# Religion in the Furry Community



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

Hey guys, this is my first time doing a poll, so I'm not sure how It works but I will give it a try.

Just wanted to see what religion/non religion was prominant within the furry community, don't forget to share your thoughts and comments in the section below, because we all know how friendly people get on the topic of religion 

If what you personally Adhere to is not on the list, my apologies, I only had a choice of 10 religions but feel free to discuss it and post below about what you believe.


----------



## mcjoel (Jun 20, 2014)

You are gonna get *a lot* of people choosing the second answer.
If it doesn't get locked.


----------



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

Ah so? Atheism is just as amazing as the other religion, I just hope maybe I can find some more confucians out there


----------



## mcjoel (Jun 20, 2014)

What no agnosticism?


----------



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

Agnosticism isn't organised  get your shit together Agnosticism :V


----------



## EternalSushi (Jun 20, 2014)

What are you yourself?


----------



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

I'm confucian myself


----------



## EternalSushi (Jun 20, 2014)

I'm confused @.@  -ba dum tss-

I'm Chinese myself and I'm not Confucian xD


----------



## Misomie (Jun 20, 2014)

Where is my furry option!? D:<


----------



## EternalSushi (Jun 20, 2014)

NU! NONE FOR YOU! BWHAHAH!


----------



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

Furry's are the most disorganised people I know  hence why it isn't an 'organised' religion :V            (I only had 10 spots I cant put everything there haha)

You don't have to be chinese to be confucian, just have to follow and respect the teachings of Confucius as well as follow the moral code he set out


----------



## TrishaCat (Jun 20, 2014)

Christianity! I'm a Christian Protestant of no particular denomination, however I was baptised Catholic.


mcjoel said:


> You are gonna get *a lot* of people choosing the second answer.
> If it doesn't get locked.


What makes you think that? The furry community is decently diverse I would think.


----------



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

Why would this get locked anyway, Its predominantly about the poll not the people below fighting over nothing lol


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 20, 2014)

I'd contest the tacit placement of 'no religion' as 'an organised religion' but meh. 

I don't adhere to any religion. 

By the way, people will inevitably fight over this as soon as somebody comes in and says 'I use faith x to justify exotic moral position y'.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jun 20, 2014)

My beliefs aren't in the list, how dare you discriminate against me! =V


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 20, 2014)

AlexxxLupo said:


> My beliefs aren't in the list, how dare you discriminate against me! =V



Otherkin, much?


----------



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

I make the argument that Atheism (or no religion) is organised  considering the advertisments promoting it and the large, very vocal following. Its an interesting notion that something that is the absence of something can be organised but can't argue with the evidence.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jun 20, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Otherkin, much?



Now you mention it, that should definitely be in the list =V

In all seriousness, deism is hardly organised religion, so I'm not too fussed. I think an "other" option would be a good thing though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 20, 2014)

Ame said:


> I make the argument that Atheism (or no religion) is organised  considering the advertisments promoting it and the large, very vocal following. Its an interesting notion that something that is the absence of something can be organised but can't argue with the evidence.



Sort of, I suppose. Certainly there are mainstream religions which are less organised and _more _disparate than the mere lack of religious conviction.


----------



## Ame (Jun 20, 2014)

I wish I did put the 'other' option in dispite it not really giving a good indication on who belongs to what, but I do want everyone to belong. I had a list of like 20 or so religions but I could only make a poll of 10, I do apologise if your option wasn't on here. 
But I suppose thats what the comments section is for  if anyone belongs to something not on the list be vocal about it and give everyone a brief description of it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 20, 2014)

Ame said:


> I make the argument that Atheism (or no religion) is organised  considering the advertisments promoting it and the large, very vocal following. Its an interesting notion that something that is the absence of something can be organised but can't argue with the evidence.



It's not organised though, especially not in the religious sense (no leader, no purpose, no goal, nothing at all). There are various little atheistic groups that might be organised internally to themselves (in the way that a club might be organised), but as a whole, there really isn't anything holding most (let alone all) atheists together. 

As far as advertisements go, that's usually a specific local group, and not some overarching mega-group. Atheists _have_ to be vocal, because they'd otherwise get squashed by the religion mammoths - Though I'm confused as to where this "large following" is, given the last polls I can remember put the world-wide atheism percentage between 8-15%, and the American percentage between 10-20%.

(also: shots fired from the "atheist side" :v though I'm more of an anti-theist)


----------



## fizzypopfox (Jun 20, 2014)

I was born, baptized, and confirmed Catholic. Then around the age of 17 I started questioning my beliefs and slowly morphed from nondenominational, to "spiritual," to agnostic, and I've finally settled quite comfortably with atheism. I study biology and have come to find that there is plenty of beauty and meaning in the natural world, I don't need anything else to give my life "purpose." And the way religions are constantly bickering, how some people use it as a platform for being shitty, and just the fact that there are so many different flavors that all think they are the right one has put a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not necessarily anti-religion, so long as you keep it to yourself and don't go telling other people what to do. But I'm quite happy believing there isn't a sky-man who's going to condemn me for enjoying sex or being attracted to other women.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 20, 2014)

the furry community is filled with godless heathens


----------



## Maugryph (Jun 20, 2014)

fizzypopfox said:


> I was born, baptized, and confirmed Catholic. Then around the age of 17 I started questioning my beliefs and slowly morphed from nondenominational, to "spiritual," to agnostic, and I've finally settled quite comfortably with atheism. I study biology and have come to find that there is plenty of beauty and meaning in the natural world, I don't need anything else to give my life "purpose." And the way religions are constantly bickering, how some people use it as a platform for being shitty, and just the fact that there are so many different flavors that all think they are the right one has put a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not necessarily anti-religion, so long as you keep it to yourself and don't go telling other people what to do. But I'm quite happy believing there isn't a sky-man who's going to condemn me for enjoying sex or being attracted to other women.



I love it how you tell others to keep their beliefs /ideals to themselves yet for over a paragraph, you spill out your own ideals.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jun 20, 2014)

If you wanna know how certain furries in this community feel about religion, look no further

I am a non-denominational Christian.

I've taken a couple of basic Religious Studies classes, so I know at least a little bit about most of the major world religions. I agree with and draw upon wisdom and teachings from almost all of the religions I have studied, but in the end I know I stand with Jesus. Studying and understanding religions is very rewarding I believe, even if you don't practice one yourself. It is important to understand and respect the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 20, 2014)

It always pisses me off when atheism is in those lists...
Atheism is not a religion! It's like saying that "off" is a TV channel >__>

Anyway, I'm an agnostic atheist and an anti-theist. I don't want to have anything to do with that crap.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jun 20, 2014)

"Atheism is a religion"
"Atheism is not a religion"
There are arguments for both of these views, really.
You can argue that its the lack of religion, though you could also argue that, using the broadest definitions of religion, such as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) that it is a religion. Its a bit of a stretch, but it could fit. Regardless, it is a religious stance or perhaps, to word that better, a stance on religion.

Its not really that big a deal if someone calls it a religion or not though, is it?


EDIT: I am legitimately surprised at the number of atheists here. Interesting. I was actually expecting it to be dominantly Christian like most of the world. Once more people have voted, It'll be interesting to analyze the results and see if any is still dominant. If atheism or any other choice for that matter is strongly dominant it'd be cool to try and analyze this and figure out what it means about furries, or at the very least, FAF.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 20, 2014)

I say it depends on atheist. In my case it for sure isn't religion as I'm closer to agnosticism.

Also, I'm offended by the lack of neopaganism.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jun 20, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> EDIT: I am legitimately surprised at the number of atheists here. Interesting. I was actually expecting it to be dominantly Christian like most of the world. Once more people have voted, It'll be interesting to analyze the results and see if any is still dominant. If atheism or any other choice for that matter is strongly dominant it'd be cool to try and analyze this and figure out what it means about furries, or at the very least, FAF.



It might have something to do with the fact that many furries (from my own observation) are social outcasts, so its normal for them to be... abnormal?


----------



## Vukasin (Jun 20, 2014)

Christian here


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 20, 2014)

More like people being anonymous and not afraid of stigmatizing. There is certain difference between declaring yourself as atheist on a forum and in local community. Also, lot of people don't care enough to actually undergo an apostasy. 

It would be also my case - everyone knows about my (lack of) beliefs but I'm still on the official list. 

But aye, having a perfectly normal life in every aspect sometimes make me feel like an outcast - among the furs


----------



## VintageLynx (Jun 20, 2014)

To me this fandom is all about fantasy so the 'real world' is forgotten for a time. Religeon is part of that. If pressed I would say Atheist simply because simply the facts are not there for me to decide which to follow and know I am taking the right path.


----------



## Mews (Jun 20, 2014)

Agnostic here.
I was raised in a Christian mixed Catholic up bringing.
Then I fell more in love with Wicca but decided being agnostic better suit my beliefs.


----------



## emma123 (Jun 20, 2014)

Agnostic here


----------



## fizzypopfox (Jun 20, 2014)

Maugryph said:


> I love it how you tell others to keep their beliefs /ideals to themselves yet for over a paragraph, you spill out your own ideals.



By "keep to themselves" I mean "don't be a dick and force your beliefs on others." I don't care if you share them or even celebrate them, just don't tell me or anyone else what to believe.


----------



## Eiriol (Jun 20, 2014)

I was Christened into the Church of England, but I'm not religious. I don't know if I would call myself a straight up Atheist, however, because I do believe in luck, karma, fate and things like that. I also like to think that there is somewhere nice you go after you die. I guess I'm probably Agnostic.

I don't believe all the stuff bible bashers spew out about God and Jesus and them making things happen for a reason. What reason could justify the fact that children get cancer and natural disasters happen? I took this argument to my religious friend and he said that God created humans but isn't in control of what happens now. So what is the point of God then? He babbled about God being like a friend or something like that, but that still doesn't answer my question. If God is apparently almighty and makes things happen, for example when people pray, then why is there so much suffering in the world?


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jun 20, 2014)

None of the above!


----------



## Drekoriss (Jun 21, 2014)

I guess I'd say I'm agnostic, if anything. I don't really feel to strongly either way when it comes to gods and religion.
Although, if it ever is discovered that God does exist, I hope that he's doing something more interesting than judging me every time I masturbate. :V


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Jun 21, 2014)

Lutheran here, going to be confirmed in November-ish. I don't go to church too often, maybe twice a month.

You'd be surprised of the diversity of beliefs here. There's even some Satanists!


----------



## tisr (Jun 21, 2014)

I'd like to clarify that agnostic is not a position of religious belief. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in god, but does not claim that no god can exist.
An agnostic theist is someone who believes in god, but does not claim that god definitely exists.

And the opposite of agnostic is gnostic. Gnostic is such a terrible sounding word.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jun 21, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> Lutheran here, going to be confirmed in November-ish. I don't go to church too often, maybe twice a month.
> 
> You'd be surprised of the diversity of beliefs here. There's even some Satanists!


*gasp*Satanists?!
Why ive never...


----------



## Ame (Jun 21, 2014)

Atheism is the absence of religion or the belief in a G-d, and the Atheist movement is indeed organised, especially the anti-theist movement. Considering the advertisments, seminars, public speakers and writers I would argue Atheists are very organised indeed, Its not a bad thing at all.

Aristotle would argue (and I agree) that Anti-theism is not particularly good or healthy, considering it presents itself as (not 'is') the over zelous side of Atheism, and not a balanced mean. (See Aristotle's mean) History has proven that worldviews of a particularly zelous nature often either change the world for the better or worse, with anti-theism it is yet to be seen, but I personally expect the latter.

Not that I am against anti-theism, all things are of _Tian_ and I don't judge people or condemn them, considering any worldview can be used to prosecute and harm others. But I don't see much good in a wordview foundated on ridding the world of an idea or a people group.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 21, 2014)

I'm an anti-theist.

I don't believe we should rid people who believe in a god, I just think that abolishment of religion is the best decision to make if we ever want to dream of a world with less senseless killing


----------



## Maugryph (Jun 21, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I'm an anti-theist.
> 
> I don't believe we should rid people who believe in a god, I just think that abolishment of religion is the best decision to make if we ever want to dream of a world with less senseless killing



Indeed religion is responsible for many horrid crimes the past.However I don't see how removal of religions would not stop humans from killing each other for senseless things, people would find another reason to do it anyway (money, power, etc). And if you where able rid the world of all the religions, humans would just create new ones to replace them.


----------



## Ame (Jun 21, 2014)

To rid the world of religion would rid the world of many people groups, Christians, Muslims, Taoists to name a few. Although I get where your coming from you dont wan't to rid the world of those people but just those ideas, (hence why I noted Ideas/people groups in my post) but again, not only how to execute that ideal is a problem but also it can be just as dangerous as ridding the world of said ideas.

I also believe the idea that the abolishment of religion would deturing senseless wars and killings is a foolish idea. There was senseless killing before religion, during religion and I'm sure if it is ever abolished there will be senseless killing after it too, an interesting fact to note that Islamic extremists that go on to cause war and terror (often the 'go to' example for the reason why religion is terrible) are young, influencable boys that are lied to about the Islamic faith, their views and perceptions twisted by deplorable men that often pose as religious leaders that don't wish to spread their faith, or their ideas, only bring harm and forward their often greedy wants and gains. 

There are many instances in any faith, or any idea in general where people will manipulate others for their own gain (Charles Manson and Hitler are the perfect example) and to be against religion alone would be folly, I war against the human idea/ideas would be a much more effective way of deturing war. Transorbital lobotomys are the solution, once that frontal lobe is in the shitter there will be peace on earth <3 

(The frontal lobe is what is thought to control higher order thinking)


----------



## Hikaru Okami (Jun 21, 2014)

How about all of the above? (Grew up in Christian home mind you)
More specifically I like all religions and they're interesting in their own way. (even those that are considered "taboo")


----------



## Ame (Jun 21, 2014)

Haha, I was debating if I should tick the 'you can has multiple choice' button for the poll but when ya think about it most of those religions are exclusive, and if you belong to one you can't belong to the other sort of thing *eg.* *'If you truely accepted Jesus into your heart you would know that he is the only way" *Is something I hear all the time from friends who are christian. Then there is the obvious Atheist example where you can't follow a religion and be Atheist lol.


----------



## Hikaru Okami (Jun 21, 2014)

Yeah I know that's why people find me weird. I'm more about learning about the religion then following it and I'm willing to say I'm naive for believing in everything. I believe there was a Jesus and I believe there was a Shiva that's just little old me being in my own twisted world heheh


----------



## chesse20 (Jun 21, 2014)

Spoiler



god isn't real



religon is bad and it should be abolished as it is holding us back in terms of advancement as a civilization , for example Christianity in the United States holding back homosexuality freedom, stem cell research , and cloning of human beings. Another example is Islam holding back human rights and freedom of expression and stuff in 3rd world countries.

The only good example of a religon I can think off is Buddhism because they used their spiritual powers to do wack ass shit like regulate their body temperatures and heartbeats and I have even heard that tulpa conjuring or whatever was taken from Buddhists. 
im not religious


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Jun 21, 2014)

I'm agnostic, so I can't vote here...but then again I've been told agnostics are just atheists with commitment issues.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 21, 2014)

More like agnostics are atheists with common sence.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 21, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> More like agnostics are atheists with common sence.



What about agnostic theists?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 21, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> "Atheism is a religion"
> "Atheism is not a religion"
> There are arguments for both of these views, really.
> You can argue that its the lack of religion, though you could also argue that, using the broadest definitions of religion, such as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) that it is a religion. Its a bit of a stretch, but it could fit. Regardless, it is a religious stance or perhaps, to word that better, a stance on religion.
> ...



No, it is most definitely not a religion. It is not a beliefsystem, it just describes a non - belief. It describes that I don't believe _you_ that a higher power of any kind exists.

I suppose most people here and on the Internet in general are not religious because believing something that isn't supported by evidence makes no sense when you are directly at the source for all evidence that you could ever want. 
Why believe in 'god did it so SHUT UP' when the truth is just a Google search away?


----------



## Hikaru Okami (Jun 21, 2014)

Google has all the answers. Go to Google if you have a problem and Google shall answer. Google is your best friend. Google is religion. I am a Googleist. :V


----------



## Hikaru Okami (Jun 21, 2014)

Seriously I just looked up the church of google. Should've added googlism to the poll.

(Sorry for double post)


----------



## KyryK (Jun 21, 2014)

Agnostic Satanist here...yep.



chesse20 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Buddhists can be bastards too. In Myanmar the Muslim minority is heavily discriminated against by the Buddhists in the country (Muslims aren't even recognized as citizens) and sectarian violence against Muslims is common.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jun 21, 2014)

I most closely identify with deism (which is more a belief/faith than anything else, I guess). I like to think it's the closest a person can get to being an atheist without actually being an atheist.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jun 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> No, it is most definitely not a religion. It is not a beliefsystem, it just describes a non - belief. It describes that I don't believe _you_ that a higher power of any kind exists.
> 
> I suppose most people here and on the Internet in general are not religious because believing something that isn't supported by evidence makes no sense when you are directly at the source for all evidence that you could ever want.
> Why believe in 'god did it so SHUT UP' when the truth is just a Google search away?



The closest Atheism comes to being a religion is how some atheists act about atheism and what not. One actually accused me of trying to "Destroy the secular nature of atheism" because I said "Atheists get so religious about things sometime" (or something to that effect) and during the ensuing debate I pointed out that Buddhism is technicaly an atheistic religion (since Buddhism does not require worshiping or believing in God(s)). It's like...nice straw man there dude.

My religious views are an odd hodgepodge of various religious systems and even some other random ideas tossed around by other spiritual people. I believe in a higher power of some sort, though I'm unsure as to what its true purpose is and if it even cares much about if we bend a knee to it and say we're sorry for being f'ups. I tend to take a "live and let live" approach, not caring if one is christian or atheist or muslim or whatever, though there are very _few _acceptations, such as Jashinism or Joy of Satan (the former I feel is over-glorified sadism/masochism, the other has been proven by Christians, Pagans, and even La Veyan Satanists to be nothing more than a "religion" to brainwash young truth seeking kids with neo-nazi ideas).


----------



## Xevvy (Jun 21, 2014)

Ame said:


> Atheism is just as amazing as the other religion



Atheism isn't a religion, rather the absence of such. 

Now for my sarcastic rebuttal: Where's the satanist option? The day isn't done without a good goat sacrifice.



Battlechili1 said:


> "Atheism is a religion"
> "Atheism is not a religion"
> There are arguments for both of these views, really.
> You can argue that its the lack of religion, though you could also argue that, using the broadest definitions of religion, such as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) that it is a religion. Its a bit of a stretch, but it could fit. Regardless, it is a religious stance or perhaps, to word that better, a stance on religion.
> ...



Atheism is not a religion, rather the lack thereof. Implying that people who lack a religion are in a religious group regarding their lack of religion is a hilariously stupid paradox. It simply cannot be. Athiesm is not a religion. By definition, it is the opposite of such. 

Also you'll find your assertion that the world is mostly christian is largely false.


----------



## KyryK (Jun 21, 2014)

Xevvy said:


> Atheism isn't a religion, rather the absence of such.
> 
> Now for my sarcastic rebuttal: Where's the satanist option? The day isn't done without a good goat sacrifice.


Fun fact: The best way to sacrifice a goat is by killing it and making a vindaloo out of it. When you eat it the burning sensation in your mouth is supposed to simulate the fires of hell and thus bring you closer to Satan.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Clayton said:


> the furry community is filled with godless heathens



Oddly the religion of Heathenry actually had _many_ gods.

@ 'what does the prevalence of atheism mean about furries?' It's because many of us are young and, whilst most the web is American, there is a large number of northern european furries- and our cultures don't tend to be very religious ones.



Ayattar said:


> More like agnostics are atheists with common sence.



If I proposed that the orbit of the planets is governed by a legion of magic hidden-folk, who make it appear like they are obeying simply laws, the 'common sense' response is 'no, that's an extraneous and untestable solution'.

If an idea is untestable that doesn't mean 'well, I guess I can't profess to know anything about it' is the most sensible option. The quality of the idea might make it a very obvious that- while we can't test it yet it's probably right, or that it's categorically wrong. 

In this case, proposing that the entire universe is hosted by an ephemeral disembodied monkey brain is too silly.



chesse20 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Buddhism doesn't usually recieve the criticism it deserves. Wars have been waged in the name of Buddhism, including the Buddhist expansion into Sri Lanka, in which the non-Buddhists were slain because 'they are worth less than the animals'. 

Today Buddhists in South East Asia, in countries Like Burma, are violently persecuting the Muslim minority there.

Buddhism isn't 'the friendly religion'.


----------



## Machine (Jun 21, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> In this case, proposing that the entire universe is hosted by an ephemeral disembodied monkey brain is too silly.


Sounds metal.



> Buddhism doesn't usually recieve the criticism it deserves. Wars have been waged in the name of Buddhism, including the Buddhist expansion into Sri Lanka, in which the non-Buddhists were slain because 'they are worth less than the animals'.
> 
> Today Buddhists in South East Asia, in countries Like Burma, are violently persecuting the Muslim minority there.
> 
> Buddhism isn't 'the friendly religion'.


Not White Buddhism!

My family and their friends consist of White Buddhists, and they're nothing but completely infallible and warriors for WORLD PEAS!!!

But really, the situation with the Muslims and Buddhists is, like all religious conflict, disheartening.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jun 21, 2014)

This thread is trembling on dangerous territory....Too much stuff being posted that talk about what is and is not true and what is and is not a good thing, rather than what we all think and believe about the world....


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> This thread is trembling on dangerous territory....Too much stuff being posted that talk about what is and is not true and what is and is not a good thing, rather than what we all think and believe about the world....



What we believe should be a function of what we think is or is not true. If it isn't, then what are beliefs for? To make us feel fuzzy?


----------



## Machine (Jun 21, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> This thread is trembling on dangerous territory....Too much stuff being posted that talk about what is and is not true and what is and is not a good thing, rather than what we all think and believe about the world....


To you, maybe.

Everything is subjective.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Machine said:


> To you, maybe.
> 
> Everything is subjective.



If everything is subjective, is the phrase 'everything is subjective' not an objective claim? 

x3


----------



## Machine (Jun 21, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If everything is subjective, is the phrase 'everything is subjective' not an objective claim?
> 
> x3


Only to make a point!


----------



## Calemeyr (Jun 21, 2014)

I'm a scientist. I don't believe in mystical mumbo jumbo without proper third-party peer-reviewed evidence to form a theory. So no gods, souls, magic moonbeams, or solipsisms. I refuse to worship the old testament god. He is evil. And I will not adhere to philosophies that treat the human mind as some sort of mystical substance that is the only thing that one can be sure of. That's far too individualistic to fit with science. In biology, there are animals with no ego. So I see it the other way. The universe is the only thing we can be sure of and the mind could be an illusion. So say neuroscientists when it comes to consciousness. And the Buddha. And Hume (I think). Screw substance theory then.


----------



## Grungecat (Jun 21, 2014)

This old cat is an atheist. It works for me. I also don't discriminate against religion like other atheists do. Live and let live.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jun 21, 2014)

I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic since I personally couldn't give two shits about religion in general. If there's no god then welp whatever, and if there is one I hope he's nice enough not to damn me to hell or something because I didn't go to church on sundays.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jun 21, 2014)

That's a good point. I would definitely go to [religious temple] if [insert religions here]'s god(s) demanded it - if said religion was confirmed true.But if such god(s) don't see fit to confirm their existence to us, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I like to think that being a law-abiding citizen with more or less good morals is acceptable.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

I'm not sure why any god like creature would demand the worship of apes in exchange for preserving their brains after they die.

It sounds too much like something people who were afraid of death made up, so that they could pretend they didn't have to confront finality.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jun 21, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure why any god like creature would demand the worship of apes in exchange for preserving their brains after they die.
> 
> It sounds too much like something people who were afraid of death made up, so that they could pretend they didn't have to confront finality.



Heck even in Buddhism there's the idea of finality. Since if you actually manage to achieve Nirvana and escape the Karmatic Wheel (or whatever it's called) you uh...go to wherever Nirvana is. But you aren't reborn anywhere, and it kinda sounds like a "you become one with the universe" type deal. 

My whole take on the afterlife is...I dunno. Who knows? Not me. So I think it's best not to get fixated on what heaven or hell might be like, because hey, you might end up in an apartment complex on Block C of Fandango Alley next to the guy who played his rock music too loudly. Only now you're stuck with him forever (or unless you can find another gholish roomate to switch with). Not saying that's what I believe in what could happen, but who knows? 

'sides, I think it's important to focus on life here and now. Even if there is an afterlife, I'm sure whatever cosmic forces are out there want the people to get on with their lives and actually _live _rather than live in fear that they've lost eternal afterlife morality points like we're playing Fallout 3 or some other game with a morality system.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Heck even in Buddhism there's the idea of finality. Since if you actually manage to achieve Nirvana and escape the Karmatic Wheel (or whatever it's called) you uh...go to wherever Nirvana is. But you aren't reborn anywhere, and it kinda sounds like a "you become one with the universe" type deal.
> 
> My whole take on the afterlife is...I dunno. Who knows? Not me. So I think it's best not to get fixated on what heaven or hell might be like, because hey, you might end up in an apartment complex on Block C of Fandango Alley next to the guy who played his rock music too loudly. Only now you're stuck with him forever (or unless you can find another gholish roomate to switch with). Not saying that's what I believe in what could happen, but who knows?
> 
> 'sides, I think it's important to focus on life here and now. Even if there is an afterlife, I'm sure whatever cosmic forces are out there want the people to get on with their lives and actually _live _rather than live in fear that they've lost eternal afterlife morality points like we're playing Fallout 3 or some other game with a morality system.



Continuing to exist in perpetuity isn't finality. It evades death by proposing an endless form of continued magical life. 

We know we're material beings, whose mental well being is contingent on the physical health of our bodies. When our bodies get damaged badly, after a head injury for example, parts of our self actually die, and when the whole body is gone, none of the self can remain. 

It sucks, but that's life.


----------



## Ame (Jun 21, 2014)

Holyâ€¦ where to start in this mess XD 




Xevvy said:


> Atheism isn't a religion, rather the absence of such.


  That my friend is the definition of being not only taken out of context, but also misunderstood, I said the exact same thing in a later post so please read my posts before quoting my older posts XD. And also please next time include the rest of what I say to provide this beautiful thing called â€˜contextâ€™ meaning I wouldnâ€™t have to have explained what I mean haha. Now what I also meant to say was â€œAtheism is just as amazing as ANY other religionâ€ not to say Atheism is another religion but rather to say it is just as deserving of respect as any religion would. Just to clarify, sorry about the spelling mistake.



CaptainCool said:


> I suppose most people here and on the Internet in general are not religious because believing something that isn't supported by evidence makes no sense when you are directly at the source for all evidence that you could ever want. Why believe in 'god did it so SHUT UP' when the truth is just a Google search away?


 
  Now this is my favourite argument, seen it so many times and it never ceases to brings a smile to my face, the good old â€œAtheism is logical or scientifically argumentâ€. Considering we are talking â€˜evidenceâ€™ and â€˜senseâ€™ or â€˜logicâ€™ let me run this by you. Both Theism and Atheism have NO proof, either of them, none, whatsoever. Either way you swing, you may be able to prove specific beliefs and theories wrong in both Atheism and Theism, but scientifically and LOGICALLY speaking, you CANNOT prove if there is or isnâ€™t a G-d, sure you can disprove theories such as a Primitive Creationist Theory based specific rules and regulations that deem it physically impossible/improbable but the same goes for an Atheistâ€™s early theory of the big bang, (I say â€˜earlyâ€™ to depict a less sound theory)  it can be proved wrong or improbable with logic, and even science.

  But the pure notion of Atheism and Theism have no evidence for either one. And therefore scientifically and logically, because there is no evidence for either case, it is more rational to believe either is entirely possible and to keep an open mind, making agnosticism the only scientifically and logically sound belief while making theism and Atheism  both just as irrational as one another. 

  You may make the case (or something along the lines of) â€œItâ€™s ridiculous to believe there is something there when there is no evidence to support itâ€ which humanly, it is, almost crazy even. But in no way is it scientific or logical to assume there is not, it is logical to assume there is a possibility for both.

  Please keep in mind I am a Confucian Theist and all that I say is light-hearted and I recognise I just called myself crazy, haha so Iâ€™m not purely promoting agnosticism for my own gains, and I also have just as much respect for atheism as I do any other belief but please people think philosophically as well as scientifically.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Ame said:


> Holyâ€¦ where to start in this mess XD
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're not familiar with the burden of proof. In science and philosophy positive claims must compete with a null hypothesis. If you claimed 'fairies live in my garden' I would be entitled to believe you were wrong until you showed me otherwise. 'There are no fairies' is the null hypothesis. 

It would be unreasonable to say 'my disbelief in fairies is a position of faith', indeed if there really were no fairies it would be impossible to demonstrate it.

'There are no Gods' is the null hypothesis in this situation. 

For the record, the Big bang theory was initially proposed by a Catholic physicist, not an atheist.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jun 21, 2014)

The term burden of proof isn't without flaw. One could make a claim out of nowhere with no support whatsoever and it turn out to be true, thus making anyone who told him he was wrong or incorrect, incorrect.
This is not to say proof doesn't add more validity to a claim, its just that a lack of proof does not mean an idea or thing is not true.

I don't like the idea of automatically rejecting a claim without proof as false.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Jun 21, 2014)

Wow. This thread is going places.

Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.


----------



## Ame (Jun 21, 2014)

Haha, see! Now that's philosophical thinking at its finest, now that gets us somewhere. I didn't know that philosphical hypothesis and now I do .

Although, is that hypothesis merely philosophical in its nature or more scientifical, I personally see it more as a philosophical argument/idea (which does not make it less valid). But considering it is more progressive and scientific in a way to propose that there is a posibility for both arguments, I would argue the idea of acknowledging the possibility for both is more logical. 

Both ideas have their faults, the "scientific" (I use the word in the context of what I just said) hypothesis leaving the question open ended. But the null hypothesis is ignorant to the other perspective. But Is it not more helpful to believe in the possibility for both, rather than remain adamant against another perspetive just from a lack of evidence.

Also, with the null hypothesis can't you also say (using your example) "there are not fairies in my garden" and run into the same result? Meaning that we have to assume there is fairies? (hence why I noted both Theism and Atheism are just as crazy as one another in my previous post)




Mr. Sparta said:


> Wow. This thread is going places.
> 
> Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped  preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would  not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds  us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.



Yes! that was another note I wished to touch on, although from my memory it wasn't the catholics but rather the Islamic thinkers and philosophers that not only preserved but improved upon great works such as that of Aristotle and such. Islam also dramatically forwarded our knowledge of mathamatics and the shape of the earth because Islamic mathematicians had to work out how to work out the direction of Mecca which involved very complex calculations , from which they also discovered the earth was round (or maybe they found that out from the greeks not sure) But people who say religion held back science are very very ignorant, religion in alot of ways enhances science and thought.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> The term burden of proof isn't without flaw. One could make a claim out of nowhere with no support whatsoever and it turn out to be true, thus making anyone who told him he was wrong or incorrect, incorrect.
> This is not to say proof doesn't add more validity to a claim, its just that a lack of proof does not mean an idea or thing is not true.
> 
> I don't like the idea of automatically rejecting a claim without proof as false.



The burden of proof cannot guarantee we reach the correct conclusion immediately, but it provides the most appropriate and successful route to reaching the correct conclusion- if indeed a conclusion is even accessible. 

Bogus claims can be rejected until proven right. This does not mean they will never be considered, it means that compelling support is necessary for their meaningful consideration; that's only fair isn't it?



Mr. Sparta said:


> Wow. This thread is going places.
> 
> Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped  preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would  not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds  us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.



Of course it's not homogenously true. It's a mosaic, in which a majority of the squares produce an unpleasant image of temples hounding science out of their communities.



Ame said:


> Haha, see! Now that's philosophical thinking at its  finest, now that gets us somewhere. I didn't know that philosphical  hypothesis and now I do
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Proposing unfalsifiable hypotheses is not more logical. It is useless. 

Claiming 'there are not fairies in my garden' is a positive claim is incorrect. It's a negative claim; that's why it has 'not' in it. Ten year olds should be taught this in school. I would expect them to be able to identify positive and negative statements in English classes.

If we were to always take the middleground, on all unfalsifiable claims that could possibly be made, regardless of whether they were positive or negative, we would hold a collection of mutually exclusive views simultaneously even though they serve no pragmatic function. 

That's crazy. 

That's why we have null hypotheses. To pierce the fog.


----------



## Ame (Jun 21, 2014)

Now now, the insult to my intelligence was un-called for Fallow, and  does not acheive anything useful. We can argue what is a "negative  claim" all day, and I can think of plenty of ways to phase that question  to where it does technically become a positive claim, but I thought  simple word play was beyond us? We are not focusing on simple semantics  but rather the broader philosophical implications of what we are  discussing. 

It is true that assuming that "fairies are not in the garden" Is quite logical, and the null hypothesis does prove useful, and does "pierce the fog" as you say. But in much larger and more significant claim such as the possibility of there not being or being G-d of any sort, something that in most belief's is beyond being able to prove would it not be ignorant to ignore possibilities of the latter rather than be open to both ideas. Sure the null hypothesis has its uses on a small scale but with something so broad can we make such assumptions and still call it logical?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Ame said:


> Now now, the insult to my intelligence was un-called for Fallow, and  does not acheive anything useful. We can argue what is a "negative  claim" all day, and I can think of plenty of ways to phase that question  to where it does technically become a positive claim, but I thought  simple word play was beyond us? We are not focusing on simple semantics  but rather the broader philosophical implications of what we are  discussing.
> 
> It is true that assuming that "fairies are not in the garden" Is quite logical, and the null hypothesis does prove useful, and does "pierce the fog" as you say. But in much larger and more significant claim such as the possibility of there not being or being G-d of any sort, something that in most belief's is beyond being able to prove would it not be ignorant to ignore possibilities of the latter rather than be open to both ideas. Sure the null hypothesis has its uses on a small scale but with something so broad can we make such assumptions and still call it logical?



We can't argue what the definition of negative is all day, because the definition is already well-constrained. 

It is as pointless as arguing 1 and 1 make 3.

The notion that you, sitting on a chair in front of your computer, could rip apart the syntax of English and hence restructure philosophy is absurd. If it were that easy, it would have been done by now. 

The burden of proof is not 'to ignore'. It is the stipulation that we can't consider the idea meaningfully without new evidence or reason. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are inert. We cannot make any use of them. 

Not only would you, if not following this standard, be made to entertain the notion of grand deities, but also a raft of ridiculous notions which cannot possibly co exist. For example we can propose the existence of more Gods ad infinitum, or even anti-Gods, and so on. We could even speculate upon the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.


----------



## Ame (Jun 21, 2014)

Exacally  I did acknowledge that I am crazy didn't I? In referance to me ripping apart the syntax of english and restructuring philosophy etc etc. It is an interesting Idea, one which I wish I could profess to have hahaha but I was thinking along the lines of rewording the sentance to make it fit my purpose? (hence why I called it meaningless word play attributing not much to the conversation) 

If it is not possible that something could co-exist than I would make no argument that they co-exist. But for the more grander possibilities of a deity, or several for that matter logically it would be just as useful if not more in their cultural and scientifical influance as assuming they do exist in comparison to the idea that they do not. But the usefulness of an idea or belief is sorta subjective anyway so I shouldn't touch on the matter so much. 

I will say that following this standard would be more open minded, and progressive. Allowing communication between differant beliefs and breaking cultural barriers even if one chooses Atheism or Theism (or one of their many differant variations) rather than demanding that there be an answer or proof of the matter.

Anyway, I need some sleep  I did enjoy discussing the issue and its great to have someone so well read and interlectual to debate this with, I will hopefully continue the discussion later friend  G'night


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 21, 2014)

Ame said:


> But in much larger and more significant claim such as the possibility of there not being or being G-d of any sort, something that in most belief's is beyond being able to prove would it not be ignorant to ignore possibilities of the latter rather than be open to both ideas. Sure the null hypothesis has its uses on a small scale but with something so broad can we make such assumptions and still call it logical?



Here is my take on it:
There _is_ a possibility that a highly advanced being that we may call a god could exist. It is impossible to know everything in the universe, outright denying this possibility would be unwise.
However! None of the gods that humanity has up come with exist. They simply _can't_ exist because the holy texts that are tied to them are riddled with logical errors and contradictions. There is also the complete and utter lack of evidence.
But there is also no evidence for the god that _could_ exist. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe in something that isn't supported by evidence? It makes no sense!

Then there is the fact that religion is an incredibly dangerous tool that only exists to controll the masses.


----------



## chesse20 (Jun 21, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> Wow. This thread is going places.
> 
> Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.


If Christianity  didn't destroy the Roman Empire and create the dark ages we might have already been in space by the 1800s


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 21, 2014)

Ame said:


> Exacally  I did acknowledge that I am crazy didn't I? In referance to me ripping apart the syntax of english and restructuring philosophy etc etc. It is an interesting Idea, one which I wish I could profess to have hahaha but I was thinking along the lines of rewording the sentance to make it fit my purpose? (hence why I called it meaningless word play attributing not much to the conversation)
> 
> If it is not possible that something could co-exist than I would make no argument that they co-exist. But for the more grander possibilities of a deity, or several for that matter logically it would be just as useful if not more in their cultural and scientifical influance as assuming they do exist in comparison to the idea that they do not. But the usefulness of an idea or belief is sorta subjective anyway so I shouldn't touch on the matter so much.
> 
> ...



You can't reword a positive claim to make it a negative claim, or vice versa. If you try, you will create a sentence which looks like a child composed it, and it will be easy to cancel the double negatives- because that is the mechanism by which you will try to do it. 

Open mindedness does not mean refusing to recognise objectives when we find them [as toying with words to convert negative claims to 'positive' ones is], and it does not mean taking a middle position. It means the willingness to consider new ideas. Comparing an idea to its null hypothesis and making the best possible informed decision is an open minded process.



chesse20 said:


> If Christianity  didn't destroy the Roman Empire  and create the dark ages we might have already been in space by the  1800s



I'm not sure christianity is to blame for the fall of rome, and am skeptical that the future could be predicted several centuries in advance, given that historic event were erased.


----------



## chesse20 (Jun 21, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure christianity is to blame for the fall of rome, and am skeptical that the future could be predicted several centuries in advance, given that historic event were erased.


Yeah well , it had a influence on the fall of Rome(I think?) but yeah I still think the argument presented by mr. Sparta is arguable , since it's 2014 and monasteries preserving books doesn't really matter anymore since we have the internet and the library of congress doing the preservation of books nowadays


----------



## tisr (Jun 22, 2014)

Some gods also cannot exist because they are self-contradictory.
For example, you can't have a god which is omnipresent but yet spaceless and timeless, or omnibenevolent while requiring an abundance of evil, suffering and sacrifice, or have a predetermined plan while still allowing free will, or be omnipotent while still having an enemy which tries to defeat him.


----------



## Ame (Jun 22, 2014)

chesse20 said:


> Yeah well , it had a influence on the fall of Rome(I think?) but yeah I still think the argument presented by mr. Sparta is arguable , since it's 2014 and monasteries preserving books doesn't really matter anymore since we have the internet and the library of congress doing the preservation of books nowadays


 
  Now people please learn your history, Christianity played little to no influence in the fall of Rome, The fall of Rome can be generally found to be in their very large and generous territory expansion (often reaching as far the British Isles to the borders of Egypt) which is similar to the fall of the great Mongolian where their borders and kingdoms became so large it was difficult to govern. Another influence is despite Rome inducting other empires into the Roman Empire, very often would there be civil wars, and civil unrest (which is a pretty big problem as an empire hahaha) 

  If you want a fun more in-depth look at what happened to the Roman Empire, John Green does a great job at really nailing what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PszVWZNWVA
  Also note he does another video detailing the Dark ages and why they arenâ€™t so dark (knowledge wise) if youâ€™re interested.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7CanyzhZg




CaptainCool said:


> Here is my take on it:
> There is a possibility that a highly advanced being that we may call a god could exist. It is impossible to know everything in the universe, outright denying this possibility would be unwise.
> However! None of the gods that humanity has up come with exist. They simply can't exist because the holy texts that are tied to them are riddled with logical errors and contradictions. There is also the complete and utter lack of evidence.
> But there is also no evidence for the god that could exist. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe in something that isn't supported by evidence? It makes no sense!
> ...





tisr said:


> Some gods also cannot exist because they are self-contradictory.
> For example, you can't have a god which is omnipresent but yet spaceless and timeless, or omnibenevolent while requiring an abundance of evil, suffering and sacrifice, or have a predetermined plan while still allowing free will, or be omnipotent while still having an enemy which tries to defeat him.


  You have to be careful, what you say is true, but youâ€™re being very Christo-centric in your ideas, other faiths such as Modern Confucianism and contemporary Taoism (and many more) have very different ideas about a G-d or â€˜Taoâ€™ (they are very similar in both faiths) but rather than G-d has knowledge, G-d or the Tao IS knowledge itself, rather than G-d being everywhere and separate G-d IS Everythingâ€¦ Itâ€™s hard to explain I find Wikipedia explains it a lot better surprisingly 
  â€œTao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the _Tao Te Ching_, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe.â€

  But I find that Taoism and Confucianism (The modern adaptions without the mysticism from 3000 years ago) often have very little contradiction because any idea of a G-d is innate within everything, and G-d itself does not necessarily have emotions or even really a consciousness bit G-d just is all that there is and is not separate from us, both good and evil.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 22, 2014)

I think that definition of God is too diffuse to be meaningful.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jun 22, 2014)

Look out people, G-d is comin to get you!


----------



## Ame (Jun 22, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I think that definition of God is too diffuse to be meaningful.



It is much more complex than it seems, there is alot more to it that I just explained but if your interested take a look yourself, there are piles of texts on Taoism and Confucianism. Both religions take a differant approach to the Tao, or Tian, Taoism says we should live in harmony with the Tao, enacting Wu Wei, which is non action and allowing ourselves to "flow like water, and the Tao is the riverbed, guiding us" while confucianism does have some Taoist ideas and though but is more focused on cultivating oneself, studying and learning, as well as teaching us how we should act withing society in order to make society better.

Lol, gotta love that post d.batty XD but I say G-d out of respect for other beliefs, for the most part anyway hahaha


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 22, 2014)

Ame said:


> You have to be careful, what you say is true, but youâ€™re being very Christo-centric in your ideas, other faiths such as Modern Confucianism and contemporary Taoism (and many more) have very different ideas about a G-d or â€˜Taoâ€™ (they are very similar in both faiths) but rather than G-d has knowledge, G-d or the Tao IS knowledge itself, rather than G-d being everywhere and separate G-d IS Everythingâ€¦ Itâ€™s hard to explain I find Wikipedia explains it a lot better surprisingly
> â€œTao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the _Tao Te Ching_, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe.â€
> 
> But I find that Taoism and Confucianism (The modern adaptions without the mysticism from 3000 years ago) often have very little contradiction because any idea of a G-d is innate within everything, and G-d itself does not necessarily have emotions or even really a consciousness bit G-d just is all that there is and is not separate from us, both good and evil.



Of course I am concentrating on christianity. It is the fairy tale that is causing the most trouble in the west.
But I do think that the other religions are a load of wet farts, too. None of it is based on evidence and believing in things that are not based on evidence, and some times even factually refuted, is plain dangerous and in my honest opinion also extremely stupid.

Also, why aren't you writing the word "god" in full? It's just a word, that is pretty annoying...


----------



## Ame (Jun 22, 2014)

Religion is just people trying to comprehend the mysteries of the world, nothing bad or evil unless used as an excuse


----------



## RebelHangar (Jun 22, 2014)

I'm surprised Paganism and Wicca aren't on the list.


