mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[Killian Jones 2,655]

Yes, I do not believe at all that there is any "higher power". I'm not sure that science can prove it, but I do not believe at all that there is a god. To me, for example the Bible is just an old book written by some guy who wanted respect.

 

I am not trying to convert anyone. Some of my friends do believe in god, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

Besides, it's not that strange that I am an Atheist since I live in Sweden.

This is taken from Wikipedia:

 

'Some studies have found Sweden to be one of the least religious countries in the world, with one of the highest levels of Atheism. 2001, 69% of Swedes said that trey are either atheist or agnostic. According to different studies, between 46% and 85% of Swedes do not believe in God.'

 

Most of Europe really isn't very religious anymore. Maybe it has to do with so many Catholic priests being not very Catholic with young boys.

[Envy 6,156]

I personally hate atheists........ to them there is NO higher power. They say science proves it, but where does science prove there isn't a higher power.

You're making a lot of assumptions. Atheism solely means the lack of a belief in God. Nothing more.

 

For me, it's not that science directly proves that there is no Christian God. It's that all past religions, and even many aspects of Christianity have been proven to be false. All of those old Gods that we all so simply disregard as myths now were once as serious of a religion to the people as Christianity is to you all today. Yet, nowadays science has explained what they all thought was the doing of those Gods.

 

Why am I supposed to believe that the Christian God is so special and true opposed to the rest of them?

 

And that is just one simplified reason.

 

Believers even have their doubts, but to say your an Atheist is giving no wiggle room.

 

I think that's highly unfair. I've never heard any of the Christian's I know saying that there might not be a God. Ironically, I have heard even the more extreme Atheists say that there isn't a 0% chance of a God. They would say there is a God if there was proof that there actually is one. So I don't know where you're going with that. Atheists rely less on unadulterated faith and more on the facts that are known. They are the ones that could change their mind if the facts are presented to them. However, the Christians who rely on faith will never be able to see it any other way because nothing could ever prove to them with absolute certainty that there isn't a God.

 

I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe that, but don't pretend that the Atheists are the stubborn ones here.

 

Now, I don't mean to start an religious argument here... Sorry if I just did. D:

 

I just can't overlook a post which says "I hate Atheists!" and then that "They believe in NO higher power" reminds me of this really jerkish friend I have who says "You have to believe in some higher power".

Edited January 19, 2012 by Envy

[Eenohay 318]

Aham, you are right. I am an atheist, but I would gladly believe in any god if they gave me conclusive proof of its existance

[Ezynell 2,037]

it took a while but i had to choose Equestreism over Atheist

 

Atheism would mean you don't believe a diety exists. Equestreism was made for people that honestly don't give a shit.

[pondus30 152]

Equestreism!!! Atheist actually, i do not believe there is a god

Scratch that, I don't give a shit

Edited January 19, 2012 by pondus30

[Scootaloo1 106]

Church of the Fonz isn't added to the list... I'm enraged

 

 

 

Come on, now.

[Sheogorath 1,155]

All atheist. Unless I feel really good, then I consider myself as god.

 

I personally hate atheists

 

[akigawa 1]

I'm one of only 2 buddhists here? Who is the other?

 

Aham, you are right. I am an atheist, but I would gladly believe in any god if they gave me conclusive proof of its existance

 

I think there is a problem with conclusive proof. If for no other reason, something like a god would exist completely out of our realm of understanding. If you're a science fan you could say God stands within the 11 or 12 dimension.

[hwrogers 168]

i personally prefer the view expressed by chris rock's character rufus in "dogma," something along the lines of "religion is a good idea, but then people screwed up and built a belief system around it. an idea can be changed, but beliefs are something people will fight for, die for, even kill for."

 

i personally believe that beliefs are hazardous to human kind at nearly every level from the individual, to the cultural, to the national, and even the global level, something that invokes such fervent violence and hatred can never be altogether good.

