Where Do You Fall Regarding Religion And God? - Surely Not To Be Controversial At All.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
God exists because when I die I'll never have to see retarded and gay discussions on religion ever again and if that isn't a divine gift, I don't know what is.
 
I was raised protestant but my beliefs have become unique over the years. I've been confused on the topics of Christianity due to heretics and the lack of heretic control so I opted for a belief system that strays pretty much entirely from neoliberal viewpoint and try to find a way to cut ties with everything neoliberalism with not much success. My beliefs have become more to do with trying to find the truth so religious groups is something I don't really stick around because there are so many with varying opinions on things. I don't think atheism is the answer, rather a unique theistic approach carefully following the scripture is the solution in my opinion.
 
Lunar Eclipse Paradox said:
I was raised protestant but my beliefs have become unique over the years. I've been confused on the topics of Christianity due to heretics and the lack of heretic control so I opted for a belief system that strays pretty much entirely from neoliberal viewpoint and try to find a way to cut ties with everything neoliberalism with not much success. My beliefs have become more to do with trying to find the truth so religious groups is something I don't really stick around because there are so many with varying opinions on things. I don't think atheism is the answer, rather a unique theistic approach carefully following the scripture is the solution in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Neoliberal? Maybe you mean orthodox or canonical? I've never seen neoliberal used in a religious and not economic context.

---
I don't believe in a god but I think that for some people, religion is the only thing keeping them in check and stopping them from turning into total assholes. So I can't say it's all bad.
 
Lowlife Adventures said:
Neoliberal? Maybe you mean orthodox or canonical? I've never seen neoliberal used in a religious and not economic context.

---
I don't believe in a god but I think that for some people, religion is the only thing keeping them in check and stopping them from turning into total assholes. So I can't say it's all bad.
Click to expand...
Usually when I refer to Neoliberalism it's more based around American Liberal Democracy and values that are antithesis of traditional but I do appreciate an Atheist's humility and borrowing of other virtues.
 
I was raised agnostic in a Catholic family (I know, weird.)
I now believe very firmly in God. Maybe not the man on cloud but a first mover, a source, etc.
What did it for me was working as a scientist for years, a couple of very odd experiences that I won’t PL about, but also the last ten years or so. The gender mutilations. The child abuse for the gender cult. The rampant sexuality and lust and horror. The destruction of norms.
I cannot look at the last ten years and rationalise it logically. I just can’t. It feels like some kind of hideous malign thing has crawled into the world and people have gone mad. They dance around and worship it, they feed their children to it. I’ve tried to think of it in cold terms of humans and I can’t. It’s simply evil. Go read that article about Canada and MAID and the doctors gloating they’ve killed 400 patients. Evil. No other way to see it
Evil exists, not as a process but also as a ‘thing.’ If that’s the case then Good must exist too. Thus God exists.
I am a scientist. I’ve spent months watching embryos cleave and divide and I can only explain this as a wondrous miracle.
I have children. Literal new people came out of me and they have souls and thoughts. We are conscious. Science has no explanation for consciousness that’s any better than that.
So yes, science and trannies brought me to Jesus. Not the ideal way maybe but there we go
It tickles me to think if Thomas Aquinas was deriving his proofs of God these days the Summa Theologica might contain the tranny argument to prove the devil exists
 
We can't really know, so I don't think about it often. I was raised Catholic and still try to live by those tenants, but I think if there is a god, its probably some faggy "energy" type entity, like the force. I actually had a colleague who claimed that god was a unified field theory but he was a schizo.
 
Bloitzhole said:
Being compelled to act in the manner described through religious text or doctrine, because one either fears the stick (god's wrath) or longs for the carrot (being in god's good graces and getting into superheaven) is to me more indicative of an underdeveloped moral character, since it really doesn't take a genius to figure out a couple of simple tenants that make for a "decent" life.
Click to expand...
Unless there is a good consistent way to compel people to obtain a developed moral character, religion may be a good way to redirect the spill-over. To make people who dont know why they do what they do do good anyway.
WelfareNiggerQueen said:
Everything's too orderly.
Click to expand...
Its inconsistently orderly. Its orderly in one area and chaotic in the the other.
As an example, there's a mathematical formula with real world applications that gives consistent answers at first, but becomes more complex as you change its parameters before becoming purely chaotic. Before becoming orderly again and then again chaotic. And so on.
Also. Why isn't pi 3.00?