----------



## Ame (Jun 22, 2014)

Couldn't fit them, my apologies


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 22, 2014)

Ame said:


> Religion is just people trying to comprehend the mysteries of the world, nothing bad or evil unless used as an excuse



That is a problem that I have with it. You can't explain things based on a lie!
For example, christianity tries to explain the existence of the world and all creatures on it through creation. But that never happened! Believing in bullshit like that isn't beneficial in any way!
And it IS being used as an excuse to do evil... Just look at Iraq right now! >__>


----------



## Ame (Jun 22, 2014)

I did explain in an earlier post about how any idea can be used to promote war and evil, such as anti-semitism and even anti-theism if used in the wrong hands. And Creationists have every right to speculate the universe was created however way they like hahaha there is nothing wrong with that, its just a differant idea, whether it is wrong or right is yet to be seen lol.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jun 22, 2014)

Furry is an idea, so does that mean we can promote war and evil? The evil part I can get, but war?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 22, 2014)

Ame said:


> And Creationists have every right to speculate the universe was created however way they like hahaha there is nothing wrong with that, its just a differant idea, whether it is wrong or right is yet to be seen lol.



Right, and I have every right to think they are freaking retarded for believing something like that. Because there is EVERYTHING wrong with believing in something this big that isn't supported by any evidence.

And no, we don't have to wait because it isn't a mystery anymore. Science has solved that already. Cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. The end.


----------



## Ame (Jun 22, 2014)

Lol I don't know about you but I could imagine furries rising up and taking over the world  with their fursuits as their uniforms etc etc. Its an interesting thought


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 22, 2014)

Ame said:


> I did explain in an earlier post about how any idea can be used to promote war and evil, such as anti-semitism and even anti-theism if used in the wrong hands. And Creationists have every right to speculate the universe was created however way they like hahaha there is nothing wrong with that, its just a differant idea, whether it is wrong or right is yet to be seen lol.



It has already been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the creation myths of any world religion are false. We already have a reasonable and predictive model of our planet's formation and development by well known natural processes. 

This isn't 'the end' of the story of the cosmos, but it is the end for creation myths and magical monsters.


----------



## Nekokami (Jun 22, 2014)

I don't have a religion as such, but I'm not an atheist.
Guess you could call me agnostic? Maybe? Nah...


----------



## ADF (Jun 22, 2014)

Furry is a predominantly online sub-culture. Given the Internet is where religions go to die, their dirty laundry hung up for everyone to see, it's not too surprising furries would have a larger non-believer to believer ratio than the typical population.



Ame said:


> And Creationists have every right to speculate the universe was created however way they like hahaha there is nothing wrong with that, its just a differant idea, whether it is wrong or right is yet to be seen lol.



Creationist's right to faith ended the moment they tried to get it taught in science class, those cowards deserve everything they receive and more.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 22, 2014)

Ninten said:


> I don't have a religion as such, but I'm not an atheist.
> Guess you could call me agnostic? Maybe? Nah...



If you don't believe in a god or a higher power you are per definition an atheist.
Agnosticism just says that you acknowledge that it is impossible to _know_ about the existence of a god, but it doesn't explain what you _believe_.
For example, you can be an agnostic theist. A person who doesn't know whether a god exists but who believes in it anyway.
Or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether a god exists and who doesn't believe in it.
There are also _gnostic_ theists and atheists. People who claim to know whether god exists or not. Those are the most unreasonable positions to have in this situation because claiming to have knowledge about something that is unknowable is stupid.


----------



## tisr (Jun 22, 2014)

Believing in something that cannot be proven to exist, or even proven to not exist, is being delusional.

I consider myself an igtheist, which claims that the concept of a god cannot be understood, and is thus a meaningless term. Because the existence of a god is unknowable, untestable, and unfalsifiable, it is impossible to make any practical prediction on the nature of a god. Thus, the concept of a god is meaningless.


----------



## Ikrit (Jun 22, 2014)

was first a christian
became angry rebellious athiest/satanist
became confused
now following Buddhism, as i have yet to find anything wrong with it


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 22, 2014)

Ikrit said:


> was first a christian
> became angry rebellious athiest/satanist
> became confused
> now following Buddhism, as i have yet to find anything wrong with it



The hardcore buddhists on Sri Lanka will fuck you up if you have anything Buddha related with you: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lanka-for-having-a-buddha-tattoo-9274681.html
They liereally can't guarantee your safety if you go there if you do and you will be asked to leave. So much for friendly buddhist monks!

Every religion has its nutjobs. They are all the same dangerous nonsense, at least to some extend.


----------



## rjbartrop (Jun 22, 2014)

Atheist here, though I don't feel particularly organized about it


----------



## Ikrit (Jun 22, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> The hardcore buddhists on Sri Lanka will fuck you up if you have anything Buddha related with you: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lanka-for-having-a-buddha-tattoo-9274681.html
> They liereally can't guarantee your safety if you go there if you do and you will be asked to leave. So much for friendly buddhist monks!
> 
> Every religion has its nutjobs. They are all the same dangerous nonsense, at least to some extend.


looks more like a case of crazy government to me.
this doesn't say anything about a Buddhist attacking a tourist for having tattoos 
It specifically says that the woman was arrested by a police officer at an airport because they thought that it would be offensive.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 22, 2014)

Ikrit said:


> looks more like a case of crazy government to me.
> this doesn't say anything about a Buddhist attacking a tourist for having tattoos
> It specifically says that the woman was arrested by a police officer at an airport because they thought that it would be offensive.



Extremist buddhists attacking muslims: 
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/...sri-lanka-mob-attacks-201461663841177637.html
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/artic...a-tourist-resorts-after-buddhist-mob-violence
Extremist buddhists attacking christians:
http://www.colombopage.com/archive_14A/Jan12_1389543758CH.php

There really is no denying that _all_ religions have their crazy fucktards, whether you like it or not. They are all the damn same.


----------



## Hikaru Okami (Jun 22, 2014)

Extremists are everywhere unfortunately. Whether it's religion, movies, or video games there are always those who takes thing too far. There could even be extremist furries.


----------



## Machine (Jun 22, 2014)

Hikaru Okami said:


> There could even be extremist furries.


There are. They're the ones who are easily offended by the word "furfag" and believe furry shit is a sexual orientation/prejudiced minority.

The most laughable extremists in the world!


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 22, 2014)

Machine said:


> There are. They're the ones who are easily offended by the word "furfag" and believe furry shit is a sexual orientation/prejudiced minority.
> 
> The most laughable extremists in the world!



They are also the ones who fuck everything that moves at cons and who are really pushy with their moronic fetishes.
So they are pretty much the ones the media would focus on when talking about furfags


----------



## Machine (Jun 22, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> They are also the ones who fuck everything that moves at cons and who are really pushy with their moronic fetishes.
> So they are pretty much the ones the media would focus on when talking about furfags


They also believe killing humans for hunting foxes (ie, pest control because foxes are pests) is totally fine.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Jun 22, 2014)

d.batty said:


> Furry is an idea, so does that mean we can promote war and evil? The evil part I can get, but war?



people have gone to war for crazy ides before,so I don't see why not...

Of course, fursuits would be far from ideal combat apparel,being heavy and hot and such, but then again I ghillie up quite regularly, and those things (ghillie suits, the legit netting and burlap ones not the shirt/pants with cut out leaves on them) are just as bad or worse than my fursuit, and people wear those into combat all the time, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 22, 2014)

Hikaru Okami said:


> Extremists are everywhere unfortunately. Whether it's religion, movies, or video games there are always those who takes thing too far. There could even be extremist furries.



When one is claiming their religion serves to enlighten, the inspiration of extremists is a big embarrassment. If supposed divine enlightenment is no better than any other moral system, what exactly are religions for?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 22, 2014)

I fear no god and follow no savage.


----------



## KyryK (Jun 23, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Of course I am concentrating on christianity. It is the fairy tale that is causing the most trouble in the west.
> But I do think that the other religions are a load of wet farts, too. None of it is based on evidence and believing in things that are not based on evidence, and some times even factually refuted, is plain dangerous and in my honest opinion also extremely stupid.
> 
> Also, why aren't you writing the word "god" in full? It's just a word, that is pretty annoying...


I believe that writing it as G-d has it's roots in judaism. I can't remember the exact reason for it though. Probably because the name(s) of God are forbidden from being spoken by anyone other than the Kohen Gadol in Rabbinic Judaism, or possibly because of this:


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In Jewish tradition the sacredness of the divine name or titles must be recognized by the professional sofer (scribe) who writes Torah scrolls, or tefillin and mezuzah. Before transcribing any of the divine titles or name he prepares mentally to sanctify them. Once he begins a name he does not stop until it is finished, and he must not be interrupted while writing it, even to greet a king. If an error is made in writing it may not be erased, but a line must be drawn round it to show that it is canceled, and the whole page must be put in a genizah (burial place for scripture) and a new page begun.


----------



## Krysch (Jun 23, 2014)

Buddhist in that I believe in the concepts it promotes of compassion, mindfulness, meditation, karma etc. 
Of course, these concepts could really come about from anywhere, religion or not, buddhism just happened to be the vessel I jumped on to get across the river.

Other ideas, like creationism, afterlife/rebirth etc. I just kinda look at and think, well, I can't say for sure why I/we are here, or where we go after here, if anywhere, so screw it, forget about before and after life and just worry about what I can actually see for certain.


----------



## Esper Husky (Jun 23, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> If you don't believe in a god or a higher power you are per definition an atheist.
> Agnosticism just says that you acknowledge that it is impossible to _know_ about the existence of a god, but it doesn't explain what you _believe_.
> For example, you can be an agnostic theist. A person who doesn't know whether a god exists but who believes in it anyway.
> Or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether a god exists and who doesn't believe in it.
> There are also _gnostic_ theists and atheists. People who claim to know whether god exists or not. Those are the most unreasonable positions to have in this situation because claiming to have knowledge about something that is unknowable is stupid.



I never really gave it all that much more thought, but thank you for this post -- as I guess "agnostic theist" is where I'd stand / reside, or something close to it, or like it?

Along the lines of: "I believe in the existence of a higher power. I don't really know what it is or what's out there. But I have some sort of sense that something like that exists."

Whether I have faith or not in such a thing is kinda odd or confusing, though, maybe -- like a poor childhood that grew me bitter and cynical robbed me of seeing such a thing sensibly.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jun 23, 2014)

Atheism is getting boring I'm considering paganism or buddhism


----------



## Barkley (Jun 24, 2014)

Yay! For once I'm in the largest percentage on a "religion" chart. Glad to know there are so many fellow Atheist furs out there!


----------



## Barkley (Jun 24, 2014)

woops


----------



## Barkley (Jun 24, 2014)

tisr said:


> Believing in something that cannot be proven to exist, or even proven to not exist, is being delusional.
> 
> I consider myself an igtheist, which claims that the concept of a god cannot be understood, and is thus a meaningless term. Because the existence of a god is unknowable, untestable, and unfalsifiable, it is impossible to make any practical prediction on the nature of a god. Thus, the concept of a god is meaningless.


 You basically gave the exact definition of Agnosticism. So, you are an agnostic.


----------



## zanian (Jun 24, 2014)

The only label I need is secular humanist.


----------



## tisr (Jun 24, 2014)

Barkley said:


> You basically gave the exact definition of Agnosticism. So, you are an agnostic.



Agnosticism claims that the existence of a god is unknowable.
Ignosticism claims that a god is an undefined and therefore meaningless concept.

Similar, but slightly different.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 24, 2014)

Kitsune Cross said:


> Atheism is getting boring I'm considering paganism or buddhism



Then come to central/eastern Europe, taste our mead, dance around the flames, enjoy our awesome music, and get involved into historical reenactment



Mr. Sparta said:


> Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the  catholics/monetaries who helped preserve and copy books for future  generations? Without them, we would not be as well off as we are now. So  don't throw me that "religion holds us back" bullshit, it's not  entirely true.



That's because we're forgetting about the Byzantium. Whilst in the western Europe monasteries and church focused on preserving the knowledge without spreading it (and no wonder, since there were no conditions to spread the knowledge among the barbarians) when we look at the eastern empire... Then we see that first European university was founded not in Bologne but in Constantinople, in 842, with its roots reaching as early as 425 when Teodosius II founded the school. Next two european universities were also founded in the Byzantium (Ohrida, Preslav), and them there is Salerno, which was founded in the area heavily influeanced by the Byzantium. Of course their model was totally different from the western model, focusing on creating highly qualified administrative staff (so it was more like trade school) but that doesn't change a thing when it comes to overall education level.



CaptainCool said:


> There really is no denying that _all_ religions have their crazy fucktards, whether you like it or not. They are all the damn same.



Same with atheism. You have your crazy fucktards too. Agnosticism in its' various aspects is the only reasonable way to go, deal with it.



PastryOfApathy said:


> I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic since I  personally couldn't give two shits about religion in general. If there's  no god then welp whatever, and if there is one I hope he's nice enough  not to damn me to hell or something because I didn't go to church on  sundays.



Exactly my approach o7


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

I don't think agnosticism is 'the only viable choice', or that all agnostics are guaranteed not to be fucktards. I view agnostics, or at least the people who use the word agnostic to the effect of 'I'm not sure, maybe gods do exist' as people who have executed a middle ground fallacy, rather than understanding that unfalsifiable ideas are not 'neither wrong nor right until proven either way', but 'wrong until shown to be true'. 


Consider a teapot floating in space, just beyond the range of our best telescopes. It is impossible to show this is incorrect or correct, but we can dismiss this idea because it is a grand claim, with no viable physical mechanism. If an image of the teapot is captured at some point, then we can reevaluate our ideas. 

The notion of god is worse, because god isn't just beyond observation and not properly defined. She is magic, so unlike the teapot she doesn't have to obey physical laws and will always be beyond any kind of physical inquiry- whether theoretical or experimental. 

To entertain the notion of her existence, and not entertain the teapot's existence, or indeed notion of millions of other gods, of contradictory character, would be unfair- if 'you can't prove it wrong' was justification enough to regard skepticism as 'not a logical choice'.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 24, 2014)

It's absolutely possible to prove that there are no unicorns or sprats in my garden, because parameters of the unicorns and sprats are more or less known (they are material, they are visible, they reflect light, they have mass et cetera). Now, when it comes to gods, or at least some of them there is almost absolute lack of parameters which are measurable by our current apparatus. You can only use common sence and logic which can tell you that existance of an entity with mentioned parameters should be impossible. Thus the safest assumption is the one presented by the atheising agnosticism.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> It's absolutely possible to prove that there are no unicorns or sprats in my garden, because parameters of the unicorns and sprats are more or less known (they are material, they are visible, they reflect light, they have mass et cetera). Now, when it comes to gods, or at least some of them there is almost absolute lack of parameters which are measurable by our current apparatus. You can only use common sence and logic which can tell you that existance of an entity with mentioned parameters should be impossible. Thus the safest assumption is the one presented by the atheising agnosticism.



I would agree that the term agnostic, to mean 'impossible to know' is appropriate for any poorly defined construct. This would include unicorns and sprats provided that the adjective 'magical' were affixed to them. 

I do not think that 'we must entertain the possibility of their existence' is an appropriate stance though. We can do that when the subject matter is properly defined and reason is provided to suggest existence.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jun 24, 2014)

Humans can think beyond what is "logical". I pity those who restrict themselves from doing so.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> Humans can think beyond what is "logical". I pity those who restrict themselves from doing so.



Thinking logically has achieved this:






What has 'beyond logic' achieved? 





Logic is not our restriction. It is the liberation of the mind from confusion and magic.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 24, 2014)

Ok, screenshot taken. Now I have a proof that Fallowfox can lower himself to cheap demagoguery too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Ok, screenshot taken. Now I have a proof that Fallowfox can lower himself to cheap demagoguery too.



Unfortunately this isn't prejudicial. Magical thinking has only ever achieved good by coincidence, while logical thinking is responsible for almost all of the technology and achievement to ever take place. 
When newton deciphered his laws of motion, they were derived and proliferated by his arguments based on logic. They were not proliferated by divine inspiration and appeals to religious sensibility.

This is the problem though, when people criticise others for thinking logically. I mean come on. Such an argument is pointless since it criticises the structure of argument per se. It is like sawing off the branch you are sitting on.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jun 24, 2014)

You can think however you want, but Atheist or Theist, don't you dare use your personal belief to spread hate and violence. All I have seen from Fallow and CaptainCool in this thread is the two of them spreading the same intolerance that they pretend to be crusading against.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> You can think however you want, but Atheist or Theist, don't you dare use your personal belief to spread hate and violence. All I have seen from Fallow and CaptainCool in this thread is the two of them spreading the same intolerance that they pretend to be crusading against.



I'm not inciting violence in anybody, and people can think however they want. Some of those ways of thinking, for example racist attitudes, or beliefs that vast numbers of people deserve to be tortured for eternity for not failing to worship the right deity, do deserve to be hated though. Views like that shouldn't be tolerated, we should voice our criticism of them. 

Similarly objectively wrong views should not be tolerated when they are professed, especially in professional circles. If a person thinks rubbing kyanite on their skin or taking homeopathic medicine will heal their cancer, this view should receive sharp criticism.


It is the same criticism we would direct against a person claiming that ice is denser than water. Emotional attachment to opinions does not mean those opinions are immune from criticism.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jun 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not inciting violence in anybody, and people can think however they want. Some of those ways of thinking, for example racist attitudes, or beliefs that vast numbers of people deserve to be tortured for eternity for not failing to worship the right deity, do deserve to be hated though. Views like that shouldn't be tolerated, we should voice our criticism of them.
> 
> Similarly objectively wrong views should not be tolerated when they are professed, especially in professional circles. If a person thinks rubbing kyanite on their skin or taking homeopathic medicine will heal their cancer, this view should receive sharp criticism.



Oh please. Stop pretending that every religious person thinks that way and that it is grounds for abolishing all religion. Religion is most often times not the culprit in these cases. Its individuals wanting to push an agenda, power over others or material possessions, cloaking their own agendas under the guise of religious doctrine. As it has already been said in this thread, even if religion were abolished then people would find other excuses to act horribly to one another.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> Oh please. Stop pretending that every religious person thinks that way and that it is grounds for abolishing all religion. Religion is most often times not the culprit in these cases. Its individuals wanting to push an agenda, power over others or material possessions, cloaking their own agendas under the guise of religious doctrine. As it has already been said in this thread, even if religion were abolished then people would find other excuses to act horribly to one another.



I never argued that we have a grounds for abolishing religion. I think that banning people from having magical views would be oppressive, even if I can demonstrate those views are categorically incorrect. 

I think I do have a right to show why those magical beliefs are wrong though.

Living inside your head must be rather strange, if you believe other people want to establish cloak and dagger governments to oppress the religious for daring to suggest that religious thinking is fundamentally flawed, even if it makes people feel fuzzy inside.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jun 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I never argued that we have a grounds for abolishing religion. I think that banning people from having magical views would be oppressive, even if I can demonstrate those views are categorically incorrect.
> 
> I think I do have a right to show why those magical beliefs are wrong though.



I don't understand why anyone would want to butt into anyone's personal life just to argue with them over beliefs, but indeed that is your right.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 24, 2014)

Pfff, infidels. You'll never experience the joy of feasting at the Svarogs' table!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> I don't understand why anyone would want to butt into anyone's personal life just to argue with them over beliefs, but indeed that is your right.



This is a _public_ discussion. It is not somebody's personal life. I am not going door to door, which is a common practice religious proselytisers [who often demand special protection from criticism] undertake.



Ayattar said:


> Pfff, infidels. You'll never experience the joy of feasting at the Svarogs' table!



Woden was always more my kind of deity anyway.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jun 24, 2014)

Why do I feel like you only exist for conflict, Melodram Patheticus


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jun 24, 2014)

When something is explained by science, and validated by science, it BECOMES a scientific statement. If there was magic and other such things (I say IF, I know this is not a real thing), if humans discovered it, and explored and researched it, it would be grounded in science. Magic would become a scientific interest. Maybe at one point, humans thought there was something very magical about the cosmos around us, but now this is science.

E. And humans worshipping the sun. That's what I was trying to remember. It was hailed as a deity, but now it's science, and it's taught about in science classes.

I'm not trying to conflict with anyone's opinions or beliefs when I say this, but if there was a god, some all-powerful deity, it would become science.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 24, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> Why do I feel like you only exist for conflict, Melodram Patheticus



It's because he's not made from plasticine but from iron, thus it's easier to break him than incline and convince. Plus, I have vague suspiction that IRL he's some kind of very well written bot, as there is rarely something else than logic in his posts! Hahaha! I got you, Roy Batty! It's time to get decomissioned!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> Why do I feel like you only exist for conflict, Melodram Patheticus



Because you're not capable of imagining that other people have mosaic personalities outside of online debates about religion?


----------



## ADF (Jun 24, 2014)

It always amazes me how religion can be so dominant and widespread, so influential and imposing, yet can declare oppression whenever it's criticised.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 24, 2014)

ADF said:


> It always amazes me how religion can be so dominant and widespread, so influential and imposing, yet can declare oppression whenever it's criticised.



We've stepped into an age that the world is becoming increasingly polarised, and with the fact that info and rumours can spread to millions in a matter of seconds, it's really hard to get away with saying shit that might offend others. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes, for worse.

I blame the extreme Christian right-wingers, especially American ones, who've been taking this I-can't-be-bigoted-without-getting-a-bunch-of-flak thing and trying to turn it around by calling "oppression!" in their last feeble attempt to hold onto the ability to spout whatever bat-shit-crazy nonsense inspired them that day - It's their last defence mechanism (except...guns? And the 1st amendment). It can be excessively bad from both parties, but it's more consistently bad from the right-wingers, who make up things like the "gay agenda", or "godless heathen agenda", or what the fuck ever >_>


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

The word 'godless heathen' always struck me as odd, because Heathenry is a polytheistic religion.


----------



## tisr (Jun 24, 2014)

Regarding atheism and agnosticism...

Atheism is not the assertion that no gods exist. It is simply the lack of belief in gods. Many people mix that up a lot. Atheism is not a fundamentally flawed viewpoint.

To me, I see no difference between a teapot in space which has not been observed, or a god. There is no way to prove that either one is different from each other, and there is no practical, falsifiable test we can perform to determine a difference in their identities. Perhaps this clears up the reasons why I am ignostic.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The word 'godless heathen' always struck me as odd, because Heathenry is a polytheistic religion.



They usually aren't that well-read, which is ironic, given their "source material" is a book.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jun 24, 2014)

Well, there's no special category for Catholicism - so I picked Christian. 

But  - I must say it always BUGS me when Catholicism and Protestantism are lumped together (by people) into one group - as they are not one and the same.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 24, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, there's no special category for Catholicism - so I picked Christian.
> 
> But  - I must say it always BUGS me when Catholicism and Protestantism are lumped together (by people) into one group - as they are not one and the same.



If we really had to do that then every religion would be split in two, and then they would be split in two, and so forth. 

There would never be enough poll options.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 24, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> You can think however you want, but Atheist or Theist, don't you dare use your personal belief to spread hate and violence. All I have seen from Fallow and CaptainCool in this thread is the two of them spreading the same intolerance that they pretend to be crusading against.



Please tell me more about the horrible persecution you are facing from these monsters.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 24, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, there's no special category for Catholicism - so I picked Christian.
> 
> But  - I must say it always BUGS me when Catholicism and Protestantism are lumped together (by people) into one group - as they are not one and the same.



If that happened, then Christian should be split as two different categories in the poll as both Catholic and Protestant/Other.



monochromatic-dragon said:


> You can think however you want, but Atheist or Theist, don't you dare use your personal belief to spread hate and violence. All I have seen from Fallow and CaptainCool in this thread is the two of them spreading the same intolerance that they pretend to be crusading against.



Until I see Fallow and CC arguing that people who follow a religious belief/faith should be burned, lynched, stoned, flayed, dragged, etc, they are allowed their opinions as you are allowed the same freedoms whether you like them or not. And vice versa.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 24, 2014)

AlexxxLupo said:


> E. And humans worshipping the sun. That's what I was trying to remember. It was hailed as a deity, but now it's science, and it's taught about in science classes.


Welllllllllll,
it created us, it sustains us, and it will ultimately destroy us.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jun 24, 2014)

I always knew the sun was trouble.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 25, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> It's absolutely possible to prove that there are no unicorns or sprats in my garden, parameters of the unicorns and sprats are more or less known (they are material, they are visible, they reflect light, they have mass et cetera). Now, when it comes to gods, or at least some of them there is almost absolute lack of parameters which are measurable by our current apparatus. You can only use common sence and logic which can tell you that existance of an entity with mentioned parameters should be impossible. Thus the safest assumption is the one presented by the atheising agnosticism.



No, it actually isn't possible to prove (in the strongest sense as demanded by formal logic) that there are no unicorns in your garden.  You can't know that unicorns can't become invisible.  Unicorns could also just be really good at hiding, with an uncanny ability to exploit the blind spot in human vision.  Conversely, you could just be really bad at finding unicorns.  Perhaps your brain simply refuses to acknowledge the presence of a unicorn.  There are a million ways a unicorn could be in your garden without your knowledge that are technically within the realm of possibility, even if only on the very edge of it.

You cannot prove gravity is truly a persistent phenomenon.  All of humanity's combined experiences of things falling down does not strictly _prove_ that they will not fall up tomorrow.  You cannot prove that the entirety of the universe outside your field of view at any given moment isn't completely filled with densely packed Hitler clones.  _All_ knowledge, save that which can be derived _a priori_ from abstract definitions, is provisional, because anything that is rooted in observation can never be truly proven.  Yet it is obviously fair to say that believing contrary to any on the above things is patently unreasonable.  Holding a belief that the existence of gods isn't on the same order of unlikelihood as unicorns in your garden is also patently unreasonable.

Unless you're an insufferable pedant, you wouldn't balk at every instance of people expressing in everyday conversations that they _know_ things that are almost certainly true but technically unprovable.  To insist that no one identify as atheists without meeting the impossible standard of having positive proof of the nonexistence of gods is special pleading.  I am not truly certain of the nonexistence of gods, but only to the extent that I am not certain of anything that isn't tautological or self-contradicting.  I am certain that nonbelief in gods is the only reasonable position to hold.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 25, 2014)

As I mentioned before, we know unicorns' desirable parameters. If we happen to find something else, for example - unicorn that is invisible, then it won't be an unicorn but - brace yourself - invisible unicorn, a totally new species.

Plus, there can be no unicorn in my garden since I don't have a garden. Touche.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 25, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> As I mentioned before, we know unicorns' desirable parameters. If we happen to find something else, for example - unicorn that is invisible, then it won't be an unicorn but - brace yourself - invisible unicorn, a totally new species.
> 
> Plus, there can be no unicorn in my garden since I don't have a garden. Touche.



Maybe your garden just works in mysterious ways, or you haven't discovered it because you hate it.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 25, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> As I mentioned before, we know unicorns' desirable parameters. If we happen to find something else, for example - unicorn that is invisible, then it won't be an unicorn but - brace yourself - invisible unicorn, a totally new species.
> 
> Plus, there can be no unicorn in my garden since I don't have a garden. Touche.



Nice job bypassing the entire argument there.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 25, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Maybe your garden just works in mysterious ways, or you haven't discovered it because you hate it.



Or maybe deep down in his heart he does know there is a unicorn in his garden, but he's just pretending not to because he wants to... whatever it is you can't do if you acknowledge the existence of the unicorn in your garden.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 25, 2014)

d.batty said:


> I always knew the sun was trouble.



Indeed it is.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jun 26, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Or maybe deep down in his heart he does know there is a unicorn in his garden, but he's just pretending not to because he wants to... whatever it is you can't do if you acknowledge the existence of the unicorn in your garden.



So I come back to this thread and all of a sudden unicorns? Well, knowing me I have to drop a reference. 

Maybe it's like in _The Last Unicorn_ where only certain people were able to see the Unicorn's horn, and thus know what they were. I think it was something about believing that they really existed or something like that. I just remember that the townsfolk couldn't see the unicorn's horn so the witch that captured her had to put an illusion spell on her to make a fake horn visible. And no, it wasn't the unicorn knowingly making it so her horn wasn't visible.


----------



## Maugryph (Jun 27, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Indeed it is.



Now all we need is some jolly cooperation..


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Jun 27, 2014)

I'm a Christian turned deist turned pantheist, also known as the Ben Franklin spiritual path.


----------



## gmnchampion (Jun 28, 2014)

I didn't see it on the list, but I consider myself to be Unitarian.  I'm more about taking moral standards on certain things and making sure that everyone can bring something to the discussion overall.  Ended up with that because my parents wanted me to take confirmation classes (family is mostly Presbyterian) and since I didn't feel comfortable the priest felt it best for me to research different religions and find the one that was best for me.  You learn a lot, but it helps a lot when you get into new environments and people adhere to certain customs.


----------



## Aulendra (Jun 28, 2014)

Pretty much atheist though a tad agnostic, will probably pray if I'm ever in a plane crash. :v


----------



## Lobar (Jun 28, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> So I come back to this thread and all of a sudden unicorns? Well, knowing me I have to drop a reference.
> 
> Maybe it's like in _The Last Unicorn_ where only certain people were able to see the Unicorn's horn, and thus know what they were. I think it was something about believing that they really existed or something like that. I just remember that the townsfolk couldn't see the unicorn's horn so the witch that captured her had to put an illusion spell on her to make a fake horn visible. And no, it wasn't the unicorn knowingly making it so her horn wasn't visible.



So, Calvinism?

Also the context behind the unicorn argument is that there all sorts of invented hand-waving bullshit justifications for unicorns (like the one you just gave) and they are no less unprovable than the existence of gods, but that doesn't make them at all reasonable to believe.


----------



## tiggu (Jun 29, 2014)

I will vote as Christian for the poll, but I'm actually Church of God member.
Our church teaching is very different from Christian beliefs.....
However we believe the writing in the Bible so the closest answer on the list is Christian 

So are there many furries who hate religious people?
I want to find furry friends, and I do not intend to talk about my religion to them if they don't want to hear.
However, is it dangerous or bad idea to tell people that I believe in God, if it happens in conversations...?


----------



## EternalSushi (Jun 29, 2014)

Depends on who the friend is. If you think he hates God and doesn't believe in it, then better if you don't talk. But you DO go with the whole 'you can only be close to another Christian/God believer' thing right?


----------



## tiggu (Jun 29, 2014)

I don't mind anyone's religion, my family does not believe in God but we keep good relationships. ^ ^
I sometimes have problems with Christians who hate to my religion, but another people is not. 
However I read some posts here and other places and it seems like people on the forum here have different reaction from people I meet in person.... >< 
And I'm not yet share my art on FA but I worry if I should keep any personal information or drawings with religion alone to myself. ã… ã…


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jun 29, 2014)

I am a Christian, leaning slightly to agnosticism, but I am a believer and follower of God

A lot of the stricter beliefs that I've grown up with I've shoved aside. 

For example 'homosexuality is a sin'. Is it really? Apparently the bible calls it an abomination or something. I've also heard that this same passage is a mistranslation, or that it is not something to describe our time period. After all, the same bible verse says women not wearing headdresses is a despicable thing, oops, guess how many women are in sin now?

If it actually, truly, is a sin for whatever reason, I do not believe in how so-called Christians will bash them or tell them to change their sexuality. First off...can we stop talking about their sexuality, it's this big deal you're making it out to be but really it should be on the level of...divorce. Go pester divorced couples. Most homosexuals do not believe in a God, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THEM THEY'RE WRONG WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN GOD?!?!? 

Yes, I get that evolution has it's stance in the world, hence why I'm slightly agnostic. But really, most things I know about anything are words I learned in school. How do I know Europe exists if I've never been there, what if Europe is a conspiracy? How do I know the civil war happened, what if it's some convoluted story to cover up history? How much history and science and information do we really know is true if we only hear it secondhand rather than experience it?

So overall, I think that the fact God sent his son to save this damned humanity, that's good enough for me, and it's only up to the individual to take it to heart. No bible-thumping Christian can make you it is soley your decision

And if we all die and go to a black void then oh well


----------



## tisr (Jun 30, 2014)

The bible condemns really weird things with death, like working on Sundays, or cursing your parents, or worshipping another god. My favourite is Lev 11:9-12 and Deu 14:9-10 where eating crustaceans are an abomination.

Its true that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination.  But in Lev 18:29 people who commit abominations will be banished from their people, and in Lev 20:13 people who commit the abomination of homosexuality will be put to death. The mistranslation thing tends to be really vague depending on who you ask though.

Also Occam's razor. Its much easier for Europe to exist than for every single person you have met to be in some huge conspiracy. The thing with scientists and evolution, which is similar to that of global warming, is that most people think that there is a good distribution of scientists who both believe and disbelieve in that subject matter, when in reality 90-99% of scientists believe evolution is true. It is more likely that all the scientists in the world, including independent organizations and researchers, are correct than to believe that all of them are in a conspiracy.

In fact, the wonderful thing about science is that is is verifiable. If you are extremely skeptic, you can go look at all the fossil records and specimen records and try to find similarities in anatomy and vestigial structures and whatnot. Of course, many government and independent organizations have done this work for you, but you are free to check it out yourself, though you'd spend a significant amount of time doing so.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 30, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> How much history and science and information do we really know is true if we only hear it secondhand rather than experience it?



By exercising some intellectual effort, in order to check. For example one need not believe Pythagoras is right merely because the math teacher says so. Your math teacher should have proven it to you, and if they did not it is within your capacity to either look the proof up or derive it yourself. 

The same is true of every other fact and theory to ever be justifiably asserted in a science class. You can test all of them. You might even get a job testing them, find an error and correct it, or discover a new unexplored field of science. You never have to 'just take someone else's word for it'. 


By contrast, the assertion 'god killed his son for humanity, and then used magic to bring him back from the dead' is entirely without testability. People, categorically, only believe this because other people told them to.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jun 30, 2014)

tisr said:


> The bible condemns really weird things with death, like working on Sundays, or cursing your parents, or worshipping another god. My favourite is Lev 11:9-12 and Deu 14:9-10 where eating crustaceans are an abomination.
> 
> Its true that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination.  But in Lev 18:29 people who commit abominations will be banished from their people, and in Lev 20:13 people who commit the abomination of homosexuality will be put to death. The mistranslation thing tends to be really vague depending on who you ask though.
> 
> ...



Most of that stuff kinda makes more sense in context, really. Fortunately, all that stuff doesn't apply anymore to the Christian system of salvation; if Paul's letters are any indication, it's merely accepting Jesus' gift of salvation and following after God that gets you into heaven. There's something a lot of churches practice though called "legalism" (which Paul did warn against also in his letters, though I forgot which one exactly); legalism is having an over emphasis on whatever rules/laws your sect believes you need to follow to be "right with God". True, there are things you should and shouldn't do, but often legalistic churches are...well you'll know one when you see it. Also often times legalistic churches make it seem like you can -lose- your salvation (somehow) if you aren't right with their (usually seemingly arbitrary) set of rules. 

Anyways, one of the reasons God set up all these rules for the Ancient Isrealites was to make them right in His eyes, which of course meant making them different from the other people and tribes. That's why he requires stuff like circumcision, that infamous "no two fabric clothing" rule, and no tattoos or piercings; other tribes all did things like this, and by forbidding His people from doing it God helped them stand out more. There are other things that're pretty much "because God said so" though. Though the following other Gods...well if you're trying to make yourself seem like you're the big boss and all powerful (and in the stories of the bible, He is) then it doen't do well to have deserters, does it? 

And yeah, there is the claim that homosexuality is a mistranslation (especially since there is no Hebrew word for it), and then you get the fun conspiracies like "The King James Version was written with it's anti-gay language because King James was gay!" or something like that. Usually when people get into "what the original greek language" said and how it could translate to this or that I start to back off and go "Ok pal look...I'm pretty sure God doesn't want or need you to go this far with it. Just live your life dammit!"


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 30, 2014)

A large number of peoples believe their race is the holiest race, and scar themselves [in some truly awful fashions]. 

It is just like most races believed that they lived in the middle of the world, even though 'middleness' on a sphere's surface is an arbitrary notion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 30, 2014)

I still love those people who think Jesus is white (aside from the questionability of his existence), despite the area he was supposedly born in.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 30, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I still love those people who think Jesus is white (aside from the questionability of his existence), despite the area he was supposedly born in.



For a long time 'historians' believed that the ruling classes of the Mediterranean region were pale freckly northern Europeans, because that was the only way they could resolve their racist beliefs with the fact that ancient non-aryan cultures had been the most advanced at that time on the planet.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 30, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> For example 'homosexuality is a sin'. Is it really? Apparently the bible calls it an abomination or something. I've also heard that this same passage is a mistranslation, or that it is not something to describe our time period. After all, the same bible verse says women not wearing headdresses is a despicable thing, oops, guess how many women are in sin now?



I wouldn't say it is mistranslated, but laws set in stone and written by a diety to make it more legitimate.

In the case of homosexuality, think about it this way: you live during a period where the mortality rate is very high. For the time, "Samesies" (Or spear-chokers, sword swallowers, pick one...) were not such a big deal until they saw a decrease in their population. Ideally, that was not a good thing.

Now, we have advances in medicine and a fucking large population, yet people want to stand by the old laws because it is "Divine". In reality, laws created in the past like that were to protect the populace. The illusion of "aw divinity" was a way to make sure that the laws were followed with a threat of eternal damnation.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 30, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> People, categorically, only believe this because other people told them to.



You  know that with your words you're casting a huge shadow over some  medievalists, especially working on early period and antiquity  historians? Similar amounts of historical sources and no way to prove  their thesis in any other way.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I still love those people who think Jesus is  white (aside from the questionability of his existence), despite the  area he was supposedly born in.



Pfff! Everyone knows that Jesus is true Pole! You can ask Jan PaweÅ‚ II!
Jokes aside, there is not a single doubt that Jesus existed. He is witnessed in jewish and roman sources.



Fallowfox said:


> For a long time 'historians' believed that the  ruling classes of the Mediterranean region were pale freckly northern  Europeans, because that was the only way they could resolve their racist  beliefs with the fact that ancient non-aryan cultures had been the most  advanced at that time on the planet.



Original egyptians were black, just as todays' sudanese.
But I wouldn't be so sure about peoples' fenotype in that period. You might not know that but untill 600 BC blonde fenotype with blue eyes was quite common in middle east. Enclaves of caucasian-looking people were found by, for example Alexander the Great in Bactria-Sogdiana, in mountains.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 30, 2014)

I'm not sure homosexuals ever were a threat to population resilience. I think that's a 'just so' story. If it were expanding their population that they considered to be important male homosexuality would be of minor concern, and it would rather be lesbians upon which all the attention were focused, because women represent the bottleneck in population growth. 

I suspect 'ewww icky' was the actual reason that homosexuality was frowned upon.



Ayattar said:


> You  know that with your words you're casting a  huge shadow over some  medievalists, especially working on early period  and antiquity  historians? Similar amounts of historical sources and no  way to prove  their thesis in any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Usually people trying to tease apart medieval history don't reach the conclusion that the people they are studying possess magical powers. 

If someone wants me to believe that a danish king made certain laws for certain strategic reasons, then diary extracts and the like may well be useful. 
If they want me to believe that he could come back from the dead, that requires a more stringent standard of evidence.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 30, 2014)

There is simplier justification. New and old testament aren't accountable because they were reworked too many times. I won't explain it again as I wrote a walltext about it once before. You can search for it. Extracting something valuable from them requires a lot of comparative work with other sources, so they're used only as final confirmation instance. First we search for something in other sources, then, we search for the confirmation in fairy-tales never vice-versa.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 30, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> There is simplier justification. New and old testament aren't accountable because they were reworked too many times. I won't explain it again as I wrote a walltext about it once before. You can search for it. Extracting something valuable from them requires a lot of comparative work with other sources, so they're used only as final confirmation instance. First we search for something in other sources, then, we search for the confirmation in fairy-tales never vice-versa.


I think you've lost context. 

I stated that people believing in magical resurrection have founded their belief on the claim of other humans. Another user had originally accused science of being opaque because 'it's all dependent on trusting other people's claims'. [or words to that effect]

The reverse is actually true. You can verify science independently, but it is not possible to independently verify the most fundamental of religious claims.

This doesn't mean we have to reject all history based on written records that we cannot verify externally. It does mean that we have to take them with a pinch of salt, and search for verification where it is available. It also means we can discount claims in written records which we know to be physically implausible, or just plain wrong, such as witchcraft.


----------



## Ayattar (Jun 30, 2014)

Sorry, it's deformation professionnelle (why the hell there is no english term for that?) job conditioning.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 30, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure homosexuals ever were a threat to population resilience. I think that's a 'just so' story. If it were expanding their population that they considered to be important male homosexuality would be of minor concern, and it would rather be lesbians upon which all the attention were focused, because women represent the bottleneck in population growth.
> 
> I suspect 'ewww icky' was the actual reason that homosexuality was frowned upon.


  Even if it were about population (breed an army of the blessed chosen to spread 'the will of God' far and wide), I'd argue that the fewer of its writers had bred, the better off we would be today.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 30, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure homosexuals ever were a threat to population resilience. I think that's a 'just so' story. If it were expanding their population that they considered to be important male homosexuality would be of minor concern, and it would rather be lesbians upon which all the attention were focused, because women represent the bottleneck in population growth.



Back then in some, if not most areas, women were considered property, and a lot of the laws were somewhat male-centered in the bible. 
As for the "ick" thing. If the romans and/or Greeks were the original authors to write the bible, I'd be more inclined to believe that. Greeks loved their boys, and Romans loved polishing their comrades' spears. :V



> I suspect 'ewww icky' was the actual reason that homosexuality was frowned upon.



That's if their society viewed it as we do today. There are a lot of cultures that practiced it back in those times, and many might've shrugged at the idea until it was written in.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 30, 2014)

I thought about this a fraction more, and from a parent's perspective there would be a significant pressure to get evade homosexual sons. The society in question wasn't monogamous, it often had harems in which multiple women bore the children of one man. Therefore if you have a son they could potentially sire many offspring. If they were exclusively homosexual that would obviously pose a disadvantage in a simple model like that. 

Women are of no consequence because even if they were exclusively homosexual they would be married off involuntarily into a marriage of forced child bearing.

edit: orziel elucidated this anyway before I posted


----------



## Hewge (Jun 30, 2014)

Why's there never an _"indifferent"_ option when it comes to these things?

Live and let live, yo.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 30, 2014)

Hewge said:


> Why's there never an _"indifferent"_ option when it comes to these things?
> 
> Live and let live, yo.



Because some of us like to crush others with differing opinions :v


----------



## Saga (Jun 30, 2014)

I chose atheism although I really just choose to live my life without the influences of any religious group, I don't investigate religions or try and prove them true/false, I just disregard the whole deal.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 30, 2014)

Religion is a cult that uses fear and death to control people.
They exploit the fear of death in humans to control them, keep them docile. We use fear as a motivater for unruly children as well.
Don't touch that baby bird, it's mother will abandon it.
If you keep acting like a shithead in school, the police will get you.
If you keep acting up, children's aid will take you away.
If you act bad, you'll go to hell forever.

Thing is, as children get older they stop believing these things -  they become educated. When I was young, my dad was mad because of something I did so he did a fake call to Children's Aid (Child Protective Services for you in the USA) and it scared the shit out of me so bad that I hid in my room and cried - later on that day I actually ran away from the house to my aunt's house.
Now that I'm older, I know that this is not how Children's Aid works, parent's don't call Children's Aid for when their kids are acting like idiots.

The difference between using fear tactics on children and religion on adults (and unfortunately, children) is that the children mature, the adults do not. I find the ability for a complete stranger to control another adult's life by telling them that "if you do X, you'll go to hell" and have them not only BELIEVE it, but to be so scared that they dedicate their life to it, to be simply amazing.


----------



## Auramaru (Jul 1, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Religion is a cult that uses fear and death to control people.
> They exploit the fear of death in humans to control them, keep them docile. We use fear as a motivater for unruly children as well.
> Don't touch that baby bird, it's mother will abandon it.
> If you keep acting like a shithead in school, the police will get you.
> ...



The difference between religion and cults is that a huge majority of people aren't stupid as fuck.  It seems that both Atheists and Christians have this idea that they understand something that the other side doesn't.  When, in reality, people tend to think about religion just as much as the next person.  Generally people believe in what they believe because it allows them to feel settled down and happy, at least in my case.  

If you are susceptible to brain-washing, then that isn't the fault of religion, government, or your parents.  It's the fault of that person for being a completely thoughtless moron.  This applies to people of all religions and backgrounds.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 1, 2014)

cult
[kuhlt]
noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.


