• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?


  • Total voters
    131

ZNP-TBA

Privileged Sh!tlord
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
3,001
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
Your complicated body system was created by God is foolish idea= your PC was created by a manufacturer is a foolish idea..
Why do you think the manufacturer would show himself to you any way? As for God, he would show himself to you after death anyway so he don't need you to believe him, and don't need you to make judges about believers, take your atheism with you and take off!!

I think someone said it already, a PC is an inorganic system that doesn't reproduce itself with variation and thus is not subject to any kind of biological evolution, lol. If complexity is the excuse for God's existence and you therefore accept Him as the designer then you have to concede that God is more complex than us. If that is true , and complexity requires a designer, then what or who designed God?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I think someone said it already, a PC is an inorganic system that doesn't reproduce itself with variation and thus is not subject to any kind of biological evolution, lol. If complexity is the excuse for God's existence and you therefore accept Him as the designer then you have to concede that God is more complex than us. If that is true , and complexity requires a designer, then what or who designed God?

Well, the thinking which informs that perspective, which I think is broadly speaking similar to that of Thomas Aquinas, is that God is the prime mover, the unmoved mover, the cause of every other effect.

Anyway, I think the whole rejection of evolution, natural selection, whatever is just a rejection of any other explanation than that in scriptures, the hindu upanishads (spelling) or anything like it would be in the same category. The issue is biblical or scriptural literalism or even solo scripture which isnt a common perspective to all Christians or even all believers, I think its heretical and idolatrous, not to kick of another altogether different and tangental discussion. I just get tired of the discussion of naturalism vs. supernaturalism in belief systems which treats either like they are a unified single body of theory agreed upon.

Complexity is acknowledged by many thinking atheists without their accepting deities or supernatural first causes or first principles or anything of that order. There's some pretty crazy, to my mind, explanations of complexity which are validated as scientific (or at least pseudo-scientific) which are on a par with any origins story akin to Genesis, the whole cosmos made conscious of itself or embodied or incarnate consciousness ideas for instance, multiverse, string theory etc. etc.
 

geedoenfj

The more you know..
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
3,347
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You've made several errors. First, is that mundane things do not need to be subjected to the burden of proof, as it makes casual interaction impossible (the video points out this exactly near the end). Your cup example doesn't illustrate the burden of proof case either. First, we have a physical basis and understanding of what likely resulted in its placement. To claim that someone must have put it there is extremely reasonable, no one is going to deny that. Again, the video points out this near the end. Second, as you worded it, you are the one that made the claim; you stated that it's just there by itself. If I were to speak next, I would be asking for more information, not making the claim. By saying "surely someone must have put it there", is actually using precedent evidence of how objects are moved by people as a basis for countering you. I am challenging your statement of saying "it's just there", which offers nothing substantating to why it is there, to now giving a valid reason for basis of why. It would then be your turn to either combat my statement, or readjust your claim.

I obviously gave an example of a small object like a cup as a creation to make my point more clear to you, and demonstrate how it differs from proving a concept of the creator "God" which you demanded to be proven..
Since the cup is creature and this weird example of Pluto thing is also a creature and both are incomparable to how you might define a God, I would go with the cup example because it's touchable unlike the Pluto thing which you compared it wrongly to the claiming of God existence; and as you proceeded I think you would be able to figure out what I mean..
See I don't say something like: "you can't prove me wrong" that's just lame!
First of all you DON'T NEED to prove me wrong, you can either accept my opinion or deny it, and secondly you required an evidence; so I gave you an evidence, which I would give it once again in order to make things clearer:
Every thing around you can't exist merely by itself and work in this incredible system that our brain is still trying to figure out.
But you chose to decide that's this idea is irrational and ended up suggesting some idea of what you find to be rational that things just happen and that there doesn't need to be a reason, and that you need to actually examine this thing called God closely because this method proved valid to all creatures so it should necessarily apply to the actual creator of these creatures (I would once again come up to that point also as you proceed) that's when you chose to deny the whole evidence..

I don't think that all things are linked in reason (unless I am misunderstanding your wording). What I do think is that we have the ability to understand why things happen and are the way they are by using logic, and science. Some things will be easier than others, and others will not have an answer in our lifetime.