 

don't get me wrong, i do think that there is a higher power, odin, god, allah, regardless of name, my idea is that their was a higher power somehow involved in the big bang, and later in the culmination of debris into no less than 1 potentially life sustaining planet with the correct ingredients and conditions to (after some billions of years set to "bake") eventually lead to intelligent life. i also think this would be a damn neat place to see because it sure as hell isn't here, 'least not yet anyhow.

[StarGazer 129]

You're making a lot of assumptions. Atheism solely means the lack of a belief in God. Nothing more.

 

For me, it's not that science directly proves that there is no Christian God. It's that all past religions, and even many aspects of Christianity have been proven to be false. All of those old Gods that we all so simply disregard as myths now were once as serious of a religion to the people as Christianity is to you all today. Yet, nowadays science has explained what they all thought was the doing of those Gods.

 

I think that's highly unfair. I've never heard any of the Christian's I know saying that there might not be a God. Ironically, I have heard even the more extreme Atheists say that there isn't a 0% chance of a God. They would say there is a God if there was proof that there actually is one. So I don't know where you're going with that. Atheists rely less on unadulterated faith and more on the facts that are known. They are the ones that could change their mind if the facts are presented to them. However, the Christians who rely on faith will never be able to see it any other way because nothing could ever prove to them with absolute certainty that there isn't a God.

 

I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe that, but don't pretend that the Atheists are the stubborn ones here.

 

Now, I don't mean to start an religious argument here... Sorry if I just did. D:

 

I just can't overlook a post which says "I hate Atheists!" and then that "They believe in NO higher power" reminds me of this really jerkish friend I have who says "You have to believe in some higher power".

 

I'll be the first Christian to say that there might not be a God but frankly I'm more along the side that there is one (not a big man in the sky, but more like the force that created, nurtured, and made us to be creatures that have the will to choose between right and wrong) I can believe all I want, and people who do not believe can not believe all they want but frankly the only truth of the matter is (at least in my head) we aren't going to know what is or is not true until we are dead. And since none of us have been dead (if you have been, please raise your hand) I don't think that any of us really know. And I think at some point we all have doubts. We're human. I used to go the science is proving religion wrong route until I took Astronomy in college. What that class taught me is that although we might think we know so much about our world and our universe truthfully there is so much more we don't know. We learn new things every day about the universe, humans, evolution, the earth etc. Personally, one day I think that elements of all religion might actually be proven by science. That is just what I believe.

 

And as for hating atheists, all I can say is that there is no room for hate in Christianity or the world. And I really hate doing this (haha, yes I hate) but... I have to put a Biblical something out there: John 13 34-35 "A new commandment I give to you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another"

 

I'm not an expert on religion or humanity but I truly believe that the only way humanity can get anywhere positive is if we put aside our differences and care for one another. Those are just my beliefs. I don't claim to be right and I am not trying to convert or influence anybody. That is what is in my head and I hope that you will all continue to share what you have in your heads too

 

BTW, this is the most civil conversation about religion that I have EVER read. Seriously. I love you guys!!!

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

BTW, this is the most civil conversation about religion that I have EVER read. Seriously. I love you guys!!!

 

One problem that's endemic to many if not most other forums, or even online chats pertaining to religion is that a debate gets derailed.

 

A conversation may be thorough and well-elaborated in exact details and proper citation, but then someone finds issue with something small like the wording of an analogy. The original poster of the preceeding detail then gives more thorough discourse on the analogy to correct it to that person. Some other person takes the topic from the previous discourse, and lo and behold, the entire course has been changed drastically, which often times means the original thoughts being conveyed were not discussed to completion, and everybody walks away in the end, unsatisfied not with how many various topics they were able to start onto, but with how few they managed to finish.

 

That we may conduct ourselves without getting distracted (or angry) is a wonderful blessing.