----------



## Auramaru (Jul 1, 2014)

Clayton said:


> cult
> [kuhlt]
> noun
> 1.
> ...


Got me there.  I forgot we were going to kill off all arguments that didn't apply themselves to the small technicalities.

EDIT: Despite the first sentence of my post being an obvious misunderstanding of the exact definition of the word, you could just, ya know, not be a smartass (oh wait, I'm on FAF).  My argument still stands, does it not?


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 1, 2014)

Auramaru said:


> Got me there.  I forgot we were going to kill off all arguments that didn't apply themselves to the small technicalities.



kind of a big technicality, if we're discussing why religion is stupid and why it exploits fear to control people


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

Auramaru said:


> If you are susceptible to brain-washing, then that isn't the fault of religion, government, or your parents.  It's the fault of that person for being a completely thoughtless moron.  This applies to people of all religions and backgrounds.



I agree (almost)

I am religious, but it is my choice. I am educated about science, the world, different cultures and religions, and it's my choice to believe in God and follow the writing in the Bible.
When people tried to use scare tactics on me to make me believe in the Bible,_ I refused to listen to any word_. 
Not all religious people are brainwashed and thoughtless. Not all religions are actually just manipulating people in order to gain something.
Do some do it??? *YES* in fact Korea sects are sadly notorious for this, for example (I don't know if USA or another world peoples know about them) JMS, Moonies, and Gu-Won-Pa here in Korea are some very famous manipulative cults that abuse the words of the Bible and abuse weak susceptible people for some personal gain, money, sex, free labor etc.
*But all religions are not this way. *This is not the fault of religion, the Bible or another religion's scripture, _it's the fault of bad and selfish people taking advantage of the weak_. 

Heaven forbid someone has a differing view of the world, clearly, they must not ever use their mind at all, right Clayton?...... =____=


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 1, 2014)

they do use their mind, but they apply it to completely bizarre logic


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

Clayton said:


> they do use their mind, but they apply it to completely bizarre logic


I completely respect that many people think it is strange what I choose to believe. But bizarre or no, does not always mean we are being controlled. ^^


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 1, 2014)

do you fear death? do you fear nothingness?


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

Clayton said:


> do you fear death? do you fear nothingness?


No, the idea that my beliefs could be wrong, and I may just become worm food, and souls may not exist, it really doesn't frighten me at all. If that is truly what happens, then it happens.
But I would like to think that there is a God, who created this amazing universe, and that people can have eternal life in heaven. So I choose to believe that it's real.
Religion has had a very positive effect on my life and my mind, it inspires me to be strong and helps me through hard times.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

And it would make me happy if I this life were actually a dream, and I get to be sir fox mcyiffsalott when I wake up.

Sadly wanting something to be real does not make it real, and the fuzzy feeling people derive from their personal delusions- whether they be the excitement a UFO spotter gets from believing airplane lights are spaceships or the bliss the religious derive from seeing design in a probabilistic cosmos- has absolutely no relation to whether it is true or not. 

I am terrified that there is nothing after death, but I believe in things because I think there is good reason to show they are the case, rather than because I have an emotional need to satisfy. In this case nobody has ever showed there is an afterlife, but we know there is a strong emotional need for one- so the null hypothesis is that humans invented the afterlife to placate their fears of death.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 1, 2014)

i believe that death is like when you sleep but dont dream


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> And it would make me happy if I this life were actually a dream, and I get to be sir fox mcyiffsalott when I wake up.
> 
> Sadly wanting something to be real does not make it real, and the fuzzy feeling people derive from their personal delusions- whether they be the excitement a UFO spotter gets from believing airplane lights are spaceships or the bliss the religious derive from seeing design in a probabilistic cosmos- has absolutely no relation to whether it is true or not.
> 
> I am terrified that there is nothing after death, but I believe in things because I think there is good reason to show they are the case, rather than because I have an emotional need to satisfy. In this case nobody has ever showed there is an afterlife, but we know there is a strong emotional need for one- so the null hypothesis is that humans invented the afterlife to placate their fears of death.



You misunderstood my meanings. Yes, I believe it is true. I believe that the Bible is fact, but I also realize that I do not have scientific proof that most people are looking for that God exists, in the way people want me to show it.

It does make me happy to know (or to another person, this is just my believe or opinion) God and heaven is real. But if I just say to people, "the Bible is fact, heaven is real, I know it" they want me to give them evidence that does not involve the Bible at all, which I can not produce. My evidence that God is real comes from the Bible and history and the world today, but if they do not believe or know the Bible, they just go on about how I am psycho dog or something like it.

I (myself, but another people, maybe) didn't start believing in the Bible to fill a void or wish. I studied the Bible because I was curious about it. I did not come to God seeking any answers, I was satisfied with the idea of life having no purpose and that random chance is the only reason we exist. 
But after studying the Bible with my church, my life changed, I was able to understand the words for the Bible and see for myself that it really was true. I had no fear of death starting and I still don't.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 1, 2014)

i understand that you say you dont fear death, but what i still dont get is the need to have a purpose for existance
why cant things just happen
why cant a whale evolve from four-legged animals over millions and millions of years
why can't we believe that things like this happen
why can't we believe that species of lizards evolve from the same species, but change species because of where they live
why does everything need a solution or a "plan"


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

Clayton said:


> i understand that you say you dont fear death,  but what i still dont get is the need to have a purpose for existance
> why cant things just happen
> why cant a whale evolve from four-legged animals over millions and millions of years
> why can't we believe that things like this happen
> ...


It doesn't. I don't need it, and I wasn't looking for it. I thought learning about the Bible would be interesting.
Do I need to believe it? No, before I study the Bible, "everything is chance" was a good explanation. 
But with the proof I found in the Bible, I now know that it is God. 

I can say the same thing to you from my view. 
"Why can't you just believe in God? Why can't you just accept the Bible is true? Why do you need to prove every word to believe it? Why can't you just ---- "
Of course, I do not say that and really mean it. You have your proof for what you believe, and I have my proof for what I believe. We just have a different mind, and that's ok.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 1, 2014)

i dont believe in things like this that have no evidence to back them up.

the bible is not proof
people wayyyyy back also used to write homophobic graffiti on walls, humans havent changed much
humans still write fiction novels
they still make bullshit up

Here's the graffiti btw, it's pretty funny: http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti from pompeii.htm


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 1, 2014)

tiggu said:


> You misunderstood my meanings. Yes, I believe it is true. I believe that the Bible is fact, but I also realize that I do not have scientific proof that most people are looking for that God exists, in the way people want me to show it.
> 
> It does make me happy to know (or to another person, this is just my believe or opinion) God and heaven is real. But if I just say to people, "the Bible is fact, heaven is real, I know it" they want me to give them evidence that does not involve the Bible at all, which I can not produce. My evidence that God is real comes from the Bible and history and the world today, but if they do not believe or know the Bible, they just go on about how I am psycho dog or something like it.
> 
> ...



If you can't demonstrate your evidence to other people how can you be sure it's veracious? You justification appears to be 'I have a good feeling about this'.



tiggu said:


> It doesn't. I don't need it, and I wasn't looking  for it. I thought learning about the Bible would be interesting.
> Do I need to believe it? No, before I study the Bible, "everything is chance" was a good explanation.
> But with the proof I found in the Bible, I now know that it is God.
> 
> ...




I feel a fallacy of design is present, because evolution has come into the discussion. Evolution by natural selection as a mechanism for generating biodiversity is a justified theory. Volumes of evidence support its veracity and demonstrate how it works. 

From our knowledge of how organisms evolve we can dismiss divine intention as an explanation. It is not necessary and it would actually distort our understanding if we tried to accommodate divine intention into our understanding of biodiversity. 

To provide example, in the mainstream theory new organisms can only evolve by virtue of being derived from previous viable organisms. Therefore we can expect imperfections in their structure which are a necessary product of their lineage. The vagus nerve of the giraffe is an appropriate case. The nerve takes a 20foot detour inside the giraffe's neck for no good reason. It shows the giraffe was derived from an animal with a shorter neck, for whom the detour of the vagus nerve was inconsequential. By the time the giraffe's neck was long enough for the detour to be an encumbrance it was too late to adjust the nerve's path. 

There is no 'design' or divine inspiration in that kind of derivation. If we were to believe there was it would seriously damage our understanding of the way biological systems function and change with respect to large time frames. 

When people assert 'the universe is amazing, it must have a designer' they often do not understand how incompatible this assertion is with our observations about the world, and how badly it would distort scientific endeavour to rely on that assertion, rather than search for natural mechanisms- which actually yield useable results, instead of fuzzy feelings.


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

My personal thinking about evolution is that evolution was set in motion by God.
Written in the Bible is that God created every kind of animal, but it does not say how.
Evolution as a theory is good but it _still _has its flaws, and simply you can not prove every single link between every single animal, you just assume, "yes, this seems right" the fuzzy feeling thing you were talking about. This is the same thing you want me to prove with the Bible. I can't prove every single detail and you can't either. Scientific theories are only theories, so you must just choose to believe in them or not believe in them. "Why do you believe that it's fact when every detail can't be proven? Are you some kind of mindless sheep who just believes everyone's say?"
I do the same with the Bible. I make connections between the Bible and science and what I understand about the world. And I am not uneducated, as I said, I was a long time non-believer.
I believe God made every animal and that, like in sculpting or creating guidelines in sketching you use the same basic pieces to create a different image. So many animal images have the same basic shape with some changes to make them unique. God also gave animals adaptability to change just like we humans have too, so over time we can see animals changing little by little.
God created man and woman in Elohim's image --- this is the creation of modern humans as we know them today. It does not mean there was not some earlier creature that looked kind of like a strange human. But humans are made in the image of God. 

The Bible writes about many scientific facts that people could not know at the time it was written. some examples:
~ The earth round and revolves around the sun. At this time all people believed the sun moved over the earth. The earth was believed to be a dome, on the back of a turtle, flat, etc...
~ The earth is suspended in space over nothing. People did not have this concept of a round earth, and they also did not imagine it just floated in space, something had to be holding it up, because how can something just float in nothingness? So they believed.
~ The earth is like a speck of dust in the universe. But at this time we knew nothing of the vastness of the universe and thought Earth, the sun, the moon and the stars were everything.
~ The Bible also describes the water cycle, which humans did not have the technology to prove.
How did they know to write these things in the Bible? Were they just geniuses hundreds of years ahead of their time? Random guessing? 
"Symbolism" just _happened_ to end up being what we know now as the absolute truth, proven by science?
Many of the great scientific genius minds all believed in God and the Bible. Modern science would be nothing like it is today without God's influence.

The Bible also prophesized about many things that have come true, even in recent times such as World War II and Israel's destruction and later independence.
How did they know this was going to happen? Again, was it just luck? So it's just luck that all of God's prophecies have come true?
But many people do not understand the parables in the Bible. I am well aware of this. The Bible writes that only children of promise can understand its secrets and its truth, and some people simply can not understand it.. 
I'm not trying to convince you that my belief is right, because I know some minds are not able to accept it, but simply defend my right to believe in it, and it doesn't make me an idiot for believing in it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 1, 2014)

tiggu said:


> But humans are made in the image of God.


  The most arrogant claim I can think of made by a religion, and a major reason I told Christianity to fuck itself years ago.
So much cruelty to other animals by our hands is  shrugged off over this prideful lie- that all other species are soul-less automatons created to serve the needs of just one.


----------



## tiggu (Jul 1, 2014)

I'm still not Christian. 
I'm not cruel to animals, and I don't approve of animal cruelty either. They are created by God too so they are precious to me. 
I just don't believe that they will go to heaven. They have minds and they have feelings, so I treat them with kindness.
But they are still different from humans. They don't have a capacity for very complex thinking and analyzing. Some animal can use tools, learn tricks, learn low level sign language, etc. But they will never develop to human's level, even though peoples try and seek things to make animals seem like humans. 
And they don't go to heaven. But I still think their life on earth should be good and they should be protected.
Yes the Bible says humans have ownership over all animals. But if you own something, it should be precious to you and you should care for it.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 2, 2014)

You believe in Christ, you believe in God, you believe God created everything, you believe the bible is anything but fiction and fairy tales..
but you're not Christian?


----------



## tiggu (Jul 2, 2014)

Clayton said:


> You believe in Christ, you believe in God, you believe God created everything, you believe the bible is anything but fiction and fairy tales..
> but you're not Christian?


There are some very differences in our core beliefs that makes Christians and Church of God very different. Christians don't see us as Christians and neither do we.
We believe in the Bible, but our interpretations are very different. I can explain if you are interested, but I'm not sure you are? So if you are let me know and I will.
By the way we just have very different understanding of the Bible in a way that doesn't agree with Christianity.
I don't hate Christians or anything like it, I'm just clarifying, I am not one, our beliefs are very different so I can not speak for what Christians think.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

tiggu said:


> My personal thinking about evolution is that evolution was set in motion by God.
> Written in the Bible is that God created every kind of animal, but it does not say how.
> Evolution as a theory is good but it _still _has its flaws, and simply you can not prove every single link between every single animal, you just assume, "yes, this seems right" the fuzzy feeling thing you were talking about. This is the same thing you want me to prove with the Bible. I can't prove every single detail and you can't either. Scientific theories are only theories, so you must just choose to believe in them or not believe in them. "Why do you believe that it's fact when every detail can't be proven? Are you some kind of mindless sheep who just believes everyone's say?"
> I do the same with the Bible. I make connections between the Bible and science and what I understand about the world. And I am not uneducated, as I said, I was a long time non-believer.
> ...



I actually study this subject as part of a my degree. You are not entitled to a null hypothesis 'god dun make'd it happen' until absolute knowledge of every lineage is known. We may as well make use of the null hypothesis 'a fairy did it' to explain unknown weather events. 

The taxonomic relationship of organsisms is not a 'fuzzy feeling'. It is undertaken with respect to two techniques- genetic distance and the identification of derived characters which are only possible to derive from a limited number of previous characters. Both are mathematical exercises, not 'feelings'. Once the most compelling combination of relationships that satisfies these constraints is found, a cladogram that relates the organisms in question in a nested hierarchy is produced. 

What takes the cake is that the genetic distance and hierarchy of derived characters almost always match, and that they can predict the age and location that a fossil was found in or should be found in. This is how researchers predicted the existence of the fossil tetrapod-fish Tiktaalik. Low and behold, they went to dig for it in the Canadian arcitc in late devonian rock and there it was. 


The 'scientific facts' the bible proposes are actually your interpretation of shoddily translated poetry, and the bible has historically been a force for hindering the acceptance of heliocentrism, rather than introducing it. 
Science is about maths and testability, not prophetic poetry. :\ Your attitude is unfortunately summarised by the fact you don't even know what the word theory means and seem to think that theory means 'I get to choose whether it is right or wrong'. 

Maybe you don't believe in the theory of gravity either, and you can float the fuck away?



tiggu said:


> There are some very differences in our core beliefs  that makes Christians and Church of God very different. Christians  don't see us as Christians and neither do we.
> We believe in the Bible, but our interpretations are very different. I  can explain if you are interested, but I'm not sure you are? So if you  are let me know and I will.
> By the way we just have very different understanding of the Bible in a way that doesn't agree with Christianity.
> I don't hate Christians or anything like it, I'm just clarifying, I am  not one, our beliefs are very different so I can not speak for what  Christians think.




By church of God do you mean mormonism? I saw 'elohim' was mentioned. This is the religion that proposes elohim came from another planet and that men who drink coffee are castrated on their entrance to heaven, yes?


----------



## tiggu (Jul 2, 2014)

No we are not at all related to mormonism. And we don't believe things like that...
Elohim means to us one God with multiple images. We use this word as it was used in older versions of the Bible.

I do enjoy talking about this topic... but being told to "float the fuck away"
I guess I didn't understand before that I was not welcome to talk about my religion. Sorry, I don't use English much in real life. But I understand words like fuck and shit etc are angry meaning..
 So sorry about it, I was wrong. I will leave on your request. I didn't mean to hurt anybody ^ ^ ;;;;


----------



## Saga (Jul 2, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Here's the graffiti btw, it's pretty funny: http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti from pompeii.htm





			
				site said:
			
		

> Weep, you girls.  My penis has  given you up.



Top kek


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

tiggu said:


> No we are not at all related to mormonism. And we don't believe things like that...
> Elohim means to us one God with multiple images. We use this word as it was used in older versions of the Bible.
> 
> I do enjoy talking about this topic... but being told to "float the fuck away"
> ...



Gotcha.

Before you try to engage with scientific topics you need to know what words such as 'theory' mean. 

Theory means _"A *scientific theory* is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the *scientific* method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." _

 Scientific theories are hypotheses which have met and exceeded their burden of proof. It is not equivalent to 'these are a bunch of ideas, pick the one which makes you feel nicest'. 

So when you set about saying 'theories are just theories' it appears monumentally ignorant.


----------



## Remorazz (Jul 2, 2014)

Christian.

I find all this squabbling rather amusing. 

Fight to the bitter end, you scabrous dogs!!  :V


----------



## Lobar (Jul 2, 2014)

"Evolution set in motion by God" is a rather silly attempt at finding a middle ground, because a key part of the theory of evolution is that it is an _unguided_ process driven by environmental factors.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 2, 2014)

tiggu said:


> No we are not at all related to mormonism. And we don't believe things like that...
> Elohim means to us one God with multiple images. We use this word as it was used in older versions of the Bible.
> 
> I do enjoy talking about this topic... but being told to "float the fuck away"
> ...



You misread.
What he means is that, if one can deny evolution because 'it's only a theory', then one should be able to also deny gravity for the same reason. Hence the 'float away' comment, as in 'I reject gravity, so it has no effect on me and I can fly.'.

Also, kindly drop the persecution complex. No-one is (able to) telling you to stop talking about religion.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 2, 2014)

tiggu said:


> Yes the Bible says humans have ownership over all animals. But if you own something, it should be precious to you and you should care for it.


  Considering the Bible was written by slave-owners, I can't take this seriously.
'They don't have an afterlife' boils down to 'no matter what you do to them, they still live, suffer and die for nothing'.
Just to clarify, I don't believe in an afterlife.


----------



## tisr (Jul 2, 2014)

tiggu said:


> There are some very differences in our core beliefs that makes Christians and Church of God very different. Christians don't see us as Christians and neither do we.
> We believe in the Bible, but our interpretations are very different. I can explain if you are interested, but I'm not sure you are? So if you are let me know and I will.
> By the way we just have very different understanding of the Bible in a way that doesn't agree with Christianity.
> I don't hate Christians or anything like it, I'm just clarifying, I am not one, our beliefs are very different so I can not speak for what Christians think.



I don't think I'm too familliar with what the Church of God believes in, and how it is different from being a christian. Could you explain the differences?

I have not read the entirety of the Bible, but what I have read so far contains texts which frequently contain absurdities, contradictions, scientific errors, injustices, and violence. I am interested to hear your interpretation of the bible, though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 2, 2014)

For people who actually are interested in science, it's obvious that if a text gets one claim right it doesn't mean that any other claims it hosts are also correct by association. 
People who are interested in science also appreciate that specific vocabulary is necessary to elucidate an argument, rather than ambiguous interpretation of translated texts. 


People who claim their religion is supported by science are not interested in science. They are interested in distorting science to accommodate their religion. 

If someone really were interested in science, they would look for falsifiable traits of any religious sentiments they had- and test them. No religious origin story has ever survived this test, and no religious spiritual claim has ever got as far as proposing a falsifiable trait. 

People who have an interest in science would view this kind of thing as a joke if it came from a researcher.


----------



## gendermutt (Jul 2, 2014)

I'd be comfortable labeling myself Buddhist. I practice primarily as part of Thich Nhat Hahn's Order of Interbeing, a westernized zen tradition with Vietnamese roots. I study the classic scriptures as well as the modern and try to practice my zazen meditation consistently. I find my practice helps me a lot.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 2, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Considering the Bible was written by slave-owners, I can't take this seriously.



Israelite slavery wasn't the slavery known from USA, Roma or Greece. It was closer to middle and late-medevial european and black africa tribal form of slavery. That doesn't apply to prisoners of war though.

Ahh, one more thing


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 3, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Israelite slavery wasn't the slavery known from USA, Roma or Greece. It was closer to middle and late-medevial european and black africa tribal form of slavery. That doesn't apply to prisoners of war though.
> 
> Ahh, one more thing


Let's face it though, the slavery depicted in the bible is still nasty. There are passages describing how to beat your slave. If you beat them to death, but it takes them 3 days to die from the injury it is deemed 'not your fault' and life goes on as normal, for example. Slave owners also automatically take possession of their slaves' children- who can only be reclaimed by making the family's slavery permanent. Much of the treatment of female slaves would also be described as manipulative sexual abuse.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Let's face it though, the slavery depicted in the bible is still nasty. There are passages describing how to beat your slave. If you beat them to death, but it takes them 3 days to die from the injury it is deemed 'not your fault' and life goes on as normal, for example. Slave owners also automatically take possession of their slaves' children- who can only be reclaimed by making the family's slavery permanent. Much of the treatment of female slaves would also be described as manipulative sexual abuse.



Really? 'cause when I read it it's more or less limitations on how badly you can punish and beat slaves. Granted, I don't agree with beating anyone (except enemy teams in games - bad joke alert), but it's not like the bible's got a whole little section on slave beating.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 3, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Let's face it though, the slavery depicted in the bible is still nasty. There are passages describing how to beat your slave. If you beat them to death, but it takes them 3 days to die from the injury it is deemed 'not your fault' and life goes on as normal, for example. Slave owners also automatically take possession of their slaves' children- who can only be reclaimed by making the family's slavery permanent. Much of the treatment of female slaves would also be described as manipulative sexual abuse.


  When you're too lazy to work, too cheap to hire, and too proud to ask for help - invoke your divinely-appointed special status and enslave people!


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 3, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Let's face it though, the slavery depicted in the bible is still nasty. There are passages describing how to beat your slave. If you beat them to death, but it takes them 3 days to die from the injury it is deemed 'not your fault' and life goes on as normal, for example. Slave owners also automatically take possession of their slaves' children- who can only be reclaimed by making the family's slavery permanent. Much of the treatment of female slaves would also be described as manipulative sexual abuse.



Such were those times, such were life. We can't judge them from our perspective. It's a fallacy an you know it.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 3, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Such were those times, such were life. We can't judge them from our perspective. It's a fallacy an you know it.



Slavery - Guaranteed Fresh until 1865 A.D.


----------



## mewtwo55555 (Jul 3, 2014)

So I voted Taoist cause I like the way the tao te ching puts things. I would have liked an every religion option. because that is what I consider myself. If anything, like for example do I believe that jesus walked on water or that buddha created a bridge with his mind and walked across it for 7 days or that lao tzu was born from his mom a full grown man. nope but I do like the morals they teach be kind to your neighbor don't steal don't kill etc. Also to me even "fictional" religions are good, like I also believe that My little Pony or doctor who could be a religion. But when you start putting dogma into it that's when you get trouble. I could believe that an alicorn is responsible for raising the sun and her sister for the moon. but "your perceptions will not change reality but simply color it" not sure if that is originaly from the game eternal darkness or if they stole it but it fits.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 4, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Such were those times, such were life. We can't judge them from our perspective. It's a fallacy an you know it.



Just out of curiosity, which particular fallacy are you talking about?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Really? 'cause when I read it it's more or less limitations on how badly you can punish and beat slaves. Granted, I don't agree with beating anyone (except enemy teams in games - bad joke alert), but it's not like the bible's got a whole little section on slave beating.



Here's some limits for an advanced society. 

-Don't beat people
-Don't own slaves


The limits the bible proposes?


-Beat people as much as you like, as long as they don't die for 3 days after you finish it's fine!

That's excusing fucking murder, Nikolinni.




Ayattar said:


> Such were those times, such were life. We can't   judge them from our perspective. It's a fallacy an you know it.




If we want to derive our morality from those people, yes we can and yes we should judge them. 

It would be the same for their beliefs about the shape of the cosmos.  The fact that they were a very ignorant bronze age culture doesn't  excuse them, it's another reason that we should doubt what they say.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Here's some limits for an advanced society.
> 
> -Don't beat people
> -Don't own slaves
> ...



So the verse itself is: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not avenged,for the slave is his money." Exodus 21:20-21

Hardly sounds like a verse saying "Go ahead! Beat that ass as much as you like! Long as they don't die instantly you're fine!". You're merely interpreting it that way. 

And if you back it up to verses 12-14 it says: "Whoever strikes a man sothat he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a placeto which he may flee. But if a man willingly attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die."

There's also one of the 10 Commandments, "You shall not murder."

Also, the footnotes in my bible for verses 20-21 states:

"These verses provide a general rule relating ro cases in which a slave has been beaten by his master ('strikes his slave. . .with a rod'). The instruction to not avenge a slave who survives such a beating because 'the slave is his money' relates only to the financial circumstances of the one he serves; it is neither a description of how a slave as a person is to be understood, nor a prescription for  how a slave is to be treated. The expectation for Israelites were to treat one another (and particularly those who were tyrannically oppressed or overlooked) is indicated in the repeated statements at the end of this section of laws: 'You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him' (22:21-24; 23:6-9). If a sojourner (resident alien) is to be well treated, how much more an Israelite."


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> So the verse itself is: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not avenged,for the slave is his money." Exodus 21:20-21
> 
> Hardly sounds like a verse saying "Go ahead! Beat that ass as much as you like! Long as they don't die instantly you're fine!". You're merely interpreting it that way.
> 
> ...



To be frank, since your bible contains footnotes that argue a case, it sounds like you have a book which attempts to excuse the slavery these people practiced so that they can still be viewed as moral rolemodels, when in reality they are anything but. 

The reality is that this was a people of slave traders, traffickers and owners of human beings, who sold women into forced marriages and beat people to make them do what they want. 

Many societies of the ancient world were like this- Rome is a particularly awful example; you were allowed to kill your slaves, while Athenian society was less extreme but slavery still existed. 

You would fairly expect, however, if the israelites were the chosen people of a moral divine being...that they would behave better and abstain from owning slaves. 

What is truly sickening is that people today still try to excuse the slave cultures of the past, as if by saying 'Oh it wasn't as bad as slavery in the southern USA' would make the fact they owned slaves any less deplorable. 

But that's what happens to people when they invest their moral identity into ancient books, rather than flexible reasoning that can be amended when mistakes are found. People end up defending awful things, like genocide, rape in marriage, slavery and so on.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> To be frank, since your bible contains footnotes that argue a case, it sounds like you have a book which attempts to excuse the slavery these people practiced so that they can still be viewed as moral rolemodels, when in reality they are anything but.
> 
> The reality is that this was a people of slave traders, traffickers and owners of human beings, who sold women into forced marriages and beat people to make them do what they want.
> 
> ...



Y'know, I had a feeling you were gonna hand wave my foot notes :/

I think even in regards to other religions, Christianity (and it's earlier form) was one of the more....nicer religions to its slaves. 

I'm not saying I like the fact that God permitted slaves, or that His people did things with their slaves that were...deplorable. But I kinda just view it as a sign of the times and just move on from it. Yes I know that people will and have used laws such as these to excuse the inexcusable.

Usually though when I hear "oh it wasn't as bad as Slavery in the US" they point out that the "slavery" in the bible (well, the ones practiced by God's people) was more or less Indentured Servitude (maybe they didn't have a word for that back then? It's happened before with the Bible); that is, you might have a debt, or be poor, or for whatever reason need money, so you sell yourself to someone else as a servant for so many years, and your owner DOES have to provide for you. They can't just throw you in a shed and be done with it, they need to actually care for you as if you were one of their own. So I think that's what people mean when they say it isn't "as bad", I suppose. 

At least they didn't permit man-stealing enslavement (there are verses in exodus that explicitly prohibit kidnapping people and then selling them off or enslaving them).


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 4, 2014)

Don't be so down, Fallow. Atleast you can distinguish who is an asshole quicker once this bible slavery thing is brought up. 

Anybody ever read The Last Battle by C. S. Lewis? Sure are a lot of worshipers of Tash in here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Y'know, I had a feeling you were gonna hand wave my foot notes :/
> 
> I think even in regards to other religions, Christianity (and it's earlier form) was one of the more....nicer religions to its slaves.
> 
> ...



Whether or not you are nicer to your slaves than other barbarians does not excuse slavery.

If your God permitted owning human beings as slaves then your God is either evil or imaginary. 

The difference between 'indentured servitude' and biblical slavery is that
-masters can hit their slaves
-masters assume their slaves' children as their property, and you can only continue to live with your family if you agree to be a slave forever
-you can be sold as a slave *by someone else*, for example a father might sell his daughters as concubines...sex slaves. Rape for cash. 

If people did this kind of thing in the modern western world, they would be called human traffickers.

Not to mention, in spite of decrees not to steal men, it is just fine to kidnap all 'marriageable women' from a city you just ransacked. In practice this means kidnapping all the girls under 12 and forcing them to have sex with you.


----------



## TrishaCat (Jul 4, 2014)

I'm not really reading much of what's on this page since I don't want to get myself riled up, but I find that The Bible is a really confusing holy book where how something should be interpretted, viewed, and understood is very difficult to figure out. Sometimes stories are told, sometimes lessons are taught. Different parts of it I believe were written by different people during different points in time. Because of this, using The Bible as a means of defending something can be very difficult, and the book itself is very difficult to interpret. At least that's how I see it.

EDIT: Also, I'm so glad to see that there are some that practice Islam and some that practice Buddhism here. I really like the religious diversity.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 4, 2014)

Battlechili1 said:


> I find that The Bible is a really confusing holy book where how something should be interpretted, viewed, and understood is very difficult to figure out. Sometimes stories are told, sometimes lessons are taught.



I think the problem lies in the whole interpretation part. Because many things in it that you supposedly have to interprete for yourself really _shouldn't_ be up to interpretation!
Like the whole "picking up serpents" thing...
"They will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.â€ " (Mark 16:18)
Many people think this particular verse is forgery, others don't and one guy took it too literally.
Some say it should be interpreted in a way that you shouldn't pick up snakes, others think believing hard enough makes you imune to snake poison.
And this isn't just the only part! Many also say that Leviticus shouldn't be interpreted in a way that you should actually kill gay people when it says right there that gays should "lie in their own blood".

Or another good example, *Exodus 9:12.* And I think this is especially important:
The story goes that the Pharaoh of Egypt repented and that this is why he freed the slaves and let Moses' people go.
Here is the quote from the bible though (as I said, Exodus 9:12):
"*But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart* and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses."
God is all about our free will, right? So why did god directly violate the Pharaoh's free will here and made him "harden his heart"?
Almost all christians interprete this passage in a completely different way. That god didn't influence him directly, but that he influenced the circumstances which made the Pharaoh "harden his own heart". But it is right there! Black on white!
Why can a literal clear reading be interpreted in the exact opposite way? If what the passage means is "Pharao hardened his own heart" instead of "the lord hardened Pharao's heart", why didn't it say so in the first place?


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I think the problem lies in the whole interpretation part. Because many things in it that you supposedly have to interprete for yourself really _shouldn't_ be up to interpretation!
> Like the whole "picking up serpents" thing...
> "They will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.â€ " (Mark 16:18)
> Many people think this particular verse is forgery, others don't and one guy took it too literally.
> ...



And then there's my take on it, which is that God didn't directly influence or do anything, but he knew that what he was going to do would harden Pharaoh's heart, because God knew the kind of person Pharaoh was. 

But yeah, point taken about how interpretation is one of the more...tricky aspects of being involved in biblical studies. Just wait til you get to the point where people are talking about the original text's language and how this word could mean this or that or both or...oy vey. At that point I usually just opt out.


----------



## tisr (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> There's also one of the 10 Commandments, "You shall not murder."



A few of the commandments are rather ironic(don't even get me started on the revised commandments). In Exodus 20, God says "Thou shalt not kill.". This happens right after God kills tons of people with the Seven Plagues in Egypt, and in Exodus 32, God orders the murder of Aaron and the Israelites for violating the 10 Commandments, and 3000 people died. God orders the death of so many people (usually unjustly), I don't know how "Thou shalt not kill" got in.



Fallowfox said:


> The reality is that this was a people of slave traders, traffickers and owners of human beings, who sold women into forced marriages and beat people to make them do what they want.



Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And then there's my take on it, which is that God didn't directly influence or do anything, but he knew that what he was going to do would harden Pharaoh's heart, because God knew the kind of person Pharaoh was.
> 
> But yeah, point taken about how interpretation is one of the more...tricky aspects of being involved in biblical studies. Just wait til you get to the point where people are talking about the original text's language and how this word could mean this or that or both or...oy vey. At that point I usually just opt out.



No, it says it right there, "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart". If it means something else in a different language, why wasn't it translated that way? OH RIGHT! Because shit gets lost when you translate a text over and over again over 2000 years which is why no sane being would ever choose text as a medium for something this important! :V

But anyway, what you said at the end is essentially why the bible is nothing but a load of ass.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

tisr said:


> A few of the commandments are rather ironic(don't even get me started on the revised commandments). In Exodus 20, God says "Thou shalt not kill.". This happens right after God kills tons of people with the Seven Plagues in Egypt, and in Exodus 32, God orders the murder of Aaron and the Israelites for violating the 10 Commandments, and 3000 people died. God orders the death of so many people (usually unjustly), I don't know how "Thou shalt not kill" got in.
> 
> 
> 
> Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.



Which leads to another issue: the translations. You quoted the King James Version, while the version I quote (usually) is the English Standard Version (ESV). The ESV strives to (try to) translate directly from whatever the original text was, rather than use someone else's translation or work. So for instance, while translating the old testament they'd use the original Hebrew, rather than whatever document it is that peopl euse often. 

So in the case of "Thou shalt not kill", the ESV says "You shall not murder"; other translations, such as the New International Version (NIV) says "You shall not kill without justification" (which is basically murder; the unjust killing of someone). The KJV seems to be in the wrogn here though, because going off of what I've read online the original hebrew word that came out as kill actually translates closer to "murder", hence why newer translations use that instead of "kill". This also helps to make things less ironic because now it's not like God's saying "You guys don't kill, but it's okay if I do or order it".


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And then there's my take on it, which is that God didn't directly influence or do anything, but he knew that what he was going to do would harden Pharaoh's heart, because God knew the kind of person Pharaoh was.
> 
> But yeah, point taken about how interpretation is one of the more...tricky aspects of being involved in biblical studies. Just wait til you get to the point where people are talking about the original text's language and how this word could mean this or that or both or...oy vey. At that point I usually just opt out.



It's almost as if the voice of God is a composite of different cultures warring with one another over thousands of years to produce an incoherent mess, rather than some sort of divinely-arranged skype call.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> No, it says it right there, "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart". If it means something else in a different language, why wasn't it translated that way? OH RIGHT! Because shit gets lost when you translate a text over and over again over 2000 years which is why no sane being would ever choose text as a medium for something this important! :V
> 
> But anyway, what you said at the end is essentially why the bible is nothing but a load of ass.



This whole last few posts reminds me of going over song lyrics and reading the interpretations. You do get a lot of people going with one interpretation (especially if the writer has stated what the song is about/inspired by), but there's always a few people who come up with their own take. For example, Genesis' Afterglow is often thought to be a heart-felt love song; a friend of mine has an interpretation where it's someone submitting to a higher power, like a spirit guide or something. Black Bird by Alter Bridge is about a friend who died and passed on, referred to as "Black Bird" and symbolism about said bird (IE "Unfurl your wings", "Some day I too will fly and meet you again", and so on). My take was it was a song about someone going through a hard time and whose always had hardhsips in life, with the singer referring to this friend as "Black Bird". 

Anyways, another issue is the translations, as we can see. And it's not just the fact that things are translated 2000 times; most translations use the Texus Receptus (Basically, the Catholic Church's translation, if I recall correctly) while some versions such as the ESV try to use the original texts rather than Texus Receptus. Then most bibles are more than likely translated with a certian agenda, such as the Cahtolic's Bibles, whatever the Jehovah's Witnesses use, heck even my Student Study ESV tries to curve things in a somewhat catholic point of view. 

This is why I like people like Robert Alter, who has his own translations of the Old Testament ,except rather than try to translate for religion, he was doing it more or less for the sake of the stories, and his stuff tends to try to follow what the original language was saying rather than try to curve or re-write it a certain way. A good example of this is in the book of Job; in pretty much every version I've seen, God's opponent in Job is Satan. Alter's version uses "The Adversary" instead, becauese that's _literally_ what the character's name is. In the original hebrew, this character was called Ha-Satan, literally "The Adversary". Why do the other translations say Satan and not this? Who knows?


----------



## tisr (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Which leads to another issue: the translations. You quoted the King James Version, while the version I quote (usually) is the English Standard Version (ESV). The ESV strives to (try to) translate directly from whatever the original text was, rather than use someone else's translation or work. So for instance, while translating the old testament they'd use the original Hebrew, rather than whatever document it is that peopl euse often.
> 
> So in the case of "Thou shalt not kill", the ESV says "You shall not murder"; other translations, such as the New International Version (NIV) says "You shall not kill without justification" (which is basically murder; the unjust killing of someone). The KJV seems to be in the wrogn here though, because going off of what I've read online the original hebrew word that came out as kill actually translates closer to "murder", hence why newer translations use that instead of "kill". This also helps to make things less ironic because now it's not like God's saying "You guys don't kill, but it's okay if I do or order it".



But what if God kills innocent people? Which he does incredibly often.

I'll play your games and use the ESV translation. I'll stick with Exodus since we're there already.

12:29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.

32:20 He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.

Plus, the killing of most of the people which God had ordered were arguably unjust. Also, God details how to kill and sacrifice animals to him.
Changing your translation does not help. The Bible inherently contains many acts of violence, cruelty, injustice, and plenty of contradictions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

If I was a magical God I would just download the knowledge I felt sentient beings required straight into their brains.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

I don't get 32:20. Do you mean that they died of drinking powdered gold, or that you think God had killed this calf and then ground it up and made the people drink it?

If I recall correctly...this was part of God's actions taken agains this people while in the desert. They started to doubt God (who had just gotten them free with the help of Moses and Aaron), and thus begun to worship a golden calf that they made...and you know how God gets about idolatry.


----------



## quai (Jul 4, 2014)

I love reading the introductions to NIV. We didn't just translate this, we translated in a way that makes it for sure mean what we think it means. No more nitpicking over obscurity of verse, we've just eliminated the alternate translations for the only one we think is applicable.

It's based on our _feelings_...


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I don't get 32:20. Do you mean that they died of drinking powdered gold, or that you think God had killed this calf and then ground it up and made the people drink it?
> 
> If I recall correctly...this was part of God's actions taken agains this people while in the desert. They started to doubt God (who had just gotten them free with the help of Moses and Aaron), and thus begun to worship a golden calf that they made...and *you know how God gets about idolatry*.



Yeah, pretty murderer-y.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Yeah, pretty murderer-y.



Well see then the thing is God hold you guilty and worthy of death. Which brings us back to the whole issue of sin and all that. The whole thing about the law was that following it would bring you to God, and if you didn't...well you were guilty and worthy of death. 

I mean heck, that's what the whole thing about Jesus was about. He died and carried the punishment so you didn't have to...then God brought him back to life as a way of saying "Not only will you get closer to God but you'll get power over death, too!"

So arguably you could say that even the "innocent" people are worthy of death, because as Romans said, "There is no one righteous, no not one". 

Disclaimer: I'm not saying I agree with this stuff, I'm just more or less trying to state how things are in the Christian religion. I guess you could say I'm playing the Devil's Advocate? (No pun intended)


----------



## tisr (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I don't get 32:20. Do you mean that they died of drinking powdered gold, or that you think God had killed this calf and then ground it up and made the people drink it?
> 
> If I recall correctly...this was part of God's actions taken agains this people while in the desert. They started to doubt God (who had just gotten them free with the help of Moses and Aaron), and thus begun to worship a golden calf that they made...and you know how God gets about idolatry.



Basically, Aaron and the Israelites are worshipping a golden calf, so Moses breaks the stone tablets and forces the Israelites to drink powdered gold. Then Aaron tells Moses why the calf was there, and then God says to kill a whole bunch of people and he might forgive them. So they kill 3000 people, and then Moses tries to ask for Aaron and the people's forgiveness, but God says no.
And then God plagues Aaron and the people anyway.

On idolatry: 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well see then the thing is God hold you guilty and worthy of death. Which brings us back to the whole issue of sin and all that. The whole thing about the law was that following it would bring you to God, and if you didn't...well you were guilty and worthy of death.
> 
> I mean heck, that's what the whole thing about Jesus was about. He died and carried the punishment so you didn't have to...then God brought him back to life as a way of saying "Not only will you get closer to God but you'll get power over death, too!"
> 
> ...



I don't think humans deserve to be killed just for being humans, and I don't think you can inherit guilt from your ancestors. I would describe those assertions as immoral... wouldn't you? 

If there is a God, and he thinks that, he's evil.


----------



## tisr (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well see then the thing is God hold you guilty and worthy of death. Which brings us back to the whole issue of sin and all that. The whole thing about the law was that following it would bring you to God, and if you didn't...well you were guilty and worthy of death.
> 
> I mean heck, that's what the whole thing about Jesus was about. He died and carried the punishment so you didn't have to...then God brought him back to life as a way of saying "Not only will you get closer to God but you'll get power over death, too!"
> 
> ...



So God creates people who are by definition worthy of death, and then uses that to justify killing them?
+ The whole Jesus thing doesn't make much sense. God sacrificing Jesus(which is also God) and then revives him to save the people(God's creations) from eternal torture(created by God)


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think humans deserve to be killed just for being humans, and I don't think you can inherit guilt from your ancestors. I would describe those assertions as immoral... wouldn't you?
> 
> If there is a God, and he thinks that, he's evil.



Which then opens the door for ANOTHER hotly debated subject ,and that's humans and sin. Some think we're born into it and need to be having action taken right away (Hence the whole thing about getting babies and kids baptized); others hold that children are innocent until they become teens, and then it's up to them to take it or leave it; some believe you're good as a teen forward until you sin, and then you need to get forgiveness...

And dear lord. Don't even get started on what it takes to get saved. That's...a whole nother issue right there. Let's just say that saying you believe in Jesus and are sorry for your sins is the LEAST thing that you have to do. Some churches hold that you must ask Jesus for forgiveness, "receive" the holy spirit (some even saying you have to speak in tongues as proof), and get baptized once you reach a certain age. And if you fail on any of those three? tough noogies, see you in hell.



Fallowfox said:


> I don't think humans deserve to be killed just for being humans, and I don't think you can inherit guilt from your ancestors. I would describe those assertions as immoral... wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> If there is a God, and he thinks that, he's evil.




Which then opens the door for ANOTHER hotly debated subject ,and that's humans and sin. Some think we're born into it and need to be having action taken right away (Hence the whole thing about getting babies and kids baptized); others hold that children are innocent until they become teens, and then it's up to them to take it or leave it; some believe you're good as a teen forward until you sin, and then you need to get forgiveness...


And dear lord. Don't even get started on what it takes to get saved. That's...a whole nother issue right there. Let's just say that saying you believe in Jesus and are sorry for your sins is the LEAST thing that you have to do. Some churches hold that you must ask Jesus for forgiveness, "receive" the holy spirit (some even saying you have to speak in tongues as proof), and get baptized once you reach a certain age. And if you fail on any of those three? tough noogies, see you in hell.




tisr said:


> So God creates people who are by definition worthy of death, and then uses that to justify killing them?
> + The whole Jesus thing doesn't make much sense. God sacrificing Jesus(which is also God) and then revives him to save the people(God's creations) from eternal torture(created by God)




Yeah the idea was supposed to be that God had this incarnation of himself, Jesus, and he was the "lamb of God". So what happened was he bore pretty much the brunt of everything in order to make it so humans could be saved. So basically, when you ask Jesus for forgiveness and you accept him into your life, it's pretty much God considering that your sins are now "paid for" by Jesus' blood. 


The whole idea of reviving Jesus was basically another way for God to show off his powers. Plus in the OT God had promised his people things like gaining the power over death if they followed him, so resurrecting Jesus was a way of God also saying "Look, this person did what I asked, and look, he now has power over death. I DO keep promises y'all!"


And then there's hell. Ok look, can you guys PLEASE stop bringing in debatable issues  (The joke being that a lot of stuff I'm bringing up is...hotly debated by churches as to exactly how it works. Hell is no exception). But a lot of churches seem to believe that Hell was made for Lucifer (Aka the devil, aka "Satan" to most people) and his angels when Lucy got a big ego and decided he wanted to usurp God. So God basically said "I ain't havin' that shit!" and cast them out of heaven onto earth. Hell is supposed to be the place where god will destroy them, along with the unrighteous, during judgement times. Which AGAIN, is a whole nother debatable issue. 

Also could we get some actual Christians in here to speak on things? I feel like I'm being God's spoke person and I don't even believe in the Christian idea of him .-.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think humans deserve to be killed just for being humans, and I don't think you can inherit guilt from your ancestors. I would describe those assertions as immoral... wouldn't you?
> 
> If there is a God, and he thinks that, he's evil.



God alone in the bible killed almost 3.000.000 people, no wonder why people feared him so much, I think the devil killed around 10 people and they were because of some ridiculous bet with god so they share the blame


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Which then opens the door for ANOTHER hotly debated subject ,and that's humans and sin.



The concept of "sinning" in itself is immoral. The idea that there is this greater cosmic justice that we all just have to accept blindly without any reason  is simply disturbing.
It is also immoral because god, if it exists, is directly responsible for our sins:
First of all, we were supposedly created by it. But we were created in a way that makes us impossible to live up to the standards of what is good and evil in the eye of god. Not to mention that this omnipotent and omniscient being knew what we would be doing wrong before we were even born, didn't do anything about it and then judges us anyway.  Putting someone into an unwinnable state like that isn't just immoral. It's childish. It's what I did to the Sims when I was 12.


----------



## Jarklor (Jul 5, 2014)

-


----------



## Jarklor (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm definitely not Christian because I believe there is nothing wrong with being gay. I'm not atheist because I know in my heart I want to believe in something. Maybe not a god but something. I might want to convert to buddhism. I was even thinking about developing my own religion. 


As far as what happens when we die, I really hope I'll reincarnate into a dragon. It's hard to believe there is going to be nothingness. Our souls are separate from our body so it doesn't matter if our skin rots out. Nothing can be created nor destroyed, so our spirits live on. I believe everyone has a soul because each being has their own consciousness. We aren't just "biological machines that walk around." 


I guess I'm either agnostic or spiritual. I still have a long ways till I know for sure. There's gotta be something...


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> Our souls are separate from our body



[citation needed]


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 5, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> *God is all about our free will, right?* So why did god directly violate the Pharaoh's free will here and made him "harden his heart"?
> Almost all christians interprete this passage in a completely different way. That god didn't influence him directly, but that he influenced the circumstances which made the Pharaoh "harden his own heart". But it is right there! Black on white!
> Why can a literal clear reading be interpreted in the exact opposite way? If what the passage means is "Pharao hardened his own heart" instead of "the lord hardened Pharao's heart", why didn't it say so in the first place?



It's a matter of writting manner.

Regardless, I higlighted here a part which is interesting me the most. This, the idea od free will combined with the qualities of god, i.e omniscence, knowledge on how it is and how it will be is impossible to fit in the same equation. If the god knows what will be my choices, then I'm living according to some scheme and I lack free will. Having free will would be possible only when god would be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy (possible in case of omniscency), but that wouldn't equal omniscence. Great paradox, as the omnipotency itself (because omnipotency isn't technically possible and even dumb jokes prove that), isn't it? So far none of the christian religions were able to explain it, even considering that it was one of the reasons of eastern schism and later, luteran and calvinist schisms, and many other schisms, religious unrests and splits just to mention monophysitism, arianism, bogomilism etc. Many tried to explain that and it always ended in some kind of a mumbo-jumbo.

I really don't know why are you focusing so much on unimportant details that are dependant on the culture, historical conditions, writting and narration manners and impossibility of proving the existence of the god externally, basing on his traits when there are more important arguments, such as this one, creating internal inconsistency in the idea itself, making it illogical and thus impossible. That means that god doesn't exist, or dogmas of the faith are different/false and people've been fooled, or that his aspects or at least this one, are different/false.

In my case it was this thing that made me doubt in the first place.

And sorry, but as a historian I'm always laughing my ass off when I see those ekhm, 'divagations' entitled "Oh mein gawd, god iz so EVUL he is of kills mani inosentz!" based on the bible, being written without taking into consideration the context and purposes of writing and re-writing this book.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> I'm definitely not Christian because I believe there is nothing wrong with being gay. I'm not atheist because I know in my heart I want to believe in something. Maybe not a god but something. I might want to convert to buddhism. I was even thinking about developing my own religion.
> 
> 
> As far as what happens when we die, I really hope I'll reincarnate into a dragon. It's hard to believe there is going to be nothingness. Our souls are separate from our body so it doesn't matter if our skin rots out. Nothing can be created nor destroyed, so our spirits live on. I believe everyone has a soul because each being has their own consciousness. We aren't just "biological machines that walk around."
> ...



Can you be sure souls exist at all? You've defined a soul as the mind, but minds are easily damaged when their brains are injured. They do not simply carry on forever. If they did, why would they need physical bodies to manifest at all? 

Was there nothing before you were born?

Having answered these two questions, can a belief in reincarnation be meaningful?



Ayattar said:


> And sorry, but as a historian I'm always laughing my ass off when I see  those ekhm, 'divagations' entitled "Oh mein gawd, god iz so EVUL he is  of kills mani inosentz!" based on the bible, being written without  taking into consideration the context and purposes of writing and  re-writing this book.



When people comment that the God represented in the Bible, and indeed many other religious texts, is a character of moral evil this is an important observation.

Lots of people actually think they can improve the way they behave if they act like the deity in their holy text, which is not a good idea when that text is polluted with endorsements of honour killing. 

The fact that holy texts, which are meant to be windows into moral truth, have inherited hateful editing is a testament to their uselessness. 
If there is a God, no extant holy text is a manifestation of that God, they are merely manifestations of the [often barbarous] ancient cultures which wrote them. 

That's an important conclusion.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 5, 2014)

Christian god from the new testament and old testament' god aren't the same god as Jesus changed the concept of father-god to mother-god. I never understood why they're treated as equal by the christians. Old testament should be only an auxiliary tool



Fallowfox said:


> If there is a God, no extant holy text is a  manifestation of that God, they are merely manifestations of the ancient  cultures which wrote them.


Those texts were written by a man, so it's impossible to expect that they won't be influenced by their views and beliefs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Christian god from the new testament and old testament' god aren't the same god as Jesus changed the concept of father-god to mother-god. I never understood why they're treated as equal by the christians. Old testament should be only an auxiliary tool
> 
> 
> Those texts were written by a man, so it's impossible to expect that they won't be influenced by their views and beliefs.



Agreed and yet a significant fraction of the world treats holy texts as if they are divine and constant. The problem of trying to construct a functional morality on that foundation is more difficult and problematic than simply starting from fresh.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 5, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Can you be sure souls exist at all? You've defined a soul as the mind, but minds are easily damaged when their brains are injured. They do not simply carry on forever. If they did, why would they need physical bodies to manifest at all?
> 
> Was there nothing before you were born?
> 
> Having answered these two questions, can a belief in reincarnation be meaningful?



I think it just depends on WHY you're reincarnated. For example, in Buddhism you only get reincarnated if you have Karma; that's right, doing immoral things gave you Karma, which kept you trapped in the cycle of reincarnation. By getting rid of all  your karma, you would then enter nirvana and exit the cycle once you finished the life you got rid of your karma in. 

Another explanation I can think of off the top of my head is in Spectral Shadows; there's reincarnation, and oftentimes parts of a person will survive (Ie their personality, likes, other things), but they're usually unaware that they're a reincarnation, unless they have some sort of of spiritual vision. Reincarnation happens in Spectral Shadows because the universe "doesn't waste anything", so the powers that be view reincarnation as the recycling of souls. Instead of putting it in the after life or destroying it, they just recycle it and there you go.


----------



## tisr (Jul 5, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Christian god from the new testament and old testament' god aren't the same god as Jesus changed the concept of father-god to mother-god. I never understood why they're treated as equal by the christians. Old testament should be only an auxiliary tool
> 
> 
> Those texts were written by a man, so it's impossible to expect that they won't be influenced by their views and beliefs.



Both the Old and the New testament have a ton of problems.
Since these texts were written by men, you cannot conclude that these primary and secondary sources are fact, sincethe writers could be lying, exaggerating, or misinterpreted the situation.(Why couldn't God have written it himself?)
A variety of sources should be used to confirm the historical accuracy of these events. However, scientific data, archaelogical data, and frequent contradictions in the bible make the bible an incredible data source.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 5, 2014)

tisr said:


> A variety of sources should be used to confirm the historical accuracy of these events. However, scientific data, archaelogical data, and frequent contradictions in the bible make the bible an incredible data source.



I was raising this issue several times already. Myself, I was using old testament as an auxiliary source (main source: papyri, clay tablets and shells - both Jews and egyptians were using broken pots for writing) when I was preparing a work regarding status of the Jews in Elephantine in VI and VII century BC.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> I'm definitely not Christian because I believe there is nothing wrong with being gay. I'm not atheist because I know in my heart I want to believe in something. Maybe not a god but something. I might want to convert to buddhism. I was even thinking about developing my own religion.
> 
> 
> As far as what happens when we die, I really hope I'll reincarnate into a dragon. It's hard to believe there is going to be nothingness. Our souls are separate from our body so it doesn't matter if our skin rots out. Nothing can be created nor destroyed, so our spirits live on. I believe everyone has a soul because each being has their own consciousness. We aren't just "biological machines that walk around."
> ...



Developing your own religion? What is the point of that? That would be pure fantasy, something that you came up with but that has no connection to reality at all.
And just because you "want to believe" in something (which is impossible by the way) that doesn't mean that this "something" is real.

It IS hard to believe. But what reason is there that there should be something after death? There is no evidence AT ALL that souls exist either for example...
As far as we know today we ARE just biological machines. But you know what?  That doesn't matter as long as we care for each other.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I think it just depends on WHY you're reincarnated. For example, in Buddhism you only get reincarnated if you have Karma; that's right, doing immoral things gave you Karma, which kept you trapped in the cycle of reincarnation. By getting rid of all  your karma, you would then enter nirvana and exit the cycle once you finished the life you got rid of your karma in.
> 
> Another explanation I can think of off the top of my head is in Spectral Shadows; there's reincarnation, and oftentimes parts of a person will survive (Ie their personality, likes, other things), but they're usually unaware that they're a reincarnation, unless they have some sort of of spiritual vision. Reincarnation happens in Spectral Shadows because the universe "doesn't waste anything", so the powers that be view reincarnation as the recycling of souls. Instead of putting it in the after life or destroying it, they just recycle it and there you go.



These are human 'feely' explanations. The problem with reincarnation is that there is no physical reason to belief it is plausible, while there is plenty of physical justification to show it is impossible. 

It's magic, and magic isn't real.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 5, 2014)

Well, considering all the evidence, to believe one must be really strong-willed... or brainwashed. First kind of people I admire and would love to be like them, second... well... You know.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Well, considering all the evidence, to believe one must be really strong-willed... or brainwashed.



Brainwashed is right, or maybe also so desperate that you are willing to lie to yourself just to get an answer, even if it is a fake one.


----------



## Ame (Jul 5, 2014)

There are no right answers, only perceptions. There is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the Tao

WELL aren't I a special snowflake, my third forum post and its one of the most popular threads :3


----------



## Jarklor (Jul 5, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Developing your own religion? What is the point of that? That would be pure fantasy, something that you came up with but that has no connection to reality at all.
> And just because you "want to believe" in something (which is impossible by the way) that doesn't mean that this "something" is real.
> 
> It IS hard to believe. But what reason is there that there should be something after death? There is no evidence AT ALL that souls exist either for example...
> As far as we know today we ARE just biological machines. But you know what?  That doesn't matter as long as we care for each other.



But how can you know what lies after death? Have you died yet? I'm not claiming these things for sure. It's just something we can never truly know.

As for developing my own religion. I guess I should say just my own belief system. I wouldn't make up any gods or theology.



Fallowfox said:


> Can you be sure souls exist at all? You've defined a soul as the mind, but minds are easily damaged when their brains are injured. They do not simply carry on forever. If they did, why would they need physical bodies to manifest at all?
> 
> Was there nothing before you were born?
> 
> ...



Minds carry knowledge and memory which we will loose when we die. But souls carry consciousness and a perception of life that nobody else can see.

Listen to this interesting quote by Einstein: "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

i thought it would be worth mentioning.



Ame said:


> There are no right answers, only perceptions. There is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the Tao
> 
> WELL aren't I a special snowflake, my third forum post and its one of the most popular threads :3



Good quote. I forgot to say that I'm still far away from the truth and it's only human to try to find that truth. I'll never reach the point "I know everything and only my view point is right" because nothing can be fully proven, nor fully disproven. But many people claim they know everything, ironically.


----------



## Kalmor (Jul 5, 2014)

Please refrain from posting multiple times in a row. I've merged the posts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> But how can you know what lies after death? Have you died yet? I'm not claiming these things for sure. It's just something we can never truly know.
> 
> As for developing my own religion. I guess I should say just my own belief system. I wouldn't make up any gods or theology.
> 
> ...



If you want to imagine what comes after death, think about what came before your birth. Nothing at all. 


You have made some very specific claims about souls, but can you demonstrate those claims are true? Can you show that souls even exist? 

If you want to quote Einstein, are you going to ignore Steven Hawking? 

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its  components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down  computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,"

Thought it would be worth mentioning. 

Things can be proven and disproven [otherwise your statement would be a paradox- if nothing can be fully proven, then the statement itself is proven]. Exposing magical beliefs as incoherent is not tantamount to claiming to know everything; it's healthy skepticism. 

Until it is shown that souls exist, nobody should believe your claim that 'souls are responsible for consciousness', especially when there is evidence to show it is the brain that is responsible for this, not magic, and that consciousness can be easily manipulated and damaged by chemical and physical means. 

I think you've just made up your reincarnation claim to fulfill a psychological requirement for more life and to deny your finality. In other words:
[video=youtube;TMjxeZ9FRDE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMjxeZ9FRDE[/video]




Ame said:


> There are no right answers, only perceptions. There  is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the  Tao
> 
> WELL aren't I a special snowflake, my third forum post and its one of the most popular threads :3



If there is no right and wrong, how is your claim that the Tao exists meaningful, and why should anybody be persuaded when you make the argument that you are unable to prove it exists? 

Imagine if your doctor was prescribing you a new drug, and this is what she said. Would you trust her prescription? No; you would want proof that any drug you take will treat your disease rather than killing you. 

You wouldn't be happy to say 'there's no right and wrong, only perception' after taking hemlock to cure hay fever.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> But how can you know what lies after death?



I don't. And I never claimed that I do know.
However, there IS one thing that we know. We will all die one day. No matter how evil or good we were, that is something we all have in common. There is no evidence AT ALL what's gonna happen after that, so making any kind of speculation about it is nothing more than that, speculation.
However, religious people like to turn these speculations into facts. "I was good so I will go to heaven!"
It is just like Fry said it, thanks to denial, he is immortal.


----------



## Jarklor (Jul 5, 2014)

Think of this analogy: Before when the Americas weren't discovered yet, science said that more continents didn't exist because of no evidence. But one day, someone found them. They do in fact exist. 


One could say when we die, it is a journey across the everlasting ocean of the universe; whether or not there will be something, regardless if there is nothing, the only way to find the truth is to put up a sail and let the wind push you to know for sure. Maybe there will be an endless pit of darkness, but maybe there will be a light. Who said there was nothing before we were born? Maybe we just forgot everything that happened.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> Think of this analogy: Before when the Americas weren't discovered yet, science said that more continents didn't exist because of no evidence. But one day, someone found them. They do in fact exist.
> 
> 
> One could say when we die, it is a journey across the everlasting ocean of the universe; whether or not there will be something, regardless if there is nothing, the only way to find the truth is to put up a sail and let the wind push you to know for sure. Maybe there will be an endless pit of darkness, but maybe there will be a light. Who said there was nothing before we were born? Maybe we just forgot everything that happened.




Fair enough, when you *prove *souls exist I will believe they exist. Until then I am entitled to be skeptical.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> Think of this analogy: Before when the Americas weren't discovered yet, science said that more continents didn't exist because of no evidence. But one day, someone found them. They do in fact exist.
> 
> 
> One could say when we die, it is a journey across the everlasting ocean of the universe; whether or not there will be something, regardless if there is nothing, the only way to find the truth is to put up a sail and let the wind push you to know for sure. Maybe there will be an endless pit of darkness, but maybe there will be a light. Who said there was nothing before we were born? Maybe we just forgot everything that happened.



Yeah and you know what? They were proven wrong. America does exist.
See, that is the cool thing about science. It works based on things that we know and when we find out new stuff science adapts. This is the best way to find out the truth.
When you believe that something that is unfalsifiable, like souls, does exist you are pretty much unable to change your opinion. You are unable to learn something new because you think this unproven fact that you cling to is a fact. That is part of why religion is so dangerous, it invites you never to change your beliefs.

If you ever prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that souls do exist I will gladly change my opinion. Because I want to know the truth and as little false things as possible. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of souls, so at least as of right now that is most likely not true and therefore not worth being considered as true.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

To be honest this claim "science said that more continents didn't exist because of no evidence" is probably wrong. I don't think geographers did ever claim, before the world was explored in its entirety, that there couldn't be any more continents. 

I think you just made this up because you don't actually know any examples of null hypotheses being trounced, and were too lazy to look one up. [such as the wave/particle nature of light]


----------



## Jarklor (Jul 5, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Yeah and you know what? They were proven wrong. America does exist.
> See, that is the cool thing about science. It works based on things that we know and when we find out new stuff science adapts. This is the best way to find out the truth.
> When you believe that something that is unfalsifiable, like souls, does exist you are pretty much unable to change your opinion. You are unable to learn something new because you think this unproven fact that you cling to is a fact. That is part of why religion is so dangerous, it invites you never to change your beliefs.
> 
> If you ever prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that souls do exist I will gladly change my opinion. Because I want to know the truth and as little false things as possible. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of souls, so at least as of right now that is most likely not true and therefore not worth being considered as true.



I'm not saying that I know souls exist 100%. I kind of consider it my own skepticism. I'm open to change though. What I'm saying is the possibility of concrete evidence of an afterlife may only be available when we die. And obviously, nobody's lived to tell the tale.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> To be honest this claim "science said that more continents didn't exist because of no evidence" is probably wrong. I don't think geographers did ever claim, before the world was explored in its entirety, that there couldn't be any more continents.
> 
> I think you just made this up because you don't actually know any examples of null hypotheses being trounced, and were too lazy to look one up. [such as the wave/particle nature of light]



Considering how ignorant people used to be back then that might very well have been the case. Although geographers probably never made that claim, it was just still widely accepted that the earth is flat and that therefore no more continents could exist.
It is still a bad example though, no matter what people said back then.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> I'm not saying that I know souls exist 100%. I kind of consider it my own skepticism. I'm open to change though. What I'm saying is the possibility of concrete evidence of an afterlife may only be available when we die. And obviously, nobody's lived to tell the tale.



So if we can never know for sure, what is the point of wasting time thinking about it?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> I'm not saying that I know souls exist 100%. I kind of consider it my own skepticism. I'm open to change though. What I'm saying is the possibility of concrete evidence of an afterlife may only be available when we die. And obviously, nobody's lived to tell the tale.



Proposing a hypothesis isn't skepiticism. The null hypothesis is the position of skepticism. 

For example lord kelvin might propose 'the sun is about 100 million years old, based on the gravitational potential energy we can expect it has converted into black body radiation,'

This is the hypothesis. It is not the position of skepticism. The position of skepticism is 'we don't know the age of the sun'. 


In your case, the position of skepticism is 'souls have never been shown to exist, and nobody agrees on a definition that is coherent or testable, so they probably don't exist'.




CaptainCool said:


> Considering how ignorant people used to be  back then that might very well have been the case. Although geographers  probably never made that claim, it was just still widely accepted that  the earth is flat and that therefore no more continents could exist.
> It is still a bad example though, no matter what people said back then.



Actually this is wrong. Most ancient cultures of the world appreciated the earth was round because they saw ships' masts fall over the horizon as they journeyed away over the sea. 

Almost nobody in the history of everything ever believed in a flat earth, and plenty of peoples of the world hypothesised there were other continents. 

The Greeks thought there would be an equal number of southern continents to balance out the northern ones. So they actually expected there to be _more _continents than there turned out to be. 


To my knowledge nobody in the history of everything ever believed there could not be any more continents, until the whole sphere of the earth had been mapped and we knew there were no more to be found.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

I just read that it is actually a misconception that Columbus tried to prove that the earth isn't flat. Oops^^ I never cared about him so I only just now found out about that 
He acutally just thought he could go west to reach Asia because he was self-taught and he had no idea how big the earth really is. He underestimated how big it is and just got lucky by bumping into 'Murrica XD
But hey, that means he believed there were no other continents. He thought the earth was smaller than it really was so in his world view there was just no room for another continent  But this is just a self-taught man, not a scientist. So who cares about what he thought.


----------



## Jarklor (Jul 5, 2014)

Well, if you think about it, there are things in life that we know are there but we can't test. For example: love. Science can't state opinions like "I think I'm in love." There's no way to test that it exists, but we know it's there. Also, people tell me that I'm not gay because there's know evidence of a gay gene. However, there is no evidence of a straight gene either. So that's when we have to rely on our inner emotions sometimes. In my belief, I think our body is just a vessel. People may argue with me. But whatever, if that's what they want to believe than so be it. 

I don't care if you're Christen, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever. If it makes you happy in the end and you're not hurting anyone else with it, it's fine. I think it's interesting though to study the impact of religion on society, whether if I believe it personally or not.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 5, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> He acutally just thought he could go west to reach Asia because he was self-taught and he had no idea how big the earth really is. He underestimated how big it is and just got lucky by bumping into 'Murrica XD.


And he did it under castilian flag only because portuguese cholars were too competent and claimed that he and his crew will all die due to food and water shortage. Seems that sometimes science is wrong in being right. Kekeke.


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 5, 2014)

Hello

I am Christian and proud of it. Atheists usually tries to drive us Christians mad but I usually ignore them.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> Well, if you think about it, there are things in life that we know are there but we can't test. For example: love. Science can't state opinions like "I think I'm in love." There's no way to test that it exists, but we know it's there. Also, people tell me that I'm not gay because there's know evidence of a gay gene. However, there is no evidence of a straight gene either. So that's when we have to rely on our inner emotions sometimes. In my belief, I think our body is just a vessel. People may argue with me. But whatever, if that's what they want to believe than so be it.
> 
> I don't care if you're Christen, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever. If it makes you happy in the end and you're not hurting anyone else with it, it's fine. I think it's interesting though to study the impact of religion on society, whether if I believe it personally or not.



Love by itself has nothing to do with science though. It can explain why people fall in love and what happens to your body when you are in love but in itself love is just a concept that we came up with. So yeah, bad example.
The "gay gene" is an awfully unscientific concept... Sexuality has to do with more than just one gene, we know that much already.

The problem that I see with irrational beliefs is that it always results in a cascade of more false beliefs. I mean, sure. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs of souls and all that crap, but you already stated many things in this thread that are simply not true or that don't really fit into the concept of the subject. And it all results from one irrational belief that you have.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> Hello
> 
> I am Christian and proud of it. Atheists usually tries to drive us Christians mad but I usually ignore them.



Oh so now we atheists are just fools and trolls who try to drive you mad? Awesome!

Listen. I beg you, put your bible aside for a moment (just a moment, it's not going anywhere!) look at how logical arguments work and how to identify logical fallicies and then read the bible critically and don't just accept it because that is what you were taught.
The bible and christianity are full of logical fallicies. When text that can be read clearly can be interpreted the opposite way of what it actually says (as in my example above, Exodus 9:12), then where do we stand on that? It just makes no sense!


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 5, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh so now we atheists are just fools and trolls who try to drive you mad? Awesome!
> 
> Listen. I beg you, put your bible aside for a moment (just a moment, it's not going anywhere!) look at how logical arguments work and how to identify logical fallicies and then read the bible critically and don't just accept it because that is what you were taught.
> The bible and christianity are full of logical fallicies. When text that can be read clearly can be interpreted the opposite way of what it actually says (as in my example above, Exodus 9:12), then where do we stand on that? It just makes no sense!



Just because I am Christian doesn't mean I am very religious person who reads a bible constantly. I just believe in god and it really pisses me off when atheists make fun of us in various websites. It's none of your business what Christians believe. By the way, a Bible is just written by people and it's not true word of God.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 5, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> Just because I am Christian doesn't mean I am very religious person who reads a bible constantly. I just believe in god and it really pisses me off when atheists make fun of us in various websites. It's none of your business what Christians believe. By the way, a Bible is just written by people and it's not true word of God.



I like that you acknowledge that the bible was written by people and isn't inspired by a higher power.

As for us "making fun of you"... What about christians forcing their beliefs into laws? Atheists aren't making fun of you. We are retaliating because we don't want your bullshit in our lives!


----------



## Saga (Jul 5, 2014)

How creationists think they were born

[video=youtube;c7rxuuIOxhg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7rxuuIOxhg[/video]


----------



## mewtwo55555 (Jul 5, 2014)

Ame said:


> There are no right answers, only perceptions. There is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the Tao
> 
> WELL aren't I a special snowflake, my third forum post and its one of the most popular threads :3




Thanks, I was worried this was just gonna be a christian vs atheist debate thread. It seems the other religions kind get forgotten.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Jarklor said:


> Well, if you think about it, there are things in life that we know are there but we can't test. For example: love. Science can't state opinions like "I think I'm in love." There's no way to test that it exists, but we know it's there. Also, people tell me that I'm not gay because there's know evidence of a gay gene. However, there is no evidence of a straight gene either. So that's when we have to rely on our inner emotions sometimes. In my belief, I think our body is just a vessel. People may argue with me. But whatever, if that's what they want to believe than so be it.
> 
> I don't care if you're Christen, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever. If it makes you happy in the end and you're not hurting anyone else with it, it's fine. I think it's interesting though to study the impact of religion on society, whether if I believe it personally or not.



This is an 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy. 

Not knowing how something works does not entitle one to a magical explanation. It entitles you to the null hypothesis. 

Having a skewed view of science, because it makes you happy, and promoting that to other people is harmful. The next generations which will change our civilisation beyond recognition, will do so with science and technology. They will be people who understand the basic principles of science which you are arguing we should be entitled to flout so that we feel fuzzy inside. As long as magic and woo is proliferated people who could have been contributors will fail to achieve their potential, because they are being stymied by incoherent ways of thinking. 

Thought is not a vice from which to derive pleasure at the expense of reason. That's decadent.



kiitsune said:


> Just because I am Christian doesn't mean I am  very religious person who reads a bible constantly. I just believe in  god and it really pisses me off when atheists make fun of us in various  websites. It's none of your business what Christians believe. By the  way, a Bible is just written by people and it's not true word of  God.



People are entitled to live in their imaginary worlds- believe in elves and pixies for all I care. It might be a waste of potential, but it's your call. 

It becomes everyone else's business when members of said religions determine which laws the rest of us have to follow- not because there is evidence to show those laws are efficacious, but because it makes their magic deities happy. 

It becomes everyone else's business when members of said religions demand that school students are taught distorted versions of science and history, to make their religion appear more favourable.


----------



## Jarklor (Jul 5, 2014)

Overall, I think religion can be good or bad, it just depends on how you use it. So I don't agree with people who say all religion should be abolished. But I don't agree with people trying to make church and state the same. I think it's just religious peoples' way to feel more important. So go and believe what you want, whether if it is nothing at all. Just don't use it as an excuse to hang people or cause harm, obviously. But seriously, I'm tired of Christians who tell me that I'm going to hell.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 5, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> As for us "making fun of you"... What about christians forcing their beliefs into laws? Atheists aren't making fun of you. We are retaliating because we don't want your bullshit in our lives!



And as an atheist I hate people like you exactly the same as religious zealots. 
You
Are
Doing
It
Wrong
Just 
As
Them


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I like that you acknowledge that the bible was written by people and isn't inspired by a higher power.
> 
> As for us "making fun of you"... What about christians forcing their beliefs into laws? Atheists aren't making fun of you. We are retaliating because we don't want your bullshit in our lives!



You ever listen to Cat People? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWX_MFNOL_Y#t=169

The chorus goes "Well I've been putting out the fire with gasoline! Putting out the fire...with gasoline!" Granted, Bowie was talking about pent up sexual tension and refraining from having sex (...it makes sense if you know what Cat People is about, the movie that is). But I still think it works; by "fighting back" you're simply adding to the fire.

In other words, I agree with Ayattar. You shouldn't be "retaliating", you should be trying to be better than Christians and not stoop to the level of "Getting back" on them. Take a page out of Xanatos' (from Gargoyles) book and realize that "revenge is a sucker's game". Go watch Fearless sometime and learn that "Hatred only begats more hatred". 

And yes, I'm completely serious. I did just pull of a string of references, but I think they're relevant.


----------



## Granus (Jul 6, 2014)

I tend to stay as far away from religion and religion discussions as possible. I don't consider myself a part of any religion, and I don't care what religion other people are, just as long as they leave me out of their debates or trying to get me to join a religion. I just find it very unnecessary, and wasteful. Praying all day to something that might or might not be, going to church bores me to no end, and it all just seems pointless to me. That's all I'm going to say about religion. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but that's how I feel.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> And yes, I'm completely serious. I did just pull of a string of references, but I think they're relevant.



Since we're stringing references anyway, how about this from the Big Friendly Giant:

(after two generals 'discuss' how they are going to 'pacify' the giants)
Queen of England: "Gentlemen. There will be no bombs, and no guns. The giants are not to be hurt."
General: "But your majesty! They eat children! They're murderers!"
Queen of England: "That is no reason to follow their example."


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> You ever listen to Cat People? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWX_MFNOL_Y#t=169
> 
> The chorus goes "Well I've been putting out the fire with gasoline! Putting out the fire...with gasoline!" Granted, Bowie was talking about pent up sexual tension and refraining from having sex (...it makes sense if you know what Cat People is about, the movie that is). But I still think it works; by "fighting back" you're simply adding to the fire.
> 
> ...



You know what? Yes. You are right. Yes. Absolutely. Yes.
When they tell me that being gay is wrong because their god says so? I should just sit here and take it. Or when they come up with a bullshit law or if a court decides in favor of them just because of religious reasons? Yes you are right, I should just sit here and be ok with that. Or when a party that is in power is making decisions based on their religion that affects my life? Who cares, right?^^ Oh or how about tax money being wasted for religious projects (which does happen here in Germany)? Don't worry, I already have my thumb up my ass :3

FUCK. THAT. SHIT.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> You know what? Yes. You are right. Yes. Absolutely. Yes.
> When they tell me that being gay is wrong because their god says so? I should just sit here and take it. Or when they come up with a bullshit law or if a court decides in favor of them just because of religious reasons? Yes you are right, I should just sit here and be ok with that. Or when a party that is in power is making decisions based on their religion that affects my life? Who cares, right?^^ Oh or how about tax money being wasted for religious projects (which does happen here in Germany)? Don't worry, I already have my thumb up my ass :3
> 
> FUCK. THAT. SHIT.



Way to completely miss the point .-.

I'm not saying you shouldn't protest or oppose when they do stuff like that, I'm opposing being an asshole about it and being mean towards religious people. THAT'S what the fire is. THAT'S what "Getting back" is. That's what the hatred is. Being ragey, aggressive, vile, whatever towards religious people because of the bullshit that they've done. It doesn't help. It just fans the flames. Y'know, you can say what's wrong with religion and the things they do without going "YEAH! FUCK RELIGION! BRAINWASHED ASSHATS!" Claiming that I'm saying to have your thumb up your ass while religious people do foul pretty much tells me you have NO idea what I'm trying to say. If a religious person is mean to you and you're mean back guess what? Yeah, you still have the fires of animosity and opposition going. Not to mention you become off-putting to other people becasue hey, they might not like your rude aggresive behavior. 

That's what I mean. Again, I'm not saying you can't protest religious people, I'm saying that it's better to not be an asshole to religious people, and be overzealous with whatever it is you believe or follow. Because that makes you the same as them. Oh, but I know what you'll say. It's different. Well guess what? No it isn't. Overzealous is still overzealous, rude, mean and aggressive is still rude, mean and aggressive; it doesn't matter who's doing it or why.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm opposing being an asshole about it and being mean towards religious people.



But that is not what I do!  In threads like this I voice my opinion and when I see a religious person squirt out nonsense from their mouthhole I tell them that they are wrong but I don't actively trash every religious person I meet...


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> And as an atheist I hate people like you exactly the same as religious zealots.
> You
> Are
> Doing
> ...



>Make fun of dark age belief systems 
>'Just as bad' as people who use dark age belief systems to strip employees of their full health insurance or pollute classrooms with falsified religion-compatible science


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> But that is not what I do!  In threads like this I voice my opinion and when I see a religious person squirt out nonsense from their mouthhole I tell them that they are wrong but I don't actively trash every religious person I meet...



And that's the other side of this whole mess.

Are there theists who are perfectly fine, decent people? yes.
Are there theists who are complete dickwads? yes.
Are there atheists who are perfectly fine, decent people? yes.
Are there atheists who are complete dickwads? yes.
Are there theists who will take anything atheists say as proof that all atheists are complete dickwads? yes.
Are there atheists who will take anything theists say as proof that all theists are complete dickwads? yes.
Are there theists who are blind to complete dickwad theists being complete dickwads? yes.
Are there atheists who are blind to complete dickwad atheists being complete dickwads? yes.

In the end, there are no real 'sides' to this, and the only way to find out a person's real position is to talk _with_ them, and not _at_ them.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> But that is not what I do!  In threads like this I voice my opinion and when I see a religious person squirt out nonsense from their mouthhole I tell them that they are wrong but I don't actively trash every religious person I meet...



Well, it was mainly that I was voicing my opinions on (trashing religious people and being overzealous). Your response made it sound like you're totally down with doing both those things (either that, or you thought I meant "don't do anything at all"). Fighting for what you believe in is one thing, but fighting for what you believe in and being rude, aggressive, and overzealous is another. 

It's just that I see a lot of minorities and atheists who think it's okay to do things like fight for rights, but be aggressive and hateful towards the oppressors, which does nothing really. Sure you might end up getting your rights in the end, but these types might feel like getting revenge, which isn't good at all and can be a severe lose-lose for anyone involved.



Fallowfox said:


> >Make fun of dark age belief systems
> >'Just as bad' as people who use dark age belief systems to strip employees of their full health insurance or pollute classrooms with falsified religion-compatible science



Yeah, it's just as bad. Look pal, if you say something like "Racism is bad", it doesn't matter if you're somehow "evening the field" by doing something racist to a race in the majority it's still friggin racist, I don't care how much you say "It's for the greater good!"; you just went against your own premise.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> It's just that I see a lot of minorities and atheists who think it's okay to do things like fight for rights, but be aggressive and hateful towards the oppressors, which does nothing really. Sure you might end up getting your rights in the end, but these types might feel like getting revenge, which isn't good at all and can be a severe lose-lose for anyone involved.



If religious people think atheists are assholes for finally banning religion from public schools, just to name something that is very important to me, I would be totally fine with that.

Also, I think the best way to finally get rid of religion isn't by doing it in an aggressive way. You have to do it the passive way. No more religion in schools, no funding for religious organizations from the government, banning religious lobbying from politics (full seperation of church and state), purely secular education in schools.
More and more people stop going to church anyway. You just have to support this trend by removing religion from the public even further.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, it was mainly that I was voicing my opinions on (trashing religious people and being overzealous). Your response made it sound like you're totally down with doing both those things (either that, or you thought I meant "don't do anything at all"). Fighting for what you believe in is one thing, but fighting for what you believe in and being rude, aggressive, and overzealous is another.
> 
> It's just that I see a lot of minorities and atheists who think it's okay to do things like fight for rights, but be aggressive and hateful towards the oppressors, which does nothing really. Sure you might end up getting your rights in the end, but these types might feel like getting revenge, which isn't good at all and can be a severe lose-lose for anyone involved.
> 
> ...



I don't think making light of magical beliefs is tantamount to inciting racial hatred, nor did I ever claim it was for the greater good. I think that complaining that people mock a system of beliefs that should be mocked, and which people are entitled to mock just as they would mock the scientologists, is petty and that comparing it to real legal struggles as 'just as bad' trivialises real suffering.


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I like that you acknowledge that the bible was written by people and isn't inspired by a higher power.
> 
> As for us "making fun of you"... What about christians forcing their beliefs into laws? Atheists aren't making fun of you. We are retaliating because we don't want your bullshit in our lives!



You can't say it's bullshit unless you have evidence to backup your claims but I can still understand you. Atheists should not be forced to do things that are about Christianity but being an asshole to Christians isn't going to help your situation at all.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> You can't say it's bullshit unless you have evidence to backup your claims but I can still understand you. Atheists should not be forced to do things that are about Christianity but being an asshole to Christians isn't going to help your situation at all.



What claims did I make? That your religion is bullshit? Last time I checked it was your religion that makes a shitload of unfalsifiable claims and it is your religion that isn't backed up by any evidence! And you folks have the nerve to call atheists idiots just because we are not falling for that nonsense...
Prove to me that your religion is true and I take it all back, but don't expect me to stay when being called an idiot for not believing in something that is so obviously fake.


----------



## tisr (Jul 6, 2014)

There is a difference between atheism and anti-theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, while anti-theism is the opposition of the belief of gods. It follows that all anti-theists are also atheist.

Anti-theists believe that the effect of religious belief is positively harmful, and that simply leaving it alone under the blanket of free speech and respect is ignoring the harm and unlawfulness carried out by theism. It therefore follows that they believe theism should be eradicated.

For me, I'm not really arguing against theism as much as arguing for reason.


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> What claims did I make? That your religion is bullshit? Last time I checked it was your religion that makes a shitload of unfalsifiable claims and it is your religion that isn't backed up by any evidence! And you folks have the nerve to call atheists idiots just because we are not falling for that nonsense...
> Prove to me that your religion is true and I take it all back, but don't expect me to stay when being called an idiot for not believing in something that is so obviously fake.


No, you prove that it isn't true. You are not at a higher position to tell what we should do. I don't need to prove you anything and I don't care at all if you don't believe in God.


----------



## tisr (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> No, you prove that it isn't true. You are not at a higher position to tell what we should do. I don't need to prove you anything and I don't care at all if you don't believe in God.



Burden of proof. Atheists claim that there is no convincing reason to believe in god, not that no god exists.

The only way to not be atheist by definition is to be given a convincing reason to believe in god. It is also impossible to prove that something does not exist. The burden of proof lies in theists, who claim that a god exists, to give this proof.

Of course atheists are not a higher power to demand that you prove the existence of a god, but then you should not be surprised when atheists continue to lack a belief in gods as a result.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> No, you prove that it isn't true. You are not at a higher position to tell what we should do. I don't need to prove you anything and I don't care at all if you don't believe in God.



As I said above, please PLEASE look at how arguments work... That isn't about religion or science, it's about how to express your arguments properly. Whether you are religious or not, that is a universal standard...

Proving a negative is impossible! I am complitely unable to demonstrate that your religion is false. The only thing I can do is say that there is no evidence to support it and that is why I don't believe in it and why no one should believe in it.


----------



## ADF (Jul 6, 2014)

People are using a technological wonder enabled by the cumulative knowledge of many different sciences, to demand that someone prove the world is naturalistic and isn't run by a magical sky daddy...

Science has solved many of the problems that were perpetuated by theistic ideology. It has put food on our table were religion just starved in hope of a god solving their ills, it has cured illnesses that religion consistently failed to cure through prayer, it has explained all of the things that theists attributed to super natural forces.

And yet now as they sit in the comfort of their 21st century scientifically enabled paradise, they have the audacity to demand proof that naturalistic thinking that has brought us everything we hold dear isn't wrong and that a MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY isn't the true explanation of how the universe works.

Holy shit.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

ADF said:


> People are using a technological wonder enabled by the cumulative knowledge of many different sciences, to demand that someone prove the world is naturalistic and isn't run by a magical sky daddy...
> 
> Science has solved many of the problems that were perpetuated by theistic ideology. It has put food on our table were religion just starved in hope of a god solving their ills, it has cured illnesses that religion consistently failed to cure through prayer, it has explained all of the things that theists attributed to super natural forces.
> 
> ...




And if one points that out...well...you're obviously just as bad as religious lobbying groups defending hatecrime.


----------



## ADF (Jul 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> And if one points that out...well...you're obviously just as bad as religious lobbying groups defending hatecrime.



They're cowards. That's all they are, cowards. We all fear death, but they fear death to the point that they'll believe 'anything' they're told to push that fear to the back of their minds. They're enabling the holding back of human society, handing bigots and militants the shield of faith to hide behind, increasing human misery world wide and for what? Just so they can go another day without having to worry about death?

Selfish self indulgent cowards.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

ADF said:


> They're cowards. That's all they are, cowards. We all fear death, but they fear death to the point that they'll believe 'anything' they're told to push that fear to the back of their minds. They're enabling the holding back of human society, handing bigots and militants the shield of faith to hide behind, increasing human misery world wide and for what? Just so they can go another day without having to worry about death?
> 
> Selfish self indulgent cowards.



I don't want to love forever, but I really hope they figure out immortality within the next 100 years. Because if they do religion is pretty much gonna end instantly.


----------



## ADF (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I don't want to live forever, but I really hope they figure out immortality within the next 100 years. Because if they do religion is pretty much gonna end instantly.



Nah, they'll suicide bomb the immortality clinics, calling it a crime against god.

-edit

All religions focus on life after death, immortality would be the greatest abomination and "rebellion against god" imaginable.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

ADF said:


> All religions focus on life after death, immortality would be the greatest abomination and "rebellion against god" imaginable.



Well then that's just one more reason to figure it out as quickly as possible! As an atheist naturally my goal in life is to sin as much as possible, so the greatest abomination and rebellion against god is just barely good enough for me :V

But you are right, they really would completely flip their shit if we ever figure that out... But then everyone is gonna get scared and they storm the clinics, not to get rid of them, but to become immortal themselves. No matter how insane you are, your most basic fears are still gonna dictate your actions.


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> As I said above, please PLEASE look at how arguments work... That isn't about religion or science, it's about how to express your arguments properly. Whether you are religious or not, that is a universal standard...
> 
> Proving a negative is impossible! I am complitely unable to demonstrate that your religion is false. The only thing I can do is say that there is no evidence to support it and that is why I don't believe in it and why no one should believe in it.



I was with you until the last part. You can't tell anyone what they should believe because it's their own business.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> I was with you until the last part. You can't tell anyone what they should believe because it's their own business.



I want people to be reasonable. I don't have an issue with people who keep personal beliefs personal but reasonable people don't believe in unfalsifiable claims that aren't backed up by any evidence. If you do you are not reasonable.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

Oh how I wish theists kept it their own business.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> I was with you until the last part. You can't tell anyone what they should believe because it's their own business.



'Nobody should believe the world is flat, because that is not consistent with observation'. 

'Nobody should believe in magic, because all magic is either unexplained or has been explained as trickery or natural processes'

'Nobody should believe the holocaust didn't happen, because there's lots of evidence it occurred'

'Nobody should believe the moon is made of cheese, because lunar samples are anorthosite and basalt'


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I want people to be reasonable. I don't have an issue with people who keep personal beliefs personal but reasonable people don't believe in unfalsifiable claims that aren't backed up by any evidence. If you do you are not reasonable.


We keep them personal but it's Atheists who beg attention from Christians. Just ignore people who you think are not reasonable because they are not gonna change.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> We keep them personal but it's Atheists who beg attention from Christians. Just ignore people who you think are not reasonable because they are not gonna change.



