mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[RAGESTAR 479]

I assume this has already been brought up, but Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and maybe Unitarian are all Protestant.  Plus, "Equestreism" is not a religion, no matter how religious some bronies are about the fandom.

 

As for me, I identify as a Protestant, primarily because my family is.  I've been on the fence though, and I may become an agnostic/atheist when I gain independence.  I was an atheist when I was younger.  I wish religious beliefs were either undeniably true or undeniably false.  That would make life so much easier.  It is just so confusing: I would not want to be an atheist if I knew that the Bible was certainly true, because I'd end up in hell!  That is what keeps me a Christian.

 

Then I guess you would be interested to know that Christian hell was only a threat made by the church. It's actually a mix of the eternal torture in an underground place of fire from Greek legends, known as the underworld. While the name is taken from my own religion, a place called Helheim, or Hel, for short. They merely mashed these two together and added an extra L at the end, and thus we have the usual threat of angry Christians, known as hell.

 

To be blunt, hell or eternal torture isn't even mentioned in the bible. You don't have to believe me, this is just from the info I've gathered...which took hours of studying! XD

[Sky Warden 2,243]

I honestly feel like we are getting too far off the original topic of the thread, so I'll leave this response and we can either stop or move to PM's.

 

Yes. I'm aware that trying to make sense with people on the Internet is useless. I've explained religions successfully to many people in a period of time, and some just couldn't understand my explanation. Seems like you can't understand my explanation as well. It's either me who just don't explain well enough or it's just you who close your mind and prefer to keep your hatred.

 

 

On to your... misdefinition of the word Islam.

According to the dictionary, it's defined as this:

a follower of the religion of Islam.

 

Yes, quoting a dictionary made by those who don't even understand Islam. So smart. Let me guess. Oxford dictionary? Personally I believe what I've studied and understood myself more than what people just simply tell me.

 

In it's original language it may mean safe, but it's still a term referring to the religion. It means safe as in safe BECAUSE they are following that religion. Someone of any other religion by that definition cannot be considered Muslim.

 

Yes, that's my point. Islam isn't a label. It's an adjective. People who follows the guides are safe because it teaches people to live safely. What are you arguing against? It proves that you didn't open your mind to my posts and you just tried to disagree with me without even trying to understand what I'm telling you.

 

 

It's obvious that the Old Testament has been edited, the dead sea scrolls are extremely old copies of the books of the old testament (along with a few other non-biblical books) that, although mostly the same, show many differences in the translation. Regardless, the vast majority of the world uses the same translations, and even though there are different ones, they are generally almost exactly the same - some just try to make it easier to understand. The King James version is, I believe, the most used version of the Bible in the world. They still teach the same stories and the same morals, just with different wordings.

 

See? It's the people who edit religious text for their own benefits. It's not the religion's fault. It's the people. Jesus taught Christiany to guide His people. Some dudes just edited His text for their own benefits. They might hate someone from other religion and added false command in the holy book. It's the people, not religion.

 

 

I disrespect religion because there is literally no scientific evidence to back up ANYTHING they believe. Unlike popular belief, it is possible to be a completely moral person without some book describing rewards and punishment, it's simply called being a good person.

 

Again, read.

 

I've said what's needed. If you still disagree with me, read my posts again with an open mind. I don't know what kind of grudge you have with fake religious people, but it's always good to let go, give mercy, and continue with your life. That's what Buddhism taught me.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

Yes, that's my point. Islam isn't a label. It's an adjective.

 

I gotta state the obvious here: Islam is a noun.  It is the name of a religion.  In this regard, it is a label.  It is also the first person, present tense verb form of the Arabic phrase "I submit" (اسلام).  If you're going to get into semantics, please do so appropriately.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

 

 

I gotta state the obvious here: Islam is a noun.  It is the name of a religion.  In this regard, it is a label.  It is also the first person, present tense verb form of the Arabic phrase "I submit" (اسلام).  If you're going to get into semantics, please do so appropriately.

