But yeah, the vast majority of people don't put any real thought into it either way. Plus, rationality is not, in my view, identical with science, since to be rational is just to not contradict one's self. Obviously, one could have a non contradictory belief system that defies science.

However, I do want to stress, if you deny the validity of science, you are still a moron, since that amounts to denying that one can learn from experience. However, if you can maintain some permutation of religious belief without denying such beliefs (and you can, Plantinga argues at length that you must maintain both, though I think he is wrong), then it would be possible to be rational, scientific, and religious (in some modified sense). But this requires more effort than anyone really wants to put forward.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Sep 13, 2015)

The Giver said:


> Plus, rationality is not, in my view, identical with science, since to be rational is just to not contradict one's self. Obviously, one could have a non contradictory belief system that defies science.


Science is just empiricism. The only consistent position that isn't empiricism is rationalism. Both can be rational but I would argue that empiricism is superior


----------



## The Giver (Sep 13, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Science is just empiricism. The only consistent position that isn't empiricism is rationalism. Both can be rational but I would argue that empiricism is superior



Eh, the modern current in philosophy of science is a robust realism, which actually stands in fairly stark opposition to the dogmatic empiricism of the Logical Positivists and the Instrumentalists. The rationalist/empiricist debate has kind of fallen to the wayside in the wake of Hume. Kant doesn't fit into either category, for example. Most contemporary thought tries to avoid Humean/Cartesian Skepticism, while still maintaining some facet of realism or empiricism. A lot of it is indebted more to the divide between American Pragmatism (via Peirce/James), Analytic Philosophy (via Russell, early Wittgenstein), and Continental Philosophy (via Late Wittgenstein, Phenomenology).


----------



## Vex Overmind (Oct 11, 2015)

I am an Agnostic, I find it much more reasonable to admit that you don't know squat about anything in the universe. We may know that the universe was created by two particles colliding with one another, and through time creating time and space itself, we know of molecules and matter, we know of the forces of gravity, we known chemistry and compounds, we create and understand technology, but yet there is still much more to learn and acquire knowledge about the universe.

I believe that there could be powers, well beyond our imagination. Not saying that there's some kind of god, but if there is one, it is certainly not the Christian one or the "ALLAH AKBAR!" one either as the universe does not base itself off of Human understanding.

It was once acceptable to think that the Earth was flat, now through science and testing, we know the Earth is round, or there are those people who believe it is some government cover up shing-dig. 

Back to the topic, what do you idiots think? Are there forces beyond our understanding, are there beings beyond our comprehension, could there possibly be something watching us, out in the darkness in the space. I think that is the beauty and terror of it all, the great vastness, the great distance, the great unknown, for all there could be, knowledge of the impossible could yield terrifying or euphoric results.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

I think that we shouldn't sit around idly contemplating whether things exist but actually go out and look for them. At the moment we really have no reason to have any position one way or another on what you are talking about


----------



## BILLY MAYS (Oct 19, 2015)

I'm a Muslim myself, born in one of the highest Muslim populated countries. Personally, I have an interest in natural sciences, where I think I could see the magnificence of God, (considering I believe in one).


----------



## Liquid Kent (Oct 22, 2015)

hood LOLCOW said:


> I'm a Muslim myself, born in one of the highest Muslim populated countries. Personally, I have an interest in natural sciences, where I think I could see the magnificence of God, (considering I believe in one).



Amin, brother.


----------



## Witlich (Nov 19, 2015)

I'm a bit too shy to share what beliefs I have at the moment, but I'm glad this thread exists.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 10, 2016)

I believe that a religion is inseparable from the culture that it comes from and that all established religions can be interpreted as expressing the values of their cultures metaphorically. I think that reinterpretations of religious texts are more equivalent to the challenging of cultural norms rather than a direct challenge on the factual value of the religious beliefs. I think that only young children interpret religion literally and that so called literalists actually intepret the metaphorical messages more strictly and see different metaphorical messages. I think that arguments over the factual value of a religious doctrine such as the creationism vs evolution debate are not actually debating anything because the side of creationism is arguing for the truth of the metaphor and the evolutionists are arguing against the literal truth of the doctrine

This doesn't imply that the creationists necessarily believe in evolution but rather that they will answer completely differently to such questions if they are somehow asked about evolution without it seeming to contrast with their religion. Maybe as simple as asking in another language may be enough but they would need to think about it in terms that cannot be related to their religious texts


----------



## GV 998 (Apr 11, 2016)

I am a Christian, and I believe in God. However, I am not a person that believes the Bible is a historically accurate description of how the world came to be. I believe that God and science are not mutually exclusive, and that one can believe in Evolution and God at the same time. My theory is simply that perhaps prophets who wrote the Bible were given information from divine sources, that they either could not understand, and simply translated it as best they could, or perhaps they were misled intentionally because  either God or the angels (whoever gave these stories to prophets) believed there was no way our more primitive ancestors could comprehend the true nature of the world.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