So you want me to ignore that the pope went to Africa to tell people there that condoms are worse than AIDS because the monster in the sky told him so, ruining YEARS of educational work?
Or that a court in Germany recently ruled that muslims and jews are still allowed to mutilate their kids by having their foreskin chopped off?
Of course I'll ignore people who leave me alone with religion. But I am not just an atheist, I am also an anti-theist. I hate religion and I want it gone because I see it as one of the most evil things humanity has ever come up with.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> We keep them personal but it's Atheists who beg attention from Christians. Just ignore people who you think are not reasonable because they are not gonna change.



Is it opposite day again?


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> So you want me to ignore that the pope went to Africa to tell people there that condoms are worse than AIDS because the monster in the sky told him so, ruining YEARS of educational work?
> Or that a court in Germany recently ruled that muslims and jews are still allowed to mutilate their kids by having their foreskin chopped off?
> Of course I'll ignore people who leave me alone with religion. But I am not just an atheist, I am also an anti-theist. I hate religion and I want it gone because I see it as one of the most evil things humanity has ever come up with.


I agree with you but us normal Christians who don't do anything like that, don't hate us.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> I agree with you but us normal Christians who don't do anything like that, don't hate us.



I don't hate religious people, I hate religion. But I do hate idiots and bigots who actively spread lies, and in my eyes any religion is a lie.

Because when I see shit like this:





Then my reaction is kind of like this:


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

kiitsune said:


> I agree with you but us normal Christians who don't do anything like that, don't hate us.



And us normal atheists don't beg attention from Christians, right?


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 6, 2014)

tisr said:


> Burden of proof. Atheists claim that there is no  convincing reason to believe in god, not that no god exists.



You can believe in god only for as long as there is no convincing  evidence, because where is knowledge, there is no faith. If you know  something, then you can no longer believe in it, it's technically  impossible. Proving that god exist would be actually one of the worst things you  could do to any true believers, since _having faith_ is the most important thing in all major religions.



CaptainCool said:


> So you want me to ignore that the pope went to Africa to tell people there that condoms are worse than AIDS because the monster in the sky told him so, ruining YEARS of educational work?



Again with that crap. He also told them to not to fuck. Did they listened to him? No. They cherrypicked, so fuck them.



CaptainCool said:


> Then my reaction is kind of like this:



Thank you for the cancer Q.Q


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> No. They cherrypicked, so fuck them.



With or without a condom?


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 6, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> With or without a condom?



With. I want to die because of furry-induced cancer, not AIDS.


----------



## tisr (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> You can believe in god only for as long as there is no convincing  evidence, because where is knowledge, there is no faith. If you know  something, then you can no longer believe in it, it's technically  impossible. Proving that god exist would be actually the worst thing you  could do to any true believers, since _having faith_ is the most important thing in all major religions.



Technically they can't believe in a god where there is no evidence, since faith is not a reasonable model to use when trying to determine the existence of a god. The most logical position is to assume with a lack of evidence is that it is impossible to determine the existence of a god. Though it is possible to disprove the existence of the Christian god, since the Christian god posesses innate logical contradictions(e.g. spaceless and timeless yet omnipresent, omniscient yet free will, omnipotent yet has Satan as a rival, omnibenevolent yet sends people to get tortured for eternity etc.)


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> You can believe in god only for as long as there is no convincing  evidence, because where is knowledge, there is no faith. If you know  something, then you can no longer believe in it, it's technically  impossible. Proving that god exist would be actually one of the worst things you  could do to any true believers, since _having faith_ is the most important thing in all major religions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, and faith is stupid because believing without evidence is dangerous and unreasonable.

How is that a good thing?! That is the issue with the fucking catholics, they only care about their disgusting doctrines and not one tiny bit about their followers.

You are welcome.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 6, 2014)

tisr said:


> The most logical position



Umm... I don't think any kind of logic applies there. Faith is not logical, religion is not logical. Wait. I was using logic too. Shit, we're all wrong




CaptainCool said:


> How is that a good thing?! That is the issue with the fucking catholics, they only care about their disgusting doctrines and not one tiny bit about their followers.



You know, it isn't like anyone is forcing you to be a catholic, it's not radical islam. So if you want to cherrypick intentionally you better stop identyfing yourself with catholicism and start with christianity, if you need to.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> You know, it isn't like anyone is forcing you to be a catholic, it's not radical islam. So if you want to cherrypick intentionally you better stop identyfing yourself with catholicism and start with christianity, if you need to.



I'm not cherrypicking, I see all religions as evil. Christianity and the catholic church just influence my life, islam not so much.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> You can believe in god only for as long as there is no convincing  evidence, because where is knowledge, there is no faith. If you know  something, then you can no longer believe in it, it's technically  impossible. Proving that god exist would be actually one of the worst things you  could do to any true believers, since _having faith_ is the most important thing in all major religions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're using the word 'belief' incorrectly. Belief doesn't mean 'something held true in spite of any evidence'. It merely means 'something held to be true'. 'I believe the moon orbits the earth', for example, would be a sound statement.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You're using the word 'belief' incorrectly. Belief doesn't mean 'something held true in spite of any evidence'. It merely means 'something held to be true'. 'I believe the moon orbits the earth', for example, would be a sound statement.



Then change it to faith. I'm sorry, it was lost in the translation, as belief and faith can be described by the same word in polish.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Then change it to faith. I'm sorry, it was lost in the translation, as belief and faith can be described by the same word in polish.



Same here. But I like in English there is an extra word for it, makes it easier to point out stupid stuff.

Also:
[video=youtube;-evIyrrjTTY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY[/video]


----------



## kiitsune (Jul 6, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> And us normal atheists don't beg attention from Christians, right?



That too, maybe. Haven't done any research.


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Also:



That's... hitlerrious! Also, more or less historically accurate and that is shocking.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 6, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> That's... hitlerrious! Also, more or less historically accurate and that is shocking.



Well I guess listing who killed who isn't so hard 
But yeah, it is. Especially if you consider the time frame that the video covers...


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Jul 6, 2014)

I think that modern physics is starting to resurrect ideas that were once associted with mysticism. Take the similarity between mathematical universe Hypothesis and Pythagoreanism, for example. MY point being that I think divinity exists and it's only a matter of time before science finds it, though I imagine religious folk will be disappointed when it doesn't match what they believe.

I myself am a panentheist with a belief in an unspecified afterlife (based on my own experience with a ghost). I also believe that animals have souls, since the ghost I encounter was my late dog Jordi.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> I think that modern physics is starting to resurrect ideas that were once associted with mysticism. Take the similarity between mathematical universe Hypothesis and Pythagoreanism, for example. MY point being that I think divinity exists and it's only a matter of time before science finds it, though I imagine religious folk will be disappointed when it doesn't match what they believe.
> 
> I myself am a panentheist with a belief in an unspecified afterlife (based on my own experience with a ghost). I also believe that animals have souls, since the ghost I encounter was my late dog Jordi.



Modern physics does not invoke mysticism. Remember that modern physics has been established by careful and meticulous skeptical thought and experimentation when possible. 

That is not mysticism, and people who see mysticism in physics are interpreting the jargon as if it is spiritual poetry, rather than highly specific vocabulary. The kinds of people who really think they have met the ghosts of their dead pets, rather than considering the much more likely option that it was illusory- the option which requires no new physics to explain it.

No real ghost has ever been observed officially. Plenty of fake ghosts have been exposed though. What would _you_ believe if someone else was putting forward the claim that they are being haunted by their dead hamster?


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Jul 7, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Modern physics does not invoke mysticism. Remember that modern physics has been established by careful and meticulous skeptical thought and experimentation when possible.
> 
> That is not mysticism, and people who see mysticism in physics are interpreting the jargon as if it is spiritual poetry, rather than highly specific vocabulary. The kinds of people who really think they have met the ghosts of their dead pets, rather than considering the much more likely option that it was illusory- the option which requires no new physics to explain it.
> 
> No real ghost has ever been observed officially. Plenty of fake ghosts have been exposed though. What would _you_ believe if someone else was putting forward the claim that they are being haunted by their dead hamster?




What I meant was that modern physics has been coming up with a few hypothesis similar to what mystics believed in the past, not that physics is intentionally invoking mysticism . Like I said, mathematical universe theory could be considered to physics what Pythagoras's beliefs were to mysticism. As for the ghost bit, the encounter was a one time thing. It happened the night after my dog died, I heard him running through the house and felt him jump up on my bed. I know what I experienced.

Now if you want a really unbelievable (but true) paranormal story from my family, there is the story of how my deadbeat dad saw the winning lottery numbers in a dream, but he didn't write them down so when he went to buy the ticket, he could only remember the first three numbers. But they were the right first three numbers, because he won $500. And I know this story is true because my mom confirmed it and she A. hates my deadbeat dad enough that she would never lie for him and B. is a hardcore skeptic herself, so she wouldn't claim to have shared in a paranormal experience unless it actually happened.


----------



## tisr (Jul 7, 2014)

I read up on Pythagoranism, and how is that even vaguely related to Mathematical Universe Theory?
For one, most of the things in Pythagoreanism have been proven to be false/cannot be proven because it is unfalsifiable.
Reminds me a whole lot about the whole Spirit Science things where they take abstract mathematical constructs and try to mesh it in with the physical world without a justification for why and how such a thing is done.

Second one isn't really paranormal, assuming its a 6-from-49 lottery, the chance of the 1st three numbers being correct may be 0.000905%, which may lead one to believe that such an event is a work of the paranormal.

But remember, that people win the lottery despite the fact that its a 1 in 13,983,816 chance of winning. And these people get their lottery numbers from somewhere. Extraordinary claims may require extraordinary evidence, but you are confusing an improbable claim from an extraordinary one. Winning the lottery is improbable, but not extraordinary.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 7, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> I think that modern physics is starting to resurrect ideas that were once associted with mysticism. Take the similarity between mathematical universe Hypothesis and Pythagoreanism, for example. MY point being that I think divinity exists and it's only a matter of time before science finds it, though I imagine religious folk will be disappointed when it doesn't match what they believe.
> 
> I myself am a panentheist with a belief in an unspecified afterlife (based on my own experience with a ghost). I also believe that animals have souls, since the ghost I encounter was my late dog Jordi.





The young man in the cafe said:


> What I meant was that modern physics has been coming up with a few hypothesis similar to what mystics believed in the past, not that physics is intentionally invoking mysticism . Like I said, mathematical universe theory could be considered to physics what Pythagoras's beliefs were to mysticism. As for the ghost bit, the encounter was a one time thing. It happened the night after my dog died, I heard him running through the house and felt him jump up on my bed. I know what I experienced.
> 
> Now if you want a really unbelievable (but true) paranormal story from my family, there is the story of how my deadbeat dad saw the winning lottery numbers in a dream, but he didn't write them down so when he went to buy the ticket, he could only remember the first three numbers. But they were the right first three numbers, because he won $500. And I know this story is true because my mom confirmed it and she A. hates my deadbeat dad enough that she would never lie for him and B. is a hardcore skeptic herself, so she wouldn't claim to have shared in a paranormal experience unless it actually happened.



Science does most certainly not "resurrect ideas that were once associted with mysticism". It _demystifies_ the world by filling in the blanks that we don't know yet.

I am willing to bet everything I own that you did not enocunter the ghost of your dog.

I also don't believe what happened to your dad. Winning the lottery is nothing special.


----------



## Cassafrass (Jul 8, 2014)

Whooooa, so many atheists. O.O

I am a Christian. Simply put! ^^ I do not believe humans evolved from animals, but that doesn't stop me from wishing I was one! XD


----------



## ADF (Jul 9, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> Whooooa, so many atheists. O.O
> 
> I am a Christian. Simply put! ^^ I do not believe humans evolved from animals, but that doesn't stop me from wishing I was one! XD



You don't believe all the scientific evidence of evolution, but you believe in a talking snake and you deserving eternal torture because a very distant relative made from dirt ate an apple...


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 9, 2014)

ADF said:


> You don't believe all the scientific evidence of evolution, but you believe in a talking snake and you deserving eternal torture because a very distant relative made from dirt ate an apple...



Christianity in a nutshell


----------



## tisr (Jul 9, 2014)

You simply can't believe that gravity doesn't exist, and then deny that gravity happens despite evidence everywhere.
Same with any scientific theory.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 9, 2014)

tisr said:


> You simply can't believe that gravity doesn't exist, and then deny that gravity happens despite evidence everywhere.
> Same with any scientific theory.



Off course, they would claim the same about God.


----------



## Cassafrass (Jul 9, 2014)

I typed up a nice written response but sadly it was lost, so I will just leave you with these links: 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/answers-to-11-questions-for-atheists/

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://www.christianityexplained.net/

Hopefully that clears up any questions you have well enough, and I don't really want to argue about this anymore, seeing as I'm only fifteen and I know I probably won't be able to persuade you to view the world as I do (unless, by chance, these links help you - if so, that is a miracle in itself and great!). You can also PM me any other questions you have.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 9, 2014)

Why not show the best example, Cass? 

[video=youtube;2z-OLG0KyR4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4[/video]

Muhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahahhah!!!!!


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 9, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> Whooooa, so many atheists. O.O
> 
> I am a Christian. Simply put! ^^ I do not believe humans evolved from animals, but that doesn't stop me from wishing I was one! XD



Humans ARE animals, but not on par with other animals on a cognitive level.


----------



## tisr (Jul 9, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> Hopefully that clears up any questions you have well enough, and I don't really want to argue about this anymore, seeing as I'm only fifteen and I know I probably won't be able to persuade you to view the world as I do (unless, by chance, these links help you - if so, that is a miracle in itself and great!). You can also PM me any other questions you have.



Age is not a defining factor, and should not be a defining factor, about the validity of your beliefs. But if you wish not to argue, I respect your choice. I shall counter your links anyway, and you may simply interpret as an exercise for me to practise my debate skills and confirm my opinions. (ugh semantics D: )

For the first link, it is a pro-atheist link, which constanty mentions that life is meaningless if God had a plan for us. Nothing to rebut here, and I agree with most of the points.

For the second link, the rebuttal to this delves into a lot of semantics. I answered yes to the existence of absolute truth, since I can confirm that I am having an experience. I cannot confirm the nature of the experience(e.g. real, hallucination, dreaming), but it is an experience nonetheless. I do not even know how to begin to doubt whether I am having an experience, and I presume that something in my own mind cannot be experience by all people everywhere at everytime. So yes, as far as I can tell, the statement that I am having an experience is an absolute truth.

Next question, Do you know something to be true. I answered that I believe I know something to be true, namely the fact that I am having an experience.

Next question, Does Logic Exist. From my experiences, logic exists. Logic, for example, states that something cannot be simultaneously true and not true, and so far everything I know of holds up to this claim. In fact I do not even know how to think of something that violates this statement. So yes, logic exists.

Next question, Does logic change. I cannot guarantee that because logic has worked all the time, that it will work tomorrow. So the answer should be "I don't know". But sadly that is not an option, and because logic has worked so far according to all my experiences, I shall go with "Logic does not change"

Next question, Is logic made of matter. Semantically, I would say so. Logic is a process that is undertaken by matter, it is a pattern or a computation that happens to matter. Logic is like the image printed onto paper, a pattern from blotches of ink. Without matter, logic would not exist, and the process cannot occur.

Next question, does matter change. Matter changes, according to my observation.

Next question, they asked me again if logic is made of matter. They claim that there is a contradiction if logic does not change, logic is made of matter, but matter changes. I disagree. Bringing back the analogy of printed images, the atoms that are used in the ink may change, but the pattern produced by the ink still stays. Likewise, even though matter changes, the process of logic need not change.

That was an awful lot of semantics. Just before the "The Proof That God Exists..." button, they state that according to my options, "Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God." I disagree. Firstly, logic is not necessary to prove everything. Bringing back the example of me knowing that I have an experience, logic was not required to know that, and no deduction was necessary.  I do not doubt, or even know how to doubt that claim, and do not require logic to doubt that claim.

Secondly, God is not required for me to know I am having an experience. Why would you need God to understand that you are having an experience? I understand that you need some form of universal outside observer to determine the nature of your experience, since you are unable to confirm it without a universal reference, but knowing that I am having an experience does not require God.

And so they claim, "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything". If they mean that I need God to know that the nature of my experience is one that is true, I agree that an outside observer is required. But I do not claim that, as I stated before, I do not need God to prove I am having an experience.

And assuming God exists, and that God is able to let us know whether our experiences are true, and that he is infalliable, this does not mean that we know absolute truth from God. God may be infalliable by definition, but human beings are not, and human beings are unable to accurately discern true revelations from false experiences of true revelations.

Phew, that was a mouthful. The third link has obvious gaping holes regarding the viability of atheism. Its the usual, 'matter coming from nowhere/always existing is illogical, but God always existing is justified'. Most laughable about the link is how they claim a reason Christianity is more accurate than Islam is because the Bible is more scientifically accurate, giving examples from the Quran(e.g. mountains prevent earthquakes), while ignoring the plethora of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This rebuttal is heavily abridged, but its mostly because most of the examples are trivial to rebut.


----------



## Casual Cat (Jul 9, 2014)

I'm a practicing catholic, even though my fÌ¶aÌ¶gÌ¶gÌ¶oÌ¶tÌ¶rÌ¶yÌ¶ fabulousness probably means I shouldn't be. I must confess (hah)that I don't actually believe most of the dogma. I just love all of the pomp and circumstance of the church.

And I mean it's not like saying a rosary is going to hurt me. Unless the muslums were right. Then I'm fucked.


----------



## Cassafrass (Jul 9, 2014)

Oops, I searched that link up off of Google and put it in my reply without thinking! Sorry, I disagree with it then. Gah, it's fine if you like it, but just know I don't agree with it personally. >.< Here's a good site that talks about a lot of things, almost all of which I agree with (if not all!) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/

And since this is a furry site, here is my views on the whole subject (again, I would love to be an animal, but that doesn't mean humans ARE animals): https://answersingenesis.org/are-hu...nces-between-human-life-and-animal-life-ob16/

Just totally ignore that first link I put before (you can tell I need to polish up on my debating. XD)


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 9, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> Oops, I searched that link up off of Google and put it in my reply without thinking! Sorry, I disagree with it then. Gah, it's fine if you like it, but just know I don't agree with it personally. >.< Here's a good site that talks about a lot of things, almost all of which I agree with (if not all!) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
> 
> And since this is a furry site, here is my views on the whole subject (again, I would love to be an animal, but that doesn't mean humans ARE animals): https://answersingenesis.org/are-hu...nces-between-human-life-and-animal-life-ob16/
> 
> Just totally ignore that first link I put before (you can tell I need to polish up on my debating. XD)



Even other creationists recognise that answers in genesis is false. :\ Even _they_ make fun of it. 

I happen to study the Earth Sciences, which means I have a rudimentary understanding of evolution. 

1) When it is stated 'there is no animal parallel of the human brain, therefore evolution is wrong', the statement is not only too vague to be useful [and incorrect by most measures] but incoherent. Why should we expect there to be animal parallels? And if there were parallels how could we be sure they weren't convergent?

The fact humans have large complex brains does not mean they didn't evolve, especially when there is a fossil record of apes with increasingly large brains leading up to us. Homo heidelbergensis, habilus, erectus, ergaster. 

2) 'Only humans speak'. Again, very vague. Even bees have their own language...but even if humans were the only species that you would say 'speaks', what is the significance? We might imagine a world in which all creatures that echo-locate, bar one species of bat, go extinct. Would that species of bat now no longer be an animal because it was unique? In spite of the fact it meets all the definitive criteria to be properly defined as an animal? 

3) Only humans are fully bipedal. No they're not. Many animals in the history of earth have been bipedal and many still are. Gibbons are fully bipedal primates, for example. 

4) 'Man has feelings'. Again so what? This doesn't mean humans aren't animals- why would it? 


The arguments for defining humans as 'not animals' are incoherent. They fail to even address the question of what an animal is and why the possession of traits like bipedalism would mean a species isn't an animal. 

On the other hand Scientists do have a proper definition of animal, which is "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having  specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly  to stimuli." So we would, even if we were not descended from apes, be animals. 

What AIG is trying to prove is that we don't belong to the phylogenetic clade Animalia, or indeed _any_ clade- that we were invented by God some 10Kya. 

Of course, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, while there is very good morphological and genetic evidence to place humans within a nested animal phylogeny, which I will explain in detail if you're actually interested in discovering about our origins, rather than trying to distort them to fit your religious convictions.




The young man in the cafe said:


> What I meant was that modern  physics has been coming up with a few hypothesis similar to what mystics  believed in the past, not that physics is intentionally invoking  mysticism . Like I said, mathematical universe theory could be  considered to physics what Pythagoras's beliefs were to mysticism. As  for the ghost bit, the encounter was a one time thing. It happened the  night after my dog died, I heard him running through the house and felt  him jump up on my bed. I know what I experienced.
> 
> Now if you want a really unbelievable (but true) paranormal story from  my family, there is the story of how my deadbeat dad saw the winning  lottery numbers in a dream, but he didn't write them down so when he  went to buy the ticket, he could only remember the first three numbers.  But they were the right first three numbers, because he won $500. And I  know this story is true because my mom confirmed it and she A. hates my  deadbeat dad enough that she would never lie for him and B. is a  hardcore skeptic herself, so she wouldn't claim to have shared in a  paranormal experience unless it actually happened.



Current physics is nothing like past mystical beliefs. You may get this  impression if you do not understand the correct meaning of the  scientific jargon. Any semblance of physics to past mystical beliefs  would not lend credence to mysticism by association, though. 

You know what you experienced, but I don't care what you experienced. I  care what you can demonstrate. People have 'experienced' being abducted  by aliens, or seeing big foot. 

The chance of guessing the first 3 lottery numbers is small. But a large number of people per day dream about the lottery numbers. Your  dad's 'mystic experience' was actually an unimpressive coincidence,  given there are 7 billion dreams per night.

It's as if you were to ask 1 million people to flip coins. At least a few will get 50 heads in a row. It doesn't make them magic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 9, 2014)

double post


----------



## Arbuzan (Jul 9, 2014)

Islam here. 2nd one to vote. Dunno who was the first person was....


----------



## Hooky (Jul 9, 2014)

Why is Atheism refered to as an organised religion when it is technically lack of religion (or belief in no god)? It doesn't have the structure of a religion.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 9, 2014)

Hooky said:


> Why is Atheism refered to as an organised religion when it is technically lack of religion (or belief in no god)? It doesn't have the structure of a religion.



Already asked the OP, he accuses us of being organised. D: 

In any case these threads, however they are worded, are usually 'what is your perspective on spirituality?'.


----------



## tisr (Jul 9, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> Oops, I searched that link up off of Google and put it in my reply without thinking! Sorry, I disagree with it then. Gah, it's fine if you like it, but just know I don't agree with it personally. >.< Here's a good site that talks about a lot of things, almost all of which I agree with (if not all!) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
> 
> And since this is a furry site, here is my views on the whole subject (again, I would love to be an animal, but that doesn't mean humans ARE animals): https://answersingenesis.org/are-hu...nces-between-human-life-and-animal-life-ob16/
> 
> Just totally ignore that first link I put before (you can tell I need to polish up on my debating. XD)



I have heard bad things about answersingenesis, and it has confirmed my belief that it has a severe misunderstanding of science.

Almost all the reasons why humans supersede animals are irrelevant. So what if humans are bipedal, or are able to speak? How does that makes humans transcend animals? Cats have acute senses of sight, hearing and smell, and are able to make use of conservation of angular momentum to land on their feet. By my arbitrary requirements, cats are more advanced than humans. As Fallowfox mentioned, science has an unbiased and rigorous definition of animals that includes humans in.

I briefly browsed on a few topics in answersingenesis, and it is clear the writers do not know and regularly misuse science. For example, in "Does distant starlight prove the universe is old?", the article regularly misuses relativity and time dilation(we can and have calculated the effects of time dilation, it is not unknown), as well as basic logic(local time vs universal time, light created on day 4 does not necessarily reach earth on day 4 local time, using their example of planes, you could set off and land in different local times)

Overall, answersingenesis contains many gaping scientific inaccuracies and logical inconsistensies.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 10, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> Oops, I searched that link up off of Google and put it in my reply without thinking! Sorry, I disagree with it then. Gah, it's fine if you like it, but just know I don't agree with it personally. >.< Here's a good site that talks about a lot of things, almost all of which I agree with (if not all!) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
> 
> And since this is a furry site, here is my views on the whole subject (again, I would love to be an animal, but that doesn't mean humans ARE animals): https://answersingenesis.org/are-hu...nces-between-human-life-and-animal-life-ob16/
> 
> Just totally ignore that first link I put before (you can tell I need to polish up on my debating. XD)



Girl, you need to finish school rather than read "answeringenesis.org".

I don't even know where to start because you don't seem to have any basic knowledge in biology


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 10, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> Oops, I searched that link up off of Google and put it in my reply without thinking! Sorry, I disagree with it then. Gah, it's fine if you like it, but just know I don't agree with it personally. >.< Here's a good site that talks about a lot of things, almost all of which I agree with (if not all!) https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
> 
> And since this is a furry site, here is my views on the whole subject (again, I would love to be an animal, but that doesn't mean humans ARE animals): https://answersingenesis.org/are-hu...nces-between-human-life-and-animal-life-ob16/
> 
> Just totally ignore that first link I put before (you can tell I need to polish up on my debating. XD)



Holy cow, you are just 15 and you are falling for the nonsense they are writing there... That is very alarming to me!
Answers in genesis is an AWFUL source of information! As everyone above me pointed out, litereally everything they say about scientific subjects is just plain wrong!
If you want to know something about science, ask a scientist, not a person who wants to justify the bible _through_ science!

Also, evolution is a proven FACT. There is no question about it anymore. If you say you don't believe in it... I'm sorry, that just means you didn't educate yourself about the subject or you simply looked at the wrong sources.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 10, 2014)

Evolution is a theory, and it is not possible to prove any theory. And the modern interpretation is unsatisfactory, anyway. Evolution will never evolve as long as so many people keep defending it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 10, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Evolution is a theory, and it is not possible to prove any theory. And the modern interpretation is unsatisfactory, anyway. Evolution will never evolve as long as so many people keep defending it.



"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and *repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation*."

Or in the language of mere mortals, proven. 

Our current understanding of how evolution works and what the phylogenetic tree of life on earth is is incomplete, but it is the most predictive and accurate understanding of biodiversity to *ever* be produced. 
In the future new discoveries will augment this theory of biodiversity, but they will not change its foundations, because those have been confirmed. 

What remain now are subtleties, such as 'does life tend to evolve gradually, or does it evolve in fits and starts?' and 'what is the significant of macroscopic trends in evolution over geological time periods, and how do they arise?' Nobody can be completely certain about these questions. 

These are questions one could spend a _life time_ researching, and potentially solving.


----------



## Corwin Cross (Jul 10, 2014)

I put down atheist, even though I was born and raised a Catholic. Catholic school showed me the light. :>

The light being, of course, that I want nothing to do with the church. :I


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 10, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Evolution is a theory, and it is not possible to prove any theory. And the modern interpretation is unsatisfactory, anyway. Evolution will never evolve as long as so many people keep defending it.



Scientific theories are completely different from Theories.


----------



## Kokoro (Jul 10, 2014)

My philosophy is best illustrated through this example:  How much money do I have in my pocket?

A Christian would say I had exactly $24.36.  A Muslim might say that I have $57.95.  A gnostic atheist would say I have $0.00.

Unless you've done scientific inquiry (turning out my pockets), the only viable answer is, "I don't know".  And that's a perfectly good answer.  This is agnosticism.  Default = Void.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 11, 2014)

Nemox said:


> My philosophy is best illustrated through this example:  How much money do I have in my pocket?
> 
> A Christian would say I had exactly $24.36.  A Muslim might say that I have $57.95.  A gnostic atheist would say I have $0.00.
> 
> Unless you've done scientific inquiry (turning out my pockets), the only viable answer is, "I don't know".  And that's a perfectly good answer.  This is agnosticism.  Default = Void.



I contest that you're not wearing any pants, so don't have pockets. 


Asking whether someone has any money or not in their pockets is different from asking an unfalsifiable magical question. In that situation we can either say 'we don't know and we never will, because it is not falsifiable,' or we can say 'bullshit- despite not being falsifiable everything we currently know indicates it is wrong'. 

For example, consider the question 'How many magic beans do I have in my pocket?' Of course I have none, everyone knows magic isn't real.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 11, 2014)

Nemox said:


> Unless you've done scientific inquiry (turning out my pockets), the only viable answer is, "I don't know".  And that's a perfectly good answer.  This is agnosticism.  Default = Void.



Yes, but we have turned out your pockets when it comes to evolution. 
The evidence that supports it is overwhelming. At this point saying that it isn't a proven fact only serves to demonstrate that you haven't done any research on the subject.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 11, 2014)

Cassafrass said:


> I typed up a nice written response but sadly it was lost, so I will just leave you with these links:
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/answers-to-11-questions-for-atheists/
> 
> ...



Since you're 15, I'll be nice (but firm) about this.  Belief in a god is one thing, it only takes a disregard of a few basic tenets of logical reasoning: the burden of proof, the null hypothesis, and Ockham's Razor.  Belief in creationism is another animal; one must disregard a mountain of physical evidence supporting evolution.  Evolution isn't just a different guess of how things happened a long time ago.  It's a model of an ongoing process with practical applications and predictive power in the present day.  As the biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."  The development of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms is an example of evolutionary adaptation in action, and an understanding of how it works is key to preventing its progress.  Our understanding of the history of life's development is complete enough that we can predict what future fossils we'll find, where we'll find them, and what features they will possess, not unlike an archaeological game of Clue.  An example of such a fossil is Tiktaalik roseae, a lobe-finned fish ancestor to terrestrial animals that fulfilled scientific predictions with incredible accuracy.

We're very familiar with Answers In Genesis and the like.  To anyone with a solid background in the sciences, their objections range from completely missing the point to laughably absurd to willfully disingenuous.  Rather than regurgitating these answers that have been prepackaged for you with no greater understanding required, you really ought to acquaint yourself with what scientists actually claim about evolution and why, so that you may think for yourself.  No offense, but being as young as you are, you likely haven't been given much exposure to the depth of the evolutionary model and the evidence behind it.  For a strong introduction, I suggest you pick up The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.  Don't let the attachment of Dawkins' name put you offâ€”the man has been one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists for decades, and he only recently began writing specifically about religion.  Used paperbacks are very inexpensive, and you should also have no trouble finding a copy to borrow from your local library.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 11, 2014)

Using Answers in Genesis as a source of information essentially means that you have given up thinking for yourself.
It also means that you admit that you have no idea about science at all but you feel like talking like you do know everything about it.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated  explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through  the scientific method, and *repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation*."
> 
> Or in the language of mere mortals, proven.



But proven does not mean what is modernly implied. "Prove" means  something like "test". It isn't possible to prove a theory correct. It  can either survive the test, or it can be proven incorrect. A theory  only has to fail in one case to be proven false. That's why mathematical  proofs are so much easier to disprove than to prove.

 Suppose some theory, Newton's theory of motion for example, is studied  (I chose that one because everyone knows it is both proven and  incorrect, or incomplete). You design a series of experiments to check  the theoretical predictions against what actually happens. Of course you  find that the theory gives you correct calculations provided your  experiments are carefully arranged to neglect smaller effects like  friction and inertia. The theory is proven in the situation you have  evaluated, but if you try it again on a different effect, like ions in  an accelerator, the theory fails. In fact, as it stands today, Newton's equations can only  give approximations except in the limit where the speed of light is infinitely large (and Plank's constant is infinitely small (Why are you  still reading this? I already made my point.).)

This is fine, of course. A theory isn't intended to give you facts. It is only meant to give you a framework for making predictions and, hopefully, gaining some understanding of the natural world. This is any theory's only justification. 

Appealing that the theory of evolution (and there isn't a theory of evolution, to begin with. It comes in flavors.) gives the most accurate predictions doesn't say much, by the way. (And it's not easy to squeeze a good prediction out of it anyway, it was always intended more to be a framework for understanding.) There are only a couple of theories that even touch the issue of why the animal kingdom is the way it is, and not some other way. 

Fundamentally evolution is too close to the anthropic principle to give any real insight as to why the world is the way it is.

Isn't this fun? We can keep talking, getting more and more esoteric _forever_, and never get anywhere. However, it looks like this discussion is geared more towards the philosophical. And, even though it's so popular, trying to pin the theory of evolution into an ontological overview of Nature is, quite frankly, absurd. Maybe that's too strong a word.

Oh, and about Answers in Genesis, they are _precisely _just as good a source as any, and they way you put itciting _any _source means you have given up thinking for yourself. Which is correct, except without the wholly unnecessary disparagement. Truly that is the problem of science today. Everyone takes so much for granted instead of doing their own work.


----------



## tisr (Jul 11, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> But proven does not mean what is modernly implied. "Prove" means  something like "test". It isn't possible to prove a theory correct. It  can either survive the test, or it can be proven incorrect. A theory  only has to fail in one case to be proven false. That's why mathematical  proofs are so much easier to disprove than to prove.
> 
> Suppose some theory, Newton's theory of motion for example, is studied  (I chose that one because everyone knows it is both proven and  incorrect, or incomplete). You design a series of experiments to check  the theoretical predictions against what actually happens. Of course you  find that the theory gives you correct calculations provided your  experiments are carefully arranged to neglect smaller effects like  friction and inertia. The theory is proven in the situation you have  evaluated, but if you try it again on a different effect, like ions in  an accelerator, the theory fails. In fact, as it stands today, Newton's equations can only  give approximations except in the limit where the speed of light is infinitely large (and Plank's constant is infinitely small (Why are you  still reading this? I already made my point.).)
> 
> ...



Actually, yes. A scientific theory cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. You're absolutely right, we are unable to know any objective truth from science. So much for cornering the scientific community.

Science is the best method we have for determining which statements about reality are the best for predicting experience. Science does not try to find objective truth, scientific theories are temporal, provisional and contingent. 

When you formulate a hypothesis, and then formulate an experiment to test said hypothesis, and you discover the experiment agrees with the hypothesis. The theory is now not right, it is simply not proven wrong. However, the theory had been failed to be proven wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right. But it can never be proved right because tomorrow's experiment may succed in disproving what you thought was right.

But science does not claim to produce objectively true statements. The point of science is try to find theories that predict experiences, or at least seem to predict experiences. What's the point you may ask? Predicting experiences is useful, they are useful even if the theories we use to make these predictions are not objectively true.

As Richard Dawkins puts it, "If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works, bitches."

Science works because it tests if predictions match reality by actually experimenting if predictions match reality. The point of science is not to find objective truth.

And to Answersingenesis, I have viewed answersingenesis, and a few people, including myself have rebutted one of the articles presented on the site, titled "Differences between Humans and Animals". Many of claims they make can easily be refuted with a good amount of science, logic, and epistemology. They are absolutely not just a good a source as any, as a source which has been peer-reviewed and been proven wrong.


----------



## Ame (Jul 12, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If there is no right and wrong, how is your claim that the Tao exists meaningful, and why should anybody be persuaded when you make the argument that you are unable to prove it exists?
> 
> Imagine if your doctor was prescribing you a new drug, and this is what she said. Would you trust her prescription? No; you would want proof that any drug you take will treat your disease rather than killing you.
> 
> You wouldn't be happy to say 'there's no right and wrong, only perception' after taking hemlock to cure hay fever.



See, isn't that what makes a beautiful religion? something that forwards the acquisition of knowledge and promotes harmony and social enlightenment? You act as if religion or even atheism is something that must be spread, or proven. But that's where your missing the point. Atheism was originally a reaction to the tyranny of western religion (obviously talking about atheism post medieval era) , promoting the acquisition of knowledge and equality despite religious affiliations. Today the thought is still focused on the acquisition of knowledge, but are not aquiring anything useful! who cares about background radiation, or fossils, or anything proving evolution. We know that evolution is probably true, why not just believe or not believe what does it matter? I personally don't think much on the matter, because its a waste of time, the past is in the past. Why study fossils when there are people starving, why propose hypotheses when there is war. There is so much humanity could be putting time and effort into yet we squander our time on proving where we came from. Same problem with Christianity tho,despite sending a loving message of peace and love they focusing on sending bibles to Africa rather than food and money -____- don't get me started on that.

All ideals, whatever they are, if they don't put right action into what they promote they are useless to me, and useless to the world. This is what I meant by, "There are no right answers, only perceptions. There  is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the  Tao" It all doesn't matter, the world is what it is, created or no. But we are humanity, and we have issues we need to focus on.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 12, 2014)

Evolutionary biology has tons of practical application, most notably in the field of medicine.  It is far from mere trivia.


----------



## FangWarrior (Jul 12, 2014)

Ame said:


> Furry's are the most disorganised people I know  hence why it isn't an 'organised' religion :V            (I only had 10 spots I cant put everything there haha)


IT IS TO AN ORGANIZED RELIGION! everyone knows that furry religion is THE BEST! ALL HAIL THE FUR GOD! >:V


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 12, 2014)

Yes, bow down to me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2014)

Ame said:


> See, isn't that what makes a beautiful religion? something that forwards the acquisition of knowledge and promotes harmony and social enlightenment? You act as if religion or even atheism is something that must be spread, or proven. But that's where your missing the point. Atheism was originally a reaction to the tyranny of western religion (obviously talking about atheism post medieval era) , promoting the acquisition of knowledge and equality despite religious affiliations. Today the thought is still focused on the acquisition of knowledge, but are not aquiring anything useful! who cares about background radiation, or fossils, or anything proving evolution. We know that evolution is probably true, why not just believe or not believe what does it matter? I personally don't think much on the matter, because its a waste of time, the past is in the past. Why study fossils when there are people starving, why propose hypotheses when there is war. There is so much humanity could be putting time and effort into yet we squander our time on proving where we came from. Same problem with Christianity tho,despite sending a loving message of peace and love they focusing on sending bibles to Africa rather than food and money -____- don't get me started on that.
> 
> All ideals, whatever they are, if they don't put right action into what they promote they are useless to me, and useless to the world. This is what I meant by, "There are no right answers, only perceptions. There  is no proof only thought. There is no right or wrong, there is but the  Tao" It all doesn't matter, the world is what it is, created or no. But we are humanity, and we have issues we need to focus on.



'why does recognising science matter?'. It matters if you desire your beliefs to be accurate reflections of reality. We use our accurate models of reality to do all sorts of neat things. Fossil phylogeny is even used when studying earthquakes that occurred a very long time ago. We use that knowledge to build safer cities- because we are aware of the seismic risk even if no earthquake has occurred in living memory. 

One of my Tutors at College is a palaeoseismologist. He uses all kinds of techniques, including fossils, to study the seismic nature of central asia. 

There are right answers. There is proof. Proving the right answer matters because we can save lives.

Your attitude is just...bizarre. As if throwing up our hands and saying 'let's concentrate only on immediate utilitarian needs' would actually work. As if failing to care about facts, if you don't see an immediate use for them because you're too ignorant, would actually benefit us.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 12, 2014)

tisr said:


> And to Answersingenesis, I have viewed answersingenesis, and a few people, including myself have rebutted one of the articles presented on the site, titled "Differences between Humans and Animals". Many of claims they make can easily be refuted with a good amount of science, logic, and epistemology. They are absolutely not just a good a source as any, as a source which has been peer-reviewed and been proven wrong.



I wasn't entirely clear. You can't declare any particular source wrong, that is cheating. You can declare a source moronic, but that's just an opinion and doesn't carry any weight. Every source is precisely as good as every other source, peer-reviewed or not. A lot of authors have written on peer review, it falls short of it's lofty goals, especially in implying that such and such journal has some kind of authority. In this age of information it's easy to make a case that the peer review process does more harm than good. (OMG I just went there. You can be discommunicated from science for that.)

There is no room for reputation in science.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 12, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Every source is precisely as good as every other source, peer-reviewed or not.



That is simply not true. If your source is demonstrably and factually false then your source is worthless. _Especially_ if the person you are arguing with can demonstrate that! Because now you haven't given a counterargument, you have indirectly supported the other person's argument!

And by the way, answersingenesis _is_ a demonstrably false source.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> That is simply not true. If your source is demonstrably and factually false then your source is worthless. _Especially_ if the person you are arguing with can demonstrate that! Because now you haven't given a counterargument, you have indirectly supported the other person's argument!
> 
> And by the way, answersingenesis _is_ a demonstrably false source.



Actually, point to Cool on this one. True people do seem to bat sources away for sometimes no good reasons, there are times when you can show that a source is wrong, flawed, written with an agenda, severely biased, etc. And in that case, a source like that isn't really a good source.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 12, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Actually, point to Cool on this one. True people do seem to bat sources away for sometimes no good reasons, there are times when you can show that a source is wrong, flawed, written with an agenda, severely biased, etc. And in that case, a source like that isn't really a good source.



I have yet to see a christian website that gives _proper_ counterarguments and not just shit like "that is wrong, here is a bad analogy to prove it!", "that is wrong because my beliefs say so!", or "that is wrong because who the heck do these scientists think they are?!". Or "counterarguments" that are based on misconceptions in general. If I read one more time that the big bang was supposedly an explosion I'm gonna lose my shit... (I'm constipated, please do show me a site like that! :c)


----------



## Kokoro (Jul 12, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Yes, but we have turned out your pockets when it comes to evolution.
> The evidence that supports it is overwhelming. At this point saying that it isn't a proven fact only serves to demonstrate that you haven't done any research on the subject.



Precisely.  It's as if we not only discovered the money, but also ran it through counterfeiting detection and determined it to be genuine.  The preponderance of evidence shows that evolution is a fact.


----------



## Ame (Jul 13, 2014)

I'm not ignorant to the idea that scientific research into such things has brought about interesting and useful findings, but when I was talking about Atheism and its search for knowledge, I meant it is all well and good to research into the past, to discover reality, hell, my religion is based on the cultivation and accumulation of knowledge, any kind, but there is a time and a place for that, we shouldn't be researching such things when a lot of the world is, you know, in poverty, war and starvation? although it is inevitable for our world to suffer but it is our honorable duty as a human society to act accordingly, as a society.

Such research should be a luxury not a right, once our world is stable. We should be able to learn where we came from, the truth of the world, I am all for that. I really want to know the truth, the whole truth. But not at the cost of lives where the time and effort could have gone to saving them.

Unfortunately I guess I'm in no position to judge, we can all preach preachy shit at one another till the cows come home but what does that change? nothing really. Once I finish university tho, hopefully I will be able to earn some cash, shake some hands and change something, even just a little bit.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 13, 2014)

Ame said:


> Atheism and its search for knowledge



You got the wrong idea about atheism.
Atheism doesn't do anything. It isn't a beliefsystem. I am not interested in knowing as many true and as little false things as possible because I'm an atheist! That is just my nature. Atheism only describes that you don't believe in gods or a higher power in general. That is all it's about. No dogma, no rules you have to follow, nothing. It is just a non-belief and nothing more.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 13, 2014)

Ame said:


> I'm not ignorant to the idea that scientific research into such things has brought about interesting and useful findings, but when I was talking about Atheism and its search for knowledge, I meant it is all well and good to research into the past, to discover reality, hell, my religion is based on the cultivation and accumulation of knowledge, any kind, but there is a time and a place for that, we shouldn't be researching such things when a lot of the world is, you know, in poverty, war and starvation? although it is inevitable for our world to suffer but it is our honorable duty as a human society to act accordingly, as a society.
> 
> Such research should be a luxury not a right, once our world is stable. We should be able to learn where we came from, the truth of the world, I am all for that. I really want to know the truth, the whole truth. But not at the cost of lives where the time and effort could have gone to saving them.
> 
> Unfortunately I guess I'm in no position to judge, we can all preach preachy shit at one another till the cows come home but what does that change? nothing really. Once I finish university tho, hopefully I will be able to earn some cash, shake some hands and change something, even just a little bit.



This attitude towards science, that it should be purely utilitarian, is idiotic. ._. 

Blue-sky science, as we have already justified, continues to provide useful information that we can use to combat the ills of our planet. Without Geological research into ancient climate we wouldn't be able to predict how our changing climate is going to influence our planet. 

But even if people were researching a subject purely for academic interest this is defensible, and the potential applications of their research should not be the deciding factor in our appreciation of epistemology. Whether something is true or not is the only concern.

