Religion Thread

mis wrote

Kaneki wrote

mis wrote

Kaneki wrote

Religion pisses me off, I view it as a thing that helpless and/or hopeless people cling onto to find a way to live. I don't doubt there's a god, I don't doubt there's a devil. But at the same time, I don't think there's one. My views on religion are really mixed and confused. I've thought about religion way too many times than I should have. I'm a so-called "atheist" but I don't want anything to do with religion, I don't really view myself as an athiest, because in actuality, it's still a religion. If God made everything. Who made God? And if God made himself, if that was possible, wouldn't the universe be able to make itself as well? Think about it.

Would you see yourself as an agnostic, then?

Agnosticism is still technically a religion, as I stated, I hate religion.

Agnosticism isn't a religion, it's a view.

What mis said. It's more of a standing than anything. A religion is a set of beliefs and actions. Agnosticism = ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

Kaneki wrote

mis wrote

Kaneki wrote

Religion pisses me off, I view it as a thing that helpless and/or hopeless people cling onto to find a way to live. I don't doubt there's a god, I don't doubt there's a devil. But at the same time, I don't think there's one. My views on religion are really mixed and confused. I've thought about religion way too many times than I should have. I'm a so-called "atheist" but I don't want anything to do with religion, I don't really view myself as an athiest, because in actuality, it's still a religion. If God made everything. Who made God? And if God made himself, if that was possible, wouldn't the universe be able to make itself as well? Think about it.

Would you see yourself as an agnostic, then?

Agnosticism is still technically a religion, as I stated, I hate religion.

Agnosticism is indeed a view. It's tagged with a belief system, for example: Agnostic-Atheist, which is the most common.

Sometimes I think that Atheists/Agnostics should just become Apatheists.
EDIT: Although everyone being Apatheist would be ideal.

Senpai wrote

Sometimes I think that Atheists/Agnostics should just become Apatheists.
EDIT: Although everyone being Apatheist would be ideal.

Apatheists are meaningless split of hairs, especially since apathy is a trait within the person and not the belief.

Can't believe Wikipedia has an article on it (Yes, I looked it up).

Due to the fact that we can't disprove God but don't need him to explain him means we develop apathy for his existence. Those that go off on 'gods no reel lelelel' are basically just people with a gripe. I'm genuinely interested in knowing what the religious following believes and their reasons for believing it, but being apathetic doesn't mean I'm unable to refute them. Intelligence does not relate to my behavior.

Waifu wrote

Senpai wrote

Sometimes I think that Atheists/Agnostics should just become Apatheists.
EDIT: Although everyone being Apatheist would be ideal.

Apatheists are meaningless split of hairs, especially since apathy is a trait within the person and not the belief.

Can't believe Wikipedia has an article on it (Yes, I looked it up).

Due to the fact that we can't disprove God but don't need him to explain him means we develop apathy for his existence. Those that go off on 'gods no reel lelelel' are basically just people with a gripe. I'm genuinely interested in knowing what the religious following believes and their reasons for believing it, but being apathetic doesn't mean I'm unable to refute them. Intelligence does not relate to my behavior.

Apatheists are different than both agnostics and atheists. While apathy is a trait, a word deriven from another word does not mean the two are the same. Apatheism is not meaningless, though its belief is that religion is.

Victory wrote

Agnosticism = ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

I love that description of agnosticism because that's why I believe it.

Technically speaking, agnosticism is the least fallacious mainstream religion (or posture), since denying or confirming a higher power's existance is a shot in the dark, and saying you don't really know is the truth.

I don't mean this as in "Your religion is wrong and I'm smarter than you" kins of way, because that's really fucking stupid. I mean it in the sense that we as humans have no proof of god's existence or inexistence, so the truth is we don't know.

Regarding the Big Bang, it's not that everything suddenly happened and expanded. The point of the Big Bang as the origin of the universe is that there is absolutely no way to see what happened before it because of its nature. Right before the big mang, there was a singulatiry. We can't erally have any idea of how that singularity came to be. Think of it like this: if you see something that changes its position towards the left by 200km each day, you can reason that it came from the right and try to track down what made it move to the left. But with the Big Bang, the knowledge of anything before the singularity is wiped.

I really enjoyed that read. Thanks for sharing the God VS Satan bit with us, @"Saikou".

That entire first post pretty much summed up anything that I have to say. So, I will just say that I agree with Satanism over Christianity and any other 'God' praising religion; LaVeyan Satanism is more reasonable than any other religion that I have ever heard of in my life.

I would rather follow the philosophy of being your own God than praising an unreasonably wrong or fantasized God any day.

None_At_All wrote

Regarding the Big Bang, it's not that everything suddenly happened and expanded. The point of the Big Bang as the origin of the universe is that there is absolutely no way to see what happened before it because of its nature. Right before the big mang, there was a singulatiry. We can't erally have any idea of how that singularity came to be. Think of it like this: if you see something that changes its position towards the left by 200km each day, you can reason that it came from the right and try to track down what made it move to the left. But with the Big Bang, the knowledge of anything before the singularity is wiped.

I like to think that the big bang was a result of the Poincaré recurrece. tl;dr the Poincaré recurrence is the theory that, given enough time, all matter will return to it's original state/location.

