Ionian
Member
Was going to point that out but you beat me to it!
Old Testament truly has some messed up shit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
are you religious and if so what religion/share your story (my rant/get off my chest)
- Thread starter nightmare-slain
- Start date
Was going to point that out but you beat me to it!
Old Testament truly has some messed up shit.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Not religious. I was forced to get confirmed as a Catholic. I have a PhD in physics and would never abuse a child by telling them that everything was created by some extremely petty god who will torture your eternal soul if you don't believe in him, but will love you otherwise. Why would you want such a crappy being to love you? Why would you want to lock your child's mind into some dogma with inconsistencies that would trouble any intelligent mind, when instead, he or she could live and learn from facts and the hard work of millions of people? At it's core, religion is hate for the accomplishments of mankind.
Religion robs children of the scope of their curiosity and taints their views on science. The New Testament was made up 1600 years ago and used a lot of stories that were part of other mythologies, including the Old Testament. Christianity then went on to evolve into countless sects, spin off Islam and Mormonism and create hundreds of false truths and dozens of groups that want to kill each other.
In the last 500 years science has described mechanical motion, discovered the building blocks of matter, mastered electricity and basic quantum effect to give us fast gaming hardware, taught us how life could go from a single cell to us, increased our life expectancy by about a factor of 3, and was able to reduce the risk of infection of Covid 19 by a factor of 8 despite it mutating with a vaccine within a couple of months (testing took several more months). In that same time period, all that religion has managed to do is create more sects that hate each other and give really shitty people a sick excuse to think they are actually good people. Things like "I believe and go to church and that is more important than the fact that I lie, manipulate and act selfishly most of the time." It creates some perverse notion that you have to believe in some fake god to do good rather than doing good because it is right.
Religion robs children of the scope of their curiosity and taints their views on science. The New Testament was made up 1600 years ago and used a lot of stories that were part of other mythologies, including the Old Testament. Christianity then went on to evolve into countless sects, spin off Islam and Mormonism and create hundreds of false truths and dozens of groups that want to kill each other.
In the last 500 years science has described mechanical motion, discovered the building blocks of matter, mastered electricity and basic quantum effect to give us fast gaming hardware, taught us how life could go from a single cell to us, increased our life expectancy by about a factor of 3, and was able to reduce the risk of infection of Covid 19 by a factor of 8 despite it mutating with a vaccine within a couple of months (testing took several more months). In that same time period, all that religion has managed to do is create more sects that hate each other and give really shitty people a sick excuse to think they are actually good people. Things like "I believe and go to church and that is more important than the fact that I lie, manipulate and act selfishly most of the time." It creates some perverse notion that you have to believe in some fake god to do good rather than doing good because it is right.
Rran
Member
Cradle Catholic. My religion is a huge part of who I am--I believe in building upon a foundation of both faith and reason to find the truth. And Catholicism encourages using the tools we have to do so.
Ever heard of "fideism"? In short, it's the concept of blind faith, faith without question. And in Catholicism, it's a heresy. The reason is because Catholics have very specific reasons for everything we believe and do, and don't want people to simply go along with the concepts without asking why.
Beyond that--and more broadly speaking--I feel like organized religion challenges people. With goals to strive towards, and the concept of being imperfect but also redeemable. Not to imply that atheists are unethical, but if I wasn't following an organized religion, I wouldn't have the sort of Biblical concepts hammered into me that I do every Sunday that help me reflect on my own life and how I can try to do better.
Ever heard of "fideism"? In short, it's the concept of blind faith, faith without question. And in Catholicism, it's a heresy. The reason is because Catholics have very specific reasons for everything we believe and do, and don't want people to simply go along with the concepts without asking why.
Beyond that--and more broadly speaking--I feel like organized religion challenges people. With goals to strive towards, and the concept of being imperfect but also redeemable. Not to imply that atheists are unethical, but if I wasn't following an organized religion, I wouldn't have the sort of Biblical concepts hammered into me that I do every Sunday that help me reflect on my own life and how I can try to do better.
Ionian
Member
Try being forced to confess as a child.
You have to repeat the act of attriction, as a child.
The shame you feel is monumetous.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
Look some of those that say God can do anything dont believe he can make 2+2 =5 or make an irrational number into a rational. That is many believe there are logical limits. They just dont consider that logical limits may also mean he cannot stop something from existing that might logically necessarily exist, such as an unjust life history.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
No.
