mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[Leave a Whisper 703]

I'm an Eclectic Pagan. I was called to that path and accepted it. I found that neither Christianity nor Catholicism, (which is what the rest of my family is) reflected my heart and mind. I've always had a fascination for various mythologies around the world.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Leave a Whisper

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

Hi, all.

 

Agnostic atheist here in good faith (no pun intended) with a few questions intended to provoke civilized discussion.

 

1: This is an easy one, but many tend to provide widely different answers, and it helps to understand where people argue from. The age-old argument known as the "problem of evil" holds that if God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful, then he would prevent, or otherwise disallow evil from befalling his children. Evil, in this case, coming in both the human (Stalin) and natural (bubonic plague) varieties. What is your personal reconciliation or counterpoint to the problem of evil?

 

2: You are no doubt aware that there are a great, great many denominations of religious belief in the world. Most are monotheistic, and Abrahamic in particular, yet even these can be as different as bread and salamander urine. Why do you choose the denomination that you do, and why do you believe that yours is the favorite of God?

 

3: For this question, I am assuming that your God is a loving being, and primarily preaches love to their followers. With this in mind, is your God capable of feeling hatred; be it for a supernatural enemy (Satan), a particularly evil human being (Stalin again), or something else entirely? If so, then would God wish for you to hate them as well? If not, then does God understand why you would hate those that do evil, or is hatred a sin in itself?

 

4: This one is a bit trickier, so please read it carefully. I will assume that nobody here was personally visited by God, or Jesus, or one of their angels; and that their faith stems from, and is reinforced by, corporeal items and beings existing within the mortal realm. With this in mind, do you not fear that God's message, presence, or history have been compromised by mortal fallibility? Your church is headed by a mortal minister. He tells you to read your physical Bible which was written by mortal men, and whose accuracy is attested to by yet more mortal men. Some of these men claim to talk to God, most don't, none can prove that they do. Are you not afraid that these men may be mistaken in their teachings, or that some may speak with malicious intent?

 

5: Imagine yourself in the hypothetical year 2036. In this time, scientific discovery has discovered something which has, in your eyes, disproven the existence of God. What is this "something?" What is your goalpost for those who seek to prove non-existence?

 

5.5: To any atheists reading, I ask the opposite. Scientific discovery has proven existence in the year 2036. What is the evidence that will convince you? What is the goalpost for proving existence?

 

6: What are your views on scriptural literalism? Does scripture merely tell stories with deeper meanings, or does it convey a literal account of world history?

[Lil Pip 775]

 5.5: If the God itself showed up, and proved its a god sufficiently and intentionally and thoroughly. I mean a super powerful being could claim to be a god right, doesn't mean it is. It'd take some extraordinary proof, or comfort and plenty of time with very significant proof for me to accept it. I mean simply a psychic creature that can give people illusions doesn't have to be omnipotent nor omniscient to do and say literally everything for you to believe its a god almighty. So time would tell, it'd still have to earn my trust, and if it happens to be a psychic creature that hasn't harmed me for many years then whats wrong with believing its lie if it benefits me. Especially if its very nice, make me trust it easier.

[Jonny Music 3,396]

I have some very thought-provoking things I would like to share with everyone here.

My blog post over here shows what all of you have been missing out on if you wanted some questions answered:

https://mlpforums.com/blog/2315/entry-19917-its-not-what-you-think-update/

 

I hope this was of good use to you all.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Jonny Music

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,302]

Not sure how I haven't responded ot this yet.

 

I am non-religious, or 'atheist'. Simply put, I am not fond of religion much. I don't think there is anything really factual about any of them, the abrahamic religious especially and as such, I see no reason to follow them. They also have many rather bad aspects that I prefer to completely avoid altogether. I am just not fond of the idea of religion at all.

[Buck Testa 5,505]

Absolutely 100% atheist

 

I used to identify as agnostic; but the more I think about it the more organized religion not only doesn't make sense, but bears a striking resemblance to a scam. 

[Anneal 2,197]

I feel like this topic is a fair example of what's wrong with the religion vs. atheism conflict; we fail to consider why the other people is going for or against religion, what brought them to that conclusion, and the ultimate hypocrisy of "you disagree with me, therefore you must be wrong".