Galvatron said:


> I am a Christian, and I believe in God. However, I am not a person that believes the Bible is a historically accurate description of how the world came to be. I believe that God and science are not mutually exclusive, and that one can believe in Evolution and God at the same time. My theory is simply that perhaps prophets who wrote the Bible were given information from divine sources, that they either could not understand, and simply translated it as best they could, or perhaps they were misled intentionally because  either God or the angels (whoever gave these stories to prophets) believed there was no way our more primitive ancestors could comprehend the true nature of the world.


Although I think that the explanation of that position is flawed I think that that is the superior position because it enables a more fundamental conservatism than bare evolutionary psychology while still acknowledging science


----------



## Abethedemon (Apr 11, 2016)

I'm trying to find some sort of religion to belong to. I'm interested in the more mystical types of religions, such as Sikhism, Sufism, Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism. I'm also drawn to neopagan and reconstructionist religions, such as Asatru, even though I'm a damn, dirty JEW.
I kind of feel like everyone belongs to a religion somehow, even if they deny it. I feel like communism, feminism and national socialism are sorts of secular religions. I'm not knocking them (well, except for naziism), I just feel everyone has some sort of belief about mankind and believes in theoretical concepts of some sort.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

Abethedemon said:


> I'm trying to find some sort of religion to belong to. I'm interested in the more mystical types of religions, such as Sikhism, Sufism, Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism. I'm also drawn to neopagan and reconstructionist religions, such as Asatru, even though I'm a damn, dirty JEW.
> I kind of feel like everyone belongs to a religion somehow, even if they deny it. I feel like communism, feminism and national socialism are sorts of secular religions. I'm not knocking them (well, except for naziism), I just feel everyone has some sort of belief about mankind and believes in theoretical concepts of some sort.


Have you thought about reconstructionist Judaism


----------



## Marvin (Apr 11, 2016)

Abethedemon said:


> I kind of feel like everyone belongs to a religion somehow, even if they deny it. I feel like communism, feminism and national socialism are sorts of secular religions. I'm not knocking them (well, except for naziism), I just feel everyone has some sort of belief about mankind and believes in theoretical concepts of some sort.


Everyone belongs to a religion when you stretch the word "religion" to meaninglessness.

I would say a belief in the supernatural is important to the definition of the word.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

Marvin said:


> Everyone belongs to a religion when you stretch the word "religion" to meaninglessness.
> 
> I would say a belief in the supernatural is important to the definition of the word.


I don't think that the belief in the supernatural is important because there isn't a clear definition of the supernatural
I think that the better definition is to describe it based on a shared community and customs as well as certain neurological phenomena


----------



## Abethedemon (Apr 11, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Have you thought about reconstructionist Judaism


I have, there's a synagogue near me of that set, I was thinking of going there sometime.


----------



## DankMemes (Apr 11, 2016)

I feel kinda bad about it sometimes, but I'm a fedoric atheist.


----------



## Marvin (Apr 11, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I don't think that the belief in the supernatural is important because there isn't a clear definition of the supernatural


There's a clear enough definition of supernatural for most people's purposes. I'm sure there are corner cases where people might argue forever about whether something is supernatural or not, but that's not the norm.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

Marvin said:


> There's a clear enough definition of supernatural for most people's purposes. I'm sure there are corner cases where people might argue forever about whether something is supernatural or not, but that's not the norm.


The problem is that the common notion is very eurocentric and ignores that the person that we may see as a religious leader in a tribe may simply just be a doctor through their understanding of the world. Likewise several other theories about the world that are just wrong may be seen as supernatural just because we don't understand that they are theories of reality. Medieval people didn't see anything mystical in the 5 elements they just saw them as what the world was made of and nothing more. So I really don't understand what the supernatural is


----------



## Marvin (Apr 11, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> The problem is that the common notion is very eurocentric and ignores that the person that we may see as a religious leader in a tribe may simply just be a doctor through their understanding of the world. Likewise several other theories about the world that are just wrong may be seen as supernatural just because we don't understand that they are theories of reality. Medieval people didn't see anything mystical in the 5 elements they just saw them as what the world was made of and nothing more. So I really don't understand what the supernatural is


I think having to separate out certain beliefs as being "religious" is more of a modern, western thing inherently. Science grew in prominence and religion gradually became highly optional. So it's useful to separate out mystical, supernatural beliefs, from beliefs that science widely considers to be factual.

