# What is your religious affiliation/non-affiliation?



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

You know I don't think someone's asked this in a while.  I know most people on here are agnostic or such though, but forum goers what religion do you belong to and if it's something not as popular as the major religions of the world why not tell us a bit about it.  Maybe get a discussion going on about lesser popular religions or such even.

*EDIT: Yes we all know atheism/agnosticism/et al is not technically a "religion". For the sake of not being a bunch of pedants, it was added to make the poll simpler. Everyone is aware of this, and there's no need to bring it up in every single fucking reply. So, if anyone keeps derailing the thread with semantics, I'm deleting the replies, infracting, and (last measure) closing the thread. Thank you. -Corto*


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

I have no religion. However I want to study Geology and they call the geologists 'Geologians' at university, as a parody of theologian. 

So put me down for that.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 20, 2013)

Atheism isn't a religion >:C


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 20, 2013)

Well teeeeechnically atheism is not a religion, but rather the word for not having one. No biggie though.

But yeah, atheist here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Well teeeeechnically atheism is not a religion, but rather the word for not having one. No biggie though.
> 
> But yeah, atheist here.



Atheism doesn't necessarily mean non religious. Some buddhists are atheistic, as are some otherkin etcetera. It just means lack of belief in gods. 

I know I'm being picky now.


----------



## Percy (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm an atheist. I used to be religious, no longer am.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Atheism doesn't necessarily mean non religious. Some buddhists are atheistic, as are some otherkin etcetera. It just means lack of belief in gods.
> 
> I know I'm being picky now.


That's why I put it as such.  Just cause someone is religious doesn't mean they believe in a god/etc.  A disbelief in a god doesn't mean someone isn't spiritual.  However I can understand why non-religious and non-spiritual think people forget about them.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 20, 2013)

Agnostic zenchristian thing...or basically being a good person and not being too selfish. It more of a philosophy, really. Nothing really spiritual about it. I don't believe in a personified god, but a pantheistic one? Maybe. I'll stick to "weird unknown" as a way to describe things, and I'll praise mother nature for not killing us humans yet.

Joe bless you! :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Agnostic zenchristian thing...or basically being a good person and not being too selfish. It more of a philosophy, really. Nothing really spiritual about it. I don't believe in a personified god, but a pantheistic one? Maybe. I'll stick to "weird unknown" as a way to describe things, and I'll praise mother nature for not killing us humans yet.
> 
> Joe bless you! :V



Heard of humanism?


----------



## Aleu (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> That's why I put it as such.  Just cause someone is religious doesn't mean they believe in a god/etc.  A disbelief in a god doesn't mean someone isn't spiritual.  However I can understand why non-religious and non-spiritual think people forget about them.



But atheism is not a religion in of itself. There are atheistic religions, yes, but atheism is not a religion.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Heard of humanism?


Oh yeah, I remember that now. Yeah, that could be a way to describe it. Also freethought. We need more free thinkers in this world, helps make good inventions and good art.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

Aleu said:


> But atheism is not a religion in of itself. There are atheistic religions, yes, but atheism is not a religion.


Chillax it's not that big of a deal.  Besides it's easier to put atheistic than have thirty different options and the max limit to the polls is 10.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Aleu said:


> But atheism is not a religion in of itself. There are atheistic religions, yes, but atheism is not a religion.



Agreed. It's like theism, deism, gnostism, agnostism, or any of the other agneistosisisismsismsismisms. A quality of religious or non religious philosophies, rather than one in itself.



CannonFodder said:


> Chillax it's not that big of a deal.   Besides it's easier to put atheistic than have thirty different options  and the max limit to the polls is 10.




Damn right.


----------



## Kazooie (Jan 20, 2013)

I believe the concept of a god is irrelevant, which is pretty much atheism.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Chillax it's not that big of a deal.  Besides it's easier to put atheistic than have thirty different options and the max limit to the polls is 10.



You could go with 8 of the major religions, then other, then none.

That would pretty much cover most of the bases.


----------



## Corto (Jan 20, 2013)

*"Missing the woods for the trees: The thread"
If every single reply becomes "well, you know, atheism is not really a religion" then I'm locking the thread. Open up a semantics thread if you feel like discussing inane crap. *


I consider myself an agnostic. I guess I fit the "atheist" model better, since I don't really believe in any deity (and haven't for about a decade now) but the way some atheists behave just give me the same sense of shame with being considered part of that group that I used to feel with christianity. And as an agnostic I can keep using the same good ol' expressions ("Jesus fucking Christ", "for Pete's sake", "good God!") and feel somewhat less like an hypocrite.


EDIT: Also, as always, a friendly reminder: Feel free to discuss religion, your beliefs, etc etc, but the moment it turns into personal insults and any line of thought other than "tolerance and respect" is shown, I'm locking and infracting/banning, because I'm fed up with the bullshit that happens whenever religion is mentioned anywhere on these forums.


----------



## Zerig (Jan 20, 2013)

Why isn't Druidry on the poll? 

I'm feeling extremely oppressed right now, I might have to sacrifice someone.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Why isn't Druidry on the poll?


Isn't Druidry the religion that originated from Ireland?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Isn't Druidry the religion that originated from Ireland?



...I don't think that's quite right. 

Druids were a class of priests in the celtic nations, which includes but is not limited to Ireland. Modern day revivals like wicca developed in england.


----------



## kyfox (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm a Christian, technically I'm Church of Christ, but my beliefs don't line up exactly with my church.

I see Christianity more than going to church and reading the Bible, It's a lifestyle of doing good and helping others, whereas some people(the loud minority) think it's condemning sinners and all that fire and brimstone crap.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't like athiesm being on that list... It has NOTHING to do with religion. It is just a neutral position not to believe claims that haven't met their burden of proof. It isn't even a worldview.
The same counAgnosticism is even weirder. It isn't about belief, it is about knowledge. You can even be an agnostic theist.

Personally I see myself as an agnostic atheist (I don't know whether there is a god or not but I don't believe in it due to a complete lack of evidence) with ant-theistic tendencies since I do believe that all kinds of religion are actively harmful for humanity.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> *I don't like athiesm being on that list... It has NOTHING to do with religion.* It is just a neutral position not to believe claims that haven't met their burden of proof. It isn't even a worldview.
> The same counAgnosticism is even weirder. It isn't about belief, it is about knowledge. You can even be an agnostic theist.





Corto said:


> If every single reply becomes "well, you know, atheism is not really a religion" then I'm locking the thread. Open up a semantics thread if you feel like discussing inane crap.


Yup, someone didn't read Corto's post.


----------



## Zerig (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Isn't Druidry the religion that originated from Ireland?



It's just Paganism from the British Isles. Worshiping ancestors, chanting around fires, fucking around with trees.

It's pretty cool.


----------



## Corto (Jan 20, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Yup, someone didn't read Corto's post.



I'm adding a disclaimer to the OP. starting now, the next person to mention it gets infracted for derailing.


----------



## badlands (Jan 20, 2013)

Wiccan here. 

and before anyone asks, no that does not mean I'm an otherkin like some people seam to think!


----------



## Bliss (Jan 20, 2013)

Monetarism.


----------



## Symlus (Jan 20, 2013)

Deist- belief that god exists. Little more. (Shoot-off of Christianity.)


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 20, 2013)

Christianity.  More specifically Catholicism.


----------



## Kosdu (Jan 20, 2013)

Ex-catholic therian here.



Problem, poll?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2013)

Atheist, formerly MethoPresbyglican. Or AngliMethbyterian. Or PresbyAnglodist.
(I was raised in a small town where the ratio of churches to ministers was such that the sole Anglican vicar in the region travelled nearly 100km each Sunday holding services in at least three separate churches, including running a Methodist-flavoured service in the Presbyterian church building...)


----------



## Tableside6 (Jan 20, 2013)

Catholic, but I don't talk about religion much. The thing I do the most that involves religion is listening to Christian Rock, and most of the songs I listen to doesn't involve God.


----------



## Ranguvar (Jan 20, 2013)

Catholic


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Zerig said:


> It's just Paganism from the British Isles. Worshiping ancestors, chanting around fires, fucking around with trees.
> 
> It's pretty cool.




Also eating human bone marrow and anachronistically sophisticated solar dating systems.


----------



## Zerig (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Also eating human bone marrow and anachronistically sophisticated solar dating systems.



See what I mean. Total badassery.

Sometime they even dress up in robes and shit like crazy wizards. Truly the best religion.


----------



## Namba (Jan 20, 2013)

Christianity. Shocked?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 20, 2013)

Atheist. 

Grew up in a Christian baptist household though.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Jan 20, 2013)

This thread seems to pop up every now and then.  I still consider myself Roman Catholic, although I rarely go to church.  I became a bit disillusioned by a certain deacon preaching and being praised for his teachings, but then I'd see him essentially lead a life that was the exact opposite of what he told others to do.  Maybe one day I'll become more involved...maybe.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Looking at that poll... I think one of the main flaws that I see with religion is that you actually can make a list of them.
There are thousands of different religions, thousands of different gods and they all have teir own holy texts. How do you KNOW that your religion is the correct one?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Looking at that poll... I think one of the main flaws that I see with religion is that you actually can make a list of them.
> There are thousands of different religions, thousands of different gods and they all have teir own holy texts. How do you KNOW that your religion is the correct one?



That's where the "faith" part comes in, CC.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> That's where the "faith" part comes in, CC.



That is also why faith is a flawed concept. It isn't based on any evidence and not even on reality. You just believe blindly and some times even although scientific evidence says the exact oposite.
In my opinion faith in itself is a textbook example of a delusion.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 20, 2013)

I am a secular atheist agnostic humanist skeptical darwinist heathen sinner who does not believe in organized religion.


----------



## kyfox (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> That is also why faith is a flawed concept. It isn't based on any evidence and not even on reality. You just believe blindly and some times even although scientific evidence says the exact oposite.
> In my opinion faith in itself is a textbook example of a delusion.


Just stop CC, we aren't bashing you for not believing. Live and let live and believe what makes you feel the best. Stop bashing us for believing what we want. I could argue that you don't have proof that God doesn't exist. So quiet down.


----------



## Percy (Jan 20, 2013)

kyfox said:


> Just stop CC, we aren't bashing you for not believing. Live and let live and believe what makes you feel the best. Stop bashing us for believing what we want. I could argue that you don't have proof that God doesn't exist. So quiet down.


Please don't turn this into a religious debate...


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> That is also why faith is a flawed concept. It isn't based on any evidence and not even on reality. You just believe blindly and some times even although scientific evidence says the exact oposite.
> In my opinion faith in itself is a textbook example of a delusion.



Oh CC, there is a Santa Clause. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7cW0KG6xWA

No seriously, I rather dislike the idea of religion but to deny the power and importance of "magic", "faith" and "love" is quite a sobering thought. It is a subject that fascinates me and I intend on writing for a character that is so removed from humanity. 

But watch the link...it made me think the first time I ever heard of it. That and Emily Dickinson's "I never saw a Moor."


----------



## kyfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Percy said:


> Please don't turn this into a religious debate...


I'm just upset that Capt. Cool is bashing people for no reason. I'm not trying to debate, I'm trying to make a point.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

kyfox said:


> I could argue that you don't have proof that God doesn't exist.



The logical fallicies! They buuuurn! DX
I have a non-corporeal pink unicorn in my washingmashine. Prove me wrong.
You can't prove a negative! You believe in it so it is YOUR job to prove it to me if you expect me to share or tolerate your beliefs.



Butterflygoddess said:


> Oh CC, there is a Santa Clause. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7cW0KG6xWA
> 
> No seriously, I rather dislike the idea of religion but to deny the power and importance of "magic", "faith" and "love" is quite a sobering thought. It is a subject that fascinates me and I intend on writing for a character that is so removed from humanity.
> 
> But watch the link...it made me think the first time I ever heard of it. That and Emily Dickinson's "I never saw a Moor."



There are other sources for this than magic and faith. Science itself can be very inspirational as well.
And personally I always strive to know as little false things as possible. If you have nothing but an old book to prove your point then that simply isn't good enough for me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

I derive my magic from a variety of sources, but not at the expense of epistemic values. A sense of magic is beautiful without the belief it is real.





This is one such example of an object I see magical qualities in lately. Magical is the way they make me feel, not an intrisic property they have.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 20, 2013)

CC, I will infract you if you continue this line of argumentation.  This is precisely how these threads turn into irredeemable shit.  It's been good until you started arguing this same thing I've seen you argue here 1.8 billion times before.  Let's try to have just ONE religion thread that doesn't collapse under the weight of its own inanity.

BACK ON TOPIC: I've actually taken to telling people that I'm a skeptic.  I feel like it's the most accurate description of how I think about things.  Atheist does generally imply a belief-driven set of views (the belief that there is no such thing as God), and while I don't believe such a thing, I don't want to preclude it entirely.  So you might think that would make me agnostic, but that's not entirely true either since I've basically decided that there's no real worth to pursuing the whole God idea anymore, since it's unprovable and incredibly intellectually lazy in terms of explaining the universe.  So as a scientist, it's my job to try to find out how things really are based on available evidence, and if the evidence is questionable or not very rigorous, I'm skeptical of its value in explaining things, but will leave open the option that further lines of research might be pursued later, if someone comes up with something better.  In terms of the whole God thing, I don't want to pursue that line (it seems like a dead-end), but if others want to fine by me.  It's not the idea I want to exclude, but the way people go about investigating it.  Hence, skeptic.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> There are other sources for this than magic and faith. Science itself can be very inspirational as well.
> *And personally I always strive to know as little false things as possible.* If you have nothing but an old book to prove your point then that simply isn't good enough for me.



But that's the point, CC. 

In a sense, God does exist. God, Santa, Harry Potter...it's the power these ideas have over people. They make these things a reality. People hear about them and want to change things about themselves. Is that not proof that they exist?

It's like denying the power of fantasy, CC. And I don't think humanity could exist without that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> CC, I willin_*fact*_ you if you continue this line of argumentation.


Do it LenRenard.  I love it when you talk factual.
*ba-dum-tssh*


M. LeRenard said:


> BACK ON TOPIC: I've actually taken to telling people that I'm a skeptic.  I feel like it's the most accurate description of how I think about things.  Atheist does generate imply a belief-driven set of views (the belief that there is no such thing as God), and while I don't believe such a thing, I don't want to preclude it entirely.  So you might think that would make me agnostic, but that's not entirely true either since I've basically decided that there's no real worth to pursuing the whole God idea anymore, since it's unprovable and incredibly intellectually lazy in terms of explaining the universe.  So as a scientist, it's my job to try to find out how things really are based on available evidence, and if the evidence is questionable or not very rigorous, I'm skeptical of its value.  Hence, skeptic.


So just meh on the whole subject?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Do it LenRenard.  I love it when you talk factual.
> *ba-dum-tssh*
> 
> So just meh on the whole subject?


Caught it before I edited it out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> CC, I will infract you if you continue this line of argumentation.  This is precisely how these threads turn into irredeemable shit.  It's been good until you started arguing this same thing I've seen you argue here 1.8 billion times before.  Let's try to have just ONE religion thread that doesn't collapse under the weight of its own inanity.
> 
> BACK ON TOPIC: I've actually taken to telling people that I'm a skeptic.  I feel like it's the most accurate description of how I think about things.  Atheist does generate imply a belief-driven set of views (the belief that there is no such thing as God), and while I don't believe such a thing, I don't want to preclude it entirely.  So you might think that would make me agnostic, but that's not entirely true either since I've basically decided that there's no real worth to pursuing the whole God idea anymore, since it's unprovable and incredibly intellectually lazy in terms of explaining the universe.  So as a scientist, it's my job to try to find out how things really are based on available evidence, and if the evidence is questionable or not very rigorous, I'm skeptical of its value in explaining things, but will leave open the option that further lines of research might be pursued later, if someone comes up with something better.  In terms of the whole God thing, I don't want to pursue that line (it seems like a dead-end), but if others want to fine by me.  It's not the idea I want to exclude, but the way people go about investigating it.  Hence, skeptic.



I am so tempted to get into a laborious semantic issue. On the subject though I like the word 'apatheist' which was brought to my attention a while ago- being so disenchanted and apathetic with the idea of deities that you almost cannot word how little you care about them.



Butterflygoddess said:


> But that's the point, CC.
> 
> In a sense, God does exist. God, Santa, Harry Potter...it's the power  these ideas have over people. They make these things a reality. People  hear about them and want to change things about themselves.* Is that not  proof that they exist?*
> 
> It's like denying the power of fantasy, CC. And I don't think humanity could exist without that.




No it doesn't, obviously since harry potter is completely ficticious. It proves belief in them has a significance to some people. 

Ideas can have function without being right. Miasma theory makes powerful predictions about the spread of disease that actually work. It's still wrong.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> CC, I will infact you if you continue this line of argumentation.  This is precisely how these threads turn into irredeemable shit.  It's been good until you started arguing this same thing I've seen you argue here 1.8 billion times before.  Let's try to have just ONE religion thread that doesn't collapse under the weight of its own inanity.
> 
> BACK ON TOPIC: I've actually taken to telling people that I'm a skeptic.  I feel like it's the most accurate description of how I think about things.  Atheist does generate imply a belief-driven set of views (the belief that there is no such thing as God), and while I don't believe such a thing, I don't want to preclude it entirely.  So you might think that would make me agnostic, but that's not entirely true either since I've basically decided that there's no real worth to pursuing the whole God idea anymore, since it's unprovable and incredibly intellectually lazy in terms of explaining the universe.  So as a scientist, it's my job to try to find out how things really are based on available evidence, and if the evidence is questionable or not very rigorous, I'm skeptical of its value in explaining things, but will leave open the option that further lines of research might be pursued later, if someone comes up with something better.  In terms of the whole God thing, I don't want to pursue that line (it seems like a dead-end), but if others want to fine by me.  It's not the idea I want to exclude, but the way people go about investigating it.  Hence, skeptic.



Just one thing before I stop:
Please do explain to me how I am the bad guy for pointing out a demonstrably flawed argument.
It just really bugs the hell out of me that you are immediately being labeled as an intolerant prick for even just looking at religion funny...

Anyway! About your own position:
In my opinion atheism is the logical conclusion of skeptecism.
I also do agree that religion is an incredibly lazy way of explaining the universe. It is essentially nothing but one big argumentum ad ignorantiam, "I don't know how it happened so I'm just gonna assume that god X did it".


----------



## Corto (Jan 20, 2013)

Fuck infractions, CC, I'll outright ban you if you keep this shit out. You're even worse than Ruhk (or whatever his name was, the christ nut that ruined every thread he appeared in). Try, for once in your lifetime, to stay in a conversation about faith without insulting everyone, because, unless my recent memory is failing me, eveyr single fucking religion thread goes to the shitter exactly at the point where you rear your superiority-complex riddled head in. You are everything that's wrong with atheism, and the reason I don't call myself one. So if you can't post while showing a modicum of respect, or discuss this from a neutral point of view, feel free never to post in this thread again or I will ban you. 

To be fair, the same general warning goes to everyone, atheists and religious people alike. This particular warning goes to CC because he's the worst example.

EDIT: And yes, you are an intolerant prick when you constantly bring religion up only to call every single religious person a delusional, an idiot, and other terms you have used at various times. You are also an intolerant prick when it's been proved you join religious groups only to troll them because of how stupid they are in your opinion (no I haven't forgot that). So cut your shit up or I'm banning you. That includes replying to this post.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> But that's the point, CC.
> 
> In a sense, God does exist. God, Santa, Harry Potter...it's the power these ideas have over people. They make these things a reality. People hear about them and want to change things about themselves. Is that not proof that they exist?



In other words, Man made God... in his own image. God(s) only exist as long as people believe they do.

(It kind of reminds me of the comic "Sheba" where the old Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods who no-one believes in anymore are pensioned off into limbo and bitch about how these new guys Jesus and Mohammed are taking over their old roles...)


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> In other words, Man made God... in his own image.God(s) only exist as long as people believe they do.
> 
> (It kind of reminds me of the comic "Sheba" where the old Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods who no-one believes in anymore are pensioned off into limbo and bitch about how these new guys Jesus and Mohammed are taking over their old roles...)



Jesus very literally took over the roles of some old gods- even the female gods. Aryan christianity depicts the jesus figure with long hair and breasts, because that group of people wanted a god that replaced the functions of their female gods as well as their male ones.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Jan 20, 2013)

well before anymore bullshit happens. i belive that i would be classed under other which i presume is other religion or beliefs for me its spiritualism in some form. I wouldnt mind learnig about other belifs a some are rather intresting with storys and legends :3


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:
			
		

> Please do explain to me how I am the bad guy for pointing out a demonstrably flawed argument.


Because you in particular are one of the main offenders in terms of derailing and starting riots in religion threads, and I don't want to see it happen again.  I'm sick of it.  Fact is, if you want to get people to think the way you do, you always go about it in precisely the wrong way.

...anyway.


> In my opinion atheism is the logical conclusion of skeptecism.
> I also do agree that religion is an incredibly lazy way of explaining the universe. It is essentially nothing but one big argumentum ad ignorantiam, "I don't know how it happened so I'm just gonna assume that god X did it".


Sure, I think so too.  But the whole point of skepticism is to keep your options open.  Honestly, if it turned out mysticism and deities were the answer, I actually think that would be pretty neat, because it would leave open the possibility that you could learn how to break the laws of physics.  And if you could do that, you could rewrite the universe.  Not that I think humans ought to have that kind of power as we currently exist, but you know.  A smart programmer could do some pretty neat things.
It's just that right now, every possible line of [legitimate] evidence seems to be pointing away from magic, so I don't buy it right now.  That's all I mean.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> No it doesn't, obviously since harry potter is completely ficticious. It proves belief in them has a significance to some people.
> 
> Ideas can have function without being right. Miasma theory makes powerful predictions about the spread of disease that actually work. It's still wrong.



Forgive me. I worded that badly. 

I meant to infer that God's (or any deity) power exists through the people who hold it so highly in their hearts. They don't actually have flesh and blood or exist in anyway other than people's imagination. I was simply trying to get CC to see that the world can be better because of such things.


----------



## Kazooie (Jan 20, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Forgive me. I worded that badly.
> 
> I meant to infer that God's (or any deity) power exists through the people who hold it so highly in their hearts.


In that case though, it's the _belief _in the deity that people are acting upon, and the belief that holds power. The actual existence of such a being is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Forgive me. I worded that badly.
> 
> I meant to infer that God's (or any deity) power exists through the people who hold it so highly in their hearts. They don't actually have flesh and blood or exist in anyway other than people's imagination. I was simply trying to get CC to see that the world can be better because of such things.



I don't think that would be the right mechanism to show the world could be better...I suppose the simplest example you could use is the princess alice experiment but the awkward truth remains that God's often manifest their power in vast armies. Though many cultural icons do.


----------



## ZerX (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm a Christian but I almost never go to church. that place is fucking boring


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 20, 2013)

Kazooie said:


> In that case though, it's the _belief _in the deity that people are acting upon, and the belief that holds power. The actual existence of such a being is utterly irrelevant.



And this is where that fun word 'belief' comes in to play. You and I are very much like a mother who sees a baby's fascination with a rattle. We know what makes it up and that it is just a plaything...but the baby doesn't. And to the child, its something of great importance. 

It's all relative really. What's to say our own histories aren't "rattles"?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 20, 2013)

Still an Atheist, but I'm a lot less Anti-Theistic now, my friends have religious girlfriends, so I had to ease up a bit - Plus I realized how little fucks I give overall.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 20, 2013)

Atheist here. Pretty much dont think there is a god or gods out there.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Forgive me. I worded that badly.
> 
> I meant to infer that God's (or any deity) power exists through the people who hold it so highly in their hearts. They don't actually have flesh and blood or exist in anyway other than people's imagination. I was simply trying to get CC to see that the world can be better because of such things.



It doesn't need them though. Whether people do good things in the name of a god or on their own account is irrelevant. What matters is that they ARE doing good things.
However, what if that god turns out to be fake? Does that make these good deeds irrelevant? I don't think so.
Personally I would just prefer it if ALL people would do good things on their own and not just because they feel the need to please their maker. Not to mention that the amount of bad things that are being done in the name of gods seem to outweigh the good things quite a lot.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> However, what if that god turns out to be fake? Does that make these good deeds irrelevant? I don't think so.



I could kiss you right now, CC. Also, I'm like you. I prefer for people to do positive things just because they are the right thing to do.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

One curiosity I have is that almost all religions with gods depict them as powerfulc reatures that obsess over the trivialities of humankind's social hierachy. This obviously performs a social function, but it still seems might strange to me. Animist ideas are more rational in that respect in my view, but also more beautiful and holistic.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 20, 2013)

My theories are complex in regards to deities. I don't really see religion as a "which one is right?" type of thing because the deities pretty much act the same way. You've got the head-honcho, his helpers or whatever, and the guy that opposes him.
For example there's Zeus, the other gods, and Hades.
Ra, the other gods, and Seth.
God, the angels (which pretty much are the same as other gods), and the devil.

Granted there are those that deviate from that but it's generally the same.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It doesn't need them though. Whether people do good things in the name of a god or on their own account is irrelevant. What matters is that they ARE doing good things.
> However, what if that god turns out to be fake? Does that make these good deeds irrelevant? I don't think so.



^ this so badly



> Personally I would just prefer it if ALL people would do good things on their own and not just because they feel the need to please their maker. Not to mention that the amount of bad things that are being done in the name of gods seem to outweigh the good things quite a lot.



Well you did forget to mention the kind of people that do good things in the name of a god and act smugly about it like they are the moral superior beings of the universe.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:
			
		

> Not to mention that the amount of bad things that are being done in the name of gods seem to outweigh the good things quite a lot.


Depends on what country you're talking about.  Even so, the strange thing is that the people who perpetuate heinous acts in the name of religion (see Muslim soldiers in Mali, for a recent example) generally do it because they feel it's the right thing to do.  It's the ultimate act of pride (which is usually considered a sin, but whatever): believing so fiercely that you have the answers that you want to rewrite the whole world in your image, to 'save' everybody from themselves.  Talk about hubris.  
But you know what they say... the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  Seems like that's always true.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Aleu said:


> My theories are complex in regards to deities. I don't really see religion as a "which one is right?" type of thing because the deities pretty much act the same way. You've got the head-honcho, his helpers or whatever, and the guy that opposes him.
> For example there's Zeus, the other gods, and Hades.
> Ra, the other gods, and Seth.
> God, the angels (which pretty much are the same as other gods), and the devil.
> ...


This is because those gods all come from the same cultural lineage, Aleu. These cultures borrowed and traded gods and philosophies- in fact much of the 10 commandments were stolen from earlier greichian cultures as was the golden rule and the idea of heaven and hell.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> This is because those gods all come from the same cultural lineage, Aleu. These cultures borrowed and traded gods and philosophies- in fact much of the 10 commandments were stolen from earlier greichian cultures as was the golden rule and the idea of heaven and hell.



^ Another reason of mine why i find the idea of religion and which religion being right hilarious. Basically recycling the same morals more or less editing them slightly and putting them out as a new religion.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> I could kiss you right now, CC. Also, I'm like you. I prefer for people to do positive things just because they are the right thing to do.



I tried really really hard to post it without being insulting... I just don't see the other things that I posted as particularly insulting XD



Dragonfurry said:


> Well you did forget to mention the kind of people that do good things in the name of a god and act smugly about it like they are the moral superior beings of the universe.



You are absolutely right. I did forget them.
But at least they are still doing good things.



M. LeRenard said:


> Depends on what country you're talking about.  Even so, the strange thing is that the people who perpetuate heinous acts in the name of religion (see Muslim soldiers in Mali, for a recent example) generally do it because they feel it's the right thing to do.  It's the ultimate act of pride (which is usually considered a sin, but whatever): *believing so fiercely that you have the answers that you want to rewrite the whole world in your image, to 'save' everybody from themselves.*  Talk about hubris.
> But you know what they say... the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  Seems like that's always true.



This is exactly why I think religion is so very dangerous. It plays with and manipulates our most basic fears and needs, so natrually people are gonna do some weird, and sometimes really bad, things in it's name.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> You are absolutely right. I did forget them.
> But at least they are still doing good things.



Well let me rephrase what i said. These type of people do the good things to feel smug about themselves. Not really out of the goodness of their heart or generosity.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jan 20, 2013)

I like something Christopher Hitchens once said: we are all mammals.  It's a beautifully concise way of saying that we all have the same driving forces and needs, in the end, despite how sacred and holy some people lift themselves up to be.  Even the saints have to piss and shit and occasionally jerk off into an old sock, so you really can't take anything they say about what God wants too seriously.  Part of being rational is recognizing that, recognizing that we're more or less all on the same level, with a few small deviations who make the biggest contributions.  We're all mammals.  Right?  It's a nice thought.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well let me rephrase what i said. These type of people do the good things to feel smug about themselves. Not really out of the goodness of their heart or generosity.



I know what you meant and you are absolutely right! However, as long as they are still doing good things I can live with that. Once they start to force this source of motivation on others things are getting bad though.



M. LeRenard said:


> I like something Christopher Hitchens once said: we are all mammals.  It's a beautifully concise way of saying that we all have the same driving forces and needs, in the end, despite how sacred and holy some people lift themselves up to be.  Even the saints have to piss and shit and occasionally jerk off into an old sock, so you really can't take anything they say about what God wants too seriously.  Part of being rational is recognizing that, recognizing that we're more or less all on the same level, with a few small deviations who make the biggest contributions.  We're all mammals.  Right?  It's a nice thought.



That is a nice and reasonable thought indeed. And that is essentially how I see others. We are all the same, no matter what we believe in. It would just be great if we all started to do good things and if we all would start to do it for more reasonable reasons. That would make living together peacefully a lot easier...


----------



## Tiives (Jan 20, 2013)

Where I live, there is a proverb that says "If you don't want trouble, don't discuss politics, sports or religion". Looks like this thread is the perfect example of how correct this proverb is...

On topic: I was an atheist for about 6 years. But nowadays I'm not sure on what should I believe (or disbelieve), so I guess that makes me an agnostic.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Tiives said:


> On topic: I was an atheist for about 6 years. But nowadays I'm not sure on what should I believe (or disbelieve), so I guess that makes me an agnostic.



(This is pretty much about semantics again but I think this is important in this case)
It's not really all that simple^^ Atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism are pretty much part of each other. One explains belief, the other explains knowledge. Most theists are gnostic theists for example. They claim to know that there is a god.
Most atheists on the other hand tend to be agnostic atheists. They don't know whether there is a god or not but they don't believe in it due to a complete lack of evidence.
So, you don't know whether there is a god or not. That does in fact make you an agnostic.
However, if you don't believe in it or if you are skeptical about it's existence that still makes you an atheist.


----------



## Kahoku (Jan 20, 2013)

Okay to start off, Atheist is not a religion at all. It's a name for people that don't believe, and I couldn't vote because of that.

But here are my views wrapped up nicely :

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w[/yt]
A link for disabled video permissions : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w



M. LeRenard said:


> I like something Christopher Hitchens once  said: we are all mammals.  It's a beautifully concise way of saying that  we all have the same driving forces and needs, in the end, despite how  sacred and holy some people lift themselves up to be.  Even the saints  have to piss and shit and occasionally jerk off into an old sock, so you  really can't take anything they say about what God wants too seriously.   Part of being rational is recognizing that, recognizing that we're  more or less all on the same level, with a few small deviations who make  the biggest contributions.  We're all mammals.  Right?  It's a nice  thought.



Just saw this, and I agree.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Kijha said:


> Okay to start off, Atheist is not a religion at all. It's a name for people that don't believe, and I couldn't vote because of that.
> 
> But here are my views wrapped up nicely :
> 
> ...



We know. It was added there to make it more convenient to vote.

That video is pure magic though. Especially the first few seconds.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 20, 2013)

My passport claims that I'm Jewish, but what I feel is that it is only in heritage/history/passport again.
I am working on getting as far as possible from religion. I fear it will take over my mind and blind me forever. My only countermeasures are pure hatred for religion and a strong dislike to those who practice it. Am I god fearing? I hope not. I have opposition to religious people more than religion. Religion by itself is a very pleasant environment, in most cases, but the way it works only worries me.
I want to have a negative connection to it and wipe it off the world, but my mind is not completely there yet. "Destroying the essence of religion" is always on my mind.


I don't practice any of the religions. I am hardly Jewish in belief and I would not like to share the same group as "atheists" for various accurate/inaccurate, correct/incorrect, detailed/flawed reasons.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Jan 20, 2013)

I wouldnt mind knowing this not only as a joke but aso from a personal view could being a furry be classed as one? i think iam my charecter at least once a day and many other people i hang round with talk about being one, hell itsa big thng for ots of people around the earth.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

NaxThewolf (mike) said:


> I wouldnt mind knowing this not only as a joke but aso from a personal view could being a furry be classed as one? i think iam my charecter at least once a day and many other people i hang round with talk about being one, hell itsa big thng for ots of people around the earth.



No, this is called an obsession. Being a furry is just a hobby, not a lifestyle.



Afterimage said:


> My passport claims that I'm Jewish, but what I feel is that it is only in heritage/history/passport again.
> I am working on getting as far as possible from religion. I fear it will take over my mind and blind me forever. My only countermeasures are pure hatred for religion and a strong dislike to those who practice it. Am I god fearing? I hope not. I have opposition to religious people more than religion. Religion by itself is a very pleasant environment, in most cases, but the way it works only worries me.
> I want to have a negative connection to it and wipe it off the world, but my mind is not completely there yet. "Destroying the essence of religion" is always on my mind.



I don't generally dislike those who believe in it but I do see those who actively spread it as a thread for the well being of humanity.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No, this is called an obsession. Being a furry is just a hobby not a life style.


 oh iam sorry


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I don't generally dislike those who believe in it but I do see those who actively spread it as a thread for the well being of humanity.



Threat*
I wish they were a thread for the well being of humanity, but they're more like downtime maintenance.
I am also very paranoid of religion because it is growing rapidly in my country, gaining more influence in the government and passing laws that leech my money and deliver it to religious "parasites". 
This is the farthest I'm willing to go.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Afterimage said:


> Threat*
> I wish they were a thread for the well being of humanity, but they're more like downtime maintenance.
> I am also very paranoid of religion because it is growing rapidly in my country, gaining more influence in the government and passing laws that leech my money and deliver it to religious "parasites".
> This is the farthest I'm willing to go.



I am fine with people believing this stuff, I really am. But once it starts to creep into politics and once they start to pass laws based on these beliefs I am on the offense.
We already have laws based on it though. I mean, name one single secular reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. And I am not talking about the whole ceremony in church thing. I am talking about going to the registry office and getting your marriage registered there. A completely secular process, there is no difference between them and a straight couple getting married but for some reason they can't do that. Why?


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbC-TXNGK1M

I was very anti-theistic for a long time "religion causes all of the problems in the world" etc. etc. But the more I thought about the universe, the more I drowned myself in philosophy and for a while decided that there must be a God or some kind of higher power. So I went looking for a religion that would fulfil my inquisitiveness about the nature of what we all observe every day, but little things kept turning me away. Then I started reading about Buddhism, and so far I haven't run into anything that I dislike, even though it rejects the concept of God or higher powers. You're told to question the teachings of the Buddha in order to test their strength, you're told to make observations and draw conclusions for yourself rather than have someone else do it for you, and blindly believe that. There's even a little clause in a text that says that if past lives and enlightenment aren't a thing, then you've lived a virtuous life and (hopefully) die happy anyway.

Ultimately, every human being is seeking one thing: lasting happiness, and that's what religion seeks to bring. Whether that's through a Christian concept of God, or Allah, or an atheistic or religion with many deities, it can be very useful to have faith in order to help you live a happy and moral life and to have someone or something (the religious principles, deity and community) to turn to in times of crisis. And if you don't believe in anything other than what can be observed and rationally explained, then that's cool, too. But it's important that we are all tolerant of each other's traditions whilst having faith in our own. That's why people that believe that religion poisons everything confuse me a little. By being intolerant of all religions, is that meant to solve the problem of some members of religions not being tolerant of others? No, if all followed their own religions and did good according to those then we would find that universal tolerance would develop. However, some use falsely interpreted clauses from holy texts in order to excuse or permit violence, and that is not okay.

Also, as it's an emerging issue in this thread, I should also assert that I believe that governments should be secular in order to properly maintain respect for all traditions, as previously mentioned.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 20, 2013)

You have an unnatural fixation on the religious views regarding homosexuality, CC. More than I've seen any religious person...aside from maybe Rick Santorum.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Aleu said:


> You have an unnatural fixation on the religious views regarding homosexuality, CC. More than I've seen any religious person...aside from maybe Rick Santorum.



It is just a very good example how it opresses a certain group of people for no apparent reason.
I could also talk about how it classifies women as second class citizens.



Furcade said:


> and for a while decided that there must be a God or some kind of higher power.



I am curious as to why you came to that conclusion.


----------



## Conker (Jan 20, 2013)

Depends on the setting. I suppose I like playing devil's advocate now and then, so I'm either an atheist or a Christian when appropriate for that. I like to side with atheism because it literally makes me feel smarter, and I went to a religious themed college, so I got to play "evil atheist" in a few classes that wound up being exceptionally fun. 

In actual practice, I'm a Deist. I'm too cynical to believe God gives a right fuck, but I've spent my life around religion so much that the idea of abandoning the idea of a deity is difficult, and if I'm assuming God doesn't give a fuck, then I don't have to give a fuck either. It's mutually beneficial to me and the magic man who probably doesn't exist.

I've an interesting relationship with religion though. I see the kinds of terrible shit it can do to people and society, but I love the mythology that stems from it. Without Christianity, we wouldn't have Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost, and I think that would be bad. Greek gods are really entertaining--and depraved--and I like the stories that come from them. Hell, The Book of Revelations in the Bible is pretty awesome from a story/myth perspective. Do I believe the world will end that way? Hell no. But damn, that's a really cool piece of literature with some exceptional imagery. 

I've yet to really look at Egyptian gods, but I'd like to when the free time arises. Wonder if an Egyptian Ovid wrote an Egyptian Metamorphosis I could find...


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I am curious as to why you came to that conclusion.



I just thought about the immensely small probability of my human comprehension of the words I am putting into a computer right now. There was a universe, and there was no life in it (OT: did it even exist if nobody observed it? the simple answer is "of course it did" but that's _way_ under-thinking it) but then there _was _life, and that seems bloody unlikely. And then over 3 billion years, those developed into multicellular organisms which continually became more complex to the point where I am here now, with my brain and organs all working together to keep me alive, to keep feeding me information from the outside world that I process in my brain (which is still made of nothing more than atoms). The fact that_my _consciousness exists is wildly, wildly improbable and perhaps even unexplainable. The fact that I am here in 2013, on a website dedicated to humans who are into anthropomorphism is even more ridiculous. The chances of my existence are just so low that I figured there has to be something coordinating it all.


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

Conker said:


> Without Christianity, we wouldn't have Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost, and I think that would be bad.



I've never thought of that. Perhaps we would, but in different forms. Like, they would be more general explorations of the human condition? Probably not but. And then we wouldn't have texts that stem from those either, which means we wouldn't have _Frankenstein_ in any form that we would recognise. And Shakespearean works would be a lot different. Wow. Interesting thought, Conker.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Furcade said:


> I just thought about the immensely small probability of my human comprehension of the words I am putting into a computer right now. There was a universe, and there was no life in it (OT: did it even exist if nobody observed it? the simple answer is "of course it did" but that's _way_ under-thinking it) but then there _was _life, and that seems bloody unlikely. And then over 3 billion years, those developed into multicellular organisms which continually became more complex to the point where I am here now, with my brain and organs all working together to keep me alive, to keep feeding me information from the outside world that I process in my brain (which is still made of nothing more than atoms). The fact that_my _consciousness exists is wildly, wildly improbable and perhaps even unexplainable. The fact that I am here in 2013, on a website dedicated to humans who are into anthropomorphism is even more ridiculous. The chances of my existence are just so low that I figured there has to be something coordinating it all.



So essentially you are saying that it makes more sense that a god just magically created everything compared to something simple developing into something complex over an extremely long period of time through an array of natural processes that are easily explainable today though sience.
Oh yes I see, that makes perfect sense... >__>

I don't care how deeply philosophical you think that is. It simply makes no sense at all and it is incredibly unreasonable to believe that.


----------



## Conker (Jan 20, 2013)

Furcade said:


> I've never thought of that. Perhaps we would, but in different forms. Like, they would be more general explorations of the human condition? Probably not but. And then we wouldn't have texts that stem from those either, which means we wouldn't have _Frankenstein_ in any form that we would recognise. And Shakespearean works would be a lot different. Wow. Interesting thought, Conker.


C.S. Lewis also wouldn't have written his works, and he was buddybuddy with Tolkien, so who knows where LotR would have gone. 

And this is just inspired literature. There's also paintings, sculptures, and even buildings that were created because of religion.

I mean, it's hard to try and justify pretty pictures vs the amount of bloodshed religion has caused, but the bloodshed doesn't affect me and the pretty pictures are still pretty so...


----------



## Harbinger (Jan 20, 2013)

I was going to say Unitology as a joke, pleasantly suprised by the poll 

On topic, nothing, dont believe in any religion, the only thing i want after i die is reincarnation.


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

And I don't care how unreasonable you think it is, because I think it's deeply philosophical XD

So you see, CC, we all have different views on metaphysical things, and you've really gotta learn to accept that fact. That's the real mode of thinking that poisons everything.

For the record, I don't deny that things developed from simple to complex over a period of time that may or may not be extremely long in the grand scheme of things, but relative to my life certainly is, I simply believe/d that that process was overseen or orchestrated in some way by a "being" or collective of (possibly all sentient) "beings" that the human mind can't properly comprehend. Do you not think it a miracle that you exist, and can read these little glyphs on a screen that I'm sending you from the other side of the world?


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 20, 2013)

Furcade said:


> I just thought about the immensely small probability of my human comprehension of the words I am putting into a computer right now. There was a universe, and there was no life in it (OT: did it even exist if nobody observed it? the simple answer is "of course it did" but that's _way_ under-thinking it) but then there _was _life, and that seems bloody unlikely. And then over 3 billion years, those developed into multicellular organisms which continually became more complex to the point where I am here now, with my brain and organs all working together to keep me alive, to keep feeding me information from the outside world that I process in my brain (which is still made of nothing more than atoms). The fact that_my _consciousness exists is wildly, wildly improbable and perhaps even unexplainable. The fact that I am here in 2013, on a website dedicated to humans who are into anthropomorphism is even more ridiculous. The chances of my existence are just so low that I figured there has to be something coordinating it all.


The thing is, life is likley to have arisen on another world far before life on Earth happened. There're BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe with BILLIONS of stars in each and every one, and planets orbiting those very stars. To me, life on one planet out of the 10 to the power [insert big-ish number here] planets in the universe is the unlikely situation.


----------



## Tiives (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So, you don't know whether there is a god or not. That does in fact make you an agnostic.



That's exactly it: I don't know if there is a god or not. I think I might have used the wrong words in my last post.


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

Conker said:


> I mean, it's hard to try and justify pretty pictures vs the amount of bloodshed religion has caused, but the bloodshed doesn't affect me and the pretty pictures are still pretty so...



You're right, they are pretty pictures. And also without the brutal wars that perceived  religion has been a factor in (most of them, I'll admit), we wouldn't have developed formalised human rights in their current form. Religion is more of an integral part of social and literary development than I ever really considered, it seems.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Furcade said:


> And I don't care how unreasonable you think it is, because I think it's deeply philosophical XD
> 
> So you see, CC, we all have different views on metaphysical things, and you've really gotta learn to accept that fact. That's the real mode of thinking that poisons everything.
> 
> For the record, I don't deny that things developed from simple to complex over a period of time that may or may not be extremely long in the grand scheme of things, but relative to my life certainly is, I simply believe/d that that process was overseen or orchestrated in some way by a "being" or collective of (possibly all sentient) "beings" that the human mind can't properly comprehend. Do you not think it a miracle that you exist, and can read these little glyphs on a screen that I'm sending you from the other side of the world?



We all may have different views and opinions. But at the end of the day a fact is still a fact. God either exists or it doesn't.

And to answer your question, no I don't think that is a miracle. Because I don't believe in miracles. There is simply no reason AT ALL to believe that these natural processes were either overseen, set in motion or even manipulated by any sort of higher being.



Raptros said:


> The thing is, life is likley to have arisen on another world far before life on Earth happened. There're BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe with BILLIONS of stars in each and every one, and planets orbiting those very stars. To me, life on one planet out of the 10 to the power [insert big-ish number here] planets in the universe is the unlikely situation.



This is called panspermia and it really doesn't answer the initial question how life started. Because now you have to explain how life started on that alien planet  You are just shifting the original question to a different place.


----------



## Aetius (Jan 20, 2013)

Well...This thread turned out interesting.

I still consider myself Roman Catholic, even though I haven't been to mass in God knows how long.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 20, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Well...This thread turned out interesting.
> 
> I still consider myself Roman Catholic, even though *I haven't been to mass in God knows how long*.


Haha, was that an intentional pun or not?


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

You're right, "God" either exists or it doesn't. We have no way of determining whether or not it does. Obviously, we have nothing to say that there is a God. But that doesn't mean we should palm off everyone who believes there is as an idiot.

Anyway, Raptros, yes, because life exists on one planet, it should exist on others in some form, shouldn't it? And it probably does. It's crazy that our scientists haven't found evidence of life anywhere in the universe just yet. But maybe it has found us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nR9XEqrCvw)


----------



## Aleu (Jan 20, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Haha, was that an intentional pun or not?



I'm getting to him :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Furcade said:


> You're right, "God" either exists or it doesn't. We have no way of determining whether or not it does. Obviously, we have nothing to say that there is a God. But that doesn't mean we should palm off everyone who believes there is as an idiot.
> 
> Anyway, Raptros, yes, because life exists on one planet, it should exist on others in some form, shouldn't it? And it probably does. It's crazy that our scientists haven't found evidence of life anywhere in the universe just yet. But maybe it has found us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nR9XEqrCvw)



I am not doing that. I am calling it unreasonable since I believe that any kind of belief that isn't based on evidence is unreasonable. How can you actually know something without evidence? And if you "just believe" we are at this whole faith thing again.

How are we supposed to find evidence for life on other planets?  We have barely scratched the surface in our own solar system (pun inteded) and you want us to find life on planets that are many many lightyears away? How?^^


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 20, 2013)

No affiliation. I certainly don't let centuries-dead primitives from inferior societies dictate my actions, but I don't claim to know 'what's out there' either.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 20, 2013)

Haven't given theology much thought recently, but last I thought about it I ascribed to deist beliefs. I believed that god created the universe and then left it to its own devices. Not sure how I feel about that now.


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> How are we supposed to find evidence for life on other planets?  We have barely scratched the surface in our own solar system (pun inteded) and you want us to find life on planets that are many many lightyears away? How?^^



I don't know, but people who are much more intelligent than me are paid to try XD You're right, that was a stupid thing to say. What I meant was, with so many planets in the universe, why is it that we on Earth appear to be so alone? But I guess that's a little off-topic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

How do people feel about the statement that religion and spiritualism is a manifestation of our own mortality? A bed time story for people who are afraid of the dark, as Stephen Hawking puts it.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> We all may have different views and opinions. But at the end of the day a fact is still a fact. God either exists or it doesn't.
> 
> And to answer your question, no I don't think that is a miracle. Because I don't believe in miracles. There is simply no reason AT ALL to believe that these natural processes were either overseen, set in motion or even manipulated by any sort of higher being.
> 
> ...


Yes I know, I just used it to counter furcade's point about how there're was no life in the universe then bam, life on earth.


----------



## Caden_The_Dingo (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm atheist. Just atheist. I feel there doesn't need to be a long winded explanation for what you do or don't believe in.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

Furcade said:


> I don't know, but people who are much more intelligent than me are paid to try XD You're right, that was a stupid thing to say. What I meant was, with so many planets in the universe, why is it that we on Earth appear to be so alone? But I guess that's a little off-topic.



I think that's just because of the nature of the universe itself. Everything is so far apart, right now there is just no way to find the others.
And there pretty much have to be other worlds with alien lifeforms. Statistically it pretty much has to be that way. I mean, statistically things get even weirder when you assume a bigger size for the universe. If it was a googolplex meters across you would start to see repititions, as in perfect "copies" of yourself, because the amount of different quantum states is not endless.



Fallowfox said:


> How do people feel about the statement that religion and spiritualism is a manifestation of our own mortality? A bed time story for people who are afraid of the dark, as Stephen Hawking puts it.



In a way that is exactly what religion is. An ancient and crude way to teach people how to behave based on what they thought was right and wrong. And what is the best way to make a bunch of retarded middle eastern barbarians behave? Right, through superstition and fear.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> How do people feel about the statement that religion and spiritualism is a manifestation of our own mortality? A bed time story for people who are afraid of the dark, as Stephen Hawking puts it.



Sounds about right.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> How do people feel about the statement that religion and spiritualism is a manifestation of our own mortality? A bed time story for people who are afraid of the dark, as Stephen Hawking puts it.


That really speaks to me. I've always believed that religion and spiritualism are at their essence security blankets. Ways to make people feel loved and like they have purpose. Which is important. Not everyone has a loving family or an ideal social situation and I think religion can be a big help to people like this. I'll say 'religion is a crutch,' but I'm not intending a negative connotation. I think religion and spiritualism can be great for people.


----------



## Furcade (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> How do people feel about the statement that religion and spiritualism is a manifestation of our own mortality? A bed time story for people who are afraid of the dark, as Stephen Hawking puts it.



Absolutely. I think originally (and this is without any knowledge of history) religion existed to explain the world in terms that would feel natural to the people of the time, as well as explaining certain aspects of human nature _and_ (and this is the most enduring point) help people come to terms with mortality. The way Hawking puts it is pretty much perfect. Especially towards the end of one's life, religion is often effective in preparing an individual for death. Is it right that religion takes on such a function? That is up to the individual to determine, I suppose.

EDIT: What benignBiotic said.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> That really speaks to me. I've always believed that religion and spiritualism are at their essence security blankets. Ways to make people feel loved and like they have purpose. Which is important. Not everyone has a loving family or an ideal social situation and I think religion can be a big help to people like this. I'll say 'religion is a crutch,' but I'm not intending a negative connotation. I think religion and spiritualism can be great for people.



Which is weird to me though. I mean, in essence most religions are the idea that we have to suck up to a god that created us in a broken state, that expects us to live up to it's expectations despite all that and that judges us for thought crimes. How is that comforting? Or moral?


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Which is weird to me though. I mean, in essence most religions are the idea that we have to suck up to a god that created us in a broken state, that expects us to live up to it's expectations despite all that and that judges us for thought crimes. How is that comforting? Or moral?


Hmm. You're right. I should have specified. I think what can be comforting to people is the belief in some kind of benevolent god or overseer or spirit-guide, what have you. Belief in something greater that doesn't need to be appeased or anything. It doesn't even have to have created humanity. 

Maybe I'm taking a new age approach to this. I just think that having faith in something is beneficial because it can keep one going in the hard times. Simple I know. 

The idea of sucking up to a god doesn't sit well with me either.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> Hmm. You're right. I should have specified. I think what can be comforting to people is the belief in some kind of benevolent god or overseer or spirit-guide, what have you. Belief in something greater that doesn't need to be appeased or anything. It doesn't even have to have created humanity.
> 
> Maybe I'm taking a new age approach to this. I just think that having faith in something is beneficial because it can keep one going in the hard times. Simple I know.
> 
> The idea of sucking up to a god doesn't sit well with me either.



That makes more sense I guess. However, personally I can't draw comfort from something that gives me no clue at all whether it exists or not. I draw comfort and inspiration from knowledge, the whole concept of faith doesn't sit well with me.


----------



## Dreaming (Jan 20, 2013)

Irreligious atheist 

I was baptized Methodist, apparently my grandma was slightly religious and pushed for that, my younger sister was never baptized though. There's nothing interesting religion-wise in my family, they're literally all Roman Catholic/Protestant, except for my parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and later grandparents... all vocally atheist =P



Fallowfox said:


> ...I don't think that's quite right.
> 
> Druids were a class of priests in the celtic nations, which includes but  is not limited to Ireland. Modern day revivals like wicca developed in  england.


There's Germanic paganism too


----------



## ADF (Jan 20, 2013)

Atheist, because there is no evidence for any of the claims made by religion. 

Religion is largely redundant because we have science to explain the unknowns that mythical entities once filled; and we have government/law to keep the masses under control without supernatural threats. The only remaining area that religion is used for is to combat the fear of death, which of itself isn't an argument for religion, as you can believe in an afterlife without an organisation telling you what your morals are and how to live your life.

Religions continued existence is therefore only a product of tradition and parents imposing their beliefs on their children. Something that is thankfully in decline, because we hardly need bigoted old men infecting their followers with their bigotry; just so they can comfort themselves with a belief in an afterlife.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 20, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> That makes more sense I guess. However, personally I can't draw comfort from something that gives me no clue at all whether it exists or not. I draw comfort and inspiration from knowledge, the whole concept of faith doesn't sit well with me.


I'm not religious. I'm a man of science, corny as that sounds. But I also recognize that religion can be an excellent motivator. Unfortunately that brings about as much bad as it does good . Or a lot more bad now that I think about it. Just think of all the attrocities that have been committed in the name of God.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 20, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> I'm not religious. I'm a man of science, corny as that sounds. But I also recognize that religion can be an excellent motivator. Unfortunately that brings about as much bad as it does good . Or a lot more bad now that I think about it. *Just think of all the attrocities that have been committed in the name of God.*



A god that, for all we know, probably doesn't even exist.
You can make a perfectly decent human being make horrible things with religion. And they will do it in a completely self righteous way.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> I'm not religious. I'm a man of science, corny as that sounds. But I also recognize that religion can be an excellent motivator. Unfortunately that brings about as much bad as it does good . Or a lot more bad now that I think about it. Just think of all the attrocities that have been committed in the name of God.


On the other hand try and name one society that doesn't owe it's roots partly to religion.  Chances are if you tried to remove religion completely from a society it would not end well. . *cough* france's rise of making batshit crazy laws meant to keep the country secular such so crazy even secularists look at them and "dafuq?  You high?" *cough*


CaptainCool said:


> A god that, for all we know, probably doesn't even exist.
> You can make a perfectly decent human being make horrible things with  religion. And they will do it in a completely self righteous  way.


Attrocities can also be done for non-religious reasons as well.  The top two genocides in hisotry were by communist nations.


Also woohoo!  Two people actually got the joke in the poll.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 20, 2013)

Heathenry.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 20, 2013)

Gee, I'd probably give religion a try if the current ones weren't so boring.
Norse or Greek mythology? Hells yeah, count me in!
By Sithis, even some fictional religions [_oo redundancy_] are more interesting than ours!

Funny thing is, you'd probably be called a madman if you up and told religious people you meet daily that you believe in Zeus, or Odin,Amun-Ra. How ironic!
My hope is that in the future we'll look back at our current religions and scoff at the fairy-tales that they were, much like we do now at the old religions and mythologies.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> The top two genocides in hisotry were by communist nations.


The Soviet Union and....?

Oh yeah China, as usual.


----------



## Machine (Jan 20, 2013)

God is dead.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The Soviet Union and....?


The great leap forward. . . Yeah, yeah I know it wasn't technically a genocide, but viewing people's blood as nothing more than grease for your plow engine(metaphorically) should be considered a genocide.  The reason being that utter lack of human life is all kinds of fucked up.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> The great leap forward. . . Yeah, yeah I know it wasn't technically a genocide, but viewing people's blood as nothing more than grease for your plow engine(metaphorically) should be considered a genocide.  The reason being that utter lack of human life is all kinds of fucked up.


It wasn't genocide, it was just China being China.


----------



## Conker (Jan 20, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Gee, I'd probably give religion a try if the current ones weren't so boring.
> Norse or Greek mythology? Hells yeah, count me in!
> By Sithis, even some fictional religions [_oo redundancy_] are more interesting than ours!
> 
> ...


If I had the energy and the giveafuck I might go worship Ra or something. Without the sun we'd be fucked, so if anything we might as well worship that. We can at least prove it exists :V


----------



## Corto (Jan 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> How do people feel about the statement that religion and spiritualism is a manifestation of our own mortality? A bed time story for people who are afraid of the dark, as Stephen Hawking puts it.


This reminds me, it's more of a treatise on ancient law and rights than religion itself, but I suggest for anyone interested in this stuff to read Fustel de Coulange's "The Ancient City" ("La CitÃ© Antique"). Gives some very interesting insight into the birth of religion, mostly in ancient Greece/Rome (but also of religion as a whole).


----------



## Day Coydog (Jan 20, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> My hope is that in the future we'll look back at our current religions and scoff at the fairy-tales that they were, much like we do now at the old religions and mythologies.


That's what my philosophy is built on.

EDIT: And also helping people in need and saying nice/good things (even on the internet).


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 20, 2013)

Nichiren Buddhism.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jan 20, 2013)

The OP edit made me chuckle.

Anyway on topic.
I just worship Mehrunes Dagon. :I


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 20, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> The OP edit made me chuckle.
> 
> Anyway on topic.
> I just worship Mehrunes Dagon. :I



The Daedric prince that tried to destroy the world in the Oblivion crisis? :/


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 20, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> The OP edit made me chuckle.
> 
> Anyway on topic.
> I just worship Mehrunes Dagon. :I


That's a pity. 
There was lot of potential cheese to be had, if only you'd you chosen the right god. Enough for everyone!


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 20, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Nichiren Buddhism.


What's that about?  I don't know much about that.


Hinalle K. said:


> That's a pity.
> There was lot of potential cheese to be had, if only you'd you chosen the right god. Enough for everyone!


Sometimes I dream about cheese.


----------



## Inciatus (Jan 20, 2013)

I found the poll funny because my Rabbi's last name is Altman.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> What's that about?  I don't know much about that.



It's a Japanese school of Buddhism that teaches that all people have an innate Buddha nature and capable of enlightenment. 
More info here



Hinalle K. said:


> That's a pity.
> There was lot of potential cheese to be had, if only you'd you chosen the right god. Enough for everyone!



Hircine or GTFO.
(I do like the Icon)


----------



## Aetius (Jan 20, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Hircine or GTFO.
> (I do like the Icon)



Sheogorath is where it is at.


----------



## Corto (Jan 20, 2013)

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERDS


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 20, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Sheogorath is where it is at.


Please no.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Jan 20, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> It's a Japanese school of Buddhism that teaches that all people have an innate Buddha nature and capable of enlightenment.



Makes sense to me. If anyone has the potential to become enlightened, then why not everyone? What makes any one person more predisposed to attain enlightenment over anybody else?

Though I really have no set of religious beliefs, I have a healthy respect for those whose ultimate goal is enlightenment/nirvana/oneness with the universe. Seems to me that is a very worthwhile ambition. So how is your search going, Ozriel?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 21, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Jesus very literally took over the roles of some old gods- even the female gods.* Aryan christianity depicts the jesus figure with long hair and breasts*, because that group of people wanted a god that replaced the functions of their female gods as well as their male ones.



Eh? I've seen the whole "Jesus with long hair" portraits, but Jesus with _tits?_



CannonFodder said:


> Attrocities can also be done for non-religious reasons as well.  The top two genocides in hisotry were by communist nations.



... who installed communism as a kind of state religion.



CannonFodder said:


> Sometimes I dream about cheese.



Toasted cheese?

Well as the old hymn goes, "What a friend we have in Cheeses..."


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jan 21, 2013)

I've never heard of "Judiasm", though I am sure it involves religious figures like Mosses and Divad, and they celebrate holidays like "Chakakhan" and "Overpass".


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 21, 2013)

Llamapotamus said:


> Makes sense to me. If anyone has the potential to become enlightened, then why not everyone? What makes any one person more predisposed to attain enlightenment over anybody else?
> 
> Though I really have no set of religious beliefs, I have a healthy respect for those whose ultimate goal is enlightenment/nirvana/oneness with the universe. Seems to me that is a very worthwhile ambition. So how is your search going, Ozriel?




Halfway there until I reach the Enlightening level cap. :V

It's hard because it involves a lot of grinding and farming.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 21, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Halfway there until I reach the Enlightening level cap. :V
> 
> It's hard because it involves a lot of grinding and farming.


I shall provide you with this cap to assist you in your endeavours. It possesses a +10% more experience gain enchantment to the Enlightenment attribute.
Best of luck.


----------



## BabyStar (Jan 21, 2013)

where's the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? His noodle-ness shall be praised!


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 21, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> I've never heard of "Judiasm", though I am sure it involves religious figures like Mosses and Divad, and they celebrate holidays like "Chakakhan" and "*Overpass*".



No, "Overpass" - or more correctly, "O'v'rpass" - is the holiday celebrated by devotees of the god Moto'rweigh (or as he is known in the US, Frei'way). Supplicants display their devotion through careful placement of many Holy Traffic Cones, symbolising the many obstacles that the faithful must overcome while navigating the Expressway Of Righteousness, in particular the foul influences of Contr'flow and LhayneMerge.


----------



## Furcade (Jan 21, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Halfway there until I reach the Enlightening level cap. :V
> 
> It's hard because it involves a lot of grinding and farming.




Are you actively involving yourself in seeking enlightenment or do you just practice Buddhist principles? And how long have you been doing so?


----------



## Toshabi (Jan 21, 2013)

I looked in this thread and was praying that it would've resulted in CC's ban.




Guess not. Oh well.


----------



## Namba (Jan 21, 2013)

Toshabi said:


> I looked in this thread and was praying that it would've resulted in CC's ban.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love you.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 21, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> I shall provide you with this cap to assist you in your endeavours. It possesses a +10% more experience gain enchantment to the Enlightenment attribute.
> Best of luck.



It's Cloth. I wear plate. >:V
And why is it soulbound to you?!



Furcade said:


> Are you actively involving yourself in seeking enlightenment or do you just practice Buddhist principles? And how long have you been doing so?



A little of the former and most of the latter. There's a belief that in order to seek enlightenment, one must know themselves first...and I am still learning. :V


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 21, 2013)

I'm a non-practising atheist.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Eh? I've seen the whole "Jesus with long hair" portraits, but Jesus with _tits?_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01116/ravenna-2_1116751c.jpg

Here's an aryan mosaic in ravenna that deliberately gives jesus a female figure, rounding the pectorals to make them look breats like.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 21, 2013)

Toshabi said:


> I looked in this thread and was praying that it would've resulted in CC's ban.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I AM INVINCIBLE!!
Ok... More like perfectly capable of pulling myself together :V

I would also like to point out that I applaude religious people who see the immoral teachings of their religion as bad and reject them because of that in favor of the positive teachings. I really don't care what you believe in, I just want everyone to be a good person.
Most religions DO have good aspects about them, I fully realize that. I would just like to see them being practiced more often and it would be great to see religious people being a little more vocal against those who warp these beliefs to achieve their hideous goals... Let's just work together in that regard a little more, that's all I'm sayin'.


----------



## veeno (Jan 21, 2013)

Im christian.

But im not really in a denomination.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 21, 2013)

I got raised catholic so I learned enough about it to realize I can spend much more time doing other things.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 21, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01116/ravenna-2_1116751c.jpg
> 
> Here's an aryan mosaic in ravenna that deliberately gives jesus a female figure, rounding the pectorals to make them look breats like.


 The Aryans always had an appreciation for nice tits.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The Aryans always had an appreciation for nice tits.



And a nice long, hard basilica. 

[pardon me, I should have spelt it 'arian']


----------



## Commie Bat (Jan 21, 2013)

Well I personally believe religion is a private matter though i'll give the official and popular beliefs; you people can make the decision of what I do, or do not believe in.  :V

Orthodox Christanity, Judasim, Islam, and Buddahism (official) Slavic Paganism, agnostic, and atheist (common/popular) and finally according to Lizzie; Satanism.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Jan 21, 2013)

I'm an atheist, but I don't advertise it. I just go through my life whilst the thought "God doesn't exist" loiters around in the sidings of my unconscious mind.


----------



## Avlenna (Jan 21, 2013)

I'm an open minded Christian.


----------



## Namba (Jan 21, 2013)

veeno said:


> Im christian.
> 
> But im not really in a denomination.



Personally that's how I've always felt about it myself. I mean, I'm part of the Covenant church and all, but I still view myself as a non-denominational Christian. I've been in enough denominations (Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) to realize how clique-ish most of them are. To me denominations are what's got Christians so divided amongst themselves. It's really the only religion with that problem.


----------



## Inciatus (Jan 21, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Personally that's how I've always felt about it myself. I mean, I'm part of the Covenant church and all, but I still view myself as a non-denominational Christian. I've been in enough denominations (Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) to realize how clique-ish most of them are. To me denominations are what's got Christians so divided amongst themselves. It's really the only religion with that problem.



I know Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism don't like each other.


----------



## Furcade (Jan 21, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> I know Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism don't like each other.





			
				Eyal Furry said:
			
		

> To me denominations are what's got Christians so divided amongst themselves.


It's not just denominations that should hold hands and be happy together, but Abrahamic religions as a whole and then all religions.

Anwar Sadat made a statement to the Israeli Knesset in the late 70s (or was it '81) that tried to heal the animosity between Egypt and Israel. It closed with a quote from the Koran to the effect of "we all believe in God, we make no distinction between each other among those who believe in God, and to God we submit." Which was a ballsy thing to do (too bad it didn't work, maybe because Sadat was a general that took the fight to Israel a couple of times unsuccessfully before trying to patch things up in the Arab world and being assassinated for it). The point is that all Abrahamic Religions believe in pretty much the same God, so they should all get along just fine, but for some reason, still, as Eyal said, Christians are divided amongst themselves, and Muslims are divided from Christians etc. Sadat demonstrated that there is potential for religions to weave people together with the same force used to drive them apart. It's just a shame that this potential has never really been acted on, particularly in zones of frequent armed conflict.

Lol sorry for copying most of my HSC thesis, but I feel it was relevant


----------



## Namba (Jan 21, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> I know Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism don't like each other.



Shit goes down, man.



Furcade said:


> It's not just denominations that should hold  hands and be happy together, but Abrahamic religions as a whole and then  all religions.
> 
> Anwar Sadat made a statement to the Israeli Knesset in the late 70s (or  was it '81) that tried to heal the animosity between Egypt and Israel.  It closed with a quote from the Koran to the effect of "we all believe  in God, we make no distinction between each other among those who  believe in God, and to God we submit." Which was a ballsy thing to do  (too bad it didn't work, maybe because Sadat was a general that took the  fight to Israel a couple of times unsuccessfully before trying to patch  things up in the Arab world and being assassinated for it). The point  is that all Abrahamic Religions believe in pretty much the same God, so  they should all get along just fine, but for some reason, still, as Eyal  said, Christians are divided amongst themselves, and Muslims are  divided from Christians etc. Sadat demonstrated that there is potential  for religions to weave people together with the same force used to drive  them apart. It's just a shame that this potential has never really been  acted on, particularly in zones of frequent armed conflict.
> 
> Lol sorry for copying most of my HSC thesis, but I feel it was relevant



Getting all the Abrahamic religions to hold hands and be happy with each other is like asking Nicholas Cage to make a decent movie.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 21, 2013)

Abrahamic religions, by varying in even their slightest details, undermine eachother's claims of absolute knowledge of the divine. A tower of Babel becomes a game of Jenga without monoculture. This is perhaps why even the most similar religions come to eachothers' throats.

This is reflected in the Abrahamic religions' assessments of eachother- especially when reminded of the crux of their belief's function, preparation for death, as is outlined in the two party series on death by theramintrees http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syNVg8V4EQU , which displays its sources.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jan 21, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> No, "Overpass" - or more correctly, "O'v'rpass" - is the holiday celebrated by devotees of the god Moto'rweigh (or as he is known in the US, Frei'way). Supplicants display their devotion through careful placement of many Holy Traffic Cones, symbolising the many obstacles that the faithful must overcome while navigating the Expressway Of Righteousness, in particular the foul influences of Contr'flow and LhayneMerge.



It's obviously a riff on "Passover" and "Chanukah", the latter of which took some effort to misspell before I came across a Chicago disco musician whose stage name is Chaka Khan. I just took the idea of a religion based off of mispelling words and ran with it. And I forgot to tell you about another Judiasm holiday, "Yum Kippers" where the new year is started with a mandatory English breakfast of herring.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jan 21, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> The Daedric prince that tried to destroy the world in the Oblivion crisis? :/



Do you have an issue, eyebrows?


----------



## Furcade (Jan 21, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Abrahamic religions, by varying in even their slightest details, undermine eachother's claims of absolute knowledge of the divine. A tower of Babel becomes a game of Jenga without monoculture. This is perhaps why even the most similar religions come to eachothers' throats.



That is the wisest thing ever. Also that series is amazing.


----------



## Vukasin (Jan 22, 2013)

I am a Christian


----------



## Ranguvar (Jan 22, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Getting all the Abrahamic religions to hold hands and be happy with each other is like asking Nicholas Cage to make a decent movie.


We shouldn't have a problem then.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 22, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> And I forgot to tell you about another Judiasm holiday, "Yum Kippers" where the new year is started with a mandatory English breakfast of herring.



But is Yum Kippers an "act of Cod"? 

(Yeah, I know - the puns thread is over _there_...)


----------



## Kyulein (Jan 22, 2013)

I'm not into any religion, I've been at a christian school, but only because they had higher standards in teaching and such than the others schools nearby.
I'm quite happy with the way it is, I can't really think of something supernatural in our world. (don't have any problems with supernatural things in fantasy, though) But if there're people really thinking like this I don't try to change their mind. We might have a civilised discussion with each other, but I respect other's beliefs and religion. Who am I that I should do it. It's their life and they should decide how they want to live it!


----------



## DrewlyYours (Jan 22, 2013)

I don't have a religion. I don't and can't believe in something that has no proof. And don't give me that "the proof is in the bible/other religious texts". They don't prove anything other than some historical wars, men and kings that existed. I do believe some people can gain a good moral standpoint from religion if interpreted the right way but that's it. We don't know and will probably never the truth of the universe and where we come from. Take it how you want but it just doesn't make sense to me to believe in something written by people whose main goal was to gain control over the people by any means.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 22, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> I don't have a religion. I don't and can't believe in something that has no proof. And don't give me that "the proof is in the bible/other religious texts". They don't prove anything other than some historical wars, men and kings that existed. I do believe some people can gain a good moral standpoint from religion if interpreted the right way but that's it. We don't know and will probably never the truth of the universe *and where we come from*. Take it how you want but it just doesn't make sense to me to believe in something written by people whose main goal was to gain control over the people by any means.



Where we, or rather life on earth in general, come from is not a mystery anymore :3 We already know enough to call abiogenesis and evolution solid facts. Some aspects are still a little rough around the edges but they already work in a way that we can properly explain where life comes from and even how specific species, including ourselves, evolved.


----------



## Namba (Jan 22, 2013)

DrewlyYours said:


> I don't have a religion. I don't and can't believe in something that has no proof. And don't give me that "the proof is in the bible/other religious texts". They don't prove anything other than some historical wars, men and kings that existed. I do believe some people can gain a good moral standpoint from religion if interpreted the right way but that's it. We don't know and will probably never the truth of the universe and where we come from. Take it how you want but it just doesn't make sense to me to believe in something written by people whose main goal was to gain control over the people by any means.



Creation is not a science because it hasn't been observed, and the Bible doesn't prove anything simply because it's in the Bible, and that's where the line must be drawn. It's a religion based on faith, not the other way around. Yes, there are valid historical records in the text, but as far as our origins, it's not going to help a thing.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jan 22, 2013)

Born and raised Christian but I don't believe in it. I've made my own view of the world, spirits and such so I voted for other.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jan 22, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> But is Yum Kippers an "act of Cod"?
> 
> (Yeah, I know - the puns thread is over _there_...)



No, I think your argument is a red herring.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 22, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Do you have an issue, eyebrows?



Yes I do, Neon-colored Bug-bot.


----------



## TreacleFox (Jan 22, 2013)

Reminds me of this survey: http://vis.adjectivespecies.com/furrysurvey/religion.shtml
More atheists here so far it looks like though.


----------



## Magick (Jan 22, 2013)

Pagan/Spiritualist here, started with Wicca a while back.


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Jan 22, 2013)

I really between atheist and agnostic. I've been an athetist for years but a part of me believes that there is something out there. I believe in something but I can't believe it because there is no real evidence in my face. I don't want someone to tell me that "God or Jesus helped for a miracle." I would have to have seen it before my own eyes. Does that kinda make sense?


----------



## Magick (Jan 22, 2013)

It does make sense. To me anyways.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 22, 2013)

What are agnostics again? Half-assed atheists?


----------



## Furcade (Jan 22, 2013)

TrinityWolfess said:


> I really between atheist and agnostic. I've been an athetist for years but a part of me believes that there is something out there. I believe in something but I can't believe it because there is no real evidence in my face. I don't want someone to tell me that "God or Jesus helped for a miracle." I would have to have seen it before my own eyes. Does that kinda make sense?



Yes. Yes it does.



			
				Hinalle K. said:
			
		

> What are agnostics again? Half-assed atheists?




No, I think agnostics are people who believe that we don't know whether *metaphysical concept/deity/religion* is correct or not.

To wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

So I guess it's like atheism with less steadfast belief that there's no God. There is a one word way to say that.


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Jan 22, 2013)

Furcade said:


> Yes. Yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I call myself agnostic since my believe in something yet, I dont know what it is. Atheism is that they do not believe a higher being exists. Basically when we die... we just die. No heaven and no hell. 
If you are interested in reading then I suggest you read the problem of evil. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jan 23, 2013)

Problem of Evil,hm? I see. They don't really want to believe in magic, but at the same time they're scared of completely disregarding it.
Scared of death, and injustice. They don't want to believe they're going to end up in the same place as a murderer, I'd guess. That their choices in life and overall "karma" don't mean shit when in the grave. 
Fear of the unknown is what defines it, then?


----------



## Saiko (Jan 23, 2013)

I'm Christian.. although a comparatively liberal and secular one.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 23, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> No, I think your argument is a red herring.



Now I'm floundering


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 23, 2013)

TrinityWolfess said:


> I really between atheist and agnostic. I've been an athetist for years but a part of me believes that there is something out there. I believe in something but I can't believe it because there is no real evidence in my face. I don't want someone to tell me that "God or Jesus helped for a miracle." I would have to have seen it before my own eyes. Does that kinda make sense?



It doesn't because your definitions of agnosticism and atheism seem to be false.
Someone isn't just an agnostic. Agnosticism just means that you don't know whether there is a god or not. But you can still believe in it!
Agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge, atheism/atheism is about belief. I am an agnostic atheist for example. I don't know whether there is a god or not but I can't believe in it because of a complete lack of evidence.
The way you describe yourself you seem to be an agnostic deist. You seem to believe in a general god or higher being that maybe doesn't even have anything to do with us but you are not quite sure about it.



Hinalle K. said:


> What are agnostics again? Half-assed atheists?



As I said above, gnosticism and agnosticism is essentially a part of atheism and theism. One describes knowledge, the other describes belief.
I mean, whether you know about it or not, you can still believe or not believe in it.


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I'm a somewhat religious person; baptised as Methodist, but I have since come up with my own religion: 'Roadism', the belief that the best way to get in touch with God is by racking up miles on the ol' odometer on the open road. Just this past Sunday, I was driving through the Rocky Mountains under a beautiful blue sky and while doing so, just can't believe that a 'god' can't exist. Some things to mention: I'm an 'old world' creationist, and try to blend science with my religion as best I can. I believe in things like evolution, but do not believe that our world was created by a giant lit fart. I also believe that the Bible is a guide book for our lives, not an instruction manual to be taken literally.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 23, 2013)

Gr8fulFox said:


> I'm a somewhat religious person; baptised as Methodist, but I have since come up with my own religion: 'Roadism', the belief that the best way to get in touch with God is by racking up miles on the ol' odometer on the open road. Just this past Sunday, I was driving through the Rocky Mountains under a beautiful blue sky and while doing so, just can't believe that a 'god' can't exist. Some things to mention: I'm an 'old world' creationist, and try to blend science with my religion as best I can. I believe in things like evolution, but do not believe that our world was created by a giant lit fart. I also believe that the Bible is a guide book for our lives, not an instruction manual to be taken literally.



If you tried to give me a headache you have succeeded.... Congratulations? :c


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> If you tried to give me a headache you have succeeded.... Congratulations? :c



He believes in evolution and not blending science with religion (I agree with the latter), and that the teachings of Jesus are the points in the Bible that need to be paid attention to, not every law from Old Testament times... ("You know, the New Testament is pretty old. It should be the Old Testament and the Most Recent Testament." -Steven Wright). Give it some thought, because that's the best I can do.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 23, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> He believes in evolution and not blending science with religion (I agree with the latter), and that the teachings of Jesus are the points in the Bible that need to be paid attention to, not every law from Old Testament times... ("You know, the New Testament is pretty old. It should be the Old Testament and the Most Recent Testament." -Steven Wright). Give it some thought, because that's the best I can do.



The whole thing just sounded deliberately contradictory to me^^ I did read it wrong though, for some odd reason I interpreted "old world creationist" as "young earth creationist" which makes no sense at all and I have no clue why I made that mistake.
So yeah, disregard what I said  This is a good example why posting stuff while being at work is not a good idea


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The whole thing just sounded deliberately contradictory to me^^ I did read it wrong though, for some odd reason I interpreted "old world creationist" as "young earth creationist" which makes no sense at all and I have no clue why I made that mistake.
> So yeah, disregard what I said  This is a good example why posting stuff while being at work is not a good idea



It's not Christianity, that much I can say with confidence.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 23, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> It's not Christianity, that much I can say with confidence.