 

Yeah, because it's been treated as a name for more than a thousand years. Where do you think that name came from? It's from the word Salam, which means somewhere around peace, goodness, safety. The way of Islam simply means the way of peace, goodness, or safety. That's the real thing. It's just that people have been using it as a label for so many years that it ended as what it is now.

 

There's a thing about Islam is about submission to God instead of the way of peace, but submission here means following the God's orders, which is to bring peace and well-being, which is basically the same thing as the other root.

 

Happy?

[Nikkers 29]

I worship the Woman they call Lauren Faust and the princess they call Candance ( cause of her looovvvesss) and the moon. Otherwise everyone can worship whatever they like as long as they dont hurt people

[Guest90210 3,568]

I adhere to no religion. I'm not an Atheist because I think there may be a God. There probably isn't but who really knows? I don't believe in the Bible or the Quran but are fascinated by both books. I simply have no idea what religion, if any, is true. It's pretty much the worst stance to have on any issue, but it seems the most logical to me.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

I adhere to no religion. I'm not an Atheist because I think there may be a God. There probably isn't but who really knows? I don't believe in the Bible or the Quran but are fascinated by both books. I simply have no idea what religion, if any, is true. It's pretty much the worst stance to have on any issue, but it seems the most logical to me.

Sounds like you're agnostic. And don't ever think that "I don't know, but maybe" is a bad stance. It is the rational DEFAULT stance that everybody has on everything philosophical, until/unless something convinces them otherwise.

 

Generally, if you're encouraged to "pick a side", that person is telling you to stop asking questions.

[Durandal 623]

*inhales deeply*
 
Ah, I love the smell of religious debate in the morning.
 

Simple. Just post in your religion. If its not included, quote this post and tell me what it is. I'll add it.

 
I would like to direct your attention to Pantheism, which is basically the view that the Universe and God are one and the same. If you ask me, it's essentially a romanticization of the Universe, which I find absolutely justified. The Universe is a beautiful, wondrous thing, and most certainly what I would call 'divine'. Of course, this does not mean I believe in a god - merely that I believe the Universe is what we call God.

[Taviscratch 453]

See? It's the people who edit religious text for their own benefits. It's not the religion's fault. It's the people. Jesus taught Christiany to guide His people. Some dudes just edited His text for their own benefits. They might hate someone from other religion and added false command in the holy book. It's the people, not religion.

I'm sorry but this is just making me cringe. You speak of how religions are good and it's only men who do bad deeds. Upon @Dddrgn pointing out that some of these deeds are indeed endorsed by religions, you try turning that around to your argument by saying that men edited the religious texts to say such a thing so that they could further their personal desires. There is a problem with this, however, as all religions were invented by man. Everything religious was created by people's imagination. You seem to think religions spontaneously erupt from nowhere, that they are initially superb and perfect until man comes along and rewrites it.

 

You preach logic but I only see @Dddrgn and using it here.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

There is a problem with this, however, as all religions were invented by man. Everything religious was created by people's imagination. 

 

That's a pretty bold, sweeping statement to present as fact. I can respect that it's your opinion—even though I disagree with it—but it's nothing more than an opinion.

[Taviscratch 453]

That's a pretty bold, sweeping statement to present as fact. I can respect that it's your opinion—even though I disagree with it—but it's nothing more than an opinion.

It's only as bold as saying that God does exist. It is also more plausible than holy scriptures popping into existence without a human author. Out of curiosity, which religion do you follow?

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

It's only as bold as saying that God does exist. It is also more plausible than holy scriptures popping into existence without a human author. Out of curiosity, which religion do you follow?

 

Precisely. It's no more or less bold than believing in God, but the way it was presented, it came off as an objective statement of fact, which, honestly, no one knows for sure. Either it is true or it's not, and what's true is true regardless of what people believe, but the fact is that we don't know for sure.