When we talk about the supernatural, we talk about it from the perspective of people who are capable of making that distinction. Whether or not the subject realizes the truth of the situation is irrelevant. Lots of Christians sincerely believe in magical Jesus bullshit, and we still call it a religion because of the supernatural aspects.

Like, if you're going to argue about the semantics, some people will bring up things like Laveyan Satanism. Some people consider that a religion. I'm pretty skeptical though. There's nothing to distinguish it from just a life philosophy. To me, it's an edgy life philosophy with dark lipstick.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

Marvin said:


> I think having to separate out certain beliefs as being "religious" is more of a modern, western thing inherently. Science grew in prominence and religion gradually became highly optional. So it's useful to separate out mystical, supernatural beliefs, from beliefs that science widely considers to be factual.


Does this mean that you do not distinguish between an uncontacted tribe performing a communal ritual vs an uncontacted tribe member putting a ground up plant on a wound believing it to have healing properties


Marvin said:


> When we talk about the supernatural, we talk about it from the perspective of people who are capable of making that distinction. Whether or not the subject realizes the truth of the situation is irrelevant. Lots of Christians sincerely believe in magical Jesus bullshit, and we still call it a religion because of the supernatural aspects.


But I don't understand what this distinction is in the first place. By what you said it seems that just every wrong belief is the supernatural. What is the distinction between believing that Jesus will prevent the snakes you are holding from biting you and believing that the tongue is the strongest muscle in the body


Marvin said:


> Like, if you're going to argue about the semantics, some people will bring up things like Laveyan Satanism. Some people consider that a religion. I'm pretty skeptical though. There's nothing to distinguish it from just a life philosophy. To me, it's an edgy life philosophy with dark lipstick.


On the topic of Laveyan Satanism I think that LaVey actually had a pretty good explanation of the difference between a "life philosophy" and a religion in "Some evidence of a new Satanic Age"

He says that religions have rituals and culture and art whereas ideology is just a way of life


----------



## Marvin (Apr 11, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> But I don't understand what this distinction is in the first place. By what you said it seems that just every wrong belief is the supernatural. What is the distinction between believing that Jesus will prevent the snakes you are holding from biting you and believing that the tongue is the strongest muscle in the body


I would say that religious beliefs severely affect your perception of reality. Having an obscure factoid you believed in debunked won't seriously affect your view of reality.


autisticdragonkin said:


> On the topic of Laveyan Satanism I think that LaVey actually had a pretty good explanation of the difference between a "life philosophy" and a religion in "Some evidence of a new Satanic Age"
> 
> He says that religions have rituals and culture and art whereas ideology is just a way of life


Hobbies also have rituals, culture and art.

Like, you can apply those standards to furryism. It doesn't make being a furry a religion. (Well, until you actually start believing you're literally a wolf-kin or whatever.)

I really think the most useful definition of "religion" requires it to affect your perception of reality in a way that's not grounded in reason. That is, that it has supernatural elements.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

Marvin said:


> I would say that religious beliefs severely affect your perception of reality. Having an obscure factoid you believed in debunked won't seriously affect your view of reality.


So would a major belief that is wrong such as that class conflict doesn't exist be an example of a belief in the supernatural


Marvin said:


> Hobbies also have rituals, culture and art.
> 
> Like, you can apply those standards to furryism. It doesn't make being a furry a religion. (Well, until you actually start believing you're literally a wolf-kin or whatever.)


If they have the fundamental characteristics of having normative values and art and a community then I see no reason why to say that being a furry isn't a religion



Marvin said:


> I really think the most useful definition of "religion" requires it to affect your perception of reality in a way that's not grounded in reason. That is, that it has supernatural elements.


If I were going to shitpost I would say that that is the most euphoric thing that I have heard

But I understand your point and it isn't wrong but rather it is referring to a completely different thing than I am referring to. We can question whether one concept is the more useful concept for understanding the world but there isn't any fundamental disagreement between us.

I would however say that what you are describing (effectively wrong belief) is much less useful than a description of a certain aspect of culture that elicits certain emotions and behaviours in a group of people and carries its own art and rituals which trigger those emotions and behaviours as your definition merely is a criticism of a small number of cultural practices in the western world whereas mine allows for the creation and application of these phenomena for practical purposes


----------



## DZ 305 (Apr 11, 2016)

I kinda want to start a separate thread about the Pope. Would anyone be on board?


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 11, 2016)

Legatus Lanius said:


> I kinda want to start a separate thread about the Pope. Would anyone be on board?


Please do


----------



## SregginKcuf (Dec 11, 2017)

There is a massive difference between religion and faith. 2,000 years ago the wordly religion hated Jesus because he was against the laws.