That would be valid in terms of what we have been through in our lives, like unstable childhood or a certain disease or bullying or strange coincidences, we don't need to go too far digging into the meaning behind all of that and questioning why it's me, instead we gotta be strong enough to stand up for ourselves and fight back and what doesn't break you should make you stronger..
But when talking about materials, and energy which both are basically the main components of the universe, I have to disagree with you, and allow me to get back to my little cup here as a little example of a material that it is consist of, and the energy that helped in manufacturing and putting that cup on the table, alright? if the physical, chemical, mathematical etc. rules does apply to this cup, it should apply to the whole universe because this small object is a material and a part of the universe, so the same claim that applies to the existence of this cup should apply to any other creature.. And thinking broadly: even this cup was not created by a human being out of nowhere, a human being is just using materials and energy sources that already existed putting them all together and subsequently manufacturing the "cup"..

By you saying "we call that reason a god", is a unneeded placeholder. In the absence of any reason or evidence, it does no benefit to default to some sort of idea or explination. Worse, it can be damaging if it misleads investigation if it came from no support. Your statement boils down to the idea of "science can't explain it, so until then it must be god". To that sort of statement I say why? You are making the claim for one, and that line of reasoning is a non sequitur. Absence of reason or logic does not lead to there needing or being a god present.

Well believing the theory of a creator of the universe still sound more logical than okay until we prove that universe didn't create itself we better believe in Darwin theories.. Even Darwin theories did not answer the question of how all of that came out of nowhere!! The scientists could do whatever they can to find out more about the creation, but they would eventually admit that everything was actually originated in some point..
That's interesting because I see having no God at all is extremely damaging because what is good for humanity would merely rest on a point of view created by some other human beings who are sleeping and eating and having kids and have emotional breakdowns just like you do, and eventually making the crimes to be punishable only if a human law and justice could have found it's a way to apply that on the criminal or else he's not accountable for his actions.. that's an extremely dangerous path to go..

You go further to say that I want "proof like seeing". Yes. I want proof that is testable and quantifiable by logic and scientific process just like any other theory we have currently. Whether it be in physics, chemistry, psychology, whatever it may be. I need something to be workable within these confines, because up to this point everything has worked within these (and those that haven't intitally eventually came to function under them). You are making a special pleading case of "the evidence can't be studied, it's a different kind of evidence". Ok, even if we assume that's the case we still have yet to get evidence that can be worked with. Until that point I have no reason to believe.
I think I replied to that earlier but okay I can reply again
If these rules of testing and sensing were put by supernatural being, it applies on every little or massive object in this universe, but doesn't necessarily apply to the one who created it all.
If you create a PC would it be necessarily that you have a turn on/off button, a c panel and Microsoft Office, a keyboard a screen etc.? if you think of how endless this universe is and how small we are, how limited is our time of existence, you'll realize that your brain is only another created object that you are using to try to figure things out, you don't even know how it was found out of nowhere except for what Darwin tells you about the DNA and all of that which eventually was generated at some point.. So the creator of our brain does not necessarily subject to the brain he created by conventional measurements, so if you refuse to think otherwise then it's okay..
Until you get to what your human brain thinks to be a proof of it's creator, you don't need to believe in it, but once it's (proven) to you, it's not anymore a belief because you can't believe a tastable fact, so either way; you won't accept the idea of belief whatsoever.
You can only think that tomorrow would bring a brighter future to you even if there seems to be no actual mathematics or any other human-brain measures behind it, that's why it's called a belief..

Hard;2557275. Your final statement is trying to shift the burden or proof onto atheism by asking us to prove a negative; that's now how logic works. You made the claim said:
You call it a shift of burden, I call it a comparison of how an atheist perceive the whole idea of existence to how a religious person perceive it..
I've noticed you totally refuse or maybe offended by the idea that an atheist is also a believer but putting a proper definition of what the "belief" is for my little brain (or any other unbiased brain) to make things more understandable, I think the belief applies to atheists even if they keep denying it.. I apologize if this sounds offensive to you..
Nah not harsh or mean or anything like that at all, I hope you have a nice day [emoji255]
 

geedoenfj

The more you know..
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
3,347
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think someone said it already, a PC is an inorganic system that doesn't reproduce itself with variation and thus is not subject to any kind of biological evolution, lol. If complexity is the excuse for God's existence and you therefore accept Him as the designer then you have to concede that God is more complex than us. If that is true , and complexity requires a designer, then what or who designed God?

I replied to the organic thing already you can read it up there [emoji115]🏻
As for who designed God, if there need to be a starting point for the universe which you people find it to be illogical, then it would be God, that's why it was not created by any other designer..
Still irrational? It's okay because I find that nature created itself irrational too..
 

Noll

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
705
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp
I've been baptized into the Swedish Church, which is Protestantic Christian. My belief in God is strong, and I am currently in the process of converting to Catholicism. I believe it to be the most devout and genuine kind of Christianity, as it was the first church. Not manmade and compromising in the sense that I percieve other denominations to be, but also not hateful...
 