 

It's why I'm just as annoyed with the atheist movement as much as the religious right; a good amount of atheists are no different that that references God every five seconds, arrogantly claiming that they are somehow higher up and more "knowledgable" than the others, going on crusades against the other position, and antagonizing more people than they actually convince, if any. I don't hate atheists, nor do I hate people who do follow religions, but really, I can't stand it when people yell at me to stop practicing my religion or ask me to convert to another.

 

How about this: Stop caring about what people practice or don't and actually care about who they are. Already plastering people into two factions: "Religious" or "Atheist" is irritating enough, especially since people on both sides are so hypocritical.

[Lil Pip 775]

Sealand, on 13 May 2016 - 3:41 PM, said:Sealand, on 13 May 2016 - 3:41 PM, said:Sealand, on 13 May 2016 - 3:41 PM, said:Sealand, on 13 May 2016 - 3:41 PM, said:Sealand, on 13 May 2016 - 3:41 PM, said:Sealand, on 13 May 2016 - 3:41 PM, said:Sealand, on 13 May 2016 - 3:41 PM, said:

I feel like this topic is a fair example of what's wrong with the religion vs. atheism conflict; we fail to consider why the other people is going for or against religion, what brought them to that conclusion, and the ultimate hypocrisy of "you disagree with me, therefore you must be wrong".

 

It's why I'm just as annoyed with the atheist movement as much as the religious right; a good amount of atheists are no different that that references God every five seconds, arrogantly claiming that they are somehow higher up and more "knowledgable" than the others, going on crusades against the other position, and antagonizing more people than they actually convince, if any. I don't hate atheists, nor do I hate people who do follow religions, but really, I can't stand it when people yell at me to stop practicing my religion or ask me to convert to another.

 

How about this: Stop caring about what people practice or don't and actually care about who they are. Already plastering people into two factions: "Religious" or "Atheist" is irritating enough, especially since people on both sides are so hypocritical.

This complaint is sorta vague in that you are making a blanket statement about people. And perceiving hypocrisy does not mean it is automatically hypocrisy which is why it being vague doesn't help. And if we look at stuff more logically we try to not contain conflicting beliefs right, its as simple as that for why I am an atheist. If others fail to perceive it its unfortunate but such is how it is. Also the issue won't be resolved so easily by a forum post. And I'm not hypocritical at the points that matter, which is my beliefs pertaining to atheism do not self-contradict. And its not as simple as 'you disagree with me so you are wrong' thing, so I'm not hypocritical there either. I mean, if its an opinion that contradicting beliefs shouldn't be held and I disagree with opinion then sure I am a hypocrite in the case that conflicting beliefs is A-Okay. But that's fundamentally different than saying 'because the bible'. I mean yes we have our sources, like they have their sources, but not all sources are equal, so its not hypocrisy. Like if someone made a post about the illuminati I would find ways it doesn't make sense. I think we could agree the conspiracy theorist idea of the illuminati is more than a stretch. But I could find evidence supporting my posture outside of one book which is shown to have some plagiarized material and be internally inconsistent and externally inconsistent. Both sides arguing might seem similar, because they argue similarly, that would be the nature of debate more so than evidence of hypocrisy. Innocent until proven guilty, and you are just saying everyone is guilty. Of course I'm going to demand more out of you to prove it. Also you too were generalizing both sides and hypocrisy, but that makes you hypocritical too, so my first unspoken of assumption that you might just be psychologically projecting does seem to not be without evidence. I could be wrong. But doesn't that include you in your definition of hypocrisy then? And its why I'm making my point now anyways, because you are generalizing saying both sides, then criticizing the both sides concept. Its a complaint with a lot of fluff and little to reinforce it other than the stereotypes it argues against.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Lil Pip

[Anneal 2,197]

This complaint is sorta vague in that you are making a blanket statement about people. And perceiving hypocrisy does not mean it is automatically hypocrisy which is why it being vague doesn't help. And if we look at stuff more logically we try to not contain conflicting beliefs right, its as simple as that for why I am an atheist. If others fail to perceive it its unfortunate but such is how it is. Also the issue won't be resolved so easily by a forum post. And I'm not hypocritical at the points that matter, which is my beliefs pertaining to atheism do not self-contradict. And its not as simple as 'you disagree with me so you are wrong' thing, so I'm not hypocritical there either. I mean, if its an opinion that contradicting beliefs shouldn't be held and I disagree with opinion then sure I am a hypocrite in the case that conflicting beliefs is A-Okay. But that's fundamentally different than saying 'because the bible'. I mean yes we have our sources, like they have their sources, but not all sources are equal, so its not hypocrisy. Like if someone made a post about the illuminati I would find ways it doesn't make sense. I think we could agree the conspiracy theorist idea of the illuminati is more than a stretch. But I could find evidence supporting my posture outside of one book which is shown to have some plagiarized material and be internally inconsistent and externally inconsistent. Both sides arguing might seem similar, because they argue similarly, that would be the nature of debate more so than evidence of hypocrisy. Innocent until proven guilty, and you are just saying everyone is guilty. Of course I'm going to demand more out of you to prove it. Also you too were generalizing both sides and hypocrisy, but that makes you hypocritical too, so my first unspoken of assumption that you might just be psychologically projecting does seem to not be without evidence. I could be wrong. But doesn't that include you in your definition of hypocrisy then? And its why I'm making my point now anyways, because you are generalizing saying both sides, then criticizing the both sides concept. Its a complaint with a lot of fluff and little to reinforce it other than the stereotypes it argues against.

My issue isn't the ideas of atheism and religion, it's the way it's being presented to others and how it's degenerated from actual debate at times online and in real life into flame wars. Not all people do this, but some, instead of trying to convince their opponents why they feel they want to follow religion or the lack of one, start antagonizing them and turning them into a single, massive group. A few times it's almost like reading propaganda.

 

A writer on Cracked sums it up well: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/

 

Now that can very easily apply to the religious community, where some people just go "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAID SO" instead of "I respect your opinion; we should mend the fence".

[Twiggy 2,966]

Agnostic atheist here in good faith (no pun intended) with a few questions intended to provoke civilized discussion.

Odinist here. I'll take your challenge.

 

1: This is an easy one, but many tend to provide widely different answers, and it helps to understand where people argue from. The age-old argument known as the "problem of evil" holds that if God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful, then he would prevent, or otherwise disallow evil from befalling his children. Evil, in this case, coming in both the human (Stalin) and natural (bubonic plague) varieties. What is your personal reconciliation or counterpoint to the problem of evil?

Does not apply. One of the greatest differences between monotheistic theologies and polytheistic ones is that, in the former, God is generally all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, etc. Polytheistic gods are none of these things; like any human, tree, or hawk, they are limited by their particularity. For Odin, any kind of limitation is something to be overcome by any means necessary, and his actions are carried out within the context of a relentless and ruthless quest for more wisdom, more knowledge, and more power, usually of a magical sort.

 

2: You are no doubt aware that there are a great, great many denominations of religious belief in the world. Most are monotheistic, and Abrahamic in particular, yet even these can be as different as bread and salamander urine. Why do you choose the denomination that you do, and why do you believe that yours is the favorite of God?

I don't. It's all largely irrelevant to us. Be you devout Jesus freak or a Fedora enthusiast, you'll get what you deserve in the end, based on how you lived your life.

 

3: For this question, I am assuming that your God is a loving being, and primarily preaches love to their followers. With this in mind, is your God capable of feeling hatred; be it for a supernatural enemy (Satan), a particularly evil human being (Stalin again), or something else entirely? If so, then would God wish for you to hate them as well? If not, then does God understand why you would hate those that do evil, or is hatred a sin in itself?

I have a pic that will answer this question.

 

 

4: This one is a bit trickier, so please read it carefully. I will assume that nobody here was personally visited by God, or Jesus, or one of their angels; and that their faith stems from, and is reinforced by, corporeal items and beings existing within the mortal realm. With this in mind, do you not fear that God's message, presence, or history have been compromised by mortal fallibility? Your church is headed by a mortal minister. He tells you to read your physical Bible which was written by mortal men, and whose accuracy is attested to by yet more mortal men. Some of these men claim to talk to God, most don't, none can prove that they do. Are you not afraid that these men may be mistaken in their teachings, or that some may speak with malicious intent?

That is the very reason that I do not go along with the Abrahamic meme. Mine is all about how you personally interpret it. In fact, many would argue that it isn't a religion at all.

 

5: Imagine yourself in the hypothetical year 2036. In this time, scientific discovery has discovered something which has, in your eyes, disproven the existence of God. What is this "something?" What is your goalpost for those who seek to prove non-existence?

That discovery would actually be very hard to make, if it is based off of what God could be based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

 

 

6: What are your views on scriptural literalism?

Complete idiocy. It's the reason why many nations around the world are third world, authoritarian shit holes.