AppleChrisp said:


> The Bible doesn't get everything right.  But you're correct, the most important thing to draw from it is to have a personal relationship with God.  The purpose of the Creation story isn't to tell us historically what happened, but that God created us.  Whether it be through the big bang, evolution, etc.
> I have to point out that your statement about IQ being fixed at birth is incorrect.  That is a very old biological argument, and we have many studies demonstrating the plasticity of the brain and that IQ can be improved or lowered given certain factors.  I would be happy to send you some studies on this matter if you like.  Yes, an atheist is closed minded, but they are not the most unscientific - you are basing this off of the single concept of the big bang theory.  Christians can be just as closed minded and more scientific, denying modern medicine, evolution, and adopting the early Biblical stories as scientific fact.
> The reason Jesus came wasn't to better understand us - he created us!  From Jesus we got to know a side of God that we couldn't have otherwise - we got to develop a personal relationship with him.  We got to know the depth of his love for us, that he would ultimately die for us, no matter who you are, no matter what you've done.  So we get to understand God as a merciful, kind, and loving God that we just didn't see in the Old Testament.


Wrong, ANYTHING in the Bible is right.

The Pope however is just a liar.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 11, 2017)

Religion is fucking gibberish.  It's impossible to be sane and believe in it.

The absolute meaninglessness of existence is also fucking gibberish.  It's impossible to recognize it and not go insane.

So there are two choices for being utterly insane, and in one of them, you get to be happy.

Ever wish you could believe in God?


----------



## UptownRuckus (Dec 11, 2017)

I'm Mormon :^


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Dec 11, 2017)

SregginKcuf said:


> There is a massive difference between religion and faith. 2,000 years ago the wordly religion hated Jesus because he was against the laws.





SregginKcuf said:


> Wrong, ANYTHING in the Bible is right.
> 
> The Pope however is just a liar.




"I'm not religious! I'm a _Christian!" 
_
Are you every FCA girl I went to high school with?


----------



## Give Her The D (Oct 31, 2019)

I got to thinking if there are any religious Kiwis, of any sort, considering that this site tends to know the difference between a believer and an insane fundie who takes their religious book quite literally in every sense of the term. Cool there's a thread.

I started attending a UMC (Methodist) church recently, and it's quite an interesting service and place in general. I think I'll keep going, everyone seems to be quite connected and less like a gigantic megachurch you generally see around here. It's a large one, but doesn't seem like it.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Oct 31, 2019)

I grew up in a Christian family, but I never paid much attention to it in the long run. And neither has the rest of my extended family to be honest. We were pretty lax compared to most. More often than not, the only reason I couldn't watch something was because of my age, and that was only when I was really young.

Stepdad did have a bunch of L. Ron Hubbard books, but I never brought it up with him.


----------



## heyilikeyourmom (Oct 31, 2019)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> Stepdad did have a bunch of L. Ron Hubbard books, but I never brought it up with him.


Nothing to be concerned about.  If he was a scientologist, you’d have been a scientologist.


----------



## dirtydeanna96 (Oct 31, 2019)

I grew up evangelical, where doubting was forbidden.
Naturally I ventured into Gnosticism, manly p hall, solomonic magic, heavens gate, Descartes, Aurelius, the Carmelites.
And I -also- own the 18 Elron Hubbard "Basic" books.

Methodist personally though, convert from Southern Baptist Convention.. I'm Traditional in faith and liberal in culture.

"You can do whatever the hell you want, just leave me alone"


----------



## Manwithn0n0men (Nov 1, 2019)

::Laughs in religious studies minor::



> A functional definition of religion is based on what religion does and how it operates ‘in terms of its place in the social/psychological system.’1 This means that the focus is on the instrumental role of religion. This can pertain to the social function of religion for group coherence, social order, defense of group interests, etc. It can also pertain to the psychological functions of religion by providing stories, symbols & rituals that will help individuals to identify with role models, be motivated, find consolation, provide answers to existential questions, etc. ....Now, a substantive definition entails defining religion ‘in terms of its believed contents.’8 This includes meanings that refer to ‘transcendent entities in the conventional sense’ such as God and supernatural beings and things. Substantive definitions can also be referred to as essential definitions.9 In a substantive approach to religion, it is the content and “essence” that characterize a religion. What religions share, according to this approach are certain patterns in the essence or content of all religious systems but not any non-religious world views. An early definition exemplifying a substantive view of religions comes from E.B. Tylor who defined it simply as ‘the belief in supernatural beings.’10 In this conception, religion is something extraordinary, special that has a symbolic and supernatural meaning to people.





> A *social constructionist* definition of religion comes from interpretivist sociologists who argue that there are so many different types of religion that it is impossible to come up with a single, undisputed definition. Instead, what is interesting is the process by which a set of beliefs becomes recognised as a religion and who has power to determine whether something is a religion or not.