Although I do admit the moon and the sun being the same size in the sky is a mind-bender for me, but as far as I know that's the only point of evidence in favor of creationism that I've accepted so far, but I'm interested to hear what you've found.
 
bird.up said:
lets see the proof then
Click to expand...
The claim that science can understand everything is absolutely insane. Mathematics lays at the core of science, and math is an incomplete system unable to express every facet of the universe. Unsurprisingly, Kurt Godel who discovered this truth about math also discovered that it is possible to prove a single divine entity exists via formal logic.
Fester Chavez said:
Although I do admit the moon and the sun being the same size in the sky is a mind-bender for me, but as far as I know that's the only point of evidence in favor of creationism that I've accepted so far, but I'm interested to hear what you've found.
Click to expand...
I'd say that's random chance. Any large moon orbiting a planet in the Inner Solar System can potentially have that same dynamic.
 
Last edited:
Save the Loli said:
I'd say that's random chance. Any large moon orbiting a planet in the Inner Solar System can potentially have that same dynamic.
Click to expand...
It's still probably very unlikely that the one civiliaztion that we've known to have ever existed, existed alongside such a coincidence.
And even if there were some explanation that showed this phenomenon were somehow highly correlated with the development of intelligent life, the coincidence would stiill exist, it'd just be pushed outside the realm of reality and into the realm of the rules governing reality.
bird.up said:
Gödel's ontological proof could apply to the perfect island or mathematical object because its axioms are so broad
science can understand anything material, and god and the afterlife are spiritual—thinking "the Science" can disprove or prove religion is naive
Click to expand...
Shouldn't science be able to understand anything that is empirically observable? Does the fact that science cannot observe the spiritual mean that the spiritual is entirely incapable of having any observable impact on the world?
Or is the spiritual just very sneaky in its influence, abstaining whenever it knows there is a scientifically-oriented observer present?
Or is it simply that it can be observed, but it's not scientific because the observations can't be used to make testable predicitons, and the experiments/experiences cannot be successfully recreated?

I was raised Christian -- protestant non-denomenational. I disliked many of the Christian influences of my childhood,. But I also disliked many of the secular/athiestic influences. (my older siblings). But the secular won out because there was no active reason to believe, and many of the secular explanations of reality were enticing. Like evolution. Evolution was and is really cool. I even managed to simulate it to an extent with my limited programming ability.

But as is obvious to everyone now, warped and wrong-headed aspects of the secular has begun to take on a very culty feel lately. And it's probably in part due to the abondonment of Christianity. But my main question is. Is it because there is some divine aspect to Christianity or is it simply because Christianity was acting as a column in our society,, a justification for many useful institutions for social gatherings and useful ideas like faggots should not do faggoty things. And Christianity isn't perfect but it's very old, and many of the traditions it established were established for useful though not always clear reasons. And now that it's dying out we're all going to have to re-discover all these problems and hopefully find solutions for them again.
That is... If the people responsible for it's death allow us to find these solutions.

But because of all this, I've been trying to look back into Christianity to see if it actually does have any divine truth to it. By learning about it's history and some of the philosophical ideas that went into it. But it's really doing nothing for me. The most I can be convinced of is, that maybe the universe might've been created by an Intelligence. But I don't see anything that implies any other attributes that this Intelligence can or can't have. So Christianity and other religions just feel like a bunch of people making fan fictions about it all. And make-believing that the weird brain-space you can sometimes enter when you're in a weird state-of-mind allows you to obtain some insight into this Intelligence. And everyone on the outside of this experience is just supposed to trust the claims that the guy makes.
 
Fester Chavez said:
Shouldn't science be able to understand anything that is empirically observable? Does the fact that science cannot observe the spiritual mean that the spiritual is entirely incapable of having any observable impact on the world?
Or is the spiritual just very sneaky in its influence, abstaining whenever it knows there is a scientifically-oriented observer present?
Or is it simply that it can be observed, but it's not scientific because the observations can't be used to make testable predicitons, and the experiments/experiences cannot be successfully recreated?
Click to expand...
by spiritual i mean imaginary or conceptual
you cannot empirically observe an afterlife
 
I'm not religious nor do I believe in any sort of deity. That said, classical mythology and folklore from Europe and the Far East always struck me as being kinda cool.
 
The three main monotheisms are obvious lies, saying a magic wizard poofed everything into existence one day for no apparent reason and then not talking about where the wizard came from is stupid and gay. Saying that mankinds morality is based around some human sacrifice in a desert two thousand years ago is retarded.
 
bird.up said:
science can understand anything material, and god and the afterlife are spiritual—thinking "the Science" can disprove or prove religion is naive
Click to expand...
I don’t think it can, at the moment anyway.
Consciousness is a good example. There’s multiple theories and all are just waffle and untestable hypotheses. The idea that we have souls is as solid a theory as emergence or the soft or hard theories
I’m a scientist too, I’m with Heisenberg on this;
. He had several things to say about it
1. The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.
2. In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I an now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on, Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of though, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.
across the frontier and physics and philosophy are both good reads
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom