# Do you believe in God, or some similar thing?



## Simo (Aug 4, 2016)

Myself, no, but I am tempted.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

~Nietzsche

And, this:

[


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 4, 2016)

I am an Atheist and have been one for the past 15 years, since I was 12.

I do not believe in any deities, demi-gods or gods.

However, I do not deny the actual possibility of there existing something out there similar to that of a god or deity, although that possibility so far at least, is immensely low.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Aug 4, 2016)

I used to be a Christian until about 4 years ago.

Right now I don't exactly know what I fall under? Perhaps some form of agnosticism, but I do believe in supernatural, things beyond our plane of existence, in a more general way, for I can't tell what they or it manifests as.


----------



## MEDS (Aug 4, 2016)

Simo said:


> Myself, no, but I am tempted.
> 
> "Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."
> 
> ...


Fun quote. This is a similar one that I relish.


> *If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth.*
> 
> Fyodor Dostoevsky


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 4, 2016)

Nopes.  Atheist.  I was a little dicey on that for a long while, but around 2006-2007 I just dropped the idea.

Reason?

Just seeing more and more theistic claims get shot to pieces online.  And after looking into things more and more I just let it go.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Aug 4, 2016)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Nopes.  Atheist.  I was a little dicey on that for a long while, but around 2006-2007 I just dropped the idea.
> 
> Reason?
> 
> Just seeing more and more theistic claims get shot to pieces online.  And after looking into things more and more I just let it go.



I know there's a whole reputation with online Atheists as some sort of militant belief hunters. I hate to say it but there are just some things that people say for their religion that are just not salvageable under any circumstance, and probably shouldn't be repeated.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 4, 2016)

Two of the bigger pushes for me:






and






I think they actually were linked to me here on FAF, ironically.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 5, 2016)

Ah yes, Thunderf00t. Lots of awesome videos on his channel, especially when it comes to science, physics, etc. Though I do disagree with him on Brexit in the UK.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Aug 5, 2016)

Agnostic apatheist, though I'd be remiss without acknowledging that my moral principles are Roman Catholic in origin.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is a deity, it is a blind and tinkering watchmaker who holds no special interest in this micropixel of a rock we call Earth and likely won't care about us amoebas.


----------



## Queh360 (Aug 5, 2016)

Perhaps and only perhaps...





But generally may it be I think on this:
Did God create men or did men create God?


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 5, 2016)

It must be blissful to truly have faith in something like a god (or goddess, or detity of any sort)

This day and age, with how scientists are doing everything they can to figure out how every little thing works, it's hard to have blind faith in something.  

I never liked Christianity, anyways, or anything like it.  A lot of it just makes no sense and everyone knows man wrote the bible (which literally just means the book).  

I won't completely rule out the possibility that there could be some kind of higher order when considering spiritual things.  I don't, however, believe in the kind of god(s) that try and make it sound like we're not really supposed to be here, and that 'living in this vessel' is just a test.  I don't believe in sin or that there is any true 'evil' or 'good'.  
I don't believe in hell.  Or really in heaven.  I'd like to believe that if we do have spirits, they get recycled.  I'd be curious to find out if there really is other realms, but I'm not going to rush to my death to find out xD


----------



## Queh360 (Aug 5, 2016)

Fate
and/or
The Time

Perhaps...

May it be...

I don't know;
I don't doubt,
I don't ensure...


----------



## thietkenhaxinh (Aug 5, 2016)

I used to be a Christian until about 5 years ago.


----------



## TidesofFate (Aug 5, 2016)

The Force. 

In all seriousness, I'm Atheist.


----------



## _Hushy (Aug 5, 2016)

I don't know anymore..


----------



## Somnium (Aug 5, 2016)

I don't, though I wish I did.


----------



## FoxInTheCloset (Aug 5, 2016)

I'm agnostic. I literally just don't care.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Aug 5, 2016)

Nope.


----------



## Final-Tensai (Aug 5, 2016)

Yes i still believe in god because I grew up with the bible for most of my life.


----------



## Zeitzbach (Aug 5, 2016)

I remember reading about some Yaoi gaylove god or something so I guess there's that one if I want my shipping to not sink.


----------



## Jarren (Aug 5, 2016)

I float somewhere between Taoist, agnostic, and animist. I wouldn't outright say there's nothing, and it's obvious our actions have a way of coming back to us or those around us (for good or ill). At the same time, I've not seen any hard, scientific, empirical evidence in favor of traditional religious belief to make me really take any of them too seriously. Couple that with half the crap people are doing for their faiths these days and I'd sooner not associate or believe there's anything/one up there who cares. *shrug*


----------



## Simo (Aug 5, 2016)

Somnium said:


> I don't, though I wish I did.



Same here; I often wish I did, or at least in reincarnation. Yet there's always ben this part of me that's very skeptical, but I can see where such beliefs could be a great comfort/consolation over all the various miserable things that happen, that we have no control over. Oh, and death. I'd like to know what 'happens', if anything! Often, my main worry is that death will simply be very boring.


----------



## Somnium (Aug 5, 2016)

Simo said:


> Same here; I often wish I did, or at least in reincarnation.



Well you can always imagine when you die you will be reborn as a new baby, but you just won't remember the previous life.


----------



## TomVaporeon (Aug 5, 2016)

I am a rather staunch atheist.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Aug 5, 2016)

Religion really isn't a good debate topic. Because it's heavily founded on faith, instead of facts and evidence. Faith is something that's objective, varying from person to person.

If people want to believe in one god, many gods, or no gods, have at it. I see no point in everyone attempting to prove everyone else wrong. I think if there were a god, or gods, they would either be an observatory god, or a spiteful one. But that's simply my opinion.


----------



## Queh360 (Aug 5, 2016)

One by one, respect for respect.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Aug 5, 2016)

I am some strange mix of Christian and Taoist. It makes me happy.



KittenAdmin said:


> If people want to believe in one god, many gods, or no gods, have at it. I see no point in everyone attempting to prove everyone else wrong.


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## TidesofFate (Aug 5, 2016)

AsheSkyler said:


> I am some strange mix of Christian and Taoist. It makes me happy.
> 
> 
> My sentiments exactly.


Almost thought you were going to say toast and not taoist.


----------



## Jarren (Aug 5, 2016)

KittenAdmin said:


> If people want to believe in one god, many gods, or no gods, have at it.


#AllGodsMatter


----------



## Protonite (Aug 5, 2016)

I haven't since about 5 years ago. I always thought religion was useless and boring, though, so that must be a reason.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 5, 2016)

#GodLivesMatter


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Aug 5, 2016)

Protonite said:


> I haven't since about 5 years ago. I always thought religion was useless and boring, though, so that must be a reason.



Besides the not-so-nice ones, I wouldn't say useless. Quite a few religions base their philosophies around state of mind, well being, and emotional stability. While you may not necessarily believe in their customs, some of their practices do have a profound realistically grounded effect on the mind.


----------



## Ashkay Snowhunter (Aug 5, 2016)

I'm a Pentecostal Christian. Been in church since I was born. Though, I find what I believe to be very different from everyone else in my family.


----------



## Epistates (Aug 6, 2016)

I am a Messianic Christian [i.e. a Jew who acknowledges that Jesus is the Messiah] who clung to the faith for the past two decades of my life. I believe that science and mysticism to an extent can cast light on subjects from the viewpoints of "how" and "why" such-and-such exists to derive meaning of creation. I've beheld a lot of wonders from the animals' pecularities in foreign cultures that convinces me of Intellectual Design merging a "harmonious" significance to their contribution to the world, and life lessons.


----------



## Vorelover467 (Aug 6, 2016)

Pentecostal Christian. I also live next to the church we go to.


----------



## ShamonCornell (Aug 6, 2016)

The short answer: "I identify as Christian, but believe in a healthy separation of Church and Faith".

The long answer:  I believe that a God of sorts does exist, as sometimes the world and its idiocies are just a spot too orderly, to truly be entirely coincidence...but I'm not entirely sold on the "old man with robes" answer.  It could be male, female, or utterly genderless, only appearing as one thing or another, so as to be fathomable to mortal minds.

I think all religions having the same exact overarching message, is worthy of note.  In the words of Bill and Tedd, "Be most excellent to each other".  As written, most religious documents are deeply intended to be positive and loose guidelines to save us from ourselves.  As such, it's entirely possible, as the Hindu myths say, that all gods are the same God, simply tailoring itself to how the locals would best be able to interpret the message.

As such, some Outer Being, has for tens of thousands of years, been trying to tell us "hey, guys?  Be cool, stop killing one another.  Be friends.  Cool?"

So, obviously, we did the most human thing:  we started killing each other all over the place, in the name of a being who always stresses the opposite of their actions.

As such, while my personal morality may be founded loosely in Christianity, I have long concluded that the books, organizations and such have largely gotten off-base.  Is Jesus the literal son of God?  Possible, but possibly not.  Remember, we're all God's sons and daughters.  Similarly, preachers and the Pope are no holier than a hobo on the side of a street.  Similarly, none are inherently less holy.  We're all just as flawed, incomplete and imperfect.  That isn't a defect, but a feature!

You'll never find me in a church, and my Bible is closer to a series of music quotes than some bronze-age tribal myth followed by a guy in the Iron Age spelling out "stop being dick to each other" shortly before getting nailed to a cross.  You'll be even less likely to see me pushing my views on others...but, it's my framework for grasping at the universe, so I don't begrudge its existence.


----------



## Ziplone (Aug 6, 2016)

Not a god but cats do have Starclan. A giant clan of dead cats that come to you in dreams and give you 1ups. But if you are bad you will have to live in a forest not unlike the forest you are already in but it is dark and the rules are very unclear and easily broken.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Aug 6, 2016)

TidesofFate said:


> Almost thought you were going to say toast and not taoist.


I am also a firm believer in toast. Got a potentially gooey sandwich, such as scrambled eggs? Toast is the answer. 



ShamonCornell said:


> As such, some Outer Being, has for tens of thousands of years, been trying to tell us "hey, guys? Be cool, stop killing one another. Be friends. Cool?"


I really enjoy studying other religions and philosophies, and I find the core message in each is basically that. "Be nice and chill out". Some more in depth studiers believe that is a fundamental human value due to its prevalence. Kind of hard to believe that sometimes since we are so very good at killing each other.


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 6, 2016)

I worship Gaia.  Nature is my Goddess.  She controls all, is all. She is loving, hateful and neither.  We try to run from her, but she always finds a way.  When we die, we return to her and become something else.  Unless you take out all your organs, drain the body of nutrients and shove that body in a sealed box.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Aug 6, 2016)

DravenDonovan said:


> Unless you take out all your organs, drain the body of nutrients and shove that body in a sealed box.



So basically: "Screw you, ancient Egyptian royalty!".


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 6, 2016)

MadKiyo said:


> So basically: "Screw you, ancient Egyptian royalty!".


Pretty much xD


----------



## ShamonCornell (Aug 6, 2016)

The Ancient Egyptian royalty:  a case study in What Not to Do:
- Inbreeding to the point of major deformity and disability
- Crossing the streams, of religion and state
- Letting Axom and Persia invade weekly
- Library of Alexandria, anyone?


----------



## Swiftz (Aug 7, 2016)

I dont think i believe in 'the' God but i do think that there are way to many crazy unexpected miraculous things that happen for their NOT to be some sort of extra variable we cannot perceive. I base this on a spiritual sort of level. The idea then begins to morph more when we  as humans believe this 'spirit' together connecting us on levels we cannot even fathom. This connection i think is what causes great feats to happen beyond actual logic and rules of this reality.


----------



## nerdbat (Aug 7, 2016)

I don't believe in God, but I also find some religions out there quite cool, since their idea of getting to Heaven at the end revolves around not being a dick during your lifetime, and many religions provide you with a good set of rules and examples to help in never-ending quest of not being a dick. Of course, there are some religions that embrace dickery, but they're few and far between, and as of now, I've seen many more annoying and obnoxious atheists than christians or buddhists or mormones or etc.


----------



## JynxLynx (Aug 7, 2016)

I believe in a creator and some form of afterlife, whether it be Heaven or reincarnation, but otherwise I don't preach anything from the Bible or similar books of similar religions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 7, 2016)

I don't believe in any gods, spirits, forces or so on, because there isn't sufficient evidence to support their existence. In fact there's very good evidence to show the existence of magical creatures is impossible.




KittenAdmin said:


> Religion really isn't a good debate topic. Because it's heavily founded on faith, instead of facts and evidence. *Faith is something that's objective*, varying from person to person.
> 
> If people want to believe in one god, many gods, or no gods, have at it. I see no point in everyone attempting to prove everyone else wrong. I think if there were a god, or gods, they would either be an observatory god, or a spiteful one. But that's simply my opinion.



Do you mean subjective?




Swiftz said:


> I dont think i believe in 'the' God but i do think that there are way to many crazy unexpected miraculous things that happen for their NOT to be some sort of extra variable we cannot perceive. I base this on a spiritual sort of level. The idea then begins to morph more when we  as humans believe this 'spirit' together connecting us on levels we cannot even fathom. This connection i think is what causes great feats to happen beyond actual logic and rules of this reality.



Perhaps, rather than events happening which are beyond the 'rules of logic and reality' your understanding of the laws of physics is simply incomplete. 

That's a much simpler explanation than attributing occurrences you don't understand to magical intervention.


----------



## Sergei Nóhomo (Aug 7, 2016)

I believe you fucking treat people with a baseline and then take it from there


----------



## KittenAdmin (Aug 7, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you mean subjective?


Yep.


----------



## Somnium (Aug 7, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't believe in any gods, spirits, forces or so on, because there isn't sufficient evidence to support their existence.



Once there wasn't enough evidence to prove that we circle around the sun, yet it became a such common knowledge nowadays.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 8, 2016)

I believe in the Kami. Almost everything has a spirit or divine essence to it; trees, rocks, rivers, fields, valleys, buildings, nations and even _ideas!_


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Aug 8, 2016)

Zaedrin said:


> I believe in the Kami. Almost everything has a spirit or divine essence to it; trees, rocks, rivers, fields, valleys, buildings, nations and even _ideas!_



I have a similar thought. It's based around the question of individualism, and why people ask "why am I me, and not anyone else?". Basically I believe that we are all connected, but in an inconceivable way, something we couldn't understand. Whether that be metaphysical or just the workings of the universe, I don't know the details.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 8, 2016)

MadKiyo said:


> I have a similar thought. It's based around the question of individualism, and why people ask "why am I me, and not anyone else?". Basically I believe that we are all connected, but in an inconceivable way, something we couldn't understand. Whether that be metaphysical or just the workings of the universe, I don't know the details.



In my personal interpretation of cosmogenesis (I'm writing this into a spiritual treatise), everything inside this "cosmic egg" was perfect because there was no individuality or independent thought, containing all of the energies of creation. Then, identities formed because of a need for meaning -- for purpose. They surrounded the elements around them, isolated and absorbed them to become intelligent elements: the first gods. The rapid expansion of newer and newer elements and identities caused the "egg" to explode, triggering the big bang. Does that make sense?

So there's your answer: we are individuals because we need to provide meaning in our own ways.


----------



## Inzoreno (Aug 8, 2016)

I've been an atheist for the past 5 or so years.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Aug 8, 2016)

Zaedrin said:


> In my personal interpretation of cosmogenesis (I'm writing this into a spiritual treatise), everything inside this "cosmic egg" was perfect because there was no individuality or independent thought, containing all of the energies of creation. Then, identities formed because of a need for meaning -- for purpose. They surrounded the elements around them, isolated and absorbed them to become intelligent elements: the first gods. The rapid expansion of newer and newer elements and identities caused the "egg" to explode, triggering the big bang. Does that make sense?
> 
> So there's your answer: we are individuals because we need to provide meaning in our own ways.



Well I was going for more an approach that we are all one concience. We can expell our knowledge and thoughts with others, but in limited ways. To directly connect with another's mind through space is another feat. It is something beyond out capabilties to sense or tap into,  but it's there, and makes everyone's perspective possible. It's like the universe is what sees, hears, and thinks, and not us.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 8, 2016)

MadKiyo said:


> Well I was going for more an approach that we are all one concience. We can expell out knowledge and thoughts with others, but in limited ways. To directly connect with another's mind through space is another feat. It is something beyond out capabilties to sense or tap into,  but it's there, and makes everyone's perspective possible. It's like the universe is what sees, hears,, and thinks, and not us.



Ah, sorry. The nature of individuality and consciousness is a very abstract one.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Aug 8, 2016)

Zaedrin said:


> Ah, sorry. The nature of individuality and consciousness is a very abstract one.



Very complicated, but fundamentally it makes sense that there would be some sort of unifying idea behind it. Doesn't exclude spirits of course.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 8, 2016)

MadKiyo said:


> Very complicated, but fundamentally it makes sense that there would be some sort of unifying idea behind it. Doesn't exclude spirits of course.



A lot of my beliefs are determined by what feels "right." Things that feel like they're accurate and/or appropriate on an intellectual, intuitive and instinctive level.


----------



## modfox (Aug 8, 2016)

i remember when i started a religious thread
it went down hill fast


----------



## Ziplone (Aug 8, 2016)

modfox said:


> i remember when i started a religious thread
> it went down hill fast


the refs also LOVE it when you make a fetish forum.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 8, 2016)

modfox said:


> i remember when i started a religious thread
> it went down hill fast



It isn't always bad. Depends on what's at the bottom of the hill.


----------



## Zipline (Aug 8, 2016)

The flying spaghetti monster has promised me an endless ocean of noodles with tasty fish living in it and eggnog rivers. Cant argue with that.


----------



## Aud (Aug 8, 2016)

I'm agnostic and have always been. I did go to church sometimes when growing up and sometimes still go to church related events with others that are christian, but a lot of the time to me it seems like I'm being brainwashed. I really respect people who are religious but don't ever feel the need to spread it to others. I understand that a lot of the messages taught in the bible can be positive, but a lot are outdated and aren't relevant (mostly ones pertaining to homosexuality.) Too many people take things from a book written thousands of years ago too seriously imo.


----------



## Rheumatism (Aug 8, 2016)

The idea of god is fascinating.  Religious culture is always interesting.

Not a fan of his fanbase though.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 8, 2016)

Rheumatism said:


> The idea of god is fascinating.  Religious culture is always interesting.
> 
> Not a fan of his fanbase though.



Yeah, 2,000 years worth of crusades, oppression and persecution is not exactly good PR.


----------



## ShamonCornell (Aug 8, 2016)

Zaedrin said:


> Yeah, 2,000 years worth of crusades, oppression and persecution is not exactly good PR.


Try ten thousand, at the most conservative estimate.

The Middle East, for example, has literally been a religious bloodbath since the first humans found the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  Zoroastrians, Mesopotamians of all stripes, and finally the polytheistic Persians who founded the concept of Iran...who, in turn, were full of religious strife amongst themselves.

Europe, in the same era, was full of assorted religions, and they all wanted each other dead.  The Celts and the Saxons, the Visigoths and Thracians against Rome and Greece...and then Persia had to come and muck with all of them.

Africa was hardly a damned religious togetherness zone.  Know how half the continent is a mass of warlords, genocidal maniacs, and such?  Well, the only thing that's changed, near as modern understanding can tell, is the tools such warfare and genocide are perpetrated with.  That's AFRICA.

So, let's look as mesoamerica.  You have the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incans, and they ALL hate each other.  Unreasonably, murderously so, and then on top of that, you add the human sacrifices to the sun gods.  North America may not have had that element, but you can bet religious differences are a large part of why many of the tribal nations warred with one another, long before Europeans mucked it all up with their small pox blankets.

Religious strife is as old as religion itself...no religion, including atheism, is without blood on its hands, if it's more than a century old.


----------



## Rigby (Aug 8, 2016)

If there was a God, it certainly doesn't want to be disturbed, so let it be while we fuck about among ourselves on this rock.

Now, is there an afterlife? Of course not. At least not one in which our consciousness is sustained after the death of the body. Once the body is dead, its consciousness is lost forever.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Aug 9, 2016)

ShamonCornell said:


> Persians



They were an exception that wouldn't be seen again until the Mongols. Zoroastrianism, the state religion of the Persian Empire, is a religion that doesn't encourage conversion of non-believers, and the Persians were pretty open for their time. It was also common practice that they permit the locals to rule themselves, so long as they paid their taxes and their kings pledged their allegiance to the Persian high king.



> Europe, in the same era, was full of assorted religions, and they all wanted each other dead.  The Celts and the Saxons, the Visigoths and Thracians against Rome and Greece...



Polytheistic pagan people with such similar deities that it often came down to name and offerings to differentiate them. With that said, Rome was a pretty secular imperial power for one steeped in a pantheon they pretty much stole from the Greeks (the Romans weren't very good at innovating much beyond their military prowess), and Greece, up until the attempted Persian conquest and Alexander the Great, consisted of little more than city-states that didn't really like one another despite being so similar.



> Persia had to come and muck with all of them.



I'm wondering how much of this seems to be derived from Frank Miller's 300.

As stated before, the Persians were an incredibly tolerant people for their time, such that they were written about with high regard in the Old Testament, and even Alexander the Great, who would go on to conquer them as part of his short-lived Macedonian empire, admired them. Like Rome however, Persia was an imperial power in its day.



> You have the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incans, and they ALL hate each other.



I have my doubts that the Incans had any lines of communication with the other two.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 9, 2016)

Zaedrin said:


> Yeah, 2,000 years worth of crusades, oppression and persecution is not exactly good PR.


Crusades? The crusades happened on TWO occasions. And were defensive/reactionary wars that took place because of a Muslim invasion of Europe.

Religion makes good people do bad things. It also gives bad people incentive to do bad things.

This has happened for thousands of years.

However, the worst religion currently is in fact Islam.


----------



## Sergei Nóhomo (Aug 9, 2016)

Yakamaru said:


> Crusades? The crusades happened on TWO occasions. And were defensive/reactionary wars that took place because of a Muslim invasion of Europe.
> 
> Religion makes good people do bad things. It also gives bad people incentive to do bad things.
> 
> ...



You know even I've gotta agree. Yeah sure the book in some parts does preach about good faith and shit but there's also passages about just slaughtering those who refuse to convert and all that shit


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 9, 2016)

Yakamaru said:


> Crusades? The crusades happened on TWO occasions. And were defensive/reactionary wars that took place because of a Muslim invasion of Europe.
> 
> Religion makes good people do bad things. It also gives bad people incentive to do bad things.
> 
> ...



45,000 terrorists are not an accurate representation of BILLIONS of people. Scientology on the other hand...


----------



## Very Hairy Larry (Aug 9, 2016)

Zipline said:


> The flying spaghetti monster has promised me an endless ocean of noodles with tasty fish living in it and eggnog rivers. Cant argue with that.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 9, 2016)

Zaedrin said:


> 45,000 terrorists are not an accurate representation of BILLIONS of people.


And yet, the majority shuts up about it. Also, it's not billions. It's 1.6.

carm.org: Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, sharia, isis, and welfare

^ Some interesting numbers you should check out.


----------



## Very Hairy Larry (Aug 9, 2016)

Yakamaru said:


> Crusades? The crusades happened on TWO occasions. And were defensive/reactionary wars that took place because of a Muslim invasion of Europe.
> 
> Religion makes good people do bad things. It also gives bad people incentive to do bad things.
> 
> ...


Didn't know we had hicks in the fandom....


----------



## JumboWumbo (Aug 9, 2016)




----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 9, 2016)

Just a note, before this gets too far off track:  This is a thread asking for people's personal beliefs on God.  Not discussing which religion(s) cause the most grief or insulting groups of people.

This is a sensitive topic.  Please keep that sensitive nature in mind when replying, and please try to not derail the thread.


----------



## Simo (Aug 9, 2016)

It's odd: I keep thinking what a consolation it would be, and a comfort, to believe in _something_. And yet always that part of me athat has been never able to make the leap of faith, as Kierkegaard called it...

I keep thinking of all the various miserable things that happen, that we have no control over: disease, pain, floods, famine, death, plain old bad luck, and just the notion of fate and luck, in and f themselves.

I recall when my friend died at 29 of cancer, and had led a very cautious life; he didn't smoke, drink, do drugs just suddenly developed liver cancer, and bam, gone in under a month. And it made _no sense_. An yet part of demanded an explanation: It seemed so unfair, and simply to say to myself that ,life is unfair was no real consolation. I lost a few other friends at that time, and each time, (Suicide, cancer) and it always makes me wonder what sense there is in any of it; that it's just random is logical, but not comforting.

I'd like to know what _'happens'_, if anything, when we die. Often, my main worry is that death will simply be very boring. Or that it's painful, or that nothing happens, which is hard to imagine.

~

On the topic of reincarnation: I've been tempted by this notion. Some will argue that if matter and energy are conserved, then something must happen when we die, and there's a certain appeal to reappearing as something else. But in two cases where I saw a friend drift off into a final coma, perhaps a day before death, they both spoke of rather similar sensations: of being dissolved, of some great force pulling them part, as if into pieces, 'reading them', and 'dismantling the categories': In both cases, there was a great sense of dissociation, and the one friend spoke of being in a kind of centrifuge, which was pulling his 'self' apart, and was absorbing him then scattering his energy/matter outwards. Those were his last words, more or less.

So I thought: Perhaps there is a kind of reincarnation, but not one where we are reincarnated _as any one thing_, but have particles of what used to be 'us' in many things, from blades of grass, to animals, to microbes, perhaps even to stone, to air...and that consciousness and the sense of self are dissolved during death.

I'm not sure what brings this up; my mom has cancer, and has pulled though OK, perhaps that is it, though, that fear again, of wondering what happens.

And then, I have wondered, (as the OP jokingly suggests in song): Why so much suffering?

But that's what I tend to do, is ponder such things, staring out the train window, on the way to work, observing the deer nibbling grass, the groundhogs, the occasional cranes and herons, and sometimes, a fox in the marshy margin of the tracks, the ducks swimming in this huge area where a part of cemetery has been flooded, oblivious to all this, paddling around the tops of tombstones, casting ripples across the water.

~

Again, thanks for the discussion, and again, I did mean to keep this to what religion means to you in a personal sense...not to debate the merits of any particular one, or the historical, global and other aspects...which is hard!


----------



## Zenoth (Aug 9, 2016)

I always thought Immortal Technique got the nail on the head with the line, "Man made god in his own image, so he could fool other men into believing their own gimmicks"  

I guess I lean towards a mix of agnostic and pagan.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 9, 2016)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Just a note, before this gets too far off track:  This is a thread asking for people's personal beliefs on God/gods.  Not discussing which religion(s) cause the most grief or insulting groups of people.
> 
> This is a sensitive topic.  Please keep that sensitive nature in mind when replying, and please try to not derail the thread.


It is one of the downsides with such a thread: It will derail to some extent. Like with any thread and topic, actually. It's the nature of things on forums. Especially discussions/debates/topics such as these.

Who have insulted in this thread? I've been following this thread with some interest and can't say anyone's been insulting. Yet.

This topic is a sensitive one because people make it into one.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 9, 2016)

Yakamaru said:


> It is one of the downsides with such a thread: It will derail to some extent. Like with any thread and topic, actually. It's the nature of things on forums. Especially discussions/debates/topics such as these.
> 
> Who have insulted in this thread? I've been following this thread with some interest and can't say anyone's been insulting. Yet.
> 
> This topic is a sensitive one because people make it into one.



A number of the more recent posts were gradually sidelining the thread's main topic and leading it towards mud-slinging.  I'm just heading it off before any genuine lines got crossed.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 9, 2016)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> A number of the more recent posts were gradually sidelining the thread's main topic and leading it towards mud-slinging.  I'm just heading it off before any genuine lines got crossed.


Fair point.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 10, 2016)

Yes, let's get back on track. To break the ice, does anyone want to read a couple excerpts from my spiritual treatise?


----------



## Zipline (Aug 10, 2016)

Fight the power! X3


----------



## AsheSkyler (Aug 10, 2016)

Are there any other geeks here that get a bit too excited with charts like this? The Big Religion Chart - ReligionFacts I have it saved to my computer. *_*
One thing I found really fascinating was the prevalence of "reincarnation until enlightenment/liberation/heaven/etc." regarding the afterlife, and just how often reincarnation popped up in general.



Zaedrin said:


> Yes, let's get back on track. To break the ice, does anyone want to read a couple excerpts from my spiritual treatise?


What all is involved in it?


----------



## -Sliqq- (Aug 10, 2016)

Yes, I'm Christian : specifically from the Reformed Church. I question the meaning of life more than the existence of God.

So far, I've found none and I'm ok with that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Once there wasn't enough evidence to prove that we circle around the sun, yet it became a such common knowledge nowadays.



On the day that evidence proving there is a god emerges I will be convinced.

The same of course, can be said of fairies, angels and dragons.



Zaedrin said:


> In my personal interpretation of cosmogenesis (I'm writing this into a spiritual treatise), everything inside this "cosmic egg" was perfect because there was no individuality or independent thought, containing all of the energies of creation. Then, identities formed because of a need for meaning -- for purpose. They surrounded the elements around them, isolated and absorbed them to become intelligent elements: the first gods. The rapid expansion of newer and newer elements and identities caused the "egg" to explode, triggering the big bang. *Does that make sense?*
> 
> So there's your answer: we are individuals because we need to provide meaning in our own ways.



No. It sounds more like you don't actually know what the big bang event was, because your explanation is physically inconsistent with astronomy and mainstream cosmogony.


----------



## Somnium (Aug 10, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> On the day that evidence proving there is a god emerges I will be convinced.
> 
> The same of course, can be said of fairies, angels and dragons.



Do you know why people buy lottery tickets? It gives them hope that things will get better, even though there's little chance in winning and they understand it. Yet these poor fellas still choose to keep buying them, cause hope is sometimes all you need and faith doesn't cost you anything.


----------



## Zipline (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Do you know why people buy lottery tickets? It gives them hope that things will get better, even though there's little chance in winning and they understand it. Yet these poor fellas still choose to keep buying them, cause hope is sometimes all you need and faith doesn't cost you anything.


I won a lottery at a con before!  Got a shirt and a bandanna. :3


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Do you know why people buy lottery tickets? It gives them hope that things will get better, even though there's little chance in winning and they understand it. Yet these poor fellas still choose to keep buying them, cause hope is sometimes all you need and faith doesn't cost you anything.



That strikes me as a completely irrelevant point to the discussion.

The comment you were responding to stated the poster would believe in something of the super-natural when evidence was presented.

Your post was a mix of downing on those with religious belief and downing on those that buy lottery tickets.

Please keep your comments on topic, not needlessly hostile.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Do you know why people buy lottery tickets? It gives them hope that things will get better, even though there's little chance in winning and they understand it. Yet these poor fellas still choose to keep buying them, cause hope is sometimes all you need and faith doesn't cost you anything.



Obviously being more concerned with the emotional significance of beliefs than whether they are really supported by evidence is an efficient means of filling your head up with nonsense.

I'm not sure I would describe that as 'no cost', especially given the sectarian violence across the world which is waged in the name of different people's gods.


SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> That strikes me as a completely irrelevant point to the discussion.
> 
> The comment you were responding to stated the poster would believe in something of the super-natural when evidence was presented.
> 
> ...



Actually I think he was attempting to articulate a version of Pascal's wager. 

'You may as well believe, and hope that you are rewarded with heaven, because there's nothing to lose'.

Which is obviously a bogus argument.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 10, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Obviously being more concerned with the emotional significance of beliefs than whether they are really supported by evidence is an efficient means of filling your head up with nonsense.
> 
> I'm not sure I would describe that as 'no cost', especially given the sectarian violence across the world which is waged in the name of different people's gods.
> 
> ...



Possible, but it was still largely off-topic, and needlessly belittling.


----------



## Somnium (Aug 10, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Obviously being more concerned with the emotional significance of beliefs than whether they are really supported by evidence is an efficient means of filling your head up with nonsense.



Well Santa was indeed fun to me. Yea he probably doesn't exist but I will still tell my kids that Santa brings them presents. 



Fallowfox said:


> You may as well believe, and hope that you are rewarded with heaven, because there's nothing to lose'.



If that makes you happy then why not? At least you will die in peace. 



SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Possible, but it was still largely off-topic, and needlessly belittling.



It just flew over your head. I assume we don't know everything as we never did.


----------



## Cannabiskitty (Aug 10, 2016)

I don't believe in god just due to the lack of proof that any exists. I don't have any problem with any religion. Go Satan.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> It just flew over your head. I assume we don't know everything as we never did.



Or you just phrased and typed it very poorly, which resulted in the concept you wished to communicate being badly communicated.  

I think that's more likely.

Phrase things completely and more articulately, especially when it comes to concepts like religion and how religion compares to other aspects of life.  At least then you'll be making a clear point, and it can be clear that the point you're attempting to make is on-topic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Well Santa was indeed fun to me. Yea he probably doesn't exist but I will still tell my kids that Santa brings them presents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Given religion's involvement in politics and war, I don't think that it can be regarded as little more than a comforting delusion. 

I'm not sure arguing in favour of filling one's head up with comforting nonsense is a good thing, anyway.


----------



## Somnium (Aug 10, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Given religion's involvement in politics and war, I don't think that it can be regarded as little more than a comforting delusion.
> 
> I'm not sure arguing in favour of filling one's head up with comforting nonsense is a good thing, anyway.



Each to their own. Since we are the creators of our subjective world we can shape it any way we want, fill it with unicorns and rainbows, make it our own little heaven. Sometimes reality just doesn't fit there.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Each to their own. Since we are the creators of our subjective world we can shape it any way we want, fill it with unicorns and rainbows, make it our own little heaven. Sometimes reality just doesn't fit there.



Ney, and you're being needlessly both belittling and obtuse.

If anything, I think you and the prior poster seem to be agreeing on how religion shouldn't factor into real-world political affairs, but you're just slinging it in a way that's meant to sting everyone because you really don't like religion.

Fine, you don't like religion.  Don't let that dislike steer you towards making toxic commentary irregardless of the substance others are contributing to the discussion.


----------



## Somnium (Aug 10, 2016)

Does anyone else think I hate religion? Religion is cool, it can make people happy and that's great


----------



## Kovy (Aug 10, 2016)

barbaric man explaining the universe to causing terrific wars and death across Europe.


Meh, knock ur self out


----------



## Cannabiskitty (Aug 10, 2016)

So many open minded, forward thinking individuals in this forum.


----------



## Grruelty (Aug 10, 2016)

No comments on the Great Giraffe who dwells in the eternal forest.


----------



## Cannabiskitty (Aug 10, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Each to their own. Since we are the creators of our subjective world we can shape it any way we want, fill it with unicorns and rainbows, make it our own little heaven. Sometimes reality just doesn't fit there.



That is incorrect. All things exist in the same reality and must all follow the same design. The only way to create a new reality is to change the already existing one.


----------



## ShamonCornell (Aug 10, 2016)

Let folks believe what they want, so long as they ain't hurting anybody or demanding it be taught in Science class...or receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to build a fake boat as a fake museum, with fake dinosaur cages.


----------



## ScentedBones (Aug 10, 2016)

How to make an active forum thread in which everyone glares at one another:
Step 1: *Religion*
Step 2: Profit
Done


----------



## Somnium (Aug 10, 2016)

Cannabiskitty said:


> That is incorrect. All things exist in the same reality and must all follow the same design. The only way to create a new reality is to change the already existing one.



How can one man's trash another man's treasure if we all live in the same reality?


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 10, 2016)

ScentedBones said:


> How to make an active forum thread in which everyone glares at one another:
> Step 1: *Religion*
> Step 2: Profit
> Done



Please keep your replies on topic.  The thread topic is "Do you believe in God, or some similar thing?"

Sure, topics wander a bit.  But please don't try to further drag things off their intended topic.


----------



## Reptillicus (Aug 10, 2016)

ShamonCornell said:


> Let folks believe what they want, so long as they ain't hurting anybody or demanding it be taught in Science class...or receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to build a fake boat as a fake museum, with fake dinosaur cages.


this^ fuck anyone that thinks they should tell other people what to believe
I do believe in something anyway


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 10, 2016)

This is just a general notice to all:  Please keep your replies on topic.  

Things are wandering more than a little, and more and more it's just towards the angle of general controversy (again).  If you have comments relative towards the main topic, by all means post them.  If your comments are geared more towards miring things in muck/controversy, hold on them.

If you are not religious (or at least believe in a deity), say why.

If you are religious (or at least believe in a deity), say why.  

Those are the aims of the topic.


----------



## Cannabiskitty (Aug 10, 2016)

I would be interested in hearing a theory about god that doesn't ask me to believe in a being who exists outside of our perception. I mean who is to stop me from considering Freddie Mercury to be a god? And why not? The definition of god is interpreted in so many different ways it would be appropriate to say that we worship an abundance of gods.


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 10, 2016)

forums.furaffinity.net: Is my age a concern? Want to worry about a thread that is going 'off topic' go here.  This one is so derailed, it really prob should be locked.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Aug 10, 2016)

DravenDonovan said:


> forums.furaffinity.net: Is my age a concern? Want to worry about a thread that is going 'off topic' go here.  This one is so derailed, it really prob should be locked.



Please use the forum's Report function to handle this, not post about it in an unrelated thread.


----------



## DravenDonovan (Aug 10, 2016)




----------



## Cannabiskitty (Aug 11, 2016)

I think that god is whatever or whoever you worship on a daily basis. This does not mean that god has to be an actual sentient being, though it can be but more of an icon that brings you to terms with your day to day struggles. All you have to do is look at your every day rituals if you have them and try to work out your individual deities. Music. Art. Video games. Television. Cleaning. Friends. Family. etc.


----------



## Zaedrin (Aug 11, 2016)

AsheSkyler said:


> Are there any other geeks here that get a bit too excited with charts like this? The Big Religion Chart - ReligionFacts I have it saved to my computer. *_*
> One thing I found really fascinating was the prevalence of "reincarnation until enlightenment/liberation/heaven/etc." regarding the afterlife, and just how often reincarnation popped up in general.
> 
> 
> What all is involved in it?



"What all is involved?" I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.


----------



## Yakamaru (Aug 17, 2016)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> irregardless


Irregardless is not a word.


----------



## FelisFloof (Aug 18, 2016)

I was brought up Roman Catholic, which in my house meant that we went to church and judged ourselves and others for our little discrepancies..... which was lame as anything now that I think back.  After doing some stumbling in the dark because I couldn't take that mindset anymore, I found that I still believed that there was some sort of divinity that if called upon would come and help you in some form or another but didn't really care about the little mistakes you made or even big ones as long as you learn from them I guess.  I've also had some really odd experiences that I could only describe as spiritual or paranormal as well as one very freaky er.... premonition?  Which somehow ended up being right.  So there's got to be SOMETHING.  Even if it isn't a god.  Something is out there based on my experiences alone.


----------



## KittenAdmin (Aug 18, 2016)

So here are my thoughts on the matter:

We are probably the only thing on this planet that understands that one day we will inevitably die. No matter what we think, as we get closer and closer to an age where death begins to loom before us, we more and more start to seek comfort in the possibility of something more when we leave this earth. I've seen it happen with older friends of mine quite a bit when they hit that mid-life crisis area. 

The thing to understand is that nothing has permanence, not even this universe. At some point everything is going to evaporate into energy and there will be nothing but blackness. We live to live in the moment. After we die, who cares what happens? We'll be dead. Enjoy life as it is now. Take a deep breath of that fresh air, go for a hike, explore a VR world, enjoy a night out with friends and family. Those collection of moments are what together craft the intricate tapestry of your life. You only get one, make it count.


----------



## Zipline (Aug 19, 2016)

I admit to not supporting all religions.


----------



## AnthonyStark (Aug 19, 2016)

I believe in Loki and the Norse gods. xP


----------



## ElZorroValdez (Aug 20, 2016)

I believe in a large monster, with two large meatspheres that constructs its frame, and many noodle-like appendages of which it uses to grace you.


----------



## Jazz Panther (Aug 20, 2016)

The only people who deserve to suffer are those who had it coming to them. You know the ones. The ones who cause other people's lives to be miserable. They lie, they cheat, they double-cross, they back stab, and they do all of this because they get amusement from it. These are the people who should at least suffer a little. . .and hopefully in the end, they can be turned to God, who will show them the light. 
That's the great thing about God. God's forgiveness is eternal. No matter how far you go down the wrong road in life, so long as you believe in God and have faith in knowing that he'll be there for you in the end, you can have a fulfilling heart that is good and pure. However, you have to be fulfilling. There are the seven sins which God dispises of which you must avoid. Should you avoid these (and sadly, in this day and age, we end up committing all seven at some point in our lives), you will have a pure heart, and God will love you for it.


----------



## Saiko (Aug 20, 2016)

Jazz Panther said:


> The only people who deserve to suffer are those who had it coming to them. You know the ones.


The only people who deserve to suffer are the ones who deserve to suffer, and we all know who those are. :V


----------



## FonzieThSuperWizard (Aug 20, 2016)

Jesus is the way and light. :3 'Nuff said.


----------



## Kapronsis (Aug 20, 2016)

ElZorroValdez said:


> I believe in a large monster, with two large meatspheres that constructs its frame, and many noodle-like appendages of which it uses to grace you.


R'Amen.


----------



## Sl0shy (Aug 21, 2016)

nope. atheist.



Yakamaru said:


> Irregardless is not a word.


at least his post is a tiny bit relevant to the thread unlike yours.


----------



## Zipline (Aug 21, 2016)

Ima atheist but if i had to pick a religion then the FSM is for me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 22, 2016)

FelisFloof said:


> I was brought up Roman Catholic, which in my house meant that we went to church and judged ourselves and others for our little discrepancies..... which was lame as anything now that I think back.  After doing some stumbling in the dark because I couldn't take that mindset anymore, I found that I still believed that there was some sort of divinity that if called upon would come and help you in some form or another but didn't really care about the little mistakes you made or even big ones as long as you learn from them I guess.  I've also had some really odd experiences that I could only describe as spiritual or paranormal as well as one very freaky er.... premonition?  Which somehow ended up being right.  So there's got to be SOMETHING.  Even if it isn't a god.  Something is out there based on my experiences alone.



Weird experiences, such as premonitions, are not most readily explained by inferring the existence of magical father-figures who watch over us. 

There are 7 billion people on Earth; it would be improbable that_ none_ of them ever have a dream, hallucination or psychotic episode which appears to predict a future event. 

For example, consider the age-old belief that comets are omens of impending change; this likely results from the coincidental association of a comet sighting with a great historical event. It is not necessary to assume that the comet actually has magical properties that decide men's fates.


----------



## Raddy Fox (Aug 22, 2016)

I was a christian from upbringing, a real bible nut through my teens. I did (and still do) really enjoy going into detail of the old testament and its ancient, somewhat eerie if true stories. Plus the thought of creatures like the Leviathan existing excited me.

21 I started to question if it was all real, seen as I'd still not heard a single word from him. Wait to go with the one way relationship Jesus. When you're fully immersed in a religion, this can be a dangerous place to be. My whole life I'd been taught I needed religion and God, or I'd fail and be nothing. I've told myself literally 1,000's of times over and over "You are almighty, I am worthless. I can do nothing without you but can do all things through you."

Leaving something like that when you trully, trully believe what I've just quoted above, and depend wholly upon there been a God to the point you not only question your existence without but despise it and end up despise all those associated with it (humans).

So, no, I don't believe in God (can tell I'm still in bible mode, can't stop writing God with a capital G.) and I hear people in the fandom say often they wished they did, but I'd urge them to maybe give that a second thought, if they're to look to religions for one. They're complicated physiological machines designed to survive through the ages and they take no prisoners when you try leave. The whole idea is that you're dependent on them. Thats how they survive so long.

I only started recovering recently, having changed my job and found new insight. I spend a lot of time laying, thinking, wondering and trying anything to see further to try bring some reason to my life. I came to a conclusion I'm quite confident of, thought I wont go into too much detail; our existent here for the 80 or so years is just the start of something much larger. As humans until we die we are an adolescent consciousness and death is just moving to a new level of maturity. Does is answer whether there's a god? No. Haha, I'm terrible at this. Is this how de-railing works?

Anyways, fuck god if he's gonna make you feel worthless and shit if you try go it alone. There maybe a unity of energy we are all part of beyond the dimensions we're experiencing now. I'm going with that.

-Raddy


----------



## Swoocerini (Aug 24, 2016)

I used to be an Atheist for a long time, but after studying philosophy and strengthening my ability to question things, in my opinion I don't really have the place to decide if a holy being exists or not. I often think about the idea that while we cannot prove there is a God, can we actually prove there isn't one; something I find difficult to get past.

 TL;DR: if I cannot verify existence in general, can I question the existence of a God without coming up with the answer, 'lol maybe idk'?


----------



## ShamonCornell (Aug 24, 2016)

Swoocerini said:


> I used to be an Atheist for a long time, but after studying philosophy and strengthening my ability to question things, in my opinion I don't really have the place to decide if a holy being exists or not. I often think about the idea that while we cannot prove there is a God, can we actually prove there isn't one; something I find difficult to get past.
> 
> TL;DR: if I cannot verify existence in general, can I question the existence of a God without coming up with the answer, 'lol maybe idk'?


Thankfully, there is literally a single word, that describes all of this: "agnosticism".


----------



## Sergei Nóhomo (Aug 24, 2016)

ElZorroValdez said:


> I believe in a large monster, with two large meatspheres that constructs its frame, and many noodle-like appendages of which it uses to grace you.



I once met a midget

That's when I lost my faith

#Where'sMyPhishingEvidence2016


----------



## Swoocerini (Aug 24, 2016)

ShamonCornell said:


> Thankfully, there is literally a single word, that describes all of this: "agnosticism".



Indeed; though, I guess I wanted to provide the source of my personal insight with this agnosticism!


----------



## Ziplone (Aug 25, 2016)

Superhero pets are my gods.

I support you homo! #Where'sMyPhishingEvidence2016


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 25, 2016)

Swoocerini said:


> I used to be an Atheist for a long time, but after studying philosophy and strengthening my ability to question things, in my opinion I don't really have the place to decide if a holy being exists or not. I often think about the idea that while we cannot prove there is a God, can we actually prove there isn't one; something I find difficult to get past.
> 
> TL;DR: if I cannot verify existence in general, can I question the existence of a God without coming up with the answer, 'lol maybe idk'?



This notion applied to any unfalsifiable claim, including the suggestion that angels, elves and powerful but invisible wizards exist. 

In fact, when one thinks of it, what is a God other than a powerful but invisible wizard?


----------



## ShamonCornell (Aug 25, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> This notion applied to any unfalsifiable claim, including the suggestion that angels, elves and powerful but invisible wizards exist.
> 
> In fact, when one thinks of it, what is a God other than a powerful but invisible wizard?


He's even depicted in a robe, with a luxurious beard!

The Universe: A Wizard Did It!


----------



## Zipline (Aug 25, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> This notion applied to any unfalsifiable claim, including the suggestion that angels, elves and powerful but invisible wizards exist.
> 
> In fact, when one thinks of it, what is a God other than a powerful but invisible wizard?


There is more evidence that Spaghetti created the universe after a midget gave it sentience.


----------



## lyar (Aug 25, 2016)

Zipline said:


> There is more evidence that Spaghetti created the universe after a midget gave it sentience.


Quiet dog, if you speak too much they will know the truth and it won't just be you and me fighting over spaghetti.