 

Personally, I'm a Christian. I don't believe that holy scriptures just popped into existence without a human author, though. Clearly the Bible was physically written by man's hands, but I still believe it's the holy and inerrant word of God, spoken to man. That's my belief, anyway.

[Taviscratch 453]

Precisely. It's no more or less bold than believing in God, but the way it was presented, it came off as an objective statement of fact, which, honestly, no one knows for sure. Either it is true or it's not, and what's true is true regardless of what people believe, but the fact is that we don't know for sure.

 

Personally, I'm a Christian. I don't believe that holy scriptures just popped into existence without a human author, though. Clearly the Bible was physically written by man's hands, but I still believe it's the holy and inerrant word of God, spoken to man. That's my belief, anyway.

I wasn't saying that God definitely doesn't exist and that's a fact. (I don't believe that God exists but I could be wrong. I don't think it's likely, but it is possible) I was saying that these scriptures are indeed written by just men. For you the true word of God is the Bible, for others the Qur'an, Torah etc . I do have a few questions though: Since Christianity is less than 2000 years old and the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, what was god doing in the meantime? What about all the other religions - are they untrue but yours isn't? How come there were so many religions before Christianity came along?

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

I wasn't saying that God definitely doesn't exist and that's a fact. (I don't believe that God exists but I could be wrong. I don't think it's likely, but it is possible) I was saying that these scriptures are indeed written by just men. For you the true word of God is the Bible, for others the Qur'an, Torah etc .

 

I can respect that. But that's not the way you said it before. That was my only real issue: you originally presented that opinion as if it were an absolute fact, saying that "Everything religious was created by people's imagination." That's all I really had any quarrel with.

[Taviscratch 453]

I can respect that. But that's not the way you said it before. That was my only real issue: you originally presented that opinion as if it were an absolute fact, saying that "Everything religious was created by people's imagination." That's all I really had any quarrel with.

Ah, sorry, I see what you're getting at. I meant "All religious LITERATURE has been created by people's imagination." I do also believe that all religions have been invented but thats why they call me an atheist and this isn't what we're discussing here. I apologise for my poor wording.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

I do have a few questions though: Since Christianity is less than 2000 years old and the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, what was god doing in the meantime? What about all the other religions - are they untrue but yours isn't? How come there were so many religions before Christianity came along?

 

As for the Earth being 4.54 billion years old, I subscribe to Young Earth Creationism. But regardless, Christian history doesn't begin with Jesus. Christianity broke off from Judaism when the Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah. Judaism had been around for thousands of years prior, formally beginning with Abraham, but I believe people had been serving and worshipping the same God even before then. And whether the Earth is thousands or billions of years old, I believe God spent that time creating it all.

Ah, sorry, I see what you're getting at. I meant "All religious LITERATURE has been created by people's imagination." I do also believe that all religions have been invented but thats why they call me an atheist and this isn't what we're discussing here. I apologise for my poor wording.

 

No worries, mate. The English language doesn't exactly promote a great deal of understanding between people with different backgrounds.

[Taviscratch 453]

As for the Earth being 4.54 billion years old, I subscribe to Young Earth Creationism.

Then I wash my hands of this. While there was once a time where I would steer you towards scientific evidence, I now understand that you would disregard it anyway in order to preserve your beliefs. I date a geologist so there is no way in hell I can make the mistake of believing the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and I know too much about biology to disregard evolution. My girlfriend would like to bury you in ammonites now to see if that will change your mind. I'm pretty sure it will break before it will bend, though. I'm done with this now.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

Then I wash my hands of this. While there was once a time where I would steer you towards scientific evidence, I now understand that you would disregard it anyway in order to preserve your beliefs. I date a geologist so there is no way in hell I can make the mistake of believing the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and I know too much about biology to disregard evolution. My girlfriend would like to bury you in ammonites now to see if that will change your mind. I'm pretty sure it will break before it will bend, though. I'm done with this now.