You can logically "prove" that 2 + 2 = 5
You can't logically prove that life necessarily requires suffering or unjustness. You're just making up premises and conclusions at that point.
Ionian
Member
God was alive? Try telling that to anyone that went to church.
Jesus sure, God always was just a God.
You learn that in Childhood.
O-N-E
Member
Let's take suffering and injustice out. It's impossible to suffer and Impossible to sin against anyone. Are those the exact conditions required for you to believe in a creator? Any additional conditions?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Hypotheticals and thought experiments can only speculate on the plausibility of the theological debate.
Justified, reasonable belief in anything requires a proportional justified, reasonable amount of proof.
How about bot flies or guinea worms? If god created everything then he created creatures that cause untold and needless suffering and an all powerful and loving God could have easily created a world where such creatures do not exist.
Stephen Fry argued it the best but to me it is a powerful argument that if there is a god (I see no evidence to support such a claim) then it is an utter maniac that is not worthy of worship or reverence.
jarrichvdv
Neo Member
Lost all “faith” in humanity reading this thread. Smh
Ionian
Member
Ah no need for that. We're all human, being human is to simply question.
Last edited:
O-N-E
Member
What is reasonable proof for you? You could have answered the question plainly. Tell me exactly what you need. You want to shake hands with God? That won't happen.
We're talking about the source of all existence. This isn't like measuring a distance or a weight or a volume or a speed, etc.
You want something reasonable? Well, we live in our own pocket of reasonable space with measurable forces, but to what degree does that hold? What created this, the big bang? What caused the big bang? What caused the thing that caused the big bang? Our own reasonable universe's rule of "cause and effect" is in actuality unreasonable and irrational because it would suggest an infinite set of events. Infinity is not a rational number. So how do you get to the infinite source of all this, divine will or not, without delving into the irrational?
So again, what are your exact conditions?
Amiga
Member
the world without suffering is heaven. you can seek it out if you want instead of dismissing your own fortune.
eNT1TY
Member
I am not religious at all despite a good portion of my immediate and extended family being Mormon and another portion being Catholic. I don't reject the idea of an entity "greater" than ourselves by some nondescript measure existing however. That said just because I am open to the idea of such a being existing doesn't mean that such a being is a deity or God. Ignoring the extremely low relative probability that a such a being even exists ( as none have been observed thus far) what would qualify it as a god? It is an extraordinarily potent being, would it be its ability to manipulate matter, space, and time? What if it can only manipulate two of the three or just one, is it still a god? If this being did indeed exist it stands to reason another just like it could also exist, evidence being that one already does. Maybe the second one is different, as opposed to the first one; this one can manipulate both matter and space, then the third being... you can see where this is going. We are only measuring these entities by our limitations. Each one is immeasurably greater than any single man, is that all it takes to be god? Either of those 3 can do what The Abrahamic god or any other god can do. Religion is people in power making you pick one (or more) and attaches dogmatic terms, conditions and rules to profit with the least amount of resistance. Why would an omnipotent being need to be worshiped? Is it prayer powered? If this being demands such is it a learned behavior, does this being also worship something greater than itself? I guess i will never know as i can't will big bangs out of nothingness to create a multiverse exhausting my precious energies in the process and needing the prayers of by-products of by-products of by-products of my creations to replenish me lest i damn them forever with my wrathful judgement for their souls to languish in torment for eternity for their actions during a small spec of mortal life that is but the merest of a fraction of a fraction of the remainder of their immortality in prison.
Rran
Member
I've done all that! But I think it's okay for children to have negative emotions like shame and guilt sometimes.
Ionian
Member
Ah yeah, I just had to make shit up though.
"So tell me your sins".
I swore at my mother and once stole 20p to play a videogame in the arcade.
"Ok thats 2 'Hail Mary's and 2 'Our Fathers'".
Then having to do it in church straight after. Priests were always nice to me but the fear of entering the confessional box when you hadn't done anything. Sometimes had to make shit up which in itself is a sin.
.
Last edited:
Amiga
Member
this is not true religion. this done by grifter organizations or individuals. they only exist in the 1st place because people don't know the basics of their own religion and are easy to be taken advantage of.
God doesn't need worship. It's creation that needs worship to connect with God. in Islam the standard prayer is called "salat". and that means connecting.