----------



## FelisFloof (Aug 25, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Weird experiences, such as premonitions, are not most readily explained by inferring the existence of magical father-figures who watch over us.
> 
> There are 7 billion people on Earth; it would be improbable that_ none_ of them ever have a dream, hallucination or psychotic episode which appears to predict a future event.
> 
> For example, consider the age-old belief that comets are omens of impending change; this likely results from the coincidental association of a comet sighting with a great historical event. It is not necessary to assume that the comet actually has magical properties that decide men's fates.



dude i'm not talking about no comet or mooning under the damn stars and womdering what fate they've decided for me.  The damn broom fell out of the corner just yesterday.  Leaning IN to the corner.  Angle broom, with the short bristles the nearest to the corner.  On a carpet floor.  No fishing line. You explain that away with psychological disturbances.


----------



## Notkastar (Aug 25, 2016)

For me it's not really that I don't believe, it's just that I don't care one way or the other.
I'd rather live my own life the way I want to live it without having to worrying about  what others
or other being think about me. =)


----------



## Zipline (Aug 25, 2016)

lyar said:


> Quiet dog, if you speak too much they will know the truth and it won't just be you and me fighting over spaghetti.


That is so romantic, a 1 on 1 dinner together. Of course I will go out with you lizard! ^_^
I had no idea you were so sensitive.


----------



## lyar (Aug 26, 2016)

Zipline said:


> That is so romantic, a 1 on 1 dinner together. Of course I will go out with you lizard! ^_^
> I had no idea you were so sensitive.


Yes, and the dinner will be to _die _for.


----------



## Tayto (Aug 26, 2016)

I believe that if a god were to exist, then no human can ever claim to know Him because He is a completely different kind of creature entirely on some sort of cosmic scale and that worshipping Him is pointless because He needs none.

I however, believe that all religions were just ways for humans to cope with the eternal struggle of life and death. I love the concept of reincarnation even though I don't believe that it is real.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 26, 2016)

FelisFloof said:


> dude i'm not talking about no comet or mooning under the damn stars and womdering what fate they've decided for me.  The damn broom fell out of the corner just yesterday.  Leaning IN to the corner.  Angle broom, with the short bristles the nearest to the corner.  On a carpet floor.  No fishing line. You explain that away with psychological disturbances.



You believe that there are supernatural forces at work because a broom fell over? 

A comet would have been more convincing, don't you think?


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Aug 26, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> A comet would have been more convincing, don't you think?


That depends on whether that means -1 stability or +100 influence.

The former has me wishing that I lived in more enlightened times, the latter is simply fortuitous.


----------



## Cephas (Jan 10, 2017)

At my church, we lay hands on people and pray for them, and they get healed from sicknesses. Jesus is real. My pastor takes brothers and sisters in Christ to the mall, and trains us how to pray for healing, based on the fact that Jesus gave His disciples authority over unclean spirits, to cleanse the lepers, make the deaf hear, the blind to see, etc.

It's pretty awesome. Sometimes when I see it my head farts out, because they get healed, with no magical words or incantation. No sparks, no flashy stuff. It's very matter-of-fact.

The key that matters is knowing that you have this authority, merely because the scripture says so, and then exercising it. Pastor is on Youtube, check it out.
www.youtube.com: Tom Loud

Even I have laid hands on and prayed, and seen healing.

But that aside - there is only one Jesus and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Christianity is personal, but only that your relationship with God is not the next person's, because God is personal, He relates to us one-on-one. The Old Covenant is done away with, the 10 commandments, and the rest. Nobody could keep them perfectly throughout life, hence Jesus' sacrifice. Despite that, God has a perfect standard which no man measures up to. Hence Jesus.

There are many "Christians" and few followers of Christ. Do not imagine that when you see 'mainstream Christianity' that you are seeing Jesus. When in fact you see their hypocrisy and their legalism, you are not seeing Jesus. The real church consists of those who believe solely that Jesus Christ is their righteousness, seek to know His truth and live for Him, not themselves. Their goal is not to follow a list of do's and don'ts, but to consider their actions in the light of "Does this please God? Is this showing love to God and others?"

In regard to love, the reason I do not look at pornography is not because "the Bible says not to" but because the Bible says that God does not approve of such things, and because my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (the collective of believers with the Holy Spirit in them are what is the Church), and I want to keep it clean, pure, and undefiled. I realize that my friend, God, wants me to Himself, and so my eyes are only for Him.

Any (good) relationship is not one-sided. In this world, relationships deteriorate if effort to love and appreciate each other is not poured into it. The same is true with God. Which is why devotion and dedication is important. Marriage is a type of covenant relationship between a man and a woman, and the Old and New Covenant (Moses and Jesus) are likened to a marriage often in scripture. The covenant is not merely laws, but terms of a relationship between God and man.

Thanks to the great tarnishing of the image of God through "mainstream Christianity", it is difficult to share Jesus with others, but the best thing any believer can do is to love others. Their life is a testimony. Not "I was saved once, and here is my experience". That can be useful, but to see the character of Jesus lived out in the life of a believer, actions speak louder than words.

I do have a testimony of how God saved me, and how He's been changing me, building me up, and I do know that God is good, but I'd rather demonstrate it by my actions. Talk is cheap.


----------



## lyar (Jan 10, 2017)

Cephas said:


> I do have a testimony of how God saved me, and how He's been changing me, building me up, and I do know that God is good, but I'd rather demonstrate it by my actions. *Talk is cheap*.


You've said alot for someone who thinks "talk is cheap". In addition, relegions of all kind would be more believable to me if people discarded the things that are described as sacred scripture. Writing and scripture are creations of man and should not have any validity, it makes things a 'he say, she say' situation. If "God" exists he should be the one to tell the individuals of right and wrong, why wouldn't "he", theoretically, not be able to? 

What I really think is that relegion and this belief of a "God" is a scapegoat and a hinderance for the human race. I honestly believe human beings are capable of much more than we let ourselves believe and that we do not require the idea of a "God" to be good people. In addition the most frustrating thing about relegion is the idea that homosexual marriages or relationships are wrong. Homosexual relationships are natural and are none of anyone's business other than those in the relationship. If you're relegious and you believe in "love" you'll agree that love is not a choice.


----------



## Julen (Jan 10, 2017)

No i don't




Done.


----------



## Cephas (Jan 10, 2017)

lyar said:


> You've said alot for someone who thinks "talk is cheap". In addition, relegions of all kind would be more believable to me if people discarded the things that are described as sacred scripture. Writing and scripture are creations of man and should not have any validity, it makes things a 'he say, she say' situation. If "God" exists he should be the one to tell the individuals of right and wrong, why wouldn't "he", theoretically, not be able to?
> 
> What I really think is that relegion and this belief of a "God" is a scapegoat and a hinderance for the human race. I honestly believe human beings are capable of much more than we let ourselves believe and that we do not require the idea of a "God" to be good people. In addition the most frustrating thing about relegion is the idea that homosexual marriages or relationships are wrong. Homosexual relationships are natural and are none of anyone's business other than those in the relationship. If you're relegious and you believe in "love" you'll agree that love is not a choice.



I stand on this, that God is real, and that love is a choice. god does not hinder the human race, but the human race hinders itself when it tends away from order. If God spoke once, and it was written down, why should He need to repeat Himself? And if God doesn't change, and He doesn't, why should the scriptures? They still apply today, now as much as ever.

About love - we all have feelings, and feelings are good, provided they serve us, but if we serve our feelings we are no more than slaves to them. If you trust your feelings, which change on a whim, then you will wander in circles, but if you direct yourself by a reference point outside of yourself, then you do better. Without scripture, the world already has many competing philosophies and popular trends of thought. It already is 'he says, she says' in the sea of relativism. With scripture, God has painted a compass pointing true north, so we have something to go by.

Also, homosexual relationships are not natural. Nature says so itself when you see how by design, only a man and a woman can produce a child. Thereby, nature would eliminate homosexuals by lack of sexual reproduction. the lineage of the human race is tracked not through homosexuals, but through men and women having relationships.

The will is meant to sit above the bodily desires and feelings. If the world were perfect, desires and feelings would always match up with what is right, but they do not. For instance, I was gay. I still have such attractions from time to time. I'm not saying such things go away, but I do not trust my feelings. I choose to walk by the scriptures and say no to those desires. In their place, I foster better desires through deliberate acts of will and prayer. Anything good takes intention and effort. But you do not like religion because you say it does not permit you (or whoever else) to follow those desires. You're merely holding your desires over God's, what you want over what He wants. Just because you feel "love", does not make it right.

What I observe in my life, is that I have two sets of desires, typically contradictory. One is to please God, and the other is to please me. I only discovered this when I started to try to please God. There's a "go with the flow" way, then there's an upstream battle.

Furthermore, God is better than sex.


----------



## Caraid (Jan 10, 2017)

Cephas said:


> (...) the reason I do not look at pornography is not because "the Bible says not to" but because the Bible says that God does not approve of such things(...)



You are quite literally saying "I'm not doing it because the Bible says not to, but because the Bible says not to".



Cephas said:


> (...) and because my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (the collective of believers with the Holy Spirit in them are what is the Church), and I want to keep it clean, pure, and undefiled. *I realize that my friend, God, wants me to Himself, and so my eyes are only for Him.*



If you were talking about a person here, I would consider them unhealthily possessive of you to the point of abuse. The fact that you're talking about a deity only makes it more creepy.



Cephas said:


> Any (good) relationship is not one-sided. In this world, relationships deteriorate if effort to love and appreciate each other is not poured into it. The same is true with God.



A relationship with God seems rather one-sided to me. God sets all the terms. You don't get to make any demands, negotiate or compromise anything. You live by his rules or you don't deserve his mercy. Again this sounds like abuse to me, definitely not a healthy "relationship".



Cephas said:


> Marriage is a type of covenant relationship between a man and a woman, and the Old and New Covenant (Moses and Jesus) are likened to a marriage often in scripture. The covenant is not merely laws, but terms of a relationship between God and man.



It's interesting to me that a man can have a deep and intimate relationship with God, a male deity, but not with another man. How come God approves of a man having a loving relationship with Himself but does not recognize the love between two men? Or two women, for that matter?



Cephas said:


> That can be useful, but to see the character of Jesus lived out in the life of a believer, *actions speak louder than words.*



This I agree with at least, and I appreciate the sentiment. That said, I do not believe people need a prophet or a religion to be good people, or to understand that you should not do to others what you don't want done to yourself. Empathy is a powerful thing and it exists outside of scripture or spirituality.


----------



## Badger94 (Jan 10, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I am an Atheist and have been one for the past 15 years, since I was 12.
> 
> I do not believe in any deities, demi-gods or gods.
> 
> However, I do not deny the actual possibility of there existing something out there similar to that of a god or deity, although that possibility so far at least, is immensely low.


Wouldnt that make you an agnostic then?


----------



## Caraid (Jan 10, 2017)

Badger94 said:


> Wouldnt that make you an agnostic then?



It would make them an agnostic atheist (since they say they don't believe). One can also be an agnostic theist - meaning you do believe in the existence of a god or gods but you are aware that the basis for that belief is unknown or inherently unknowable.


----------



## Cephas (Jan 10, 2017)

Caraid said:


> You are quite literally saying "I'm not doing it because the Bible says not to, but because the Bible says not to".


I am saying it like that - not in a 'Bible says not to' sense, as in obeying a rule for the sake of obeying it, as if obeying some rules while breaking others would make me right in God's eyes, or as if obeying it could make up for times past when I didn't obey it. I'm not obeying "because my pastor told me to". Now I obey it out of love. So motive counts. I have the Holy Spirit in me - I abstain for that sake, much the same way as a pregnant woman abstains from alcohol -- out of respect for the child that's in her. I do it out of respect for God who lives in me. I choose to honor Him with my body.



Caraid said:


> If you were talking about a person here, I would consider them unhealthily possessive of you to the point of abuse. The fact that you're talking about a deity only makes it more creepy.


God is possessive. He's jealous for me. that's a good thing. If I was married to someone and they weren't jealous of me, I'd think they didn't love me. God has a right to me, but I have a right to God too. God's heart isn't divided though; His interest is in mankind. He loves His creations, and He wants their love back, but it is only love if it is given freely.



Caraid said:


> A relationship with God seems rather one-sided to me. God sets all the terms. You don't get to make any demands, negotiate or compromise anything. You live by his rules or you don't deserve his mercy. Again this sounds like abuse to me, definitely not a healthy "relationship".


Yes - God sets the terms, but you'll find the relationship to be better than what you left behind. I count everything else worthless. Your wording makes it sound as if I'm getting the short end of the stick. I don't deserve His mercy, but grace and love that I could earn wouldn't be grace and love. It is given freely, and I didn't deserve it. But if you look at it like that, then use the same lens backward; you didn't deserve to be born into sin either. Your natural birth wasn't your own choice, but here you are. Right out of the gate you're born into a situation where you don't deserve God because of a fallen nature inherited from Adam. If your present circumstances are undeserved, then it isn't unfair if God throws down a rescue ladder via Jesus.



Caraid said:


> It's interesting to me that a man can have a deep and intimate relationship with God, a male deity, but not with another man. How come God approves of a man having a loving relationship with Himself but does not recognize the love between two men? Or two women, for that matter?


God is not a man that He has a gender, and that is a misconception. I'm far from calling God an it, because that would degrade Him to something less than us. He's...personal. Men and women are both expressions of God, each demonstrating an aspect of Himself. I mean, you could refer to God by "they" or "them", but that isn't classically used. Spirits do not have gender, nor do they reproduce. Gender is a purely physical thing.

But sexuality is a physical expression (coupled with a reproductive purpose, which is representative of God's creative power) of God's own union with Himself. So you equate our relationship with God to physical sexuality, and I equate physical sexuality to our relationship with God. Again, spirits have no gender. Jesus was not a Spirit, though. So when he was born, he had to have a gender, and male is what God chose.

I'll add also, that even though we have sex, it is only a small slice of what activities comprise a relationship.



Caraid said:


> This I agree with at least, and I appreciate the sentiment. That said, I do not believe people need a prophet or a religion to be good people, or to understand that you should not do to others what you don't want done to yourself. Empathy is a powerful thing and it exists outside of scripture or spirituality.


God created Empathy. The same God who made empathy also empathizes, and has a heart, and He empathizes too. He also inspired the scriptures. So empathy exists "outside" the scriptures, but the scriptures are man's user manual to life. Man does need a guide to living a good life, because the conscience is like a compass which can be influenced and which can wander from true north, but this guide book does not change.


----------



## Xaroin (Jan 10, 2017)

I don't need a god and people telling me I'm a devil child to be a good person. Also generally find they're trying to controll my life by using the logic of magic people gave us laws we must follow for a magic land after death.


----------



## Caraid (Jan 10, 2017)

> Your wording makes it sound as if I'm getting the short end of the stick. I don't deserve His mercy, but grace and love that I could earn wouldn't be grace and love.It is given freely, and I didn't deserve it.



You _are _getting the short end of the stick from my perspective. You have been brought up to believe that you're a bad person, and that everyone else on this world is a bad person who deserves punishment and the only way to "salvation" is through the creature that made you to be inherently flawed. To me, God is cruel, abusive and self-absorbed. 

Consider this - if you believe the Creation story and you believe your God to be all knowing, omnipresent and all powerful: from the very moment that he created Adam and Eve, he knew that they were going to disobey him and that he would have to punish them for it. In fact, he knew that he was going to punish them before he even created them. If he didn't then he is not all knowing. Free will should not negate his knowledge. And if he did know, then he is cruel. He created flawed beings that he knew would be swayed (let's not forget - they were encouraged) to disobey him and rather than taking responsibility and owning up to his mistake, or being forgiving, he chose to give them an absurd amount of punishment and cast them out of his supposedly perfect world forever. Leaving people who now, like you, continue to believe that He is perfect, unchangeable (didn't he change quite substantially between the Old and New testament? Wasn't that kind of the point?) and that you "don't deserve his love" (getting into Stockholm Syndrome territory here) when all I'm seeing is he created the equivalent of two infants and threw a temper tantrum of world-altering proportions when they didn't obey him, which he knew full well they weren't going to.

If you're happy living as you do and you're not harming anyone with it, fine with me. As I've hopefully made clear, I believe there is something rather wrong with using the being I described as your moral compass and giving them your undying love and devotion when the way I see it, HE doesn't deserve it.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 10, 2017)

Badger94 said:


> Wouldnt that make you an agnostic then?


"agnostic
aɡˈnɒstɪk/
_noun_
noun: *agnostic*; plural noun: *agnostics
1*.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

"atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/
_noun_
noun: *atheist*; plural noun: *atheists*
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

I am not agnostic. I am an Atheist. I do not believe in a god, gods, deity or deities.

I won't deny the CHANCE of there existing one or several of beforementioned items. But there are ZERO evidence so far to prove that any god, gods, deity or deities exist. However, that doesn't make me agnostic.


Cephas said:


> God is real


Got any proof of this, mate?


----------



## RandomNinja11 (Jan 10, 2017)

Agnostic
I still prefer the idea of me dying and going to another dimension where I become a god of my own universe and then just living in my own world among people without them knowing that I am the godception :3 (idealist ideas ftw)


----------



## Jarren (Jan 10, 2017)

Cephas said:


> if God doesn't change, and He doesn't, why should the scriptures?


Apparently those who attended the Council of Nicea, the Council of Jerusalem, and many other pre-ecumenical councils seem to disagree on the scripture not needing to be changed...
The writings are all just the tools and devices of man, used to promote and encourage behavior that would benefit the collective, the church, and the state. 
Religions (without exception) have always been perverted from whatever divine origin they may or may not have had for the good of a few specific individuals and the writings are all (again, without exception) examples of heavily edited and critiqued documents designed to serve the purposes of those in power. Hell, even the faith with which I most identify has obvious overtones of this. You have to be able to take a critical look at your own faith and see where the smoke and mirrors are then find your own belief, rather than following what someone else has told you to follow. 
If your faith is entirely your own, and you're happy with it, and it doesn't tread on the rights or liberties of others, then good on you! Keep on believing and I'm happy you've found something that brings you inner peace.
If your faith directly CONFRONTS another person's beliefs, wellbeing, rights, or liberties, then maybe your god is a bit of a dick.


----------



## Hetnensilverfox (Jan 10, 2017)

I find it plausible the an intelligent energy based being could have engineered what we call life.  We may not have been the first too.  There are hints in Genesis that the earth was recreated.  I think creation should have been called recreation, as the translation of creation talks of the heavens and earth being created, then the earth becoming formless and void, before being created again.  That's if you properly translate the ancient dialect.  Were like a giant ech-a-sketch.  were manufactured, found wanting, destroyed, recycled into something new with hopes for a better outcome.  Any one else think were a giant lab experiment?


----------



## Lexiand (Jan 10, 2017)

I kinda find it hard to believe in religion.


----------



## Khazius (Jan 10, 2017)

I do myself, I dont expect others to share the same beliefs though. One thing that annoys me more than anything is those who try to cram their religion down other peoples throats.


----------



## Kovy (Jan 10, 2017)

Just the issues of Marriage and not letting people be happy, Everyone's view of a god or gods is different. From what i read, Im not alloud to be happy aparntly. Unless i do exactly what that guy says, then its ok and i wont get eternally put into bla bla bla. Well, Being all thats happened to me beacuse of religion especially christianity, No. I prefer to live my short shitty as life the way i have without anything else more stressful, my mind hasn't gone yet, so i dont need someone to tell me how to be happy or not happy.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Jan 10, 2017)

I don't believe in the gods we all know and love, but I do believe in love after love.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 10, 2017)

Cephas said:


> snippity snip



I am surprised that you say the God, Yehoweh, of the Abrahamic scripture is unchanging. For example, he used to require a blood sacrifice (two chickens were sacrificed after the birth of Jesus) in penance for original sin, but this is no longer required, because the scriptures purport that the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross now takes the place of sacrificial animals.

So clearly Yehoweh has changed his mind in the past. The content of the scriptures clearly show they are not suitable moral guidance for a civilised modern society, in which we would consider owning and beating slaves [Exodus 21:20-21], or having people indentured to serve us, to be morally abhorrent.
Indeed, would you describe scriptural recommendations to use amputation as a punishment [Deuteronomy 25:11-12], to execute apostates and homosexuals [Deuteronomy 13], as relevant to a modern society, or anything _other_ than barbaric?

I would also hope that, in these enlightened modern times, we would realise that the notion of hereditary sin is itself nonsense, and that blood sacrifices are no way of making penance for our failings anyway- we make our wrongs right by apologising to the people we have wronged and trying to repair any damage we have done, to make ourselves better people. We cannot justifiably expect our wrongs to be righted by the torture and sacrifice of _somebody else_.

If there is some higher power, I think they would have _bigger _things to worry about than the sexual relationships of a race of people living on a tiny ocean planet, among a cosmos of many billions of galaxies, each containing many billions of planetary systems.


----------



## lyar (Jan 10, 2017)

Caraid said:


> You _are _getting the short end of the stick from my perspective. You have been brought up to believe that you're a bad person, and that everyone else on this world is a bad person who deserves punishment and the only way to "salvation" is through the creature that made you to be inherently flawed. To me, God is cruel, abusive and self-absorbed.
> 
> Consider this - if you believe the Creation story and you believe your God to be all knowing, omnipresent and all powerful: from the very moment that he created Adam and Eve, he knew that they were going to disobey him and that he would have to punish them for it. In fact, he knew that he was going to punish them before he even created them. If he didn't then he is not all knowing. Free will should not negate his knowledge. And if he did know, then he is cruel. He created flawed beings that he knew would be swayed (let's not forget - they were encouraged) to disobey him and rather than taking responsibility and owning up to his mistake, or being forgiving, he chose to give them an absurd amount of punishment and cast them out of his supposedly perfect world forever. Leaving people who now, like you, continue to believe that He is perfect, unchangeable (didn't he change quite substantially between the Old and New testament? Wasn't that kind of the point?) and that you "don't deserve his love" (getting into Stockholm Syndrome territory here) when all I'm seeing is he created the equivalent of two infants and threw a temper tantrum of world-altering proportions when they didn't obey him, which he knew full well they weren't going to.
> 
> If you're happy living as you do and you're not harming anyone with it, fine with me. As I've hopefully made clear, I believe there is something rather wrong with using the being I described as your moral compass and giving them your undying love and devotion when the way I see it, HE doesn't deserve it.


This is some good stuff right here.


----------



## reptile logic (Jan 10, 2017)

Agnostic. I do what I can to live a good life; treat others as I would have others treat me. In time, I'll find out what happens next.

If, as some have told me, living this life to its end without finding faith is a guaranteed ride to damnation, then I say to those people, "Then I saved a space in paradise for you and yours; you're welcome."


----------



## Fekk (Jan 10, 2017)

Personally I don't but I have no problem with people who do


----------



## Sarachaga (Jan 11, 2017)

Nope. Religious stuff is definitely not my thing. Perhaps it's because I know people who are actual bible thumpers. 
The only cult that I would gladly follow is the one of Bacchus


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Jan 11, 2017)

Do you know what one of the most valuable lessons I have learned in 41 years? Do not discuss your political or religious beliefs with people you would like to be friends with or who you would like to remain friends with. So far so good. But that aside, I do not believe in gods. Any gods. This is 2017! People used to sacrifice their kids to "gods" so it would rain, or for bountiful crops, or for being devil worshipers. Too many lives have been taken in the name of gods.


----------



## Shane_McNair (Jan 11, 2017)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> But that aside, I do not believe in gods. Any gods. This is 2017! .



Fair enough. Not trying to be abrasive or anything, but I just have to roll my eyes whenever some uses "it's the current year!" as an argument. Times may change, but the essential nature of people does not.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Jan 11, 2017)

Shane_McNair said:


> Fair enough. Not trying to be abrasive or anything, but I just have to roll my eyes whenever some uses "it's the current year!" as an argument. Times may change, but the essential nature of people does not.


Don't I know it. Humans are one step away from the stone age. My point is that it isn't the stone age anymore. Humanity should've gotten beyond the whole god in the sky thing by now. People are still stoned to death in places today for not being "believers". Kinda stupid if you ask me.


----------



## bhutrflai (Jan 11, 2017)

I believe that faith & religion are 2 totally different things. 

Organized religion is a sham. It's all about the mighty dollar here in the USA. Every preacher I know drives a Cadillac & lives in a small mansion. Sounds to me like someone's been taking a little off the top of the offering plate. And as Okami said, the amount of blood that has been shed in them name of a god is stupid. And for what? Just to make someone else believe in the same god you do? And what kind of merciful god lets sickos do unspeakable things to those who can't defend themselves, but gives innocent babies & children cancer & other horrible diseases? I don't even want to try to wrap my brain around it. And I have no interest in it. 

I have plenty of faith though. Faith that there is a higher power out there, putting choices in front of us, giving us different paths to choose from. But it is up to us to pick. Fate & destiny def play a part as well, to help guide us to where we should be. But again, it up to us to decide which path. There are always signs pointing you in the right direction, you just have to be aware enough to see them. 

I also feel that our loved ones who have passed away have a hand in keeping us safe. I have a brother who died unexpectedly, almost 11 yrs ago. He has kept me out of harms way on several occassions since then, most recently when he stopped my truck from flipping over when I lost control on a dirt road & went over a 3ft ditch sideways, before I ran into a tree. I have NO doubt that he & my dad kept me safe. 

To each their own, but don't try to force me into a chat about church, don't invite me to church, really have no desire to step foot in a church. I respect what you have chosen to believe. Please give me the same. We'll all find out who's right, eventually.


----------



## Shane_McNair (Jan 11, 2017)

bhutrflai said:


> I believe that faith & religion are 2 totally different things.
> 
> Organized religion is a sham. It's all about the mighty dollar here in the USA. Every preacher I know drives a Cadillac & lives in a small mansion. Sounds to me like someone's been taking a little off the top of the offering plate. And as Okami said, the amount of blood that has been shed in them name of a god is stupid. And for what? Just to make someone else believe in the same god you do? And what kind of merciful god lets sickos do unspeakable things to those who can't defend themselves, but gives innocent babies & children cancer & other horrible diseases? I don't even want to try to wrap my brain around it. And I have no interest in it.
> 
> ...



That's pretty much how I feel about it. I don't like preachy religious folks who try to convert you to their belief system, but I also really don't like the hostile, condescending atheists who denigrate people for believing that there is more to this world and our existence than what is tangible and objectively knowable.


----------



## NocturneFox! (Jan 11, 2017)

I believe in yiff hell


----------



## davydonovan (Jan 11, 2017)

NocturneFox! said:


> I believe in yiff hell


So many questions.


----------



## NocturneFox! (Jan 11, 2017)

davydonovan said:


> So many questions.


7u7


----------



## brian577 (Jan 12, 2017)

I used to be Catholic, now I'm agnostic.  Looking at the world I refuse to believe that a god as described in the bible could possibly exist.  With the horrible crap that goes on in the world I can't believe any loving god would not intervene.  It's one thing to let people die from cancer or a car crash, but to allow genocide, war, the deaths of thousands...I don't think any being with the power to stop such events would fail to act.


----------



## MaximusLupis (Jan 12, 2017)

I'm religious, I don't claim to know for absolute sure. and I don't think that scientific advancements really disprove all religious claims, but my bias is pretty clear on that. My problem with the discussion on religion on the internet in general is that people are evidently unable to entertain the opposing argument at all, leading to two people screaming at each other with their ears plugged. I, of course, think my religious view is the correct one, but i have experienced complete disbelief before and i am not going to claim I absolutely know that my frame for reality is fact because, in all honesty, nobody for sure knows, well, except god himself


----------



## MaximusLupis (Jan 12, 2017)

nerdbat said:


> I've seen many more annoying and obnoxious atheists than christians or buddhists or mormones or etc.


its less about certain groups like LDS, buddists, or atheists being obnoxious and more about obnoxious, bad people, being, bad people

there are mormons who are very accepting of others rights to live their life as they please, dispite it being generally against their own personal moral guidelines
based on their religious position. then there are ones who are self-righteous and somewhat bigoted about the whole ordeal.
I would know, being LDS myself.


----------



## Deleted member 106754 (Jan 12, 2017)

The whole idea behind religion of any sort and why it even is a thing is because we as humans want answers to things we cannot explain, that we as humans needed something to believe in when stuck between a rock and a hard place, to have some sort of structure to base societies upon and eventually even base laws upon.

The whole "this is year 2017" is actually quite a reasonable statement even though it's shallow and doesn't tackle the side of things why someone today might believe in something bigger, just states the obvious for those who has gotten over religion and what it actually "is" today.

Personally I only believed as much in a god as society made me since I was too young and honestly didn't even understand what it meant to go to the church with school once in a while, or maybe having friends from class who's family might've been religious. Having an open minded family certainly helps as it will let you decide, and sure like many others in that situation I ended up finding it ridiculous especially how things look TODAY 2017 and not 2000+ years back. You can sit and make excuses as a religious person why something was written or said a certain way, but it doesn't change the fact we to this day actively look into history and have faith in a god that was created/thought up(Or even made apparent if that's your thing) when people had understanding of our world in the levels of a 4 year old toddler.

We know now today that the earth is not flat, that there's no god in the sky, that one man cannot gather every species and fit it on a boat he built, that people cannot build a ladder to the heaven thousands of years ago and what else people were made to believe and still are made to believe. We as people today(at least the majority) has come to understand that we shouldn't slay one another because of being a heretic or a non-believer and that we actually are NOT a good person, because society and our laws says it's not okay.

We needed something to help us build up a foundation and truly become more unified as a species, even though religion cause problems to this day, it were the building blocks of how we could come together in such a way, just like some of you today might go to a Church on Sunday or a Mosque to pay your respects. Today we do not need this anymore for anything else than mental support as our laws are becoming very detailed and complex to such an extent that no new religion could do much better.

Besides if you believe in such cruel gods that very often are pictured in religious texts and books then you spread this message and agree it's okay, which doesn't make you that good of a person, if you disregard the crude things and believe for the sake of believing and you don't agree with what can be said or told about gods already, then you already fill that one piece of the puzzle that we as people needed and wanted something to believe in hence why religion exists to such an extent it does today.

In the end of the day I try to not judge people if they need or want that extra to help them get through the day, however you can never bring religion to a case of rhyme and reason. That we've been to space or that we can see how old the soil in our earth is quite reasonable to buy as reality until something more clear comes up instead of believing in the supernatural that as much as we truly want, cannot prove in any reasonable way for others to see. A story will remain a story and we must remember this. Who knows, 4000 years from now we might sit and laugh at us and how stupid we were to waste our time believing in thing and how they are, or maybe even how we believed in gods that didn't even exist when there truly is just one creator who we are too small to understand exist.

This is why I do not believe in any god, or go by any religion. If I lived 1000 or maybe even 100 years ago I'd probably believe in something else, but since there has been so many great discoveries and free thinkers leading up to the day of me popping into the existence I will try to understand what I can so peoples actual discoveries can save my time in this life doing things I want to do or matter to me, rather than something that meant something to someone ages ago and their imaginary friends and worlds. I wish my reality looked way different than it does but I still have a grip of what it is as this is 2017 and I know better today. If I have questions that I want answered I rather take the answer from people who looked for it rather than people that thought one up. Neither do I need or want a religion to tell me how to be a good person, I rather just be by myself.

But hey, with that said I can appreciate what religion gave us and how it more than likely helped us grow as people, or how it has given us ways to express ourselves in texts, as it would be boring as hell without it, but that is as far as my appreciation goes. Today religion is a big hurdle that people might never overcome, and sadly it will be a weight we all have to carry with us as we try to become more advanced and figure out more about what we truly are and where we truly are. As an example "The Holy Bible" is like some old legacy code written for us humans to work and now we're thousands of generations in and many are still running on it even though there's way better alternatives.


----------



## MaximusLupis (Jan 12, 2017)

Redlinelies said:


> Besides if you believe in such cruel gods that very often are pictured in religious texts and books then you're quite a horrible person to me


holding a belief in a god shouldn't really determine the quality of one's character, that's like me saying, "if you're an atheist you're evil"

It's what someone does on that belief or feels about that belief that determines how good or "horrible" someone is.


----------



## Deleted member 106754 (Jan 12, 2017)

Whatever floats your boat. What you're eventually saying is that I'm a horrible person for not believing by countering that logic which I should be fine with. While what I had in mind goes quite a bit deeper. Don't take take statement by heart though as I hope my text went a bit deeper than for you to pinpoint a tiny tiny section of the text to criticize. You know this too if you read it properly.

I've edited that section to better suit your needs so no more misunderstandings can happen


----------



## MaximusLupis (Jan 12, 2017)

Redlinelies said:


> Whatever floats your boat. What you're eventually saying is that I'm a horrible person for not believing by countering that logic which I should be fine with. While what I had in mind goes quite a bit deeper. Don't take take statement by heart though as I hope my text went a bit deeper than for you to pinpoint a tiny tiny section of the text to criticize. You know this too if you read it properly.
> 
> I've edited that section to better suit your needs so no more misunderstandings can happen


I gotcha, the statement just rubbed me the wrong way when I read it horrible people are just horrible people, beleif or the lack thereof has nothing to do with it. but thats just me. Im not actually saying youre a horrible person at all, i just find that the "only as good as your god" logic to be a tiny bit flawed


----------



## Deleted member 106754 (Jan 12, 2017)

I understand that. I rambled on a bit too quickly forgetting how it might come off. Point taken, post edited.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2017)

MaximusLupis said:


> holding a belief in a god shouldn't really determine the quality of one's character, that's like me saying, "if you're an atheist you're evil"
> 
> It's what someone does on that belief or feels about that belief that determines how good or "horrible" someone is.



I think this is a nuanced subject actually. Are the vast majority of AEgyptians who practice genital mutilation bad people, or are they victims of an unpleasant ideology that they are beholden to believe?


----------



## Iriastar (Jan 13, 2017)

Used to. I even defended it to some extent. Danced around the borders of pantheism afterwards... Got into spirituality after dropping pantheism... That was silly of me.  It was a learning journey.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jan 13, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I think this is a nuanced subject actually. Are the vast majority of Egyptians who practice genital mutilation bad people, or are they victims of an unpleasant ideology that they are beholden to believe?


This is a topic best reserved for its own thread, but I'll indulge a little here.

The concepts of good and bad are predicated by ideology, which in turn is used to justify how best to govern or control a given society, whether through benevolence or tyranny. It's only logical that an ideology would foster its practices amongst its followers to further promote it.

If there is one universality that needs to be emphasized however, it's that ideologies whose social contracts implicate a defined "other" as inferior will always be supremacist enemies that seek to stamp out the other and thus must either have their values questioned from within and reform their beliefs, or risk being stamped out for their hubris.


----------



## reptile logic (Jan 13, 2017)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> Do you know what one of the most valuable lessons I have learned in 41 years? Do not discuss your political or religious beliefs with people you would like to be friends with or who you would like to remain friends with. So far so good. But that aside, I do not believe in gods. Any gods. This is 2017! People used to sacrifice their kids to "gods" so it would rain, or for bountiful crops, or for being devil worshipers. Too many lives have been taken in the name of gods.



I won't argue against your sentiments. I absolutely agree that by openly discussing the subject(s), one places themselves directly in the cross-hairs of those who carry the most extreme views. Yet we have both chosen open discussion over fearful silence. It is the only way that some will learn that others have differing views. Right or wrong, black or white, depends solely on the angle that the viewer is looking at it from. Unfortunately we are still tribal by nature, and somehow feel that we must find a common enemy to give our own tribe some evil with which to weigh ourselves against.

I'm tired of that line of thinking and work very hard not to follow it. Good luck to us all.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Jan 13, 2017)

reptile logic said:


> I won't argue against your sentiments. I absolutely agree that by openly discussing the subject(s), one places themselves directly in the cross-hairs of those who carry the most extreme views. Yet we have both chosen open discussion over fearful silence. It is the only way that some will learn that others have differing views. Right or wrong, black or white, depends solely on the angle that the viewer is looking at it from. Unfortunately we are still tribal by nature, and somehow feel that we must find a common enemy to give our own tribe some evil with which to weigh ourselves against.
> 
> I'm tired of that line of thinking and work very hard not to follow it. Good luck to us all.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I do discuss things with true friends. People I trust. But just, like acquaintances, at like parties, or coworkers that aren't "friends, I learned never to discuss shit like that with them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> This is a topic best reserved for its own thread, but I'll indulge a little here.
> 
> The concepts of good and bad are predicated by ideology, which in turn is used to justify how best to govern or control a given society, whether through benevolence or tyranny. It's only logical that an ideology would foster its practices amongst its followers to further promote it.
> 
> If there is one universality that needs to be emphasized however, it's that ideologies whose social contracts implicate a defined "other" as inferior will always be supremacist enemies that seek to stamp out the other and thus must either have their values questioned from within and reform their beliefs, or risk being stamped out for their hubris.



Actually I think one's ideology, if anybody must have an ideology, should be a result of what they can reasonably justify as good or bad, instead of the other way around. 
That way we might be open to change our ideology is it is demonstrated to be unreasonable. 

I think there is ambiguity about judging AEgyptians who practice genital mutilation because this is their cultural norm and any deviation from what they accept as the Islamic truth is prosecuted. (Abandoning the Muslim faith, or questioning it, is a criminal offense in AEgypt). 

They are doing something bad, but they are also hostages to their ideology and religion. :\


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jan 14, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Actually I think one's ideology, if anybody must have an ideology, should be a result of what they can reasonably justify as good or bad, instead of the other way around.
> That way we might be open to change our ideology is it is demonstrated to be unreasonable.
> 
> I think there is ambiguity about judging Egyptians who practice genital mutilation because this is their cultural norm and any deviation from what they accept as the Islamic truth is prosecuted. (Abandoning the Muslim faith, or questioning it, is a criminal offense in Egypt).
> ...


Again, new thread recommended.

It's easy to make that judgement call when you're a rational human being. Most people however are driven by emotion, not reason, and ideologies - religious ones especially - cater to that drive exceedingly well as a means of population control.

At the end of the day, humans are social animals; people want to belong, and they'll do whatever mental gymnastics they need to do in order to see themselves as good members of their adopted society, even ones as toxic as those fostered by Wahhabi Islam (or any other cult for that matter.)


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Jan 15, 2017)

Religion is a tool used by those in power to control the masses. To enslave the masses. Sow this field and give me all the crops or burn in a lake of fire. Pay your taxes or burn(even though we don't pay taxes). I am very cynical about orginized religion. It is now and has always been a money making scam for people who crave power and money and never work for it. We have a local TV preacher named Creflo Dollar who bitched and moaned because his congregation wouldn't  put up the money for a $64 million Lear Jet.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Jan 15, 2017)

Apatheism - Wikipedia


----------



## modfox (Jan 15, 2017)

I believe in existence.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Jan 15, 2017)

Cheesus Crust!!!


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Jan 15, 2017)

John Lennon sang a song called "God" and it sums it up for me pretty nicely.


----------



## modfox (Jan 15, 2017)

the church of trump


----------



## Alex K (Jan 22, 2017)

My family and I are Athiests and we even have our own church we go to


----------



## Royn (Jan 22, 2017)

Alex K said:


> My family and I are Athiests and we even have our own church we go to


that is a complete contradiction in terms.  lol


----------



## Alex K (Jan 22, 2017)

Royn said:


> that is a complete contradiction in terms.  lol



Well on sundays we go to church that doesn't necessarily exist


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jan 22, 2017)

Alex K said:


> Well on sundays we go to church that doesn't necessarily exist


----------



## LazerMaster5 (Jan 22, 2017)




----------



## SamK (Jan 24, 2017)

I believe in God and trust me even the most staunch atheists want to believe in him too.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 24, 2017)

SamK said:


> trust me even the most staunch atheists want to believe in him too.


Nope. 

Not interested in BELIEVING a sky daddy with jealousy and hypocricy issues.

Belief ≠ Truth.


----------



## Jarren (Jan 24, 2017)

It's interesting how so many people are so firm in their belief that their faith is THE correct one, given the number of religions and gods the world has seen over its many millennia. Why are you so sure YOURS is right? We're the Egyptians all wrong the thousands of years that their gods were being worshipped? How about the Hindu pantheon, one of the oldest continuously practiced religions and the most thoroughly historically documented. Are it's many millions of followers all damned because of their belief? What about the native Australian aborigines? Are their tales of the Dream Time any less valid than your apple and taking snake or meteor shard in a giant basalt box? If you really think your mythology (yes, I called your sacred fairy tales myths) are any more valid than another set, or that your beliefs are more inherently right BECAUSE your god said them, then good for you. But someone else feels just add strongly as you and the only way you'd find out who's right is to race each other to the afterlife. Why preach that you are right with such conviction and blindness? Why not show some humility (generally a universal virtue, regardless of faith, and entertain the fact you might be wrong?

This isn't directed at anyone particular, just wanted to vent based on some other ideological debates I've had lately.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 24, 2017)

LupusFamilia said:


> Jusdt asking do you believe theres somethign like a destiny for people?


I do not believe in fate nor do I believe in destiny.

Your "fate" and "destiny" is what you make of it from your previous actions or lack there of. Your actions in the past and present will be affecting your future.


----------



## SamK (Jan 25, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Nope.
> 
> Not interested in BELIEVING a sky daddy with jealousy and hypocricy issues.
> 
> Belief ≠ Truth.


But even your scientific theories are flawed. Talk to me when you your revive yourself after you die.


----------



## Sarachaga (Jan 25, 2017)

SamK said:


> But even your scientific theories are flawed. Talk to me when you your revive yourself after you die.


Scientific theories can be flawed, but in my opinion, religious evidence is weaker than scientific evidence. Having faith in something means you believe in the said thing without having tangible proof of its existence. On the other hand, science is based on facts, and the well-known theories that we use now have tangible proof. 
Life after death is to me one of the least interesting aspects of religion. I feel like a lot of people use this to give some meaning to their existence , but in the end, they are basically postponing the problem.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 25, 2017)

SamK said:


> But even your scientific theories are flawed. Talk to me when you your revive yourself after you die.


1. When you die that's it
2. Scientific theory is based upon what can be tested. CLAIMS that a god exist is not testable due to "god", the thing we intend to test, is not present or doesn't even exist
3. Resurrection is impossible

With faith, evidence, facts and proof is unnecessary. I however want proof of a god, gods, deity or deities.

But the moment a god or gods start interacting/interfering with mortals, they are no longer a god.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 25, 2017)

@SamK



Yakamaru said:


> 1. When you die that's it
> 2. Scientific theory is based upon what can be tested. CLAIMS that a god exist is not testable due to "god", the thing we intend to test, is not present or doesn't even exist
> 3. Resurrection is impossible
> 
> ...



If you want to sincerely champion scientists, perhaps you shouldn't approve of gagging orders to restrict their communication with the public.

I agree with you that SamK's argument is flawed, but I think a much simpler and more persuasive reason can be presented.
Even if new discoveries emerged that showed our current scientific understanding of the universe was flawed, or less complete than we believed it to be, this _wouldn't _automatically lend any credibility to any other ideas.

It's not as though an Astronomer's theory of star formation being shown to be wrong would automatically grant one a license to assume the Sun is the Aegyptian god Ra.

But you seem to think that that kind of logic is applicable when it concerns your preferred god, SamK. :\



SamK said:


> I believe in God and trust me even the most staunch atheists want to believe in him too.



Why do you think wanting something to be true would make it any more credible?

I want to be a giant fuzzy fox, but it's not going to come true, no matter how much I want it.


----------



## Alex K (Jan 25, 2017)

SamK said:


> I believe in God and trust me even the most staunch atheists want to believe in him too.



True religion doesn't need to be painted on a canvas, or written on a page, or acted out on stage.


----------



## PoptartPresident (Jan 25, 2017)

I'm agnostic because I honestly just don't know, and would rather not devote my valuable time to something that may or may not even really exist. Because being a part of a religion takes effort.

But I will say this...I trust science, something that can be proven before my very eyes, over a book of Fairy Tales created back in the dark ages of massive human segregation and inequality


----------



## SamK (Jan 26, 2017)

PoptartPresident said:


> I'm agnostic because I honestly just don't know, and would rather not devote my valuable time to something that may or may not even really exist. Because being a part of a religion takes effort.
> 
> But I will say this...I trust science, something that can be proven before my very eyes, over a book of Fairy Tales created back in the dark ages of massive human segregation and inequality


Hahaha...I challenge you to explain to me how science created the world.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 26, 2017)

SamK said:


> Hahaha...I challenge you to explain to me how science created the world.


SCIENCE didn't create the world. Natural laws did. Natural laws that were instantly created at the birth of our universe.

Tell me, what does it say in your religious texts about physics?
About natural laws?
How does quantum physics work?
About how my cellphone work?
About the natural and unnatural(man-made) states of gases, fluids and metals?
Can it tell us anything about engineering?
What about biology?
About how genetics work?
How does a vaccine work?
Can it tell us anything about why people naturally drift away religion as technology and knowledge progresses?

Religion doesn't answer ANY of these questions.

SCIENCE and research however, does. We ask questions. We want to know the answer to these questions. "Answers" such as "(my)god did it", "It's (my)god's will" does not satisfy the question.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 26, 2017)

SamK said:


> Hahaha...I challenge you to explain to me how science created the world.



A scientific understanding of the world's origin is already published and accessible for you to read for free.
Nebular hypothesis - Wikipedia
Geological history of Earth - Wikipedia

I'm not sure why you would think that, if the scientists' explanations were incorrect, that yours would be any more credible. They wouldn't be.



Yakamaru said:


> SCIENCE



You've shown that your own approach to science is incredibly flawed, so I feel like this is the pot calling the kettle black. 
If you want to tell other people that your views are better because they are scientifically supported, then you need to hold yourself to those same standards, by changing those views you have which are _not_ scientifically supported. 
Otherwise you're just a hypocrite.


----------



## Lexiand (Jan 26, 2017)

I kinda find it verry hard to believe in stuff like that because I dont know if any of the stuff they say was real. Sometimes i think jusus died for nothing.


----------



## PoptartPresident (Jan 26, 2017)

SamK said:


> Hahaha...I challenge you to explain to me how science created the world.



I'm not an Athiest who believes in everything about science you dumb fuck.
Being agnostic translates to "I don't know". Not "oh god yeah that dude don't exist".

Had you bothered reading my entire post you would've figured that out


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 26, 2017)

PoptartPresident said:


> I'm not an Athiest who believes in everything about science you dumb fuck.
> Being agnostic translates to "I don't know". Not "oh god yeah that dude don't exist".
> 
> Had you bothered reading my entire post you would've figured that out



You don't have to be an atheist to be interested in Science, you know.


----------



## PoptartPresident (Jan 26, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> You don't have to be an atheist to be interested in Science, you know.



I know that.

What makes me mad though is Sam is too stupid to realize the difference between an agnostic and an athiest.

Heck, I'm agnostic, but I like science. It's interesting and proveable. Im just pointing out that it's a lot more reliable than a book that was made centuries ago under the impression of inequality

Although maybe he just didn't read the post


----------



## Alex K (Jan 26, 2017)

SamK said:


> Hahaha...I challenge you to explain to me how science created the world.



You'll find out the answer to that after you Yahoo it


----------



## Khazius (Jan 26, 2017)

Yes I have no doubts that there is a god, of course everything has been argued and said already elsewhere, so i wont bother with any of that. However I will say that some people give religion a bad name, those people who go around saying "BELIEVE OR BURN!" or something alike, etc etc etc.