But he takes the bible as a guide. That is a horrible idea but he still follows it in some way.
This also raises one question... What IS a christian? Jehova's witnesses say they are christians and everyone else is not. Mormons say that are christians and everyone else says they are not.
This is greatly confusing for me. You all follow the same god, the same holy Jesus man and the same holy book. And what about Islam? That is essentially just a plagiarised version of christianity...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 23, 2013)

I have my own simple beliefs. That is all.


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But he takes the bible as a guide. That is a horrible idea but he still follows it in some way.
> This also raises one question... What IS a christian? Jehova's witnesses say they are christians and everyone else is not. Mormons say that are christians and everyone else says they are not.
> This is greatly confusing for me. You all follow the same god, the same holy Jesus man and the same holy book. And what about Islam? That is essentially just a plagiarised version of christianity...



Simply put, you believe in Jesus as your savior, you're a Christian. The Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in the Trinity, which therefore means they don't believe Jesus was really the son of God. The Mormons, honestly I think they are Christians, but a branch-off cult of Christianity nonetheless. They have an extra book, their own magic underwear, and endorse polygamy. I get sick of people saying they aren't Christians, though; I look at it as having your own (totally fucked up) irrelevant set of beliefs to go along Christianity as a whole. It's like a whole other denomination, only a bit more unorthodox.

And I agree with what you said about Islam, it IS plagiarized. They do, kind of, sort of, believe in the same God. The thing is, you can believe in God and still not be a Christian. That's what Judaism is, essentially. They don't believe the savior ever came. So they follow God, but don't believe in Jesus. Does that make sense?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But he takes the bible as a guide. That is a horrible idea but he still follows it in some way.
> This also raises one question... What IS a christian? Jehova's witnesses say they are christians and everyone else is not. Mormons say that are christians and everyone else says they are not.
> This is greatly confusing for me. You all follow the same god, the same holy Jesus man and the same holy book. And what about Islam? That is essentially just a plagiarised version of christianity...




If anyone's interested Jehova's witnesses are an offshoot group of the millerites, a fanatical cult whose doomsday prediction didn't happen. I believe one man jumped off a building believing that God would catch him as the world ended. Splat. 

Perhaps this is why the most popular world religions are the vague and self contradictorary ones, it provides room for people to personalise their religions to their own cultures as well as providing plenty of ammunition for intrareligious schism and hence the creation of offspring religions. 

Religions that were straightforward were probably just not controvercial enough, in fact you can only be so straightforward until you're no longer a society of mysticism and no longer a religion.



Eyal Flurry said:


> Simply put, you believe in Jesus as your  savior, you're a Christian. The Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in the  Trinity, which therefore means they don't believe Jesus was really the  son of God. The Mormons, honestly I think they are Christians, but a  branch-off cult of Christianity nonetheless. They have an extra book,  their own magic underwear, and endorse polygamy. I get sick of people  saying they aren't Christians, though; I look at it as having your own  (totally fucked up) irrelevant set of beliefs to go along Christianity  as a whole. It's like a whole other denomination, only a bit more  unorthodox.
> 
> And I agree with what you said about Islam, it IS plagiarized. They do,  kind of, sort of, believe in the same God. The thing is, you can believe  in God and still not be a Christian. That's what Judaism is,  essentially. They don't believe the savior ever came. So they follow  God, but don't believe in Jesus. Does that make sense?



The mormons only endorsed polygamy officially for a very short time. Their leader had a magic vision from God telling him to 'stop that naughty nonsense,' _coincidentally_ just after the creation of the state of Utah and enforcement of US marital laws.


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The mormons only endorsed polygamy officially for a very short time. Their leader had a magic vision from God telling him to 'stop that naughty nonsense,' _coincidentally_ just after the creation of the state of Utah and enforcement of US marital laws.



Huh, convenient.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Huh, convenient.



God works in mysterious ways.


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

jfkdas;fasdpfidopahfiaosp


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> God works in mysterious ways.



True dat. "Oh, yeah? Well, God said we couldn't do it anyway, so THERE."


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> God just doesn't protect idiots.



No, he just has special jobs for them in heaven is all.



Eyal Flurry said:


> True dat. "Oh, yeah? Well, God said we couldn't do it anyway, so THERE."



You can't fire me; I quit!


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 23, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Perhaps this is why the most popular world religions are the vague and self contradictorary ones



Of course they are because it leaves room for you to say what ever you want. They have verses that directly contradict each other so you can always just jump around between them and have both opinions at the same time. How very convenient!
And if that doesn't work you can always just "interprete" these verses in different ways.
Maybe god is a lawyer...?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Of course they are because it leaves room for you to say what ever you want. They have verses that directly contradict each other so you can always just jump around between them and have both opinions at the same time. How very convenient!
> And if that doesn't work you can always just "interprete" these verses in different ways.
> Maybe god is a lawyer...?



I'm likely going to tread on some other people's toes here, and for that I apologise- this comment is not aimed at the majority. 
When terms 'old' and 'new' testament are used I've begun to wonder if 'extraverted' and 'introverted' would be better terms respectively. 

For instance it's considered justified to view women or homosexuals as spiritually inferior to men and thus underserving of ceremonial religious roles, in some churches, such as the CoE, because of mantras from the old testament. Various religious organisations think they are justified in teaching the creation myths of the old testament to other people's children. Etcetera, but if you ask these people why they are comfortable wearing clothing of two weaves, eating meat on a friday or believing that the earth is a mobile world rather than an immovable flat-land you'll surely be accused of being a silly pedant- jesus's birth obviously brushes these asside. 

It's as if the old testaement's teachings only count if they're about harassing other people, whereas if they inconveniance the user jesus provides them a get out clause. 

On the other hand there's the new testament, rather more good will to all men and even women material. This seems rather overshadowed and preserved as a personal treat in comparrison to the hatred some groups decide to circulate instead- as demonstrated by the CoE when their christmas message essentially consisted of 'we don't like gays,', a 'Good will to _most _men' christmas.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 23, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm likely going to tread on some other people's toes here, and for that I apologise- this comment is not aimed at the majority.
> When terms 'old' and 'new' testament are used I've begun to wonder if 'extraverted' and 'introverted' would be better terms respectively.
> 
> For instance it's considered justified to view women or homosexuals as spiritually inferior to men and thus underserving of ceremonial religious roles, in some churches, such as the CoE, because of mantras from the old testament. Various religious organisations think they are justified in teaching the creation myths of the old testament to other people's children. Etcetera, but if you ask these people why they are comfortable wearing clothing of two weaves, eating meat on a friday or believing that the earth is a mobile world rather than an immovable flat-land you'll surely be accused of being a silly pedant- jesus's birth obviously brushes these asside.
> ...



This picking and choosing is exactly what I don't like about it. What is god's word good for if you can just ignore certain aspects of it if they make you uncomfortable?
I have heard SO many people say that they completely disregard the old testament. If you then ask them about the ten commandments they tend to get silent rather quickly


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

There are several things people fail to look into and realize. I'm sure the whole "you must hate your neighbor" and "love your neighbor as yourself" argument will be brought up eventually, so I'm going to go ahead and clear that up: the Greek language didn't have an exclamation point, therefore strong language had to be used in order to get a point across. All Jesus was saying was you had to put him first and be willing to give up everything if he called you to do so. 

Also, the thing with Christians being so antsy about "bad language."  I laugh because a few times the word "dung" is used when in actuality the word "shit" should rightfully be there, because "dung" was the Greek language's equivalent to "shit."  Offensive my ass. 

Also, the food laws (the whole "shellfish" argument, mainly). If you think about it, how sanitary would it have been for people of that time to each things that swam around in their own shit when they didn't have the proper means to cook their food the way we do now? The laws were there to protect people from food poisoning. Also, and this is entirely opinion, I believe the things mentioned about homosexuality were also there for the people's protection. Think about it, do you think they had things like condoms? Most likely not, and I'm thinking it was there to protect people from horrible sexually transmitted diseases. That might also have to do with the marriage laws, and by the time Jesus came, they _still_ didn't have any means of protection against such things. And that stuff that seems so ludicrous to people regarding not being able to touch women who had had their period (yeah, gross, I know).  They had no tampons and no underwear to speak of, so you can only imagine... but try not to, because... ew.  

Last but not least, I believe the Old Testament is there to show us where people were then and where we could still be had Jesus not been sacrificed for the salvation of mankind. Jesus basically tells us to love our enemies and the people that offend us and to leave the judging to him, no questions asked. People need to distinguish the historical documents from what is actually meant to be followed: if it seems obsolete, it probably is because it was written by people, and people then didn't know we would have come so far in terms of science and technology as we are now. 

And another thing, there are whole books that aren't even _in_ the bible because man decided from the getgo what should be in the Bible, and that was hundreds of years ago. Think of how much of the Bible we would have left if we tried to snip out the parts we saw irrelevant? That's how it all came to be in the first place; God had nothing to do with its compilation, and I'm sure there are stuff that's just plain shocking that we will never get to see because people then found it too challenging for their tastes.. Know what the Koran doesn't have any errors? It's brand spanking new compared to the Bible, and the King James version has over 1,000 errors in it, and the original texts are in a language about as easy to translate to English as Japanese.

I'd say more, but I have things to do, so I'll leave it at that for now.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 23, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> This picking and choosing is exactly what I don't like about it. What is god's word good for if you can just ignore certain aspects of it if they make you uncomfortable?
> I have heard SO many people say that they completely disregard the old testament. If you then ask them about the ten commandments they tend to get silent rather quickly


The ten commandments were reaffirmed by Jesus. "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Each of these commandments fit in one way or another.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 23, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> There are several things people fail to look into and realize. I'm sure the whole "you must hate your neighbor" and "love your neighbor as yourself" argument will be brought up eventually, so I'm going to go ahead and clear that up: the Greek language didn't have an exclamation point, therefore strong language had to be used in order to get a point across. All Jesus was saying was you had to put him first and be willing to give up everything if he called you to do so.
> 
> Also, the thing with Christians being so antsy about "bad language."  I laugh because a few times the word "dung" is used when in actuality the word "shit" should rightfully be there, because "dung" was the Greek language's equivalent to "shit."  Offensive my ass.
> 
> ...


The practical advice in the bible you allude to might yet still be taken with a pinch of salt, as it also insists that bats are species of birds and that skin conditions should best be cured by a priest spraying bird blood [possibly bat?] on you and then shaving you. 
Yes we can excuse the people who wrote this; as with a large number of ancient cultural traditions, whether we can rationalise them to make sense retrospectively, whether assertions are just as inane as they sound or whether they have been mistranslated is a pesky issue and we're reviewing from the better perspective of our ivory tower. 

But rather than being fair to the ancients I think this highlights an important reality. Our perspective of the universe, from the ivory tower, is far better than people who lived millenia ago, so why should we appeal to them for our guidance at all, when their cryptic mistranslated texts provide an indecipherable mishmash of moral advice without years of study, hypothesis and rationalisation? 

In a similar vein the ancient Pythagoreans should be applauded for their contributiosn to the development of maths, but we've little reason to follow their strange moral codes [which is why none of us observe their religious practices anymore, like urinating away from the sun]. Though perhaps we can rationalise this- peeing towards the sun in an unclothed meditteranean culture probably meant exposing your knackers to intense sunlight, increasing your risk of sun burn and associated cancers, so that's obviously why they did it- it was a health concern.


----------



## Cchytale Murilega (Jan 23, 2013)

Raised as a Christian but later decided to be agnostic.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 23, 2013)

Cchytale Murilega said:


> Raised as a Christian but later decided to be agnostic.



But do you believe in a god or not? You might not know whether it exists or not but you can still believe in it :3 If you don't believe in any sort of deity you ARE an atheist. An agnostic atheist to be exact.


----------



## DarthLeopard (Jan 23, 2013)

I believe in simply existing. We were born and we shall die.


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The practical advice in the bible you allude to might yet still be taken with a pinch of salt, as it also insists that bats are species of birds and that skin conditions should best be cured by a priest spraying bird blood [possibly bat?] on you and then shaving you.


Symbolism for things to come later on. Consider how many instances in the Bible animal sacrifice was required for. The shedding of innocent blood was the key element to the salvation of mankind, and that example you gave is merely a foreshadowing of what was to come later on, which was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And as far as it making no sense whatsoever medically or scientifically, you actually can take it as God performing a miracle for a skin condition they most likely didn't have the means to take care of or prevent. Also, around that time the scientific definition of what birds were did not exist, so the classification of animals wasn't through biology but characteristics and form. Linnean classification was not available at the time the bible was written and it had to be to where the people of those times could understand. The word "bird" in this context is merely used as "owner of the wing,' which comes from the word 'owph meaning to cover, or to fly.
Here it is, for those who are curious:


Spoiler: Leviticus 14:1-8; Leviticus 11:13, 19



*14*_The Lord said to Moses,__ [SUP]2 [/SUP]â€œThese are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest: [SUP]3 [/SUP]The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,[SUP][a][/SUP] [SUP]4 [/SUP]the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. [SUP]5 [/SUP]Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. [SUP]6 [/SUP]He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. [SUP]7 [/SUP]Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
__[SUP]8 [/SUP]â€œThe person to be cleansed must wash their clothes, shave off all their hair and bathe with water; then they will be ceremonially clean. After this they may come into the camp, but they must stay outside their tent for seven days. __[SUP]9 [/SUP]On the seventh day they must shave off all their hair; they must shave their head, their beard, their eyebrows and the rest of their hair. They must wash their clothes and bathe themselves with water, and they will be clean._
*Lev. 11:13, 19: *_And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat._




 


Fallowfox said:


> Yes we can excuse the people who wrote this; as with a large number of ancient cultural traditions, whether we can rationalise them to make sense retrospectively, whether assertions are just as inane as they sound or whether they have been mistranslated is a pesky issue and we're reviewing from the better perspective of our ivory tower.
> 
> But rather than being fair to the ancients I think this highlights an important reality. Our perspective of the universe, from the ivory tower, is far better than people who lived millenia ago, so why should we appeal to them for our guidance at all, when their cryptic mistranslated texts provide an indecipherable mishmash of moral advice without years of study, hypothesis and rationalisation?


We do have a much better understanding, you're right, but further research helps better understand what was meant than jumping to a conclusion based on your own logic. On the other hand, one must ask himself why it is a major concern and whether or not the people's understanding of the universe thousands of years ago should be relevant to the existence of any deity, and why it weighs so heavily on the minds of those who either fight for or against it. What are we doing now, but discovering new things? God didn't just reveal these things to people of Old Testament times. Bronze and musical instruments were an invention of mankind that had to be discovered by mankind. They didn't have NEAR the resources or know-how we have today, because they had to find out for themselves.



Fallowfox said:


> In a similar vein the ancient Pythagoreans should be applauded for their contributiosn to the development of maths, but we've little reason to follow their strange moral codes [which is why none of us observe their religious practices anymore, like urinating away from the sun]. Though perhaps we can rationalise this- peeing towards the sun in an unclothed meditteranean culture probably meant exposing your knackers to intense sunlight, increasing your risk of sun burn and associated cancers, so that's obviously why they did it- it was a health concern.


There is no rationalization for such a thing, and we aren't even talking about the Pythagorean people. With this argument, you are pissing in the wind (pun intended). I understand where you are going with this but at the same time, if they were buck-ass naked then there really isn't any sort of explanation for such a thing except somebody decided it'd be fun to see if people would actually look away from the sun before they took a leak.

And I apologize for taking so long to respond, I had a college class to attend and a shitload of homework to get out of the way.


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Jan 23, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It doesn't because your definitions of agnosticism and atheism seem to be false.
> Someone isn't just an agnostic. Agnosticism just means that you don't know whether there is a god or not. But you can still believe in it!
> Agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge, atheism/atheism is about belief. I am an agnostic atheist for example. I don't know whether there is a god or not but I can't believe in it because of a complete lack of evidence.
> The way you describe yourself you seem to be an agnostic deist. You seem to believe in a general god or higher being that maybe doesn't even have anything to do with us but you are not quite sure about it.



Well I can't believe that there is a god because of the lack of evidence. The was what I was trying to imply, but I believe in something. Maybe it's just faith... Just having a hope in something not particularly a god or higher being.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 23, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Symbolism for things to come later on. Consider how many instances in the Bible animal sacrifice was required for. The shedding of innocent blood was the key element to the salvation of mankind



See "Centuries-dead primitives from inferior societies". The fact that such brutality could be considered 'holy' is one of the main resons I told the Abrahamic religions to go fuck themselves years ago.


----------



## Namba (Jan 23, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> See "Centuries-dead primitives from inferior societies". The fact that such brutality could be considered 'holy' is one of the main resons I told the Abrahamic religions to go fuck themselves years ago.



Yes, but these practices are no longer relevant for people practicing Christianity today. In fact, before the New Testament it wasn't even Christianity; it was mankind having to find other ways to deal until a permanent solution was carried out.

By the way, I'm not trying to change people's minds, I'm just standing by my religious beliefs the same as anybody else.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 24, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Yes, but these practices are no longer relevant for people practicing Christianity today. In fact, before the New Testament it wasn't even Christianity; it was mankind having to find other ways to deal until a permanent solution was carried out.
> 
> By the way, I'm not trying to change people's minds, I'm just standing by my religious beliefs the same as anybody else.



I am curious as to why christianity, or religion in general, is still relevant today. I don't see it serving any particular purpose...

Also, I don't like that some of these old traditions are still being practiced today. They recently allowed jews and muslims to mutilate the genitals of their newborn kids here in Germany for example. It went to court and everything. This is such an immoral thing to do and yet it was allowed under the whole aspect of religion...


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Also, I don't like that some of these old traditions are still being practiced today. They recently allowed jews and muslims to mutilate the genitals of their newborn kids here in Germany for example. It went to court and everything. This is such an immoral thing to do and yet it was allowed under the whole aspect of religion...


   The greatest injustices of law reside not in what is illegal, but rather in what is legal. 
The fact that 'freedom of religion' allows outright cruelty in supposedly civilized nations is repulsive.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 24, 2013)

I think it gets especially bad once people who do this stuff start to make jokes about it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTS6iVpSPI

"My son cried more at his first haircut"... Fuck off! >__>


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 24, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I am curious as to why christianity, or religion in general, is still relevant today. I don't see it serving any particular purpose...
> 
> Also, I don't like that some of these old traditions are still being practiced today. They recently allowed jews and muslims to mutilate the genitals of their newborn kids here in Germany for example. It went to court and everything. This is such an immoral thing to do and yet it was allowed under the whole aspect of religion...



How dare you criticise that! That's religious persecution!!11omg    ( :V )


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> How dare you criticise that! That's religious persecution!!11omg    ( :V )


"Anti-Semite! Nazi! Shkutz filth!"
And then you have the ADL breathing down your neck.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 24, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> How dare you criticise that! That's religious persecution!!11omg    ( :V )



Oh I don't just criticise that! When I heard about the ruling that they are allowed to chop of parts of their childrens' junk "as long as the procedure meets common medical standards" my forehead hit my desk so hard I almost destroyed it on a sub-atomic level...


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 24, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Symbolism for things to come later on. Consider how many instances in the Bible animal sacrifice was required for. The shedding of innocent blood was the key element to the salvation of mankind, and that example you gave is merely a foreshadowing of what was to come later on, which was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And as far as it making no sense whatsoever medically or scientifically, you actually can take it as God performing a miracle for a skin condition they most likely didn't have the means to take care of or prevent. Also, around that time the scientific definition of what birds were did not exist, so the classification of animals wasn't through biology but characteristics and form. Linnean classification was not available at the time the bible was written and it had to be to where the people of those times could understand. The word "bird" in this context is merely used as "owner of the wing,' which comes from the word 'owph meaning to cover, or to fly.
> Here it is, for those who are curious:
> 
> 
> ...



It's ...well a _wee_ bit unevenly weighted to assert that the apparant silliness of abrahamic religions can be rationalised and explained from a narrative perspective, but that similar Pythagorean silliness is 'somebody decided it'd be fun to see if people were really that stupid,'. 

I'm quite sure a pythagorean would view it the other way around.


----------



## Namba (Jan 24, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> It's ...well a _wee_ bit unevenly weighted to assert that the apparant silliness of abrahamic religions can be rationalised and explained from a narrative perspective, but that similar Pythagorean silliness is 'somebody decided it'd be fun to see if people were really that stupid,'.
> 
> I'm quite sure a pythagorean would view it the other way around.



There was a bit of sarcasm that went along with that post; maybe I should have made it more obvious.


----------



## slashlife (Feb 8, 2013)

i'm a christian (protestant) but i keep it to myself. i hate when people go around preaching to others, it gets annoying.


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Feb 9, 2013)

To all you Athiests... you want proof of God and such? Well, here's proof that angels exist, at least. He was angel on Earth, and right now he's up performing for God =3


----------



## Azure (Feb 9, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> "Centuries-dead primitives from inferior societies"


I'd like to play upon this theme for a bit, if I may. Religions by and large were born in times when humankind had little understanding of how things worked. People feared what they didn't understand, and the creation of gods and religion satisfied that for a great majority of people. Religion served as an explanation of natural disasters, diseases and plauges, war, and all manner of things. It also helped to stratify society(albeit unfairly and almost universally in a chauvanist manner)and give authority to laws besides that of "We'll kill you because we say so". So it's sort of a total mind body control thing the ancients invented. But we no longer need that sort of tripe to function as a species. We have reasons why the rain comes or does not, we have reasons why we go to war, we have laws that punish criminals, and we have a fairly complete philosophical understanding of things that we've turned into a system of morals, all without the need for a god. Human beings wish to be observed and appreciated, combined with their need to be assimilated into a higher structure of meaning is what gave birth to a god. Now that we have accomplished all of these things, do we really need all the nonsense that it's dragged from the backward times into the future we have created? In short, it's time we grew the fuck up. That all said, I am a complete atheist. On the incredibly improbable chance that there is a being that predates the creation of the universe as we understand it, it most certainly isn't concerned with what we do in our daily lives, it does not love us or care for us, it does not create miracles to save us from trivial shit, and it most certainly does not care what you wear, eat, do, or anything about you. It is impersonal, only concerned with itself, and if it is there, I'd just like to say that this is some cool shit mang.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Feb 9, 2013)

Azure said:


> On the incredibly improbable chance that there is a being that predates the creation of the universe as we understand it, it most certainly isn't concerned with what we do in our daily lives, it does not love us or care for us, it does not create miracles to save us from trivial shit, and it most certainly does not care what you wear, eat, do, or anything about you. It is impersonal, only concerned with itself, and if it is there, I'd just like to say that this is some cool shit mang.



So in other words: Galactus?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2013)

I think it might be called 'spinosa's god'?


----------



## 905 (Feb 9, 2013)

I consider my self a Quantum Mechanistic. We are but lowly 3 dimensional beings, whom are only capable of perceiving reality and the universe in in spacial form of height, width and depth, as well as being able to partially observe the effects of the fourth dimension, time, granted though, not as a direction but as an effect of matter passing through it. String theory proposes 10 spacial dimensions, M theory 11 and Hilbert Space and Function Space propose infinite dimensions. If this is true, then whats to say that the classical ideas of gods angles and spirits isn't simply higher dimensional beings beings. If we exist in 3, how do we know something doesn't exist in 4, or 5, or 10 or 11? Perhaps there are Q like beings out there, only being able to be seen by us as we can understand them, in a 3 dimensional cross section. Furthermore, since when you break it down to its most basic form, all matter is mostly empty space, with some slight magnetic charge repelling it from other like charged matter. Do we even exist? Or are we but a simulation being run by some higher being, it has been proposed that any universe capable of simulating a less complex then its own universe with in its own confines, is capable of being a simulation it self, in a higher and more advanced reality.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2013)

905 said:


> I consider my self a Quantum Mechanistic. We are but lowly 3 dimensional beings, whom are only capable of perceiving reality and the universe in in spacial form of height, width and depth, as well as being able to partially observe the effects of the fourth dimension, time, granted though, not as a direction but as an effect of matter passing through it. String theory proposes 10 spacial dimensions, M theory 11 and Hilbert Space and Function Space propose infinite dimensions. If this is true, then whats to say that the classical ideas of gods angles and spirits isn't simply higher dimensional beings beings. If we exist in 3, how do we know something doesn't exist in 4, or 5, or 10 or 11? Perhaps there are Q like beings out there, only being able to be seen by us as we can understand them, in a 3 dimensional cross section. Furthermore, since when you break it down to its most basic form, all matter is mostly empty space, with some slight magnetic charge repelling it from other like charged matter. Do we even exist? Or are we but a simulation being run by some higher being, it has been proposed that any universe capable of simulating a less complex then its own universe with in its own confines, is capable of being a simulation it self, in a higher and more advanced reality.



First of all, stop changing the font. You are not special, the font that you chose just makes your post harder to read because of how small it is now.

Second of all, why do dimensions matter? We can't even tell the dimensions that we live in apart! Where does the first dimension end and the second one begin? Or to give a more practical example, if you put three cups of water into a bigger container, where does the first cup end and the second one begin?
Also, we don't even know whether higher dimensions actually exist or not, that is all purely theoretical. In string theory the extra dimensions really just exist to make the math work...
Also also, whether these dimensions exist or not, there is still no evidence for the existence of any gods so it's still silly and unreasonable to believe in them.


----------



## 905 (Feb 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> First of all, stop changing the font. You are not special, the font that you chose just makes your post harder to read because of how small it is now.
> 
> Second of all, why do dimensions matter? We can't even tell the dimensions that we live in apart! Where does the first dimension end and the second one begin? Or to give a more practical example, if you put three cups of water into a bigger container, where does the first cup end and the second one begin?
> Also, we don't even know whether higher dimensions actually exist or not, that is all purely theoretical. In string theory the extra dimensions really just exist to make the math work...
> Also also, whether these dimensions exist or not, there is still no evidence for the existence of any gods so it's still silly and unreasonable to believe in them.



First off, that was an accident, I had copy and pasted a word I couldn't spell and thus fucked the entire font up. Being that it looked worse with multiple non-uniform fonts, I changed them to a single font. No need to be a pretentious dildo about itand assume it was done to be a special snowflake. As for the size issue that_ is_ my mistake, I forget that my monitor is huge. To me, I saw it just fine. Though, quite frankly that's not my problem, but yours. I will try to restrain my self from using that font again in the future so as to prevent further inconvenience. 

Second off isn't religion in it self theoretical by nature as it cannot be proven either way? It could be stated that metaphysics and religion in general are just a vain attempt to ease over mans fear of death, and by remaining intangible being that they have no evidence to support or disprove them they offer that faint glimmer of hope that man seeks in faith. Dimensions matter though because the science behind them is based in logic and math, not blind faith, and eventually can be proven. You can say this is a line, and here is why, and it is fact, and if you are incapable of discerning what a simple 2d line is over a 3d object, then I feel bad for you, sure it can be alot more complicated then that, but it also can be just as simple.  While string theory and M theory and all that is just theory, it still has math and other such hard sciences at it aid, rather then 'a burning talking magic bush told me about a bearded sky man with wings, you just have to believe me, really'. 

Also, if you put three cups of water into a bigger container you can still prove it has three cups worth in it. Though you are correct in assuming it would be near impossible to sort out what portion of water was which cup, them being a homogeneous substance. But say you were a being who could only conceive of that 3 cups of water and container as just a mass of electrons, neutrons and protons, how do you even tell the difference from the container and the water in the first place. You can sort the different amounts of electrons, neutrons, and electrons, and state with fact that this 'water' is different then this 'container' and can sort them even if you cannot see it as 'water and a container'. Just because something existing in 3d cannot perceive 4d space doesn't mean that 4d space has no measurable effect on it. You can't see it as a 4d object, but you can prove its there.

Also also, it is conceivable that any theoretical being, that exists on a theoretical higher spacial dimension would theoretically be able to manipulative matter in a lower dimension, to the awe of beings from that dimension who cannot understand of how, as its outside their grasp on reality. To those observing, how is that any different then classical myth about gods and magic?


----------



## Troj (Feb 9, 2013)

My sense is that everyone needs something that holds their life together, and imbues that life with a sense of meaning, purpose, direction, order, and coherence. That thing can be an organized (or even, disorganized) religion, or it can be a political philosophy, or commitment to a mission or cause, or a hobby, or one's career or vocation, or some grand, over-arching life goal. 

People who _don't_ have this tend to be dysfunctional, and even, dangerous, especially because they tend to be even _more _susceptible, in my experience, to becoming fundies, ideologues, zealots, or annoying pedantic pains in the arse, once they find that Very Special Answer to Everything. Nature abhors a vacuum, after all.

At the end of the day, what matters most in my book is that you find something which will generally help you to function in reality, make sense of your life and your surroundings, derive meaning and enjoyment from your existence, and get along with others. 

One of my favorite bloggers is a liberal Baptist. He's a brilliant writer, a fine philosopher, and his moral compass is generally pointed in the right direction, so, even though he's a theist and I'm not, I'd be looking a gift-horse in the mouth if I chose to raise a stink about that. 

These days, when it comes to religion, I tend to only quibble with or get upset about religious or spiritual beliefs or practices I think are actively pernicious or harmful, or disingenuous or deceptive, or which directly contradict or deny reality or established fact.

Naturally, I also tend to get aggressive with people who claim to share my world view or philosophy, or who adopt some of the labels or identifiers, and then Do It Wrong. But, there's only so much policing I can reasonably do there, before I start coming across as an inquisitor .


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2013)

905 said:


> I consider my self a Quantum Mechanistic. We are but lowly 3 dimensional beings, whom are only capable of perceiving reality and the universe in in spacial form of height, width and depth, as well as being able to partially observe the effects of the fourth dimension, time, granted though, not as a direction but as an effect of matter passing through it. String theory proposes 10 spacial dimensions, M theory 11 and Hilbert Space and Function Space propose infinite dimensions. If this is true, then whats to say that the classical ideas of gods angles and spirits isn't simply higher dimensional beings beings. If we exist in 3, how do we know something doesn't exist in 4, or 5, or 10 or 11? Perhaps there are Q like beings out there, only being able to be seen by us as we can understand them, in a 3 dimensional cross section. Furthermore, since when you break it down to its most basic form, all matter is mostly empty space, with some slight magnetic charge repelling it from other like charged matter. Do we even exist? Or are we but a simulation being run by some higher being, it has been proposed that any universe capable of simulating a less complex then its own universe with in its own confines, is capable of being a simulation it self, in a higher and more advanced reality.



 'Flatland' arguments are ill-concieved. If we appeal to ignorance, by stating the limits of our knowledge, in order to suggest angels and spirits exist, why not pixies, dragons and the loch ness monster?

Perhaps there are amazing pandimensional creatures out there existing in higher dimensions, but unless there is substantial evidence to suggest this is so it would be naive to entertain this idea to any degree greater than curious. 

How does this reasoning all apply to astrology? It doesn't, whether or not higher-dimensional creatures exist astrology's claimed effects on humans are defunkt, its predictions useless and its origins clearly constructed in human culture, rather than physics.




905 said:


> Also also, it is conceivable that any theoretical being, that exists on a  theoretical higher spacial dimension would theoretically be able to  manipulative matter in a lower dimension, to the awe of beings from that  dimension who cannot understand of how, as its outside their grasp on  reality. *To those observing, how is that any different then classical  myth about gods and magic?*



The answer is *very*. If we imagine a series of creatures living on a flat 2 dimensional plane they would not be able to intuitively contemplate a sphere, which extends into a higher dimension they do not experience in their lives. 

However, after the awe of seeing a sphere travel through their world- changing from a pin point to a circle to a pin point and then vanishing- seemingly inexplicable- you would be able to mathematically describe the properties and behaviours of higher-dimensional objects' interactions with the 2d plane, and make accurate predictions about their future. 

Myths, Gods and Magic do not do this and in many cases _cannot_ do this, because of their loose definitions and claims of mysticism.



Troj said:


> My sense is that everyone needs something that holds  their life together, and imbues that life with a sense of meaning,  purpose, direction, order, and coherence. That thing can be an organized  (or even, disorganized) religion, or it can be a political philosophy,  or commitment to a mission or cause, or a hobby, or one's career or  vocation, or some grand, over-arching life goal.
> 
> People who _don't_ have this tend to be dysfunctional, and even, dangerous, especially because they tend to be even _more _susceptible,  in my experience, to becoming fundies, ideologues, zealots, or annoying  pedantic pains in the arse, once they find that Very Special Answer to  Everything. Nature abhors a vacuum, after all.
> 
> ...



There is a difference that needs to be highlighted between functional idea and belief. 

Functional ideas serve purposes, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. The working hypothesis that the plague is spread by bad smells serves a purpose, because you avoid plague and hence do not fall ill. The idea is wrong however. 

Beliefs have an epistemological claim, regardless of function they make a claim to fact, and regardless of their implications people should feel free and when conveniant obliged to point out claims to fact that are not true or well supported...well, that's just my functional idea of what people ought to do concernign this.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 9, 2013)

905 said:


> First off, that was an accident, I had copy and pasted a word I couldn't spell and thus fucked the entire font up. Being that it looked worse with multiple non-uniform fonts, I changed them to a single font. No need to be a pretentious dildo about itand assume it was done to be a special snowflake. As for the size issue that_ is_ my mistake, I forget that my monitor is huge. To me, I saw it just fine. Though, quite frankly that's not my problem, but yours. I will try to restrain my self from using that font again in the future so as to prevent further inconvenience.
> 
> Second off isn't religion in it self theoretical by nature as it cannot be proven either way? It could be stated that metaphysics and religion in general are just a vain attempt to ease over mans fear of death, and by remaining intangible being that they have no evidence to support or disprove them they offer that faint glimmer of hope that man seeks in faith. Dimensions matter though because the science behind them is based in logic and math, not blind faith, and eventually can be proven. You can say this is a line, and here is why, and it is fact, and if you are incapable of discerning what a simple 2d line is over a 3d object, then I feel bad for you, sure it can be alot more complicated then that, but it also can be just as simple.  While string theory and M theory and all that is just theory, it still has math and other such hard sciences at it aid, rather then 'a burning talking magic bush told me about a bearded sky man with wings, you just have to believe me, really'.
> 
> ...



I generally don't live my life based on assumptions. I like to live it based on facts, things that I actually know. And I do know that there is no evidence for the existence of gods, that I can't see other dimensions, that we have no way to detect other dimensions and that I can't distinguish between the three spacial dimensions.
Personally I just like to get my hope from stuff where I actually know that it exists. Like my friends and family.



Troj said:


> My sense is that everyone needs something that holds their life together, and imbues that life with a sense of meaning, purpose, direction, order, and coherence. That thing can be an organized (or even, disorganized) religion, or it can be a political philosophy, or commitment to a mission or cause, or a hobby, or one's career or vocation, or some grand, over-arching life goal.
> 
> People who _don't_ have this tend to be dysfunctional, and even, dangerous, especially because they tend to be even _more _susceptible, in my experience, to becoming fundies, ideologues, zealots, or annoying pedantic pains in the arse, once they find that Very Special Answer to Everything. Nature abhors a vacuum, after all.
> 
> ...



My point is simply that I believe that the world would be a better place if people wouldn't get their hope from a mass delusion.



Fallowfox said:


> How does this reasoning all apply to astrology? It doesn't, whether or not higher-dimensional creatures exist astrology's claimed effects on humans are defunkt, its predictions useless and its origins clearly constructed in human culture, rather than physics.



It doesn't. Mainly because we KNOW that stars and planets exist and we CAN measure that they have no meaningful/measurable effect on us.


----------



## TheMaskedBandit (Feb 9, 2013)

Agonistic probably. I don't like to rule any possibilities out, but religion is more drama I don't need in my life.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2013)

I didn't realise this was not the astrology thread, woopsy. However it's still a good example.


----------



## Troj (Feb 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> My point is simply that I believe that the world would be a better place if people wouldn't get their hope from a mass delusion.



Perhaps, but the instincts, yearnings, and tendencies that cause people to gravitate towards "mass delusion" appear to be largely ingrained, for good or ill.

Expecting humans to deny or abandon those religious or spiritual yearnings or tendencies altogether isn't all that different from right-wing evangelicals expecting people to just deny or abandon their feelings of sexual lust. Given what we know about the human body and the human brain, for most people, it ain't gonna happen like that.

So, given that, I'm more interested in the question of how people can be guided or persuaded to channel their inclinations or instincts towards positive, pro-social, progressive ends, and away from negative, regressive, stupid ones.


----------



## Furry Anarchy (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm an Atheist but i don't have a problem with people that do have a religion unless they try and convert me. Also i think religion causes more trouble but thats just my opinion.


----------



## 905 (Feb 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I generally don't live my life based on assumptions. I like to live it based on facts, things that I actually know. And I do know that there is no evidence for the existence of gods, that I can't see other dimensions, that we have no way to detect other dimensions and that I can't distinguish between the three spacial dimensions.
> Personally I just like to get my hope from stuff where I actually know that it exists. Like my friends and family.



In the 1930s the notion of atomic chain reaction what just an assumption, not considered fact. When Leo Szilard proposed that if a nuclear reaction produces neutrons, these would cause further reactions, which would then become self perpetuating, he theorized that mixing of lighter known isotopes would produce enough neutrons for his reaction. This was wrong, and when he tried, it failed as he did not propose fission as the mechanism, as fission hadn't even been discovered. Therefor, at the time nuclear chain reaction was not fact, because its hard science to explain it had yet to be realized. 

And there are ways to detect other dimensions, as they have measurable effects on our world, one being time-dilation, which, actually exists.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2013)

905 said:


> In the 1930s the notion of atomic chain reaction what just an assumption, not considered fact. When Leo Szilard proposed that if a nuclear reaction produces neutrons, these would cause further reactions, which would then become self perpetuating, he theorized that mixing of lighter known isotopes would produce enough neutrons for his reaction. This was wrong, and when he tried, it failed as he did not propose fission as the mechanism, as fission hadn't even been discovered. Therefor, at the time nuclear chain reaction was not fact, because its hard science to explain it had yet to be realized.
> 
> And there are ways to detect other dimensions, as they have measurable effects on our world, one being time-dilation, which, actually exists.



And clearly, in line with scientific inquest, any claims related to higher dimensions should be treated as curious hypotheses to be tested until such a time hat the tests yield positive or negative results. I really don't see the discusion here?


----------



## Azure (Feb 9, 2013)

Troj said:


> Perhaps, but the instincts, yearnings, and tendencies that cause people to gravitate towards "mass delusion" appear to be largely ingrained, for good or ill.
> 
> Expecting humans to deny or abandon those religious or spiritual yearnings or tendencies altogether isn't all that different from right-wing evangelicals expecting people to just deny or abandon their feelings of sexual lust. Given what we know about the human body and the human brain, for most people, it ain't gonna happen like that.
> 
> So, given that, I'm more interested in the question of how people can be guided or persuaded to channel their inclinations or instincts towards positive, pro-social, progressive ends, and away from negative, regressive, stupid ones.


The problem is that sexual instincts are part of the biology of a human being whilst believing in complete utter bullshit that is pushed on it by society at large is not. Religion is a SELFISH thing, it only seeks to perpetuate itself. People should be persuaded to see reason instead of fantasy. Some will make the argument that having religion and keeping it all to themselves isn't harmful to anybody, but that is patent bullshit. If the pass it on to one person by word of mouth, give a single dollar to a church, evangelize one time, or even just express an opinion based on that belief, they are doing harm by perpetuating the most harmful lie in humanitys history and giving it credence in the eyes of others, further perpetuating its existence and validity. There are more bloody bodies, shattered lives, and fucked up cultures that are directly attributable to religion than any person can count. As long as it exists it is the biggest barrier to the prosperity of the human race. Turning it to positive, pro-social, progressive ends is but the barest beginnings to stamping it out. And who needs it anyway? Like I said in another thread, religion is tolerated solely on the comfort it gives the believer, to the exclusion of all else. A more harmful thing in our history cannot be expressed. And as far as the argument people express that if you tear down religion people will simply find something else to do harm in the name of, I cannot think of a more widely accepted and fought for lie that will fit the bill. Except of course money, but we already fight about that anyway, so no dice.


----------



## Rivers Bluetail (Feb 9, 2013)

Meh, I put other because I don't know how to describe it. Pantheist? I don't know, I prefer learning through personal experience. To be honest, it's fairly close to what many Native American tribes would have practiced, but with less ritual. I try to tune myself into the world, but I don't do dances or whatever. 

Actually, I'm a wizard. :V

Edit: LOL at unitology reference. That's an awesome game.


----------



## Troj (Feb 9, 2013)

Azure said:


> The problem is that sexual instincts are part of the biology of a human being whilst believing in complete utter bullshit that is pushed on it by society at large is not.



You're talking software. You're talking about the particular schemas and systems of beliefs people acquire or adopt.

I'm alluding to the hardware, or the core stuff that causes people to ask "religious" questions, feel "religious" feelings, and seek the trappings of religion or spirituality in the first place. 

For example: 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html 
http://neurowhoa.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-more-god-spot.html
http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html

Some people's core programming really seems to lean strongly in favor of theism, while other people's (like mine) leans strongly in the other direction, with a whole lot o' people falling in between those two poles. 



> Religion is a SELFISH thing, it only seeks to perpetuate itself.



Same goes for other memes. Same goes for genes.

Religion has also been used throughout time to provide a rationale for necessary social norms, and pro-social behaviors, so it can certainly go either way. (And, of course, you don't necessarily need religion to be either anti- or pro-social.)



> People should be persuaded to see reason instead of fantasy.



People also shouldn't be xenophobic, tribalistic, covetous, short-sighted, hypocritical, envious, superstitious, or status-seeking. They should realize that all of those negative behaviors are just evolutionary hold-overs from the stone age, and be reasonable, rational, analytical, self-aware, and empathetic.

Unfortunately, not gonna happen.

Well, and in my experience, most people really aren't convinced just by pure "reason." Human beings are _emotional _creatures; they process their world first and foremost through their hindbrain and midbrain, and then rationalize what they've already processed with their forebrain. When people change their views or opinions, it's typically because something affected them on an _emotional_ level first. 

Hell, your brain is specially wired to scan the world for confirmation of your beliefs and assumptions, while dismissing or rationalizing anything that might contradict or challenge them overtly. 

To wit:

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP102934.pdf
http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/Taber&Lodge_The Rationalizing Voter.pdf
http://thinkandwonderwonderandthink.blogspot.com/2011/08/confirmation-bias-exposed.html

This is why atheists and theists can yammer at each other all day long, and not get anywhere. 



> Turning it to positive, pro-social, progressive ends is but the barest beginnings to stamping it out.



Or, at least neutering it. 

Point being, simply trying to go up against religion itself, and belief in a higher power itself, simply won't work, in my estimation. It'll be like pushing water uphill, and everyone on all sides will just come away feeling needlessly bitter, frustrated, hurt, and angry.

Additionally, I just think it's stupid and wasteful when my fellow atheists pick fights with religious moderates and theological liberals--who are often pro-science, pro-education, pro-gay, and mostly or wholly willing to tolerate and/or embrace people of other faiths and non-faiths-- when it would make a lot more sense for everyone to join forces to fight the _fundamentalists!_

Know your enemy, pick your battles.


----------



## Azure (Feb 9, 2013)

Troj said:


> You're talking software. You're talking about the particular schemas and systems of beliefs people acquire or adopt.
> 
> I'm alluding to the hardware, or the core stuff that causes people to ask "religious" questions, feel "religious" feelings, and seek the trappings of religion or spirituality in the first place.
> 
> ...


I read those articles, and they seem to come to nothing conclusive about whether it exists or not, unless you are epileptic, which is hardly a reliant control group to test the rest of humanity against. Religion is very clearly a social construct, whether or not we developed neural responses to it over time is irrelevant to the fact that it is utter nonsense, and very clearly an evolutionary crutch we ought to cast aside as the detractions outweight the benefits many times over.




Troj said:


> Same goes for other memes. Same goes for genes.
> 
> Religion has also been used throughout time to provide a rationale for necessary social norms, and pro-social behaviors, so it can certainly go either way. (And, of course, you don't necessarily need religion to be either anti- or pro-social.)


As I stated before, it has run its course and its usefulness. It does more damage than it heals. It even shows that it is becoming outmoded by the sheer increasing number of people who don't believe in it, though these are among the more well educated and economically sounds peoples of this planet. Poor people of poor nations have always turned to religion to heal their ills, notice the rise of Islam in the shitholes of the world swell in numbers, a classic case of people who cannot think for themselves turning to false comforts for their own supposed benefit, to the detriment of the world.



Troj said:


> People also shouldn't be xenophobic, tribalistic, covetous, short-sighted, hypocritical, envious, superstitious, or status-seeking. They should realize that all of those negative behaviors are just evolutionary hold-overs from the stone age, and be reasonable, rational, analytical, self-aware, and empathetic.
> 
> Unfortunately, not gonna happen.


Well a man can dream, and rant and rave and fight it every step of the way, even if it takes a million years perhaps we will be free of our childish trappings.



Troj said:


> Well, and in my experience, most people really aren't convinced just by pure "reason." Human beings are _emotional _creatures; they process their world first and foremost through their hindbrain and midbrain, and then rationalize what they've already processed with their forebrain. When people change their views or opinions, it's typically because something affected them on an _emotional_ level first.


An unfortunate drawback of our species, and a flaw I don't share thankfully. Thats what the whole growing up part is about, not to make the world cold and logical, but to at least critically examine the very basics of it to the benefit of the entire species. We are coming around rather slowly, but steadily I would say. Feelings it seems are the progenitor of the willful ignorance many people wallow in when they put their trust in something that is purely a fairy tale. What a sad, pathetic species we are.



Troj said:


> Point being, simply trying to go up against religion itself, and belief in a higher power itself, simply won't work, in my estimation. It'll be like pushing water uphill, and everyone on all sides will just come away feeling needlessly bitter, frustrated, hurt, and angry.
> 
> Additionally, I just think it's stupid and wasteful when my fellow atheists pick fights with religious moderates and theological liberals--who are often pro-science, pro-education, pro-gay, and mostly or wholly willing to tolerate and/or embrace people of other faiths and non-faiths-- when it would make a lot more sense for everyone to join forces to fight the _fundamentalists!_
> 
> Know your enemy, pick your battles.


I would rather push water uphill all my life than give a single kind thought to what is the paramount of ignorance of human society. I don't care how tolerant religions have become, it's not about tolerance. The fundamentalists will be the last to disappear of any religion, as is always the case. First as last, they will fall when there are no longer people who give their faiths credence, which means the moderates must be won away from it rather than allowed to combine it with what we already know to be true. They don't get brownie points for being pro anything or anti anything, that is just the basics of being a good human being.


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

Azure said:


> I read those articles, and they seem to come to nothing conclusive about whether it exists or not, unless you are epileptic, which is hardly a reliant control group to test the rest of humanity against.



Point is, what most people tend to define as "religious experiences" appear to originate largely in the temporal lobe. 

This is interesting on a number of levels--in particular, the bit about the helmet reportedly not working on Dawkins:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml



> An unfortunate drawback of our species, and a flaw I don't share thankfully.



But wait--isn't the view that religion is a straight-up pernicious, dangerous mass delusion and a harmful fairy tale that must be fought at all costs, for as long as it takes, basically an emotionally-driven sentiment--one supported by reasoned arguments and evidence, sure, but an emotional sentiment all the same?

Reason and emotion work together by shaping and influence one another as part of a continuous feedback loop. But, the processing loop begins in "emotional/instinctual" part of the brain, _not_ the "higher thinking" part. 

So, basically, any religious person looking to "prove" the existence of their god to you would have to do more than just quote, say, the Summa Theologica and the collected works of C.S. Lewis, because that kind of reasoning would just ring hollow to you, yes? Likewise, the religious person will typically remain unconvinced of god's non-existence, even if you quote the best passages from Demon-Haunted World. 

You'd both be at an impasse, because the arguments and ideas that are meaningful or salient to YOU are not salient, meaningful, or persuasive to the other person. Ergo, you usually can't just "logic" someone out of their position, if they're not already receptive to your logic. 



> First as last, they will fall when there are no longer people who give their faiths credence,



Or, they'll emerge somewhere else, because the darker aspects of human nature aren't wedded to any one world view or philosophy. Eradicate one ideology, and people will just become fanatical about the next one.

When it comes to fundamentalism, there'll always be "gatekeepers" among us who want to purify "the Movement"/nation/world by insisting on absolute standards, and by working to eradicate or stomp out everyone who is morally, intellectually, philosophically, or otherwise "impure."

After all, Mao Tse Tung didn't traffic in any of that "supernaturalism" business--quite the opposite, in fact, since he wanted to wipe the slate completely clean of of any and all remnants of Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and folk religion, in the name of modernity--and he still managed to be a right evil bastard on practically every level. 



> It even shows that it is becoming outmoded by the sheer increasing number of people who don't believe in it, though these are among the more well educated and economically sounds peoples of this planet. Poor people of poor nations have always turned to religion to heal their ills, notice the rise of Islam in the shitholes of the world swell in numbers, a classic case of people who cannot think for themselves turning to false comforts for their own supposed benefit, to the detriment of the world.



Yup, fair enough. People whose lives are brutish, short, and controlled largely by outside forces are more likely to seek solace in the thought of a happy afterlife and a bigger plan, and the people at the top of the food chain will often use that hope in the hereafter to keep everyone else in line.

As people gain greater control over their lives, and come to enjoy their lives more, it stands to reason that they won't be _as _invested in their "eternal reward," even if they might still believe in it. 



> even if it takes a million years perhaps we will be free of our childish trappings.



My suspicion is that we'd probably just evolve or develop new ones. 



> They don't get brownie points for being pro anything or anti anything, that is just the basics of being a good human being.



Well, and what you or I might think of as "the basics" of being a good person might be a novel concept to a lot of people in many parts of the world, unfortunately.

When there are enough "bad" (or misguided, or stupid, or whatever) human beings in positions of influence,  pull, and power, my thought is you need all the good human beings you  can get!


----------



## TeenageAngst (Feb 10, 2013)

The sheer number of walls of text on this page alone make it impossible to even begin to catch up. That being said, all that's needed is a Proudclad variant and this'd be CE to a T. With that said, I can't get involved in this.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

905 said:


> In the 1930s the notion of atomic chain reaction what just an assumption, not considered fact. When Leo Szilard proposed that if a nuclear reaction produces neutrons, these would cause further reactions, which would then become self perpetuating, he theorized that mixing of lighter known isotopes would produce enough neutrons for his reaction. This was wrong, and when he tried, it failed as he did not propose fission as the mechanism, as fission hadn't even been discovered. Therefor, at the time nuclear chain reaction was not fact, because its hard science to explain it had yet to be realized.
> 
> And there are ways to detect other dimensions, as they have measurable effects on our world, one being time-dilation, which, actually exists.



This argument is entirely irrelevant in my opinion for one very simple reason: Atoms actually exist. And even at the time the available evidence suggested that it should be possible to figure out how to smash them into pieces.
Science doesn't work on assumptions. You look at what you have and then you try to figure out what you can do with it. This then opens new doors for new hypotheses.

Time dilation has nothing to do with other dimensions. It is just proof for the relativity of time.


----------



## Rasly (Feb 10, 2013)

Atheism is no religion you crazy fucks, its just a word that vatican assholes have invented to make healthy people look like religious psychos. I am a heretic, all religious zombie are christians.


----------



## Rilvor (Feb 10, 2013)

Why is there no Blood For Lord Camazotz option?


----------



## Saiko (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Also, we don't even know whether higher dimensions actually exist or not, that is all purely theoretical. In string theory the extra dimensions really just exist to make the math work...


Mathematics is the fundamental language of the universe and directly corresponds to reality. Even in elementary calculus, you can see this. For example, acceleration corresponds to the derivative of velocity. Velocity corresponds to the derivative of position. Additionally, Einstein's work was mathematical and precisely (and correctly) predicted the distortion of light around the sun. His predictions were based on the fact that the math worked.

Similarly, the math of string theory works with the existence of multiple dimensions. Despite the holes in the theory (note that Relativity has its own holes as well), this is powerful evidence for their being real. Finally, we can already extrapolate to higher dimensions as indicated by concepts such as the klein bottle, tesseract, and E8; further supporting their existence.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Saiko said:


> Mathematics is the fundamental language of the universe and directly corresponds to reality. Even in elementary calculus, you can see this. For example, acceleration corresponds to the derivative of velocity. Velocity corresponds to the derivative of position. Additionally, Einstein's work was mathematical and precisely (and correctly) predicted the distortion of light around the sun. His predictions were based on the fact that the math worked.
> 
> Similarly, the math of string theory works with the existence of multiple dimensions. Despite the holes in the theory (note that Relativity has its own holes as well), this is powerful evidence for their being real. Finally, we can already extrapolate to higher dimensions as indicated by concepts such as the klein bottle, tesseract, and E8; further supporting their existence.



We should still remember that maths is anthropogenic. It still has a human bias.

Whilst some mathematical 'fudge factors' actually turn out to be true a great deal of mathematical rules and predictions also turn out to be wrong or low resolution, such as 'momentum is the product of mass and velocity'. 

Whilst the case for higher dimensions is very very good,  'Haben Sie einen gesehen?' is a very important question. [even if the man who asked it turned out to be wrong he was still right to continue asking it]



Furthermore, as this is a religious discussion, the relevance of higher dimensions to the existance of gods and angels is about as strong as the relevance of quantum mechanics to homeopathic medicine. El zilcho.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

I guess i'm an agnostic, but i do believe in miracles. My views change a lot, because i do not know what to think anymore.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Atheism is no religion you crazy fucks, its just a word that vatican assholes have invented to make healthy people look like religious psychos. I am a heretic, all religious zombie are christians.


 And extreme muslims?


----------



## Rivers Bluetail (Feb 10, 2013)

Believing too extremely in anything is dangerous. Keeping an open mind is what allows progression. A life full of "what ifs" is a lot fuller than a life full of self-censorship and narrow mindedness.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Rivers Bluetail said:


> Believing too extremely in anything is dangerous. Keeping an open mind is what allows progression. A life full of "what ifs" is a lot fuller than a life full of self-censorship and narrow mindedness.


 Your an agnostic i'm guessing?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Saiko said:


> Mathematics is the fundamental language of the universe and directly corresponds to reality. Even in elementary calculus, you can see this. For example, acceleration corresponds to the derivative of velocity. Velocity corresponds to the derivative of position. Additionally, Einstein's work was mathematical and precisely (and correctly) predicted the distortion of light around the sun. His predictions were based on the fact that the math worked.
> 
> Similarly, the math of string theory works with the existence of multiple dimensions. Despite the holes in the theory (note that Relativity has its own holes as well), this is powerful evidence for their being real. Finally, we can already extrapolate to higher dimensions as indicated by concepts such as the klein bottle, tesseract, and E8; further supporting their existence.



Math isn't a language. It is just a concept that we invented to explain the world in a very fundamental way.
It isn't a langauge, it just interprets and describes logical patterns.



TheMetalVelocity said:


> And extreme muslims?



Islam is just a plagiarised version of christianity with even more evil BS in it.



TheMetalVelocity said:


> I guess i'm an agnostic, but i do believe in miracles. My views change a lot, because i do not know what to think anymore.





TheMetalVelocity said:


> Your an agnostic i'm guessing?



Why would you guess that? Agnosticism doesn't explain a persons belief. Agnosticism is ONLY about knowledge. An agnostic can still be a theist for example!
Also, why do you believe in miracles?


----------



## Rivers Bluetail (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Your an agnostic i'm guessing?


One could say. I like to believe that there's a spirit of life that connects all of us, whether that be a scientific phenomenon or one that cannot be explained through conventional wisdom. I tend to spout hippie bullshit all over the place when it comes to spirituality, my views change often.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Your an agnostic i'm guessing?





Rivers Bluetail said:


> One could say. I like to believe that there's a spirit of life that connects all of us, whether that be a scientific phenomenon or one that cannot be explained through conventional wisdom. I tend to spout hippie bullshit all over the place when it comes to spirituality, my views change often.



Ok, question... What is your definition of agnosticism? Because judging by what you two just said I think you don't even know what it means


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Maths *is *a language. 'The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting  of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.'

Rivers, you sound like a deist, pantheism or animism. Something of that description. 

The metalvelocity, you sound like a negative atheist.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Maths *is *a language. 'The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting  of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.'



The way we use it? Probably. I think that really is a language.
However, the concept that it describes, as in maths being the language of the universe? No. I don't think so.


----------



## Rasly (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> And extreme muslims?


If you know history, you know that our christians are just as extreme. Just because we have managed to put an end to religious madness and forced our crazy christians to behave, dont mean they have become less fucked up then muslims, if we give them as much power as they had just 400 years ago, they gona start burn people and attack other countries non stop.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Rasly said:


> If you know history, you know that our christians are just as extreme. Just because we have managed to put an end to religious madness and forced our crazy christians to behave, dont mean they have become less fucked up then muslims, if we give them as much power as they had just 400 years ago, they gona start burn people and attack other countries non stop.


 I know that. That doesn't cancel out what i just said. I never said they didn't do anything. I am talking about currently. People talk about Christians, while we get planes flown into our buildings by extreme muslims, in fact, some of our country defends them.


----------



## Rivers Bluetail (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Ok, question... What is your definition of agnosticism? Because judging by what you two just said I think you don't even know what it means


It's a healthy skepticism. Granted, I took the definition fairly loosely there. Obligatory dictionary definition: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

So I suppose I'm more spiritual. I don't know. I can't wrap my head around it. I'm a skeptic, but I try to take most things at face value.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

OOPS I DP'd the forums :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Rivers Bluetail said:


> It's a healthy skepticism. Granted, I took the definition fairly loosely there. Obligatory dictionary definition: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
> 
> So I suppose I'm more spiritual. I don't know. I can't wrap my head around it. I'm a skeptic, but I try to take most things at face value.



To make it short, agnosticism only describes that you don't _know_ whether there is a god/gods or not. It doesn't say anything about your _beliefs_. For example, you can be an agnostic but stil believe in god.
It doesn't even have anything to do with skepticism. As an agnostic you really just admit not to know about things that can't be known by their very nature.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Rivers Bluetail said:


> One could say. I like to believe that there's a spirit of life that connects all of us, whether that be a scientific phenomenon or one that cannot be explained through conventional wisdom. I tend to spout hippie bullshit all over the place when it comes to spirituality, my views change often.


 My views change often as well. I believe in miracles because they always tend to happen on time, even the negative ones. I don't think the negative one's are called miracles, but that best describes those type of things.


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I believe in miracles because they always tend to happen on time, even the negative ones. I don't think the negative one's are called miracles, but that best describes those type of things.



You mean, like Johnny Test continually being renewed each season?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> My views change often as well. I believe in miracles because they always tend to happen on time, even the negative ones. I don't think the negative one's are called miracles, but that best describes those type of things.



Can you give us an example for a miracle?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Can you give us an example for a miracle?


 Do i have to? It's kind of hard to explain because it works in complicated ways, you would have to be inside my shoes to understand. Is this some kind of proof test for an atheist, so I could be politically corrected when I don't give you the answer that satisfies you?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Do i have to? It's kind of hard to explain because it works in complicated ways, *you would have to be inside my shoes to understand*. Is this some kind of proof test for an atheist, so I could be politically corrected when I don't give you the answer that satisfies you?



And that is why I don't believe in miracles  The bolded part is exactly why the whole concept of miracles and all other supernatural claims completely fall apart. It only works from _your_ perspective. And it always works in complicated or mysterious ways...
See, just because you can't explain something that doesn't mean that others can't explain it as well :3


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> And that is why I don't believe in miracles  The bolded part is exactly why the whole concept of miracles and all other supernatural claims completely fall apart. It only works from _your_ perspective. And it always works in complicated or mysterious ways...
> See, just because you can't explain something that doesn't mean that others can't explain it as well :3


 Everyone has a different experience in life. Because I see them myself, means that I am wrong? To have people say you are crazy and things that happened to you are fake makes it harder for you to get a message out. I had evil things happen to me, I get days where a bunch of bad things happen in a nutshell. Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it wasn't real. You can't judge other people's lives, especially when you aren't in their shoes.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Do i have to? It's kind of hard to explain because it works in complicated ways, you would have to be inside my shoes to understand. Is this some kind of proof test for an atheist, so I could be politically corrected when I don't give you the answer that satisfies you?


It's called burden of proof. If you can't give even an example, there is nothing to go on when finding said burden. Finding 20 bux in the street ain't no god given miracle. Personal anecdotes don't translate well into science, so make with the miracle talk or be assumed wrong. Even your personal experiences are subject to the laws of the universe as we know it, so unless you leapt off a building and gravity clearly didn't assert itself, then what exactly are you talking about?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Miraculous is a biword for ignorant. 

x happened to me, it was amazing and I have no explanation. I'll choc it up to supernatural forces.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Everyone has a different experience in life. Because I see them myself, means that I am wrong? To have people say you are crazy and things that happened to you are fake makes it harder for you to get a message out. I had evil things happen to me, I get days where a bunch of bad things happen in a nutshell. Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it wasn't real. You can't judge other people's lives, especially when you aren't in their shoes.



Good and bad things happen to all of us. That doesn't prove anything.
We lost our house in 1999. I had nothing left and since it happened while we were visiting my father's parents I am very lucky to be alive. Is that one of those bad miralces?
I am not judging your life. I am simply saying that the way you look at life and reality itself is very unreasonable.



Azure said:


> It's called burden of proof. If you can't give even an example, there is nothing to go on when finding said burden. Finding 20 bux in the street ain't no god given miracle. Personal anecdotes don't translate well into science, so make with the miracle talk or be assumed wrong. Even your personal experiences are subject to the laws of the universe as we know it, so unless you leapt off a building and gravity clearly didn't assert itself, then what exactly are you talking about?



Pretty much this.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> And extreme muslims?


Hyperaggressive, _exploding _zombies.


----------



## Rivers Bluetail (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm not sure that communing with spirit animals and connecting myself to the world *actually* does anything, but I quite enjoy the comfort and meditating. Connecting coincidences and thinking that they mean something is kinda fun, too. 

Long story short, for me it's a hugbox.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Azure said:


> It's called burden of proof. If you can't give even an example, there is nothing to go on when finding said burden. Finding 20 bux in the street ain't no god given miracle. Personal anecdotes don't translate well into science, so make with the miracle talk or be assumed wrong. Even your personal experiences are subject to the laws of the universe as we know it, so unless you leapt off a building and gravity clearly didn't assert itself, then what exactly are you talking about?


 It's not just the $20, it's how it connects to your past to present based on experiences in life, and why you feel it was there for you. And about the gravity thing. That is something you feel would be a miracle to you, doesn't mean that's how others feel it.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Rivers Bluetail said:


> I'm not sure that communing with spirit animals and connecting myself to the world *actually* does anything, but I quite enjoy the comfort and meditating. Connecting coincidences and thinking that they mean something is kinda fun, too.
> 
> Long story short, for me it's a hugbox.


 You are right, you think a lot like me buddy. It's nice to find people that relate to me XD


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> It's not just the $20, it's how it connects to your past to present based on experiences in life, and why you feel it was there for you. And about the gravity thing. That is something you feel would be a miracle to you, doesn't mean that's how others feel it.



It's the attribution of anthropomorphism to coincidence.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> It's not just the $20, it's how it connects to your past to present based on experiences in life, and why you feel it was there for you. And about the gravity thing. That is something you feel would be a miracle to you, doesn't mean that's how others feel it.



Experiences are irrelevant when it comes to cold facts. Your past and present also don't matter in that regard.
Again, good and bad things happen to all of us. This has absolutely nothing to do with miracles!
And besides, how extremely good or extremely bad does something have to be to qualify as a miracle? Are they just rare events? For example, which of these cases would qualify as a miracle: Winning the lottery? Or surviving being shot in the head?
I just don't get it because so far no one ever bothered to explain what a miracle even is!


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

I can make myself feel anger mulling over hypothetical situations with different sorts of people, like some kind of dark meditation XD


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

Supernormal=!Supernatural.

By this, I mean that an event or occurrence we can't yet explain using our established or standard tools or knowledge isn't necessarily supernatural, metaphysical, miraculous, or otherwise in violation of the laws of the universe.

When something appears to violate or break the laws of physics or nature, I'd argue that this is just an indication that there is some higher law or principle which our current tools or methods (or, especially, our own senses) haven't been able to reveal or make sense of yet.

But, as our tools and methods become more refined, and more precise, our understanding of the universe expands and deepens.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> It's not just the $20, it's how it connects to your past to present based on experiences in life, and why you feel it was there for you. And about the gravity thing. That is something you feel would be a miracle to you, doesn't mean that's how others feel it.


Okay so no examples then? As I said, I am unconcerned with how you FEEL about it, feelings don't equate into science well, if at all. I know of what you speak of after a fashion, things have happened in my life that, looking back, I feel that if it had been any other way I would have gone to complete ruin. But it remains that personal experience is still subject to all the laws of the universe, be it yours or mine. It seems to me you think a miracle in nothing more than an exercise in creative reasoning about why this or that happened, and has nothing to do with what an actual miracle is defined as, which happens to be:


*1.*an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or naturalpowers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

*2.*such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.




so either your definition is wrong, or you leapt off a building and refused to fall down.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Experiences are irrelevant when it comes to cold facts. Your past and present also don't matter in that regard.
> Again, good and bad things happen to all of us. This has absolutely nothing to do with miracles!
> And besides, how extremely good or extremely bad does something have to be to qualify as a miracle? Are they just rare events? For example, which of these cases would qualify as a miracle: Winning the lottery? Or surviving being shot in the head?
> I just don't get it because so far no one ever bothered to explain what a miracle even is!



To me a miracle is an event so amazing that it makes me fall to my knees in recognition of the divine. 

...but that includes braintumours.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Troj said:


> Supernormal=!Supernatural.
> 
> By this, I mean that an event or occurrence we can't yet explain using our established or standard tools or knowledge isn't necessarily supernatural, metaphysical, miraculous, or otherwise in violation of the laws of the universe.
> 
> When something appears to violate or break the laws of physics or nature, I'd argue that this is just an indication that there is some higher law or principle which our current tools or methods haven't been able to reveal or make sense of yet.



A good example for this would be black holes. We were unable to explain them through general relativity but we actually can explain them now because of special relativity! That doesn't make general relativity false, it just wasn't a suitable tool to describe black holes.



Fallowfox said:


> To me a miracle is an event so amazing that it makes me fall to my knees in recognition of the divine.
> 
> ...but that includes braintumours.



Drugs would do the trick as well I guess :3


----------



## Rasly (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> People talk about Christians, while we get planes flown into our buildings by extreme muslims, in fact, some of our country defends them.


Well, it is connected. Christians is a greek word, that mean someone who follows christ, and christ means someone who belongs to someone or something, so literally, muslims are christians too, because they follow some guy who got imagenary friends in his head that tell him what everyone has to do.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Experiences are irrelevant when it comes to cold facts. Your past and present also don't matter in that regard.
> Again, good and bad things happen to all of us. This has absolutely nothing to do with miracles!
> And besides, how extremely good or extremely bad does something have to be to qualify as a miracle? Are they just rare events? For example, which of these cases would qualify as a miracle: Winning the lottery? Or surviving being shot in the head?
> I just don't get it because so far no one ever bothered to explain what a miracle even is!


 Why do i need to prove cold facts, when it's my own experience and has nothing to do with anyone else? The thing is, i try to find a reasonable explanation of why things happen to me, but i can't, so i see it as something supernatural. How it happens, when it happens, and why it happens tends to come together.


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it wasn't real. You can't judge other people's lives, especially when you aren't in their shoes.



I believe we live in a universe devoid of objective meaning, purpose, or morality.

But, I believe our lives become profoundly enriched when we live as if our lives had real meaning or significance, when we choose to act as moral beings, and when we make sense of reality by ascribing narratives or stories to it.

We also can't help but see patterns in and create stories about why and how reality works--it's how our brains our wired! Our brains tend to hate meaninglessness, noise, and chaos.

Our own personal experiences are very powerful, very significant, and very real_--to us_. I think it's important to acknowledge the power of the subjective experience.

But, our inner experiences, and the way we make sense of those experiences, may not necessarily jibe or mesh with what actually went down in objective reality, and why.

I think a person can recognize or acknowledge how something was powerful or meaningful to them on a personal level, without necessarily projecting that explanation or story onto reality itself. 

So, saying an event _felt_ miraculous is different from saying an event _was_ a miracle. I think something can definitely feel miraculous, without "actually" being as such.

Now, when people necessarily assume that how they experience reality is necessarily and absolutely how reality must function, that can potentially turn into a serious slippery slope towards real trouble. At the very least, it can be used to enable and allow intellectual laziness, which is why I think it's important to draw these distinctions.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why do i need to prove cold facts, when it's my own experience and has nothing to do with anyone else? The thing is, i try to find a reasonable explanation of why things happen to me, but i can't, so i see it as something supernatural. How it happens, when it happens, and why it happens tends to come together.



Because personal experiences are NOT cold facts. They are just personal experiences... They are not a good way to look at reality. For example, if you hear the voice of god and no one else heard it, wouldn't it be a better explanation to say that you just imagined it? Or that there might be somethign wrong with your brainz?
Also, seing something as supernatural ONLY because you can't explain it yourself is pretty much a textbook example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance. One of the most common logical fallicies when it comes to supernatural stuff.
Again, just because you can't explain it that doesn't mean that others can't! And that definitely doesn't make it supernatural by default!
What does supernatural even mean? I mean, if something exists it CAN'T be supernatural because that means that it IS part of nature! O_O


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Give it up Captain, you're not taking away his faeries.
If a bird happens to shit on his head, it was obviously by divine/malevolent interference.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why do i need to prove cold facts, when it's my own experience and has nothing to do with anyone else? The thing is, i try to find a reasonable explanation of why things happen to me, but i can't, so i see it as something supernatural. How it happens, when it happens, and why it happens tends to come together.


Because facts aren't facts without proof. Again just because you can't explain it doesn't mean someone else can't.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why do i need to prove cold facts, when it's my own experience and has nothing to do with anyone else? The thing is, i try to find a reasonable explanation of why things happen to me, but i can't, so i see it as something supernatural. How it happens, when it happens, and why it happens tends to come together.



Because the reality we all live in doesn't end at the boundaries of your personal experience.


----------



## Rasly (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I just don't get it because so far no one ever bothered to explain what a miracle even is!


It is when you pray for a million bucks, then you open a refrigerator and there is a million bucks inside, now that is a miracle.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Rasly said:


> It is when you pray for a million bucks, then you open a refrigerator and there is a million bucks inside, now that is a miracle.



I bet the pope just put them there so that he can be all like "See! Ah told y'all yuz just need t'pray some moar!" but deep inside he knows :c What a sad disgusting old man who I hate so fucking much and who makes me feel ashamed to be german...


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Rasly said:


> It is when you pray for a million bucks, then you open a refrigerator and there is a million bucks inside, now that is a miracle.


Praise the Lord! Glory to Allah!


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Because the reality we all live in doesn't end at the boundaries of your personal experience.


 I understand everyone has a different experience. We are all individuals, so things happen to us differently, doesn't mean they are wrong. So you are absolutely right, the reality we all live in doesn't end at the bounderies of my experience, because it is my own, not for anyone else to judge, if i know i see something real happen to me, people do not have a right to tell you it's fake unless they seen it themselves and came to that conclusion.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I understand everyone has a different experience. We are all individuals, so things happen to us differently, doesn't mean they are wrong. So you are absolutely right, the reality we all live in doesn't end at the bounderies of my experience, because it is my own, not for anyone else to judge, if i know i see something real happen to me, people do not have a right to tell you it's fake unless they seen it themselves and came to that conclusion.



No. Fuck that, that is not how reality works! You don't live inside your own cute little reality, we all live in the same reality. So if you saw something that works against the way this reality works and you can't provide evidence for it then there are only a few possibilities: You had a hallucination, you lie or you are bonkers. It's as simple as that.
Your precious little opinion isn't worth anything in this regard. Something is either real or it is not. And if you can't prove that it really is real then I simply see no reason at all to believe you.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I understand everyone has a different experience. We are all individuals, so things happen to us differently, doesn't mean they are wrong. So you are absolutely right, the reality we all live in doesn't end at the bounderies of my experience, because it is my own, not for anyone else to judge, if i know i see something real happen to me, people do not have a right to tell you it's fake unless they seen it themselves and came to that conclusion.


 So there are no raving, hallucinating lunatics, just people with a different concept of reality. :V
You still have ample time to grow out of this solipsist worldview.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> solipsist worldview.



That is by far the worst possible worldview ever... Why do they even bother doing anything if the whole universe just exists within their own consciousness? That is the highest level of mental masturbation right there...


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

It's why I can't stand postmodernism and critical theory, ugh.



			
				CC said:
			
		

> So if you saw something that works against the way this reality works  and you can't provide evidence for it then there are only a few  possibilities: You had a hallucination, you lie or you are bonkers. It's  as simple as that.



Well, or you just mis-perceived or mis-appraised something, without necessarily being outright bonkers or trippin' balls. 

Either way, the bottom line is, we do occupy a shared reality, which (as far as we can tell) is governed by predictable, consistent, knowable rules and contingencies.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Troj said:


> It's why I can't stand postmodernism and critical theory, ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's what I meant. We all have slight hallucinations every now and then when our brain fucks up a little. It's just how you interprete these things.
Hallucinations =/= bonkers. Drugs can induce them as well afterall!


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

Troj said:


> It's why I can't stand postmodernism and critical theory, ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The collective perception and understanding of Earth's combined biomass may not be enough to fully understand everything there is to understand.
But I can say with the utmost confidence that a single, short-lived speck's personal experience can't ever hope to do any better.


----------



## Rivers Bluetail (Feb 10, 2013)

I had a discussion with a priest a while back about this. Oddly enough, he was explaining to me how reality could all be in our heads, and that he might not even exist. The frustrating part of that is that there's no argument I could use against him. How could I? There's nothing to prove he's wrong. 

But let's say that you're all in my imagination, and we have two entirely different perceptions of reality. How does that change my everyday life? It doesn't. Life is still enjoyable, I can be happy and suffer, even if it isn't _real_â€‹. I still feel, right? *rambles*


----------



## Rasly (Feb 10, 2013)

Rivers Bluetail said:


> I had a discussion with a priest a while back about this. Oddly enough, he was explaining to me how reality could all be in our heads, and that he might not even exist. The frustrating part of that is that there's no argument I could use against him. How could I? There's nothing to prove he's wrong.
> 
> But let's say that you're all in my imagination, and we have two entirely different perceptions of reality. How does that change my everyday life? It doesn't. Life is still enjoyable, I can be happy and suffer, even if it isn't _real_â€‹. I still feel, right? *rambles*


Nice example of mental masturbation ^^


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Rivers Bluetail said:


> I had a discussion with a priest a while back about this. Oddly enough, he was explaining to me how reality could all be in our heads, and that he might not even exist. The frustrating part of that is that there's no argument I could use against him. How could I? There's nothing to prove he's wrong.
> 
> But let's say that you're all in my imagination, and we have two entirely different perceptions of reality. How does that change my everyday life? It doesn't. Life is still enjoyable, I can be happy and suffer, even if it isn't _real_â€‹. I still feel, right? *rambles*



Erm... You don't have to prove anything in a situation like that  He is the one who has to provide the evidence for that! You CAN'T prove a negative! The burden of proof lies on HIS side of the argument! So it's not frustrating at all, that priest was just a retard 

And please, let's not turn this into a discussion on solipsism... As long as we don't talk about how stupid of a position that is we would just waste our freaking time


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

We could all be brains in vats, but yeah, as far as I'm concerned, if the virtual book in front of me smells, looks, feels, and reads like a "real" book would, and provides me with the same experience, if I can't get out of the vat anyway, the virtual book is as good as the real deal.

We might all be part of some mass delusion, but it's a mass delusion that appears to have rules and boundaries. Anything does _not_ go!

Strangest case scenario, I might be the only "real" mind in the world, but again, the world I inhabit still appears to have rules and boundaries, and my life is, again, much more enjoyable and meaningful if I _don't_ spend all my time fretting about possibly being a brain in a jar.

Long story short, solipsism's a dead end. It's a fun "what if" scenario for a sci fi story, but it doesn't lend itself to us continuing to explore and learn about the universe. Resting in the knowledge that we all inhabit a real, shared reality, on the other hand, does.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Rivers Bluetail said:


> I had a discussion with a priest a while back about this. Oddly enough, he was explaining to me how reality could all be in our heads, and that he might not even exist. The frustrating part of that is that there's no argument I could use against him. How could I? There's nothing to prove he's wrong.
> 
> But let's say that you're all in my imagination, and we have two entirely different perceptions of reality. How does that change my everyday life? It doesn't. Life is still enjoyable, I can be happy and suffer, even if it isn't _real_â€‹. I still feel, right? *rambles*


If I knew where you live, I'd punch you.
That'd give you some insight whether I'm imaginary or not!


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

I came in here wondering if this had turn into an anti-theist circle-jerk.

I wasn't disappointed.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No. Fuck that, that is not how reality works! You don't live inside your own cute little reality, we all live in the same reality. So if you saw something that works against the way this reality works and you can't provide evidence for it then there are only a few possibilities: You had a hallucination, you lie or you are bonkers. It's as simple as that.
> Your precious little opinion isn't worth anything in this regard. Something is either real or it is not. And if you can't prove that it really is real then I simply see no reason at all to believe you.


 This is the reason I cannot talk to people like you, this is closed mindedness. We all live in the same reality, Yes i know that. Now tell me who has the same experiences in this reality? I didn't ask you to believe me, you seem to not respect what i see is as being real. I don't have to give evidence to something that doesn't effect anyone else's life. This is what I see as real, you have to respect that. If this is how reality takes me, you should not judge that, especially when it has no effect on you or anyone else in society. Reality has a different path for everyone, you can't have them follow the same path. People understand different things in life. I can perfectly understand what you mean about the laws of nature, but if i know something supernatural happens to me, especially when it has effected my family and torments me, and try to rationalize it. It happens over and over with coincidences happening for a reason. You know it happens when you try to ignore it. I can't let it out to anyone, because nobody will ever understand me.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I came in here wondering if this had turn into an anti-theist circle-jerk.
> 
> I wasn't disappointed.


cue the smallest violin in the world ft. the saddest song


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I came in here wondering if this had turn into an anti-theist circle-jerk.
> 
> I wasn't disappointed.



"Someone doesn't agree with my world view even though I have no evidence to show that what I believe is true and now I'm mad."


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> This is the reason I cannot talk to people like you, this is closed mindedness. We all live in the same reality, Yes i know that. Now tell me who has the same experiences in this reality? I didn't ask you to believe me, you seem to not respect what i see is as being real. I don't have to give evidence to something that doesn't effect anyone else's life. This is what I see as real, you have to respect that. If this is how reality takes me, you should not judge that, especially when it has no effect on you or anyone else in society. Reality has a different path for everyone, you can't have them follow the same path. People understand different things in life. I can perfectly understand what you mean about the laws of nature, but if i know something supernatural happens to me, especially when it has effected my family and torments me, and try to rationalize it. It happens over and over with coincidences happening for a reason. You know it happens when you try to ignore it. I can't let it out to anyone, because nobody will ever understand me.


Words cannot describe how frustrating this post is


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> "Someone doesn't agree with my world view even though I have no evidence to show that what I believe is true and now I'm mad."


Every post you make regarding spirituality ever.

Thanks for proving my point, lad.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> This is the reason I cannot talk to people like you, this is closed mindedness. We all live in the same reality, Yes i know that. Now tell me who has the same experiences in this reality? I didn't ask you to believe me, you seem to not respect what i see is as being real. I don't have to give evidence to something that doesn't effect anyone else's life. This is what I see as real, you have to respect that. If this is how reality takes me, you should not judge that, especially when it has no effect on you or anyone else in society. Reality has a different path for everyone, you can't have them follow the same path. People understand different things in life. I can perfectly understand what you mean about the laws of nature, but if i know something supernatural happens to me, especially when it has effected my family and torments me, and try to rationalize it. It happens over and over with coincidences happening for a reason. You know it happens when you try to ignore it. I can't let it out to anyone, because nobody will ever understand me.



Woa. WOA.
First of all, *I have to respect JACK SHIT*. Respect is earned. If anything, I can tolerate your views. And I can't even do that because I completely disagree with you.
Reality in itself is NOT relative. Facts are not relative. Something is either true or it is not.
If you believe in something in contrary to pupolar evidence, guess what? You have a textbook example for a proper delusion on your hands.

You KNOW that supernatural happens to you? No, you don't know that. You ASSUME that it is something supernatural. Which is yet another logical fallicy.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Every post you make regarding spirituality ever.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point, lad.


 I, myself, have been holding back out of what could pass as decency. They could make a Hitler rant meme out of what I really think about the Abrahamic tradition and its founders. Other religions (modern Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhi, Taoism, etc.) I'm pretty neutral toward.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Every post you make regarding spirituality ever.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point, lad.



Why did you cross that part out? Last time I checked you never provided any sort of evidence for this nonsense.
Also, spirituality and religion fit into two different categories. I can be VERY spiritual without the need of a bearded skyman. For example, the fact that we all consist of the same stuff as the sun and the planets and that this stuff came into existence through the same process and that we are all just part of one huge system? THAT puts me into a cozy spiritual mood. Nothing is more beautiful than the facts behind nature itself.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Woa. WOA.
> First of all, *I have to respect JACK SHIT*. Respect is earned. If anything, I can tolerate your views. And I can't even do that because I completely disagree with you.
> Reality in itself is NOT relative. Facts are not relative. Something is either true or it is not.
> If you believe in something in contrary to pupolar evidence, guess what? You have a textbook example for a proper delusion on your hands.
> ...



CC enough. You've already been warned about disrespecting people who hold a different belief than you yet you still kick the beehive. You still wonder why people find you insufferable?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Why did you cross that part out? Last time I  checked you never provided any sort of evidence for this nonsense.
> Also, spirituality and religion fit into two different categories. I can  be VERY spiritual without the need of a bearded skyman. For example,  the fact that we all consist of the same stuff as the sun and the  planets and that this stuff came into existence through the same process  and that we are all just part of one huge system? THAT puts me into a  cozy spiritual mood. Nothing is more beautiful than the facts behind  nature itself.


I don't need to explain my faith nor do I feel I should if I'm going to be ridiculed for it.

"OH OH! TELL ME OF YOUR EXPERIENCES! I'M EVER SO CURIOUS TO HEAR THEM"
Right.

Also  that has nothing to do with spirituality. Spirituality can indeed  survive without religion but all this "facts facts facts" mantra is not  what it's about. It's in the name for fuck's sake.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> CC enough. You've already been warned about disrespecting people who hold a different belief than you yet you still kick the beehive. You still wonder why people find you insufferable?



Again, I don't have to _respect_ anyone... I tolerate almost everyone though!
Also... right now I only see one or two peeps in this thread who seem to have a problem with what I am saying Â¯\()/Â¯ And what terrible stuff did I say anyway?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Again, I don't have to _respect_ anyone... I tolerate almost everyone though!
> Also... right now I only see one or two peeps in this thread who seem to have a problem with what I am saying Â¯\()/Â¯ And what terrible stuff did I say anyway?



Yeah because the others that are in agreement with you are just as bad.

Gee I dunno, calling anyone with a different worldview from you delusional?


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 10, 2013)

*Delusion:

1. *
*a. *The act or process of deluding.
*
b. *The state of being deluded.

*2. *A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at 
hand.
*
3. *_Psychiatry_ A false belief strongly held in 
spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Delusional

So what other word should we be using if this one is so bad?


----------



## Saiko (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> And what terrible stuff did I say anyway?


You blasphemed against mathematics! >:V


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Yeah because the others that are in agreement with you are just as bad.
> 
> Gee I dunno, calling anyone with a different worldview from you delusional?



It's not my fault that "believing something against popular evidence" is the exact definition of a delusion...
Religion IS a mass delusion.

See, I am fine with you believing this stuff as long as you don't disregard science or judge/harm others based on it! I don't randomly attack my friends for believing this stuff for example...
However, this is a discussion about religion. Everyone here is free to voice their opinion about it. And my opinion happens to be that it is a dangerous mass delusion and that nothing good is coming from it.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Well, what is it, if not a delusion?
Since your reality is your own,and in it magic exists, why don't you summon a cyclone or a firestorm upon my home to prove your point?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Woa. WOA.
> 
> If you believe in something in contrary to popular evidence, guess what? You have a textbook example for a proper delusion on your hand


All I would need to make this statement false would be to switch out 'evidence' for 'belief'. Your basic point is correct, but this statement is starting to take it a little far.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Raptros said:


> *Delusion:
> 
> 1. *
> *a. *The act or process of deluding.
> ...



As yes, there we are :3


----------



## Saiko (Feb 10, 2013)

Why can't I just simply hedge my bets with Christianity and be left alone? ;n;


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It's not my fault that "believing something against popular evidence" is the exact definition of a delusion...
> Religion IS a mass delusion.
> 
> See, I am fine with you believing this stuff as long as you don't disregard science or judge/harm others based on it! I don't randomly attack my friends for believing this stuff for example...
> However, this is a discussion about religion. Everyone here is free to voice their opinion about it. And my opinion happens to be that it is a dangerous mass delusion and that nothing good is coming from it.


Perhaps you should refresh yourself on page 2 or 3 where you're asked to stop insulting those with faith and actually have a discussion about it.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Yeah because the others that are in agreement with you are just as bad.
> 
> Gee I dunno, calling anyone with a different worldview from you delusional?


Yeah but, religion IS delusional. So sorry, that's the way things are. It has nothing to do with a personal agenda and everything to do with the facts. Throwing a fit about it only further accentuates the delusional part of it. Until facts are brought to the table that the bearded sky daddy nonsense is in fact plausible, proveable, and demonstrable, it will remain nothing more than a delusion. So yeah, you're DELUSIONAL. Its not an insult, it is a FACT.

As an aside, there is nothing wrong with disrespect where it is deserved. I don't know how people think culture should work, that people should be rewarded and asspatted for being an integral part of a harmful lie. It is unrealistic to ask for respect where none is merited. Fuck what some internet cunt says about where it ought to be doled out, I'll give it when it is merited and never before.



Saiko said:


> Why can't I just simply hedge my bets with Christianity and be left alone? ;n;


God does not work that way. Apparently it can see into your brain and know the truth of your false belief. You are going to hell according to the bible. I wonder how many people who believe blindly have even read the fucking holy text that is so important to them. Maybe there would be less christians around if they have. I mean, it grew massively in the dark ages when PEOPLE COULDNT FUCKING READ! Imagine that, believing the words of a book read to you by a man, but never verifying them yourself. What if they were lying?


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Perhaps you should refresh yourself on page 2 or 3 where you're asked to stop insulting those with faith and actually have a discussion about it.



You can't have a discussion about it if those who believe in it start to bitch and moan once someone says something even remotely bad about religion >__> And since there is nothing good to discuss this can only end in a massive disaster!



Azure said:


> Yeah but, religion IS delusional. So sorry, that's the way things are. It has nothing to do with a personal agenda and everything to do with the facts. Throwing a fit about it only further accentuates the delusional part of it. Until facts are brought to the table that the bearded sky daddy nonsense is in fact plausible, proveable, and demonstrable, it will remain nothing more than a delusion. So yeah, you're DELUSIONAL. Its not an insult, it is a FACT.



Exactly, thats the problem. We are talking facts here, we aren't actively insulting ANYONE. At least that isn't my goal.
I see religion as something incredibly dangerous. How can you expect me to say something good about it?


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> You can't have a discussion about it if those who believe in it start to bitch and moan once someone says something even remotely bad about religion >__> And since there is nothing good to discuss this can only end in a massive disaster!



Yes you can. Just because you can't discuss religion without insulting it doesn't mean that no one else can either.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Yes you can. Just because you can't discuss religion without insulting it doesn't mean that no one else can either.


He wasn't insulting anything. He's describing it for what it is.

You're the one taking offense to it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Yes you can. Just because you can't discuss religion without insulting it doesn't mean that no one else can either.



I am not freaking insulting you! If you interprete freaking FACTS as an insult against your beliefs then that isn't my problem!
How about this: Actually give ME some facts. Show me something to shut me up! Show me something that demonstrates that your beliefs are at least something that humanity can benefit from. I don't want evidence for the existence of god, I just want evidence that it ISN'T an evil cult that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

Azure said:


> God does not work that way. Apparently it can see into your brain and know the truth of your false belief. You are going to hell according to the bible. I wonder how many people who believe blindly have even read the fucking holy text that is so important to them. Maybe there would be less christians around if they have. I mean, it grew massively in the dark ages when PEOPLE COULDNT FUCKING READ! Imagine that, believing the words of a book read to you by a man, but never verifying them yourself. What if they were lying?


  It shows you what a mighty controlling force organized religion is. When I picked up a Bible myself, I couldn't even get past the creation story without cringing at the implications. I've never touched one since; it makes me feel unclean.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> He wasn't insulting anything. He's describing it for what it is.
> 
> You're the one taking offense to it.



Someone says something offensive to those who believe in religion and spirituality. Oh gee I wonder why someone who believes in that sort would be offended. Beats the hell out of me.


-no pun intended-




CaptainCool said:


> I am not freaking insulting you! If you  interprete freaking FACTS as an insult against your beliefs then that  isn't my problem!
> How about this: Actually give ME some facts. Show me something to shut  me up! Show me something that demonstrates that your beliefs are at  least something that humanity can benefit from. I don't want evidence  for the existence of god, I just want evidence that it ISN'T an evil  cult that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.



FAITH ISN'T ABOUT FACTS. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL FOR ONCE!


----------



## Saiko (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Exactly, thats the problem. We are talking facts here, we aren't actively insulting ANYONE. At least that isn't my goal.
> I see religion as something incredibly dangerous. How can you expect me to say something good about it?


In all honesty, the offensiveness comes from how you deliver your point... which parallels that of the overly zealous "believers" that you despise...

What I mean is that, like some pastors brow beat opponents with the Bible, you brow beat with logic and data; and you get precisely the same response. Those who you're hoping to "convert" are instead pushed away and degraded. You try to berate them into agreement/submission rather than persuade them to join you, and it's incredibly condescending and demeaning.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It shows you what a mighty controlling force organized religion is. When I picked up a Bible myself, I couldn't even get past the creation story without cringing at the implications. I've never touched one since; it makes me feel unclean.



Yup. It's like they are willingly trying to be slaves. Like some sort of celestial North Korea...



Aleu said:


> Someone says something offensive to those who believe in religion and spirituality. Oh gee I wonder why someone who believes in that sort would be offended. Beats the hell out of me.
> 
> 
> -no pun intended-
> ...



First of all:
'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' â€”Stephen Fry

And second of all, I didn't ask for facts about your faith... Calm down and read my posts properly. I want facts about why religion isn't evil.

Oh also, this whole "faith isn't about facts" thing is why I call it a load of bull. If something has no facts behind it it isn't even worth considering in my opinion.
Faith in itself is less than a hypothesis. It's nothing. A feeble attempt at trying to explain the world that falls flat on it's face while tripping over a buttload of the most obvious logical fallicies.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> FAITH ISN'T ABOUT FACTS. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL FOR ONCE!


It's about being irrational and stubborn and believing in magic?
It isn't about facts because there are none. It's just imagination.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It shows you what a mighty controlling force organized religion is. When I picked up a Bible myself, I couldn't even get past the creation story without cringing at the implications. I've never touched one since; it makes me feel unclean.


It is quite the pile of mind controlling filth. I've read it cover to cover, from the Genesis to Revelations. It is disturbing that people think it is a source of truth and morality, I have been led to think it is quite the opposite. It is filled with bullies, genocide, adultery, paedophilia, revenge killings, and all manner of disgusting, shortsighted, primitive bullshit. All wrapped up in what a priest can spin into some sort of moral fable at the end of the day, and because it eventually teaches a lesson an 8 year old could figure out after reading Aesops, its all fine and dandy. I mean, c'mon people, are we STILL WAITING for jesus to come again? Even at the end of the bible it says it'll be soon. That was almost 2,000 years ago, and still no sign of the J-Man. Nevermind that christianity is nothing more than a rehash combination of a pile of paganistic religions built on top of a semitic cult religion. Fucking baffling.



CaptainCool said:


> responsible for the deaths of billions of people.


I corrected your estimate, not to mention the billions who have had to live in perpetual slavery to an uncaring clergy who integrated themselves vertically into every local, state and national government since the roman empire, cleaving them to a lifetime of cruelty and subjugation from cradle to grave.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Oh goodness, reading this explosion is so tedius. You realise that most of the argument is about 'how one should properlly deliver one's point without coming off  savage'?

We verge onto making this a discussion on how not to hurt eachothers' volatile feelings than how we can best discover new knowledge or better our understanding of eachother.

People routinely complain about thin-skin in den threads, but this is a molehile to olympus mons in comparrison to the frivolous volatility of arguments about religion.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Azure said:


> I corrected your estimate, not to mention the billions who have had to live in perpetual slavery to an uncaring clergy who integrated themselves vertically into every local, state and national government since the roman empire, cleaving them to a lifetime of cruelty and subjugation from cradle to grave.



That was actually a massive freudian slip on my part


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Yup. It's like they are willingly trying to be slaves. Like some sort of celestial North Korea...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well religion supposedly being evil is only your opinion now isn't it? Also aren't you the one saying that you can't prove a negative? Funny how you go back on your word isn't it? :V

You do realize that this is a forum, right? And forums have rules. So that quote won't get you anywhere here.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh goodness, reading this explosion is so tedius. You realise that most of the argument is about 'how one should properlly deliver one's point without coming off  savage'?
> 
> We verge onto making this a discussion on how not to hurt eachothers' volatile feelings than how we can best discover new knowledge or better our understanding of eachother.
> 
> People routinely complain about thin-skin in den threads, but this is a molehile to olympus mons in comparrison to the frivolous volatility of arguments about religion.


 Point taken, but you can't deny that the theists in these threads r_arely _try to argue against the points their opponents make; instead all you get is 'You're just as bad as the fundies on our side'. It's almost like they know the other side is right on many of its points, but are afraid to say so.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh goodness, reading this explosion is so tedius. You realise that most of the argument is about 'how one should properlly deliver one's point without coming off  savage'?
> 
> We verge onto making this a discussion on how not to hurt eachothers' volatile feelings than how we can best discover new knowledge or better our understanding of eachother.
> 
> People routinely complain about thin-skin in den threads, but this is a molehile to olympus mons in comparrison to the frivolous volatility of arguments about religion.


I dunno, I just don't think there is anything worth discovering, as far as religion is concerned. We've already a mountain of evidence that points to it being utterly arbitrary, we've the statistical evidence of when it becomes the body politic or driving force of a society and how many bodies that creates. It's pretty much the most well examined phenomenon out of all of them. We've already seen the statement that "Faith isn't about facts", so what is REALLY to know? The fact that people who believe cannot take gracefully the FACT that they are invested in ignorance is hardly the problem of the messenger. It's like telling a child to take its hand off of the hot stove, only to have it stick it in the broiler instead! LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALLALA accurately describes it.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Point taken, but you can't deny that the theists in these threads r_arely _try to argue against the points CC, Azure, etc. try to make; instead all you get is 'You're just as bad as the fundies on our side'. It's almost like they know the other side is right on many of its points, but are afraid to say so.


What points? There are no points other than "rabble rabble religion evil rabble rabble". It really is the same as "rabble rabble atheists are evil rabble rabble".


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Well religion supposedly being evil is only your opinion now isn't it? Also aren't you the one saying that you can't prove a negative? Funny how you go back on your word isn't it? :V
> 
> You do realize that this is a forum, right? And forums have rules. So that quote won't get you anywhere here.



Yes, it is my opinion. And I base this opinion on facts like the bible being an incredibly immoral book, muslims calling for the death of western authors and the supression of gay rights through the many many churches.
This is also not about proving a negative. I want you to prove that religion is good, thus showing me that my opinion is false.


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

Delusional is thinking Oprah Winfrey is commanding you through the television set to horde Lunchables to prepare for the Chinchilla Apocalypse.

Delusional is believing Jodie Foster is madly in love with you, and only needs you to kill this one guy for her, so you can be together. 

Evil is stoning a girl to death for showing too much ankle, or dating someone from the wrong tribe, or asking to be able to drive a car.

Loopy is claiming that homosexuals trawl for recruits, or that the planet is no more than 6,000 years old, or that transitional fossils don't exist, or that the Pill leaves tiny dead babies in your fallopian tubes.

Wonky is declaring that all reality is "socially constructed."

This is the sort of stuff people ought to object to, or fight, because these are views whose implications and applications can actually make or break society and the world we live in.

Also, in each of these cases, we can dredge up a body of established evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim in question is absolutely, certifiably nuts.

Like it or not, right now, the whole question of whether a higher power exists isn't quite _that_ cut-and-dry, especially depending on how one defines or conceives of "God" or a "higher power" or "unifying force."

Religions are also about more than just the worship of this or that god; they're collections of beliefs, ethical precepts, and rituals that carry special symbolism and significance to the people who practice them. 

I know liberal Christians who are much more invested in the meaning or the message behind the story of Jesus, than they are in the question of whether everything in the Gospels is factually "true." (The people who get hung up about things being "literally true" tend to be the actual delusional nutballs, in my experience.)

Anyway, bottom line, millions of perfectly sane,  well-adjusted, rational, reasonable, decent people believe in a "higher  power" or "unifying energy" of some variety or another. When it comes to other aspects of their lives, many of them tend to function reasonably well. 

Using the word 'DELUSIONAL' to describe the majority or plurality of functioning human beings strikes me as being just a tad over-the-top.

While  the "burden of proof" may technically rest with the theists, what real, demonstrable good  does it do, really, to alienate every theist one meets by  demanding that "proof" or "evidence?" 

Like I said before, most  people won't be swayed by that sort of approach anyway, if they don't see your  line of reasoning or logic as personally salient, so it's pedantry for nothing. 

It certainly doesn't help to spark any kind of insight or empathy on the part of either party. The atheists go away thinking the theists are naive, unreasoning, credulous children, as usual, and the theists go away thinking the atheists are arrogant, rude, pedantic sperglords, as usual.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> What points? There are no points other than "rabble rabble religion evil rabble rabble". It really is the same as "rabble rabble atheists are evil rabble rabble".



Whilst other people justify their arguments you have consistantly hollered how unfair and patronising their arguments are instead of contending them with any form of evidencial reasoning or empathy. 

You feel so patronised by others but all you do is insult insult insult and then cry foul when anyone even remotely treads on your own toes. 

I have been trying to accomodate this, but you need to be made aware of it. If you expect calm and fruitful discussion stop hyping up the pretense of everyone else's comments, oversimplifying them to 'rabble rabble rabble' and actually highlight their flaws or misconceptions. 

I understand I'm posting just the kind of content which saddened me, but please, this needs to stop. It doesn't matter which 'side' we attribute guilt to. 



Now one of the leading causes of irritation is the value of faith and its association with delusion. 
Despite negative conotations with delusion it is an accurate description for both the behaviour of many religious fundamentalists which they describe as religious faith- implying it is trust rather than ignorance- as well as for those of us outside of religion who think all religious people are like this. 

What we should all do is first and foremost criticise anybody using 'faith' as an excuse to defend claims they've bought to the table with are objectively wrong. It is not a justification, it's bull plop, delusional.


----------



## kyfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Why is it bad if I want to believe in something you believe doesn't exist? I'm not hurting you. You don't see me chasing you with a giant sign saying "You're going to hell". I don't care if you don't believe, I won't force you to believe. So why do you get bitchy when someone mentions the word "God"

Also, when someone says they are religious, don't automatically assume they don't believe in science.


*
I'm not asking you to agree, I'm asking you be tolerant. *

If you are not spiritual, cool. I don't mind, live and let live live. However, not being religious doesn't make you any better than someone who is. Same goes for spiritual people, we are all the same.

Now let's stop insulting and demeaning each other. Wasn't the thread just asking what your religion is? Not why one is better than another.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Yes, it is my opinion. And I base this opinion on facts like the bible being an incredibly immoral book, muslims calling for the death of western authors and the supression of gay rights through the many many churches.
> This is also not about proving a negative. I want you to prove that religion is good, thus showing me that my opinion is false.



All of this is done by humanity and their interpretation. If you really want to get down to it and say that religion is evil because humanity is evil and humanity thought up religion, then...er ok I guess but that doesn't explain the primary teachings of Jesus are about loving your fellow man and not being a general douchebag. You paint all religion with the same brush but you're only using two maybe three religions all of which have the same God. Nothing of Buddhists or Satanists. Fun fact is they preach the same thing roughly.



Fallowfox said:


> Whilst other people justify their arguments you  have consistantly hollered how unfair and patronising their arguments  are instead of contending them with any form of evidencial reasoning or  empathy.
> 
> You feel so patronised by others but all you do is insult insult insult  and then cry foul when anyone even remotely treads on your own toes.
> 
> ...


And their "justifications" are not insulting then? Coulda fooled me. I've already pointed out misconceptions of Christianity to CC on at least two occasions but he STILL holds them JUST so he can "justify" his grudge.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Yeah because the others that are in agreement with you are just as bad.
> 
> Gee I dunno, calling anyone with a different worldview from you delusional?


 I actually met 2 people on here that I can relate to that understand how I feel, even to a small extent, that makes my day and feel less alone. That's what I want from people.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Is there even any point in trying to prove magic-believers wrong?
I seem to always forget.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

Troj said:


> Like it or not, right now, the whole question of whether a higher power exists isn't quite _that_ cut-and-dry, especially depending on how one defines or conceives of "God" or a "higher power" or "unifying force."


And how isn't it? The definition of a god is pretty cut and dried according to the major religions of the world, and pretty much all of the minor ones as well. We aren't talking about spirituality here, we're talking about organized religion. To hell with how they define it, something that doesn't require proofs is madness any way you cut it up.



Troj said:


> Religions are also about more than just the worship of this or that god; they're collections of beliefs, ethical precepts, and rituals that carry special symbolism and significance to the people who practice them.


Primitive rituals are much less important than the spread of delusion. Period. And the ethical precepts are based upon the religion, most of which are antiquated, intolerant, or simple just not needed in the face of philosophical alternatives. 



Troj said:


> I know liberal Christians who are much more invested in the meaning or the message behind the story of Jesus, than they are in the question of whether everything in the Gospels is factually "true."


And according to the bible, God will judge them for not keeping to his word. So why do they even need the pretense of belief? One reason only, society makes them need it. 



Troj said:


> Anyway, bottom line, millions of perfectly sane,  well-adjusted, rational, reasonable, decent people believe in a "higher  power" or "unifying energy" of some variety or another. When it comes to other aspects of their lives, many of them tend to function reasonably well.


Would the world go to pieces if they didn't? Is it really so terrible to not have some fantastical cloud person around? IS IT REALLY THAT IMPORTANT THAT ALL THE HARM IT HAS DONE SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE PURSUIT OF A SHRED OF FALSE MENTAL COMFORT? To hell with insight and empathy, they've had thousands of years of that shit. It is time for reality to assert itself, willing or unwilling. Change is not wrought by half measures.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

kyfox said:


> *You don't see me chasing you with a giant sign saying "You're going to hell"*.



True, you are not. But there ARE people who do that. And since you guys are still the majority on the planet there are quite a lot of those fuckers running around!

For example, let's look at Germany. We have 4 big political parties here: The Social -Democratic Party, The Green Party, the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social union. Two of them want gay marriage, two of them don't. Can you guess which one are against it? :V
Also, the chruch is DEMANDING tons of taxpayer money every year so that they can keep their staff at schools, kindergardens and other institutions in place. Someone recently even wrote a book about that (english title would be "god has to pay a lot for utilities"). They are using MY tax money for that!

Live and let live, sure. But please do keep it out of my life or I am getting a little mad...


