# Does being a furry make you go to hell? Christian



## Spark (Mar 2, 2013)

:evil:  I'm Christian and I was wondering if I will go to hell for being a furry.
this is serious.


----------



## BlueStreak98 (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm not aware of any place in the Bible where the Fandom is forbidden, unless you actually sleep with an actual dog.

I think you'll be fine.


----------



## Jaseface (Mar 2, 2013)

No there is nothing wrong with being a furry, Its a hobby.  Last time I checked liking anthro animals wasnt anything wrong.


----------



## Car Fox (Mar 2, 2013)

What do your higher-ups say. Their take on it is practically your fate after you die.
If you get no answer, than ask god himself. What damn will he give? :V


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm more apt to believe you aren't Christian and you just want to *"spark" *some fighting. This isn't even a real question and secondly, salvation is clearly defined as to what it covers. You're going to have to try a whole lot harder to get to hell my friend.

Also your FA says you are 30 years old...So now I really don't believe this is honest curiosity.


----------



## Azure (Mar 2, 2013)

not sure if trolling or srs

you wont go to hell, OP, it isnt real. it isnt even in the bible in any detail beyond lol u will suffer and shit now bow down slave. im for real on this, look it up.


----------



## Harbinger (Mar 2, 2013)

"Thouh shall not yiff in thy fursuit, nor create nude scenes of proffanity of sentient creatures..."


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 2, 2013)

This is just so disrespectful. Not believing in something another does doesn't entitle you to a scoff and mock free pass. I can see the OP's intent is already starting. Not going to be a part of it. Hope you'll take this advice and show some decency to other users of different faiths.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 2, 2013)

Yes, being a furry will surely land you in hell


----------



## Tiamat (Mar 2, 2013)

Spark said:


> :evil:  I'm Christian and I was wondering if I will go to hell for being a furry.



Its why Hell exists.


----------



## Kenzie (Mar 2, 2013)

Maybe medieval furry art could tell us something about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly
There were mythical, anthropomorphic "doghead" creatures depicted in medieval art and literature. Medieval Christians didn't seem to hold a very favorable view of them though, depicting them as barbarians; brutal beasts that may or may not eat human flesh, and holding other very "un-Christian" qualities. Sometimes they were written into stories as enemies of good Christian knights like King Arthur or whatever. Some stories would depict a doghead being baptized, and only after that were they given human form, washing away the beastliness and accepting the purity of humanity.

So yes, you will go to hell unless you renounce your beastly urges, confess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.


----------



## Willow (Mar 2, 2013)

Fuzzle said:


> This is just so disrespectful. Not believing in something another does doesn't entitle you to a scoff and mock free pass. I can see the OP's intent is already starting. Not going to be a part of it. Hope you'll take this advice and show some decency to other users of different faiths.


I don't blame them honestly


----------



## Azure (Mar 2, 2013)

Fuzzle said:


> This is just so disrespectful. Not believing in something another does doesn't entitle you to a scoff and mock free pass. I can see the OP's intent is already starting. Not going to be a part of it. Hope you'll take this advice and show some decency to other users of different faiths.


decency? ill be DECENT when the social consciousness engendered by the unthinking hate filled beliefs that bring real pain and suffering to millions is ripped apart. who is being DECENT now? maybe you should use your cerebral cortex and inject some logic into your brain and grow up.



Tiamat said:


> Its why Hell exists.


and the lord did say "all dogfuckers will burn in the lake of fire, as will everyone who has an appreciation for looney tunes, animal mascot costumes, oh and dont forget the buttfuckers, cant be lettin no fags into my kingdom of bitches only. not even the dudes who look like women, it kills my boner bro"


----------



## Car Fox (Mar 2, 2013)

Animosity has now officially stirred...


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Mar 2, 2013)

GA DAMMIT FURFAGS

"and god said:
'let thou not be-eth a furfag, or thou shalt burneth in helleth'"


----------



## Catilda Lily (Mar 2, 2013)

Obviously. I mean, haven't you ever heard "Yiff in Hell Furfag"?


----------



## Aetius (Mar 2, 2013)

Well, maybe if you bang fido.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Mar 2, 2013)

Kenzie said:


> medieval furry art



No.

Just no.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Mar 2, 2013)

This thread is gonna be fun. I can tell. 

*grabs popcorn*



Of course you won't go to hell.


----------



## Aidy (Mar 2, 2013)

yeah i'm pretty sure jesus said that furfags will all burn in hell


----------



## Roon Sazi (Mar 2, 2013)

If all furries go to hell then it might not be such a bad place. Sure, lakes of fire and all that shit but I hear the beaches and the bitches are beautiful!


----------



## Vega (Mar 2, 2013)

99.99% chance that you're not going to hell.  Also, you should watch "Religulous".


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 2, 2013)

Does santa give furries coal? 

Consider that these old cultural stories predate any idea of what 'furries' are by centuries, obviously whether or not you like anthro is entirely irrelevant to their point.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 2, 2013)

Ok, this topic has to be a joke. This is funny.


----------



## Joey (Mar 2, 2013)

Yiff in hell?


----------



## Vega (Mar 2, 2013)

Chances are though, is that if you decide to talk to a priest about furries that there will soon be a new version of the bible that will have a new section saying how you'll go to hell for being a furry.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 2, 2013)

On the subject of hell though, was it not a threat imagined in Northern europe by missionaries christianising scandinavia? Among threatening their immortal souls the pagan nords were also drowned or had their eyes pulled out in Norway if they did not renounce their old gods. It was a somewhat violent culture, so this may be why threats of eternal torture [perhaps somewhat like those dished out in ragnorak] were imagined by these people. 

Translated directly phrases such as 'lake of fire' more plausibly refer to the slang for 'cremation' that existed when'n where biblical texts were written.


----------



## Teal (Mar 2, 2013)

If all furries go to hell does that mean hell is just a big furry con that's on fire?


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 2, 2013)

Teal said:


> If all furries go to hell does that mean hell is just a big furry con that's on fire?



In before CC gives a rant deserving of a ban (again)...

Now with more hypocricy!



@OP


Don't worry about it. Does Anime make you go to hell? 
This is just the same.


----------



## ADF (Mar 2, 2013)

Just being a human being makes you go to hell remember. All born in sin, until they accept Jesus? So there isn't anything special about furries, we're all fit for burning as far as the Christian religion is concerned.


----------



## Ikrit (Mar 2, 2013)

and thou said

"yiff in hell, furfags!"

thus, is shall be!


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 2, 2013)

Teal said:


> If all furries go to hell does that mean hell is just a big furry con that's on fire?



If all the furries are there, it can't truly be hell's what I say.


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 2, 2013)

"If thou is furry, thou shalt burn in hell."
-Psalms, 6:14 :V
So to answer your original question, no, you should not worry about it.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 2, 2013)

Oh goodness, yes. There is no chance of heaven if you are a furry. But you shouldn't want to enter there if you are one. They have no cons, no furmeets, no furry porn. You could never fap to otter sluts there. And when you think about it, is it really heaven without those? 

God, this thread is too easy. :V


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 2, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> You could never fap to otter sluts there. And when you think about it, is it really heaven without those?


False.  All otters go to heaven.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 2, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> False.  All otters go to heaven.



I sense a horrible fandom re-make in the works...


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 2, 2013)

PsychicOtter said:


> False.  All otters go to heaven.


Please, not this again...


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 2, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> I sense a horrible fandom re-make in the works...



I'll get Mayonnaise on it.  Too bad we just missed Oscar season.


----------



## Spark (Mar 2, 2013)

Thanks for the info


----------



## mojisu (Mar 2, 2013)

Interesting question.

 Christian theology has in its mythos things that are half man, half beast (such as Satan, who is often portrayed as a dude which is also a goat, see picture), which are usually aligned to be against the protagonist (God), this being the only requirement to send one to hell, I believe that according to Christian theology - yes, technically you would.






As an added bonus - if you sexualize furs and if bestiality is a sin, then that puts you at 150% hell threat (50% because furs are not 100% animals).

If you sexualize furs of the same gender then you're really screwed, that'd be like 250% sin level.

So yeah, basically even coughing in the general direction of anything furry related will get you tortured until forever.
But luckily it won't, because of one reason. Can you guess what it is?

P.S.
In fact if you think about it - according to Christian theology - there is no way that being a furry will NOT get you into hell, because Satan is basically a prototype of an anthro, having elements of both a human and an animal and he also happens to be the boss of all the antagonists, so associating with him in any way would count as bad.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 2, 2013)

mojisu said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> Christian theology has in its mythos things that are half man, half beast (such as Satan, who is often portrayed as a dude which is also a goat, see picture), which are usually aligned to be against the protagonist (God), this being the only requirement to send one to hell, I believe that according to Christian theology - yes, technically you would.
> 
> ...



The entire time I was reading this all I could think of was that angels are depicted with wings. :/ 

Other than that, I rate you a 6/10.


----------



## Hewge (Mar 2, 2013)

If all furries went to hell, then I'd be okay with it.

We could all get together and like, do stuff... or something.



PsychicOtter said:


> False.  All otters go to heaven.



What's the fun in going to heaven if you're an otter?
They'd get far more attention in hell. _If you know what I am saying._


----------



## Kashou (Mar 2, 2013)

Hmmm.... Well.... This certainly is quite the topic. I will have to agree, though, that I believe it's mainly to troll people and not at all very serious. However, just because I'm bored, I'll answer it seriously anyway. But first, a question: Why on earth would you even consider that fact that being a furry would condemn your eternal soul to the fiery pits of Satan's fortress that is Hell...? If you're having to ask this then you must being doing something that's making you feel guilty and you're sure you're in trouble. Now, to actually answer your question, no. In no way would being a furry every mean you're going to Hell, though that depends on how much of a furry you really are. Just being part of the fandom, liking art, dressing up and all that, nothing wrong with it in the slightest. Bestiality, on the other hand, is a very serious thing in the eyes of the Lord according to the Bible. It is said that if a man should have sex with an animal, they should burn the man and then go back and burn the animal he had sex with as it is now unpure and unfit to be in the earth. Being a furry isn't some life-changing event, as discussed in many other threads, unless you make it such. In actuality, even drawing porn won't mean you're straight up going to Hell. The fact of the matter is, as long as you accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and your Savior you're a sure in for Heaven. No matter how good you are, if you haven't done that you're going to Hell. Simple as that. Keep in mind there are a few unforgivable sins that will keep you from the Kingdom of God, though, one of which is taking the life on an innocent. "Thou shalt not kill." A well-known scripture throughout the lands. I could continue on my little rant but I think this is enough info to answer your question thoroughly.


----------



## mojisu (Mar 3, 2013)

> Other than that, I rate you a 6/10.


Wait, for what


----------



## Rheumatism (Mar 3, 2013)

Spark said:


> :evil:  I'm Christian and I was wondering if I will go to hell for being a furry.


Absolutely.  That's why Satan was cast down to hell.


----------



## Outcast (Mar 3, 2013)

Spark said:


> :evil:  I'm Christian and I was wondering if I will go to hell for being a furry.



Better bring your fire-retardant sleeping bag and game face friend, you're going to hell... and the devils can sympathize.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 3, 2013)

Fuzzle said:


> This is just so disrespectful. Not believing in something another does doesn't entitle you to a scoff and mock free pass. I can see the OP's intent is already starting. Not going to be a part of it. Hope you'll take this advice and show some decency to other users of different faiths.



Mwahehehehe....eheheheheh....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! </jokerlaugh>

Good luck with that. Because to a lot of people, just the contents of the bible alone some how give some a reason to mock and scorn said beliefs. No, seriously I've asked for people to respect or at least tolerate my beliefs (Christian, so you can imagine how fun that is) and it's pretty much "Lol, nope". 

But since I'm here...no. Being a furry won't make you go to hell. It just means you're a fan of anthro animals. And nowhere in the bible does it specifically say that you can't like that kind of thing. I mean unless you're into the whole beastality thing (And I mean human bonking animals, which is what beastality really is), because there's a law somewhere in the OT that forbids that. But other than that...no, just being furry alone isn't enough. 

And I know that this was most likely a joke/troll topic, but hey some of us get bored. So yeah.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 3, 2013)

Yes. You're going to burn, you despicable,satanist furfag. You read me? BURN!


----------



## Tiamat (Mar 3, 2013)

Where do furfags go when they die?
They don't go to Heaven where the angels fly.
They go to a lake of fire and fry.
See them again on the 4th of July.


----------



## JackTail (Mar 3, 2013)

Don't Furries just get buried in the garden?


----------



## Kangamutt (Mar 3, 2013)

Well of course! Nothing burns more spectacularly than a fursuiter clad in all of that lovely synthetic fur! Ever since it started, Hell has been burning in more colors than red due to the chemicals in those fake furs. Satan has officially turned it into a very popular disco, where the supernatural paparazzi has taken a few quick shots of the angel Gabriel leaving. NOW ALL YOU FURFAGS, DANCE! DANCE FOR YOUR DAMNATION!!!

[video=youtube;-opY4qcidFk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-opY4qcidFk[/video]

Seriously though. You're just a fan of cartoon talking animals. That's all. How you take your involvement in the fandom is up to you.

EDIT: between you and me, I hear Jesus has been hanging around with Mephistopheles and they go in back to the offices behind the dance hall to do lines of coke. But you didn't hear that from me.


----------



## badlands (Mar 3, 2013)

[video=youtube_share;ntLaUuEiL2c]http://youtu.be/ntLaUuEiL2c[/video]


the way i look at it, if there is a hell most of us are condemned to burn in a lake of fire for our sins by age 15.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Mar 3, 2013)

According to the Bible, all forward-thinking, intellectual and interesting people go to Hell for not being the brutish, subservient drones God wants them to be. So yes, you will yiff in Hell.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 3, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> According to the Bible, all forward-thinking, intellectual and interesting people go to Hell for not being the brutish, subservient drones God wants them to be. So yes, you will yiff in Hell.


 I know right. I wish jesus was a cooler person. He could have stayed with us on earth the whole time guiding us the right way instead of dying for no reason. Well, he did come back alive, so technically he didn't pay any price.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I know right. I wish jesus was a cooler person. He could have stayed with us on earth the whole time guiding us the right way instead of dying for no reason. Well, he did come back alive, so technically he didn't pay any price.



Hey, Aslan did the same thing to save Narnia and I don't see anyone complaining.


----------



## benignBiotic (Mar 3, 2013)

No. You won't go to hell for being a fuwwy. Not for liking the Ninja Turtles, not for reading furry fanfics, and not for getting your yiff on etc. 



> Thanks for the info


So that's that OP? 8-I


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 3, 2013)

The other day, I was standing outside with my neighbor from downstairs, watching a line of cars form behind two stuck vehicles (the two main roads people usually take were blocked off by accidents, and now two cars slid into each other on this alternate route, blocking that one too... it was slick that night).  At some point, he asked me what I do, so I told him I'm an astronomer.  This got him going on this strange theory of his, about the reason all the planets and moons that we can see are barren, inhospitable wastelands.  He said that there used to be tons of life on every planet out there, but at some point Satan got a hold of them and corrupted them, made them do all sorts of debauchery and other things that were against God's will.  He said it got so out of hand, God's only recourse was to wipe the planets clean.  Apparently, he thinks this happened on every single planet out there, one after the other; corruption via Satan, wiped clean, corruption via Satan, wiped clean, until only Earth was left.  He said we're the last planet in the universe with life on it, and if we fuck it up, that's it, God's finished with us and he'll wipe Earth clean too and be done with it.

I just thought I would share that, since this thread is kind of pointless.  I thought that was a really depressing view of things, though.  It also makes God sound like kind of a big fuckup.


----------



## RadioactiveRedFox (Mar 3, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> The other day, I was standing outside with my neighbor from downstairs, watching a line of cars form behind two stuck vehicles (the two main roads people usually take were blocked off by accidents, and now two cars slid into each other on this alternate route, blocking that one too... it was slick that night).  At some point, he asked me what I do, so I told him I'm an astronomer.  This got him going on this strange theory of his, about the reason all the planets and moons that we can see are barren, inhospitable wastelands.  He said that there used to be tons of life on every planet out there, but at some point Satan got a hold of them and corrupted them, made them do all sorts of debauchery and other things that were against God's will.  He said it got so out of hand, God's only recourse was to wipe the planets clean.  Apparently, he thinks this happened on every single planet out there, one after the other; corruption via Satan, wiped clean, corruption via Satan, wiped clean, until only Earth was left.  He said we're the last planet in the universe with life on it, and if we fuck it up, that's it, God's finished with us and he'll wipe Earth clean too and be done with it.
> 
> I just thought I would share that, since this thread is kind of pointless.  I thought that was a really depressing view of things, though.  It also makes God sound like kind of a big fuckup.



Really, I got to wonder where people get this kind of crap, especially when nothing even hints at such things.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 3, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> According to the Bible, all forward-thinking, intellectual and interesting people go to Hell for not being the brutish, subservient drones God wants them to be. So yes, you will yiff in Hell.



Er, where does it say that? I can clearly remember the beginning of Proverbs talking about how important wisdom was and how the foolish and unwise get into mischief like waiting on the roadside to harm people, and that if you ignore wisdom for too long, you'll end up looking for it, but it will be nowhere to be found. Or something like that. And no, it wasn't the "Wisdom is fear of the lord" line, it was just talking about regular old wisdom.



> The other day, I was standing outside with my neighbor from downstairs, watching a line of cars form behind two stuck vehicles (the two main roads people usually take were blocked off by accidents, and now two cars slid into each other on this alternate route, blocking that one too... it was slick that night). At some point, he asked me what I do, so I told him I'm an astronomer. This got him going on this strange theory of his, about the reason all the planets and moons that we can see are barren, inhospitable wastelands. He said that there used to be tons of life on every planet out there, but at some point Satan got a hold of them and corrupted them, made them do all sorts of debauchery and other things that were against God's will. He said it got so out of hand, God's only recourse was to wipe the planets clean. Apparently, he thinks this happened on every single planet out there, one after the other; corruption via Satan, wiped clean, corruption via Satan, wiped clean, until only Earth was left. He said we're the last planet in the universe with life on it, and if we fuck it up, that's it, God's finished with us and he'll wipe Earth clean too and be done with it.
> 
> I just thought I would share that, since this thread is kind of pointless. I thought that was a really depressing view of things, though. It also makes God sound like kind of a big fuckup.




You mean already more than people claim God to be?  Anyways, yeah you do gotta wonder where people come up with stuff like this. That's...kinda insane. My own theory was that these were just experiments God was doing with making worlds, and perhaps they weren't exactly to his liking, so he kept going until he got it juuuust right with earth. I'm not one to put anything behind God or whatever cosmic power is out there so who knows, maybe there might be life on those planets someday. We'll see.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Mar 3, 2013)

No, you won't go to hell. When you die, you'll be dead and that's that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> No, you won't go to hell. When you die, you'll be dead and that's that.



To me, this is actually more scarey.



M. LeRenard said:


> The other day, I was standing outside with my  neighbor from downstairs, watching a line of cars form behind two stuck  vehicles (the two main roads people usually take were blocked off by  accidents, and now two cars slid into each other on this alternate  route, blocking that one too... it was slick that night).  At some  point, he asked me what I do, so I told him I'm an astronomer.  This got  him going on this strange theory of his, about the reason all the  planets and moons that we can see are barren, inhospitable wastelands.   He said that there used to be tons of life on every planet out there,  but at some point Satan got a hold of them and corrupted them, made them  do all sorts of debauchery and other things that were against God's  will.  He said it got so out of hand, God's only recourse was to wipe  the planets clean.  Apparently, he thinks this happened on every single  planet out there, one after the other; corruption via Satan, wiped  clean, corruption via Satan, wiped clean, until only Earth was left.  He  said we're the last planet in the universe with life on it, and if we  fuck it up, that's it, God's finished with us and he'll wipe Earth clean  too and be done with it.
> 
> I just thought I would share that, since this thread is kind of  pointless.  I thought that was a really depressing view of things,  though.  It also makes God sound like kind of a big fuckup.




...wow...clearly they haven't heard of occam's razor.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Mar 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Er, where does it say that? I can clearly remember the beginning of Proverbs talking about how important wisdom was and how the foolish and unwise get into mischief like waiting on the roadside to harm people, and that if you ignore wisdom for too long, you'll end up looking for it, but it will be nowhere to be found. Or something like that. And no, it wasn't the "Wisdom is fear of the lord" line, it was just talking about regular old wisdom.



What about the tree of knowledge and the fact that you're not supposed to eat an apple from it? How stupid is that? And I can't remember where I heard it from, but something about not questioning God's wisdom or using his name in vain. Basically, even though he's supposed to be perfect, he managed to create imperfect beings and he apparently f*cked up so bad the first time he created a huge flood to wipe them out and start over. Sounds a bit less than perfect to me. And his ego, my god. How stuck-up can one get? "Worship me" "Worship my son" he may as well come out and say "I am the best. Bow down to me, mofos!"

Don't get me started on Mary, the "virgin." Really? How do I know she didn't just cheat on her husband? That seems a bit more likely.

I used to mindlessly believe religion but a lot of it is ridiculous, and how about the recent wars and the ancient Crusades? I'm sure religion had some involvement in both. People fighting over religion, how stupid can you get? It's a myth in the first place, you're fighting based on beliefs, not truths.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Mar 3, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> No, you won't go to hell. When you die, you'll be dead and that's that.





Fallowfox said:


> To me, this is actually more scarey. [sic]



Scares the sh*t out of me every time I think of it. Do I want everlasting life? No. Do I want to die? No. There's no good choice. I wish I could just erase that thought and never have it again, but it pops up frequently when talking about certain subjects. Thankfully, these topics don't arise frequently.


----------



## benignBiotic (Mar 3, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> Scares the sh*t out of me every time I think of it.


What's scary about non-existence? You won't have a consciousness to be scared with. You simply won't _be_.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> What's scary about non-existence? You won't have a consciousness to be scared with. You simply won't _be_.



'After death there will be nothing therefore I have nothing to fear'. I *really* fear nothingness.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 3, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> What about the tree of knowledge and the fact that you're not supposed to eat an apple from it? How stupid is that? And I can't remember where I heard it from, but something about not questioning God's wisdom or using his name in vain. Basically, even though he's supposed to be perfect, he managed to create imperfect beings and he apparently f*cked up so bad the first time he created a huge flood to wipe them out and start over. Sounds a bit less than perfect to me. And his ego, my god. How stuck-up can one get? "Worship me" "Worship my son" he may as well come out and say "I am the best. Bow down to me, mofos!"
> 
> Don't get me started on Mary, the "virgin." Really? How do I know she didn't just cheat on her husband? That seems a bit more likely.
> 
> I used to mindlessly believe religion but a lot of it is ridiculous, and how about the recent wars and the ancient Crusades? I'm sure religion had some involvement in both. People fighting over religion, how stupid can you get? It's a myth in the first place, you're fighting based on beliefs, not truths.



Correction, it's the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", not just "The Tree of Knowledge". And why he didn't want us to eat from it? Well because we'd know how to be both good and evil, and he didn't think we were ready to handle that temptation (At least, that's my take on it). As far as I know, I believe it's set up to where you're supposed to have faith in God that he's gonna pull through or you'll end up better off, and I know there's characters that either question God or try to push off the responsibility that God's trying to give them (Moses actually tried this when he ran into the burning bush). The whole "Don't question God, tis evil" thing seems to come from churches mostly, perhaps building off of the having faith idea. But then of course, they extend it to themselves, some people going so far as to say questioning or defying them is akin to doing the same to God. As for God's name in vain, tradditionally this is claiming to speak for God. So someone trying to force their way around doing shady things and claiming "god told me to do it" or "it's god's will"...well that's using his name in vain. Which people SHOULD have a problem with; there's tones of people who've abused just God's name alone to get what they want. And yeah, we are imperfect, which is why he offered us a way out (Jesus' sacrifice, no I will not debate as to whether it is or isn't really a sacrifice). That's why some people feel so grateful towards God; we're imperfect beings offered a chance for redemption and even a chance at perfection (Heaven). 

As for the Crusades, yes it was horrible. Yes recent wars most likely have some religious involvment, and people fight and get bitter over it. But people fight and get bitter even over pettier things, like if PCs are better for gaming than consoles, and pretty much any philosophy/idea/politics/etc will cause conflict and problems. Just look at the cold war, where it was the Capitalistic West Vs. The Communists, and how far our desire to "Contain" communism went. Again, I'm sure there was some degree of religion involved with it, but the main focus seemed to be two word-powers competing.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> You mean already more than people claim God to be?  Anyways, yeah you do gotta wonder where people come up with stuff like this. That's...kinda insane. My own theory was that these were just experiments God was doing with making worlds, and perhaps they weren't exactly to his liking, so he kept going until he got it juuuust right with earth. I'm not one to put anything behind God or whatever cosmic power is out there so who knows, maybe there might be life on those planets someday. We'll see. [/COLOR]



So he fucked up hundreds of trillions of times before he managed to get it right, and just left all the failures floating out there for no reason?
I mean, I can sort of see how he came to that conclusion after having thought about it long enough.  It's sort of a natural conclusion to make if you come at things from the perspective that there are all sorts of worlds out there, but so far we haven't seen another one with life on it, even though God basically implies in the Bible that life is the thing he loves most of all.  Sort of natural.  Not really, but you know what I mean.

I mean, obviously I think the more natural conclusion, given what I know, is that we've seen approximately 10 planets sort of up close, we're still questioning whether or not there's life on some of them even though they're right next door, and we just discovered that there are actually 300 billion planets in just this one galaxy of ours, which has the same number of stars as our neighbor galaxy Andromeda, which is only one of hundreds of millions of galaxies that we can see and probably bazillions of galaxies that we can't, not to mention all the little dwarf companions and whatnot, so the natural conclusion there is that we've barely scratched one electron off of one atom off of the tip of the unfathomably large iceberg that is the search for life in the universe, so it's moronic to think we've seen enough and say we're all there is.  But that's what I think because of what I know about the subject.  If you come at it strictly from a down-to-Earth Biblical perspective, you end up doing all sorts of mental acrobatics to get everything to fit, and you come up with little stories like that.
Though I bet Biblical scholars and priests probably have a much better reason for it in their minds than Joe Schmoe from the apartment downstairs.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 3, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> So he fucked up hundreds of trillions of times before he managed to get it right, and just left all the failures floating out there for no reason?
> I mean, I can sort of see how he came to that conclusion after having thought about it long enough.  It's sort of a natural conclusion to make if you come at things from the perspective that there are all sorts of worlds out there, but so far we haven't seen another one with life on it, even though God basically implies in the Bible that life is the thing he loves most of all.  Sort of natural.  Not really, but you know what I mean.


Oh no, I just meant with the planets that orbit around our sun. Who knows, maybe he has made life elsewhere, and we just don't know about it yet, or maybe it's like Spectral Shadows, and Earth and it's surrounding planets and our galaxy is only one being's creation, and that neighboring galaxy another's, and so on and so on and...yeah at this point I'm not even trying to be biblical, this is just musings of the blue and white bunny.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Oh no, I just meant with the planets that orbit around our sun. Who knows, maybe he has made life elsewhere, and we just don't know about it yet, or maybe it's like Spectral Shadows, and Earth and it's surrounding planets and our galaxy is only one being's creation, and that neighboring galaxy another's, and so on and so on and...yeah at this point I'm not even trying to be biblical, this is just musings of the blue and white bunny.



Maybe the existance of our solar system and its planets can be explained more succinctly by considering a disc of accreting stellar-dust material orbiting the newborn sun, that condensed into a series of bodies spherical under their own mass, rather than resorting to legends. 

Look up into the sky and we can see stars being born as we speak, for example in 'the pillars of creation' stellar nursery. There are no magical beings overseing this process, just the laws of physics, which for some reason can be expressed by a series of abstract symbols invented by ape-descendants.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Oh no, I just meant with the planets that orbit around our sun. Who knows, maybe he has made life elsewhere, and we just don't know about it yet, or maybe it's like Spectral Shadows, and Earth and it's surrounding planets and our galaxy is only one being's creation, and that neighboring galaxy another's, and so on and so on and...yeah at this point I'm not even trying to be biblical, this is just musings of the blue and white bunny.


Oooooo... one god per galaxy.  Maybe that's why in Star Trek and all those other sci-fi shows and movies, the aliens always look exactly like humans, just with different colored skin, or spikes or something.  Because everyone in the galaxy is made in God's image, and he happens to look like a bipedal hairless ape.  I can dig that.


----------



## Dokid (Mar 3, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> Scares the sh*t out of me every time I think of it. Do I want everlasting life? No. Do I want to die? No. There's no good choice. I wish I could just erase that thought and never have it again, but it pops up frequently when talking about certain subjects. Thankfully, these topics don't arise frequently.



That's why you do something so your idea's and thoughts continue to live for you. Not everyone gets to do it but it's worth a try. Death is just like oh you're gone. Whatever happens to you after that we will never know. For all we know we could just reincarnate or live as a ghost. Who knows how it works.

Also OP you should of lurked more. Then you would of known that this is an awful place to ask a question like that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2013)

Dokid said:


> That's why you do something so your idea's and thoughts continue to live for you. Not everyone gets to do it but it's worth a try. Death is just like oh you're gone. Whatever happens to you after that we will never know. For all we know we could just reincarnate or live as a ghost. Who knows how it works.
> 
> Also OP you should of lurked more. Then you would of known that this is an awful place to ask a question like that.



There's no mechanism or reason for us to continue living after we die. We certainly don't have a pre-life, so why should we have an after-one? Anything with the potential to come into existance, which we are accutely aware we have, has the potential to slip out of existance again, an inevitability. 

I desperately want there to be permanent existance after death, but also sadly aware that this rather contorts our current understanding of physics.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 3, 2013)

Dokid said:


> That's why you do something so your idea's and thoughts continue to live for you. Not everyone gets to do it but it's worth a try. Death is just like oh you're gone. Whatever happens to you after that we will never know. For all we know we could just reincarnate or live as a ghost. Who knows how it works.
> 
> Also OP you should of lurked more. Then you would of known that this is an awful place to ask a question like that.


 If anything, I want to live as I am living now in my afterlife, not as a perfect eternal being. That would be boring. I like discovering mysteries. I mean does perfection even exist anywhere?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> If anything, I want to live as I am living now in my afterlife, not as a perfect eternal being. That would be boring. I like discovering mysteries. I mean does perfection even exist anywhere?



If it was perfect it wouldn't be boring, would it? 

I'd very much like to be perfect if I had any idea what that entailed.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 3, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> There's no mechanism or reason for us to continue living after we die. We certainly don't have a pre-life, so why should we have an after-one? Anything with the potential to come into existance, which we are accutely aware we have, has the potential to slip out of existance again, an inevitability.
> 
> I desperately want there to be permanent existance after death, but also sadly aware that this rather contorts our current understanding of physics.



This reminds me, actually, of something that annoys me about physicists.  I heard a presentation once from Sean Carroll (if you're not familiar with him, he does popular lectures on cosmology and particle physics, and also blogs and writes books) about a particle physics argument for the non-existence of the soul.  Now, his talk made sense; he basically said that given the success of the standard model as a theory (it's wildly successful; accurate predictions to within dozens of decimal places up the wazoo), and the fact that it doesn't take into account a particle that would act like a soul (something that only interacts with 'living' matter, or is even able to make that distinction), q.e.d there can't be a soul.  So that's fine, but tell me particle physicists aren't making up bullshit new particles every day to solve problems.  Dark matter, anyone?  WIMPs?  Axions?  Cosmions, inflatons, the LSSP?  None of these are part of the standard model, and yet if you go onto ArXiv.org and pull up all the recent cosmology and particle physics papers, what do you see people constantly writing about?  So it's not like physicists are strangers to injecting new math into their formulas to magically fix observational discrepancies with their theories.  His talk should have been about the lack of observational evidence for a soul, but everyone already knows that.
\end{tangent}


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 3, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> This reminds me, actually, of something that annoys me about physicists.  I heard a presentation once from Sean Carroll (if you're not familiar with him, he does popular lectures on cosmology and particle physics, and also blogs and writes books) about a particle physics argument for the non-existence of the soul.  Now, his talk made sense; he basically said that given the success of the standard model as a theory (it's wildly successful; accurate predictions to within dozens of decimal places up the wazoo), and the fact that it doesn't take into account a particle that would act like a soul (something that only interacts with 'living' matter, or is even able to make that distinction), q.e.d there can't be a soul.  So that's fine, but tell me particle physicists aren't making up bullshit new particles every day to solve problems.  Dark matter, anyone?  WIMPs?  Axions?  Cosmions, inflatons, the LSSP?  None of these are part of the standard model, and yet if you go onto ArXiv.org and pull up all the recent cosmology and particle physics papers, what do you see people constantly writing about?  So it's not like physicists are strangers to injecting new math into their formulas to magically fix observational discrepancies with their theories.  His talk should have been about the lack of observational evidence for a soul, but everyone already knows that.
> \end{tangent}



Agreed, that's the only example I've come across of a physicist doing this, accept perhaps some of the talks brian cox mentioned about quantum physics in its early days, in which the lecturer states its more useful to view living things as subject to physical laws in the exact same way as non living things, and that it was their structure which conveyed life rather than resorting to a mythological substance or aether to animate them or preserve them eternally.


edit: 
On consideration I botched this reply, to take another hack at it: Epistemologically it is very justified to dismiss claims of a soul responsible for animation by virtue of occam's razor, until such a time that a theory for a soul particle is proposed by necessity to explain life.

If there were a good theory that actually made sense for the soul, as there was for the higg's, then it's consideration may be a little less...irrelevant, despite the as-to-yet glaring lack of evidence.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 3, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If it was perfect it wouldn't be boring, would it?
> 
> I'd very much like to be perfect if I had any idea what that entailed.


 Who knows! Maybe we get to choose


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 3, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If it was perfect it wouldn't be boring, would it?
> 
> I'd very much like to be perfect if I had any idea what that entailed.



From what I understand, at least biblically, us being perfect means we'll have perfect bodies and souls, so basically none of the problems we have on here (IE we can't get sick, mentally ill, disabled, etc). But ah, who knows? Perhaps we will continue learning and growing in whatever after life God has planned, if you follow the christian faith (or any faith with a paradise). Because the bible is really vague on heaven. We know there's peace, no more sadness, evil, etc, and that we'll be good as new...but what else will go on? It doesn't say.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> From what I understand, at least biblically, us being perfect means we'll have perfect bodies and souls, so basically none of the problems we have on here (IE we can't get sick, mentally ill, disabled, etc). But ah, who knows? Perhaps we will continue learning and growing in whatever after life God has planned, if you follow the christian faith (or any faith with a paradise). Because the bible is really vague on heaven. We know there's peace, no more sadness, evil, etc, and that we'll be good as new...but what else will go on? It doesn't say.


 Nah, I wanna be here to learn more. Heaven is like a spoiler. Yeah we have problems here, but being all knowing in heaven would just ruin the fun of even having a mind. If you know everything, how would you be able to think? You think you would just hang out with jesus and have a few beers, talking about life? Or you just exist and do nothing? What the hell would everyone be doing up there? Still, if i die, I would like to choose where I wanna be. That would be a better deal, wouldn't it?


----------



## Smelge (Mar 3, 2013)

I don't think the OP has anything to worry about being sent to hell for being furry.

The gay porn in his submissions should do that already.


----------



## Kashou (Mar 3, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> What about the tree of knowledge and the fact that you're not supposed to eat an apple from it? How stupid is that? And I can't remember where I heard it from, but something about not questioning God's wisdom or using his name in vain. Basically, even though he's supposed to be perfect, he managed to create imperfect beings and he apparently f*cked up so bad the first time he created a huge flood to wipe them out and start over. Sounds a bit less than perfect to me. And his ego, my god. How stuck-up can one get? "Worship me" "Worship my son" he may as well come out and say "I am the best. Bow down to me, mofos!"
> 
> Don't get me started on Mary, the "virgin." Really? How do I know she didn't just cheat on her husband? That seems a bit more likely.
> 
> I used to mindlessly believe religion but a lot of it is ridiculous, and how about the recent wars and the ancient Crusades? I'm sure religion had some involvement in both. People fighting over religion, how stupid can you get? It's a myth in the first place, you're fighting based on beliefs, not truths.



First off, God didn't create anything imperfect. EVERYTHING he made was good. However, he also gave all his creations, with a mind, free will to do what they want as to not have them be like mindless zombies worshiping him only because he wanted them to. Imperfections came about from Satan who was jealous of God's position and wanted it all to himself. Since he couldn't he felt that he could just get at God by going after his most prized creations, humans. In the Garden of Eden Satan tricked Eve into eating the fruit who, in turn, got Adam to eat the fruit. Note, both of them were perfect beings up until the point of eating the fruit but, as I said, they had free will to do whatever they wanted and they made the mistake of listening to Satan and eating of the Tree of Knowledge. As far as why the tree was created in the first place when God likely never had any intentions of us ever eating from it, you could look at that in many ways. My personal perspective, I look at it as a test. He wanted to know that you'd listen to Him and trust in what He says. God is always pleased with obedience but he's not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to.

Also, on the subject of Mary, when she was pregnant with Jesus, she was, at the time, a virgin. In the Bible it stated that Joseph had not touched her until Jesus was born.



TheMetalVelocity said:


> Nah, I wanna be here to learn more. Heaven is like a spoiler. Yeah we have problems here, but being all knowing in heaven would just ruin the fun of even having a mind. If you know everything, how would you be able to think? You think you would just hang out with jesus and have a few beers, talking about life? Or you just exist and do nothing? What the hell would everyone be doing up there? Still, if i die, I would like to choose where I wanna be. That would be a better deal, wouldn't it?



Being in heaven, you won't know everything. Granted you'll know a lot more than you know now but there's only one omnipotent being and that is God himself. He never made his angels on the same level as himself and, when you're heaven, if you believe in that, that's what you'd be, an angel.

As far as what you'd do in heaven, most people will just be praising God as that's what you'd mostly want to do anyway when you're heaven. As far as other things to do, I honestly don't know. My guess is just basically whatever you want. Once you're in heaven, by the way, you won't go to Hell because you're not going to mess up. I mean, hypothetically speaking, if you did do something way wrong, yes you'd be sent to Hell, but it just wouldn't happen.


----------



## Golden (Mar 3, 2013)

OP, don't be stupid. The bible predates the fandom by thousands of years.


----------



## Ryuu (Mar 3, 2013)

Everything makes you go to hell, So embrace it. Its warm there at least!


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 3, 2013)

Yes, you are going to hell. :V


----------



## Jaseface (Mar 3, 2013)

Ill save a seat on the bus to hell :twisted:


----------



## Distorted (Mar 4, 2013)

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. No!

I don't even know anymore honestly. In my opinion we're all going, if you believe in that sort of thing anyway. Also...






Edit: :\ (sarcasm)


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 4, 2013)

For Catholics, at least, there is nothing inherently sinful about being a furry.  You'd need to avoid the same sins that any non-furry needs to avoid, and go to Confession when you slip up.


----------



## Toshabi (Mar 4, 2013)

Weird. CC didn't post in this thread. Huh.


----------



## Dreaming (Mar 4, 2013)

Depends, young OP, what sort of Furry activities do you partake in? If you feel the need to question how they will effect the judgment on your afterlife, then it can't be good news for you

O lawd dat gay art


----------



## Delta Fox (Mar 4, 2013)

If your biggest life concern is if Furries go to hell you should reevaluate your life choices


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 4, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> This reminds me, actually, of something that annoys me about physicists.  I heard a presentation once from Sean Carroll (if you're not familiar with him, he does popular lectures on cosmology and particle physics, and also blogs and writes books) about a particle physics argument for the non-existence of the soul.  Now, his talk made sense; he basically said that given the success of the standard model as a theory (it's wildly successful; accurate predictions to within dozens of decimal places up the wazoo), and the fact that it doesn't take into account a particle that would act like a soul (something that only interacts with 'living' matter, or is even able to make that distinction), q.e.d there can't be a soul.  So that's fine, but tell me particle physicists aren't making up bullshit new particles every day to solve problems.  Dark matter, anyone?  WIMPs?  Axions?  Cosmions, inflatons, the LSSP?  None of these are part of the standard model, and yet if you go onto ArXiv.org and pull up all the recent cosmology and particle physics papers, what do you see people constantly writing about?  So it's not like physicists are strangers to injecting new math into their formulas to magically fix observational discrepancies with their theories.  His talk should have been about the lack of observational evidence for a soul, but everyone already knows that.
> \end{tangent}



Sounds like the physics was good, but the metaphysics not so much.

Your story reminds me of Stephen Hawking's comment "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."  I thought he had lost his mind, but when I looked into the matter it turned out that he was calling "nothing" was actually space with particles and fundamental forces present.

In both that case and yours, it seems like physicists are saying things that sound odd because they assume that anything that "exists" must be material, whereas even today many people are still vaguely influenced by the metaphysics developed in the middle ages, particularly by St. Thomas Aquinas.  Within that system, the physical world and its laws are only part of what exists in the universe.  Souls can exist, but are spiritual and not material, and naturally wouldn't be observable by physical means.  If you can measure it, then it is physical and not spiritual, and whatever it is, it is definitely not a soul nor God!

Likewise, "nothing" really meant "Nothing," as in no-time, no-space, no-mass, etc.  Medieval theologians argued quite reasonably that the only possible way you could get "something" out of that "nothing" would be if something totally independent of time, space, mass, and energy created it.

Even if these physicists don't believe any of that, it would help if they understood the language, and why it makes no sense to look for "soul particles," and that nothing really means *nothing* and things can't be created from it, and that things can't create themselves.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 4, 2013)

Is it just me or does this thread seem extremely pointless?  As someone already said OP has a generous amount of gay dog dicked furry porn on his FA.  

Here we have either an oblivious individual or a troll, but nowadays trolling is half assed beyond recognition and since OP has failed to check back more than once I'm leaning tward the fact that OP is a complete moron that knows nothing about Christianity considering the amount of gay shit in his gallery/favorites. 

Im a satanist and guarantee I know a lot more about the Christian bible than most Christians do.


Quit making up your psychobabble bullshit and move on with your life.


----------



## badlands (Mar 4, 2013)

I'm already doomed to burn forever in eternal torment...

So i might as well enjoy myself first


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 4, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> Sounds like the physics was good, but the metaphysics not so much.
> 
> Your story reminds me of Stephen Hawking's comment "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."  I thought he had lost his mind, but when I looked into the matter it turned out that he was calling "nothing" was actually space with particles and fundamental forces present.
> 
> ...



Well, the standard model, such as it is, predicts that there can never really be 'nothing' by that definition, more or less because of the uncertainty principle.  And believe it or not, there is direct evidence of this, which comes in the form of the uncertainty in the electron charge.  Basically, the physics that describes how particles act allows for spontaneous creation and spontaneous destruction of particles in triplicate (general particle/anti-particle/photon groups), which means the only way you can describe the vacuum state is by creating three particles and then instantly destroying them.  What this implies is that in any given section of space, you'll have a bunch of 'virtual' particles popping into and out of existence in extremely short timescales.  Said particles are charged, so if one of them pops up next to your electron, it will perturb it, and people have measured this perturbation to incredible accuracy.
Although in Mr. Hawking's context, I'm not really sure what he's talking about, because he brings up gravity.  Oddly enough, gravity isn't currently part of the standard model.  So he must be talking about something else.

Of course, postulating something that simply cannot be measured, no matter what you do, isn't exactly science.  There would be no way to test the validity of it.  You could never prove it wrong, but that certainly doesn't imply that it's therefore right.  So honestly, I find St. Aquinas' argument pretty silly.  "Oh, well it's there, you just can't see it."  Not much you can do with a theory like that besides shrugging and saying, "Okay, but I'm going to check all this other stuff that I CAN test first."


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Mar 4, 2013)

Probably. You are part of christianity after all. If you so much as fart you'll probably end up in hell.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 4, 2013)

Well, of course! Liking imaginary animal people is _totally _going to send you to an imaginary place after you die! It only makes sense!


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 4, 2013)

d.batty said:


> I'm a satanist and guarantee I know a lot more about the Christian bible than most Christians do.


 Aren't most Satanists just atheists who troll Christians? All I know is I hate religion. It makes people do things that are unnecessary to guide them through life.


----------



## TheGr8MC (Mar 4, 2013)

Does being a furry make you go to hell?  Well, Jesus is called the Lamb of God and I believe God was once referenced to be a lion or something in the bible.  So yeah, the founder of Christianity could be considered a furry, I guess.
If you ask me, being a furry guarantees you get into Heaven.  I could totally imagine Jesus's fursona as a shirtless muscled lamb with flowing long hair.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 4, 2013)

Kashou said:


> First off, God didn't create anything imperfect. EVERYTHING he made was good. However, he also gave all his creations, with a mind, free will to do what they want as to not have them be like mindless zombies worshiping him only because he wanted them to. Imperfections came about from Satan who was jealous of God's position and wanted it all to himself. Since he couldn't he felt that he could just get at God by going after his most prized creations, humans. In the Garden of Eden Satan tricked Eve into eating the fruit who, in turn, got Adam to eat the fruit. Note, both of them were perfect beings up until the point of eating the fruit but, as I said, they had free will to do whatever they wanted and they made the mistake of listening to Satan and eating of the Tree of Knowledge. As far as why the tree was created in the first place when God likely never had any intentions of us ever eating from it, you could look at that in many ways. My personal perspective, I look at it as a test. He wanted to know that you'd listen to Him and trust in what He says. God is always pleased with obedience but he's not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to.
> 
> Also, on the subject of Mary, when she was pregnant with Jesus, she was, at the time, a virgin. In the Bible it stated that Joseph had not touched her until Jesus was born.
> 
> ...



There are numerous glaringly obstructive paradoxes in this mess. 

Most significantly assuming that if there _was_ a creator of the universe that they are a fickle shadow of human delusion of grandeur and that they created an observable universe some 10^25 metres across and 13.8bn years old...to concentrate upon a small group of primates that emerged only in the last 200,000 years...and that the only path to knowledge concerning this amazing master of spacetime emerged only within the last 2000 years. 

Whether or not a woman in the middleast some two thousand years ago was a virgin seems...well a little bit of a superfluous detail. 

If there is a God, some master of spacetime, then I would- relating this to the topic, immediately argue than no, being a furry wouldn't mean you're going to hell. The primary reason being that if there was a God they would need to have an unjustifiably huge obsession with humans to provide them with any afterlife at all. If there is a God, the things they seem to enjoy are Stars, bacteria and beetles. So perhaps only beetles get an after life. [this may seem rather contrived, but it is no more so that a talking snake dooming humanity to endless toil by virtue of their eating of knowlege-imparting tree growths]




dietrc70 said:


> Sounds like the physics was good, but the metaphysics not so much.
> 
> Your story reminds me of Stephen Hawking's comment "Because  there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself  from nothing."  I thought he had lost his mind, but when I looked into  the matter it turned out that he was calling "nothing" was actually  space with particles and fundamental forces present.
> 
> ...




How would something come from nothing? Well, we need starting conditions that are independant of time, space, you name it.

We only have nothing to work with. Fortunately nothing _is_ independant of space time. 

;3

Anyway, I think the reason that 'immaterial forces at work' is considered bullplop is because this is fundamentally a contradiction of terms. Things which are not material...interacting with material? If anything exists to us, be it apples, kepler22b, russel's teapot or a soul then there should be some proposed route to determining its existance, which justifiably means it is material/physical, by virtue of its interaction with the material world in order to have its existance determined. [for instance souls are claimed to be you- if they don't interact with your material presence in any way this claim is...pointless]

If something exists, but its existance has no influence what so ever on the rest of existance, then it may as well not exist at all [because of occam's razor] and certainly does not carry the imprint of our material lives and personalities. 

I propose a world in which, to the observer, if it is physically impossible to visit a parallel dimension or in _any way_ ascertain its existance, then it does not exist. This is not absense of evidence 'not being evidence of absense', it's 'impossibility of evidence being evidence of impossibility'.


----------



## Nashida (Mar 4, 2013)

Of course you are! The devil's name is LuciFUR, isn't it? :V


----------



## Judge Spear (Mar 4, 2013)

I'm a bit hurt that you'd even contemplate this, OP. Don't worry about it. I'm sure God would have MUCH more important things to worry about than fursecution.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 4, 2013)

Nashida said:


> Of course you are! The devil's name is LuciFUR, isn't it? :V


 yukyukyukyukyukyukyukyukyuk!


----------



## Umbra.Exe (Mar 4, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> The entire time I was reading this all I could think of was that angels are depicted with wings. :/
> 
> Other than that, I rate you a 6/10.



I think that there are one or more angels with animal faces as well. an ox, a lion, and an eagle are the ones I vaguely remember.

I don't think being a furry would make you go to hell, though. It's just a hobby.



dietrc70 said:


> For Catholics, at least, there is nothing  inherently sinful about being a furry.  You'd need to avoid the same  sins that any non-furry needs to avoid, and go to Confession when you  slip up.



This seems pretty spot-on to me, actually.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 5, 2013)

There's only one way to find out. :V


----------



## DarrylWolf (Mar 5, 2013)

As a Christian and a Furry myself, I believe I may have some insight into your predicament. I feel that, whenever going to a Furry convention, you need to look around you at all the people and ask yourself this question- "Could these people benefit from the Gospel?" When all around you see people who the parishioners at the average church would shun as though they were made of plutonium, I think the answer is "no" for most of them, and "yes" only for those who already believe. Why do I feel that ministry should only be given redundantly to those who already believe- because I became aware of the Calvinian doctrine of "election" and thought that most people in the world would not benefit from the death of Jesus, especially if their manifested sins were too great. (Hidden sins would not disqualify a man from salvation, provided they were small enough to not be made public.) 

But then I realized that as someone who enjoys the company of the Furries who God may have prejudged as "reprobate", does that make me a "reprobate" as well? I guess, that when it really comes right down to it, this whole belief in election has given me somewhat of a "Thank you God, I am not like other men" mentality, even though the people I go to church are all too quick to point out that Jesus actually condemned such behavior.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 5, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> As a Christian and a Furry myself, I believe I may have some insight into your predicament. I feel that, whenever going to a Furry convention, you need to look around you at all the people and ask yourself this question- "Could these people benefit from the Gospel?" When all around you see people who the parishioners at the average church would shun as though they were made of plutonium, I think the answer is "no" for most of them, and "yes" only for those who already believe. Why do I feel that ministry should only be given redundantly to those who already believe- because I became aware of the Calvinian doctrine of "election" and thought that most people in the world would not benefit from the death of Jesus, especially if their manifested sins were too great. (Hidden sins would not disqualify a man from salvation, provided they were small enough to not be made public.)
> 
> But then I realized that as someone who enjoys the company of the Furries who God may have prejudged as "reprobate", does that make me a "reprobate" as well? I guess, that when it really comes right down to it, this whole belief in election has given me somewhat of a "Thank you God, I am not like other men" mentality, even though the people I go to church are all too quick to point out that Jesus actually condemned such behavior.



If I understand election correctly, you can't ever be sure of ones own election, nor the status of anyone else.  For all anyone knows, a furry convention might be full of the elect, even if there aren't (yet!) any obvious outward signs.  Calvinism is a very difficult doctrine, but it seems that trying to guess God's mind could easily become a path to either pride or despair.  It's probably best to simply be the best Christian one can be, and trust in God for the rest.

And I agree that it's better to actually do ministry with those who are already receptive.  For everyone else, setting an example by trying to be a good Christian in one's own life and in how one treats others is probably the best way to minister.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Mar 5, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> If I understand election correctly, you can't ever be sure of ones own election, nor the status of anyone else.  For all anyone knows, a furry convention might be full of the elect, even if there aren't (yet!) any obvious outward signs.  Calvinism is a very difficult doctrine, but it seems that trying to guess God's mind could easily become a path to either pride or despair.  It's probably best to simply be the best Christian one can be, and trust in God for the rest.
> 
> And I agree that it's better to actually do ministry with those who are already receptive.  For everyone else, setting an example by trying to be a good Christian in one's own life and in how one treats others is probably the best way to minister.



That's the dichotomy I face on a daily basis. I read the story of a faithful chaplain in the Vietnam War who took a bullet to the arm, got a Purple Heart, got ordained, and used his skills as an architect to actually build churches in inner-city Detroit who died a week ago and thought "Oh, if I have to be that good to get into heaven, I might as well just get ready for hell right now." And then I read the story about a man who killed his own brother and thought "There's no way God would want to save both people." Vietnam War veteran who builds and minsiters churches in Detroit has a really good resume, fratricidal man on Texas death row not so much. And so I'm stuck in the middle, not knowing whether or not I'll turn out "good" or "evil."


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 5, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> That's the dichotomy I face on a daily basis. I read the story of a faithful chaplain in the Vietnam War who took a bullet to the arm, got a Purple Heart, got ordained, and used his skills as an architect to actually build churches in inner-city Detroit who died a week ago and thought "Oh, if I have to be that good to get into heaven, I might as well just get ready for hell right now." And then I read the story about a man who killed his own brother and thought "There's no way God would want to save both people." Vietnam War veteran who builds and minsiters churches in Detroit has a really good resume, fratricidal man on Texas death row not so much. And so I'm stuck in the middle, not knowing whether or not I'll turn out "good" or "evil."


See, this is the kind of stuff that has made me give up on organized religion altogether. Every moment thinking about how to achieve salvation or preaching to those who are simply not interested in words is a moment not spent actually _working _towards it, and I'm not sure pure thoughts alone would get you where you want to be. Even worse: (assuming it's true and there is a heaven and a hell,) you'll never know your "score" before you get there. It seems to me the best path would be to simply do all the good your conviction and your means allow for (can't build churches? Volunteer to help one!), and leave the metaphysical questions for when they can actually be answered. Surely, the Christian God will be fair in His judgment.

Of course, this is just a non-religious person speaking. People ask me why I don't go to church or pray, and I tell them I'm hedging my bets. If there is a God, hopefully They'll be pleased enough by my actions not to mind me not reciting ceremonial words every night or performing an extended sit-down, stand-up routine every week. If there isn't a God, hopefully I'll have made a difference here anyway. And if there's a wheel of reincarnation, I wanna come back as a bioengineered cat-person from the future!


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 5, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> Well, the standard model, such as it is, predicts that there can never really be 'nothing' by that definition, more or less because of the uncertainty principle.  And believe it or not, there is direct evidence of this, which comes in the form of the uncertainty in the electron charge.  Basically, the physics that describes how particles act allows for spontaneous creation and spontaneous destruction of particles in triplicate (general particle/anti-particle/photon groups), which means the only way you can describe the vacuum state is by creating three particles and then instantly destroying them.  What this implies is that in any given section of space, you'll have a bunch of 'virtual' particles popping into and out of existence in extremely short timescales.  Said particles are charged, so if one of them pops up next to your electron, it will perturb it, and people have measured this perturbation to incredible accuracy.
> Although in Mr. Hawking's context, I'm not really sure what he's talking about, because he brings up gravity.  Oddly enough, gravity isn't currently part of the standard model.  So he must be talking about something else.
> 
> Of course, postulating something that simply cannot be measured, no matter what you do, isn't exactly science.  There would be no way to test the validity of it.  You could never prove it wrong, but that certainly doesn't imply that it's therefore right.  So honestly, I find St. Aquinas' argument pretty silly.  "Oh, well it's there, you just can't see it."  Not much you can do with a theory like that besides shrugging and saying, "Okay, but I'm going to check all this other stuff that I CAN test first."



Although I may be botching this, Aquinas argued that even if you posited an infinite regress of phenomena, you still simply had a infinite number of phenomena that could not cause themselves, and would be dependent on other phenomena to take effect.  There had to be something outside the system to be the first mover.  (i.e. even if one set up an infinite line or loop of dominoes, none of them would fall over unless something that was not dependent on being moved by a domino moved one of them).  This is one of the ways he reasoned that God necessarily existed, and it followed that other non-physical phenomena were possible.

You're right, spiritual phenomena are not part of the natural sciences.  Isaac Newton certainly believed in them, but he didn't discuss them in the *Principia* because he understood them to be separate from physics.  The main difference between modern and pre-modern thinking on physics is that for the medieval scholar, physical phenomena was a subset of metaphysics.  What we can see is not all that there is.  For most moderns, metaphysics and physics seem to be the same thing (which is why few people outside Catholic philosophy and theology departments talks much about metaphysics anymore.)

In both the cases we've discussed, the physicists seem to have chosen to subsume terms from medieval metaphysics into their modern physical models, which is very weird and just doesn't work.  Hawkins is clearly alluding to creation _ex nihlo_ in his writing, but his idea of nothing is totally different from what a medieval theologian would have meant by the term.  And I think it's kind of bizarre that Sean Caroll was trying to prove souls don't exist by arguing that "soul particles" can't exist.  If anyone there believed in the existence of souls (in at least a vaguely medieval Catholic sense) they would facepalm.  Of course there aren't soul particles; souls aren't material!


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 5, 2013)

I think Aquinas is neglecting the definition of system: 'A set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.'
If there was a magical creator god who made the universe, then they are part of this system, not an outsider who is immune to logical criticism for unspecified reasons. 
To paraphrase, the concept of God is just another domino. Indeed, if you're going to admit that a domino in the system can break the laws of causality, it doesn't need to be a God- it could be a giant goat, several gods or a flying spaghetti monster. Or more reasonably a _physical_ explanation. 

As previously explained, the very nature of an 'imaterial thing that interacts with material' is flawed. Things are material by virture of their interection with other things we recognise as material. That is how everything material _in the history of the universe_ has been confirmed to exist. 

Hence we can only justifiably conclude that the best description for an 'imaterial material thing' is '_imaginary_'. 

There is no justification in denouncing a physicist's lament that they cannot pin down the material of the soul if the justification is that 'it is completely beyond any form of observation or criticism by definition of being immaterial', because the same can be said in defence of any supernatural, including those that would contradict the proposal of a soul. For instance one might propose that all life is sustained by an immaterial spark that is conserved and distributed between living organisms much like the conservation of momentum, and that this spark has nothing to do with morality or identity, _only_ animation. 

How are we to distinguish the argument for a Vivo-spark and a Soul? Both admit they are _completely_ beyond any detection. 
The asnwer? We don't distinguish, and we dismiss ideas beyond any naturally possible investigation as 'not part of our system because they admit no connection to it, therefore not extant'. 

This is actually how reality works [forgive my terribly poor paraphrasing of an argument from brian cox and jeff forshaw's 'e=mc^2']. For instance a distant alien battle ship, orbiting a far away star, sends a laser beam to destroy my alarm clock. Let's assume the laser travels at infinite speed. My alarm clock is destroyed and I do not wake up. The event of the battle ship firing must have taken place before the event of my alarm clock going off, because I did not wake up. 
In reality thought it takes light time to reach my alarm clock, so by the time it gets there I am already awake and this event is beyond the alien battleship's influence. Therefore there is no physical justification for the alien space ship having fired its weapon before or after the event of my getting up- you can switch the events round in time and causality is unaffected. No view, depending on who the observer is, is the 'one true view of the order the events happened in'. Someone traveling at high speed in one direction might report the events happening in the opposite order to a person standing still relative to the alien battle ship. 

So you see, Russel's teapot is not just a clever thought experiment. If events truly are indeterminable then their nature can be contorted and they're not 'invariant'.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 5, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> Although I may be botching this, Aquinas argued that even if you posited an infinite regress of phenomena, you still simply had a infinite number of phenomena that could not cause themselves, and would be dependent on other phenomena to take effect.  There had to be something outside the system to be the first mover.  (i.e. even if one set up an infinite line or loop of dominoes, none of them would fall over unless something that was not dependent on being moved by a domino moved one of them).  This is one of the ways he reasoned that God necessarily existed, and it followed that other non-physical phenomena were possible.
> 
> You're right, spiritual phenomena are not part of the natural sciences.  Isaac Newton certainly believed in them, but he didn't discuss them in the *Principia* because he understood them to be separate from physics.  The main difference between modern and pre-modern thinking on physics is that for the medieval scholar, physical phenomena was a subset of metaphysics.  What we can see is not all that there is.  For most moderns, metaphysics and physics seem to be the same thing (which is why few people outside Catholic philosophy and theology departments talks much about metaphysics anymore.)
> 
> In both the cases we've discussed, the physicists seem to have chosen to subsume terms from medieval metaphysics into their modern physical models, which is very weird and just doesn't work.  Hawkins is clearly alluding to creation _ex nihlo_ in his writing, but his idea of nothing is totally different from what a medieval theologian would have meant by the term.  And I think it's kind of bizarre that Sean Caroll was trying to prove souls don't exist by arguing that "soul particles" can't exist.  If anyone there believed in the existence of souls (in at least a vaguely medieval Catholic sense) they would facepalm.  Of course there aren't soul particles; souls aren't material!



Well, I think Fallow got the heart of the matter better than I did, which is that the working theory with these theologians is clearly not that souls are immaterial.  If they were, they would not be able to populate human bodies or any other bodies as these folks propose.  They propose instead that human bodies (which are material things) are driven by souls (which therefore must be able to interact with the material world).  The idea, then, is that such a thing as a soul, _given that it interacts with the material world_, must therefore be detectable.  The fact that it hasn't been detected or can't be detected more or less proves that if there is such a thing as a soul, it certainly doesn't act in the way the theologians would have us believe.  It would instead have to be some arbitrary construct that exists outside of the realms of reality, and hence is utterly useless as a theory (since you could postulate anything at all to take its place without changing the rest of your model of the universe, like what Fallow is saying up above).

This isn't really metaphysics.  It's just physics, which is basically just writing down how the universe appears to work in ways that the human brain can understand.  As long as your model is internally consistent and consistent with observation, it's a valid enough model.  My main complaint is that you can come up with an awful lot of valid models if you don't have the observations to back them up, which is where particle physics stands right now with this whole dark matter business.


----------



## Ames (Mar 7, 2013)

Yes, you will.  Have fun with getting hellfire and brimstone dildos shoved into every single existing orifice you own until the end of time.

What else would you expect from living a life of a useless sociopathic dogfucking sicko other than eternal torment in the afterlife?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 7, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> Well, I think Fallow got the heart of the matter better than I did, which is that the working theory with these theologians is clearly not that souls are immaterial.  If they were, they would not be able to populate human bodies or any other bodies as these folks propose.



Maybe the soul is in another dimension and drives the body through a focal point in the pineal gland?

It could have been evolutionarily advantageous to add randomness to an otherwise predictable intelligent life form.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Maybe the soul is in another dimension and drives the body through a focal point in the pineal gland?
> 
> It could have been evolutionarily advantageous to add randomness to an otherwise predictable intelligent life form.


Whelp, don't need a soul for that. The sheer statistic randomness of chemical reactions in the brain and cell division accounts for variance in morphology and behavior.

Yep, yer soul's a chemical unbalance. :V


----------



## Armaetus (Mar 7, 2013)

OP, this is ridiculous. Of course not.


----------



## Joey (Mar 7, 2013)

When I think about religion mixing with the furry fandom, all I can think of is this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hQM3_SvwWo


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Maybe the soul is in another dimension and drives the body through a focal point in the pineal gland?
> 
> It could have been evolutionarily advantageous to add randomness to an otherwise predictable intelligent life form.



I have a suggesiton. Maybe it's magic!


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 7, 2013)

@fallowfox, M. LeRenard

The soul is defined as the "formal cause" of a living thing.  It is distinct from the "material cause" of a human being, which is all the material stuff that goes into a human being.  The soul is what makes the difference between a living person and a hunk of meat or a few gallons of water with carbon and trace elements.  Aristotle assumed that when living things died, the soul was extinguished, and thus the body "lost its form" and decomposed to be material for other living things.  Aquinas spliced in Christian doctrine that human souls were in fact immortal, although IIRC he admitted that he knew of no way to prove this using natural reason.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 7, 2013)

This thread turned in some srs bidniz.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 7, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> @fallowfox, M. LeRenard
> 
> The soul is defined as the "formal cause" of a living thing.  It is distinct from the "material cause" of a human being, which is all the material stuff that goes into a human being.  The soul is what makes the difference between a living person and a hunk of meat or a few gallons of water with carbon and trace elements.  Aristotle assumed that when living things died, the soul was extinguished, and thus the body "lost its form" and decomposed to be material for other living things.  Aquinas spliced in Christian doctrine that human souls were in fact immortal, although IIRC he admitted that he knew of no way to prove this using natural reason.



The difference between me and a hunk of meat is, in essence, that my proton gradients are arranged with much lower entropy. That's a material difference.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 7, 2013)

edit: woops, double post.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 7, 2013)

Right, and your formal cause, or soul, is what defines and interacts with those material differences in such a way that you are a distinct living person with a distinct rational mind.  A soul without a body effectively disappears (i.e. like the form of a car that is smashed in a hydraulic press.  The matter is still there, but the car is gone).

If I make a knife out of a file, the form of the file disappears and is replaced by the form of a knife.  Just a simple change in shape is enough to destroy one form and create a new one.  There aren't "knife particles" interacting with the steel to make it a knife rather than something else; the form came from the shaping and tempering, and was ultimately created by a human mind.  I didn't make the steel, but I created the form, and the metaphysical, rather than physical union of the two is what makes the actual, physical knife.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 7, 2013)

Love the analogy there, cuz a soul is surely just like a shiv XD


----------



## Azure (Mar 7, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> Right, and your formal cause, or soul, is what defines and interacts with those material differences in such a way that you are a distinct living person with a distinct rational mind.  A soul without a body effectively disappears (i.e. like the form of a car that is smashed in a hydraulic press.  The matter is still there, but the car is gone).
> 
> If I make a knife out of a file, the form of the file disappears and is replaced by the form of a knife.  Just a simple change in shape is enough to destroy one form and create a new one.  There aren't "knife particles" interacting with the steel to make it a knife rather than something else; the form came from the shaping and tempering, and was ultimately created by a human mind.  I didn't make the steel, but I created the form, and the metaphysical, rather than physical union of the two is what makes the actual, physical knife.


no


----------



## Outcast (Mar 7, 2013)

This thread suddenly became semi-relevant and logical... would you look at that.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 7, 2013)

Outcast said:


> This thread suddenly became semi-relevant and logical... would you look at that.



It's M. LeRenard's fault.  He posted something interesting about physics and souls, then it just grew out of control.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 7, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Love the analogy there, cuz a soul is surely just like a shiv XD



It wouldn't be a shiv, it would be a really nice stiletto blade (I was imagining a blacksmithing project--old files are good for forging into knives).  You're right about the analogy being kind of weird in context, but I had just gotten out of a metalworking class.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 8, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> Right, and your formal cause, or soul, is what defines and interacts with those material differences in such a way that you are a distinct living person with a distinct rational mind.  A soul without a body effectively disappears (i.e. like the form of a car that is smashed in a hydraulic press.  The matter is still there, but the car is gone).
> 
> If I make a knife out of a file, the form of the file disappears and is replaced by the form of a knife.  Just a simple change in shape is enough to destroy one form and create a new one.  There aren't "knife particles" interacting with the steel to make it a knife rather than something else; the form came from the shaping and tempering, and was ultimately created by a human mind.  I didn't make the steel, but I created the form, and the metaphysical, rather than physical union of the two is what makes the actual, physical knife.



In that case, it doesn't sound like there's anything at all supernatural about a soul.  If it's just an emergent property of whatever chemistry builds up the brain and makes it function, well, of course that's true, and of course it goes away when you break the brain or turn it into something else.  But if that's how we're talking about it, I don't see the reasoning behind using the word 'soul' at all, except maybe as an analogy to the old idea of a spiritual 'soul'.



> It's M. LeRenard's fault. He posted something interesting about physics and souls, then it just grew out of control.


I do my part to rescue hopeless threads.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 8, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> Right, and your formal cause, or soul, is what defines and interacts with those material differences in such a way that you are a distinct living person with a distinct rational mind.  A soul without a body effectively disappears (i.e. like the form of a car that is smashed in a hydraulic press.  The matter is still there, but the car is gone).
> 
> If I make a knife out of a file, the form of the file disappears and is replaced by the form of a knife.  Just a simple change in shape is enough to destroy one form and create a new one.  There aren't "knife particles" interacting with the steel to make it a knife rather than something else; the form came from the shaping and tempering, and was ultimately created by a human mind.  I didn't make the steel, but I created the form, and the metaphysical, rather than physical union of the two is what makes the actual, physical knife.



The knife *is* material and is made out of particles [usually iron and carbon]. So I don't understand your point?

I think you're insisting that souls are a process, but the problem here is that processes are still physical and mediated by the interaction of particles. All we're doing is tying ourselves in knots over what a 'soul' actually is, to the point of botching its defenition until it is entirely redundant- pretty much identical to the definition of 'alive'. 

Physical processes are not 'metaphysical', they are just physical.


----------



## Saybin~Iacere (Mar 8, 2013)

Jaseface said:


> No there is nothing wrong with being a furry, Its a hobby.  Last time I checked liking anthro animals wasnt anything wrong.



I am religious myself, and like the post above I view it as a hobby, an escapism. That's all...


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 8, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> In that case, it doesn't sound like there's anything at all supernatural about a soul.  If it's just an emergent property of whatever chemistry builds up the brain and makes it function, well, of course that's true, and of course it goes away when you break the brain or turn it into something else.  But if that's how we're talking about it, I don't see the reasoning behind using the word 'soul' at all, except maybe as an analogy to the old idea of a spiritual 'soul'.



You are right, there is nothing supernatural about the idea of a soul.  The Greeks and medievals used the term "psyche" or "anima," for "soul," which included the qualities of consciousness, bodily sensation, and reason that we would attribute mostly to the brain today.  We still often think like pre-moderns in our daily lives.  We use words like "mind" or "consciousness," and treat these phenomena as real things in themselves; we call them persons, and understand that the question of _how _a thing works is different from what it _is_.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 8, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> You are right, there is nothing supernatural about the idea of a soul.  The Greeks and medievals used the term "psyche" or "anima," for "soul," which included the qualities of consciousness, bodily sensation, and reason that we would attribute mostly to the brain today.  We still often think like pre-moderns in our daily lives.  We use words like "mind" or "consciousness," and treat these phenomena as real things in themselves; we call them persons, and understand that the question of _how _a thing works is different from what it _is_.



Wait, you've lost me. Souls _aren't_ supernatural? Forgive me for being blunt, but this is in direct contradiction with the initial claims you set out with:


dietrc70 said:


> snip



You claimed repeatedly that souls were commonly defined beyond scientific investigation and the material realm in general because of the metaphysics of Aquinas. This proposes that they are supernatural, but also defines them out of existance by contradiction of their interaction with material. 

Now you are asserting they could also be viewed as natural, but this new use of the word 'soul'...doesn't carry any of the original meanings of what a soul's mechanism is, only the description of the functions attributed to it [which is essentially exchanging the word 'brain' with 'soul'- what's the point?]


If anything, we have established that the definition of 'soul' is _so_ diffuse that it's an epistemologically useless area of discussion, more suited to poetry than science. 

And this, if anything entitles a physicist to disqualify it from consideration as a functioning part of the explanation for biology. It's just too wishy-washy and nobody will know what on earth you're talking about unless you constantly define it in other words. It is superfluous and non essential. 

If nobody can even agree what a soul is how are we to agree on a prediction by which can be tested? It's a russel's teapot- everytime somebody argues against the soul the definition is changed and the goalposts are moved.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 8, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Wait, you've lost me. Souls _aren't_ supernatural? Forgive me for being blunt, but this is in direct contradiction with the initial claims you set out with:
> 
> 
> You claimed repeatedly that souls were commonly defined beyond scientific investigation and the material realm in general because of the metaphysics of Aquinas. This proposes that they are supernatural, but also defines them out of existance by contradiction of their interaction with material.



Sorry for being unclear.  The problem here is that starting from materialist assumptions, it is logical to assume that anything that interacts with, or forms matter must be material, and subject to physical study.  However materialism did not become mainstream until well into the Enlightenment.  In an Aristotelian system, "formal causes," the quality that makes the matter what it is, are completely real, but are not themselves physical.  If you studied Plato you might remember his theory that ideal forms were the most real things, but what we interacted with and studied were somewhat less real manifestations or even shadows of the real forms, which themselves were not physical.



> Now you are asserting they could also be viewed as natural, but this new use of the word 'soul'...doesn't carry any of the original meanings of what a soul's mechanism is, only the description of the functions attributed to it [which is essentially exchanging the word 'brain' with 'soul'- what's the point?]
> 
> If anything, we have established that the definition of 'soul' is _so_ diffuse that it's an epistemologically useless area of discussion, more suited to poetry than science.
> 
> ...



One of my original points was that souls aren't relevant to what physicists study.  A physicist who believed souls existed would not do his physics any differently from one who did not.  This whole conversation was started in part over a physicist who claimed that souls didn't exist because he couldn't find soul particles, which is like saying karma doesn't exist because karma particles can't be found.  If one believes souls or karma are real phenomena, looking for physical residue totally misses the point, and if one does not, then searching for such residue is pointless.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

Jesus Christ. I am surprised this thread keeps going on and on. Has the OP not been satisfied with his replies?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

dietrc70 said:


> Sorry for being unclear.  The problem here is that starting from materialist assumptions, it is logical to assume that anything that interacts with, or forms matter must be material, and subject to physical study.  However materialism did not become mainstream until well into the Enlightenment.  In an Aristotelian system, "formal causes," the quality that makes the matter what it is, are completely real, but are not themselves physical.  If you studied Plato you might remember his theory that ideal forms were the most real things, but what we interacted with and studied were somewhat less real manifestations or even shadows of the real forms, which themselves were not physical.
> 
> 
> 
> One of my original points was that souls aren't relevant to what physicists study.  A physicist who believed souls existed would not do his physics any differently from one who did not.  This whole conversation was started in part over a physicist who claimed that souls didn't exist because he couldn't find soul particles, which is like saying karma doesn't exist because karma particles can't be found.  If one believes souls or karma are real phenomena, looking for physical residue totally misses the point, and if one does not, then searching for such residue is pointless.



It's not an assumption to assert things that interact with the physical are physical. That is quite literally what defines physical things. 
By virtue of interaction, information is exchanged. This is unavoidable; it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion. If I might bring up bundle theory what exactly is an interaction if no information is exchanged? There is nothing, even causality can be broken down and rearranged [as is the case in the alien battle ship paradox]

Therefore for interaction to have any consequence, to be extant, information must be exchanged, and this is- as our current experimental understanding goes, manifested in the exchange of particles. 

This is a recent idea in comparrison to the vastness of human history, but it's also the best so far. It blows ancient greek ideas of causality *out of the water*. 
In our modern understanding, if you live in pluto's cave, you can confirm the truth of what is happening to cast the shadows by studying them, because the information associated with their formation is necessarily available for study. 
'But what if it is literally impossible to study a scenario, such as those stipulated by the uncertainty principle?', That's where things get really odd. When it is impossible to observe, and no information is exchanged between a system and its observer reality as we know it breaks down, as is the case in the schroedinger's cat paradox and to some extent with our alien battle ship. The order in which events happen, and the nature of those events can be swapped around without any fuss depending on the situation of the observer. 

We are therefore brought to the conclusion that if 'souls' and 'karma' are to have any meaning to us physical beings they must leave a physical set of pawprints behind themselves in the mud. They *must* leave a trail of breadcrumbs, otherwise it is impossible for them to have any influence on our world- for the influence itself is the information they are bound to leave in their wake.

You can still argue that the information souls leave is always just beyond the observation of our best experiments, but this is an argument of unfalsifiability so it can't justify their existance, indeed it would be entirely justified to assert they do not until experiments chance upon an exchange of particles consistant with what you eventually decide to call a soul. The only problem is that by the time you come up with a description of the soul that matches all of these physical necessities hardly anybody would call it a soul anymore, because.
-it would not be immortal
-it would most likely only exist as an epiphenomenon of the brain

By insisting that souls cannot be supernatural if we are ever to treat them seriously the soul is, for all practical purposes, redefined as 'the self'.
And 'the self' is already arguably just an erroneous illusion our brains conjure up.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Jesus Christ. I am surprised this thread keeps going on and on. Has the OP not been satisfied with his replies?



what

dude, OP isn't even here

OP is irrelevant

do you know how threads generally work and progress


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

Gibby said:


> whatdude, OP isn't even hereOP is irrelevantdo you know how threads generally work and progress


 I bet he's trolling, a little funny, but nothing new or original. Look at his original thread post. He makes it like it's serious. LOL


----------



## reecewarren (Mar 9, 2013)

dam looks like im gona go to hell by the look of it     


oh well furry is just to dam good:twisted:


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 9, 2013)

Not loving the opposite Gender is a Sin. Period.
So, basically, 55% of the world's population are sinning at this moment... me included.

...also, trollthread?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

I need to come to the den more often... This shit is hilarious!

My opinion on a few things that I saw here:

- No, you won't go to hell. Because hell isn't real.
- Souls aren't real either.
- God is fake as well.
- Why is this thread still going on?


----------



## reecewarren (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I need to come to the den more often... This shit is hilarious!
> 
> My opinion on a few things that I saw here:
> 
> ...


        why do you come on to a Christian thread and say god is fake youcan p**s off a lot of people by doing that 

                                                                          sory to have to piont that out:smile:


----------



## reecewarren (Mar 9, 2013)

i think you will not go to hell unless you do real animals


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

reecewarren said:


> why do you come on to a Christian thread and say god is fake youcan p**s off a lot of people by doing that
> 
> sory to have to piont that out:smile:



What am I supposed to say now? "I'm sorry that I don't believe in fairytales"?
And by the way, why should I care about pissing people off? Religious people always demand that you tolerate or even respect their cute little fairytale and get angry when you point out how retarded and immoral their beliefs are. But _they_ are allowed to say that I deserve to go to hell just for disagreeing with them? Fuck that shit!


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

reecewarren said:


> why do you come on to a Christian thread and say god is fake youcan p**s off a lot of people by doing that
> 
> sory to have to piont that out:smile:



People, including myself, have been criticising the assertion that there is even a soul to go to heaven for the last few pages. Why is captain cool so worth your attention?

It's a valid answer to the question to say 'no you won't go to hell for being furry, because hell does not exist'. Just as it would be valid to say 'No, santa claus is not going to give you coal for being a furry, because santa claus is make believe,'.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> - No, you won't go to hell. Because hell isn't real.
> - Souls aren't real either.
> - God is fake as well.
> - Why is this thread still going on?


 How do you know?


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> How do you know?


By observation and simple logic I'd guess.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> How do you know?



I don't really claim to know that. Agnostic atheist and all that. I simply belief that they aren't real due to a complete lack of evidence.
Also, a mystical place that you are being sent to if you did bad things during your life or pissed of a magical space wizzard? As Raptros said, logic. If you honestly believe in any of that stuff there just has to be something wrong with you...


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I don't really claim to know that. Agnostic atheist and all that. I simply belief that they aren't real due to a complete lack of evidence.Also, a mystical place that you are being sent to if you did bad things during your life or pissed of a magical space wizzard? As Raptros said, logic. If you honestly believe in any of that stuff there just has to be something wrong with you...


 Lack of evidence doesn't mean it's not real. We didn't have evidence of a lot of things before they were discovered to be real. In a belief perspective, yes those things do sound very silly. As stupid as it may sound, when I think about the supernatural, I try to think about it in scientific perspective and how it may possibly be real. Of course, this is part of theoretical science and not actual fact. At this point, we just don't know, like a lot of things. You either choose to believe or disbelieve, and it doesn't change the fact whether it's real or not. People who simply believe in the supernatural I don't think have something wrong with them. I believe in the strong possibility of the supernatural, but will never know for sure. I believe in synchronicity.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Lack of evidence doesn't mean it's not real. We didn't have evidence of a lot of things before they were discovered to be real. In a belief perspective, yes those things do sound very silly. As stupid as it may sound, when I think about the supernatural, I try to think about it in scientific perspective and how it may possibly be real. Of course, this is part of theoretical science and not actual fact. At this point, we just don't know, like a lot of things. You either choose to believe or disbelieve, and it doesn't change the fact whether it's real or not. People who simply believe in the supernatural I don't think have something wrong with them. I believe in the strong possibility of the supernatural, but will never know for sure. I believe in synchronicity.



The supernatural has nothing to do with science at all. Science deals with reality, not stuff outside of reality >__> Not to mention that I have no idea what the supernatural is supposed to be anyway because no believer has bothered explaining it to me so far... If something exists it is part of reality and therefore part of nature. If a god exists it's therefore part of nature as well.

And about not having evidence for things that we discovered later on, that argument is irrelevant. The evidence for those things was there, we simply didn't have any means of interpreting it yet. But the supernatural doesn't have any evidence in it's favor because it IS supernatural! You can't prove it's existence because of it's nature. According to many religious texts gods are completely undetectable. "You just have to have faith." And there is the problem. Faith in itself is a retarded concept to base your beliefs on because having faith is equivalent to having no evidence at all, as in believing blindly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Lack of evidence doesn't mean it's not real. We didn't have evidence of a lot of things before they were discovered to be real. In a belief perspective, yes those things do sound very silly. As stupid as it may sound, when I think about the supernatural, I try to think about it in scientific perspective and how it may possibly be real. Of course, this is part of theoretical science and not actual fact. At this point, we just don't know, like a lot of things. You either choose to believe or disbelieve, and it doesn't change the fact whether it's real or not. People who simply believe in the supernatural I don't think have something wrong with them. I believe in the strong possibility of the supernatural, but will never know for sure. I believe in synchronicity.



'absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense'. However as I previously stated 'impossibility of evidence is evidence of impossibility'. The supernatural is deliberately impossible to test for. 

Vague definitions, moving goalposts. The supernatural's function is quite clear, to avoid epistemological criticism by avoiding any semblence of experiment so that the people who believe in it can continue to do so, whether it be because it makes them fear death less or think that they can use people's zodiac as an excuse to judge them. 

Do you know what they call magical, almost impossible hypotheses that don't move their goalposts, that invite experiment, that make predictions and live up to them? 

Natural.




CaptainCool said:


> The supernatural has nothing to do with  science at all. Science deals with reality, not stuff outside of reality  >__> Not to mention that I have no idea what the supernatural is  supposed to be anyway because no believer has bothered explaining it to  me so far... If something exists it is part of reality and therefore  part of nature. If a god exists it's therefore part of nature as well.
> 
> And about not having evidence for things that we discovered later on,  that argument is irrelevant. The evidence for those things was there, we  simply didn't have any means of interpreting it yet. But the  supernatural doesn't have any evidence in it's favor because it IS  supernatural! You can't prove it's existence because of it's nature.  According to many religious texts gods are completely undetectable. "You  just have to have faith." And there is the problem. Faith in itself is a  retarded concept to base your beliefs on because having faith is  equivalent to having no evidence at all, as in believing  blindly.




The supernatural is best summarised with the attitude 'regardless of science and immune from criticism'. 
These two attitudes are common to all supernatural claims, whether it be Ghosts, Souls, Gods or Psychics. 

All will refuse the legitimacy of analysing their beliefs from scientific grounds and cry fowl if they do submit to a test but then fail it. 

For instance most psychics claim 'I didn't feel comfortable' or 'I can only use my powers when I'm not being experimented on', when they are examined scientifically. 

Which is very similar to the response 'God works in mysterious ways/ is unknowable/ you need to have faith/who are you to judge god?,'


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Lack of evidence doesn't mean it's not real. We didn't have evidence of a lot of things before they were discovered to be real. In a belief perspective, yes those things do sound very silly. As stupid as it may sound, when I think about the supernatural, I try to think about it in scientific perspective and how it may possibly be real. Of course, this is part of theoretical science and not actual fact. At this point, we just don't know, like a lot of things. You either choose to believe or disbelieve, and it doesn't change the fact whether it's real or not. People who simply believe in the supernatural I don't think have something wrong with them. I believe in the strong possibility of the supernatural, but will never know for sure. I believe in synchronicity.


I could say the same thing about unicorns. We have no evidence that unicorns exist BUT THEY DO IF YOU BELIEVE! :V


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 9, 2013)

No, being a furry doesn't mean you'll go to hell.  I go to church wearing a tail sometimes and the people at my church love it.  They accept me for who I am, no questions asked.  I've never been told that I would go to hell for being a furry.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I could say the same thing about unicorns. We have no evidence that unicorns exist BUT THEY DO IF YOU BELIEVE! :V



It's pretty tough to find a difference between god, unicorns and other fairytale critters, isn't it? Oh wait I got something! Unicorns don't kill people and don't hate gays.



Silvaris said:


> No, being a furry doesn't mean you'll go to hell.  I go to church wearing a tail sometimes and the people at my church love it.  They accept me for who I am, no questions asked.  I've never been told that I would go to hell for being a furry.



I've been to church for like... 5 times. Same boring shit every time. You got a guy in front spewing out fairytales as facts, you have to stand up every 2 minutes and a bunch of smelly old people are are sittin' there... It's the 21st century, why are we still doing that bullshit?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

Damnit my super long post was the last on the page. 

Also regardless of this current discussion, the mental image silvaris just gave me of someone wearing a fluffy tail in the pews, is lovely. x3



CaptainCool said:


> It's pretty tough to find a difference  between god, unicorns and other fairytale critters, isn't it?



Unicorns have a higher self esteem?


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It's pretty tough to find a difference between god, unicorns and other fairytale critters, isn't it?


Who'd have thunk????


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Also regardless of this current discussion, the mental image silvaris just gave me of someone wearing a fluffy tail in the pews, is lovely. x3



xD  Now, my church has chairs instead of pews.  It is amusing either way.  I also play in the church band.  My church does live streaming, so I've been caught on camera with a tail on in church. x3


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Unicorns have a higher self esteem?





Raptros said:


> Who'd have thunk????



See my edit. Unlike god unicorns don't kill people. They are all still imaginary though, just like god.



Silvaris said:


> It is amusing either way.



I think it's actually pretty sad that you are wasting so much time there.


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I think it's actually pretty sad that you are wasting so much time there.



D:  I enjoy being there.  Everyone there is my friend.  Why do you think it's a waste of time?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> See my edit. Unlike god unicorns don't kill people. They are all still imaginary though, just like god.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's actually pretty sad that you are wasting so much time there.



It's not wasted time if he enjoys it. [sorry if you're a girl! I've no idea] The church in my town has a coffee place, which I suspect is one reason people go there. x3

I enjoyed my time visiting a sihk gurdwara eventhough I don't believe in it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

Silvaris said:


> D:  I enjoy being there.  Everyone there is my friend.  Why do you think it's a waste of time?



If you just go there to hang out with friends? Sure, that most definitely isn't a waste of time. But this whole god and church business, THAT is a waste of time. You don't have to hang out with them at the chruch afterall.



Fallowfox said:


> It's not wasted time if he enjoys it. [sorry if you're a girl! I've no idea] The church in my town has a coffee place, which I suspect is one reason people go there. x3
> 
> I enjoyed my time visiting a sihk gurdwara eventhough I don't believe in it.



See above. I really didn't write that all that well X3


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> It's not wasted time if he enjoys it. [sorry if you're a girl! I've no idea] The church in my town has a coffee place, which I suspect is one reason people go there. x3
> 
> I enjoyed my time visiting a sihk gurdwara eventhough I don't believe in it.



^^ This.

And I am a girl.  Now you know. :3

EDIT: Response to CaptainCool's message (posted before I was done; can't add quote)

I don't just go there to hang out with friends.  I enjoy worshipping God and all that.  We all have our different opinions about religion and such, so let's just keep it at that.  This isn't a thread to argue as to why religion is a "waste of time," okay?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

Silvaris said:


> ^^ This.
> 
> And I am a girl.  Now you know. :3
> 
> ...



I'm not just saying that it's a waste of time, I am also saying that you are worshipping an immoral monster that supposedly created us in a broken way, demands that we live up to it's expectations and then dishes out an eternal punishment if we fail to do so.
To quote Steven Weinberg: â€œReligion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.â€


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 9, 2013)

@Fallowfox Agreed at the first part. 
And... I just pictured a group of friends meeting there. "Hey! Let's meet at the church! Their coffee is great!".

Now, I've been reading *some* posts about this theme. First I couldn't help myself but laughting at some posts, and suddendly, BAM! bznz gtz srs.

I myself have no religious beliefs. I don't believe in Santa, nor Easter Bunny, much less in any kind of Gods... (Polytheism, Monotheism and so on). Still, I dislike seeing people forcing others to Believe or stop Believing in their stuff. It's one's privacy. It gets annoying, like those people who really love dogs and then become annoying. (sorry, apparently this was filmed with a potato...)


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Mar 9, 2013)

If this thread keeps on at this rate it'll reach page 50 by next week.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 9, 2013)

In my eyes, the Bible is not God, God is God. The Bible is a book that  has been roughly translated into many different languages, manipulated  and misinterpreted by the likes of man. God is a being of pure love and  kindness. To blindly build your life around the bible would be to cloud  your judgement, obscure your views of life, and lose sight of what's  really important in God's eyes, which is love. In return for the love He  gave to us, there are 3 simple things God asks of us in return and 2  simple things in addition to make it to heaven. #1) Love God as He has  loved us by acknowledging, accepting, and embracing the sacrifices He  made for us. #2) Love ourselves as He has loved us, his most prized  creations. Not  because we are human, but because we are living beings. God loves us  eternally,  so He does not want us to live our lives in fear, sadness, or shame.  #3) (This is the part where many religious people screw up) Love each  other as He has loved us, regardless of our differences. #4) Confess our  sins, whatever they may be, and admit the wrongs we may or may not have  done. #5) Ask God for forgiveness of these sins, whatever they may be.  Do all of these things and there is no way you can possibly not make it  to heaven. Unless of course, you do something unforgivable. But in my  opinion, even then, God is still pure love. And in his eyes, no one  deserves eternal damnation. Everyone is purely good and evil is a  sickness that can be cured. After all, love is the strongest and most  powerful thing in existence.

An example of where religious people  often screw up on rule #3, is their hatred for Homosexuality. If love  is the greatest thing in existence, it should not matter whether you  love a man or a woman. Love is a spiritual thing, whereas sex is a  physical thing. If we constantly try to bar people from loving each  other, are we really showing love to the people around us like God wants  us to? And the ironic part is that religious people, no matter how  spiritual they say are and how much they say they love God, they neglect  to understand that in God's eyes, love is more important than something  as trivial as sex. And the entire reason behind this, is that instead  of worshiping God himself, they worship the Bible. The Bible... even  though it was originally inspired by God, it is thousands of years old.  It has been roughly translated into many different languages and along  the way there has been many misinterpretations when translating it. And I  don't doubt that over the course of thousands of years, there's been at  least a few people who have taken the opportunity when translating it,  to change things up a bit in the way they think creation should work.  The point is, the Bible has been corrupted by the likes of man and we  cannot accurately interpret the things it says. And it is so easy to let  things in the Bible like "Homosexuality is wrong" make us lose sight of  what really matters... love. With the Bible the way it is, why else do  you think religious people stress faith in God so much? The problem with  them is they are letting their faith in God be obscured by the contents  of the Bible. Since God is pure love, to worship God is to worship  love. So, tell me... in what way are you worshiping love if you are  trying to keep people from loving each other because of their sexual or  romantic orientations?

I know Homosexuality was not the topic here, I just thought it would helpful to use it as an example to support my argument.

But,  to answer your question OP, and this goes for anyone else who is  wondering this, no, you will not go to hell for being a furry. Of all  things to go to hell for, being a furry is not one of them. Unless of  course you rape ferrets or something. But that's not what a furry is,  that's called bestiality, which is a whole other story. Generally, being  a furry means you have a love for anthropomorphic animals, and since  God wants us to love each other and animals to, being a furry will most  likely be a thumbs up for you depending on what kind of furry you are.  And having a love for anthropomorphic animals shows a wonderful open  mindedness and creativity. Truly, by loving people for who they are  while seeing past your differences with those people, (and in this case  the differences are being two completely different species) shows a  strong appreciation for love. Why else do you think hugs are so popular  among the fandom? And in this case where anthropomorphic animals don't  exist (as far as we know) having a desperate longing to live amongst  these creatures, shows that we are eager to test our ability to love  someone for who they are when major differences like species is put into  consideration (for most of us at least). In my opinion, this and the  fact that God is pure love proves the existence of these anthropomorphic  creatures as maybe something like aliens. God, being pure love, will  definitely smile upon your love of these sentient beings. And in my  opinion, (just like God doesn't care what your sexuality is) even if you  like the yiff part of the fandom, God will not send you to hell as long  as you realize that love is more precious than sex.

So, to answer your question in short: *HELL NO!!!* (pun intended )

Edit: Longest post I've ever made in my life XD. Sorry about that :/


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 9, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> In my eyes, the Bible is not God, God is God.



There are reasons that I don't completely follow the bible.  I go to church to believe, not follow a book.  Also, I'm one of those religious people who accept everyone equally; I don't care if you're homosexual, transgender, potato or fish--you're still a human being.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

Also, when I was talking about scientific perspective for the possibility of the supernatural, I was talking about The First Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

Silvaris said:


> There are reasons that I don't completely follow the bible.  I go to church to believe, not follow a book.  Also, I'm one of those religious people who accept everyone equally; I don't care if you're homosexual, transgender, potato or fish--you're still a human being.



But _why_ do you believe?



TheMetalVelocity said:


> Also, when I was talking about scientific perspective for the possibility of the supernatural, I was talking about The First Law of Thermodynamics.



Explain.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Also, when I was talking about scientific perspective for the possibility of the supernatural, I was talking about The First Law of Thermodynamics.


What? 

"The energy of an isolated system is constant."

If you're talking about the "supernatural" as an isolated system, how do we know this exists? This brings me back to the unicorn argument.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

Raptros said:


> What?
> 
> "The energy of an isolated system is constant."
> 
> If you're talking about the "supernatural" as an isolated system, how do we know this exists? This brings me back to the unicorn argument.



Yeah, not to mention that this again shows how arrogant believers can be... claiming to know so much about something that is, by it's own nature, entirely unknowable >__>


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But _why_ do you believe?



_why_ not? Let me ask you something. Do you believe love is something spiritual or something physical?



CaptainCool said:


> Yeah, not to mention that this again shows how arrogant believers can  be... claiming to know so much about something that is, by it's own  nature, entirely unknowable >__>



Like I said before in my incredibly long post which I really hope you guys read - otherwise you will not completely understand where I'm coming from - This applies to the people who worship the Bible instead of God Himself.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Let me ask you something. Do you believe love is something spiritual or something physical?



Both. You can be spiritual without believing in supernatural nonsense afterall...




-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> This applies to the people who worship the Bible instead of God himself.



I don't agree. You know why? Because in your long-ass post you yourself claim to have knowledge about this god. You even laid out a guide on how to get into heaven...


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Both. You can be spiritual without believing in supernatural nonsense afterall...



spirÂ·itÂ·uÂ·al  
/ËˆspiriCHoÍžoÉ™l/

Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> spirÂ·itÂ·uÂ·al
> /ËˆspiriCHoÍžoÉ™l/
> 
> Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.



I hate this trend of trying to prove your point through dictionary definitions >__>
"Spirituality" is such a broad term it doesn't have a proper definition.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I hate this trend of trying to prove your point through dictionary definitions >__>
> "Spirituality" is such a broad term it doesn't have a proper definition.


 What's your definition?


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But _why_ do you believe?
> 
> 
> 
> Explain.



Why do I have to justify my belief?  That's like asking any of us why we're furries.  If you must know, I believe based on how philosophy states it--it allows me to have a reason to not completely fear dying, basically giving something to look forward to rather than fear.



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> _why_ not? Let me ask you something. Do you believe love is something spiritual or something physical?
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before in my incredibly long post which I really hope you guys read - otherwise you will not completely understand where I'm coming from - This applies to the people who worship the Bible instead of God Himself.



I believe in something spiritual; it gives me a sense of the unknown, which I enjoy.


----------



## Azure (Mar 9, 2013)

Silvaris said:


> Why do I have to justify my belief?  That's like asking any of us why we're furries.  If you must know, I believe based on how philosophy states it--it allows me to have a reason to not completely fear dying, basically giving something to look forward to rather than fear.


why do you fear something that is inevitable? i never understood why people fear death when it is the only certain thing in life. doesnt that drive you to enjoy your time here all the more? make you aspire to become something, do great things, make an impact, because our lives are so fleeting and ephemeral? why do people need to fool themselves with a pile of nonsense that, in my mind, creates more fear than it alleviates. because if you believe in god but not the bible, well god doesnt look too kindly on that. but if you just believe to feel at ease with death, why believe at all? heaven is here, paradise is NOW. embrace it while you still have life in your limbs, and time on your side. strive to KNOW instead of feeling like some things should be UNKNOWN.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

Silvaris said:


> Why do I have to justify my belief?  That's like asking any of us why we're furries.  If you must know, I believe based on how philosophy states it--it allows me to have a reason to not completely fear dying, basically giving something to look forward to rather than fear.



So it really is nothing but a security blanket for you.
I don't fear death. At all. I embrace it as something natural. I don't even want to live forever! Because then all the great moments that I had during my life would become meaningless compared to my infinite life.

Also, you don't HAVE to justify it. But don't you agree that having a belief that is actually based on reality, evidence and the truth wouldbe more beneficial then just having blind faith in a fairytale that is over 2000 years old?



TheMetalVelocity said:


> What's your definition?



That's tough. I don't really think I can define it.
I can give an example though: The fact that the matter that we are made out of and all the matter in the solar system have the exact same origin, that is something that I am spiritual about. This feeling that we are all part of one big system is incredibly beautiful in my opinion.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> That's tough. I don't really think I can define it.
> I can give an example though: The fact that the matter that we are made out of and all the matter in the solar system have the exact same origin, that is something that I am spiritual about. This feeling that we are all part of one big system is incredibly beautiful in my opinion.


 Well then I sorta feel the same way, except i do believe in supernatural, My whole life is sorta based on synchronicity.


----------



## Avlenna (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So it really is nothing but a security blanket for you.
> I don't fear death. At all. I embrace it as something natural. I don't even want to live forever! Because then all the great moments that I had during my life would become meaningless compared to my infinite life.
> 
> Also, you don't HAVE to justify it. But don't you agree that having a belief that is actually based on reality, evidence and the truth wouldbe more beneficial then just having blind faith in a fairytale that is over 2000 years old?



I mean I don't fear death.  I just like the sense of imagining what heaven is like.  That was more or less what I meant.

Also, you do realize that everyone in the Bible (excluding God) actually existed?  There is evidence to support that, from books (Josephus's book is a great one) and other writings from that time period, most (if not all) from people who did not follow Christ and such.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 9, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Well then I sorta feel the same way, except i do believe in supernatural, My whole life is sorta based on synchronicity.



If you base your whole life on it you gotta have evidence that would demonstrate the existence of the "supernatural".



Silvaris said:


> I mean I don't fear death.  I just like the sense of imagining what heaven is like.  That was more or less what I meant.
> 
> Also, you do realize that everyone in the Bible (excluding God) actually existed?  There is evidence to support that, from books (Josephus's book is a great one) and other writings from that time period, most (if not all) from people who did not follow Christ and such.



In my opinion heaven is an asinine fantasy connected to that fear of death. "Hey when you die everything is gonna be super good and you are gonna see all your friends again and there are gonna be puppies and everyone is gonna be super happy!"
I'm sorry. I'm not 5 years old, I'm not buying crap like that anymore.

Every bible character was real? Well, Adam and Eve never existed. I'm not convinded that Jesus was real. You have to actually give me some more sources to convince me here...


----------



## Riho (Mar 9, 2013)

Why most certainly!
But, as the ancient adage goes, you will "Yiff in hell, furfag."
So hell seems to be pretty fun!


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 9, 2013)

Riho said:


> Why most certainly!
> But, as the ancient adage goes, you will "Yiff in hell, furfag."
> So hell seems to be pretty fun!



oh murr. :V

See you in Hell, furries.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

The last two pages have become emotionally entangled. I empathise because I really fear death, but no longer have the conviction to hold any claims of religosity to nullify this worry. 

When I was religious I still feared death, but not dying. Because I believed I would wake up and be alive in heaven, so rather than overcoming death I simply refused to believe it was real. 

Of course, bringing this back to initial discussions about the soul, I've been dead before. For 13.75bn years I didn't exist and I had no experiences what so ever in that time. The deep past is as ungraspabley distant and vast as the far future, in which I will be dead again. This _should_ disengage my fear of death, because before I was born I never experienced any pain or discomfort. It still doesn't. 

I think seeking human comfort on this subject is better in contrast to inventing imaginary friends to confide in. It's difficult to find someone to talk to about dearing death because everyone else does, and nobody wants to be reminded of it.

Hopefully the shrouded feeling this leaves behind should act as justification to consider that of all the things to be concerned with in life- to the most mortal extent of all- being a furry is definitely not among them. 

In fact, considering that anyone would think it is should lighten the mood; even the subject of death can be made frivolous.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Both. You can be spiritual without believing in supernatural nonsense afterall...



What I mean is, do you believe love is just a chemical reaction in our brains obtained from evolution or something beyond our physical bodies?



CaptainCool said:


> I don't agree. You know why? Because in your long-ass post you yourself claim to have knowledge about this god. You even laid out a guide on how to get into heaven...



So, I'm arrogant because I believe that people don't just vanish from existence when they die? I'm arrogant because I believe there is a celestial being that loves us and wants us to love each other? *KILL ME FOR DISAGREEING WITH YOU, MY GOD!!!* At least I respect other people's beliefs and don't go parading around insisting people's beliefs are wrong.

And BTW, that long-ass post was for the OP because he happens to be at least somewhat Christian like myself, and unlike you who from what I've seen don't fully understand the meaning of faith. That long-ass post was friendly advice intended to actually help the OP since we both have something in common and is something that may actually help him. My beliefs are not hurting you in any way. So, mind your business unless you have something helpful to say.


----------



## Kazookie (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm a believer myself. Not completely Christian, though, as I believe that the Jews are right about a lot of things.
Either ways, I do not think of the furry fandom as something that interferes badly with my religion. My mom is really into the religion, and she knows what the furry fandom is (People who like anthropomorphic animals), and she had no problem with it at all.

I can't think of any way that the furry fandom is some sort of wrong thing. The fandom itself, of course. When it comes to yiff, then yeah, probably. That's one of the reasons I stay away from it. But the fandom in the way that I see it, it's nothing to be worried about from what I know.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 9, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> If you base your whole life on it you gotta have evidence that would demonstrate the existence of the "supernatural".


 I am not going to get into that, as you will not be able to understand me. I will just leave it at that, for the sake of arguments. I try to make people understand, but they just can't. Perhaps, it is something I can only understand. Whatever it is, it has helped me a lot with my self understanding and the people around me. So, I will go further deep into it.


----------



## Azure (Mar 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I think seeking human comfort on this subject is better in contrast to inventing imaginary friends to confide in. It's difficult to find someone to talk to about dearing death because everyone else does, and nobody wants to be reminded of it.


i disagree with the everyone fears death point, but i do agree with the human comfort part. people are busy praying to something that doesnt exist and wont grant them anything but faux satisfaction within their own mind, when they have people who care and are REAL and can help them right in front of their nose. its pure arrogance to assume a person cant solve your problem or help you but GOD can.



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> What I mean is, do you believe love is just a chemical reaction in our brains obtained from evolution or something beyond our physical bodies?


love is a chemical reaction in our brain that has certain triggers from both external and internal influences. it isnt some mystical fucking force that comes from some ficticious being.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> What I mean is, do you believe love is just a chemical reaction in our brains obtained from evolution or something beyond our physical bodies?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why is love 'just' a chemical reaction? Chemical reactions are not 'just', they are amazing! All the joy, despair, anger, love, jealousy and lament we feel in life is mediated by the electrostatic force acting on tiny little lumps of matter in our heads. 

This does not reduce love, if anything pretending it is something that it's not makes it 'just' a fantasy. 


Also, the claim that there is a celestial human like being who cares about apes who live on a tiny blue dot in the vastness of inky space? Yes, that is arrogant. It exaggerates our importance. We're as insignificant to the unvierse as a single bacterium on a coral reef. 

Beliefs are, I am afraid, not about respect. They're about facts. If they're not then they aren't beliefs, they're fantasies.



Kazookie said:


> I'm a believer myself. Not completely Christian,  though, as I believe that the Jews are right about a lot of things.
> Either ways, I do not think of the furry fandom as something that  interferes badly with my religion. My mom is really into the religion,  and she knows what the furry fandom is (People who like anthropomorphic  animals), and she had no problem with it at all.
> 
> I can't think of any way that the furry fandom is some sort of wrong  thing. The fandom itself, of course. When it comes to yiff, then yeah,  probably. That's one of the reasons I stay away from it. But the fandom  in the way that I see it, it's nothing to be worried about from what I  know.




I never yiff over pigs, so I'm kosher right? x3


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 9, 2013)

Azure said:


> love is a chemical reaction in our brain that has certain triggers from both external and internal influences. it isnt some mystical fucking force that comes from some ficticious being.



*BUT DO YOU BELIEVE WE HAVE OBTAINED THE ABILITY TO LOVE FROM EVOLUTION?*



Fallowfox said:


> Why is love 'just' a chemical reaction? Chemical reactions are not  'just', they are amazing! All the joy, despair, anger, love, jealousy  and lament we feel in life is mediated by the electrostatic force acting  on tiny little lumps of matter in our heads.
> 
> This does not reduce love, if anything pretending it is something that it's not makes it 'just' a fantasy.
> 
> ...



Is it harming you what someone else believes in even when they're not trying to make you believe it to? I do not understand why so many people feel the need to crush everyone's hopes and dreams WHEN IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM AT ALL.

I don't give a crap whether anyone believes in God or some other celestial being or not. I couldn't care less WHAT people believe in, As long as you don't hurt others by doing it or try to strip them of their rights because of your personal religion. Why the fuck do you think there's all these fucking wars going on in the middle east and all over the world? Because people are to stuck up about themselves to accept the fact that people are different. PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT. That's what makes life so magnificent. Our differences. And our ability to see past all of that and embrace the fucking love we should all have for each other. All this unnecessary fucking hate we have for people who are different is going to tear us apart. How can we expect to survive in this cold existence if we can't even learn to live with each other? Everyone needs to just fucking learn to tolerate people so we can finally coexist in peace and harmony or else we're going to destroy ourselves. Everyone needs to just fucking grow up already.

Edit: And why the fuck do I keep getting logged out?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 9, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> *BUT DO YOU BELIEVE WE HAVE OBTAINED THE ABILITY TO LOVE FROM EVOLUTION?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Beliefs are about fact, not the way they make us feel. If you want to ignore any criticism you are free to stick your fingers in your ears or not read threads about religion. The moment you ask others to shut their mouths instead, then that actually _is _harmful. 

Don't allow disagreement on whether there is a supernatural to constitute 'hating you'. 

and for the record, yes love is an evolutionary phenomenon/epiphenomenon. That is rather a no brainer.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 9, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> *BUT DO YOU BELIEVE WE HAVE OBTAINED THE ABILITY TO LOVE FROM EVOLUTION?*


*
**â€‹*In short, yes, it's actually a fact...


----------



## Dragonfurry (Mar 9, 2013)

Personally i feel that Christians worry to much about death and other people when it comes to their lives's and their so called "Salvation" to gain them brownie point to go to "Heaven".

Dont worry about it OP (even though this sentence isnt relevant anymore) Live your life to the fullest and stop worrying about what a 2000 year old book says.


----------



## Azure (Mar 9, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> *BUT DO YOU BELIEVE WE HAVE OBTAINED THE ABILITY TO LOVE FROM EVOLUTION?*


*
*uh, yeah. we are everything we are because of our evolution as a species. otherwise we'd just be another great ape type creature eating ants out the ground with a stick and masturbating in trees to pass the time.



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Is it harming you what someone else believes in even when they're not trying to make you believe it to? I do not understand why so many people feel the need to crush everyone's hopes and dreams WHEN IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM AT ALL.


ask this of every single law everywhere based on your religions "morality". you don't have to make me believe what you do to enforce your morals and beliefs on me without my willingness, especially since religious people are the majority on this planet. it is a wider realm than you just not preaching to me. and you are right about heaven and god being a dream, such places and beings can only be the product of fantasy. as far as them not effecting me, see above. 



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Everyone needs to just fucking grow up already.


ive been saying that about religious people for years, maybe decades. believe it!


----------



## Tiives (Mar 9, 2013)

ITT: A neverending fighting(TM). With extra Positivism.

I can't see why being a furry would condemn you to an eternal (after)life of damnation. We don't go around killing people or anything like that. However, the furry porn (like all other porn) might make _[insert the supreme being you believe (or not) in here]_ be angryface at us. Not like I care, though.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Don't allow disagreement on whether there is a supernatural to constitute 'hating you'.



I'm talking about the unnecessary wars we have over religion. That's what I mean about hating each other for our differences.



Raptros said:


> In short, yes, it's actually a fact...



So, then tell me. If evolution is about survival, why would it make us put ourselves in harm's way to save or keep safe someone we love or someone we don't even know at all. I'll be damned if I allow a loved one to be put in harm's way for the sake of my own nowhere nearly as fucking significant at all life. Someone's in the middle of the street? There's a car heading their way? I'll launch myself out there and shove that motherfucker right out of the fucking way. I'll take a fractured skull, I'll take internal bleeding, I'll take the complete shattering of my entire body, I don't give a fuck, I'll do what it takes to save someone's life and to keep them safe. Does that sound like a good survival technique to you?

No, we are not some unimportant specks of dust in the universe, we have the ability to love one another. We have the ability to love and appreciate the world around us, and to make a difference. That makes us indeed valuable. Not because we are human beings, but because we are people with minds, with hearts, with spirits, with thoughts, with feelings, with emotions, and with self-awareness. No, of course the universe doesn't care about us, the universe isn't a living being, but that doesn't matter. We, in and of ourselves as people are magnificent beautiful entities of existence and do not deserve to live in such misery, fear, and despair. We deserve to have a hope that there is something out there for us. Something more than just the void of death. Why would you want to take this amazing thing away from someone?

No, love is not just a fucking chemical reaction in our brains, love is way more than something physical. I don't give a shit what some book says. I don't give a shit what evolution says. I don't give a shit what anyone says. Love is more precious than anything in existence. And I will continue to treat it as such for the rest of my life.

Love is just to powerful to be something less than spiritual.

(no offense to you raptros )

Edit:



Azure said:


> ask this of every single law everywhere based on  your religions "morality". you don't have to make me believe what you do  to enforce your morals and beliefs on me without my willingness,  especially since religious people are the majority on this planet. it is  a wider realm than you just not preaching to me. and you are right  about heaven and god being a dream, such places and beings can only be  the product of fantasy. as far as them not effecting me, see  above.



Sorry, I'm not seeing where you are trying to say my beliefs are affecting you.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 9, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> I'm talking about the unnecessary wars we have over religion. That's what I mean about hating each other for our differences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Evolution isn't about the survival of one individual in a species, but rather the species as a whole, and that means making sacrifices. I think if you really have the nerve to say that love is not a chemical reaction then you're well and truly ignorant of the scientific reasearch behind it. News flash, what you feel is happening isn't always what's actually happening. The behaviour you display here is the textbook definition of ignorance.


----------



## Outcast (Mar 9, 2013)

Some people just do not give the human brain enough credit... emotions were given to our species when evolution gave us our complex prefrontal cortex (The area of the brain where our emotional control, judgment and insight comes from) and our deep limbic system (Contains the thalamus, hypothalamus, amygdala and the hippocampus structures), I must ask, how is that so difficult to understand? 

I'm going to save everyone from a large wall 'o text and just flat-out say something to our religious viewers: Find your factual information from a scientific article or book, not the bible. 


Enjoy your "fun" while it lasts, and just remember this:

If you're soaked with sweat,

You ain't going nowhere yet.

Take your "sweet" time,

Yiffing isn't really considered a crime.

Put on a huge-ass grin,

You just committed a terrible sin. >:V​


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 9, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Evolution isn't about the survival of one individual in a species, but rather the species as a whole, and that means making sacrifices. I think if you really have the nerve to say that love is not a chemical reaction then you're well and truly ignorant of the scientific reasearch behind it. News flash, what you feel is happening isn't always what's actually happening. The behaviour you display here is the textbook definition of ignorance.



So what you're saying is that even if we lived amongst many species of different people such as anthros (which I know we don't) we wouldn't be able to love them or put ourselves in harms way to save them because we're not the same species? I'm not saying you'd be like that. I know you wouldn't and I know I wouldn't and I know many people wouldn't. I'm just letting you know what you're sounding like right now (no offense). We're furries for fuck sakes, come on man, get real :/


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> So what you're saying is that even if we lived amongst many species of different people such as anthros (which I know we don't) we wouldn't be able to love them or put ourselves in harms way to save them because we're not the same species? I'm not saying you'd be like that. I know you wouldn't and I know I wouldn't and I know many people wouldn't. I'm just letting you know what you're sounding like right now (no offense). We're furries for fuck sakes, come on man, get real :/



Did you really just make an argument about evolution based on anthropomorphic fantasy creatures? X3
To give a serious reply to a silly argument: It depends. Could we interbreed with them? Because if so they would still belong to the same species.


----------



## Hewge (Mar 10, 2013)

What the *balls*â€‹ happened in this thread ?


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 10, 2013)

Hewge said:


> What the *balls*â€‹ happened in this thread ?


Shit got srs bro.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

I feel it's best to repeat that just because love is mediated by the interaction of chemicals this does not detract from its value. 
Afterall does it make us feel love with any less intensity to know this? 
If we measure the worth of our love by the mechanics that mediate it, then we're missing the very point of experiencing it.



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> So what you're saying is that even if we lived amongst many species of different people such as anthros (which I know we don't) we wouldn't be able to love them or put ourselves in harms way to save them because we're not the same species? I'm not saying you'd be like that. I know you wouldn't and I know I wouldn't and I know many people wouldn't. I'm just letting you know what you're sounding like right now (no offense). We're furries for fuck sakes, come on man, get real :/



Some people love cute little animals, like kittens. They feel protective over them and want to nurture them. 

Why should humans experience protective feelings towards another species? Why should the babies of cats appear cute to us? 

It's not because it serves a direct evolutionary function. It's an *epiphenomenon. *What makes a human baby adorable? In experiments on cuteness [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0zConOPZ8Y] it is revealed that a high head to body size ratio, a small stocky frame and big eyes are responsible for babies being adorable. 
If a baby didn't have these features it would not provoke a feeling of cuteness, for these are the traits human mothers have evolved to recognise their young by. 

In species more closely related to humans the same mechanism operates. A cat's kittens are born small with big heads and eyes. They appear cute to their mother, but because they exhibit the same traits as human young they also appear cute to humans. 

Feeling cuteness towards a kitten or puppy doesn't provide an evolutionary disadvantage, so there's no reason to 'devolve' this epiphenomenon. It has actually provided a real advantage to humans because not being scared of baby animals is one reason our species has been able to domesticate others. 


Your assumptions about how evolution works are silly. You're making the argument that 'leaves evolve to be green because green is good' rather than 'leaves just happen to be green because cholorophil's useful and it happens to be green'. 