So our universe will come to an end, and when it does, there will be a new big bang, but maybe things go down differently that time.

It still cannot explain where the matter originated, but nothing truly can.

desu wrote

Regarding the Big Bang, it's not that everything suddenly happened and expanded. The point of the Big Bang as the origin of the universe is that there is absolutely no way to see what happened before it because of its nature. Right before the big mang, there was a singulatiry. We can't erally have any idea of how that singularity came to be. Think of it like this: if you see something that changes its position towards the left by 200km each day, you can reason that it came from the right and try to track down what made it move to the left. But with the Big Bang, the knowledge of anything before the singularity is wiped.

I like to think that the big bang was a result of the Poincaré recurrece. tl;dr the Poincaré recurrence is the theory that, given enough time, all matter will return to it's original state/location.

So our universe will come to an end, and when it does, there will be a new big bang, but maybe things go down differently that time.

It still cannot explain where the matter originated, but nothing truly can.

I think that's a very reasonable and plausible explanation for the end of our universe, but the fun thing to ask is: will we have the same progress next time?
I like to think that when we die, we're born again somewhere new. Now, if we die at the end of the universe, will we just end up repeating our lives the same? Or will we all be different?

Here's some random thoughts I had the other day on why I hate utilitarianism, and why I think religion is important for morality.

One of the common arguments I hear (and one I used to parrot myself) is to do with choice. The conjecture is that if religion is considered to be necessary for morality, then you are a bad person. Example: Fedora claims he doesn't murder because he knows it's bad, but Christians only refrain from murder because they believe they will be punished for it.

I couldn't figure out a good way to describe what's wrong with this argument, aside from calling it hyperbole, until I read something by Julius Evola (I forget which book, sorry. I think it's probably Ride the Tiger or Revolt Against the Modern World though).

The basic principle is this:
Morality ranges from the obvious 'truths' we know as people, to certain ideas which are also for the greater good, but don't have an obvious logical reasoning.

When criticized under a utilitarian framework, most values cannot hold up, since we are incapable of comprehending the far-reaching consequences of our seemingly innocuous actions. To give an example of a value which has been argued away would not be useful as an argument, since you've probably already made up your mind that it is not a useful value, so I will instead use adultery as an example.

Most people understand that adultery is bad, but it's not that simple. Having talked to some of my more outgoing friends, it is evident that many people manage to justify certain instances of it to themselves, even when they concede that it's at least bad most of the time. "I was drunk", "he was out of town for a month", "she doesn't put out enough". etc.

When religion dictates that adultery is wrong, there is no question. It's wrong because it's wrong. But when you permit yourself to reason about it, if you really want to, you will find an excuse to break it, especially if you're smart.

One of the common arguments I hear (and one I used to parrot myself) is to do with choice. The conjecture is that if religion is considered to be necessary for morality, then you are a bad person. Example: Fedora claims he doesn't murder because he knows it's bad, but Christians only refrain from murder because they believe they will be punished for it.

It's very simple to show how this thinking is wrong.

And it is wrong, because it tries to bend reality to put itself in argument winning position, instead of moving it's beliefs in order to place them closer to facts.
Smart person would simply accept that the fact that religion can improve ones morality is equally true as facts as

>for most people it doesn't really do that much
>being non religious can result in both "better" and "worse" morality depending on how individual views life

I am an agnostic atheist and a bit of a nihillist which means I do not believe in God, do not know if he exists, and reject all moral and religious arguments because life is meaningless. I need not to explain more. -Kay

I'm by defintion a agnostic I don't really care about what happens after I die personally, I care about the here and now. When it comes to religion/meaning of life I follow this.

Live a good life. If there are Gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. -Marcus Aurelius

I'd like to input here even though there's not much for me to reply to, my point of view, which is Islam's, comes from god telling us that he's the way we think he is; if I think he's going to make my life hell, he is, but only if I really deserve it, and if I think he's going to make my life heaven, he is, but only if I deserve it, based on what he told us about morality and what works in this world, mostly not hurting other people, and neither yourself. In all god is basically what you want him to be, but in moderation, that's the second most important rule of Islam.

I believe in god, I think evolution also exists and I think no one goes to hell.
*I'm aware that I probably wouldn't have believed in god if I wasn't raised to but ultimately I don't care enough.
**I know there are a lot of problems with in my religion take for instance the Westboro Baptist Church and I would never want that a country was lead with someone who's main motivation is religion, that has gone to shit too many times.

i'm agnostic and i live my life by one simple rule rather than a whole book of complex rules that affect everything you do.

that rule is: don't be a bulli :3

I was raised as a Christian, but I stepped away from the faith at I want to say 15-16 years old. Partly due to rebellious teen attitude, partly because I realised that, with all of the awful things that happen in the world, does the Christian concept of God care? It didn't seem that way, and so I became an atheist. Or I guess agnostic. I've thought a lot, and I have an idea of what I believe, but as far as I can tell it doesn't fit in with any organised religion.

Basically, I feel that if there's a deity out there somewhere, it's on the same scale to humans as we are to bacteria. That is to say that if there's a god, it's completely outside of our scope of understanding. It could be malevolent, or it could be benevolent, and we'll never know because it moves on a plane so far beyond us. Our entire planet could be a nugget of mucus from its nose, I don't know.