And before you suggest it, no you can't demand that scientists trained to tease apart echinoid phylogeny should 'switch to curing cancer' or something like that. That would be as naive as question why, if Steven Hawking is so smart, he does not cure his disease. Being talented in one field does not mean one is talented at all fields. 

Nor is the amount of money expended on Geological research, which happens to be incredibly useful to our species, significant. Our species spends more on fucking cosmetics.


----------



## Kokoro (Jul 13, 2014)

On a note related more directly to the OP, not only is atheism not an "organized religion", but neither is Shinto.  Shinto is a collection of spiritual and some superstitious beliefs, but there is no dogma, membership, central authority nor holy text.  Shinto is all about harmony with nature, and Japanese culture has always been one to accept new information rather than to blindly cling to old ideas that don't work well.

I think it also has some interesting perspectives that can be applied in modern contexts.  The Void for example meshes so well with ideas that theoretical physicists are suggesting, what with virtual particles constantly popping into and out of existence and such.  And in Shinto, "gods" are more like the "quintessence" of things, and "gods" are also viewed not just as things, but also as events.  It's interesting to consider one's self not simply as an object, but also as an event in time.

It's one of the last bastions of mainstream Animism in the world, and I think that's beautiful.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 13, 2014)

I think people should be careful about 'meshing' spiritual ideas into scientific theories. Science is a very methodical and conservative thing, with plenty of delicate nuances. When people attempt to force science to accommodate their spiritual ideas they usually end up polluting the meaning of specific terminology, to the effect of disabling their understanding of the science in question in favour of a good spiritual feeling. 

Most spiritualists aren't interested in cultivating an accurate understanding of fundamental physics, for instance, but if you ever do you will find that spiritual interpretations will represent obstacles to your development, simply because they are not a coherent part of physics. They're poetry.


----------



## Kokoro (Jul 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I think people should be careful about 'meshing' spiritual ideas into scientific theories. Science is a very methodical and conservative thing, with plenty of delicate nuances. When people attempt to force science to accommodate their spiritual ideas they usually end up polluting the meaning of specific terminology, to the effect of disabling their understanding of the science in question in favour of a good spiritual feeling.
> 
> Most spiritualists aren't interested in cultivating an accurate understanding of fundamental physics, for instance, but if you ever do you will find that spiritual interpretations will represent obstacles to your development, simply because they are not a coherent part of physics. They're poetry.



Indeed that is quite true of more western religions which promote faith over reason and a disregard for the natural world.  But I find that far-eastern religions, particularly Shinto (including it as religion for ease of discussion), promote an understanding and acceptance of nature.  They're more concerned with personal or cultural development and harmony with nature rather than conflict with it.
This is why Japan was able to so easily adopt new technologies the rest of the world had been developing from the 1800's and onward, and it's why Japan is one of the main countries leading the world in science and technology today.

Poetry is a nice way to describe how Shinto works.  It's a poetic way of embracing nature.  Spiritual in the sense that Tyson or Dawkins are spiritual; with much less focus on the supernatural stuff than other spiritual practices.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 14, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> That is simply not true. If your source is demonstrably and factually false then your source is worthless. _Especially_ if the person you are arguing with can demonstrate that! Because now you haven't given a counterargument, you have indirectly supported the other person's argument!
> 
> And by the way, answersingenesis _is_ a demonstrably false source.



Let me put it differently. The source is entirely irrelevant. Further, declaring some person or group innately false is criminal, for such actions will block lines of inquiry that otherwise may have been pursued, as has occurred far too often in the past and continues today. 

For instance, the steady state theory isn't dead. In fact if you don't entirely neglect the electromagnetic force you can account for the distribution on matter, including the formation of galaxies, solely using observable phenomena and processes. (I can look up the author if your interested). It is possible that this theory is just plain wrong, but nobody knows. Only a couple of people have pursued it so it remains largely unanalyzed _because it is philosophically unsavory._ (If your wondering how that fits in, the author was primarily an experimental physicists.)

 Another anecdote. Mesmer was an idiot. His methods were flawed, his conclusions were unfounded, and he made sick people eat iron filings. However, he discovered a bone efide psychological phenomenon. Based on his quackery, instead of any relevant study of the subject, people wouldn't believe hypnoses was a real phenomenon for a long time. (Benjamin Franklin's verdict didn't help his credibility any, either.)

And as for the other thing, I didn't need another argument because we were in agreement (which is what debate is for, actually. The call it "synthesis".) But even if we weren't silence does not equate with assent. If it did you could argue to the trees and count them your supporters. And when you start discussing metaphysics with a cow you just look ridculous. I know because Voltair tried it, and who's going to argue with _him._


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 14, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Let me put it differently. The source is entirely irrelevant. Further, declaring some person or group innately false is criminal, for such actions will block lines of inquiry that otherwise may have been pursued, as has occurred far too often in the past and continues today.
> 
> For instance, the steady state theory isn't dead. In fact if you don't entirely neglect the electromagnetic force you can account for the distribution on matter, including the formation of galaxies, solely using observable phenomena and processes. (I can look up the author if your interested). It is possible that this theory is just plain wrong, but nobody knows. Only a couple of people have pursued it so it remains largely unanalyzed _because it is philosophically unsavory._ (If your wondering how that fits in, the author was primarily an experimental physicists.)
> 
> ...



I regularly get sent citations from 'doctors' claiming that wifi causes autism. Those people are listed as frauds by reputable institutions because their work has already been pursued, and found to be fraudulent. 

AIG's website is such an example. They have decided what their conclusion will be before they undertake inquiry, so they aren't a useful body for citations. 

Steady state is dead, by the way. Red shift demonstrates our universe is expanding uniformly, and several characteristic predictions of expansion-based theories have already been satisfied, excluding the possibility of a steady-state universe. It has been demonstrated our universe is finite in time. It cannot be steady state. 

Steady-state hypotheses were widely followed before the big bang theory emerged. The evidence gathered by instruments such as Hubble, Planck and the detection of the CMB, destroyed the steady state hypothesis. 

One may as well claim that 'the geocentric model isn't dead'. Yes it is.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 14, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Let me put it differently. The source is entirely irrelevant. Further, declaring some person or group innately false is criminal, for such actions will block lines of inquiry that otherwise may have been pursued, as has occurred far too often in the past and continues today.



You just _had_ to challenge CC. Essay-length posts ahoy :v

Though seriously - You basically have little to no source filter, which is just about as bad as having repeatedly incorrect sources.


----------



## Shadow Jaeger (Jul 14, 2014)

here's a question i really want to ask, if the bible is a non fiction book because its religious. Does that mean that with jedism being a religion now, would that make star wars a non fiction?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 14, 2014)

If you had no way of deciding which sources were reliable, you could reach the right conclusion if you correctly analysed every single piece of information. 

In practice nobody has the time to do that, however, and few people have the mental capability to tell real science from falsified research. 

So if we let people use known psuedo-scientific sources it will inadvertently result in some users believing pseudoscientific claims- because they incorrectly believe that the mere existence of text on the internet is reason to lend credence.



shadowsinhiding said:


> here's a question i really want to ask,  if the bible is a non fiction book because its religious. Does that mean  that with jedism being a religion now, would that make star wars a non  fiction?



Frankly, if most religions claim they are the only true religion, they cannot all inhabit the non-fiction section with any earnest. 


But it appeases their followers, who've no apatite for such thoughts.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 14, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Let me put it differently. *The source is entirely irrelevant*. Further, *declaring some person or group innately false is criminal*, for such actions will block lines of inquiry that otherwise may have been pursued, as has occurred far too often in the past and continues today.
> 
> *For instance, the steady state theory isn't dead*.



The source is not irrelevant. In fact, your source dictates how good your argument really is. For example, if you try to use Kent Hovind as a proper scientific source I already know that you don't know what you are talking about since Hovind literally found his degree in a cereal box. But this is just an example since we are talking about sources like answersingenesis right now.
And I absolutely can declare a group or person as false. If they are spreading shit that is _demonstrably_ false, as in if I can point at proper sources that do prove them wrong, there is nothing wrong with declaring someone to be full of shit.

And yes, the steady state theory is very dead. The discovery of gravitational waves in the background radiation was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of all hypotheses that went against the big bang.


----------



## tisr (Jul 14, 2014)

I think here we're talking about sources which have not been peer reviewed, or been proven wrong. These sources are not as rigorous as sources which have been peer reviewed.


----------



## Ame (Jul 15, 2014)

You clearly don't understand Utilitarianism, I'm coming from a deontological perspective where I adhere to strict ethical rules, human lives are worth more than a collective happiness, please don't call me idiotic when you yourself don't understand what your talking about XD hence why I used words such as "its our duty" rather than its for the collective happiness in my previous statements.

And Nemox you have my apologies for grouping Shinto into the list like this but I never wanted to argue semantics but rather just explore what Furries believe in terms of religion. And I know alot about Shinto myself, I studied it a lot during high school, the ancient stories are beautiful, and the animistic perspective breathes life into so much of the world from a Shinto perspective it truly is one of the more amazing beliefs on the list.

And I apologize again I wasn't very clear, I was talking about the Atheistic ideal of scientific pursuit, the idea that truth should only be discovered by science and proof rather than pure speculation and philosophy, truly an important idea in modern times and I in now way discredit it. The idea that "Science, for what it is currently is a known truth" although may not have originated from atheism itself (although could have) the ideology went hand in hand with atheism during the enlightenment period and from then on in history had been perceived as an aspect within atheism (although not atheism itself) and despite atheism just being the absence of a belief in G-d you cannot deny there is an admirable thirst for knowledge and truth that was innatly spurred on as a reaction to religious dogma being forced down your throat. 

To simplify my previous posts, I am not criticizing the christian or atheistic ideals or any ideal for that fact I just used the research into various evolutionary perspectives as an example. I am rather criticizing the people who belong to any time consuming pursuit about their priorities. Rather than researching such things we should be researching sustainable food and medicine and resources... rather than philosophy, truth and the scientific or religious pursuit into where we came from.

For future reference...

noun: *deontology*



the study of the nature of duty and obligation.









noun: *utilitarianism*



the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.


the  doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness,  and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the  guiding principle of conduct.


----------



## tisr (Jul 15, 2014)

There are many problems with utilitarianism.

 First of all, it ignores justice. For example, if a minority is oppressed, the most utilitarian approach would be to silence the minority since it gives the majority a greater utility.

 Also, calculating utility is far too demanding and self defeating, since you have to calculate utility extremely far into the future in order to make a precise choice, and factors of the human psyche as well as less immediate utility concerns such as animals, or the environment. It is therefore impossible to give a reasonable prediction of utility.

 There's also the famous Utility Monster criticism, which shows that utilitarianism is not egalitarian. If there were a monster that gained a much greater amount of happiness than anyone else, it would be reasonable to provide this monster with a greater amount of resource. Thus, it would cause the mistreatment and self-sacrifice for everyone else while the Utility Monster gains everything. Applying utilitarianism to capitalist economics, for example, would cause mass growth for the minority in a selfish and destructive manner.

 I'm sure there are more criticisms on the internets.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2014)

Ame said:


> You clearly don't understand Utilitarianism, I'm coming from a deontological perspective where I adhere to strict ethical rules, human lives are worth more than a collective happiness, please don't call me idiotic when you yourself don't understand what your talking about XD hence why I used words such as "its our duty" rather than its for the collective happiness in my previous statements.
> 
> And Nemox you have my apologies for grouping Shinto into the list like this but I never wanted to argue semantics but rather just explore what Furries believe in terms of religion. And I know alot about Shinto myself, I studied it a lot during high school, the ancient stories are beautiful, and the animistic perspective breathes life into so much of the world from a Shinto perspective it truly is one of the more amazing beliefs on the list.
> 
> ...



You criticised scientists who study events and processes in geological time of lacking relevance, and therefore being decadent; "they should be studying food sustainability instead [of wasting their time and funding on irrelevant material],". 

Geological study has immense relevance to current problems, so this claim was wrong. 

The notion that there is a sparsity of funding for current issues of sustainability 'because of all that money wasted on geological research' is incorrect. 

The notion that scientists trained in a specific academic field could switch to food sustainability is naive. One may be a talented astronomer, but not a very good genetic engineer. 

Your idea that science should be utilitarian is, unfortunately, widespread. It is a stupid idea, which brutally fails to understand the merits of academia and epistemology. It sets the dangerous precedent that, if we cannot fathom a use for a fact at the current moment, that it does not matter whether that fact is lost.


----------



## Lucius_Felix (Jul 15, 2014)

No room for us hippie-dippie neo-pagans here, eh?


----------



## Kokoro (Jul 15, 2014)

Ame said:


> And Nemox you have my apologies for grouping Shinto into the list like this but I never wanted to argue semantics but rather just explore what Furries believe in terms of religion. And I know alot about Shinto myself, I studied it a lot during high school, the ancient stories are beautiful, and the animistic perspective breathes life into so much of the world from a Shinto perspective it truly is one of the more amazing beliefs on the list.



'sall good.  I was just making a bit of a semantic point anyway.  Sometimes the distinction can be helpful when trying to understand such perspectives.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 15, 2014)

Ame said:


> I was talking about the Atheistic ideal of scientific pursuit, the idea that truth should only be discovered by science and proof rather than pure speculation and philosophy, truly an important idea in modern times and I in now way discredit it. The idea that "Science, for what it is currently is a known truth" although may not have originated from atheism itself (although could have) the ideology went hand in hand with atheism during the enlightenment period and from then on in history had been perceived as an aspect within atheism (although not atheism itself) and despite atheism just being the absence of a belief in G-d you cannot deny there is an admirable thirst for knowledge and truth that was innatly spurred on as a reaction to religious dogma being forced down your throat.



I dunno why you keep tacking things onto atheism, when you even acknowledge the fact that it's nothing more than the lack of belief. Doesn't matter if you think it's a good or bad aspect, it's not a part/aspect of atheism - That's the whole point. Atheism doesn't do or require anything, nor does it cause people to do or think anything. It's like Seinfeld, a "show about nothing". Except you can't even call it a show - It's just _nothing_. 

[video=youtube;5SDqa1hw2-M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SDqa1hw2-M[/video]

Aside from that. You're wrong about scientific pursuit as well. You _have_ to speculate a bit. If man didn't look up at the stars and wonder what was out there, we would have never bothered to keep looking up - We learned about stars, space, our solar system, planetary rotation, and all sorts of crap because of it, which lead to even _more_ discoveries, because we understood much bigger important things we hadn't known before and wouldn't have if someone didn't speculate about it. .


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 15, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> The source is not irrelevant. In fact, your  source dictates how good your argument really is. For example, if you  try to use Kent Hovind as a proper scientific source I already know that  you don't know what you are talking about since Hovind literally found  his degree in a cereal box. But this is just an example since we are  talking about sources like answersingenesis right now.
> And I absolutely can declare a group or person as false. If they are spreading shit that is _demonstrably_  false, as in if I can point at proper sources that do prove them wrong,  there is nothing wrong with declaring someone to be full of shit.
> 
> And yes, the steady state theory is very dead. The discovery of  gravitational waves in the background radiation was pretty much the  final nail in the coffin of all hypotheses that went against the big  bang.



Injecting some person as a source of authority into  some argument amounts to a violation of the Copernican Principle, "The  Universe doesn't care who you think you are."

When you start  making judgments based on who's talking instead of what they're saying,  you've stopped thinking. The same goes for making judgments based on  what he said two seconds ago. Every statement has to be taken on its own  and tested. When you stop doing that, you have kings of influence that  determine what is acceptable (which has usually been the case. I think  Humphy Davy described scientific institutions as a pack of dogs, but I  can't find that.). 

To put it yet another way, declairing such  and such person "wrong" has no meaning. You may declare some statement  wrong, but we don't have any "Oracle of Certainty" that will always  answer some arbitrary answer correctly or incorrectly. If we did we  would already have all the answers and would need science in the first  place.

I'll give another example, the theories that are still  regarded as one of the greatest revolutions in physics were written by  an _amateur._ (Einstein, even though his relativity was only a  minor correction.) Darwin was also an amateur, but I digress. Because of  his accumulated fame, Einstein was able to invent a new branch of  physics and set it off in the wrong direction. Of course I'm talking  about the cosmological constant, which he just "made up". We still  haven't gotten rid of the thing.

And no, steady state still isn't  dead and we're never getting rid of it. I am talking about the more  abstract one, not the expanding one where you have the spontaneous  generation of matter. You can even find serious theories where our own  universe, big bang and all, is just a transient bubble in a more  permanent cosmos. (I find it endlessly amusing that the two rival  theories were unified.) And even Hawking's holographic universe "goes  against the big bang".

I, however, was referring to Hannes Alfven  and his "Plasma Cosmology". You should read into it, its fascinating  stuff. Eric Learner is interesting, too, but he spends too much time  complaining that people don't listen to him and not enough on why people  should.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 15, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> When you start  making judgments based on who's talking instead of what they're saying,  you've stopped thinking. The same goes for making judgments based on  what he said two seconds ago. Every statement has to be taken on its own  and tested. When you stop doing that, you have kings of influence that  determine what is acceptable (which has usually been the case. I think  Humphy Davy described scientific institutions as a pack of dogs, but I  can't find that.).
> 
> To put it yet another way, declairing such  and such person "wrong" has no meaning. You may declare some statement  wrong, but we don't have any "Oracle of Certainty" that will always  answer some arbitrary answer correctly or incorrectly. If we did we  would already have all the answers and would need science in the first  place.
> .



This is an unbelievably useless way of thinking. It had merit at first, but now it just sounds _way_ too broad to be practical. It's like the people who use the "Well _we _aren't 100% sure how the universe came into existence, so _all _views should be considered in the science classroom". Sorry mate, that's a *gigantic* waste of time.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 15, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> When you start  making judgments based on who's talking instead of what they're saying,  you've stopped thinking. The same goes for making judgments based on  what he said two seconds ago. Every statement has to be taken on its own  and tested. When you stop doing that, you have kings of influence that  determine what is acceptable (which has usually been the case. I think  Humphy Davy described scientific institutions as a pack of dogs, but I  can't find that.).
> 
> To put it yet another way, declairing such  and such person "wrong" has no meaning. You may declare some statement  wrong, but we don't have any "Oracle of Certainty" that will always  answer some arbitrary answer correctly or incorrectly. If we did we  would already have all the answers and would need science in the first  place.
> 
> ...



It is perfectly fine to judge a source like that if said source has demonstrated multiple times that it is useless, as it is the case with Kent Hovind. Some people simply have demonstrated many many times that they have no clue what they are talking about.

If you say "Evolution is not a fact!" you are wrong and I have every right to say that you are wrong. I can demonstrate that you are wrong and I can demonstrate that evolution _is_ a fact. Just like I can demonstrate flaws in holy texts and so on and so forth.
People can be wrong and that is perfectly fine.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2014)

Waste of time is the operative phrase here. Sites which are known to be bogus are not meritable sources because other people have already expended time showing they are false. 

It is time to move on to new material, so that we evade wasting time discrediting the same articles repeatedly- and don't waste time analysing material which we know is deliberately deceptive. 

In practice nobody has the time to continually rebut the product of propaganda mills, because they produce bullshit faster than it can be reviewed.


----------



## Kokoro (Jul 15, 2014)

Sure, the things people say can be true or false regardless of who says them.  Perhaps even answersingenesis says something accurate every once in a while.  But they've consistently demonstrated themselves to be wrong time and again, and are thus a horribly unreliable source of information.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2014)

Nemox said:


> Sure, the things people say can be true or false regardless of who says them.  Perhaps even answersingenesis says something accurate every once in a while.  But they've consistently demonstrated themselves to be wrong time and again, and are thus a horribly unreliable source of information.



Jtrekkie, please think of the situation like this. 

You want to know what medicine you should take if you contract malaria on a holiday to Africa. 

Would you spend time reviewing homeopathic options sold by a man who has been kicked out of the medical industry? Or would you go to a certified doctor?


----------



## Ame (Jul 15, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You criticised scientists who study events and processes in geological time of lacking relevance, and therefore being decadent; "they should be studying food sustainability instead [of wasting their time and funding on irrelevant material],".
> 
> Geological study has immense relevance to current problems, so this claim was wrong.
> 
> ...



Did you read my last post XD half of it was teaching you what utilitarian is... I come from a deontological perspective! I  could care less about the collective happiness or collective usefulness of anything I'm focusing on our moral commitment we have to human life, which is vastly more important in my moral code that I follow. So please stop saying I'm utilitarian >:3

And yes I agree some of what I said is flawed when you get in the specific words I used but the idea is still there, the idea that we should focus more on our more immediate problems. Rather than other research (which SOME is useful, I will agree but not all has a practical application) 

Lol I should stop making observations and thoughts or even compliments to Atheism or just the Atheist community in general. They get more butt hurt that fanatic Christians in a science class XD (saying atheism is tied to a revolutionary ideal or thought is a compliment!)


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 16, 2014)

Sorry if I have affended anyone, I don't mean to be abrasive. I  certainly know how impracticle the situation I have been describing is,  but that kind of rigor is necessary if a complete and self consistent  description of the universe is ever going to be obtained in the future.



Ame said:


> And yes I agree some of what I said is flawed when you get in the specific words I used but the idea is still there, the idea that we should focus more on our more immediate problems. Rather than other research (which SOME is useful, I will agree but not all has a practical application



Right on, the only problem is you never know which line of research is going to pay off, and even worse it's some of the more ridiculous ones that end up being vital.

Oh, and Fallowfox, as an individual who is not at all unlikely to end up in Brazil selling quinine to turistas out of a camper van, I take offense at what you're implying there.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2014)

Ame said:


> Did you read my last post XD half of it was teaching you what utilitarian is... I come from a deontological perspective! I  could care less about the collective happiness or collective usefulness of anything I'm focusing on our moral commitment we have to human life, which is vastly more important in my moral code that I follow. So please stop saying I'm utilitarian >:3
> 
> And yes I agree some of what I said is flawed when you get in the specific words I used but the idea is still there, the idea that we should focus more on our more immediate problems. Rather than other research (which SOME is useful, I will agree but not all has a practical application)
> 
> Lol I should stop making observations and thoughts or even compliments to Atheism or just the Atheist community in general. They get more butt hurt that fanatic Christians in a science class XD (saying atheism is tied to a revolutionary ideal or thought is a compliment!)



The notion that all research must have an immediate practical application is absolutely borked. A large number of practical applications are unexpected results- that's a natural product of the fact we don't know everything. 

You're criticising blue-sky science. You are not criticising atheism. People who research blue-sky science [science without a known application] belong to a large variety of spiritual positions. Their research has nothing to do with their spirituality.



jtrekkie said:


> Sorry if I have affended anyone, I don't mean to  be abrasive. I  certainly know how impracticle the situation I have  been describing is,  but that kind of rigor is necessary if a complete  and self consistent  description of the universe is ever going to be  obtained in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I disagree. It is not necessary to read every 'vaccinations cause autism' page on the internet to cultivate an understanding of the universe. 

You are correct we never know which lines of research will yield novel applications. It's good you appreciate this.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 16, 2014)

Ame said:


> Lol I should stop making observations and thoughts or even compliments to Atheism or just the Atheist community in general.



That would be best, because you _clearly _don't understand the unbelievably basic concept. I'd actually prefer to think you're trolling at this point, because I can at least be like "Ah, ya got me good! I really thought you were that dense." 

_Just _in case though:

aÂ·theÂ·ism: 
- the lack of a belief in any god. 

One sentence, 8 words. _Nothing _more, _nothing _less_ - _Good, bad, or otherwise - It'll have nothing to do with atheism, or atheists.


----------



## Ame (Jul 17, 2014)

Lastdirewolf said:


> That would be best, because you _clearly _don't understand the unbelievably basic concept. I'd actually prefer to think you're trolling at this point, because I can at least be like "Ah, ya got me good! I really thought you were that dense."
> 
> _Just _in case though:
> 
> ...



Your not an individual who take kindly to criticisms of any kind are you, well now considering that, I am going to go out on a limb here and compare the likeness of Atheism to Theism and teach you about real people 

*takes a deep breath and prepares an incredibly sarcastic tone*

Both of these itty bitty groups are based around a specific idea or lack there of, now as a group they come sporting an initial thought at their very core, the belief in a god, and lack there of, now this may be hard to process, but humans BUILD on these ideas and create different variations of such, as there are today different groups within and of both theists and Atheists. Now that I have taught you that people are special little snowflakes with different ideas to one another on the subject of atheism and theism now let me blow your mind. Despite people belonging to these ideals they can have separate or even coexisting ideas to what I just mentioned :O that means people can be a whole bunch of fun little things like Atheists and Humanists, or Theist and a Utilitarian. 

Now I know, I know, we would much rather be just a part of one idea wouldn't we? that would make it easy for us to group people and make largely idiotic assumptions that a people group has no other defining characteristics besides that one belief. But remember now, people are special little snowflakes... Not autonomous machines that act on one idea only. So if someone was to refer to a community or group of people, they are referring to a group of people, rather than said autonomous robots. Thus making the assumption that said people can have other ideas besides that one specific one, another example is, atheists can have a thirst for the pursuit of science.

Now if someone were to assume that a community of people did no have other defining characteristics you have to remember everyone not to be mean, they just "clearly don't understand an unbelievably basic concept" that people are special little snowflakes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 17, 2014)

Ame said:


> Your not an individual who take kindly to criticisms of any kind are you, well now considering that, I am going to go out on a limb here and compare the likeness of Atheism to Theism and teach you about real people
> 
> *takes a deep breath and prepares an incredibly sarcastic tone*
> 
> ...




And liking watermelons and fried chicken has to be an integral part of being black. :V

You are bungling definitions to accommodate stereotypes. This is frustrating because your objection to blue-sky science, as academic decadence, is not related to any spiritual perspective. 

It's possible to use definitions correctly, discuss prevailing stereotypes and group characteristics, and discuss the merits of academia, without muddling them all together. If you do so you will produce much more coherent commentary.


----------



## Lucius_Felix (Jul 17, 2014)

I like watermelons and fried chicken.

I never realized I was black until now.  *starts break dancing*


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 17, 2014)

Ame said:


> Despite people belonging to these ideals they can have separate or even coexisting ideas to what I just mentioned
> that means people can be a whole bunch of fun little things like Atheists and Humanists



And lo and behold, I think we _did _find the core of the issue here, so I'm going to skip the rest of the nonsense and go for the point.

You can't seem to grasp the concept of separating an individual's ideas and characteristics from the group as a whole, and you've done a profound job of explaining and emphasizing your inability. To be clear, we've been talking about your "Atheistic ideal of scientific pursuit", which doesn't exist, because there are no atheistic ideals aside from the lack of belief in any god.

What some people might do, does not define the group, and does not necessarily change the definition of the group, or necessarily even have anything to do with the group. I must emphasize again, any characteristic outside  of non-belief (like the pursuit of science) is *extraneous *to atheism. 

Atheists are obviously other things besides atheist, but those other things are *not* what makes them atheist, and the other things have *nothing *to do with atheism, because atheism is *only *the lack of belief in any god. Anything beyond that is *something else*, or *a part *of something that is *not *atheism, even if atheist do it.

Let me give you an example:

Richard Dawkins is an atheist, right? He is also many other things, like a professor. Some atheists are professors. Does that make other atheists professors too? Or does that make other professors, atheists? Or is atheism now a group for professors? Or are groups of professors now considered atheist?

The answer is: no. What some atheists do is *irrelevant *to atheism, as is atheism mostly *irrelevant *to what some atheists do. It is really not that difficult, and there is really not that much to it.


----------



## Mighty_Mohawk_Monster (Jul 17, 2014)

When will mankind learn the only correct coarse of religious action is to praise the sun?

\`[+]/


----------



## Ame (Jul 18, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> And liking watermelons and fried chicken has to be an integral part of being black. :V
> 
> You are bungling definitions to accommodate stereotypes. This is frustrating because your objection to blue-sky science, as academic decadence, is not related to any spiritual perspective.
> 
> It's possible to use definitions correctly, discuss prevailing stereotypes and group characteristics, and discuss the merits of academia, without muddling them all together. If you do so you will produce much more coherent commentary.



I agree


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 18, 2014)

I been thinking of the devil too much lately, I'm starting to worry


----------



## john_shadowblade (Jul 23, 2014)

I take what I like to call the individualistic approach.(which according to alot of people I talk to is on par with satan worship) I was raised Roman Catholic, went through the hell that is catholic school and all that fun stuff, but the more I learned about it the more I questioned it. Whenever I questioned something I got either a confusing lecture that danced around the subject, or I got in trouble from a teacher. Then seeing the way the church handles things just put me right off. On top of that after doing some family research it looks like my family was betrayed by the pope back in the 14th century so there's that.

However some of the main points still make sense to me, so I can't just throw everything and say to hell with it. And no offense to the Protestants out there, but alot of the guys I know around here are just plain nuts.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 28, 2014)

What 'main points' do you mean? 
Also, I'm sure those protestants think the same way about you, and that is part of what makes religion so hilarious X3


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Jul 28, 2014)

I like the part of the bible when god constantly kills everybody and claims to be a nice guy


----------



## Lucius_Felix (Jul 28, 2014)

What about the nature of the universe would lead you to expect that its creator was NOT a tremendous douchebag?

If God cared about people being raped and enslaved, he'd do something about it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 28, 2014)

Lucius_Felix said:


> What about the nature of the universe would lead you to expect that its creator was NOT a tremendous douchebag?
> 
> If God cared about people being raped and enslaved, he'd do something about it.


  YHVH is the personification of all the evils of the character's inventors. The list goes on and on.


----------



## Lucius_Felix (Jul 28, 2014)

Don't blame people for everything.  We rape and enslave, but we don't cause cancer and we didn't invent roaches.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 28, 2014)

I think I may have posted this somewhere, but I think I found this hilariously relevant.

Jehovah's Witnesses had come to my door, and after a strange conversation, they gave me a book that explained whatever their bullshit was. My favourite part was their description of why evil existed.

Evil exists, because satan is the _actual_ ruler of this world, and not god(?).


----------



## Lucius_Felix (Jul 28, 2014)

Evil exists because it has increased the fitness of evil people in their environment.

Same reason we have thumbs.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 29, 2014)

Lucius_Felix said:


> What about the nature of the universe would lead you to expect that its creator was NOT a tremendous douchebag?
> 
> If God cared about people being raped and enslaved, he'd do something about it.



What about the universe? In a word, harmony. Or, for the Sagan fans, Cosmos. But it seems you're taking the _cynical_ approach. 

Without going to far into philosophy, just think about this. Do you want freedom, or Utopia?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 29, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> What about the universe? In a word, harmony. Or, for the Sagan fans, Cosmos. But it seems you're taking the _cynical_ approach.
> 
> Without going to far into philosophy, just think about this. Do you want freedom, or Utopia?



You'd imagine having both wouldn't be too hard for the immortal all powerful sky dude. 

:3c Or maybe he's a liar.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 29, 2014)

Of course not, but I'm talking about you all. People are incomplete, and frequently impetuous. Therefore, incapable of both.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 29, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> You'd imagine having both wouldn't be too hard for the immortal all powerful sky dude.
> 
> :3c Or maybe he's a liar.



How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 29, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.



Wouldn't this fall under the "he's all powerful" umbrella?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 29, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.



So being an assface to people is part of being free now? 
I disagree. Here in Europe we learned ages ago that freedom should be limited for the well-being of society. That you can do and say what ever you want, as long as you don't piss people of our oppress them.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 29, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> So being an assface to people is part of being free now?
> I disagree. Here in Europe we learned ages ago that freedom should be limited for the well-being of society. That you can do and say what ever you want, as long as you don't piss people of our oppress them.


Define ages, please? Gratuitous sarcasm aside, yes. You are either free, or you are not. If you are, then you own your decisions, and you own the consequences.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 29, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.



If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it. 

This is, of course, not the only surprising situation to attribute to benevolent divine agency. The existence of horrific diseases is quite strange, as is the creator's decision to produce a universe of perhaps infinite size, in which human life took 14Gy to emerge, but is only possible upon a fraction of a thin sphere on the surface of a speck of grit whose torrid interior produces earthquakes and volcanism. 

Weird.




jtrekkie said:


> Define ages, please? Gratuitous sarcasm aside,  yes.* You are either free, or you are not. *If you are, then you own your  decisions, and you own the consequences.



False dichotomy.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 29, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it.
> 
> This is, of course, not the only surprising situation to attribute to benevolent divine agency. The existence of horrific diseases is quite strange, as is the creator's decision to produce a universe of perhaps infinite size, in which human life took 14Gy to emerge, but is only possible upon a fraction of a thin sphere on the surface of a speck of grit whose torrid interior produces earthquakes and volcanism.



Take your thesaurus and piss off :v


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 30, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it.
> 
> This is, of course, not the only surprising situation to attribute to benevolent divine agency. The existence of horrific diseases is quite strange, as is the creator's decision to produce a universe of perhaps infinite size, in which human life took 14Gy to emerge, but is only possible upon a fraction of a thin sphere on the surface of a speck of grit whose torrid interior produces earthquakes and volcanism.
> 
> Weird.



A surprising situation is expected. Because you can't anticipate the goals or perceptions of the Almighty, you can't anticipate actions either. It's the same reason why its so hard to make a judgment on aliens. Obviously anthropomorphizing (this has got to be the only place where you can use that word and people don't cringe) doesn't provide any useful information so you have to guess whether they are even looking. Thus, the Fermi paradox.




> False dichotomy.



I disagree. It is a boolean question, and demands a boolean answer. You may cut it up into more specific criteria. However, the sum of which is still a boolean question with a boolean answer.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 30, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> A surprising situation is expected. Because you can't anticipate the goals or perceptions of the Almighty, you can't anticipate actions either. It's the same reason why its so hard to make a judgment on aliens. Obviously anthropomorphizing (this has got to be the only place where you can use that word and people don't cringe) doesn't provide any useful information so you have to guess whether they are even looking. Thus, the Fermi paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If the expected prediction is an 'unexpected' situation, then that's not a falsifiable proposition. In which case it lends us no explicative power, and should be rejected. Why should we warp our current understanding of the cosmos and its history to accommodate a hypothesis that not only lacks credence but is not even capable of ever getting any? 
On the other hand alien life's existence is a subject we can consider, because the mechanisms by which life might emerge and be spread in this cosmos are compatible with our current knowledge. There is the possibility of creating instrumentation which could actually discern whether an extra solar planet has an oxidising atmosphere in chemical disequilibrium, which would be indicative of living chemistry. There's even the possibility of detecting life in the plumes of cryovolcanoes, by way of flying a satellite over the Tiger-stripes of Enceladus. 



The question of whether we are free isn't digital, because the freedom I may experience in one country could be very different to another in a mosaic fashion, by which some regions can be more or less free than others, rather than 'only free' or 'only not free'. 
In any case the original argument in which Nikolinni explained the imperfections of life as a result of our freedom is a rationalisation. It makes me wonder why any divine agency would want their creations to be free if it were to mean suffering...to which the answer is 'it's surprising', which doesn't resolve the problem.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 30, 2014)

A most learned responce. Presumably to achieve some purpose, the likes of which is impossible to deduce, which is my point. Of course all things can be considered, none can be settled, save the empirical. Therefore we come to the infuriating limit of science, which is the realm of the phylosopher. 

A similar situation exists with the aliens. As was demonstrated in A New Kind of Science, we are unable even to recognize another kind of life so one can hardly make theoretical observations, although this situation could be remedied. I should point out however that I was referring to intelligence, which can hide.

For the freedom part, you still have the same problem. In the case of law, as far as I know restraints are always in the form of some kind of promise of punishment. Because of this you decide if you wish to trespass and receive the punishment. For this reason, I maintain that you are always free. The legal stuff is just stamp collecting.

BTW I'm writing this on a cell phone and I can't see the text very well, just in case I said something incomprehensible.

Edit: I wasn't paying enough attention to who was posting what. I was just searching Google for a philosopher. I was going to ask if you were referring to Giuseppe Nicolini when I saw a furry in the image search.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 30, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> A most learned responce. Presumably to achieve some purpose, the likes of which is impossible to deduce, which is my point. Of course all things can be considered, none can be settled, save the empirical. Therefore we come to the infuriating limit of science, which is the realm of the phylosopher.
> 
> A similar situation exists with the aliens. As was demonstrated in A New Kind of Science, we are unable even to recognize another kind of life so one can hardly make theoretical observations, although this situation could be remedied. I should point out however that I was referring to intelligence, which can hide.
> 
> ...



In which case we can envisage a universe in which any attempt to wrong somebody else is foiled by divine agency, provided that the will to do harm is not compromised this would preserve notions of freedom. 

To the crux of the matter though, I think users were actually contesting that, if you are a magic all powerful god, you can make a universe which is devoid of suffering but which still permits its inhabitants to behave as they wish- it just wouldn't be physically possible that their behaviour would result in unpleasant feelings.


----------



## tisr (Jul 30, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it.



This brings into the question of Brave New World and the Pleasure Machine. In the case of Brave New World, the citizens of the World State have limited freedoms in exchange for Benthamite Utility, where pleasure is maximized and pain is minimized. The World State is a Pleasure Machine, and even though these pleasures are shallow pleasures, such as orgies and drugs, the citizens have been conditioned to accept these pleasures. This Hedonistic Utilitarianism centers around pleasure chosen by a lack of knowledge of available choices, rather than chosen pleasure.

In Brave New World, all happiness is engineered and simulated, which brings into the question whether a Pleasure Machine is ethical or desirable. A really good book on the idea of Pleasure Machines is Infinite Jest, where a fatally entertaining film has been made such that people who have watched the film want to rewatch it over and over until they die.



jtrekkie said:


> For the freedom part, you still have the same problem. In the case of law, as far as I know restraints are always in the form of some kind of promise of punishment. Because of this you decide if you wish to trespass and receive the punishment. For this reason, I maintain that you are always free. The legal stuff is just stamp collecting.



 However, in most cases of religion, both the 'law' and the 'punishment' are unreasonably defined.

 For example, if a robber asked a person to give him money or choose to die, and the person refuses to give money and therefore is killed. Even though the person makes a choice not to give and money, the person is not at fault for causing his own death. Rather, the robber is for enforcing such an unfair system on the person.


----------



## tisr (Jul 30, 2014)

Ugh buttons. Doublepost.


----------



## jtrekkie (Jul 30, 2014)

I think we all are on the same page, pretty much. What I was trying to get at is that we don't know ultimately what is important, or maybe what we value is different. Maybe I could say we don't know what the effect of utopia might be?

PS I really wish you hadn't brought that book up. I had almost forgotten about it.


----------



## Acton (Jul 31, 2014)

Getting back to the original question: Christianity is to broad, for I am nether Catholic or Evangelical (having a major fall out with modern day mega church movement). I say I am Reformed on by doctrine but Anglican in my practice.


----------



## Ikrit (Aug 1, 2014)

Acton said:


> Getting back to the original question: Christianity is to broad, for I am nether Catholic or Evangelical (having a major fall out with modern day mega church movement). I say I am Reformed on by doctrine but Anglican in my practice.



you can only have 10 options in a forum vote, so op took the 10 most popular


----------



## john_shadowblade (Aug 1, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> What 'main points' do you mean?
> Also, I'm sure those protestants think the same way about you, and that is part of what makes religion so hilarious X3



Those main points would be stuff like don't be a complete ass and stuff in those lines that I can't word the right way right now. Of course I believe the church should follow what they say a bit more in that respect.

Also most protestant religions end up tacking on alot of extra stuff. Like one that a friend of mine was with called pokemon the work of the devil and all movies/games that had magic in them were creations of the devil to mislead kids. Another one has rules like women can't wear pants, is against all forms of entertainment that isn't based in religion, and one of their members told me my bank info getting stolen and my account cleaned out was an act of God because I went to a casino.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 1, 2014)

john_shadowblade said:


> Those main points would be stuff like don't be a complete ass and stuff in those lines that I can't word the right way right now. Of course I believe the church should follow what they say a bit more in that respect.
> 
> Also most protestant religions end up tacking on alot of extra stuff. Like one that a friend of mine was with called pokemon the work of the devil and all movies/games that had magic in them were creations of the devil to mislead kids. Another one has rules like women can't wear pants, is against all forms of entertainment that isn't based in religion, and one of their members told me my bank info getting stolen and my account cleaned out was an act of God because I went to a casino.



Those are the funniest nutjobs, but I wish they weren't able to enact laws, or spread their stupidity in way that effects society - Like my middle school pretty much banned all trading card games, because the donaters were wealthy hardcore religious types that thought Yugioh was "dark magic", just because the main character's best card was named Dark Magician. And of course, Magic: The Gathering was _clearly_ a cultist card game, set up to lure children into worshipping Satan (a_ gathering _of_ *magic*? _IT'S THE *DEVIL*_)_. 

They tried to get uniforms instated as well, but I think the PTA got together and blockaded it - Can't remember. I remember my parents were losing their shit over it, because they didn't have time to do laundry, and didn't have the money to afford uniforms my sister and I.


----------



## Ryoute (Aug 1, 2014)

I was a Christian until about a year ago, but am an Atheist now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 1, 2014)

Here in England we all had to wear uniforms until we were 16.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Aug 1, 2014)

I am not an atheist, I worship music, I have already sold my soul and life to music.


----------



## Loktipus (Aug 1, 2014)

I've very recently come to identify as a Satanist after realizing that there were alot of misconceptions about Satanism as a whole. It's really about self respect and self worship. I'm very Norse spiritualist and was raised in Islam due to my Half Palestinian father. Islam being an inherited religion, when my father was no longer in the picture I really went in another direction entirely and my mom despite being absolutely banana balls has been really supportive of my choices. The Satanism thing freaks her out, but I think that's because she thinks I'm sacrificing babies on a black alter or something. Which is funny, because my glistening cheeks do yoga and collect rainbow socks and is basically a huge sissy pacifist.

 Also: For some reason every time I would jokingly praise Satan incredibly good things would happen within the span of a few hours. It got to a point where it went beyond the natural theory of relativity and I just had to accept that either Satan was a pretty cool dude or I had ten years and I was gonna party hard freestyle into the pit. So I figure if Satan is more than an actual idea he's got my back. Because dude, like REALLY good things would happen. Unrealistically good things. B man got a job 2 hours after he applied  for said job. I won 300$ in the lottery on a free scratch off I got in the mail. Our refrigerator broke and our landlord gave us a brand new double wide instead. Mover fell through and Bman's deadbeat father offered to move us and take us shopping a few towns over pro bono. 

I'm a person who never has good things happen to them. And I take it as it comes. Sometimes life is just like that, but this...I just couldn't ignore something like this. It was too much not to be some kind of sign. So if Satan is telling me to love myself and respect my peers I'mma do it.


----------



## Cocobanana (Aug 1, 2014)

If there was an Agnostic option I'd pick that.


----------



## john_shadowblade (Aug 2, 2014)

Captain Howdy said:


> Those are the funniest nutjobs, but I wish they weren't able to enact laws, or spread their stupidity in way that effects society - Like my middle school pretty much banned all trading card games, because the donaters were wealthy hardcore religious types that thought Yugioh was "dark magic", just because the main character's best card was named Dark Magician. And of course, Magic: The Gathering was _clearly_ a cultist card game, set up to lure children into worshipping Satan (a_ gathering _of_ *magic*? _IT'S THE *DEVIL*_)_.
> 
> They tried to get uniforms instated as well, but I think the PTA got together and blockaded it - Can't remember. I remember my parents were losing their shit over it, because they didn't have time to do laundry, and didn't have the money to afford uniforms my sister and I.



I was stuck in one of those private catholic schools where we had uniforms. They tried to ban card games, but with nothing better to do we would just have fights in the playground. They did however end up banning the Harry Potter series as they put it "encourages kids to study and practice witchcraft". Yes because I'm totally typing this out by using the arcane arts to manipulate the keyboard, thanks Harry!


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 2, 2014)

john_shadowblade said:


> I was stuck in one of those private catholic schools where we had uniforms. They tried to ban card games, but with nothing better to do we would just have fights in the playground. They did however end up banning the Harry Potter series as they put it "encourages kids to study and practice witchcraft". Yes because I'm totally typing this out by using the arcane arts to manipulate the keyboard, thanks Harry!



