Another Fucking Religion Thread

[Rabid Headbanger]

It's not destructive, as it technically is why groups/tribes/gangs of people are formed (mutual symbiosis) but it is, however, not selfless, so selflessness is an impossible state.

 

[Matt]

I don't really see a problem with helping someone so you feel good. The net result is positive for both parties

I wasn't saying it's a bad thing either. I just disagree with the said theory.

 

[Alter]

And what does this tell you about the veracity of religion?

It really just tells me that people can only relate to a religion when people have prove within there own eyes. Which many people have not seen.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Well that would be the LaVayan form I believe. Orthodox Satanists directly Worship Him.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's right.

no... there is no such thing as "orthodox satanism"... there has never been a unified practice of satanism. the closest thing to it has been the formation of the COS which as others have said is not about devil worship.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

No, we're all self obsessed. It's impossible for humanity to not be self obsessed. A seemingly selfless act is only done for the benefit of the doer, whether it be to make them feel good about themselves, make them seem morally superior, give way to an unspoken indebtment or apeal to an illusionary sense of honour, it's all done for self gratification.

i agree in the most part... however some christians will do "good" or "moral" things because they believe in objective moral values and doing some things are inherently good and moral even if they gain no satisfaction from it.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

i agree in the most part... however some christians will do "good" or "moral" things because they believe in objective moral values and doing some things are inherently good and moral even if they gain no satisfaction from it.

But technically since they are commanded to they do it to either get the approval of or avoid the scrutiny of both thier conscience and jesus/god.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Subconscious satisfaction, btw.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

But technically since they are commanded to they do it to either get the approval of or avoid the scrutiny of both thier conscience and jesus/god.

true... i just thought of that after i posted... selfishness ftw

 

[cookiecutter]

It really just tells me that people can only relate to a religion when people have prove within there own eyes. Which many people have not seen.

Do you read your posts before you post them?

 

[NinjaGeek]

I'm agnostic, and although I tend to agree with Atheists on a lot of points, in my opinion Atheism is just as dumb as most organized religions. I think the existence of a god is about as likely as the existence of a giant purple sheep that farted out the universe, but I'm not about to make up a term for myself that tells everyone that I don't believe the universe was farted out by a giant purple sheep.

There's no proof there is a god, there's no proof there isn't. Though I can see the convenience of the term in that it automatically tells people you think all the current religions are bullshit (which I do). Usually when I tell people I'm an agnostic people automatically assume I'm indecisive or am an atheist who wants to make sure he can get into heaven if he's wrong.

It frustrates me that Atheism is considered to be the belief set that believes in nothing, when they clearly believe that there is no god. It's us agnostics who truly assume nothing about the universe.

Edit: Just to point out a few mistakes in my post which I'm sure someone will bring up to save time on argument.

1)Yes you could argue that believing in a giant purple sheep is believing in a type of god so it's lumped in with atheism too, I was just to lazy to think of an absurd idea about how the universe was created that would be highly improbable and didn't involve a supreme being.

2)I know I said I believe most religions are bullshit then at the end said I assume nothing, all I mean is the chances that the correct answer fits exactly with all the things said in any of the current religions is so tiny that I can basically say I don't believe they are true, although I do admit the small possibility that they could be true as there is no evidence to they couldn't have happened. To say that there is no god is a much bigger assumption as it encompasses all monotheistic religions and all possible monotheistic religions that haven't been created.

 

[Valerie]

There's no proof there is a god, there's no proof there isn't.

Warning Warning, Logical Fallacy Alert!

=/

 

[Ender Rises]

Warning Warning, Logical Fallacy Alert!

=/

How so? Maybe "little proof" would have been a better wording but how is believing that there could or could not be a god a logical fallacy?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

"There's no proof that there is a god, there's no proof that there isn't a god" is NOT agnosticism. Faith does not equal proof. Agnosticism is the view that no one can know if there is a god or not because the experience of a god is subjective or that the truth about higher presences existing is unknown. Proof doesn't come into it at all.

As such, atheism is not "knowing" there isn't a god, it's having faith in you knowing there is not a god. In other words, nothing can be inherently "known" in terms of religious views and higher beings; you either have faith in your belief that something exists/doesn't exist, or you have no faith at all. Atheism literally has faith in the lack of a god.