RobinSkye

What Is Life?
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
572
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
541
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Agnostic. Like any good Ne type, I believe in the possible existence of anything.
 

ZNP-TBA

Privileged Sh!tlord
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
3,001
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
As for who designed God, if there need to be a starting point for the universe which you people find it to be illogical, then it would be God, that's why it was not created by any other designer..
Still irrational? It's okay because I find that nature created itself irrational too..

It's just that your statements are contradictory. You do not accept the universe may have always existed (even as a singularity according to the BBT) but fully accept that your God does. You argue since the universe exists it has a starting point ( which you call God) yet also claim God exists but doesn't need a starting point. Clearly you do NOT think all things which exist require a starting point or else you would be searching for God's designer. My real question is how do you know something like God doesn't require a designer and something like the universe does especially if God is more complex than the universe?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Well, some people got offended by red Starbucks mugs, so you never know. But yeah, it turned out more vanilla than I first planned to.

Right back at you, sir *tips fedora*

What if I told you that,
no one was ever offended by starbucks,
the whole thing was a scam to excite liberals.

Lovers of good coffee,
maybe offended by starbucks,
for different reasons.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
It's just that your statements are contradictory. You do not accept the universe may have always existed (even as a singularity according to the BBT) but fully accept that your God does. You argue since the universe exists it has a starting point ( which you call God) yet also claim God exists but doesn't need a starting point. Clearly you do NOT think all things which exist require a starting point or else you would be searching for God's designer. My real question is how do you know something like God doesn't require a designer and something like the universe does especially if God is more complex than the universe?

God is the prime mover, the unmoved mover, the first cause, not an effect.

Are you familiar with the idea of infinity in mathematics?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
For atheism not being a belief system but the lack of a belief system it certainly does posit quite a few things positively as beliefs, a lot of great atheists, which may or may not be representative, certainly do wax lyrical about a lot of beliefs which they associate with atheism certainly or at least do not seek to create boundaries.

Dawkins and Darren Brown are just two who I know started out with simple assertions as to the existence or non-existence of God, deities, validity in religious traditions or human experience but quickly went on to deny human nature, human goodness, I'm not sure if they went as far as Dennett and started to doubt logic, meaning, consciousness even, to full on meat puppetry thinking.

The thing about God and "proof" is that I firmly believe that any God that can be proven a God is not a God at all, I'm not being facetious, I'm not even being deliberately mystical or mystifying but God is ineffable and intangible, subject to a lot of mankind's projections, fantasy and psychological wil's in the past but remains those things.

So far discerning what, if any, of the thinking on record about God is correct at all or fits the category or humanity's mistaken thinking is up for discussion, how to define it could matter, Oscar Wilde did say science as a record of dead religions because once a religion was proven fact it became science, I think he was right.

Proofs of God change from time to time, with some remaining valid or at least not disproven, which other's are invalidated but in the end for someone who wants to believe in the existence of God proof is unnecessary and for someone who wants to disbelieve in the existence of God proof is never going to be sufficient.
 

geedoenfj

The more you know..
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
3,347
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Clearly you do NOT think all things which exist require a starting point or else you would be searching for God's designer. My real question is how do you know something like God doesn't require a designer and something like the universe does especially if God is more complex than the universe?

You just described God as a (thing) and you don't know if there is God or not, and if there is then how it's his nature whether it's a thing or an energy a concept etc.
Every(thing) has a starting point but that doesn't necessarily apply to the one who sit that rule, you don't necessarily look or feel or seem like the sandwich you eat or a painting you paint, so I recommend you read more about that in my previous comments..
 

ZNP-TBA

Privileged Sh!tlord
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
3,001
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
God is the prime mover, the unmoved mover, the first cause, not an effect.

If your arguing from a cause and effect which is a reason God exists then this statement is incomprehensible. Why couldn't this be a singularity?

Are you familiar with the idea of infinity in mathematics?

Yes and divide by zero ( why would you have to do that?). Also , why can't a singularity apply here?
 

ZNP-TBA

Privileged Sh!tlord
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
3,001
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
You just described God as a (thing) and you don't know if there is God or not, and if there is then how it's his nature whether it's a thing or an energy a concept etc.

If God is matter (a real thing) or energy then it exists based on what we understand about reality. If God is merely a concept then he doesn't exist in reality outside the mind of those who can comprehend the concept. So?

Every(thing) has a starting point

You can't possibly know this. Nobody does.
Also if this is your claim then it fails with God since you posit:

but that doesn't necessarily apply to the one who sit that rule,

So your own argument invalidates your argument. If everything has a starting point then nothing has no starting point, therefore, if God has no starting point he is nothing. <<< Follow your own reasoning pls.


you don't necessarily look or feel or seem like the sandwich you eat or a painting you paint, so I recommend you read more about that in my previous comments..

What?
 

geedoenfj

The more you know..
Joined
Oct 6, 2015
Messages
3,347
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If God is matter (a real thing) or energy then it exists based on what we understand about reality. If God is merely a concept then he doesn't exist in reality outside the mind of those who can comprehend the concept. So?



You can't possibly know this. Nobody does.
Also if this is your claim then it fails with God since you posit:



So your own argument invalidates your argument. If everything has a starting point then nothing has no starting point, therefore, if God has no starting point he is nothing. <<< Follow your own reasoning pls.




What?

I've noticed that you people pick on one little detail and go hey there it is! She just said that God is a concept so he doesn't exist! see she said that God should have a starting point either he should be designed yay she contradict herself! and leaving the fact that I'm only implying examples of what God doesn't necessarily seems or sense like any of these options, any creatures your created brain has ever known..
Now since you think you are illegible of deciding what should be logical I say you stick to your so rational out of nowhere universe created itself story but have a respect of what others think to be more rational than that theory..
As for the (sandwich) example which made you go like WHAT?! I meant the sandwich you make or prepare not the sandwich you eat, it was a miss-printed I apologize for that awful mistake..
 

ZNP-TBA

Privileged Sh!tlord
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
3,001
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
I've noticed that you people

You people? Who? Do we belong to a separate human species? lol

pick on one little detail and go hey there it is! She just said that God is a concept so he doesn't exist! see she said that God should have a starting point either he should be designed yay she contradict herself!

I'm just trying to follow your reasoning and I admit it's a challenge. I'm really just trying to understand rather than catch you in contradictions. I'm not forcing contradictions on you, you're creating those on your own, don't shoot the messenger for pointing it out :wink:

and leaving the fact that I'm only implying examples of what God doesn't necessarily seems or sense like any of these options, any creatures your created brain has ever known..

This is confusing to read.

Now since you think you are illegible of deciding what should be logical I say you stick to your so rational out of nowhere universe created itself story but have a respect of what others think to be more rational than that theory..

A. I never claimed the universe 'created itself.'
B. I never even claimed it was created.
C. I don't know if it was created or not and neither do you.
D. There's nothing (scientific) to suggest it had to be created.

I respect the fact you have your own opinions but I don't have to accept them as correct if you claim them to be true about reality. When you claim something to be true about the universe then you are implicitly demanding that we all accept that truth. You then subjugate that opinion to logic and evidence.


As for the (sandwich) example which made you go like WHAT?! I meant the sandwich you make or prepare not the sandwich you eat, it was a miss-printed I apologize for that awful mistake..

I still fail to see how this analogy applies to anything you said. Can you elaborate more?

Don't take any of this personally because I am not. I enjoy the discussion.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
6
What if I told you that,
no one was ever offended by starbucks,
the whole thing was a scam to excite liberals.

Lovers of good coffee,
maybe offended by starbucks,
for different reasons.

Well I hope it is, because it is ridiculous.
Luckily I like my coffee cheap and worse than starbucks. Don't have to get offended yet.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Which God we worship determines which religion we practise.

If we worship the Hindu Gods, we will practise the religion of Hinduism.

And if we worship the God of the Book, we will practise one of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

But if we worship the God of the Internet, what religion will we practise?

Every time we log on to typology central, we are worshipping the God of the Internet. We are indeed pious but our minds have not caught up with this fact, and we remain oblivious to the religion we practise every day.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Which God we worship determines which religion we practise.

If we worship the Hindu Gods, we will practise the religion of Hinduism.

And if we worship the God of the Book, we will practise one of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

But if we worship the God of the Internet, what religion will we practise?

Every time we log on to typology central, we are worshipping the God of the Internet. We are indeed pious but our minds have not caught up with this fact, and we remain oblivious to the religion we practise every day.

I dont think its a perfect analogy but I see what you're saying Alan Moore wrote a great short graphic novel about TV becoming a deity because more people owned and venerated TV and TV shows than practice any religion anymore.

It intrigued me because no one worries about TV anymore but I remember worrying about TV viewing was definitely a thing when I was growing up, there was lots of panic about people not reading so much anymore (Ironically I did read once about reading itself being the cause of moral panics and considered "the solitary vice").

People worry about screen time now but not like there once was a worry about TV.
 
Top