Emotions will never be wholely specific and razor-sharp. There are situations which are not critical to a species' survival, so it will not matter whether they exhibit emotions or not in those instances. Whether they do is controlled by the usefulness of their emotional response in critical situations. Being afraid of anything stripey doesn't sound very rational for instance, but the man who runs away from stripes will never come cheek-to-jowl with a hot blooded tiger.


----------



## Kazookie (Mar 10, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> Shit got srs bro.



Shit got derailed because people would rather spend an awful long time trying to show other people their own views on things, even when they know that the other person won't change his/her view anyways... So what's happening here is a huge shitstorm of arguments for and against religion, which can only turn out bad.

Seriously guys, why the heck are you doing this? What do you even THINK you will achieve with it? You both disagree with each other, and you will neither change your view on the matter. And don't go "He/she is so close-minded and stupid" or anything like that. I don't care if evolution is right or not. I still believe that there is a god that have created all this, and you can't change that part of me. Don't even try wasting your time on it.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 10, 2013)

(now seriously)
The best and probably the mature'st thing to do is... Solve it via PM.
Every time, and I mean *Every freakin' time* religious stuff is brought up (to whatever issue being debated), shit tends to get serious. And then, Flame Wars all over the place...
What was the purpose of this thread anyway?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Kazookie said:


> I still believe that there is a god that have created all this, and you can't change that part of me.



Oh I know. And don't worry, it's not my goal to take away your favorite toy.
However, that still doesn't sop me from pointing out to you that there is no evidence for the existence of any sort of god, that almost all holy texts portrait their gods as immoral monsters that torment humanity and don't help us in any way and that religion is doing more evel than good.


----------



## Kazookie (Mar 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh I know. And don't worry, it's not my goal to take away your favorite toy.
> However, that still doesn't sop me from pointing out to you that there is no evidence for the existence of any sort of god, that almost all holy texts portrait their gods as immoral monsters that torment humanity and don't help us in any way and that religion is doing more evel than good.



That's pretty good, and I respect your views on it, but you do not make it any better when trying to point it out. We still believe that it is good, and when someone says that it's evil, some people will react badly to it.
I know that religion can be pretty bad at some times, and they don't usually blend too well, but when you try to deny one, or two, or all of them, they will make a stand towards it. It all ends with something bad happening, so it would be better to just leave it as it is.

It's nice of you to admit that you won't try to stop us from believing, but the safest thing to do will be not to say anything at all. People react in different ways, and you will rarely meet someone with the same views as me when it comes to accepting other people's views. When you "point out" that god never helps us in any way, and that religion is doing more evil than good, you're doing it like if it's an all-known fact. This will most likely cause religious people to react badly, so I think it's important to state that it is your own view.
Not completely sure how else I would explain it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Kazookie said:


> That's pretty good, and I respect your views on it, but you do not make it any better when trying to point it out. We still believe that it is good, and when someone says that it's evil, some people will react badly to it.
> I know that religion can be pretty bad at some times, and they don't usually blend too well, but when you try to deny one, or two, or all of them, they will make a stand towards it. It all ends with something bad happening, so it would be better to just leave it as it is.
> 
> It's nice of you to admit that you won't try to stop us from believing, but the safest thing to do will be not to say anything at all. People react in different ways, and you will rarely meet someone with the same views as me when it comes to accepting other people's views. When you "point out" that god never helps us in any way, and that religion is doing more evil than good, you're doing it like if it's an all-known fact. This will most likely cause religious people to react badly, so I think it's important to state that it is your own view.
> Not completely sure how else I would explain it.



First of all, the word you were looking for is "tolerate", not "respect". Respect is earned, not handed out like candy. And so far I haven't done anything in my life to have earned any sort of respect.

And no, I WILL continue to point that out. I don't care how much I piss you off with it, a lie is a lie. And in this case it's a lie that is responsible for so many terrible things that happened in human history.
Why should I just sit by and let it go on? I want it _gone_ afterall!
We created god. We can kill it off again.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

It is beyond frustrating that this subject is so emotionally loaded, to the point that self censorship is considered morally virtuous.
Why should discussion of the things we believe to be true focus on the way they make us feel foremost and cast factual analysis asside as an after thought, with the veiled threat that unless people shut up and silence their discent that we'll be really nasty to them? 

I disagree with assertions related to the topic that emotion and self identity is only explicable if you appeal to the supernatural, for some reason this view is considered so inflammatory that it must remain private?

If some people don't want to read comments that are in any way critical of their supernatural beliefs then they _don't_ need to seek out threads on the internet in order to tell people to shut up. 

It's akin to walking into heavy traffic yelling 'stop' to avoid personally travelling by car.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> It is beyond frustrating that this subject is so emotionally loaded, to the point that self censorship is considered morally virtuous.
> Why should discussion of the things we believe to be true focus on the way they make us feel foremost and cast factual analysis asside as an after thought, with the veiled threat that unless people shut up and silence their discent that we'll be really nasty to them?
> 
> I disagree with assertions related to the topic that emotion and self identity is only explicable if you appeal to the supernatural, for some reason this view is considered so inflammatory that it must remain private?
> ...



It's because god is almighty, so it needs to be protected.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Forgive me for what some people might consider an ad hominem fallacy. 


-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> So, then tell me. If evolution is about survival, why would it make us  put ourselves in harm's way to save or keep safe someone we love or  someone we don't even know at all.





Silvaris said:


> If you must know, I believe based on how  philosophy states it--it allows me to have a reason to not completely  fear dying, basically giving something to look forward to rather than  fear.





TheMetalVelocity said:


> Well then I sorta feel the same way,  except i do believe in supernatural, My whole life is sorta based on  synchronicity.





Kazookie said:


> When it comes to yiff, then yeah, probably. That's one of the reasons I stay away from it..



In the name of the supernatural, people in just the last few pages of this thread have claimed that human emotions are cosmic forces, that it makes their identity immortal, that 'their whole lives' are based on the correlation=causation fallacy, and that liking sexy cartoon characters incurs the punishment of divine beings. 

This is insanity 

....and the proponents of these claims wonder why people feel obliged to voice their disagreement? 

If you are to propose something as grand as the existance of a pandimensional macro-creature then how on earth does this justify such...insignificant and silly claims? 

To use the most extreme example, if there is a God, why does this mean xe cares whether you download yiff?

People call the OP a troll...read your own damn comments, they're much weirder.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Forgive me for what some people might consider an ad hominem fallacy.
> 
> In the name of the supernatural, people in just the last few pages of this thread have claimed that human emotions are cosmic forces, that it makes their identity immortal, that 'their whole lives' are based on the correlation=causation fallacy, and that liking sexy cartoon characters incurs the punishment of divine beings.
> 
> ...



Well obviously the existence of a supernatural being is a much better explanation than natural processes that take a long time and that we can actually explain.
I agree, this really is insane. And to be honest, I feel insulted when people claim that this supernatural bullshit is true and scientific theories are bunk.


----------



## Kazookie (Mar 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> First of all, the word you were looking for is "tolerate", not "respect". Respect is earned, not handed out like candy. And so far I haven't done anything in my life to have earned any sort of respect.
> 
> And no, I WILL continue to point that out. I don't care how much I piss you off with it, a lie is a lie. And in this case it's a lie that is responsible for so many terrible things that happened in human history.
> Why should I just sit by and let it go on? I want it _gone_ afterall!
> We created god. We can kill it off again.



Yeah, tolerate is the word for it. Thanks.

But the thing I'm trying to point out is that even how much you try to change it, you won't achieve anything. The only thing you will achieve is to piss people off. You take no care to try not to do it, and you don't care if you do either. I really have no idea if I'm pissing off anyone here, and I really hope I don't.

I know that informing people will tend to ease out the numbers of religious people, and we can see that trough history. But this isn't something that happens in a persons lifetime. This happens trough generations. We all learn new things, and we still continue to learn of new discoveries. But there will always be someone that holds back. Some people still believe that the earth is flat. It's a fact that the earth is spherical (not completely, of course), and this is a fact that most people know is true. This thing has been proven. And still people does not accept it. Then how will people stop believing in god when no-one can prove or disprove him? And even if you find proof of that he does not exist, people will still believe. Religion is not something you just remove from the face of the earth. It either dies out naturally and disappears with only few traces left, or it stays for a much longer time before something happens.

You can't prove to me that god doesn't exist, so why should we stop believing? Your views are tolerated, but they are completely pointless when you use them to stop people from believing.
I don't see why I use my time writing this, and I can't see why you are doing the same. We will simply not achieve anything either ways.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

So we should avoid risking offending people because they're too stupid to change? 

Sorry what? 

Seriously I empathise with people who hold whacky supernatural views because I used to hold them too. I used to think that if I drew furries with animalistic muzzles, rather than human jaws, that this would turn me into a zoophile and make god angry. [among many other intriguingly weird moral standards]

Thankfully people didn't write me off as an idiot beyond help and I eventually have come to understand that most important thing in a belief system is its evidencial merits. 
From my point of view, you're behaving pretty much exactly as I was 5 years ago.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 10, 2013)

Kazookie said:


> Yeah, tolerate is the word for it. Thanks.
> 
> But the thing I'm trying to point out is that even how much you try to change it, you won't achieve anything. The only thing you will achieve is to piss people off. You take no care to try not to do it, and you don't care if you do either. I really have no idea if I'm pissing off anyone here, and I really hope I don't.
> 
> ...


You can't prove a negative, ever, I've been saying this the past few pages.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Raptros said:


> You can't prove a negative, ever, I've been saying this the past few pages.



Did you know that every year a solid gold alien flying saucer crash lands in the amazon rainforest, just at the precise moment that nobody is paying attention to observe it? 

x3

This golden saucer is enscribed with teachings from the powerful aliens, who will teleport us into new bodies when we die if we please them. They want us only to have sex whilst wearing cowboy hats and to recite the poetry of william wordsworth to them every night before we go to sleep, because daffodils are their favourite ever thing apart from us.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Kazookie said:


> You can't prove to me that god doesn't exist, so why should we stop believing?



Holy shit, not this again...
It's not my job to prove that god doesn't exist! YOU believe in it, so YOU have to provide the evidence! This is called "burden of proof". And the burden of proof always has to be fulfilled by someone making a claim.
I am NOT claiming that god doesn't exist. I am saying that there is no evidence to show that it does exist.
Not to mention that trying to prove a negative is a massive logical fallicy...


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 10, 2013)

Kazookie said:


> You can't prove to me that god doesn't exist, so why should we stop believing?



Because with that logic you would need to believe *everything*.

You can't prove that you don't owe me a million dollars, so why should we stop believing that you do?


----------



## Kazookie (Mar 10, 2013)

I know, I know.I'm not trying to prove anything at all. And I know people think it's awful stupid to say something like that. But that's what a lot of people think.It's not easy to change what a person believes in, and people have different experiences. If you're looking for evidence, then there are none that I can think of that are hard evidence that can't be disproved. But still, we believe. We do not search for evidence because we believe that this is how it is. I know that some people take it to an extreme level, like saying we couldn't live on the earth if it was five meters towards or away from the sun, and I think it's stupid too. But when it comes to religion, it's something we choose to believe in.

There's no way that I can make my beliefs seem useful or okay to you, and I won't even try. I don't care if you think this and that when it comes to religion. I tolerate your views, but there's a very little chance to that I will change anything from of what you say to me. I know how stupid it seems, but it's what I choose.

Also, CaptainCool, you're contradicting what you said in your last post. First you say that we made god, then you say that you're not claiming that he does not exist. How can a fictional thing be real? I know I seem like I'm contradicting myself here, but if I believe that god is real, that's what I believe, and I act trough from what I know and what I believe.

This discussion is pretty useless for both parts, and the only thing we are doing is to insult each other. So why are we discussing this when we all probably know how useless it is?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Kazookie said:


> I know, I know.I'm not trying to prove anything at all. And I know people think it's awful stupid to say something like that. But that's what a lot of people think.It's not easy to change what a person believes in, and people have different experiences. If you're looking for evidence, then there are none that I can think of that are hard evidence that can't be disproved. But still, we believe. We do not search for evidence because we believe that this is how it is. I know that some people take it to an extreme level, like saying we couldn't live on the earth if it was five meters towards or away from the sun, and I think it's stupid too. But when it comes to religion, *it's something we choose to believe in.*
> 
> There's no way that I can make my beliefs seem useful or okay to you, and I won't even try. I don't care if you think this and that when it comes to religion. I tolerate your views, but there's a very little chance to that I will change anything from of what you say to me. I know how stupid it seems, but it's what I choose.
> 
> ...



You didn't choose anything because beliefs are not a choice that you can make. As you said yourself, it is tough to change your beliefs. That is because your beliefs are always tied to something. My own beliefs are tied to evidence for example. I can't choose not to believe in evolution for example because I know that there is hard evidence that supports it very well. Not believing in it would mean to actively ignore that evidence which is something that I am simply entirely incapable of.

"But still, we believe. We do not search for evidence because we believe that this is how it is."
Why? Don't you want to know whether that which you believe in is actually true or not? Don't you care about that?
Having evidence is the only way to know whether something is true or not. And you said yourself that there is no evidence.

As for my statement that "we made god", with that I am simply implying that god is entirely fictional. A fantasy that we can "destroy" if we all stopped believing in it.
The _concept_ of god is very real afterall! But that doesn't make god itself real.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Did you really just make an argument about evolution based on anthropomorphic fantasy creatures? X3
> To give a serious reply to a silly argument: It depends. Could we  interbreed with them? Because if so they would still belong to the same  species.



Umm... No, of course not. Can we interbreed with dogs or cats or  horses? No, we can't, so what makes you think we can interbreed with an  entirely different species from an entirely different planet which has  evolved separately from our own species? Unless, of course, science  advances enough to make that kind of thing possible, but that likely  won't be happening any time soon. But for all we know, by the time we  meet an alien species we might already have the technology to interbreed  with them. But my argument still stands that no matter how you look at  it, through evolution or the spirit, love is still the most beautiful  thing in existence and should be treated as such.



CaptainCool said:


> It's because god is almighty, so it needs to be protected.



And since when did God become "it?" or are you talking about something else?



Fallowfox said:


> In the name of the supernatural, people in just the last few pages of  this thread have claimed that human emotions are cosmic forces, that it  makes their identity immortal, that 'their whole lives' are based on the  correlation=causation fallacy, and that liking sexy cartoon characters  incurs the punishment of divine beings.
> 
> This is insanity
> 
> ...



*OH, HELL NO!!!*  I never said liking sexy cartoon animals means you should be punished.  Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm like EVERY OTHER  CHRISTIAN. I for one hold the virtue of equality as extremely Important.  It's perhaps one of my most valued virtues aside from love itself. You  see all these other Christians going out of their way to strip people of  their rights, specifically homosexuals and transgenders. I'm FAR FAR  FAR different from those assholes. I have absolutely nothing against  homosexuals or transgenders or even people who like yiff. I myself am  bicurious and I do like yiff. This equality I believe in extends to the  potential existence of other sentient creatures such as aliens. So I'll  be damned if I criticize anyone for liking yiff or falling in love with  someone of different species.



CaptainCool said:


> Well obviously the existence of a supernatural being is a much better  explanation than natural processes that take a long time and that we can  actually explain.
> I agree, this really is insane. And to be honest, I feel insulted when  people claim that this supernatural bullshit is true and scientific  theories are bunk.



I also never said scientific theories  are "bunk." But neither religious people or scientists know everything  about everything, so neither should say that you can't learn valuable  information about reality from the other.



Kazookie said:


> Yeah, tolerate is the word for it. Thanks.
> 
> But the thing I'm trying to point out is that even how much you try to  change it, you won't achieve anything. The only thing you will achieve  is to piss people off. You take no care to try not to do it, and you  don't care if you do either. I really have no idea if I'm pissing off  anyone here, and I really hope I don't.
> 
> ...





Raptros said:


> You can't prove a negative, ever, I've been saying this the past few pages.



Also,  to add to this point, when it comes to supernatural stuff you really  can't prove a negative. Can you prove to me that there isn't an  invisible flying spaghetti monster hovering directly over your head that  you can neither see or touch? In all seriousness when it comes to  supernatural stuff it is easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a  negative.



Fallowfox said:


> So we should avoid risking offending people because they're too stupid to change?



The  point is, if you don't mind your business LIKE MOST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE  ARE NOT DOING ABOUT SEXUALITY you are GOING to start a major shitstorm and  only bad can come from it. Just like people's sexuality, if whatever  their religious beliefs are are not harming you, or the person is not  trying to force it on you or make you believe it, IT IS SOMETHING  PERSONAL AND DOES NOT NEED TO BE ARGUED ABOUT.



CaptainCool said:


> I am NOT claiming that god doesn't exist.



Really? Cuz it sure seamed that's exactly what you were doing the last few pages.



Hakar  Kerarmor said:


> You can't prove that you don't owe me a million  dollars, so why should we stop believing that you do?



Really? You must be joking... Of course some random internet person doesn't owe you a million dollars.



Kazookie said:


> This discussion is pretty useless for both parts, and the only thing we  are doing is to insult each other. So why are we discussing this when we  all probably know how useless it is?



We're not quite insulting each other yet, but if this thread continues the way it's going, that's exactly what some of us are going to stoop to.



CaptainCool said:


> You didn't choose anything because beliefs are not a choice that you can make.



Really? Ya... this is just simply not true. I can CHOOSE to believe in the invisible flying spaghetti monster above my head if I really really want to believe that. I can also choose to believe in an imaginary friend whoever that friend may be, God or someone else. You'd be surprised what you can accomplish by just wanting to believe.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

Raptros said:


> You can't prove a negative, ever, I've been saying this the past few pages.



That's not really the case...



CaptainCool said:


> Holy shit, not this again...
> It's not my job to prove that god doesn't exist! YOU believe in it, so YOU have to provide the evidence! This is called "burden of proof". And the burden of proof always has to be fulfilled by someone making a claim.
> I am NOT claiming that god doesn't exist. I am saying that there is no evidence to show that it does exist.
> Not to mention that trying to prove a negative is a massive logical fallicy...



Why does _anyone _have to prove _anything_?

It's just a belief. It doesn't need a formal proof to be a belief.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

If you aren't open to the possibility of change, why engage in discussion? 

If one day someone managed to prove that souls are real, or that some humans actually have psychic abilities I would at first be dubious, but then the inevitably nobel prizes would start coming, papers would be published and I would reassess my views. I've changed my beliefs multiple times before, afterall. 

Furthermore, God is rather obviously a human invention. The universe is governed by an anthropomorphic deity who happens to embody the specific moral values of each different culture which worships him/her? It's quite obviously a social avatar. 

If there are powerful mega-creatures in our universe, then we are as insignificant to them as a virus is to us. They don't care whether we say morning prayers or who we shag. 

I'm all up for considering hypothetical mega creatures, but I wish this could be separated from human mythology.



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> *"OH, HELL NO!!!  *I never said liking sexy cartoon animals means  you should be punished.  "
> .


Actually Kazookie said that god doesn't like yiff, not you. Please pay attention.




Ricky said:


> Why does _anyone _have to prove _anything_?
> 
> It's just a belief. It doesn't need a formal proof to be a belief.



Actually beliefs do require proof to be justified. Otherwise they are fantasies. 

Beliefs are factual claims about the nature of reality.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Really? You must be joking... Of course some random internet person doesn't owe you a million dollars.



What proof and evidence do you have that they don't owe me a million dollars?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> And since when did God become "it?" or are you talking about something else?



Well then, what should I call it?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> What proof and evidence do you have that they don't owe me a million dollars?



Inb4 numerous rationalisations and no actual proof? 

Whatever anybody says we can pretend that the money which is owed is owed via the Bank of Spiritualism. 

The Bank of Spiritualism -better knowns as BS- provides magical services to its clients completely beyond the detection of any observers. 

Ofcourse the best answer to this question is 'How can you prove I haven't already paid you?'



CaptainCool said:


> Well then, what should I call it?



Just go for Her/She

It's about time God got some female pronouns.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Just go for Her/She
> 
> It's about time God got some female pronouns.



Pronouns like that would still mean that I have actual knowledge about it's gender though. And since everything about god is essentially completely unknowable I'm sticking to "it".


----------



## Kazookie (Mar 10, 2013)

Well, just gonna put this down. I'm not going to reply further into this thread. If you want any of my points of views, just send me a pm instead.
This whole discussion is pointless for both parts the way I see it, and the thread was derailed quite some time ago. The only thing I can see coming is way more discussion that can only lead to bad things. No-one will ever win this endless discussion unless both parts will understand that the other part won't change, and that they could just stop trying to contradict each other even further.

Cya


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Beliefs are factual claims about the nature of reality.



No, they are not.

"Belief" has nothing to do with "fact" at all.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> No, they are not.
> 
> "Belief" has nothing to do with "fact" at all.



But what is a belief that isn't based on facts or evidence? In my opinion it's entirely worthless.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> No, they are not.
> 
> "Belief" has nothing to do with "fact" at all.


"I believe that (x) is true".
"I believe that (x) is fact".


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> No, they are not.
> 
> "Belief" has nothing to do with "fact" at all.


From your own source:

'*:* *conviction of the truth *of some  statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when  based on examination of evidence ' 

The other definitions include confidence and tenet, which are other iterations of 'to trust something is a fact'. 



Please read your sources before posting them.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> But what is a belief that isn't based on facts or evidence? In my opinion it's entirely worthless.



I know, and that's why you are going to keep having these pointless debates because you are unable to see things from the other side. Personally, I agree with you -- I wouldn't hold something to be true without substantiating it first. That is my personal choice. Some people want to believe things based on blind faith. That might not be *your* choice, but telling people _they are wrong_ for it is not very productive.

If you're really trying to get Christians to question their beliefs, why not talk about the history behind it and the influence of Zoroastrianism on the concept of Heaven and Hell? Or the fact that Paul was the one who came up with the idea of Jesus being the son of God (he was a Hellenized jew and that was a Greek concept not found in Judaism, same thing with the resurrection which is also quite Greek).


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> From your own source:
> 
> '*:* *conviction of the truth *of some  statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when  based on examination of evidence '
> 
> ...



No, I'm sorry but you are wrong.

Not to mention the word "fact" didn't appear ONCE on the page.

To _trust something is a fact_ doesn't make it a fact. A fact is proven.

I know you're smarter than this - if you truly don't understand the difference between a belief and a fact I feel sorry for you.

EDIT: Just to summarize my point a bit better: an unsubstantiated belief is still a belief


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> No, I'm sorry but you are wrong.
> 
> Not to mention the word "fact" didn't appear even once on the page.
> 
> ...



Ricky. I said that beliefs are factual *claims* about reality. 

Saying 'I think x is true', which is a belief, *is* an epistemological claim. You are claiming that something is a fact. 

Beliefs can be wrong, [I mean...duh], this doesn't change the fact they are claims to fact. 

Please I beg you, read more intently so that you don't confuse me saying 'beliefs are claims to fact' with 'beliefs are actually facts'.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Ricky. I said that beliefs are factual *claims* about reality.



Right, and I said they ARE NOT necessarily factual.

Jesus was the son of God _is thought to be_ a fact by most Christians.

That doesn't make it a fact.

Like I said in my edit, an unsubstantiated belief is still a belief.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Right, and I said they ARE NOT necessarily factual.
> 
> Jesus was the son of God _is thought to be_ a fact by most Christians.
> 
> ...



Erm, yes...I'm not disputing that beliefs can turn out to be wrong.



Ricky said:


> That's not really the case...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



bringing us back to your initial comment on this matter we have now established that beliefs are claims to fact.

Hence, in order to have any worth, they must live up to the same scrutiny and evidencial rigour as any other belief that has shown itself to be fact.

If not they would better be described as 'fantasies' and 'delusions'- which are beliefs held in spite of conflicting evidence or in the absense of any good reason otherwise. 

I hope this answers your question.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Erm, yes...I'm not disputing that beliefs can turn out to be wrong.



You were saying they require proof.

I'm not going to argue with someone and tell them _they are wrong_ for believing in something that isn't even BASED ON fact in the first place. I'm especially not going to say that about a religion that's been around for thousands of years.

I'm not going to agree with it, but I think it's a pointless circular debate.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Actually Kazookie said that god doesn't like yiff, not you. Please pay attention.



Oops, sorry lol 



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> What proof and evidence do you have that they don't owe me a million dollars?



Well, because, why? Why should some random internet person you don't know owe you a million dollars?



CaptainCool said:


> Well then, what should I call it?



Well,  since the actual Christian God is a "He", you should call Him a He.  Just like a character in a book or an actor in a movie there are  depicted as either "he" or "she" or something else. However, if you are  not referring to the Christian God specifically, but any superior entity  in real life instead of a character from a book, then it doesn't matter  what you call it, because you would not talking about a deity that is  already known to us.



Ricky said:


> "Belief" has nothing to do with "fact" at all.



This should be quite obvious.



CaptainCool said:


> But  what is a belief that isn't based on facts or evidence? In my opinion  it's entirely worthless.



It's none of your fucking  business, that's what it is. And when you insist that you're right about  something and constantly try to force people to believe you or mock or  insult them or their beliefs, YOUR opinion becomes worthless. You say  you hate Christians so much because they assert their beliefs on you and  refuse to see the other side of the argument? That's exactly what  you're doing. You have become your enemy, great job there Fido.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> You were saying they require proof.
> 
> I'm not going to argue with someone and tell them _they are wrong_ for believing in something that isn't even BASED ON fact in the first place. I'm especially not going to say that about a religion that's been around for thousands of years.
> 
> I'm not going to agree with it, but I think it's a pointless circular debate.



If they are to have any substance, yes they require some proof. 

Telling people their beliefs, which do not adhear to available knowledge in any sense, are unsubstantiated is simply...well true. Beliefs really should be based on facts, because that's _what_ they're about- saying things are facts. 

Not even the most ancient and romantic mythologies or most beutiful theories are resistant to being slain by an ugly fact.




-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Oops, sorry lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Okay, in your words. 'Why?' Why do I, some random person, owe my piety to a God who is apparantly playing the world's longest running game of hide and seek? 

and I'm afraid to break it to you. Beliefs have _everything_ to do with fact. 

and seriously now, the merit of beliefs is not changes by whether you call CaptainCool 'Fido' or how personal you say they are. It's about the quality of evidence they have.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Well, since the actual Christian God is a "He", you should call Him a He.



How do you know that? How can you know ANYTHING about something that is entirely unknowable?
See, this is the sort of arrogance that I hate about religious people. CLaiming to have factual knowledge about things that are unknowable.



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> It's none of your fucking  business, that's what it is. And when you insist that you're right about  something and constantly try to force people to believe you or mock or  insult them or their beliefs, YOUR opinion becomes worthless. You say  you hate Christians so much because they assert their beliefs on you and  refuse to see the other side of the argument? That's exactly what  you're doing. You have become your enemy, great job there Fido.



I becomes my business once these fairytales are forced on me through laws. Here in Germany we have 13 national holidays, 11 of them are based on christianity.
Two of our main parties that are in power right now have the word "christian" in their names and they are the only ones that are blocking full equality for homosexuals right now.
So yeah, if they do all that they better have some evidence for their actions.
Also, I don't hate christians. I never said that. I also don't refuse to see the other side of the argument, I simply refuse to acknowledge a position that is based on fairytales and other supernatural nonsense.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

The christian God is a he like voldemort is a he, Captain.

I also emphatically agree with you on the latter part of your comment. 

Holding beliefs regardless of reality isn't just a personal comfort. As we've already seen from the last few pages here it fills your head up with lots of other absolute nonsense. Such as seeing patterns in life which aren't really there or thinking that there is a supernatural force which pervades the universe judging people on what porn they like. 

This behaviour damages your own perception of the world, and people going around with insane ideas like this are a problem for the rest of us, who have to accomodate it- often in law.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The christian God is a he like voldemort is a he, Captain.



As a character in a fantasy novel god definitely is a he, that much I can acknowledge. But claiming that there is a supernatural being out there that shrouds itself in mysteries and then claiming to actually know it's gender or that it actually does have some form of gender? Naa.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

To bring this back to the original discussion, I still insist that regardless of your religious ideas furries don't go to hell. 

If the afterlife is full of furries it couldn't possibly be hell. <3


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If they are to have any substance, yes they require some proof.
> 
> Telling people their beliefs, which do not adhear to available knowledge in any sense, are unsubstantiated is simply...well true. Beliefs really should be based on facts, because that's _what_ they're about- saying things are facts.



That is your opinion, and it is one that religious people do not share.

I happen to agree with you. I would even say "wrong" in a lot of cases, and not just "unsubstantiated." There are plenty of things, like evolution vs. Genesis or the age of the Earth, that are stated by religious texts and contradicted by science. People generally adopt a looser interpretation of those texts or the hardcore Fundies will go so far to say fossils were put here as a ruse to test our faith. You can always weasel your way out of the argument by saying "it's magic."

Whatever. I don't particularly agree with any of that but I understand people well enough to know I'm not going to get anywhere telling them their beliefs are wrong (unless we are talking about individual facts such as above). After all, it is an OPINION whether to believe something based on blind faith. You don't have to agree with them but it's kind of silly telling someone their opinion is incorrect. It's a lot more productive asking intelligent questions about their beliefs and about science and argue with facts instead of opinions.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 10, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If they are to have any substance, yes they require some proof.
> 
> Telling people their beliefs, which do not adhear to available knowledge in any sense, are unsubstantiated is simply...well true. Beliefs really should be based on facts, because that's _what_ they're about- saying things are facts.
> 
> ...



1) You don't owe anything to any God if you don't want to, and lol no I'm not telling you that you do.
2) Yes beliefs have everything to do with facts, but only if you're trying to convince someone to agree with you, not if they are your personal beliefs and you have no interest in telling anyone about them. We should be able to see past those differences in beliefs and just get along, otherwise we are going to destroy ourselves.
3) (basically a summary of my second point but in response to your 3rd paragraph) Evidence should only be needed if you are trying to convince someone to agree with your beliefs. If you're not, then it shouldn't matter in the least what they believe in as long as they are not affecting you negatively.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> 1) You don't owe anything to any God if you don't want to, and lol no I'm not telling you that you do.
> 2) Yes beliefs have everything to do with facts, but only if you're trying to convince someone to agree with you, not if they are your personal beliefs and you have no interest in telling anyone about them. We should be able to see past those differences in beliefs and just get along, otherwise we are going to destroy ourselves.
> 3) (basically a summary of my second point but in response to your 3rd paragraph) Evidence should only be needed if you are trying to convince someone to agree with your beliefs. If you're not, then it shouldn't matter in the least what they believe in as long as they are not affecting you negatively.



How about proving it to yourself? Again, aren't you interested in knowing whether your beliefs are true or not?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> That is your opinion, and it is one that religious people do not share.
> 
> I happen to agree with you. I would even say "wrong" in a lot of cases, and not just "unsubstantiated." There are plenty of things, like evolution vs. Genesis or the age of the Earth, that are stated by religious texts and contradicted by science. People generally adopt a looser interpretation of those texts or the hardcore Fundies will go so far to say fossils were put here as a ruse to test our faith. You can always weasel your way out of the argument by saying "it's magic."
> 
> Whatever. I don't particularly agree with any of that but I understand people well enough to know I'm not going to get anywhere telling them their beliefs are wrong. After all, it is an OPINION whether to believe something based on blind faith. You don't have to agree with them but it's kind of silly telling someone their opinion is incorrect. It's a lot more productive asking intelligent questions about their beliefs and about science and argue with facts instead of opinions.



'Unsubstantiated' is actually the word I'm using because this means it's not an opinion. If I claimed the world is made of tiny indivisible specks of stuff that behave like waves on the ocean I would be right. However if I didn't lend any reason of proof then I would still be unsubstantiated. 

The rather more concerning thing is that 'substantiation' relies on us all agree on two basal assumptions
-that we exist
-that our experience of reality is at least sometimes reliable

and not everyone agrees on those. :s 

Most people reserve their religious beliefs the status of basal assumptions, from which the rest of their understanding of the world is derived, rather than the other way around as they do with _every single other aspect of life_. 

if anything, pointing this out should be the most helpful thing when discussiong religion- especially with fundamentalists.



-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> 1) You don't owe anything to any God if  you don't want to, and lol no I'm not telling you that you do.
> 2) Yes beliefs have everything to do with facts, but only if you're  trying to convince someone to agree with you, not if they are your  personal beliefs and you have no interest in telling anyone about them.  We should be able to see past those differences in beliefs and just get  along, otherwise we are going to destroy ourselves.
> 3) (basically a summary of my second point but in response to your 3rd  paragraph) Evidence should only be needed if you are trying to convince  someone to agree with your beliefs. If you're not, then it shouldn't  matter in the least what they believe in as long as they are not  affecting you negatively.



Evidence should be needed if you want to convince yourself. You deserve that level of self respect. Our own standards should be as good as those we would expect of others. To delude ourselves by not doing this is negative.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> 2) Yes beliefs have everything to do with facts, but only if you're trying to convince someone to agree with you, not if they are your personal beliefs and you have no interest in telling anyone about them. We should be able to see past those differences in beliefs and just get along, otherwise we are going to destroy ourselves.



Beliefs don't have anything to do with fact.

A belief can still be a belief if it's wrong.



Fallowfox said:


> 'Unsubstantiated' is actually the word I'm using because this means it's not an opinion.



I said the choice whether or not to believe in something based on blind faith alone is an opinion.



Fallowfox said:


> Most people reserve their religious beliefs  the status of basal assumptions, from which the rest of their  understanding of the world is derived, rather than the other way around  as they do with _every single other aspect of life_.
> 
> if anything, pointing this out should be the most helpful thing when  discussiong religion- especially with fundamentalists.



Right, like they haven't ever heard someone say that before :roll:

That's generally what kills the conversation and makes them not want to listen to you.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Beliefs don't have anything to do with fact.
> 
> A belief can still be a belief if it's wrong.



Yes. But why would you want to believe in something that isn't true?


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> How about proving it to yourself? Again, aren't you interested in knowing whether your beliefs are true or not?



Yes, of course. I don't disregard science as well as I don't disregard religion. After all I believe in equality even though the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. People can learn valuable things from both sides.



Fallowfox said:


> Evidence should be needed if you want to convince yourself. You deserve  that level of self respect. Our own standards should be as good as  those we would expect of others. To delude ourselves by not doing this  is negative.



So, you want to force people to have evidence to personally believe something is true when it doesn't affect you at all and when they are not even trying to affect you?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Yes. But why would you want to believe in something that isn't true?



I don't, but as far as other people, many religions give them comfort in knowing what happens after death. Religion also answers other questions that lack real answers and gives people a sense of "spiritual fulfillment."

That's what came off the top of my head but I'm sure it's a bit different for everyone.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Yes, of course. I don't disregard science as well as I don't disregard religion. After all I believe in equality even though the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. People can learn valuable things from both sides.





> No, love is not just a fucking chemical reaction in our brains, love is way more than something physical. I don't give a shit what some book says. I don't give a shit what evolution says. I don't give a shit what anyone says. Love is more precious than anything in existence. And I will continue to treat it as such for the rest of my life.


So which is it? You just contradicted yourself.



> So, you want to force people to have evidence to personally believe something is true when it doesn't affect you at all and when they are not even trying to affect you?


You need to have evidence for anyone to take your views with any seriousness.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Yes, of course. I don't disregard science as well as I don't disregard religion. After all I believe in equality even though the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. People can learn valuable things from both sides.



That's not what I meant. I am talking about proving your personal beliefs to yourself.
You believe in god but don't you care about whether it actually exists? At this point it seems like you really just believe to make yourself feel good.


----------



## Outcast (Mar 10, 2013)

There's no hope left for this thread.

I bet the OP is just scratching his head, wondering what the fuck happened.

... this is why furries and heaven/hell don't go well together.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Outcast said:


> There's no hope left for this thread.
> 
> I bet the OP is just scratching his head, wondering what the fuck happened.
> 
> ... this is why furries and heaven/hell don't go well together.



To be fair though,_ *HELL ANDO HEAVEN!!!*_ don't really get along with reality itself. You know, them being entirely fake and all that.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 10, 2013)

Raptros said:


> You need to have evidence for anyone to take your views with any seriousness.



I have a news flash for you.

2.18 *BILLION* people take Christianity seriously =P

So, I don't think that is correct. Many people take those views seriously. Even more so than Atheists!


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I have a news flash for you.
> 
> 2.18 *BILLION* people take Christianity seriously =P
> 
> So, I don't think that is correct. Many people take those views seriously. Even more so than Atheists!


I may have worded my point incorrectly. I meant that you need evidence to support your claims against scrutiny, otherwise you just look like an idiot.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I have a news flash for you.
> 
> 2.18 *BILLION* people take Christianity seriously =P
> 
> So, I don't think that is correct. Many people take those views seriously. Even more so than Atheists!



Sure, if you actually _share_ those insane beliefs you are gonna take them seriously.
But what about mormons for example? Even christians are laughing about those guys!^^


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 10, 2013)

Ha ha... oh, this thread.  It really got off track.  I would say it's my fault, but I don't see too much of a causal connection between a presentation by Sean Carroll and arguing about whether or not religion as a whole is bullshit.  I think it just drifted that way.

I do tend to notice, though, that these discussions always come to the same dead end.  This happened when I had a long (4 or 5 hours) discussion with a very religious friend of mine a while back.  We argued back and forth on specific points, heaven and hell, what it says or doesn't say in the Bible, the logic of an omnipotent being, and so on and so forth.  In the end, the argument finished when this person admitted that no, it doesn't make any sense at all, and he could never hope to justify his beliefs in any kind of logical way, it just FEELS right.  And if you can't FEEL it, you have no reason to believe it.
I think to him, he won that argument, because there's really nothing I can say to that.  But to me, I won the argument, because I got him to admit that he has no justification for believing the things he does, that his whole worldview is based on the very childish notion that what you feel in your heart to be true must therefore true.  And that's where we hit the bottleneck and went our separate ways for the day, and that's where everyone always hits the bottleneck in these types of discussions.  Because there really is nothing to say to that.  "I'm just right, so there.  Now fuck off."  Argument over by default.

I think in the end, more and more people are becoming convinced by scientific arguments, and the material view of the world, simply because that particular view actually gets results.  You know... if I drop a rock today or tomorrow or four-hundred-thousand years from now on the surface of Gliese 581-g, it will fall toward the nearest center of gravity.  You can always say that, because it's never been demonstrated to happen any other way.  Even when we look billions of light years out into the universe, we still see it happening that way, so far away in time and in space.  That's convincing.  It's also convincing that, no matter how hard you pray, you won't get that rock to fly up into the air.  In other words, religious arguments are incredibly weak, hence the reliance on 'faith'.  Faith is what you resort to when you otherwise have no proof.  It's the ultimate cop-out argument.  And it looks like more and more people are starting to realize that, which I think is a good thing.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 11, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> I think in the end, more and more people are becoming convinced by scientific arguments, and the material view of the world, simply because that particular view actually gets results.



I don't think many people _actually disbelieve_ those scientific facts. I mean, how many Christians _actually believe_ the world is 6,000 years old or whatever, or that Adam and Eve were created along with all the animals and evolution doesn't really exist? I know you have the Fundies, and they do, but it seems like the majority of Christians these days just take a looser interpretation of the Bible or say that the stories have meaning but not everything in it is to be taken at face value.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 11, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I don't think many people _actually disbelieve_ those scientific facts. I mean, how many Christians _actually believe_ the world is 6,000 years old or whatever, or that Adam and Eve were created along with all the animals and evolution doesn't really exist? I know you have the Fundies, and they do, but it seems like the majority of Christians these days just take a looser interpretation of the Bible or say that the stories have meaning but not everything in it is to be taken at face value.



Apparently, in the US it's about 40% of the population.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 11, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Apparently, in the US it's about 40% of the population.



Can you elaborate? I'm curious.

Was that coming from a poll or something?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 11, 2013)

Yes, here's one.

"Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings."


----------



## Ricky (Mar 11, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Yes, here's one.
> 
> "Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings."



Wow. That's pretty disappointing, to say the least. Also a bit surprising. I went to a Catholic High School and we learned actual Science, but it was a better college-prep type place which was probably why. I keep forgetting how many Americans live in backwater towns.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 11, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I don't think many people _actually disbelieve_ those scientific facts. I mean, how many Christians _actually believe_ the world is 6,000 years old or whatever, or that Adam and Eve were created along with all the animals and evolution doesn't really exist? I know you have the Fundies, and they do, but it seems like the majority of Christians these days just take a looser interpretation of the Bible or say that the stories have meaning but not everything in it is to be taken at face value.



As Hakar said above, there really are lots and lots of those.
And when you think about it, that really is sad. But also hilarious! Let me explain:
-These people are offended when you say that we evolved from lesser evolved species but are ok with the idea that god created us from dirt.
-They try to find loopholes in the scientifically established age of the earth but are ok with believing in a date written down by tribesmen in a tent who just guessed the age.
-They try to avoid scientific evidence as much as possible but a loonie rolling around on the floor who "speaks in tongues" is all the evidence they need to believe their own crap.
-They consider the 0.01% successrate of prayers to be high since the other 99.99% are just "the will of god".

And what is it about this hell business anyway? They essentially believe that all people on earth who don't share their beliefs, including the hundreds of other christian sects, deserve to burn forever. And yet they consider christianity to be the most loving and tolerant religion of them all. What the heck is this bullshit?


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 11, 2013)

2 words to sum this all up...


JESUSAUROUS REX!


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 11, 2013)

Bollocks to that. *Raptor Jesus is my lord and savior!*

That's right, I just started a schism. :V


----------



## Hewge (Mar 11, 2013)

I'd like to learn more about the almighty lord, Raptor Jesus.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

This thread keeps on Escalating in an awesome, fast and strange kind of way ._.

What if:
- Furries can't go to heaven nor Hell because they have an entire different place to go to? Maybe (just maybe) there's a Furry Jesus, with a Furry Bible, with Furry Believes, that decides if you go Furry Heaven or Furry Hell. (Maybe Furry God is an Otter!)

So people have different beliefs. I don't believe in Heaven nor Hell. I don't know nor care if they actually do or not exist, the same applies to all the things that're written in a small, black-covered book. 
There are people that take these things seriously, because they feel "protected" just by believing in something. They feel they're being looked upon.
I don't bash nor trash whoever believes, as long as they don't want me to convert / join their things... There would be one reason for me to convert to something religious, but only if there were furries envolved, or else, no deal.


----------



## Hewge (Mar 11, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> (Maybe Furry God is an Otter!)



I can confirm that god, is in fact, an otter.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

Oh also:

Those of you who are in their 30's might have seen this World Wide back in '92.
This, was a statement. Interesting to see that people reacted very bad to that... EVEN MADONNA WHO IS SOMEONE PURE AS AN ANGEL not WAS SHOCKED! D:


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 11, 2013)

The comments that some people left there are making me cringe so badly...


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

^I was to ask which ones, but I believe you mean the ones bashing Sinead O'Connor isn't it?
If so, I share of that feel :brofistposition:


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 11, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> ^I was to ask which ones, but I believe you mean the ones bashing Sinead O'Connor isn't it?
> If so, I share of that feel :brofistposition:



Both those comments and the ones from those damn creatards.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

Unbelievable to know is the fact that everyone criticised (almost killed Sinead O'Connor, literally) because she was trying to "destroy" the church image... and then, a few years later, it is revealed that she, in fact, was spreading the truth...


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 11, 2013)

I think the church is doing a great job at destroying it's own image further and further.


----------



## Hewge (Mar 11, 2013)

Why's this thread still here?! Why won't it die?

At least the 'So Foxes Are Sluts?' thread was just for fun and wasn't full of potentially offensive things!

If this thread some how reached 1000 posts... Well, I'd make it my goal to get that 1000th post.
But if this thread reaches 1000 posts... I'll--why I'll... Uuhh.
Now that I've thought about it I'd be pretty sad if I didn't get the 1000th post.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 11, 2013)

Hewge said:


> Why's this thread still here?! Why won't it die?
> 
> At least the 'So Foxes Are Sluts?' thread was just for fun and wasn't full of potentially offensive things!
> 
> ...



"My adventures on FAF 2"? :3


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 11, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> "My adventures on FAF 2"? :3


Make it happen, the last one was fun.


----------



## Hewge (Mar 11, 2013)

Adventures of FAF 2 *will* happen!

_...One day._


----------



## Bloodshot_Eyes (Mar 11, 2013)

Tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication. _You can't explain that. _


----------



## Ricky (Mar 11, 2013)

Hey, guys -- I found this paper online. It helped clear up many things :roll:



CaptainCool said:


> And what is it about this hell business  anyway? They essentially believe that all people on earth who don't  share their beliefs, including the hundreds of other christian sects,  deserve to burn forever. And yet they consider christianity to be the  most loving and tolerant religion of them all. What the heck is this  bullshit?



We learned that non-Christians went to Purgatory but that was probably a Catholic thing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 11, 2013)

Bloodshot_Eyes said:


> Tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication. _You can't explain that. _



Furthermore, take the banana. What a wonderful example the banana is of a fruit perfectly designed for human consumption. Behold it's many ridges, non stick surface and easy-open tap. 

x3


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

@Ricky
I c wut u did der :V


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 11, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Hey, guys -- I found this paper online. It helped clear up many things


So much facepalm in that article. Just the confirmation bias and misconceptions.... it's crazy... Wow.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

Is it not?^
And yet, there are people who tend to believe in that, despite knowing it's bull!
Also, is there anyone else in favor of putting one ":V" in this thread's title?


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 11, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> Is it not?^
> And yet, there are people who tend to believe in that, despite knowing it's bull!
> Also, is there anyone else in favor of putting one ":V" in this thread's title?


For some of them, their judgement is so clouded that they don't even know what these people are saying is bull....


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

Yup. Most of my family are Religious Blind, and I (kinda) felt that in my skin. I don't blame them for being "religious-blind". It gives them some self-support. Some hope that not everything is lost, so it seems.
I just hate the fact that I've been constantly "invited" (in a forceful way) to church and those other festivities.
I said no once, in the presence of some of my Grandparents friends, and suddendly I was treated like a Pagan ._. Just because I said "No, I don't want to participate in your religious festivities. I appreciate the invitation though". Just after that, I was glared, stared from every corner. I almost felt I was crucified and placed in a fireplace for the remaining two hours... 

Anyway, I do respect all religious sect, be them pagans, christians, islam, buddhist, jewish, wtv. I like reading some stuff about most of the pagan ones, due to the mysticism behind them  Still don't believe in them, I just like to read due to the stories...


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 11, 2013)

I don't think creation exist because energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This is sort of interesting and leaves me mind boggled. The world is kind of eternal.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 11, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I don't think creation exist because energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This is sort of interesting and leaves me mind boggled. The world is kind of eternal.



There is rather convincing evidence that the universe had a beginning. The universe is also expected to have an end, unfortunately. 

This is because whilst energy is conserved other aspects of the universe change over time, such as entropy. [quite literally a defining feature _of _time actually]

The entropy is a fancy word for the measure of a system's disorder. Things tend towards disorder over time because disordered arrangements of stuff are more likely- you're more likely to find sand in a pile than a castle shape.

A nice example of entropy and the fight against it is the system of life on earth interacting with the sun. The sun produces nice highly-ordered energy in the form of visible light. On earth life consumes this energy and transforms it into disordered forms of energy like sound and heat, in order to maintain the order in their tissues. They export the increase in disorder in their bodies into the stream of particles the sun bombards us with. 

Hence rather than being eternal living processes can only continue in the universe until the last generations of stars burn out and there's no more places to export disorder to. 

The universe as a whole is, it seems, doomed to become a dark place full of black holes, dead stars and radiation. Eventually it will be so sparse and contentless that it may not exist at all [otherwise known as heat death]


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 11, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> There is rather convincing evidence that the universe had a beginning. The universe is also expected to have an end, unfortunately.
> 
> This is because whilst energy is conserved other aspects of the universe change over time, such as entropy. [quite literally a defining feature _of _time actually]
> 
> ...


 Well my point was that energy cannot be destroyed, so even if this whole world was to collapse, the energy that it's made out of will change into something else regardless. Energy is eternal. If said things indeed happen, it will not undo physical existence.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 11, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Well my point was that energy cannot be destroyed, so even if this whole world was to collapse, the energy that it's made out of will change into something else regardless. Energy is eternal. If said things indeed happen, it will not undo physical existence.



The word "end" is relative though. For example, one scenario is the "heat death". In this case the universe would reach maximum entropy, all matter would be evenly distributed across the universe.
We simply don't really know how it's gonna end. Heck, we don't even know how or _if_ it even had a beginning! Because there are also many sources that conclude that the universe has indeed always existed in some form.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 11, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The word "end" is relative though. For example, one scenario is the "heat death". In this case the universe would reach maximum entropy, all matter would be evenly distributed across the universe.
> We simply don't really know how it's gonna end. Heck, we don't even know how or _if_ it even had a beginning! Because there are also many sources that conclude that the universe has indeed always existed in some form.


 I know. And, it might even exist in anther form once it ends? Since energy is neither created nor destroyed, perhaps the big bang didn't just start, but was rather a result of another form of energy changing?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 11, 2013)

It's a headscratcher, but the bottom line is that even if the existance per se does not begin or end, that the universe we know and love did and probably will.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 11, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I know. And, it might even exist in anther form once it ends? Since energy is neither created nor destroyed, perhaps the big bang didn't just start, but was rather a result of another form of energy changing?



One thing we do know, the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. It was just the event after which the universe started it's rapid expansion.


----------



## Azure (Mar 11, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> Oh also:
> 
> Those of you who are in their 30's might have seen this World Wide back in '92.
> This, was a statement. Interesting to see that people reacted very bad to that... EVEN MADONNA WHO IS SOMEONE PURE AS AN ANGEL not WAS SHOCKED! D:


I cheered that woman on when she did that, somebody has to stand up to the 2 billion member strong bully. I was 9 years old and I was already over the bullshit.


----------



## Car Fox (Mar 11, 2013)

One thing I can say about the universe is that, regardless of what it is to be, there is always the cycle of life: The death of one thing births another. The universe follows this current cycle as we know it, as do black holes, stars, and even planets.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 11, 2013)

@Azure, If we ever meet one day, I'll pay you an Ice Cream!

I find this to be ridiculous... The way how people bashed her, and now, after a few years, what she said and defended was proven to be right... Not even a single apology. Unbelievable.


----------



## benignBiotic (Mar 11, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The entropy is a fancy word for the measure of a system's disorder. Things tend towards disorder over time because disordered arrangements of stuff are more likely- you're more likely to find sand in a pile than a castle shape.


Entropy is sort of like Lisa in that it's tearing us apart over time. Or rather because of time. So cool.


----------



## Azure (Mar 11, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> @Azure, If we ever meet one day, I'll pay you an Ice Cream!
> 
> I find this to be ridiculous... The way how people bashed her, and now, after a few years, what she said and defended was proven to be right... Not even a single apology. Unbelievable.


The Church doesn't apologize on its own behalf, and neither will its zombie followers. But history will remember instead, and 50-100 years from now that video will still be around as an example of somebody standing up to the powerful, and it might inspire somebody to stick by their own values instead of just falling to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 11, 2013)

Torsion Beam said:


> One thing I can say about the universe is that, regardless of what it is to be, there is always the cycle of life: The death of one thing births another. The universe follows this current cycle as we know it, as do black holes, stars, and even planets.



Consider that a species of tiny organisms lives upon the surface of a spinning top. In all their existance this organism has recgonises that the top keeps spinning, conserving its angular momentum in a cycle with no sign of a beginning and no vestige of an end. 

Over time however the rotation of the spinning top becomes more and more erratic, as it begins to explore more likely forms of rotation. 

Perhaps the species of beings that live upon it only believe its cycle will be endless because if the cycle ever did end, then they would not be there to contemplate the question. 


Also, I realise that earlier I quoted plato's cave as 'pluto's cave'. :s I would just like to admit and correct that error.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 12, 2013)

This thread got so derailed. It went from do furries go to hell, to  whether or not religion is good or bad or in between, to the life cycle of  the universe, and now Fallowfox is talking about spinning tops. I wonder  how much more mindless debate it will take to get us talking about the  contents and origins of strawberry ice cream or some random topic like  that.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 12, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> This thread got so derailed. It went from do furries go to hell, to  whether or not religion is good or bad or in between, to the life cycle of  the universe, and now Fallowfox is talking about spinning tops. I wonder  how much more mindless debate it will take to get us talking about the  contents and origins of strawberry ice cream or some random topic like  that.



The thread startet with hell itself, so it was pretty mindless to begin with.
You can call it derailment, sure. But at least strawberry ice cream actually exists.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 12, 2013)

>thread with religious reference

>last post "CaptainCool"

http://i.imgur.com/nqRfs0u.jpg


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 12, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> http://i.imgur.com/nqRfs0u.jpg



That is adorable :3


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 13, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The thread startet with hell itself, so it was pretty mindless to begin with.
> You can call it derailment, sure. But at least strawberry ice cream actually exists.



Since you don't have any proof that hell doesn't exist and by just saying it doesn't exist, that makes your argument just your opinion. And since I have no proof that it does exist, that makes my argument just my opinion. So by just insisting that what you say is right without any evidence, you're basically doing the same thing that religious fundamentalists are doing, just with different claims.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 13, 2013)

I can't even begin to comment on the stupidity of that logic.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Since you don't have any proof that hell doesn't exist and by just saying it doesn't exist, that makes your argument just your opinion. And since I have no proof that it does exist, that makes my argument just my opinion. So by just insisting that what you say is right without any evidence, you're basically doing the same thing that religious fundamentalists are doing, just with different claims.



The only claim that I am making here is that belief without evidence is stupid.
"If you come to Germany within the next 48 hours I will give you $1.000.000". So what stops you from believing that?


----------



## Lunah (Mar 13, 2013)

â€‹Not that I know of..


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Since you don't have any proof that hell doesn't exist and by just saying it doesn't exist, that makes your argument just your opinion. And since I have no proof that it does exist, that makes my argument just my opinion. So by just insisting that what you say is right without any evidence, you're basically doing the same thing that religious fundamentalists are doing, just with different claims.



Actually the russell's teapot scenario is used as the justification for not believing in quite ridiculous claims. [It is similar to occam's razor]

Russell asserts that just beyond the range of our most powerful telescopes there is a ceramic teapot floating in space. 

This claim makes no sense, as teapots have never been launched into space in such a fashion. It's a rather silly idea. 

Russell insists however that because the teapot floats just outside the range of your telescopes that you can't prove the teapot is not there. Hence he's entitled to believe it is. 
If you launch a new and improved telescope to scour the skies in search of Russell's teapot he will move the goalposts and tell you that the teapot is just beyond the range of that telescope too. This is called 'moving the goalposts', constantly rationalising the shortcomings in his hypothesis without fair criticism to the hypothesis itself.
Russell might even eventually claim, aftet many telescopes and no teapot sightings, that the teapot is beyond all possible scientific observation. This is an 'unfalsifiable claim'. 

If it's impossible to know the teapot is there and there's no clear reason why it should be [but plenty of reasons that it should not], then it's justified to conclude that there is no Russell's teapot. If Russell wants us to believe in his teapot then he'll have to prove it is there, because it's apparently impossible to prove it is not. We could even propose that Russell is wrong because we personally believe it's a cup and saucer, rather than a teapot. We'd be no closer to discovering the truth and would only succeed in deluding ourselves by believing in any form of celestial china floating in space.

The afterlives of various religions are the same. It's apparently impossible to test for them, so they are unfalsifiable. When their claims and supported explanations of reality _are_ proven wrong, like the ptolemic geocentric universe, the <10,000 year old Earth, the existance of Adam and Eve, a Great flood, Miracle-medicine, the power of prayer etcetera the pious rationalise and make excuses, such as 'that bit is only a metaphor', when a generation earlier people believed it was literal. 

Dismissing very specific and unfalsifiable claims that are at odds with our physical understanding of reality is not an 'opinion', it's part of the scientific process by which we sort Gold from bullshit. 
By all means, if someone eventually does prove that hell exists then we'll change our minds. Until then, not a chance.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 13, 2013)

If you don't want to believe in something for whatever reason, that's fine. Go for it. I just dislike it when an atheist acts hostile towards my views, and then later on comments on, likes a status/picture/etc, or makes a comment talking about how religious people can be hostile towards their views.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> If you don't want to believe in something for whatever reason, that's fine. Go for it. I just dislike it when an atheist acts hostile towards my views, and then later on comments on, likes a status/picture/etc, or makes a comment talking about how religious people can be hostile towards their views.



The Geo-planar society has a similar dis-rapport with me. They can't stand it when I complain about them trying to justify the earth as flat, and insist it's hypocrisy given that I'm always ramming my view that it's round down their throats. 

x3


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> If you don't want to believe in something for whatever reason, that's fine. Go for it. I just dislike it when an atheist acts hostile towards my views, and then later on comments on, likes a status/picture/etc, or makes a comment talking about how religious people can be hostile towards their views.



Belief is still not a choice...
Religion isn't just hostile to anyone's views. It's just hostile in general.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 13, 2013)

The best part about these long drawn-out exercises in mental masturbation is that no one is going to change their viewpoints.

I think a lot of you know that though and do it for it's own sake.

+1


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> The best part about these long drawn-out exercises in mental masturbation is that no one is going to change their viewpoints.
> 
> I think a lot of you know that though and do it for it's own sake.
> 
> +1



I think this whole thing is getting rather old. But just because I am getting tired of hearing the same painfully obvious logical fallicies over and over and over again.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 13, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> The best part about these long drawn-out exercises in mental masturbation is that no one is going to change their viewpoints.
> 
> I think a lot of you know that though and do it for it's own sake.
> 
> +1



Y'know what? Yeah, you're right. I mean as far as my beliefs go, just calling me an irrational lout and trying to argue the "contradictory" nature of my religion isn't going to make me budge much. It's just that I hope that people could grow a little and not be so opposing to one another when it comes to religion, or politics, or philosophies, and the like. It's a vain hope, I know, but hey, one can always hope, right? 