----------



## L50LasPak (Nov 1, 2019)

I'm the atheistic sort but I do have to admit that something religion has over my beliefs is that a well-run local church provides a sense of community that is extremely difficult to replicate for the purely secular person. Despite stone-cold not believeing in God or even anything slightly paranormal I've considered joining local churches on a few occasions just to have something to do with myself. I always think twice about it since I have a big mouth and overthink stuff like philosophy and mysticism so I figure inevitably I would end up pissing people off if I went. 

I'm aware there are secular, agnostic or syncretic churches out there, but those have a whole host of problems. The community aspect of a church kind of falls apart if its members don't share a common faith or at least a common trust in a higher power. I loathe the "we need more prayer in schools!" arguement but I do agree that the loss of a common faith amongst a population leads to instability. I'd chaffe badly if faith was forced upon me but at the same time I don't know what a good replacement for it would be.


----------



## Give Her The D (Nov 1, 2019)

L50LasPak said:


> I loathe the "we need more prayer in schools!" arguement but I do agree that the loss of a common faith amongst a population leads to instability. I'd chaffe badly if faith was forced upon me but at the same time I don't know what a good replacement for it would be.



I completely agree with you. This country should keep the church and state separated, and I never understood why people are insistent that this country being based on Judaeo-Christian values means the country should be run from a Christian standpoint. The United States was founded upon people escaping religious persecution from the Church of England, and I think this applies to any religion to be honest. We as a people can have disagreements on religion, but I take a standpoint that Jesus loves everyone, no matter what religion or what their actions are. Humans are flawed and the Lord sent his son for all wrongdoings to be forgiven.

I'm completely fine with people practicing religions other than mine, or having no religion at all. I believe in people finding their own way through divine spirit, and if yours is not believing in any sort of religion, so be it. I do have my problems with the modern church (like how I think megachurches try to commercialize Christianity, going against Jesus' teachings on not letting material evils pollute the church), but nothing is completely perfect. Just do how you feel best.


----------



## L50LasPak (Nov 1, 2019)

Kacchan said:


> I completely agree with you. This country should keep the church and state separated, and I never understood why people are insistent that this country being based on Judaeo-Christian values means the country should be run from a Christian standpoint. The United States was founded upon people escaping religious persecution from the Church of England, and I think this applies to any religion to be honest. We as a people can have disagreements on religion, but I take a standpoint that Jesus loves everyone, no matter what religion or what their actions are. Humans are flawed and the Lord sent his son for all wrongdoings to be forgiven.
> 
> I'm completely fine with people practicing religions other than mine, or having no religion at all. I believe in people finding their own way through divine spirit, and if yours is not believing in any sort of religion, so be it. I do have my problems with the modern church (like how I think megachurches try to commercialize Christianity, going against Jesus' teachings on not letting material evils pollute the church), but nothing is completely perfect. Just do how you feel best.



I appreciate the sentiment, though I was kind of talking about something else. Basically, I think a lot of people out there maintain faith because it helps them connect with others. Certainly there are the real believers out there, but I think a significant number of people maintain faith as a way to find common ground with each other. 

The average fedora tipper would make some crack about how that makes people with faith deluded, but the reality is far more complicated than that. There's an arguement out there that faith provides a sense of comfort and its simply incorrect. While faith itself may be the comfort for some people, its the _structure_ and solidarity it provides that is the important part. Hell, before the rise of psychotherapy, your local priest or pastor basically was a mental health professional. And a lot of modern mental health practices bear great simliarity to the preaching practices of old. 

Basically what I'm trying to say is that despite being outside of the machine, I understand that it has real merits and offers solutions one cannot often find on their own. Atheists and agnostics are so often dismissive of religion just becuase they don't believe in it, but I think that is painfully shortsighted.


----------



## Meat Poultry Veg (Nov 15, 2019)

I am a religious person. I won't beat anyone over the head with it (which is evidenced by the fact that I post on KiwiFarms and make fun of exceptionals just like everyone else here). There was a period of intense doubt where I thought I was becoming an atheist, but strangely enough, my faith grew in a secular university. In _California_. That might convince a vanishingly small minority of your that God is real.

The reason why I rejected atheism was because I quickly realized without God (and not only that, an immutable and just God), all things are permissible. That BTW was the selling point of Aleister Crowley's Thelema cult: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." However, in such a paradigm, there is absolutely no recourse for anyone to correct wrongdoing because right and wrong does not exist. There is only the strong willed and everybody else.

Even Richard Dawkins is rolling back his euphoric atheism from the heady days of the mid 00's as he is watching his country turn into a burning shitpile right before his very eyes.


