Religion Thread

Saikou wrote

Kaneki wrote

Saikou wrote

Kaneki wrote

Right. And who was here before God? And who was here before that person. Same thing with a creator. Your point is leading to a dead end. No one knows what is out there beyond what we know. We non-believers don't even know what created us, or what created the creator. But something can't just appear out of no where like the Bible says. These gases had to have been created by something. The universe had to be created by something, our skin had to be created by something. The creator had to have a creator. You can't have a person just appear out of nowhere.

>And who was here before God?

I'll just go ahead and copy this from my previous post:

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

You seem to have avoided the rest of my post. I'm not saying who created God anymore. I'm saying who created this ENTIRE thing. Because like I said in my other posts, a creator needs a creator. The word of God needed a creator, and that creator needed a creator. Pretty much how every website needs code to function. That code made that website, that website was made by the person who wrote the code, that code was made by the person who invented that code. So who/what invented this entire thing? Because if God was the first one, I want to know how he magically appeared out of no where.

God has existed from the beginning. God was not created by anyone. God was the one who created this entire thing.

>I want to know how he magically appeared out of no where.
God did not "magically appear out of nowhere"; He has always been here.

Which brings me back to this: how was he here without someone creating him who created the created who created that creator?

Lokorfi wrote

Kaneki wrote

Saikou wrote

Kaneki wrote

You seem to have avoided the rest of my post. I'm not saying who created God anymore. I'm saying who created this ENTIRE thing. Because like I said in my other posts, a creator needs a creator. The word of God needed a creator, and that creator needed a creator. Pretty much how every website needs code to function. That code made that website, that website was made by the person who wrote the code, that code was made by the person who invented that code. So who/what invented this entire thing? Because if God was the first one, I want to know how he magically appeared out of no where.

God has existed from the beginning. God was not created by anyone. God was the one who created this entire thing.

>I want to know how he magically appeared out of no where.
God did not "magically appear out of nowhere"; He has always been here.

Which brings me back to this: how was he here without someone creating him who created the created who created that creator?

God is nothing but man's go-to source for all of their problems. God could never create humans out of its own image, because assuming that God would exist, there would be no form. So God was here because man made it be here all along, as if it were their savior.

You know the drill, my shitty two cents.

That shitty two cents thing is going to get pretty annoying if I see it in more than 10 posts.... >.>

Lokorfi wrote

Kaneki wrote

Lokorfi wrote

Kaneki wrote

Which brings me back to this: how was he here without someone creating him who created the created who created that creator?

God is nothing but man's go-to source for all of their problems. God could never create humans out of its own image, because assuming that God would exist, there would be no form. So God was here because man made it be here all along, as if it were their savior.

You know the drill, my shitty two cents.

That shitty two cents thing is going to get pretty annoying if I see it in more than 10 posts.... >.>

Don't worry, I stopped doing it because I found it pretty useless as well.

Yeah. Just a waste of time to type that. Anyways we're getting off topic.

Saikou wrote

God has existed from the beginning. God was not created by anyone. God was the one who created this entire thing.

>I want to know how he magically appeared out of no where.
God did not "magically appear out of nowhere"; He has always been here.

Uhm, okay. How?

As in, how would we possibly know this? Concrete evidence, I mean. Because scriptures... Well scriptures don't say much.

I can write just about anything myself, doesn't make it true. And that's where we enter a dangerous zone, the best 'proof' provided in favor of God's existence is indeed just word of mouth and old books. I'd almost imagine someone finding a book from George Orwell in the future and people start worshiping Big Brother.

The main reason I don't believe in God is because we are able to explain nearly everything or hypothesize with high rate of correctness how everything functions in our world without the need of a third-party (God).

The idea of God seems to have spawned from the fact that the brain relies on pattern-identification.
An artist makes art.
A writer makes scriptures.
A chef makes food.

These things we depend on come from another human being, so it's ingrained pattern which we begin to apply to the natural realm and since there's no presence we can tag the creation of that realm, we adorn it to the idea of a God, which is why, my hypothesis, we even made him to our likeness. Because every 'creator' we know is human, why wouldn't he have human form like us, the other creators?

In the end, disproving a fantastical idea is impossible, much like I can't disprove the existence of invisible, ethereal giraffes, and my adamant disbelief spawns from the fact that we don't need a God to explain phenomena and that we can't inspect God, find God, test God. All these meet criteria, for me and most the scientific public apparently, for something that does not exist.

Waifu wrote

Saikou wrote

God has existed from the beginning. God was not created by anyone. God was the one who created this entire thing.

>I want to know how he magically appeared out of no where.
God did not "magically appear out of nowhere"; He has always been here.

Uhm, okay. How?

As in, how would we possibly know this? Concrete evidence, I mean. Because scriptures... Well scriptures don't say much.

I can write just about anything myself, doesn't make it true. And that's where we enter a dangerous zone, the best 'proof' provided in favor of God's existence is indeed just word of mouth and old books. I'd almost imagine someone finding a book from George Orwell in the future and people start worshiping Big Brother.

The main reason I don't believe in God is because we are able to explain nearly everything or hypothesize with high rate of correctness how everything functions in our world without the need of a third-party (God).

The idea of God seems to have spawned from the fact that the brain relies on pattern-identification.
An artist makes art.
A writer makes scriptures.
A chef makes food.

These things we depend on come from another human being, so it's ingrained pattern which we begin to apply to the natural realm and since there's no presence we can tag the creation of that realm, we adorn it to the idea of a God, which is why, my hypothesis, we even made him to our likeness. Because every 'creator' we know is human, why wouldn't he have human form like us, the other creators?

In the end, disproving a fantastical idea is possible and my adamant disbelief spawns from the fact that we don't need a God to explain phenomena and that we can't inspect God, find God, test God. All these meet criteria, for me and most the scientific public apparently, for something that does not exist.

This right here. You said everything I was trying to say.... but with more intelligence.

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?

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.

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.

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