It's all in the wrist
Member
Think of it as a journey of discovery. There is so much to discover through different personalities, different cultures, and different religious perspectives. At it's core, religion is people trying to make sense of our purpose. I'm thankful for my Catholic upbringing and find the structure to be beneficial, and the moral code is solid. I don't believe in the spiritual tenets of the faith any longer.
teezzy
Banned
The thing few people understand about faith is that having it is a choice. Took me a long while to fall back into the fold. Even my friends give me strange looks about it now, as I was so adamantly against it in my teens and twenties.
Life has its ways, and I hope you find your true path, brother
lukilladog
Member
That is just odd, because if you have faith then one would think that you already know the answer deep inside. But why would a loving god put you in a position with your far from perfect human reasoning and senses, to work out slippy and ambiguous empirical evidence in order to realize your faith and avoid eternal torture?. Or maybe it is true that atheist can go to heave because we have faith, but we don´t know about it
That´s like giving away an iphone to someone with your number glued to it, and pretend you didn´t do it to entertain, at least the possibility, of being called.
Last edited:
lukilladog
Member
Belief is not a choice, you cannot chose to be convinced or not of anything.
Morally we can and do way better nowadays, bible says you shall not have other gods before me, I say freedom of religion. Bible says honor your father and your mother, I say, respect your children too. And so on. You have to wonder why there is not a you shall not enslave your brothers commandment, I think the people that wrote it had to compromise due to their culture and even personal interests. Epistemologically, theistic moral frameworks are either arbitrary or based on reason and are not superior to others like moral realism.
Kazekage1981
Member
you cant omit the spiritual component of religion, because it requires for you to have some sort of 'spirit', 'chi' 'life force energy' 'soul' in your physical body.
lukilladog
Member
What do you mean?, omit on which context?.
Kazekage1981
Member
in my opinion..
being religious implies sticking to rules, regulations-has negative connotations because if you dont stick to those rules, regulations you gonna burn in hell-which is the basis for dogma
spiritual means-meditation, prayers, doing certain rituals that feed the 'spirit' or 'soul' the same way you eat food to feed the physical body to have some sort of connection with a deity. In the 3 monotheistic religions its typically: God. In Hinduism its multiple deities, and in Buddhism there is no deity but these rituals pave a path and attract certain things for you.
Under the umbrella of any religion, the spiritual component gets lost-and all that is shown in media, are dogmatic strict harsh adherence to the rules and regulations associated with that religion.
This is just my opinion, I'm not a religious studies major, or an academic-and I dont need to be.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
There are dozens of us! I simply don't care one way or the other. Philosophically, I'm absurdist and theologically, apatheist.
Last edited:
dorkimoe
Member
You dont even have to choose it! It chooses you. You just realize when people are talking about it that you dont care!
Amiga
Member
True, religion is talked about in mainstream media and academia almost exclusively by detractors. most of the arguments I hear about religion are about assumptions. not what I or others like me actually believe.
Kazekage1981
Member
I was almost an atheist, until i realized atheism does not address suffering:
This whole richard dawkins, sam harris, christopher hitchens militant smug reductionist atheist movement wants you to be 'practical' 'logical' "rational" and 'scientific' about your life in order to pursue the truth, and if you don't pursue science and acquire scientific knowledge and have an objective practical approach to all facets of your life-then your an ignorant piece of shit and dont adhere to the dogma of athiesm. This whole movement is silly, child like, amateur and dangerous. There is no rational, practical, logical approach to your child dying of cancer, or you dying of cancer, or world suffering, war, poverty, injustice being done to you or others etc. None of it makes any sense. Athiesm doesn't give anyone motivation or drive, or will to solve world problems like: global warming, poverty, wars, etc. Atheism doesn't address a persons emotional sense of well being. Its like they want you to be like vulcans from star trek. As far is science is concerned, it is a mental tool created by man that continues to be refined through out the ages to help us understand the natural world/universe. Anyone can pick up that tool: hindus, muslims, christians, bhuddists, jews, etc. The scientific method is not 'tainted' by anyone who adheres to religion unlike atheist pope richard dawkins the first, and super liberal douche prophet Bill Maher.
The Athiest movement of richard dawkins, the amazing athiest, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, leads to a dead end with emptiness in my opinion, it doesn't really 'free' you from the dogma of religion, leaves you empty handed even if the supposed truth is that we humans came from monkeys buttfucking dolphins.