----------



## Dwight Frye (Nov 15, 2019)

I grew up Baptist. Went to a private Christian School from kindergarten to 8th grade. Once out, I started to explore other beliefs, as I never really felt a strong connection with Christianity. I appreciated the basic tenants of the religion: do unto others, judge not lest yet be judged, help the needy, the Ten Commandments ect... But I never could put 100% faith in believing God actually existed. Doubting Thomas was always the apostle I identified with most. I wanted to believe, but I needed more than just blind faith.

Being an idiot teen, I had a Wicca phase that I look back on with embarrassment. I looked into LaVeyan Satanism, liked a few things about that philosophy, and disliked others. I went into a militant atheist phase in my early college years that is even more embarrassing to look back on than my Wicca phase. I still feel horrible about some of the things I said to my religious friends and family.

Ultimately I consider myself these days an agnostic. I think there may very well be something greater than ourselves out there, but I just can't fully accept it with a 100% certainty without some sort of proof. I'm no longer an anti-theist, some of the most wonderful people in my life who have helped me through some very dark times have done so in God's name.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Nov 16, 2019)

L50LasPak said:


> There's an arguement out there that faith provides a sense of comfort and its simply incorrect. While faith itself may be the comfort for some people, its the _structure_ and solidarity it provides that is the important part


I think the structure and solidarity have importance, but I think you discount the comfort of faith too easily; even the word comfort undersells in my opinion the strength that faith can offer.

I think it's to some degree comparable to the aristotlian perception of virtues (where you follow a disembodied ideal outside of yourself) or the way top athletes mentally prepare themselves by focussing on seeing themselves succeed (they'll assume they have the strength and focus to navigate every challenge).

In some sense that is what christian faith offers, the assumption that if you follow the right disembodied virtues, that everything will work out in the long run (by extending the long run beyond what we have capability to verify).

I think of people like Desmond Doss, who in the worst of situations draw strength from their faith to serve virtues outside of themselves. He is also a good example, because he specifically did not have the structure due to his faith (he was often at odds with both his brothers in arms as military leadership for both his refusal to pick up a rifle and insistance to go to church on saturday). Although I suppose you can have outliers in any field, I think the faith is part of what helped him do so exemplary.


----------



## Slap47 (Nov 16, 2019)

Meat Poultry Veg said:


> I am a religious person. I won't beat anyone over the head with it (which is evidenced by the fact that I post on KiwiFarms and make fun of exceptionals just like everyone else here). There was a period of intense doubt where I thought I was becoming an atheist, but strangely enough, my faith grew in a secular university. In _California_. That might convince a vanishingly small minority of your that God is real.
> 
> The reason why I rejected atheism was because I quickly realized without God (and not only that, an immutable and just God), all things are permissible. That BTW was the selling point of Aleister Crowley's Thelema cult: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." However, in such a paradigm, there is absolutely no recourse for anyone to correct wrongdoing because right and wrong does not exist. There is only the strong willed and everybody else.
> 
> Even Richard Dawkins is rolling back his euphoric atheism from the heady days of the mid 00's as he is watching his country turn into a burning shitpile right before his very eyes.



I have a hard time understanding this line of thinking. Godless regimes such as Revolutionary France and the USSR were bloody but there are also numerous religious conflicts and religious tyrannys that were arguably worse. 



L50LasPak said:


> Basically what I'm trying to say is that despite being outside of the machine, I understand that it has real merits and offers solutions one cannot often find on their own. Atheists and agnostics are so often dismissive of religion just becuase they don't believe in it, but I think that is painfully shortsighted.



Religion does offer a community and those communities can be good but alot of the time those communities are based upon ostracism and pyramid-scheme-like practices. 

Alot of Euphoria is people wanting to be victims or raise themselves up above other people but alot of it is people losing their entire family group due to the pyramid-like model or due to their former communities intolerance. Raped by your priest? The Bishop has his back. You think your community is accepting and tolerant? Tell them that you have doubted god and become an atheist but still want to hang out with them.


----------



## L50LasPak (Nov 16, 2019)

Slap47 said:


> but alot of the time those communities are based upon ostracism and pyramid-scheme-like practices.



So... like any other community, basically?


----------



## Slap47 (Nov 16, 2019)

L50LasPak said:


> So... like any other community, basically?



Aside from the local communist party chapter, most communities don't obsess over peoples private matters and threaten to abandon them for it or demand exclusivity.


----------



## L50LasPak (Nov 16, 2019)

Slap47 said:


> Aside from the local communist party chapter, most communities don't obsess over peoples private matters and threaten to abandon them for it or demand exclusivity.



Guess I'll take your word for it on that one.


----------



## spurger king (Nov 16, 2019)

AnOminous said:


> Religion is fucking gibberish.  It's impossible to be sane and believe in it.
> 
> The absolute meaninglessness of existence is also fucking gibberish.  It's impossible to recognize it and not go insane.
> 
> ...