For future reference, please do not confuse faith for proof of existence/non-existence. It's all too easy to do so, and I understand that, but it can be misconstrued as a destructive fallacy which aims to convince people who disagree with you (who may or many not have formulated their own thoughts on this subject) that your belief is proof.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

V5 gets a 10 on the pwngage.

 

[Alter]

Do you read your posts before you post them?

Nope.

I hate how my IQ is 10000000000 lower on the internet.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm agnostic, and although I tend to agree with Atheists on a lot of points, in my opinion Atheism is just as dumb as most organized religions. I think the existence of a god is about as likely as the existence of a giant purple sheep that farted out the universe, but I'm not about to make up a term for myself that tells everyone that I don't believe the universe was farted out by a giant purple sheep.

There's no proof there is a god, there's no proof there isn't. Though I can see the convenience of the term in that it automatically tells people you think all the current religions are bullshit (which I do). Usually when I tell people I'm an agnostic people automatically assume I'm indecisive or am an atheist who wants to make sure he can get into heaven if he's wrong.

It frustrates me that Atheism is considered to be the belief set that believes in nothing, when they clearly believe that there is no god. It's us agnostics who truly assume nothing about the universe.

Edit: Just to point out a few mistakes in my post which I'm sure someone will bring up to save time on argument.

1)Yes you could argue that believing in a giant purple sheep is believing in a type of god so it's lumped in with atheism too, I was just to lazy to think of an absurd idea about how the universe was created that would be highly improbable and didn't involve a supreme being.

2)I know I said I believe most religions are bullshit then at the end said I assume nothing, all I mean is the chances that the correct answer fits exactly with all the things said in any of the current religions is so tiny that I can basically say I don't believe they are true, although I do admit the small possibility that they could be true as there is no evidence to they couldn't have happened. To say that there is no god is a much bigger assumption as it encompasses all monotheistic religions and all possible monotheistic religions that haven't been created.

If you don't believe in God you are an atheist. You are failing at logic if you think something being unprovable makes it reasonable. There could be a god, but there is no evidence, so that means there isn't. If evidence comes in that just means we were wrong, but I highly doubt that will happen. If you are agnostic regarding god, why are you not agnostic regarding every imaginary thing, because those are all equally (un)likely to exist.

Also, atheism for many means a lack of belief in god. If we boil god down to a deistic "first cause" thing, that's where I stand. Can't disprove it but I don't think it is true because of Argument from Ignorance fallacy. However any god that interacts with the universe I think can be (and has been) proven false by science.

How so? Maybe "little proof" would have been a better wording but how is believing that there could or could not be a god a logical fallacy?

Argument From Ignorance broheme.

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false"

 

[NinjaGeek]

"There's no proof that there is a god, there's no proof that there isn't a god" is NOT agnosticism. Faith does not equal proof. Agnosticism is the view that no one can know if there is a god or not because the experience of a god is subjective or that the truth about higher presences existing is unknown. Proof doesn't come into it at all.

As such, atheism is not "knowing" there isn't a god, it's having faith in you knowing there is not a god. In other words, nothing can be inherently "known" in terms of religious views and higher beings; you either have faith in your belief that something exists/doesn't exist, or you have no faith at all. Atheism literally has faith in the lack of a god.

For future reference, please do not confuse faith for proof of existence/non-existence. It's all too easy to do so, and I understand that, but it can be misconstrued as a destructive fallacy which aims to convince people who disagree with you (who may or many not have formulated their own thoughts on this subject) that your belief is proof.

Different wording but my logic still applies. Of all the random ways the universe could have been created why do atheists form their belief set around the idea that there probably isn't a god, when there are so many other things you could have faith in not being the cause of the universe's creation.

It just seems like a belief set centered around attacking religion. The idea that a god created the universe does have to agree with one of the many religions on earth, and one could certainly start a religion that believes in god and is a lot less absurd than some of the current religions we have.

 

[Valerie]

As such, atheism is not "knowing" there isn't a god, it's having faith in you knowing there is not a god. In other words, nothing can be inherently "known" in terms of religious views and higher beings; you either have faith in your belief that something exists/doesn't exist, or you have no faith at all. Atheism literally has faith in the lack of a god.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Let me guess, you took my utilization of the word "faith" in the typical Christian/non-secular context. Faith = fides (Latin root) = trust. There is no semantic difference, not even in religion, though it is a trait of Christians to willfully misinterpret this idea.

I trust my view that there is no god. Nothing will break this trust.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

It just seems like a belief set centered around attacking religion.

Much like science, everything must be questioned.