Religion

I am Catholic but highly believe in the world was created with a big bang, and that the first cell was made from lightning (Been proved so shh) So idk Lolz does it matter? We're gonna die and something might happen something might not, it's just the F-tards who take it too far (fk u terrorists, fk u)

ok i guess ill jump into the fire pit (super smart of me )
look i dont beleave in a god ... im atheist , but i dont hate ppl that beleave in a god , i just hate it when they put religion in politics , and science , keep it out of thoose two thing then i dont really give a shit what u beleave in
you could beleave in the gaint flying spugety monster in space , as long as u dont put in to thoose two things
and as far as putting it into how we came here and how every thing started, science is in that too , but they dont know how all that matter got there so maybe god made that or somthin , idk .... who knows ....

but if yall ppl really want me to post why i dont beleave in a god then find i will , but if no 1 really cares then im not going to waste my time then

try to convince some 1 to not beleave what they beleave is like try to beat a dead horse (or atleast try to make a difference with what you say idk , somthin)

So... were're on the morality aspect at this point? Okay.

I can think of only a single moral religion (not counting parodies). Buddhism. Let me tell you something; no matter how douchebaggish it may be (every karma or karma-like based religion has a large element of douche baggery), there is nothing in any teachings of the buddha to suggest violence, and only a few sects are violent in any way; all of which have evolved in self defense.

Then come all the morally neutral religions. These don't have any books. They are mostly umbrella terms, such as Wicca. There can be morally wrong wiccans, but, since Wicca lacks any central tennants, it itself cannot be called morally wrong. Many tribal religions also fall under this catagory. Yes, most are violent, but these evolved as a way to keep its followers alive. When it comes to surviving, I am more than willing to excuse most actions.

Finally, we come to the morally wrong (in my opinion) religions. No matter how you look at it, allegorical, litteral, whatever, the Koran and the Bible are morally wrong in our modern society. Luckily for us, most of their followers have never just sat down and read it. While they might actually lose followers if that happened, the action would also turn a bunch of its followers into fanatics. Better to have a million moderates than fifty thousand fanatics.

'Offended'.

You know what offends a lot of people? People who don't believe in their religion.

And you cannot quote a single sentence in any holy book to get your point across unless it is not contradicted.

I know the bible best, so I'll use that.

'Thou shalt not commit murder'. Simple.

You know what the penalty for working on the sabbath is? Death.

You know what the penalty for teenagers who are disobedient to their parents is? Death.

Penalty for womens wearing mens clothing? Death.(historical quickie; THAT is the charge that got Joan of Arc killed)

I don't even need to state the penalty for witchcraft.

Simply put, there are always contradictions. And that's what messes up fanatics. When they read it, they have trouble comprehending it all. They look for someone to tell them the 'true word of god', and help them make sense of it all. Yes, the guys at the head are either nuts or have their own political agenda, but its the support of the masses that make the heads dangerous.

That's actually not true because scientists tend to believe in science... We'll that's worded wrong and an assumption but I doubt without religion or technological advances would skyrocket to the level of intelligence..

But that's your opinion on what you believe and you saying what is and what isn't

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conductof human affairs.


Believing in science is religion... believing in Atheism is a religion as well for having your opinion on what will happen in the end

Mia wrote:Well that's an opinion as well, at least I evolved hihihih.

Flame? jk but how is mine an opinion, imo I believe in an afterlife, God and science... What I posted was a human definition of Religion along with giving evidence that this debate results in the same outcome either way you cut it

FrostBiite wrote:But that's your opinion on what you believe and you saying what is and what isn't

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conductof human affairs.


Believing in science is religion... believing in Atheism is a religion as well for having your opinion on what will happen in the end

Okay, in a very broad and litteral sense, the 'believing in science thing' works. Broad in that it stretchs the defintion, litteral in that it makes no leeway for the colloquial usage of religion. Beyond that, you seem to lack the one thing all religions have in common. Faith.

Now, the atheism thing? Wrong. Absolutly wrong. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a personal god or gods (in the common sense), and as the lack of belief in any gods (in a far more strict sense). See the fourth word? Beliefs. Atheism is not defined by its beliefs. It is defined by the status as not believing in something.

They take Atheism in Census polling as a religion, i'm pretty sure.

I think you mean philosophy...


It can't be a religion if it doesn't have a deity.

I was jking about the flame idc if people curse me out Lolz it's their opinion of me on that situation... but neways:
Thing I put up the definition of religion so I wouldn't have some1 argue me with that point of it not having a God

suppose i dont wnana waste more lifetime then i already do...

thing944 wrote:I think you mean philosophy...


It can't be a religion if it doesn't have a deity.

Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion, and buddhism has no dieties (Buddha is not a diety. Buddha is simply a human who has reachd enlightenment).

And disturbed? That's pascal's wager. It doesn't work because it assumes that the god in question awards someone for faith, not for being a good person. Which works, if only because Pascal only applied it to the christian religion (discounting all the other religions).

I find anyone who only believes in the seen and proven to be using half of their mind.

But why?

Faith is not worth a reward.

Being a nice person is worth a reward.

Going to church once a week to pray is not worth a reward.

Volunteering at the soup kitchen everyday, donating as much as you can to chairty is worth a reward.

It is only an evil god who rewards based on faith.

Necal wrote:

thing944 wrote:I think you mean philosophy...


It can't be a religion if it doesn't have a deity.

Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion, and buddhism has no dieties (Buddha is not a diety. Buddha is simply a human who has reachd enlightenment).

And disturbed? That's pascal's wager. It doesn't work because it assumes that the god in question awards someone for faith, not for being a good person. Which works, if only because Pascal only applied it to the christian religion (discounting all the other religions).

Tbh Buddhism is a religion, but it's because they believe they have the God inside them and to reach nirvana is to become one with that inner force at more times then others... to be "present" (I studied this in english)

ShadowSaint wrote:I find anyone who only believes in the seen and proven to be using half of their mind.

i find believeing in the unseen and the unproven without any doubts to be using none of their mind. logic is what you are. you are trying to run away from logic from doing so. god is not irrefutable, nor is he impossible. if i choose to doubt his existence, i have every right to do so, and it wont be some books written by people who didnt have anth else to answer their questions about the world that will change my mind. and i can tell you right now, in your own faith standards, if you do not doubt god or his existence, not even once, then you do not believe in him.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:if you do not doubt god or his existence, not even once, then you do not believe in him.

That's a good line