[PaperBagWizard 7]

My religion is Neo Druidism.

and i have to agree with stargazer, this is the most civil religion conversation ive ever seen as well

[Thewookie Wooker 64]

You're making a lot of assumptions. Atheism solely means the lack of a belief in God. Nothing more. For me, it's not that science directly proves that there is no Christian God. It's that all past religions, and even many aspects of Christianity have been proven to be false. All of those old Gods that we all so simply disregard as myths now were once as serious of a religion to the people as Christianity is to you all today. Yet, nowadays science has explained what they all thought was the doing of those Gods. Why am I supposed to believe that the Christian God is so special and true opposed to the rest of them? And that is just one simplified reason. I think that's highly unfair. I've never heard any of the Christian's I know saying that there might not be a God. Ironically, I have heard even the more extreme Atheists say that there isn't a 0% chance of a God. They would say there is a God if there was proof that there actually is one. So I don't know where you're going with that. Atheists rely less on unadulterated faith and more on the facts that are known. They are the ones that could change their mind if the facts are presented to them. However, the Christians who rely on faith will never be able to see it any other way because nothing could ever prove to them with absolute certainty that there isn't a God. I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe that, but don't pretend that the Atheists are the stubborn ones here. Now, I don't mean to start an religious argument here... Sorry if I just did. D: I just can't overlook a post which says "I hate Atheists!" and then that "They believe in NO higher power" reminds me of this really jerkish friend I have who says "You have to believe in some higher power".

Wouldn't an Atheist looking for more proof be an Agnostic... Atheism is there is NO higher power v.s. Agnosticism believes there could be but are skeptical.

 

Also, no I do not hate Atheists in the sense of I couldn't talk to them or something like that. Its just they typically go on and on about theists being close minded when they themselves are taking the polar opposite answer. They technically have faith there isn't a god.

 

Lastly, I didn't want to spark a war. I was just venting my disapproval for the growing amount of Atheists rather than Agnostics. It reminds me of children growing up and wanting to disagree with their parents. Parents were Republican so you go Democrat. Theist parents could make one want to go Atheist.

[Legit101 300]

Wouldn't an Atheist looking for more proof be an Agnostic... Atheism is there is NO higher power v.s. Agnosticism believes there could be but are skeptical.

 

Also, no I do not hate Atheists in the sense of I couldn't talk to them or something like that. Its just they typically go on and on about theists being close minded when they themselves are taking the polar opposite answer. They technically have faith there isn't a god.

 

Lastly, I didn't want to spark a war. I was just venting my disapproval for the growing amount of Atheists rather than Agnostics. It reminds me of children growing up and wanting to disagree with their parents. Parents were Republican so you go Democrat. Theist parents could make one want to go Atheist.

 

Being agnostic kind of does make more sense, in the way of "There may be a higher power, but I don't think so" instead of "There is no higher power, at all".

[Killian Jones 2,655]

Wouldn't an Atheist looking for more proof be an Agnostic... Atheism is there is NO higher power v.s. Agnosticism believes there could be but are skeptical.

 

Also, no I do not hate Atheists in the sense of I couldn't talk to them or something like that. Its just they typically go on and on about theists being close minded when they themselves are taking the polar opposite answer. They technically have faith there isn't a god.

Here's the problem with your argument and all religion vs atheism talks. Theists will always cling to faith and always put forward the argument that partial proof is not enough. Atheists will always require proof and never accept blind faith. Eventually the entire argument will boil down to he said she said arguments. Even so far where the entire discussion is done next to each other completely ignoring each side. There is no win condition.

 

Lastly, I didn't want to spark a war. I was just venting my disapproval for the growing amount of Atheists rather than Agnostics. It reminds me of children growing up and wanting to disagree with their parents. Parents were Republican so you go Democrat. Theist parents could make one want to go Atheist.

 

From this paragraph I' going to assume you are either very young or very misguided. While teenagers will face a moment in their life where they want to detach themselves from parental control, it doesn't mean they will always diametrically oppose their parents completely. I never had spouts of religious feelings because my parents were atheists. I didn't like the fascists parties because my parents were left wing. Instead I liked the things I wanted, and those did not necessarily have to be the same as my parents. Don't misinterpret the rebellious state as trying to be a dick. It is just a way of finding oneself.

[Sheogorath 1,155]

Wouldn't an Atheist looking for more proof be an Agnostic... Atheism is there is NO higher power v.s. Agnosticism believes there could be but are skeptical.