Plenty of fights happened in our school yard anyways, thought there wasn't any discernible purpose to it. However, I do recall them trying to ban Harry Potter as well, but it didn't have enough support, and I was graduating at that point anyways, so it wasn't a big deal to me. Their reasons were likely similar, and just as hilarious, given Harry Potter didn't really get rolling until like, the 5th book?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 2, 2014)

Cocobanana said:


> If there was an Agnostic option I'd pick that.



How many gods do you believe in?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 2, 2014)

Captain Howdy said:


> Plenty of fights happened in our school yard anyways, thought there wasn't any discernible purpose to it. However, I do recall them trying to ban Harry Potter as well, but it didn't have enough support, and I was graduating at that point anyways, so it wasn't a big deal to me. Their reasons were likely similar, and just as hilarious, given Harry Potter didn't really get rolling until like, the 5th book?



I remember reading about Christians trying to ban harry potter. Apparently some Christians got "information" from the friggin Onion. 

I did recall reading one story where a Pastor actually started reading the books, just to see what they were about, and was surprised to see that there's a good amount of Christian ideas in there (stuff like friendship, love, courage, good defeating evil, etc) and started supporting the books. 

And dear lord, don't even get me started on what Chick Publications said about the books.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2014)

I'd contest friendship, love, courage and so on are _human_ values. 

It surprises me that some Christians were offended by Harry Potter, though. To my knowledge the author herself _is_ a Christian.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 2, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'd contest friendship, love, courage and so on are _human_ values.
> 
> It surprises me that some Christians were offended by Harry Potter, though. To my knowledge the author herself _is_ a Christian.



People just not doing the full research. Plus some of them would probably throw around that she must not be a "real" Christian since she writes stories about magic. Much like people did to Tolkien (with an occassional side order of "he's catholic!"). Heck some Christians don't even like Christian rock bands because they emulate that evil vile "pagan" music. Seriously.


----------



## SolDirix (Aug 3, 2014)

Clayton said:


> the furry community is filled with godless heathens



Burn them at the stake! jk.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 3, 2014)

SolidSpy24 said:


> Burn them at the stake! jk.



Most of us would probably enjoy it anyway. Butt on fire fetish x100


----------



## john_shadowblade (Aug 3, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'd contest friendship, love, courage and so on are _human_ values.



That's what I believe as well. Of course you'll have the church say "Oh yeah, hey that's us" just to make themselves look better.


----------



## Dreaming (Aug 3, 2014)

Atheism, only because there's no "couldn't give a shit" option


----------



## ms05 (Aug 8, 2014)

Atheism. I just don't think there's a man in the sky who can hear your thoughts, control space and time, and who is willing to punish your soul forever if you don't believe in the correct version of him.


----------



## MysticSolstice (Aug 9, 2014)

I grew up Catholic because my family is but hated it so I switched to Paganism


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 25, 2014)

I believe "Other" should be an option here, as I'm Kemetic


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 25, 2014)

You actually believe in ancient egyptian stuffs?


----------



## Lobar (Aug 25, 2014)

Dreaming said:


> Atheism, only because there's no "couldn't give a shit" option



That is the "couldn't give a shit" option.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 25, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You actually believe in ancient egyptian stuffs?



There are also still people who believe in the norse gods. And to a certain degree I can understand that because those guys are BADASS!
If I had to choose a religion...







Just sayin'.


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 25, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You actually believe in ancient egyptian stuffs?



Yes, I believe it is also classified as a subcategory of Peganism.
Worship of Ancient Egyptian gods are still practiced today, though mainly by those in Egypt itself


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 25, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> There are also still people who believe in the norse gods. And to a certain degree I can understand that because those guys are BADASS!
> If I had to choose a religion...
> 
> 
> ...



I have sometimes found there is an ...uncomfortable association between people who still celebrate the norse gods and nordic supremacists.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 25, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I have sometimes found there is an ...uncomfortable association between people who still celebrate the norse gods and nordic supremacists.



Oh, really? Care to elaborate on that? I haven't really looked into the nordic religions because they aren't really all that important as part of the bigger picture.



GreyCloudWolf said:


> Yes, I believe it is also classified as a subcategory of Peganism.
> Worship of Ancient Egyptian gods are still practiced today, though mainly by those in Egypt itself



Out of sheer curiosity, why exactly do you believe in those things?


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 25, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Out of sheer curiosity, why exactly do you believe in those things?


The same reason anyone would choose to believe in a religion, feeling a connection with said religion, an interest in the religion itself or a genuine belief in the 'lore'


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 25, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh, really? Care to elaborate on that? I haven't really looked into the nordic religions because they aren't really all that important as part of the bigger picture.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of sheer curiosity, why exactly do you believe in those things?



Just my experience with some Scandinavians online, who make very awkward comments about people who aren't Nordic, and constantly glorify the old gods.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 25, 2014)

GreyCloudWolf said:


> The same reason anyone would choose to believe in a religion, feeling a connection with said religion, an interest in the religion itself or a genuine belief in the 'lore'



So you believe that these gods exist? If that is so, why? What is your evidence for that?



Fallowfox said:


> Just my experience with some Scandinavians online, who make very awkward comments about people who aren't Nordic, and constantly glorify the old gods.



Interesting... I haven't met anyone like that before. Actually the few Scandinavians who I know are atheists.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 25, 2014)

The people in question are atheists- they just associate with the norse gods loads. 

One of them went absolutely ape-shit about 'desecration' when it was revealed marvel was making a female thor.



CaptainCool said:


> So you believe that these gods exist? If that is so, why? What is your evidence for that?




Guessing this will be thin on the ground. They probably just like egyptian stuff quite a lot, or perhaps wanted to find a very esoteric pagan religion to irritate catholic relatives. ;3


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 25, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Guessing this will be thin on the ground. They probably just like egyptian stuff quite a lot, or perhaps wanted to find a very esoteric pagan religion to irritate catholic relatives. ;3


No need to be rude, sir. And I don't really think of it as a form of paganism, more like it's own religion if that makes sense? My relatives are also _far_ from religious, not that any of your points really relate anyway
And yes, I do believe that the gods exist, and as for why, it's a mix of the three points I made previously. Mainly a spiritual connection, and a belief of most of the religious history 
And as for evidence, I guess in the same sense of the believers of the Norse gods, various carvings and ancient hieroglyphics. Used in the same sense Christianity uses the Bible as a form of evidence


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 25, 2014)

Ah, I was only joking, but I still have trouble personally understanding why people think Ra exists for any reason other than special snowflakism. 

It's kinda like thinking the minotaur is real.


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 25, 2014)

Apologies, it's quite hard to tell if someone is joking or not through typed text, but I do understand your curiosity. I guess it's just personal preference really, like everything else. People choose what to believe provided they have evidence, a reason or not


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 25, 2014)

GreyCloudWolf said:


> People choose what to believe provided they have *evidence*, a reason or not



Which is why we do NOT choose what we believe in. It's impossible. Belief is always tied to evidence or something along those lines. Or can you choose _not_ to believe in your gods?


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 25, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Which is why we do NOT choose what we believe in. It's impossible. Belief is always tied to evidence or something along those lines. Or can you choose _not_ to believe in your gods?


I realise my poor choice in ordering of words, what I meant was people choose if they have a reason or not, even without evidence. Personally I don't think I could change my view and deny all previous belief of the gods associated with my religion, it's like asking someone "Can you choose _not_ to enjoy your favourite food?" (_I hope that makes sense, I'm terrible with words_)
I have met some silly people who believe in something even though there is tonnes of evidence which says it does not (_do note I'm not talking about religion here, just general things_)


----------



## KyryK (Aug 25, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh, really? Care to elaborate on that? I haven't really looked into the nordic religions because they aren't really all that important as part of the bigger picture.


While racist beliefs aren't necessarily a part of Germanic Neopaganism there are several groups that have woven white supremacy into the religion.

They're not massively helpful but here are some paragraphs from Wikipedia that go into some detail if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_neopaganism#Racial_issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-völkisch_movements#Nordic_racial_paganism


----------



## tehashi (Aug 25, 2014)

Huh, no "Other" option? seems a little limiting.

My personal beliefs fall into the norse pantheon, however you label it, asatru, vanatru, heathen, etc.  If you prefer specific labels then I further specify i am mostly Lokean, and have been for about 8 years.


----------



## KyryK (Aug 25, 2014)

GreyCloudWolf said:


> I believe "Other" should be an option here, as I'm Kemetic





tehashi said:


> Huh, no "Other" option? seems a little limiting.
> 
> My personal beliefs fall into the norse pantheon, however you label it, asatru, vanatru, heathen, etc.  If you prefer specific labels then I further specify i am mostly Lokean, and have been for about 8 years.


Neopagan religions are something i've taken an interest in for quite a while, if you guys could link me to any materials that would allow me to gain a greater understanding of your religious beliefs i'd greatly appreciate it.


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 25, 2014)

If you want some information, there's a few facts located here: http://www.religionfacts.com/neopaganism/paths/kemetic.htm
And the main forum surrounding the subject is here: http://www.netjer.org/forums/
Almost forgot about this nifty place thetwistedrope.wordpress.com/kemeticism/kemetic-starter-guide/

I hope this helps


----------



## Lobar (Aug 26, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh, really? Care to elaborate on that? I haven't really looked into the nordic religions because they aren't really all that important as part of the bigger picture.



There is an unfortunate correlation between Asatru and neo-Nazis.

Nazis fuckin' ruin everything, I swear.


----------



## Jay_Foxx (Aug 26, 2014)

I personally have no use for religion. It only makes life more complicated than it needs to be. I know quite a few people who are religious, including my mother, but I personally never saw the attraction. All I need for peace of mind is a roof over my head, food in my belly, good friends, and someone to cuddle up with at night. The rest will tend to itself when it's time.


----------



## KyryK (Aug 26, 2014)

GreyCloudWolf said:


> If you want some information, there's a few facts located here: http://www.religionfacts.com/neopaganism/paths/kemetic.htm
> And the main forum surrounding the subject is here: http://www.netjer.org/forums/
> Almost forgot about this nifty place thetwistedrope.wordpress.com/kemeticism/kemetic-starter-guide/
> 
> I hope this helps


Thank you.

The House of Netjer forums and the websites they link to should be helpful. The 3rd link is broken for me though, i keep getting 404 errors.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 26, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> There are also still people who believe in the norse gods. And to a certain degree I can understand that because those guys are BADASS!
> If I had to choose a religion...
> 
> 
> ...



 Don't forget the lightning


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 26, 2014)

I have no idea why that link isn't working right, but it works just fine if you copy/paste the address


----------



## tehashi (Aug 26, 2014)

TheKingOfTheCats said:


> Neopagan religions are something i've taken an interest in for quite a while, if you guys could link me to any materials that would allow me to gain a greater understanding of your religious beliefs i'd greatly appreciate it.



Well here are a few pages i had bookmarked when i went back to flesh out my knowledge of asatru;
http://www.asatru-u.org/
http://www.erichshall.com/asanew/newtotru.htm
http://www.irminsul.org/ (page is a bit dated looking, but it has a pretty good sized list of asatru groups by location)





Lobar said:


> There is an unfortunate correlation between Asatru and neo-Nazis.
> 
> Nazis fuckin' ruin everything, I swear.



Regretfully they do, however the percentage of nazis to non-nazis is very low, so you shouldn't let that ruin your view of Asatru/Heathanism as a religion. I mean heck, nazis use christianity to push their views, but we don't say christianity is bad because there is a correlation between the two. :-j


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 26, 2014)

Honestly our current  religions are so frikkin' boring. 

Why did the greek / norse mythology have to die out? :[


----------



## tehashi (Aug 26, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> Honestly our current  religions are so frikkin' boring.
> 
> Why did the greek / norse mythology have to die out? :[




That's one of the awesome things about religion though! You can follow it even if others don't.  You like greek or norse religion? have at it! worship to your hearts content. ^.^


----------



## KyryK (Aug 26, 2014)

GreyCloudWolf said:


> I have no idea why that link isn't working right, but it works just fine if you copy/paste the address


Ok, thanks again man. :mrgreen:


tehashi said:


> Well here are a few pages i had bookmarked when i went back to flesh out my knowledge of asatru;
> http://www.asatru-u.org/
> http://www.erichshall.com/asanew/newtotru.htm
> http://www.irminsul.org/ (page is a bit dated looking, but it has a pretty good sized list of asatru groups by location)


And thank you too. I think i've visited those sites briefly before but i never spent a great deal of time there. The first link isn't working for me though, it just says that the web page isn't available and copy/pasting doesn't work.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 26, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrkiO529EJ4

just another reason why religion is stupid
people expect you to bend over backwards for them just because they worship an invisible man.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 26, 2014)

Clayton said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrkiO529EJ4
> 
> just another reason why religion is stupid
> people expect you to bend over backwards for them just because they worship an invisible man.




"Burnt his bacon..." God, I hate when reporters try to be funny.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 27, 2014)

Clayton said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrkiO529EJ4
> 
> just another reason why religion is stupid
> people expect you to bend over backwards for them just because they worship an invisible man.


Pushy, entitled pieces of shit, like a huge percentage of their kind.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 27, 2014)

That would rather be like me moving to live next to an abattoir only to proceed to tell the owners that I think they should farm vegetables instead. 

The comments on the video are quite frightening, and there are a considerable collection of comments which 'praise jebus' for showing the muslims who's boss...and numerous comments about where 'different races of people belong,'.


The comment that sticks out the most is:_ "that's right, back from where they came from in the first place, The Middle East!
They're  infesting our lands with their idiotic islamic backward ways, & NOT  respecting our cultures or ways, as they try to breed us out of  existence in OUR OWN lands!!ï»¿"_

...it's exactly what invading Christians, from Europe, did to the native Americans, so there are a lot of uneasy almost hypocritical undertones.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 27, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That would rather be like me moving to live next to an abattoir only to proceed to tell the owners that I think they should farm vegetables instead.
> 
> The comments on the video are quite frightening, and there are a considerable collection of comments which 'praise jebus' for showing the muslims who's boss...and numerous comments about where 'different races of people belong,'.
> 
> ...



There's always hypocritical undertones. Just look up SJWs on Tumblr.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 27, 2014)

What does this have to do with tumblr?


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 27, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> What does this have to do with tumblr?



Eh, not much. It was just an offhanded comment I guess.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 27, 2014)

Clayton said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrkiO529EJ4
> 
> just another reason why religion is stupid
> people expect you to bend over backwards for them just because they worship an invisible man.



This whole situation is just so damn stupid... Muslims hate pigs. SO WHY DID THEY BUY LAND NEXT TO A FUCKING PIG FARM?!  It just makes no fucking sense!
And now that guy has to move? It's just as you said, they do expect you to bend over backwards.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 27, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> This whole situation is just so damn stupid... Muslims hate pigs. SO WHY DID THEY BUY LAND NEXT TO A FUCKING PIG FARM?!  It just makes no fucking sense!
> And now that guy has to move? It's just as you said, they do expect you to bend over backwards.



Agreed. Unfortunately a great many people are, rather than regarding that as a stupid decision on the part of the man who made the purchase- and manipulative nasty beavhiour, using the anecdote to justify extreme and racist vitriol. [one woman in the comments uses this instance to produce an argument for dehumanising mexicans...*mexicans*]


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 27, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Agreed. Unfortunately a great many people are, rather than regarding that as a stupid decision on the part of the man who made the purchase- and manipulative nasty beavhiour, using the anecdote to justify extreme and racist vitriol. [one woman in the comments uses this instance to produce an argument for dehumanising mexicans...*mexicans*]



There is a tiny bit of truth to that though. The quran calls for a rather aggressive spread of islam on "enemy territory". Why do you think they already have 60 mosques there?  I'm not buying the whole "we want to build a community center" thing.
But yeah, those comments are ridiculous...


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 27, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> There is a tiny bit of truth to that though. The quran calls for a rather aggressive spread of islam on "enemy territory". Why do you think they already have 60 mosques there?  I'm not buying the whole "we want to build a community center" thing.
> But yeah, those comments are ridiculous...



I think the attempts of religious communities to spread themselves are pretty obvious in most religions, yes. 

Texan missionaries have recently started arriving in the UK and the Czech republic etc to 'save our atheistic European souls'.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 27, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I think the attempts of religious communities to spread themselves are pretty obvious in most religions, yes.
> 
> Texan missionaries have recently started arriving in the UK and the Czech republic etc to 'save our atheistic European souls'.



Send them to either Dortmund or Bochum, Germany please. I would like to have a word with them. And by word I mean booting them back to Texas.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 27, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Send them to either Dortmund or Bochum, Germany please. I would like to have a word with them. And by word I mean booting them back to Texas.



They enjoy only meagre success. I feel our wider public's complete apathy towards them is probably the best thing. 

They can sometimes be very humorous people. I recall seeing one woman, a missionary from texas, competing on a television cooking show in England. She prayed to God for divine culinary assistance- as if the master of the universe would answer her calls for the perfect souffle, but continue to ignore the plight of sub-saharan Africa, or of human trafficking victims. 

She won, though. Divine agency? Who knows...


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 27, 2014)

I just hate it when they try so hard to spread their shit. In the city where I work jehovah's witnesses are everywhere. They once stood in the hall of the central station with 8 people holding watchtower flyers and they are at every subway station.
Best things I have heard from them so far?
"Naaaa the world is never going to end and the sun will never blow up!" When I told them that in the distant future the earth _will_ actually be destroyed and their paradise with it.
"Evolution is just a theory! :3" Every time I talked to them about evolution.
And one guy once cursed me out and called me a heretic. I was very proud about that :3

But I have since given up talking to them. I realized that talking to idiots just puts you down on their level and I always feel like strangling someone after talking to them...


----------



## Noa Qep (Aug 28, 2014)

I align with Agnostic, since while I don't necessarily conform to any single religion, I just can't shake the notion that there might be something out there, as I don't know everything there is on "the other side."


----------



## Phoenix-Kat (Aug 28, 2014)

Christian...but when I encounter other Christians in person, I might as well be an atheist. I'm so sick of people asking me to go to church or getting church invites AFTER I've told the same person I simply do not do church at least a hundred times. Most Christians I knew were only "Christians" on Sunday. Every other day of the week it was okay to be a total jerk. I guess "love thy neighbor as thy self" only applies on Sunday or these people didn't love themselves. I've also noticed a LOT of Christians have this perception that animals are nothing more than biological robots that humans are free to kill, abuse and torture as they wish. My opinions about animals and how they should be treated always made me a laughing stalk among other so-called Christians.


----------



## Nyeowzers (Aug 28, 2014)

I am the only Shinto! Actually it is a family thing, married into it.  But the thing I like most about it, I can be Shinto plus, pretty much any other religion, which Wiccan wasn't an option, so picked Shinto.
used to love when the Jehovah witnesses would come around and ask if I wanted to live in a paradise with no suffering, and I answer them with a dead serious "No" and explain why.  Can't grow, can't appreciate life and beauty without learning through suffering... Sucks but makes our souls grow.  ( anyway that's my view on it) loved deconstructing all their arguments... Helped having a BA is philosophy too.


----------



## tehashi (Aug 28, 2014)

Phoenix-Kat said:


> ...I've also noticed a LOT of Christians have this perception that animals are nothing more than biological robots that humans are free to kill, abuse and torture as they wish. My opinions about animals and how they should be treated always made me a laughing stalk among other so-called Christians.



But don't you know that only humans have souls and therefor are the only living things that mean anything?  :V
Always hated that line of thinking when my parents brought me to church.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 28, 2014)

I find it quite confusing that, according to a large number of Christians, only Christians who agree with their ethical views are 'real Christians'. 

Why are _they_ the fake Christians, rather than you? 

In my view you're all Christians, and some of you are nice people and some of you are nasty people- but this doesn't mean you are or are not Christians.


----------



## Seiaryu (Aug 28, 2014)

Druidism!!


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 28, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I find it quite confusing that, according to a large number of Christians, only Christians who agree with their ethical views are 'real Christians'.
> 
> Why are _they_ the fake Christians, rather than you?
> 
> In my view you're all Christians, and some of you are nice people and some of you are nasty people- but this doesn't mean you are or are not Christians.



That is a very good question and I am curious about that as well. The others are never "true christians"... It's pretty silly in my opinion :T


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 28, 2014)

Phoenix-Kat said:


> I've also noticed a LOT of Christians have this perception that animals are nothing more than biological robots that humans are free to kill, abuse and torture as they wish. My opinions about animals and how they should be treated always made me a laughing stalk among other so-called Christians.


 This is one of the main reasons I despise the sand-scum religions, and the feeble-minded brutes that created them.
People wonder why humans are so cruel to other species? You just answered the question, at least for over half the world.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 28, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> That is a very good question and I am curious about that as well. The others are never "true christians"... It's pretty silly in my opinion :T



If all the claims about people not being 'true' christians were correct, there would be no christians *at all*. 

It's depressing how frequent this claim is voiced, over even trivial things. This is the second time I've read the claim today, on a forum. First time someone was insisting that any christians who weren't literal creationists weren't 'true'.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> This is one of the main reasons I despise  the sand-scum religions, and the feeble-minded brutes that created them.
> People wonder why humans are so cruel to other species? You just answered the question.



You suggested, in another thread, that eugenics and the systematic disposal of disabled people were preferable. 

Why should _anyone_ give a flying fuck what you think about cruelty?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 28, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> You suggested, in another thread, that eugenics and the systematic disposal of disabled people were preferable.
> 
> Why should _anyone_ give a flying fuck what you think about cruelty?



 Because if they're of the same intelligence, and neither has harmed anyone, there's no _intelligent_ reason that they shouldn't be treated equally like shit. But one is treated like royalty, while the other like a cheap plaything.
  This 'order' is a sacred cow for so many people, and the main reason it is perceived to exist is because of ancient mythology.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 28, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Because if they're of the same intelligence, and neither has harmed anyone, there's no _intelligent_ reason that they shouldn't be treated equally like shit. But one is treated like royalty, while the other like a cheap plaything.
> This 'order' is a sacred cow for so many people, and the main reason it is perceived to exist is because of ancient mythology.



Ancient mythology is not the reason that we take care of mentally disabled humans. It's empathy and, dare I suggest, a dash of decency. 

I think avoiding unnecessary suffering of any sentient creatures is preferable too, but I don't think you have anything meaningful to add on the subject of cruelty, because you have made the audacious claim that, if _you_ can't think of an reason not to brutalise vulnerable people, then it must be okay...or even encourage. 

If you want to criticise other people for being cruel to animals with any credibility, then you have to renege upon your arguments that excuse cruelty against your own kin.


----------



## jtrekkie (Aug 28, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It's depressing how frequent this claim is voiced, over even trivial things. This is the second time I've read the claim today, on a forum. First time someone was insisting that any christians who weren't literal creationists weren't 'true'.



There are two reasons why a person might say that. What your talking  about is all of these arguments about views and ethics (that's too vague, I have a better word but I'm too tired to think.) Christianity is very narrowly defined, and those things don't have anything to do with religion in the first place. For example, whether an animal has a soul is talked about in the Bible, and doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. It is very  silly, and we shouldn't think that way. Then, sometimes people use it to mean they think a person is just flaky.

More rarely, the other reason is a thing called simulation, as opposed to dissimulation. If that's too archaic I mean something like being an imposter. There are a number of people like that out there, for various reasons, and that is what they are referring to when the say "they aren't true". What happens is that people exaggerate by comparing the second to the first.


----------



## jffry890 (Aug 30, 2014)

Isn't some 70% of the furry community gay or bi?  It's pretty obvious that Atheism will rank the highest based on that fact alone.


----------



## Vasquez (Aug 31, 2014)

There can be LGBT Christians as well, I believe there's even a group on FA


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 31, 2014)

That has to be the most self-hating group on the entire site.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 31, 2014)

I have come across Gnostic theist Gay furries arguing against equal marriage, on the mainsite.


----------



## jtrekkie (Aug 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I have come across Gnostic theist Gay furries arguing against equal marriage, on the mainsite.



What does equal marriage mean in that sense?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 31, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> What does equal marriage mean in that sense?



Permission of marriage between any two consenting adults, regardless of sex.


----------



## jffry890 (Sep 2, 2014)

So... They're agnostics arguing that gays _shouldn't_ get married?

In my opinion, gays shouldn't get married through the church if the church doesn't want to marry them.  You can't force the institution to do what it doesn't want to do.  Marriage through the courts is all fine and dandy.

I've never actually understood why they would even want to get married (outside of getting married for the sake of being married).  Best explanation I've heard is you get tax benefits for being legally married.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 4, 2014)

jffry890 said:


> Best explanation I've heard is you get tax benefits for being legally married.



How about visitation rights in hospitals?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 4, 2014)

jffry890 said:


> So... They're agnostics arguing that gays _shouldn't_ get married?
> 
> In my opinion, gays shouldn't get married through the church if the church doesn't want to marry them.  You can't force the institution to do what it doesn't want to do.  Marriage through the courts is all fine and dandy.
> 
> I've never actually understood why they would even want to get married (outside of getting married for the sake of being married).  Best explanation I've heard is you get tax benefits for being legally married.



Not agnostic. Gnostic. It means unquestioning. Hence 'a'gnostic is 'questioning'. 

Some gay people are religious [pretty obvious from this poll] so marriage might be an important sacrament for them, in addition to the average societal things.


----------



## jffry890 (Sep 4, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> How about visitation rights in hospitals?



Meh.



Fallowfox said:


> Not agnostic. Gnostic. It means unquestioning. Hence 'a'gnostic is 'questioning'.
> 
> Some gay people are religious [pretty obvious from this poll] so marriage might be an important sacrament for them, in addition to the average societal things.



Sounds like an oxymoron.  I wasn't aware there was a difference.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 4, 2014)

Gnostic theist means 'a believer in a religious deity, who does not doubt that deity's existence. They think their existence is categorical and demonstrable,'

Many theists are gnostic, but some are agnostic- they are people who appreciate that they _can't_ demonstrate that their gods exist.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 4, 2014)

jffry890 said:


> Meh.



Well aren't you just an adorable little bundle of sunshine.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I have come across Gnostic theist Gay furries arguing against equal marriage, on the mainsite.


I got excited there for a moment because i thought you were referring to Gnosticism, a religious belief that states that the universe was created by a God that is itself an aspect or creation of a higher God. The lower God is referred to as the Demiurge and is seen as an imperfect or even malevolent being which is supposed to explain the imperfection of our world against that of an imagined utopia. Salvation to them means rejecting the lower God and everything it's created so they can somehow be with the higher God on a spiritual plane, i've always thought this way of thinking was very interesting when applied to the Abrahamic faiths. 

Wikipedia article on Gnosticism for anyone that's interested.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 8, 2014)

GreyCloudWolf said:


> There can be LGBT Christians as well, I believe there's even a group on FA



In my honest opinion no self respecting LGBT person should be christian (or muslim). In other countries LGBT people are being murdered or imprisoned for who they are because of these fairy tales, they should protest them, not be part of them.


----------



## Vasquez (Sep 8, 2014)

In a way I agree, but it's more so hating the cause than the actual problem. I've met a few very nice Christians who are strong believers but also support the LGBT community. It all depends on the individual I believe as some claim there is no mention of homosexuality in the bible


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 8, 2014)

GreyCloudWolf said:


> In a way I agree, but it's more so hating the cause than the actual problem. I've met a few very nice Christians who are strong believers but also support the LGBT community. It all depends on the individual I believe as some claim there is no mention of homosexuality in the bible



This claim is demonstrably false, though. :\ It's like the people who claim there is no slavery in the bible, despite there being regulations on slavery and how severely you can beat your slaves in there. 

They should recognise that ancient scrolls aren't the font of moral knowledge and hold themselves to a higher standard than blind obedience or selective blindness.


----------



## Bonobosoph (Sep 8, 2014)

Going to gatecrash your little discussion here...
I would choose atheism on the poll because I don't believe in deities or anything spiritual, but I don't use my disbelief as an organised religion of sorts like fanatical atheists might. So I couldn't vote.


----------



## Grapejuice (Sep 8, 2014)

So to add to the poll/ conversation/ debate if you will, I am personally a Deist because although there is the old testament and a new testament there is no physical evidence of "God". However I believe higher, stronger, powerful forces other then us and the concept that evolution created part of our world. It is a very fine line. One can ask how can I believe in a higher power but how can I not believe in "God"; while others can ask how can I believe in powerful forces and not consider it the method of evolution and the power of evolving to fit the environment. We were not around however many years ago our earth was shaped and formed and we do not know if there is a "God" watching our every move. So I choose to be a Deist because I believe that "God" or some powerful force created or aided the creation of the universe but after, left the universe up to chance and evolution. I'm mainly Deist with a touch of Agnostic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 8, 2014)

Grapejuice said:


> So to add to the poll/ conversation/ debate if you will, I am personally a Deist because although there is the old testament and a new testament there is no physical evidence of "God". However I believe higher, stronger, powerful forces other then us and the concept that evolution created part of our world. It is a very fine line. One can ask how can I believe in a higher power but how can I not believe in "God"; while others can ask how can I believe in powerful forces and not consider it the method of evolution and the power of evolving to fit the environment. *We were not around however many years ago our earth was shaped and formed* and we do not know if there is a "God" watching our every move. So I choose to be a Deist because I believe that "God" or some powerful force created or aided the creation of the universe but after, left the universe up to chance and evolution. I'm mainly Deist with a touch of Agnostic.



No, we weren't. Fortunately rocks and fossils were, and a rigorous interpretation of them provides modern scientists with an unparalleled understanding of earth history.
Implying the involvement of any designing agency in the generation of biodiversity is an uncomfortable prospect, because real creatures are full of design flaws that would be expected from the necessary constraints of selection pressures deriving new generations from existing stock, but which would be hideously offensive to any engineer. 

So, if there was a creator, she did not mess about with our planet's biology.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Sep 8, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> real creatures are full of design flaws that would be expected from the necessary constraints of selection pressures deriving new generations from existing stock, but which would be hideously offensive to any engineer.



To an engineer maybe... but to an artist? Little flaws oft enrich the aesthetics of things V:


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 8, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It's like the people who claim there is no slavery in the bible, despite there being regulations on slavery and how severely you can beat your slaves in there.



There are also a few passages pointing out pointing out the morality of slavery and rebuking the slave owners. There is a difference between law and morality, and it is dangerous to confuse the two. Remember, you we're never expected to be perfect.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 8, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> There are also a few passages pointing out pointing out the morality of slavery and rebuking the slave owners. There is a difference between law and morality, and it is dangerous to confuse the two. Remember, you we're never expected to be perfect.



Permitting the ownership of slaves is a_ lot _less than perfect. 

Apparently stoning the gays to death is fine, but a slaver who beats his slave to death should get off scot-free if the slave doesn't die for a couple of days. 


Deriving one's morality from such a text is like expecting to find the world's grandest opera written on the wall of a public toilet.


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Permitting the ownership of slaves is a_ lot _less than perfect.
> 
> Apparently stoning the gays to death is fine, but a slaver who beats his slave to death should get off scot-free if the slave doesn't die for a couple of days.
> 
> ...



Your talking about law, again. Why the law is that way is spelled out clearly. You can read all of it.

I'll give you an example that you already know. To the Jews then, there was no sin greater than blasphemy. That's the legal part. You also know that Jesus was to be stoned for blasphemy, but was not. Do you know why? It's the moral part, and I think you know it, too.

Ttyl


----------



## Lobar (Sep 9, 2014)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> To an engineer maybe... but to an artist? Little flaws oft enrich the aesthetics of things V:



Yes, I'd say so.  There is nothing practical, elegant, nor artistic in, say, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve looping under the aortic arch, particularly in giraffes where it's just plain silly.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Sep 9, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Yes, I'd say so.  There is nothing practical, elegant, nor artistic in, say, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve looping under the aortic arch, particularly in giraffes where it's just plain silly.



I beg to differ. The body is a masterwork of art. If you don't think so then you just aren't looking close enough. Maximum efficiency and perfection of form are not required for something to be artistic and beautiful.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2014)

The definitions of 'artistic' and even more so 'beautiful' are poorly constrained and subjective. 

The tests of diatoms, while beautiful in my opinion, are a probabilistic product of derivation and selection- merely representing the fraction that survived. An artist did not shape them for my amusement merely because I am amused by them.



jtrekkie said:


> Your talking about law, again. Why the law is that way is spelled out clearly. You can read all of it.
> 
> I'll give you an example that you already know. To the Jews then, there  was no sin greater than blasphemy. That's the legal part. You also know  that Jesus was to be stoned for blasphemy, but was not. Do you know why?  It's the moral part, and I think you know it, too.
> 
> Ttyl




I expect more from an all powerful all-moral god, than stipulating laws permissive of slavery in his own book. If you're going to go to lengths to forbid the eating of shell fish, isn't forbidding slavery the least you can do? Or is all-powerful yehoweh impotent to change the laws of his chosen people? 

People today actually take horrible instructions in ancient jewish texts, including but not limited to
-animal sacrifice
-human blood transfusion
-homosexuality
-amputation as a punishment
-beating children
-calls to war

seriously, because they regard the text which contains them as being divine, rather than mythological. 

Clearly lots of people can't distinguish what you describe as 'just law' and 'real morals', and if the 'book of truth' can't elucidate that distinction, then what is the point of it?


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 9, 2014)

The two, the law and the important stuff, are distinguished clearly. But you have to read it. 

Again, everything is pointed in there. Even slavery was arranged so one person couldn't own another, but they didn't follow it. Even then it was realized that the law of Moses was incomplete. There was a reason for that, too. To answer your question more clearly, he did.

You didn't answer my question from last night, so I will. It was because there was no one worthy to render that judgement.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> The two, the law and the important stuff, are distinguished clearly. But you have to read it.
> 
> Again, everything is pointed in there. Even slavery was arranged so one person couldn't own another, but they didn't follow it. Even then it was realized that the law of Moses was incomplete. There was a reason for that, too. To answer your question more clearly, he did.
> 
> You didn't answer my question from last night, so I will. It was because there was no one worthy to render that judgement.



If I was God I'd have said that any forced slavery and servitude of innocent people is unacceptable. 

But God doesn't say that. He permits the children of slaves to be inherited by the slaver. He permits fathers to sell their daughters to be part of other mens' harems, whether their daughter likes it or not. He permits slavers to hit their slaves with sticks to make them obedient. 

People actually suffered intolerable indignation as pieces of property because of this permissive attitude. 

It would be like our modern countries legalising human trafficking, but saying we thought it was 'morally dubious'. Fucking lot of good that's gonna do, we'd all rightly recognise it as insincere and morally evil.


...and you expect browny points for jesus arriving and saying 'oh wait, throwing stones at people is a shitty idea, afterall!' *A moral god would never have told people it was okay to do that in the first place. *


----------



## Hewge (Sep 9, 2014)

If there is a god - they would be an otter.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 9, 2014)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> To an engineer maybe... but to an artist? Little flaws oft enrich the aesthetics of things V:



I'd also like to say, "Show me a programmer that hasn't made mistakes or bad design choices."



Fallowfox said:


> If I was God I'd have said that any forced slavery and servitude of innocent people is unacceptable.
> 
> 
> But God doesn't say that. He permits the children of slaves to be inherited by the slaver. He permits fathers to sell their daughters to be part of other mens' harems, whether their daughter likes it or not. He permits slavers to hit their slaves with sticks to make them obedient.
> ...



Also you're kinda adding in your own inference here, particularly with the "He permits fathers to sell their daughters to be part of other men's harems. . ." You're ASSUMING that this is something that happens. All I have to say is, do you have any proof? Or are you simply just kinda adding in your own two cents here?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'd also like to say, "Show me a programmer that hasn't made mistakes or bad design choices."
> 
> 
> 
> Also you're kinda adding in your own inference here, particularly with the "He permits fathers to sell their daughters to be part of other men's harems. . ." You're ASSUMING that this is something that happens. All I have to say is, do you have any proof? Or are you simply just kinda adding in your own two cents here?





"    _When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment._  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
 "

Do christians even bother reading their book? This passage permits and describes selling your daughter to be a 'wife' [at the time this was written men could own many wives, in a harem, as explained later in the passage when 'another wife' is mentioned]. Sexual obligations are described. 

This is a description of how to partake in sexual slavery- essentially if you own a sex slave you have to feed them, clothe them and fuck them for it to be 'fair'.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> " When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"




First, I'm not Christian. Secondly, yes I've read the bible, and probably way more than you have I'd wager. Or would you like to compare how many books we've read with each other? For the record, I've read most of the OT, studied it a bit, and also read all of the New Testament. Be that as it may, it IS a lot of text to remember, and I do actually have to reference things time and again. Just because oh no, I might have missed a verse (actually, I saw this one coming, and had a feeling you would try to spin it to sexual slavery) doesn't mean I don't read things. What, do you tell gamers who might forget some rules "Do gamers even bother reading their book?" 

Anyways, let's get started here. Well, so now we're saying marriage is sexual slavery eh? I get it, it's because the girl doesn't have much say in who they marry; well really, what girl did back then? Let's keep in mind this was a heavily patriarchal society. And yes, as per this law, you do have to feed them, provide clothes, and other "marital rights" (as the ESV terms it). Not only that, but the slave owner has to treat this girl as her own daughter as well. And should they fail on ANY of these things, she gets to go free. 

At least the bible set limits and requirements on slavery and what was or wasn't permissible. You guys act like as if the book said "lol anything goes! Do what you want! They're your property after all!"

See, the law defines what acts the civil government of ancient Isreal are allowed to enforce on God's behalf; it isn't a guide to righteousness like you and so many others think it is. And I learned that by *reading* and *studying* the bible, and thinking about things longer than the few seconds it took for you to look up that verse and pluck it off the internet. If you REALLY want to go into "who reads the bible more" I'd be more than happy to oblige you. Because I damn well read more than just what I "Research" online.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2014)

I used to be a christian, but it's probable you've read more of the bible than I have, because I've not read it in a few years. 
Unfortunately many christians do deny that slavery even features in their text- implying they haven't read it...or even worse, they try to belittle it as 'nice slavery', as if there's such a thing. 


Selling your daughter to be part of a man's harem would be correctly classified as sexual slavery today. Do you contest this?
The woman, as stated in the quote, need only be treated 'like a daughter' if she marries the slaver's son. Not that 'like a daughter' means very much- this was a society in which daughters were salable. 


The only acceptable stance on slavery, by a moral God, is that it is expressly forbidden. Anything less is the product of an imperfect culture imagining a God as a social avatar, rather than divinity.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I used to be a christian, but it's probable you've read more of the bible than I have, because I've not read it in a few years.
> Unfortunately many christians do deny that slavery even features in their text- implying they haven't read it...or even worse, they try to belittle it as 'nice slavery', as if there's such a thing.
> 
> 
> ...



Don't forget that by being married, the slave also gets marriage rights ("marital rights" as said in the ESV -- whereas the NIV only says he has to sleep with her). She could say, divorce him if she felt he was mistreating her or being unfaithful (divorce was okay in such situations). I would imagine for the slave to be sold post-marriage the husband would have to be okay -- and even in this case, people only went into slavery when they needed the money due to poverty (or again, if they owed debt). So it's not like people were just going around selling and marrying and selling their daughters like they were monopoly properties. And furthermore, arrange marriages were common in that time and place.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Don't forget that by being married, the slave also gets marriage rights ("marital rights" as said in the ESV -- whereas the NIV only says he has to sleep with her). She could say, divorce him if she felt he was mistreating her or being unfaithful (divorce was okay in such situations). I would imagine for the slave to be sold post-marriage the husband would have to be okay -- and even in this case, people only went into slavery when they needed the money due to poverty (or again, if they owed debt). So it's not like people were just going around selling and marrying and selling their daughters like they were monopoly properties. And furthermore, arrange marriages were common in that time and place.



This is still apologism for slavery. :\ 

Obviously the society that wrote this text was, by our slightly more enlightened contemporary standards, very unsavoury, which is why the god they made up permits the unsavoury things they like, such as owning slaves.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> This is still apologism for slavery. :\
> 
> Obviously the society that wrote this text was, by our slightly more enlightened contemporary standards, very unsavoury, which is why the god they made up permits the unsavoury things they like, such as owning slaves.



If anything I'm trying to show that no, it's not all bad for women in this situation. As well as pointing out that this only happened in certain situations and that women weren't being traded around like stock. I don't agree with slavery myself but if you're going to argue against something, it's good to set the complete stage, and not only point out certain things and leave other things out. You're kinda being like news anchors who present things in a skewerd way -- worded tacitly to get just the right reaction out of people in that type of situation.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> If anything I'm trying to show that no, it's not all bad for women in this situation. As well as pointing out that this only happened in certain situations and that women weren't being traded around like stock. I don't agree with slavery myself but if you're going to argue against something, it's good to set the complete stage, and not only point out certain things and leave other things out. You're kinda being like news anchors who present things in a skewerd way -- worded tacitly to get just the right reaction out of people in that type of situation.



It needn't be 'all bad' to be horrible. You must think that permitting slavery is intolerable, even if not all slaves are being mistreated. The mere ownership of humans is a vulgarity in and of itself, isn't it? 

I don't think we _can_ excuse slavery on the grounds that it was 'nice' slavery, or 'part of the times'. I think we should recognise that it was bad and that this means ancient texts are not necessarily reliable sources of moral truth. 

Reliable sources of moral truth shouldn't have to be apologised for.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 9, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It needn't be 'all bad' to be horrible. You must think that permitting slavery is intolerable, even if not all slaves are being mistreated. The mere ownership of humans is a vulgarity in and of itself, isn't it?
> 
> I don't think we _can_ excuse slavery on the grounds that it was 'nice' slavery, or 'part of the times'. I think we should recognise that it was bad and that this means ancient texts are not necessarily reliable sources of moral truth.
> 
> Reliable sources of moral truth shouldn't have to be apologised for.



I contend that any source of moral truth would require apologetics, as any skilled wordsmith can make something seem immoral with just the right usage of what the person said, their own "interpretations", and a host of other skills. You're essentially saying "Moral truth" is infalliable. When it's quite the opposite, as what's good and moral to one person is evil and vile to another.


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 9, 2014)

Here again. I would give you specifics, but I am very far from home and my books.In Matthew 23 slavery is mentioned, I'll let you read it. Slavery, and a lot of other stuff, is talked about by the prophets in the Old Testament. Again somewhere in the New Testament it is explained why Moses allowed divorce, and that is what happened. These things are abhorrent, and always were.You have to remember that the laws were written for a broken people, just as miserable and broken as the likes of us. If you want to know what the law is, it's like this: love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as your self. The whole law and morality and everything is in there. Can you enslave your brother and follow that? Can you steal a man's property, or abuse a stranger?Even if you limit yourself to our precious first world, there is no atrocity or immorality that was practiced then that isn't still practiced today. I can't say whether they accepted it as well as we do, but I suspect they did.You still didn't understand what I meant when I was talking about the stoning. I was saying, I can't condemn you. I can't do it because I am your equal, and there's nothing you've done or can do that I haven't done worse. How can a person judge, if he is guilty himself? It wasn't stoning or punishment that he was talking about.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I contend that any source of moral truth would require apologetics, as any skilled wordsmith can make something seem immoral with just the right usage of what the person said, their own "interpretations", and a host of other skills. You're essentially saying "Moral truth" is infalliable. When it's quite the opposite, as what's good and moral to one person is evil and vile to another.



I think morality is actually too nuanced for 'ultimate sources' to actually exist, and most natural languages are not properly equipped to express unambiguous instructions. 

Having to apologise that the book of 'ultimate truth' permits slavery and demands the blood of homosexuals, among numerous other things, is beyond the ambiguity that could be introduced by language. It's just straight up demagoguery from the bronze age. 


The crux is that ancient texts are a very poor sources of consultation for moral guidance. They describe the prejudices of a world that was very different to our own, and they have failed to adapt substantially to more enlightened times. 