I think that religious belief, or at least something analogous, is a necessary part of a healthy psyche. Not saying you have to believe in a god necessarily, but you can't stay sane without believing that existence has some kind of superordinate structure to it.


----------



## joj valjoj (Jun 10, 2020)

I was raised Pentecostal, albeit mildly so. We went to a church filled with the stuffiest fundies you'll ever meet, like the kind of people who listened to Christian music only and thought Pokemon and Harry Potter were evil. Our church had this program for girls called "Missionettes". Now, for those of you who don't know, Missionettes is a very watered-down version of Girl Scouts for Bible-thumping crazies who think Girl Scouts isn't Christian enough. Case in point, my "classmates" were all stuck-up homeschooled girls who I could not relate to because their parents forbade them from liking any of the things I liked because they were "satanic". The leaders of the program were members of the church who had a grudge against my parents because they weren't fundie enough, but since I was helpless, they took it out on me by getting after me and shaming me for the most minor offenses (including spacing off for a few seconds and not being "proper" enough). The shining moment of bullshit was when I went to a weekend sleepaway called "Stars Retreat", where I had to spend most of my time sitting in a church for hours, The ladies who took us there got after me for no reason, and they forced me to sit and watch everyone else play in the pool because they took away my pool time for acting like a normal kid. We stopped going to that church after that. We had another program for boys called "Royal Rangers" which was way cooler than Missionettes. Rangers taught boys life skills alongside Christianity in a vein not unlike Boy Scouts, whereas Missionettes was just Jesus without any of the practical skills that would come with Girl Scouts. My dad helped out with Rangers, so my sister and I got to go to one of their events one time. It was so fun, way more fun than anything we ever got to do in Missionettes. I was so jealous after that.

Another dumb little story from that church: some crazy lady found a DS in a parking lot with some games. Instead of being a good Christian and finding the owner so she could give it back, she instead declared that it was a "gift from God" and gave it to her daughter, but not before throwing away all the Pokemon games.


----------



## Robo Sonichu (Jun 15, 2020)

Atheist forever. Religion is basically a big cult.


----------



## Slap47 (Jun 15, 2020)

hyperfujis said:


> Another dumb little story from that church: some crazy lady found a DS in a parking lot with some games. Instead of being a good Christian and finding the owner so she could give it back, she instead declared that it was a "gift from God" and gave it to her daughter, but not before throwing away all the Pokemon games.



Pentecostalism and prosperity gospel is just weird.

"Blessed are the poor" became "God hates the poor, I, the pastor am only rich because I do not sin and do not want money".

This is also the fastest growing Christianity oddly enough.


----------



## Krystal (Sep 19, 2020)

Not really going deep into my own religion other than saying I'm a Catholic, but I kind of like the idea of successor religions. The big one being Judaism to Christianity to Islam. Another one my dad told me was Buddhism (whether it is one or not is up for debate) being the successor to Hinduism. I just find these ideas more or less fascinating. 

Also how our creation stories more or less being similar as well as having compatibility with either other religions or science based on personal interpretation.


----------



## le fishe (Sep 19, 2020)

the only true god is allah


----------



## NPC (Oct 10, 2020)

Robo Sonichu said:


> Atheist forever. Religion is basically a big cult.


You can have faith in God and not follow religious doctrine. Humans are flawed and would obviously give a warped perspective of what might be expected of us, if anything is expected at all. Pope Francis is a good example of how even organizations based on upholding traditional values and beliefs can quickly succomb to outside influence. Personally I never really liked the church as a lot of it's teaching were hypocritical.  For example calling a priest "Father", praying to a saint instead of God, or being granted forgiveness for your sins are all blasphemous.A lot of the so called "christians" you see once every Sunday rarely practice what they preach once mass is over. Only the truly devout pray in privacy, even less act on Gods will when it presents itself. I don't really care that you're an atheist and I won't try to change your mind as I was once one myself. Know this also, there is an influence acting outside of our perception that affects us all, whether you want to refer to that as a "God" is your choice to make.

The ancient Greek residing in the city of Alexandria practiced mathematics because they believed it was the language of the universe, it can be observed in the harmonious tones of music, the orbit of the planets, algebraic formulas, and other schools of thought. This formed what we now refer to as neoplatonism. The idea that the universe is governed by numbers and abstract mathematical concepts isn't so far fetched today. If AI can predict the video you're most likely to click on through a formula, doesn't that translate to every other part of your life as well? I can't tell you to what degree this sort of "God" plays a role in our lives and to what extent it determines our actions, but it's ever-presently there. Waiting for an opportunity; a chance.  The universe isn't purely chaotic, everything follows some sort of system of order. Otherwise, how can a phenomenon such as Benfords law exist? It might not be a bearded man in the sky, but something abstract and just out of our reach of comprehension. How does this affect my life and/or faith? Well, I don't really care if an afterlife exists. I'm totally indifferent to the idea. I just want to live my life with enough meaning to make it at the very least entertaining to watch from above. That doesn't mean abandon all morals; actually quite the opposite. If you can uphold the values that you believe to be right in the face of impossible odds, maybe you can become someone to root for.