 

We don't understand the world as well as we think. We see in evidence what we want to see, both religious people and atheists. It's in our nature as humans. Until we reach the point that we can travel back in time to witness Earth's history in motion, we're arrogant fools if we believe we have any certainty in the matter.

[Taviscratch 453]

We don't understand the world as well as we think. We see in evidence what we want to see, both religious people and atheists. It's in our nature as humans. Until we reach the point that we can travel back in time to witness Earth's history in motion, we're arrogant fools if we believe we have any certainty in the matter.

This^ Just this. This is everything wrong with the education system in America. It teaches a lack of curiosity and critical thinking. We may not have certainty but we have a very good idea of the history of the world. It's all documented beautifully in the layers of the Earth's crust, complete with millions of years of evolution archived in fossils. Not all of it disproves what is in the Bible (or any other scripture) as we found evidence of your great flood. Several of them, in fact. The one which probably inspired the story of Noah was a huge flood in the middle east larger than the boxing day tsunami. Clay deposits 3 metres thick were found. It was far from a global flood as written in the Bible but it is understandable how a local could think it was; all of his world would have been washed away. Before I go, I will leave you with one word: dinosaurs.

[Hawk Moth 390]

I have a predeliction towards Judaism because that's how I was raised, but I never cared for long ceremonies nor the idea of being God's servant and always being watched and judged. Though I consider myself agnostic, I support a secular state of Israel and I would glady accept any religion if I was given proof that it was correct.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

This^ Just this. This is everything wrong with the education system in America. It teaches a lack of curiosity and critical thinking. We may not have certainty but we have a very good idea of the history of the world. It's all documented beautifully in the layers of the Earth's crust, complete with millions of years of evolution archived in fossils. Not all of it disproves what is in the Bible (or any other scripture) as we found evidence of your great flood. Several of them, in fact. The one which probably inspired the story of Noah was a huge flood in the middle east larger than the boxing day tsunami. Clay deposits 3 metres thick were found. It was far from a global flood as written in the Bible but it is understandable how a local could think it was; all of his world would have been washed away. Before I go, I will leave you with one word: dinosaurs.

 

In the event of a catastrophic worldwide flood, the surface of the planet would naturally be in a liquidy state; different creatures and different types of sediment would naturally settle out at different levels. How do you explain viable soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils? Based on our current understanding, that's physically impossible. How do you explain trees that stand upright through dozens of strata in several places across the world? If those strata were deposited over millions of years, the trees would've decomposed long before they had a chance to be fossilized. How do you explain in-tact mammoth carcasses that have been found? Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that mammoths, which we can reasonable assume were herbivores, seemed to live in a barren tundra? How do you explain the absence of an alluvial fan at the end of the Colorado River? If it carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years, it would've left a huge deposit of sediment where it enters the ocean, but no such deposit has been found.

 

What teaches a "lack of curiosity" is the belief that we already understand things better than we do. Admitting our fallibility, the fact that we're imperfect and tend to draw imperfect conclusions, is a powerful motivator to be more curious, to work harder to understand the world around us. It's when we become convinced in what we don't truly know that our progress as a species is hampered.

 

I admit, though, that my understanding is entirely open to being wrong. While I certainly am a bit obstinate at times, I am not so stubborn as to ignore evidence that I don't like. And I certainly do see the evidence for an old Earth, but I don't see it as pointing to that conclusion exclusively.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Henny Penny Benny

[Taviscratch 453]

In the event of a catastrophic worldwide flood, the surface of the planet would naturally be in a liquidy state; different creatures and different types of sediment would naturally settle out at different levels. How do you explain viable soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils? Based on our current understanding, that's physically impossible. How do you explain trees that stand upright through dozens of strata in several places across the world? If those strata were deposited over millions of years, the trees would've decomposed long before they had a chance to be fossilized. How do you explain in-tact mammoth carcasses that have been found? Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that mammoths, which we can reasonable assume were herbivores, seemed to live in a barren tundra? How do you explain the absence of an alluvial fan at the end of the Colorado River? If it carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years, it would've left a huge deposit of sediment where it enters the ocean, but no such deposit has been found.