 

Actually it is more simple than that: Atheist doesn't believe in god, this means lack of belief to anything outside reality. Atheist does not actively seek to prove or disprove gods of any theistic denomination as there's no proof of them even being real. But the day there is a verifiable, testable and replication-able proof of some sort of powerful deity; was it then Wotan, Ra, or YHWH an atheist will accept the proven evidence and then become a deist.

 

All being an atheist means that one does not take things to a faith. Atheist doesn't believe everything that is told to him/her but likes to form his/hers own opinion or base said opinion on facts and facts alone. This means atheist by default will not challenge any faith, will not seek to destroy one nor will it attack one unless religion tries to attack first some already in place law, rule or human right in order to enforce its policies on peoples lives, even those who are not religious or follow that specific religion. Then some atheists, not all even in that case may protest and try to protect individual rights of people of other denominations and ones without one. This they do because they do not want to pray, when they do not believe in prayer, or do not want to fund a church that does things they may not agree with in political or societal sense.

 

Atheist does not "hate" god or religion, just doesn't believe in one, that is all being an atheist means.

 

There is much misinformation about atheism out there as religious establishments try to criminalize and slander such lifestyle that robs them authority over individuals life. To atheist the authority is government and its laws as well as social authority of well being and codes of conduct necessary for a reasonable human being.

 

Also, no I do not hate Atheists in the sense of I couldn't talk to them or something like that. Its just they typically go on and on about theists being close minded when they themselves are taking the polar opposite answer. They technically have faith there isn't a god.

It is not a matter of faith that there isn't a god, it is just matter of not believing that there is. You do not need to take it to a faith that there isn't a golden teapot in the space floating around spewing rainbows into cosmic teapots. Same goes for atheist and any notion of any of the man gods humans have conceived over the countless millenniums. Simply, lack of faith to something that someone else claims to be real but can not prove it without a doubt.

 

Lastly, I didn't want to spark a war. I was just venting my disapproval for the growing amount of Atheists rather than Agnostics. It reminds me of children growing up and wanting to disagree with their parents. Parents were Republican so you go Democrat. Theist parents could make one want to go Atheist.

It is not a matter of rebellion. good part of of Finland is atheist, my parents are atheist, and so am I. Sure I disagree with religious ideas, but it doesn't mean I do it out of spite either! I Respect all the good religion has done and acknowledge its part in shaping our culture as it stands. However it doesn't mean we should hold on to archaic policies and ideas forever, society changes, world changes, so should the value systems in it to match the needs of the era.

 

Disclaimer: I am not trying to convert you or make you atheist, just telling you that your idea of atheist might be a result of misrepresentation due exposure to few loudmouth idiots who also are atheists and militant jerk wads on top of that about their own philosophies or views. All I do is to advice tolerance and wish to underline the separation between atheist and militant anti-theist.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Pencils

[Crispy 5,563]

BTW, this is the most civil conversation about religion that I have EVER read. Seriously. I love you guys!!!

 

It really helps that we're all pretty intelligent, rational and tolerant people.

 

We are bronies/pegasisters, after all.

[Klopp 2,050]

BTW, this is the most civil conversation about religion that I have EVER read. Seriously. I love you guys!!!

 

 

This is actually the third thread I have posted in, where religion was the main topic. None of them had gotten out of hand, and everyone respected the others religious believe, or the lack thereof. Even though Crispy is correct in his comment, it still very much surprises me that there have been no arguments erupted from topics on religion OR politics.

 

Bronies are awesome */)(*

[Eenohay 318]

I'm one of only 2 buddhists here? Who is the other?

 

 

 

I think there is a problem with conclusive proof. If for no other reason, something like a god would exist completely out of our realm of understanding. If you're a science fan you could say God stands within the 11 or 12 dimension.

 

Yeah, I can see how a god could be in any other dimension, but a god is a god, and If he wanted to he could come down to earth and prove everyone that he exists.