It kinda reminds me of _Spectral Shadows_, when Christine, Vicki, and Kacey (Half human half animal foxes and squirrel, respectively) are discussing how humans would always seem to be hating other humans in some way, shape or form. Christine used to be a human, and back on her homeworld Chikyu was an interplanetary ambassador for a rebel alliance against The Astral Space Pirates; Christine mentions to her two friends that no matter where she went in the universe, for some reason or another, humans always had to hate each other for one reason or another. She also mentions about how they're always looking to look down on someone for one reason or another, be it skin color, race, religion, and so on. And yeah, you see this everywhere. Some people do it without realizing it; heck I would do it and still do it. The thing is, I'm trying not to. It's hard to reach Christine's level and not really hate nor look down on someone, but instead fell sad or pity that they're still stuck in that kind of way. And I mean to _really_ be like that, not to simply claim that you are like that.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 13, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I think this whole thing is getting rather old. But just because I am getting tired of hearing the same painfully obvious logical fallicies over and over and over again.



Watching e-activist atheists like yourself beat the topic to death 5 times a day despite the fact that it's getting you nowhere is so pathetic it dwarfs even the most outrageous religious bellyaching because you never seem to know when you're in over your head.

Thinking you can win over the irrational with logic alone is in and of itself irrational.


----------



## Outcast (Mar 13, 2013)

This thread's not dead... why isn't it dead yet? I'm wondering... who keeps dragging this along?

It's official, religion is too sensitive a topic, even for furries. 

Moral of the story here: Ignorance is bliss, and you can take that to the *God*-damn bank.


----------



## Recel (Mar 13, 2013)

Outcast said:


> This thread's not dead... why isn't it dead yet? I'm wondering... who keeps dragging this along?



And you just dragged it a bit further by posting! That's how it's still alive.

Also, no religious thread can die until CaptaiCool shouts everyones head off who dares to say they believe in something! And that's how it goes around here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

If there is a more eloquent way to argue a point, demonstrate it by example, rather than telling people their opponents are too stupid to understand. 

Whilst Nikollini's main concern is people's treatment of eachother in discussions I have to confess my concern is epistemology. So this is why logical fallacy or contradiction and paradox is of interest to me. I'm not going to provide any special reverance or treatment towards beliefs of this nature for the fact they are ancient or emotionally entrenched. 
If people wish to discuss religion with _any_ meaningful context then surrendering these traits as indicators of those beliefs' values is a necessity, otherwise disputing factual points is somehow interpretted as interrogation rather than healthy skepticism. 

We may all feel like we're enlightened individuals looking down with sorrow on the ignorant, but I'm afraid surrendering _ourselves_ to rigorous factual analysis is the only way sympathy and synergy will be achieved. If we say 'How about we all just tolerate eachother'? I'm afraid that's really just a veneer of pretense, as is shown in psychological experiments in which 'tolerant' people are asked to assess members of other religions and their own religion. 

In normal circumstances there's no difference, but as soon as death is mentioned- the focus of these beliefs- there is a heavy bias to negatively assess people outside your religion and positively assess those inside it, and true colour are exposed.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If there is a more eloquent way to argue a point, demonstrate it by example, rather than telling people their opponents are too stupid to understand.
> 
> Whilst Nikollini's main concern is people's treatment of eachother in discussions I have to confess my concern is epistemology. So this is why logical fallacy or contradiction and paradox is of interest to me. I'm not going to provide any special reverance or treatment towards beliefs of this nature for the fact they are ancient or emotionally entrenched.
> If people wish to discuss religion with _any_ meaningful context then surrendering these traits as indicators of those beliefs' values is a necessity, otherwise disputing factual points is somehow interpretted as interrogation rather than healthy skepticism.
> ...



It has nothing to do with finding a more eloquent point; it's all about the fact that you're a stranger on the internet with no discernible ethos and you're relentlessly attacking a deeply ingrained belief that was put there by people who are much more credible to the reader than you are. A complete disregard for rudimentary human psychology doesn't strengthen your position, because you implicitly espouse the false assumption that psychology is unimportant to argumentative discourse.

There is a reason why politicians and others versed in rhetoric are successful in ensnaring the minds of others and no one cares what you think except people who are already pretty much on the same page.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> It has nothing to do with finding a more eloquent point; it's all about the fact that you're a stranger on the internet with no discernible ethos and you're relentlessly attacking a deeply ingrained belief that was put there by people who are much more credible to the reader than you are. A complete disregard for rudimentary human psychology doesn't strengthen your position, because you implicitly espouse the false assumption that psychology is unimportant to argumentative discourse.
> 
> There is a reason why politicians and others versed in rhetoric are successful in ensnaring the minds of others and no one cares what you think except people who are already pretty much on the same page.



No matter how ingrained it is, that still doesn't change the fact that it isn't supported by any evidence at all and that it is making outrageous without even trying to back them up with something.
Here is the deal: The day religious people stop pushing their beliefs on others and stop fucking up the world based on those beliefs I will stop as well. Ok?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> It has nothing to do with finding a more eloquent point; it's all about the fact that you're a stranger on the internet with no discernible ethos and you're relentlessly attacking a deeply ingrained belief that was put there by people who are much more credible to the reader than you are. A complete disregard for rudimentary human psychology doesn't strengthen your position, because you implicitly espouse the false assumption that psychology is unimportant to argumentative discourse.
> 
> There is a reason why politicians and others versed in rhetoric are successful in ensnaring the minds of others and no one cares what you think except people who are already pretty much on the same page.



After making a post which explicitly mentions psychology[ a field I admit to being naive in] and saying whether or not people enter discussions with an open mind is largely beyond my control, so I'm only interested in the epistemics, this is apparantly arguing psychology itself is unimportant to discussion? 

I can't deny psychology's influence on a discussion's outcome [regardless of whether this effect actually correlates with finding out the truth] but I can't exactly accomodate it in the context you present either when the critera for being 'credible' include conditioning children from an early age. 

Some people decide before entering a discussion what their conclusions will be, but others _are_ good fun to talk to, such as the people who told me about Aquinas in this thread; before hand I didn't know about him. The point of these discussions is clearly not just mass-conversion of any sort. 

I'm discussing this because I find the epistemics intriguing, rather than because I expect to turn other people's world views upside down. All I'm saying in my previous post is that if you want discussion to actually result in any change that it's dependant on people entering it with an open mind and a scientific personality, and that this attitude is vital to any compromise that actually constitutes tollerance instead of veiled feelings of superiority or resentment. 


And if there's now any hope of bringing this discussion anywhere near to the vein it left off from: 
In case the Russell's teapot loses you the conclusion is that you cannot prove negatives, Dracimonde. This is not equivalent to fundamentalist behaviour- which is the declaration of beliefs as basal assumptions 'they're right because faith,' in fact it's a well established convention in Philosophy. So whilst you may argue that both your position and a skeptical one are 'just opinions' the convention is to choose skeptical positions by default.


----------



## Azure (Mar 13, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Y'know what? Yeah, you're right. I mean as far as my beliefs go, just calling me an irrational lout and trying to argue the "contradictory" nature of my religion isn't going to make me budge much.


and why not? i mean, if i said the sky is blue and you say it is green, and i have hard evidence and testable theories about why it is, and you just have a "lol i BELIEVE it is green", then hey, you are irrational. there is nothing to it beyond that.



Nikolinni said:


> It's just that I hope that people could grow a little and not be so opposing to one another when it comes to religion, or politics, or philosophies, and the like. It's a vain hope, I know, but hey, one can always hope, right?


fyi there aren't any atheists oppressing anybody in the name of the god they don't have. but there are plenty of theocratic societies that oppress with law, threats, and outright force. so hey, is it too much to HOPE that one day the oppression in the name of mystical wishy washy feewings based bullshit will cease? just trying to put a mirror to your ignorance and the sheer temerity to THINK that you are OPPRESSED as a member of the VAST MAJORITY. 



Zaraphayx said:


> Watching e-activist atheists like yourself beat the topic to death 5 times a day despite the fact that it's getting you nowhere is so pathetic it dwarfs even the most outrageous religious bellyaching because you never seem to know when you're in over your head.
> 
> Thinking you can win over the irrational with logic alone is in and of itself irrational.


nah you know what is OLD? religion being a dominant factor in every facet of society. the ramblings of "e-activists" are relatively new compared to a thousands year old world wide mind control regimen. but ya know, whatever, give up trying to change shit amirite? we should all just fuck off.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> All I'm saying in my previous post is that if you want discussion to actually result in any change that it's dependant on people entering it with an open mind and a scientific personality, and that this attitude is vital to any compromise that actually constitutes tollerance instead of veiled feelings of superiority or resentment.



Welp, you ruled out every Christian there is :roll:

Also tolerance and "veiled feelings of superiority or resentment" are not mutually exclusive.

Everything is a compromise when you are trying to elicit change.

It seems with these discussions though, it's the opposite.

Nobody is willing to even take the other side's position into account.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> To me, this is actually more scarey.



[video=youtube;eeMoOJpvUlU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeMoOJpvUlU[/video]

around 3:30
I don't know... any afterlife doesn't look too fun.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> and why not? i mean, if i said the sky is blue and you say it is green, and i have hard evidence and testable theories about why it is, and you just have a "lol i BELIEVE it is green", then hey, you are irrational. there is nothing to it beyond that.
> 
> fyi there aren't any atheists oppressing anybody in the name of the god they don't have. but there are plenty of theocratic societies that oppress with law, threats, and outright force. so hey, is it too much to HOPE that one day the oppression in the name of mystical wishy washy feewings based bullshit will cease? just trying to put a mirror to your ignorance and the sheer temerity to THINK that you are OPPRESSED as a member of the VAST MAJORITY.



Um...I'm talking about Opposing one another, not oppressing. When I say opposing, I'm talking about that "Us Vs. Them" mentality that a lot of people get. Do I think I'm oppressed? No, not in the slightest. I can still practice my religion freely and not have to worry about laws being made that will make it illegal or being killed by the state over it. 

Do I hope that those who oppress others using religion will stop some day? Of course I do.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Mar 13, 2013)

Spark said:


> :evil:  I'm Christian and I was wondering if I will go to hell for being a furry.
> this is serious.



The Bible says you must be as a child to go to Heaven.  Being as most Furries are into a type of entertainment that is favored by children, I'd say being a Furry greatly increases your chances of not going to Hell.


----------



## Azure (Mar 13, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Um...I'm talking about Opposing one another, not oppressing. When I say opposing, I'm talking about that "Us Vs. Them" mentality that a lot of people get.


well something clearly inspires this opposition, namely the fact that a great many people are driven by something that is completely fucking ridiculous and harmful on almost every level barring a personal one(and even that is pretty shaky, considering the level of cognitive dissonance said thing requires). shit like that happens, ya know? people TEND not to like it.



Nikolinni said:


> Do I hope that those who oppress others using religion will stop some day? Of course I do.


yeah well hopin and wishin are both gone fishing; so DO something about it instead of NOTHING but what makes you feel better inside.


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (Mar 13, 2013)

As to the question of is there a Heaven or Hell, many believe, as I do, that they exist here on Earth in the here and the now. If you look around and feel this world you live in is Heaven, the existence of Heaven is proven. If you perceive the world you live in to be Hell, then Hell is proven.

But if you find that you are living in Hell, you might ask what you did to be living there, and why the person standing next to you perceives the very same world to be Heaven.  One likely reason is that the one who thinks it's Heaven is content with what he's been allotted in life, and the one who thinks it's Hell is not.

Religion tends to talk people into being content with their lot in life, and so works to create Heaven on Earth.  Unfortunately it also rubs certain people the wrong way, and is just as effective at creating Hell on Earth.

But, I don't live in a religion, or with atheists, wherever they reside.  I live in Furry Fandom.  And I find Furry Fandom infinitely more capable of creating a Heaven for me, if I want one.  Though it can create Hell as well.

At any given time when I get tired of living in Hell, I just turn off the hellish aspects of The Furry Community and dwell exclusively on the heavenly aspects.  And thus, I do not worry about whether I'm destined to go to Heaven or Hell, because I know I go wherever I go by my own choice.

And if by chance, after I have departed this Earth, I should find myself still going somewhere, I expect wherever I will be going will still be by my choice.

Thus my solution to this age old debate is that we all go our own way.  The religious fur will create his own Heaven.  The depressive Fur who wouldn't know what to do with a Heaven if he had one, will create his own Hell, and be as happy as he is capable of being in it. While the atheist fur will create his own oblivion, and happily sail off into it.

None of the 3 would be happy being dragged along with either of the others.  So, when they meet on the road, or on the message board as the case may be, they should not debate or try to convince each other of anything.  They should merely enjoy their time together being furs and sharing things they have in common.  Then, when the time comes for parting, they should bid each other good journey as they each head off to the destinies they have personally chosen.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 13, 2013)

Nikolinni said:
			
		

> It's just that I hope that people could grow a little and not be so opposing to one another when it comes to religion, or politics, or philosophies, and the like. It's a vain hope, I know, but hey, one can always hope, right?


Well, ideas should always be argued.  The problem comes in when personalities get in the way.  Very few people have the ability to say, "Oh, I might be wrong about this.  Let me double-check."  That's something that requires a great deal of training to learn how to do... doesn't come naturally at all.  So what always tends to happen in threads like these or whatever is that you get three people who all disagree, and none of them are capable of reconsidering a position, so they just go in circles.
The other trick is, of course, to recognize when you're starting to go in circles so you can know to step out.  We all think we're smarter than everyone else by default.  Therein lies the problem.  But really, if the idea itself is tight, it should hold water regardless of who's espousing it.  Right?


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> No matter how ingrained it is, that still doesn't change the fact that it isn't supported by any evidence at all and that it is making outrageous without even trying to back them up with something.
> Here is the deal: The day religious people stop pushing their beliefs on others and stop fucking up the world based on those beliefs I will stop as well. Ok?



I sure see a lot of mean hateful religious people pushing their beliefs on you here on the Fur Affinity Forums. 



Fallowfox said:


> After making a post which explicitly mentions  psychology[ a field I admit to being naive in] and saying whether or not  people enter discussions with an open mind is largely beyond my  control, so I'm only interested in the epistemics, this is apparantly  arguing psychology itself is unimportant to discussion?
> 
> I can't deny psychology's influence on a discussion's outcome  [regardless of whether this effect actually correlates with finding out  the truth] but I can't exactly accomodate it in the context you present  either when the critera for being 'credible' include conditioning  children from an early age.



I'm not sure how I was supposed to take "_I'm not going to provide any special reverance or treatment towards  beliefs of this nature for the fact they are ancient or emotionally  entrenched._"

How is that not basically saying "If I offend  you deal with it"; a standpoint I don't particularly take issue with,  but it's not going to get you anywhere diplomatically. Knowing how to  package your viewpoints for the audience you are writing for isn't  intellectually dishonest, it's how you unravel the roots of a deeply  held belief.

It takes a very particular kind of person to be  verbally harassed on the internet and go 'gee maybe he was right,  everything I know is a lie', which is the very thing I'm poking fun at. I  don't think most people who get into religious debates on the internet  do it necessarily to be persuasive as they like to claim; I think it  just makes them feel better to reciprocate perceived religious  persecution.

Maybe that isn't specifically what you're doing, but  I don't care what you specifically are doing; political atheists on the  internet by and large are bigger blowhards than some of the most  obnoxious baptist ministers.



> Some people decide before entering a discussion what their conclusions will be, but others _are_  good fun to talk to, such as the people who told me about Aquinas in  this thread; before hand I didn't know about him. The point of these  discussions is clearly not just mass-conversion of any sort.
> 
> I'm discussing this because I find the epistemics intriguing, rather  than because I expect to turn other people's world views upside down.  All I'm saying in my previous post is that if you want discussion to  actually result in any change that it's dependant on people entering it  with an open mind and a scientific personality, and that this attitude  is vital to any *compromise that actually constitutes tollerance instead of veiled feelings of superiority or resentment.*



This doesn't exist.



Azure said:


> nah you know what is OLD? religion being a dominant factor in every  facet of society. the ramblings of "e-activists" are relatively new  compared to a thousands year old world wide mind control regimen. but ya  know, whatever, give up trying to change shit amirite? we should all  just fuck off.



You aren't changing anything; influential people with money, connections, and charismatic speakers are changing the world.

If  you care about furthering the agenda of the champions of secular  thought then donate money to their cause, because that's the only thing  you can do that will even come close to making a difference.

The  very notion that arguing back and forth over religion on an internet  forum is 'changing shit' is naive and honestly I think you're smarter  than that.


----------



## Aubreys_Anthro_Ego (Mar 14, 2013)

Serious answer:
People going to hell after death actually isn't mentioned in the Christianjudeo scriptures at all. John the Baptist's brand of advertisement involved telling passerby that if they don't get baptized, God'll baptize them with fire. That's the closest we get to Hell being mentioned.

Even if it was mentioned, Jesus died for our sins remember? According to the new testament, we can have "eternal life"(which church leaders say means heaven) and still be our humanly selves and make our human mistakes and misunderstand what God doesn't want us to do. What was the point of him dying if we're denied heaven for every little thing anyway?

And if you _still _don't believe that(which for some strange reason, most Christians don't,(seriously, what do they think Jesus died for? Am I missing something?)) anthros aren't... It's not even... wtf? Liking anthro art is such a random thing to call a vice, I was genuinely surprised when I found out preachers call it a sin. I'm guessing some preachers say that because they've seen bad furry porn or something.

Real answer:
Did the fight this guy was trying to start actually happen yet? I've only been through the first page so far.


----------



## Aubreys_Anthro_Ego (Mar 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Mwahehehehe....eheheheheh....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! </jokerlaugh>
> 
> Good luck with that. Because to a lot of people, just the contents of the bible alone some how give some a reason to mock and scorn said beliefs. No, seriously I've asked for people to respect or at least tolerate my beliefs (Christian, so you can imagine how fun that is) and it's pretty much "Lol, nope".


Oh yeah being a Christian must be _so _hard. You should try Islam, Paganism, or Satanism out. I hear those religions get *tons *more respect. 

But I guess if I were to be optimistic, you might be from a country where Christians are not considered the norm.


PheagleAdler said:


> And his ego, my god. How stuck-up can one get? "Worship me" "Worship my son" he may as well come out and say "I am the best. Bow down to me, mofos!"
> Don't get me started on Mary, the "virgin." Really? How do I know she didn't just cheat on her husband? That seems a bit more likely.


1. No duh, a god with the power to create the Earth and everything on it is better than you.
2. You shouldn't talk about a little kid that way.

*@FallowFox*  If nothingness bothers you that much and the ideas of heaven and hell aren't doing it for you, maybe you should convert. There are tons of religions and beliefs out there that have something on another kind of transcendence, reincarnation, or both. Maybe one of them will click for you.

EDIT: Shit! Posted twice in a row. I was gonna copy this and edit it into my last post. Guess I forgot.


----------



## Demensa (Mar 14, 2013)

Damn, I can't believe I missed all of the stuff in the middle of this thread! (Especially when Fallowfox and M. LeRenard were discussing the topic in relation to physics.)

While such arguments may not be likely to change anyone's opinion on religion, it serves as good psychological insight into the way religious and non-religious people look at their beliefs and construct arguments.
As stated before, various times, arguing for or against an idea that cannot be disproved may seem to be a pointless exercise.  However doing so really serves to bring to light more ambiguous problems in logical reasoning, since we can no longer use hard evidence as fuel for arguments. Heuristics, analogies and other abstract viewpoints are basically all we are left with, which makes for some fun discussion, and a rigorous mental workout.
If only I studied psychology for real... (Trust me to focus on the meta-topic, rather than religion itself.)

(By the way, Fallowfox, your extensive knowledge and identification of logical fallacies is awesome. I'm officially jealous of your logical reasoning skills.)


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 14, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> compromise that actually constitutes tollerance instead of veiled feelings of superiority or resentment.





Zaraphayx said:


> This doesn't exist.



Umm... yes it does, I'm a living example of this. I tolerate people's religions as long as they don't insult my beliefs or try to make me believe what they believe (unless I want to believe). And no, I don't have any sort of veiled feelings that I'm superior to someone because of differences in religious beliefs and I don't resent anyone for their religious beliefs, anyone can be religious and be kind-hearted at the same time. I'm a strong believer in equality, so I do not see myself as "better" than anyone based on religion or race or sex or sexuality or species or whatever, nor do I see anyone as "worse" than me based on any of those things.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> I sure see a lot of mean hateful religious people pushing their beliefs on you here on the Fur Affinity Forums.



It isn't bad on these forums. But look at the new pope for example! He tried his best to influence politics to keep same-sex marriage banned because of his fairytale beliefs. He now is leading and influencing 1.8 billion catholics!



Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> Even if it was mentioned, Jesus died for our sins remember?



No, he didn't. Even if he actually existed he didn't.
Because there are two ways to look at this. He is either the son of god or god itself. If he is the son of god he died, went to hell for a few days and then came back only to become the vice president of the universe. *That isn't a sacrifice. That is a promotion.*
If he is god itself he then sacrificed himself TO himself as a loophole to bridge the old and the new testament to justify the change that happened to god's character.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Mar 14, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> Even if it was mentioned, Jesus died for our sins remember?


I never understood how this one guy's death over two thousand years ago would somehow purify our sins, or would've died for them.
He may have done it, if he was anywhere near what the bible tells us he was, a real person, for the people of the time.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I never understood how this one guy's death over two thousand years ago would somehow purify our sins, or would've died for them.
> He may have done it, if he was anywhere near what the bible tells us he was, a real person, for the people of the time.



Didn't someone calculate that on average he was on the cross for like a microsecond for every person who ever lived?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Mar 14, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I never understood how this one guy's death over two thousand years ago would somehow purify our sins, or would've died for them.
> He may have done it, if he was anywhere near what the bible tells us he was, a real person, for the people of the time.



And the sins he died for are only sins because his dad says they are.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> And the sins he died for are only sins because his dad says they are.



Word :T
Not to mention that his "dad" can just change the rules all the time AND created us in a fashion that made it impossible for us to live up to it's standards in the first place...


----------



## GreenEyedSparrow (Mar 14, 2013)

I'm just replying to the OP and haven't read any of the comments. ^^

I'm a little religious and even if I don't really go to church too often, I consider myself a Christian. I'm not the least bit worried about going to Hell for being a furry. There's nothing biblically wrong with being a Furry, and if any church members look down on me for being one (which if they knew I'm sure they would) that's nothing more than some dumb people being close minded and judgmental. There's not one place in the bible that say you are condemned for being furry, and if anyone tries to say you are going to hell for being furry, you can just quote the bible right back at them:
"â€œJudge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." -Matthew 7:1

Pretty much it says it's not anyone's place to judge others, and if you do judge others, God will judge you with the same ferocity and (un)fairness you judged others.

I hope this helps set your mind at ease!


----------



## Troj (Mar 14, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> Oh yeah being a Christian must be _so _hard. You should try Islam, Paganism, or Satanism out. I hear those religions get *tons *more respect.



To be fair, though, even if you aren't necessarily being oppressed or repressed on a grand scale, it can still be frustrating and lonely to be the odd duck out in your social group. 

One Christian friend of mine in particular used to catch unnecessary, passive-aggressive, sometimes vaguely-abusive shit all the time from our larger group of friends, to the point where I had to step forward and defend him, after I'd been part of some of this ribbing before. Somebody had to draw the line. (In this case, the _Satanist_ had to draw the line on the anti-Christian hazing!)

Having your friends rag on you is probably especially painful and/or annoying if you're theologically moderate or liberal, and your friends act like you're secretly allied with the Pope or Pat Robertson. No, not all Christians are anti-gay, anti-science, anti-abortion, or what have you, so it's unfair and inaccurate to paint all Christians with the same broad brush.

Discussing the implications and applications of a given religion on a broader societal or historical scale is one thing; how we treat each other in real time is another.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

GreenEyedSparrow said:


> I'm just replying to the OP and haven't read any of the comments. ^^
> 
> I'm a little religious and even if I don't really go to church too often, I consider myself a Christian. I'm not the least bit worried about going to Hell for being a furry. There's nothing biblically wrong with being a Furry, and if any church members look down on me for being one (which if they knew I'm sure they would) that's nothing more than some dumb people being close minded and judgmental. There's not one place in the bible that say you are condemned for being furry, and if anyone tries to say you are going to hell for being furry, you can just quote the bible right back at them:
> "â€œJudge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." -Matthew 7:1
> ...





That is a good point. But why ARE so many christians judging others then? That is one of the bigger problems that I have with religion.
Sure, it's completely fake as well but as long as it makes you happy and as long as you don't harm others based on it I'm cool with it.


----------



## Troj (Mar 14, 2013)

It's not just Christians who judge people, though.

Muslims judge people. Judging people is basically the M.O. of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

I've known some very haughty Buddhists who looked down on people who weren't vegan (or even, weren't vegan _enough_), weren't social activists (or, weren't the _right kind _of activist, engaged in the _right_ causes), or who seemed to be too "attached" to their egos or too impermanent things (yeah, I know, the irony is staggering).

I've encountered Pagans who judged other Pagans based on their sect or tradition, or their approach to magic.

Satanists basically judge everybody, including each other.

You can bet Liberals judge Conservatives, and Conservatives judge Liberals--and hell, when they're in their own element, Liberals absolutely judge the Liberality of their fellow Liberals, and Conservatives scrutinize their fellow Conservatives for signs of heresy and apostasy.

Overall, I find ideologically-driven Feminists as a group to be pretty goddamn judgmental of basically everyone who isn't them.

I imagine there are judgmental Jews somewhere--probably Conservative, Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox--but I'm more used to the (mostly Reform) Jews I know judging people based on class and education, rather than moral or spiritual purity. 

Bahai as a religion is absolutely fucking homophobic, even though they play nice with other religious traditions.

As to whether Hindus have a history of being judgemental--well, herro, caste system!

So, basically, whenever someone has something--a belief, a code, an inheritance--which they believe allows them to be or to become spiritually, socially, and/or morally superior to others, you get Judgement.

edit: Oh! I forgot the important detail that religious folk as a class often judge atheists and agnostics for being non-theistic and/or non-spiritual; atheists _definitely_ judge religious people for being religious, and/or judge theists for being theistic; and agnostics often seem to catch crap from both directions, and I imagine some of them believe themselves to be intellectually superior to both theists and atheists. 

Now, we've been comprehensive and inclusive, I hope.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Troj said:


> It's not just Christians who judge people, though.
> 
> Muslims judge people. Judging people is basically the M.O. of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
> 
> ...



Of course^^ But christianity is the main religion in the west, that is what we have to deal with most of the time.
All religions judge others. And all religions are nonsense. I just like to focus on the one that tries to actually influence my life against my will.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Of course^^ But christianity is the main religion in the west, that is what we have to deal with most of the time.
> All religions judge others. And all religions are nonsense. I just like to focus on the one that tries to actually influence my life against my will.


Bow before the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendage, or face eternal doom and damnation! :V

Unfortunately, religions are by definition traditional entities that turn defensive when challenged since they're so deeply-ingrained in their followers. So trying to get them to change by criticism, rational argument or any other method is usually a futile task.

Not that it's not fun to occasionally get yourself into an argument with a young-Earth creationist, just for kicks.


----------



## Mani The Mani (Mar 14, 2013)

I dunno. Doesn't say in the bible. There weren't furries way back when. I'm an atheist, though, so I don't count.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Not that it's not fun to occasionally get yourself into an argument with a young-Earth creationist, just for kicks.



I think we all agree that those guys are freaking nuts so that's perfectly fine^^
(I'm not judging them for believing that, I am judging their stupidity :V)

The only ones who might be crazier are the flat earth fellows... One of their arguments why a spherical earth is impossible? If you live on a ball you can only live at the north pole because everything would fall off the sides of the ball! X3
How does gravity work? Easy! The flat earth is just flying upwards! So when you jump you don't fall back, the earth is just catching up with you! XD


----------



## Machine (Mar 14, 2013)

Well, if you fuck animals, of course you're going to Hell. :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Machine said:


> Well, if you fuck animals, of course you're going to Hell. :V



Not even animal fuckers deserve eternal punishment


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 14, 2013)

You heard it here first, kids! Don't pork your pork or your bacon will end up fried! :V


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 14, 2013)

Troj said:


> It's not just Christians who judge people, though.
> 
> Muslims judge people. Judging people is basically the M.O. of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
> 
> ...


 I can't stand anyone and I am picky, end of story. This is why I like finding people that I can relate to for any reason. I get shit from everyone and I am tired of it. Everyone has this, "fuck you, I am myself, accept me, attitude" (including myself) because of how others treated us, and this causes more people to become like that, because people side with a group and go against the other and causes more people to find their own group that they can fit in, so they are not left out feeling defeated. One thing I like about the furry fandom, is that you can find people who are down to earth, even the christians. This group is so large that it's not even really a single group. I am not perfect in any way, I never want to be. People generally like to express themselves and they don't realize how it affects others, generally because of how others treated them, they could care less about what comes out of their mouth, as long as they express themselves. They just want you to understand, and the cycle continues.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 14, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Not even animal fuckers deserve eternal punishment


 Very true.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 14, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> Oh yeah being a Christian must be _so _hard. You should try Islam, Paganism, or Satanism out. I hear those religions get *tons *more respect.



I'm talking about on the internet. In real life? I've honestly had better. No one's really acted like an ass to me because I was Christian, even if they're atheist. They'll say "Nah, I don't believe in that stuff, since there's no proof or anything for it" and I'll let 'em know that I'm okay with that, people can follow whatever path they want to follow. 

It's mainly on the internet where people can simply make a religious reference, and people will bash them for believing in something. Lots of people consider me closed minded and unenlightened simply because I believe in a God. Sure, I often stick my nose where it doesn't belong (a Facebook friend of mine often shares atheist memes about religion, some very incidinary, and I'll comment if I feel it's making an unjust claim; however, I'd do the same if it were a Christian friend doing the same to atheists), so some of the hate I get I suppose is justified. But the thing is, I never try to convert people or thrust my beleifs on people. If someone shows an interest in my path, I'll share with them. If not, well who am I to force them? Jesus nor Paul or any of the other NT writers seemed to advocate forcing beliefs on others and policing what they do.

The whole "unjust claims" thing is something I've discovered I just do recently. Any type of injust comment or attitude tends to get me irked, or blanket condemnations, that kind of thing. The typical example I used to give people when I used to go to church was that if I catch an atheist saying something unjust about us, I'll cut at their direction; but if I find Christians guilty of the same, I'll cut back at them too. Perhaps that's why I don't like some groups like feminists, because at face value, their whole ideals of "equality betwen the sexes" seems dandy, but their execution? Ehhh..there's problems I see, so I end up forming arguments in my head against them. And no, it's not because I'm "brainwashed", "male", or part of "The patriarchy" or I "Hate women". They claim to be for equality, but fail to show me they're willing to actually live up to that. 

Sorry, a little off topic there, but that's something I felt to expand on ^^;


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm talking about on the internet. In real life? I've honestly had better. No one's really acted like an ass to me because I was Christian, even if they're atheist. They'll say "Nah, I don't believe in that stuff, since there's no proof or anything for it" and I'll let 'em know that I'm okay with that, people can follow whatever path they want to follow.
> 
> It's mainly on the internet where people can simply make a religious reference, and people will bash them for believing in something. Lots of people consider me closed minded and unenlightened simply because I believe in a God. Sure, I often stick my nose where it doesn't belong (a Facebook friend of mine often shares atheist memes about religion, some very incidinary, and I'll comment if I feel it's making an unjust claim; however, I'd do the same if it were a Christian friend doing the same to atheists), so some of the hate I get I suppose is justified. But the thing is, I never try to convert people or thrust my beleifs on people. If someone shows an interest in my path, I'll share with them. If not, well who am I to force them? Jesus nor Paul or any of the other NT writers seemed to advocate forcing beliefs on others and policing what they do.



That's because on the internet you have all the information you ever need available at your fingertips. If you say something like "evolution is bullshit!", just to name one example, people _will_ attack you because you didn't bother looking at the information that is available to you or actively ignored it.
Religion in itself is essentially pure ignorance and that doesn't sit well with most active internet users.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 14, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> *@FallowFox*  If nothingness bothers you that much and  the ideas of heaven and hell aren't doing it for you, maybe you should  convert. There are tons of religions and beliefs out there that have  something on another kind of transcendence, reincarnation, or both.  Maybe one of them will click for you.



Sihkism used to appeal. 

Unfortunately I can't suspend  disbelief. Lots of things about reality bother me, but I can't resolve  them with by painting them over with spirituality. The fact many  millions more creatures come into existance than can possibly survive on  the limited resources available doesn't sit well with me, for instance.  I can't persuade myself that _actually_ a god willed them into existance only to die 'as part of a mysterious plan' in order to mitigate this emotional feeling. 

The  emotion I feel isn't a very good model for the reality. However if  someone did scientifically prove there was some sort of afterlife that would be very nice. x3



Perri_Rhoades said:


> As to the question of is there a Heaven or Hell, many believe, as I do, that they exist here on Earth in the here and the now. If you look around and feel this world you live in is Heaven, the existence of Heaven is proven. If you perceive the world you live in to be Hell, then Hell is proven.
> 
> But if you find that you are living in Hell, you might ask what you did to be living there, and why the person standing next to you perceives the very same world to be Heaven.  One likely reason is that the one who thinks it's Heaven is content with what he's been allotted in life, and the one who thinks it's Hell is not.
> 
> ...



Heaven and hell, and any spiritual or emotional flavour of the world, exist inside our heads. Whilst holding these ideas might serve us a function [for example believing that evil spirits linger around bad smells, causing disease, we might gain the function of avoiding contracting typhus and cholera from bad smelling faecal matter] this doesn't prove them. 

The spread of typhus and cholera is mediated by tiny little creatures that happen to be associated with environments rich in the chemicals scatol and hydrogen sulphide, responsible for the bad odor. 
This means that whether or not believing they are mediated by bad-smell spirits serves us a function that it does not prove we are right. 

To relate this to your own argument your descriptions of 'heaven' and 'hell' are redundant, and would more closely be described by 'positive emotional states' and 'negative emotional states', which are mediated by the electrostatic force's actions upon a small lump of fatty nervous tissue floating in our skulls. 

Furthermore, furries go to furgatory in the afterlife, so that they can be cleansed of all their silly nonsense before proceeding. The powers that be simply aren't having any of these fluffy-tailed shenanigens.


----------



## Troj (Mar 14, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I can't stand anyone and I am picky, end of story. This is why I like finding people that I can relate to for any reason. I get shit from everyone and I am tired of it. Everyone has this, "fuck you, I am myself, accept me, attitude" (including myself) because of how others treated us, and this causes more people to become like that, because people side with a group and go against the other and causes more people to find their own group that they can fit in, so they are not left out feeling defeated. One thing I like about the furry fandom, is that you can find people who are down to earth, even the christians. This group is so large that it's not even really a single group. I am not perfect in any way, I never want to be. People generally like to express themselves and they don't realize how it affects others, generally because of how others treated them, they could care less about what comes out of their mouth, as long as they express themselves. They just want you to understand, and the cycle continues.



The "fuck you, I am me, accept me, I get to express myself" attitude tends to be a young-people thing, and a narcissist-thing.

But, as we mature, most of us come to see our connections to other people, and how our choices affect others, and how others' choices affect us. (At least, I did.)

Well, and at a certain point, I decided that if I wasn't happy with my environment,_ I_ had to be the change I wanted to see in it--because if I didn't take the first step, who would? (Probably somebody less-qualified!) 

Even if I couldn't change other people, or radically transform my milieu, I decided that it was still unfair and hypocritical of me to expect others to be more conscientious, considerate, and aware than I myself was willing to be on a regular basis.

Well, and at the end of the day, you can't let the turkeys get you down. Whatever the turkeys are up to, at the end of the day, you've got to focus on the things, people, and goals that make _your_ life worthwhile and meaningful.

Some people will be idiots or jerks, and your job is to identify them early, so that you can anticipate and steer clear of their messes and drama as much as possible.



CaptainCool said:


> Of course^^ But christianity is the main  religion in the west, that is what we have to deal with most of the  time.
> All religions judge others. And all religions are nonsense. I just like  to focus on the one that tries to actually influence my life against my  will.



Fair 'nuff. Just as long we keep our sense of perspective here about Christianity vs. other religions. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





But, it makes sense to focus on the religion, philosophy, and/or political party that influences your own culture or environment.


----------



## Troj (Mar 14, 2013)

edit: double post...

Is there a command for deleting double posts that I'm not seeing?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 14, 2013)

Troj said:


> The "fuck you, I am me, accept me, I get to express myself" attitude tends to be a young-people thing, and a narcissist-thing.
> 
> But, as we mature, most of us come to see our connections to other people, and how our choices affect others, and how others' choices affect us. (At least, I did.)
> 
> ...


 Grown adults seem to act like children now. Seems like fathers are becoming less and less responsible for their family. I tend to see it more now. Not to mention politics are very immature in my opinion, they don't realize they are playing games with the nation. Sometimes younger people are more mature nowadays, because some of us can realize the mistakes of the world.


----------



## Azure (Mar 14, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> You aren't changing anything


and you can't prove that

/discussion


----------



## Aubreys_Anthro_Ego (Mar 14, 2013)

*@Niko* Ah, I getcha



CaptainCool said:


> Didn't someone calculate that on average he was on the cross for like a microsecond for every person who ever lived?


Give the guy a bit more credit. He got whipped half a damn million times, had his hands nailed for no reason(you need your wrists tied to hang from the cross), and had a crown of thorns digging into his skull all before he died. And all infront of his mom.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> Give the guy a bit more credit. He got whipped half a damn million times, had his hands nailed for no reason(you need your wrists tied to hang from the cross), and had a crown of thorns digging into his skull all before he died. And all infront of his mom.



Why should I? I'm not even convinced that he ever existed afterall!


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 14, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> *@Niko* Ah, I getcha
> 
> 
> Give the guy a bit more credit. He got whipped half a damn million times, had his hands nailed for no reason(you need your wrists tied to hang from the cross), and had a crown of thorns digging into his skull all before he died. And all infront of his mom.



And his dad. ;3


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> *@Niko* Ah, I getcha
> 
> 
> Give the guy a bit more credit. He was betrayed by his friend for pocket change, got whipped half a damn million times, stripped naked, had his hands nailed for no reason(you need your wrists tied to hang from the cross), and had a crown of thorns digging into his skull all before he died. And all infront of his mom. If there was a pain and suffering criteria that had to be filled so that you suffer enough for everyone, he filled it.
> ...



Yes, do that.
You kind of nailed it there though, the whole thing really is nothing but a myth. A legend. A fairytale. Not real.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 14, 2013)

Mani The Mani said:


> I dunno. Doesn't say in the bible. There weren't furries way back when. I'm an atheist, though, so I don't count.



You know... this right here sort of implies that whatever God is said to have written the Bible wasn't ominiscient.  If he was, he should have been able to predict the existence of furries and stuck a little passage in Leviticus or something describing how they should be executed.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 14, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> You know... this right here sort of implies that whatever God is said to have written the Bible wasn't ominiscient.  If he was, he should have been able to predict the existence of furries and stuck a little passage in Leviticus or something describing how they should be executed.



Apparently god isn't almighty as well. I mean, what kind of omnipotent being needs to rest after 6 days?


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 14, 2013)

Azure said:


> and you can't prove that
> 
> /discussion



I wonder if you even realize why this is so funny.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 14, 2013)

Actually this could be quantified, rather that pointless back and forth rambling about whether or not conversions are taking place. 
http://www.humanreligions.info/internet.html
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/9782.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

As you can see there are a diverse range of well documented responses to online criticism of religion, varying from murderous responses to comedies, to online gatherings for consolation and cementation of beliefs. 

Religion online clearly has some rather dramatic effects on religious people's behaviour, just like online distribution and criticism of conspiracy theories has had a rather dramatic effect on conspiracists. [Doomsday 2012! Maya Nibiru pole reversal!] and the discussion of science such as climate change. 

But before we begin taking ourselves too seriously and deciding that unless our online discussion changes the world there's little point, perhaps we should consider that discussing things just because they're interesting to discuss is also nice.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 14, 2013)

- There is a world of difference between discussing religion in a civilized way and engaging in the sort of behavior CaptainCool and those like him do.

- There is a reason why the atheism subreddit is ridiculed and the people that it's subscribers quote aren't.

- I don't think I've ever expressed the opinion that discussion in and of itself was bad, and if I have it was unintentional.

- What I protest is the back and forth of condescending tripe that makes one look like a bitter pre-teen who doesn't get along with their parents..

- If you can't make a distinction between the two then you are beyond help.

And no, I won't relinquish my claim that this discussion taking place and all previous discussions surrounding religion on this forum are not changing anything. This is the same mentality that convinces people that making a 5 minute rant on youtube is 'activism' and that liking a Facebook picture is saving lives; you are doing the easiest thing possible to champion your beliefs and it makes you feel good to think you're making a difference.

If you are not changing policy in the political arena or steering academic thought you are not changing anything; this is why lobbying groups win and internet activists lose 10/10 times.

And people wonder why 'the system' is so broken.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 14, 2013)

Good thing we're not trying to be activists on this forum, then.
I do, however, donate $50 a year to the James Randi Educational Foundation, so there you go, that's my financial stake in this.


----------



## Azure (Mar 14, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> - There is a world of difference between discussing religion in a civilized way and engaging in the sort of behavior CaptainCool and those like him do.


like what? pat them on the back? congratulate them on their unique point of view? say "that's interesting"? or does it just not exist. because as far as i can tell, approaching the subject of religion in any way that is critical to it is going to end up uncivilized 100% of the time if either party has any fucking conviction in their own ethos.



Zaraphayx said:


> - What I protest is the back and forth of condescending tripe that makes one look like a bitter pre-teen who doesn't get along with their parents..


way to marginalize something that affects peoples lives daily, boiling it down to a child arguing with their mommy about why they dont want to go to bed early. when its really nothing like that at all. and i dont need to make any sort of comment to see which end of the argument is so very childish.



Zaraphayx said:


> - If you can't make a distinction between the two then you are beyond help.


then dont fucking read it. click the back button. and distinctions are just like opinions, they are both related to assholes and are full of shit.



Zaraphayx said:


> And no, I won't relinquish my claim that this discussion taking place and all previous discussions surrounding religion on this forum are not changing anything. This is the same mentality that convinces people that making a 5 minute rant on youtube is 'activism' and that liking a Facebook picture is saving lives; you are doing the easiest thing possible to champion your beliefs and it makes you feel good to think you're making a difference.


any sort of media exposure to an idea is exposure, and if it changes even a single mind in a lifetime then that is "making a difference". who are you to quantify what makes a difference? what is your benchmark for what a difference is? or are you just tired of reading shit on the internet? like i said, click the back button, or as i like to call it, the fuck off button.



Zaraphayx said:


> If you are not changing policy in the political arena or steering academic thought you are not changing anything; this is why lobbying groups win and internet activists lose 10/10 times.


oh so money and politics, the so called "broken system", are the only way to make a difference? sure, lemme just get elected to the senate and then tell them that i think god and religion should go fuck themselves. ought to go over really well, i mean it works in theory, right? no.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 14, 2013)

Azure said:


> like what? pat them on the back? congratulate them on their unique point of view? say "that's interesting"? or does it just not exist. because as far as i can tell, approaching the subject of religion in any way that is critical to it is going to end up uncivilized 100% of the time if either party has any fucking conviction in their own ethos.


I can have rather civilized conversations with atheists. In fact, even when they're insulting me and my beliefs I still continue to be civilized and respectable to their belief system, attacking instead the point, and never talking about why I don't like atheism or think it's a lot of nonsense. All I see people like 'Cool and yourself do, and other atheists I've seen on facebook, is talk down and patronize it. Oh, and you use "religion" as a ridiculous blanket term; most people who talk about the evils of "religion" mean only the Abrahamic religions, and not other religions like Buddhism. I have a friend on Skype, and while he's agnostic, we can still have sensible debates on things like religion, gun control and even politics (i'm very pro-captialism, and he's more or less a middle of the road fellow between that and socialism), without ever calling names and talking shit on each others' beliefs and viewpoints. So it can happen. 



> any sort of media exposure to an idea is exposure, and if it changes even a single mind in a lifetime then that is "making a difference". who are you to quantify what makes a difference? what is your benchmark for what a difference is? or are you just tired of reading shit on the internet? like i said, click the back button, or as i like to call it, the fuck off button.


Yeah, but if you really want to make a change and a difference, you have to do something besides squabble with people's deeply rooted beliefs. This isn't a Chick Tract (And I can't _believe _I'm referencing those) where you can put up a good argument and Gasp! Their entire worldview is changed! Plus I agree, liking/sharing/commenting on photos on Facebook are petty and usually won't change anything.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 14, 2013)

Azure said:


> like what? pat them on the back? congratulate them on their unique point of view? say "that's interesting"? or does it just not exist. because as far as i can tell, approaching the subject of religion in any way that is critical to it is going to end up uncivilized 100% of the time if either party has any fucking conviction in their own ethos.



I manage to discuss things with people who have vastly different outlooks than I do without getting emotionally unhinged, maybe I'm just better than you. 




> way to marginalize something that affects peoples lives daily, boiling it down to a child arguing with their mommy about why they dont want to go to bed early. when its really nothing like that at all. and i dont need to make any sort of comment to see which end of the argument is so very childish.



Yeah, not having to qualify any statement or accusation you make seems to be a pattern.

What if I told you I grew up with a religious parent who still to this day regards me as an irredeemable monster because I turned my back on her deity and only associates with me out of social necessity?

I mock such behavior when I see it because it's perpetuating an ecosystem in which dialog is impossible; history repeatedly shows that open hostility is diplomatically unfeasible and yet you seem to advocate it. I want you to go find out how many people identify as non-religious and compare it to those who do, and then tell me with a straight face that negatively generalizing the vast majority of the world's population is going to help your cause.



> then dont fucking read it. click the back button. and distinctions are just like opinions, they are both related to assholes and are full of shit.



I don't have an issue with reading this or I wouldn't be reading it, the problem seems to be yours.



> any sort of media exposure to an idea is exposure, and if it changes even a single mind in a lifetime then that is "making a difference". who are you to quantify what makes a difference? what is your benchmark for what a difference is? or are you just tired of reading shit on the internet? like i said, click the back button, or as i like to call it, the fuck off button.



I am so tired of reading shit on the internet that I regularly read shit on the internet. 

Trying to make everything relative is what people do when objective truth is inconvenient for their position. The fact is that most things aren't relative, there are proven ways of enacting cultural change and none of them involve bellyaching on internet forums for an underground social clique.



> oh so money and politics, the so called "broken system", are the only way to make a difference? sure, lemme just get elected to the senate and then tell them that i think god and religion should go fuck themselves. ought to go over really well, i mean it works in theory, right? no.



Well you could kill all the religious advocates in government I guess if you consider that a better alternative.

Other than that you don't really have an option except to play by the rules and change the system from within; it worked for those who corrupted it after-all.

Just because reality is inconvenient doesn't make it any less true, I'm sorry that the idea upsets you.


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 14, 2013)

I came to see why this thread managed to reach 15 pages; Good grief people, when did internet arguments ever begin to be about changing people's minds? It's a hobby for some and a time waster for the rest. This is absolutely absurd.


----------



## Aubreys_Anthro_Ego (Mar 14, 2013)

Thanks, LeRenard! I bothered Mentova to do it but you beat them to the punch.


CaptainCool said:


> Why should I? I'm not even convinced that he ever existed afterall!


Though he's a cool guy in the bible, I'm not sure either. I meant to give him more credit as in to give what he supposedly did more credit. To say that he was only suffering a microsecond for each and every person just isn't fair to the legend.

I mean, like I said: betrayed by your friend for pocket change? Stripped nude infront of everyone? Whipped who knows how many times, hands nailed, spikes sticking into his head, all that other shit, and all because the Roman empire didn't like his style.
If their was a suffering quota that needed to be filled for this sort of thing, he did it. I'm not the type to rush to Christianity's aid since it really doesn't need it, but _come on. _Saying Jesus wasn't all that and a bag of chips is like saying Beowulf was a pussy!


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I can have rather civilized conversations with atheists. In fact, even when they're insulting me and my beliefs I still continue to be civilized and respectable to their belief system, attacking instead the point, and never talking about why I don't like atheism or think it's a lot of nonsense. All I see people like 'Cool and yourself do, and other atheists I've seen on facebook, is talk down and patronize it. Oh, and you use "religion" as a ridiculous blanket term; most people who talk about the evils of "religion" mean only the Abrahamic religions, and not other religions like Buddhism. I have a friend on Skype, and while he's agnostic, we can still have sensible debates on things like religion, gun control and even politics (i'm very pro-captialism, and he's more or less a middle of the road fellow between that and socialism), without ever calling names and talking shit on each others' beliefs and viewpoints. So it can happen.
> 
> 
> Yeah, but if you really want to make a change and a difference, you have to do something besides squabble with people's deeply rooted beliefs. This isn't a Chick Tract (And I can't _believe _I'm referencing those) where you can put up a good argument and Gasp! Their entire worldview is changed! Plus I agree, liking/sharing/commenting on photos on Facebook are petty and usually won't change anything.


 I never heard of evil in buddhism. I thought buddhists were just atheists who follow typical prophet bullshit. "I'm very pro-capitalism was a little funny when you announced it", just saying. I do like the idea of capitalism, but it has affected many people. Just think, fruit for example, something that grows naturally and is part of the earth that many starving, poor people could eat for free is being taken by companies who make you pay a price for it, and it's something completely natural that belongs to all of us. This fruit grows naturally and has proven remedies "nope you can't have it, you have to pay for it". That part of capitalism gets to me. It also gets me when Christians say Israel belongs to the jews, like a piece of land is so important to a religious group of people and is somehow more special than any other land and group of people. I am not going to get into it further, but yeah, you get my point. I am not against capitalism, I love having my own things XP, but I am just saying the down side of it affects people in other ways. About atheists attacking you, it happens to me also, but I also get attacked by Christians, for simply not following their path. I get to the point where I just say fuck everyone. It's like you can't be yourself around people. If I have experiences personally, I don't wanna be obligated to prove them to atheists, like as if I have to fucking answer to them like they are god whenever I have them, I also don't want them to be called evil by Christians, when they are positive experiences because they weren't influenced by Jesus Christ. If I know something happened, I know something happened. I am a skeptic, so I do question my experiences and try to rationalize them, especially when they happen over and over like a strange cycle. I know what I am dealing with personally, to have people around you from all sides say you're wrong fucking makes me feel alone and far apart from people. I try to understand other people and wonder what they think as well, including atheists. I am open to science and skepticism, because I am skeptic! but I know when something happens supernaturally to me, and because they do happen, I believe them. A lot of my experiences are based on Synchronicity. I am not stopping people from following their paths, but just don't tell me I am wrong or get mad at me for having my own. While I do think atheists are smart, the more they treat me this way, the more I am going to become less tolerant towards them and look at them more like Christians, especially when it happens in the majority of them. In some ways, I do not care about intelligence in a person, because they are nothing if they treat you like shit and make it obvious by showing their true colors. It just shows they have never given me a chance. I tend to get along with agnostics, because they show more flexibility with their views, especially in politics.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 15, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I never heard of evil in buddhism. I thought buddhists were just atheists who follow typical prophet bullshit. "I'm very pro-capitalism was a little funny when you announced it", just saying. I do like the idea of capitalism, but it has affected many people. Just think, fruit for example, something that grows naturally and is part of the earth that many starving, poor people could eat for free is being taken by companies who make you pay a price for it, and it's something completely natural that belongs to all of us. This fruit grows naturally and has proven remedies "nope you can't have it, you have to pay for it". That part of capitalism gets to me. It also gets me when Christians say Israel belongs to the jews, like a piece of land is so important to a religious group of people and is somehow more special than any other land and group of people. I am not going to get into it further, but yeah, you get my point. I am not against capitalism, I love having my own things XP, but I am just saying the down side of it affects people in other ways. About atheists attacking you, it happens to me also, but I also get attacked by Christians, for simply not following their path. I get to the point where I just say fuck everyone. It's like you can't be yourself around people. If I have experiences personally, I don't wanna be obligated to prove them to atheists, like as if I have to fucking answer to them like they are god whenever I have them, I also don't want them to be called evil by Christians, when they are positive experiences because they weren't influenced by Jesus Christ. If I know something happened, I know something happened. I am a skeptic, so I do question my experiences and try to rationalize them, especially when they happen over and over like a strange cycle. I know what I am dealing with personally, to have people around you from all sides say you're wrong fucking makes me feel alone and far apart from people. I try to understand other people and wonder what they think as well, including atheists. I am open to science and skepticism, because I am skeptic! but I know when something happens supernaturally to me, and because they do happen, I believe them. A lot of my experiences are based on Synchronicity. I am not stopping people from following their paths, but just don't tell me I am wrong or get mad at me for having my own. While I do think atheists are smart, the more they treat me this way, the more I am going to become less tolerant towards them and look at them more like Christians, especially when it happens in the majority of them. In some ways, I do not care about intelligence in a person, because they are nothing if they treat you like shit and make it obvious by showing their true colors. It just shows they have never given me a chance. I tend to get along with agnostics, because they show more flexibility with their views, especially in politics.



Yeah, I've never heard of buddhists doing anything evil, and they techincally are dictionary definition atheists (Pretty much all dictionaries' first definition is unbelief in a God; since the Buddha never instructed his followers to follow a God...well those who just follow what the buddha taught are atheists, even if they buy into the spiritual side of it). I have heard that yes, even in their circles there's the "You're not good enough" types. I guess that just happens to everyone, no matter what belief you follow. You're either attacked for not being a "true follower", or someone from somewhere else comes at you and rails on you. 

And with captialism...yeah there are issues with it. But see, with fruit, if you possess the skill, you could grow it. I dunno about countries' nowadays since they feel the need to stick their hands in everyone's business, but I know most stuff you can grow. And yes while you do have to buy the seeds (or you could get them from the stuff growing in the wild or elsewhere), I'd consider that a short investment towards being able to grow your own apples, or tomatoes, celery, what have you. 

As for the poor, well yeah, it is unfortunate that we have poor people who cannot afford things but...oh dear me, that's another topic in of itself. 

But yeah, it's unfortunate that people will have _any _group come after them because of whatever. But, I guess that's what happens when you give people the freedom to think, believe, and speak as they see fit.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 15, 2013)

Religious discussions involving multiple groups, be they between atheists and theists, or between theists spousing different philosophies, nearly _always _end up with the kettle calling the pot black (and the pot threatening eternal damnation, which is where this analogy breaks down). I couldn't give a damn if people worshipped Fruit Loops and Their Holy Fruity Goodness. But when they start criticizing my morning Corn Flakes, things get ugly. :V

Religion in itself can be a wonderful thing to give some people direction and purpose. Mostly because being born, reproducing and then eventually just crumbling into dust in the wind of history is a pretty lame meaning of life for most people. Sadly, quite a few people (no matter what label they cling to) cannot understand the idea of religion being something personal. So they try to impose their views on others for the stupidest reasons.

Do you eat meat on friday? According to some people you'll go to hell for that.

Have you ever shaken hands with a woman you're not related to? Yep, there's a nice little patch of brimstone and torture waiting for you, according to another crowd.

Accidentally stepped on a bunch of ants on the sidewalk? Extremists tell you to repent or you're in danger of going down a rung in your next reincarnation.

Buried or cremated a loved one so their body won't be desecrated by animals and/or stink up the whole joint? Yep, there's some damnation waiting for you.

Do you take solace in stories you've been told since you were a child? Someone is going to get on you for it.

The sad thing is that I'm actually on pretty much the same page as Fallowfox, but I can't be assed to bother with trying to debate people anymore. Like religion, rationalism isn't for everyone. We're wired for both superstition and scientific method by very powerful evolutionary pressures.

The superstitious man will live longer by avoiding things he doesn't understand but knows are dangerous. People have walked out of their caves by night and were found in pieces the next morning? It could have been a lion, or it could have been a demon. The superstitious man doesn't care, he stays inside when the sun goes down and pray the demon doesn't come. And his children will stay inside and pray as well. And so will their children. Because that's what they do when the night falls: stay inside and pray the demon won't come, and they've survived generations by doing that.

Meanwhile, the scientific-minded man will thrive by discovering the secrets the unknown holds. He'll realize that there's a reason he's safe inside the cave, and he'll try to find out what it is. He's going to risk life and limb until he realizes the warm, bright fire near the entrance of the cave is what keeps the demons away. And then he'll start pushing the boundaries of his knowledge, setting up fires outside and watching them. Maybe they'll catch a glimpse of a hungry lion skulking just outside and try to come up with a method to keep it away so he'll be able to go outside by night. Assuming he survives, he'll teach that to his children, and to his children's children.

The two men will come into conflict, eventually. After all, the superstitious man could have been out by night doing all sorts of productive things in the cool air and warm firelight! And the scientifically-minded man should have just stayed inside and saved his energy for the work that would invariably have to be done come sunrise.

Maybe the superstitious man will kill the scientifically-minded man because he's stronger for not having to experiment with lion-repellent devices. Maybe the scientifically-minded man will kill the superstitious man with his new tools and knowledge of lion behavior, luring the "demon" into the other guy's cave. Hopefully they'll reach some sort of agreement and one will learn from the other, paying the price of having to tolerate the affront to their beliefs, and both men and their families will thrive.

Sadly, people being what they are, fighting is going to be the most common result, but I'm thankful that in the world I live in most of the fighting is carried out with words and not with sticks and stones.