No "soft" tissue has ever been found on dinosaur fossils. Fossilised flesh has been, however. This occurs when the tissue has been protected from decay long enough for minerals to seep into the carcass and turn the flesh and bone to stone. There are many ways of natural mummification and these can cause your "soft" tissue to be present on some fossils. As for your Polystrate tree fossils, see here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html. I believe the intact mammoth carcass was found in ice. Ice preserves things. That's why we use freezers to preserve our food. As for how it survived in an icy tundra, slow metabolisms are wondrous things, you should see how Bison at Yellowstone survive in winter. I understand that Yellowstone only freezes over in the winter and that the mammoth that we found were in constantly icy areas but it is only because of this ice why we would find intact mammoth carcasses at all. The warmer areas won't preserve them for us to find. Additionally, they did go extinct after all. As for the Colorado River:

Sediments carried from the plateau by the Colorado River created a vast delta made of more than 10,000 cubic miles (42,000 km³) of material that walled off the northernmost part of the gulf in approximately 1 million years. Cut off from the ocean, the portion of the gulf north of the delta eventually evaporated and formed the Salton Sink, which reached about 260 feet (79 m) below sea level. Since then the river has changed course into the Salton Sink at least three times, transforming it into Lake Cahuilla, which at maximum size flooded up the valley to present-day Indio, California. The lake took about 50 years to evaporate after the Colorado resumed flowing to the Gulf. The present-day Salton Sea can be considered the most recent incarnation of Lake Cahuilla, though on a much smaller scale.

Between 1.8 million and 10,000 years ago, massive flows of basalt from the Uinkaret volcanic field in northern Arizona dammed the Colorado River within the Grand Canyon. At least 13 lava dams were formed, the largest of which was more than 2,300 feet (700 m) high, backing the river up for nearly 500 miles (800 km) to present-day Moab, Utah^. The lack of associated sediment deposits along this stretch of the Colorado River, which would have accumulated in the impounded lakes over time, suggests that most of these dams did not survive for more than a few decades before collapsing or being washed away. Failure of the lava dams caused by erosion, leaks and cavitation caused catastrophic flooding which may have been some of the largest ever to occur in North America, rivaling the late-Pleistocene Missoula Floods of the northwestern United States. Mapping of flood deposits indicate that crests as high as 700 feet (210 m) passed through the Grand Canyon^, reaching peak discharges as great as 17,000,000 cubic feet per second (480,000 m³/s)

(this may be from Wikipedia but, as I said earlier, my girlfriend is a geologists and she confirms this. Plus there are numerous references)

 

That is how I would explain them.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Taviscratch

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

No "soft" tissue has ever been found on dinosaur fossils. Fossilised flesh has been, however. This occurs when the tissue has been protected from decay long enough for minerals to seep into the carcass and turn the flesh and bone to stone. There are many ways of natural mummification and these can cause your "soft" tissue to be present on some fossils. As for your Polystrate tree fossils, see here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html. I believe the intact mammoth carcass was found in ice. Ice preserves things. That's why we use freezers to preserve our food. As for how it survived in an icy tundra, slow metabolisms are wondrous things, you should see how Bison at Yellowstone survive in winter. I understand that Yellowstone only freezes over in the winter and that the mammoth that we found were in constantly icy areas but it is only because of this ice why we would find intact mammoth carcasses at all. The warmer areas won't preserve them for us to find. Additionally, they did go extinct after all. As for the Colorado River:

Sediments carried from the plateau by the Colorado River created a vast delta made of more than 10,000 cubic miles (42,000 km³) of material that walled off the northernmost part of the gulf in approximately 1 million years. Cut off from the ocean, the portion of the gulf north of the delta eventually evaporated and formed the Salton Sink, which reached about 260 feet (79 m) below sea level. Since then the river has changed course into the Salton Sink at least three times, transforming it into Lake Cahuilla, which at maximum size flooded up the valley to present-day Indio, California. The lake took about 50 years to evaporate after the Colorado resumed flowing to the Gulf. The present-day Salton Sea can be considered the most recent incarnation of Lake Cahuilla, though on a much smaller scale.