The 'truth' of the natural origins and evolution of man, also leaves no practical purpose for a poor 10 year old kid in africa who is mining cobalt and earns less than $2 a day, or the immense grief and suffering of a Afghani woman who lost her son, and husband in the afghan war. What is the point of acquiring all this scientific knowledge in a persons emotional well being, and his/her suffering? Richard Dawkins childish response was "there would be reconciliation within that person and when they realize there is no god, and complete eradication of religion, we humans will be perfect utopian society with no wars, conflicts, and significant advancements in scientific progress." Fucking douche.
Not everyone is interested in quantum physics like neil degrasse tyson, or neuro science like sam harris, and evolutionary biology like richard dawkins, and they will die pondering and wondering about a lot of things in the natural world and universe which later generations of humans will acquire. They will die not knowing or having answers of the very things they were most curious about.
Some people wanna do finance, business, marketing that doesn't require hardcore biological and physical sciences.
Richard Dawkins, amazing atheist, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, do not champion free thinking, or develop thinking faculties of questioning of religious dogma. They have come to their own conclusions, assumptions and assertions, and are trying to shove their own way of thinking and narrow lens approach to life down your throat. So remember people, besides being an atheist, make sure you adhere to sam harris's plagiarized Tibetan meditation techniques of deep breathing through your asshole.
Edit: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Aaron Ra, Niel Tyson, amazing athiest, Christopher Hitchens and other prominent atheist in the mainstream media are like the taliban/al-qaeda leaders. They speak for all atheists and all atheist speak the same way, and for those who are sitting on the fence on religion, they are able to sway you their way because they are able to create a hesitancy and self doubt in your lack of scientific knowledge. After all, they know more than you because they have Ph.D.'s. and they look up this stuff for you, so you dont have to! Any attempt of you solving quantum physics on your own means your a fucking idiot. Only they know how to do it. So if someone asks how and what lead you to become an atheist, just say 4 douchebags of atheist movement! They definitely speak for me and know what they are talking about, because I'm too lazy and stupid to do the critical thinking and rigorous scientific method of finding the truth for myself! TREND ALERT!!!
Lastly, get this: they have created an arbitrary standardized litmus test to prove how atheistic you are when anyone attempts to do science, because the real reason why we dont have enough scientists and graduating scientists in western nations is because of that darn pesky religion. Never mind the actual education curriculum, and the fact that India has more Hindu scientists, engineers and programmers graduating from India, and more American, Canadian born Indian Hindu scientists graduate from western colleges and universities
This whole richard dawkins, sam harris, christopher hitchens militant smug reductionist atheist movement wants you to be 'practical' 'logical' "rational" and 'scientific' about your life in order to pursue the truth, and if you don't pursue science and acquire scientific knowledge and have an objective practical approach to all facets of your life-then your an ignorant piece of shit and dont adhere to the dogma of athiesm. This whole movement is silly, child like, amateur and dangerous. There is no rational, practical, logical approach to your child dying of cancer, or you dying of cancer, or world suffering, war, poverty, injustice being done to you or others etc. None of it makes any sense. Athiesm doesn't give anyone motivation or drive, or will to solve world problems like: global warming, poverty, wars, etc. Atheism doesn't address a persons emotional sense of well being. Its like they want you to be like vulcans from star trek. As far is science is concerned, it is a mental tool created by man that continues to be refined through out the ages to help us understand the natural world/universe. Anyone can pick up that tool: hindus, muslims, christians, bhuddists, jews, etc. The scientific method is not 'tainted' by anyone who adheres to religion unlike atheist pope richard dawkins the first, and super liberal douche prophet Bill Maher.
The Athiest movement of richard dawkins, the amazing athiest, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, leads to a dead end with emptiness in my opinion, it doesn't really 'free' you from the dogma of religion, leaves you empty handed even if the supposed truth is that we humans came from monkeys buttfucking dolphins.
The 'truth' of the natural origins and evolution of man, also leaves no practical purpose for a poor 10 year old kid in africa who is mining cobalt and earns less than $2 a day, or the immense grief and suffering of a Afghani woman who lost her son, and husband in the afghan war. What is the point of acquiring all this scientific knowledge in a persons emotional well being, and his/her suffering? Richard Dawkins childish response was "there would be reconciliation within that person and when they realize there is no god, and complete eradication of religion, we humans will be perfect utopian society with no wars, conflicts, and significant advancements in scientific progress." Fucking douche.
Not everyone is interested in quantum physics like neil degrasse tyson, or neuro science like sam harris, and evolutionary biology like richard dawkins, and they will die pondering and wondering about a lot of things in the natural world and universe which later generations of humans will acquire. They will die not knowing or having answers of the very things they were most curious about.
Some people wanna do finance, business, marketing that doesn't require hardcore biological and physical sciences.
Richard Dawkins, amazing atheist, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, do not champion free thinking, or develop thinking faculties of questioning of religious dogma. They have come to their own conclusions, assumptions and assertions, and are trying to shove their own way of thinking and narrow lens approach to life down your throat. So remember people, besides being an atheist, make sure you adhere to sam harris's plagiarized Tibetan meditation techniques of deep breathing through your asshole.
Edit: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Aaron Ra, Niel Tyson, amazing athiest, Christopher Hitchens and other prominent atheist in the mainstream media are like the taliban/al-qaeda leaders. They speak for all atheists and all atheist speak the same way, and for those who are sitting on the fence on religion, they are able to sway you their way because they are able to create a hesitancy and self doubt in your lack of scientific knowledge. After all, they know more than you because they have Ph.D.'s. and they look up this stuff for you, so you dont have to! Any attempt of you solving quantum physics on your own means your a fucking idiot. Only they know how to do it. So if someone asks how and what lead you to become an atheist, just say 4 douchebags of atheist movement! They definitely speak for me and know what they are talking about, because I'm too lazy and stupid to do the critical thinking and rigorous scientific method of finding the truth for myself! TREND ALERT!!!
Lastly, get this: they have created an arbitrary standardized litmus test to prove how atheistic you are when anyone attempts to do science, because the real reason why we dont have enough scientists and graduating scientists in western nations is because of that darn pesky religion. Never mind the actual education curriculum, and the fact that India has more Hindu scientists, engineers and programmers graduating from India, and more American, Canadian born Indian Hindu scientists graduate from western colleges and universities
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Gold Member
I was almost an atheist, until i realized atheism does not address suffering:
This whole richard dawkins, sam harris, christopher hitchens militant smug reductionist atheist movement wants you to be 'practical' 'logical' and 'scientific' about your life in order to pursue the truth, and if you don't pursue science and acquire scientific knowledge and have an objective practical approach to all facets of your life-then your an ignorant piece of shit and dont adhere to the dogma of athiesm. This whole movement is silly, child like, amateur and dangerous. There is no rational, practical, logical approach to your child dying of cancer, or you dying of cancer, or world suffering, war, poverty, injustice being done to you or others etc. None of it makes any sense. Athiesm doesn't give anyone motivation or drive, or will to solve world problems like: global warming, poverty, wars, etc. Atheism doesn't address a persons emotional sense of well being. Its like they want you to be like vulcans from star trek. As far is science is concerned, it is a mental tool created by man that continues to be refined through out the ages to help us understand the natural world/universe. Anyone can pick up that tool: hindus, muslims, christians, bhuddists, jews, etc. The scientific method is not 'tainted' by anyone who adheres to religion unlike atheist pope richard dawkins the first, and super liberal douche Bill Maher.
The Athiest movement of richard dawkins, the amazing athiest, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, leads to a dead end with emptiness in my opinion, it doesn't really 'free' you from the dogma of religion, leaves you empty handed even if the supposed truth is that we humans came from was from monkeys buttfucking dolphins.
The 'truth' of the natural origins and evolution of man, also leaves no practical purpose for a poor 10 year old kid in africa who is mining cobalt and earns less than $2 a day, or the immense grief and suffering of a afghani woman who lost her son, and husband in the afghan war. What is the point of acquiring all this scientific knowledge in a persons emotional well being, and his/her suffering? Richard Dawkins childish response was "there would be reconciliation within that person" and when they realize there is no god, and complete eradication of religion, we humans will be perfect utopian society with no wars, conflicts, and significant advancements in scientific progress. Fucking douche.
Not everyone is interested in quantum physics like neil degrasse tyson, or neuro science like sam harris, and evolutionary biology like richard dawkins, and they will die pondering and wondering about a lot of things in the natural world and universe which later generations of humans will acquire. They will die with the very things they were most curious about. Some people wanna do finance, business, marketing that doesnt require hardcore biological and physical sciences.
Richard Dawkins, amazing athiest, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, do not champion free thinking, or even developing thinking faculties of questioning of religious dogma, they have come to their own conclusions, assumptions and assertions, and are trying to shove their way of thinking and approach to life down your throat. So remember people, besides being an athiest, make sure you adhere to sam harris's plagiarized meditation techniques of deep breathing through your asshole.
lukilladog
Member
I was almost an atheist, until i realized atheism does not address suffering:
This whole richard dawkins, sam harris, christopher hitchens militant smug reductionist atheist movement wants you to be 'practical' 'logical' "rational" and 'scientific' about your life in order to pursue the truth, and if you don't pursue science and acquire scientific knowledge and have an objective practical approach to all facets of your life-then your an ignorant piece of shit and dont adhere to the dogma of athiesm. This whole movement is silly, child like, amateur and dangerous. There is no rational, practical, logical approach to your child dying of cancer, or you dying of cancer, or world suffering, war, poverty, injustice being done to you or others etc. None of it makes any sense. Athiesm doesn't give anyone motivation or drive, or will to solve world problems like: global warming, poverty, wars, etc. Atheism doesn't address a persons emotional sense of well being. Its like they want you to be like vulcans from star trek. As far is science is concerned, it is a mental tool created by man that continues to be refined through out the ages to help us understand the natural world/universe. Anyone can pick up that tool: hindus, muslims, christians, bhuddists, jews, etc. The scientific method is not 'tainted' by anyone who adheres to religion unlike atheist pope richard dawkins the first, and super liberal douche prophet Bill Maher.
The Athiest movement of richard dawkins, the amazing athiest, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, leads to a dead end with emptiness in my opinion, it doesn't really 'free' you from the dogma of religion, leaves you empty handed even if the supposed truth is that we humans came from monkeys buttfucking dolphins.
The 'truth' of the natural origins and evolution of man, also leaves no practical purpose for a poor 10 year old kid in africa who is mining cobalt and earns less than $2 a day, or the immense grief and suffering of a Afghani woman who lost her son, and husband in the afghan war. What is the point of acquiring all this scientific knowledge in a persons emotional well being, and his/her suffering? Richard Dawkins childish response was "there would be reconciliation within that person" and when they realize there is no god, and complete eradication of religion, we humans will be perfect utopian society with no wars, conflicts, and significant advancements in scientific progress." Fucking douche.
Not everyone is interested in quantum physics like neil degrasse tyson, or neuro science like sam harris, and evolutionary biology like richard dawkins, and they will die pondering and wondering about a lot of things in the natural world and universe which later generations of humans will acquire. They will die not knowing or having answers of the very things they were most curious about. Some people wanna do finance, business, marketing that doesn't require hardcore biological and physical sciences.
Richard Dawkins, amazing atheist, sam harris, christopher hitchens, aaron ra, do not champion free thinking, or develop thinking faculties of questioning of religious dogma. They have come to their own conclusions, assumptions and assertions, and are trying to shove their own way of thinking and narrow lens approach to life down your throat. So remember people, besides being an atheist, make sure you adhere to sam harris's plagiarized Tibetan meditation techniques of deep breathing through your asshole.
Edit: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Aaron Ra, Niel Tyson, amazing athiest, Christopher Hitchens and other prominent atheist in the mainstream media are like the taliban/al-qaeda leaders. They speak for all atheists and all atheist speak the same way, and for those who are sitting on the fence on religion, they are able to sway you their way because they are able to create a hesitancy and self doubt in your lack of scientific knowledge. After all, they know more than you because they have Ph.D.'s. and they look up this stuff for you, so you dont have to! Any attempt of you solving quantum physics on your own means your a fucking idiot. Only they know how to do it. So if someone asks how and what lead you to become an atheist, just say 4 douchebags of athest movement! They definitely speak for me and know what they are talking about, because I'm too lazy and stupid to do the critical thinking and rigorous scientific method of finding the truth for myself! TREND ALERT!!!
Lastly, get this: they have created an arbitrary standardized litmus test to prove how atheistic you are when anyone attempts to do science, because the real reason why we dont have enough scientists and graduating scientists in western nations is because of that darn pesky religion. Never mind the actual education curriculum, and the fact that India has more Hindu scientists, engineers and programmers graduating from India, and more American, Canadian born Indian Hindu scientists graduate from western colleges and universities
Apples and oranges man
Category mistake - Wikipedia
Peggies
Gold Member
Wow, this thread reminds me of the Marilyn Manson thread some time ago. Does anyone remember that?