 

 

Most of these questions seemed to be designed around monotheism, but this was fun either way.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

 

 

That discovery would actually be very hard to make,

 

Of this, I am aware. Perhaps 2036 was a bit of a lowball year, but the meat of it stands. Some scientific discovery, in some field, has proven existence to be impossible even in the eyes of believers. What is this discovery?

 

 

 

if it is based off of what God could be based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

 

Interesting argument, but it is based on no particular philosophies. "God," in this context, would be whatever deity or deities you believe in.

 

 

 

Most of these questions seemed to be designed around monotheism, but this was fun either way.

 

Didn't much consider that I'd run into a polytheist. It's kinda odd that I threw a rock in a random direction and hit a follower of Odin before a follower of Jehovah.

[Twiggy 2,966]

What is this discovery?

I honestly can't answer the question. I have no idea. With as far as people like Hawking have gone with discovering the origin of the universe, it just seems unlikely that the existence of a God could ever be completely 100% disproven. I've seen Hawkings work on this issue. He himself states that, while he can prove that God isn't required for the creation of the universe, he can not disprove his existence. Out of curiosity, if you were religious, how would you answer this question?

 

Interesting argument, but it is based on no particular philosophies. "God," in this context, would be whatever deity or deities you believe in.

Aquinas was a philosopher, and this brand of logic was part of his philosophical work. But, semantics. It's neither here nor there.

 

Didn't much consider that I'd run into a polytheist. It's kinda odd that I threw a rock in a random direction and hit a follower of Odin before a follower of Jehovah.

Funny how things work out differently than planned.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

 

 

Out of curiosity, if you were religious, how would you answer this question?

 

That would very much depend on my hypothetical religion. In general, I'd say the discovery would be that no greater parts of the universe were the products of willful design.

 

It's a tall order, yes, but that's why it's called a hypothetical.

[Buck Testa 5,505]

@@Twiggy, 

 

I gotta ask, What do you think of Thor and Asgard and things of that nature in the Marvel Cinematic universe? Given the whole Odinest thing.

 

I may be an athiest, but out of all the religions to pick you definitely picked a pretty metal one. kudos. 

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by Buck Testa

[Guest90210 3,568]

What I believe is that some sort of supernatural, possibly unknowable Being is the originator of our universe and subsequently our very existence. You could call this being "God". Anything beyond that, I'm unsure of. I can't even say for certain that God exists (since its impossible to prove, scientifically, for now at least), I just believe it based off everything I've observed throughout my life. I could be right, or I could be wrong, I don't know.

 

I've studied the major world religions, and some of the more obscure ones, and I find lots of interesting things in each of them. I don't adhere specifically to one of them in particular, nor do I think that any of them are perfect and wholesomely accurate. I admire certain religious teachings and figures, but I don't worship them. I just believe in a Higher Power of some sort. Whether such a being is knowable or unknowable, is omnipresent or not, or sent inspired word to the human race, I don't know for sure. Life is a continuous mystery to me.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Rivendare

[Anneal 2,197]

Of this, I am aware. Perhaps 2036 was a bit of a lowball year, but the meat of it stands. Some scientific discovery, in some field, has proven existence to be impossible even in the eyes of believers. What is this discovery?

 

Interesting argument, but it is based on no particular philosophies. "God," in this context, would be whatever deity or deities you believe in.

 

Didn't much consider that I'd run into a polytheist. It's kinda odd that I threw a rock in a random direction and hit a follower of Odin before a follower of Jehovah.

I practice Buddhism and Taoism (similar to most Asians); so yes, my religion(s) are polytheistic, though I don't follow them that heavily. Itms really kind of hard to answer your questions when the religion-mix I practice pretty much has no set number of gods; you can believe that there is only one or that there are several hundred. It's why the ones who practice the religion really don't care what other specificdeity other religions practice; they'll say it might be the same as theirs. Hell, even regular humans in Chinese history have been said to become ascended to a level of a god.

 

There's no set scriptures either, as much as the religion-mix is set in stone by philosophy. Most will still end up doing certain rituals (sticking slow-burning sticks in a stone pot to pray or using two red curved wooden pieces to "communicate" with a certain god), but really you can do whatever you want in it. Perhaps that's what makes Buddhism (Taoism is almost exclusive to certian Asian countries) so appealing to atheists though to be fair, you probably need to study more Asian culture, history, and the religion itself before you jump into weird conclusions. This sort of religion is really tied up with culture, and you can end up offending some people through it.