This is why, as Captain Cool said, people who are specifically targeted for discrimination by these texts should not pretend the texts don't contain these incitements, should not apologise for them, but should reject them as antiquated.



jtrekkie said:


> Here again. I would give you specifics, but I am  very far from home and my books.In Matthew 23 slavery is mentioned,  I'll let you read it. Slavery, and a lot of other stuff, is talked about  by the prophets in the Old Testament. Again somewhere in the New  Testament it is explained why Moses allowed divorce, and that is what  happened. These things are abhorrent, and always were.You have to  remember that the laws were written for a broken people,just as  miserable and broken as the likes of us. If you want to know what the  law is, it's like this: love the Lord your God with all your heart, and * love your neighbor as your self.* The whole law and morality and  everything is in there. Can you enslave your brother and follow that?  Can you steal a man's property, or abuse a stranger?Even if you limit  yourself to our precious first world, there is no atrocity or immorality  that was practiced then that isn't still practiced today. I can't say  whether they accepted it as well as we do, but I suspect they did.You  still didn't understand what I meant when I was talking about the  stoning. I was saying, I can't condemn you. I can't do it because I am  your equal, and there's nothing you've done or can do that I haven't  done worse. How can a person judge, if he is guilty himself? It wasn't  stoning or punishment that he was talking about.



What a genius insight. It's not like numerous other religions and philosophies hadn't forwarded the golden rule centuries before hand. Obviously people can only practice empathy if they read a divine book and pledge themselves to worship an ephemeral creator god.

Consultation of ancient texts is not necessary to construct meaningful systems of ethics, and the systems of ethics proposed in these books, while containing some of the basics, often make recommendations or grant permission for behaviours which completely flout them. 

Your closing comment makes me feel uneasy, because you're claiming that it _isn't _a redaction of the antiquated 'adulterers must be stoned' law, but an explanation that nobody is fit to carry out the sentence. Hmm

Think of how many people were executed for sex outside marriage. How many people still are being in places like Pakistan. 

It's the fault of ancient texts.


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 10, 2014)

Now you've gone generic on me.

There are a lot of ideas packed in that last statement, even though it looks simple. I think I know what your trying to say.

Just think about how many people have died because they disliked their king, or because of a family rivalry, or because they were found inferior? There is a commonality in all of these things. What I'm trying to say is that those people weren't blindly following anything, they were reasoning the whole time, and they've always been reasoning.

There is no reason to think that because they didn't heed their moral codes that the morality itself is flawed. Instead, they should be chastised for their neglect and indifference. It is wrong to think that evil is expected by searching for good.

I need to respond to that, too. No. I'm saying that there isn't anybody fit to make that judgement in the first place. I don't know if that will make sense to you, it depends on how much respect you give to justice. Is adultery wrong? I should say yes, but you don't have to die for it. That's what the whole thing was about. You don't have to be perfect.

Consultation of ancient texts. That is an odd way to put it, it sounds like you read that somewhere. 

I know something about the first part. First, let me point out that there is a difference between ethics and morality. You cannot construct a complete, self consistent "system of ethics" that recognizes morality. You always have to either add something arbitrarily or get rid of morality altogether. (The last latter has been popularized by prominent thinkers in modern times, but it's not a new idea.) Ignoring morality doesn't make a lot of sense. There is another old idea, but nobody likes it even though with some fiddling you can chock it up to evolution, and it really doesn't help much anyway. It's a fascinating problem. Everyone knows you should be nice to people, but nobody knows why. Perhaps there is some deep mathematical law that prevents you from forming such a system? I don't know. It is appalling to think about how much effort has been put into getting around that one problem. (Are you trying to work one out yet?) It's also interesting to note that what you end up with is an arbitrary set of rules.

See, that's what you're supposed to sound like. Firstly, since I'm going backwards, do you have a source handy? I believe you, but I haven't come across the "golden rule", not like that, and I need to read on it To be honest it's counter intuitive for a lot of recorded history. You really need to have a reason for doing things, and there is a lot of reasoning behind that rule. For instance, it implies that people are equal. To come back to the law, or what was added, as a Christians takes it, it means you are worth more than I, because I am a Christian.


I have to apologize if I seem rude, I don't intend to. I really enjoy talking to you. If you respond to this post I won't see it for a while, so I probably won't respond. My phone service provider doesn't contract out to my current location. I am so far back in Texas that at the nearest town, which isn't close, there is a horse that freely roams the streets, along with some resident deer and a couple dozen chickens. Couldn't do that in NM, people would probably shoot at it (the horse).


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 10, 2014)

This thread is still alive ? Wow. Lord have mercy....


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 10, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> This thread is still alive ? Wow. Lord have mercy....



*Plays the worlds smallest violin for you*


----------



## tisr (Sep 10, 2014)

@jtrekkie

If you're able to modify the rules at your whim, and reason for yourself, why bother adhering to an ancient book about ethics, especially if the book proclaims itself to be all-perfect, all-moral, and the ultimate truth? If your book says that adulterers should be put to death, and you feel they should not, then why bother claim to follow the book at all, especially since the book claims to be perfect?

And, ethics can exist without a need of higher powers controlling what is moral and what is not. Ethics are made such that society is able to be stable, and a society is needed to sustain for the individual. Ethics are not a random set of rules which just so happened to exist, rather modern ethics we know have just been the rules that have caused the most stability in society. On a deeper level, there is evolutionary ethics, which simplifies this idea and states that ethical practices are evolved behaviors which lead to greater evolutionary success.

Also, a quick check on Wikipedia shows that the Golden Rule has existed independently in many areas before Christianity, such as Babylon, China, Egypt, and India, which ties in perfectly with the theory of evolutionary ethics, as well as proves that there need not be a higher being dictating moral codes. 


@Connor J. Coyote

Yes, this thread is still alive. Sometimes I regret that it is.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 10, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Now you've gone generic on me.
> 
> There are a lot of ideas packed in that last statement, even though it looks simple. I think I know what your trying to say.
> 
> ...



Tisr has answered many of your questions. He hasn't posted a source  to demonstrate the ubiquitous distribution of the golden rule in human  cultures, so here one is:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Antiquity

It surprises  me that you would entertain the prospect that 'being nice to people' is  the exclusive invention of a single religion. It is like thinking your  religion invented spoken language, and that everyone before hand was a  jabbering barbarian. 


I think you frequently make the mistake of claiming something is arbitrary or unknown because _you_  don't know the explanation. Why humans treat each other nicely under  many circumstances can be adequately explained using a model of kin  selection. This model correctly predicts the behaviour of other  organisms too, such as haploid social insects, as a function of their  genetic structure and selection pressures- with astonishing accuracy. 
This  argument is expressed in colloquial language in the book 'the selfish  gene', which isn't about a gene that makes creatures selfish- it's  forwarding the hypothesis that the gene is the fundamental unit of  selection. 


To summarise:
-religion is not the origin of many of the 'moral laws' human cultures ubiquitously observe.
-human  moral behaviour is plastic, but is fundamentally structured around kin  selection- a probabilistic product of the drive of creatures to eat,  reproduce and avoid dying.
-religion reproduces itself like a jumping  gene or a virus, by exploiting vulnerabilities in the psyche or  associating itself with prospects people do not wish to deny, such as  moral laws. This is why many of the moral assertions religions make are  nasty. Religion is piggy-backing on biology. 
-many religious  practices, which have piggy-backed their way into the 21st century, like  the execution of adulterers, circumcision, amputation, discrimination  against homosexuals, sexual abuse and religiously motivated in-breeding  are not appropriate practices, and could not be supported if we tried to  justify them without consultign religious texts as if they were true. 

We  should therefore reject religious texts and employ evidence based  reasoning instead, so that we can avoid the symptoms of these  parasitising pieces of code, which have survived merely because they are  very effective at using us as hosts to reproduce copies of themselves,  not because they provide us pragmatic services.
[we could design a completely made-up religion, full of absolute nonsense laws, and as long as we ensured the mechanism for its reproduction was effective it would spread. Think about Scientology or Mormonism, these are examples of recently synthesised religions which are spreading. Scientology spreads even though it empties the pockets of its hosts]


----------



## Maugryph (Sep 10, 2014)

This thread reminds me of this image:


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 10, 2014)

Maugryph said:


> This thread reminds me of this image:



Has happened about 5 times on another forum I attend, called Jiggmin's village. 

But the 'does god exist?' thread is about 700 pages long, and has been running for a few years.


----------



## Curtisboy (Sep 10, 2014)

I think if you're apart of the furry community, it kind of goes against all religions so x3


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 10, 2014)

Curtisboy said:


> I think if you're apart of the furry community, it kind of goes against all religions so x3



Well depends really on one's religion and what it consists of. If you're thinking of the more stricter religions, such as Christianity or Islam, then yeah, it would. Well...it would actually depend on the person, their involvement in the fandom, and what they do exactly, I'd wager. 

It'd also be worth it to ask if you differentiate between religion and personal spiritualism? Sometimes people will say religion is usually stuff like the aforementioned religions and things like Buddhism, Hinduism, whereas spiritualism could just be a mish mash of various spiritual/religous ideas and what not, which could be more flexible than mainstream religions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 11, 2014)

Religion is stuff other people made up. Personal spiritualism is stuff you yourself make up.


----------



## tisr (Sep 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Religion is stuff other people made up. Personal spiritualism is stuff you yourself make up.



To some degree, religion becomes what you yourself believe. Although the general concept and framework is created by others, the intricacies are made so as to fit your current beliefs. The god becomes your ego, and follows your intuitions and opinions. This is why so many people can believe in the same deity but act upon it in so many different ways.

For example, some feel that non-believers should be killed, or be forced into conversion, while others believe that anyone is free to believe what they want. Either way, their actions always seem to abide by the followings of their religion, and that is because religion becomes what you want to believe.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 13, 2014)

Curtisboy said:


> I think if you're apart of the furry community, it kind of goes against all religions so x3


How exactly does liking cartoon animal people go against all religions?

I don't remember "Thou shalt not wear a fursuit" being in the ten commandments.


----------



## Bonobosoph (Sep 13, 2014)

TheKingOfTheCats said:


> How exactly does liking cartoon animal people go against all religions?
> 
> I don't remember "Thou shalt not wear a fursuit" being in the ten commandments.


There was a whole separate chapter on it, omg have you not read the bible??


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Sep 13, 2014)

TheKingOfTheCats said:


> How exactly does liking cartoon animal people go against all religions?
> 
> I don't remember "Thou shalt not wear a fursuit" being in the ten commandments.



God hates furfags C: haven't you heard? It's the only unforgivable sin.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Sep 14, 2014)

I myself am a pantheist/animist who believes in reincarnation (though not necessary in the same universe as the previous life.)

I also believe that animals have souls and can leave ghosts, because after my dog died I heard him running around the house.

I also kinda believe in curses, because there have been a number of people in my family tree going back generations  to the horse and buggy days who died or (in my brother's case) were paralyzed in transportation related accidents. I have no idea how this curse would have started, but it creeps me out

I also believe in guardian spirits (not necessarily angels, they might be anything, really) because the number of times my brother survived a potentially fatal experience (including the acident that paralyzed him) has passed the point where probability says he shouldn't be alive, so, in my opinion, something must be protecting him.

I also belive in precognition, due to the time my father saw the first three numbers of the lottery in a dream and won a few hundred dollars ( technically he saw all the numbers, or so he claims, but he didn't write them down, so when he went to buy the ticket he could only remember the first three.)

The point is that my spirituality is informed by weird things that have happened to me and those around me that I can't quite explain, maybe my family is just weird like that.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 14, 2014)

TheKingOfTheCats said:


> How exactly does liking cartoon animal people go against all religions?
> 
> I don't remember "Thou shalt not wear a fursuit" being in the ten commandments.



Perhaps they're hitting on the kind of stuff that goes on in the fandom, rather than just the prospect of liking animals? 

Still shows they don't know much about religion though.


----------



## tisr (Sep 14, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> I myself am a pantheist/animist who believes in reincarnation (though not necessary in the same universe as the previous life.)
> 
> I also believe that animals have souls and can leave ghosts, because after my dog died I heard him running around the house.
> 
> ...



I cannot determine the validity of the first few, because there are insufficient details to gather a conclusion, but the last one irks me.

All lottery numbers are picked by people, and the winners of the lottery must have gotten the numbers from somewhere. Some people guess by random choice, others choose significant numbers.

Either way, it is possible to create a claim that the supernatural has been involved in a scenario where it is purely by coincidence.

If someone guesses at random and wins, they could say they are lucky, and has been blessed, etc.
If someone uses significant numbers, e.g. birthdates, license plates, dreams, they could say their source is lucky, or have good foresight, etc.

In this case, a supernatural claim can be made for every lottery that is held, assuming lotteries have a winner everytime.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> People today actually take horrible instructions in ancient jewish texts, including but not limited to
> -animal sacrifice
> -human blood transfusion
> -homosexuality
> ...


 Just another reason not to stand up for Israel, I think.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 14, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> I myself am a pantheist/animist who believes in reincarnation (though not necessary in the same universe as the previous life.)
> 
> I also believe that animals have souls and can leave ghosts, because after my dog died I heard him running around the house.
> 
> ...



Hearing pitter-patters in your house isn't sufficient grounds to surmise the existence of animals that defy thermodynamics. 

Calling a statistical cluster evidence of curses is a texas sharp shooter fallacy: 
[video=youtube;InHv7U_fp1g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InHv7U_fp1g[/video]

If you do believe in Guardian spirits, why did the guardians allow potentially fatal experiences to occur _at all_? 


Essentially, your problem is that you don't believe in probability. If you can't surmise a proper explanation for an occurrence, then that doesn't entitle you to conclude that magical explanations must be true.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Sep 14, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Hearing pitter-patters in your house isn't sufficient grounds to surmise the existence of animals that defy thermodynamics.
> 
> Calling a statistical cluster evidence of curses is a texas sharp shooter fallacy:
> [video=youtube;InHv7U_fp1g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InHv7U_fp1g[/video]
> ...



I've never heard of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy before, but it does seem to apply to my family's experiences regarding the "curse". I thank you for helping me get over my fears regarding driving, Fallow.

As for the whole thermos dynamics ruling out the soul thing, I believe souls to be electrical in nature. I mean, the electrical energy in the brain and body has to go somewhere when we die, right? So in my opinion, which I admit may be wrong, newton's laws actually confirm the existence of the soul for me. Any animal that has a brain and body running on electricity has a soul, including dogs, humans and anything else.

as for the guardian spirits allowing bad things to happen at all, I don't believe that these guardian spirits are all powerful. all of the incidents that nearly killed my brother were the result of stupid decisions that either he made or stupid decisions someone else made. The guardian spirits can't (or won't) override free will, so when my brother (or anyone else that they protect) gets hurt due to someone's stupidity all they can do is damage control. But I must admit that the texas sharpshooter fallacy may apply here too. Thanks for giving me something to test my beliefs against Fallow.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 14, 2014)

Newton's laws don't describe thermodynamics _or_ electricity. They describe the motion of rigid bodies.
Laptop computers should be expected to have souls, by your definition of a soul. Laptops should also be expected to haunt their former owners...well, they do if you don't delete your web history, but that's different.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 14, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> As for the whole thermos dynamics ruling out the soul thing, I believe souls to be electrical in nature. *I mean, the electrical energy in the brain and body has to go somewhere when we die, right?* So in my opinion, which I admit may be wrong, newton's laws actually confirm the existence of the soul for me.* Any animal that has a brain and body running on electricity has a soul, including dogs, humans and anything else.*


  It loses coherence and purpose when bodily systems break down, and is conducted as unintelligible white noise into its surroundings, much like heat. 
You may be wrong, but I'll credit you for being fair.


----------



## tisr (Sep 14, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> As for the whole thermos dynamics ruling out the soul thing, I believe souls to be electrical in nature. I mean, the electrical energy in the brain and body has to go somewhere when we die, right? So in my opinion, which I admit may be wrong, newton's laws actually confirm the existence of the soul for me. Any animal that has a brain and body running on electricity has a soul, including dogs, humans and anything else.



Electric signals are produced in the brain using stored energy and ions present in the brain. 
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/880395992.Ns.r.html This article explains everything nicely. (hyperlinks hate me D: )

So the brain does not store electricity, neither is the significance of this electrical energy limited to animals since it can be explained at a molecular level.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 14, 2014)

It still amazes me that a series of electro-chemical gradients changing can produce not only an animated creature, but one which knows it exists- like me. 

Suggesting that these signals will persist to generate me, even if the machinery which makes them work is destroyed, is unreasonable. Even a small amount of damage to that machinery could render me badly brain damaged, and the electrical signals will not be able to generate this thing I call me any more.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 15, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> As for the whole thermos dynamics ruling out the soul thing, I believe souls to be electrical in nature. I mean, the electrical energy in the brain and body has to go somewhere when we die, right? So in my opinion, which I admit may be wrong, newton's laws actually confirm the existence of the soul for me. Any animal that has a brain and body running on electricity has a soul, including dogs, humans and anything else.



If you turn off the TV, where does the image go?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2014)

This morning I experienced a peculiar turn of events which have relevancy to this discussion of sentience. 

I was sitting and felt quite unwell, which was peculiar, before suddenly being in a quite different, reclined position, screaming periodically and involuntarily, unable to move or feel my body. When I regained composition I realised I had also wet myself. 

My brother says that I made muffled requests for help, before slumping into a quivering semi-conscious stupor, but I don't remember this. I've no idea what this event was, so I'll have to visit the doctor about it, but I think it served as a reminder to me that the conscious aspect of my constitution is a fragile structure which is composed by and cannot exist without bodily maintenance, and which rapidly disappears even when only slight deviations from regular bodily processes occur.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Sep 15, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It loses coherence and purpose when bodily systems break down, and is conducted as unintelligible white noise into its surroundings, much like heat.
> You may be wrong, but I'll credit you for being fair.



Well if it's not electrical in nature, then I suppose I'll have to find another explanation for the soul.

The fact is, I know what I heard the night after my dog died. I heard his running, the jangleing of his collar and his panting. So assuming that souls exist and that animals have them, then they must something innate to living things. If my electricity explanation is wrong (which I'm still not entirely convinced it is, after all maybe coherence isn't _entirely_ lost.) then I will keep trying theories until I find one that works.

Like I said, my spirituality is based on the fact that there has been some weird crap in my life that I can't explain.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Sep 15, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> If you turn off the TV, where does the image go?



The image is still there in the cable wires and airwaves, it's just not in a form you can see.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> Well if it's not electrical in nature, then I suppose I'll have to find another explanation for the soul.
> 
> The fact is, I know what I heard the night after my dog died. I heard his running, the jangleing of his collar and his panting. So assuming that souls exist and that animals have them, then they must something innate to living things. If my electricity explanation is wrong (which I'm still not entirely convinced it is, after all maybe coherence isn't _entirely_ lost.) then I will keep trying theories until I find one that works.
> 
> ...



Your notion of 'explanation' is more accurately described as rationalisation. You have decided what your conclusion is- that souls really do exist- and are warping facts in an attempt to support this conclusion. 

Why not think of a test instead? 

What would be more likely, that your hearing is fallible, or that dogs' minds survive death and manifest as strange noises? 


If you can't explain something, assuming the explanation is the spirit world isn't warranted.




The young man in the cafe said:


> The image is still there in the  cable wires and airwaves, it's just not in a form you can see.



Your belief about spirits is more like thinking that, if you smash a CD, the information on the CD lives on, and that you should expect to hear that CD's tunes playing in the future. :\


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 15, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> The image is still there in the cable wires and airwaves, it's just not in a form you can see.



Then it's not much of an image is it?


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 15, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Then it's not much of an image is it?



It's there alright, it messes with my radios and makes my microcontrollers do weird stuff. If you could see in the microwave spectrum you would already know that. I've actually taken to regarding the TV waves as a malevolent entity.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2014)

TV signals are not in the microwave region. Mobile phone signals are.


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 15, 2014)

When did they change that? UHF and SHF _used _to be microwaves. Anyway, call them what you want, they are as invasive as the are obnoxious. Cell signals are bad too, they mess with my speakers.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (Sep 15, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Your notion of 'explanation' is more accurately described as rationalization. You have decided what your conclusion is- that souls really do exist- and are warping facts in an attempt to support this conclusion.
> 
> Why not think of a test instead?
> 
> ...




Fallow, I admit that I might be wrong, it may not have been my dog's ghost. I tested other explanations first. Before I made the ghost assumption, I asked my mom (the only other person in the house that night) if she heard anything. She said she did, which rules out the theory that it was all in my head. After that, I looked for anything else that might have made those noises and couldn't find anything in that house that sounded like my dog.

The point that I'm trying to make is that if it wasn't my dog's ghost, then I have no freaking clue what that noise was was, though I would appreciate your theories, if only I could have something to test against.

as for the CD thing, I'm pretty sure that CDs work through a system of bumps and reflective areas that are used as 1s and 0s in binary code, the only electricity involved is the laser that reads the CD by reflecting off the reflective parts. So it's not a perfect analogy.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 15, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> Fallow, I admit that I might be wrong, it may not have been my dog's ghost. I tested other explanations first. Before I made the ghost assumption, I asked my mom (the only other person in the house that night) if she heard anything. She said she did, which rules out the theory that it was all in my head. After that, I looked for anything else that might have made those noises and couldn't find anything in that house that sounded like my dog.
> 
> The point that I'm trying to make is that if it wasn't my dog's ghost, then I have no freaking clue what that noise was was, though I would appreciate your theories, if only I could have something to test against.
> 
> as for the CD thing, I'm pretty sure that CDs work through a system of bumps and reflective areas that are used as 1s and 0s in binary code, the only electricity involved is the laser that reads the CD by reflecting off the reflective parts. So it's not a perfect analogy.



Eliminating a couple of explanations doesn't equate to justifying a magical explanation. It would be most appropriate to conclude you heard an animal noise, and do not know what it was. Possible candidates might include a raccoon that snuck in, but anecdotal auditory evidence is not sufficient to justify the existence of immaterial dog brains.


----------



## tisr (Sep 16, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> The point that I'm trying to make is that if it wasn't my dog's ghost, then I have no freaking clue what that noise was was, though I would appreciate your theories, if only I could have something to test against.



Then, the best guess you have is that you do not know. Having an answer for the sake of having an answer is not a good idea. Unless you are able to prove with certainty that a soul did it, it appears that you do not know.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 22, 2014)

The young man in the cafe said:


> Fallow, I admit that I might be wrong, it may not have been my dog's ghost. I tested other explanations first. Before I made the ghost assumption, I asked my mom (the only other person in the house that night) if she heard anything. She said she did, which rules out the theory that it was all in my head. After that, I looked for anything else that might have made those noises and couldn't find anything in that house that sounded like my dog.
> 
> The point that I'm trying to make is that if it wasn't my dog's ghost, then I have no freaking clue what that noise was was, though I would appreciate your theories, if only I could have something to test against.
> 
> as for the CD thing, I'm pretty sure that CDs work through a system of bumps and reflective areas that are used as 1s and 0s in binary code, the only electricity involved is the laser that reads the CD by reflecting off the reflective parts. So it's not a perfect analogy.



I hear noises in my apartment all the damn time and I have no clue what they are. Am I supposed to believe those are ghosts too just because I don't know what they are?

Also, there is another problem with your "solution". If your answer is that it was the ghost of your dog you also have to prove that ghosts actually exist.
That is the problem with magical answers. They always raise further questions that you have to answer as well. Instead of solving your mystery you are only creating more mysteries.
Same thing goes for a magical creator of the universe. If a god created everything, where did that god come from? So now you have to answer two questions, not just one.


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 22, 2014)

ITT: Confirmation Bias


----------



## Mauve (Sep 22, 2014)

I'm an atheist. Btw, atheism shouldn't be on this list, because it's not a religion. The etymology of the word makes this quite clear.


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 22, 2014)

Mauve said:


> I'm an atheist. Btw, atheism shouldn't be on this list, because it's not a religion. The etymology of the word makes this quite clear.



Oh get off it.
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

You believe that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise.
It's an organized belief. 
It's a religion.


----------



## Mauve (Sep 22, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Oh get off it.
> "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."
> 
> You believe that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise.
> ...


Define "organized," and maybe I'll agree with you.


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 22, 2014)

Mauve said:


> Define "organized," and maybe I'll agree with you.



I would define 'organized' as two or more individuals meeting in forums, both public and online, to discuss and share ideas about their belief. 

See: 

http://atheists.org/
http://atheists.meetup.com/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/
http://ffrf.org/
http://bornatheist.com/organizaitons.html
http://www.weareatheism.com/resources/organizations/


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 22, 2014)

Mauve said:


> Define "organized," and maybe I'll agree with you.



Also it is possible to be atheist and have a religion. Because atheism is merely not believing in a god. There's nothing in the dictionary that suggests atheism is some kind of package deal where you must reject God(s) AND anything supernatural/spiritual/what have you


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 23, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Also, there is another problem with your "solution". If your answer is that it was the ghost of your dog you also have to prove that ghosts actually exist.
> That is the problem with magical answers. They always raise further questions that you have to answer as well. Instead of solving your mystery you are only creating more mysteries.
> Same thing goes for a magical creator of the universe. If a god created everything, where did that god come from? So now you have to answer two questions, not just one.



Hey CC, that's the situation anyway. In fact part of Newton's claim to fame was on precisely that subject, or rather his approach to it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2014)

I think RedSavage missed the part where atheism is not a belief - It's a lack thereof.


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 23, 2014)

Captain Howdy said:


> I think RedSavage missed the part where atheism is not a belief - It's a lack thereof.



And I think you missed the part where religion is NOT defined by a "belief in a god", but rather a "belief about humanity concerning existence."

If you'd like to define religion as something that doesn't include Atheism, that's -your- complex, not mine. I'm fully aware of Atheism being a non-belief about the existence of God and the Afterlife. However, that is a belief about existence, which defines it as religion. 

This is simple and very clear cut. 

If you want to be non-religious, then the very act of -not- having an opinion either way about ones existence is the only way.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Oh get off it.
> "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."
> 
> You believe that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise.
> ...




If that's the case, I suppose I am devoted to the religion of anti-toothfairy-ism.




RedSavage said:


> And I think you missed the part where religion  is NOT defined by a "belief in a god", but rather a "belief about  humanity concerning existence."
> 
> If you'd like to define religion as something that doesn't include  Atheism, that's -your- complex, not mine. I'm fully aware of Atheism  being a non-belief about the existence of God and the Afterlife.  However, that is a belief about existence, which defines it as religion.
> 
> ...




Oh, semantics is difficult, right?

Religion is properly defined as: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Being skeptical that there is any such power does not satisfy this definition, for what power are we worshiping by our failure to believe in a power at all?
If you're not worshiping something- like past buddhas, gods, giants, imps, the sun, etc, then you're not a religion. 


Essentially, _you_ couldn't be bothered to read a dictionary.


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> If that's the case, I suppose I am devoted to the religion of anti-toothfairy-ism.




--except that the tooth fairy has nothin to do with concerning one's existence. 
You know, sarcasm always seems to be an atheist's common tool. You know, you can argue on your own behalf a without acting like prats. Why is this such a common trait that you must attack outside beliefs with aggression and bitterness?

Hmm comes off a lot like religion...




> Oh, semantics is difficult, right?
> 
> 
> Religion is properly defined as: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
> ...




I like how you use -properly- defined when you quote your definition of Religion. I did in fact look up the definition of religion before posting. And what I found was the thing I quoted directly in my first post. "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." What I looked up had NOTHING to do about gods. 


Now--I will concede that many definitions of religion exists, many of which include mention of theological entities.  As someone who has no belief either which way on religion, I take an outside perspective that ALL views, equally unprovable as the other, pertaining to the existence of humanity is a religion. One simply claims there is, and one claims there is not. 


If you'd like to claim Atheism as simply the anti-thesis of theological belief,  then yes. That's not a belief about existence.  But basically that would render Atheism as made up a word for the dissenting opinion, which wouldn't even be necessary if it was as simple as that. Because it is an organized belief that many hold to themselves, it looks, smells, and tastes like religion to me. 


I feel in the end that if it's just simply a contrary opinion, there wouldn't need to be a different word for it.
"Religion" is not some dirty word where you have write a belief as outside of it to justify atheism. If you'd like to use your own personal definitions and sources to support Atheism as "outside" of it, fine. Go for it. Do it without argument and be confident in your decision. I shall hold what I consider to be a more neutral, simpler definition of the cause, and I'll waste no more effort or breath trying to convince anyone otherwise.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2014)

Please site the dictionary you used. The definition of religion you are employing isn't useful because it spuriously defines the perspective 'religion is a load of bullshit' as a religion- apparently on the grounds that 'people can talk about it on a forum'. 
According to your definition, chemistry is a religion. 

Your view that, regarding all unprovable views as equal, is naive. We could surmise that there exists a teapot, floating in space just beyond the range of the best telescopes. Let's make things even weirder. There is a sphere of a such teapots surrounding the entire observable universe, just beyond detection. 
Are you going to regard the view 'that is bullshit', as equally meritable to the claim 'the universe has a teapot sphere?'

This is why, in science and philosophy, positions of skepticism are regarded as the null hypothesis [default option] until any evidence emerges to change our position. Otherwise we will fill our heads with all sorts of nonsense. 

By your standard, we should throw our hands up in the air and say that 'maybe' is the best answer we have to the teapot sphere question- as if that is the most neutral and useful position.


----------



## tisr (Sep 23, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> --except that the tooth fairy has nothin to do with concerning one's existence.
> You know, sarcasm always seems to be an atheist's common tool. You know, you can argue on your own behalf a without acting like prats. Why is this such a common trait that you must attack outside beliefs with aggression and bitterness?
> 
> Hmm comes off a lot like religion...



I define atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You claimed that believing "that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise" is considered a religion, and thus if you apply the tooth fairy into the equation, by your definitions, the lack of belief of a tooth-fairy is a religion, and subsequently, the lack of belief of any imagined god or afterlife would be a religion.

Also, the style of answering questions has nothing to do with one's religious belief.




> I like how you use -properly- defined when you quote your definition of Religion. I did in fact look up the definition of religion before posting. And what I found was the thing I quoted directly in my first post. "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." What I looked up had NOTHING to do about gods.
> 
> If you'd like to claim Atheism as simply the anti-thesis of theological belief,  then yes. That's not a belief about existence.  But basically that would render Atheism as made up a word for the dissenting opinion, which wouldn't even be necessary if it was as simple as that. Because it is an organized belief that many hold to themselves, it looks, smells, and tastes like religion to me.



Firstly, atheism is not an organized collection of beliefs. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. And yes, atheism is the dissenting opinion which opposes theism, which is the belief in gods.


----------



## Nikolinni (Sep 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Please site the dictionary you used. The definition of religion you are employing isn't useful because it spuriously defines the perspective 'religion is a load of bullshit' as a religion- apparently on the grounds that 'people can talk about it on a forum'.
> According to your definition, chemistry is a religion.
> 
> Your view that, regarding all unprovable views as equal, is naive. We could surmise that there exists a teapot, floating in space just beyond the range of the best telescopes. Let's make things even weirder. There is a sphere of a such teapots surrounding the entire observable universe, just beyond detection.
> ...



I feel that Merrian-Webster's definition of religion is a little bit too narrow. It focuses way to much on the whole "Superhuman worship" aspect of religions. Tell me -- what is it that Buddhists worship again? And if you're wondering, RedSavage used Wikipedia (Copy/Paste does wonders eh?)

Me personally, I don't feel that Atheism alone is a religion. It's a belief, but not a religion. Being atheist doesn't make you a religious person. Now, if one were to say, make an institutionalized organization with a set of beliefs atheists were to follow, or even a Church of Atheism (This exists by the way: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/faq/ ). But then in that case I'd say that little brand of Atheism is a religion or like one, rather than just saying "Look! ALL of Atheism is a religion!" 

I think it's possible to make religions with no Gods or Supreme Beings involved. Kinda like a friend's story where there's a bunch of towns that have religions based off of human intellectual properties (no, really). To be honest, some towns do believe in Magic and the Supernatural (the aptly-named town Halloween fits this bill), while there's others that don't believe in the supernatural and feel there's an explanation for everything via science; the town of Noir is like this -- they centered their religion around the 1940's themed flicks where cops and gangsters go at it. Detectives are almost like ministers in the sense that one on the "Criminal Element" side can confess for their crimes and become absolved. Which rarely happens but hey. 

I'd say for something to be a religion there needs to be a certain attitude about the whole thing. I like this ask.com article's ( http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/definition.htm )set of points on what makes a religion: 

"Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.
Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
A more or less total organization of oneâ€™s life based on the world view.
A social group bound together by the above."


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2014)

Buddhists worship a collection of things, depending what type of Buddhist they are, including previous individuals who supposedly ascended to Nirvana, obtaining super-human status. 
Atheism is a belief like not believing in Santa clause is a belief. 

I agree that religions are characterised by belief in divinity, moral codes, devotions and so further who express their religion through rituals.


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 23, 2014)

Santa Clause was a real guy. You should stick to the tooth fairy.

OK, on topic. Theology and religion and related but different. What you're really talking about is theology. Atheism is a theology and a "religion" in that sense.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2014)

*Just facepalms at this page* This is just getting

Theology is literally the study of god(s). Atheists might read up on theology, but that is their individual perogative - Irrelevant to atheism itself. 

The absolute basic qualifiers to be considered a religion, require an agreed upon set of rules/beliefs/etc. (_plural_?) Atheism doesn't have this, because it is _literally the lack of belief _- Split the word into 'a-' and '-theism' if you _really _must be pedantic. 

Can we please move on >_>


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 23, 2014)

Theology is the study of beliefs, especially ontology and other "religousy" beliefs.
Atheism is a belief, in the widest terms the disbelief of belief. 
Therefore atheism is a theology.

If you're going to yell at someone, yell at CC. He revived this thread.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> If you're going to yell at someone, yell at CC. He revived this thread.



I'm not even going to bother with your incorrectness. 

However, have you tried to yell at CC? Nobody wins! And in fact, it bends space and time so that people not even in this thread, let alone forums, lose as well :v (<3 U CC)


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 23, 2014)

I finally gave in and joined 'Anti-theist Furs'. At least if we're talking about the Abrahamic god. Others seem silly but harmless by comparison.


----------



## Kosdu (Sep 23, 2014)

Religion is a somewhat standardized set of beliefs regarding the metaphsyical.

Athiesm literally is the lack of religion.
Like really.

Fallow with his tea pots is the best explanation.

Edit:

I should also mention there are people who are ignorant and hateful on both sides of religion/athiesm. 

Maybe that should tell people something about people.


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 23, 2014)

Okay so in the spirit of being at least HALF as open minded and pragmatic as I wish to claim to be, I did a fuck-ton of research on Atheism and the concept of it being/not being a religion. I forgot all the pretentiousness of the arguments being posted (really---how _long _will atheists beat that damned tea-cup argument into the ground without having to use such a belittling metaphor? Yes it's clever and funny but--well never mind), and forgot my own initial reaction at getting irritated at that ONE GUY that must always point out some contradiction simply for the sake of making a statement. (Which with heavy and much disgruntled introspection I realized is my own automatic and irrational reaction. People are not _required _to not-be-assholes when typing what may or may not be sheer facts).

Conclusion: All of the sources are biased-as-balls and completely split on the opinion. *But....*Just wait for my final answer.

Essentially, I boiled it down to two schools of thought, one of them Non-Religious leaning and the other Religious leaning. 

The _Non-_Religious lean is that Religion is strictly defined by deity-based beliefs and understandings of existence due to such deities in a manner that can be described as 'organized'. Atheism, as such being a non-belief of such entities and such need for organization, thus excludes itself from the definition. 

The Religious lean employs a looser definition of religion as simply a set of beliefs about the nature of existence. Thus, since believing it _wasn't _created by deities is in itself a belief, it qualifies as a religion. However, this lays out interesting implications for scientific beliefs being considered religions within themselves. Big Bang, constant universe, etc. 

So.... hell, I'll say it. I consider myself _wrong _on two grounds. One, if the definition of religion becomes too broad it becomes obsolete_. _And I can't fairly dictate where that "broadness" ends for the sake of convenience, (as much as I would like to). And Two, something occurred to me as I was going through all the sources. Many of the sources that remained ambiguous on the debate of Atheism being a religion and/or supported the blanket term of religion were either A: Religiously affiliated or B: Philosophically Affiliated (with no clear unbiased sources contributing to the conclusion as a whole). In fact, the only sites I found stating -explicitly- that Atheism was not a religion were pro-Atheist, agnostic, or Free Thought sites. This irked me because I kept thinking, "Well, who the hell are they to say what it is and isn't?" Then it occured to me with a moment very similar to a slap to the face. 

The proprietors of said belief can dictate it as _whatever the hell they want. _Suddenly it was a very large case of "because I said so", and I couldn't deny that beliefs in general, either way or the other, are unique in that the holders can make it WHATEVER they want. Now, that's not to say certain people within the Atheist community might hold a belief about atheism being a religion (and under one definition, they're not wrong). But it doesn't account for, obviously, an overwhelming majority of people saying, "Wait... it's _different_, it really, really is."

And shit. I can't ignore that, a group of individuals creating their own meaning for their own definition of themselves. This may sound strange, but it pertains to me in a personal way in terms of gender identity and the likes. A big -face palm- moment when I realized I was thinking conservatively in the same schools of thought that tell me I can't be the way I am because I fall under X, Y, and Z characteristics of this OTHER thing. 

So _bite me _Mauve, Captain Howdy, and Fallow and Co. , because actually you made me rethink my beliefs on a topic and actually _change _said opinion when my own logic fell apart to further nitpicking. Not saying _all _your supporting arguments were valid, but the end result is the same so it literally doesn't matter anyhow. 


(But in all honestly---I love this shit. I'm okay with being wrong and forcing myself to rethink and muse on these levels, so long as I come to a newer, better realization, which is what y'all helped me come to. So, I guess, thanks for willing to speak up and put-up when it would have been easier to roll your eyes and walk away.)


----------



## jtrekkie (Sep 24, 2014)

Excellent post, Savage.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2014)

I dun made a good point, but that makes me a pretentious, irrational asshole.   Obscure comparisons, the Russel's teapot argument for example, are conventionally used in philosophy in an argument known as 'reduction to absurdity'. Reduction to absurdity shows that, if the argument used to support a certain conclusion is followed correctly, it will justify a conclusion that is known to be wrong, which means that the argument is unreliable and the previous conclusion is dubious.   Absurd situations are a necessity for this argument to function, and do not constitute a personal attack.   I'm glad you reconsidered your ideas and bothered to read about the subject, most people don't, but if you get the idea that someone else is trying to put you down then you might imagine that launching your response with about 5 different insults isn't a nice thing to do.


----------



## aquilae (Sep 24, 2014)

Christian, Catholic and practicing. I'm confirmed. I have no doubt in my belief, but I respect that of other


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I dun made a good point, but that makes me a pretentious, irrational asshole.   Obscure comparisons, the Russel's teapot argument for example, are conventionally used in philosophy in an argument known as 'reduction to absurdity'. Reduction to absurdity shows that, if the argument used to support a certain conclusion is followed correctly, it will justify a conclusion that is known to be wrong, which means that the argument is unreliable and the previous conclusion is dubious.   Absurd situations are a necessity for this argument to function, and do not constitute a personal attack.   I'm glad you reconsidered your ideas and bothered to read about the subject, most people don't, but if you get the idea that someone else is trying to put you down then you might imagine that launching your response with about 5 different insults isn't a nice thing to do.



Well I never outright said "irrational", but I guess it was implicit in the way I was barging on. I was biased from the get go in holding that just as Theists and religious followers have garnered a reputation for being ignorant and unwilling to see fact, Atheists have garnered a reputation as people who -immediately- come off as pretentious and belittling. But again--that's my automatic reaction. I really don't believe in anything either way, but things I do put stock in are general respect and humility, and comparing someone's religion to a floating teapot immediately comes off as disrespectful and arrogant. 

How ironic that I myself would go about losing all respect and humility the moment I entered the argument and then expect others to display the same. Emotional reaction induced hypocrisy. It was my personal complex to read the original comment as some grand attack. Apologies. 

My own opinion aside, it doesn't make the teacup thing any less of a valid argument, and in fact it's a very decent argument that I know well and have long since been aware off. However, _it really had nothing to do with what we were getting on about. _Be it as the ultimate counter argument to "no proof either way", you said it yourself--we were arguing semantics on religion and whether atheism could be viewed as one, and I decided to read that at first as _"See! There they go again!" _. Eventually the fuzzy ass of the Simple Logic monkey landed on my face and I realized that semantics don't mean jack-shit when it comes to the establishment of the definition of a belief by its holders. 

And yet by that time I was knee deep in an argument I'd construed as "Well shit! Here's the atheists barging in to drop their overused rhetoric in an argument where it's not even applicable, oblivious to their whole appearance as a religion as a whole." Then it occurred--well fuck. Everyone gets evangelistic about their values they hold close. Perceived irrelevance of arguments aside, my original statement didn't hold up within itself from the start. And if we wanted to play tit for tat on who's being the asshat, I was the one who kicked off the tone of the debate from square One. 

Again, biggest thing I should take is just because I think X group are assholes it doesn't justify me being an asshole. Because shit, there's this small possibility that I'm personally biased due to past experiences, and that is one hundred percent my complex to deal with, and I'm the only one legitimately acting like an asshole in a situation where I'm perceiving everyone is simply because _it feels good _to imagine that everyone I don't immediately agree with is this big douchebag.

What was that thing Albert Ellis went on about... He's a well known psychiatrist. Coined the term "Musterbation".  Aka, "These people are saying things I don't agree with in a manner that I don't like--they MUST be assholes!" I fell into that to the T.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2014)

I may have lost you. I constructed an argument that a lack of religious belief is a null hypothesis in order to show that lacking religious belief isn't itself a religion- in the same way that not speaking english isn't itself a language, or not believing in psychic mediumship isn't itself a psychic power.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Buddhists worship a collection of things, depending what type of Buddhist they are, including previous individuals who supposedly ascended to Nirvana, obtaining super-human status.
> Atheism is a belief like not believing in Santa clause is a belief.
> 
> I agree that religions are characterized by belief in divinity, moral codes, devotions and so further who express their religion through rituals.



Buddhism in it's nature is atheistic, but there's more divinity and things that were brought over from early Hindu influence. Though it is very possible and likely that if you meet a Buddhist, they will have agnostic views. Though most I've met (including myself) are the Atheistic, or non-theistic since they see gods as a hindrance to enlightenment.

Caffeine, sugar-free, vanilla flavored synopsis.


----------



## RedSavage1 (Sep 24, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I may have lost you. I constructed an argument that a lack of religious belief is a null hypothesis in order to show that lacking religious belief isn't itself a religion- in the same way that not speaking english isn't itself a language, or not believing in psychic mediumship isn't itself a psychic power.



I think I caught on to this, though didn't necessarily agree. In the spirit of the pedant, I might could say just because you're not speaking English, you might be speaking German, thus a language. _That _was the big angle I was playing on, but turned out to be a nonpoint anyways. I could only be calling it German. It might be Gibberish. And just because I might consider Gibberish a language it doesn't really make it one. 

I guess in a weird sense, in the original argument, to not claim to be Religious at _all _would be to not even to take upon a term on oneself. You'd have to hold a position of saying, "I'm a non-believer in ideas of ones existence. No I'm not atheist. No I'm not christian/muslim/whatever."

Which is kind of a dumb line of thinking.


----------



## tisr (Sep 24, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> I think I caught on to this, though didn't necessarily agree. In the spirit of the pedant, I might could say just because you're not speaking English, you might be speaking German, thus a language. _That _was the big angle I was playing on, but turned out to be a nonpoint anyways. I could only be calling it German. It might be Gibberish. And just because I might consider Gibberish a language it doesn't really make it one.



Yeah, the key distinction here is that German is in the set of things which are non-English, and all elements in the set of non-English are languages, but that does not make the set a language itself.


----------



## Coffox (Sep 28, 2014)

was raised catholic. even went through the confirmation process.

but now just veering more into Satanist/Atheist/Humanist.

but instead of *labeling* myself i am all for open mindedness and the power of choice.
i wouldnt mind studying various religions as it is considered culture. I just wouldnt follow either.

meh.


----------



## JoeStrike (Sep 29, 2014)

I like to say my Judaism is the ground floor to my spiritual beliefs and feelings, not a closed box to keep them in.


----------