Iv found its a lot easier to welcome people with an open hand, not a clenched fist. But thats my personal philosophy on it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 26, 2017)

PoptartPresident said:


> I know that.
> 
> What makes me mad though is Sam is too stupid to realize the difference between an agnostic and an athiest.
> 
> ...



Ah, I missed your earlier post. I think SamK perceives science only as an alternative to religion and thinks that, if he can show science is wrong, that it would _somehow _show a god exists.



Khazius said:


> Yes I have no doubts that there is a god, of course everything has been argued and said already elsewhere, so i wont bother with any of that. However I will say that some people give religion a bad name, those people who go around saying "BELIEVE OR BURN!" or something alike, etc etc etc.
> 
> Iv found its a lot easier to welcome people with an open hand, not a clenched fist. But thats my personal philosophy on it.



Out of interest...Just one god? Why not two, or three?


----------



## Khazius (Jan 26, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Ah, I missed your earlier post. I think SamK perceives science only as an alternative to religion and thinks that, if he can show science is wrong, that it would _somehow _show a god exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of interest...Just one god? Why not two, or three?


I suppose there could be more than one, but Iv always felt there to be one god.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 26, 2017)

Khazius said:


> I suppose there could be more than one, but Iv always felt there to be one god.



Perhaps it's because we live in a culture that is dominated by monotheistic religions. If you had grown up in Ancient egypt, or modern day India, maybe you'd have always felt that there was a plurality of gods?


----------



## Khazius (Jan 26, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Perhaps it's because we live in a culture that is dominated by monotheistic religions. If you had grown up in Ancient egypt, or modern day India, maybe you'd have always felt that there was a plurality of gods?


I suppose, but then again if there where multiple all powerful beings, how would one tell?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 26, 2017)

Khazius said:


> I suppose, but then again if there where multiple all powerful beings, how would one tell?



How would one tell if there is even one all powerful being?


----------



## Khazius (Jan 26, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> How would one tell if there is even one all powerful being?


And then were back to things that have been argued before and for far longer than I myself have been alive.


----------



## Sagt (Jan 27, 2017)

Nope, I'm an atheist.


----------



## Vanilla Zero (Jan 29, 2017)

I don't, no. I'm an atheist.


----------



## pidge (Jan 29, 2017)

This thread makes me think of a certain song by XTC





This song describes how I feel on the subject of religion. Its just hard to believe there is a kind and merciful god when so much terrible shit happens. If god is really good, why does he let bad stuff happen? God controls everything, so natural disasters, starvation, disease, are all god's doings.  

Either god doesn't exist, or he's just an asshole


----------



## Diretooth (Jan 29, 2017)

I believe that all deities exist in some form or another, but do not follow any specifically. I believe that everything has a spirit, that when a person dies their energy goes on to another life. I believe that life is meaningless, that by itself there is no meaning, that we exist simply to exist, and therefore the meaning of life is how we define it. I believe that life is sacred, not because a deity said so, but because we all share the same existence. I am also a Therianthrope, I believe that my spirit is not Human, but recognize that I am physically Human and am thus constrained by the rules inherent in this. I am misanthropic enough that I do not care much for humanity as a whole, but will help those who need it out of a sense of respect for their life.
I also understand that others may not agree with my experiences, and that there will be those who will make fun of me for being a Therianthrope, or insult me, or in various cases call me insane or a worshipper of malign spirits. Compared to many other people, I have no room to make judgements on the validity of their claims, and have no exclusive right to say that my perspective is more true than theirs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 29, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> I believe that all deities exist in some form or another, but do not follow any specifically. I believe that everything has a spirit, that when a person dies their energy goes on to another life. I believe that life is meaningless, that by itself there is no meaning, that we exist simply to exist, and therefore the meaning of life is how we define it. I believe that life is sacred, not because a deity said so, but because we all share the same existence. I am also a Therianthrope, I believe that my spirit is not Human, but recognize that I am physically Human and am thus constrained by the rules inherent in this. I am misanthropic enough that I do not care much for humanity as a whole, but will help those who need it out of a sense of respect for their life.
> I also understand that others may not agree with my experiences, and that there will be those who will make fun of me for being a Therianthrope, or insult me, or in various cases call me insane or a worshipper of malign spirits. Compared to many other people, I have no room to make judgements on the validity of their claims, and have no exclusive right to say that my perspective is more true than theirs.



It's difficult to believe that all deities exist when a considerable number of those deities claim they are the one true god, to the exclusion of all others.


----------



## Diretooth (Jan 29, 2017)

Barring religions with Judaic roots, some were centered around a person, some are of the pantheistic bent. Conversely, there are a large amount of polytheistic religions that co-exist with others as well as they clash. That being said, a god can just as easily be some sort of powerful spirit that a civilization worshiped as it can be a particularly feared animal.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Jan 30, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> Barring religions with Judaic roots, some were centered around a person, some are of the pantheistic bent. Conversely, there are a large amount of polytheistic religions that co-exist with others as well as they clash. That being said, a god can just as easily be some sort of powerful spirit that a civilization worshiped as it can be a particularly feared animal.


Amusingly, even the Abrahamic religions had their predecessors - many of the myths in Judaism, and by extension Christianity and Islam, are Sumerian in origin, and it's possible that their adoption of monotheism may have been influenced by the briefly-lived Egyptian religion Atenism or the Persian Zoroastrianism. Given how much the Hebrew people migrated throughout the region at the time, it wouldn't surprise me if they did acquire these tales and beliefs through appropriation.


----------



## Diretooth (Jan 30, 2017)

That's pretty interesting, I hadn't considered that thought process before.


----------



## SamK (Jan 30, 2017)

While I may have my doubts about the existence of heaven and hell, I believe in the existence of a higher being that created the universe. I will continue believing this until someone fully proves to me how science created the world. It's as simple as that!


----------



## Yakamaru (Jan 30, 2017)

SamK said:


> I will continue believing this until someone fully proves to me how science created the world. It's as simple as that!


Again, science doesn't create. It explores. It seeks answers. It studies. It proves or disproves theories.

Science is what drives our knowledge forward. Science is what pushes technological advances and knowledge. Science does not create, although we base technologies upon what science tells us about the universe and ourselves.

Science - Wikipedia

www.livescience.com: What Is a Scientific Theory?

www.space.com: How Was Earth Formed?

It seems you've ignored my previous reply.

TLTDAROMO, TTUTGA.


----------



## Zipline (Jan 30, 2017)

Ceiling cat is the one true wizard.


----------



## Zipline_Orange (Jan 30, 2017)

I'm the God. Worship me


----------



## Zipline (Jan 30, 2017)

Zipline_Orange said:


> I'm the God. Worship me


*bows down* I can haz treat brother god? ^_^


----------



## Zipline_Orange (Jan 30, 2017)

Zipline said:


> *bows down* I can haz treat brother god? ^_^



*a big cloud of treats approaches you*


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 30, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Again, science doesn't create. It explores. It seeks answers. It studies. It proves or disproves theories.
> 
> Science is what drives our knowledge forward. Science is what pushes technological advances and knowledge. Science does not create, although we base technologies upon what science tells us about the universe and ourselves.
> 
> ...



Science explores, it studies, it answers...and then Yakamaru ignores the bits of it which he doesn't like:
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

The irony that you're doing precisely what you accuse SamK of doing is unbearable.



SamK said:


> While I may have my doubts about the existence of heaven and hell, I believe in the existence of a higher being that created the universe. I will continue believing this until someone fully proves to me how science created the world. It's as simple as that!



And I'm going to assume that the weather is controlled by Cthulu until somebody here explains to me how maths makes rainbows happen. 

I refuse to put in any intellectual effort myself, won't read anything I'm directed toward and will interpret my failure to understand any scientific study as evidence that the study is wrong. 

Because that's totally friggin reasonable.


----------



## MrFranco (Jan 30, 2017)

Some sort of christian/catholic in my childhood. Agnostic in my teens. Atheist since I was 19 or 20.

I can see the extreme forces and the shocking coincidences, but all that's by a researchable reason, instead of just assuming it's a divine power.


----------



## Artruya (Jan 31, 2017)

"Happily" agnostic 

I study Buddhism and practice meditation, but by almost all definitions, it's not a religion.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 31, 2017)

Deist because as much as I yearn to go full atheist, even though I fully believe in spontaneous genesis of life, i can not- my monkey brain will not- allow me to fathom the that atoms can form a conscious thing like me that can eventuate its own existence. You get dizzy thinking about.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Feb 1, 2017)

Agnostic here.


----------



## Martin2W (Feb 1, 2017)

Yes god exists. Im pretty sure.


----------



## pidge (Feb 1, 2017)

Martin2W said:


> Yes god exists. Im pretty sure.


Are you _sure?_


----------



## Martin2W (Feb 2, 2017)

pidge said:


> Are you _sure?_


Im pretty sure


----------



## xaliceonfire (Feb 2, 2017)

Really have no idea. I was brought up Baptist. When to Satanism. Came back to Christianity. And now, after some soul searching, I'm not sure what I believe.


----------



## pidge (Feb 3, 2017)

Martin2W said:


> Im pretty sure


But why?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 3, 2017)

I suppose I could give a more serious answer. I've struggled with the concept of religions and gods for years. I finally gave up in trying to understand any of it and decided to settle for spirituality, or at the very least, Agnosticism.


----------



## Martin2W (Feb 3, 2017)

pidge said:


> But why?


Well sweetie I dont know myself.


----------



## Egon1982 (Feb 3, 2017)

Aliens i believe in


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Feb 4, 2017)

Egon1982 said:


> Aliens i believe in










Spoiler


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Feb 6, 2017)

Do I believe in God?

Do I believe in the art that I have created? Yes. Someone else's? Sure, why not. Do I believe in patterns of thought or vision that I can hold in mind's eye? Yes. Do I believe in the inner lives of my friends and loved ones almost as if I always somehow carry them with me, even when they're not in the room with me, perhaps even after they have passed away? Yes. These are the elements that combine to form a living, breathing idea, or thoughtform, in your mind, with a palpable presence and emotional/spiritual  significance. It might be what some people feel when they look at a national flag, a drawing of their identity character, or some pattern experienced in their mind while reading a poem or auditing art or music.

I think that at and before the dawn of human civilization, people began to formalize the power of ideas and belief in them, and art itself was a way of making those ideas extend out into the world and bolster that pattern and experience of thought and
belief pervasively. We tend to take this so for granted, or as second nature, as a matter of being culturally literate and saavy in our modern world, but it's insightful to be mindful how that process is working, especially since it's so widely misused and abused in our world of mass media broadcast memes.

And so I've said God is an artful idea, held as pattern of thought and welcomed as habitual celebrated meme in much the same way as someone might devote themselves with zeal and enthusiasm to the fandom, a personal art project, etc. I suppose it's important to pause and acknowledge that at this point, a lot of people are probably conflicted with things I've said because spirituality, God, and religion (and maybe some local flavor of Christianity itself, too) tend to be conflated in many minds, but I think it's really helpful to keep them as separate ideas.

Most _religions_ would state it's their purpose to proclaim the sort of God described above does exists in a particular way, persists outside of minds, and is some flavor of directly endowed with supernatural character or ability. But there's really no reason to limit God to those things. Or to stop at one God. Why not a diverse pluralistic pantheon of gods, each afforded devotion as seems appropriate to you according to your values respective to what they represent? Why does a god need any powers? Maybe it's just a manifestation of nature, like a pattern of standing ripples as a river runs over a rock, and not a force being applied to move things in the world.

Anyway, at this point, I hope I've kind of stripped some elements apart, thoughtforms and gods, spirituality, religion (basically a society for a particular flavour of spiritual 'fandom')-- and it's not a huge stretch to say something like the anthro fandom fills some
or all elements for some people some of the time. But lots of things can, like NFL football, or attending live concerts.  Now what I'd like to do is recombine the elements in the same way I might recombine ideas about a character for a new drawing, and try to
think of something that stands in to do for shared spirituality what religion aims to do, but done so for its own pure purposes-- not to control for Paternalistic or authoritarian or political purposes, but to inform and guide, to allow ourselves to swaddle and cloth ourselves in the spiritual warmth and splendour of our own cultivated bolstering beliefs and life-affirming aesthetics for existence, like growing a phantom tail, hooves, wings, or belief.

The best thing about all this is that you get to choose a la carte all the best elements of your own spiritual life and growth without having to necessarily submit to some dogma, bigotry, and narrowmindedness of institutionalized religion, where people become enslaved more to the rules than the original spiritual intent. Having said all that, there's so much there I've sort of waved my hands at and dismissed, but actually, there are really some schools of thought that I think kind of worked out the right ideas for an approach to an old familiar religion that would be fertile grounds for ideas about a system of spiritual belief that was agile and flexible enough to be both rational and intelligent about our changing world, too. That's what Transcendentalism aims to do, for example.

I conclude, God or god may be as real as an idea, and ideas can be made real indeed, especially by artists and poets (who we shall call high priests) and inspired by the living thought(s) of their belief and spiritual practice. Maybe it's enough just to hold these ideas together and achieve perspective from this view or one like it, and then extend that practice with some form of  devotional or meditational habit.

It would be pretty cool to find a group of freaks, geeks, artists, psychonauts, priestesses, and furries to collaborate and conspire to create some sort of loose framework for shared spiritual practice together. Not with the weight of authority or dogma, but not entirely on a lark or as a gag, either.


----------



## katalistik (Feb 6, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Do I believe in God?
> 
> Do I believe in the art that I have created? Yes. Someone else's? Sure, why not. Do I believe in patterns of thought or vision that I can hold in mind's eye? Yes. Do I believe in the inner lives of my friends and loved ones almost as if I always somehow carry them with me, even when they're not in the room with me, perhaps even after they have passed away? Yes. These are the elements that combine to form a living, breathing idea, or thoughtform, in your mind, with a palpable presence and emotional/spiritual  significance. It might be what some people feel when they look at a national flag, a drawing of their identity character, or some pattern experienced in their mind while reading a poem or auditing art or music.
> 
> ...



Impressive.I totally agree with you.But there is a lot of pain and suffering that we need to take care first.I know that we can be better as a whole.


----------



## ILikeWaffles (Feb 6, 2017)

I'm agnostic. Since nothing about a god can be proven, I don't really care.


----------



## SamK (Feb 8, 2017)

Every human being believes in the existence of a higher power, even cults do.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 8, 2017)

SamK said:


> Every human being believes in the existence of a higher power, even cults do.


Yeah, no. I don't. Satanists doesn't. Atheists doesn't. Even a lot of religious people are questioning whether this Sky Daddy of theirs exist.


----------



## Alex K (Feb 9, 2017)

As an Athiest I'd like to see someone tell that if God really does exist, then howcome we got taxes? : )


----------



## SamK (Feb 10, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Yeah, no. I don't. Satanists doesn't. Atheists doesn't. Even a lot of religious people are questioning whether this Sky Daddy of theirs exist.


satanists believe in Satan as the higher power..


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Feb 10, 2017)

SamK said:


> satanists believe in Satan as the higher power..



Different branches of Satanism have different core beliefs, but no, not all Satanists believe that Satan is a real figure.

Don't believe me?  Here's an interview with the current High Priest of the Lavantian Satanists.


----------



## Belatucadros (Feb 10, 2017)

I wouldn't really consider myself "religious" in any way, but I guess I'm more of a spiritualist person. Spiritualists aren't forced to go to a church, as I do not. We aren't forced to believe in any certain God, or any God at all for that matter. We can believe in whatever or however many higher powers we want from different cultures. We never judge other religions or people who don't believe in any higher power at all(Athiests), because that's just wrong to do anyways. Gays and Lesibans are equal to everyone else, and there's nothing wrong with them to us... unlike most other religions. I never actually believed in any higher power at all before, until I discovered mediumship... which actually isn't a scam at all, as most people think.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2017)

SamK said:


> Every human being believes in the existence of a higher power, even cults do.



While this is false, I'm not sure what the relevance of it is. If every human believed the earth to be flat, the earth would still be round.


----------



## Revous (Feb 11, 2017)

My God is half-Higgs Boson, half-"my whole family is pagan so there's that".
So basically, loving/being in awe with the forces of nature and the universe as a whole.


----------



## racoondevil (Feb 14, 2017)

I'm spiritual but not religious. I believe in God,  but as soon as I see high and mighty believers looking down on anything not sparking Christian clean, I have to wonder.


----------



## AustinB (Feb 16, 2017)

I don't know if God exists or not, so I'm not going to say if I do or don't believe in God. I'm not sure if God (or a God) exists. _Nobody really knows _if one exists. The only way to find out is through dying, and frankly enough, I'm not _that _curious to know if God exists. I want to live a long happy life before I get my answer.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 16, 2017)

Jibbers Crabst in my true god!


----------



## triskifae (Feb 27, 2017)

i believe in multiple gods and goddesses.


----------



## Zaddict16 (Feb 27, 2017)

MadKiyo said:


> I used to be a Christian until about 4 years ago.
> 
> Right now I don't exactly know what I fall under? Perhaps some form of agnosticism, but I do believe in supernatural, things beyond our plane of existence, in a more general way, for I can't tell what they or it manifests as.


How come you gave up on your faith?


----------



## Zaddict16 (Feb 27, 2017)

AustinB said:


> I don't know if God exists or not, so I'm not going to say if I do or don't believe in God. I'm not sure if God (or a God) exists. _Nobody really knows _if one exists. The only way to find out is through dying, and frankly enough, I'm not _that _curious to know if God exists. I want to live a long happy life before I get my answer.


Actaully that's not true. You don't HAVE to die to get a definite answer. Start reading a Bible if you have one, maybe start praying, ask God to help you. Pretty much what I'm saying is, if you having the burning desire to want more of Him in you, more of His divine power to build up inside you, you can start to know the Holy Spirit. 
The best way to do this is to teach yourself how to hear His voice. And the reality is that every single person can hear his voice. It's that one tells you to second guess yourself when your about to do something wrong, the one that speaks encouragement to you when your feeling defeated. 
Spiritual Dicernment is one of the many ways to know more of him. 
I go to church, but I'm going to tell you right now, I don't know all of the answers. No one does. Except for Him. 
So don't just read this and shrug it off, take it heart and you'll see yourself changed and He will bring you into places you've only dreamed of.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Feb 27, 2017)

Zaddict16 said:


> How come you gave up on your faith?


The evidence often cited for religions is boiled down to absence of explanation, which should not be a substitute for an answer. Theories of the origin of life and the universe I also don't hold as an answer, but I think they should be used when we need them as they are evidence driven and give us what we do know in order to find what we don't. I'm not confident we will ever find the concrete answer to this conglomeration we call existence, but "*I don't know yet, but I'll pick up the clues",* is the most honest I can be.


----------



## Zaddict16 (Feb 27, 2017)

I totally respect thr


MadKiyo said:


> The evidence often cited for religions is boiled down to absence of explanation, which should not be a substitute for an answer. Theories of the origin of life and the universe I also don't hold as an answer, but I think they should be used when we need them as they are evidence driven and give us what we do know in order to find what we don't. I'm not confident we will ever find the concrete answer to this conglomeration we call existence, but "*I don't know yet, but I'll pick up the clues",* is the most honest I can be.


I totally respect that, and you're right we probably won't ever know all the answers but for me personaly, I'm fine with waiting or not even knowing at all. I know what I know, and what The Lord wants me to know and I'm happy with that.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Feb 27, 2017)

Zaddict16 said:


> I totally respect thr
> 
> I totally respect that, and you're right we probably won't ever know all the answers but for me personaly, I'm fine with waiting or not even knowing at all. I know what I know, and what The Lord wants me to know and I'm happy with that.



I always found the Christian faith very humbling and welcome though, despite what a lot of people give it flak for. I always wind up defending religious positions on the grounds of "intolerance" and "stupidity", which are often wrongfully attributed to people who are otherwise accepting of people and their freewill, and have very meaningful and hard-earned careers.


----------



## Troj (Feb 28, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Different branches of Satanism have different core beliefs, but no, not all Satanists believe that Satan is a real figure.
> 
> Don't believe me?  Here's an interview with the current High Priest of the Lavantian Satanists.



I like to say that Satanists are "apatheists," in that we don't particularly care whether or not God exists, because believe it's irrelevant--though, our assumption is that God is essentially a construct created by human beings to provide a sense of purpose and meaning, explain the universe, enforce social norms and hierarchies, and help us to justify our general bullshit. The majority of Satanists identify as agnostics or atheists.

If you want to get even more technical, Satanists are autodeists, because we consider ourselves to be our own gods, but don't mean this in any grand or supernatural sense.

I've been a member of the church since 2000, and currently hold the rank of Witch (2nd Degree), so them's my credentials.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 28, 2017)

Weirdly enough Anton LaVey was an Obectivist. Like a lot of people you may leave Objectivism but Objectivism won't full leave you.  In LaVey's case he started the Church of Satan which is a quasi form of Objectivism.  In fact: Satanism and Objectivism | churchofsatan.com


----------



## Mobius (Feb 28, 2017)

Uncle Sam.


----------



## Troj (Feb 28, 2017)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Weirdly enough Anton LaVey was an Obectivist. Like a lot of people you may leave Objectivism but Objectivism won't full leave you.  In LaVey's case he started the Church of Satan which is a quasi form of Objectivism.  In fact: Satanism and Objectivism | churchofsatan.com



He borrowed from Ayn Rand and Objectivism, just as he did from other thinkers and philosophies. But, if he (and other Satanists) had considered Objectivism sufficient, there would've been no need for Satanism.

Personally, I think that while Objectivism brought some very useful ideas to the table, most of the Objectivists I've met have been humorless buzzkills, and Ayn Rand was a shitty novelist and kind of a bitch.


----------



## Mandragoras (Mar 1, 2017)

I'm honestly not sure what to say. In my more rational moments, my personal philosophy cleaves fairly close to Camus' conception of absurdism: I don't know if there's a higher power, I don't think I can know, I don't think that there's an identifiable greater meaning in life, and I'm OK with all that most of the time. In my more, I don't know, maybe credulous or mystical moments, I think I identify most strongly with animist ideas, older forms of Shinto and so forth, although I also see a distinct value in certain Abrahamic traditions and ideas.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Mar 2, 2017)

Religion, in my opinion, is a tool used by those in power to help control the populous. Works pretty well, too. Except it is an outdated tool, no longer necessary, in my opinion. Here is a thought: if an alien spacecraft landed on The White House lawn tomorrow, and a being who looked like Jesus stepped out, proclaimed to be the Son Of God, and told us that all non-believers must be destroyed, how long do you think it would take for the killings to start? My guess would be seconds. Because in my mind, there is nothing more dangerous than a "true believer" ,of any religion.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 2, 2017)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> Religion, in my opinion, is a tool used by those in power to help control the populous. Works pretty well, too. Except it is an outdated tool, no longer necessary, in my opinion. Here is a thought: if an alien spacecraft landed on The White House lawn tomorrow, and a being who looked like Jesus stepped out, proclaimed to be the Son Of God, and told us that all non-believers must be destroyed, how long do you think it would take for the killings to start? My guess would be seconds. Because in my mind, there is nothing more dangerous than a "true believer" ,of any religion.


Why go that far with the alien example? You just have to look at the nations of the Third World to see what happens when religion utterly dominates society unopposed, especially where its authority is not separate from that of the state.

On a similar note:


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Mar 2, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Why go that far with the alien example? You just have to look at the nations of the Third World to see what happens when religion utterly dominates society unopposed, especially where its authority is not separate from that of the state.
> 
> On a similar note:


I think I was just trying to use it as an example of where blind faith in religion could take us. Believers......worry me.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 2, 2017)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> I think I was just trying to use it as an example of where blind faith in religion could take us. Believers......worry me.


Blind faith in _anything_ is dangerous. It's actually one of the reasons why, in light of the Milgram Experiment, it is simply inexcusable to say "I was just following orders" when explaining why you committed an act that you knew was inherently wrong. It is therefore demanded of you to be conscientious about what you do, no matter how fervent your beliefs and loyalties are, and failure to do so is nothing short of being irresponsibly complicit.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Mar 2, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Blind faith in _anything_ is dangerous. It's actually one of the reasons why, in light of the Milgram Experiment, it is simply inexcusable to say "I was just following orders" when explaining why you committed an act that you knew was inherently wrong. It is therefore demanded of you to be conscientious about what you do, no matter how fervent your beliefs and loyalties are, and failure to do so is nothing short of being irresponsibly complicit.


Breeea!


----------



## zeroslash (Mar 2, 2017)

No. I do not believe religion has a place in a modern society. It baffles me why so many continue to cling to ancient religions with no visible or physical proof of any sort of powerful being.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 3, 2017)

zeroslash said:


> No. I do not believe religion has a place in a modern society. It baffles me why so many continue to cling to ancient religions with no visible or physical proof of any sort of powerful being.


The most common reason, taking the whole of humanity into account, tends to be that it provides them an illusion of comfort in a universe that simply hasn't been kind to them. Others include existential dread, generally associated with feeling insignificant on a universal scale, and a sense of belonging in a social group, through which the rituals serve as a bonding experience and a means of imparting morals that reinforce it.

In the end though, belief in a higher power holds as much abstract weight in reality as the value of money - it's an illusion for sure, but it's an intrinsicly very useful illusion for those who adopt it, even if they're fully aware of its nature.

Seriously, you can't tell me that you didn't milk dry the Santa Claus illusion as a kid after you found out it was a myth.


----------



## zeroslash (Mar 3, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> The most common reason, taking the whole of humanity into account, tends to be that it provides them an illusion of comfort in a universe that simply hasn't been kind to them. Others include existential dread, generally associated with feeling insignificant on a universal scale, and a sense of belonging in a social group, through which the rituals serve as a bonding experience and a means of imparting morals that reinforce it.
> 
> In the end though, belief in a higher power holds as much abstract weight in reality as the value of money - it's an illusion for sure, but it's an intrinsicly very useful illusion for those who adopt it, even if they're fully aware of its nature.
> 
> Seriously, you can't tell me that you didn't milk dry the Santa Claus illusion as a kid after you found out it was a myth.


My family--at least immediate family--has never been very religious. My folks kinda know why we all like Christmas: free shit. My folks are still theists but they aren't very religious. So when I told them I no longer believed in Santa Claus, it was like, "Okay." And boom, free shit by just circling things in a catalogue.

Anyway, I don't deny the usefulness of religion but I'm still iffy about it. I've always felt like if you need religion to be moral then you're not moral yourself. You're just scared of going to hell or some other place of torture. I'd go even further about hell and its function in morality but I'm too lazy and/or I don't want to cause a flame war.

Because, y'know, discussion of religion always leads to happiness and sunshine.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 3, 2017)

There's two little somethings here that bothers me - somethings I just saw in zeroslash's last post. Let me preface this by saying I'm not religious myself, as I'm somewhere between agnosticism and deism myself.

Here's what I find particularly bothersome "I've always felt like if you need religion to be moral then you're not moral yourself," in combination with, "You're just scared of going to hell or some other place of torture." I can say that for anyone who looks to the Pope as a religious authority, this should not be the case. Whether or not it is the case or not is a different matter. As part of the required curriculum from my school, I had to take a one-semester-long course on ethics, which included lessons on Catholic Ethics, so much of the following is going to be based on what I learned in this class. According to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, God is so immensely forgiving that Hell is not a threat for Christians/Catholics who are immoral, regardless of posterior actions. It is a reality for those who commit mortal sin and then do not seek forgiveness for said moral sin through a priest. Long story short, according to the CCC, God is really, really forgiving.


In hindsight, I suppose this may have been some of the happiness and sunshine you were referring to, zeroslash.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 3, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> There's two little somethings here that bothers me - somethings I just saw in zeroslash's last post. Let me preface this by saying I'm not religious myself, as I'm somewhere between agnosticism and deism myself.
> 
> Here's what I find particularly bothersome "I've always felt like if you need religion to be moral then you're not moral yourself," in combination with, "You're just scared of going to hell or some other place of torture." I can say that for anyone who looks to the Pope as a religious authority, this should not be the case. Whether or not it is the case or not is a different matter. As part of the required curriculum from my school, I had to take a one-semester-long course on ethics, which included lessons on Catholic Ethics, so much of the following is going to be based on what I learned in this class. According to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, God is so immensely forgiving that Hell is not a threat for Christians/Catholics who are immoral, regardless of posterior actions. It is a reality for those who commit mortal sin and then do not seek forgiveness for said moral sin through a priest. Long story short, according to the CCC, God is really, really forgiving.
> 
> ...


Being a graduate of a Catholic School system myself and having undergone a similar course on ethics & morality in my graduating year, I can relate to this. Granted, I recall my course focusing on the various philosophers, Christian and otherwise, whose teachings have influenced Christian ethics as a whole, from the days of Aristotle to the Enlightenment.

In short, you certainly don't need to be religious to be moral - morality being the tenets that allow a society to function - but those same moral precepts are generally adopted and codified by religion anyway. How that morality is expressed however is a different story, especially in the instances where it is abused and exploited to justify immoral behaviour.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 4, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> There's two little somethings here that bothers me - somethings I just saw in zeroslash's last post. Let me preface this by saying I'm not religious myself, as I'm somewhere between agnosticism and deism myself.
> 
> Here's what I find particularly bothersome "I've always felt like if you need religion to be moral then you're not moral yourself," in combination with, "You're just scared of going to hell or some other place of torture." I can say that for anyone who looks to the Pope as a religious authority, this should not be the case. Whether or not it is the case or not is a different matter. As part of the required curriculum from my school, I had to take a one-semester-long course on ethics, which included lessons on Catholic Ethics, so much of the following is going to be based on what I learned in this class. According to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, God is so immensely forgiving that Hell is not a threat for Christians/Catholics who are immoral, regardless of posterior actions. *It is a reality for those who commit mortal sin and then do not seek forgiveness for said moral sin through a priest.* Long story short, according to the CCC, God is really, really forgiving.
> 
> ...



I think there is a flaw in this suggestion, because priests who molest children can console themselves that they have been forgiven by their god. By contrast somebody born into the world with original sin, who acts virtuously and tries to reconcile with anybody they wrong, would be condemned to eternal torture if they were never baptised. 

I think the notion of divine absolution is one that priests offer people in order to proselytise their religion, rather than because it makes any ethical sense.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 4, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I think there is a flaw in this suggestion, because priests who molest children can console themselves that they have been forgiven by their god.



Sure, but here's the thing. Priests who do such a despicable deed must seek forgiveness through reconciliation. Key point of reconciliation: it is not through oneself. This priest must reconcile with God through another priest. If they do so, while yes, God will forgive them for their misdeed, part of their repentance will almost assuredly be handing themselves over to government authorities to go through the legal process and receive due legal punishment for child molestation. If you're expecting some sort of recourse, there you have it.

Additionally...


Fallowfox said:


> By contrast somebody born into the world with original sin, who acts virtuously and tries to reconcile with anybody they wrong, would be condemned to eternal torture if they were never baptised.



This is not true in some cases. Reading through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find four exceptions to this statement, where people who have not undergone the Sacrament of Baptism are still able to achieve what the Church terms "Salvation," as in going to Heaven. I will include these exceptions here.

1. "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This _Baptism of blood_, like the _desire for Baptism_, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament," (Catholic Church 1258). In summary, those who are of the Christian faith but died before being Baptized may still reach Heaven.

2. "For _catechumens _who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament," (Catholic Church 1259). The definition of "catechumen" according to Merriam-Webster: "a convert to Christianity receiving training in doctrine and discipline before baptism," or "one receiving instruction in the basic doctrines of Christianity before admission to communicant membership in a church."

3. "'Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery,' (_GS_ 22 § 5; cf. _LG_ 16; _AG_ 7). Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have _desired Baptism explicitly_ if they had known its necessity," (Catholic Church 1260). By this rule, your example person:


Fallowfox said:


> By contrast somebody born into the world with original sin, who acts virtuously and tries to reconcile with anybody they wrong, would be condemned to eternal torture if they were never baptised.


would not be condemned to eternal torture.

4. "As regards _children who have died without Baptism_, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," (_Mk_ 10 14; cf. _1 Tim_ 2:4) allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism," (Catholic Church 1261). This one isn't necessarily always an exception, sure, however it still offers the opportunity that a child who has not been Baptized may, and is likely to, not be condemned.

Lastly...


Fallowfox said:


> I think the notion of divine absolution is one that priests offer people in order to proselytise their religion, rather than because it makes any ethical sense.



Divine absolution isn't just something priests say and don't mean. It is a basic fact in the Catholic faith. Full stop. End of story. You will find many, many examples of things directly and indirectly affirming divine absolution (though most of the time it fails to mention the process). One such example was in one of the quotes I gave: "Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved," (Catholic Church 1261). If you'd like to learn more on this topic, feel free to look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church's teachings on reconciliation.


----------



## Aleksion (Mar 4, 2017)

No, I don't. Why would there be someone? We were created by the nature. While it's not an intelligent force, it had time on its side. When I die the nature will take me back and reuse me for something else. Dying sucks though. Everything is temporary in this world, absolutely EVERYTHING, except one thing, your death. The nothing will last forever. It's a scary thought to be honest. But so freeing at the same time.


----------



## UnwieldyRoomba (Mar 4, 2017)

I would technically classify myself as an agnostic deist, in that idk if there is or isn't a god, but if there isn't, they definitely don't care one way or another.  In regards to the big What Happens After question, I would usually shrug but my gut instinct when my life is in danger is to kind of believe in reincarnation? It just ends up seeming the most reasonable on a subconscious level I guess.  I would also, structurally speaking, put myself into the more Unitarian Universalist region, in that I believe religion is a very personal thing, and doesn't have much business being a source of profit or such a strong hierarchy that most major religions have today.  Religion can be a source of safety and emotional refuge for some, and others don't want anything to do with it for one reason or another, and I think both are fair.


----------



## OakenheelTheWolf (Mar 4, 2017)

I belive in God


----------



## M4CH (Mar 4, 2017)

I'm a reincarnationist. But i I had to worship anyone, it would be Athena. She's badass.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 4, 2017)

M4CH said:


> I'm a reincarnationist. But i I had to worship anyone, it would be Athena. She's badass.


The war goddess who effectively reigns over nuclear war, compared to pub brawler Ares? Oh yes...


----------



## M4CH (Mar 5, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> The war goddess who effectively reigns over nuclear war, compared to pub brawler Ares? Oh yes...


Who doesn't want to go out with a bang? Besides, Athena was the better looking one imo. On the subject of caprine-related gods though, I'd probably go with Pan: bad influence, but an extreme party-boy. He was also somewhat of an ally to Athenians.


----------



## Multoran (Mar 5, 2017)

Thing about religion is that you'll never really know whether you were right or wrong until you die.
Unless nothing is after death, in which case you won't know much of anything. Because you no longer exist.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 5, 2017)

M4CH said:


> Who doesn't want to go out with a bang? Besides, Athena was the better looking one imo. On the subject of caprine-related gods though, I'd probably go with Pan: bad influence, but an extreme party-boy. He was also somewhat of an ally to Athenians.


Well, when I say that Athena is the goddess of nuclear war, it mostly revolves around MAD and the strategy it's built around. In short, she plays to win, and the only winning move in a nuclear war is not to play.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 5, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> and the only winning move in a nuclear war is not to play.



Damn, that brought back memories of _War Games_. Good movie.


----------



## pippi (Mar 5, 2017)

I do not believe in a god.  I believe in biology and chemistry


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 5, 2017)

pippi said:


> I do not believe in a god.  I believe in biology and chemistry


Can you really believe in biology and chemistry? They're not really something you can believe in.

Unless we make biology and/or chemistry into a religion(s). We already have biologists and chemists, so we're off to a good start.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 5, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Can you really believe in biology and chemistry? They're not really something you can believe in.
> 
> Unless we make biology and/or chemistry into a religion(s). We already have biologists and chemists, so we're off to a good start.


Hah! Physics is far superior as a science-based religion, since the gods of myth are forces of nature, and force is best described as influence exerted on an object in order to change its path of motion. Everything else is just a derivative.

Beware of Sir Isaac Newton.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 6, 2017)

Everything else is just d/dx?


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Mar 6, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Everything else is just d/dx?


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 6, 2017)

Ayy, it's XKCD! Thank you so much for that particular comic, too.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Mar 6, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


>


This is unarguably the purest field though:


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 6, 2017)

MadKiyo said:


> This is unarguably the purest field though:



Badum-tiss.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 6, 2017)

MadKiyo said:


> This is unarguably the purest field though:


If you look closely you can find bugs.(In the field, obviously)


----------



## Caukoumouaudge (Mar 6, 2017)




----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 6, 2017)

Caukoumouaudge said:


>


No metal, heavy metal or rock? 0/10, mate.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 6, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Sure, but here's the thing. Priests who do such a despicable deed must seek forgiveness through reconciliation. Key point of reconciliation: it is not through oneself. This priest must reconcile with God through another priest. If they do so, while yes, God will forgive them for their misdeed, part of their repentance will almost assuredly be handing themselves over to government authorities to go through the legal process and receive due legal punishment for child molestation. If you're expecting some sort of recourse, there you have it.
> 
> Additionally...
> 
> ...



I think you've evaded the ethical problems which exist here; a priest has to confess to another priest to be absolved for their crime in the eyes of the catholic god- as though if they atoned for it but didn't confess to a priest, then their atonement would be irrelevant. 

Furthermore you gloss over the fact that people who are good, but are not christian, would be condemned in the eyes of the catholic god by offering examples that say people who are ignorant of christianity entirely, or want to be christians but don't get a chance to perform the right magical rituals, are exempt. 
What about the majority of good people on Earth who aren't christians, know that the religion exists and aren't interested in joining it? 

Condemning any of them to eternal torture is irreconcilable with the notion of a 'forgiving god', or a god which is ethical in any way really.
I think my comment that divine absolution is about proselytisation is apt here, because you've made it abundantly clear that it isn't one's ethical fibre that catholics really care about- that's subsidiary, first and foremost is the concern that one is a member of or a supporter of the catholic religion. 

Tells you everything you need to know, and perhaps begins to reveal why it's a famously corrupt organisation that for many decades has been more preoccupied with protecting its own and forceful conversion than with...well...ethics.


----------



## Caukoumouaudge (Mar 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> No metal, heavy metal or rock? 0/10, mate.


... ...?

That's not suppose to be music...


----------



## Royn (Mar 6, 2017)

I believe the Force will be with you.








Always.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 6, 2017)

I'm so glad you asked these questions, FallowFox! It'll give me a chance to answer some more commonly asked questions that could otherwise be answered with a quick Google search.



Fallowfox said:


> I think you've evaded the ethical problems which exist here; a priest has to confess to another priest to be absolved for their crime in the eyes of the catholic god- as though if they atoned for it but didn't confess to a priest, then their atonement would be irrelevant.


Here's how it works with confession and all. I recommended you look up the Catechism's teachings on it on your own, but I guess I'll do it for you. In summary, this is how it works. Jesus was God as man, and as such, he forgave everyone of their sins. So, in confession, you must seek reconciliation with God (capitalised because that's what you do when referring to the Christian God) through man - more specifically, a man who is supposed to be a sort of "middleman" to Christ. Middleman is lacking as a proper term for what a priest is, but it'll have to do. Additionally, you're going to have to be more clear about what you're trying to point out when you say, "as though if they atoned for it but didn't confess to a priest, then their atonement would be irrelevant." I've read over that about ten times now and I still have no clue what you're trying to say.



Fallowfox said:


> Furthermore you gloss over the fact that people who are good, but are not christian, would be condemned in the eyes of the catholic god by offering examples that say people who are ignorant of christianity entirely, or want to be christians but don't get a chance to perform the right magical rituals, are exempt.
> What about the majority of good people on Earth who aren't christians, know that the religion exists and aren't interested in joining it?
> 
> Condemning any of them to eternal torture is irreconcilable with the notion of a 'forgiving god', or a god which is ethical in any way really.
> I think my comment that divine absolution is about proselytisation is apt here, because you've made it abundantly clear that it isn't one's ethical fibre that catholics really care about- that's subsidiary, first and foremost is the concern that one is a member of or a supporter of the catholic religion.


You know what, this is actually a good point. But I'll also make my own. You've got a rather jaundiced view of religion, haven't you? Admittedly, I did not cover this in my first post, but allow me to address this now. As a matter of fact, even if you are aware of the Catholic faith (capitalised, mind you, it's a proper noun) and choose not to be a follower, you will still be offered the same thing as Christians - what they term "salvation" - and at worst Purgatory, on the condition that you do your best to live a moral life. I've personally discussed this with a number of priests and my ethics teacher last semester, and they've all confirmed this. If it really bothers you so much that you would be following the tenets of a religion, you can follow the teachings of Aristotle instead. They're virtually the same thing. Just Catholic Ethics adds a bit of icing to the metaphorical cake that is Aristotle's Ethics.

Also, I've made it abundantly clear that Catholics care more about you being Catholic than a good person? You wound me, sir. Allow me to mend this.



Fallowfox said:


> *that it isn't one's ethical fibre that catholics really care about*- that's subsidiary, first and foremost is the concern that one is a member of or a supporter of the catholic religion.


Well, yeah, it sort-of is. That's why there's the whole thing about excommunication. If you're enough of a twat the Church won't let you back in. Additionally, according to the Pope, there are systems within the Church to deal with situations like your example of the paedophilic priest. Additionally, given the fact that you can still make it to Heaven or Purgatory if you're a good person by the Church's or Aristotle's teachings, I'd say that being a Catholic isn't as much of a concern to Catholics as you make it out to be.



Fallowfox said:


> Tells you everything you need to know, and perhaps begins to reveal why it's a famously corrupt organisation that for many decades has been more preoccupied with protecting its own and forceful conversion than with...well...ethics.


Sure, there's been corruption in the Church. I don't get why people get so caught up with it, though. Humans are fallible - there's examples of it left and right all the time. What concerns me, though, is that people are so preoccupied with the fallibility of the Church that they ignore her message. I am not a Catholic or Christian personally, as I have mentioned before, but I closely follow the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, as I think that Catholic ethicists - and Aristotilian ethicists for that matter - have by far the most well thought-out ethical systems of them all. Kant takes the cake in terms of good will (pun intended), but fell off a cliff somewhere along the way. An "A" for effort, though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 7, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> I'm so glad you asked these questions, FallowFox! It'll give me a chance to answer some more commonly asked questions that could otherwise be answered with a quick Google search.
> 
> 
> Here's how it works with confession and all. I recommended you look up the Catechism's teachings on it on your own, but I guess I'll do it for you. In summary, this is how it works. Jesus was God as man, and as such, he forgave everyone of their sins. So, in confession, you must seek reconciliation with God (capitalised because that's what you do when referring to the Christian God) through man - more specifically, a man who is supposed to be a sort of "middleman" to Christ. Middleman is lacking as a proper term for what a priest is, but it'll have to do. Additionally, you're going to have to be more clear about what you're trying to point out when you say, "as though if they atoned for it but didn't confess to a priest, then their atonement would be irrelevant." I've read over that about ten times now and I still have no clue what you're trying to say.
> ...



You're under the impression that the problem is that I'm not familiar with theological technicalities of the catholic faith, such as the religious reasons that absolution must be sought through a priest. 
This is not my concern. My concern is that a meaningful notion of forgiveness should not be contingent upon which religious group one belongs to. (and, I dare say, the notion that anybody could possibly be happy in a Catholic afterlife, while being aware that there would be humans burning in hell for eternity is astonishing. Wouldn't any moral person, even if they were in Heaven, be trapped in their own personal hell, because of this knowledge?)
This is just one among many reasons that the system of ethics propounded by the Catholic church is fundamentally flawed. 

People are upset about the heinous moral corruption that the Catholic church has visited upon the rest of the world, and continues to inspire, because it is antithetical to the claims of divine moral inspiration the church makes and because the church's reputation as a moral authority directly enabled many of its worst human rights abuses. The church continues to represent a body that undermines the equal rights of lgbt people and which seeks to stifle the provision of contraceptives to the developing world, even spreading rumours such as 'condoms cause HIV' to achieve this.  (can one _really_ argue this is a 'well thought out' ethical system? ._.  Think of the millions of HIV infections that the church *could have prevented* and chose not to.)

_At best_ one can claim that the Catholic church is insincere, and fails to live up to its own ethical standards, but I think many of their most deleterious practices were results of misguided and inappropriate ethical values. The Catholic church didn't apologise for the Galileo affair until 1992.


----------



## zeroslash (Mar 7, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> There's two little somethings here that bothers me - somethings I just saw in zeroslash's last post. Let me preface this by saying I'm not religious myself, as I'm somewhere between agnosticism and deism myself.
> 
> Here's what I find particularly bothersome "I've always felt like if you need religion to be moral then you're not moral yourself," in combination with, "You're just scared of going to hell or some other place of torture." I can say that for anyone who looks to the Pope as a religious authority, this should not be the case. Whether or not it is the case or not is a different matter. As part of the required curriculum from my school, I had to take a one-semester-long course on ethics, which included lessons on Catholic Ethics, so much of the following is going to be based on what I learned in this class. According to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, God is so immensely forgiving that Hell is not a threat for Christians/Catholics who are immoral, regardless of posterior actions. It is a reality for those who commit mortal sin and then do not seek forgiveness for said moral sin through a priest. Long story short, according to the CCC, God is really, really forgiving.
> 
> ...


When I said, "happiness and sunshine," I was being sarcastic. Heated discussions of religion, politics, money, and the Great Pumpkin can sometimes go awry.

Anyway, regardless of what theists _believe_, many powerful theists (such as many conservative leaders in the U.S. government) affect the rule of religion over a people. My concern is that some of these theists may use their religion to command authority over others who do not agree with their beliefs. There was that woman not too long ago who suggested mandatory church attendance. As an American and supporter of the First Amendment, I find that _terrifying_ that it was even considered. This is getting into politics and off-topic anyway.

I'm not saying that all theists are only moral because of religion--if anything, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that some people will use religion to justify their actions. And some theists, who haven't done a single wrong thing, have even admitted that they wouldn't donate or do any other charitable thing if it weren't for religion. Again, I'm not saying all theists are like this--most are good people. But it's hard to deny that there are some bad eggs out there, including atheists who might claim the lack of religion as a justification for their wrongdoings.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 7, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> You're under the impression that the problem is that I'm not familiar with theological technicalities of the catholic faith, such as the religious reasons that absolution must be sought through a priest.
> This is not my concern. My concern is that a meaningful notion of forgiveness should not be contingent upon which religious group one belongs to. (and, I dare say, the notion that anybody could possibly be happy in a Catholic afterlife, while being aware that there would be humans burning in hell for eternity is astonishing. Wouldn't any moral person, even if they were in Heaven, be trapped in their own personal hell, because of this knowledge?)
> This is just one among many reasons that the system of ethics propounded by the Catholic church is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> ...


Well, let's be honest here, I'm not just "under the impression" that you're unfamiliar with the theological technicalities of the Catholic faith; you've demonstrated more than once now that your understanding is at best incomplete, if not flawed.

Next, on your point about the afterlife. I will not bother going through the short-novel-length explanation for this, so here's the tl;dr on who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell: the only people who go to Hell are the people who want to go to Hell. Hypothetically, if the Catholic afterlife is real and, say, I end up in Purgatory and someone I know ends up in Hell, I will accept it because I will know they wanted to be there, but that doesn't mean I won't pity their choice.