Between 1.8 million and 10,000 years ago, massive flows of basalt from the Uinkaret volcanic field in northern Arizona dammed the Colorado River within the Grand Canyon. At least 13 lava dams were formed, the largest of which was more than 2,300 feet (700 m) high, backing the river up for nearly 500 miles (800 km) to present-day Moab, Utah^. The lack of associated sediment deposits along this stretch of the Colorado River, which would have accumulated in the impounded lakes over time, suggests that most of these dams did not survive for more than a few decades before collapsing or being washed away. Failure of the lava dams caused by erosion, leaks and cavitation caused catastrophic flooding which may have been some of the largest ever to occur in North America, rivaling the late-Pleistocene Missoula Floods of the northwestern United States. Mapping of flood deposits indicate that crests as high as 700 feet (210 m) passed through the Grand Canyon^, reaching peak discharges as great as 17,000,000 cubic feet per second (480,000 m³/s)

(this may be from Wikipedia but, as I said earlier, my girlfriend is a geologists and she confirms this. Plus there are numerous references)

 

That is how I would explain them.

 

Well, that all does seem quite plausible. But of course, I don't think it's absolute proof of anything. Again, we do tend to base our understanding of objective evidence on our own preconceived notions. That doesn't mean they're wrong, of course, simply that we can easily overlook alternative explanations that the evidence may support.

 

But frankly, I don't know as much about scientific matters as you seem to. So while it's unlikely I would be swayed even if our debate were to continue, I won't be able to add anything further. You do seem to have the intellectual upper hand here.

[Guest]

Simple. Just post in your religion. If its not included, quote this post and tell me what it is. I'll add it.

 

Discussion Time Everypony!

Of course you had to use comic sans.

 

I am Transhumanist and on a seperate level Pastafarian.

 

Transhumanism: the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, esp. by means of science and technology.

 

ie. In the near future we are going to develop technology that will allow us to interface directly with computers, or transfer our conciousness into the digital world because our brains work with a system that is similar to our current binary based computers. Transhumanism encompasses both human augmentation (ala deus ex) and imortality through robotics.

 

Pastafarian: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.

 

Basically Pastafarianism is a hybrid Atheist religion that does not believe that intelligent design should be tought as fact or used as leverage on real-world issues. We approach religion satirically and use humor to prove our points. Pretty much all members of the FSM Church are Atheist.

 

[Taviscratch 453]

Well, that all does seem quite plausible. But of course, I don't think it's absolute proof of anything. Again, we do tend to base our understanding of objective evidence on our own preconceived notions. That doesn't mean they're wrong, of course, simply that we can easily overlook alternative explanations that the evidence may support.

 

But frankly, I don't know as much about scientific matters as you seem to. So while it's unlikely I would be swayed even if our debate were to continue, I won't be able to add anything further. You do seem to have the intellectual upper hand here.

I always strive to review and evaluate alternative evidence should it present itself. I doff my hat to you, sir and wish you well in the future. Perhaps we can spar again sometime.

Of course you had to use comic sans.

 

I am Transhumanist and on a seperate level Pastafarian.

 

Transhumanism: the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, esp. by means of science and technology.

 

ie. In the near future we are going to develop technology that will allow us to interface directly with computers, or transfer our conciousness into the digital world because our brains work with a system that is similar to our current binary based computers. Transhumanism encompasses both human augmentation (ala deus ex) and imortality through robotics.

Ah, I never thought of Transhumanism as a religion. I do think eventually, we will be able to augment humans beyond their natural limitations. However, I do think cybernetic immortality and direct cerebral interface with computers are further off than I wish they were. One day we will prove William Gibson right, just not a day anytime soon.