 

Actually, I think It would take that for me to believe in something

[Envy 6,156]

Wouldn't an Atheist looking for more proof be an Agnostic... Atheism is there is NO higher power v.s. Agnosticism believes there could be but are skeptical.

Agnosticism is actually flat out removing yourself from the argument and claiming that you have no way of knowing whether or not there is a God. You're verging on Atheist the second you think it's more likely that there isn't a God.

 

You can still very much make the claim that there isn't a God but be open to the possibility if evidence starts suggesting otherwise.

 

I was just venting my disapproval for the growing amount of Atheists rather than Agnostics.

I don't see what the problem is... Why is it so wrong to be an Atheist, but it isn't to be a Christian? Christians are definitely picking a side and making an absolute statement.

 

Now imagine that there isn't a God. That Atheism is the truth. In that scenario wouldn't it be better for humanity to move away from religion?

 

If that scenario is true should we always have to be restricted to either believing in God or believing that a God could possibly exist, or can we break free of that notion in entirety and move onward? (words like "restricted" and "move onward" are for the sake of this argument and are not meant to insult your beliefs)

 

Now I'm trying to be respectful here. Just trying to show you that the opposition very much has their reason to sit firmly on their side. Because, just like Christians, they believe the world moving more in the direction of their viewpoint is for the better.

 

(And of course, I am not referring to all Atheists or Christians. As it has been pointed out in this topic, being an Atheist does mean that you care about it or how others think. However, you're referring to those who do so that's why I posted this)

 

It reminds me of children growing up and wanting to disagree with their parents. Parents were Republican so you go Democrat. Theist parents could make one want to go Atheist.

 

I most certainly never formed even a single viewpoint with the idea of rebelling against my parents. My parents are Democrats, so I am I. They may be much more religious than me, but I never strayed away from the idea of religion to spite them. I strayed away from religion when I learned about history (especially European history.) and when I started being exposed to the arguments that Atheists were putting forth and realizing that they make much more sense to the way I see things.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Envy

[hwrogers 168]

i often find that people taking the standpoint of atheist are often far more annoying than those of the agnostic standpoint, just my experience. the reason i say this is because (here in texas at least) most atheists tend to go around like they are right, and everyone else is wrong, not to say that the fundy alpha christy bastards aren't the same if not more annoying about it for there rejection of what little science we currently can prove. but then i also find myself feeling the same about political people, straight ticket voters piss me of like little else can, and for the exact same reasons.

 

the short version; fundamentalists annoy me, be they religious, political, or just stupid (stupid happens alot in rural texas btw)

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Blue

[StarGazer 129]

 

 

Also, no I do not hate Atheists in the sense of I couldn't talk to them or something like that. Its just they typically go on and on about theists being close minded when they themselves are taking the polar opposite answer. They technically have faith there isn't a god.

 

 

 

You can't lump all Atheists together. Everyone is different and the Atheists I know are not at all like this. Yes, some are but the ones who aren't don't deserve to be clumped together under a negative image.

I get what you're saying about close minded people complaining about other people being close minded, but I don't believe in generalizing. I say that because I'm Christian/ Catholic/ Confused and I greatly dislike it when I'm clumped in the "Christians don't believe in evolution" "Catholics are evil" "Christians are not scientific and want to force their religion on everyone else" etc groups because I'm not like that at all. I don't want people defining me, I want to define me.

[Tomiix 431]

Any claim to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing. If we use any other authority by which to authorize the Bible, THAT authority then becomes our ultimate authority. For instance, if we say that we will accept the Bible as our ultimate authority only if %100 of literary scholars say it is true, then those scholars become our ultimate authority, not the Bible. Christians therefore claim the Bible as our ultimate authority by its own authority as the word of God. I'm sure many people will say: "But that's using circular logic!" (using what is to be proven in the proof). What you must realize though, is that any claim to ultimate authority uses circularity, but not all can be simultaneously valid.

If you are not a Christian I ask: What is your ultimate authority? Most 'unbelievers' have never given this question much thought but the answer is often: "My own human reason." My question then is: "By what authority do you use human reason as your ultimate authority? "Um...my human reason?" This logic is entirely circular!