As to LGBTs, I will not deny that the Church and its ethical system are against homosexuals and transgenders, though I should mention that a couple of other ethical systems are against them as well. But in any case, Pope Francis has said that the Catholic Church should apologise to LGBTs for its past transgressions, but this does not mean, as far as I am aware, that the Church is changing its stance to support them. The matter of LGBT persons is the single point of contention that I have with both the Church and Aristotle, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Additionally, the reasons why the Church takes a stance against condoms and birth control pills are well documented and while I could ask you to look them up yourself, based on a couple of things already in this thread I don't quite trust you to do that. Condoms have to do with the Church's stance against premarital sex and about giving your whole self in marriage. Also, the Pope saying that he thinks that the distribution of condoms won't solve the AIDS crisis in Africa is not the same as saying, "Condoms cause AIDS." As for birth control pills, the Church sees them as essentially one in the same with getting an abortion. And both you and I know very well the Church's position on abortion. Furthermore, the Church's reasons for their disapproval of condoms and contraceptives are well-thought-out, I assure you. I guess I'll have to settle for assuring you unless you could maybe, just maybe try reading up on Catholic Ethics from a neutral point of view instead of through this lens of yours that paints religion in general in such an abhorrent light.

I'm not trying in any way to claim that the Church is perfect - far from it, actually. The Church is flawed, and should you take some time to learn about Catholic ethics rather than spend all your time abhorring it and advocating that it is corrupt and fundamentally flawed, you would see that Catholic Ethics has unfortunately not had as much of an influence on the Church's actions or the actions of its constituents as I would have liked to have seen. Unfortunately, though, some people have put personal and political agendas before the religious and ethical ideals that they otherwise extol - the Crusades being a prime example. Undoubtedly, all but a select few Crusaders who realised that what they were doing was staunchly against Catholic principles and sought out forgiveness are in Hell. And what concerns me is that you are still faulting the Church as a whole for the actions of individuals (plain to see; read over your post again). You're still blaming the Church for the actions of individuals. Based on your response, you would blame the Church for the Crusades, no? In fact, the Pope made the political agenda of wanting the Church to have control of Jerusalem the priority over the principles he was supposed to represent. And before you go on saying, "But as the Pope, he shouldn't do things like that! Religion should be his only priority!" Mind you, as I said before, nobody is perfect. Everybody is subject to making mistakes, to having passions, and to corruption. Pope Urban II thought that the Christians in Jerusalem were under threat from the new Muslim sect that had taken control and was passionate about protecting them. He was passionate, too, about acquiring the Christian Holy Land. He made the mistake of allowing these passions to take top priority. This was the fault of the individual, not the Church. Then the other authorities made the mistake of not reflecting on the Pope's request and allowing something so crude and flimsy as "deus vult," to convince them. Again, individual mistakes. Then all of the Crusaders did the same. So, so many individuals made the wrong choice.



Fallowfox said:


> misguided and inappropriate ethical values.


Gotta say, this amuses me. Let's construct a hypothetical. Say that Catholicism is the "correct" religion. One of the key aspects of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that it is infallible. The things it say literally cannot be wrong. They are supposed to be God's words - not an interpretation of them, but the real things. Thus they mirror the fundamental qualities of God and God's teachings. And having read a good portion of the Catechism's writings myself, I can offer a fairly good summary. "All human life is valuable. Respect other human life and other humans. Don't be a dick. If you are a dick, make sure you apologise for it." Bish bash bosh, Catholic Ethics, ladies and gentlemen.


On another note, since you think that Catholic Ethics is so horrendously bad, what ethical system would you suggest be used?




zeroslash said:


> When I said, "happiness and sunshine," I was being sarcastic. Heated discussions of religion, politics, money, and the Great Pumpkin can sometimes go awry.
> 
> Anyway, regardless of what theists _believe_, many powerful theists (such as many conservative leaders in the U.S. government) affect the rule of religion over a people. My concern is that some of these theists may use their religion to command authority over others who do not agree with their beliefs. There was that woman not too long ago who suggested mandatory church attendance. As an American and supporter of the First Amendment, I find that _terrifying_ that it was even considered. This is getting into politics and off-topic anyway.
> 
> I'm not saying that all theists are only moral because of religion--if anything, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that some people will use religion to justify their actions. And some theists, who haven't done a single wrong thing, have even admitted that they wouldn't donate or do any other charitable thing if it weren't for religion. Again, I'm not saying all theists are like this--most are good people. But it's hard to deny that there are some bad eggs out there, including atheists who might claim the lack of religion as a justification for their wrongdoings.



Oh, I see what you mean, and I share your concerns. I do apologise for misinterpreting what you meant. I agree that people with political power sometimes do overuse religion in government work. On the topic of the First Amendment and as a strong supporter of it myself, I think you're right on the ball there. And mandatory attendance of Mass? The lady who supported that has to realise that other people do have differing beliefs. While America might be largely Christian, that's not grounds for a blanket rule or for contradicting the First Amendment.

Also, I apologise for misinterpreting what you were saying about theists and religion regarding morality. You make a good point, truly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 7, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Well, let's be honest here, I'm not just "under the impression" that you're unfamiliar with the theological technicalities of the Catholic faith; you've demonstrated more than once now that your understanding is at best incomplete, if not flawed.
> 
> Next, on your point about the afterlife. I will not bother going through the short-novel-length explanation for this, so here's the tl;dr on who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell: the only people who go to Hell are the people who want to go to Hell. Hypothetically, if the Catholic afterlife is real and, say, I end up in Purgatory and someone I know ends up in Hell, I will accept it because I will know they wanted to be there, but that doesn't mean I won't pity their choice.
> 
> ...



I'm just going to cut to the chase, because your comment is gargantuan and there are many tangents.

Here is a publication in the Lancet, a medical Journal contributed to by doctors and medical scientists.
They explain that the Catholic Church's position on condoms is scientifically inaccurate and that the Church has been responsible for spreading propaganda that condoms increase HIV infections. Many HIV infections could have been prevented if a culture of consistent barrier contraception use and safe sex were practiced in sub-Saharan Africa.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60627-9/fulltext
Here's an article about widely distributed propaganda from the Catholic church,which alleges that condoms let HIV viruses through tiny holes. (the Scientific consensus being that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus)
www.theguardian.com: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids


You could have looked this up, but instead you typed a 700 word reply accusing me of being poorly informed and claiming that the Catholic position on contraceptives is 'well thought out'.

Have you recognised your own hypocrisy, or do I need to explain it?


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 7, 2017)

Oh, I do apologise. I thought I was going to have a nice debate with someone who would actually take the time and have the respect to read my replies as I have done each time for them. And if you honestly think that entire thing can be summed up as...


Fallowfox said:


> You could have looked this up, but instead you typed a 700 word reply accusing me of being poorly informed and claiming that the Catholic position on contraceptives is 'well thought out'.


...I'm not sure I'm the one with the problem here. Do pay attention and read the entire argument next time, sweetheart.

Additionally, as a matter of fact, I did look into your claims. Please return the favour sometime, okay?

Furthermore, you failed to answer my question. What ethical system do you propose should be used, then?

~<3


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 7, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Oh, I do apologise. I thought I was going to have a nice debate with someone who would actually take the time and have the respect to read my replies as I have done each time for them. And if you honestly think that entire thing can be summed up as...
> 
> ...I'm not sure I'm the one with the problem here. Do pay attention and read the entire argument next time, sweetheart.
> 
> ...



It's  confusing that you feel justified accusing other people of failing to research properly, but when it's revealed that you haven't been researching _yourself_, suddenly anybody who points this out is being unacceptably mean to you. You should at least meet the standard you expect of other people, shouldn't you? (I'm guessing you would also not appreciate being called 'sweetheart', I'm guessing you're not too fond of the mantra that we should treat others how we expect to be treated ourselves. :\ )

If you _had_ looked into this yourself, you would have been well aware that the Catholic church's perspective on contraception is pseudoscientific and convoluted, rather than 'well thought out'.

I think it's clear that I propose an ethical system that assimilates evidence to inform its recommendations, so that ethical advice has pragmatic value. A secular humanist perspective would probably be the most concise description.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Mar 7, 2017)

Just dropping a note:  Everyone please keep it civil.  

Right now no community policies regarding arguing have been crossed, but the language in the lasts few posts has gotten more and more tense, so I'm just giving a reminder to not let this cross over into outright arguments or insults.

If you're getting a bit touchy about what the other person is saying, take some time away from the thread to relax a bit.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 7, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> It's  confusing that you feel justified accusing other people of failing to research properly, but when it's revealed that you haven't been researching _yourself_, suddenly anybody who points this out is being unacceptably mean to you. You should at least meet the standard you expect of other people, shouldn't you? (I'm guessing you would also not appreciate being called 'sweetheart', I'm guessing you're not too fond of the mantra that we should treat others how we expect to be treated ourselves. :\ )
> 
> If you _had_ looked into this yourself, you would have been well aware that the Catholic church's perspective on contraception is pseudoscientific and convoluted, rather than 'well thought out'.
> 
> I think it's clear that I propose an ethical system that assimilates evidence to inform its recommendations, so that ethical advice has pragmatic value. A secular humanist perspective would probably be the most concise description.


Oh dear. You didn't have to make it so personal...
Oh yeah, huh. It's not. This isn't my ethical system I'm defending. Well, shit. There goes it being personal. Oh, well.

First order of business:
It seems clear to me that you haven't spent much time reading the sources I've cited or similar ones. Or, gasp, maybe looking for answers instead of making claims that are often common misconceptions? The Church's opinion on condoms is based on its ethics, and it suggests an alternative that, while it doesn't protect against STDs, has a 4-10.5% lower failure rate than condoms (I'll try the citing thing this time. Here's hoping that it won't simply be passed over this time: link). In regards to "perfect use" cases, as in when either method is used correctly every time, NFP (covered under the term FAB in the article I'll be posting shortly because there are a number of NFP methods) will see failure rates as low as 0.4% while condoms see a failure rate of 2% (link). As for contraceptives, I'm not going to bother, because the Church (and Aristotle's ethics for that matter) view contraception (i.e. birth control pills) as immoral.

Second order of business:
Here's the thing. I have been researching. If you'd like me to, I will cite my sources more often. But I've already done that once and it was promptly ignored, so I'm not sure I can be bothered to put in the effort.

Third order of business:
And does it really sound like I'm hurt because you're being "mean?" Wow. I'm doing a terrible job communicating my contempt. "Where's this contempt coming from?" you might ask. I operate on that mantra that you've so kindly put out there. Just with an addendum. I'll also treat others how they are treating me. Make of that what you will.

Fourth order of business:
I'll admit I do have a problem with people saying that I'm not doing my research when they don't have the respect for their opposition so much as to do a little research on their own about the other side. I looked into each claim you made, doing my best to find information on it from sources with as little bias as I could manage. I have already been through hours of debates over Catholic Ethics, playing the ethicist and the questioner, so I've already been on your side. And you know what? I expected that same sort of respect from my debate partner, but sadly, I feel rather disillusioned.

Fifth order of business:
Humanists ethics? From what I've read so far it sounds like Natural Law with additional "moral laws" coming from man. Is this correct?


'Til next time, sugar ~<3


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 7, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Oh dear. You didn't have to make it so personal...
> Oh yeah, huh. It's not. This isn't my ethical system I'm defending. Well, shit. There goes it being personal. Oh, well.
> 
> First order of business:
> ...



First off, are you sure that Aristotle opposed contraception? I looked this up and in 350BC he was suggesting contraceptive methods involving olive oil ( a barrier contraceptive ). Aristotle further argues in favour of abortion if a family thinks they already have too many children.
Aristotle was even a proponent of infanticide for disabled babies, so I don't think 'Aristotle said so' is a good argument _anyway. _I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to know much about Aristotle, even though you trust his ethical decisions.  
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Aristotle (384–322 bc): philosopher and scientist of ancient Greece

I brought up condoms because of their utility preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and because the use of barrier contraception is a clear example of the Catholic Church's bad ethical behaviour, with numerous recorded instances of representatives of the Catholic church deliberately spreading misleading or scientifically inaccurate medical information that risks people's lives. 
Can we agree that the Catholic Church's widely disseminated claims that the HIV virus isn't impeded by condoms, and that condoms facilitate HIV infection, are scientifically inaccurate and that the Church should not be distributing incorrect medical information to vulnerable people? 

I am confused that you have mentioned the Natural Family Planning as an alternative in this discussion, because the aim of these methods is to avoid pregnancy rather than to prevent the transmission of sexual infections. 

I don't think that's a good description of secular humanism (because I don't think this description is coherent, because suggesting that the unique aspect of humanism is that moral laws come from 'man' is bizarre; all moral systems are contrived by humans- even religious doctrines are contrived by humans).
Here's the wikipedia article: 
Secular humanism - Wikipedia

A succinct synopsis would be that secular humanism is an approach that emphasises skepticism of religious, supernatural or psuedoscientific explanations of morality, in favour of using evidence to test ethical claims' utility as a means to improve human well being. 

In this paradigm, we could succinctly argue that sexual disease undermines human well being, that barrier contraception impedes sexual disease transmission and that hence barrier contraception has the capacity to improve human well being, for example.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 7, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> First off, are you sure that Aristotle opposed contraception? I looked this up and in 350BC he was suggesting contraceptive methods involving olive oil ( a barrier contraceptive ). Aristotle further argues in favour of abortion if a family thinks they already have too many children.
> Aristotle was even a proponent of infanticide for disabled babies, so I don't think 'Aristotle said so' is a good argument _anyway. _I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to know much about Aristotle, even though you trust his ethical decisions.


Sometimes things aren't meant to be taken literally. It's fine that you did, sure, but that was not my intent. Additionally, here's a little something else:
"Concerning the issue of abortion Aristotle's views are not considered as very clear or consistent throughout," (git link'd).
"Aristotle himself discusses the normative issue [abortion] in passing in Book VII of the _Politics_, but what he has to say there hardly takes the form of a complete argument. He seems to say there that only early abortions are permissible adn to offer a relatively straightforward criterion for determining when they are not. Indeed, using this criterion some recent commentators have suggested that were Aristotle aware of the contemporary findings on embryology, he would modify his view and conclude that abortion is generally impermissible," (twice ermahgerd).
Man, I sure don't know a lot about Aristotle. Well, I suppose I knew enough to be able to tell that it didn't sound right. Anyways...


Fallowfox said:


> It's  confusing that you feel justified accusing other people of failing to research properly, but when it's revealed that you haven't been researching _yourself_...


Oh. _Oh no_. Well, as I believe they say, "Turnabout is fair play." I wouldn't know, though. I've not done my research.

Moving on, you're missing the rest of the argument that went _with_ "Aristotle said so _too_." I should think it's a good argument, seeing as Aristotle is still highly regarded by ethicists for his work.



Fallowfox said:


> I am confused that you have mentioned the Natural Family Planning as an alternative in this discussion, because the aim of these methods is to avoid pregnancy rather than to prevent the transmission of sexual infections.



You know what? You were right here. In retrospect, the point I was making about NFP, while somewhat on-topic was mostly tangential. I apologise for that.



Fallowfox said:


> I don't think that's a good description of secular humanism (because I don't think this description is coherent, because suggesting that the unique aspect of humanism is that moral laws come from 'man' is bizarre; all moral systems are contrived by humans- even religious doctrines are contrived by humans).
> Here's the wikipedia article:
> Secular humanism - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


I read that exact article, but thank you very much for the explanation! I didn't quite understand what the article was saying, and what you've said makes much more sense. That was sincere, by the way. No sarcasm this time.

On to the point, though. I think that what you're describing sounds like an interesting mish-mash of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. Oh, also, I didn't mean to suggest that "'moral laws' coming from man" was a unique aspect of humanism. It's a characteristic of a number of secular ethical systems, most notably, moral relativism.

And to clarify, when I said, "'moral laws' coming from man," I mean to say moral laws that are made by man. To contrast with that there are moral laws discovered by man. Let me preface the next sentence or two that I am deriving "discovered by man" from the Natural Law moral theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy phrases this as, "the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world." Dang it. I know I'm missing a little something from this explanation, but whatever I'm forgetting is slipping my mind. For the sake of bringing someone more knowledgeable about the matter than I into the discussion, I'll go speak with my ethics teacher. Unfortunately, he's already left campus for the day, so that will have to wait until tomorrow.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 8, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Sometimes things aren't meant to be taken literally. It's fine that you did, sure, but that was not my intent. Additionally, here's a little something else:
> "Concerning the issue of abortion Aristotle's views are not considered as very clear or consistent throughout," (git link'd).
> "Aristotle himself discusses the normative issue [abortion] in passing in Book VII of the _Politics_, but what he has to say there hardly takes the form of a complete argument. He seems to say there that only early abortions are permissible adn to offer a relatively straightforward criterion for determining when they are not. Indeed, using this criterion some recent commentators have suggested that were Aristotle aware of the contemporary findings on embryology, he would modify his view and conclude that abortion is generally impermissible," (twice ermahgerd).
> Man, I sure don't know a lot about Aristotle. Well, I suppose I knew enough to be able to tell that it didn't sound right. Anyways...
> ...



I asked you a direct question, could you please answer it? I want to know whether you accept that the Catholic church has been distributing scientifically inaccurate medical advice about contraceptives to vulnerable people. 

The first source you quote says that Aristotle supported contraception, the opposite of what you claimed earlier. You also failed to counter the point that Aristotle made comments supporting abortion, which your sources show he unequivocally did; he simply has caveats, like the stage of development of the foetus. This is antithetical to the Catholic Church's position, so we know that at least one of these purported moral authorities is capable of being wrong.

If you want me to assume that Aristotle would, if he knew more about modern medical science, change his mind, then why should we trust his ancient writings as a moral guide for medicine anyway?
You have effectively made the argument that Ancient Greeks were not well enough informed about 21st century medical science to make medical decisions on our behalf, and I agree with it; 'Aristotle said so' clearly isn't a good enough justification- it's just an appeal to a false authority, which is a type of fallacy: Argument from authority - Wikipedia

Do you think that's a fair assessment?


To be honest, I think all societal moral constructs come from humans; we are the people who construct them. A cult which worships a dragon might claim that they derive their morality from their dragon god, but the reality is that both their morality and the dragon god are constructs the cult made.
Given that different human cultures claim to have 'discovered' innate moral laws, either from nature itself, gods or so forth, and that these purported innate moral laws can be very different from one group to the next, I am skeptical that morality is dictated by natural laws.

I think it probably makes more sense to view cultures' claims of innate moral law in the light of 'Evolutionarily stable strategies', whereby a plurality of different socially constructed moral systems are stable. This simply provides an _explanation_ for the genesis of socially constructed morality though- rather than an ethical justification; I think only reasoned argument and reference to evidence can achieve that.

Of course, all of this discussion is completely tangential to this thread's topic- does a god exist? I think I've made a convincing case that the appeal to false authorities whose moral positions are not informed by evidence is a poor means of deriving morality. In essence this does return us to the thread topic, because most theists refer to gods as their source of morality. Gods are just another false authority fallacy.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Mar 8, 2017)

Troj said:


> He borrowed from Ayn Rand and Objectivism, just as he did from other thinkers and philosophies. But, if he (and other Satanists) had considered Objectivism sufficient, there would've been no need for Satanism.
> 
> Personally, I think that while Objectivism brought some very useful ideas to the table, most of the Objectivists I've met have been humorless buzzkills, and Ayn Rand was a shitty novelist and kind of a bitch.




Books like "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" should be young adult novels for the sake that it motivates you not to fall into the trap of group think. I live in a small town and I'd rather it populated by Objectivist shitheads than bored collectivist teens following an alpha monkey that does stupid shit like drugs and thievery.


----------



## wolfdude555 (Mar 8, 2017)

Christian that is open and believes anything out there can be real... Like for all i know i could die and meet anubis


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 8, 2017)

wolfdude555 said:


> Christian that is open and believes anything out there can be real... Like for all i know i could die and meet anubis


And Anubis is like "Christian, eh. Hahaha, what a fuckin' idiot. I mean, this way."


----------



## wolfdude555 (Mar 8, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> And Anubis is like "Christian, eh. Hahaha, what a fuckin' idiot. I mean, this way."



LMAO i fuckin loved reading that


----------



## Mandragoras (Mar 8, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> On a similar note:


This, I feel, is the essence of what faith should be.

Way late here but I really liked this monologue a lot.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 8, 2017)

Mandragoras said:


> This, I feel, is the essence of what faith should be.
> 
> Way late here but I really liked this monologue a lot.


Good monologue. Short, but good and precise.

Faith*™*: Makes you believe some of the stupidest shit ever imagined by mankind. But also some of the best shit ever imagined by mankind.
Faith*™*: Where facts doesn't matter and facts are 100% optional.
Faith*™*: Giving people something to believe in since ???? B.C.(Not even the fucking gods know)
Faith*™*: Because Jibbers Crabst doesn't live by the rings of Saturn.

But that being said: Greek Mythology is best religion/mythology, no contest. Why, you ask? Because fucking Zeus, that's why.

Shit literally(well, in the mythology, anyway) came to be because Zeus went around being a slut and doing stupid shit. 

Centaurs? Go figure what he did with a horse. Well, most likely a lot of horses, to be honest.
Satyrs? Do you even have to make a guess on this one? 
Pikachu? He did a squirrel!


wolfdude555 said:


> LMAO i fuckin loved reading that


Gods who doesn't have a sense of humor would be boring as fuck, wouldn't you agree? I wonder if Bastet acts like a human with cat tendencies. Throw her a ball of yarn and she's a totes happy kitten.

If a religion that had a god with a good sense of humor I'd sign right the fuck up.


----------



## Cloudyhue (Mar 8, 2017)

I was born and raised an atheist. My dad always taught me to try to work out things logically and see if they make sense according to the physical laws of this world before believing in them. I still stick to this idea and won't accept things as fact unless they can be proven with the scientific method.

Still, religion fascinates me, especially the more pagan side. I like the idea of traditional spirituality but don't believe it myself.


----------



## wolfdude555 (Mar 8, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Gods who doesn't have a sense of humor would be boring as fuck, wouldn't you agree? I wonder if Bastet acts like a human with cat tendencies. Throw her a ball of yarn and she's a totes happy kitten.
> 
> If a religion that had a god with a good sense of humor I'd sign right the fuck up.



Lol the problem is its like.... supposed to be a more serious thing when it comes to religion... Even cults are just as bad  lol
Also to the anubis thing funny enough he'd end up throwing me in the deepest area away from him after a while  <3 love him (god i play smite too much lol)


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 8, 2017)

wolfdude555 said:


> Lol the problem is its like.... supposed to be a more serious thing when it comes to religion... Even cults are just as bad  lol
> Also to the anubis thing funny enough he'd end up throwing me in the deepest area away from him after a while  <3 love him (god i play smite too much lol)


Being serious all the time is boring. One of the reasons religion is dying: They don't have a sense of humor. There's no room for it.

If religions allowed for room for humor, religions all over the world wouldn't be a dying breed. Religion is always seen as this super-serious thing, which a lot of kids automatically want to disassociate themselves from.

Cults are just bad. Period. Same is extremism/fanaticism. Only bring about shit that no one asks for.


Cloudyhue said:


> I was born and raised an atheist. My dad always taught me to try to work out things logically and see if they make sense according to the physical laws of this world before believing in them. I still stick to this idea and won't accept things as fact unless they can be proven with the scientific method.
> 
> Still, religion fascinates me, especially the more pagan side. I like the idea of traditional spirituality but don't believe it myself.


I was "born" and raised a Christian, but never really felt religious at all. When I "came out" as an Atheist at the age of 12 to my mom she was pissed. Pissed that she had to repeat her fucking question on what we were having for dinner. One of the huge pros of living in a Scandinavian country. Parents are understanding and doesn't scorn/abuse their children for having a different faith/belief or a complete lack thereof.

One of the pros of having several hundred years of church and state seperated is that they interact very little, if at all. Religion is a private thing, and always should be.


----------



## wolfdude555 (Mar 8, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Being serious all the time is boring. One of the reasons religion is dying: They don't have a sense of humor. There's no room for it.
> 
> If religions allowed for room for humor, religions all over the world wouldn't be a dying breed. Religion is always seen as this super-serious thing, which a lot of kids automatically want to disassociate themselves from.
> 
> Cults are just bad. Period. Same is extremism/fanaticism. Only bring about shit that no one asks for.



All of that is true... but not the entire reasoning behind why people want to just forget about anything religion  based and just follow what they want to believe in.... That would be honestly in each religion the extreme followers of each religion.... Case and point im gay so alot of christian's would persecute me for "lying with another male" where i personally believe that alot of what makes up the bible was forged to try and limit what people can do thanks to the church

Ps.... Anybody who reads this... This is my thought on it im not making fun of Christianity


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 8, 2017)

wolfdude555 said:


> All of that is true... but not the entire reasoning behind why people want to just forget about anything religion  based and just follow what they want to believe in.... That would be honestly in each religion the extreme followers of each religion.... Case and point im gay so alot of christian's would persecute me for "lying with another male" where i personally believe that alot of what makes up the bible was forged to try and limit what people can do thanks to the church
> 
> Ps.... Anybody who reads this... This is my thought on it im not making fun of Christianity


Christianity does indeed condemn homosexuality. A lot of religions does. However, from Christians nowadays the most you'll in the vast majority of cases is trivial, pointless and gutless shit like "burn in hell fag, where the rest of you are going as well!"(Is this even meant to be an insult? I mean, they are basically telling you to go to a place where there's a lot of other homos as well, so that's a good thing, technically). BUT, Jesus Christ also said to love everyone. I wonder why Christians aren't following Christs' words..

A decent amount of Conservatives now are a lot more Liberal than the previous generation due to the fact that people are open about being gay/bi. It's ironic, really. A decent amount of Conservatives are more Liberals than some Liberals.

The only religious group that openly and actively still go after homosexuals, non-believers, adulterers, etc, would be Muslims.

Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

There are many reasons people don't follow religions anymore and those numbers are increasing. I'd say one of the biggest is the lack of evidence of any god or gods. Evidence and any sort of proof and/or signs that their god actually exist comes a long way to convince people to believe in their god. People don't buy the "I can't explain this. God did it!" schtick anymore.

I find religion to be nothing more than fairy tales you tell kids. And you grow out of those fairy tales, understanding at some point that it's all made up.


----------



## wolfdude555 (Mar 8, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Christianity does indeed condemn homosexuality. A lot of religions does. However, from Christians nowadays the most you'll in the vast majority of cases is trivial, pointless and gutless shit like "burn in hell fag, where the rest of you are going as well!"(Is this even meant to be an insult? I mean, they are basically telling you to go to a place where there's a lot of other homos as well, so that's a good thing, technically). BUT, Jesus Christ also said to love everyone. I wonder why Christians aren't following Christs' words..
> 
> A decent amount of Conservatives now are a lot more Liberal than the previous generation due to the fact that people are open about being gay/bi. It's ironic, really. A decent amount of Conservatives are more Liberals than some Liberals.
> 
> ...



Im not nearly smart enough to give big long replies about anything like this lol... (less its rp but thats hush hush)  but i do agree with what you said but its still the fact that honestly alot of my family was fine when i came out but there was some who was like the "Typical" christian and wanted to say something but honestly im natually a depressed person so i wouldnt give a rats ass (twitch LoL anybody?) what someone would say to me about it.... And when it comes to the burn in hell... well last i checked if you condemn people to hell then your buying your own self a one way ticket with us....


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 8, 2017)

wolfdude555 said:


> Im not nearly smart enough to give big long replies about anything like this lol... (less its rp but thats hush hush)  but i do agree with what you said but its still the fact that honestly alot of my family was fine when i came out but there was some who was like the "Typical" christian and wanted to say something but honestly im natually a depressed person so i wouldnt give a rats ass (twitch LoL anybody?) what someone would say to me about it.... And when it comes to the burn in hell... well last i checked if you condemn people to hell then your buying your own self a one way ticket with us....


Best reply to the hell thing would be somewhere along the lines of "Hell? Good, be seeing you there, mate. Going to have a lot of fun with your ass for all eternity. In hell they don't have any fuckin' lube, so prepare your anus, as I like going in dry". That'll shut'em up real fuckin' quick, mate. One of the best ways to combat this intolerant garbage is through humor, self-irony and a good comeback. And to force them to actually think about the crap they are saying, and to show them their own hypocricy.

If Christianity had gotten a third reform and hit the 21st century in terms of values and views Christianity would be a lot more attractive. 

Though not sure if Christianity would ever be the same if they allowed humor and memes into their fold.


----------



## Cloudyhue (Mar 8, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Being serious all the time is boring. One of the reasons religion is dying: They don't have a sense of humor. There's no room for it.
> 
> If religions allowed for room for humor, religions all over the world wouldn't be a dying breed. Religion is always seen as this super-serious thing, which a lot of kids automatically want to disassociate themselves from.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I went to church twice when I was little just to see what it was like. I found the seriousness and ritual to be pretty boring, and instead decided to doodle instead of paying attention to what was going on around me.

There really is no need to wave your religion in everyone's face either. One of the most annoying things in the world to me is when people try to "convert" me. Especially those people who come and knock on your door. Nice try, but it's not going to happen bud.

I'm very grateful for separation of church and state. The US government is trying very hard to get religion into our school system. We already have to say "one nation under God" every morning during the pledge of allegiance. On our money it says "In God we trust". Since when has this been our motto? Also, textbooks are being rewritten to include Creationism and leave out evolution. Things like this really bug me. It almost feels like some kind of infringement on my beliefs. Why should I be forced to repeat something I don't agree with and swear my allegiance to it? There's also the whole clusterfuck that is sex education, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 That's really cool of your parents to be understanding. It's a shame that not all people get that. Why can't people be more understanding? Sigh.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Mar 9, 2017)

Cloudyhue said:


> I totally agree. I went to church twice when I was little just to see what it was like. I found the seriousness and ritual to be pretty boring, and instead decided to doodle instead of paying attention to what was going on around me.


Being ex-Christian I can tell you that church was super boring. There were a few entertaining pastors, but not enough to keep me interested and engaged in listening. There's an odd line that they seem to want to pace back in forth in front of to seem like they're appealing to younger demographics, but they never cross it (pun intended). I can't describe what it is, but I always felt it was there and that they were really missing some potential. And their music, not counting traditional hymns and the likes, were often formulaic and repetitive. The contemporary songs always had this upbeat but sort of trailing off tone with a drum that was predictable and borish to me. It's why even to this day I'll still listen to "Jesus just left Chicago" because it doesn't follow the same formula and its lyrics aren't constantly referencing god/jesus every second. I know the point is to highlight him, but it feels too floaty and not grounded enough in a story or described event.


----------



## Mr.Foox (Mar 10, 2017)

My parents didn't do anything religious to me. They threw me into this world and was like..." Son, whatever you follow, whatever you believe, whoever you date, however your sexulity is....As long as you're happy, then we're happy...But if you do, own it and own better then anyone else who does. " I'm not religious though, nor do I believe every one thing I hear or read. I just enjoy the life I was given and let others think what they want. I'm happy if you're religious, I truly am as long as religion makes you happy. Just don't slam it in my face or force me to join or don't use your religion as an excuse to harm others and I'm totally cool with it. I'm just an at peace fooxy. I'll debate only if it's friendly and good fun but just know I don't even believe what I'm saying myself is true, regardless I enjoy it for the sheer purpose of thinking.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2017)

Cloudyhue said:


> I totally agree. I went to church twice when I was little just to see what it was like. I found the seriousness and ritual to be pretty boring, and instead decided to doodle instead of paying attention to what was going on around me.
> 
> *There really is no need to wave your religion in everyone's face either.* One of the most annoying things in the world to me is when people try to "convert" me. Especially those people who come and knock on your door. Nice try, but it's not going to happen bud.
> 
> ...



Most religions require proselytisation. I suppose this is not surprising, because religions which don't instruct their followers to spread them don't recruit enough followers in order to survive through the centuries.  

Also, It has always struck me as strange that England, a country with an official church, bishops in the house of lords, which reviews bills, mandated religious assembly in school and a reigning monarch who claims divine appointment by god himself, is considerably less religious than the USA, where all of those things are forbidden.


----------



## Yoshimaster96 (Mar 10, 2017)

No. I'm not religious.


----------



## Ketren (Mar 10, 2017)

I believe in God, but I'm not religious. Does that make sense? I also don't believe everything I hear from "spiritual" people.

What baffles me is the prevalent idea that "all beliefs are true" even when they contradict each other. The Bible says to love your enemy; Islam says to kill him. Hinduism says we go nowhere after death, or are reincarnated; Christianity claims we either go to heaven or hell depending on whether or not we trust in God.

All beliefs are *not true *and sorry if that offends anyone, but that's how things go.


----------



## Troj (Mar 10, 2017)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Books like "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" should be young adult novels for the sake that it motivates you not to fall into the trap of group think. I live in a small town and I'd rather it populated by Objectivist shitheads than bored collectivist teens following an alpha monkey that does stupid shit like drugs and thievery.



Though, nonconformity can warp into a kind of lock-step conformity (see: hipsters). "Be unique! Be you! Buy our product to express yourself!"

The person who parrots Ayn Rand is just as tiresome as the person who parrots the Bible. 

I think the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have the potential to plant a seed in thoughtful people with potential, absolutely--though, me, I'd tend to prescribe a longer and more diverse reading list, if I really wanted to plant those kinds of seeds in somebody.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 11, 2017)

Yanno, I was going to apologise for not responding to Mr. Fallow due to a complete lack of free time because school's been getting a little out of hand homework-wise and that the rest of my time after dealing with all of that has been taken up by family events leading up to my cousin's wedding (which is today), but then I realised, "Literally anything else would be a more practical use of my time."

Maybe someday I'll find it in my heart to help this poor soul.

Until then...


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Mar 11, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Yanno, I was going to apologise for not responding to Mr. Fallow due to a complete lack of free time because school's been getting a little out of hand homework-wise and that the rest of my time after dealing with all of that has been taken up by family events leading up to my cousin's wedding (which is today), but then I realised, "Literally anything else would be a more practical use of my time."
> 
> Maybe someday I'll find it in my heart to help this poor soul.
> 
> Until then...



Please do not end arguments with passive-aggressive departures.  It's very well known that these sorts of discussions touch on very sensitive issues, and if you wish to end your participation in one, it's far better to halt discussion, rather than attempt to leave with what looks to be a small attempt at provoking a negative response behind you.

And to anyone tempted to respond to that by sniping back, please do not.


----------



## Cloudyhue (Mar 11, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Most religions require proselytisation. I suppose this is not surprising, because religions which don't instruct their followers to spread them don't recruit enough followers in order to survive through the centuries.
> 
> Also, It has always struck me as strange that England, a country with an official church, bishops in the house of lords, which reviews bills, mandated religious assembly in school and a reigning monarch who claims divine appointment by god himself, is considerably less religious than the USA, where all of those things are forbidden.


Yeah, that makes sense. It sure is annoying though. 

I guess England has just found a way to have all of that without people storming the castle with pitchforks and torches. Being chill with it is less likely to make people go into attack mode. I don't really know much about the English government, so some of this could be wrong. Just giving my two cents.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 13, 2017)

Alright, so this has been eating at the back of my mind for the whole day and I have to respond. First of all, Mewtwo, thank you. What I said was, simply put, in poor taste. I had been having a rough go of it at the time and took it out on Fallowfox here. That was thoroughly impolite of me and I apologise for that. And now on to relieving  myself of the words that something in my subconscious was so adamant be put out there.

Right. First off, I finally got the chance to speak with my ethics teacher on Thursday. It was a fun time. I love the guy. Really fun to be around. Anywho, here's what we arrived at - Fallowfox, Aristotle's medical opinion on abortion and the Church's actions regarding condoms in the past are _ad hominem circumstantial_. Both of these systems of ethics, at their core, determine the morality of action based on whether the action will bring you closer to true happiness, and if others are involved, whether you hinder their ability to become truly happy. With Aristotle in regards to abortion - by aborting an unborn human baby, you are preventing its happiness, therefore it is unethical (long story short). With the Church - by using condoms, you are giving your whole self to your marriage (keeping in mind the Church says sex should be reserved for married couples), which is hindering you from becoming truly happy. Let's bring this all to a head. You are criticizing Aristotilian ethics for Aristotle's opinions and the Church for its false claims (does that answer your questions?) and saying they are invalid for these things. Doesn't make much sense to me. Nor to my ethics teacher.

Secondly...

Some of the points in your assessment of morality and ethics in general make close brushes with moral relativism. Careful there, buddy. You're straying into dangerous territory there.


Thirdly (and lastly)...

In the end, you claim gods (and God) to be an authority fallacy, effectively dismissing their existence. I challenge you to prove they do not exist. C'mon, let's see it.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 13, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> In the end, you claim gods (and God) to be an authority fallacy, effectively dismissing their existence. I challenge you to prove they do not exist. C'mon, let's see it.


No, claiming an authority fallacy does not dismiss the existence of a being. It asserts that being's fallibility, or at least the religion's fallibility given the typical characterization of god as infallible.

The fundamental hole is that many religions, including most forms of Christianity, use a divine mandate morality as their foundation with an ad hoc notion of well being to add a slight utilitarian spin. Despite that spin, when you call into question the existence of the deity (which is easy to do for Christianity due to its immensely idealized deity and human fallibility), the entire system collapses because it relies upon that deity's existence. This metaphysical and epistemological fragility makes these kinds of religions and moral systems very unconvincing to many people.

This is compounded by the burden of proof generally falling on the one claiming something exists, which can't be accomplished for most deities given their supernatural nature. As a theist, you're better off sticking with the "I just have faith" claim because your claim is untestable. This untestability leaves you wide open to Occam's Razor via the claim, "If we can't know whether a deity exists, we shouldn't rely upon one when constructing a system for morality." The argument here is that a system which doesn't rely upon a deity's existence is more stable than one which does because it doesn't have a controversial, unknowable axiom.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Alright, so this has been eating at the back of my mind for the whole day and I have to respond. First of all, Mewtwo, thank you. What I said was, simply put, in poor taste. I had been having a rough go of it at the time and took it out on Fallowfox here. That was thoroughly impolite of me and I apologise for that. And now on to relieving  myself of the words that something in my subconscious was so adamant be put out there.
> 
> Right. First off, I finally got the chance to speak with my ethics teacher on Thursday. It was a fun time. I love the guy. Really fun to be around. Anywho, here's what we arrived at - Fallowfox, Aristotle's medical opinion on abortion and the Church's actions regarding condoms in the past are _ad hominem circumstantial_. Both of these systems of ethics, at their core, determine the morality of action based on whether the action will bring you closer to true happiness, and if others are involved, whether you hinder their ability to become truly happy. With Aristotle in regards to abortion - by aborting an unborn human baby, you are preventing its happiness, therefore it is unethical (long story short). With the Church - by using condoms, you are giving your whole self to your marriage (keeping in mind the Church says sex should be reserved for married couples), which is hindering you from becoming truly happy. Let's bring this all to a head. You are criticizing Aristotilian ethics for Aristotle's opinions and the Church for its false claims (does that answer your questions?) and saying they are invalid for these things. Doesn't make much sense to me. Nor to my ethics teacher.
> 
> ...



Regarding Aristotle:


Spoiler



I think you are attributing ethical claims and arguments to Aristotle that historical evidence shows he either didn't make or that he didn't agree with. It's not accurate to say that Aristotle opposed contraception and abortion because of his ethical system, when historical records show that he recommended contraception and approved of abortion in some circumstances; indeed historical evidence shows he even approved of infanticide in some circumstances.
I think this simply shows that the system of ethics you think Aristotle had is simply the one you'd like to imagine he had, because you think that associating the ethical system you like with the name of a revered philosopher will lend credibility to it.
As you have already argued, it obviously doesn't- and given that Aristotle lived two thousand three hundred years before the discovery of the HIV virus, quoting an imaginary and sanitised version of Aristotelian ethics instead of 21st century Doctors isn't going to help us reach an informed ethical judgement.
Hopefully we can move on from 'Aristotle said so' now?


I would like to return to my original question; do you recognise that the Catholic church has been giving misleading and scientifically inaccurate medical advice (such as their widely dispersed claims that condoms are permeable to the HIV virus) to vulnerable people? It's important that you answer this, because it's the central claim from which the rest of our discussion developed.
Given that the Catholic church has been spreading lies about medicine, our next question is 'Should we view institutions that spread dangerous lies to vulnerable people as moral authorities?'.
Who knows; maybe we should just forgive the most heinous and unethical behaviour as 'ad hominems', but this isn't exactly useful, because we could obviously use this argument to defend any institution as moral, no matter how unethical their actions are.


Saiko said:


> No, claiming an authority fallacy does not dismiss the existence of a being. It asserts that being's fallibility, or at least the religion's fallibility given the typical characterization of god as infallible.
> 
> The fundamental hole is that many religions, including most forms of Christianity, use a divine mandate morality as their foundation with an ad hoc notion of well being to add a slight utilitarian spin. Despite that spin, when you call into question the existence of the deity (which is easy to do for Christianity due to its immensely idealized deity and human fallibility), the entire system collapses because it relies upon that deity's existence. This metaphysical and epistemological fragility makes these kinds of religions and moral systems very unconvincing to many people.
> 
> This is compounded by the burden of proof generally falling on the one claiming something exists, which can't be accomplished for most deities given their supernatural nature. As a theist, you're better off sticking with the "I just have faith" claim because your claim is untestable. This untestability leaves you wide open to Occam's Razor via the claim, "If we can't know whether a deity exists, we shouldn't rely upon one when constructing a system for morality." The argument here is that a system which doesn't rely upon a deity's existence is more stable than one which does because it doesn't have a controversial, unknowable axiom.



I think I have uncovered a Trojan horse, to be honest, because Aurorans Solis claimed earlier that he didn't believe the Catholic god exists either:


Aurorans Solis said:


> I am not a Catholic or Christian personally, as I have mentioned before, but I closely follow the Church's teachings on ethics and morality, as I think that Catholic ethicists - and Aristotilian ethicists for that matter - have by far the most well thought-out ethical systems of them all.


I think that Aurorans Solis_ does_ think that the Catholic god exists, but that he pretended to be an atheist, because he wanted to give atheists the impression that the system of ethics he accepts is rational and well informed, rather than dogmatic.
He's revealed that he was lying now though, because if he really didn't rely on dogmatic appeals to authority, he would simply have agreed that 'the Catholic god says so' isn't good enough, rather than challenging me to prove this god, who he apparently doesn't even believe in, doesn't exist.

We're fortunate enough to live in a world where the utility of barrier contraception to prevent the spread of deadly disease has been demonstrated unequivocally by medical science.
Ipso facto, any ethical system that rejects barrier contraception, because they have misquoted a Greek philosopher who lived 2400 years ago or because they think that god himself has forbidden it, cannot be described as 'well thought out', and indeed would be better described as 'dangerous'.


----------



## RileyTheOtter (Mar 15, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Regarding Aristotle:
> I think I have uncovered a Trojan horse, to be honest, because Aurorans Solis claimed earlier that he didn't believe the Catholic god exists either:
> 
> I think that Aurorans Solis_ does_ think that the Catholic god exists, but that he pretended to be an atheist, because he wanted to give atheists the impression that the system of ethics he accepts is rational and well informed, rather than dogmatic.
> ...



Auro never said he's an atheist, he's agnostic. Learn the fucking difference.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2017)

Abyssalrider said:


> Auro never said he's an atheist, he's agnostic. Learn the fucking difference.



Whatever you call it, I am suspicious that his response showed that he does believe in a god, but has been pretending he doesn't- I suspect to appear more convincing by providing the impression that his ethical positions are based on reason, instead of faith. 

If Aurorans follows Catholic ethics because he thinks they are well reasoned, then the existence of gods wouldn't have been relevant to those claims' truth.
It only makes sense to defend Catholic ethics, by demanding proof there is no god, if you think that a god exists and that they are a reliable moral authority. 

As an aside:


Spoiler



The way you've used the word 'agnostic' implies it is exclusive to theism or atheism, which _isn't_ actually what agnostic means (although it's a very popular mistake). Agnosticism is just a philosophical position that holds that the nature of a claim can't be known. Somebody who is agnostic might still believe, or not believe the claim. It _doesn't_ mean 'in the middle'.


----------



## Frostbyte The Shark (Mar 15, 2017)

Overall, I think anything is possible, though I guess I'd lean towards Christianity.

Now, when I say anything could be possible, I mean something like, for all we know, we are the pets of God, and one day any of the other gods, like Odin, stopped by, and some of us liked Odin better than God.
Maybe we are cancer, growing on the cells (planets) of a god (the universe), and if we grow too much (space travel and colonization) we'll eventually kill it.
Maybe every time something explodes, it creates a universe (Big Bang) and that universe grows and fades in what seems like an instant, but in reality, civilizations way too small to notice form and fade in a split second before the debris even clears.

The only thing I don't believe in is pushing religion on other people (I'm not accusing anyone of that right now). Believe what you want, and good for you.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 15, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I would like to return to my original question; do you recognise that the Catholic church has been giving misleading and scientifically inaccurate medical advice (such as their widely dispersed claims that condoms are permeable to the HIV virus) to vulnerable people? It's important that you answer this, because it's the central claim from which the rest of our discussion developed.
> Given that the Catholic church has been spreading lies about medicine, our next question is 'Should we view institutions that spread dangerous lies to vulnerable people as moral authorities?'.
> Who knows; maybe we should just forgive the most heinous and unethical behaviour as 'ad hominems', but this isn't exactly useful, because we could obviously use this argument to defend any institution as moral, no matter how unethical their actions are.


Point I made about the actions of institutions being prioritized over their principles, regardless of the principles ignored? Check.


Fallowfox said:


> I think that Aurorans Solis_ does_ think that the Catholic god exists, but that he pretended to be an atheist, because he wanted to give atheists the impression that the system of ethics he accepts is rational and well informed, rather than dogmatic.
> He's revealed that he was lying now though, because if he really didn't rely on dogmatic appeals to authority, he would simply have agreed that 'the Catholic god says so' isn't good enough, rather than challenging me to prove this god, who he apparently doesn't even believe in, doesn't exist.


Wow, this too? We'll be generous and say you got unlucky and rolled a 1 for reading comprehension. Let's go back a bit...


Aurorans Solis said:


> Let me preface this by saying I'm not religious myself, as I'm somewhere between agnosticism and deism myself.


Deism: I recognize the existence of some form of "ultimate good"/god(s)/God.
Agnosticism in respect to Deism: I am unaware of which religion gives a proper depiction of this "ultimate good"/god(s)/God.
What was that about claiming that the Catholic God doesn't exist? I'm sorry, I can't seem to find anything supporting that claim. You thought, and you thought wrong, sillyhead 


Fallowfox said:


> Who knows; maybe we should just forgive the most heinous and unethical behaviour as 'ad hominems', but this isn't exactly useful, because we could obviously use this argument to defend any institution as moral, no matter how unethical their actions are.


I'm not dismissing them myself, no. I do not approve of the Church's behaviour in regards to barrier contraceptives (though the intent of dissuading people from using them follows her ethics), nor do I approve of Aristotle's suggested medical practices. However, your use of these things are, in fact, _ad hominem_s. If you want to argue against Catholic Ethics or Aristotle's ethics, make arguments against the ethics rather than the Church or Aristotle.