 It's going to be pretty damn hard to change how the human psyche works, and people vary quite widely on where they fall in the science-superstition axis. It's usually just better to live and let live. And occasionally bash someone over the head for trying to make you eat Fruit Loops instead of Corn Flakes in the morning. Those Fruit Loops had it coming. Hands off my Corn Flakes! :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Aubreys_Anthro_Ego said:


> Thanks, LeRenard! I bothered Mentova to do it but you beat them to the punch.
> 
> Though he's a cool guy in the bible, I'm not sure either. I meant to give him more credit as in to give what he supposedly did more credit. To say that he was only suffering a microsecond for each and every person just isn't fair to the legend.
> 
> ...



A cool guy? He was very clear that the old rules are still in place, that alone makes him look like a total toolbag to me :T
Also, don't you think this whole story is a little too perfect? I'm pretty sure he really is just a metaphor to explain how much those people suffered because of the romans and a loophole to explain why god changed so much even though the bible describes it as "unchanging".


----------



## Troj (Mar 15, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I never heard of evil in buddhism.



Ah, then you should probably look to Sri Lanka.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> A cool guy? He was very clear that the old rules are still in place, that alone makes him look like a total toolbag to me :T
> Also, don't you think this whole story is a little too perfect? I'm pretty sure he really is just a metaphor to explain how much those people suffered because of the romans and a loophole to explain why god changed so much even though the bible describes it as "unchanging".


Actually, Jesus said that the old laws were in place "until all was fulfilled", which some take to mean what he set out on earth to do, because over in the Gospel of John, he says "It is done!", meaning that what he set out to do was done, or "fulfilled". Others think that the laws he said would still be in place refers to the ones he outlined (the 10 commandments, love your neighbor as yourself, love god with all your heart/mind/soul) and not the whole of the OT Laws. Besides, Paul writes an entire letter to the church in Rome (See the book of Romans) talking about how we are no longer required to follow The Law in order to gain salvation, and instead are redeemed by what Christ did.


----------



## Namba (Mar 15, 2013)

Furries have a special place in hell, so you'll be in good company when you die I suppose.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Actually, Jesus said that the old laws were in place "until all was fulfilled", which some take to mean what he set out on earth to do, because over in the Gospel of John, he says "It is done!", meaning that what he set out to do was done, or "fulfilled". Others think that the laws he said would still be in place refers to the ones he outlined (the 10 commandments, love your neighbor as yourself, love god with all your heart/mind/soul) and not the whole of the OT Laws. Besides, Paul writes an entire letter to the church in Rome (See the book of Romans) talking about how we are no longer required to follow The Law in order to gain salvation, and instead are redeemed by what Christ did.



So what about the whole "Till heaven and earth pass" thing?
I also see this part as very problematic since you can say pretty much anything with that passage. You can interprete it in a way that suggests that the laws of the old testament are still in place, you can interprete it as only a few laws still being in place and then you can interprete it like the old testament was completely abandoned when it comes to laws.
Not that it matters though, no sane person would even consider a 2000 years old book that a bunch of tribesmen in tents came up with as a source for morals.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So what about the whole "Till heaven and earth pass" thing?
> I also see this part as very problematic since you can say pretty much anything with that passage. You can interprete it in a way that suggests that the laws of the old testament are still in place, you can interprete it as only a few laws still being in place and then you can interprete it like the old testament was completely abandoned when it comes to laws.
> Not that it matters though, no sane person would even consider a 2000 years old book that a bunch of tribesmen in tents came up with as a source for morals.



Well in Revelation the old earth and heaven become new and into different forms, perhaps that's what he meant? Admittedly, that's about as much as I know when it comes to that verse about the law. 

And hey, some of the things Jesus said can still hold water today. That's like saying you wouldn't expect anyone to use something that's pretty old and ancient as a source for their own morals (be it Chivalry, Bushido, Buddhism, Pagan religions, etc).


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well in Revelation the old earth and heaven become new and into different forms, perhaps that's what he meant? Admittedly, that's about as much as I know when it comes to that verse about the law.
> 
> And hey, some of the things Jesus said can still hold water today. That's like saying you wouldn't expect anyone to use something that's pretty old and ancient as a source for their own morals (be it Chivalry, Bushido, Buddhism, Pagan religions, etc).



I'm saying that christianity is a pretty shitty source for a moral code. Or do you really need that to figure out that it is bad to treat other people badly?


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 15, 2013)

No, I know it's not okay to treat others badly. I try to operate on a basis of "If I wouldn't like that done to me, then I won't do it to them" mentality. I don't like people shoving their beliefs down my throat, so I won't do it to others; even with things like work. I try to be on time with my breaks and lunches and not jack around after clocking in because I know how much it sucks when you're waiting for your break to do whatever (like get some refreshments on a hot day) and someone's taking longer than they should to get back to their post so you can go.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

In relation to comments about jesus being saviour, freeing humanity from god's old laws, I'll have to interupt and say this in no way justified those old laws at all.

Old laws about not wearing multiple-woven fabrics, cutting off babies' foreskins, abstaining from shellfish etcetera are not excused from being utterly ridiculous because 'jesus says we don't have to do that _anymore_'. 

By what mechanism is human sacrifice, that is entirely beyond any of our controls change 'moral law' _anyway_? 

A more consistant bible, in which jesus is still a messenger from ywh, would have him say "yes, those old laws weren't exactly a good idea. They were confusing, nonsensical and unjustified in many cases, so I've decided to send someone to intervene and tell you that treating others how you would expect to be respectfully treated really is the one thing you should have in mind if nothing else,"
..."Oh and if anyone should have any better ideas here's god's phone number, and a new invention I call the phone,"



Zaraphayx said:


> - There is a world of difference between discussing religion in a civilized way and engaging in the sort of behavior CaptainCool and those like him do.
> 
> - There is a reason why the atheism subreddit is ridiculed and the people that it's subscribers quote aren't.
> 
> ...



I conjecture _this_ is condescending tripe. 

But quite seriously, if you want people to take your claims seriously, then by all means quantify them rather than insisting 'those people on reddit are assholes', which is simple ad hominem fallacy. 

Eitherway it's a tad irrelevant, because as LeRenard has said, this isn't exactly an activism forum. It's furries discussing things they find curious.


Now it's time for anecdotes. I have previously partaken in a >600 page discussion called 'does god exit?' which is on the Jiggmin's Village forum. The function was not to change people's minds, but a handful of users did change their minds after posting for a few hundred pages. 
The thread is located here for all who are interested to see just how far these discussions can go: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Does-god-exist


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I
> I conjecture _this_ is condescending tripe.
> 
> But quite seriously, if you want people to take your claims seriously, then by all means quantify them rather than insisting 'those people on reddit are assholes', which is simple ad hominem fallacy.
> ...



Oh it's totally condescending, because such actions are worthy of it. 

I don't expect you to take my claims seriously, especially since you're of the disposition that one personal attack renders all previous reasoning invalid under an ad hominem fallacy. You also mischaracterized my statement, way to go 

I've explained time and time again why I made the statements I did, because I had to keep batting off the accusation that I don't want anyone to talk ever; I'm not going to repeat myself anymore because you or anyone else has yet to prove me incorrect.

And a discussion where one side is snarky and condescending to the other by virtue of having a different position isn't a civilized discussion at all, it's a TV talk show where the one who talks the loudest and makes the wittiest quips gets all the applause.


----------



## BarlettaX (Mar 15, 2013)

The thread title almost gave me a heart attack. 

Anyways,
I don't see why it would. I guess it depends on your actions. Don't fuck dogs, and I'm sure you'll be fine.
:V


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> Oh it's totally condescending, because such actions are worthy of it.
> 
> I don't expect you to take my claims seriously, especially since you're of the disposition that one personal attack renders all previous reasoning invalid under an ad hominem fallacy. You also mischaracterized my statement, way to go
> 
> ...



Your clear intentions for ridiculing posts critical of religions epistemics was becuase of your assessment of the characters of people making the posts. Repeatedly making references about psychology, conversion and e-atheists outside of this discussion. As is indicated by you calling this 'snarky and condescending'.

If you think your claim that discussion has no practical effect on religiosity is right _unless proven incorrect_, well I'm not sure where to begin with that. It's incredibly difficult to quanitfy but it certainly does have effects [whether or not they are positive is a subjective matter]. Never the less this isn't the thread objective. It's rather like insisting that trying to persuade people antibiotic resistance is a problem is a lost cause because those people aren't going to go home and synthesise new antibiotics.

In the debate of whether 2+2=4 or 5, team 4 is to be further ignored and told they're old hat for daring to be snarky about the millenial-old traditions of team 5, who, amongst other things, insist that a magical force pervades the universe sending people to a torturous afterlife when they die for masturbating to yiff. This however is apparantly not enough to merit mention of condescension in comparrison to team 4's vindictive issistance on _factual _analysis. [have they no sensibility?]


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> No, I know it's not okay to treat others badly. I try to operate on a basis of "If I wouldn't like that done to me, then I won't do it to them" mentality.



Then what do you personally need religion for?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Then what do you personally need religion for?



Fear of death.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Fear of death.



Shhhh! Dude! No spoilers! X3


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

Unless this is 'condescending', that was just my experience when I was previously religious.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Unless this is 'condescending', that was just my experience when I was previously religious.



Well, yeah. That pretty much is what religion is all about. It's our most basic fear. If you control that you can completely control a person.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

To be honest, I don't know the answer to this question. It scares me. I'm not really sure what would and wouldn't get someone sent to Hell. Due to this, I'm rather fearful that I may end up in Hell someday. I sure hope not. I'm a Christian. I wish to go to Heaven when its time to go there. Still, I think I can advise this at leaston't have sex with animals. Which to be honest, should be a given.
To the people up above me, it might be worth mentioning that I'm religious not just because of a fear of religion, and I don't believe that religion is necessarily necessary to act right. I just genuinely believe much of religion. That doesn't mean of course that I cant think for myself, however, nor does it mean that I am not smart.


----------



## Kio Maru (Mar 15, 2013)

I don't think so, but ask God just in case, ok?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> To be honest, I don't know the answer to this question. It scares me. I'm not really sure what would and wouldn't get someone sent to Hell. Due to this, I'm rather fearful that I may end up in Hell someday. I sure hope not. I'm a Christian. I wish to go to Heaven when its time to go there. Still, I think I can advise this at leaston't have sex with animals. Which to be honest, should be a given.
> To the people up above me, it might be worth mentioning that I'm religious not just because of a fear of religion, and I don't believe that religion is necessarily necessary to act right. I just genuinely believe much of religion. That doesn't mean of course that I cant think for myself, however, nor does it mean that I am not smart.



So why do you believe in that? Why do you believe that it would be ok that people are being judged after they die and then have to *burn forever* for what they did? No one deserves that! No one! No matter how much of an asshole you were, you don't sdeserve eternal torture of that kind.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

Man, Christianity really is insane BS.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So why do you believe in that? Why do you believe that it would be ok that people are being judged after they die and then have to *burn forever* for what they did? No one deserves that! No one! No matter how much of an asshole you were, you don't sdeserve eternal torture of that kind.



Actually there was this article I found that made a strong argument that eternal torture is biblically unsound. First, there's the issue of infinite torture for a finite amount of offenses. If God really is just and fair, that's quite the disproportionate retribution. The other argument is that it contradicts the idea of no one being eternal/immortal but God. Even those who go to heaven still need the aid of God and his powers to be truly immortal. So, if you're in hell for eternity, aren't you technically immortal? You can feel pain yes, but can't die. So that goes against that notion. 

As for why I believe it, I just do. It wasn't forced on me, mom and pop didn't threaten to ground me, and while yes I am uncertain about the afterlife, it isn't my only motivation. My search for spirituality led me to this path, and for now it feels like the right one to pursue. 

Now, to clear something up, what do you mean when you say "religion"? Do you mean only religions like Christianity, or do you mean _all _religions? Cause as I've outlined before, oft people talk about the evils of religion, and when pressed, they only mean Christianity, Islam, etc.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

All religion is pretty much wrong. Even atheists are wrong. Nobody knows if God exists or not, and nobody has any proof.

Anybody who says "I know if God does or does not exist" is either lying or schizophrenic.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So why do you believe in that? Why do you believe that it would be ok that people are being judged after they die and then have to *burn forever* for what they did? No one deserves that! No one! No matter how much of an asshole you were, you don't sdeserve eternal torture of that kind.


 I do. I masturbated.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I do. I masturbated.



You sick fuck.

How could you.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Actually there was this article I found that made a strong argument that eternal torture is biblically unsound. First, there's the issue of infinite torture for a finite amount of offenses. If God really is just and fair, that's quite the disproportionate retribution. The other argument is that it contradicts the idea of no one being eternal/immortal but God. Even those who go to heaven still need the aid of God and his powers to be truly immortal. So, if you're in hell for eternity, aren't you technically immortal? You can feel pain yes, but can't die. So that goes against that notion.
> 
> As for why I believe it, I just do. It wasn't forced on me, mom and pop didn't threaten to ground me, and while yes I am uncertain about the afterlife, it isn't my only motivation. My search for spirituality led me to this path, and for now it feels like the right one to pursue.
> 
> Now, to clear something up, what do you mean when you say "religion"? Do you mean only religions like Christianity, or do you mean _all _religions? Cause as I've outlined before, oft people talk about the evils of religion, and when pressed, they only mean Christianity, Islam, etc.



The first part makes sense because that would indeed be an unjust punishment.
As for the second part... Well that kind of requires god to actually exist again so that argment doesn't really make a lot of sense to me to be honest :T

Your search for spirituality? Or your fear of death? Because there are many ways to be spiritual without having religion.

Oh and yes, I do believe that _all_ religions are crazy nonsense and evil. Since christianity is simply the most common religion in the west I tend to concentrate on that. Islam isn't actively shoved down my throat through laws for example.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 15, 2013)

Yeah, no one knows for certain. I just feel that pull to Christianity, have read the bible and seen things it says line up with reality, and so it causes me to put more chips - so to speak - on Christianity. I mean, it *is *called having faith in God for a reason. 

But, should it be shown to us one day that this idea of a god is incorrect, and that the real thing is different from what we thought, I will have to accept that and not shoot it down for not lining up with my expectations.

Edit: Well, when we talk about things involving God, let's just say "for the sake of this argument, pretend that he is real in this case" because...well writing off an entire argument on the basis of God not existing is kinda...eh. Seems like a simple hand wave or cop out to me (not that I'm saying you're doing that). 

Yeah, you do see a lot of Christianity in the west. While it does influence me in making thoughts and what not, I don't think laws in this country should be pushed by lawmakers and those involved in gov't because it aligns with what their religion is. "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's" (read: Even Jesus believed in the idea of keeping church and state separate).


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Because there are many ways to be spiritual without having religion.




Marijuana, LSD, and mushrooms.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 15, 2013)

I think it's safe to say that when someone mentions 'Religion', they're probably talking about the overall religion that has the most members globally, 2/3rds of Germany and 3/4ths of the USA >.>


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 15, 2013)

Don't forget mescaline


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Don't forget mescaline



Find me some peyote to do and I'll add it to the list. :I


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Yeah, no one knows for certain. I just feel that pull to Christianity, have read the bible and seen things it says line up with reality, and so it causes me to put more chips - so to speak - on Christianity. I mean, it *is *called having faith in God for a reason.
> 
> But, should it be shown to us one day that this idea of a god is incorrect, and that the real thing is different from what we thought, I will have to accept that and not shoot it down for not lining up with my expectations.
> 
> ...



Faith means to believe without evidence. And that shit doesn't fly with me  (sorry ;D)

What things did you see that line up with christianity? That really made me curious now.

I am writing off arguments like this because every time I have heard them they went from "let's pretend that god is real" to "while we are at it, let's pretend this part of the bible is true as well so that my argument doesn't fall apart".


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Your clear intentions for ridiculing posts critical of religions epistemics was becuase of your assessment of the characters of people making the posts. Repeatedly making references about psychology, conversion and e-atheists outside of this discussion. As is indicated by you calling this 'snarky and condescending'.



You certainly haven't denied my character assumptions of the people in question, you've just deflected a lot and tried to insist I am the immature one for ridiculing behavior I see as immature.

Are you making the claim that CaptainCool and 'stereotypical /r/atheism poster #23356' are indeed debating in a constructive way?

I find it kinda funny that someone who really isn't all that guilty of the behavior I am criticizing is the most adamant about defending it, but life is full of these little oddities.



> If you think your claim that discussion has no practical effect on religiosity is right _unless proven incorrect_, well I'm not sure where to begin with that. It's incredibly difficult to quanitfy but it certainly does have effects [whether or not they are positive is a subjective matter]. Never the less this isn't the thread objective. *It's rather like insisting that trying to persuade people antibiotic resistance is a problem is a lost cause because those people aren't going to go home and synthesise new antibiotics.*



No, it's rather like insisting trying to persuade people antibiotic resistance is a problem is a lost cause because no matter what you say or they say both people are more and more likely to stick their fingers in their ears and sing songs the closer either side gets to outright stating that their opposition is unconditionally incorrect.

Faith is not something that can be reasoned away, and is it is often an extremely traumatic process; trying to reason faith out of the faithful is the exact same thing as trying to convince a non-believer to discard his skepticism in favor of unconditional faith.

A little off topic, but there were a series of triple blind studies done that showed that systems of belief, product worship, and hero worship basically ran along exactly the same lines of thought; they had the exact same reactions and mindset regarding their chosen 'faiths'.

I find it particularly interesting because people are usually very quick to see product worship for what it is, and to a lesser extent mainstream political discourse as well.

Yet whenever I insist that this particular topic of conversation is ridiculous the response is almost always to accuse me of being an apologist or to insist I am attempting to give religious mythology an equal factual standing with scientific evidence.

Such is life on soviet internet.




> In the debate of whether 2+2=4 or 5, team 4 is to be further ignored and told they're old hat for daring to be snarky about the millenial-old traditions of team 5, who, amongst other things, insist that a magical force pervades the universe sending people to a torturous afterlife when they die for masturbating to yiff. This however is apparantly not enough to merit mention of condescension in comparrison to team 4's vindictive issistance on _factual _analysis. [have they no sensibility?]



You can't equivocate the disagreement regarding the existence of the afterlife/divine beings with mathematical facts.

Various nuances surrounding the subject are a lot less nebulous than others, and depending on how committed to empiricism you are you'll obviously come to different conclusions than others.

But honestly I don't think this is going to go anywhere because you seem intent on sidestepping my actual points of contention and focusing on the perceived hypocrisy of ridiculing despicable conduct in a matter you deem despicable.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 15, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Marijuana, LSD, and mushrooms.


 Ugh, I hate drugs.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Ugh, I hate drugs.


I don't give three hundred flying fuckeroos. c:


----------



## Azure (Mar 15, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Don't forget mescaline


when i come back to california i will make you some mescaline. just buy a ton of san pedro and some lye, everything else i can get at the grocery store. then we will go to the beach and celebrate the american spirit by taking massive amounts of fresh crystals directly to our brain pans.



Nikolinni said:


> I...have read the bible and seen things it says line up with reality


ha, oh man. please give me an example of this.



Zaraphayx said:


> I manage to discuss things with people who have vastly different outlooks than I do without getting emotionally unhinged, maybe I'm just better than you.


okay fine, those people can still be wrong as fuck and not know it. who ever said i had to be nice about anything? as far as i am concerned, there isnt anything to discuss, just information to disseminate and fallacies to be exposed. repeatedly. over and over again. til a motherfucker gets it or goes away angry.



Zaraphayx said:


> Yeah, not having to qualify any statement or accusation you make seems to be a pattern.


i dunno, ive been qualifying plenty of shit ITT, and many others just like this one. it seems to be the other side that quantify shit because they aint got no facts, jack. you as well.



Zaraphayx said:


> What if I told you I grew up with a religious parent who still to this day regards me as an irredeemable monster because I turned my back on her deity and only associates with me out of social necessity?


same here, and much of the rest of my family. but im not here for your personal anecdotes, or anyone elses.



Zaraphayx said:


> I mock such behavior when I see it because it's perpetuating an ecosystem in which dialog is impossible; history repeatedly shows that open hostility is diplomatically unfeasible and yet you seem to advocate it. I want you to go find out how many people identify as non-religious and compare it to those who do, and then tell me with a straight face that negatively generalizing the vast majority of the world's population is going to help your cause.


why should there be dialouge? religion holds all the cards, all the power, all the everythings. everything but my own fucking mind. and there are probably about 1 billion people who are non-religious, compared to about 6.5 billion who are. talk about a VAST MAJORITY. one mind at a time, one line at a time, one fucking sentence at a time, i will try to do my part.



Zaraphayx said:


> I am so tired of reading shit on the internet that I regularly read shit on the internet.
> 
> Trying to make everything relative is what people do when objective truth is inconvenient for their position. The fact is that most things aren't relative, there are proven ways of enacting cultural change and none of them involve bellyaching on internet forums for an underground social clique.


hey, quantify this shit. do it.



Zaraphayx said:


> Well you could kill all the religious advocates in government I guess if you consider that a better alternative.


i think it'd be a start. and outlawing all religious-based morality in the making of laws. and taxing churches. and taking the word GOD out of every single states constitution and the federal version. and not making people put their hand on the fucking bible and swear to a deity that "theyz gon tell da truf boss". and a million other fucking asinine things that will never change unless you change the minds of PEOPLE AND NOT THE SYSTEM. because it takes people to change the system. and my side doesnt have enough warm bodies to get it done.



Zaraphayx said:


> Just because reality is inconvenient doesn't make it any less true, I'm sorry that the idea upsets you.


well hey, guess ill have to try harder, shout louder, POST IN BIGGER LETTERZ, and maybe get a spambot. but dont think i am upset, it just makes me all the more passionate.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So why do you believe in that? Why do you believe that it would be ok that people are being judged after they die and then have to *burn forever* for what they did? No one deserves that! No one! No matter how much of an asshole you were, you don't sdeserve eternal torture of that kind.


I don't know that I wouldn't deserve it. How can humans really know anything? The way I see it, God is difficult for humans to understand. We cannot apply our own morals and outlooks on life when we ourselves do not know and understand everything.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I don't know that I wouldn't deserve it. How can humans really know anything? The way I see it, God is difficult for humans to understand. We cannot apply our own morals and outlooks on life when we ourselves do not know and understand everything.



So why put blind and ignorant faith is something nobody knows for sure exists, consequently taking away priority in making the world a better place? People "leave it to God" so often it makes me want to go on a killing spree in the Bible Belt. Nobody takes responsibility for the world anymore, because they think GOd will take care of everything. That's why our planet is so utterly fucked at the moment.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Faith means to believe without evidence. And that shit doesn't fly with me  (sorry ;D)
> 
> What things did you see that line up with christianity? That really made me curious now.
> 
> I am writing off arguments like this because every time I have heard them they went from "let's pretend that god is real" to "while we are at it, let's pretend this part of the bible is true as well so that my argument doesn't fall apart".


Well.....My general argument in favor of religion is: We have the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, right? Matter can't be created or destroyed. That then gives one the question: How did the universe form?
God doesn't need to follow natural laws. As such, this doesn't apply to Him.
Regarding The Bible, I'm not so sure it is really needed for Christianity to exist. Considering its been heavily tampered with by humans, one might look at it as a sort of Wikipedia: Filled with information, not all of which is true.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> So why put blind and ignorant faith is something nobody knows for sure exists, consequently taking away priority in making the world a better place? People "leave it to God" so often it makes me want to go on a killing spree in the Bible Belt. Nobody takes responsibility for the world anymore, because they think GOd will take care of everything. That's why our planet is so utterly fucked at the moment.


To this, I can only shrug. One just believes something to be true. However, that doesn't mean one won't help make the world a better place and that one won't take responsibility for their actions: The way I see it, God created the universe, we messed it up, we need to fix it.
So honestly, we need to take responsibility for our actions and help make the world a better place.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> To this, I can only shrug. One just believes something to be true. However, that doesn't mean one won't help make the world a better place and that one won't take responsibility for their actions: The way I see it, God created the universe, we messed it up, we need to fix it.
> So honestly, we need to take responsibility for our actions and help make the world a better place.



And therein raises another question: If that's what you believe, then what's the point of worshiping God? Clearly, if what you say is true, then he's a useless fuckhead who doesn't care about us and doesn't DESERVE worship or respect. Hell, if I die and go to heaven and see God, I'm gonna kick him right in the dick for being such a worthless dickhead.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> And therein raises another question: If that's what you believe, then what's the point of worshiping God? Clearly, if what you say is true, then he's a useless fuckhead who doesn't care about us and doesn't DESERVE worship or respect. Hell, if I die and go to heaven and see God, I'm gonna kick him right in the dick for being such a worthless dickhead.


Well, He did create everything. Why not worship him? You say he is so horrible, however, if He intervened in everyday life, would we really have free will? If He prevented murderers from murdering, would that still be considered free will?
Furthermore, why would it be His responsibility to take care of the world. If you build a car, would it be a horrible thing if you didn't take care of that car? Would it be worth hating the person who built that car over simply because he didn't take care of it?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> If you build a car, would it be a horrible thing if you didn't take care of that car? Would it be worth hating the person who built that car over simply because he didn't take care of it?



Yes. Yes I would. 

Cars deserve more respect than that. God, on the other hand, is a useless fuckbucket who does nothing to help humanity, which people claim to say he "loves." Human existence is kind of a curse on the planet, and there is a large section of humans who have miserable lives simply because of how uncouth and fucked up society is. Why is society so fucked up, you might ask? Key answer: religion. Most of the world's government is based on a magical book of lies rather than common sense, and that's how our idiotic, capitalistic American government was born. No gay marriage, slaves for hundreds of years, illegal marijuana, intense poverty, and why? Because Jesus said so.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I don't know that I wouldn't deserve it. How can humans really know anything? The way I see it, God is difficult for humans to understand. We cannot apply our own morals and outlooks on life when we ourselves do not know and understand everything.



We can know a lot. Through science. We might not know everything and we probably never will but guess what? What we we do know actually works very very well.



Battlechili1 said:


> Well.....My general argument in favor of religion is: We have the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, right? Matter can't be created or destroyed. That then gives one the question: How did the universe form?
> God doesn't need to follow natural laws. As such, this doesn't apply to Him.
> Regarding The Bible, I'm not so sure it is really needed for Christianity to exist. Considering its been heavily tampered with by humans, one might look at it as a sort of Wikipedia: Filled with information, not all of which is true.



I have to be honest, I love it when creationists start to talk about science. It always amuses me.
Saying that god created the universe is nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Sure, you can say that. But now you have to provide evidence for your claim.



Battlechili1 said:


> Well, He did create everything.



*PROVE IT!*


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Yes. Yes I would.
> 
> Cars deserve more respect than that. God, on the other hand, is a useless fuckbucket who does nothing to help humanity, which people claim to say he "loves." Human existence is kind of a curse on the planet, and there is a large section of humans who have miserable lives simply because of how uncouth and fucked up society is. Why is society so fucked up, you might ask? Key answer: religion. Most of the world's government is based on a magical book of lies rather than common sense, and that's how our idiotic, capitalistic American government was born. No gay marriage, slaves for hundreds of years, illegal marijuana, intense poverty, and why? Because Jesus said so.


Actually, all the messed up stuff is humanity's fault. You say religion is why everything is so horrible. I say you need to think a bit harder. Why did the revolutionary war happen? Because USA wanted to be free from the British. Why did the Civil War happen? Because the south had little representation in the government (The war was not about the slaves. That was made an issue to help give more grounds for why a war should happen, or something to that effect. The slaves weren't the real reason for the war). Why did World War I happen? Actually, I can't remember the answer to that. But it wasn't religion. Why did World War II happen? Because everyone in Europe was suspicious of each other, and because the Germans started taking land in Europe. And, to add to that, Hitler killed the Jews because he thought they were inferior. Not because of the religion itself. He felt that pure Germans were the greatest race, and all other races must fall before him. The Jews were the example. Jesus never said "Gays are horrible, Don't do marijuana, and enslave people". People just added that for their own purposes. People use religion as a means of pushing their own views, whether or not something can actually be read and interpretted that way. People will twist words however they please to meet their own selfish desires at the expense of others.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

What do you think led today's humanity astray? RELIGION.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Actually, all the messed up stuff is humanity's fault. You say religion is why everything is so horrible. I say you need to think a bit harder. Why did the revolutionary war happen? Because USA wanted to be free from the British. Why did the Civil War happen? Because the south had little representation in the government (The war was not about the slaves. That was made an issue to help give more grounds for why a war should happen, or something to that effect. The slaves weren't the real reason for the war). Why did World War I happen? Actually, I can't remember the answer to that. But it wasn't religion. Why did World War II happen? Because everyone in Europe was suspicious of each other, and because the Germans started taking land in Europe. And, to add to that, Hitler killed the Jews because he thought they were inferior. Not because of the religion itself. He felt that pure Germans were the greatest race, and all other races must fall before him. The Jews were the example. Jesus never said "Gays are horrible, Don't do marijuana, and enslave people". People just added that for their own purposes. People use religion as a means of pushing their own views, whether or not something can actually be read and interpretted that way. People will twist words however they please to meet their own selfish desires at the expense of others.



Why did the inquisition happen? Why did the 30 year war happen? Why did the crusades happen? What about the witch hunts?
For every non-religious conflict that you mentioned there are many many conflicts that were driven by religion. It is an immoral and evil concept that we need to get rid of!

Oh and by the way, here is a quote from Hitler's book, Mein Kampf:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> We can know a lot. Through science. We might not know everything and we probably never will but guess what? What we we do know actually works very very well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like science. It is indeed very useful for gaining knowledge about our world.
About creationism: I believe it could be true, could be false. I don't know. For all I know, we could have evolved into humans as that other theory states. I never said I was a creationist. Stop assuming. Also, what does this mean "argumentum ad ignorantiam"? I also feel as if you are avoiding the argument. And what claim is it that I need to provide evidence for? Be specific and tell me, don't just say "claim". What claim do you speak of?
"Prove it". Well gee, I didn't know I was speaking in terms of fact, I thought I was going along with the other guys statement "_if what you say is true" and not actually claiming any of this as fact. Quit assuming the worst._


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Why did the inquisition happen? Why did the 30 year war happen? Why did the crusades happen? What about the witch hunts?
> For every non-religious conflict that you mentioned there are many many conflicts that were driven by religion. It is an immoral and evil concept that we need to get rid of!
> 
> Oh and by the way, here is a quote from Hitler's book, Mein Kampf:
> "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


You don't think that maybe Hitler said that to help try and convince others of him? Hitler actually hated it when people put religion above government. He wanted people to put Hitler above everyone else. If he claimed to be acting in the name of God, he could be in theory followed in the same manner that some religious people in the country would follow God. He wanted people to follow him. And he was good at getting people to do it. Though I admit this is an excellent point. Thanks for that quote from Mein Kampf.
Also, I'd like to point out that those wars that you mentioned are from a very long time ago. What about today? Do people have large scale wars over religion today? Or has humanity advanced enough to war wars using religion no longer occurs? Notice that my wars were recent wars. As far as today's suffering is concerned, the suffering is not due to something Jesus said.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I like science. It is indeed very useful for gaining knowledge about our world.
> About creationism: I believe it could be true, could be false. I don't know. For all I know, we could have evolved into humans as that other theory states. I never said I was a creationist. Stop assuming. Also, what does this mean "argumentum ad ignorantiam"? I also feel as if you are avoiding the argument. And what claim is it that I need to provide evidence for? Be specific and tell me, don't just say "claim". What claim do you speak of?
> "Prove it". Well gee, I didn't know I was speaking in terms of fact, I thought I was going along with the other guys statement "_if what you say is true" and not actually claiming any of this as fact. Quit assuming the worst._



Science isn't just about gaining knowledge. It is our ultimate tool to explain reality.

Evolution is a fact. We did evolve and we still are.

An "argumentum ad ignorantiam" is a common logical fallicy. It means that if you don't know the answer to something you just assume that your own theory is the correct one. In this case you don't know how the universe came to be so you just assume that god created it.

Well, you DID say "god created everything". You didn't state it as an opinion or as a possibility, you stated it as a fact. So you have to provide evidence for that claim.



Battlechili1 said:


> You don't think that maybe Hitler said that to help try and convince others of him? Hitler actually hated it when people put religion above government. He wanted people to put Hitler above everyone else. If he claimed to be acting in the name of God, he could be in theory followed in the same manner that some religious people in the country would follow God. He wanted people to follow him. And he was good at getting people to do it. Though I admit this is an excellent point. Thanks for that quote from Mein Kampf.
> Also, I'd like to point out that those wars that you mentioned are from a very long time ago. What about today? Do people have large scale wars over religion today? Or has humanity advanced enough to war wars using religion no longer occurs? Notice that my wars were recent wars. As far as today's suffering is concerned, the suffering is not due to something Jesus said.



So these old wars simply don't matter because they happened a long time ago? So the all those people who were killed in the name of religion simply don't count? That is the cruelest thing I have heard all day.

Also, please use the freaking edit feature and stop making double posts >__>


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> okay fine, those people can still be wrong as fuck and not know it. who ever said i had to be nice about anything? as far as i am concerned, there isnt anything to discuss, just information to disseminate and fallacies to be exposed. repeatedly. over and over again. til a motherfucker gets it or goes away angry.



Fight the power.




> i dunno, ive been qualifying plenty of shit ITT, and many others just like this one. it seems to be the other side that quantify shit because they aint got no facts, jack. you as well.



You haven't qualified anything you've said to me, just spun your wheels.



> same here, and much of the rest of my family. but im not here for your personal anecdotes, or anyone elses.



This was a response to your implication that I have no idea what kind of problems the non-religious face in a predominately religious climate, believe me I do. I simply choose not to stoop to their level of dehumaning, shaming, and moral/intellectual posturing.



> why should there be dialouge? religion holds all the cards, all the power, all the everythings. everything but my own fucking mind. and there are probably about 1 billion people who are non-religious, compared to about 6.5 billion who are. talk about a VAST MAJORITY. one mind at a time, one line at a time, one fucking sentence at a time, i will try to do my part.



Get back to me with how that works out.




> hey, quantify this shit. do it.



Yes I suppose I could just go through the list of every major sociopolitical policy change ever made and show that none of them were a response to internet forum mock debates.

Or I could see this demand for what it is (a refusal to directly refute my claim even though it is extremely falsifiable) and regard it as such.



> i think it'd be a start. and outlawing all religious-based morality in the making of laws. and taxing churches. and taking the word GOD out of every single states constitution and the federal version. and not making people put their hand on the fucking bible and swear to a deity that "theyz gon tell da truf boss". and a million other fucking asinine things that will never change unless you change the minds of PEOPLE AND NOT THE SYSTEM. because it takes people to change the system. and my side doesnt have enough warm bodies to get it done.



There are extremely powerful lobbies and special interest groups that represent anywhere from a relatively small to miniscule segment of the population who manage to build a formidable political machine.

The LGBT camp, the Jews, the NAACP, it goes on and on.

This was done with money and yes people, but not the numbers you think are necessary. The amount of non-religious people in this country is a larger denomination than most of these groups and could (and do) stand a very good chance of entrenching themselves in the political arena if money goes to the right places.




> well hey, guess ill have to try harder, shout louder, POST IN BIGGER LETTERZ, and maybe get a spambot. but dont think i am upset, it just makes me all the more passionate.



Whatever lets you sleep easy :V


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

@CaptainCool:All right, I'll try and use the editing feature. I don't want to double post either. I'm just finding it difficult to use the editing feature for this sort of argument.
Anyways, I'm not going to defend my claim that God created everything, mainly because when I said that I was answering someone who had said "if what I say is true", which means this is all hypothetical, and my response to that was hypothetical  too. Also, I do know evolution happens and is fact. I never said it wasn't. The theory on how humans came to be on this planet includes more than just evolution. The point at which it goes beyond evolution and talks about the big bang is where I start to have problems. 
Also, I'm not saying my theory is right. But tell me: If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, than how can the universe come into being? How can matter exist if it cannot be created? My theory was one theory for this. I suppose any sort of theory involving something supernatural could explain this. But how can science explain this? The law would either have to be false, contain exceptions, or something else. I can't really think of what that something else would be. To me, I accept the law and instead propose that something outside the realms of science would have to be the creator, otherwise the law could not be true.
And laws in science are accepted as near fact.
Also, the idea that one must provide evidence after making up claims (this is not the reason why I didn't provide evidence for God's existence, as I had never said that He was real in a statement meant to be written as a fact) is a silly one. It's Russel's Teapot. I disagree with Russel's Teapot because, lets say that someone in the past, before the Earth was known to be round, proclaimed "The Earth is round" without any sort of reason or evidence supporting his claim.(I'm almost certain this isn't how it happened. This is all hypothetical) Would that man be right? The Earth is round, after all. He may not have had evidence, but his statement was true. This is why I don't agree with the idea that one must always provide evidence to support a claim. The old wars do matter, they are just not relevant to this argument anymore, since the argument was whether or not religion was causing horrific things to occur, and in the modern age, religion doesn't do this so much anymore.
@Ahkmill: Please explain your statement further as far as what you mean by "led humanity astray".

I really hate it when someone brings up religion on the internet. Argument usually results, and argument is a tiring thing to practice.
I also feel like whenever there's an argument about religion the sides usually wind up hating each other for some reason.
And it does sound like you were angry.
And I do recall using sarcasm at some point.
I apologize.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Mar 15, 2013)

Lmao I knew this thread would get Captain'd.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> @CaptainCool:All right, I'll try and use the editing feature. I don't want to double post either. I'm just finding it difficult to use the editing feature for this sort of argument.
> Anyways, I'm not going to defend my claim that God created everything, mainly because when I said that I was answering someone who had said "if what I say is true", which means this is all hypothetical, and my response to that was hypothetical  too. Also, I do know evolution happens and is fact. I never said it wasn't. The theory on how humans came to be on this planet includes more than just evolution. The point at which it goes beyond evolution and talks about the big bang is where I start to have problems.
> Also, I'm not saying my theory is right. But tell me: If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, than how can the universe come into being? How can matter exist if it cannot be created? My theory was one theory for this. I suppose any sort of theory involving something supernatural could explain this. But how can science explain this? The law would either have to be false, contain exceptions, or something else. I can't really think of what that something else would be. To me, I accept the law and instead propose that something outside the realms of science would have to be the creator, otherwise the law could not be true.
> And laws in science are accepted as near fact.
> ...



Forgive me for being so bold. 

When we push things they move. 
When we push them harder they move faster.

It is reasonable to deduce that if a spaceship was traveling at ~300million metres a second and we give it a nudge that this would make it go faster, yes?

Unfortunately not. Instead the spaceship will do something very strange indeed. It will become heavier by converting the energy from the nudge we gave it into mass. E=Mc^2  Light speed cannot be exceeded.

So you see whilst it seems pretty obvious to say 'pushing things makes them move faster', reality is quite different. If experiment disagrees with your theory it doesn't matter how pretty the theory is, it's wrong. 

Similarly the big bang theory, regardless of your views about the conservation of energy/mass, has experimental proof. So your criticism that it doesn't obey the laws of nature you think it should only shows that your understanding of the laws of nature breaks down with respect to this event. 

The same will happen if you try to use newtonian physics to travel faster than light or einsteintium physics inside a blackhole. 

The Big bang doesn't 'disobey nature', our understanding of nature is merely incomplete.

To use this as a platform to conjure up magical beings as an explanation is an argument from ignorance. 'I don't know how this could happen therefore god,'. 


Furthermore If we claim the earth is round we can prove it, by watching a ship disappeare over the horizon. If the claiment has no evidence the earth is round how are we to distinguish his or her claim from another person who claims it is a cube? 
Evidence is the only way to find out who is right, if anybody.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

@FallowfoxThat was an interesting response, and a bit enlightening as well. Thank you, and no need at all to apologize. 
However I would like to say that evidence was used to find out the truth, but before the evidence was found the statement was still true. It just lacked evidence.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> @FallowfoxThat was an interesting response, and a bit enlightening as well. Thank you, and no need at all to apologize.
> However I would like to say that evidence was used to find out the truth, but before the evidence was found the statement was still true. It just lacked evidence.



There is an evil scientist called Schroedinger. He doesn't like cats very much. 

He takes a marmalade tomcat, called whiskers, and places him inside a box. Inside the box is a vile of poison gas that will break when a radioactive atom randomly decays. 

Schroedinger shuts the lid on the box. 

Is the cat alive or dead?



In reality there are situations in which the act of searching for evidence actually influences or determines the outcome. For instance the young's two slit experiment. There are situations in which the chronology of events happened in no particular order, provided they are not causally related. 

Hence without actually having the hindsight to look back on a situation to say 'this was the answer all along', there aren't grounds to assume anything is true. Reality is an indeterminate mess in which one century we might conclude the earth and sun are attracted to one another by gravity, and in the next year say that actually the earth is freely moving across a geodesic in warped spacetime caused by the sun's massive presence.

This is why Russell's teapot is important. Without reminding ourselves that to actually have any knowledge of our world we need evidence, we may fill our heads up with all sorts of rubbish and do the worst possible thing of _all_; convince ourselves we truly know the answers.


----------



## Azure (Mar 15, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> Fight the power.


always



Zaraphayx said:


> You haven't qualified anything you've said to me, just spun your wheels.


because we are basically shit talking each other, with you not having a point about my not having a point. you cant really qualify an opinion that is based on hey i want to see less of this and bla bla bla im bored with this.



Zaraphayx said:


> This was a response to your implication that I have no idea what kind of problems the non-religious face in a predominately religious climate, believe me I do. I simply choose not to stoop to their level of dehumaning, shaming, and moral/intellectual posturing.


good for you, if thats what you think you are doing, by all means.



Zaraphayx said:


> Get back to me with how that works out.


its still working out, it never stopped.




Zaraphayx said:


> Yes I suppose I could just go through the list of every major sociopolitical policy change ever made and show that none of them were a response to internet forum mock debates.


go for it



Zaraphayx said:


> There are extremely powerful lobbies and special interest groups that represent anywhere from a relatively small to miniscule segment of the population who manage to build a formidable political machine.
> 
> The LGBT camp, the Jews, the NAACP, it goes on and on.


and yet there arent any political camps that represent atheism. because thats not how this shit works. there is nothing to fucking represent. this is about people and not politics. but you dont have to respond to that, no no.



Zaraphayx said:


> This was done with money and yes people, but not the numbers you think are necessary. The amount of non-religious people in this country is a larger denomination than most of these groups and could (and do) stand a very good chance of entrenching themselves in the political arena if money goes to the right places.


74% of america is CHRISTIAN. here let me google that shit for you mr knowitall

fuck numbers when PEOPLE AINT GONNA ACT ON IT.




Zaraphayx said:


> Whatever lets you sleep easy :V


righto


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

@Azure: Being Christian does not equate to being religious. There are many very non-religious Christians out there. Sorry to interupt your argument. I wanted to put that one in.


----------



## Azure (Mar 15, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> @Azure: Being Christian does not equate to being religious. There are many very non-religious Christians out there. Sorry to interupt your argument. I wanted to put that one in.


to wit

what the fuck are you talking about? how can you be a christian, and not be religious? shit does not make sense. are you saying what ive been saying all along that there are vast reams of people who are doing something simply because they have it in their head that that is just what you do and they havent put a single fucking though into what they endorse and believe as a person? what are you saying exactly?


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> because we are basically shit talking each other, with you not having a point about my not having a point. you cant really qualify an opinion that is based on hey i want to see less of this and bla bla bla im bored with this.



You mean you're shit talking and you want to implicate me so you don't feel as bad :[

Especially since I never made either of those two claims. :S



> and yet there arent any political camps that represent atheism. because thats not how this shit works. there is nothing to fucking represent. this is about people and not politics. but you dont have to respond to that, no no.



Everything is politics, especially concerning other people.



> 74% of america is CHRISTIAN. here let me google that shit for you mr knowitall
> 
> fuck numbers when PEOPLE AINT GONNA ACT ON IT.



I don't understand what point you're trying to make, one of the supporting premises of my argument is that most of the country is christian. 

This is not a fact I have ever denied nor even hinted at denying.




> righto


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> to wit
> 
> what the fuck are you talking about? how can you be a christian, and not be religious? shit does not make sense. are you saying what ive been saying all along that there are vast reams of people who are doing something simply because they have it in their head that that is just what you do and they havent put a single fucking though into what they endorse and believe as a person? what are you saying exactly?


No, its like....say you have a Christian who doesn't go to church or read the Bible and his daily life is almost never affected by religion, but has thought about and genuinely believes in his religion. That type of person would not be very religious. They'd be the type of person who doesn't really care too much about religion, or doesn't think a whole lot needs to be put into it.


----------



## Azure (Mar 15, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> You mean you're shit talking and you want to implicate me so you don't feel as bad :[
> 
> Especially since I never made either of those two claims. :S


nah, you claimed that i dont make a difference. then you never qualified it, didnt even try. then we talked about something else i didnt read. and now there is no substance to our conversation.



Zaraphayx said:


> Everything is politics, especially concerning other people.


depends on how you define politics. cant exactly cast a vote for a belief system that doesnt exist, has no hierarchy or organization, and no aspirations to power. so i guess it aint politics. its personal.



Zaraphayx said:


> I don't understand what point you're trying to make, one of the supporting premises of my argument is that most of the country is christian.
> 
> This is not a fact I have ever denied nor even hinted at denying.


your argument doesnt make sense on the very grounds that the are no super well organized political lobbying groups who are advocates for, as i said before, a not religion with no organization, no moral code, no hierarchy, and no aspirations for power. this is not the gay marriage movement, or NAMBLA, or PETA, or any other fucking thing. this is a thought, it is digestion of basic fucking knowledge. you cannot possibly politically advocate this shit. it is impossible.



Battlechili1 said:


> No, its like....say you have a Christian who doesn't go to church or read the Bible and his daily life is almost never affected by religion, but has thought about and genuinely believes in his religion. That type of person would not be very religious. They'd be the type of person who doesn't really care too much about religion, or doesn't think a whole lot needs to be put into it.


ok, so they are religious, but they dont give a fuck about it. then what is the point of them being religious? a christian who doesnt read the bible, go to church, or do anything with their religion, but believes it anyway is just an ignorant codpiece of a human being. thats like saying i voted for so and so but i dont know shit about them or what they stand for i just sorta checked the box. dumb motherfucker.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 15, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Find me some peyote to do and I'll add it to the list. :I


You can find it in San pedro cacti sold at most nurserys.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> ok, so they are religious, but they dont give a fuck about it. then what is the point of them being religious? a christian who doesnt read the bible, go to church, or do anything with their religion, but believes it anyway is just an ignorant codpiece of a human being. thats like saying i voted for so and so but i dont know shit about them or what they stand for i just sorta checked the box. dumb motherfucker.


No, it's like knowing about someone and supporting them but not voting for them. They aren't ignorant. They just don't do anything.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> nah, you claimed that i dont make a difference. then you never qualified it, didnt even try. then we talked about something else i didnt read. and now there is no substance to our conversation.



There is a repeated pattern of policy change in congruence with well funded special interests petitioning the government.

I observe that in the absence of such an entity, change in policy does not occur, or occurs very rarely.

I claim that no change in policy occurs without well funded special interests petitioning the government.

Arguing on the internet about religion does nothing to further the agenda of a special interest group that is championing your cause.

Therefore arguing on the internet does not further your cause.

This is an easily falsifiable claim; I'm sure you could pretty much unravel the entire thing with one example to the contrary, but as of now you've had yet to even attempt it.

I don't expect you to either, and so we will continue down this path until someone gets bored. 



> depends on how you define politics. cant exactly cast a vote for a belief system that doesnt exist, has no hierarchy or organization, and no aspirations to power. so i guess it aint politics. its personal.



The word politics stems from the Greek word "politikos" (of or relating to citizens). It's the art/science of influencing the citizenry on a civic or individual basis.

Democracy is not the be-all-end-all of politics.



> your argument doesnt make sense on the very grounds that the are no super well organized political lobbying groups who are advocates for, as i said before, a not religion with no organization, no moral code, no hierarchy, and no aspirations for power. this is not the gay marriage movement, or NAMBLA, or PETA, or any other fucking thing. this is a thought, it is digestion of basic fucking knowledge. you cannot possibly politically advocate this shit. it is impossible.



You can't politically advocate for a secular government where religious literature/philosophy isn't a major driving force of policy?

Or is that not your goal? You just don't want people to believe something you think is wrong?

Your existence must be a stressful one.


----------



## Azure (Mar 15, 2013)

Zaraphayx said:


> There is a repeated pattern of policy change in congruence with well funded special interests petitioning the government.
> 
> I observe that in the absence of such an entity, change in policy does not occur, or occurs very rarely.
> 
> ...


nah, i just dont care, you are simply being facetious. you even said so.



Zaraphayx said:


> I don't expect you to either, and so we will continue down this path until someone gets bored.


sounds good?




Zaraphayx said:


> The word politics stems from the Greek word "politikos" (of or relating to citizens). It's the art/science of influencing the citizenry on a civic or individual basis.
> 
> Democracy is not the be-all-end-all of politics.


of course it isnt. and modern politics is utterly nothing like the definition you quoted. politics from its beginning to the politics of now is like comparing a sniper rifle to a howitzer. they certainly didnt have fox news and the internet in ancient greece.



Zaraphayx said:


> You can't politically advocate for a secular government where religious literature/philosophy isn't a major driving force of policy?
> 
> Or is that not your goal? You just don't want people to believe something you think is wrong?
> 
> Your existence must be a stressful one.


nah, the secular shit thats already going has nothing to do with what im after. im after the driving force that made the whole well funded whateverthefucks even needed in the first place. and i dont "believe" it is wrong. i know it is. and they are gonna hear about it. 


now what was your point again?



Battlechili1 said:


> No, it's like knowing about someone and supporting them but not voting for them. They aren't ignorant. They just don't do anything.


so they support them, yet they are not religious. 

syntax error, does not compute. this doesnt work, at all.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> of course it isnt. and modern politics is utterly nothing like the definition you quoted. politics from its beginning to the politics of now is like comparing a sniper rifle to a howitzer. they certainly didnt have fox news and the internet in ancient greece.



Didn't you just state that the definition is relative?

Like right before you just now insisted my valid definition is wrong. 

Who is being facetious here? :V




> nah, the secular shit thats already going has nothing to do with what im after. im after the driving force that made the whole well funded whateverthefucks even needed in the first place. and i dont "believe" it is wrong. i know it is. and they are gonna hear about it.
> 
> now what was your point again?



Fight the power.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Azure said:


> so they support them, yet they are not religious.
> 
> syntax error, does not compute. this doesnt work, at all.


No, I mean they know about a religion, believe in it, but don't do anything in it. As in, supporting a politician and knowing about him and what he believe in, but not voting for him. Therefore, they are not very religious, but follow a religion.


----------



## Golden (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> No, it's like knowing about someone and supporting them but not voting for them. They aren't ignorant. They just don't do anything.


  So, like apathy?


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Yes.
EDIT: To the above question I mean. Not to the OP's question about whether or not furries go to hell.
I feel dumb for just now noticing the fatal error in just posting the word "Yes".
EDIT2: It could also be because one believes that they don't need to do anything but simply believe.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

You honestly have to be missing some mental processes to legitimately believe what's said in a book of fables from 2000 years ago. 

I wonder if in the year 4013 people will be worshiping Harry Potter and Edward Cullen?


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Hey, it could happen. You ever read Spectral Shadows? In serial 11 practically every town follows an Intellectual Property Religion (either that, or it's some religion based off of an ideal from the past, from 1950's suburbia to an odd marriage between communism and nazi germany)


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> You honestly have to be missing some mental processes to legitimately believe what's said in a book of fables from 2000 years ago.
> 
> I wonder if in the year 4013 people will be worshiping Harry Potter and Edward Cullen?



Some of them already do now. ;3


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

I form my own mental connections too much to ever be religious. If something makes no sense, has no proof, and is a driving force behind nearly all of the world's ignorance, I'd hate myself for being a part of it.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> You honestly have to be missing some mental processes to legitimately believe what's said in a book of fables from 2000 years ago.
> 
> I wonder if in the year 4013 people will be worshiping Harry Potter and Edward Cullen?


What bugs me about this response is that I said earlier that one could think of the Bible as a sort of Wikipedia; can learn from it but can't trust all the information.
It might also be worth mentioning that I could outright denounce the Bible and still be a Christian.
In 4013 it is likely that records being kept will prevent such a thing from occuring.
For the most part. There are strange people out there right now that probably would worship Harry Potter or Edward Cullen.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> What bugs me about this response is that I said earlier that one could think of the Bible as a sort of Wikipedia; can learn from it but can't trust all the information.
> It might also be worth mentioning that I could outright denounce the Bible and still be a Christian.



All of Christianity comes from the Bible, so denouncing said book would make you NOT a Christian.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I form my own mental connections too much to ever be religious. If something makes no sense, has no proof, and is a driving force behind nearly all of the world's ignorance, I'd hate myself for being a part of it.


Well....Really, I come up with many of my beliefs and ideas on my own. I make decisions. I knowingly do things that people, including my own religion, would deem wrong. So religion doesn't really prevent that. The Bible doesn't make sense because it could be interpretted so many different ways that no one really knows what it means. Has no proof? There is proof, just very little. Well, not proof, mostly just a few scrap pieces of evidence here and there. But I get what you're saying. The last part though, is a blatant lie. Religion isn't the source of all ignorance. We ourselves are. Every human on the planet is an ignorant moron for thinking they know anything about anything, including myself. We are all lacking in knowledge, and many of us refuse to accept knowledge we like, religion or not. So its not the source of all ignorance.


Ahkmill said:


> All of Christianity comes from the Bible, so denouncing said book would make you NOT a Christian.


Not true. First of all, Christianity existed before the Bible, if I'm right. Or at least before the Bible was finished. Judaism may have existed beforehand, however. I know little of the Bible's history.
It may also be worth mentioning that, regardless of what's in the Bible, the mere idea of the Bible's existence is enough to keep a religion. One would just think that the Bible was created for some purpose; as it wasn't just a fiction story, based on the way it was written, especially since different people wrote it over time, if I'm right.
That's actually where I come in. I don't put a whole lot of stock in the Bible.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Well....Really, I come up with many of my beliefs and ideas on my own. I make decisions. I knowingly do things that people, including my own religion, would deem wrong. So religion doesn't really prevent that. The Bible doesn't make sense because it could be interpretted so many different ways that no one really knows what it means. Has no proof? There is proof, just very little. Well, not proof, mostly just a few scrap pieces of evidence here and there. But I get what you're saying. The last part though, is a blatant lie. Religion isn't the source of all ignorance. We ourselves are. Every human on the planet is an ignorant moron for thinking they know anything about anything, including myself. We are all lacking in knowledge, and many of us refuse to accept knowledge we like, religion or not. So its not the source of all ignorance.


You just wrote a big paragraph saying "I'M INSANE." If you looked at this planet and actually thought with a sound mind, you'd realize that Christianity is one of the biggest causes of world stupidity.



Battlechili1 said:


> Not true. First of all, Christianity existed before the Bible, if I'm right. Or at least before the Bible was finished. Judaism may have existed beforehand, however. I know little of the Bible's history.
> It may also be worth mentioning that, regardless of what's in the Bible, the mere idea of the Bible's existence is enough to keep a religion. One would just think that the Bible was created for some purpose; as it wasn't just a fiction story, based on the way it was written, especially since different people wrote it over time, if I'm right.
> That's actually where I come in. I don't put a whole lot of stock in the Bible.



Putting ANY stock on the Bible is ridiculous and idiotic. Putting stock in ANY religious book is pretty dumb, as they're all fiction written by PEOPLE. The Bible is a book of moral stories, most of which are really sick and twisted. Taking it seriously as a guide for faith is like putting a loaded gun to your head, you're fucking up any intelligence that you could possibly gain in the future by blocking it with a bunch of theistic nonsense.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> You just wrote a big paragraph saying "I'M INSANE." If you looked at this planet and actually thought with a sound mind, you'd realize that Christianity is one of the biggest causes of world stupidity.


I'm just going to stick to this one for now: You really think that people nowadays wouldn't be complete morons even if religion hadn't existed? You really think that there wouldn't be all these ridiculously ignorant people out there if Christianity hadn't existed. I'm going to use little examples to point out why I think this is wrong: You know how there are people who may be teens or even older who didn't know the Titanic was a real ship that actually crashed? Because there were people who didn't know that. You know how some people will do stupid things just to see what happens when the outcome is already pretty obvious, like sticking one's hand in a crockodile's mouth? Yeah, people do stuff like that all the time. And it has nothing to do with religion. That guy did not stick his hand in that crockodile's mouth because of something in his religious belief system. People are just complete morons, as I previously said.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Yeah, actually in defense of Battlechili1, I refer you to the first rule of Humanity: People are Stupid. And even if we didn't have religion, I believe there would be something else that people would cause problems and act stupid about.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Putting ANY stock on the Bible is ridiculous and idiotic. Putting stock in ANY religious book is pretty dumb, as they're all fiction written by PEOPLE. The Bible is a book of moral stories, most of which are really sick and twisted. Taking it seriously as a guide for faith is like putting a loaded gun to your head, you're fucking up any intelligence that you could possibly gain in the future by blocking it with a bunch of theistic nonsense.


I'm blocking my intelligence?
Then why am I in a school for those gifted in mathematics and science right now?
And why am I learning things?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I'm just going to stick to this one for now: You really think that people nowadays wouldn't be complete morons even if religion hadn't existed? You really think that there wouldn't be all these ridiculously ignorant people out there if Christianity hadn't existed. I'm going to use little examples to point out why I think this is wrong: You know how there are people who may be teens or even older who didn't know the Titanic was a real ship that actually crashed? Because there were people who didn't know that. You know how some people will do stupid things just to see what happens when the outcome is already pretty obvious, like sticking one's hand in a crockodile's mouth? Yeah, people do stuff like that all the time. And it has nothing to do with religion. That guy did not stick his hand in that crockodile's mouth because of something in his religious belief system. People are just complete morons, as I previously said.



Did you also know that over %50 of the adult population in America believes that the world is only 6000 years old, because of what the Bible says?

Yes, my son, Christianity is causing stupidity, and mass amounts of it. Why? Because people are making life decisions based on a fairy tale, a work of fiction. And their religion states that they need to SPREAD this belief system around the world so all my be "saved." It's indoctrination at its finest. Christianity's goal is the keep the world ignorant and put all their faith into a God that nobody even knows exists.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Did you also know that over %50 of the adult population in America believes that the world is only 6000 years old, because of what the Bible says?
> 
> Yes, my son, Christianity is causing stupidity, and mass amounts of it. Why? Because people are making life decisions based on a fairy tale, a work of fiction. And their religion states that they need to SPREAD this belief system around the world so all my be "saved." It's indoctrination at its finest. Christianity's goal is the keep the world ignorant and put all their faith into a God that nobody even knows exists.



Objection. The bible never states the world is 6,000 years old. Young Earth Creationists believe that, and no, not every Christian is a YEC.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Did you also know that over %50 of the adult population in America believes that the world is only 6000 years old, because of what the Bible says?
> 
> Yes, my son, Christianity is causing stupidity, and mass amounts of it. Why? Because people are making life decisions based on a fairy tale, a work of fiction. And their religion states that they need to SPREAD this belief system around the world so all my be "saved." It's indoctrination at its finest. Christianity's goal is the keep the world ignorant and put all their faith into a God that nobody even knows exists.


At what part does it say you need to spread the religion to be saved? I don't hear that one very much....
And your making a counterargument by putting out that Christianity has caused stupidity. Duh. Obviously. But to say its the cause of most stupidity? Nope. People are just genuinely stupid. Also, you said over 50 percent believe that. False. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091111195814AA2C4X0
http://www.straightdope.com/columns...ieves-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old
Under 50 percent, not over.
EDIT: Of course these are old numbers.
But you would think that the percentage of people who believe that would go down.
EDIT 2: It might be also worth mentioning that pretty much anything can help cause someone to do something dumb.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> At what part does it say you need to spread the religion to be saved? I don't hear that one very much....
> And your making a counterargument by putting out that Christianity has caused stupidity. Duh. Obviously. But to say its the cause of most stupidity? Nope. People are just genuinely stupid. Also, you said over 50 percent believe that. False. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091111195814AA2C4X0
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns...ieves-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old
> Under 50 percent, not over.


Maybe my info on the country is late, however %80 of Congress does believe in creationism and that the world is 6000 years old. These are the people in charge of the country. People the citizens elected. We're allowing the world to be run by total idiots, and most of the time it's because of their religious standing. There has not bee a single non-Christian President in the history of this country. Not a single non-Christian has ever even really come close to winning. 

Religion is the #1 cause of ignorance and stupidity, and it always has been. You can tell by the number of Christian schools this country keeps up. They're a complete abomination to science and what actually exists, instead filling children's heads with nonsense about magic and faith. As long as religion exists, we'll never move on as an intelligent species. We'll remain in the dark age of ignorance, believing that there's a magical man in the sky who needs no proof of existence taking care of everything. The planet has been dumbed down into a social construct revolving around pure idiocy.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Maybe my info on the country is late, however %80 of Congress does believe in creationism and that the world is 6000 years old. These are the people in charge of the country. People the citizens elected. We're allowing the world to be run by total idiots, and most of the time it's because of their religious standing. There has not bee a single non-Christian President in the history of this country. Not a single non-Christian has ever even really come close to winning.
> 
> Religion is the #1 cause of ignorance and stupidity, and it always has been. You can tell by the number of Christian schools this country keeps up. They're a complete abomination to science and what actually exists, instead filling children's heads with nonsense about magic and faith. As long as religion exists, we'll never move on as an intelligent species. We'll remain in the dark age of ignorance, believing that there's a magical man in the sky who needs no proof of existence taking care of everything. The planet has been dumbed down into a social construct revolving around pure idiocy.


Maybe the reason that there hasn't been a non Christian leader is because most of the country is made up of Christians. Also, someone's religious standing isn't the main reason that people get elected. I will admit that someone who isn't a Christian who is found out to not be a Christian probably won't get elected, unfortunately, due to some people's religious beliefs and to the unusualness of it. However, the reason why people get elected to be running the country has to do with political views, not religious ones. People don't elect politicians because they are say...Catholic. People elect politicians because they claim that they are going to fix this country's problems.
Christian schools still focus mainly on normal schoolwork, and just add teaching the Bible onto it. While I won't claim that this will make people more knowlegable about the outside world, I will say that that, for the most part, will not effect someone's mind into rejecting things. Also, Christian schools, while not super rare, aren't very common either. Most people go to normal public schools.
Also, we already are an intelligent species. We think, we plan, we invent, we hypothesize, we discover. We are an intelligent race. That last sentence however I will not claim to be a lie. But the idea that religion is the main cause of it? I still say no for the reasons expressed. People do so many stupid things that are not influenced by religion. The average man is not going to be super smart, whether religion existed or not. The most i can say is that if it weren't for religion causing the Dark Ages, the world would be quite ahead technologically.
Edit: 





Nikolinni said:


> Yeah, actually in defense of Battlechili1, I refer you to the first rule of Humanity: People are Stupid. And even if we didn't have religion, I believe there would be something else that people would cause problems and act stupid about.





Nikolinni said:


> Objection. The bible never states the world is 6,000 years old. Young Earth Creationists believe that, and no, not every Christian is a YEC.


Thank you.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Because of religion's existence, people waste their time with questions like "what would Jesus do" and "will being a furry make me go to hell" instead of legitimate questions like "how can we cure cancer" or "why does everyone think I'm a douchebag."

Religion IS stupidity. There is no other word for it. The only reason people embrace religion as something to "save" them and make them feel better is that ignorance is bliss. It may make you happy, but it isn't going to save your ass when you actually need to think fast.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Because of religion's existence, people waste their time with questions like "what would Jesus do" and "will being a furry make me go to hell" instead of legitimate questions like "how can we cure cancer" or "why does everyone think I'm a douchebag."
> 
> Religion IS stupidity. There is no other word for it. The only reason people embrace religion as something to "save" them and make them feel better is that ignorance is bliss. It may make you happy, but it isn't going to save your ass when you actually need to think fast.


People waste their time asking questions like "What would Jesus do" and "will being a furry make me go to hell" instead of "how can we cure cancer"?
(About that last question: You're just strong-minded. You feel strongly about what you believe in and post it like that, even if it means adding lots of rude remarks about the one's ideas that you are ridiculing. You aren't a 'douchebag' though, trust me.)
People are constantly worried about how to cure cancer. Most Christians want to cure cancer. Christianity isn't stopping cancer from being cured right now, at least for the most part. (Who knows, there might be that one crazy guy somewhere who complains about curing cancer)
Also, according to the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid
I don't think those two are the same thing. Read for yourself.
Religion may make me happy, but isn't going to save me when I need to think fast?
How's that relevant?
Anime makes me happy.
It's not going to help me think fast.
Anime isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Yes, Christianity IS keeping cancer from being cured. You want to know why? You know what the most common treatment for such kind of serious illness is? "Let's pray about it."

People pray more than they study on this planet. It makes me want to seriously kill myself sometimes, I despise sharing a planet with people who can be such unbelievable dolts.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Yes, Christianity IS keeping cancer from being cured. You want to know why? You know what the most common treatment for such kind of serious illness is? "Let's pray about it."
> 
> People pray more than they study on this planet. It makes me want to seriously kill myself sometimes, I despise sharing a planet with people who can be such unbelievable dolts.


Yeah, a lot of people pray, but most will still accept and buy medicine, won't they?
Therefore, most would also still be supportive of a cure for cancer.
People may pray more than they study, but people also watch tv more than they study.
Are you complaining that people do that more than studying? Most people find studying boring. Really, its annoying. I used to go to a school where I could barely study and still get higher grades than most people. That's no longer happening now that I'm at this school for the gifted. I have to study. And I hate it. Religion isn't keeping people from studying. People may participate in religion more, but that's in part because its easier than studying. People don't want to study. Also, don't say things like that. There's almost never a good reason to kill ones' self.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Yeah, a lot of people pray, but most will still accept and buy medicine, won't they?
> Therefore, most would also still be supportive of a cure for cancer.
> People may pray more than they study, but people also watch tv more than they study.
> Are you complaining that people do that more than studying? Most people find studying boring. Really, its annoying. I used to go to a school where I could barely study and still get higher grades than most people. That's no longer happening now that I'm at this school for the gifted. I have to study. And I hate it. Religion isn't keeping people from studying. People may participate in religion more, but that's in part because its easier than studying. People don't want to study. Also, don't say things like that. There's almost never a good reason to kill ones' self.


Battlechili, you're dealing with someone who has an extremely closed mind -- one that's shut like a firm steel trap. You're better off leaving this person to their irreligious attitudes than arguing with them. Because all they will ever see out of religion is evil and negativity. You don't need to waste your time on such boxed-in people.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Yes, it IS keeping people from studying. People automatically go "THAT'S BULLSHIT" whenever science contradicts their religion, and so 99 times out of 1000 they reject said science as false, even if there is tons of evidence supporting the fact. And so, people get stupider and stupider, because they think an invisible man in the sky is going to keep them safe. 

If a 50 year old man came up to you and told you that he believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you'd think him autistic. For me, the same goes for any and all theistic people.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

You just have this irrational hatred of religion, and you need to get over it. That's all.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Irrational my ass.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Battlechili, you're dealing with someone who has an extremely closed mind -- one that's shut like a firm steel trap. You're better off leaving this person to their irreligious attitudes than arguing with them. Because all they will ever see out of religion is evil and negativity. You don't need to waste your time on such boxed-in people.


I know...I know...But I'm not the type to give up.


Ahkmill said:


> Yes, it IS keeping people from studying. People automatically go "THAT'S BULLSHIT" whenever science contradicts their religion, and so 99 times out of 1000 they reject said science as false, even if there is tons of evidence supporting the fact. And so, people get stupider and stupider, because they think an invisible man in the sky is going to keep them safe.
> 
> If a 50 year old man came up to you and told you that he believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you'd think him autistic. For me, the same goes for any and all theistic people.


I'll admit, quite a large number of people may actually do that when science seemingly contradicts a religion. That doesn't mean people are getting dumber, just that people aren't getting smarter. However, once again, I'll say, this is indeed a pain that can be caused by religion. I admit it. It happens, it can be troublesome, however, it does not hurt people. It just has people keeping themselves from helping the world. In that fact it does indeed hold back progress. However, as people are exposed to something, over time they become more accepting of it. It goes even farther to where the times when people refuse something due to religion is actually usually more just their own morals that they themselves applied to a religion.
And then there's your last part: The ideas of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were made up within documented time periods. People know them to be fake. However, the idea of God is a different case in that someone could simply think up a god for a reason as to why something happens, including, say, the creation of the universe. The idea of a god is that there is a supernatural entity that affects this world and has great power. Santa and the Easter bunny aren't supernatural ideas come up with as answers for the unknown. Nor were they thought up during a time period that is undocumented. That fact is important, for that means that there is nothing that could make them believeable. They are ideas come up with during a time period in which people can actual find out how the ideas came to be. The idea of god goes a step farther in that a god was first thought up in a time period we cannot find records for, so we cannot find out where the idea came from. It goes farther because the idea of a god can just be an answer for why something unknown happens, and while that may be an ignorant response, when things get really, really, reallly, really convoluted, its not entirely insane to use god as a reason for something existing. 

EDIT: I'll realize this argument sucked really bad. That's because I had little to argue against in this particular case. Also, to add to what I said, basically, God cannot be proven wrong (some will say he can, so I'll just add this: At least He can't just by taking a look at some records); the Easter Bunny and Santa can just by taking a look at some old records.
The easter bunny and Santa aren't considered supernatural; God is considered supernatural.
The Easter bunny and santa aren't ideas thought up to explain things; God can be used to explain things.
Furthermore, how does any of this last part hurt anyone and make people stupid?
EDIT 2: It might also be worth noting that people don't study because studying is hard and boring and people are lazy. Not because of religion.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

It's the same shit, Chili. It's believing in a fairy tale in order to explain something that we don't know the answer to, yet. All that is is fooling yourself and making yourself ignorant. Nobody was alive when the universe was created, therefore anybody who says "God created the universe" is talking right out of their shitty asshole.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Irrational my ass.



Just look at the way you're acting about all this. You probably think I'm some kind of unenlightened retard because I follow a religion, let alone do apologetic for them. 

Ah, but who am I kidding? That would require adaptation and introspective for you to look at how you act about religion. And that's beyond reach for some creatures.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> its not entirely insane to use god as a reason for something existing.



Yes, yes it is. "I don't know" is an infinitely better answer than "god did it".


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Just look at the way you're acting about all this. You probably think I'm some kind of unenlightened retard because I follow a religion, let alone do apologetic for them.
> 
> Ah, but who am I kidding? That would require adaptation and introspective for you to look at how you act about religion. And that's beyond reach for some creatures.



All it makes me think is "Wow, another person believing in indoctrinated bullshit."


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Which is hard, seeing as my parents didn't push their belief on me, and basically left me on my own to follow my own religious path. Yes, my stepfather and my mother and other family members seemed to believe in a god, but they didn't press it off on me. But ah well, you probably think mentioning God to someone is "indoctrination"


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Anybody who follows any major religion has been indoctrinated into the biggest scam in world history.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yes, yes it is. "I don't know" is an infinitely better answer than "god did it".


Well, I did say that my argument sucked. I can't really disagree with you much on that.
My argument there sucked, because for once, my argument was more just because I didn't like the way he stated things, rather than against what he actually said in that part.

It's also worth noting I edited that post multiple times. You guys may want to take another look at it.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Anybody who follows any major religion has been indoctrinated into the biggest scam in world history.


I think the biggest scam in history was Hitler convincing the Germans to follow him.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

totally agree with ahkmill, but just 'cuz I want to make spark feel better: http://www.americancatholic.org/features/francis/stories.asp




Battlechili1 said:


> I think the biggest scam in history was Hitler convincing the Germans to follow him.


I don't think so... there are more theists than nazis.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I think the biggest scam in history was Hitler convincing the Germans to follow him.



That was a few-year long scam.

Religions have been scamming the world for thousands of years, and resulted in more rape and murder than Hitler ever did.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> That was a few-year long scam.
> 
> Religions have been scamming the world for thousands of years, and resulted in more rape and murder than Hitler ever did.


And slavery and genocide, don't forget about those.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

The fact that churches are tax-exempt makes me want to become a violent anti-government rebel. That's just unacceptable from a government.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> It's the same shit, Chili. It's believing in a fairy tale in order to explain something that we don't know the answer to, yet. All that is is fooling yourself and making yourself ignorant. Nobody was alive when the universe was created, therefore anybody who says "God created the universe" is talking right out of their shitty asshole.


But can they be proven wrong? And can there be reasons for why this may be an acceptable theory thought up?
Most things people say that come out of thin air can be proven wrong by a single google search.
My reason presented earlier for why one might think God created the universe is that the Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter can't be created nor destroyed. Someone gave their reason earlier as to why that can't be used as a definite answer, but I think the idea of God can still be set as a theory at the very least.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> But can they be proven wrong? And can there be reasons for why this may be an acceptable theory thought up?
> Most things people say that come out of thin air can be proven wrong by a single google search.
> My reason presented earlier for why one might think God created the universe is that the Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter can't be created nor destroyed. Someone gave their reason earlier as to why that can't be used as a definite answer, but I think the idea of God can still be set as a theory at the very least.


Which is why I only really accept agnosticism as a viable concept. Nobody knows if there's a God or not, and nobody can prove it. Full on atheists are just as full of shit as Christians.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> The fact that churches are tax-exempt makes me want to become a violent anti-government rebel. That's just unacceptable from a government.


This is what I'm talking about when I say "Irrational Hatred of Religion".


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> This is what I'm talking about when I say "Irrational Hatred of Religion".



It's a business getting away with robbery, with permission from the government.

If that's not a reason to overthrow, what the fuck is?


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> That was a few-year long scam.
> 
> Religions have been scamming the world for thousands of years, and resulted in more rape and murder than Hitler ever did.


Religions cause of rape and murder? I thought religion stated to not kill, and that people just took parts out of biblical text and ignored others to pursue their own wishes of killing. And I'm pretty sure nothing in a religious text will say: "It is ok to rape people. In fact, it is recomended".



Day Coydog said:


> And slavery and genocide, don't forget about those.


See above. People do bad things in the name of religion. The religion itself usually doesn't advocate any of that.



Ahkmill said:


> The fact that churches are tax-exempt makes me want to become a violent anti-government rebel. That's just unacceptable from a government.


Before I comment on this, what else is tax exempt?


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

How about some of the other crap our gov't is getting away with, like violating our rights and doing things in defiance of the constitution? 

But noooo, forget all that, gotta rebel because churches are taxt-exempt.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> It's a business getting away with robbery, with permission from the government.
> 
> If that's not a reason to overthrow, what the fuck is?


The only reason to ever overthrow a government is when the government takes away your rights.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I think the biggest scam in history was Hitler convincing the Germans to follow him.



Read your WWI history books. The Germans were in a hellish situations themselves pre-Hitler (their money was worth nothing, and they owed millions in reparations), and whether they liked Hitler or not, they more or less _had_ to follow him; lest there be a late-night "visit" from the SS. I'm partially drunk, but fairly sure I got that right ^ xD

Religion still = biggest scam evar.


Battlechili1 said:


> but I think the idea of God can still be set as a theory at the very least.



Semantics plays a part here. The "God Theory" will never be an actual theory, being it's absolute minimal basics don't include evidence or facts of any sort.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Read your WWI history books. The Germans were in a hellish situations themselves pre-Hitler (their money was worth nothing, and they owed millions in reparations), and whether they liked Hitler or not, they more or less _had_ to follow him; lest there be a late-night "visit" from the SS. I'm partially drunk, but fairly sure I got that right ^ xD
> 
> Religion still = biggest scam evar.


Yeah...and on top of that with Germany in its broken state, the guy and his party were pretty much hyping people up and talking about how they're gonna make gemany glorious again. 

Though you got it wrong...it most likely would have been a visit from the Gestapo, not the SS.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Before I comment on this, what else is tax exempt?



Non-profit organizations. Which churches are not.

Also, FUCK YES the Bible advocates rape, murder, and slavery.

"Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the  ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants,  oxen and sheep, camels and asses." (1 Samuel 15:3)

"You shall not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:18)

"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." (Psalm 137:9)

"When the men would not listen to his host, the husband seized his  concubine and thrust her outside to them. They had relations with her  and abused her all night until the following dawn, when they let her go.  Then at daybreak the woman came and collapsed at the entrance of the  house in which her husband was a guest, where she lay until the morning.  When her husband rose that day and opened the door of the house to  start out again on his journey, there lay the woman, his concubine, at  the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. He said to  her, 'Come, let us go'; but there was no answer. So the man placed her  on an ass and started out again for home." (Judges 19:25-28)

"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to  those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1  Peter 2:18)


This is the book that all these people base their religion on. Most Christians follow this book to a T. This is what caused the Crusades, and most of the murder of the Native American people. It's also one of the biggest reasons America had slaves until 1860.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Read your WWI history books. The Germans were in a hellish situations themselves pre-Hitler (their money was worth nothing, and they owed millions in reparations), and whether they liked Hitler or not, they more or less _had_ to follow him; lest there be a late-night "visit" from the SS. I'm partially drunk, but fairly sure I got that right ^ xD
> 
> Religion still = biggest scam evar.


I already knew that World War I's end, with the Treaty of Versailles, was one of the reasons the Germans were so eager to join him. I know that. Don't tell me to read my history books. I've studied this multiple times.
Religion, the biggest scam ever? If one cannot prove that God doesn't exist, its not a scam. It would be a scam if one could say that there was no god with no possibility of being incorrect.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Religion, the biggest scam ever? If one cannot prove that God doesn't exist, its not a scam. It would be a scam if one could say that there was no god with no possibility of being incorrect.



Yes it fucking is. That's spreading something with no proof to be truth. That's called a FUCKING SCAM.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Yeah...and on top of that with Germany in its broken state, the guy and his party were pretty much hyping people up and talking about how they're gonna make gemany glorious again.
> 
> Though you got it wrong...it most likely would have been a visit from the Gestapo, not the SS.



The SS ran the Gestapo, amongst other groups.



Battlechili1 said:


> I already knew that World War I's end, with  the Treaty of Versailles, was one of the reasons the Germans were so  eager to join him. I know that. Don't tell me to read my history books.  I've studied this multiple times.
> Religion, the biggest scam ever? If one cannot prove that God doesn't  exist, its not a scam. It would be a scam if one could say that there  was no god with no possibility of being incorrect.



If you already knew, then why would you say such stupid things as what I replied to? Don't bother with feigning intellect, because you're simply contradicting yourself.

One does not need to prove god exists, as you should know already. Though I'm more on the train of 'religion = scam' than 'god = scam'.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Non-profit organizations. Which churches are not.
> 
> Also, FUCK YES the Bible advocates rape, murder, and slavery.
> 
> ...


Considering that the Bible is a collection of stories, would it not be a problem to take quotes out of context? I could easily take lines out of a TV show, book, or game and make it sound horrible.
That said, if I'm right, Psalms wasn't a storybook....

EDIT: There's another problem: The Bible was written by multiple people. Did I not say already that I don't necessarily put stock in the Bible due to the fact that humans wrote it?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Considering that the Bible is a collection of stories, would it not be a problem to take quotes out of context? I could easily take lines out of a TV show, book, or game and make it sound horrible.
> That said, if I'm right, Psalms wasn't a storybook....



The Bible is a fine little book of fictional fables, with interesting morals in some of them. However, the large majority of Christians take the ENTIRE BOOK seriously. Through that, the world became the giant piece of explosive plastic it is today.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The SS ran the Gestapo, amongst other groups.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not a contradiction; I just didn't have a reminder as to why the Germans did what they did.
I will say though that regardless of what Hitler offered most men should have been able to tell there was a problem when he started harming the Jews so much.
EDIT: Then again, by that point, most men would be too fearful to fight back.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> The Bible is a fine little book of fictional fables, with interesting morals in some of them. However, the large majority of Christians take the ENTIRE BOOK seriously. Through that, the world became the giant piece of explosive plastic it is today.


Read my edit.
Also, your argument actually got stronger recently with not much for me to argue against. But you broke yourself with "Through that, the world became the giant piece of explosive plastic it is today".
Because as I've said multiple times and given reasons as to why, the world does not suck because of religion. It would've sucked with or without religion. People would've been stupid. People would've still persecuted others different from themselves. People would've still killed each other for various reasons and stolen to survive, considering not everyone's going to have money. You get the idea. Religion is the cause of the world's troubles. Religion can and has caused problems, however the problems it caused hundreds of years ago are not relevant today and religion doesn't cause that many problems today.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Not a contradiction; I just didn't have a reminder as to why the Germans did what they did.
> I will say though that regardless of what Hitler offered most men should have been able to tell there was a problem when he started harming the Jews so much.



You said, "I think the biggest scam in history was Hitler convincing the Germans to follow him."

You know of what the SS would do to those whom didn't follow Hitler; so even if it's not a contradiction, it's an utterly ignorant statement from someone touting themselves as an intellectual. 

Many were likely aware of the atrocities going on (there were _a lot_ of camps, after all), _but_ they couldn't do a damn thing about it, because they would find themselves in a bad situation.


Also: the Catholic Church was a HUGE player in the early Teen centuries, they had more power than Europe combined for several pivotal centuries.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Read my edit.
> Also, your argument actually got stronger recently with not much for me to argue against. But you broke yourself with "Through that, the world became the giant piece of explosive plastic it is today".
> Because as I've said multiple times and given reasons as to why, the world does not suck because of religion. It would've sucked with or without religion. People would've been stupid. People would've still persecuted others different from themselves. People would've still killed each other for various reasons and stolen to survive, considering not everyone's going to have money. You get the idea. Religion is the cause of the world's troubles. Religion can and has caused problems, however the problems it caused hundreds of years ago are not relevant today and religion doesn't cause that many problems today.


Yes, the world will have sucked without religion.

However, religion makes it suck 200x more than it needs to. It is quite literally the biggest problem in the world right now. The biggest reason for murder and genocide on the planet is "You don't believe in my God? BURN!" All religion does is separate us into random creeds that literally do not need to exist, because they're all based on nonsense and all have the same rule of "everyone who does not believe what you believe is lesser than you." EVERY. LAST. ONE.

Except maybe Buddhism.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You said, "I think the biggest scam in history was Hitler convincing the Germans to follow him."
> 
> You know of what the SS would do to those whom didn't follow Hitler; so even if it's not a contradiction, it's an utterly ignorant statement from someone touting themselves as an intellectual.
> 
> Many were likely aware of the atrocities going on (there were _a lot_ of camps, after all), _but_ they couldn't do a damn thing about it, because they would find themselves in a bad situation.


Not an ignorant statement. Ignorance means I didn't know about it. I just forgot about the reason Germans were so eager to follow Hitler, and when you complained, I remembered the whole Treaty of Versailles thing.
And yes, people who rejected Hitler by that point would have been in trouble, as I mentioned in my edit of that very post earlier.
(I edit my posts a lot. I constantly need to revise and improve my words)


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

If you want to be theistic, whatever, but backing behind an already existing religion is just signing up to have bullshit stuffed into your head. If you want to find God, don't read the fucking Bible, that's bullshit. Go outside, look around, and make your own unbiased conclusions about the world. All religious texts are proven to be 100% bullshit, because they were mainly written by people who were A. insane, B. drunk, or C. tripping out on psychedelics. 

Did you know that Moses never received the Ten Commandments from God? He journeyed up Mt. Sinai, which is a common growth place of psilocybin mushrooms, which was all he had to eat at the time. The dude tripped balls and thought he was talking to God.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Yes, the world will have sucked without religion.
> 
> However, religion makes it suck 200x more than it needs to. It is quite literally the biggest problem in the world right now. The biggest reason for murder and genocide on the planet is "You don't believe in my God? BURN!" All religion does is separate us into random creeds that literally do not need to exist, because they're all based on nonsense and all have the same rule of "everyone who does not believe what you believe is lesser than you." EVERY. LAST. ONE.
> 
> Except maybe Buddhism.


Have you tried googling most common motives for crime? I think you'll find religion to be pretty low.....
Also, humans separate themselves into groups. You see this fandom we're in right now? The furries? Yeah, this fandom exists because people who all like the same thing got together. Once this fandom formed, other people hated the fandom right? And thus created opposing sides that separate humanity. That's how humanity gets separated. Religion is but one of many reasons. Not every religious person believes that someone who doesn't believe is lesser. For instance I think of you as an equal to me, just as I do everyone else here and everyone else in the entire world.
EDIT 1:





Ahkmill said:


> If you want to be theistic, whatever, but backing behind an already existing religion is just signing up to have bullshit stuffed into your head. If you want to find God, don't read the fucking Bible, that's bullshit. Go outside, look around, and make your own unbiased conclusions about the world. All religious texts are proven to be 100% bullshit, because they were mainly written by people who were A. insane, B. drunk, or C. tripping out on psychedelics.
> 
> Did you know that Moses never received the Ten Commandments from God? He journeyed up Mt. Sinai, which is a common growth place of psilocybin mushrooms, which was all he had to eat at the time. The dude tripped balls and thought he was talking to God.


I don't read the Bible.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Not an ignorant statement. Ignorance means I didn't know about it. I just forgot about the reason Germans were so eager to follow Hitler, and when you complained, I remembered the whole Treaty of Versailles thing.
> And yes, people who rejected Hitler by that point would have been in trouble, as I mentioned in my edit of that very post earlier.
> (I edit my posts a lot. I constantly need to revise and improve my words)



Playing semantics isn't exactly an intelligent move either, but because you don't seem to be able to differentiate: It was an *ignorant statement*, even if you are not totally ignorant yourself. There *is* a difference.

I edit my posts too, but I don't care to go back and read, especially since how fast this convo is flowing.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Have you tried googling most common motives for crime? I think you'll find religion to be pretty low.....
> Also, humans separate themselves into groups. You see this fandom we're in right now? The furries? Yeah, this fandom exists because people who all like the same thing got together. Once this fandom formed, other people hated the fandom right? And thus created opposing sides that separate humanity. That's how humanity gets separated. Religion is but one of many reasons. Not every religious person believes that someone who doesn't believe is lesser. For instance I think of you as an equal to me, just as I do everyone else here and everyone else in the entire world.



I'm not saying a thug goes out and robs a convenience store because God told him to. However, American pioneers moved West and killed many Native Americans, as well as the countryside, because it was their "God-given right to expand."


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Didn't I already say that how religion affected people of the past is irrelevant to the modern era?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

It's not at all irrelevant, because the same shit is going on today all over the world. It never stopped. Gay marriage is still illegal because of the ignorant Christian fuckheads who run this country. There are no rights, and it's the religious people who are denying these rights. It always had been.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

What was that one guy, Rukh? Pretty sure this is Rukh's brother, or something.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Playing semantics isn't exactly an intelligent move either, but because you don't seem to be able to differentiate: It was an *ignorant statement*, even if you are not totally ignorant yourself. There *is* a difference.
> 
> I edit my posts too, but I don't care to go back and read, especially since how fast this convo is flowing.


The semantics thing: I'm picky with details.
Ignorant Statement thing: Fair enough.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> What was that one guy, Rukh? Pretty sure this is Rukh's brother, or something.


Who?


Ahkmill said:


> It's not at all irrelevant, because the same shit is going on today all over the world. It never stopped. Gay marriage is still illegal because of the ignorant Christian fuckheads who run this country. There are no rights, and it's the religious people who are denying these rights. It always had been.


That's not religion's fault.
That's the people's fault.
The Bible doesn't explicitly say that gay marriage isn't allowed. It does say that a man who layeth with another man must be stoned, however that could be intrerpretted many ways, plus, as I said, I don't exactly agree with the Bible. If i'm right though, that was in Leviticus, which was in the Old Testament, which the New Testament sort of rendered null.
The people just apply their own beliefs to religion.

EDIT: People will try to justify their beliefs and actions one way or another; if it wasn't religion, people'd find another way. Easiest way is saying something like "It's immoral".


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> That's not religion's fault.
> That's the people's fault.
> The Bible doesn't explicitly say that gay marriage isn't allowed. It does say that a man who layeth with another man must be stoned, however that could be intrerpretted many ways, plus, as I said, I don't exactly agree with the Bible. If i'm right though, that was in Leviticus, which was in the Old Testament, which the New Testament sort of rendered null.
> The people just apply their own beliefs to religion.



It's 100% religion's fault. This is what happens EVERY TIME religion is introduced into society. It's a highly destructive force that turns society against one another, it always has been.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

@Ahkmill: Read my edit. It added something important to that.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

There's nothing for people to determine immorality when it comes to homosexuality other than religion. All homophobia is rooted in religion. 

Modern society is like a computer. Everything does it's job, and it does it's best to work efficiently. Religion is a computer virus. It comes in, re-writes things to be less efficient and make pretty much no sense, and fucks up the efficiency and usability of the computer. It can even completely destroy it, which is what happened to many many cultures during the spread of Christianity.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> There's nothing for people to determine immorality when it comes to homosexuality other than religion. All homophobia is rooted in religion.
> 
> Modern society is like a computer. Everything does it's job, and it does it's best to work efficiently. Religion is a computer virus. It comes in, re-writes things to be less efficient and make pretty much no sense, and fucks up the efficiency and usability of the computer. It can even completely destroy it, which is what happened to many many cultures during the spread of Christianity.


Most people don't like things that they are unfamiliar with. Tell me....If an alien visited the planet, would it scare you?
If someone has never heard of homosexuality before met a homosexual, do you think he'd have a positive reaction?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Most people don't like things that they are unfamiliar with. Tell me....If an alien visited the planet, would it scare you?
> If someone has never heard of homosexuality before met a homosexual, do you think he'd have a positive reaction?



If he wasn't a retarded Christian, then I imagine he probably wouldn't care if someone was homosexual.

As I said, ALL homophobia is rooted in religion. It's the only thing that has ever said "Homosexuality is bad."

I don't fear things for being different, because I'm not an ignorant reject who can't deal with things she doesn't know about. When/if aliens land, unless they start slaughtering us left and right, I'm going to be highly fascinated. I'll want to learn as much as I can about such a new discovery. I'm not a toolbox, I'm a curious human being who doesn't let something fake like religion get in the way of learning more about real life.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

I'd like to point out that I've been here arguing since about 1:30AM. It's 4:30 AM now.
Now then....Hmm....Let's see if I can find an example of someone who had a negative opinion of something because he hadn't seen it before...... (Admittedly, I actually need to take some time on this one....) A lot of the reasons people use for disagreeing with someone else on an idea such as homosexuality though is "It isn't natural". Natural would mean it happens in nature on a normal bases. Normal would mean that it is a regular occurrence. Homosexuality is rare. Therefore, their reason that "it's not natural", would be correct. They would just not be thinking hard enough to realize that just because something's not natural doesn't make it bad. But the not natural thing is an argument other than religion that people use to say why something is bad. And to say something is not natural is to say it doesn't happen regularly.
That said, I still want to think of an example.

I really need to sleep


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

And they would be wrong in saying so. Homosexuality is incredibly common in nature. 


Religious people are just wrong, all the time, and no matter what proof there is to prove them wrong, they refuse to acknowledge it 99% of the time.

To be religious in today's world is to be incredibly stubborn and ignorant.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> And they would be wrong in saying so. Homosexuality is incredibly common in nature.
> 
> 
> Religious people are just wrong, all the time, and no matter what proof there is to prove them wrong, they refuse to acknowledge it 99% of the time.
> ...


Perhaps they would be wrong, but that's still an argument separate from religion that people use to say its wrong.
Therefore, the post where you said that only a religious argument can be made to say homosexuality is immoral isn't correct.
That's why I made that point.
Also, most normal humans try to say they are right after believing something even when being proven wrong since humans hate losing. Humans hate being told they are wrong. This is not just religious people; Humans hate being told that they are wrong about something and may often try to fight it.

I'm going to bed now. I"ll probably be back later.
Much later though, as I'm going to probably sleep past lunch time.
Til then, Au Revoir.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

I personally embrace being proven wrong. However, no religious person has ever proven me wrong. 100% of the time they just strengthen my anti-religious stance.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> The fact that churches are tax-exempt makes me want to become a violent anti-government rebel. That's just unacceptable from a government.



You do realize that if churches were made to pay taxes, then they would more or less have greater justification in becoming much more involved in government. Does "taxation without representation" remind you about anything?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> You do realize that if churches were made to pay taxes, then they would more or less have greater justification in becoming much more involved in government. Does "taxation without representation" remind you about anything?



They ALREADY stuff their nose in the government like it's nobody's business. They just do it for free.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> They ALREADY stuff their nose in the government like it's nobody's business. They just do it for free.



However, taxing them simply opens the floodgates and allows religious organizations to try to have a greater control of government policy, as they are now considered taxpayers. Nice job breaking it hero.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> However, taxing them simply opens the floodgates and allows religious organizations to try to have a greater control of government policy, as they are now considered taxpayers. Nice job breaking it hero.



So? It's not gonna change a damned thing. It'll be the same exact thing that's going on today, except they'll have to pay taxes.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Which is why I only really accept agnosticism as a viable concept. Nobody knows if there's a God or not, and nobody can prove it. Full on atheists are just as full of shit as Christians.


Hey, hey, hey, now. Agnosticism is not a stance on religion, it is a stance about every concept, there are both Agnostic Atheists and Gnostic Atheists, just as there are both Agnostic Theists and Gnostic Theists.
I, personally am a Gnostic Atheist... I don't believe in any gods in the same way that I don't believe that leprechauns exist.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> Hey, hey, hey, now. Agnosticism is not a stance on religion, it is a stance about every concept, there are both Agnostic Atheists and Gnostic Atheists, just as there are both Agnostic Theists and Gnostic Theists.
> I, personally am a Gnostic Atheist... I don't believe in any gods in the same way that I don't believe that leprechauns exist.


Agnosticism is to have no stance on theism.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Agnosticism is the state of not having knowledge or not knowing that something is true.

[h=2]agÂ·nosÂ·tiÂ·cism[/h]  [ag-nos-t_uh_-siz-_uh_









m]  Show IPA
*noun**1.*the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

*2.*an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> Agnosticism is the state of not having knowledge or not knowing that something is true.




Exactly why I say it's the only viable option. Because nobody knows anything about what's real when it comes to theism.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

when it comes to theism or when it comes to both theism and atheism?

Also... do you believe that it is more probable that there is or is not a god?

Atheism can be caused because of lack of evidence for a god or indoctrination, Theism can be caused because of evidence for god or indoctrination, so have no any evidence for a god, if yes, then you may be an agnostic theist, if no, then you may be an agnostic atheist. There is no in-between, the answer on if you believe is a yes or no question, just like a belief in leprechauns, do you believe in them? "I don't know." is not a very good answer.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> So? It's not gonna change a damned thing. It'll be the same exact thing that's going on today, except they'll have to pay taxes.



Having the idea that the status-quo would remain the same after a rather tremendous event (In this case, completely changing the IRS non-profit tax codes) is simply a fools thought.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> when it comes to theism or when it comes to both theism and atheism?



Theism is a subject word describing the belief or disbelief in God. It applies to both.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Having the idea that the status-quo would remain the same after a rather tremendous event (In this case, completely changing the IRS non-profit tax codes) is simply a fools thought.



There will be no change, because there's nothing TO change. Churches already have all of the privileges of tax-payers, and abuse them all the time, they simply don't pay the taxes. All taxing them would do is charge them for the privileges they already have.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> Hey, hey, hey, now. Agnosticism is not a stance on religion, it is a stance about every concept, there are both Agnostic Atheists and Gnostic Atheists, just as there are both Agnostic Theists and Gnostic Theists.
> *I, personally am a Gnostic Atheist... I don't believe in any gods in the same way that I don't believe that leprechauns exist.*



I thought that was just your standard, run-of-the-mill atheist?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Pushing for taxing churches is the only logical thing I can really do. I mean, if I had my way, every last church, synagogue, and mosque would be permanently shut down for being scam businesses.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> if I had my way, every last church, synagogue, and mosque would be permanently shut down for being scam businesses.



A lot of churches, synagogues, and mosques give money to the poor.

I'm assuming you would make up for the losses :V


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> There will be no change, because there's nothing TO change. Churches already have all of the privileges of tax-payers, and abuse them all the time, they simply don't pay the taxes. All taxing them would do is charge them for the privileges they already have.



Let me explain in a a detailed and much shorter manner. 

At the present tax codes, you have many religious that actually contribute to society as charitable organizations and some that do as much as they can to become involved in politics (Which I think is fairly wrong).

Now, lets say the tax codes change to where ALL religious organizations are taxed regardless of charitable status. Not only are you going to have a huge amount of churches flood the courts, but now ALL the religious organizations have a justification to become much more involved in government. This goes hand-in-hand with my floodgate analogy that I specified earlier.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Let me explain in a a detailed and much shorter manner.
> 
> At the present tax codes, you have many religious that actually contribute to society as charitable organizations and some that do as much as they can to become involved in politics (Which I think is fairly wrong).
> 
> Now, lets say the tax codes change to where ALL religious organizations are taxed regardless of charitable status. Not only are you going to have a huge amount of churches flood the courts, but now ALL the religious organizations have a justification to become much more involved in government. This goes hand-in-hand with my floodgate analogy that I specified earlier.


I can really say I don't really give a fuck what churches are doing when it comes to charity, we should all be charitable ANYWAY.

Nothing they'll ever do will make up for spreading idiocy worldwide.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I can really say I don't really give a fuck what churches are doing when it comes to charity, we should all be charitable ANYWAY.



Yeah, but saying that doesn't make people magically give a shit either.

People should be charitable AND LAST I CHECKED Republican states give more to charity than Democrat states.

So we should all become Republicans.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Of course Republican states give more for charity, they have more to give.

To be a Republican is to be the type of person who'll take down whatever competition you can to get ahead and make a shitload of money, and then give a bunch away in a philanthropic manner so the public doesn't hate you.

That's just Conservatism in a nutshell, there.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I can really say I don't really give a fuck what churches are doing when it comes to charity, we should all be charitable ANYWAY.



It is that definition of "charity" that allows the churches to achieve tax exemption status. So I would say that charity is incredibly important in this manner. 



Ahkmill said:


> Nothing they'll ever do will make up for spreading idiocy worldwide.



I have to say, a rather intellectual and intuitive counter argument.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Theism is a subject word describing the belief or disbelief in God. It applies to both.


So what do you believe? Not know, Believe.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Churches are a business. They are in the business of selling hope. They should pay business tax just like every other business in America, regardless of charity.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> So what do you believe? Not know, Believe.



I believe that I don't know if God exists or not. Nobody does, and anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Churches are a business. *They are in the business of selling hope*. They should pay business tax just like every other business in America, regardless of charity.



Really?


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I believe that I don't know if God exists or not. Nobody does, and anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit.


I also do not know if a god exists (to a point), but what I believe is that a god does not exist because there is not sufficient evidence. I do not know if a god does not exists, but I also do not believe that a god exists.   I repeat: Knowing and Believing are not interchangeable.
You are being Sweden right now... and just remember, nobody likes Sweden. :V


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Really?


Absolutely. Most churches charge for Bibles, baptisms, the ability to be in the choir, etc. It's all a business, and what they sell is their religion.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> To be a Republican is to be the type of person who'll take down whatever competition you can to get ahead and make a shitload of money, and then give a bunch away in a philanthropic manner so the public doesn't hate you.



To be a Republican is to say "government, get the fuck out of my shit" like with these drones you all whine about.

To be a Republican is to say "HEY MAYBE WE SHOULD SAVE SOME MONEY FOR ONCE."

To be a Republican is to say "HEY, uhh you also shouldn't believe in abortion. Because, like... um..."

But, hey. If Republicans are the ones who make a shitload of money like you say _then where do I sign up_? :roll:


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Absolutely. Most churches charge for Bibles, baptisms, the ability to be in the choir, etc. It's all a business, and what they sell is their religion.



Non profits CAN charge for services and this does not make them For Profit businesses. The separation between both a non-profit and for profit entity is that the a non-profit entity uses revenues to make up for costs and are allowed to post surplus revenues (which may only be used in the organization and the organization only. Examples include either preservation or expansion of services).  If you took a basic accounting 101 class, you would know what the hell you are talking about.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

You don't want to be a republican... if you do you will be legitimately raped.. every day, for the rest of your life.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Non profits CAN charge for services and this does not make them For Profit businesses. The separation between both a non-profit and for profit entity is that the a non-profit entity uses revenues to make up for costs and are allowed to post surplus revenues (which may only be used in the organization and the organization only. Examples include either preservation or expansion of services).  If you took a basic accounting 101 class, you would know what the hell you are talking about.



Churches have always been about profit. They've always, from day one, been a corrupt system of social abuse and indoctrination. They use people and their money to further their own goals, that's how it's always been. Pretending like it has been otherwise is like turning your head, plugging your ears, and saying "BLAH BLAH NOTHING HAPPENING HERE."


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Churches have always been about profit. They've always, from day one, been a corrupt system of social abuse and indoctrination. They use people and their money to further their own goals, that's how it's always been. Pretending like it has been otherwise is like turning your head, plugging your ears, and saying "BLAH BLAH NOTHING HAPPENING HERE."



I believe that when it comes to deciding whether or not a church is for profit or non profit, I would prefer to trust the IRS in this case.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Churches have always been about profit. They've always, from day one, been a corrupt system of social abuse and indoctrination. They use people and their money to further their own goals, that's how it's always been. Pretending like it has been otherwise is like turning your head, plugging your ears, and saying "BLAH BLAH NOTHING HAPPENING HERE."


http://www.justmeans.com/Black-As-Sin-Vatican-Bank-Accused-Of-Money-Laundering/31884.html

And why the hell would the government pay for pedophiles to be shipped all across the country so that they can rape more children? WTF is up with that!?


----------



## Ricky (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> You don't want to be a republican... if you do you will be legitimately raped.. every day, for the rest of your life.



By whom? ^^;;


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Ricky said:


> By whom? ^^;;


By this guy: [video=youtube;joxny3rco_4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joxny3rco_4[/video]


----------



## Ricky (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> By this guy: [video=youtube;joxny3rco_4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joxny3rco_4[/video]



A Little old, but hey.

He looks like he has money *whistles*


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

I got pregnant by rape, once.

I had 13 babies, it was a wild night.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

I don't believe this actually happened, but I am going to switch sides and say that I don't know if this didn't or did happen.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Non profits CAN charge for services and this does not make them For Profit businesses. The separation between both a non-profit and for profit entity is that the a non-profit entity uses revenues to make up for costs and are allowed to post surplus revenues (which may only be used in the organization and the organization only. Examples include either preservation or expansion of services).  If you took a basic accounting 101 class, you would know what the hell you are talking about.


The Catholic Church is making some pretty penny for a non-profit entity. And so are the Protestants over here. In fact, they make enough money for their bishops to be caught with it stuffed down their underwear in airports, and also to star in scandals where their highest-ranked representatives tell people it's all about the money. Meanwhile, the Jehova's Witnesses have enough funds to finance not only the buying of prime real state and also the building of their temples.

I'd accept them being tax-exempt if they lived hand-to-mouth, or if their net profits were below a certain threshold (y'know, like normal people over here), so they would have an incentive to actually deploy their funds in charitable acts. They don't, so they _should _be taxed just like any other for-profit enterprise.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

As a point of curiosity, a non profit organisation spending money on palaces and gold, when their most basic claim is that everything important is immaterial, is highly suspicious.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> As a point of curiosity, a non profit organisation spending money on palaces and gold, when their most basic claim is that everything important is immaterial, is highly suspicious.


Oh, come on dude! You know God is all about them megachurches with three-stories tall gold-plated crucified Hebrew effigies! And the fancy hats! You can't have a religion without a cool hat to go along with it, God will not allow it! :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Oh, come on dude! You know God is all about them megachurches with three-stories tall gold-plated crucified Hebrew effigies! And the fancy hats! You can't have a religion without a cool hat to go along with it, God will not allow it! :V



And naturally private schools with exotic curriculems and laundries to subject mothers who bore bastards to slave labour, which may both include some good ol' fashioned systematic abuse. 


Just imagine, if there were taxes on the exploitation of people for the glory of god this vital work might not even be possible. o:


----------



## Azure (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> As a point of curiosity, a non profit organisation spending money on palaces and gold, when their most basic claim is that everything important is immaterial, is highly suspicious.


sorta reminds me when i lived in texas and i worked at this sandwich shop in hs. there was a megachurch just down the street, and it was sort of like a football stadium sized building covered with windows and made of brick, and they had this MASSIVE cross outside of it. fucker had to be 150 feet tall if it was an inch. WHERE DID THEY GET THAT MONEY? and why wasnt it used to help people instead of build some plastic banana bullshit. i dont even want to discuss my visit to st peters basilica, there was enough GOLD ENCRUSTED SHIT to purchase half of africa.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> There's nothing for people to determine immorality when it comes to homosexuality other than religion. All homophobia is rooted in religion.
> 
> Modern society is like a computer. Everything does it's job, and it does it's best to work efficiently. Religion is a computer virus. It comes in, re-writes things to be less efficient and make pretty much no sense, and fucks up the efficiency and usability of the computer. It can even completely destroy it, which is what happened to many many cultures during the spread of Christianity.



Objection. I've actually seen atheists who were against homosexuality. You don't hear about it much (Probably because the media wants to focus more on whatever'll get them more views or whatever), but there are non-religious people who don't like gay marriage. Here is an example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

So fault on you for not looking into the entire issue and blindly blaming religion. Yes, it IS a large cause for people against gay marriage, but to blame it solely on religion is bias and ignorant. And if religion is a computer virus, then geez, I must be pretty good at using viruses for good. Because while I don't force _any_ of my beliefs down any of my friends' throats, it greatly influences and I've used the teachings from it and other stories to give advice to people beyond "Go out and seek God". But ah, you'll still find a fault. But, what can I expect? One can find a fault in the most perfect of artwork; they only have to find one, even if it doesn't exist. 

Also, I know these aren't humans but animals, and this is very nit-picky on the words, but animals can be homophobic too. So how do you explain that one? Can't blame it on God this time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

I do good because I believe a chariot of unicorns will take my spirit to the everlands when I die in return for my piety...and because I fear they will rip my endtrails out if I do not. Spread the word!

Nik' is however right that homophobia is not exclusive to the religious. Immature and otherwise vile individuals also espous homophobic views. In my country it's a popular insult used by school children and teenagers eventhough most are not religious, for instance. The frequency of this behaviour plummeted after about the age of 16 in my experience.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I got pregnant by rape, once.
> 
> I had 13 babies, it was a wild night.



And one of those was me!! True story...


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Can't blame it on God this time.


Actually, you kind of can... if it were not for the bible being against it a hell of a lot less people would have a problem with it, in the same way that religious people do not know how to handle matters that deal with sex.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Objection. I've actually seen atheists who were against homosexuality. You don't hear about it much (Probably because the media wants to focus more on whatever'll get them more views or whatever), but there are non-religious people who don't like gay marriage. Here is an example:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
> 
> So fault on you for not looking into the entire issue and blindly blaming religion. Yes, it IS a large cause for people against gay marriage, but to blame it solely on religion is bias and ignorant. And if religion is a computer virus, then geez, I must be pretty good at using viruses for good. Because while I don't force _any_ of my beliefs down any of my friends' throats, it greatly influences and I've used the teachings from it and other stories to give advice to people beyond "Go out and seek God". But ah, you'll still find a fault. But, what can I expect? One can find a fault in the most perfect of artwork; they only have to find one, even if it doesn't exist.
> ...



Posting a link to a story that is in-and-of-itself is backwards doesn't exactly help your case. Even IF it claims to be secular, it still has no basis in usable logic. The most common "reasons" given to find gay marriage unacceptable (or whatever you want to call it):
- It's based in sin (or whatever)
- It's Adam & Even not Adam & Steve
- It'll lead to polygamy or bestiality being "acceptable"
- Gays can't properly reproduce (sound familiar?)
- It burns and stomps all over tradition
- Having a biological mum and dad is "better" than two of the same gender
- If gays marry, then marriage itself is meaningless!
- It's immoral, blah blah blah

You get the picture. All but two of these are not inherently religiously-based, they *all* happened to be some of the most common arguments against gay marriage...given by religious types. The reproduction argument is actually one of the most devastating (if it were true) if you think it all the way through. If marriages were only allowed to those whom were definitely going to have children? There'd be a lot *less *marriages, but a lot *more *babies. Since marriage is only for reproduction, in whatever universe those people live in.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> Actually, you kind of can... if it were not for the bible being against it a hell of a lot less people would have a problem with it, in the same way that religious people do not know how to handle matters that deal with sex.


Oh, I was more or less referring to the animals themselves. How can you blame animals acting gay or homophobic on God, if you're arguing that you can't know about if he's there or that it's bs?

Edit: Well yeah, I know that there's a lot of cases where religious types use religious reasoning to argue against gay marriage. But then the non-religious take the moral high ground and act like they're better because apparently no secular person would be against gay marriage, which if you do some research, you'll find is untrue.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Oh, I was more or less referring to the animals themselves. How can you blame animals acting gay or homophobic on God, if you're arguing that you can't know about if he's there or that it's bs?


... you don't get what I'm saying, yeah there are people out there that are xenophobes or just anti-gay, but these will always exist, the fact is that without religion brainwashing people to mindlessly hate, there would be a lot less hate.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Oh, I was more or less referring to the animals themselves. How can you blame animals acting gay or homophobic on God, if you're arguing that you can't know about if he's there or that it's bs?
> 
> Edit: Well yeah, I know that there's a lot of cases where religious types use religious reasoning to argue against gay marriage. But then the non-religious take the moral high ground and act like they're better because apparently no secular person would be against gay marriage, which if you do some research, you'll find is untrue.



Frequency of religions opposition to Rights regardless of sexual orientation > Frequency of secullar opposition to said rights


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Edit: Well yeah, I know that there's a lot of cases where religious types use religious reasoning to argue against gay marriage. But then the non-religious take the moral high ground and act like they're better because apparently no secular person would be against gay marriage, which if you do some research, you'll find is untrue.



I tend to question the person who's using common illogical arguments against gay marriage.
- They're probably religious, even if they're claiming a secular argument.
- They're probably stupid, because even a child can refute their argument without issue. 

I'm sure there are Atheists and the general non-religious against gay marriage, but it's probably more over the 'ick' factor (to them) than anything else. By and large, most of them probably don't give a fuck either way, and just want people to be happy without having to think about what they do in the bedroom.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Edit: Well yeah, I know that there's a lot of cases where religious types use religious reasoning to argue against gay marriage. But then the non-religious take the moral high ground and act like they're better because apparently no secular person would be against gay marriage, which if you do some research, you'll find is untrue.


So... every secular person is in it for the high ground? NO. Some people are secular to feel superior, but don't you dare tag all of us with that.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Oh no No NO way am I trying to say that _every_ secular person is in it to feel superior. I'm just saying that there's those who use the fact that there's little to no hate for gay marriage secularly to try to make themselves seem better. But I am in no way trying to tag all of you with that notion.


----------



## Day Coydog (Mar 16, 2013)

I started reading the article and comments then started getting depressed, so I stopped.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Day Coydog said:


> I started reading the article and comments then started getting depressed, so I stopped.


It was a good idea to stop. This thread basically erupted into an argument about whether or not religion is a bad thing.
It's really unfortunate.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> It was a good idea to stop. This thread basically erupted into an argument about whether or not religion is a bad thing.
> It's really unfortunate.



Well it _is_, afterall.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well it _is_, afterall.


It _can_ be. Religion alone is usually not a bad thing.
I was on the reason of why it isn't a bad thing for hours last night. Well, this morning. Really really early this morning.
Basically it was along the lines of there being people applying their beliefs to religion. Plus the fact that without religion there would still be plenty of unintelligent people in the world. There was other stuff, but that was basically it, but in more detail and with examples given.
But I think you were here and just lurking at the time, putting in a few cents on a rare occasion.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> The Catholic Church is making some pretty penny for a non-profit entity. And so are the Protestants over here. In fact, they make enough money for their bishops to be caught with it stuffed down their underwear in airports, and also to star in scandals where their highest-ranked representatives tell people it's all about the money. Meanwhile, the Jehova's Witnesses have enough funds to finance not only the buying of prime real state and also the building of their temples.
> 
> I'd accept them being tax-exempt if they lived hand-to-mouth, or if their net profits were below a certain threshold (y'know, like normal people over here), so they would have an incentive to actually deploy their funds in charitable acts. They don't, so they _should _be taxed just like any other for-profit enterprise.



You are going to have some corrupt members who will abuse their position to make a quick buck, this is visible in a great number of organizations/companies. When dealing with the expansion of the organization, it is permissible that a non profit organization use surplus revenue for that nature, per US IRS tax codes. 



Fallowfox said:


> As a point of curiosity, a non profit organisation spending money on palaces and gold, when their most basic claim is that everything important is immaterial, is highly suspicious.



Most of those treasures or palaces were acquired when during the 1300s-1800s. Most of the regalia of the pope and Vatican has been abandoned, although the upkeep of the treasures that were acquired from so long ago continues today. Hey, I almost forgot, the Catholic Church by itself is one of the most charitable organizations in the world.

(Forgot to add in an example, once of which is in the US of A)


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> It _can_ be. Religion alone is usually not a bad thing.


Y...Yeah it is. Even in a best case scenario, you have a population that believes in something inherently unprovable, and being it cannot logically exist along side science, then you just have a real shitty population of idiots. Idiots will exist with or without religion, but with religion existing, they merely produce even _more_ stupidity than they would without religion, because it only takes a few of them to get into a position of power, and then *bam*, you have a cult following or whatever. 

It's a domino effect of idiocy. 



Battlechili1 said:


> I was on the reason of why it isn't a bad thing for hours last night. Well, this morning. Really really early this morning.
> Basically it was along the lines of there being people applying their beliefs to religion. Plus the fact that without religion there would still be plenty of unintelligent people in the world. There was other stuff, but that was basically it, but in more detail and with examples given.
> But I think you were here and just lurking at the time, putting in a few cents on a rare occasion.



I was there, and I didn't bother with your points, because I've been over and over and over it all. Remember when I mentioned Rukh? You're doing more or less exactly what he did a year or so ago. And there was a dude before him that did the exact same thing before that, and on and on.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> You are going to have some corrupt members who will abuse their position to make a quick buck, this is visible in a great number of organizations/companies. When dealing with the expansion of the organization, it is permissible that a non profit organization use surplus revenue for that nature, per US IRS tax codes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DsWyG2-hfc

Rather long discussion, thought it pretty much covers all points that have come into discussion.


----------



## PuffyCatgirl (Mar 16, 2013)

If it does, I'll bring the cupcakes.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Y...Yeah it is. Even in a best case scenario, you have a population that believes in something inherently unprovable, and being it cannot logically exist along side science, then you just have a real shitty population of idiots. Idiots will exist with or without religion, but with religion existing, they merely produce even _more_ stupidity than they would without religion, because it only takes a few of them to get into a position of power, and then *bam*, you have a cult following or whatever.
> 
> It's a domino effect of idiocy.
> 
> ...


Because people believing in something that can't be proven or disproven causes problems in society.  That's why new inventions and new scientific discoveries are made every day. 
Science can't live alongside religion logically? I think it can. Observe:
Person 1: "I think that money grows on trees, because my religion says so."
Person 2: "Hmm, let's test that".
Person 1: "Sure, it'd be nice to try and confirm that"
Person 2: *grows a tree supposedly said to grow money* *no money is on it*
Person 1: "Well, I guess that means money doesn't grow on trees. My religion was wrong about that."
Person 1: *still follows religion, but crosses that out as a thing to believe in*
Person 2:" There's a new scientific discovery! Recent evidence shows that the Earth may have been created during a great event in space called the big bang!"
Person 1: "Cool story bro, let me know when you can confirm it without question like you did that tree"


That is literally how I work things in my mind. I am person 1.
Before anyone says anything: This is by far the stupidest argument I've ever made. If you can pick holes in it, do it, I give you whole hearted permission to do so and in fact I want you to do so. Because this argument sucks and I want to refine it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Everybody needs to go watch the documentary "Religulous."

Like, right now.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Everybody needs to go watch the documentary "Religulous."
> 
> Like, right now.


Never seen it, but I kinda know what it is.
Sounds really dumb.
The only time I have any interest in something debunking religion is if it is done in a respectful way with detailed argument using words, not annoying things making fun of religion. All that does is make one hate the people making fun of it. I don't make fun, I debate.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Never seen it, but I kinda know what it is.
> Sounds really dumb.
> The only time I have any interest in something debunking religion is if it is done in a respectful way with detailed argument using words, not annoying things making fun of religion. All that does is make one hate the people making fun of it. I don't make fun, I debate.



Why does religion deserve respect? It's a concept that isn't even based on reality! If anything it deserves to be made fun of...


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Never seen it, but I kinda know what it is.
> Sounds really dumb.
> The only time I have any interest in something debunking religion is if it is done in a respectful way with detailed argument using words, not annoying things making fun of religion. All that does is make one hate the people making fun of it. I don't make fun, I debate.



That's exactly what Religulous is.

It's Bill Maher going around the world, studying different religions, and then explaining how ridiculous each and every one of them really are, and WHY. It's highly educational, you'd learn something if you watched it.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Why does religion deserve respect? It's a concept that isn't even based on reality! If anything it deserves to be made fun of...


Everything and everyone deserves respect, regardless of what it is or who it is.
Also, it is based on reality. It is an idea used to explain the world around you. Maybe it's not very good to use, but it is at least based on reality.
To recap: Absolutely nothing in existence deseves to be made fun of.
Nothing.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Everything and everyone deserves respect, regardless of what it is or who it is.




Uhhh, no, no it doesn't.

Respect has to be earned. It isn't just something given out for free.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Uhhh, no, no it doesn't.
> 
> Respect has to be earned. It isn't just something given out for free.


I think it should be given out for free. And yes, before someone points it out, I believe in this even in the extreme cases. So if someone asks "Do you respect Hitler", my response is "Yes, I do".


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I think it should be given out for free. And yes, before someone points it out, I believe in this even in the extreme cases. So if someone asks "Do you respect Hitler", my response is "Yes, I do".



Then respect will mean nothing.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Then respect will mean nothing.


Yes it will. People need to simply know what a lack of respect is to know what respect is. And most people do. Therefore the respect will mean something, as people will know and appreciate it. Respect is used to keep things civil, and keep people in a good mood, or at least a better mood. A lack of respect destroys arguments and turns them into fights. Always treat others kindly, and with respect, regardless of who they are or what they've done.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 16, 2013)

Not on topic but, since when did the "like button" turn into the "thanks button"?


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> You are going to have some corrupt members who will abuse their position to make a quick buck, this is visible in a great number of organizations/companies. When dealing with the expansion of the organization, it is permissible that a non profit organization use surplus revenue for that nature, per US IRS tax codes.


Problem is that it's often not just "some corrupt members". Quite a few times the entire system is structured so the people at the top will profit from the well-meaning, often volunteer work from the people at the bottom. When people start founding religions to abuse fiscal loopholes and/or make lots of money (didn't L. Ron Hubbard say something about that?)... well, that doesn't feel very spiritually fulfilling or charitable, now does it?

Religious institutions have marketing departments, promotional events, fundraising sprees, lobby groups, litigation squads and all the tools and tricks companies and corporations have at their disposal. They should be treated as companies, because that's  how they already work. Otherwise they would have never become as big as  they are. And if they're really committed to charity and community work, then they should go through the normal channels and get their charity-related tax deductions from their _actions_, not their status.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Because people believing in something that can't be proven or disproven causes problems in society.  That's why new inventions and new scientific discoveries are made every day.
> Science can't live alongside religion logically? I think it can. Observe:
> Person 1: "I think that money grows on trees, because my religion says so."
> Person 2: "Hmm, let's test that".
> ...



The big bang has been confirmed. The physicists predicted that the transparency and expansion of the universe should mean that space is permeated by a radiation of 3 degrees kelvin. 

This is known as the cosmic background radiation and it has been observed to be 3 degrees kelvin, just as predicted. 

Yet still many religiously minded individuals insist that their faith based beliefs about the origin of everything are superior and are assumed correct unless somebody can stand and recant the entire history of the universe down to the resolution of single molecules. 

This is irrational behaviour, the reason being that people don't simply admit their religious claims are wrong. They invest their emotional security and identity in them, and as valuable as those things are they should not be allowed to supercede fact. 

The big bang happened. Fact. [the earth however was not created in the big bang, just for the record. Some 9 billion years passed first]


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Yes it will. People need to simply know what a lack of respect is to know what respect is. And most people do. Therefore the respect will mean something, as people will know and appreciate it. Respect is used to keep things civil, and keep people in a good mood, or at least a better mood. A lack of respect destroys arguments and turns them into fights. Always treat others kindly, and with respect, regardless of who they are or what they've done.


 Tolerance is the word you're looking for, not respect (yes I know I say this all the time). We shouldn't tolerate or respect people like Hitler...


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Yes it will. People need to simply know what a lack of respect is to know what respect is. And most people do. Therefore the respect will mean something, as people will know and appreciate it. Respect is used to keep things civil, and keep people in a good mood, or at least a better mood. A lack of respect destroys arguments and turns them into fights. Always treat others kindly, and with respect, regardless of who they are or what they've done.



It takes more than existing to earn my respect. You have to do well with what you have. "I believe in God" is not doing well with what you have, it's being a psychotic nutcase. I don't respect religion, and I never will. It's fucked up the world and my life far too many times for it to ever be a respectable institution.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Raptros, watch out for Godwin's law!


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 16, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Tolerance is the word you're looking for, not respect (yes I know I say this all the time). We shouldn't tolerate or respect people like Hitler...



Exactly, that is what I have been saying for some time now as well. Respect is earned, not handed out like candy.
People who actually accomplished something for all of humanity deserve our respect.
A concept like religion that is respoisble for countless deaths and so many problems within modern society doesn't deserve any respect at all. It doesn't even deserve tolerance.
Religious people on the other hand do deserve tolerance.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Raptros, watch out for Godwin's law!


He/she already brought it up anyway.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Regarding a fairy tale as true is not okay when you're an adult. It's a sign of mental damage.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Regarding a fairy tale as true is not okay when you're an adult. It's a sign of mental damage.



I have to disagree with this, otherwise a majority of humans are to be considered mentally damaged. 

Believing in myths and magic should instead be viewed as an errnoneous epiphenomenon of the human brain.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The big bang has been confirmed. The physicists predicted that the transparency and expansion of the universe should mean that space is permeated by a radiation of 3 degrees kelvin.
> 
> This is known as the cosmic background radiation and it has been observed to be 3 degrees kelvin, just as predicted.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that.


----------



## Ryuu (Mar 16, 2013)

Hell..... welcome to it


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I have to disagree with this, otherwise a majority of humans are to be considered mentally damaged.
> 
> Believing in myths and magic should instead be viewed as an errnoneous epiphenomenon of the human brain.



Clearly a majority of humans ARE mentally damaged if religion is such a large institution.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Exactly, that is what I have been saying for some time now as well. Respect is earned, not handed out like candy.
> People who actually accomplished something for all of humanity deserve our respect.
> A concept like religion that is respoisble for countless deaths and so many problems within modern society doesn't deserve any respect at all. It doesn't even deserve tolerance.
> Religious people on the other hand do deserve tolerance.


A lot of things have caused countless deaths and problems.

To pretty much everyone: Tolerance simply means you put up with it, right? I want people to go farther than that. I want people to go out of their way to be kind to other people, even horrible people. (I give you full permission to call me insane for this)
Still, well, people here were saying earlier its ok to ridicule religion. I don't believe in ridiculing anything. Or anyone. For any reason. Ridicule=disrespect=a lack of tolerance.
Do you disagree?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Tolerance only goes so far. When something legitimately becomes a problem for a large group of people, it doesn't need to be tolerated. That's what religion is. It's something causing problems for the entire world. We don't need to tolerate it anymore.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I have to disagree with this, otherwise a majority of humans are to be considered mentally damaged.
> 
> Believing in myths and magic should instead be viewed as an errnoneous epiphenomenon of the human brain.


Pay close attention to this, folks! We evolved to be superstitious and believe in things we have no proof of. It's a perfectly natural, if sometimes counterproductive thing. It's part of us. Don't think that just because someone believes there's an invisible man in the sky watching their every move, they're anything different from you. With the correct set of experiences through your life, you'd very likely believe the same thing.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Because people believing in something that can't be proven or disproven causes problems in society.  That's why new inventions and new scientific discoveries are made every day.
> Science can't live alongside religion logically? I think it can. Observe:
> Person 1: "I think that money grows on trees, because my religion says so."
> Person 2: "Hmm, let's test that".
> ...



Your example is absurd, and absolutely correct. Western theologies are absurd, and the way you think is silly at best. If you are unquestionably proven wrong, and can repeatedly be proven wrong 100% of the time, you'd still continue with that train of thought/belief? 

I hate to give a personal attack, but you've proven yourself worthy of being called an idiot. And not only that, but you proved my point. Idiots fester idiots. Thank your god that you are not in a position of power, because that is one of the ways religions start. 

If this is even your worst argument, but you _still_ insist on thinking like that, then you dramatically need to change your way of thinking. Take a Philosophy 101 class at the very least.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> A lot of things have caused countless deaths and problems.
> 
> To pretty much everyone: Tolerance simply means you put up with it, right? I want people to go farther than that. *I want people to go out of their way to be kind to other people, even horrible people.* (I give you full permission to call me insane for this)
> Still, well, people here were saying earlier its ok to ridicule religion. I don't believe in ridiculing anything. Or anyone. For any reason. Ridicule=disrespect=a lack of tolerance.
> Do you disagree?


I somehow doubt that'll ever happen....


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> A lot of things have caused countless deaths and problems.
> 
> To pretty much everyone: Tolerance simply means you put up with it, right? I want people to go farther than that. I want people to go out of their way to be kind to other people, even horrible people. (I give you full permission to call me insane for this)
> Still, well, people here were saying earlier its ok to ridicule religion. I don't believe in ridiculing anything. Or anyone. For any reason. Ridicule=disrespect=a lack of tolerance.
> Do you disagree?



I disagree emphatically!

Ridicule is fundamentally important, because without criticism how will we recognise as correct our mistakes? Without ridiculing Newton, and calling out his mistakes, how could those like Einstein and Dirac bring about an entirely new understanding of physics? 

Rather than insisting that nothing should be ridiculed, because ridicule is disrespectful, I assert that nobody should be above ridicule because nobody's claims and actions are inherently worth respect. They are only worth respect by the measure of their merits, not their mere existance. 

To ridicule is not to intrinsically disrespect. Skepticism is an important part of our journey towards enlightenment. The field of sculpture must include a chisel as well as clay.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

They say the definition of insanity is to do the same thing multiple times and expect a different outcome.

That's what religion is. People think that no matter how much they pray, they can change the laws of physics.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

@lastdirewolfI've not taken a philosophy class, but I've taken an American Literature class and have determined that I absolutely love transcendentalism.
Also, if I'm an idiot, than most people are below idiots. I'm considered above average by most of society. 
I used to go to a normal public school
I was one of the smartest kids there.
I had almost no competition.
And now I'm at a school for the gifted.
And I'm average.
Also, it was my worst argument and I hated my argument myself.
The fact that you disagreed with it gave me what I wanted because my argument sucked.
Thank you, but you don't need to be rude about it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I want people to go out of their way to be kind to other people, even horrible people.



That... Is tolerance. Not respect >__> Tolerance doesn't just mean that you put up with something. It does mean that you try to live peacefully and be kind to each other.
Respect means to praise someone for something they have done.
Again, respect is earned.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I disagree emphatically!
> 
> Ridicule is fundamentally important, because without criticism how will we recognise as correct our mistakes? Without ridiculing Newton, and calling out his mistakes, how could those like Einstein and Dirac bring about an entirely new understanding of physics?
> 
> ...


I still love your arguments. You give arguments that make sense, aren't rude, and are very enlightening. I believe this is a good point, but when I say ridicule, I don't consider it the same thing as criticism. I think of criticism as pointing out problems with something. I consider ridicule as "to make fun of", which I don't believe in doing.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

I can't respect stubbornness in the face of pure defeat. Which is what talking to a religious person is like. Not once has a religious person ever logically proven their religion correct, and yet they still try to keep it, regardless of how many times it's been proven false. That's just being ridiculous.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> They say the definition of insanity is to do the same thing multiple times and expect a different outcome.
> 
> That's what religion is. People think that no matter how much they pray, they can change the laws of physics.


In their view, they are changing the laws of physics. If they pray that their mother's cancer goes away and it eventually goes into full remission by itself (as it occasionally does), what do you think they'll believe in? That the _deadliest, nastiest, most insidious disease known to man_ suddenly just packed up shop and left, or that God heard their prayers and took it away? To them, cancer is _supposed _to always kill. If it doesn't, then_ something else_ made it stop.

It's not based on reality, but we're not talking about reality. We're talking about people's perceptions of reality, which can vary A LOT.


----------



## Traven V (Mar 16, 2013)

Quit using an old doctrine, if God wanted you dead you would be but I admit I've had problems with this question. Would you die a slave?


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Pay close attention to this, folks! We evolved to be superstitious and believe in things we have no proof of. It's a perfectly natural, if sometimes counterproductive thing. It's part of us. Don't think that just because someone believes there's an invisible man in the sky watching their every move, they're anything different from you. With the correct set of experiences through your life, you'd very likely believe the same thing.


I love this argument too, and it is indeed a good point.
Though the argument is rather that religion causes too many problems and should be eradicated, is what people are saying.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I still love your arguments. You give  arguments that make sense, aren't rude, and are very enlightening. I  believe this is a good point, but when I say ridicule, I don't consider  it the same thing as criticism. I think of criticism as pointing out  problems with something. I consider ridicule as "to make fun of", which I  don't believe in doing.



I'm sorry, I didn't know what you meant by 'ridicule'. I have no view eitherway on making fun of ideas. 



Battlechili1 said:


> @lastdirewolfI've not taken a philosophy class, but I've taken an American Literature class and have determined that I absolutely love transcendentalism.
> Also, if I'm an idiot, than most people are below idiots. I'm considered above average by most of society.
> I used to go to a normal public school
> I was one of the smartest kids there.
> ...



And I'm going to study Geology at Oxford.  It doesn't mean that I'm above being an idiot, that I'm above making mistakes. 

I make mistakes all the time. I can be a complete idiot and often people with far less academic prestige will be able to point out my obvious errors. 

Lastdirewolf's comment was a little mean, but academic prestige does not mean you are above getting thing wrong. Academic reputation is worth nothing. The merit of your comments is everything.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> In their view, they are changing the laws of physics. If they pray that their mother's cancer goes away and it eventually goes into full remission by itself (as it occasionally does), what do you think they'll believe in? That the _deadliest, nastiest, most insidious disease known to man_ suddenly just packed up shop and left, or that God heard their prayers and took it away? To them, cancer is _supposed _to always kill. If it doesn't, then_ something else_ made it stop.
> 
> It's not based on reality, but we're not talking about reality. We're talking about people's perceptions of reality, which can vary A LOT.


When you see reality as something that isn't actually there, there's a word for that. Schizophrenia.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> When you see reality as something that isn't actually there, there's a word for that. Schizophrenia.


When you dream you see something that isn't actually there.
You aren't schizophrenic for it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> When you dream you see something that isn't actually there.
> You aren't schizophrenic for it.



We're not talking about dreaming or the unconscious, now are we? We're talking about the waking world, and how people think that when a doctor does his best to save someone's life, it's God they have to thank, not the doctor who put all his hard work and effort into saving a life.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> When you see reality as something that isn't actually there, there's a word for that. Schizophrenia.



Okay, between the ages of 10 and 13 I was schizophrenic. 

Myths and magic are just ideas that the brain generates- because that's one of its normal functions, cemented by emotional requirements of the brain that are part of normal function too. 

Now there are instances in which extreme religiosity is caused by physical differences in the brain, such as tumours. Those are_ not_ part of normal function and are pathological.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> We're not talking about dreaming or the unconscious, now are we? We're talking about the waking world, and how people think that when a doctor does his best to save someone's life, it's Godf they have to thank, not the doctor who put all his hard work and effort into saving a life.


You expect people to thank people who help them? Humans are horrible creatures.
Do you see people thanking waiter's all the time for their food? Sometimes some people won't thank the waiter. People almost never thank the chef at a restaurant for their food, despite the fact that he actually cooked it. People don't thank bank tellers for giving them their money. People don't thank store clerks for selling them things.
Everyone should thank other people for their things, but that just doesn't happen. It's not religion's fault.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I love this argument too, and it is indeed a good point.
> Though the argument is rather that religion causes too many problems and should be eradicated, is what people are saying.


Oh, yes! I was just talking about the "they gotta be crazy to be religious!" argument. I agree that religion in general very often does more harm than good.



Ahkmill said:


> When you see reality as something that isn't actually there, there's a word for that. Schizophrenia.


Considering the brain has dials as opposed to on/off switches for its behaviors and so most psychological disorders are actually a spectrum of conditions, I'd _expect _most people to be schizophrenic in some level.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> You expect people to thank people who help them? Humans are horrible creatures.
> Do you see people thanking waiter's all the time for their food? Sometimes some people won't thank the waiter. People almost never thank the chef at a restaurant for their food, despite the fact that he actually cooked it. People don't thank bank tellers for giving them their money. People don't thank store clerks for selling them things.
> Everyone should thank other people for their things, but that just doesn't happen. It's not religion's fault.


Yet you still "respect" these kinds of people...


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> You expect people to thank people who help them? Humans are horrible creatures.
> Do you see people thanking waiter's all the time for their food? Sometimes some people won't thank the waiter. People almost never thank the chef at a restaurant for their food, despite the fact that he actually cooked it. People don't thank bank tellers for giving them their money. People don't thank store clerks for selling them things.
> Everyone should thank other people for their things, but that just doesn't happen. It's not religion's fault.


It absolutely is. Today's society is a religious-based society. Our government, our constitution, and most morals are based on the existence of a higher power. That's why people say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. All modern society is based off of a religious beginning, and the fact that we're not growing up and doing things like thanking waitresses and doctors is a sign that religions is now an obsolete concept. It has become a hindrance to human evolution and human intelligence. It must be done away with if we're to move on as an intelligent and courteous species.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Yet you still "respect" these kinds of people...


Bingo. But people respect doctors too.
They just don't thank them, is what I'm saying.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Bingo. But people respect doctors too.
> They just don't thank them, is what I'm saying.


To not thank them is to be disrespectful.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> It absolutely is. Today's society is a religious-based society. Our government, our constitution, and most morals are based on the existence of a higher power. That's why people say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. All modern society is based off of a religious beginning, and the fact that we're not growing up and doing things like thanking waitresses and doctors is a sign that religions is now an obsolete concept. It has become a hindrance to human evolution and human intelligence. It must be done away with if we're to move on as an intelligent and courteous species.


So you are really trying to say that if people didn't have religion, people would thank other people more often?
Does anyone think this?

How is the fact that we aren't thanking people a sign that religion is obsolete? How do those two ideas correlate to each other?


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> To not thank them is to be disrespectful.


No, to be disrespectful would be to say something rude to them.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Bingo. But people respect doctors too.
> They just don't thank them, is what I'm saying.


Indeed, and people who don't thank are called assholes. I don't think assholes should be respected. I'm beginning to wonder how you got into a "school for the gifted" with all of your pointless arguments. Just because you excel academically doesn't mean you're above everyone else here.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> So you are really trying to say that if people didn't have religion, people would thank other people more often?
> Does anyone think this?
> 
> How is the fact that we aren't thanking people a sign that religion is obsolete? How do those two ideas correlate to each other?


With a lack of religion, common sense says that people will direct their priorities to a more humanistic approach. People don't care about each other anymore, mainly because of religious boundaries. Without religion, people will have more of a reason to focus on keeping each other happy. With the existence of religion, the happiness of human beings doesn't matter, only the happiness of God matters. 

When you focus your life on something like that, you're indirectly contributing to world ignorance and intolerance.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Indeed, and people who don't thank are called assholes. I don't think assholes should be respected. I'm beginning to wonder how you got into a "school for the gifted" with all of you pointless arguments. Just because you excel academically doesn't mean you are above everyone else here.


I'm not above anyone. No one is. Everyone on the planet is an equal.

EDIT: No, you would be an a-hole if you not only did not thank the doctor, but said something rude to him as well. And it isn't pointless. It's to say that religion has nothing to do with why people do and do not thank people.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I'm not above anyone. No one is. Everyone on the planet is an equal.



The bible tends to disagree with you there.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Religion as a whole can only be described as mass hysteria, and until we can get passed that, moving on scientifically is going to be very difficult.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> It absolutely is. Today's society is a religious-based society. Our government, our constitution, and most morals are based on the existence of a higher power. That's why people say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. All modern society is based off of a religious beginning, and the fact that we're not growing up and doing things like thanking waitresses and doctors is a sign that religions is now an obsolete concept. It has become a hindrance to human evolution and human intelligence. It must be done away with if we're to move on as an intelligent and courteous species.


Religion is indeed a cultural legacy that, while useful in the past to unite different people, is now often a hindrance. Unfortunately, it's not going to go away through a deliberate choice by us, and it will certainly not going to be a sudden change.

We have a deeply-ingrained need for stability and myth. Even if we ousted all ancient religions and instituted a new system based on rationality, observation and experimentation, soon new religions would rise. Why? Because then common knowledge would be enshrined as "truth", even though that concept doesn't really apply to reality, because we have need for it. And you would know they would be there once a theory was challenged. It already happens now, within the scientific community itself! Some researchers become so hell-bent on their own theories being right that they become blind to anything that challenges their perception of the truth. Expand that to an entire society and you'd have riots in the streets whenever someone attempted to add to the common pool of knowledge.

You know, just like the philosophers of the ancient times. Or the climate researchers nowadays.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> With a lack of religion, common sense says that people will direct their priorities to a more humanistic approach. People don't care about each other anymore, mainly because of religious boundaries. Without religion, people will have more of a reason to focus on keeping each other happy. With the existence of religion, the happiness of human beings doesn't matter, only the happiness of God matters.
> 
> When you focus your life on something like that, you're indirectly contributing to world ignorance and intolerance.


People nowadays barely put much effort into religion. Religion doesn't really dictate most people's lives anymore. People still care about each other, people are just genuinely selfish. Few people are actually extremely selfless and go out of their way to say something as simple and nice as "Thank you" to everyone who helps them.
Have you said thank you to everyone who's aided you in your argument?
I don't think so.
And neither have I.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Legends and philosophy are just fine. They are analogies for excellent morals and teachings much of the time. However, when you read"The Three Little Pigs" and actually believe that a pig built a large house out of bricks, you're going to be a problem.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The bible tends to disagree with you there.


I already stated that I don't put much stock in the Bible a few pages ago.
Plus, I don't read the Bible.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> People nowadays barely put much effort into religion. Religion doesn't really dictate most people's lives anymore. People still care about each other, people are just genuinely selfish. Few people are actually extremely selfless and go out of their way to say something as simple and nice as "Thank you" to everyone who helps them.
> Have you said thank you to everyone who's aided you in your argument?
> I don't think so.
> And neither have I.


What are you, smoking crack? Most of the world bases their ENTIRE LIVES on these religions. You may want to take a good look at the planet before making the argument that people barely focus on religion anymore. It's still the #1 driving force on the planet, and that hasn't changed in thousands of years.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I don't read the Bible.



Then why are you a Christian?

ALL of Christianity comes from the Bible. You know that, right?


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Legends and philosophy are just fine. They are analogies for excellent morals and teachings much of the time. However, when you read"The Three Little Pigs" and actually believe that a pig built a large house out of bricks, you're going to be a problem.


You are definining philosophy wrong. A philosophy is not the same thing as a legend. You have issues with legends, not philosophies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I already stated that I don't put much stock in the Bible a few pages ago.
> Plus, I don't read the Bible.


Isn't that what "Christ"ianity is though? Following Christ as described in the bible, of which you don't read.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> You are definining philosophy wrong. A philosophy is not the same thing as a legend. You have issues with legends, not philosophies.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy



I know the difference between the two, but they still have the same general principle. Stories and viewpoints put forward to promote a moral or thought.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> What are you, smoking crack? Most of the world bases their ENTIRE LIVES on these religions. You may want to take a good look at the planet before making the argument that people barely focus on religion anymore. It's still the #1 driving force on the planet, and that hasn't changed in thousands of years.


It's not the number one driving force behind anything. If anything, the number 1 driving force for anything on the planet is to have as good a life as possible. People work hard to make money to live well. People work hard to invent new inventions and discover new things. All to improve humanity.



Ahkmill said:


> Then why are you a Christian?
> 
> ALL of Christianity comes from the Bible. You know that, right?


Judaism existed before the Bible existed, if I'm right.
And Christianity comes from Judaism, just after Jesus lived on the planet.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Then why are you a Christian?
> 
> ALL of Christianity comes from the Bible. You know that, right?


You _do _realize most Christians haven't actually read the Bible, right? Religions can be (and often are!) passed down verbally. In fact, that's how it was done until very recently, when alphabetization became widespread. My greataunt has never read the bible in her life, yet she's one of the most devout people I know (and kinda insufferable for it). I wouldn't call her non-Christian just because she learned it from a priest as opposed to from a book.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> It's not the number one driving force behind anything. If anything, the number 1 driving force for anything on the planet is to have as good a life as possible. People work hard to make money to live well. People work hard to invent new inventions and discover new things. All to improve humanity.


See, there, you're just wrong. Religion has been the biggest force since the Dark Ages. People make more decisions based on religion than any other basis. 



Battlechili1 said:


> Judaism existed before the Bible existed, if I'm right.
> And Christianity comes from Judaism, just after Jesus lived on the planet.



That's Judaism. A different religion. Are you Jewish? Didn't think so.

We're talking about Christianity, which lies completely in the Bible. To be a Christian means you acknowledge some of what the Bible says supernaturally is true. That's just being a fool who believes in magic and fairy tales.


----------



## Azure (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Religion is indeed a cultural legacy that, while useful in the past to unite different people, is now often a hindrance. Unfortunately, it's not going to go away through a deliberate choice by us, and it will certainly not going to be a sudden change.
> 
> We have a deeply-ingrained need for stability and myth. Even if we ousted all ancient religions and instituted a new system based on rationality, observation and experimentation, soon new religions would rise. Why? Because then common knowledge would be enshrined as "truth", even though that concept doesn't really apply to reality, because we have need for it. And you would know they would be there once a theory was challenged. It already happens now, within the scientific community itself! Some researchers become so hell-bent on their own theories being right that they become blind to anything that challenges their perception of the truth. Expand that to an entire society and you'd have riots in the streets whenever someone attempted to add to the common pool of knowledge.
> 
> You know, just like the philosophers of the ancient times. Or the climate researchers nowadays.


i seriously doubt that a new religion is just going to spring out of absolutely nothing. and that whole idea of "we need something greater than us to believe in" is a part of the crutch that religion served as. WE are the greater things. WE can believe in ourselves. its sort of like prayer. little jimmy prays for a nintendo. one day, he gets one, and his prayer is answered. but GOD didnt do shit. mom and dad have jobs, saved money, and bought little jimmy his nintendo. there was nothing mystical about it. just like there is no need to create a myth about where you go when you die, when it is painstakingly obvious that you just rot in the ground and your part in the story is over forever. of course people are gonna say OMG YOU DONT KNOW THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN DEAD. but its pretty fucking logical, isnt it?

Also, the catholic church may be the most charitable organization on earth, but they mix every part of their charity with evangelism and conversion, and i think that charity would be done without it being the intermediary. so really that doesnt mean shit.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> You _do _realize most Christians haven't actually read the Bible, right? Religions can be (and often are!) passed down verbally. In fact, that's how it was done until very recently, when alphabetization became widespread. My greataunt has never read the bible in her life, yet she's one of the most devout people I know (and kinda insufferable for it). I wouldn't call her non-Christian just because she learned it from a priest as opposed to from a book.


And where did that priest learn it? A book.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> And where did that priest learn it? A book.


Or he could have just learned it from another priest, who learned it from another priest, who learned it from another priest, and so on, all the way back to before the Bible was even created.
Also, to answer you earlier: No, I'm not Jewish, but Christianity spawns from Judaism. Not just the Bible.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Or he could have just learned it from another priest, who learned it from another priest, who learned it from another priest, and so on, all the way back to before the Bible was even created.
> Also, to answer you earlier: No, I'm not Jewish, but Christianity spawns from Judaism. Not just the Bible.



The Bible includes Judaism, though, they're just as insane and idiotic as Christians. The 1st Testament of the Bible is the Torah. Christianity is 100% taken from the 2nd Testament, which made the Bible we know today. We even have 3rd Testament Christians, known as Mormons. And we all know how fucked up those morons are.

These religions just get stupider and stupider with each book added to the Bible. There are no priests who took their learning directly from Jesus, those teachings were never personally passed on and on. The only existence of these teachings is in one text, the Bible. It is the basis for all Christianity, and it has been since it was written.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> The Bible includes Judaism, though, they're just as insane and idiotic as Christians. The 1st Testament of the Bible is the Torah. Christianity is 100% taken from the 2nd Testament, which made the Bible we know today. We even have 3rd Testament Christians, known as Mormons. And we all know how fucked up those morons are.
> 
> These religions just get stupider and stupider with each book added to the Bible. There are no priests who took their learning directly from Jesus, those teachings were never personally passed on and on. The only existence of these teachings is in one text, the Bible. It is the basis for all Christianity, and it has been since it was written.


But then, you have to think, why was the New Testament written? Also, don't ridicule the Mormons either. They get flak from both inside and outside of Christianity, and its undeserved.
Also, fine, I"ll point this out. It matters less to me what's in the Bible than the fact that the Bible was created and what purpose it was created for. It's information inside? I may not put much stock in it, but I put stock in the reason for the Bible's creation and the fact that the Bible exists.

EDIT: Are threads on this forum always allowed to be this far derailed? I mean really, none of this is answering the poor OP's question.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> But then, you have to think, why was the New Testament written? Also, don't ridicule the Mormons either. They get flak from both inside and outside of Christianity, and its undeserved.


 BULL FUCKING SHIT IT'S UNDESERVED.



Battlechili1 said:


> Also, fine, I"ll point this out. It matters less to me what's in the Bible than the fact that the Bible was created and what purpose it was created for. It's information inside? I may not put much stock in it, but I put stock in the reason for the Bible's creation and the fact that the Bible exists.



That's just incredibly ignorant. That's just putting blind faith into something you barely understand. That's the definition of being a complete fool.


----------



## PuffyCatgirl (Mar 16, 2013)

It's times like this I'm glad I'm an Atheist.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

I don't even know why I'm still debating here. It's the same shit when you debate any religious person. They always recoil with nothing but ignorance and stubbornness. Not once can they ever actually back up what they say with intelligent reasoning. It's always blind faith in something because they're too ignorant to look at the world realistically. This entire debate has done nothing to prove me wrong on that thought.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> BULL FUCKING SHIT IT'S UNDESERVED.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just incredibly ignorant. That's just putting blind faith into something you barely understand. That's the definition of being a complete fool.


Be honest with me here: If you read some really complex article about something new discovered in science, but it uses so many terms you don't understand, and you don't really feel like looking them all up because it would take a while and the information in them would also be very complicated, would you still believe them?
I think I would.
Though admittedly I really should look up what those things I don't understand mean.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Azure said:


> i seriously doubt that a new religion is just going to spring out of absolutely nothing. and that whole idea of "we need something greater than us to believe in" is a part of the crutch that religion served as. WE are the greater things. WE can believe in ourselves. its sort of like prayer. little jimmy prays for a nintendo. one day, he gets one, and his prayer is answered. but GOD didnt do shit. mom and dad have jobs, saved money, and bought little jimmy his nintendo. there was nothing mystical about it. just like there is no need to create a myth about where you go when you die, when it is painstakingly obvious that you just rot in the ground and your part in the story is over forever. of course people are gonna say OMG YOU DONT KNOW THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN DEAD. but its pretty fucking logical, isnt it?
> 
> Also, the catholic church may be the most charitable organization on earth, but they mix every part of their charity with evangelism and conversion, and i think that charity would be done without it being the intermediary. so really that doesnt mean shit.


There's no need to be snarky with me, I'm not defending religion. What I _am _saying is that it's going to be pretty hard to keep it down because of basic human psychology. We're hardwired to follow hierarchy, myth and authority, even going so far to create those when none exist. That's why we as a species so readily accept cults of personality, or things like homeopathy or acupuncture, or kooky cults that preach suicide is the only way out.

The problem is believing logic is going to solve all the problems religion brings. Unfortunately, it's been pretty handily proven that _it won't_. We humans aren't fully logical. All we can do is try to contain and minimize the damage our irrationality causes -- be it through religion, pseudoscience, quackery, racism, intolerance, and so on -- as best we can. Believing we can, as we are today, actually put religion and religious-like thinking behind us is just as deluded as being religious yourself. We'd need to evolve some more before we can do that, and sadly natural selection doesn't work with us anymore.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> Be honest with me here: If you read some really complex article about something new discovered in science, but it uses so many terms you don't understand, and you don't really feel like looking them all up because it would take a while and the information in them would also be very complicated, would you still believe them?
> I think I would.
> Though admittedly I really should look up what those things I don't understand mean.



That's the thing. I'd fucking look shit up. I'm not dumb enough to just believe something I don't understand. I actually do my research on things, which is something more people should do.

Anyway, I'm out, I'm talking to a brick wall. I hope you can grow up someday soon and start taking real life over fairy tales.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I don't even know why I'm still debating here. It's the same shit when you debate any religious person. They always recoil with nothing but ignorance and stubbornness. Not once can they ever actually back up what they say with intelligent reasoning. It's always blind faith in something because they're too ignorant to look at the world realistically. This entire debate has done nothing to prove me wrong on that thought.


I'm still debating here because I have a never give up attitude.
It's not the same, actually, and you've been doing the exact same thing. You've been proven wrong on multiple points brought up here, such as when you said more than half the country was made up of creationists, which I falsified by something as simple as a google search.
We've both, in different words, have been saying the exact same things here from the very beginning, and both of us are still here. And I did back up what I said with reasoning on things. For example, I did that google search and backed up what I said using links telling how many people are creationists.
This is but one example.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> That's the thing. I'd fucking look shit up. I'm not dumb enough to just believe something I don't understand. I actually do my research on things, which is something more people should do.


Ah, so you're measuring others by your own standards! Big mistake. Most people _are _dumb enough to just believe something they don't understand. Or do you think most people know why the sun rises? Or, hell... do you think they understand how their government and tax systems work?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I'm still debating here because I have a never give up attitude.
> It's not the same, actually, and you've been doing the exact same thing. You've been proven wrong on multiple points brought up here, such as when you said more than half the country was made up of creationists, which I falsified by something as simple as a google search.



I already admitted to being mistaken with that fact, dude. You need to pay more attention. 


Battlechili1 said:


> We've both, in different words, have been saying the exact same things here from the very beginning, and both of us are still here. And I did back up what I said with reasoning on things. For example, I did that google search and backed up what I said using links telling how many people are creationists.
> This is but one example.


That example doesn't prove God's existence. You're still wrong, have been proven wrong many times, but refuse to acknowledge it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Ah, so you're measuring others by your own standards! Big mistake. Most people _are _dumb enough to just believe something they don't understand. Or do you think most people know why the sun rises? Or, hell... do you think they understand how their government and tax systems work?


See, that's the problem! There are people this dumb, but it's something that can be fixzed with proper education. We need to focus on teaching people about the world. Cut churches, put more funding into proper schooling, as well as find a way to provide said schooling for anybody who needs it, regardless of their financial status.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

I never said I could prove God's existence.
I can't.
Neither can such an idea be proven wrong.
And thus brings in Russell's Teapot, which states that when one presents a new idea one must have evidence.
And such a thing is flawed because of the fact that one can say something out of thin air and it still be correct.
It just hasn't been proven.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm a Christian.
I could be an agnostic for all I care and still defend religion. My beliefs are very close to agnosticism. Close, not quite there of course, however, if I was agnostic, I'd still defend religion.
The reason: It's not the cause of all the world's problems.
That is why I am here, that is why I am fighting.
I'm not here to prove religion right. I can't. I'm here to prove that religion doesn't cause all the world's problems.
I could be full blown atheist and do that.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Well then, you're just incredibly ignorant at this point in your life. You'll learn.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> See, that's the problem! There are people this dumb, but it's something that can be fixzed with proper education. We need to focus on teaching people about the world. Cut churches, put more funding into proper schooling, as well as find a way to provide said schooling for anybody who needs it, regardless of their financial status.


Sheesh, that's expensive! Besides, where's the profit to be made with a smart, critically-thinking population?! :V

Seriously, though... I've seen very well-educated people believing in very stupid things. It's just the way of things. But you do bring up half the solution. Education will take you halfway into getting rid of non-critical thinking. The other half is _prosperity_. Happy, comfortable people are far less likely to turn to emotional crutches like narcotics, cults of personality or religion. And I'm not even talking about just physical belongings. That happiness and comfort has to come from cultural aspects as well, from a culture that emphasizes personal and collective happiness as well as rationalism. There will always be dissidents, of course. Again, it's just the way of things.

The more I think about things, the more I think Brave New World might be closer to the mark than we realize...


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Sheesh, that's expensive! Besides, where's the profit to be made with a smart, critically-thinking population?! :V
> 
> Seriously, though... I've seen very well-educated people believing in very stupid things. It's just the way of things. But you do bring up half the solution. Education will take you halfway into getting rid of non-critical thinking. The other half is _prosperity_. *Happy, comfortable people are far less likely to turn to emotional crutches like narcotics, cults of personality or religion.* And I'm not even talking about just physical belongings. That happiness and comfort has to come from cultural aspects as well, from a culture that emphasizes personal and collective happiness as well as rationalism. There will always be dissidents, of course. Again, it's just the way of things.
> 
> The more I think about things, the more I think Brave New World might be closer to the mark than we realize...


And that is why I say that religion is not the reason people do the things they do.
That's why I said that the main driving force in the world is to try and live comfortably.


----------



## Azure (Mar 16, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> There's no need to be snarky with me, I'm not defending religion. What I _am _saying is that it's going to be pretty hard to keep it down because of basic human psychology. We're hardwired to follow hierarchy, myth and authority, even going so far to create those when none exist. That's why we as a species so readily accept cults of personality, or things like homeopathy or acupuncture, or kooky cults that preach suicide is the only way out.
> 
> The problem is believing logic is going to solve all the problems religion brings. Unfortunately, it's been pretty handily proven that _it won't_. We humans aren't fully logical. All we can do is try to contain and minimize the damage our irrationality causes -- be it through religion, pseudoscience, quackery, racism, intolerance, and so on -- as best we can. Believing we can, as we are today, actually put religion and religious-like thinking behind us is just as deluded as being religious yourself. We'd need to evolve some more before we can do that, and sadly natural selection doesn't work with us anymore.


if we are hardwired that way, then WHY DONT I NEED THAT SHIT? i must be the next evolution, yo. shit is so fucking cash. the answer is that we arent hardwired that way, we are beaten into submission by our respective societies and cultures to be that way. its not a question of nature, its the nurture aspect that makes us illogical, fearful, shallow minded cunts.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I never said I could prove God's existence.
> I can't.
> Neither can such an idea be proven wrong.
> And thus brings in Russell's Teapot, which states that when one presents a new idea one must have evidence.
> ...



You can make a stipulation out of thin air that just happens to be correct. 
I can make a contradictorary stipulation that happens to be wrong.

In reality there are a million stipulations and nobody knows which are wrong and which are right.

Without any evidence how do you propose we go about distinguishing one from the other? 

This is why the Teapot is useful. Until ideas have merit they shall not be part of our puzzle of knowledge. Because just like a real puzzle the pieces you put down determine whether you can continue the puzzle properlly. 

If you put down pieces face down, so you can't see the pictures, and fit them together for the hell of it because there's an outside chance they could be right...well you're not going to have much of a shot at solving the puzzle.


Furthermore...who on earth is arguing religion is responsible for every single problem in the world? Who is saying this?


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 16, 2013)

Hey, I have a great idea. Why don't we all just cool down and accept the fact that everyone is different?  Come on guys, we can do better than this, everyone has different beliefs and opinions. Can we please just tolerate each other? Is that so hard? All you guys are doing is constantly arguing with each other and no one is getting anywhere. We've all clearly stated our stance on the subject, but you guys continue to fight about it and now this thread has become a spiralling maelstrom of hate, ridicule, and mockery. Can we please just set our differences aside and let this bickering fade away? Sure, this thread has some good points on religion, but you guys have turned it into a silly argument that only succeeds in making people angry and less likely to want to be your friend.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Drac, like, nobody here is hating each other. It's called a debate. They happen. Do I think Chili is a shithead? No, I think he's someone who is mistaken, but firm in his beliefs. Calm down, bro.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> Hey, I have a great idea. Why don't we all just cool down and accept the fact that everyone is different?  Come on guys, we can do better than this, everyone has different beliefs and opinions. Can we please just tolerate each other? Is that so hard? All you guys are doing is constantly arguing with each other and no one is getting anywhere. We've all clearly stated our stance on the subject, but you guys continue to fight about it and now this thread has become a spiralling maelstrom of hate, ridicule, and mockery. Can we please just set our differences aside and let this bickering fade away? Sure, this thread has some good points on religion, but you guys have turned it into a silly argument that only succeeds in making people angry and less likely to want to be your friend.



Arguing is rather the point. If everyone agreed that we all have different views and left it at that that would be insanely dull. 

If that's what you personally prefer, nobody is forcing you to read and contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

There's hardly even been any insults thrown.

You're waaaaaay over-exaggerating, buddy.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

I just came back after watching some TV. So....what did I miss?
By the way.
Does all this arguing on the thread not pertaining to the OP's question count as thread derailment?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I just came back after watching some TV. So....what did I miss?
> By the way.
> Does all this arguing on the thread not pertaining to the OP's question count as thread derailment?


Who gives a damn? Threads were meant to be derailed.


Not to mention the OP's question is fucking retarded.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 16, 2013)

Battlechili1 said:


> I just came back after watching some TV. So....what did I miss?
> By the way.
> Does all this arguing on the thread not pertaining to the OP's question count as thread derailment?



No, because whether or not hell even exists is rather relevant to his question.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Who gives a damn? Threads were meant to be derailed.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the OP's question is fucking retarded.


Fair enough. xD

EDIT:


Fallowfox said:


> No, because whether or not hell even exists is rather relevant to his question.


Perhaps so.

EDIT2:


Ahkmill said:


> Drac, like, nobody here is hating each other. It's called a debate. They happen. *Do I think Chili is a shithead? No, I think he's someone who is mistaken, but firm in his beliefs.* Calm down, bro.


Good to know. Glad to see I'm not hated.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Arguing is rather the point. If everyone agreed that we all have different views and left it at that that would be insanely dull.
> 
> If that's what you personally prefer, nobody is forcing you to read and contribute to the discussion.



It would not be insanely dull, it would keep us from having pointless arguments and would allow us to be more tolerant of each other. I'm not saying people should never talk about something they disagree on, I'm just saying there's no use arguing about something that someone WANTS to believe. All that does is make them mad. But, if someone enters a discussion with an open mind and are willing to take some advice then the argument becomes a harmless and potentially useful discussion.

But I doubt any of that is going to have any meaning to most people in this thread since no one wants to give a shit what anyone says and just argue for the sake of arguing, and you're probably just going to tell me that I'm completely wrong about everything I'm saying, so I'll just take your advice and stop posting.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

How butthurt can you get? You're literally the only one making a fuss about all this. We're the ones with the opposing views, we're the ones arguing, and yet we're the ones who seem to be more logical and tolerant because of it. Get over yourself.


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 16, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> It would not be insanely dull, it would keep us from having pointless arguments and would allow us to be more tolerant of each other. I'm not saying people should never talk about something they disagree on, I'm just saying there's no use arguing about something that someone WANTS to believe. All that does is make them mad. But, if someone enters a discussion with an open mind and are willing to take some advice then the argument becomes a harmless and potentially useful discussion.
> 
> But I doubt any of that is going to have any meaning to most people in this thread since no one wants to give a shit what anyone says and just argue for the sake of arguing, and you're probably just going to tell me that I'm completely wrong about everything I'm saying, so I'll just take your advice and stop posting.


I kind of agree with you. The arguing ought' to stop, I think. But it kind of already has. xD All that's going on now is a bunch of people posting innappropriate pictures in the thread for the sake of comedy. The argument's ended, at least for now.


----------



## -={Dracimonde}=- (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> How butthurt can you get? You're literally the only one making a fuss about all this. We're the ones with the opposing views, we're the ones arguing, and yet we're the ones who seem to be more logical and tolerant because of it. Get over yourself.



I was talking about some of the comments CaptainCool, Azure, and a few other people were making. This thread is for some reason being posted on every ten seconds, so after being away for a day a whole bunch of other people come to this thread and flood it with new posts. But if you guys are actually talking in a sensible manner and not just repeating everything you say while bashing each others opinions and beliefs with destructive criticism unlike previous posters then I appologize for making it sound like I was accusing you of something.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

That whole posting of penises just speak volumes about the maturity of some people. And I know said people probably don't give a care, since it's "Teh Internet", but still, come on guys. 

And some people wonder why the outside world doesn't like furs.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> That whole posting of penises just speak volumes about the maturity of some people. And I know said people probably don't give a care, since it's "Teh Internet", but still, come on guys.
> 
> And some people wonder why the outside world doesn't like furs.



>thinks that human anatomy is vulgar

>calling others immature

>thinking that people don't like furries because of sexual humor and not because most furries are maladjusted sperglets.

P.S. this thread stopped being mature a long time ago (page 2 probably).


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahh, the classic putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying that the human anatomy is vulgar -- but do keep in mind that there is a time and place for things, and erected penises in the middle of an argument of religion due to some arbitrary spur of the moment is not the time nor the place. And so what if I want to call others mature? You have a problem with that? Or do you think there's something not immature of going "Lol, post penises cause it's lolz!"? 

And I know that people don't like furries for other reasons besides all the hypersexuality.


----------



## Car Fox (Mar 16, 2013)

I'm totally lost... whta exactly are we talking about? I guess it's just one of those things whre even though the question proposed has been answered numerous time, it board is fed on by other relating subjects.

This turned into a talk shelf about Christianity, and it's corlation with furries.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Ahh, the classic putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying that the human anatomy is vulgar -- but do keep in mind that there is a time and place for things, and erected penises in the middle of an argument of religion due to some arbitrary spur of the moment is not the time nor the place. And so what if I want to call others mature? You have a problem with that? Or do you think there's something not immature of going "Lol, post penises cause it's lolz!"?
> 
> And I know that people don't like furries for other reasons besides all the hypersexuality.



Penises are appropriate at all times on the internet, are you new or something?

And no, no problem; by all means continue harboring that stick up your ass


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 16, 2013)

You two could have atleast made them rainbow dicks. I raised you better than that.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 16, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> You two could have atleast made them rainbow dicks. I raised you better than that.



But I made it pink in your honor.

Man I get no credit around here. :[


----------



## Artillery Spam (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Ahh, the classic putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying that the human anatomy is vulgar -- but do keep in mind that there is a time and place for things, and *erected penises in the middle of an argument of religion due to some arbitrary spur of the moment is not the time nor the place. *And so what if I want to call others mature? You have a problem with that? Or do you think there's something not immature of going "Lol, post penises cause it's lolz!"?
> 
> And I know that people don't like furries for other reasons besides all the hypersexuality.



Sure it is. 

Arguments about religion on the internet usually turn into an either an atheist circle jerk or one big sermon in disguise.

The posting of dicks reinforces the fact that debates about religion on the internet are dumb as shit, and that they always end up being one big pile of fail in the end.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 16, 2013)

[yt]xwtdhWltSIg[/yt]

[yt]BB-W7jIeobU[/yt]


----------



## Golden (Mar 16, 2013)

-={Dracimonde}=- said:


> It would not be insanely dull, it would keep us from having pointless arguments and would allow us to be more tolerant of each other. I'm not saying people should never talk about something they disagree on, I'm just saying there's no use arguing about something that someone WANTS to believe. All that does is make them mad. But, if someone enters a discussion with an open mind and are willing to take some advice then the argument becomes a harmless and potentially useful discussion.  But I doubt any of that is going to have any meaning to most people in this thread since no one wants to give a shit what anyone says and just argue for the sake of arguing, and you're probably just going to tell me that I'm completely wrong about everything I'm saying, so I'll just take your advice and stop posting.


  inb4 arguing about arguing... Oh wait... nevermind.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 17, 2013)

Trying to go back to the previous discussion...



Azure said:


> if we are hardwired that way, then WHY DONT I NEED THAT SHIT? i must be the next evolution, yo. shit is so fucking cash. the answer is that we arent hardwired that way, we are beaten into submission by our respective societies and cultures to be that way. its not a question of nature, its the nurture aspect that makes us illogical, fearful, shallow minded cunts.


Honestly? Your hostility seems to be playing the supporting role religion is usually there for just fine. Alternatively, you could just be one of the many exceptions, although I'd easily call your rude language illogical. After all, it does nothing to get your point across. But I digress.

I'm not just talking about religion, I'm talking about psychological crutches people develop, which all come from very similar mechanisms. You can very well create a society that's free of all of today's organized religions, but the human tendency to lean on irrational actions and/or traditions for the sake of feeling better about a world that is at best indifferent and at worst brutally hostile to them will remain in some shape or form. If it isn't religion, it'll be drugs/hedonism (Brave New World). Or factional violence (Clockwork Orange). Or an external threat/insidious enemy (1984).

Simply put, we humans are driven partly by our need to belong to a group that is bigger than ourselves. That is why we (as a species, there are obviously outliers) tend to gather up and cluster around shared interests, and also to always develop an irrational "us vs. them" mentality. Why? Because humans and their ancestors have never worked too well alone in the wilderness. It's always been an evolutionary sound strategy to gather in groups so tasks could be shared and mutual protection achieved. It's also been useful to restrict those groups to reasonably small sizes, so they could be more easily managed, both mentally and socially. A groups grows until it becomes unstable, then splits up and the two resulting groups become hostile to each other, for often the most frivolous reasons. In the past it was about tribes. Then it moved up to religions. Then national identities. Now it's subcultures. And it keeps going. 

There _are_ certain behaviors that are hardwired into humans. They can be controlled, suppressed or rerouted, depending on the methods used and the individual being affected. But to change large populations you'll need to make an effort to change or repress basic human psychology. Be it through drugs, conditioning and enforcement, actual biological interference. But don't make the foolish assumption all people can be rational by themselves just because you did it.


----------



## Azure (Mar 17, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Trying to go back to the previous discussion...
> 
> Honestly? Your hostility seems to be playing the supporting role religion is usually there for just fine. Alternatively, you could just be one of the many exceptions, although I'd easily call your rude language illogical. After all, it does nothing to get your point across. But I digress.
> 
> ...


i would think that the removal of the conditioning that enforced this behavior in the first place would be ideal. of course people lean on things, but it is the harm principal i am thinking of. religion and the mentality it creates is harmful in many of its manifestations. people cant simply be happy to be part of the human race at large? thats the biggest group of all. as far as a psychological crutch, there are tons of them out there that bring harm only upon ones self or a spare few people, instead of a blanket crutch that can reach out and affect every facet of a persons life even if they espouse none of the beliefs that said crutch entails. the world is no less brutal and indifferent when one leans upon the illusory, facetious, and illogical. i would argue that a more personal crutch is much more beneficial to society as a whole than a crutch that has such wide reaching implications as religion does. and that it doesnt take very many simple mental steps to lay one down and pick up another. which is why there needs to be an effort made at reconditioning basic human behaviors. or we are all gonna kill each other over dumb shit, even though i think well end up killing each other over important shit down the road anyway.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

If I may interrupt some people's illusion of moral highground, the reason that threads about religion 'disintergrate' is because a large portion of people spend almost all of their time whining about how pointless the discussion is. 

Some people actually want to have an interesting discussion, without having to spend half their time batting off feely individuals who think that even discussing religion from any plinth other than 'we should all respect one another's beliefs [and therefore not criticism them]' is a form of persecution. 

Jokes are constantly made about the idea of fursecution, but the defunkt middle ground fallacies perpetually proposed to try to interrupt discussions about religion make this appear to be a genuine mole hill in comparrison to the emotionally sensitive mountain of goo that is any discussion with the G word in it. 

If you don't find religious discussions interesting or productive, or to have any function at all, then you are not required to post in them and most of all not required to try to force them into remission because of your own personal tastes in conversation.

Go post in threads about things *you *want to discuss.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 17, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If I may interrupt some people's illusion of moral highground, the reason that threads about religion 'disintergrate' is because a large portion of people spend almost all of their time whining about how pointless the discussion is.



_It is pretty pointless. _You're trying to use logic to argue something that isn't based on logic.

If I feel that way, I should be free to express it =P

As for religion not being hardwired... Realize there are plenty of tribes that have been found still in a paleolithic state with religious and spiritual views. If we didn't have an innate disposition to form these myths and guess at the unknown you wouldn't have all these separate cultures that formed at different times that almost ubiquitously held some sort of spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

Ricky said:


> _It is pretty pointless. _You're trying to use logic to argue something that isn't based on logic.
> 
> If I feel that way, I should be free to express it =P
> 
> As for religion not being hardwired... Realize there are plenty of tribes that have been found still in a paleolithic state with religious and spiritual views. If we didn't have an innate disposition to form these myths and guess at the unknown you wouldn't have all these separate cultures that formed at different times that almost ubiquitously held some sort of spiritual beliefs.



A decent portion of all metaphysical and philosophical discussions are without any sign of a resolution or objective. They're still interesting to discuss, and people who disagree don't have to interject insisting that everyone else halt discussion, if anything _this_ is pointless. 

There are also tribes, such as the Hadza, who have no spiritual beliefs. Until recently they did not even bury their dead. 
I however agree that people do have an innate disposition to invest their emotions in myths and legends, especially since the functions of these beliefs have pretty much no negative influence on hunter gatherer people's survival and arguably increase it; it doesn't matter whether a sense of community comes from the fact they all drink fermented horse urine or worship the moon, that strengthens their bonds and alienates outsiders who could be threats.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 17, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> A decent portion of all metaphysical and philosophical discussions are without any sign of a resolution or objective. They're still interesting to discuss, and people who disagree don't have to interject insisting that everyone else halt discussion, if anything _this_ is pointless.



Oh, totally. That's a ridiculous assertion anyway.



Fallowfox said:


> There are also tribes, such as the Hadza, who have no spiritual beliefs. Until recently they did not even bury their dead.
> I however agree that people do have an innate disposition to invest their emotions in myths and legends, especially since the functions of these beliefs have pretty much no negative influence on hunter gatherer people's survival and arguably increase it; it doesn't matter whether a sense of community comes from the fact they all drink fermented horse urine or worship the moon, that strengthens their bonds and alienates outsiders who could be threats.



Yeah, I looked them up and it seems they had mythology.

I guess that's the same concept, just make it more abstract.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

Thanks for that information on the hadza mythology, I wasn't aware of that. I suppose it really is inevitably that people, given enough time, invent myths and legends.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 17, 2013)

Yep. We work in weird ways. And even when it's not made-up stuff, we still invent our own mythology. Allow me to invoke Godwin's Law into this thread, again:

Take Adolf Hitler. He's nowadays seen as basically Satan to a lot of people, even non-religious people. He certainly did _a lot_ of evil in his time. But there are a handful of other gentlemen of ill disposition who have killed way more people in total, or with even worse methods. And yet you very rarely find games in which you fight a power-armor-wearing, quad-minigun-wielding Joseph Stalin. Or Pol Pot, for that matter. And Stalin even had an iconic mustache to go along with it! You'd expect him to be just as common a target as Hitler, but Hitler was raised to almost mythical status in popular culture as some sort of secular, ridiculous satanic figure in less than a century for a multitude of factors (exposure, wartime alliances, many Jews actually _surviving _hell to tell the tale, etc...). It was entirely deserved, but others who have done similar (or even worse, in some aspects) things did not get the same treatment when they rationally _should _have.

Lacking a mythology, we'll very often create one with what we have on hand.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 17, 2013)

I think people in the Western World relate to Hitler a lot more, too.

People in China might talk about Pol Pot in the same way. I really don't know.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 17, 2013)

Considering the sheer amount of negative publicity the Soviet Union got through the entire Cold War, I'm surprised Stalin didn't get the attention he deserved. Even though his operations were more or less hidden within the borders of the Soviet Union, it wasn't any secret that he killed and gulag'd people left, right and center, and that the Holodomor had happened under his watch (and very likely guidance).

Meanwhile, Pol Pot is virtually unheard of out of southeast Asia. And nope, China wouldn't talk about a guy they actively defended (they invaded Vietnam after Vietnam ousted Pol Pot from power in Cambodia).


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 17, 2013)

ur all defs goin 2 hell

666hailsatanhailsatan666420420420


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 18, 2013)

Ahkmill, I just now thought of this. You claimed that no religious person ever proves you wrong, yet a few pages back I actually did. You claimed that the bible states the world is 6,000 years old, leading others to believe that also. However, I pointed out that the bible never states how old the earth is -- I don't think it even gives an estimate. Rather, some sect or another (namely the Young Earth Creationists) used some kind of calculation to push the idea that the earth was 6k years old.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Ahkmill, I just now thought of this. You claimed that no religious person ever proves you wrong, yet a few pages back I actually did. You claimed that the bible states the world is 6,000 years old, leading others to believe that also. However, I pointed out that the bible never states how old the earth is -- I don't think it even gives an estimate. Rather, some sect or another (namely the Young Earth Creationists) used some kind of calculation to push the idea that the earth was 6k years old.



To my knowledge this is true. 

For some reason the utterance of some obscure sect is more important to a significant portion of the world than all of modern geology and archaeology.


----------



## Machine (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm all for taxing the fuck out of $cientology's churches.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> To my knowledge this is true.
> 
> For some reason the utterance of some obscure sect is more important to a significant portion of the world than all of modern geology and archaeology.



Well, at least there's _some_ Christians out there who'd agree with you on that. Not everyone who's a creationist believes in what the YECs say, and from what I've seen there's a good number of non-Christians who seem to think that Creationist automatically means you think the world's only 6,000 years old. I myself and a few other Christians don't buy that YEC nonsense.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Ahkmill, I just now thought of this. You claimed that no religious person ever proves you wrong, yet a few pages back I actually did. You claimed that the bible states the world is 6,000 years old, leading others to believe that also. However, I pointed out that the bible never states how old the earth is -- I don't think it even gives an estimate. Rather, some sect or another (namely the Young Earth Creationists) used some kind of calculation to push the idea that the earth was 6k years old.


That isn't really proving me wrong. It's just saying "Oh, they're stupid just like you think, just not for the exact reasons."


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, at least there's _some_ Christians out there who'd agree with you on that. Not everyone who's a creationist believes in what the YECs say, and from what I've seen there's a good number of non-Christians who seem to think that Creationist automatically means you think the world's only 6,000 years old. I myself and a few other Christians don't buy that YEC nonsense.



Yes, I am aware of this group, instead called 'OEC' or 'old earth creationists' my experience of them is that they are similarly bent on perverting science to jam gods into it, all be it to a less overt and ridiculous extent to the YEC. 

Claims that 'god started the big bang' or 'guided evolution' for instance, which are simply painful to process from a scientific point of view because many of these claims are very vague and unfalsifiable.


----------



## ADF (Mar 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Yes, I am aware of this group, instead called 'OEC' or 'old earth creationists' my experience of them is that they are similarly bent on perverting science to jam gods into it, all be it to a less overt and ridiculous extent to the YEC.
> 
> Claims that 'god started the big bang' or 'guided evolution' for instance, which are simply painful to process from a scientific point of view because many of these claims are very vague and unfalsifiable.



They're basically running out of gaps for God to occupy, so instead of trying to beat science they claim God created science. That science is discovering how God did things, ignoring the inconvenient fact that the likes of evolution explain away the need for a God...


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 18, 2013)

I don't get why God _couldn't_ have a hand in science. Though I'm thinking it in the fashion of if God created the world, then he must have created science, right? And not really "Oh look science proves god!" 

The idea that He started the big bang is something that I've thought about before. Actually as a fun fact, when this was first theorized, some scientists actually _discredited_ it because they felt that it was "too biblical". But guiding evolution? Now I believe God gave his creatures the power to adapt (It'd be kinda mean to not give his creatures the power to adapt and evolve depending on what happened). I don't believe he actively guides it though. Kinda sounds like something those who say "Anything that happens is God's Will!" would say.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

It's not the fact that God could or couldn't have had a hand in science.

It's that most of the world says he did, hands down, no doubt. That's mass idiocy if I ever saw it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 18, 2013)

Well if you believe in God, why should they not believe that he did, hands down no doubt, especially if you're committed to him? I mean I know to you that "Religion=Person is Retarded", but still. I think it makes sense that if you believe in God you believe that he had a hand in science/designed it, especially since those people beleive he created the darn place.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well if you believe in God, why should they not believe that he did, hands down no doubt, especially if you're committed to him? I mean I know to you that "Religion=Person is Retarded", but still. I think it makes sense that if you believe in God you believe that he had a hand in science/designed it, especially since those people beleive he created the darn place.



Because it's absolutely retarded to put all of your faith in something that has literally no evidence.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I don't get why God _couldn't_ have a hand in science. Though I'm thinking it in the fashion of if God created the world, then he must have created science, right? And not really "Oh look science proves god!"
> 
> The idea that He started the big bang is something that I've thought about before. Actually as a fun fact, when this was first theorized, some scientists actually _discredited_ it because they felt that it was "too biblical". But guiding evolution? Now I believe God gave his creatures the power to adapt (It'd be kinda mean to not give his creatures the power to adapt and evolve depending on what happened). I don't believe he actively guides it though. Kinda sounds like something those who say "Anything that happens is God's Will!" would say.


I really like one of Carl Sagan's quotes on the matter:
_
The idea that God  is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and  tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means  the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there  is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make  much sense to pray to the law of gravity._ 

If you really want to say that God created the laws that govern all physical interactions in our universe and then stepped out and does not interfere anymore... then what is the purpose of that God? It could be a form of Spinoza's God, but at that point we'd be arguing semantics and not actual physical phenomena, and so it could never be proven or disproven (and likely not even debated, as at that point it's more or less just a personal choice). A God like the one you described would not make any miracles, neither it would answer any prayers. It's more an anthropomorphization of the collective "universe" than an actual being worthy of/demanding worship.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 18, 2013)

Well, we already went through that you think "Belief in God=Retarded". We know. Please refrain from stating yourself over and over. That'd be like if we were arguing about gun control and you kept stating a fact over and over and over again. We know, you think that those people are retarded, we get it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, we already went through that you think "Belief in God=Retarded". We know. Please refrain from stating yourself over and over. That'd be like if we were arguing about gun control and you kept stating a fact over and over and over again. We know, you think that those people are retarded, we get it.


I think everybody who tries to say that they know anything about a higher power beyond what I know is retarded. Nobody has psychic powers that I don't have, and I see no evidence that proves there is or is not a God. Taking a sure stance on either side, whether it be Theistic or Atheistic, is 100% pure unadulterated idiocy. Always will be.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 18, 2013)

Well, the world is full of idiots.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, the world is full of idiots.



Yes, and through religion, these idiots band together and try to run countries and communities. THAT'S why I'm so anti-religious. It's simply promoting such needless idiocy as something that's not only acceptable, but preferred.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 18, 2013)

Ahkmill, we went through this before. Your ideals are great, but I think that for every theist your arguments convince you have about a hundred who only take a sharper turn towards their beliefs. Inflammatory speech is very much like religion: it does more harm than good in the long run.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Ahkmill, we went through this before. Your ideals are great, but I think that for every theist your arguments convince you have about a hundred who only take a sharper turn towards their beliefs. Inflammatory speech is very much like religion: it does more harm than good in the long run.


And the fucks I give are so unbelievably little, not even an amoeba could find them.

I speak with vulgarity. That's just how my lexicon is constructed. Fuck is a sacred word for me, I get offended when it's censored. I'm not a grand speech master who expects to have hundreds of thousands of followers. I'm just a comedian pointing her finger at the world and laughing at how retarded it is.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 18, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I don't get why God _couldn't_ have a hand in science. Though I'm thinking it in the fashion of if God created the world, then he must have created science, right? And not really "Oh look science proves god!"
> 
> The idea that He started the big bang is something that I've thought about before. Actually as a fun fact, when this was first theorized, some scientists actually _discredited_ it because they felt that it was "too biblical". But guiding evolution? Now I believe God gave his creatures the power to adapt (It'd be kinda mean to not give his creatures the power to adapt and evolve depending on what happened). I don't believe he actively guides it though. Kinda sounds like something those who say "Anything that happens is God's Will!" would say.



If we attribute a supernatural explanation to the natural not only is this unnecessary and un-elegant, but it's also vague and unhelpful. 

If we make space for a God, why not for wizards and magic and flying spaghetti monsters? 

No predictive power or further understanding is gained, all that happens is the pollution of science with unjustified mythology and anthropomorphism. It's taken centuries to get those things_ out_ of science like a persistant speck on the lens of a telescope.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 18, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> And the fucks I give are so unbelievably little, not even an amoeba could find them.
> 
> I speak with vulgarity. That's just how my lexicon is constructed. Fuck is a sacred word for me, I get offended when it's censored. I'm not a grand speech master who expects to have hundreds of thousands of followers. I'm just a comedian pointing her finger at the world and laughing at how retarded it is.


A comedian, eh? Might wanna work on your repertoire, because "obnoxious" and "disruptive" do not mean "funny".

Still, the forum has an "ignore" function for a reason. If this is what I have to expect from you, I might as well use it and spare myself the effort of having to parse out your posts. Good night.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> A comedian, eh? Might wanna work on your repertoire, because "obnoxious" and "disruptive" do not mean "funny".
> 
> Still, the forum has an "ignore" function for a reason. If this is what I have to expect from you, I might as well use it and spare myself the effort of having to parse out your posts. Good night.



Awesome, I don't really give a fuck either way. I also don't give a fuck what you find funny. I'm not here for your enjoyment.

Now then, back on topic. Yes, being a furry does make you go to hell. It draws you to FAF.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 18, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> A comedian, eh? Might wanna work on your repertoire, because "obnoxious" and "disruptive" do not mean "funny".
> 
> Still, the forum has an "ignore" function for a reason. If this is what I have to expect from you, I might as well use it and spare myself the effort of having to parse out your posts. Good night.


Must be a new brand of comedy called "overuse of the F Word and vulgarity".


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 18, 2013)

Because being a comedian is a 24/7 job, y'know. You have to be funny ALL THE TIME to be a comedian. If you ever say something that isn't funny in your entire lifetime, you're immediately incapable of being paid to say funny things.

I love logic.


----------



## Azure (Mar 18, 2013)

man, i want to be a wizard

it'd be a great schtick for my future penis enlargement business

my wizard name will be Dongo the Magnificent


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 18, 2013)

Azure said:


> man, i want to be a wizard
> 
> it'd be a great schtick for my future penis enlargement business
> 
> my wizard name will be Dongo the Magnificent


Can I be your apprentice?


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 18, 2013)

With all those dongwizards I think I'm going to learn magic and start a penis _reduction _business. Eventually some folks will yearn for the days cocks were smaller than arms and pressure their men to go small. :V


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Mar 18, 2013)

A silly thread asking if furries go to hell turns into another tired, unwanted "Is Religion Good or Evil" agrument? 

You know, this thread is quite the agrument for _Satan's_ existence...


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 19, 2013)

Nah, some of the porn in FA's servers is the true argument for Satan's existence. :V

But really, this thread has had its high and lows, but the conversation was going mostly fine up to a point. The problem is that radical anti-religion people are just as annoying and, ironically, sanctimonious as radical religious people. The whole inflammatory _"all who follow religion are retarded/deluded/evil! We must destroy religion for the good of the world!"_ speech just _reeks _of the same type of unreasonable and dangerous reasoning that brought us the the modern extremist movements that think blowing up innocents is a _great_ way to make the masses see their message of salvation. All radical and confrontational speech does is foster violence and extremism. For every one person that changes their mind based on that, a hundred more are offended and pushed towards the opposite side.

And really, those folks should realize that just as forceful, even dictatorial religious movements couldn't wipe out non-religious movements, neither can they do the same to religion. Hell, if even the freakin' Chinese government can't seem to crack down on their religious dissidents, what can a ragtag bunch of internet atheists do? It's tilting at windmills, pure and simple. Anyone who thinks they can bring religion crashing down is just as deluded as those who think the Earth is 6000 years old because some old geezer with no grasp of maths, natural sciences _or_ theology "calculated" it.

Religion has been with us for a long time, and it's not going to go away suddenly. It shouldn't be fought with tooth and nail, because it is structured in such a way that any attempt to fight it only strenghtens its members' convictions. Instead, it should be studied as the cultural phenomenon it is, and then phased down (and hopefully out) by bringing up the educational and living standards of the population that would otherwise be religious. And it will be a long process, to educate today's adults we'll have to begin with their greatchildren.

We can shout about religion being bad as much as we want, but people don't turn to blind religious belief because religion is evil. They do it because they need something to help them through their lives. It might be empty comfort, but it _is_ comfort, and most people absolutely don't give a damn about the facts as long as they feel good about themselves and the world around them. Sadly, that's a non-negotiable part of human psychology, specially mass psychology.


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 19, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Nah, some of the porn in FA's servers is the true argument for Satan's existence. :V
> 
> But really, this thread has had its high and lows, but the conversation was going mostly fine up to a point. The problem is that radical anti-religion people are just as annoying and, ironically, sanctimonious as radical religious people. The whole inflammatory _"all who follow religion are retarded/deluded/evil! We must destroy religion for the good of the world!"_ speech just _reeks _of the same type of unreasonable and dangerous reasoning that brought us the the modern extremist movements that think blowing up innocents is a _great_ way to make the masses see their message of salvation. All radical and confrontational speech does is foster violence and extremism. For every one person that changes their mind based on that, a hundred more are offended and pushed towards the opposite side.
> 
> ...


                                                            I agree.  I'm not religious, but I've always thought that religion, in moderation, is very good for society.


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 19, 2013)

The furry fandom is a training ground for Satan's army. Only the kinkiest get to serve in his highest ranks.
That's why people say "Yiff in hell furfag."


----------



## Cami (Mar 21, 2013)

Well according to westboro everyone's going to hell....you're going to hell for even being on a computer


----------



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

Cami said:


> Well according to westboro everyone's going to hell....you're going to hell for even being on a computer


I can barely get OFF of the computer. Is that some form of hell?


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 21, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I can barely get OFF of the computer. Is that some form of hell?


It would be if this was The Divine Comedy (Basically, people in hell suffered Ironic punishments, such a seers walking with their head on backwards for example). 

And don't even get me going on Westboro.


----------



## Kio Maru (Mar 21, 2013)

God spoke to me in a dream. He said Hell Have No Furry.
Instead they go to a place far deeper than hell, a place so terrible it is unspoken of. It is ruled by Cthulhu and tentacle rape is at a constant.


----------



## LemonJayde (Mar 21, 2013)

Spark said:


> :evil:  I'm Christian and I was wondering if I will go to hell for being a furry.
> this is serious.


Welllll obviousssly. 

It's where we are told to go yiff. It's what hell was made for.


----------



## Machine (Mar 22, 2013)

Cami said:


> Well according to westboro everyone's going to hell....you're going to hell for even being on a computer


They're coming with us. Don't worry.



Kio Maru said:


> God spoke to me in a dream. He said Hell Have No Furry.
> Instead they go to a place far deeper than hell, a place so terrible it is unspoken of. It is ruled by Cthulhu and tentacle rape is at a constant.


Constant tentacle rape might be their thing, though. I mean, furries. Come on. :V


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 22, 2013)

Spark said:


> :evil:  I'm Christian and I was wondering if I will go to hell for being a furry.
> this is serious.



Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer. That is how my parents raised me! X3
And in this case you asked a REALLY stupid question so you got a bunch of really stupid answers!


----------



## Machine (Mar 22, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer. That is how my parents raised me! X3
> And in this case you asked a REALLY stupid question so you got a bunch of really stupid answers!


I started reading like a maniac when I was a kid, so my parents were like, "She'll get all the answers in her own time."

Knowledge is a way to fight the power.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 22, 2013)

Machine said:


> I started reading like a maniac when I was a kid, so my parents were like, "She'll get all the answers in her own time."
> 
> Knowledge is a way to fight the power.



I still think that the internet is one of the main reasons why religion is declining so much these days. You have the knowledge of all of humanity at your fingertips! If you want to know about something and if you are capable of critical thinking you just don't need religion to get your answers anymore.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 22, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I still think that the internet is one of the main reasons why religion is declining so much these days. You have the knowledge of all of humanity at your fingertips! If you want to know about something and if you are capable of critical thinking you just don't need religion to get your answers anymore.



Nahh, even then you get poor tossers who won't bother to even fact check things people say. I got into this whole debate about humans being "not desgined" to eat meat, and one of his points was something to do with not being able to break down animal proteins. I did find a couple sites pressing the point, but one was PETA and the other had bigger logical gaps in it than a JOS Member trying to explain "Father Enki". When I asked him if he had a source, he said he'd gotten the idea from a friend. 

Now when I debate and ask a source, I'm not trying to be too lazy to search for evidence on Google. It's that whole "You made a claim now back it up" thing. That and I guess I'm used to citing sources if asked for due to research papers; I mean, we can't really put "Look it up" on the Works Cited now can we?


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 22, 2013)

Cami said:


> Well according to westboro everyone's going to hell....you're going to hell for even being on a computer



Well nobody really cares what Westboro thinks


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2013)

just gonna put this here because its fucking true



Holtzmann said:


> Nah, some of the porn in FA's servers is the true argument for Satan's existence. :V
> 
> But really, this thread has had its high and lows, but the conversation was going mostly fine up to a point. The problem is that radical anti-religion people are just as annoying and, ironically, sanctimonious as radical religious people. The whole inflammatory _"all who follow religion are retarded/deluded/evil! We must destroy religion for the good of the world!"_ speech just _reeks _of the same type of unreasonable and dangerous reasoning that brought us the the modern extremist movements that think blowing up innocents is a _great_ way to make the masses see their message of salvation. All radical and confrontational speech does is foster violence and extremism. For every one person that changes their mind based on that, a hundred more are offended and pushed towards the opposite side.


uhhhh, how do you relate people who are "annoying" to people who commit mass murder in the name of their beliefs? yeah fuck that and every bit of reasoning that brought you to your conclusion.


Holtzmann said:


> And really, those folks should realize that just as forceful, even dictatorial religious movements couldn't wipe out non-religious movements, neither can they do the same to religion. Hell, if even the freakin' Chinese government can't seem to crack down on their religious dissidents, what can a ragtag bunch of internet atheists do? It's tilting at windmills, pure and simple. Anyone who thinks they can bring religion crashing down is just as deluded as those who think the Earth is 6000 years old because some old geezer with no grasp of maths, natural sciences _or_ theology "calculated" it.
> 
> Religion has been with us for a long time, and it's not going to go away suddenly. It shouldn't be fought with tooth and nail, because it is structured in such a way that any attempt to fight it only strenghtens its members' convictions. Instead, it should be studied as the cultural phenomenon it is, and then phased down (and hopefully out) by bringing up the educational and living standards of the population that would otherwise be religious. And it will be a long process, to educate today's adults we'll have to begin with their greatchildren.


 so in the same breath you say its not going away AND you say it is a cultural phenomena(when earlier you spoke as if it was WIRED into our brains, which by the way you never bothered to refute my argument against such). ok, but you dont think that culture evolves out of ideas that are disseminated broadly and have credence and facts to back them?



Holtzmann said:


> We can shout about religion being bad as much as we want, but people don't turn to blind religious belief because religion is evil. They do it because they need something to help them through their lives. It might be empty comfort, but it _is_ comfort, and most people absolutely don't give a damn about the facts as long as they feel good about themselves and the world around them. Sadly, that's a non-negotiable part of human psychology, specially mass psychology.


people turn to religion because of FEAR. fear injected into them by their CULTURE, which is part of the massive hivemind of the society they happened to be born into. the only way to change this is to dispute the fact that said religion is factually accurate and a good moral base from which to build. it is not NON NEGOTIABLE, it is very negotiable, you just have to change enough minds. and you dont do that by playing pussyfoot with a deluded maniac. comfort derived at the expense of others through the affirmation of false beliefs and the strengthening of cultural mores built upon unaccountable morality is EVIL. there is no other way to spin the shit. be as despondent as you want to about it, but there are people who wont quit so dont worry.


----------



## Namba (Mar 24, 2013)

Cami said:


> Well according to westboro everyone's going to hell....you're going to hell for even being on a computer


I vacation there.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

Gotta love people who always assume that people only believe out of fear. Look, not everyone that chooses to follow God is fixitated on Hell. Yes, there are sects that do focus on hell and scare people into keeping their beliefs, but usually this is scare tactics to make someone adhere to whatever doctrine or teachings that particular church or sect pushes. Just go out and ask religious people if they believe because they're scared of hell or of God. True, I fear what God could and is capable of doing (inb4 "He's not real lol", maybe you should use your imagination and play along, because "Not real lol" really isn't a counter argument), but I don't wallow before him and fear that I'll be damned everytime I slip up. I realize that I'm a work in progress, and instead of devoting energies to fear, I devote energies to more positive things and towards bettering myself.


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Gotta love people who always assume that people only believe out of fear. Look, not everyone that chooses to follow God is fixitated on Hell. Yes, there are sects that do focus on hell and scare people into keeping their beliefs, but usually this is scare tactics to make someone adhere to whatever doctrine or teachings that particular church or sect pushes. Just go out and ask religious people if they believe because they're scared of hell or of God. True, I fear what God could and is capable of doing (inb4 "He's not real lol", maybe you should use your imagination and play along, because "Not real lol" really isn't a counter argument), but I don't wallow before him and fear that I'll be damned everytime I slip up. I realize that I'm a work in progress, and instead of devoting energies to fear, I devote energies to more positive things and towards bettering myself.


so you dont believe out of fear, but you say yourself that you FEAR GOD. ok, whatever, conversation over. what the fuck does your religion have to do with bettering yourself. YOU are doing the bettering, you are doing the evaluation processes that lead to it. GOD does nothing. and then he gets all the credit. i dont have to ask when i KNOW. and not real lol is a very valid counter argument that only takes the most basic of logical processes to accomplish, and the most massive cognitive dissonance and ignorance to dismiss. sadly, you are beyond the age where beliefs and the shaping of the consciousness are easily accomplished, so there is no hope for you, and my arguments arent tailored for your ease of use. just go on fearing your god and believe that the world is an ordered, fair, just place because of something you will never see or experience outside of your deluded mind.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

....can you hear that? 

*shhhhhhhTING!*

That's the sound of the Steel Trap that your mind resides in. Yes I did realize I say I don't believe out of fear and then say I do fear what God can do...and yes I do realize that it's _me_ that does the changing, not God. He kinda just gives me strength and more or less helps me out; I'm not one of those types that blames everything on either God or Satan. 

Ah, but I consider this a waste of time. The Steel Trap is already closed around your mind, and all you will accept is your own view points on things, and will continue until you are satisfied.


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Ah, but I consider this a waste of time. The Steel Trap is already closed around your mind, and all you will accept is your own view points on things, and will continue until you are satisfied.



And...you are different?


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> ....can you hear that?
> 
> *shhhhhhhTING!*
> 
> ...


yes, the steel trap my mind resides in because i refuse to consider the viewpoints of a person who believes in a logically impossible fairy tale, draws strength from it, and believes themselves to be a good person in spite of it. i am very accepting of things that MAKE FUCKING SENSE, and very critical of things that dont pass my smell test. religion, all of it, doesnt pass my test, so there ya go. are you so different from me? you have unilaterally refused to consider anything i have said, and in many places you intellectually sidestep to a degree that horrifies me to avoid having to agree with anything i have to say. it really shouldnt matter that it is presented rudely, because hey, ive tried nice and people just go lolnicethoughtsbro. so i said fuck that, rudestyle it is. despite the format, all the information is there, and you just ignored it. so right back at you bro 

and remember, i have stated, in this very thread, that i am not out to change minds. im just here to put out THE FACTS. what you do with them is entirely your issue and burden, and no problem of mine. that way, im not proselytizing, which automatically makes me better than every religious person ever.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> And...you are different?



Hm...honestly, this is something that I've asked my self time and again. I sincerely do wonder if I am as closed as the Steel Trap or not. Well, I am closed on the idea of believing in some kind of God, even with little to no proof, but then again, I am somewhat adaptable and flexible. I just seem to be like that with my religion and the bible; eveytime I learn something new or of some new interpretation or take, I integrate it into my beliefs and way of life and so on. I'll also pull good and interesting knowlege from other sources and religions, like Buddhism, Wicca, heck, if I read the Qu'ran and found something that rings true, I'd adapt that piece as well. 

Another thing is, you'll never see me complain and argue against people who are atheist just for the fact that they're atheist. I've gotten flak and been regarded as [insult goes here] just _because I was religious_, whereas I reserve drawing conclusions on someone after I've talked to them and debated and what not. I'm never going to judge someone because they are wiccan, or atheist, or buddhist, or (most of the time, there are exceptions to this rule) any other kind of belief system or way of life. Meanwhile I continue to take things from people online simply for my chosen path.

I think I'll just copy/paste the except of a Live Journal comment where I got the idea of the Steel Trap. This was on a friend's article about religion, and the person my friend was responding to was your textbook non-tolerant irreligious person: 

"It's still a doctrine of thought that results in your mind being closed like a steel trap. It's not progress. It's just more of the same. In your case it actually seems to be a huge step backwards.


Hate, prejudice and denial are not the solution to the problem you wish to combat. They are the problem you're trying to combat. You have become everything you protest against. You must reach for a more opened state of mind if you wish to make progress. Otherwise, you will just become part of the problem."


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Hm...honestly, this is something that I've asked my self time and again. I sincerely do wonder if I am as closed as the Steel Trap or not. Well, I am closed on the idea of believing in some kind of God, even with little to no proof, but then again, I am somewhat adaptable and flexible.



If I may?

Water does not flow, gentle and cool, from the closed bottle.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

Hm...well, you got me there. All I've to say is...touche. 

I have to review what I say more and look out for signs of double standards like that.


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Hate, prejudice and denial are not the solution to the problem you wish to combat. They are the problem you're trying to combat. You have become everything you protest against. You must reach for a more opened state of mind if you wish to make progress. Otherwise, you will just become part of the problem."


GOD FORBID you apply this to yourself, and everybody like you. the only issue is is that THERE IS NOTHING TO OPEN MY MIND TO ON YOUR SIDE. religion, in its entirety, is false. provably so. period. end of story. i am the one who has MADE THE PROGRESS. not you. you still think there is a man in the clouds that loves you and made you just like him and YOU'D BETTER NOT EAT LOBSTER OR I WILL SEND YOU TO THE FIRE. way to SIDESTEP AGAIN.

my beliefs and the things they lend credence and authority to dont created prejudice, hate, and denial. YOURS DO. try debating that shit, you bloody apologist. just another sheep with no spine would be apropos.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

You don't use hate, prejudice or denial? Aren't you the same person who decided to be rude because others are being rude?


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> You don't use hate, prejudice or denial? Aren't you the same person who decided to be rude because others are being rude?


is rudeness hate? is it prejudice? is it denial?

no

its wording something strongly. the ideas contained within have nothing to do with any of those things. but people cant seem to get past their flaming pile of personal ego bullshit to read the facts. but as ive said before, not my problem.


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Hm...well, you got me there. All I've to say is...touche.
> 
> I have to review what I say more and look out for signs of double standards like that.



Indeed. You see where it goes, when water cannot flow. This thread is a testament.

Stagnation, mental corruption.
Thirst, the constant desire.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

@Azure:
Ah well. 

To each his own, then. Perhaps we should stop going in circles and just agree to disagree?


----------



## Azure (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> @Azure:
> Ah well.
> 
> To each his own, then. Perhaps we should stop going in circles and just agree to disagree?


to each his own, until it is taken away. and i can agree that i disagree with everything you stand for concerning this subject for reasons that are based on some legit shit.


----------



## Joey (Mar 24, 2013)

Does being a furry make you retarded?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 24, 2013)

@Holtzman: If you NEED religion to deal with life then you are either incredible weakminded or insane. If you need a fairytale to deal with the harshness of life then you are essentially still on the level of a five year old.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Gotta love people who always assume that people only believe out of fear. Look, not everyone that chooses to follow God is fixitated on Hell. Yes, there are sects that do focus on hell and scare people into keeping their beliefs, but usually this is scare tactics to make someone adhere to whatever doctrine or teachings that particular church or sect pushes. Just go out and ask religious people if they believe because they're scared of hell or of God. True, I fear what God could and is capable of doing (inb4 "He's not real lol", maybe you should use your imagination and play along, because "Not real lol" really isn't a counter argument), but I don't wallow before him and fear that I'll be damned everytime I slip up. I realize that I'm a work in progress, and instead of devoting energies to fear, I devote energies to more positive things and towards bettering myself.



Insert anecdote:

In my own experience, when I used to be religious, I believed because it absolved a fear of death, not because I was afraid that god would punish me. 

If I was afraid that a god would punish me...well I wouldn't believe in that religion and that would disengage that fear right away. There are so many gods that want you to fear them afterall. 

No, for me death was the driving force in chosing to believe there was an afterlife because there's only one death which pervades all of space and time, and not believing in a physical version it doesn't make it go away however hard you try. 

But of course, that was only my personal experience.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 24, 2013)

I don't know about you guys, but if the bible happen to be real, to me, god and satan are both evil.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 24, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I don't know about you guys, but if the bible happen to be real, to me, god and satan are both evil.



What? No! How could you say that? God is the goodest of them all! He only wants us to keep slaves and rape women for our own good! God is just missunderstood :c
I'm sure God just needs a big hug. Because even if you are almighty, you can't make hugging yourself look good :3


----------



## Ricky (Mar 24, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> God is the goodest of them all! He only wants us to keep slaves and rape women for our own good!



Yeah but we are messing everything up with "civil rights" and all that.

People should know their place in this world and stop fucking with The Word Of God.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

Hey, at least we treated our women and slaves better than some of the other religions did D:


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2013)

As much as it's fun to make light of slavery and the oppression of women I feel that any God who would ever condone this or allow people to propogate such doctrines in their name is not worthy of being a God in the first place. 

This seems to depose an awful lot of Gods.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Hey, at least we treated our women and slaves better than some of the other religions did D:



I am sure the african slaves in America back in the day would disagree with you.
You religion DOES endorse slavery and it DOES label women as second class citizens. This isn't about how much it endorses it, it's about the fact that it IS doing that! And that part of the reaosn why it is evil.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

Well, actually it was more or less indentured servitude and not the kind of slavery like it was with the African american slaves. 

So really, it DOES endorse Indentured Servitude and label women as second class citizens.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well, actually it was more or less indentured servitude and not the kind of slavery like it was with the African american slaves.
> 
> So really, it DOES endorse Indentured Servitude and label women as second class citizens.



What ever you call it, keeping people as properly is wrong. And that is exactly how the old testament describes it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 24, 2013)

That's how things were back then. It was pretty hardcore back in the OT days of the bible. Thank goodness we don't live in that day/age anymore.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> That's how things were back then. It was pretty hardcore back in the OT days of the bible. Thank goodness we don't live in that day/age anymore.



I conjecture that any God worth worshipping, or to word it better, not worth moral disgust, can not be excused by 'that's how it was back then,'. 

If you're apparantly meant to be a fountain of all knowledge and moral 'law' then standards to be fairly expected are rather higher than this.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 24, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I conjecture that any God worth worshipping, or to word it better, not worth moral disgust, can not be excused by 'that's how it was back then,'.
> 
> If you're apparantly meant to be a fountain of all knowledge and moral 'law' then standards to be fairly expected are rather higher than this.



I agree. The whole book is supposed to be god's word. You can't just say "well, back in the day it was worse but now it's better!" when your god, that is still being worshipped today, is the very source of that tragic stuff.

Oh, and since you mentioned god's omniscience: [video=youtube;ODetOE6cbbc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc[/video]
Especially the ending of the video is VERY relevant. A little pretentious in it's style but still relevant.


----------



## Paradox Trigger (Mar 24, 2013)

I can't imagine someone in a fursuit at the pearly gates being turned down because of what he or she is wearing. Jesus wore a diaper *ahem* breezy toga/robes. He didn't have any foot support either, and I bet he didn't have a tooth brush. Don't worry about this stuff. It's just fear that's put in us by society - guilt for everything, there must be. Preventing you from you from using your free will, they are. It's how some people get their kicks. Now making someone fearful about dressing up or talking about how they like animals - I think they need to be more worried about going to hell than you do.


----------



## Xela-Dasi (Mar 24, 2013)

There is not a single thing wrong in the furry fandom for the christianity. I think it is even ok if you watch furry porn.

and sorry for my english


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2013)

Paradox Trigger said:


> I can't imagine someone in a fursuit at the pearly gates being turned down because of what he or she is wearing. Jesus wore a diaper *ahem* breezy toga/robes. He didn't have any foot support either, and I bet he didn't have a tooth brush. Don't worry about this stuff. It's just fear that's put in us by society - guilt for everything, there must be. Preventing you from you from using your free will, they are. It's how some people get their kicks. Now making someone fearful about dressing up or talking about how they like animals - I think they need to be more worried about going to hell than you do.




At the pearly gates there is an awkard silence as an aged saint with long whispy beard pears forwards to look down over the ridge of his nose unto a collection of new travelers. 

Are those trainers? 

He wryly asks.


----------



## Bluey (Mar 24, 2013)

My ancestors believed in Tengrism semi shamanic Single Creator belief came from Noah one of the precursors Christian faith then they all converted to Islam yet still elders tell that legend to kids which is about how our forefather lay down with a shewolf then she brought 10 wolf-human pups to the world and the oldest one created an Empire thus became major grandfather of our entire family line.

Ashina*Celestial Blue Wolves* clan proudly furry since 600 AD even tho after changed religon like 3 times*Updated with newer*.I havent meet one decendent can answer the question op asked.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> uhhhh, how do you relate people who are "annoying" to people who commit mass murder in the name of their beliefs? yeah fuck that and every bit of reasoning that brought you to your conclusion.


Because we're talking about _internet idiots debating in circles in a forum about animal people_, not religious genocide. Pay attention to the context.

Do you know what we should do to mass murderers, religious or not? Execute them. Religion is a very convenient excuse for deranged psychotics to have their merry way, but eliminating religion will only make them turn towards other ways to manipulate public opinion for their purposes. If it's not fear of what awaits in the afterlife, it'll be fear of foreigners, people who speak a different language, or just people who say "bro" a lot.




Azure said:


> so in the same breath you say its not going away AND you say it is a cultural phenomena(when earlier you spoke as if it was WIRED into our brains, which by the way you never bothered to refute my argument against such). ok, but you dont think that culture evolves out of ideas that are disseminated broadly and have credence and facts to back them?


I'm not going to refute your argument, because it's an irrelevant can of worms I don't want to open. I pointed out evolutionary evidence that indicates superstitious thinking is a natural development in humans, specially when it's related to group behavior. That much is true, and there's plenty of evidence in the form of damn near every population, modern or ancient, having their own myths and superstitions. Why do you think NASA engineers like eating peanuts during tricky takeoffs and landings? It ain't because they need the niacin, I can tell you that much.

Yes, _some_ of us (both of us included) can suppress those stupid natural tendencies to attribute intent to random chance and to see patterns where there are none. But make no mistake, you'll never be able to enable even a majority of the global population to do the same until sociological conditions are right. You'd need a level of general prosperity and happiness that's so high as to be unfeasible under our current socioeconomical systems. It's never been done before, and it's unlikely to ever actually happen.




Azure said:


> people turn to religion because of FEAR. fear injected into them by their CULTURE, which is part of the massive hivemind of the society they happened to be born into. the only way to change this is to dispute the fact that said religion is factually accurate and a good moral base from which to build. it is not NON NEGOTIABLE, it is very negotiable, you just have to change enough minds. and you dont do that by playing pussyfoot with a deluded maniac. comfort derived at the expense of others through the affirmation of false beliefs and the strengthening of cultural mores built upon unaccountable morality is EVIL. there is no other way to spin the shit. be as despondent as you want to about it, but there are people who wont quit so dont worry.


That's very idealistic. However, I ask you to keep in mind the deluded maniac has _way_ more deluded maniacs with him than you have people on your side. And those deluded maniacs are _far_ more likely to try to kill you if you rile them up too much with inflammatory, provocative speech. And a dead rationalist is only good as mulch.

I agree absolutely with your assessment that most organized religion is at least counterproductive but usually downright evil. But I'm being pragmatic. You'll _never_ be able to change the mind of someone who's entirely convinced of their religious righteousness. Let me say that in bold letters: *never*. We see it in this thread. Their entire belief system is based on mechanisms that only _reinforce_ their ideals when faced with hostile environments. That's precisely why most cultures become more religion-centric during times of adversity, when in fact the rational thing to do would be to start doubting beliefs that have been proven wrong time and time again.

Let me give you an example that stuck with me ever since I was a kid: I grew up in a very arid and poor area. Droughts were common, as were failed crops. Life was pretty hard outside the cities. And back when we were growing up, there was a period of drought that lasted almost two years. I remember literally seeing only two rainy days through those twenty three months of dry heat and dead cattle. The people in the cities didn't feel it too badly (we had trucks bringing us water and goods), but I saw the folks in the farms turn from lapsed catholics (as most of the population here was at the time) into fanatics that went to church every single day and pretty much threatened the city doctor who provided them with healthcare _for free_ with physical violence because he was telling them to stop praying so much and actually using the antibiotics he gave them. It was only months after the rains arrived and the situation normalized again that all that religious fervor simmered down, but they were still left with more fanatics than they started with.

What I _am_ arguing for is that it's simply more efficient to take a guerilla approach. Religious stablishment is far too big a foe for rational people to take on as it is. Facing it head-on will only leave us patting ourselves in the back for "eviscerating" their stupid arguments, while the believers will be even more certain of their righteousness for willfully ignoring all rationality presented to them. Remember, doubt is evil to those people. Questioning things is evil. And their method of dealing with evil is to shut themselves off from it.

Instead, we should go for the long game and work indirectly for long-term goals. Maybe I didn't express myself properly, but I meant that we should study religion as a cultural element so we will be able to eventually phase it out. Instead of taking on other people's beliefs directly, we should try to undermine them with apparently harmless questions and knowledge. I haven't met a single ex-religious person who's told me they lost their religion because someone shouted at their face and insulted their intelligence for two hours straight. 

On the other hand, I have met plenty of people (and was even personally responsible for two, thanks to The Demon-Haunted World) who said they started out as religious, but who then learned certain things and read interesting books who made them start to question what their priest was talking about. No amount of complaining and shunning will _make_ someone change their mind, it has to be a personal choice prompted by personal doubt. But we can put that doubt into their minds and try to work with younger people so those misguided ideals never solidify into their minds (which is why I'm a _huge_ proponent of popular science education).

It's a long game, because we're outnumbered and outgunned. Again, it's guerilla warfare. It's trying to chip away at their strength while building up our own, until the entire system collapses under the weight of the top portion that will _never_ change its mind.

And that's why I'm just as annoyed by radical anti-religious speech as I am by actual religious fanatics. It's preaching to the converted (so to speak). Other anti-religious people will love it, religious people will hate it, and the system will simply move on towards an even more unstable level until it blows up on your faces. Nope, I don't give a damn about moral imperatives or ethical concerns telling us we should criticize religion at every turn, I care about tactics that will get us there.



CaptainCool said:


> @Holtzman: If you NEED religion to deal with life then you are either incredible weakminded or insane. If you need a fairytale to deal with the harshness of life then you are essentially still on the level of a five year old.


I hope that "you" there is about the general population, because I'm not religious. Never been. I was six the first time I heard the tale of the Garden of Eden and I literally told the lady who had been reading it to me that it didn't make any sense and that I wanted to read a book about dinosaurs and trilobites instead.

The problem is, most people in the world have grown up believing those fairytales we know to be bunk. They don't. To them those are pillars of morality and hope they can lean on when things get harsh. It's stupid and it's ridiculous, but that's unfortunately how their world has been structured and there's no way to break those pedestals without breaking _them_ in the process. And broken people are incredibly dangerous. So, unless you want to try to spark a revolution (which usually ends badly for most people involved), you better start trying to keep people from acquiring those beliefs in the first place. Again, science education and improved standards of life will do you far more good than wasting time arguing true believes on the internet.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> I hope that "you" there is about the general population, because I'm not religious. Never been. I was six the first time I heard the tale of the Garden of Eden and I literally told the lady who had been reading it to me that it didn't make any sense and that I wanted to read a book about dinosaurs and trilobites instead.
> 
> The problem is, most people in the world have grown up believing those fairytales we know to be bunk. They don't. To them those are pillars of morality and hope they can lean on when things get harsh. It's stupid and it's ridiculous, but that's unfortunately how their world has been structured and there's no way to break those pedestals without breaking _them_ in the process. And broken people are incredibly dangerous. So, unless you want to try to spark a revolution (which usually ends badly for most people involved), you better start trying to keep people from acquiring those beliefs in the first place. Again, science education and improved standards of life will do you far more good than wasting time arguing true believes on the internet.



Of course it's about the general population^^ And you are right, getting people to let go of that nonsense is tough. But I'm sure it's possible.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Of course it's about the general population^^ And you are right, getting people to let go of that nonsense is tough. But I'm sure it's possible.


It probably is, but it'll require the intellectual equivalent of baby steps. After all, you don't make people sprint out of Plato's cave and into the light. They'd trip and skewer themselves onto the sharp rocks.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> It probably is, but it'll require the intellectual equivalent of baby steps. After all, you don't make people sprint out of Plato's cave and into the light. They'd trip and skewer themselves onto the sharp rocks.



You always have to expect some casualties :V


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

Considering how packed full that damned cave is, you'd get a genocide! :V


----------



## thoughtmaster (Mar 25, 2013)

But if religion is a plague that is counterproductive and in fact is destructive to humanity as a whole, why is it that it was invented in the first place?


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Considering how packed full that damned cave is, you'd get a genocide! :V



Mental genocide maybe. It's not gonna kill them  And after some adapting they are gonna feel better anyway.



thoughtmaster said:


> But if religion is a plague that is counterproductive and in fact is destructive to humanity as a whole, why is it that it was invented in the first place?



Because we are afraid of death and because people always want answers for stuff they don't know.
That is what religion is doing. It provides something for those who are afraid of death and it provides answers for those who want to know about things like the origins of the universe.
Those answers are all terrible but apparently that is good enough for most people.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But if religion is a plague that is counterproductive and in fact is destructive to humanity as a whole, why is it that it was invented in the first place?


Once upon a time, in a savanna in Africa... a bunch of primates realized there was something big and yellow and really hot above them, and that every now and then it disappeared beyond the mountains in the distance, and when it did everything got really dark and cold and made monsters appear to devour the primates. One of the primates wished upon the big yellow thing, hoping it would come back so there would be warmth and the monsters would go away. It seemed to work, so the other primates started doing the same!

And then they met another group who worshipped the big round silver thing in the sky that appeared when the big yellow thing vanished. Those primates asked for the silver thing's protection during the dark, moster-filled times. Both sides would then rally around their beliefs and then fight each other.

And that's pretty much religion in a nutshell. It gives people the mental comfort of _something_ watching over them and it gives them an easy outlet to their "us vs. them" mentality. It worked really well back in the day. Nowadays... eh, life is much better. Those self-same ideas of delusionary comforts and us-vs-them are more harmful than good in modern society.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 25, 2013)

Another hypothesis about the origin of religion is about our ability to use tools. Cavemen used tools to make things. So they figures that they were made with tools as well by some supernatural uber-caveman in the sky.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Mar 25, 2013)

Why does it matter what a person believes or doesn't believe in? Wouldn't it be their choice and therefore all this worrying about what others believe in only serve to impede your efforts in other areas?


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Why does it matter what a person believes or doesn't believe in? Wouldn't it be their choice and therefore all this worrying about what others believe in only serve to impede your efforts in other areas?


Would be _really_ neat if people kept their personal beliefs to themselves. But I've had enough religious people looking at me as if I was a freak because I refused to join them for sunday morning mass.

So yeah. I'll stop caring about what people think once they start _doing_ the right things. Being as charitable and tolerant as they keep saying the are would be a good start.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Mar 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Would be _really_ neat if people kept their personal beliefs to themselves. But I've had enough religious people looking at me as if I was a freak because I refused to join them for sunday morning mass.
> 
> So yeah. I'll stop caring about what people think once they start _doing_ the right things. Being as charitable and tolerant as they keep saying the are would be a good start.


What do you wish for an end result of your call for war on religion?


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> What do you wish for an end result of your call for war on religion?


Ah, yes. I called for a war, didn't I? I signed a declaration of war against all organized religion! Clearly, I am the atheistic general! 

It's not a war. Rationalism would lose that war. We need a civil, rational, peaceful campaign, and that's what I called for. Or were you really thinking I called for atheists to pick up their rifles and go into the hills to fight churches in hit-and-run attacks?

But I digress.

What do I wish for an end result for what I described would be a good way to minimize the influence of religion and religious conflicts upon the world? A more rational place where people can be happy without having to worry about being murdered by someone else just because they don't believe in the same mythology you do would be a good beginning. Humans having the same rights regardless of philosophy, gender, ethnicity or sexual preference would be another nice thing. And let's not forget allowing all peoples the privilege of eating bacon without guilt! 

Of course, removing religious influence from society at large wouldn't fix all those problems. But it would go a nice way towards helping it out. So much of our culture comes from or through a religious background, there are many elements that really shouldn't be there anymore.

I mean, seriously... there are a lot of people missing out on delicious bacon!


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Why does it matter what a person believes or doesn't believe in? Wouldn't it be their choice and therefore all this worrying about what others believe in only serve to impede your efforts in other areas?



It matters once they start to push their beliefs on others. Or can you name secular reasons why same sex marriage is such a taboo subject in politics? Or why apostates in many islamic countries are being executed?
I don't care what you believe in. I just want you to leave me alone with it.

Oh also, belief is not a choice. Belief is always tied to certain things. Like my personal belief that evolution is a fact. This belief of mine is tied to actual evidence. To choose not to believe in evolution would mean  for me to actively ignore scientific evidence which is something that is completely against my nature.
I can't choose not to believe in it. At all.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Mar 25, 2013)

How to you plan to reach your goal, because as long as one person believes, the religion will continue to exist and you have seen how hard people stick to their faith. The only logical way to remove religion is to remove all who believe in it and destroy all evidence of it's existance. Let's see how eager they are to meet their god.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> How to you plan to reach your goal, because as long as one person believes, the religion will continue to exist and you have seen how hard people stick to their faith. The only logical way to remove religion is to remove all who believe in it and destroy all evidence of it's existance. Let's see how eager they are to meet their god.


I don't recall ever calling for the complete destruction of religion. In fact, I distinctly remember saying it would not be possible. Nevetheless, an idea doesn't need to be destroyed for it to lose power. Unfortunately, not everybody even wants to see the world rationally. And as a practical guy I'm fine with that, as long as their beliefs affected only their own lives, without anyone trying to tell me how to live properly lest I'll burn in some hypothetical hell.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Mar 25, 2013)

But they believe that they are doing the right thing. When someone believe what they are doing is right, nothing besides death or their success will stop that person.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But they believe that they are doing the right thing. When someone believe what they are doing is right, nothing besides death or their success will stop that person.


 I usually think about my actions, even though I have my own opinion on what's right. I am a very big thinker, and sometimes it hurts to think too much in general, but that's me.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But they believe that they are doing the right thing. When someone believe what they are doing is right, nothing besides death or their success will stop that person.


Well, I guess we should give thanks that most people don't seem to believe what they're doing is the right thing... because the Bible says that if you find a village in which anyone worshipped a God that is not the God of the Bible, you should kill every man, woman, child and head of cattle in that village, then burn the village and all its plunder and salt the earth so nothing will ever grow there again! :V

Lighten up. Most people aren't interested in conflict. It's the hardliners at the top who don't want to lose their power and the crazy folks at the bottom who have nothing to lose that you should be worried about. As stupid as it might be sometimes, our society is still more or less civilized.


----------



## Willow (Mar 25, 2013)

I believe a majority of religions were created because people needed a way to explain things they couldn't really explain.


thoughtmaster said:


> Why does it matter what a person believes or doesn't believe in? Wouldn't it be their choice and therefore all this worrying about what others believe in only serve to impede your efforts in other areas?


Well that all sounds really nice in theory but until people stop trying to press their beliefs on others who don't really want or need it then everyone will get along just fine.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 25, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But they believe that they are doing the right thing. When someone believe what they are doing is right, nothing besides death or their success will stop that person.



Only death and their success? How about jails? I want to see them killing apostates when they are locked up


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Only death and their success? How about jails? I want to see them killing apostates when they are locked up


Isn't that what God is for? Smitin' them apostates? 

"Apostates". Man, I love that word.


----------



## Azure (Mar 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Because we're talking about _internet idiots debating in circles in a forum about animal people_, not religious genocide. Pay attention to the context.


one has nothing to do with the other, so illustrate your context better. 



Holtzmann said:


> Do you know what we should do to mass murderers, religious or not? Execute them. Religion is a very convenient excuse for deranged psychotics to have their merry way, but eliminating religion will only make them turn towards other ways to manipulate public opinion for their purposes. If it's not fear of what awaits in the afterlife, it'll be fear of foreigners, people who speak a different language, or just people who say "bro" a lot.


give me an example of something a person will turn to that is as convenient and blanketing as religion that isnt already covered by law most everywhere. because honestly, small groups of people sympathize with one form of cause, while many sympathize with a religiously killing. its all about the reinforcement of ideas.



Holtzmann said:


> I'm not going to refute your argument, because it's an irrelevant can of worms I don't want to open. I pointed out evolutionary evidence that indicates superstitious thinking is a natural development in humans, specially when it's related to group behavior. That much is true, and there's plenty of evidence in the form of damn near every population, modern or ancient, having their own myths and superstitions. Why do you think NASA engineers like eating peanuts during tricky takeoffs and landings? It ain't because they need the niacin, I can tell you that much.


superstition is something that is 99% culturally reinforced. and what reinforces culture? religion. you dont have to refute my argument to be dead wrong.



Holtzmann said:


> Yes, _some_ of us (both of us included) can suppress those stupid natural tendencies to attribute intent to random chance and to see patterns where there are none. But make no mistake, you'll never be able to enable even a majority of the global population to do the same until sociological conditions are right. You'd need a level of general prosperity and happiness that's so high as to be unfeasible under our current socioeconomical systems. It's never been done before, and it's unlikely to ever actually happen.


so you are in a nutshell saying here that religion is for the poor and ignorant? well hey, there is something we agree on. of course its unattainable with our current systems because so many of them are driven by religion. religion is the shaper of culture throughout the ages, and culture is the great divider of humankind. i propose that if the religion is removed from the culture, the divisions are removed as well. then we can all fucking work together like a bunch of adults, and get to cracking on all of that socioeconomic stress our current society is in. if we can do it, so can they.



Holtzmann said:


> That's very idealistic. However, I ask you to keep in mind the deluded maniac has _way_ more deluded maniacs with him than you have people on your side. And those deluded maniacs are _far_ more likely to try to kill you if you rile them up too much with inflammatory, provocative speech. And a dead rationalist is only good as mulch.


doesnt work that way in a nation of laws bro. but i invite any deluded religious fuck to "come at me bro". ill teach em something worth crying over.


I agree





Holtzmann said:


> absolutely with your assessment that most organized religion is at least counterproductive but usually downright evil. But I'm being pragmatic. You'll _never_ be able to change the mind of someone who's entirely convinced of their religious righteousness. Let me say that in bold letters: *never*. We see it in this thread. Their entire belief system is based on mechanisms that only _reinforce_ their ideals when faced with hostile environments. That's precisely why most cultures become more religion-centric during times of adversity, when in fact the rational thing to do would be to start doubting beliefs that have been proven wrong time and time again.


sounds like garbage that humanity needs to be rid of, people responsible for more strife in the name of nothing at all than any rational human being.



Holtzmann said:


> Let me give you an example that stuck with me ever since I was a kid: I grew up in a very arid and poor area. Droughts were common, as were failed crops. Life was pretty hard outside the cities. And back when we were growing up, there was a period of drought that lasted almost two years. I remember literally seeing only two rainy days through those twenty three months of dry heat and dead cattle. The people in the cities didn't feel it too badly (we had trucks bringing us water and goods), but I saw the folks in the farms turn from lapsed catholics (as most of the population here was at the time) into fanatics that went to church every single day and pretty much threatened the city doctor who provided them with healthcare _for free_ with physical violence because he was telling them to stop praying so much and actually using the antibiotics he gave them. It was only months after the rains arrived and the situation normalized again that all that religious fervor simmered down, but they were still left with more fanatics than they started with.


so instead of turning to something positive and real, people fell to their basest forms and threatened an educated person with violence because he told them that praying is gonna do fuck all compared to antibiotics. doesnt paint a pretty picture, that up there with some of the most ignorant shit ive ever heard. and this is the enemy.



Holtzmann said:


> What I _am_ arguing for is that it's simply more efficient to take a guerilla approach. Religious stablishment is far too big a foe for rational people to take on as it is. Facing it head-on will only leave us patting ourselves in the back for "eviscerating" their stupid arguments, while the believers will be even more certain of their righteousness for willfully ignoring all rationality presented to them. Remember, doubt is evil to those people. Questioning things is evil. And their method of dealing with evil is to shut themselves off from it.
> 
> Instead, we should go for the long game and work indirectly for long-term goals. Maybe I didn't express myself properly, but I meant that we should study religion as a cultural element so we will be able to eventually phase it out. Instead of taking on other people's beliefs directly, we should try to undermine them with apparently harmless questions and knowledge. I haven't met a single ex-religious person who's told me they lost their religion because someone shouted at their face and insulted their intelligence for two hours straight.
> 
> ...


well i can agree with the education part, ive advocated that time and again before. but i think all that shouting might get to somebody, even just one person. as ive said as well, there is only really hope for the very young people who havent had their respective cultural bullshit hammered into their skulls by their ignorant peers and family. though the question remains, what do you do with the top portion that remains? my thoughts on that are hardly humanitarian, frankly they ought to be loaded into a giant spaceship and shot into the sun. or sent through a stargate to another planet. or killed violently. comeuppance is a bitch, and there's thousands of years of oppression and violence to repay.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 25, 2013)

So... "the enemy", right? Okay, dude! Here's an assault rifle. Go invade the Vatican or something like that. I'm sure you'll be extremely successful in that particular endeavor.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> So... "the enemy", right? Okay, dude! Here's an assault rifle. Go invade the Vatican or something like that. I'm sure you'll be extremely successful in that particular endeavor.



I prefer proper education as a tool to fight it and not bullets 
I agree with Azure though, it IS the enemy. There is just no way around it for me anymore. It is a retarded concept that needs to be snuffed out at all cost.
But! I want to stress that I don't see all religious people as enemies. Those who actively spread it as a fact and those who cause harm based on their religious beliefs, those are the ones I see as enemies.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 25, 2013)

And "the enemy" doesn't necessarily be killed. That's a rather extreme-wing way of thinking, being education can do quite a bit, or the requirement of a proper education from a secular school to hold any position of power. <.<


----------



## Azure (Mar 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> So... "the enemy", right? Okay, dude! Here's an assault rifle. Go invade the Vatican or something like that. I'm sure you'll be extremely successful in that particular endeavor.


the vatican is doing a great job of fucking itself off though. but hey, facetiousness aside, anything that perpetuates humankinds most base, pathetic nature and elevates it to the pinnacle of power both within the individual and social consciousness, forcing it either directly or indirectly on all peoples, well, theyre my enemy. no way around it. go ahead and be polite, or do whatever the fuck you think you are doing. which is nothing useful. enjoy :grin:


----------



## thoughtmaster (Mar 25, 2013)

Truely, the only way to achieve victory is the complete eradication of all evidence of your opponents existance, kill them and anyone who has had contact with them. If someone is allies with the opponent, both of them become opponents. The friend to my enemy is my enemy. So, where are the nuclear launch codes, I can think of at least four cities that need to be removed if religion is to be removed, Mecca, Medina Jeruselum, and Rome.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 26, 2013)

I would see it as a victory once religion doesn't have influence on politics and the worl view of people anymore and once everyone keeps their religion at home and stops killing or generally hurting others based on it.


----------



## Holtzmann (Mar 26, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I would see it as a victory once religion doesn't have influence on politics and the worl view of people anymore and once everyone keeps their religion at home and stops killing or generally hurting others based on it.


That's what I'm going for, personally. Fight them head-on and you'll only have holy war on top of holy war.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Mar 26, 2013)

Another thing I often think about is that my father and mother are Bible-believing Protestants- I wonder how far back my family's beliefs can be traced. If I really wanted to feel confident in my salvation, I'd like to know how many of my long-deceased ancestors are elect and whether or not they form a  straight line. Which of my ancestors started believing and began this "daisy chain" of grace. 

The Jews of Jesus' time would often say that "abraham is my father" to counter any claims that the goyim could be righteous. Even the Samaritans who were Jews who received the law on Mount Sinai but were not taken to Babylon were looked down on for being "half-breeds" by the Jewish elite. The Jews called themselves "b'nei Yisrael" to show that they were descended from the most righteous men on earth and should be the most righteous men on earth of their generation, not because of their own good deeds but because righteousness was in their blood.

Why shouldn't there be a similar interest and pride in geneaology to find out how many generations of believers there are in Christian families today?


----------



## Corto (Mar 27, 2013)

Fucking religion threads.


----------