To be valid an ultimate authority must first claim ultimate authority and then prove itself internally. Lets contrast the 'unbeliever's' view above with the Christian view.

The first fatal flaw of the 'unbeliever's' view is that it is completely arbitrary, (totally up to the individual), and therefore is not law-like in nature and loses any degree of necessity. If this was the case, no ultimate authority could be 'right' or 'true' and no one could be at fault for pursuing their own ultimate authority.

The second fatal flaw is the inconsistency of such a view. 'Unbelievers' may claim that they are their own ultimate authority but quite often (and thankfully) do not live that way when they submit to a higher authority (such as governments, institutions, groups or individuals).

That brings us to the third fatal flaw of the 'unbeliever's' view on ultimate authority, the consequences of such a view. If people actually did what they often really wanted to do, and did not submit to higher authority, there would be anarchy. If, for instance, someone decided by their own reason and authority to do an evil act, there would be no reason to stop, since to them it would by definition be right and true.

Contrast these three points with the Christian belief that the Bible is God's word and therefore our ultimate authority. First of all, the Bible as an ultimate authority is not arbitrary. It is written word that is entirely certain, and law-like in nature. Secondly, while Christians are sometimes inconsistent with their submission to the Bible as their ultimate authority, such actions are entirely consistent with the Biblical description of the depraved nature of the human condition. And thirdly, the consequences of sure laws such as 'loving one's enemy,' 'turning the other cheek,' or 'treating others as you would have them treat you,' if universally adhered to, would not result in anarchy, but peace.

[Legit101 300]

Any claim to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing. If we use any other authority by which to authorize the Bible, THAT authority then becomes our ultimate authority. For instance, if we say that we will accept the Bible as our ultimate authority only if %100 of literary scholars say it is true, then those scholars become our ultimate authority, not the Bible. Christians therefore claim the Bible as our ultimate authority by its own authority as the word of God. I'm sure many people will say: "But that's using circular logic!" (using what is to be proven in the proof). What you must realize though, is that any claim to ultimate authority uses circularity, but not all can be simultaneously valid.

If you are not a Christian I ask: What is your ultimate authority? Most 'unbelievers' have never given this question much thought but the answer is often: "My own human reason." My question then is: "By what authority do you use human reason as your ultimate authority? "Um...my human reason?" This logic is entirely circular!

To be valid an ultimate authority must first claim ultimate authority and then prove itself internally. Lets contrast the 'unbeliever's' view above with the Christian view.

The first fatal flaw of the 'unbeliever's' view is that it is completely arbitrary, (totally up to the individual), and therefore is not law-like in nature and loses any degree of necessity. If this was the case, no ultimate authority could be 'right' or 'true' and no one could be at fault for pursuing their own ultimate authority.

The second fatal flaw is the inconsistency of such a view. 'Unbelievers' may claim that they are their own ultimate authority but quite often (and thankfully) do not live that way when they submit to a higher authority (such as governments, institutions, groups or individuals).

That brings us to the third fatal flaw of the 'unbeliever's' view on ultimate authority, the consequences of such a view. If people actually did what they often really wanted to do, and did not submit to higher authority, there would be anarchy. If, for instance, someone decided by their own reason and authority to do an evil act, there would be no reason to stop, since to them it would by definition be right and true.

Contrast these three points with the Christian belief that the Bible is God's word and therefore our ultimate authority. First of all, the Bible as an ultimate authority is not arbitrary. It is written word that is entirely certain, and law-like in nature. Secondly, while Christians are sometimes inconsistent with their submission to the Bible as their ultimate authority, such actions are entirely consistent with the Biblical description of the depraved nature of the human condition. And thirdly, the consequences of sure laws such as 'loving one's enemy,' 'turning the other cheek,' or 'treating others as you would have them treat you,' if universally adhered to, would not result in anarchy, but peace.

Christians also have their own morals unrelated to Christianity and do bad things, what are you getting at?

It's impossible to follow the bible word for word.

Yes, if everybody followed "the golden rule" the world would be nice, but that's not it.