Fallowfox said:


> by demanding proof there is no god, if you think that a god exists and that they are a reliable moral authority.


This was more a challenge to your moral view (atheistic humanist ethics) than anything else.

Lastly, this...


Fallowfox said:


> He's revealed that he was lying now though, because if he really didn't rely on dogmatic appeals to authority


Somehow that turned into...


Fallowfox said:


> I am suspicious that his response showed that he does believe in a god, but has been pretending he doesn't


Wait, you were only suspicious? Gotcha. Go ahead and state your suspicions as fact in an attempt to discredit me. Good stuff.

Over and out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Point I made about the actions of institutions being prioritized over their principles, regardless of the principles ignored? Check.
> 
> Wow, this too? We'll be generous and say you got unlucky and rolled a 1 for reading comprehension. Let's go back a bit...
> 
> ...



I'm glad you've agreed that the Catholic church's efforts to spread fake medical information are reprehensible, although I think that you've delicately worded your next point (that the church's attempts to dissuade people from using barrier contraception are consistent with their ethical system).
I think this is telling, because you say 'consistent with _their_ ethical system'. Once we begin comparing multiple ethical systems by their pragmatic value, it rapidly becomes apparent that Catholic ethical positions about contraceptives are bad ethical positions, because enough evidence exists in medicine to demonstrate that barrier contraception is a useful tool to prevent the spread of diseases that cause untold human suffering, and that this isn't a boon worth trading for religious dogma.

So who cares whether the church's attempts to stop people using contraceptives are consistent with their own dogma?
That is obviously a terrible measure of how good an ethical system is.If anything it actually shows that the dogma, the actual principals of their ethical system, are bad- because they motivate people to do bad things.


----------



## Reyna Malone (Mar 15, 2017)

I believe that a god/gods exists, and that he/she/they is/are intelligent, but that it certainly isn't the god of any existing religion. Furthermore, I only believe in this god being conscious and intelligent enough to design an _incredibly_ complex, well planned, creative,  and methodical universe: this shows nothing about wether such a god is benevolent, wether they would listen to prayers, or how involved they are in human lives. 
I do believe in the afterlife, though. Nearly every religion has some form of afterlife. It's a bit like ancient views on the earth; every culture had many myths about the earth, some of which closely reflected reality, and some of which reflected local culture. Over time, with advances in science, most people abandoned myths of the earth for the science behind it. We now know more than ever about the earth, but it's still just as impressive and awe inspiring as our ancient myths believed it to be. I think that the same thing will happen in the future with regards to the afterlife and the soul.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 16, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> enough evidence exists in medicine to demonstrate that barrier contraception is a useful tool to prevent the spread of diseases that cause untold human suffering, and that this isn't a boon worth trading for religious dogma.


...Or you could make so much as a vague attempt to look for the Church's solution to this whole thing, sweetums. But don't worry, I've been informed by your previous actions that I'm to do that for you. Persons with STIs should not have sex. Full stop. If I'm thinking about this right, not having sex has a 100% success rate of preventing the spread of STIs.


Fallowfox said:


> So who cares whether the church's attempts to stop people using contraceptives are consistent with their own dogma?


Me. Practice what you preach, brother!


Fallowfox said:


> If anything it actually shows that the dogma, the actual principals of their ethical system, are bad- because they motivate people to do bad things.


Oh, yes. Terrible things. Like not having sex. _Gasp! _Oh, the humanity!
But in case you hadn't noticed, in one of my previous posts I discussed this exact notion. Allow me to retrieve it for you as I seriously doubt your ability and/or will to go back and find it yourself...


Spoiler: Excerpt from this post. It's rather long, hence the spoiler.






Aurorans Solis said:


> I'm not trying in any way to claim that the Church is perfect - far from it, actually. The Church is flawed, and should you take some time to learn about Catholic ethics rather than spend all your time abhorring it and advocating that it is corrupt and fundamentally flawed, you would see that Catholic Ethics has unfortunately not had as much of an influence on the Church's actions or the actions of its constituents as I [edit: or the Church] would have liked to have seen. Unfortunately, though, some people have put personal and political agendas before the religious and ethical ideals that they otherwise extol - the Crusades being a prime example. Undoubtedly, all but a select few Crusaders who realised that what they were doing was staunchly against Catholic principles and sought out forgiveness are in Hell. And what concerns me is that you are still faulting the Church as a whole for the actions of individuals (plain to see; read over your post again). You're still blaming the Church for the actions of individuals. Based on your response, you would blame the Church for the Crusades, no? In fact, the Pope made the political agenda of wanting the Church to have control of Jerusalem the priority over the principles he was supposed to represent. And before you go on saying, "But as the Pope, he shouldn't do things like that! Religion should be his only priority!" Mind you, as I said before, nobody is perfect. Everybody is subject to making mistakes, to having passions, and to corruption. Pope Urban II thought that the Christians in Jerusalem were under threat from the new Muslim sect that had taken control and was passionate about protecting them. He was passionate, too, about acquiring the Christian Holy Land. He made the mistake of allowing these passions to take top priority. This was the fault of the individual, not the Church. Then the other authorities made the mistake of not reflecting on the Pope's request and allowing something so crude and flimsy as "deus vult," to convince them. Again, individual mistakes. Then all of the Crusaders did the same. So, so many individuals made the wrong choice.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯



So, with that settled, have a lovely day, dearie ~<3


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> ...Or you could make so much as a vague attempt to look for the Church's solution to this whole thing, sweetums. But don't worry, I've been informed by your previous actions that I'm to do that for you. Persons with STIs should not have sex. Full stop. If I'm thinking about this right, not having sex has a 100% success rate of preventing the spread of STIs.
> 
> Me. Practice what you preach, brother!
> 
> ...



I think it would be best to advise people to avoid having risky sex, and to make sure that they use barrier contraception if they do have sex. It's not realistic to expect that everybody will stop having sex, so that's not a viable means of managing the spread of sexual diseases.

It is unfortunate that institutions like the catholic church have, because of their dogmatic ethics, spoiled the opportunity to contain deadly disease. It is as though they care more about trying to force people to adhere to their dogma than they do about human well being. Ethics should put human well being first.

You've insisted that we can't judge an ethical system by the actions it motivates in its adherents. Controlling people's actions and motivations to achieve a better world is the point of ethics though- so if an ethical system impedes our ability to do that, then we need to change it.
This approach is known as 'pragmatism' and while I don't think it's the only consideration we should have when discussing ethics, it's clearly an essential part of contriving an ethical system that achieves real world improvements.

Do you agree with that?


----------



## Multoran (Mar 16, 2017)

I was actually wondering last night what it would be like to be religious...


----------



## -Praydeth- (Mar 16, 2017)

wolfdude555 said:


> Christian that is open and believes anything out there can be real... Like for all i know i could die and meet anubis


Oh my lord I feel as if I would have written this myself!


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 16, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> You've insisted that we can't judge an ethical system by the actions it motivates in its adherents.


My goodness, twice in a row? Your luck with a D20 must be terrible. I'll give you a couple rolls for comprehension next time in an attempt to make sure you understand what I'm saying. I have insisted that your criticism of the ethical systems I have brought up is fundamentally flawed. For at least the second or third time: *you are failing to criticise the ethical systems themselves*. It's a little something like I'm not sure which I find least appealing: the thought that you're intentionally twisting my words to say something other than the meaning _written right on its face_, or the thought that you have put in so little effort that what you _think_ I am saying is far from what I _am_ saying (most glaring of these being the incident where you claimed I'm actually a Catholic or something; slow clap for that one, sugar plum).



Fallowfox said:


> You've insisted that we can't judge an ethical system by the actions it motivates in its adherents. Controlling people's actions and motivations to achieve a better world is the point of ethics


And that is where we have our big divide. Both of the ethical systems that I purport are based on the idea that the basis of ethics is working out how to make man truly happy. For more information, take a look at this link: I hope asking for a click and maybe five to ten minutes of reading time isn't too much to ask. I think you'll like level 3 (also known as _beatus_). And, for the most part, these ethical systems will agree with the decisions of your atheistic humanist ethics - up to a point. One of these being (barrier) contraceptives, as we have been discussing.

Also, a little something I find amusing...


Fallowfox said:


> Controlling people's actions and motivations to achieve a better world


I talked with my ethics teacher about humanist ethics - mainly atheistic, specifically for the purpose of this exchange. He explained to me that in humanist ethics, there's a fundamental disbelief in even so much as the concept of a deity because free will and this deity (God more often than not) are mutually exclusive things; i.e. you either have the ability to act as you please _exclusive or_ you have God. I just thought it was amusing that you described the purpose of ethics to be "controlling people's actions and motivations."



Fallowfox said:


> It is as though they care more about trying to force people to adhere to their dogma than they do about human well being.


Discussed a similar topic in one of my first posts. Your turn to be a big boy and find the evidence.



Fallowfox said:


> so if an ethical system impedes our ability to do that, then we need to change it.


_Atchoo!__ Sniff - __atchoo!_ Gah, sorry. _A-a-a-atchoo!_ Sorry, what were you saying about Catholicism impeding our ability to change the world for the better? I caught a whiff of something terrible, sorry.



Fallowfox said:


> Do you agree with that?


Sure, but to the extent that Aristotle's ethics agree with you.


Sincerely (and with a little love),

A.S.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> My goodness, twice in a row? Your luck with a D20 must be terrible. I'll give you a couple rolls for comprehension next time in an attempt to make sure you understand what I'm saying. I have insisted that your criticism of the ethical systems I have brought up is fundamentally flawed. For at least the second or third time: *you are failing to criticise the ethical systems themselves*. It's a little something like I'm not sure which I find least appealing: the thought that you're intentionally twisting my words to say something other than the meaning _written right on its face_, or the thought that you have put in so little effort that what you _think_ I am saying is far from what I _am_ saying (most glaring of these being the incident where you claimed I'm actually a Catholic or something; slow clap for that one, sugar plum).
> 
> 
> And that is where we have our big divide. Both of the ethical systems that I purport are based on the idea that the basis of ethics is working out how to make man truly happy. For more information, take a look at this link: I hope asking for a click and maybe five to ten minutes of reading time isn't too much to ask. I think you'll like level 3 (also known as _beatus_). And, for the most part, these ethical systems will agree with the decisions of your atheistic humanist ethics - up to a point. One of these being (barrier) contraceptives, as we have been discussing.
> ...



Are you hear to have an honest discussion, or just to be rude? Insulting people doesn't provide the impression that you have all the answers- it actually gives the impression that your perspectives are too flimsy to stand on reasoned argument alone, and need to be supplemented by vitriol.
Show your posts to your ethics teacher and ask them whether _they_ think you are behaving appropriately.

Ethical systems need to be based on reason, not dogma, because It's been demonstrated that dogmatic attitudes frequently motivate deleterious behaviour that is not in the interest of human well-being.
I think your attitudes toward the ethical question about how to best manage sexual disease is as an example, because you offered advice that was consistent with Catholic religious dogma, instead of offering advice that was consistent with medical evidence.
This reminded me of the Catholic church's attempts to spread lies about condoms, to deter people from using them, because they're more interested in persuading people to adhere to dogma, than reviewing evidence in order to determine which course of action would be best to cultivate human well being.


This is the fundamental objection I have to Catholic ethics and any religious system of ethics, frankly; ethical truths are surmised to be provided by divine insight and to be beyond scrutiny- a 'false authority fallacy'. This means that even if evidence shows that an ethical position is harming human well being, that it is unlikely the position will be changed. :\

We should have confidence in ethical positions that can be demonstrated to be useful to us by evidence. Association with divinity or famous philosophers isn't enough to show that an ethical position is good, because evidence shows that even claims that appear divine, or sound rational, routinely turn out to be wrong.
You need to be able to interrogate real-world evidence, instead of simply thinking 'well, this doesn't sound like it matches my preconceived (and incorrect) ideas about what Aristotle believed, so I won't even consider the possibility I am wrong'.


----------



## RileyTheOtter (Mar 16, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Are you hear to have an honest discussion, or just to be rude? Insulting people doesn't provide the impression that you have all the answers- it actually gives the impression that your perspectives are too flimsy to stand on reasoned argument alone, and need to be supplemented by vitriol..


read that sentence and look at your previous posts...see the contradiction?



Fallowfox said:


> Ethical systems need to be *based on reason, not dogma*, because It's been demonstrated that dogmatic attitudes frequently motivate deleterious behaviour that is not in the interest of human well-being.


it is based on reason, the purpose of sex is to create children, barrier contraceptives by their very nature prevent that hence why they are opposed to them...how is this a difficult logic to follow? is it based on science? no. it is however based on the intended purpose of the involved parts of the body. is that not reasonable or logical to assume an ethics system based in intended purpose and ultimate goals, that they would rather sex and reproductive anatomy be used for their intended purpose instead of pleasure by voiding that purpose via contraceptives?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2017)

Abyssalrider said:


> read that sentence and look at your previous posts...see the contradiction?
> 
> 
> it is based on reason, the purpose of sex is to create children, barrier contraceptives by their very nature prevent that hence why they are opposed to them...how is this a difficult logic to follow? is it based on science? no. it is however based on the intended purpose of the involved parts of the body. is that not reasonable or logical to assume an ethics system based in intended purpose and ultimate goals, that they would rather sex and reproductive anatomy be used for their intended purpose instead of pleasure by voiding that purpose via contraceptives?



Aurorans apologised earlier for being rude, so he knows that he's not behaving appropriately. You might think I'm just as bad, but that's an allegation of hypocrisy, rather than a contradiction. Even if I called Aurorans 'sugarplum' at the end of every post I would still be right to point out that such behaviour is rude and childish (although I would also be fairly expected to stop doing it myself)

The catholic position on contraceptives isn't reasonable because it's _unreasonable_ to expect all humans only to have sex to get pregnant. People also have sex because they want to express their love for each other, or because they enjoy it.
Indeed, Aurorans must know this because he previously praised natural family planning methods whose aim is to have sex but avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
Barrier contraceptives can prevent a lot of human suffering, by stopping disease transmission, so sacrificing that opportunity in favour of the 'ultimate goal' of preventing all 'unnecessary' sex is silly; human life that is lost to infections like HIV is more important. 

In short, clearly the catholic church has its priorities wrong. People should be concerned with human well being, rather than whether other people's sex is 'necessary'.

Do you think that's fair enough?


----------



## RileyTheOtter (Mar 16, 2017)

it's not about necessity, it's about intended purpose. in-line with intended purpose of the anatomy in question, it is a logical position regardless of other reasons it wouldn't be. criticize the position itself and the basis behind it (the ethics system), not the group of people who hold said position (the church or Aristotle).


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2017)

Abyssalrider said:


> it's not about necessity, it's about intended purpose. in-line with intended purpose of the anatomy in question, it is a logical position regardless of other reasons it wouldn't be. criticize the position itself and the basis behind it (the ethics system), not the group of people who hold said position (the church or Aristotle).



The harm done by forbidding contraceptives to preserve the 'intended purpose' of sex exceeds the benefits- if indeed there are any. 
I don't see why having sex for love, rather than for having children, is so terrible that we should allow avoidable HIV infections occur in an effort to prevent it. 
If this is the kind of crazy conclusion that the catholic ethical system can reach, then it sorely needs to be changed. 

Criticise the utility of ethical systems if you want to find out whether they are useful constructs to apply to the real world. 
Even an ethical system that is self-consistent and  (on the face of it) rational can turn out to be of no pragmatic value in real life. 



Spoiler



For example, even if we were to conclude from a rational argument that _any _lie is _always_ immoral, this ethical position wouldn't be useful, because we live in a world where some lies are unavoidable and may even be the moral choice, for example if a child's mother died an agonising death, it might be moral to tell the child they died a painless death, to spare their feelings.
Personally I regard these extreme positions such as 'it is always wrong to lie' as the results of arguments which are *not* perfectly rational, because they lack important nuances which should actually be part of rational argument. I guess it's a polite way of saying that they are 'simple-minded' rationalisations.



I'm not sure why you mention Aristotle, because he didn't actually think that contraception should be forbidden, so he doesn't even hold the position that Aurorans has been attributing to him. If you look Aristotle up you will find historical evidence that shows he advised people about how to make primitive forms of barrier contraceptive: Medieval contraception - Wikipedia


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 16, 2017)

Because this broke the 10,000 character limit, here's part one.



Fallowfox said:


> Are you hear to have an honest discussion, or just to be rude?


Oh, I'm being rude? You didn't even say, "God bless you," when I sneezed! Tsk tsk. Where are your manners, young man?



Fallowfox said:


> Insulting people doesn't provide the impression that you have all the answers


...and neither does bringing up the same points over and over and over and over and over and over...



Fallowfox said:


> Ethical systems need to be based on reason


The following is taken from this.
"Surely a loving god, if one existed, could have made a world in which natural disasters didn't happen, in which viruses and cancers didn't exist, and in which human beings had limited free will (just as we have limited physical and mental capacities)?"
You call this "based on reason?" I am astounded. Also, St. Thomas Aquinas would thoroughly disagree.



Fallowfox said:


> This reminded me of the Catholic church's attempts to spread lies about condoms, to deter people from using them, because they're more interested in persuading people to adhere to dogma, than reviewing evidence in order to determine which course of action would be best to cultivate human well being.


...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...



Fallowfox said:


> ethical truths are surmised to be provided by divine insight and to be beyond scrutiny- a 'false authority fallacy'.


Let's inspect this. Definition of false authority fallacy: "As evidence to support a claim, information from a named authority is used outside of the individual's area of expertise, and thus the evidence is not necessarily credible. The authority can be misquoted by editing comments out of context or combining several quotes to fit the justification of the argument. Or the 'expert' may not be an expert at all. Sometimes there is a vague association between the authority and the topic in question, which is exploited to establish a perceived legitimacy." You know, given that God is defined as, more or less, "the ultimate good" or "everything that is good..."
Wow. That argument fell flat on its face. Must've hurt.



Fallowfox said:


> We should have confidence in ethical positions that can be demonstrated to be useful to us by evidence.


Fallowfox: Your ethics suck because they're based on dogma.
Fallowfox, just a few minutes later: I am going to state something on some authority and say it must be irrevocably true: "[See quote above.]"
Cue the laugh track! :^)



Fallowfox said:


> You need to be able to interrogate real-world evidence


"integrate real-world evidence," perhaps? Can do.






Now I see the following has been removed, but thanks to a good friend on a Discord server, I have the original post:


Fallowfox said:


> Actually show this to your ethics teacher, and then think to yourself 'is everything my ethics teacher says automatically true anyway


I'll give this argument a lenient ruling: 2/10. Weak. As. Frig. Good job.



Fallowfox said:


> 'well, this doesn't sound like it matches my preconceived (and incorrect) ideas about what Aristotle believed, so I won't even consider the possibility I am wrong'.


10/10, perfect autobiography. You're going to get raving reviews for this one, Fallow.



Fallowfox said:


> 'well, this doesn't sound like it matches my preconceived (and incorrect) ideas... so I won't even consider the possibility I am wrong.'


A succinct summary of Fallowfox's thoughts about everything I've said.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 16, 2017)

Part 2: Electric Boogaloo.



Fallowfox said:


> Aurorans apologised earlier for being rude, so he knows that he's not behaving appropriately.


Ah, yes. I apologised for 



Spoiler: this






Aurorans Solis said:


> Yanno, I was going to apologise for not responding to Mr. Fallow due to a complete lack of free time because school's been getting a little out of hand homework-wise and that the rest of my time after dealing with all of that has been taken up by family events leading up to my cousin's wedding (which is today), but then I realised, "Literally anything else would be a more practical use of my time."
> 
> Maybe someday I'll find it in my heart to help this poor soul.
> 
> Until then...


♪~ ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ


 and nothing else. I'm not sure how you think I'm being rude now, though. I'm only saying the nicest things about you, darling~



Fallowfox said:


> This reminded me of the Catholic church's attempts to spread lies about condoms, to deter people from using them, because they're more interested in persuading people to adhere to dogma, than reviewing evidence in order to determine which course of action would be best to cultivate human well being.


...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...



Fallowfox said:


> Even if I called Aurorans 'sugarplum' at the end of every post I would still be right to point out that such behaviour is rude and childish (although I would also be fairly expected to stop doing it myself)


:Þ



Fallowfox said:


> People also have sex because they want to express their love for each other, or because they enjoy it.
> Indeed, Aurorans must know this because he previously praised natural family planning methods whose aim is to have sex but avoid an unwanted pregnancy.


Wow! You got something right! Colour me surprised. The purpose of sex (which, again, the Church says should only happen in a married couple) is both unitive and procreative. Sex does not require intent for procreation - however, it does require that you be open to the possibility of it.



Fallowfox said:


> In short, clearly the catholic church has its priorities wrong. People should be concerned with human well being, rather than whether other people's sex is 'necessary'.





Spoiler: My thoughts:













Fallowfox said:


> If this is the kind of crazy conclusion that the catholic ethical system can reach, then it sorely needs to be changed.





Spoiler: My thoughts:








And also now irrelevant.





Fallowfox said:


> Criticise the utility of ethical systems if you want to find out whether they are useful constructs to apply to the real world.


Yes, you should try doing that.



Fallowfox said:


> For example, even if we were to conclude from a rational argument that _any _lie is _always_ immoral, this ethical position wouldn't be useful, because we live in a world where some lies are unavoidable and may even be the moral choice, for example if a child's mother died an agonising death, it might be moral to tell the child they died a painless death, to spare their feelings.
> Personally I regard these extreme positions such as 'it is always wrong to lie' as the results of arguments which are *not* perfectly rational, because they lack important nuances which should actually be part of rational argument. I guess it's a polite way of saying that they are 'simple-minded' rationalisations.


Ah, yes. This is where the idea of morally right/wrong and morally permissible come into play. In all cases, lying is morally wrong, but in some cases, it may be morally permissible.



Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure why you mention Aristotle, because he didn't actually think that contraception should be forbidden, so he doesn't even hold the position that Aurorans has been attributing to him. If you look Aristotle up you will find historical evidence that shows he advised people about how to make primitive forms of barrier contraceptive


...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...


Have a great evening, love.

Cheers!


----------



## Mr.Foox (Mar 17, 2017)

Can I please ask a question to all you furs who have a faith?.....So this fooxy might be godless but....In your eyes does that mean I'm a bad person?....Because I don't follow your rules? That's the one thing I fear when meeting someone religious...I am so damn happy that you follow something that makes you happy and hopefully not fearful...Although I'm just so, so, scared that some religious furs judge me for not being like them and that makes me think that they think I'm a bad person....But I know deep down I'm not! I believe I'm the sweetest nicest fuzzball foox around! I'm bubbly and quirky, charming, talkative and do my best to help my friends, family and even strangers to the best of my ability.... Hopefully to all you religious furs I'm not a bad person....Thank you for taking the time to read this! Have a great day or night! The pawsome foox, out! :3

~ ~


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2017)

@Aurorans Solis
I think that, in accordance with your own post, you should regard contraceptives as morally permissible in order to prevent transmission of deadly disease.
(of course, I think that the idea that sex that isn't open to procreation is morally bad is a silly idea anyway; what about gay people?)

It's confusing that you think saying 'ethics need to be based on good reasons' is an appeal to the argument from evil against the existence of a benevolent god. I suppose it's rather telling that you think advocacy of reason-based ethics is a challenge to god, because it reveals that you tacitly acknowledging that human belief in god _is_ unreasonable and that it prevents humans from using their reasoning skills to make useful ethical judgements.
Indeed, I think the unreasonable nature of human belief in god is revealed by your attempt to avoid a false authority fallacy by defining god as a perfect authority.

That's like a burglar defending himself in court by arguing that the court should begin its proceedings by defining him as unquestionably innocent. It's not difficult to see that your argument was no more sophisticated than 'God is not a false authority because he isn't'.

(by the way, there should be a space between 'auroret' and 'que' if you want your user title to read 'the day the sun rises and radiates a red dawn'. Currently it's gibberish, Curiously my user title is also about stars, because T-Tauris are volatile newly-born stars)



Mr.Foox said:


> Can I please ask a question to all you furs who have a faith?.....So this fooxy might be godless but....In your eyes does that mean I'm a bad person?....Because I don't follow your rules? That's the one thing I fear when meeting someone religious...I am so damn happy that you follow something that makes you happy and hopefully not fearful...Although I'm just so, so, scared that some religious furs judge me for not being like them and that makes me think that they think I'm a bad person....But I know deep down I'm not! I believe I'm the sweetest nicest fuzzball foox around! I'm bubbly and quirky, charming, talkative and do my best to help my friends, family and even strangers to the best of my ability.... Hopefully to all you religious furs I'm not a bad person....Thank you for taking the time to read this! Have a great day or night! The pawsome foox, out! :3
> 
> ~ ~



To be honest, I'm not sure that we should be bothered whether religious people think we're bad people just because we don't believe in gods.

Why should we desire somebody's approval if their morality is so primitive that they judge people by their faith, or lack thereof, instead of their character?


----------



## BlueWorrior (Mar 17, 2017)

Agnostic here. not sure there is a god or not, but not ruling out the possibility. Tried being a Christian before, didn't work for me. that's all, really :L


----------



## Haru Totetsu (Mar 17, 2017)

I do not believe in any sort of deity. I'd try elaborating but the issues with religious and nonreligious people when it comes to topics like this have already reared their ugly head and I'm not keen on dealing with _those_ types of people...again.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 17, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> You know, given that God is defined as, more or less, "the ultimate good" or "everything that is good..."
> Wow. That argument fell flat on its face. Must've hurt.


Are you making the ontological argument for the existence and nature of god?


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 17, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I think that the idea that sex that isn't open to procreation is morally bad is a silly idea anyway; what about gay people?


This is my one point of contention with Aristotilian ethics and Catholic ethics. I'm still trying to work it out, honestly. I also believe I've mentioned this before:


Aurorans Solis said:


> The matter of LGBT persons is the single point of contention that I have with both the Church and Aristotle


How about it?



Fallowfox said:


> It's confusing that you think saying 'ethics need to be based on good reasons'





Fallowfox said:


> Ethical systems need to be based on reason





Spoiler: Okay.













Fallowfox said:


> I suppose it's rather telling that you think advocacy of reason-based ethics is a challenge to god


Right. So why do you think that I've been specifically mentioning atheistic humanistic ethics? Just because? Absolutely no reason?


Spoiler: Okay?













Fallowfox said:


> [Redacted; irrelevant]...attempt to avoid a false authority fallacy by defining god as a perfect authority.


So let me get this straight. If God is real, and as the Church says, is omnipotent and omniscient, He knows either everything that has happened and will be, or everything that is possible to know at any given time (_Free Will and God's Omniscience_ by Michael Lacewing). I think that, considering a false authority fallacy's definition, no matter which form God's omniscience takes, I'm not sure how you find



Fallowfox said:


> It's not difficult to see that your argument was no more sophisticated than 'God is not a false authority because he isn't'.


Hey! Guys! Add another one to the tally of arguments that Fallowfox understood! That was a very nice re-statement of my argument, Mr. Fox. Thank you. And what's wrong with simple arguments?



Fallowfox said:


> (by the way, there should be a space between 'auroret' and 'que' if you want your user title to read 'the day the sun rises and radiates a red dawn'. Currently it's gibberish, Curiously my user title is also about stars, because T-Tauris are volatile newly-born stars)


As knowledgeable about Latin as Aristotle's and Catholic ethics, I see. I have literally no clue how on Earth you got "the day the sun rises and radiates a red dawn," out of "cum solem surgat auroretque dies incepit." Admittedly, that is improper grammar, and I have corrected it to "cum sol surrexit auroratque dies incepit." I have fixed my improper use of the subjunctive mood. On to your point about "que." "-que" is a suffix that means "and." The whole Latin phrase means, "When the sun has risen and is shining, the day has begun."



Fallowfox said:


> Why should we desire somebody's approval if their morality is so primitive that they judge people by their faith, or lack thereof, instead of their character?





Fallowfox said:


> Insulting people doesn't provide the impression that you have all the answers- it actually gives the impression that your perspectives are too flimsy to stand on reasoned argument alone, and need to be supplemented by vitriol.





Spoiler: O̷̩̲͈̗̱ͬ̋͝Kͫͤ̒͂̏̓̚͏̯̻̺̦̺͟A̴̘̫̬͓͆̐Y̜̹̼̋̌













Fallowfox said:


> Have you recognised your own hypocrisy, or do I need to explain it?


kek



Saiko said:


> Are you making the ontological argument for the existence and nature of god?


Nay, sir, that was not an argument for the existence of God. It was more a suggestion that the restriction of free will is not good, and given that God is defined as the ultimate good, or as the Catechism puts it, God is Truth and Love (CCC 214-221).


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2017)

@Aurorans Solis
So you think that condoms are bad because they prevent the chance of achieving pregnancy, which is the 'intended purpose of sex'
But you think gay sex is fine, even though this can't achieve pregnancy?
That's not even consistent; does it mean that you think gay people can wear condoms but that straight people shouldn't?

It's a joke, just like your argument that god isn't a false authority because you choose to define her as 'not a false authority'.
You could use this to prove that the Hindu gods exist because, because the Hindu gods are perfect, and a necessary quality of their perfection is that they exist.




Saiko said:


> Are you making the ontological argument for the existence and nature of god?


Yeah it's pretty obviously the standard ontological argument.
I've always thought ontological arguments are pretty dumb. It's like sitting down and proclaiming 'My point of view is right, because a necessary quality of it being right is that it is true,'.
I think it just shows how desperate some philosophers in history were to boot-strap god into existence.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 17, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> So you think that condoms are bad because they prevent the chance of achieving pregnancy, which is the 'intended purpose of sex'


Part of the intended purpose, yes.



Fallowfox said:


> But you think gay sex is fine, even though this can't achieve pregnancy?





Aurorans Solis said:


> This is my one point of contention with Aristotilian ethics and Catholic ethics. I'm still trying to work it out, honestly.


Read.



Fallowfox said:


> you choose to define her


Nice.



Fallowfox said:


> It's a joke, just like your argument that god isn't a false authority because you choose to define her as 'not a false authority'.


God is "not a false authority" by virtue of His qualities. 


Fallowfox said:


> You're under the impression that the problem is that I'm not familiar with theological technicalities of the catholic faith


*kek*



Fallowfox said:


> You could use this to prove that the Hindu gods exist because, because the Hindu gods are perfect, and a necessary quality of their perfection is that they exist.
> Hence, they exist.


Eh, B- for effort. Abject failure for integrity of this claim. Perhaps you ought to look at St. Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of a god/God.


Lavoo~ <3


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Part of the intended purpose, yes.


I'm not convinced that sex has an intended purpose, because I am not convinced that any conscious being invented sexual reproduction.
It would be clearer to describe reproduction as its biological function.


If you're fine with gay sex, then you're fine with sex that isn't open to the possibility of procreation.
If you're fine with sex that isn't open to the possibility of procreation, then why do you support the catholic church's opposition to condoms on the grounds that they preclude reproduction?



Aurorans Solis said:


> Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of a god/God.



The prime mover argument doesn't work. Thomas Aquinas lived 700 years before developments in physics demonstrated that cosmogenic causality doesn't work in the way he describes. 
If you're smart you can see that Thomas's argument is wrong because it incorrectly lead him to the conclusion that all heat is caused by fire, when we know it is not (because we live 700 years in the future, where we know that Fission, Fusion, gravitational collapse, aqueous chemical reactions ,electrical resistance and simply applying pressure to objects, generate heat- all without _any _fire. 
Reductio ad absurdum, he is wrong. 

Indeed if we couldn't generate heat without fire, then human bodies wouldn't be warm blooded and we would all be dead.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 17, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not convinced that sex has an intended purpose, because I am not convinced that any conscious being invented sexual reproduction.
> It would be clearer to describe reproduction as its biological function.


Fair point, but again, you're forgetting the Church's teaching that sex should only happen in marriage, where the purpose of being unitive is added in.



Fallowfox said:


> If you're fine with gay sex, then you're fine with sex that isn't open to the possibility of procreation.
> If you're fine with sex that isn't open to the possibility of procreation, then why do you support the catholic church's opposition to condoms on the grounds that they preclude reproduction?





Aurorans Solis said:


> This is my one point of contention with Aristotilian ethics and Catholic ethics. *I'm still trying to work it out, honestly.*


*Read.
*


Fallowfox said:


> The prime mover argument doesn't work. Thomas Aquinas lived 700 years before developments in physics demonstrated that cosmogenic causality doesn't work in the way he describes.


Oh, well thank goodness there are *four other arguments*. 



Fallowfox said:


> Indeed if we couldn't generate heat without fire, then human bodies wouldn't be warm blooded and we would all be dead.


You know, the way the body processes sugar is, more or less, a combustion reaction. Just much slower and more controlled.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Fair point, but again, you're forgetting the Church's teaching that sex should only happen in marriage, where the purpose of being unitive is added in.
> 
> 
> 
> *Read.*



Shouldn't this mean you oppose gay sex even more vehemently? Not only can it not produce children, but the catholic church doesn't recognise gay marriages, so it's not unitive either.

If you based your ethics on evidence that is afforded to us because we're lucky enough to live in a scientific age, instead of ancient tomes written by people who didn't know sperm and egg cells  existed and who burned homosexuals alive for being an affront to god, then you wouldn't be vexed by these quandaries. (I suppose you also wouldn't be trying to defend an ethical position that is aiding the spread of HIV, which would be an added perk)


----------



## biscuitfister (Mar 17, 2017)

*eats popcorn*


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 17, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> If you're smart you can see that...


*notices ur ad hominem*
OwO what's this?



Fallowfox said:


> Shouldn't this mean you oppose gay sex even more vehemently? Not only cannot it not produce children, but the catholic church doesn't recognise gay marriages, so it's not unitive either.





Aurorans Solis said:


> This is my one point of contention with Aristotilian ethics and Catholic ethics. *I'm still trying to work it out, honestly.*


Can you see my response now?



Fallowfox said:


> instead of ancient tomes written by people who didn't know sperm and egg cells existed and who burned homosexuals alive for being an affront to god


OwO what's this? Another one? Oh, oh my~ >///<
Oh! Also:
...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...


----------



## Ketren (Mar 17, 2017)

Mr.Foox said:


> Can I please ask a question to all you furs who have a faith?.....So this fooxy might be godless but....In your eyes does that mean I'm a bad person?....Because I don't follow your rules? That's the one thing I fear when meeting someone religious...I am so damn happy that you follow something that makes you happy and hopefully not fearful...Although I'm just so, so, scared that some religious furs judge me for not being like them and that makes me think that they think I'm a bad person....But I know deep down I'm not! I believe I'm the sweetest nicest fuzzball foox around! I'm bubbly and quirky, charming, talkative and do my best to help my friends, family and even strangers to the best of my ability.... Hopefully to all you religious furs I'm not a bad person....Thank you for taking the time to read this! Have a great day or night! The pawsome foox, out! :3
> 
> ~ ~



No, being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person. Part of the Christian faith- stated in the beginning of the Bible- is that mankind, female and male, is created in God's image. That is to say, we're all like God- who is completely good- in our innermost being. His image can be tarnished by sin (acting or thinking wrongly), but the fact remains that we are his children and can be forgiven for our sins. Indeed we were- on the cross at Calvary.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Oh, well thank goodness there are *four other arguments*.
> 
> 
> You know, the way the body processes sugar is, more or less, a combustion reaction. Just much slower and more controlled.



Actually, if you haven't noticed there are only _3_ arguments, because the first 3 are all just variants of the prime mover.

'Motions all stem from an initial mover'.
'Effects all stem from an initial act'
'Existence cannot come from non existence, so there must be an initial cause'.

They're all the _same_ argument, and they're all wrong, because we now know enough about physics to know that the planets are in motion because of the gravitational force, not because of a prime-mover (this was the original context of the prime mover argument, which is why it is also known as the 'cosmological' argument).

Thomas's other arguments aren't any more convincing, because we know that his claim that all gradients imply the existence of an extreme, which is the cause for all those associated phenomena, is wrong. We know that not all heat comes from fire, like Thomas suggests, because we can make heat without using fire.
If you want to try to argue that all types of heat are technically types of fire, then enjoy deluding yourself with semantics I guess.

Thomas's third argument was that the existence of complexity and order in the cosmos implies intelligent governance, but we actually know that order can arise spontaneously through physical processes. Snow flakes form beautiful crystals without any intelligent governance.

Essentially Thomas's ideas have been shown to be wrong by centuries of knowledge accumulated by scientists.




Ketren said:


> No, being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person. Part of the Christian faith- stated in the beginning of the Bible- is that mankind, female and male, is created in God's image. That is to say, we're all like God- who is completely good- in our innermost being. His image can be tarnished by sin (acting or thinking wrongly), but the fact remains that we are his children and can be forgiven for our sins. Indeed we were- on the cross at Calvary.



I'm unconvinced that a completely good god would forgive man kind through human sacrifice.

I'm unconvinced that a completely good god would flood the world; that's genocide and we tend to regard genocidal tyrants as evil in these enlightened times. ._.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 17, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Actually, if you haven't noticed there's actually only 3 arguments, because the first 3 are all just variants of the prime mover.


Right at the top of the page: "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." 3 = 5.


Spoiler: Good.














Fallowfox said:


> Thomas's other arguments aren't any more convincing, because we know that his claim that all gradients imply the existence of an extreme, which is the cause for all those associated phenomena, is wrong.


Hmm, something sounds off about this. Let's have a closer look.
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, *according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest*; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."
What you said about this has got to be as shallow of a response to that as I've ever seen.


Spoiler: Better.













Fallowfox said:


> If you want to try to argue that all types of heat are technically types of fire, then enjoy deluding yourself with semantics I guess.





Spoiler: BEST













Fallowfox said:


> Thomas's third argument was that the existence of complexity and order in the cosmos implies intelligent governance, but we actually know that order can arise spontaneously through physical processes. Snow flakes form beautiful crystals without any intelligent governance.


I invite you to read the third proof more carefully.


Spoiler: I've got you covered, honeybuns. Don't worry about it.



"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."


After reading it a number of times, I cannot find anything discussing intelligent governance and/or order. Do tell me where it talks about these things and not a proof leading up to the conclusion that God necessitates his own existence, and by his existence, brings about the existence of everything else.


Best wishes~


----------



## Saiko (Mar 17, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> God is "not a false authority" by virtue of His qualities.


Authority requires existence, and his existence is neither agreed upon nor provable. This unprovability is also reason to question the authority of those who defend his existence, as they are the ones who define his qualities, including his doctrine. As I said earlier, the entire system relies on this axiom of existence and falls apart without it.

The definition of a being as having authority does not give it authority because definition  does not instill existence. Therefore it is reasonable to deny the authority of god and demand justifications that don't require his authority. This is why Fallowfox keeps declaring an appeal to authority, and he is not wrong to do so.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Right at the top of the page: "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." 3 = 5.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Good.
> ...



Thomas's gradient argument was that "the  maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things".
He thinks that because fire is the strongest form of heat that he knows of, that this means all heat is caused by a type of fire. 
We know this is wrong, so it shows that Thomas's gradient argument isn't very good. 

The argument which I described as the 'third' is the last argument that Thomas presented (the teleological argument). I mentioned that I grouped the first 3 arguments into just 1, because they were all variations of the same point. 

The teleological argument surmises that the complex order in our universe implies that an intelligent designer exists: 
Teleological argument - Wikipedia
I think this argument is too anthropocentric; it is like assuming that because volcanoes are fiery and tumultuous that it must imply the existence of an angry volcano god who controls them.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 17, 2017)

I might point out that none of these arguments for the existence of god are arguments for any particular definition of god. The cosmological argument, which I consider the strongest, is only sufficient to argue the existence of some invariant thing that caused our existence; and that thing may not even be sentient.

The gradient argument with fire and such is the weakest because it actually makes a mathematical claim based on mathematical assumptions. Specifically, it assumes the topologies of things such as temperature or justness or goodness are bounded above when they are not necessarily so. If these properties do not have an upper bound, which his backing metaphor of temperature does not, then there is no maximum that anything could achieve. This also assumes that all properties attributed to god can be simultaneously maximized by a single entity. For example, it is debatable whether anyone could be both maximally just and maximally merciful, assuming either can be maximized.


----------



## Havokpaintedwolf (Mar 22, 2017)

i believe in many dieties but i dont spread my religion i believe if they want to be found then you will find them and even then perhaps not all of them will desire your worship and thus will remain unknown to you. a bit cryptic and perhaps more than a bit ridiculous i know but its my belief. and no has nothing to do with my signature thats just some joke referencing something hilarious that happened in the old forums in the couple weeks before they were taken down


----------



## Phoenix-Kat (Mar 22, 2017)

Yes
But don't you DARE try to get me into a church.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 22, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Thomas's gradient argument was that "the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things".
> He thinks that because fire is the strongest form of heat that he knows of, that this means all heat is caused by a type of fire.


This singular quote caused such an episode of apathy that over the course of a three day weekend where I had nothing to do I couldn't be bothered to make the effort even to point out how hopelessly shallow your analysis (or complete ignorance of) the rest of Aquinas' argument is. Try using your analysis skills; make a couple assumptions. You know, read between the lines. You did that plenty when you reported a certain author's Facebook page before they'd even said a word. Go on; make even the barest effort to do that here. Give me something actually worth responding to. I know you're far more intelligent than that argument was.



Fallowfox said:


> The argument which I described as the 'third' is the last argument that Thomas presented (the teleological argument). I mentioned that I grouped the first 3 arguments into just 1, because they were all variations of the same point.


Alright. I can see where you're coming from on this, but based on how other things are progressing, let's agree to disagree because frankly it's a tangent to the main dialectic.



Fallowfox said:


> The argument which I described as the 'third' is the last argument that Thomas presented (the teleological argument).
> ...
> The teleological argument surmises that the complex order in our universe implies that an intelligent designer exists:
> Teleological argument - Wikipedia


I apologise. I misunderstood the point you were making and dismissed it because the point I thought you were making seemed invalid. When you said "third argument," I forgot you were grouping Aquinas' arguments 1-3 together, and that the "third argument" is actually Aquinas' fifth. I'll address the point you were actually making momentarily.
_Ahem._



Fallowfox said:


> I think this argument is too anthropocentric; it is like assuming that because volcanoes are fiery and tumultuous that it must imply the existence of an angry volcano god who controls them.


You know what, I agree with you here. Aquinas' fifth argument isn't very strong, and the Neoplatonists would similarly agree that the argument isn't very strong, but they would still think it acceptable (found in your Wikipedia article). However, I do not agree with the example you gave. "Therefore, some intelligent being (note: singular) exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end."

XOXO
~A.S.

---Break---​


Saiko said:


> Authority requires existence, and his existence is neither agreed upon nor provable. This unprovability is also reason to question the authority of those who defend his existence, as they are the ones who define his qualities, including his doctrine. As I said earlier, the entire system relies on this axiom of existence and falls apart without it.


Fantastic point. I must concur with you here, however. While I will agree with you that it is more or less improbable to prove the existence of a deity _imperically,_ I think that it is possible to do through _posteriori_ arguments and reasoning.



Saiko said:


> The definition of a being as having authority does not give it authority because definition does not instill existence. Therefore it is reasonable to deny the authority of god and demand justifications that don't require his authority.


You've absolutely got me there. That was a great argument. Take notes, Fallow.



Saiko said:


> This is why Fallowfox keeps declaring an appeal to authority, and he is not wrong to do so.


After that, I will agree with you that he was not wrong to declare an appeal to authority. However, I was more going after his particular choice of "appeal to _false_ authority." I suppose that's beside the point now, though.



Saiko said:


> I might point out that none of these arguments for the existence of god are arguments for any particular definition of god.


Precisely.



Saiko said:


> The cosmological argument, which I consider the strongest, is only sufficient to argue the existence of some invariant thing that caused our existence; and that thing may not even be sentient.


Goodness gracious, you're getting all the brownie points. Again, here, I agree, but I think that some of the arguments are sufficient to argue for the sentience of this deity that caused our existence.



Saiko said:


> If these properties do not have an upper bound, which his backing metaphor of temperature does not


I would like to point out that there is (supposed to be) a temperature at which the laws of physics cease functioning: 1.41683385 x 10^32° Kelvin (not 100% definite, but the current temperature believed to be the maximum [source]). That's the temperature at which the wavelength of light radiated by a particle at that temperature is equal to the lowest possible wavelength according to Planck's Law (source). It's likely to remain that temperature unless an overarching theory for general relativity and how gravity works in the quantum realm is developed and can describe the behaviour of particles hotter than that. Additionally, as a lower bound there's absolute zero (0° K). Well, maybe. While writing this, I came across this, pardon my French, fucking awesome article: no, seriously, this is more awesome than I can convey through words. So that leaves the question of a lower bound as a toss-up; there's always the chance that there is another lower bound, say, -10K, to pick an arbitrary example. Pardon me. I have to go squee because really awesome science 



Saiko said:


> This also assumes that all properties attributed to god can be simultaneously maximized by a single entity. For example, it is debatable whether anyone could be both maximally just and maximally merciful, assuming either can be maximized.


"Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God," (Same website as before). I'm not sure whether that fully answers your question. I'm a bit loopy right now due to lack of sleep, so I duly apologise if that is a poor response.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 22, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> I would like to point out that there is (supposed to be) a temperature at which the laws of physics cease functioning: 1.41683385 x 10^32° Kelvin (not 100% definite, but the current temperature believed to be the maximum [source]). That's the temperature at which the wavelength of light radiated by a particle at that temperature is equal to the lowest possible wavelength according to Planck's Law (source). It's likely to remain that temperature unless an overarching theory for general relativity and how gravity works in the quantum realm is developed and can describe the behaviour of particles hotter than that. Additionally, as a lower bound there's absolute zero (0° K). Well, maybe. While writing this, I came across this, pardon my French, fucking awesome article: no, seriously, this is more awesome than I can convey through words. So that leaves the question of a lower bound as a toss-up; there's always the chance that there is another lower bound, say, -10K, to pick an arbitrary example. Pardon me. I have to go squee because really awesome science


First, holy crap that negative temperature article was a blast from the past. I remember asking my chemistry professor about that result. I must warn you, though, that they're using a slightly different definition of temperature than you're used to. Apparently it's more of a measure of entropy, and that change in definition lets them define negative temperature consistently. As I understand it, they restricted a cloud of atoms to a lattice using lasers to create a maximum energy state and pumped enough energy into the system to make that maximum state the most stable state.

Back on the topic, I probably shouldn't have talked about maximum temperatures because we don't really know how physics works beyond the capabilities of the LHC. You're right that our current models do actually have a maximum, so bleh. I guess we can laugh at the irony of my mistake there. My main point still stands, though. Arguments which claim that the maximum of some quality must be embodied fail in general because they assume the quality has a maximum to begin with, and the same is true for minima. This arises primarily from problems with our definitions of "god-like" qualities, not unlike negative kelvin making no sense with the conventional definition of temperature. Of course, to be persuasive, you have to agree on the definitions beforehand.



Aurorans Solis said:


> "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God," (Same website as before). I'm not sure whether that fully answers your question. I'm a bit loopy right now due to lack of sleep, so I duly apologise if that is a poor response.


Ehhhh he temporarily avoided that particular issue by not really addressing the identity problem, just like the cosmological argument does not. Unfortunately this makes his gradient argument invalid because certain definitions of perfection and goodness cannot be maximized (assuming they are not contradictory). Thus his premises do not imply his conclusion. This kind of argument requires compatibly addressing the identity problem as a premises, which he did not do.