----------



## Plunkie (Oct 12, 2020)

I grew up Baptist, but never believed much in it. Just felt like a chore. I felt like I was given a handful of verses to throw out like pokeballs and cast out into the world.

In late HS-early college I studied Laveyan Satanism that progressed further into occult. Basically the most edgy shit I could find. It gave me a sense of importance and freedom that I thought would drive my career, but ultimately an unearned sense of worth almost ruined me when I realized I had led myself into severe alcoholism and almost dropping out of my degree. Almost like a labyrinth - the more I read, the less I feel I learned anything at all.

Ironically I started ACTUALLY reading the bible when I wanted to debate Christians and felt like "knowing your enemy" was the best method, and now I'm Christian again. I think having that religious drive of a higher power really helped bring me back up to a good point in my life. In today's day and age, we are almost always forced to partake in anything and everything the internet provides. FOMO. It's simply not mentally healthy, look at the crazed and rabid mindset of many people who wedge themselves into every argument or situation online. The bible taught me to focus on myself & my community and let God handle the rest.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Oct 13, 2020)

Most of our religions work on the presumption of benevolant monotheism in terms  a human would get, there doesnt appear to be much evidence that is true. So the abrahamic faiths can be dismissed out of hand and hinduism is on shackey ground. I also think rejection of the material in persuit of a hiden highter world to escape too is a bad idea.
We need more life affirming rather than escapist religions. Either return to older primal faiths or maybe build new ones working on either to build something less socially awkward and closer to the truth.


----------



## The Crow (Oct 16, 2020)

Personally, I'd rather believe in God, find out there is no God, as oppossed to not believing, finding out that he's real once I'm already dead, and thus spend the rest of eternity burning in a lake of fire, but hey, to each their own. Either way, this world is clearly living on borrowed time.


----------



## Eris! (Oct 16, 2020)

I believe in a monadic creator God but I do not believe it is the jewish god YHWH. I think Christianity is a jewish trick to get you to worship their god instead of the supreme one. If you study Kabbalah you find that Jews themselves do not believe YHWH is the supreme deity, and that there are other deities above and beside him. The idea that they are monotheists is an elaborate ruse. They, and their descendant religions, deliberately avoid using their god's name, in order to obfuscate the fact that he is an identifiable specific being. The allegations that that being exists and that he is the supreme god of the universe are entirely separate claims, but they choose to blur things and make everything as unclear as possible.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Oct 16, 2020)

The Crow said:


> Personally, I'd rather believe in God, find out there is no God, as oppossed to not believing, finding out that he's real once I'm already dead, and thus spend the rest of eternity burning in a lake of fire, but hey, to each their own. Either way, this world is clearly living on borrowed time.



Pascals wager doesnt work since God will know you don't really believe. Also you might back the wrong horse which might piss of Zeus/Tengri/Mukuru/some guy we don't know about more than simply not believing.


----------



## Eris! (Oct 16, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> Pascals wager doesnt work since God will know you don't really believe. Also you might back the wrong horse which might piss of Zeus/Tengri/Mukuru/some guy we don't know about more than simply not believing.


You have to make infinite pascal's wagers simultaneously.


----------



## Large (Oct 16, 2020)

Erischan said:


> You have to make infinite pascal's wagers simultaneously.


REJECT HUMANITY
EMBRACE SUPERPOSITION


----------



## StyrofoamFridge (Oct 17, 2020)

My extended family has fundie Christians, Jewish converts, Pagans, non-practicing Christians, and a few skeptics. My mother is pagan and my father LARPs as a Christian. I've only been to church as many fingers are on my hands. I grew up believing in God but not too sure about Jesus. 

As I began my teenage years, I became an atheist as a big middle finger to the fundies and as a response to Jihadists going durka durka all over the world. However, after some paranormal experiences, I began to question my beliefs and preconceptions.

Now, I fully believe there are benevolent, mischievous, and evil spirits in this world. I believe God isn't a single person, but the entire universe. That's the only logical rationalization I can come to.


----------



## Vinluv Handesbukia (Oct 30, 2021)

Remember! When it comes to the Holy Trinity
1^3=1 and (e^x)'''=e^x!


----------