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> All of this is done by humanity and their interpretation. If you really want to get down to it and say that religion is evil because humanity is evil and humanity thought up religion, then...er ok I guess but that doesn't explain the primary teachings of Jesus are about loving your fellow man and not being a general douchebag. You paint all religion with the same brush but you're only using two maybe three religions all of which have the same God. Nothing of Buddhists or Satanists. Fun fact is they preach the same thing roughly.



I think a better description rather than 'religion is evil', is that it fosters behaviour many of us would consider immoral by providing a universal justification. 

Faith. 

Having faith, suspending your critical faculties and just god-damn believing in someone's word anyway is no foundation for moral practices, and this is why religious insitutions have been exposed as hiding the world's largest paedophile rings, forcibly converting 'savages' and providing reason for war. 

These things can and in many cases do happen in secullar climates, but the easy-justification of faith that religious affords, the ultimate veto, should be considered evil. 

No god worth worshipping should ask anyone to suspend their ability to question, no god worth worshipping should ask of us to kill our children and then call it 'beautiful' as ywh did to abraham.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

Don't pluralize it by saying "religious institutions". Pretty much the only one to do that is Christianity.

Didn't I just say that not all are like Christianity?

So there was a story about Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac. So what? We're not supposed to hurt our fellow man according to its teachings so anyone that ignores it and goes off then blames God is only that. Just using God to justify what they did. That doesn't make God or religion evil. Just people can't follow directions.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I think a better description rather than 'religion is evil', is that it fosters behaviour many of us would consider immoral by providing a universal justification.
> 
> Faith.
> 
> ...


  NO god worth worshipping demands payment in blood, past or present. No god worth worshipping puts a supposedly sinful creature in charge of the rest of creation and essentially says 'go nuts'.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Don't pluralize it by saying "religious institutions". Pretty much the only one to do that is Christianity.
> 
> Didn't I just say that not all are like Christianity?



Ok, let's let the jews and muslims have it too:
A court recently ruled that they are still allowed to mutilate their children after birth. I almost wanted to leave the country after I heard that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Don't pluralize it by saying "religious institutions". Pretty much the only one to do that is Christianity.
> 
> Didn't I just say that not all are like Christianity?



Aztech, Human sacrifice
Druid, Human sacrifice
Jeudaism, ritual mutalation, homophobia
Islam, surpressed women's rights, amputations as punishment, homophobia

and so on, no it's not just christianity and that's as obvious as the moon in the sky


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Ok, let's let the jews and muslims have it too:
> A court recently ruled that they are still allowed to mutilate their children after birth. I almost wanted to leave the country after I heard that.



They're still of Abrahamic faith. THEY HAVE THE SAME GOD DAMN TEACHINGS.



Fallowfox said:


> Aztech, Human sacrifice
> Druid, Human sacrifice
> Jeudaism, ritual mutalation, homophobia
> Islam, surpressed women's rights, amputations as punishment, homophobia
> ...



Judaism is certainly not homophobic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> They're still of Abrahamic faith. THEY HAVE THE SAME GOD DAMN TEACHINGS.



Some of the same teachings. Many of their teachings differ to the point of causing hate and war. 

We might widen our net and call them all 'Greichan religions', because the initial philosophies of the goldenrule, heaven/hell and the ten commandments trace back to ancient greek societies. 

Most religions are spin offs of eachother, your point is?



Aleu said:


> They're still of Abrahamic faith. THEY HAVE THE SAME GOD DAMN TEACHINGS.
> 
> 
> 
> Judaism is certainly not homophobic.



Unfortunately their tora, which shares text common to the Qur'an and Old testament, has homophobic teachings. 

The media footprint of this isn't as big however, perhaps because there are significantly less jews than christians or muslims to go around spreading such doctrines, perhaps because most jewish communities have disregarded this teaching, perhaps because such broadcasting would be viewed as antisemmetic.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> They're still of Abrahamic faith. THEY HAVE THE SAME GOD DAMN TEACHINGS.
> 
> 
> 
> Judaism is certainly not homophobic.



What other kind of religion am I supposed to look at here in Europe...

Juadism isn't homphobic? WHAT?! 


×•Ö°×Ö¶×ª-×–Ö¸×›Ö¸×¨â€”×œÖ¹× ×ªÖ´×©Ö°××›Ö·Ö¼×‘, ×žÖ´×©Ö°××›Ö°Ö¼×‘Öµ×™ ×Ö´×©Ö¸Ö¼××”: ×ªÖ¼×•Ö¹×¢Öµ×‘Ö¸×”, ×”Ö´×•×.

Lev.18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."

×•Ö°×Ö´×™×©×, ×Ö²×©Ö¶××¨ ×™Ö´×©Ö°××›Ö·Ö¼×‘ ×Ö¶×ª-×–Ö¸×›Ö¸×¨ ×žÖ´×©Ö°××›Ö°Ö¼×‘Öµ×™ ×Ö´×©Ö¸Ö¼××”â€”×ªÖ¼×•Ö¹×¢Öµ×‘Ö¸×” ×¢Ö¸×©×‚×•Ö¼, ×©Ö°×× Öµ×™×”Ö¶×; ×ž×•Ö¹×ª ×™×•Ö¼×žÖ¸×ª×•Ö¼, ×“Ö°Ö¼×žÖµ×™×”Ö¶× ×‘Ö¸Ö¼×.

Lev.20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."


----------



## kyfox (Feb 10, 2013)

@CC: does Germany have an establishment clause separating church and state? Personally, I believe that churches shouldn't be supported by the gov't, it's a bad mix. 

@Fallow: in the Bible, God had a major attitude change from Old to New Testaments, he stopped killing people for giggles. He was more loving, and Jesus was born. I believe we are called to follow Jesus' teachings, as he fulfilled the sacrifice that the dudes in the Old Testament had to pay. So he kinda stopped being mean and evil, and became loving and kind. Weird, I know, I have to listen to a dude preach about this once a week. XD 


I don't believe that the bible is the iron word of God, since its written by man, and I believe some of it is symbolic. I believe it's more important to not be a dick to people than it is to be able to recite the bible verbatim. 
Quien sabes.

It sucks that most Christian religions(along with others) are pretty anti-gay(or unsupportive of gay rights at the least) but what are you gonna do? Most Christians hold the belief that the NIV came from the hands of The Lord himself. And it says gay is no-no. I'd give anything to change that, because I would want to get married to the man I love, but that's where we are, I figure gays will be more accepted in a few years.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> What other kind of religion am I supposed to look at here in Europe...
> 
> Juadism isn't homphobic? WHAT?!
> 
> ...



I already fucking told you that has nothing to do with homosexuals. How many times must I FUCKING EXPLAIN IT????


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Judaism is certainly not homophobic.


Reform (civilized) Jews, generally are not. But the more regressive sects are as scary as fundamentalist Islam.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> What other kind of religion am I supposed to look at here in Europe...
> 
> Juadism isn't homphobic? WHAT?!
> 
> ...



Jews are gay friendly, despite apparantly having all the same teachings as christians to the point they are pretty much the same religion. ;]




Aleu said:


> I already fucking told you that has nothing to do  with homosexuals. How many times must I FUCKING EXPLAIN IT????



Unless there is some masterful semantic dance around the subject then yes that quote is homophobic. 

Men lying with men 'as with women' is clearly male on male sex, and it is described as abominable and punisheable by death.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

kyfox said:


> @CC: does Germany have an establishment clause separating church and state? Personally, I believe that churches shouldn't be supported by the gov't, it's a bad mix.
> 
> @Fallow: in the Bible, God had a major attitude change from Old to New Testaments, he stopped killing people for giggles. He was more loving, and Jesus was born. I believe we are called to follow Jesus' teachings, as he fulfilled the sacrifice that the dudes in the Old Testament had to pay. So he kinda stopped being mean and evil, and became loving and kind. Weird, I know, I have to listen to a dude preach about this once a week. XD
> 
> ...



We do have a clause like that. But the freaking catholics have a lot of influence here >__>

So god, which is described as completely unchanging in the bible, changed? That makes no sense.



Aleu said:


> I already fucking told you that has nothing to do with homosexuals. How many times must I FUCKING EXPLAIN IT????



The quotes specifically say that if a man screws another man you are to kill them both. Yelling doesn't change that.


----------



## Rasly (Feb 10, 2013)

kyfox said:


> Why is it bad if I want to believe in something you believe doesn't exist? I'm not hurting you. You don't see me chasing you with a giant sign saying "You're going to hell". I don't care if you don't believe, I won't force you to believe. So why do you get bitchy when someone mentions the word "God"



1. I can't understand you, if you believe in anything you want without any evidence, you're pretty much unpredictable.

2. You play harmless sheep, but in reality you pay your church, you support political decisions that benefit your religion, you not just believe, you make your religious chairmans stronger, so they can extend thair powers. And we know from middle age, what happens when church gets in power.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

kyfox said:


> @CC: does Germany have an establishment clause separating church and state? Personally, I believe that churches shouldn't be supported by the gov't, it's a bad mix.
> 
> @Fallow: in the Bible, God had a major attitude change from Old to New Testaments, he stopped killing people for giggles. He was more loving, and Jesus was born. I believe we are called to follow Jesus' teachings, as he fulfilled the sacrifice that the dudes in the Old Testament had to pay. So he kinda stopped being mean and evil, and became loving and kind. Weird, I know, I have to listen to a dude preach about this once a week. XD
> 
> ...



I used to be christian, this dichotomy continues to perplex me if we assume Ywh is a _God_ and not a spoilt child.

Or more likely a cultural avatar and morality play.


----------



## Saiko (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The quotes specifically say that if a man screws another man you are to kill them both. Yelling doesn't change that.


Analysis of the Hebrew indicates that the context was ritualistic gay sex rather than sex between two gay lovers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Saiko said:


> Analysis of the Hebrew indicates that the context was ritualistic gay sex rather than sex between two gay lovers.



It's a shame G-d wasn't clearer about this, because as a result two off-shoot religions of abraham have pretty much waged war on love for millenia.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Saiko said:


> Analysis of the Hebrew indicates that the context was ritualistic gay sex rather than sex between two gay lovers.



And today the fundies are using quotes like this to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. That it is against the "plan" that god has for us.
I don't care about the context or how people used that quote at the time when it was written. Homosexuals are being harassed by religious people TODAY.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

Saiko said:


> Analysis of the Hebrew indicates that the context was ritualistic gay sex rather than sex between two gay lovers.


Yeah no, it's pretty fucking clear they want to kill gays in the bible. Arguing otherwise is just silly. I mean, God destroyed both towns on the basis of the sex they were having, among other things. Whether they sorta kinda think that maybe it was slightly misinterpreted thousands of years later after all that imprinting and damage has been done is germane to the point really.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> And today the fundies are using quotes like this to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. That it is against the "plan" that god has for us.
> I don't care about the context or how people used that quote at the time when it was written. Homosexuals are being harassed by religious people TODAY.



AND THE POINT IS THAT THE ORIGIN MATTERS. If people are misquoting it for their own gain then that is THEIR fault.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> And today the fundies are using quotes like this to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. That it is against the "plan" that god has for us.
> I don't care about the context or how people used that quote at the time when it was written. Homosexuals are being harassed by religious people TODAY.



Critically 'it was a misunderstanding' does not excuse the behaviour of any religionist who has sought to hurt others. The reason 'it was written in a book by g-d therefore it's good' is bull plop whether you're asking people to love one another or tare eachother to pieces and this is the attitude which is harmful. 

Furthermore, are we to believe that it is acceptable to kill people who have ritualistic gay sex? It's still* murder. 


*


Aleu said:


> AND THE POINT IS THAT THE ORIGIN MATTERS. If people  are misquoting it for their own gain then that is THEIR fault.



The missing page of the bible reads as follows. 

'This Novel is dedicated to my dear son Yeshua. Any similarity the characters or events in this book bare to real people is purely coincidental,'


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> AND THE POINT IS THAT THE ORIGIN MATTERS. If people are misquoting it for their own gain then that is THEIR fault.



Congratulations, you just pointed out why I hate organized religion  Because that is pretty much all they are doing.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Critically 'it was a misunderstanding' does not excuse the behaviour of any religionist who has sought to hurt others. The reason 'it was written in a book by g-d therefore it's good' is bull plop whether you're asking people to love one another or tare eachother to pieces and this is the attitude which is harmful.
> 
> Furthermore, are we to believe that it is acceptable to kill people who have ritualistic gay sex? It's still* murder. *


 A malodorous horde of hairy, tribalistic, cruel, ignorant and brutalized savages clearly did not think so. And there's your 'origin', Aleu. If you want to make an argument in favor, now's the time.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Congratulations, you just pointed out why I hate organized religion  Because that is pretty much all they are doing.



Then hate the people for misinterpreting religion, not religion itself because that is not what the religion is about. -headdesks- People murder, rape, and such all the time. Using justification doesn't make that justification bad. 

If someone had sex with horses because a unicorn told them to, does that make unicorns bad now?


----------



## Saiko (Feb 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> And today the fundies are using quotes like this to "prove" that homosexuality is bad. That it is against the "plan" that god has for us.
> I don't care about the context or how people used that quote at the time when it was written. Homosexuals are being harassed by religious people TODAY.


Your point was that these quotes (which included the Hebrew I believe) condemn homosexuality, and you used them to support your claim that Judaism isn't homophobic. However Judaism is based on what these quotes say, and understanding what they say requires understanding of their context. With the context, one can see that these quotes do not condemn the homosexual relationship of today; and thus Judaism does not.

However, you _are_ correct that these quotes are used to denounce homosexuality today. Considering we both can see that these quotes do not do so, we can agree that the quotes are being misused. This is the definition of a misinterpretation, and the fault is on those who purport the notion. It is not Judaism that is homophobic but Jews who misinterpret these verses.

Similarly, my point is that it is not religion that is wrong but people who do contort it. This is a point I've made to you before, a point that Aleu made a few moments ago, and a point you just paralleled.


----------



## kyfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Rasly said:


> 1. I can't understand you, if you believe in anything you want without any evidence, you're pretty much unpredictable.
> 
> 2. You play harmless sheep, but in reality you pay your church, you support political decisions that benefit your religion, you not just believe, you make your religious chairmans stronger, so they can extend thair powers. And we know from middle age, what happens when church gets in power.



1. So is every other religious person, faith doesn't have evidence. You have to believe without evidence. Just how it is.

2. I don't tithe, but the church doesn't receive money other than what is donated. So yeah. Also, can't vote yet, but I would vote based of logic, common sense, and what is constitutional. I wouldn't vote for anything that gives the church government power or support. It's a non-profit organization, truly, the church isn't a building, it's the Christians who follow Christ.(or something like that. I'm no scholar)


----------



## Troj (Feb 10, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I actually met 2 people on here that I can relate to that understand how I feel, even to a small extent, that makes my day and feel less alone. That's what I want from people.



That's all most people want, I think .



			
				Aleu said:
			
		

> Nothing of Buddhists or Satanists.



Woo, shout out. 



			
				Azure said:
			
		

> The definition of a god is pretty cut and dried according to the major  religions of the world, and pretty much all of the minor ones as well.  We aren't talking about spirituality here, we're talking about organized  religion.



Eh, not really, hence why different sects still regularly try to murder each other in various parts of the world. There's actually a pretty significant difference, for example, in how Missouri-Synod Lutherans and Evangelical Lutheran Church of America Lutherans perceive Yhwh and Jesus, interpret the Bible, interpret extra-Biblical texts, and generally practice their faith.



> To hell with how they define it, something that doesn't  require proofs is madness any way you cut it up.



Right or wrong, there's a lot of daily life and everyday experience that doesn't pass through any kind of "vetting" process with regards to proof or evidence.

I don't think my love of sushi and Ed Wood movies are things that can be "proven" or "disproven," in the way that you can prove the atomic weight of Hydrogen. 

Empiricism's a great tool, but it can't unpack all of life's dilemmas. 

By itself, empiricism can't tell me who to be loyal to, can't tell me which field of study or work to go into, can't tell me what to buy at the store, and can't tell me why I should get up in the morning. The little things of life are often subjective and grey. 



> And according to the bible, God will judge them for not keeping to his  word. So why do they even need the pretense of belief? One reason only,  society makes them need it.



Because they feel it holds their life together. Just that.

Well, and just within Christianity, theologians and denominations have argued and warred for thousands of years over what it means to "keep God's word." What that little phrase means to a Greek Orthodox practitioner is very different from what it means to a Catholic, which is very, very different from what it means to a Unitarian.

You're demanding that all Christians, in this case, adhere to a particular reading and interpretation of the Bible that many of them would actually strongly object to.

This is a troublesome and obnoxious thing many atheists do: they play a No-True-Scotsman game, wherein they declare that all "real" religionists should be literalists or fundamentalists, and dismiss or berate any religionist who isn't.

Dare I say, the "game" also undermines the long-term interests of atheists, by giving comfort and credence to literalism and fundamentalism.



> Would the world go to pieces if they didn't? Is it really so terrible to not have some fantastical cloud person around?



For some individuals, it would be. 

I suspect a number of individuals would just turn around and cleave to something new. 

I'm all for forcing or prompting a paradigm shift, if it'll noticeably improve someone's functioning and quality of life. I don't see much of a point of forcing a paradigm shift in someone who was already behaving and functioning pretty well to begin with, especially if said shift actively _disrupts_ their functioning and quality of life, or that of the people around them. 



> To hell with insight and empathy, they've had thousands of years of that shit.



Not really. It's been more like "thousands of years of trying to exterminate the unbelievers, in some form or another."

And, insight and empathy is (or rather, should be) a two-way street. Ideally, it'd be best if theists and atheists had greater mutual insight into and empathy for each other.

Not to sound snotty or bitchy, but I don't think you've ever taken a class in theology, or even, comparative religion. I don't think you've ever sat down with an intelligent, respectable person of faith, asked them about their beliefs, and just listened, without offering corrections or advice. 

Just listening to somebody can really shift your whole point of view. It did for me. 



> Change is not wrought by half measures.



Wait, how's this different from when Jerry Falwell, Mao Tse Tung, or Osama bin Laden wants everybody to convert to the True Way, or suffer the consequences?


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Then hate the people for misinterpreting religion, not religion itself because that is not what the religion is about. -headdesks- People murder, rape, and such all the time. Using justification doesn't make that justification bad.
> 
> If someone had sex with horses because a unicorn told them to, does that make unicorns bad now?


I prefer to hate the people AND the magnificently huge lie that they follow. Makes my life easier, really.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Okay, since you feel people are only focusing on Christianity.
What do you wager the punishment for apostasy is, in Saudi Arabia, Aleu?

Would you have the same carefree views on religion were you born here?
Would you enjoy having your freedom severely limited?
Not being able to drive?
Having to possess a written permission of a male guardian to do what you want?
Overall, being seen as an inferior being because of your gender?
I could go on.

Religion is a fucking cancer on society as a whole.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> A malodorous horde of hairy, tribalistic, cruel, ignorant and brutalized savages clearly did not think so. And there's your 'origin', Aleu. If you want to make an argument in favor, now's the time.



Isn't it weird that god decided to give the gift of faith to the most retarded, barbaric horde on the planet at the time instead of giving it to the more intelligent and civilized folks? 



Aleu said:


> Then hate the people for misinterpreting religion, not religion itself because that is not what the religion is about. -headdesks- People murder, rape, and such all the time. Using justification doesn't make that justification bad.
> 
> If someone had sex with horses because a unicorn told them to, does that make unicorns bad now?



Well, religion and god in itself are just concepts created by man. A fantasy that some drunk or high guys in a cave came up with. It is a cruel tool that is being used to manipulate the masses.
And yes, I do hate it. And I will continue to hate it. Because since it IS nothing but a concept it naturally depends on us humans to be executed and to be used in our lives.
I can hate a concept, right? And I can work towards removing it from society if I choose to do so.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 10, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Okay, since you feel people are only focusing on Christianity.
> What do you wager the punishment for apostasy is, in Saudi Arabia, Aleu?
> 
> Would you have the same carefree views on religion were you born here?
> ...



Yet you are using ONE religion to justify hatred for all. I would have the same outlook because I'm not a closed-minded bigot :V



CaptainCool said:


> Isn't it weird that god decided to give the gift of faith to the most retarded, barbaric horde on the planet at the time instead of giving it to the more intelligent and civilized folks?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A tool is only a tool. People use knives to kill other people but does that make all knives bad? No we kinda need them to cut up our food. Love to see you try that with spoons.
Since you're so focused on hating Christianity, the main guy that Christians follow taught to love one another. If people abuse his name, how is it his fault?


----------



## kyfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Can we all be friends and not bring this up again? XD This was bound to go south.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Yet you are using ONE religion to justify hatred for all. I would have the same outlook because I'm not a closed-minded bigot :V
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bullshit. You wouldn't.
Actually, no one would even care what you think. You're just a woman after all, to them.

And I'm not focusing in anything. I'm just pointing out another.
You'd just complained we were too focused on christianity! Make up your mind!


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu it's the justification which is common to all religions. That such behaviour is virtuous by virtue. 

And that's just it. No justification at all. No reason, just 'that's what we're told to do'. 

Any good or bad that comes out of such reasoning, distorted by the vast sands of time, is down to the role of proverbial dice.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 10, 2013)

Aleu said:


> A tool is only a tool. People use knives to kill other people but does that make all knives bad? No we kinda need them to cut up our food. Love to see you try that with spoons.
> Since you're so focused on hating Christianity, the main guy that Christians follow taught to love one another. If people abuse his name, how is it his fault?



I cut an apple with a spoon once because all my knives were dirty. True story!

Anyway. Yeah, Jesus... Personally I am not convinced that he ever exisxted. Mainly because I just see him as a loophole that was used to bridge the old and the new testament.
God was described as unchanging and yet a big change in it's character happened in the new testament. That's where Jesus comes into play.
Oh also, if he did exist he was an asshole as well. He was in favor of slavery (Ephesians 6:5, "Slaves obey your earthly masters") and was in favor of the laws of the old testament (Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.")
So yeah, what a noble soul he was. They don't have to abuse his name, he was an asshole all along.


----------



## Azure (Feb 10, 2013)

Troj said:


> Eh, not really, hence why different sects still regularly try to murder each other in various parts of the world.
> 
> There's actually a pretty significant difference, for example, in how Missouri-Synod Lutherans and Evangelical Lutheran Church of America Lutherans perceive Yhwh and Jesus, interpret the Bible, interpret extra-Biblical texts, and generally practice their faith.


People scrabbling over different interpretations of the same base lie does not concern me. It is still the lie that drives their irrational behavior.



Troj said:


> Right or wrong, there's a lot of daily life and everyday experience that doesn't pass through any kind of "vetting" process with regards to proof or evidence.


Like what?



Troj said:


> I don't think my love of sushi and Ed Wood movies are things that can be "proven" or "disproven," in the way that you can prove the atomic weight of Hydrogen.
> 
> Empiricism's a great tool, but it can't unpack all of life's dilemmas.


And becoming mentally unstable in a part of our total world view is more useful? I think not.




Troj said:


> Because they feel it holds their life together. Just that.


What a silly belief. I feel sorry for a person who has to hinge their existence on their own societally crafted delusions. 



Troj said:


> Well, and just within Christianity, theologians and denominations have argued and warred for thousands of years over what it means to "keep God's word." What that little phrase means to a Greek Orthodox practitioner is very different from what it means to a Catholic, which is very, very different from what it means to a Unitarian.
> 
> If various votes at the Council of Nicea had swung another way, Western Christianity as we know it would look very different indeed.


They are all different strands of the same bullshit, how they care to define themselves is no little concern to me. How their collective ignorance and intolerance(or supposed tolerance and watering down of doctrine thereof UNITARIANS) gives breath and life to their delusion is.



Troj said:


> For some individuals, it would be.
> 
> I suspect a number of individuals would just turn around and cleave to something new.


Like what? Really liking model cars? Really being into what? I can't think of anything less useful and more harmful in lifes justifications than religion. Anything they cleave to will be less harmful than what they had before.



Troj said:


> I'm all for forcing or prompting a paradigm shift, if it'll noticeably improve someone's functioning and quality of life. I don't see much of a point of forcing a paradigm shift in someone who was already behaving and functioning pretty well to begin with, especially if said shift actively _disrupts_ their functioning and quality of life, or that of the people around them.


I don't see how shoving utter quackery out the window and finding meaning in ones own life detracts from anything beyond somebodies poor little inadequately prepared feelings. 




Troj said:


> Not really. It's been more like "thousands of years of trying to exterminate the unbelievers, in some form or another."


Now it's their turn. And how long many have waited for it.



Troj said:


> And, insight and empathy is (or rather, should be) a two-way street. Ideally, it'd be best if theists and atheists had greater mutual insight into and empathy for each other.
> 
> Not to sound snotty or bitchy, but I don't think you've ever taken a class in theology, or even, comparative religion. I don't think you've ever sat down with an intelligent, respectable person of faith, asked them about their beliefs, and just listened, without offering corrections or advice.
> 
> Just listening to somebody can really shift your whole point of view. It did for me.


I give a damn about empathy, they've had their time. I don't really care what they believe. And I most certainly don't need more insight into delusion. Not to sound intolerant, actually, no, I do mean to. I've already stated what I think harm is and how it comes forth from religion. Every dollar, every word, every lie, every law, every vote, and everything else. It is entirely bullshit. I've read the bible, the quaran, the torah, and plenty of other religious texts. In the beginning, those texts were the origin of the entire idea. There can be no better understanding. Also, I don't find persons of faith to be respectable, so sorry. Remember, they ARE delusional. 




Troj said:


> Wait, how's this different from when Jerry Falwell, Mao Tse Tung, or Osama bin Laden wants everybody to convert to the True Way, or suffer the consequences?


Because I offer nothing that is harmful to the world, I just want people to let go of an evolutionary crutch we have carried for too long. I don't want anybody to believe something I can't demonstrate. I don't want people to kill in the name of it. In fact, people can just go on living their daily lives as if nothing had ever happened, minus the delusion. I have no doctrine, I have no laws besides what man has already made. There is no way or path or road to walk. You just have to be.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 10, 2013)

Considering this thread has now gone waaaaaay past the point of return on what the spirit of this thread was and that people have just flat out ignored mod requests from page 1, thread is closed.


----------