Aurorans Solis said:


> Goodness gracious, you're getting all the brownie points.


Don't start that shit with me. You're not in any position to be an elitist prick with Fallowfox, let alone patronizing to me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 22, 2017)

@Saiko Thomas Aquinas's premise, that the maximum of any genus is the cause of all phenonemnon in that genus, isn't correct anyway. 
Hence his gradient argument would still be nonsense, even if temperature had a maximum limit. 

Of course, I think we can forgive Thomas Aquinas for making poor arguments, because he lived in an age when any argument that challenged the Catholic church could be prosecuted as heresy and result in torture or death. 
So maybe Thomas Aquinas, and other medieval theologians,  were smart enough to save their skins from murderous Catholic inquisitions. 

Personally I think that, if the case for the existence of a god was compelling, there would have been no need to set up inquisitions to murder heretics.


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 22, 2017)

Saiko said:


> Don't start that shit with me. You're not in any position to be an elitist prick with Fallowfox, let alone patronizing to me.


No seriously, I meant that. I was being 100% sincere when I said you're getting all the brownie points. You've been absolutely fantastic to talk with so far. Just wanted to say this really quickly and then I'll edit in the rest of my reply later.

Also, I'm being an "elitist prick" to Fallowfox? I didn't think so. Sure, I'm being just a regular prick, but to be honest Fallowfox has practically been inviting me to do that.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Mar 22, 2017)

"Hi, is this the FurAffinity Forums?"

"No, this is perpetual arguing simulator!"

*slams phone down*


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 23, 2017)

MadKiyo said:


> "Hi, is this the FurAffinity Forums?"
> 
> "No, this is perpetual arguing simulator!"
> 
> *slams phone down*


Fair enough :Þ


----------



## Aurorans Solis (Mar 23, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> Thomas Aquinas's premise, that the maximum of any genus is the cause of all phenonemnon in that genus, isn't correct anyway.


Jeez, here we go again. You've yet to fail to... well, not disappoint. I thought I was polite in asking you to come up with a good argument.
What's more...
Fallowfox in other threads: I am going to analyse every single word you say so that I can use them against you because it supports my argument.
Fallowfox in this thread: I refuse to look at anything other than the face value of these words because doing otherwise hurts my argument.
Amusing.


Spoiler: Related













Fallowfox said:


> Of course, I think we can forgive Thomas Aquinas for making poor arguments, because he lived in an age when any argument that challenged the Catholic church could be prosecuted as heresy and result in torture or death.
> So maybe Thomas Aquinas, and other medieval theologians, were smart enough to save their skins from murderous Catholic inquisitions.





Spoiler: ...and over and over and over and over and over and over...








kek


Also, thanks. Your statement led to me finding that gem.


Spoiler: ...and over and over and over and over and over and over (continued)...








And this one. Of course, in this instance, Aquinas is your "opponent."





Fallowfox said:


> Thomas Aquinas's premise, that the maximum of any genus is the cause of all phenonemnon in that genus, isn't correct anyway.
> Hence his gradient argument would still be nonsense, even if temperature had a maximum limit.


Let's (begrudgingly) return to this for a moment.
Aquinas' fourth argument from various sources:

"Aquinas’s fourth argument is that from degrees of perfection. All things exhibit greater or lesser degrees of perfection. There must therefore exist a supreme perfection that all imperfect beings approach yet fall short of. In Aquinas’s system, God is that paramount perfection," (link).
"*IV. The Argument from Perfection*

Every trait we see, in every object, is compared to some standard: health, morality, strength, and so forth. The fact that we instinctively see degrees in these areas implies that there is some ultimate standard against which to judge that property. And all comparative properties share a common sense of “perfection.” This means there must be some ultimate standard of “perfection” from which to judge all other properties; those objects cannot be the source or definition of that property in and of themselves.

In other words, Aquinas’s fourth argument in favor of God’s existence points out that, in order to speak of “goodness” or “power,” we must have an absolute standard against which to judge those terms; there must be some other thing from which they ultimately derive that characteristic: God, the Ultimate Standard," (link).
"4. There is an evidence gradation of the quality of things in the world. Some things are better than others, some things are truer than others and so forth. But the gradation of things in the world makes sense only when there is a being in the universe that is the best, the noblest, the truest. And this being we call God," (link).
And I could go on, frankly.
So, what does that make of your argument? Hmm, I can't quite think of the word...


Fallowfox said:


> nonsense


Ah, yes, that's it. Many thanks.

On a similar note: nice webpage, bro.

Oh dear. I'm running out of material... Back to a reliable one, then.

~<3

---Break---​


Saiko said:


> First, holy crap that negative temperature article was a blast from the past. I remember asking my chemistry professor about that result. I must warn you, though, that they're using a slightly different definition of temperature than you're used to. Apparently it's more of a measure of entropy, and that change in definition lets them define negative temperature consistently. As I understand it, they restricted a cloud of atoms to a lattice using lasers to create a maximum energy state and pumped enough energy into the system to make that maximum state the most stable state.


Really? Damn, that's so awesome! And they used magnetic fields along with the lasers you mentioned to help coerce the NaK molecules to do what they wanted them to do. Science, man. Can't get enough of it.



Saiko said:


> Unfortunately this makes his gradient argument invalid because certain definitions of perfection and goodness cannot be maximized (assuming they are not contradictory).


I'm still not sure I understand how you're arriving at the conclusion that perfection and goodness cannot be maximised, nor do I understand where the notion that they may be contradictory comes from. Would you mind elaborating, please?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2017)

Cristina Rad provides a good assessment of these questions in about 8 minutes, including an explanation for why the attributes afforded to god, like perfect knowledge, perfect goodness and all-powerfulness, are not logically consistent ideas, so any being defined as possessing these attributes cannot exist.





Returning to our original discussion about the merit of catholic ethical positions, this means that the appeals to divine authority, which you recognise you have made in defense of catholic ethics, are rejected.
As Saiko explained to you, you must find alternative justifications for your ethical claims which don't require the authority of magical gods, if you expect anybody else to be convinced by them.


----------



## Project.Atlas (Mar 23, 2017)

I believe in the paranormal. But that we don't have the technology (or possibly even the brain capacity) to fully understand it yet.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 23, 2017)

Aurorans Solis said:


> Bunch-o-stuff


I'm writing a response, but it's going to take me longer than I expected to formulate. Although I stand by my point about maxima and such, it's proving surprisingly difficult to construct a valid and illustrative example of it that I like. I probably won't have it until next week because of school and things.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2017)

Saiko said:


> I'm writing a response, but it's going to take me longer than I expected to formulate. Although I stand by my point about maxima and such, it's proving surprisingly difficult to construct a valid and illustrative example of it that I like. I probably won't have it until next week because of school and things.



I think a suitable example is numbers, because we already know by definition that there is no maximum number, so it shows that Thomas's conjecture, that the existence of a slope implies the existence of a peak, doesn't follow. 

Of course, I think it's kind of obvious enough that when a semantic argument about goodness leads one to the conclusion that magic is real (because the attributes ascribed to god are physics-defying magic) , then that argument is critically flawed.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 24, 2017)

Fallowfox said:


> I think a suitable example is numbers, because we already know by definition that there is no maximum number, so it shows that Thomas's conjecture, that the existence of a slope implies the existence of a peak, doesn't follow.


Yes, I'm trying to map it to calculus actually because the foundation of calculus is a metric, which is a function that defines how far apart two inputs are. The set of inputs can be pretty much anything, and the function outputs a real number, subject to a few rules that I'm not going to specify here. Thus you can map conceivable beings to numbers using a metric derived from your definition of perfection and compare them. If the metric has no maximum value, then for any being you could conceive a "more perfect" being. Then no being can be maximally perfect, and the argument is proven invalid by counterexample.

My goal is to reasonably derive such a metric from a simplified but allowable definition of perfection, probably something like "the maximally perfect being would act justly in response to all conceivable events." Unfortunately this is proving to be difficult because naive derivations yield infinite series that explode to infinity and kind of actually check out, which is not what I want.

So yes, not all gradients have a maximum; and I want to relate some definition of perfection to such a gradient.


----------



## DusterBluepaw (Mar 24, 2017)

I subscribe to the whole ancient alien theory, some aliens created us in their likeness, i believe thats why uncanny valley exists, things that somewhat look human but arent bring a sort of fear emotion, maybe we were designed that way, so when ever the creators come back, we will submit from the fear.
As for like what created the universe and all that, i believe it is way way too complicated for the human mind to comprehend, well at least thats what ive come to think after all my psychedelic experiences.


----------



## WendigoNasty (Mar 24, 2017)

I was atheist/agnostic for a while a few years back but I have recently discovered Paganism/Wicca, which connects with me very deeply even though I still doubt myself sometimes.  And before you ask, yep I do do spells and read tarot!  My parents arent into it but thats likely because they are misinformed by media and old fashioned Catholic propaganda.  That being said, I do still believe in modern medicine and I love science!  I am always looking to learn more about the beautiful universe that the Gods created!

My view on religion and faith in general is that everyone has different spiritual needs at different times in their life, some will need faith, while others will not, and both are quite alright.  In my belief, I think that we should all respect one another's path, provided it is a safe one that respects the person on said path (cults who abuse people are predatory and should be avoided!  The same with extremism!).  In my mind, any faith/belief/philosophy that improves someones life and makes them and those around them happy is the correct path for that person, doesn't matter if thats Wiccan, Mormon, Atheist, Buddhist or Pastafarian!  

In the end, even if my belief's turn out to be wrong, I won't regret holding them, they helped me through school, gave me courage to overcome depression and inspired me to be a better person.  Sorry for ranting, but I just wanted to give my two cents on the whole topic.


----------



## ponyguy (Mar 26, 2017)

I slightly believed in something magical with power over the lives of people, but that was fifty years ago.  It faded at about the same time I stopped entertaining the possibility that Santa Claus actually existed.  Eventually I realized I was simply immune to the superstition virus.  The supporting evidence for supernatural creators figure(s) always seemed very subjective and unsatisfying to me, and every tangible benefit or influence ascribed to deities was more simply and satisfactorily explained by natural processes.  The only place gods and other magical beings could dwell is in places of ignorance, and those get fewer and smaller with each passing year (at least the really interesting ones).  To me, the view of a universe created and guided by the kind of creatures dreamed up by humans made the universe so small and shabby.  I have never quite understood how one can choose to believe in something without any kind of evidence to support that belief.  I guess that's why so many believe in the "truth" of Pizzagate.


----------



## Gavin the Dragon (Sep 21, 2017)

Yes, I do believe in God. I'm not a very religious person, but I do believe in a fair share of stuff from the Abrahamic textbooks...

...but *NOT*, and I repeat *NOT *word for word!! 

I do not believe in everything directly from the Bible, the Quran, or the Tanakh. I believe in some parts of them in some interpretation, I do believe in Jesus, but I don't believe stuff like Noah's Ark or Adam & Eve.

I can accept people of all religions and irreligions, just as long as they don't randomly decide to debate people on the issues all of a sudden.


----------



## Mabus (Sep 21, 2017)

Yep, I definitely believe God is a thing!
You simply cannot and will not scientifically explain how you can create something from nothing and instantly spawn the building blocks of the universe before time even existed.

You may try, but you'll look like a jackass and be unsuccessful xD


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Sep 21, 2017)

There's a small measure of beauty in the nihilistic revelation that gods exist not because the idea is necessarily true (gods are fiction, after all) but because we find them useful. The same can be said for money, nations, corporations, and human rights.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Sep 21, 2017)

No. And if there was one, it's completely indifferent to us all, so there's no reason for me to bother trying to appeal to it.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 21, 2017)

I don't believe in an organized religion dreamed up by people at a time where the earth was believed to be flat and almost every scientific anomaly clearly understood today was considered to be a miracle at the time.

I do believe it's possible there is some sort of force you could consider at play in a passive way, more physics related than omnipotent. I believe in infinite universes.

I've had quite a few experiences with psychedelic drugs as well. During significant trips there were times where I felt I understood completely what the universe was all about, but were I to try and explain it I would sound crazy and be ridiculed for having no quantifiable basis, which could be said about anyone trying to prove/disprove the unknowable.

Having your perception altered in such a way really opens your mind to new ways of thinking and levels of tolerance/consideration for other people's points of view, which the world could use much much more of.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Sep 21, 2017)

Shrodinger's cat of philosophy, is my take on it. Both real and unreal, simultaneously existing. Everything out there has a chance to be real, and I give it that chance.

I believe in God, not in the way most people do, but if he is real then I live my life as I should. We are called to be servants to others and Jesus was, and that's what I live by. I am not a perfect person and never will be, but striving to do my best day in and out is what I live to do.

Even if it's not, that's okay, the same feeling and purpose remains. We're all messed up, we're all struggling for survival, the more we help one another the better things can aim to be, starting with myself.

I dont know where we are all going in the end? Heaven? Hell? Reincarnated? Nowhere, nonexistence?


None of the supernatural or the end concerns me, it's all about what is going on here and now, what we do while we are alive, is what is the real significance in belief.


----------



## Sagt (Sep 21, 2017)

I'm an atheist; neither of my parents were religious in the slightest, so consequently I've been a non-believer by default. Though, I generally use softer terms to describe myself, such as 'agnostic' or 'non-religious', in the company of devout religious peoples for the sake of avoiding awkwardness.


----------



## Ginza (Sep 21, 2017)

I'm agnostic, always have been, may or may not always be. I don't DISBELIEVE in a god or deity, but I don't believe in one either. I'm in the strange middle, and have very close friends on both ends of the spectrum.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 21, 2017)

I've always respected the way Ricky Gervais summarizes whether it's fair to expect a person to have faith or not and why he believes so.


EDIT: Crap. Wrong video. Digging up the right one now. Sorry.

DOUBLE EDIT: Here it is... Once again, my bad for posting the wrong one. He has a few and this one in particular covers the subject eloquently.


----------



## biscuitfister (Sep 21, 2017)

In my opinion God is a coping mechanism for thoses that are scared of death, not saying im not scared, im more like "Dieing probably isnt healthy"


----------



## Filter (Sep 21, 2017)

A lot depends on how you define God. I think there's a God for personal reasons, but not as a substitute for a scientific understanding of the universe. The two are harmonious to me, and I'd rather approach the question on my own terms than simply believe or disbelieve what other people tell me to. On top of that, nihilism doesn't strike me as being particularly useful or conducive to a fulfilling life. Others may disagree, and that's fine as long as they don't try to force their beliefs or lack of beliefs on me.


----------



## Loffi (Sep 21, 2017)

I don't believe in god, but I saw a ghost once, so I'm kinda conflicted on the whole afterlife thing.


----------



## Saiko (Sep 22, 2017)

Filter said:


> On top of that, nihilism doesn't strike me as being particularly useful or conducive to a fulfilling life.


Actually I think it can be more conducive than you would expect. The core philosophy is indeed that our existence does not inherently serve a purpose because presumably there is no original agent (i.e. no god) to give us a purpose. However, regardless of the free will debate, we generally experience agency over our lives. This means that, although we don't have an inherent purpose, we are capable of creating a purpose for ourselves and others. We can then own and take responsibility for that purpose and justifiably take great pride in fulfilling it.

When combined with an optimistic paradigm, I find nihilism to be quite empowering.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 22, 2017)

Saiko, have you ever heard of the theory which from the moment of the big bang based on the consistent universal behaviour of matter, everything right down to your percieved free will and even random thoughts in your head were predetermined to happen because the laws of physics (as they are, not as we hypothesize they are) are infallable and can not allow any other possibility? IE even the simplest act of will regardless of how much you think you willed it (even me typing this to tell you about it) was destined to happen. It couldn't physically happen another way or the laws of physics must not be universal.

This is a messy dang post. (Split attention and furious touch screen tapping while at work) I don't know if I subscribe to that theory, but it's really interesting because it's  mathematically sound.


----------



## JamesOtters (Sep 22, 2017)

No, I don't, but I am in the process of making a religion for a fake civilization I'm making...


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Sep 22, 2017)

Well.... There are a ton of logistical things with Christianity that don't really sit too well with me. Like, hell, for instance. It doesn't really seem very fair to me. Does a person who masturbates and doesn't feel sorry for it really deserve to be placed in the same company as Adolf Hitler?


----------



## Belatucadros (Sep 22, 2017)

I try to keep my mind open to things like this, because we really just don't know for sure. The universe is incredibly vast, and we have no idea what is out there. I think a "higher power" is possible. But we may never know. I do however believe in life after death. I've seen ghosts, and I have experienced first-hand that mediumship is real (You still need to watch out for the stupid phonies though). I mean, I watched my dead parakeet fly through our living room where he loved to play. You can't make that shit up.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 22, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> It doesn't really seem very fair to me.



How about starving kids that die at a young age before they were ever remotely capable of even knowing about Christianity? I guess in God's eyes their souls may as well be tortured for eternity. It's only fair.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 22, 2017)

I like the idea of God and I _mostly_ believe in some form of higher power, but I'm not a fan of religion. I can enjoy aspects of it- like the self-reflection of rosh hashanah or the "don't be a dick" style of advice Jesus was peddling- but I don't feel that if God existed he'd be a fan of what we're doing in various iterations of his name. Religions, while once necessary to staunch the terror of existentialism, has morphed into a kind of members only club and "holier than thou" thinking. Of course, this is broad strokes. There will always be churches and sects that are actually pretty chill.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Sep 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Saiko, have you ever heard of the theory which from the moment of the big bang based on the consistent universal behaviour of matter, everything right down to your percieved free will and even random thoughts in your head were predetermined to happen because the laws of physics (as they are, not as we hypothesize they are) are infallable and can not allow any other possibility? IE even the simplest act of will regardless of how much you think you willed it (even me typing this to tell you about it) was destined to happen. It couldn't physically happen another way or the laws of physics must not be universal.


Try not to mistake probability and determinism again. The former may resemble the latter at first glance, especially when examining a chain of events in hindsight, but the assumption that said chain of events is the most likely fails to take into account the myriad probable outcomes that could have derailed it at any point in time.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 22, 2017)

Well I try not to tell people what to think or do. You're being pretty rude right now while at the same time missing my point completely. I wasn't conpletely familiar with the theory and I wasn't even invested in the post enough to look up what the theory was called. I just wanted to mention the concept to Saiko since he seems interested in that sort of thing. I don't think it was really necessary for you to try and invalidate a comment when it wasn't presented as fact or even an opinion for that matter.

You could argue the former doesn't exist due to the latter if you really want to get into it; which I really don't for lack of enthusiasm for the topic. (probability being the former and determinism being the latter.)

I'll quote the most important part you felt the need to leave out...



Dongding said:


> I don't know if I subscribe to that theory, but it's really interesting because it's mathematically sound.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Sep 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> How about starving kids that die at a young age before they were ever remotely capable of even knowing about Christianity? I guess in God's eyes their souls may as well be tortured for eternity. It's only fair.



The way I've seen Christians tell about the concept of children dying before they can commit their souls to Christ, is that God in his mercy gives children who were conceived and died without the significant chance to make the decision are granted grace and those children who passed before their time have gone to heaven. Seen them do a sermon on it so that's their reasoning, I think that's for the people worried about where their children will be going. Funny thing is they dont even acknowledge or grant this kind of acceptance to animals, many of which have lived their lives doing no wrong, have been the greatest companion to humanity, and have even been tortured in life, and yet they are called 'soulless' creatures.

I often wonder if this is true that abortionists are actually antiheroes after all, destroying unborn lives before they have the chance to commit sin and not repent and become followers? Perhaps abortionists sacrifice their own good in life to save those lives? Huh.


Anyways, I feel bad for saying weird stuff like that. But as a Christian who has steered away of denominational Christian faith, there's a lot that seems very, very off about the beliefs that are held.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 22, 2017)

I always regret sticking my nose into stuff like this since I'm very ignorant of the subject at hand, so that's good to know I can put that zinger to bed and never flaunt it callously again. What about LBGT people?

Edit: I want to make the context clear that I'm not challenging you to make any sort of defense as a result of what I just asked you. I'm more or less pointing out what you have already, which is there's some questionable aspects about the religion that as a modern tolerant person, it might not make a suitable choice as a way to live your life. Or it might... who's to say?


----------



## Junkerfox (Sep 22, 2017)

Yes. Im a Christian so...God.


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 22, 2017)

I'm on of the Christians here, so yes. There are a few more online than I thought there were, but still not many. 


About the hell thing up there,  the popular conception of it isn't quite right. That's partially the fault of Christians for not tackling it, and partially because it lines up with the human idea of justice. Without going into it too far, we put murderers tax cheats in the same place and never think twice. God isn't like that, the nature of your vices isn't the concern and he's not going for some kind of retribution. And unlike us, he forgives freely. About Nihilism, it can be empowering, but it has no innate meaning because it also removes all of the constraints. Meaning you can put in or take out anything you want. No one would you that kind of thinking for anything but philosophy.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Sep 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> I always regret sticking my nose into stuff like this since I'm very ignorant of the subject at hand, so that's good to know I can put that zinger to bed and never flaunt it callously again. What about LBGT people?



Yeah, that one varies by denomination. As far as most bible believing Christians are concerned (as in, taking everything from it somehow but leaving some things out?) It's in clear wording that "homosexuality is an abomination" ergo, a sin. That already says enough to most people, even though they miss the parts that say women must wear headdresses? (I've been in a bible study where the girls just conveniently skipped over that and said "well, that doesnt apply to us", ??) I mean, seems people have difficulty discerning context of the writing from the actual writing.

I honestly think that many parts of it were written in the context of people in that culture. I think a lot of Christians do acknowledge that aspect and use the bible in ways that reflect their understanding of what we know in the world, and what parts of scripture are called by God in how we act and serve in day to day life.

Seems like this is a vast majority though, so it's hard to discern who interprets it how, you just have to take it on a case by case and judge the individual believer


----------



## Akartoshi (Sep 22, 2017)

My parents had two different religions: Buddhism and Christianity.
I grew up with Sharia law.
Schools forced me to learn about islam, and parents made me spend 30 minutes studying religion.
IE, had a LOT of reading to do XD

Here's my assumption:
Some form of god probably exists. However, all these religions have tried to reach him in their own ways. If you think about it, man has written the holy books. Mankind isn't perfect, though.

I assume that mankind has tried to make their ideal pure god. But at the end of the day, as man has written all these holy books, "god" is just the ideal pureness for a group of people.

But I assume god is much different, nothing that can be weighed and written down to follow in prevention of eternal evil ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, not too sure about evolution, though I really didn't learn much about it.
dun hate me plox


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Sep 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Well I try not to tell people what to think or do. You're being pretty rude right now while at the same time missing my point completely. I wasn't conpletely familiar with the theory and I wasn't even invested in the post enough to look up what the theory was called. I just wanted to mention the concept to Saiko since he seems interested in that sort of thing. I don't think it was really necessary for you to try and invalidate a comment when it wasn't presented as fact or even an opinion for that matter.


Just a nitpick on terminology. Predestination encompasses the theological understanding of determinism.


> You could argue the former doesn't exist due to the latter if you really want to get into it; which I really don't for lack of enthusiasm for the topic. (probability being the former and determinism being the latter.)


Which misses my point in turn. There is, empirically, nothing deterministic nor random about our universe.


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 22, 2017)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> It's in clear wording that "homosexuality is an abomination" ergo, a sin. That already says enough to most people, even though they miss the parts that say women must wear headdresses? (I've been in a bible study where the girls just conveniently skipped over that and said "well, that doesnt apply to us", ??)...
> 
> I honestly think that many parts of it were written in the context of people in that culture.



I don't mean to keep poking, but its one of the few things I'm read on. So I will dissolve back into the background after this. 

About the headresses, there was a Greek custom at the time that women were supposed to follow. It's still around elsewhere and going without them would be scandellous. Paul's point was that Christians aren't supposed to suddenly start overturning society. He uses the same reasoning elsewhere.

For the other, we have it from Philo of Alexandria that the OT reference was pointed to a kind of temple prostitution. He makes a better case than I can, and it makes more sense for the one reference there is in the NT. Wycliffe had no idea how to translate a rare word like that (It's a compound that means literally man-bed) so the King James translation ended up with a reasonable guess.

There's no list of laws anymore, which is good because English is a terrible language to write laws in. And since I've taken this off topic, I go.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 22, 2017)

@ChapterAquila92  Fair nuff' lol

I just didn't want to be shot down before I even decided to try to become a pilot.


----------



## Saiko (Sep 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Saiko, have you ever heard of the theory which from the moment of the big bang based on the consistent universal behaviour of matter, everything right down to your percieved free will and even random thoughts in your head were predetermined to happen because the laws of physics (as they are, not as we hypothesize they are) are infallable and can not allow any other possibility? IE even the simplest act of will regardless of how much you think you willed it (even me typing this to tell you about it) was destined to happen. It couldn't physically happen another way or the laws of physics must not be universal.
> 
> This is a messy dang post. (Split attention and furious touch screen tapping while at work) I don't know if I subscribe to that theory, but it's really interesting because it's  mathematically sound.


Yeah, I was quite interested in that idea until I learned how quantum mechanics works. "Unfortunately" that pretty thoroughly nuked determinism as a fundamental principle. That being said, randomness does not imply free will. It just gives the discussion some more wiggle room, and you could still just as reasonably reduce free will to an illusion. The main difference would be that your decisions now occur randomly rather than deterministically. Instead of gaining agency, you lose a minuscule amount of predictability.


----------



## Dongding (Sep 22, 2017)

I like stuff like that though. I don't put much stock into it since the tangible is immeasurably more relevant to a person's success in life than what is or isn't provably existential. It's fun to think about though.

Reminds me of the first time I watched the Matrix.


----------



## Saiko (Sep 22, 2017)

jtrekkie said:


> About Nihilism, it can be empowering, but it has no innate meaning because it also removes all of the constraints. Meaning you can put in or take out anything you want. No one would you that kind of thinking for anything but philosophy.


You're right. It certainly doesn't have much utility in most practical contexts because in isolation it undermines morality and renders all decisions meaningless. You could probably argue very effectively that it has no practical utility by itself at all just like you would solipsism. However, it certainly arises naturally from atheism. And just like a theist might worry about their salvation or the equivalent, an atheist my worry about their value as an individual. (And each of these concerns also might prevent them from honestly considering the other worldview.)

What I've presented is my personal solution to that problem - an intuitive way that I can take nihilistic concerns and incorporate them into a healthy and reasonably consistent paradigm. It thus becomes useful to the individual for maintaining mental health and, as I think I'm doing now, for constructing a respectable presentation of aspects of atheism that might bother a theist.


----------



## Pipistrele (Sep 22, 2017)

But do we need God when we have guy with power of one?


----------



## Dongding (Sep 22, 2017)

If we don't, I'm not going to be the one to tell that guy...


----------



## Frank Patel (Sep 23, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> But do we need God when we have guy with power of one?


Lol. I personally believe that there's God somewhere, still alive and watching. Religion is just human's creation. Their own imagination/description about God and His rules.


----------



## Sarachaga (Sep 23, 2017)

I don't believe in God. I find the idea of a god quite entertaining but I don't see why he/she/it would need humans to worship him.


----------



## ACaracalFromWork (Sep 23, 2017)

Hello i'm a christian as well

I see poeple are talking about sin and maybe I can help on this subject
the thefreedictionary says it pretty well
definition of sin is "*Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.*"

I were God I would smite those who broke my rules why would I allow a tiny creature corrupt my whole universe and step on my rules
and allow them to insult my name!? because they don't like how I run things!? Im God I own everything you listen to me, why should I bring you into heaven and be in my presence
after you broke my rules your heart is blackened by sin you have done wrong against me and to others me and you have taken my enemy's offers why should I allow you to sit and laugh
with me and my holy poeple when you are not holy.
you traitor be gone!

but our GOD is my view God of justice and love and creator of all things
so if you put *love and in front of justice you have mercy* this is why God sent down his only son Jesus to save us from our sins for
his love for us is so great he wants you to be holy and be home with him one day.

*sin is breaking God's rules* therefore you are marked as a traitor and a rebel against God
you would rather enjoy the enemy's delights than to be with a being who created the universe and all his wonders.

if you say, should a man be punished and sent to hell because he stole a piece of bread.
if says in the bible thou shalt not steal in the ten commandments so you rather steal bread and break God's rules 
then to pray and ask for his help* do you have no faith!* does it not say in the bible you are more important than the birds!?
you would rather choose to bread over God!

Matthew 6:25-26 NIV
*25* “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?
*26* Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

Then you ask how does a man get into heaven after he has sinned and done have such a terrible thing against God

Romans 10:13 NIV says
*for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."*
Jesus already paid the price for your all sins with his blood you just need to accept him it's a free invitation to heaven just take it, it's yours!
because you are so loved.

I hope this helps have a wonderful day everyone.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Sep 23, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> But do we need God when we have guy with power of one?



I have now passed that clip on to many others, just to see their reactions.


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Sep 23, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> I have now passed that clip on to many others, just to see their reactions.


Oh boy, there's far more gold than that in them thar hills. Hell if i can remember the channel but that old man has hours of WTF material.


----------



## sbm1990 (Oct 1, 2017)

I believe in a personal heaven being run by a higher power that I would call God. Take that however you wish.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Oct 3, 2017)

Like Balaam's ass, I do.


----------



## Simo (Oct 4, 2017)

I'm starting a church where we worship Randy Newman. I'm the leader, and worshipers are to listen to his 'serious' albums, and also, buy me a Steinway full concert grand piano, so I can play his stuff on it, and be the next incarnation.






"Cain slew Abel, Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

Man means nothing, he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said

I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind..."


----------



## RivendellWolf (Oct 4, 2017)

I've studied many of the major religions and have personally concluded that none of them offer a viable explanation of the origins of man and the universe. I won't go as far as to call myself an atheist, though. Areligious would be more accurate. I can see the possibility of an organizing force in the universe that we don't understand yet, but then once we understood the science behind that, it wouldn't really be a supreme being anymore. I don't buy the idea of a supreme being that watches and judges us. I have lots of respect for those who believe, as long as their beliefs don't harm others.


----------



## StolenMadWolf (Oct 5, 2017)

I'm an athiest. I don't believe in some higher being or anything like that. We make ourselves what we are I guess.

I'm perfectly fine with people who are religious as long as they are not harming others because of their beliefs.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 5, 2017)

Predeterminism is much easier for me to swallow.


----------



## Pipistrele (Oct 5, 2017)

ACaracalFromWork said:


> Romans 10:13 NIV says
> *for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."*
> Jesus already paid the price for your all sins with his blood you just need to accept him it's a free invitation to heaven just take it, it's yours!
> because you are so loved.
> ...


So, I can murder and mutilate all day long, but I'll be forgiven as long as I call on the name of the Lord? That's a useful loophole indeed .u.


----------



## Shoiyo (Oct 5, 2017)

I like to think that if there is a God, we as human beings could never understand, comprehend, or even come close to grasping the mind and intentions of an almighty life form. Thus, all religion is wrong. 

Really, all you need to do is live life with a simple rule: Don't be a douchebag.


----------



## Ki3thrz (Oct 5, 2017)

Growing up, I never gave any thought to God. Kind of a "can't see it, so I don't care about it" type of thing. To the dismay of my family, I ended up Athiest. I discovered Reiki a few years later, and decided to learn that. Though, the teacher I learned from is a devout Christian, as with the rest of her students. My mind figured "Hmm, there must be something to it then." For a while I believed that a higher power is what allowed Reiki to even be possible, but those thoughts came to an end. I'm open to the possibility of any gods or goddesses existing.

I consider myself agnostic. If I think of God, it's just in terms of anything that exists. The stars are god. The earth is god. My house is god. I'm god. You're god. God's nothing special, really.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 5, 2017)

God is my rock and my fortress, in Him do I put my trust. I am unashamed to be a Christian furry, and I am most willing to sacrifice anything for the One who gave Himself for me.


----------



## creamlapine (Oct 5, 2017)

Nope, unfortunately I don't believe at all. Not since the nicest two people I knew in the world passed away yet the worst people I have ever known are still around.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 5, 2017)

creamlapine said:


> Nope, unfortunately I don't believe at all. Not since the nicest two people I knew in the world passed away yet the worst people I have ever known are still around.



Memento Mori


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 6, 2017)

Not at all, and whenever I start to experience superstitious feelings, I suppress them in a heartbeat.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 6, 2017)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Not at all, and whenever I start to experience superstitious feelings, I suppress them in a heartbeat.


While I am an Apatheist myself (A person who doesn't give a damn if there's gods or not), I don't think it's the greatest of ideas to suppress feelings. I feel like you should investigate your feelings.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 6, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> God is my rock and my fortress, in Him do I put my trust. I am unashamed to be a Christian furry, and I am most willing to sacrifice anything for the One who gave Himself for me.


There is no shame in having beliefs and being proud of them, bro.

I am an Atheist myself, but Jesus was a pretty chill dude. Crack opens rocks and boom, orange juice. Turning water into wine. He'd be a blast at parties!


----------



## Huluvoo (Oct 9, 2017)

I didn't grow up in a religious household, my mum is a believer but my dad isn't, and my sister and I ended up following our dad, because the bible makes absolutely no sense. I hated having to sit through high school and learn about gospels, I thought it was the biggest waste of time. Why did I _need_ to learn about the bible, what good was it going to do me in the future? Not a lot, apparently.

Do I believe in God? No, and I don't have any faith in a higher power or anything. I'm an atheist, but I do like the belief of reincarnation.


----------



## Storm38 (Oct 9, 2017)

I'm agnostic so I don't really believe in god.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 9, 2017)

Huluvoo said:


> I didn't grow up in a religious household, my mum is a believer but my dad isn't, and my sister and I ended up following our dad, because the bible makes absolutely no sense. I hated having to sit through high school and learn about gospels, I thought it was the biggest waste of time. Why did I _need_ to learn about the bible, what good was it going to do me in the future? Not a lot, apparently.
> 
> Do I believe in God? No, and I don't have any faith in a higher power or anything. I'm an atheist, but I do like the belief of reincarnation.


You can be spiritual without being religious and vice versa. It would depend on your outlook on life in general, really. 

The afterlife is a mystery because we don't know. I hope we never get the answer, either. I want it to forever be a mystery, so people can be free to believe or refrain from believing as they please.


----------



## AustinB (Oct 9, 2017)

I'm gay so either way, I'm going to hell. See you guys in the lava hot tub!


----------



## Shoiyo (Oct 9, 2017)

AustinB said:


> I'm gay so either way, I'm going to hell. See you guys in the lava hot tub!


Make sure you come over to the floating bar. I hear they have the best Mojitos in all the underworld.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 9, 2017)

AustinB said:


> I'm gay so either way, I'm going to hell. See you guys in the lava hot tub!



If there is one, I assure you, your orientation deserves a halo compared to my actions.  

I set the WiFi password down there already, they just haven't found a way to kill me yet.


----------



## Ki3thrz (Oct 10, 2017)

They say in Heaven you rejoin with all of your loved ones. All of my loved ones are going to Hell. I guess Hell is my Heaven.


----------



## Hauptmann Meade (Oct 10, 2017)

As a great Winston Churchhill once said:

I am ready to meet my maker. Whether or not my maker is ready to meet me is another matter.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 10, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> If there is one, I assure you, your orientation deserves a halo compared to my actions.
> 
> I set the WiFi password down there already, they just haven't found a way to kill me yet.


My grandmother's down there. It couldn't get any worse, trust me.

She's probably screaming incoherent and random crap at all the small/young demons running about, even grabbing some of them and giving them a good random spanking. Because nothing is better than lunatics giving you crap simply for existing. 

I hope she makes Stan's life a literal living hell. :3

I just don't hope Stan eats her pies. Not even Stan deserve that..


----------



## Beatle9 (Oct 11, 2017)

While I am not overtly religious, I do believe in a higher power and I am a moderate catholic. Though I'm a bit of a cynical religious person, if God/the higher power is still out there, he's pretty damn disgusted with those who claim to be his followers, committing despicable acts in his name. But I don't think God has completely abandoned us, I believe he occasionally shines good fortune on those who actually follow the teachings of religious figures such as Jesus; giving aid to the powerless, loving thy neighbor, speaking out against inequality, etc. But overall I think God has grown apathetic about his creation, I feel like at one point he just looked down and said "I made a horrible mistake" and just left us to our own self destruction. Some might say that's heartless, but with the stuff I've seen from humanity lately, I think it's pretty realistic.

Might be a bit of a downer but I can only offer these lyrics from an old song:
_
Jesus doesn't live here anymore.
We've looked everywhere, we need him like before.
Look inside yourself, you will find,
Why Jesus doesn't live here anymore.
_
But as cynical as I sound in this post, I still have faith, even if I'm not overt about it. Some days my faith isn't always strong, but it's always there, sometimes in the back of my mind, but there. As I said, even though I feel God has become apathetic about humanity overall, I think he sometimes takes another glance and sees some of the kindness that still exists at times.


----------



## Lei-Lani (Oct 13, 2017)

God. or whomever is really behind our existence, itself exists. What the real question should be is - what is it? You couldn't convince me in a million years that we weren't designed somehow, or that the creatures that walk the Earth, or the flora and fauna of the oceans and lands just materialized somehow through science, matter make-up, moleculization, or whatever. I just personally don't believe it's possible. Nothing as complex, as intelligently created, as meticulously planned out as the human body, or the animal body, or the body of a tree, or a fish, etc. can just be explained away as simply as "oh, it started out as elements, chemical compounds, etc. etc., and there you go, you have life." Science, or what I know of it, tells me it's impossible - not without a LOT of help. *^^*

And that then raises two very interesting possibilities. That a) existence doesn't "exist" - that we are actually all in this hallucinogenic, multi-lateral universe where everything from the air we breathe, to the food we eat, to the - well, you know, how the Matrix is, like that, but maybe not as sinister. ^^ or b) Earth is not our first home.

Remember all that stuff about the Garden of Eden, and how God showed them out of the garden (once they did the stupid and ate the apple) by way of an angel with a flaming sword? (supposedly)

Was this the Bible's funny, vague way of saying they left the planet?

Also something else to think about. If we WERE someplace else first, that would explain mankind's ability to create the millions of inventions it has, cars, planes, space travel, computers and so on.

Because maybe we've invented them before - just not on Earth. *^^*

My two cents, anyway. Or four.


----------



## henry_is_a_stupid_golf (Oct 16, 2017)

No. It is possible but i won't stress myself over it unless there's some proof.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 17, 2017)

Yes.  I'm a Bible-believing Christian, which at first glance may seem at odds with my identity as a furry.  However, I believe the tenant of doing onto others as you'd have them do onto you transcends faiths, cultures and applies even here. I judge no one but myself. As for loving God with all my heart, soul and mind and putting all of that into practice by living a holy life... I believe that all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.  God knows I've earned my one-way ticket to Hell many times.  I believe it is only by the blood of Christ that anyone can be saved, and that He shed His blood on the cross because he loves us all even in the depth of our sins.  I do the best I can but I know I fall short of God's perfection.  It's only by the love and grace of God that I have hope.  

I know these beliefs aren't popular.  Today's culture preaches a moral relativism and to say that sin (of any variety) exists is akin to heresy.  No matter.  God is my judge; no one else is.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 17, 2017)

Lei-Lani said:


> or that the creatures that walk the Earth, or the flora and fauna of the oceans and lands just materialized somehow through science, matter make-up, moleculization, or whatever.



I don't know of anyone that is legitimately saying life came about 'poof' out of nowhere like that.  None of the modern likely theories proposes anything that unsupported.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 17, 2017)

Lei-Lani said:


> God. or whomever is really behind our existence, itself exists. What the real question should be is - what is it? You couldn't convince me in a million years that we weren't designed somehow, or that the creatures that walk the Earth, or the flora and fauna of the oceans and lands just materialized somehow through science, matter make-up, moleculization, or whatever. I just personally don't believe it's possible. Nothing as complex, as intelligently created, as meticulously planned out as the human body, or the animal body, or the body of a tree, or a fish, etc. can just be explained away as simply as "oh, it started out as elements, chemical compounds, etc. etc., and there you go, you have life." Science, or what I know of it, tells me it's impossible - not without a LOT of help. *^^*
> 
> And that then raises two very interesting possibilities. That a) existence doesn't "exist" - that we are actually all in this hallucinogenic, multi-lateral universe where everything from the air we breathe, to the food we eat, to the - well, you know, how the Matrix is, like that, but maybe not as sinister. ^^ or b) Earth is not our first home.
> 
> ...


Actually, there is a way that you can create things out of nothing, quantum physics. There are also countless of other theories explaining it, but of course, it is not easy to prove these theories. Theories are to be expanded on, or challenged, but theories are not invalidated because it isn't proven. Obviously, this goes both ways, meaning that a god's existence may or may not exist.

As for it being very complicated, I agree on you with that. Life is a very intricate and unfathomable thing. However, if you think about it, what says that it isn't possible naturally? Say that we are a 1/1000000 chance, right? In that case, look around. Do you see any other life forms? None yet. I think that we just happened to have the right planet and structure, and we slowly evolved to adapt to it. This is why we were lucky, and nobody else was. We just had the right circumstances, and adapted to it. We are that 1/10000000 chance.

Also, I do not think that God would have placed us in another planet. I don't really know too much about the bible, I was originally Islamic, but I am pretty sure they kicked them out of the garden and made them walk before they arrived somewhere in the fertile crescent. I think that the bible would have mentioned it if they actually had left another planet.

Not too sure what you mean by it explains how mankind would have created everything? These inventions were independent, had no influence by other planets? I didn't really understand what you meant lol Anyways, interesting theories.


----------



## Topaz-Timber-Wolf (Oct 17, 2017)

With all due respect to religions, I believe that the only higher power is the universe itself. We know nothing of what is out there, and it is always moving and changing. Basically I believe in science.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 18, 2017)

Jesus Christ is Lord. He was born; flesh and blood like you and I, lived like you and I, died like we all will one day and rose again like everyone will (some to glory and others to everlasting punishment) to pay the price for everyone's sin. For the living and the dead. And because Jesus is God, his atonement is all-encompassing- for men, women, children, and the rest of creation. Whether people accept that fact is up to them. 

Weigh your options. Think carefully about this question. It's that important.

God loves humanity so much that He gave up His Son for us-  through him we have a chance to be welcomed into Heaven. Obeying God (i.e., loving Him) and His Son (which is not hard at all, just crack open a bible and read the sermon on the mount and His parables and put His Word into practice, while praying to God for His Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth... to be Counselor and Comforter to you in these perilous times) and loving one's neighbor as oneself... it's the only way to be welcomed into Heaven as a friend of God. 

You'd be surprised how different the Jesus of the Gospels is from the so-called "Christians" of today. These people, political conservatives, republicans... many are not genuinely Christian. They're counterfeits, they are nominal Christians. They don't know God and don't put His words into practice. 

And I know they are, because I was once one of them. Judgemental, erroneous... I was sinful. And I am still not without sin, but I am justified by obeying God, listening and trying to do what His Son says, His will, the best I can, as much as I can. 

His Holy Spirit guides my own.

So instead of cruel, merciless human judgement, God tells His people to judge with right judgement. To better others by telling the truth, all Truth... 

Therefore: the "Christians" I spoke of before have no idea they're in for a grave surprise at the Judgement. They have not changed by obeying God or loving their neighbors. They are not Christian.

As some of you know already...
Many will say, "Lord, Lord..." 
But Jesus will say, "Depart from me, you workers of iniquity".

* * *

Fun Facts: Do you know even animals will be judged at the Judgement (Genesis 9:4-5)? And that God also loves animals (Proverbs 12:10)?

Awesome.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 18, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Jesus Christ is Lord. He was born; flesh and blood like you and I, lived like you and I, died like we all will one day and rose again like everyone will (some to glory and others to everlasting punishment) to pay the price for everyone's sin. For the living and the dead. And because Jesus is God, his atonement is all-encompassing- for men, women, children, and the rest of creation. Whether people accept that fact is up to them.
> 
> Weigh your options. Think carefully about this question. It's that important.
> 
> ...


I understand, but this is a very common argument that Christians use. What exactly defines people who are Christians and not? I mean, there isn't really a fine line, and for the most part, people who say they are Christians in public generally are. Using this argument basically allows Christians to have a grey area, thus using the excuse "He's not a true Christian" to justify Christianity and others.
For example:
"(person) just said to condemn ___ in the name of god!"
"Wait, (person) is not a _true _Christian!"
You see what I mean? These "nominal" christians you speak of may be so for you, to save image, but genuinely, they say they are, and think they are. It's very hard to justify it because of that grey area.

I would say more, but I don't want to offend other people's opinions, and I will respect your decisions. I will allow you to make your own decisions, as you I, but I don't think it's a good idea to tell others what decisions to make or to judge other Christians as unworthy. After all, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Are you deciding the fate of these people? Or is your God? It looks to me like you are...


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 18, 2017)

This is kinda getting unsettling....


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 18, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> This is kinda getting unsettling....



There's nothing taking place that's against the rules.  It's a thread centered around people talking about religious beliefs.  It's no surprise the core subject comes up.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 18, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> There's nothing taking place that's against the rules.  It's a thread centered around people talking about religious beliefs.  It's no surprise the core subject comes up.


Oh, I know. No worries.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 18, 2017)

We are nihilists, we believe in nothing Lebowski!


----------



## Telnac (Oct 18, 2017)

I try to separate my political beliefs from my faith. As a Christian, I can understand that God's standards are quite different than the standards of modern society. As such, I can also understand the desire to change society's laws to be more in line with Biblical law. 

*However*, isn't it that exact law that the Bible says we all fall short on?  If we were to implement Biblical law as society's law we'd *all* be in jail!

Not only that, but whose interpretation of the Bible's laws should we use?  What if I think that drinking in moderation is perfectly OK but someone else says that it's sinful and should be banned?  History may not be my strongest subject but I seem to remember we tried that in the USA and it didn't turn out so well...

Furthermore, Christianity isn't the only belief system around.  How would conservative Christians like it if we put into place a strict interpretstion of Sharia?

That's why I lean toward libertarianism. Keep most things legal and make laws only as necessary to keep us free and protect us from harm.  Finding exactly where the balance lies between freedom & safety is why we have free speech and political debate.  

As I said before, God is my judge. Who am I to judge someone else?  I may disagree with them, and maybe even vehemently so! But it is for God to judge, not I.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 19, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> I understand, but this is a very common argument that Christians use. What exactly defines people who are Christians and not? I mean, there isn't really a fine line, and for the most part, people who say they are Christians in public generally are. Using this argument basically allows Christians to have a grey area, thus using the excuse "He's not a true Christian" to justify Christianity and others.
> For example:
> "(person) just said to condemn ___ in the name of god!"
> "Wait, (person) is not a _true _Christian!"
> ...



It seems you're insinuating I am a hypocrite (I don't know without hearing your tone or inflection), but a person who isn't in regular contact with me can't observe or judge my aggregate behavior on and offline. And you have judged by saying, "I don't think it's a good idea to tell others what decisions to make or to judge other Christians as unworthy."

* * *

God tells us to judge with right judgement, especially among those who profess to be Christian. This may seem contradictory, but it's not.

Even those who don't believe often judge with right judgment by correctly comparing Jesus to his would-be disciples of the modern day. A person, any person, can determine whether a person is truly in the faith by knowing what the faith teaches and comparing it to what people who profess do. Bill Maher does this frequently- very well in fact, with his satire. He observes all of the televised and un-televised behavior of those he satirizes and draws conclusions. And for many, there's A LOT.

Moving on, do people who claim to be Christian endeavor to stop sinning with God's help, e.g., thieving, lying... Are they still drunks, raging, murderous, lack forgiveness, self-sacrifice, and respect for their fellow man after being "saved"? Do they do these things without remorse? Many are this way. Many run others roughshod without pity or conscience. But by telling the truth about God, you are loving your neighbor, by helping others even if you are an "enemy" (As told in the Parable of the Good Samaritan) you are loving your neighbor. By putting others ahead of yourself, sacrificing your time, pride, money, energy, and even your life for them... this is loving your neighbor. Some "Christians" do not do these things and don't care, like my father who I CAN observe every day. We are in physical proximity to each other and he is a very violent man.

Do I practice what Jesus preaches? I try and do, but a person here would have no way of knowing without meeting me and seeing what I do personally in my day to day life. Every day is an uphill battle against human nature, my own and that of others. When someone wrongs me and I am upset, if I recognize that or remember that (to the best of my ability)... I forgive others and ask their forgiveness so my Father in Heaven forgives me. I would and do treat them kindly, even if I dislike doing it.

I am endeavoring to carry my cross every day. Loving others by telling the truth about my faith and living out what it says.

So, if a person persists in horrible behavior... even if they attend church every Sunday... if the words go in one ear and come out the other- if they do not do the things in the Word, take Jesus at his word and do it... they are not and have never been Christians. This is right judgement.

I could quote pertinent Scripture to support this truth about Christianity, but a Google search is easy enough for anyone to do. That is, unless you want me to do it! It doesn't matter which translation, these are cores beliefs of Christianity.

I also did not write what decision anyone should make or think. I was describing what the tenants of my faith are, in the following, ""Obeying God (i.e., loving Him) and His Son (which is not hard at all, just crack open a bible and read the sermon on the mount and His parables and put His Word into practice, while praying to God for His Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth... to be Counselor and Comforter to you in these perilous times) and loving one's neighbor as oneself... it's the only way to be welcomed into Heaven as a friend of God".

I did write the following, "Weigh your options. Think carefully about this question. It's that important".

It was a suggestion.

Thanks for bringing this up! It's a great conversation to have, I think.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> It seems you're insinuating I am a hypocrite.



I can't speak for him but I gathered he was trying to warn you about judging others of the faith when Christ instructs us to judge no one.



AshtheDragon said:


> By putting others ahead of yourself, sacrificing your time, pride, money, energy, and even your life for them... this is loving your neighbor. Some "Christians" do not do these things and don't care, like my father who I CAN observe every day.


It breaks my heart to hear that your father doesn't do these things. As Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:10 "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."  However, I ask that you don't judge all conservative Christians by your father's deeds. I consider myself fiscally conservative in that I believe in a small government (socially is a different subject, but we can discuss that later!)

However I do my best to balance this with generous giving in accordance to God's own commands. A large government takes such a choice away from everyone, and as such giving is no longer an act of faith but of obligation to civil authority, thus robbing it of the power of God.

Lastly, I hope that whatever wrong your father has done that you can forgive him.  If there is something you would rather discuss in a PM, please feel free do so.


----------



## maryxmelody (Oct 19, 2017)

I do, I believe in God and Jesus. Which also means, I believe in the devil.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 19, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I can't speak for him but I gathered he was trying to warn you about judging others of the faith when Christ instructs us to judge no one.
> 
> It breaks my heart to hear that your father doesn't do these things. As Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:10 "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."  However, I ask that you don't judge all conservative Christians by your father's deeds. I consider myself fiscally conservative in that I believe in a small government (socially is a different subject, but we can discuss that later!)
> 
> ...



I understand.

And no no, I meant giving generously, expecting nothing in return. Not out of obligation from government authorities or anything like that.

About my father, sure. Lord willing, we can discuss it sometime later today if you want.


----------



## PaintedMica (Oct 19, 2017)

Started as a Catholic, ended as an Atheist. Started as an Atheist, ended up believing in Odin. Weird transition, I know.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2017)

PaintedMica said:


> Started as a Catholic, ended as an Atheist. Started as an Atheist, ended up believing in Odin. Weird transition, I know.


My path to faith went through some interesting twists too. I was born/raised Atheist but personal experiences convinced me the supernatural realm was real so I looked into Catholicism and Satanism before I settled on Paganism, which I followed for many years. I eventually accepted Christ in college.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 19, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> It seems you're insinuating I am a hypocrite (I don't know without hearing your tone or inflection), but a person who isn't in regular contact with me can't observe or judge my aggregate behavior on and offline. And you have judged by saying, "I don't think it's a good idea to tell others what decisions to make or to judge other Christians as unworthy."


Yes, I did find it interesting that someone talking about judgement is deciding punishments for other people. Yes, the bible does talk about righteous judgement, (but then again, the bible is full of contradictions and does also say to not judge others) however....



AshtheDragon said:


> You'd be surprised how different the Jesus of the Gospels is from the so-called "Christians" of today. These people, political conservatives, republicans... many are not genuinely Christian. They're counterfeits, they are nominal Christians. They don't know God and don't put His words into practice.


Wait a second? Aren't you judging others? You did say that 


AshtheDragon said:


> a person who isn't in regular contact with me can't observe or judge my aggregate behavior on and offline.


Right, so I know very little about you, which is correct, but I'm sure you know quite little about a very vague and large group of people who you call "Counterfeits." How is it that you can judge everyone of these people which you know little about? 

Also, you are all equal. Be it one sin or many sins, you are still the same. You are all sinners. The bible doesn't measure how good a person is, you don't get into heaven for doing good deads (that is islam!)

The problem with one person making decisions about how others are "untrue christians" which I had mentioned people have done, is it differs depending on everyone's definition. I could say you're not a Christian. I could say you're an ideal Christian. 

What this allows Christians to do, which I explained previously and was my main point, is to put a grey area on Christianity.

Back to your main point; Jesus supposedly did save many evil people, like when he died on the cross. He doesn't look at someone who as done evil and says "They are never Christian, never have been and never will be!" If you roll with that attitude, we're all going to hell lmao.

"He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone."


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 19, 2017)

I wanted to believe at one point.  I honestly tried.  My problem is I think into things way too much, and leads me to find odd angles, and therefore a multitude of questions people can't answer.  

I'll take one concept up for discussion, not for the sake of argument, but intelligent discussion only.  

The whole smearing animal blood all over your front door, to appease some other supernatural power. 

If I understand this part of the story correctly, this was some sort of punishment.  I already have an issue with animal sacrifice in general, but that's not my focus.  In order to save your first born, you have to selfishly kill an innocent for your own benefit, then spread its blood all over your front door.  That's a pretty barbaric act.  That's literally being self serving violence in of itself already.  On top of that it highly caters to the "wealthy" of the time, people who had that particular resource available.  What if you were poor?  Too bad, so sad, your screwed?  This doesn't bode well for the overall image of helping those in need.  If you didn't follow this "Do as I say or suffer" mentality, the victim is yet another innocent incapable of grasping any of it, who didn't have a choice in the matter in the slightest.  Hardly seems appropriate for the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2017)

As a Christian I believe all such blood sacrifices in the OT are a symbolic foreshadowing of the time when Christ's blood will purify us all. Hebrews chapter 9 talks extensively about this. 

As for the rich & the poor, Jewish law requires charity so I'd imagine neighbors who had plenty shared with those who could not afford to do this. Otherwise the number of Hebrews making the Exodus would be far smaller!


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 19, 2017)

In all honesty, all joking aside, I absolutely do not believe in god, I think if I did, I would hate him. I just can not fathom any sort of supreme being in the kind of world that we live in, with all the horrors and ugliness that we see on a daily basis, any sort of all knowing all loving deity would never let things like this happen.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 19, 2017)

Telnac said:


> As a Christian I believe all such blood sacrifices in the OT are a symbolic foreshadowing of the time when Christ's blood will purify us all. Hebrews chapter 9 talks extensively about this.



"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22)

I'm aware of that line.  Looks even worse when isolated.  Symbolic or not, it's still what it is.  Kill or be killed.



Telnac said:


> As for the rich & the poor, Jewish law requires charity so I'd imagine neighbors who had plenty shared with those who could not afford to do this. Otherwise the number of Hebrews making the Exodus would be far smaller!



It actually says the alternative is 2 doves, and poorer yet is grain, but I'll bite.  It was atonement for "own" sins.  Someone couldn't sacrifice for another. Even then, it baffles me why grain wasn't good enough for everyone, if everyone is equal.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> In all honesty, all joking aside, I absolutely do not believe in god, I think if I did, I would hate him. I just can not fathom any sort of supreme being in the kind of world that we live in, with all the horrors and ugliness that we see on a daily basis, any sort of all knowing all loving deity would never let things like this happen.


Fair enough. The problem of suffering is a big one that theists need to deal with. My view is two-fold. First, God gives us free will which means that we can choose to do evil, which often causes others to suffer. Second, this world is in a fallen state. That's why natural events such as diseases or didasters kill and cause suffering. The reason I have hope is that I believe the temporary suffering we experience now is nothing in comparison to the joy in store for us in the next life if you accept Christ. Romans chapter 8 talks a lot about this.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22)
> 
> I'm aware of that line.  Looks even worse when isolated.  Symbolic or not, it's still what it is.  Kill or be killed.



Sure it sounds even worse when you rip that ine verse out of context. The only shedding of blood that leads to the forgiveness of our sins is Christ's blood, which was shed once and does not need to be shed again. That's why Christians don't practice animal sacrifices. Christ's blood is the fulfillment of all of the OT sacrificial system. 



-..Legacy..- said:


> It actually says the alternative is 2 doves, and poorer yet is grain, but I'll bite.  It was atonement for "own" sins.  Someone couldn't sacrifice for another. Even then, it baffles me why grain wasn't good enough for everyone, if everyone is equal.


I'll take your word for it. I'm currently reading through the NT so it's been a while since I've read the Exodus story.  I do find it ironic that you made a point that this event favored the rich and now you bring the example that the system didn't favor the rich and you're still saying it's unfair. 

I won't try to refute the claim that blood sacrafice in the OT was barbaric. I disagree because I don't see much of a difference between slaughtering an animal for religious reasons & slaughtering an animal to eat it. However I know many ppl here think eating animal flesh is barbaric too. To that I just shrug say we just have to agree to disagree. I won't convince you and you won't convince me so further arguing about it would be pointless.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 19, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Sure it sounds even worse when you rip that ine verse out of context. The only shedding of blood that leads to the forgiveness of our sins is Christ's blood, which was shed once and does not need to be shed again. That's why Christians don't practice animal sacrifices. Christ's blood is the fulfillment of all of the OT sacrificial system.



I'm aware of the final offering as fulfillment.  You might be surprised to know I've read through most readily available religious texts.  "Sin Offerings" weren't a singular affair with my initial example though.  I remember reading about intentional and unintentional sins requiring certain blood offerings to gain forgiveness.  Leviticus and Exodus iirc.  Might have been something in Numbers as well. 



Telnac said:


> I'll take your word for it. I'm currently reading through the NT so it's been a while since I've read the Exodus story.  I do find it ironic that you made a point that this event favored the rich and now you bring the example that the system didn't favor the rich and you're still saying it's unfair.



I probably should have elaborated more regarding that in the first post.  My apologies for my habit of brain running faster than my fingers later at night.   

It was inclined to discuss how different classes were given different standards, when everyone is supposed to be equal in his eyes.   Wealthier people didn't give up as much as a poorer individual giving up a greater fraction of his belongings.  On the same thought, did they feel "lesser" for not being able to atone like the others? (Human nature is unwavering through time). 



Telnac said:


> I won't try to refute the claim that blood sacrafice in the OT was barbaric. I disagree because I don't see much of a difference between slaughtering an animal for religious reasons & slaughtering an animal to eat it. However I know many ppl here think eating animal flesh is barbaric too. To that I just shrug say we just have to agree to disagree. I won't convince you and you won't convince me so further arguing about it would be pointless.



I'm not even arguing.  I invited a discussion to hear another point of view (and did clarify I wasn't interested in arguing whatsoever) .  As I gain new information, the directions of my focus change to suit.  Don't take it personal, it's how I gain information.  I seen the text in one direction, and did clearly state I hadn't found an answer.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 19, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Sure it sounds even worse when you rip that ine verse out of context. The only shedding of blood that leads to the forgiveness of our sins is Christ's blood, which was shed once and does not need to be shed again.


The bible does say many other times to shed the blood of others, as well as to kill non believers.

Deuteronomy 17

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die..

Not convinced? Have another.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Too old testament for you? Fine, there are countless of orders to kill people in the new testament too!

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." Matthew 3:10
(I'd give more and more and more examples, but you get the point.)

Maybe it is not in sacrifice, but the bible generally commands very violent things.



Telnac said:


> I won't try to refute the claim that blood sacrafice in the OT was barbaric. I disagree because I don't see much of a difference between slaughtering an animal for religious reasons & slaughtering an animal to eat it. However I know many ppl here think eating animal flesh is barbaric too. To that I just shrug say we just have to agree to disagree. I won't convince you and you won't convince me so further arguing about it would be pointless.



The thing is, when you kill an animal, you actually use it and eat it, eating every part of it. At least, I do, but I'm not sure about others. Regardless, at least some part of the animal is consumed and actually used.

When you kill for sacrifice, you're brutally murdering an animal and letting the body lay on an altar. That's it. Nothing from it is used. It is like killing for sport.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2017)

It's impossible to adequately reply to two walls of text on my phone so I'm only going to hit a few of the main points.

Hebrews 9 clearly says that Christ's blood was the fulfillment of the entire OT sacrificial system.  Every. Single. Law.  It doesn't matter if the OT had a law that required you to sacrifice a different animal a dozen times in a day for the rest of your life. Christ's blood covers all of it.  There's no point quoting a billion OT laws at me to try to counter that. Hebrews is a NT text written well after Christ's death & resurrection. From the Christian perspective, NT trumps OT.

Christ's blood also covers for sins which have the penalty of death.  As a former witch & adulterer, I'm glad it does!

The NT passages you quoted are about the coming judgment of those who refuse God's salvation. Yeah, it's not pretty. Yeah, it's brutal. There's no point denying that; that's why it's called the 2nd death!

Yet God gives us all a choice. We can all avoid that and enter the coming paradise.  God doesn't want anyone to perish but at the same time all of us will face judgement.  There is no way to earn your way or buy your way into Heaven. Only those who have accepted Christ will be cleansed by His blood and will be found as blameless on Judgment Day. If you think that's horrible and unfair then there really is nothing more I can say.


----------



## Lunar Man (Oct 19, 2017)

I think that there are some beautiful things in the Bible. I'd love to believe in God, but it doesn't line up with my view of reality. In my eyes, while there are some beautiful concepts, it is simply too limiting.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 19, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Fair enough. The problem of suffering is a big one that theists need to deal with. My view is two-fold. First, God gives us free will which means that we can choose to do evil, which often causes others to suffer. Second, this world is in a fallen state. That's why natural events such as diseases or didasters kill and cause suffering. The reason I have hope is that I believe the temporary suffering we experience now is nothing in comparison to the joy in store for us in the next life if you accept Christ. Romans chapter 8 talks a lot about this.




I think ultimately religious debates have very little place in the fandom, honestly, if I knew for a fact god existed, I would worship the other guy... Man is the natural enemy of god. But to each their own opinion.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> I think ultimately religious debates have very little place in the fandom, honestly, if I knew for a fact god existed, I would worship the other guy... Man is the natural enemy of god. But to each their own opinion.


I don't mind a spirited debate now & then but yes, the fandom is far more about inclusion than anything else and that's what I like about it. That's why I'm keeping the debate in this thread.


----------



## Belatucadros (Oct 19, 2017)

I've never understood the Christian belief that we're "drowning in our sins," or that we're all going to hell because we're not perfect enough for God. We're human for goodness sake, we naturally make mistakes - that's how we learn. That's how all life learns. It's physically impossible to be perfect in life. Does God really expect us to never screw up in our entire lives? Not even once? I just don't buy it.

I personally can't imagine living a life being taught, and believing that I'm nothing but a worthless, sinful sack of shit. But that's just my opinion of course, I respect all beliefs because I have my own as well.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 20, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I don't mind a spirited debate now & then but yes, the fandom is far more about inclusion than anything else and that's what I like about it. That's why I'm keeping the debate in this thread.




Right, please don't misunderstand, I'm definitely not downing your beliefs. Just the idea of a god is mind boggling to me


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> It seems you're insinuating I am a hypocrite (I don't know without hearing your tone or inflection), but a person who isn't in regular contact with me can't observe or judge my aggregate behavior on and offline. And you have judged by saying, "I don't think it's a good idea to tell others what decisions to make or to judge other Christians as unworthy."



I didn't gather or feel that they were calling you a hypocrite.  Not at all.

I felt they were pointing out a very valid concern:  The question of how one particular sect/view of a religion can be shown to be 'right' when there are so many different denominations, all of which have similar or radically different views.  And most of them claim they are the one 'right' version.

And that is only concerning one particular religious umbrella (in this case Christianity).  There are many more other religions out there, and even more sects within those differing religions, many of which also declare through their own tenants and teachings, that they are the 'one' right religion.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Belatucadros said:


> I've never understood the Christian belief that we're "drowning in our sins," or that we're all going to hell because we're not perfect enough for God. We're human for goodness sake, we naturally make mistakes - that's how we learn. That's how all life learns. It's physically impossible to be perfect in life. Does God really expect us to never screw up in our entire lives? Not even once? I just don't buy it.
> 
> I personally can't imagine living a life being taught, and believing that I'm nothing but a worthless, sinful sack of shit. But that's just my opinion of course, I respect all beliefs because I have my own as well.



Belatucadros, 
We are not worthless to God. No one is. 

And this is very encouraging.

Allow me to explain...

If God describes Himself as humble AND becomes human like us- flesh and blood, then He truly is. If He endured torture at human hands and did not wipe out his opposition before, during, or afterward, then He is merciful. 

No one is perfect, you're right, but when you believe that God did these things... sins past, present, and future are forgiven so long as you genuinely ask God for His forgiveness. Again, if you ARE choked up about what you have done and have the desire to repent, you will be forgiven. If not, and if a person asks God to make it so they do have the desire, He will- kindly. At the same time, if you are not unforgiving of your fellow man in the present day, I really do believe God also forgives you. And by "you" I am speaking generally.

Some people aren't phased by the "possibility" of an eternity spent away from God. If they prefer that to heaven that's their right. Their prerogative. But people who act on the possibility by faith, people who believe that fact (and I do believe it's fact, not fiction), these people (who DO NOT attempt to work their way to heaven by doing good works... because believing something precedes acting on it AND doing something about it) they're NOT going to the hell Jesus describes. For that reason it shows just how valuable every human being is to God. Sin is worthy of death, but God makes a way out through His Son.

Therefore, we are not worthless, sinful sacks of excrement.

We are actually quite valuable to Him that we're worth His Son's life.


*Heads up, I can't respond to so many people at once. My inbox exploded and I feel bombarded and attacked. If anyone has any outstanding questions for me, please pm me so I can respond individually and easily without sifting through everything not directed at me.*


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> My inbox exploded and I feel bombarded and attacked.



If you feel anything that's been posted crosses the line into harassment then you are free to report it.  Staff want to see active and productive discussion, but not attack postings.

However, multiple people commenting on something or disagreeing is not attack or harassment.  It's just people stating their views, which is entirely encouraged as long as no rules are broken.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> If you feel anything that's been posted crosses the line into harassment then you are free to report it.  Staff want to see active and productive discussion, but not attack postings.
> 
> However, multiple people commenting on something or disagreeing is not attack or harassment.  It's just people stating their views, which is entirely encouraged as long as no rules are broken.



Thank you for clearing that up!


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

This is the universe's greatest mystery and paradox. That Christ, the most righteous One, would take our place, and love us for no conditioned reason but to make us His by grace; and Satan, the wicked one, the accuser, sees in us the only thing we deserve - condemnation.
The holy and just One gives us what we don't deserve so that the evil one cannot give us what we deserve.
There is no greater comfort in the world than to know I am a child of my own Creator who loved me so much He came in the flesh to suffer and die for me. And because of His resurrection, what He did freely for me on the cross gives me life. His death is my life. His righteousness is now mine, and my sin is now His.


----------



## Dongding (Oct 20, 2017)

This by far the trippiest thread on the forum if you don't practice a religion. No offense; but to a closed ear it sounds so cultish.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> This is the universe's greatest mystery and paradox. That Christ, the most righteous One, would take our place, and love us for no conditioned reason but to make us His by grace; and Satan, the wicked one, the accuser, sees in us the only thing we deserve - condemnation.
> The holy and just One gives us what we don't deserve so that the evil one cannot give us what we deserve.
> There is no greater comfort in the world than to know I am a child of my own Creator who loved me so much He came in the flesh to suffer and die for me. And because of His resurrection, what He did freely for me on the cross gives me life. His death is my life. His righteousness is now mine, and my sin is now His.



Yes!

I am wondering about the sin being His though. He became like sin for us and he dealt with it on the cross... but what do you mean exactly?


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Yes!
> 
> I am wondering about the sin being His though. He became like sin for us and he dealt with it on the cross... but what do you mean exactly?



He took our sin upon Himself and thus suffered the very wrath of God on our behalf. Our sins were upon His shoulders.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Dongding said:


> This by far the trippiest thread on the forum if you don't practice a religion. No offense; but to a closed ear it sounds so cultish.



Christianity or all faiths?


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Belatucadros,
> 
> *Heads up, I can't respond to so many people at once. My inbox exploded and I feel bombarded and attacked. If anyone has any outstanding questions for me, please pm me so I can respond individually and easily without sifting through everything not directed at me.*



I am open and free to answer any questions (to the best of my ability God willing) people have concerning the Christian faith.


----------



## Dongding (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Christianity or all faiths?


Well it's the religion thread so I didn't want to single out Christianity.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Well it's the religion thread so I didn't want to single out Christianity.



Most people do, but thanks? Haha

I have to second Felix here though, many would think the same about the furry fandom in general.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Right now I am writing a forum post about Christianity and sexuality in the fandom. That seems to be such a central thing here. It should take awhile.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 20, 2017)

Heads up, I was kinda blunt in my responses, but I do not mean to offend anyone. Excuse that.



Telnac said:


> It's impossible to adequately reply to two walls of text on my phone so I'm only going to hit a few of the main points.
> 
> Hebrews 9 clearly says that Christ's blood was the fulfillment of the entire OT sacrificial system.  Every. Single. Law.  It doesn't matter if the OT had a law that required you to sacrifice a different animal a dozen times in a day for the rest of your life. Christ's blood covers all of it.  There's no point quoting a billion OT laws at me to try to counter that. Hebrews is a NT text written well after Christ's death & resurrection. From the Christian perspective, NT trumps OT.
> 
> ...


The bible itself is very violent. That was my point. Even the new testament. Remember when Jesus flipped over church tables? Yeah. Why is it suprising that a person like that would ask for warfare?
There are actually a lot of verses about God ordering his followers to do wicked against non-believers. Most are in old, but there are one or two in NT.
Also, what even is the point of the old testament anyways? It's only used for a bit of build up. All Christians disregard it. Might as well be taken out imo.
By the way. Please, don't summaries every single reply with a restating of Gods will. You didn't need that last paragraph.



AshtheDragon said:


> Belatucadros,
> We are not worthless to God. No one is.



We are worthless to him unless we blindly follow him. (I don't mean that as an insult, we literally have to follow him with no evidence)



AshtheDragon said:


> My inbox exploded and I feel bombarded and attacked. If anyone has any outstanding questions for me, please pm me so I can respond individually and easily without sifting through everything not directed at me.


This thread, Ash, was about if somebody believes in god. The response is a yes or no question. Some people have done that, while others have decided to debate. If you're writing paragraphs and paragraphs, you can't not expect it to have responses. It happens that there are multiple people either challenging, agreeing or disagreeing with you. However, debating does not mean attacked. I myself might have started to show my annoyance to these posts in my responses, but nobody at all has ever talked bad about you specifically. I'd also say that not that many people have replied, around less than a page worth.

By the way, to all future posts, is it okay if you please don't capitalise every single "his?" We know who you're talking about. I mean, if you want to do it for a sign of respect, go ahead, but it becomes very hard to read for me, a non native english speaker


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Heads up, I was kinda blunt in my responses, but I do not mean to offend anyone. Excuse that.
> 
> 
> The bible itself is very violent. That was my point. Even the new testament. Remember when Jesus flipped over church tables? Yeah. Why is it suprising that a person like that would ask for warfare?
> ...



It is true, the Lord did command violent things against certain tribes and people, and yes - the Bible is full of violence. The reason for that is because God is perfectly just and able to do judge however He wishes, and by eternal decree He ordained whatsoever comes to pass to the end of His own glory. Why violence is a part of that we may never know, but we know based on His revelation that He is perfectly just and He alone has the right to command the taking of life as He pleases. God's will is indeed the best answer.
As for the OT, it is true, many Christians disregard it - and that to their own detriment. The Old Testament is very important, it shows us salvation history. The New Testament bases its theology off of Old Testament prophecy. It is impossible to understand much of the New Testament (especially Hebrews!) without a working knowledge of the Old Testament. This is why we have a 66 book cannon, not 27!



Akartoshi said:


> We are worthless to him unless we blindly follow him. (I don't mean that as an insult, we literally have to follow him with no evidence)



Yes, we are filthy and depraved wretches without the sovereign mercy of God through Christ alone. The unsaved are, as Jonathan Edwards put it, like spiders hanging over the pit of hell, ready to be dropped in! But this is what we deserve, we have all turned away, we have all broken God's perfect law. But only in Christ by faith are we set free!



Akartoshi said:


> I don't see why anyone would want to spend time with a person who killed the entire human race but eight people, killed many and tortured the people he loved.



Because this person, who is our Creator and the only source of holiness and goodness is the only one with divine right to do whatever He pleases with His own creation.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

I'm still wanting to start a church where we worship Randy Newman. He deserves more credit for his song-writing and musical brilliance, and there's so many worse things to worship. It'll help people learn empathy, nuance, and even to laugh a bit. As previously mentioned, I'll (of course) be the leader of said church, and will take Newman's place after he passes away, to carry on his musical traditions.

But to do this, I'll need a Steinway & Sons full concert grand piano. 

Thus, please send me $156,200. Oh, and a big enough place to play it, this apartment is too small.

I will thus save people from horrible music, and spread the wit and wisdom of Mr. Newman, for the next generation!






Hail Randy!


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

This I found very helpful.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 20, 2017)

Insofar as you can find a use for God in your life, I guess. Thus far, the fictitious entity, who is a paradox in itself, has yet to yield anything of long-lasting value to me that I couldn't already obtain by other means. You could argue that "God helps those who help themselves," but seeing as it begs the question of why I would need God's help if I can do the work myself, I see it as a futile exercise of vacuous rationale.

No, I am an apatheistic humanist. As much as I can fall back on my Catholic upbringing, I don't see the use of doing so beyond using it as a moral springboard; money and especially human rights are more rewarding as fictions than an anthropomorphized depiction of a force of nature, and I'm not convinced that said force of nature has any degree of intelligence or empathy behind it.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> The bible itself is very violent. That was my point. Even the new testament.



I never claimed the Bible isn't violent. It's the story of God's relationship with humanity. That's a rocky relationship to say the least!  The Bible says it like it is, warts and all. 



Akartoshi said:


> Also, what even is the point of the old testament anyways? It's only used for a bit of build up. All Christians disregard it. Might as well be taken out imo.



The OT law may be fulfilled by the blood of Christ but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the centuries of history, wisdom, songs, prophecy and stories of righteous people struggling to serve God and the acts of those who fought God.  It puts the NT in the proper context. Any Christian who ignores the OT does themself a great disservice. 


Akartoshi said:


> By the way. Please, don't summaries every single reply with a restating of Gods will. You didn't need that last paragraph.



Uh... no. That last paragraph was the most important part of what I wrote. It's a paraphrasing of the Gospel itself. It's the foundation for what I believe. It's why I have hope, and why there is still hope for those who don't yet have a relationship with God. God's salvation is the very essence of God's love, not just love for those who already believe but love even for those who don't yet believe. 

Duscussing the violence of God's judgement without also discussing God's love and salvation is telling only half of the story and does a disservice to God Himself. So no, I will not be silent when discussing God's will, God's love or God's salvation. 



Akartoshi said:


> By the way, to all future posts, is it okay if you please don't capitalise every single "his?" We know who you're talking about. I mean, if you want to do it for a sign of respect, go ahead, but it becomes very hard to read for me, a non native english speaker



It's not just an issue of respect. I was taught that it's appropriate to capitalize references to God because it is considered inappropriate (and to some believers outright sinful) to use His actual name. Therefore, capitalized nouns and pronouns that refer to God stand in place of using the name of God. 

I hope that helps!


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Heads up, I was kinda blunt in my responses, but I do not mean to offend anyone. Excuse that.
> 
> We are worthless to him unless we blindly follow him.



"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20).

Creation is so vast and so complicated it rules out random chance. I'm a photographer, scientist, and have been a lab assistant. I've looked very closely at and have studied flowers, stellar bodies, animals... all of which are so intricate in their design, with their own special kind of beauty... And the fact that they work in tandem- thermodynamically, physically, biologically... it's indisputable some faceless, impersonal force could have ever been the originator of the intricacies of our universe.



Akartoshi said:


> By the way, to all future posts, is it okay if you please don't capitalise every single "his?" We know who you're talking about. I mean, if you want to do it for a sign of respect, go ahead, but it becomes very hard to read for me, a non native english speaker



It REALLY becomes very hard to read everything in my inbox and this thread for medical reasons... The information overload is too much and the forum thread messaging interface is not as good as it could be.

I've also contributed to this debate for a long while and have not been hostile. You disagree (which is fine and I tolerate it out of respect), but you have been blunt, rude, and offensive so I won't continue this discussion here. 

As I said, if you or anyone else disagrees with me and yet wants to continue the discussion, contact me here by pm or on FA proper so I can single out what I need to read and respond to.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

Maybe off topic, but I always found the Bible unbalanced as a book in that it lacks humor. I think they need to add more funny parts, as laughter is a huge part of the joy in living.

And I was thinking on that note, I wanna make the overly serious film about Moses starring Charlton Heston as a musical, with a lot of big dance numbers, especially where he parts the sea and stuff. Sort of more like Rocky Horror.

I just think it could use some silliness; as an English major, I read the Bible as literature in college as a matter of course, but what really stood out was how depressing it all seemed, especially in tone. I know, fleeing Egypt, slavery, Rome, times were hard and all...still, people have managed to laugh in the face of adversity.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Simo said:


> Maybe off topic, but I always found the Bible unbalanced as a book in that it lacks humor. I think they need to add more funny parts, as laughter is a huge part of the joy in living.



"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea."
John 21:7


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Simo said:


> I'm still wanting to start a church where we worship Randy Newman. He deserves more credit for his song-writing and musical brilliance, and there's so many worse things to worship. It'll help people learn empathy, nuance, and even to laugh a bit. As previously mentioned, I'll (of course) be the leader of said church, and will take Newman's place after he passes away, to carry on his musical traditions.
> 
> But to do this, I'll need a Steinway & Sons full concert grand piano.
> 
> ...



Cue Kenneth Copeland Charlatan: 




He also wants dat 156,200 dolla dolla bills y'all

AND CREFLO DOLLAR? Don't even start!


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2017)

Simo said:


> Maybe off topic, but I always found the Bible unbalanced as a book in that it lacks humor. I think they need to add more funny parts, as laughter is a huge part of the joy in living.
> 
> And I was thinking on that note, I wanna make the overly serious film about Moses starring Charlton Heston as a musical, with a lot of big dance numbers, especially where he parts the sea and stuff. Sort of more like Rocky Horror.
> 
> I just think it could use some silliness; as an English major, I read the Bible as literature in college as a matter of course, but what really stood out was how depressing it all seemed, especially in tone. I know, fleeing Egypt, slavery, Rome, times were hard and all...still, people have managed to laugh in the face of adversity.


IMO, the book of Ecclesiates is comedy gold. I am a bit strange tho.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> It is true, the Lord did command violent things against certain tribes and people, and yes - the Bible is full of violence. The reason for that is because God is perfectly just and able to do judge however He wishes, and by eternal decree He ordained whatsoever comes to pass to the end of His own glory. Why violence is a part of that we may never know, but we know based on His revelation that He is perfectly just and He alone has the right to command the taking of life as He pleases. God's will is indeed the best answer.


Let's say I was found guilty of murder. I plead to court, the person who I killed was a complete, utter bitch and show that he actually was. Do they care what reason? Do you care? Murder is murder. It is wrong! In no way can you justify it by whatever excuse you have. Nobody cares if you're killing out of revenge, out of anger or if it was a mistake. You're still going to receive heavy punishments.

Everyone knows this.

Why is it that when one person who claims to be god kills and orders others to kill thousands of people, it's because he did it righteously, and is allowed to judge? Why is that an exception to basic human morals? The fact that it is an exception is really sad... how can anyone justify it with that? Have you ever even thought about it? What kind of creator's will is to kill and encourage the killing of many?



AshtheDragon said:


> Creation is so vast and so complicated it rules out random chance. I'm a photographer, scientist, and have been a lab assistant. I've looked very closely at and have studied flowers, stellar bodies, animals... all of which are so intricate in their design, with their own special kind of beauty... And the fact that they work in tandem- thermodynamically, physically, biologically... it's indisputable some faceless, impersonal force could have ever been the originator of the intricacies of our universe.


Well, maybe you're looking in the wrong place. Maybe if you study other animals and ancient history, such as the foxes in Institute of Cytology and Genetics, and how the domesticated siberian fox came to be, you can see the truth behind evolution. It's not hard to see how similar those foxes are to other canines. They are common relatives.

Also, from the experiments that took place in Siberia, the foxes were bred over generation and generation until they became a domestic fox. How did they become from wild animals to suddenly playful, human loving creatures? They evolve and adapt overtime.

You can read more about the fox experiment here:
Dmitry Belyayev (zoologist) - Wikipedia

The reason we start to work together is because we adapt to our environments. That's the whole point of evolution. Also, other things, like fossils, which have been around for billions of years, can not be just made.

I'll admit, Evolution itself does have many flaws. We humans do not understand everything fully. Every day, we learn new things and can improve on theories. It isn't perfect, but it isn't a made up lie. Evolution is one of the most researched sciences.



AshtheDragon said:


> I've also contributed to this debate for a long while and have not been hostile. You disagree (which is fine and I tolerate it out of respect), but you have been blunt, rude, and offensive so I won't continue this discussion here.


I am sorry I have come across as hostile. English is not my first language, and it can be hard for me to do all these debates without being aggressive. I try to jump to points quickly and bluntly because it's a waste of time for me to spend extra time typing instead of jumping to my main points. If you don't mind, can you please explain to me how I have come across as hostile to you, so I will know to not be insensitive next time?


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 20, 2017)

Simo said:


> Maybe off topic, but I always found the Bible unbalanced as a book in that it lacks humor. I think they need to add more funny parts, as laughter is a huge part of the joy in living.
> 
> And I was thinking on that note, I wanna make the overly serious film about Moses starring as a musical, with a lot of big dance numbers, especially where he parts the sea and stuff.
> 
> I just think it could use some silliness; as an English major, I read the Bible as literature in college as a matter of course, but what really stood out was how depressing it all seemed, especially in tone. I know, fleeing Egypt, slavery, Rome, times were hard and all...still, people have managed to laugh in the face of adversity.


It's worth noting that the Bible is poorly written by today's standards. Much of the Old Testament was passed down orally when written language was more the expertise of census and tax scribes, and even when it started being recorded in writing at the time it was at the hand of scribes to whom prose was still a somewhat foreign concept. Unless the ancient Hebrews habitually had a morbidly esoteric sense of humour, it's also likely that some things were lost during the earliest translations.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Cue Kenneth Copeland Charlatan



Geez, is he still around? He was really hilarious, to watch, my word. Of all those late night ones, whoah, he took the cake.

But I was always dismayed by the likes of Evil men like Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, who have spewed so much hatred in the world, and propagated ideas that have led to gays folks getting beaten up, and growing up ashamed, contributing to higher rates of suicide. And Robertson, saying 9/11 was god punishing the jews and gays and what not, in NYC.

Preachers like Falwell and Robertson are a sickness, and I cant see how Christians can tolerate them, and don't call out their BS more often.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Cue Kenneth Copeland Charlatan:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




> Charismatic Preachers


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Darn why isn't the image link working?


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> > Charismatic Preachers


Think your image broke mate lol


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Think your image broke mate lol


Fixed it!


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> I am sorry I have come across as hostile. English is not my first language, and it can be hard for me to do all these debates without being aggressive. I try to jump to points quickly and bluntly because it's a waste of time for me to spend extra time typing instead of jumping to my main points. If you don't mind, can you please explain to me how I have come across as hostile to you, so I will know to not be insensitive next time?



"We are worthless to him unless we blindly follow him."

I do not blindly follow Jesus Christ. I do think carefully about Him and my walk, my journey through life with Him.

"By the way, to all future posts, is it okay if you please don't capitalise every single "his?" We know who you're talking about."

There may be more, but I don't want to dig through the last four pages and make this some sort of torturous inquisition. It's not necessary. It's never necessary.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Let's say I was found guilty of murder. I plead to court, the person who I killed was a complete, utter bitch and show that he actually was. Do they care what reason? Do you care? Murder is murder. It is wrong! In no way can you justify it by whatever excuse you have. Nobody cares if you're killing out of revenge, out of anger or if it was a mistake. You're still going to receive heavy punishments.
> 
> Everyone knows this.
> 
> Why is it that when one person who claims to be god kills and orders others to kill thousands of people, it's because he did it righteously, and is allowed to judge? Why is that an exception to basic human morals? The fact that it is an exception is really sad... how can anyone justify it with that? Have you ever even thought about it? What kind of creator's will is to kill and encourage the killing of many?



You are correct - murder is murder. Here’s the problem though... God can’t murder.
Why? Because He is God.

“The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.”
‭‭1 Samuel‬ ‭2:6-8‬

Using a court case analogy consisting of people doesn’t work in this scenario. Rather, God is the judge - divine judge. 

Who are we to say we know basic human morals apart from God? What are morals without God? They don’t exist! You must borrow from a religious worldview in order to hold to any moral standard as someone who is a secularist.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 20, 2017)

I love this thread.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> What are morals without God? They don’t exist! You must borrow from a religious worldview in order to hold to any moral standard as someone who is a secularist.



I patently object to that. In fact, I find it insulting to be told I must have God to have moral standards. I was really trying not to fight and bicker, but this is too much. If you believe this of yourself, fine, but to project it onto myself, and others, well...

I could go into a lengthy discussion of Aristotle, early Chinese philosophers like Mo Tzu, or any number of things, but I won't. But one can definitely have morals and ethics without belief in God. If ya wanna believe in God, fine, but don't go telling folks who don't that they don't have real morals; that's just rude.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Simo said:


> I patently object to that. In fact, I find it insulting to be told I must have God to have moral standards. I was really trying not to fight and bicker, but this is too much. If you believe this of yourself, fine, but to project it onto myself, and others, well...
> 
> I could go into a lengthy discussion of Aristotle, early Chinese philosophers like Mo Tzu, or any number of things, but I won't. But one can definitely have morals and ethics without belief in God. If ya wanna believe on God, fine, but don't go telling folks who don't that they don't have real morals; that's just rude.



Well sure, you *can* have certain ethics while being atheist - that is because all are Imago Dei and have been given a sense of right and wrong. But to say you can have *objective* moral standards without an objective standard giver is a lie.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I love this thread.



I love your sig

It's very apt


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 20, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> "We are worthless to him unless we blindly follow him."
> 
> I do not blindly follow Jesus Christ. I do think carefully about Him and my walk, my journey through life with Him.
> 
> ...


What I said was: *"We are worthless to him unless we blindly follow him. (I don't mean that as an insult, we literally have to follow him with no evidence)"* I clearly stated my intent on this post. You didn't include the whole thing. Besides, what's a better way to say this? "We are worthless unless we decide to take into account god's actions and follow them, despite the possibility god does not exist." There. The reason I didn't write that, is because it's longer to write and I want to save time. I already explained this.

*"By the way, to all future posts, is it okay if you please don't capitalise every single "his?" We know who you're talking about. I mean, if you want to do it for a sign of respect, go ahead, but it becomes very hard to read for me, a non native english speaker "*
I was being serious. It's kind of hard for me, coming from a background that does not use latin alphabet, to keep reading capitals because my brain momentarily pauses. I don't see what's wrong with that? I mean, I was saying, you can do it for respect, but I simply found it hard to read. "We know who you are talking about" was meant not in a rude way, but because, well, we do know who you are talking about. That is all.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Well sure, you *can* have certain ethics while being atheist - that is because all are Imago Dei and have been given a sense of right and wrong. But to say you can have *objective* moral standards without an objective standard giver is a lie.



Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

There is no need of  an objective standard giver at all; this is mere puffery.

You are wrong, and I am right.  : )


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Simo said:


> Grrrrrrrrrrrr!
> 
> There is no need of  an objective standard giver at all; this is mere puffery.
> 
> You are wrong, and I am right.  : )



No? Well answer me this: if the majority of society tomorrow decided coveting your neighbor (via rape or stealing) was okay, is it therefore okay? Do you have an objective standard by which to define it is not okay?


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> What I said was: *"We are worthless to him unless we blindly follow him. (I don't mean that as an insult, we literally have to follow him with no evidence)"* I clearly stated my intent on this post. You didn't include the whole thing. Besides, what's a better way to say this? "We are worthless unless we decide to take into account god's actions and follow them, despite the possibility god does not exist." There. The reason I didn't write that, is because it's longer to write and I want to save time. I already explained this.
> 
> *"By the way, to all future posts, is it okay if you please don't capitalise every single "his?" We know who you're talking about. I mean, if you want to do it for a sign of respect, go ahead, but it becomes very hard to read for me, a non native english speaker "*
> I was being serious. It's kind of hard for me, coming from a background that does not use latin alphabet, to keep reading capitals because my brain momentarily pauses. I don't see what's wrong with that? I mean, I was saying, you can do it for respect, but I simply found it hard to read. "We know who you are talking about" was meant not in a rude way, but because, well, we do know who you are talking about. That is all.



Okay sure 

I understand there's a language barrier, but all the same it is.




WELP

I'm going to draw for a bit... my wolfy ain't gonna draw himself!


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

I uh, just wanted to say that we shouldn't need a book to dictate what's right and what's wrong. And, just because I don't follow an invisible being that may or may not even exist, it doesn't mean that my morality is hypocritical. My life's mantra is "Live and Let Live."


Felix Bernard said:


> No? Well answer me this: if the majority of society tomorrow decided coveting your neighbor (via rape or stealing) was okay, is it therefore okay? Do you have an objective standard by which to define it is not okay?


Human society, since day one, has frowned upon such behavior. We don't need a book to tell us that theft and rape is wrong. And, human nature won't suddenly change overnight after being one way, more or less, for the last 10000 years.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 20, 2017)

Oh gosh, that's a whole lot of lineart cleanup ahead of me...


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> No? Well answer me this: if the majority of society tomorrow decided coveting your neighbor (via rape or stealing) was okay, is it therefore okay? Do you have an objective standard by which to define it is not okay?



Yes, my own innate sense of empathy. I don't believe in harming others. Similarly, somehow Trump got into office, and even if a 'majority' voted him in, I still can tell he's a mean-spirited, hurtful, and mean person, by these same standards.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Human society, since day one, has frowned upon such behavior. We don't need a book to tell us that theft and rape is wrong. And, human nature won't suddenly change overnight after being one way, more or less, for the last 10000 years.



The reason I ask is because I’ve been told by devout atheists that because there is no objective moral standard the holocaust was not objectively wrong. In other words, it’s wrong to us, not wrong to Hitler and the extreme right. So, morality is defined by society, we cannot say something is objectively right or wrong. We do need a standard of morals, we need a sovereign to define right and wrong, and we are without excuse given the clear revelation of nature to reject it.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Got to go for now, please PM me for further discussion.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Well sure, you *can* have certain ethics while being atheist - that is because all are Imago Dei and have been given a sense of right and wrong. But to say you can have *objective* moral standards without an objective standard giver is a lie.


Then let me ask you this:

What moral standards are objective? I'd like you to be specific, if you don't mind.

You'll have to excuse some of the forumgoers. They are pretty bad at argumenting their case.



Simo said:


> Yes, my own innate sense of empathy. I don't believe in harming others. Similarly, somehow Trump got into office, and even if a 'majority' voted him in, I still can tell he's a mean-spirited, hurtful, and mean person, by these same standards.


And somehow Trump managed to get dragged into this shit, despite being completely unrelated. Do you have such a hardon for the guy you will go to any length to demonize him?


----------



## Ginza (Oct 20, 2017)

Simo said:


> Yes, my own innate sense of empathy. I don't believe in harming others. Similarly, somehow Trump got into office, and even if a 'majority' voted him in, I still can tell he's a mean-spirited, hurtful, and mean person, by these same standards.



What does trump have to do with this? Isn't this more of an _opinion _rather than a proven example? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the dude either, but still..


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> The reason I ask is because I’ve been told by devout atheists that because there is no objective moral standard the holocaust was not objectively wrong. In other words, it’s wrong to us, not wrong to Hitler and the extreme right. So, morality is defined by society, we cannot say something is objectively right or wrong. We do need a standard of morals, we need a sovereign to define right and wrong, and we are without excuse given the clear revelation of nature to reject it.



Well, there sure are a lot of these sovereign deities who have doled out the one and only truth though the ages. I can't see how folks cotton on to one, and then have to insist to everyone that it's the one true way, it comes of us this I am right and you are wrong, no matter what silliness, after a point. Which is why I seldom talk about religion of furry sites.

Anyway, this is giving me a headache!

You should be spanked for this, by a group of eager fur-suiters!


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> The reason I ask is because I’ve been told by devout atheists that because there is no objective moral standard the holocaust was not objectively wrong. In other words, it’s wrong to us, not wrong to Hitler and the extreme right. So, morality is defined by society, we cannot say something is objectively right or wrong. We do need a standard of morals, we need a sovereign to define right and wrong, and we are without excuse given the clear revelation of nature to reject it.


So, let me get this straight. You believe that the human race are sheep that NEED to be told what to think and how to feel? I understand that earth is plagued by a ton of bad people, but _come on!_ I am a Apatheist. I don't really care one way or the other if a supreme being or supreme beings exist, nor do I want to be convinced of that, but come on! I know for myself that it's wrong to kill, and rape and steal, and the vast majority of sane people have figured that out for themselves as well. Humans aren't sheep. And, I find it insanely offensive to suggest that we have to be controlled, because we're too stupid to know what's just or unjust.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

And, P.S., the human race won't just wake up one day and suddenly get the urge to start committing atrocities.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2017)

Oh my. Let's see if i can help clear this up. I think was referring to Romans 2:14-15 which (paraphrasing) says that God's law is written on our hearts so that people who are not Believers still tend to agree on basic moral guidelines because the tend to follow the moral activities that believers do. While I do believe this, I don't think that non-belivers must get this moral compass from God. I think we can all agree that doing to others as you've have them do to you is a pretty solid foundation on which to build any sort of society. I certainly don't believe all unbelievers are amoral by nature.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Oh my. Let's see if i can help clear this up. I think was referring to Romans 2:14-15 which (paraphrasing) says that God's law is written on our hearts so that people who are not Believers still tend to agree on basic moral guidelines because the tend to follow the moral activities that believers do. While I do believe this, I don't think that non-belivers must get this moral compass from God. I think we can all agree that doing to others as you've have them do to you is a pretty solid foundation on which to build any sort of society. I certainly don't believe all unbelievers are amoral by nature.