 

And yes, Buddhists also have their religious nutjobs as well. There are Buddhist fundamentalist terrorists in SE Asia right now.

[Twiggy 2,966]

 

 

I gotta ask, What do you think of Thor and Asgard and things of that nature in the Marvel Cinematic universe? Given the whole Odinest thing.

I really enjoy the movies. I grew up reading comic books and I think that MOST of the movies have done a fairly good job keeping to them.

 

That being said, its about as accurate a portrayal of the Norse gods as this is of Jesus Christ.

 

 

But still, the movies are enjoyable.

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

Lilithism (i made up the word), the belief that we women and trans feminines should cast down the rules of man and forge our own path. It is based on the Abrahamic story of Lilith, who was said to be Adam's first wife, but she didn't submit to Adam so she was kicked out and replaced by Eve (who, when you think about it from a asexual reproduction stand point, she came from one of Adam's ribs, was Adams daughter. ewww.). 

[Twiggy 2,966]

Lilithism (i made up the word), the belief that we women and trans feminines should cast down the rules of man and forge our own path. It is based on the Abrahamic story of Lilith, who was said to be Adam's first wife, but she didn't submit to Adam so she was kicked out and replaced by Eve (who, when you think about it from a asexual reproduction stand point, she came from one of Adam's ribs, was Adams daughter. ewww.).

So kind of like a feminist secession movement? Tell me more please.

 

Also the idea of humanity being initially spawned from inbreeding explains a lot tbh.

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

So kind of like a feminist secession movement? Tell me more please.

 

Also the idea of humanity being initially spawned from inbreeding explains a lot tbh.

Its basically about how women should look into themselves and embrace their inner demoness. I have. I no longer follow the rules of the patriarchy.

[Lil Pip 775]

Wylyth, on 15 May 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

Lilithism (i made up the word), the belief that we women and trans feminines should cast down the rules of man and forge our own path. It is based on the Abrahamic story of Lilith, who was said to be Adam's first wife, but she didn't submit to Adam so she was kicked out and replaced by Eve (who, when you think about it from a asexual reproduction stand point, she came from one of Adam's ribs, was Adams daughter. ewww.). 

Assuming that story is even real as it was handed down through oral tradition which simple games taught to children even show is an unreliable method of storing information. It was written down after the story was already erred. I think its just about nomadism and got skewed by the parts that referenced humans because humans are slightly narcissistic/egotistical and look to humans more so that part was more memorable than anything else. The memorable aspects of something are more likely to stay and when memory changes over time the more memorable versions of what comes to mind or of previous iterations will more likely be told. Also questions asked of the story by the youth to understand it could cause explanation potentials to be described and people might remember that stuff instead despite it being non-exact. Also nomadic cultures(before structures and farming) more often employed tall tales than strict doctrine. Back in the day to the uneducated or illiterate strict doctrine appeared to be a strict method or formulaic method to success, so its a false equivocation that the early stories were intended to be strict in their origination because of later strict interpretations. They were meant more for guiding. But I think the anti-traditional aspect of what you are going for is good. And I also suppose technically you didn't confess to believing the story you referenced but I imagine you would for citing it as a core story of your belief, believe in it in some aspect. Thoughts?

[Frostgage 7,975]

I would probably identify as an Agnostic. My family is not religious at all, i've thought about it on my own and don't think something of this magnitude can be definitively proven either way.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Frostgage

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

@@Lil Pip, my religion is more of a philosophy. I don't actually believe in God or the Garden of Eden or any of that other stuff. Its just a story, a metaphor. 

[Sonata Jets 80]

I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as LDS or Mormons. We're Christians though so you don't really need to add it up there. 

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

Even though I technically am Atheist, If I had to choose something to follow, I'll take Laveyan Satanism. I'm talking Atheistic Satanism, not Theistic Satanism, those are the devil worshipers. Those are the bad ones.
 
In Atheistic Satanism however, Satan is not viewed or depicted as a hubristic, irrational, and fraudulent creature, but is rather seen as being Prometheus-like in terms of attributes, symbolizing liberty and the like. Representing indulgence rather than abstinence, vital existence instead of spiritual pipe-dreams, and vengeance instead of turning-the-other-cheek.

 

If you could summarize it: "Don't be a dick, be a dude".