Grown up people saying things like "Oh, so you think worshiping Satan is funny, eh?"... it's just hilarious.
Maybe it's a cultural thing? In my country (or is it my bubble?), religion is more like a construct of tradition. Something your grandmother believes in.
Grown up people saying things like "Oh, so you think worshiping Satan is funny, eh?"... it's just hilarious.
Maybe it's a cultural thing? In my country (or is it my bubble?), religion is more like a construct of tradition. Something your grandmother believes in.
Soodanim
Gold Member
I'm going to keep this simple, because it always comes back down to this anyway:
I have never been given reason to believe that any god, deity, or other related entity does or has ever existed.That's a whole lot shorter than the point by point breakdown I was tempted to do. Thanks for saving me the effort
Amiga
Member
Others can talk about it but ultimately it has to be the individual that seeks and contemplates. those who have found their answer in faith can only keep the lighthouse burning.
Last edited:
Soodanim
Gold Member
Yes and no. Your point is fine in and of itself, but not as a response to being given reason, because I think it's a misinterpretation. Perhaps it's better for me to say I've never had reason.
Jehova's Witnesses once knocked on my door, and during the discussion I was asked, "Do you not look at the grass or the sky and wonder who made that?"
The answer is no. I'm content to not have an answer to questions that don't concern me if I don't have one.
I think you need to have the capacity to have religious faith in order to be religious, and I simply don't have that.
O-N-E
Member
Some people do change.
My childhood best friend was an atheist for a long time, but we had many discussions on the subject and into adulthood, he made a switch to saying he's a deist. Atheism made less sense to him than believing there was a will for something to come from nothing.
Also, I know many people who were atheists growing up and became religious, but that had less to do with me.
lukilladog
Member
Last edited:
lukilladog
Member
As per christian theology I doubt it, he was always a christian or he is a false christian now. As per naturalism, yeah, deep beliefs can change.
Ps.- Shit, you said deist, not christian, dimiss that then. Although t is a shame he got dragged by the romantic yet illogical rethoric of "the something from nothing".
Last edited:
Amiga
Member
Maybe not yet. From person to person It happens at different points in the life time. some as kids, some as old men.
Soodanim
Gold Member
The idea that everyone, sooner or later, becomes religious is new to me. And there I was thinking this thread would be the same old thing. I don’t agree with it one bit and it’s actually the opposite if anything when talking about humans as a group, but thank you for something new.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
Yes with some systems you probably can show 2+2=5(edit 2: these are all arbitrary symbols and you can take them to mean something else.). But at least with standard models using integers and the traditional definitions of addition, such is nonsensical. But ignore that, lets say that there is no greatest integer. That is logically proven. Attempting to prove there is a greatest or largest integer, cannot be done. So there you have two things making irrationals rational and making a largest integer, both cannot be done.
As for life requiring suffering, that is not necessarily the case. All that is needed is that it is not logically possible for ALL life to lack suffering, that is for there to exist some life with suffering. There could be life without suffering, but that does not mean that it might not also be logically necessary for some forms of life to exist with suffering.
You say we are making premises and conclusions, but this all emerges from one simple possibility, that all possible worlds that can exist do exist by logical necessity. Digital physics suggests information is the root of everything, a particular world state is equivalent to binary number of sufficient size with a particular numerical sequence. It still hasn't been proven, but there are those who suspect in a computational universe, wherein digital states are the foundation.
If the universe is digital in nature, than it stands to reason that all universes resulting from the combinatorics of binary digits also exist, this includes worlds with suffering. If a particular binary number or integer equals a state of suffering, you cannot say that such a number can't exist.(edit: This is the information content of binary numbers, if binary numbers contain information, and if binary numbers exist in some fashion the information they contain also exists. Note that one day we will have brain computer interfaces, if the world doesn't collapse, and that conscious states will be transmissible digitally, that is the information content of the brain will be sent to other brains in a digital fashion. The numbers will contain the information within conscious states. And since numbers are immutable and eternal, that information content of consciousness likely exists eternally without cause and cannot be destroyed.)
For example did you know of the library of babel
About the Library
An introduction to libraryofbabel.info, its creators and inspirations.
libraryofbabel.info
Any passage from Lord of the rings or from Harry Potter or from Game of Thrones, etc is within the library of babel. As is the last words you will say or you will hear, and so too for all stories and all humans.