That's my life's mantra. "Live and Let Live". Or, "Treat Others the Way You'd Want to be Treated". Areligious doesn't necessarily mean amoral.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 20, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> That's my life's mantra. "Live and Let Live". Or, "Treat Others the Way You'd Want to be Treated". Areligious doesn't necessarily mean amoral.


Too bad! Because you don't have any moral standards unless you follow god apparently.

By the way, basing your moral standards on the bible would basically be impossible. What are you to follow and what are you to disregard? (Old Testament laws?) How do you interpret this, or this, or that in the bible, since it is full of parables? Which version do you use? There are too many interpretations. Chances are, you're doing he exact thing you say "we can't do" which is to follow your own morals.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Too bad! Because you don't have any moral standards unless you follow god apparently.
> 
> By the way, basing your moral standards on the bible would basically be impossible. What are you to follow and what are you to disregard? (Old Testament laws?) How do you interpret this, or this, or that in the bible, since it is full of parables? Which version do you use? There are too many interpretations. Chances are, you're doing he exact thing you say "we can't do" which is to follow your own morals.



Exactly. I mean, you could even have people as slaves, according to The Bible, and that's certainly not moral or ethical in my system, and I don't need a God to know that.

_However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. _(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

...and there are many such passages.

And I don't like the treating foreigners and not those in your little religious group differently, part. Frankly, I find the Bible immoral.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2017)

Not a fan of slavery but consider that slavery came from the conquest ethic, which dominated all human society until the Enlightenment, after which different competing ethical systems led to the widespread abolition of slavery.  The Enlightenment largely came about as the result of the Protestant Reformation, which largely came about because  the printing press finally allowed the common folk to get their hands on the Bible.  So it could be argued that slavery was doomed when the Bible became widespread. 

Interesting irony, don't you think?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 20, 2017)

To be fair, most major religions are about world domination and embrace the "join or die" mentality.  They are the earliest form of mass government/crowd control after all.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

Erm... Not quite. Slavery wasn't even (begrudgingly) abolished until well after the enlightment happened, and the bible was frequently used to justify racism. I forget this guys's name, but in the early 1960's one of the candidates for Mississippi's governor said that "The good lord was the original segregationist".
(This was in response to Telnac, not you, Legacy.)


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Erm... Not quite. Slavery wasn't even (begrudgingly) abolished until well after the enlightment happened, and the bible was frequently used to justify racism. I forget this guys's name, but in the early 1960's one of the candidates for Mississippi's governor said that "The good lord was the original segregationist".
> (This was in response to Telnac, not you, Legacy.)


True but a lot of abolitionists used the Bible to condemn slavery too. What came out of the Enlightenment were ethical systems to challenge the conquest ethic, as well as the concept of natural law and modern ideas of freedom and human rights.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

Telnac said:


> True but a lot of abolitionists used the Bible to condemn slavery too. What came out of the Enlightenment were ethical systems to challenge the conquest ethic, as well as the concept of natural law and modern ideas of freedom and human rights.


Welp, you got me there. But, my point was that people have used the bible to hurt as much as people used it to help. So, forgive me for being a little bit bitter towards organized religion. That being said, I'm not harping on you or your beliefs. I don't want you to think that. I don't really care about what anybody believes as long as it doesn't harm anybody else or try to force others to think a certain way.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Welp, you got me there. But, my point was that people have used the bible to hurt as much as people used it to help. So, forgive me for being a little bit bitter towards organized religion. That being said, I'm not harping on you or your beliefs. I don't want you to think that. I don't really care about what anybody believes as long as it doesn't harm anybody else or try to force others to think a certain way.


Oh I won't disagree with that.  However I see that less as an indictment against the Bible and more the fact that evil men will use whatever they can to justify evil acts. Plenty of evil was done in the name of Karl Marx too. 

No worries about me. I'm confident in what I believe and why. I don't take these debates personally. I see arguments against what I believe as arguments against God and I'm pretty sure God can take it.  

Anyway, I'm out for the weekend. Thanks for the vigorous debate and I'll see you all next week!


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 20, 2017)

As stated, I'm not really a devout person. I attend holiday services for both Protestant and Reconstructionist Jewish faiths, but I would not consider myself either. So I'm definitely not one to speak terribly much about biblical matters.

However, I feel it's important to point out that, particularly with all the bible citing going on, that the bible is not a perfect work. Even if God existed and dictated the entire thing as Christians so believe, it is still written by men- extremely fallible men who would have been biased by their times and that shows in the text. In fact, there was a whole Roman Catholic panel to decide which texts to even include, thus cutting out some of what God perhaps intended to say. Which is why it's so contradictory sometimes. It really depends on the author and the editor (the church). While I enjoy the sentiment of many passages, I would hardly take the words as The Word. 

Also, fun fact in the whole vein of "can one be moral without God" discussion, Reconstructionist faith was actually founded by Mordecai Kaplan specifically to be a variant form of Judaism that can function in the absence of God. (citations to my Jewish bf, blame him if it's wrong ;P)


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> As stated, I'm not really a devout person. I attend holiday services for both Protestant and Reconstructionist Jewish faiths, but I would not consider myself either. So I'm definitely not one to speak terribly much about biblical matters.
> 
> However, I feel it's important to point out that, particularly with all the bible citing going on, that the bible is not a perfect work. Even if God existed and dictated the entire thing as Christians so believe, it is still written by men- extremely fallible men who would have been biased by their times and that shows in the text. In fact, there was a whole Roman Catholic panel to decide which texts to even include, thus cutting out some of what God perhaps intended to say. Which is why it's so contradictory sometimes. It really depends on the author and the editor (the church). While I enjoy the sentiment of many passages, I would hardly take the words as The Word.
> 
> Also, fun fact in the whole vein of "can one be moral without God" discussion, Reconstructionist faith was actually founded by Mordecai Kaplan specifically to be a variant form of Judaism that can function in the absence of God. (citations to my Jewish bf, blame him if it's wrong ;P)


That's my biggest grievance with a lot of people. It's so wrong to refuse to ask "why?". Nothing at all in the universe is infallible. And, even if there's a supreme being that happens to be infallible, there's no chance that the scriptures are 100% right. They were written by men. They did not just fall from the sky one day. And, as they say, "To err is human".


----------



## Saiko (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> The reason I ask is because I’ve been told by devout atheists that because there is no objective moral standard the holocaust was not objectively wrong. In other words, it’s wrong to us, not wrong to Hitler and the extreme right. So, morality is defined by society, we cannot say something is objectively right or wrong. We do need a standard of morals, we need a sovereign to define right and wrong, and we are without excuse given the clear revelation of nature to reject it.


No, two of the first things you learn in any introductory philosophy/morality class are the failures of moral relativism and the failures of a divine command theory of morality. In the first case, morality is whatever we want and becomes useless. In the other it’s whatever god wants, but we have to interpret that and end up with whatever we want (by claiming a different  interpretation or even a different god). Ergo both are pretty damn useless, and for essentially the same reason. Adhering to a divine command theory is usually just pushing the problem back a step and absolving yourself of responsibility.

Additionally, although I was not there for the conversations, it’s possible that you’re conflating two modalities of moral relativism. In the naive modality, you run into the aforementioned problem. However you can still come from a nihilistic foundation (interesting stuff I talked a bit about several pages ago) and claim morality is a human construct. This doesn’t mean that there is no morality or that morality is useless - only that we are responsible for it. We can then begin from some reasonable first principles and try to construct a consistent system from that or compare existing systems against some criterion. This kind of approach (and others too) can then tie into sociology and social Darwinism and the like.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

Huh, after a while, I'd rather we just made animal noises at each other than words: P

Pagan Skunk: Hisssssss!

Christian Fox: Yap! Yap! Yap!

Atheist Wolf: Grrrrrrrrrr.....

Agnostic Cat: Snarl! 

Well, at least it'll be more fun :V


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Please check out my new post... I may very well add to it.
forums.furaffinity.net: Furry Fandom, Christianity, and Sexuality


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 21, 2017)

Man I really wanted to stay outta this thread,but ahhhhhhh what the fuck,I'll bite...

First religion is cancer,regardless of what faith...
Putting a higher power over humanity to what goes on here on Earth is just washing your own hands of your own responsibilities here.Nice try doesn't fly...

So that would probably make you think that I believe in nothing and everything is here and now and nothing else matters or comes after...Let me explain.
Bear with me it's going to be long...

I once was a staunch atheist,typical nothing after doesn't matter type guy.
Then I started to play devil's advocate and looked at what evidence was there for more.

My argument is start with quantum physics,without observation or measurement everything (at least on the micro scale,which correlates through the macro) only exist as probabilities.Then take into effect of how our actions/thoughts directly correlated how all are lives are effected by it.

Our consciousness literally collapses the probability wave that we directly influence through our actions and thoughts.

My thought is we are all infinite beings that live infinite lives going from one to the next learning along the way.

It's about the journey not the destination.

I'll add more to this if there's interest,but won't waste my time if not...


----------



## Yantiskra (Oct 21, 2017)

Do I believe in God? Sure. I see it as the universe itself. The creation of life and conscience.

Do I believe in religion? No way : D
I really doubt universe would care about our little tiny lives and morals and even if it did, why life of human would cost more than any other being to it?
Still, I ask it to help me sometimes and I feel like it really helps me, I always thank it then.
It's good to make some psychological support for yourself.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 21, 2017)

Ramjet556 said:


> Our consciousness literally collapses the probability wave that we directly influence through our actions and thoughts.
> 
> I'll add more to this if there's interest,but won't waste my time if not...


Since I've heard of this concept, I've always found this interesting. After all, what is an observer that QM should change it's very behavior when something is observed???

I am sad that you believe all faith is cancer but I am very interested in your solution to this strange paradox.


----------



## Pondfox (Oct 21, 2017)

Absolutely I believe there is a God. I consider myself nondenominational Christian, but I believe one's faith and how they let it effect their lives is so much more important than a religious label.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

Jaderiot said:


> Absolutely I believe there is a God. I consider myself nondenominational Christian, but I believe one's faith and how they let it effect their lives is so much more important than a religious label.


Thank you for actually answering the question instead of preaching.


----------



## PaintedMica (Oct 21, 2017)

Simo said:


> Huh, after a while, I'd rather we just made animal noises at each other than words: P
> 
> Pagan Skunk: Hisssssss!
> 
> ...



I feel like you've just summed up most speech and debates in general.


----------



## Pondfox (Oct 21, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Thank you for actually answering the question instead of preaching.



Well sure. But can I ask... what is so bad about preaching?


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

Jaderiot said:


> Well sure. But can I ask... what is so bad about preaching?


For me, I find it very annoying because it's just an extra irrelevant paragraph that gets very irritating. It's off topic to the point, and for most of us, we've already made our decisions about Christianity. I am not miraculously going to convert because someone online on a forum website starts preaching. (In fact, after talking with some people here, I really now don't want to ever, ever touch Christianity again. But that's just me.)

It is repetitive, takes away from the main point, and most of us don't want to hear it. We get it. But we're not going to suddenly change our views.


----------



## Pondfox (Oct 21, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> For me, I find it very annoying because it's just an extra irrelevant paragraph that gets very irritating. It's off topic to the point, and for most of us, we've already made our decisions about Christianity. I am not miraculously going to convert because someone online on a forum website starts preaching. (In fact, after talking with some people here, I really now don't want to ever, ever touch Christianity again. But that's just me.)
> 
> It is repetitive, takes away from the main point, and most of us don't want to hear it. We get it. But we're not going to suddenly change our views.



Ah

Well I can't vouch for everyone, but I know when I "preach" it is not necessarily to smack someone over the head with the truth until they get it. That's not very realistic. I'm simply so excited about the hope I've found that I want to share it, and if someone decides they are interested in that hope too, than that's a huge blessing and I'm definitely willing to talk more about it. I really don't care for debate of any kind, so that's definitely not my goal either. For me personally, "preaching" is just me wanting to share what I have found and discovered for myself, not an attempt to get someone to decide to go to church or suddenly change who they are or what they believe. I can't do that anyway.

I'm truly sorry you have encountered a type of preaching that is irritating or monotonous.


----------



## LinnyChanPL (Oct 21, 2017)

So I'm going to answer the question:

Yeah I do believe in God

HOWEVER

not in Church.

and I don't know how to call it..? I was born and raised in a Christian family but I don't like going to church and praying every day, confessing sins every month and so on...I just don't believe in pastors/priests. For me, they don't have any power to get rid of your sins. Only God can. As long as you believe in Him, you should be fine. I also think God was too tired with people so He is on some kind of vacation/break. 

I believe that you go where you believe. If you believe in reincarnation, you will reincarnate and so on.

The hell am I. Not a pure Christian, for sure.  
I'm such a mess xD


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Since I've heard of this concept, I've always found this interesting. After all, what is an observer that QM should change it's very behavior when something is observed???


I feel like you both are mixing up the meaning of “observer” in this context, and you have to be reeeeaaaaally careful when mixing quantum mechanics and philosophy. For example, it’s not specifically a human that collapses a wave function. That occurs when any previously isolated quantum system interacts with the rest of the universe or some sufficiently large subsystem in it. We happen to be very large objects that are strongly coupled to our environment, so it’s extremely difficult for us to interact with (i.e. observe) a quantum system without screwing it up.

In short, the answer to your question here is rather boring: literally any system coupled to the environment is an “observer” that can collapse the wave function of an isolated system.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 21, 2017)

Saiko said:


> I feel like you both are mixing up the meaning of “observer” in this context, and you have to be reeeeaaaaally careful when mixing quantum mechanics and philosophy. For example, it’s not specifically a human that collapses a wave function.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In short, the answer to your question here is rather boring: literally any system coupled to the environment is an “observer” that can collapse the wave function of an isolated system.


That makes sense. Thanks for answering it!

And yes, I've heard lots of really strange philosophy surrounding QM. Most can be dismissed as pseudoscience but some thought experiments like Schrodinger'd cat are interesting to ponder. 

Back on topic: my intention when I originally posted here wasn't to convert anyone but to simply state what I believe & why. If what I believe is not for you, fine!  It's not my job to covert the furry fandom. 

As for debating, I like debate.  Sorry if that's not popular.  I'm not trying to piss anyone off or get in anyone's face but if someone attacks something I believe that's like waving a flag to a bull. I'll do best to defend it. I debate plenty of non-religious things too. I participate in a science & futurism group on Facebook. We never discuss religion and yet all it takes is someone mentioning the EM drive and suddenly there are pages of debate filled with graphs amd equations and chances are, I'm right there in the middle of it.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

EM drive huh?  Welcome to my planet of private study.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 21, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> EM drive huh?  Welcome to my planet of private study.


Then you'd probably like the group:
Science & Futurism with Isaac Arthur Public Group | Facebook


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Waiting on approval

Now back to our normally scheduled debate.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 21, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Then you'd probably like the group:
> Science & Futurism with Isaac Arthur Public Group | Facebook


I do highly recommend his YouTube channel.  Fantastic and very detailed material.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Blueberrydragon said:


> I only believe in Sergal Jesus..



I lul'd


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2017)

I also believe that what doesn't kill you, hasn't succeeded yet.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

Ramjet556 said:


> First religion is cancer,regardless of what faith...



Never compare anything to cancer.

Thank you.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Never compare anything to cancer.
> 
> Thank you.


Cancer is uncontrolled growth beyond the norm, often harming the whole through lack of communication. It would be an apt description according to what this fellow has to say about fanatics of every denomination:


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Cancer is uncontrolled growth beyond the norm, often harming the whole through lack of communication. It would be an apt description according to what this fellow has to say about fanatics of every denomination



No it's not. 

[edited for clarity]: No, it's not apt.

What you describe. It's a tired and frankly callous internet meme that is _very _disrespectful to cancer survivors, patients, and their families.

I don't want to describe my medical status or that of others I know with people I've never met, but this comment and the other person's is personally offensive, rude, and insensitive. You may "know" what cancer is, but you seriously have no idea what you're talking about- and this is because you and the other person don't factor in the toll it takes on families and patients' lives.

If I were either of you, I wouldn't do it in mixed company again.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> No it's not.


Quite the contrary:


			
				Medical Definition of Cancer said:
			
		

> *Cancer*: An abnormal growth of cells which tend to proliferate in an uncontrolled way and, in some cases, to metastasize (spread). *Cancer* is not one disease. It is a group of more than 100 different and distinctive diseases. *Cancer* can involve any tissue of the body and have many different forms in each body area.
> [...]
> Cancer is the Latin word for crab. The ancients used the word to mean a malignancy, doubtless because of the crab-like tenacity a malignant tumor sometimes seems to show in grasping the tissues it invades. Cancer may also be called malignancy, a malignant tumor, or a neoplasm (literally, a new growth).


I am in no way condoning the misuse of the word, but its definition can be reasonably applied outside of medicine to include rampant social ills that are detrimental to a society's overall health. After all, a society is merely a macrocosm of a body, and a healthy human body is comprised of trillions of cells all working together.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> I am in no way condoning the misuse of the word.



You just did.

"Apt" is synonymous with "suitable", "fitting", "appropriate", "befitting"...
The antonym of apt is inappropriate.

Particularly in _your _saying it was "apt". It's all the evidence I need of your condoning its use in this context, your approval in the context. Just by you saying it's "apt" you accept it and allow it (condone; allow/agree with behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive).

It _is _*suitable *to you. Again, you condone it by just saying it's apt.
It is *inappropriate *to me and should not, under any circumstances, be condoned. I take issue with it.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> ...but its definition can be reasonably applied outside of medicine to include rampant social ills that are detrimental to a society's overall health.



And that it, in your own words, can be "reasonably applied". Further evidence of your approval. It _is _out and out condoning.

Your argument is detrimental to my overall health and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> You just did.
> 
> "Apt" is synonymous with "suitable", "fitting", "appropriate", "befitting"...
> The antonym of apt is inappropriate.
> ...


If something as pedantic as vocabulary is enough to set you off on a wild rant that ignores such things as context, all because it triggers a certain biochemical reaction inside your brain that induces revulsion, God forbid we have an actual debate over politics or _religion_.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> If something as pedantic as vocabulary is enough to set you off on a wild rant that ignores such things as context, all because it triggers a certain biochemical reaction inside your brain that you don't like, God forbid we have an actual debate over politics or _religion_.



Haha

Hurrdurr

This comes after you rattle off a definition of cancer.

Conclusion (edit: based on your own admission) religion is not cancer.

We're done here, I think.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Haha
> 
> Hurrdurr
> 
> This comes after you rattle off a definition of cancer.


Please, do enlighten us. Feel free to make me eat my own words, if you will. 

No, I still stand by my words. If _you_ still have your panties in a knot over it, you can take your feelings elsewhere, because as it stands you are not the first critter I've encountered who's had an emotional problem with my vocabulary, and you're definitely not the first to react by trying to control my tongue.


> Conclusion: religion is not cancer.
> 
> We're done here, I think.


Seeing as your beef on that particular matter was with someone else, I'll let that one slide. The cancer is not religion; it's the idiot fanatics that give it a bad rep through their actions.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Please, do enlighten us. Feel free to make me eat my own words, if you will.
> 
> No, I still stand by my words. If _you_ still have your panties in a knot over it, you can take your feelings elsewhere, because as it stands you are not the first critter I've encountered who's had an emotional problem with my vocabulary, and you're definitely not the first to react by trying to control my tongue.



Haha


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

I'm a Christian and I'm a "fanatic". You would probably deem me so by this post: (forums.furaffinity.net: Do you believe in God, or some similar thing?)

Now, look up what I said on page 3 of this thread (forums.furaffinity.net: Furry Fandom, Christianity, and Sexuality and 8 (forums.furaffinity.net: Furry Fandom, Christianity, and Sexuality and you'll see for yourself how I'm not a "cancer" cell, or detrimental to society. And that the Bible never calls Christians to be so.

Don't make assumptions without having a full evaluation of someone's belief system, without knowing its nuances and how people who subscribe _should _and do react to other people who disagree with them on serious issues.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> View attachment 22535
> 
> I'm a Christian and I'm a "fanatic". Look up what I said on page 3 and 8 and you'll see for yourself.


Eh... People come up with... interesting ways to express their passionate devotion to something, be it Christianity, Doctor Who, or Justin Beiber. Especially when it comes to nitpicking the shit out of canon.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Eh... People come up with... interesting ways to express their passionate devotion to something, be it Christianity, Doctor Who, or Justin Beiber. Especially when it comes to nitpicking the shit out of canon.



And that was... weak.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. When it comes to Christianity, you can't even pick apart or reconcile what I said because you have no interest in studying the text in question.

And it's kind of my job to nitpick my own beliefs and my own religious texts and not be ignorant of my own religion or my God. So I don't make mistakes and ruin my life or other people's lives.

So we really are done here! The personal attacks have been real fun! My original post was about cancer and you dragged me into this pointless debate


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

This is gold. 

Keep digging!


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

Because my original post was about cancer and how horrible it is to compare a protracted, painful, and debilitating disease and its treatment- the chemo, the radiation, the hair loss, the breast loss, and the loss of life to an ubiquitous disease that is still not fully understood, compare it to religion and "fanatics".

BYE


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

Well, that was a fun ride.

Fundamentalists in the fandom. Gotta love 'em. Especially when they burn bridges and erect walls in their place.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Yes, the forum atmosphere has distinctively changed over the past week.


----------



## Dongding (Oct 22, 2017)

:3


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

Mods: A few people have reported this thread. Why is it still open?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Edits with writing differ inherently than erratic rage-fueled output honestly.  I've never went back to edit prose under a time constraint, for the sole purpose of avoiding that it might be captured.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

Gotta love the insensitive people in fandom.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Just like you completely deleted your query, my response seems to have no context. 

Sometimes it's best to think before hitting the reply button.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Edits with writing differ inherently than erratic rage-fueled output honestly.  I've never went back to edit prose under a time constraint, for the sole purpose of avoiding that it might be captured.



Fair enough. But this issue does effect me personally. It's not something to bandy about and use as a quip.

I was not enraged though. Upset? Yes. But enraged? No.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

It was enough to make you second guess your own mind.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Just like you completely deleted your query, my response seems to have no context.
> 
> Sometimes it's best to think before hitting the reply button.



What post? Oh the one mentioning what edits are for: style, content, and clarity.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

Well... I suppose my original point had no validity to begin with then. Given my emotional reaction. That is what this is about, right?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Not exactly.  You are currently giving basics for writing skills, yet avoiding the use of metaphorical writing.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 22, 2017)

Well this took a turn, didn't it?


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Not exactly.  You are currently giving basics for writing skills, yet avoiding the use of metaphorical writing.



It's a little difficult to keep that in mind when your opposition is referencing your underwear and your faulty brain cells and yet and still you're refusing to indulge in similar behavior.

Surely you understand?


----------



## Dongding (Oct 22, 2017)

I was going to dig up posts, came up with a few, then lost interest at page 18 from where the main culprits of the thread devolving surfaced. The running theme (on both sides of the argument) is that people started telling eachother what to think, instead of what they think.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Well this took a turn, didn't it?



It did. Aquila mentioned burning bridges between us and other members of the forums.

That's opinion. I only refused to continue the conversation. It was not a rejection of him even though I believe he was wrong and being incredibly insensitive.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> It's a little difficult to keep that in mind when your opposition is referencing your underwear and your faulty brain cells and yet and still you're refusing to indulge in similar behavior.
> 
> Surely you understand?



I read the entire thing in real time, prior to the edits.  "Hurr-durr" could still have easily been attacked for its obvious reference to individuals with a mental handicap, if you really want my opinion. 

It's best to put a proverbial stake through this one.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> I was going to dig up posts, came up with a few, then lost interest at page 18 from where the main culprits of the thread devolving surfaced. The running theme (on both sides of the argument) is that people started telling eachother what to think, instead of what they think.


I never thought there would be so much "discourse" on these forums. More debates here than my college philosophy course.



AshtheDragon said:


> It did. Aquila mentioned burning bridges between us and other members of the forums.
> 
> That's opinion. I only refused to continue the conversation. It was not a rejection of him even though I believe he was wrong and being incredibly insensitive.


Nope. Not being dragged into this. I've read it all, I know what happened, I am just a bystander eating popcorn as this thread goes up in flames like the rest of them.

(Edited to fix typo)


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I read the entire thing in real time, prior to the edits.  "Hurr-durr" could still have easily been attacked for its obvious reference to individuals with a mental handicap, if you really want my opinion.
> 
> It's best to put a proverbial stake through this one.



Very well.

I really don't mind this, actually. This whole thing has been a learning experience.

I hope I don't repeat it _ever _again.

Next time I see a thread like this I won't engage because it never ends well- for _all _involved.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

And by I really don't mind, I mean this talk right now... less so whatever happened for the last few pages.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

If you haven't learned yet, there are 3 things you don't bring up in a mixed audience. Unless you are looking to divide them, whether intentionally or unintentionally, these three thing WILL start a fight.  

1) Race
2) Religion
3) Politics


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> And by I really don't mind, I mean this talk right now... less so whatever happened for the last few pages.



I have the inate ability to manipulate conversations with my writing.  I can bring tempo up, or down to facilitate any purpose.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> And by I really don't mind, I mean this talk right now... less so whatever happened for the last few pages.


If it's all the same to you, I've got no qualms with moving past that.


----------



## Dongding (Oct 22, 2017)

Lets talk about smokin', drinkin', and fast cars. That's something humanity unanimously agrees on. >:3


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> Very well.
> 
> I really don't mind this, actually. This whole thing has been a learning experience.
> 
> ...


This thread was a yes or no question. You directed it into a debate. You could have said "Yes, I believe in god" and stopped there. Since you sparked a debate, you can't expect people to suddenly side you. There are always going to be people challenging you. If you can't handle it, don't debate.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Lets talk about smokin', drinkin', and fast cars. That's something humanity unanimously agrees on. >:3


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 22, 2017)

Dongding said:


> Lets talk about smokin', drinkin', and fast cars. That's something humanity unanimously agrees on. >:3



Nay, it's lamb: the meat that doesn't discriminate.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> If you haven't learned yet, there are 3 things you don't bring up in a mixed audience. Unless you are looking to divide them, whether intentionally or unintentionally, these three thing WILL start a fight.
> 
> 1) Race
> 2) Religion
> 3) Politics



That said, I wonder why the people who make these threads (not just this one) aware or no on the internet... do not expect this. 

Or do they?

I actually remember stumbling on a racist forum in my late teens that ridiculed my entire ethnicity. I had never seen such openly exposed vitriol and was depressed for weeks. They were in their own little world and I didn't engage because I was frightened out of my mind. This talk still existed in the new millennium in posts, in threads, in forums? 

But yeah, these things are pretty much radioactive. If there were absolutely no anonymity on the internet it would make it far less easy to start these gladiator games and would solve a lot of problems.

The internet is a public place. I don't advocate censorship, but something needs to happen so things like this doesn't happen anymore.


----------



## Dongding (Oct 22, 2017)

Oh I suppose smokin' and drinkin' might be off the list now that I think about it...  Vapin', imbibin' in the blood of Christ, and fast cars doesn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I have the inate ability to manipulate conversations with my writing.  I can bring tempo up, or down to facilitate any purpose.



Thanks maestro


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> If it's all the same to you, I've got no qualms with moving past that.



Same


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> But yeah, these things are pretty much radioactive. If there were absolutely no anonymity on the internet it would make it far less easy to start these gladiator games and would solve a lot of problems.



I actually touched base on this in a thread somewhere.  Internet vs human interaction standards are going downhill.



AshtheDragon said:


> The internet is a public place. I don't advocate censorship, but something needs to happen so things like this doesn't happen anymore.



Sorry to be the one to say it, but it won't.  Humanity is it's own end.  Always was, always will be.  It's what you do during your finite lifespan over the massive timeline of humanity that defines you.  Either that small blip you call your existence comes and goes with no footnotes, or you make a mark that echoes further. 

That's what immortality truly is.


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I actually touched base on this in a thread somewhere.  Internet vs human interaction standards are going downhill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We differ on your last point but not entirely.

Still

I do want to thank you!

NOW...

Can I go back to drawing?


----------



## Telnac (Oct 22, 2017)

I don't think it's just the Internet. When a conservative/religious speaker came to my college campus, the room would be full of ppl who either agreed or disagreed with the speaker and vigorous debate would result. Yeah things could get heated at times but the worse it ever got was some ad hominem name calling.

Today?  That sort of thing turns into rioting, with people getting badly hurt and possibly killed. I think human discourse has taken a drastic turn for the worse in general, which is a shame because I love debate.


----------



## Basi~ (Oct 28, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I don't think it's just the Internet. When a conservative/religious speaker came to my college campus, the room would be full of ppl who either agreed or disagreed with the speaker and vigorous debate would result. Yeah things could get heated at times but the worse it ever got was some ad hominem name calling.
> 
> Today?  That sort of thing turns into rioting, with people getting badly hurt and possibly killed. I think human discourse has taken a drastic turn for the worse in general, which is a shame because I love debate.


I think referring to some of the speakers that plague some of the conventions or colleges as conservatives or run of the mill religious speakers is not fair to conservatives and religious speakers. lol


----------



## Basi~ (Oct 28, 2017)

I'm pretty much just an agnostic that lives life as if a god doesn't exist. I just choose to run my life under certain codes and principles. Basically, I believe that if a god exists it's probably a deist god who doesn't care or partake in any intervention in the universe or at least just not in regards to humanity.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 29, 2017)

Basi~ said:


> I think referring to some of the speakers that plague some of the conventions or colleges as conservatives or run of the mill religious speakers is not fair to conservatives and religious speakers. lol


Maybe for some of them that is true, and that was true when I went to college too.  Before I accepted Christ, I certainly enjoyed mocking such speakers. Yet once when I went to make fun of speakers I thought were yet more extremeists, the speakers that were there shared with me a simple message I didn’t know how to mock or refute: Jesus loves me. Me, a declared enemy of God. Why would He love someone like me?  I accepted an invitation to the group’s Bible Study when I learned the answer: God loves everyone and wants us all to accept His son’s sacrafice on the cross as payment for our sins. 

It’s fine that you’re agnostic. You can choose to accept Christ or reject Him. What’s not OK is that if I were a student today I wouldn’t be challenged with any views that contradict my own. I think banning controversial speach does a great disservuce to the very students the university supposedly cares about.


----------



## Basi~ (Oct 29, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Maybe for some of them that is true, and that was true when I went to college too.  Before I accepted Christ, I certainly enjoyed mocking such speakers. Yet once when I went to make fun of speakers I thought were yet more extremeists, the speakers that were there shared with me a simple message I didn’t know how to mock or refute: Jesus loves me. Me, a declared enemy of God. Why would He love someone like me?  I accepted an invitation to the group’s Bible Study when I learned the answer: God loves everyone and wants us all to accept His son’s sacrafice on the cross as payment for our sins.
> 
> It’s fine that you’re agnostic. You can choose to accept Christ or reject Him. What’s not OK is that if I were a student today I wouldn’t be challenged with any views that contradict my own. I think banning controversial speach does a great disservuce to the very students the university supposedly cares about.



The alt-right speakers are definitely the ones I would separate from the conservative and/or religious speakers. I feel its really just up to the universities or where ever if they should talk. I mean the amount of friction they cause (especially the neo-nazi type) and then the other consequences they bring are something I would not want to bring on my community or university. I'm cool with religious people, I went to church every week for about the first 15 years of my life and lived in a stereotypical rural bible belt family. I mean college Christian and other religious clubs exist everywhere, so I'm sure people get a good dose of that. Politically I feel people don't receive a lot of different political thought, through college is more of a side issue regarding that. I mean most just copy the beliefs of their parents and peers from a young age and seem to keep that. As a side note, I do have an issue with religious fundamentalism.
Personally, I think I've tried to believe in religion but I never could make myself believe it. Perhaps one is real and I'm just an admirer of his never-ending art gallery. But I just feel disillusioned to the idea of "god". I don't feel any reason to believe one exists and the idea that the complexities of the universe to be solved under a single word, it's just too easy, too simple for my tastes
Also, "Declared enemy of god" is a rather harsh thing; do you mean that in its literal form?


----------



## Basi~ (Oct 29, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Maybe for some of them that is true, and that was true when I went to college too.  Before I accepted Christ, I certainly enjoyed mocking such speakers. Yet once when I went to make fun of speakers I thought were yet more extremeists, the speakers that were there shared with me a simple message I didn’t know how to mock or refute: Jesus loves me. Me, a declared enemy of God. Why would He love someone like me?  I accepted an invitation to the group’s Bible Study when I learned the answer: God loves everyone and wants us all to accept His son’s sacrafice on the cross as payment for our sins.
> 
> It’s fine that you’re agnostic. You can choose to accept Christ or reject Him. What’s not OK is that if I were a student today I wouldn’t be challenged with any views that contradict my own. I think banning controversial speach does a great disservuce to the very students the university supposedly cares about.


Also, a quote relating to the repetition of mainstream beliefs and a removal of other ideas. 

_"Either you repeat the same doctrines everybody is saying, or else you'll say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."_


----------



## Astus (Oct 29, 2017)

Over my years at a Catholic university, my opinion has changed slightly on the subject. I don't keep it a very closely guarded secret if one asks, but I would consider myself agnostic (basically someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists). Now at my school they have lots of cancer set up to try to get you to believe since it is a Catholic university so I will share my experience and demonstrate how I came to my beliefs.


When I was young, I had no concept of God, I literally thought that things like "my god" or "god damn it" were just phrases used that that God was a person or something that people would always be pissed at or something. My family dudnt go to church or talk about religion, however when I was 4 or 5 I was introduced to the world of God by VeggieTales, the cancer of all talking vegetables. From there I got the basic god junk and the heaven junk. I never had a set belief system about it, I just basically interpreted it was true and my first faith being put into the system came when our rabbit Sarah died, and that I had hoped I would see her up in heaven when I eventually went, writing letters to her in my journal on the anniversary of her death for about seven years. 


High school came around, and for really the first time (since I was home schooled) I was around a lot of people for a given time. Around this time my world was turned upside down by the changes and instead of melding into society I did the opposite, I only really became friends with people I had previously met from sports and I secluded myself and watched people be people. At this point I would call it my intellectual revolution for myself as I independently studied things with my new (and current) smartphone. I sought to truly find out who I was and why I was. It all hit a T when I was being taught the transcendentalist thinkers un English... their concepts later paved a way to the existentialist thinkers and opened me up to thinking and logic I had not seen currently by interacting with people around me. 


Upon reaching college I would say I still had minor faith that God exists as people interpret but that changed pretty quickly into my junior year when I was forced to take "introduction to Christian theology" and "philosophy of God" that's where I saw the issues being presented. The intro class was taught very well by an avid Christian and PhD of theology and what she offered was a wonderful depection and explanation of God. Issue was that every little thing she said could be refuted and what it essentially all came down to was _faith_. Moving onto philosophy of God it was pretty much the same thing. Especially that supid Thomas Aquinas, his 5k page book, literally all of his ideas were all dependant on each other to be true, and the five main points of what proves Gods existence are all pretty much BS except for one that sort of got to me (but has nothing to do with a personal god that everyone envisions) the idea of the primary mover that Aristotle previously came up with. The idea that something had to be the first thing to get the universe moving... it was something I couldn't refute and lined up pretty well with explanations for things like the big bang theory. The issue is that here Aristotle doesn't see God as a personal rather just existing in a form we can't understand which seems like the most plausible form of God that can exist. It may be also worthwhile to say that I had a history teacher who has specialization in Egyptian hieroglyphics and has done field work in Egypt before it turned into a war zone.... he says that current research shows that the Jews weren't in Egypt at the time the bible says they were, the only information that puts them there as slaves is after the pyramids were built and the only time before us a reference to them looking for the covenant. And this guy is devoutly Jewish, as he says "you can't always know what has happened in history because things can be erased, however what we do know I will teach you without holding back because it is important to know and understand our past, even if it isn't a pretty one or one you agree with". Needless to say there was a lot of SJW bashing and imperialist America bashing to go around


To essentially summarize my ideas...  what I've learned so far about religion is that it is a great tool (when used properly) to offer people emotional support when it comes to the unknown as well as impose a moral system that is designed with others in mind. However it is not necessary for humans to have morality as well as it also can cause problems between the 1000s of different religions that exist as well as certain practices (like God forgiving you if you ask) and social practices that have previously wiped out or given rise to political or sociological movements that destroy people and subject them to harsh living conditions ex; European colonization of S. America, etc... phrases like "God works in mysterious ways" are synonymous with ideas like, god doesn't exist/god isn't a personal being/god doesn't care. Most people who follow their religion only pick and choose what they want to believe because hell if you really believed in the bible you'd be stoning women for getting raped and not yelling loud enough and if you really followed Jesus you'd be a literal anarchist communist, lashing people who opress the weak and poor because that's bacially what Jesus did. 

The best way I've found to live is to live with an open heart and help people where you can not because God tells you to, rather because it is the right thing to do. Find a purpose for yourself and strive for it until you pass off into that grey area of death, because hey if you're not conscious you don't know about your nonexistence, right? And if fears of a God passing judgement are still on your mind be glad that being a good person for the sake of being a good person would probably grant you entrance into a good afterlife if God was really all good, and if not then why would you want to go to heaven anyways if God only cared if you believed in them? That's totally narcissistic


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 29, 2017)

once when we were in the field for 3 months my platoon formed a cult based around Princess Luna so i guess i do


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 29, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> Over my years at a Catholic university, my opinion has changed slightly on the subject. I don't keep it a very closely guarded secret if one asks, but I would consider myself agnostic (basically someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists). Now at my school they have lots of cancer set up to try to get you to believe since it is a Catholic university so I will share my experience and demonstrate how I came to my beliefs.
> 
> 
> When I was young, I had no concept of God, I literally thought that things like "my god" or "god damn it" were just phrases used that that God was a person or something that people would always be pissed at or something. My family dudnt go to church or talk about religion, however when I was 4 or 5 I was introduced to the world of God by VeggieTales, the cancer of all talking vegetables. From there I got the basic god junk and the heaven junk. I never had a set belief system about it, I just basically interpreted it was true and my first faith being put into the system came when our rabbit Sarah died, and that I had hoped I would see her up in heaven when I eventually went, writing letters to her in my journal on the anniversary of her death for about seven years.
> ...



*Insert epically moving slow clap*


----------



## Basi~ (Oct 29, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> once when we were in the field for 3 months my platoon formed a cult based around Princess Luna so i guess i do


In highschool, my classmates made a religion and a short book about some god who lived in black holes and I joined it so I guess I'm in the same boat.


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 29, 2017)

Basi~ said:


> In highschool, my classmates made a religion and a short book about some god who lived in black holes and I joined it so I guess I'm in the same boat.



yeah but for us our boss's went out for a tasking and got lost and didn't return for 3 days we pretty much went all lord of the flies we had a fire going there was rubbish everywhere it was worth the ensuing 100km patrol in full kit and packs

the thing we were doing was a shit fight cause most of us knew the guys playing Enemy and were texting them asking who they were attacking and they actually told us we weren't going to be engaged for two weeks so we did what ever


----------



## Telnac (Oct 29, 2017)

Basi~ said:


> The alt-right speakers are definitely the ones I would separate from the conservative and/or religious speakers. I feel its really just up to the universities or where ever if they should talk. I mean the amount of friction they cause (especially the neo-nazi type) and then the other consequences they bring are something I would not want to bring on my community or university.


I can understand that, especially given the charged political climate of today. However, even hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment (this obviously only applies in the USA but I support free & open speech elsewhete too) and one of the whole points of college is to be challenged by ideas possibly contrary to your own.

The problem with banning hate speech is this: who defines what hate speech is?  Where do you draw the line between white nationalist assholes and more mainstream conservative & religious speakers?  Many would argue that there is no line and someone out there waving an American flag and supporting the 2nd amendment, controlling the border and a traditional view of marriage is just as bad as a dude waving a Nazi flag and screaming “Death to the Jews!”

Here’s where the line should be drawn: violence or someone publicly advocating violence. If someone spews biogoted garbage out of their mouth and others argue with them, fine. Keep the crowds apart and arrest/prosecute anyone who commits an act of violence. If the speaker starts saying “Death to the Jews” that us a direct call for violence and the speaker should be arrested & prosecuted too.


Basi~ said:


> Also, "Declared enemy of god" is a rather harsh thing; do you mean that in its literal form?


Sorry, I should have made that more clear: I was a declared enemy of the Christian God. I was a neo-pagan at the time and pretty heavily involved with occultic activities. I really hated Christianity and saw Christians as mindless sheep. I thought that if the Christian God did exist than He surely would hate me. That’s why the simple message of “Jesus loves you” hit me so hard.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 29, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> yeah but for us our boss's went out for a tasking and got lost and didn't return for 3 days we pretty much went all lord of the flies we had a fire going there was rubbish everywhere it was worth the ensuing 100km patrol in full kit and packs
> 
> the thing we were doing was a shit fight cause most of us knew the guys playing Enemy and were texting them asking who they were attacking and they actually told us we weren't going to be engaged for two weeks so we did what ever


That sounds hilarious!


----------



## Basi~ (Oct 29, 2017)

Telnac said:


> The problem with banning hate speech is this: who defines what hate speech is?  Where do you draw the line between white nationalist assholes and more mainstream conservative & religious speakers?  Many would argue that there is no line and someone out there waving an American flag and supporting the 2nd amendment, controlling the border and a traditional view of marriage is just as bad as a dude waving a Nazi flag and screaming “Death to the Jews!”
> 
> Here’s where the line should be drawn: violence or someone publicly advocating violence. If someone spews biogoted garbage out of their mouth and others argue with them, fine. Keep the crowds apart and arrest/prosecute anyone who commits an act of violence. If the speaker starts saying “Death to the Jews” that us a direct call for violence and the speaker should be arrested & prosecuted too.


I agree with the areas on which speech should be limited, and that's currently the law of the United States. That speech that is inciteful of violence or unlawfulness is not protected under the 1st amendment. Also, I don't think many people at all would argue that conservative Americans are as dangerous as an American who's some extreme reactionary. 

Basically, I feel that the reactionary groups that are just "circle-jerking nazis," as I like to call them, are not an immediate threat to anyone. I'm more focused on the fringe people who are in the groups (Like the skinhead groups or other racist gangs) that call for and engage in violence against, racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, Jews and Muslims, the whole shabang. About a year ago near my hometown, a Jewish cemetery had a good number of headstones smashed in by some anti-semites.


----------



## sharprealmcomics (Oct 30, 2017)

Mr.S has been by my bed side seanc i was 16 (plushy squirrel doll) and i every year i felt more in love with him until i just stared worshiping him as a god. Now days thats what i tell people, my fursonas a rooster my god's a squirrel. lol' no joke  Mr S is the god of the cosmos and power.  hes a timid god he dont like other squirrels to much but hes a squirrel so i could care less how mean he is (to cute)......i give him hes nuts and he want unleash HES nuts on the earth ( tea bag the earth to death)    i wonder sometimes if theirs other that worship their characters as gods..i mean id be surprised if their waset.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

Basi~ said:


> I agree with the areas on which speech should be limited, and that's currently the law of the United States. That speech that is inciteful of violence or unlawfulness is not protected under the 1st amendment. Also, I don't think many people at all would argue that conservative Americans are as dangerous as an American who's some extreme reactionary.
> 
> Basically, I feel that the reactionary groups that are just "circle-jerking nazis," as I like to call them, are not an immediate threat to anyone. I'm more focused on the fringe people who are in the groups (Like the skinhead groups or other racist gangs) that call for and engage in violence against, racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, Jews and Muslims, the whole shabang. About a year ago near my hometown, a Jewish cemetery had a good number of headstones smashed in by some anti-semites.


I couldn’t agree more on groups actually inciting violence and participating in it. They need to be disbanded by force if necessary & their leaders & anyone who actually participated in violent acts should be prosecuted. 

I know where the law draws the line on free speech. Unfortunately thst’s not where many colleges & universities are drawing that line. I went back to visit my old university & I was dismayed to learn that the Bible study group I attended that led me to Christ was no longer allowed to speak openly on campus, hand out fliers or put up posters. As a result the group which once numbered between 20-40 students was down to just 4. Yet posters advertising the Vagina Monologues were everywhere. Nothing against the Vagina Monolouges, but it shows the clear line between what the university considers OK speech and what it does not, and mainsteam Christianity fell on the wrong side of that line. 

I’m now ashamed to admit that I graduated from or even attended that university.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

sharprealmcomics said:


> View attachment 22765  Mr.S has been by my bed side seanc i was 16 (plushy squirrel doll) and i every year i felt more in love with him until i just stared worshiping him as a god. Now days thats what i tell people, my fursonas a rooster my god's a squirrel. lol' no joke  Mr S is the god of the cosmos and power.  hes a timid god he dont like other squirrels to much but hes a squirrel so i could care less how mean he is (to cute)......i give him hes nuts and he want unleash HES nuts on the earth ( tea bag the earth to death)    i wonder sometimes if theirs other that worship their characters as gods..i mean id be surprised if their waset.


That doesn’t sound far from how the ancient idol-worshipping religions worked. Write a few epic myths starring Mr S and some if his friends and you’re on your way to creating your own pantheon!


----------



## Basi~ (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I couldn’t agree more on groups actually inciting violence and participating in it. They need to be disbanded by force if necessary & their leaders & anyone who actually participated in violent acts should be prosecuted.
> 
> I know where the law draws the line on free speech. Unfortunately thst’s not where many colleges & universities are drawing that line. I went back to visit my old university & I was dismayed to learn that the Bible study group I attended that led me to Christ was no longer allowed to speak openly on campus, hand out fliers or put up posters. As a result the group which once numbered between 20-40 students was down to just 4. Yet posters advertising the Vagina Monologues were everywhere. Nothing against the Vagina Monolouges, but it shows the clear line between what the university considers OK speech and what it does not, and mainsteam Christianity fell on the wrong side of that line.
> 
> I’m now ashamed to admit that I graduated from or even attended that university.


Yea that's rather crazy, college clubs should all be treated as equals and allowed to spread information/fliers and set up little booths around campus when they desire. I mean it's not like it gets in the way. I usually just say hello and good morning then travel on my way to where ever.


----------



## sharprealmcomics (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> That doesn’t sound far from how the ancient idol-worshipping religions worked. Write a few epic myths starring Mr S and some if his friends and you’re on your way to creating your own pantheon!


...i Did In fact i have a about 10 years worth seanc 2007 hes got a lot of fun stories.   ^^ so i guess i just found out the name of my religion ( SQuirrel idol  *hugs tight* ill have to put a pick of him on FA hes very well made - i made him my self. yeyyyy 10th anniversary!  pantheon indeed


----------