Could you stop such passages from existing? Such stories from having injustices? I don't think it is logically possible to stop something that is a result of the logic, through combinatorics of letters. Similar happens to atoms and the universe, wherein all manner of atom combinations as allowed by the laws of physics takes place. Unless these are the only laws logically possible, it may even be that combinatorics of different elements under different laws also yield other variety.
Last edited:
Kazekage1981
Member
I think its important for OP or anyone to ask themselves the following questions (I created a amateurish arbitrary algorithm) :
"Do human beings, and other life forms have some sort of chi, spirit, or soul?"
if "no", then you are more likely leaning towards staunch atheism, because it demands tangible empirical evidence.
if "maybe" then you are more agnostic because you considering the possibility of the existence of the soul. Just because you dont see it, doesn't necessarily mean its not there. But for now, you are not seeing it so therefore its not there, unless you find a way to see it. This is analogous to asking the question "is there intelligent extraterrestrial life that exists outside our solar system and in other galaxies?"
For the intelligent extraterrestrial life, we humans have create many 'mythos' and 'fables' through movies, novels, TV shows, to satisfy our imagination, longing and possibility of E.T. life. However, the reality is we have yet to find E.T beings, but should we come to the conclusion that there is no ET life because you dont see it empirically? What if human beings make contact with ET beings 300 years from now?
Consider another example: Theoretical physicists such as Michio Kaku have postulated that there are multi-verses through complex equations. There is an alternate version of you in another universe. Based on his expertise, the 'math' supports it. However, an average lament like yourself would have to do the same calculations and deduce to the same answers to have the same conviction that what he is telling is the truth. But since you are most likely not a physicist, should you take his word for it and just 'believe' him? After all, he is an expert and written down all his calculations on paper for you to examine yourself. Lastly, just because the 'math' supports it, doesn't mean its empirically there. How many of us have gone through an inter-dimensional portal to another universe and met an alternative version of you?
For the above green highlighted question: If you answer "yes" there is a soul, chi, spirit, soul, then pretend you are entering a buffet restaurant. In the restaurant you can taste:
Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions which I have not listed. The religions attempt to tell you where the chi/spirit/soul comes from, the purpose of it, how to utilize it, and where it is headed after it leaves your physical body. Hence this is a path the OP is most likely leaning towards, and trying to find answers for himself.
However, it is OP who must answer "yes" "no" "maybe" to the green highlighted question
"Do human beings, and other life forms have some sort of chi, spirit, or soul?"
if "no", then you are more likely leaning towards staunch atheism, because it demands tangible empirical evidence.
if "maybe" then you are more agnostic because you considering the possibility of the existence of the soul. Just because you dont see it, doesn't necessarily mean its not there. But for now, you are not seeing it so therefore its not there, unless you find a way to see it. This is analogous to asking the question "is there intelligent extraterrestrial life that exists outside our solar system and in other galaxies?"
For the intelligent extraterrestrial life, we humans have create many 'mythos' and 'fables' through movies, novels, TV shows, to satisfy our imagination, longing and possibility of E.T. life. However, the reality is we have yet to find E.T beings, but should we come to the conclusion that there is no ET life because you dont see it empirically? What if human beings make contact with ET beings 300 years from now?
Consider another example: Theoretical physicists such as Michio Kaku have postulated that there are multi-verses through complex equations. There is an alternate version of you in another universe. Based on his expertise, the 'math' supports it. However, an average lament like yourself would have to do the same calculations and deduce to the same answers to have the same conviction that what he is telling is the truth. But since you are most likely not a physicist, should you take his word for it and just 'believe' him? After all, he is an expert and written down all his calculations on paper for you to examine yourself. Lastly, just because the 'math' supports it, doesn't mean its empirically there. How many of us have gone through an inter-dimensional portal to another universe and met an alternative version of you?
For the above green highlighted question: If you answer "yes" there is a soul, chi, spirit, soul, then pretend you are entering a buffet restaurant. In the restaurant you can taste:
Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions which I have not listed. The religions attempt to tell you where the chi/spirit/soul comes from, the purpose of it, how to utilize it, and where it is headed after it leaves your physical body. Hence this is a path the OP is most likely leaning towards, and trying to find answers for himself.
However, it is OP who must answer "yes" "no" "maybe" to the green highlighted question
HermitSperg691
Banned
I believe in God.
