Haruki

what are your religious views?

53 posts in this topic

Agnostic who believe in heaven, hell and reincarnation. Doing good things so i reincarnate as a household gato.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr Dragon said:

X


I don't understand how you can want to be Catholic (or any Religion, really) - as far as I'm aware you either believe in the teachings of Catholicism or you don't.

 

Then again, I don't really know what being religious is like so I can't really say anything.

 

umm if i dont want to be a amoral unreligious person than i need a religion dont i. and since im a big fan of western stuff i think ill go with the western one. the east scares me and pantheism wasn't fully developed.  christianity was the first religion for the people that spoke to all their needs. and after luther couldn't keep his dumb mouth shut he split up the religion and everything has gone down hill from there. catholic is the true original type that did all the good in the world, including persecuting all the stupid heresies and nonbelievers.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sophocles said:

technically you have to be baptized to be a catholic

 

technically i'm a catholic but tygo pretty much nailed it for me

baptism just gets rid of original sin, you aren't a full member until confirmation. baptism = god, communion = jesus, confirmation = holy spirit. not complete until all 3 are done

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was raised catholic, baptized, did the communion, and did the confirmation. i don't believe in the bible and don't think it's necessary. most christians ignore the teachings of jesus which is the only good thing about christianity. i view christianity as mythology.

 

i share albert einstein's panentheistic/pantheistic and agnostic views.

 

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."

- Albert Einstein

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like christian deism

 

Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings—but not divinity—of Jesus.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but catholic includes christian deism so i dont get why ppl dont just be whole thing instead of making their own name up for the parts they believe. the council of nicea already settled this like 1800 years ago. we know not everyone buys it but can u just go along with the divinity part too? like whats so hard about that. this reminds me of the kids that peeled off the crust on bread because they only liked the middle part. those kids always bothered me.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh buckweat, ur such a goofloaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athiest, formerly christian, and some weird shit I can't explain.

Edited by Jojo.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agnostic looking to learn about Taoism due to the fantasy it'll help me find happiness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist looking for proof of the existence of God(s).

 

The number of existing things is finite, the number of nonexisting things is infinite.

 

There are bipeds, quadrupeds and octopeds, but there are no animals with 1, 2, 3, 4 billion legs and so on.

 

Non-existence is the rule, existence is the exception.

 

If something's existence isn't proven, its non-existence must be postulated.

 

It goes like this:
- Irrebuttable evidence = existence
- Indication of existence = possibility of existence
- Nothing = non-existence

 

Now, not all religious are blind believers. Some of them base their beliefs on facts and rational reasoning. Most Jewish rabbis would be able to tell you why their believe in the Bible, notably by pointing out the concordance between the prophecies and historical events. Whether their arguments are compelling or not, their way of thinking isn't irrational.

 

Jews for Judaism have just released the first of a 7-part video series called The Logical Foundation of Judaism. The first video is an introduction which deals exclusively with philosophical matters but the next parts should be more interesting.

 

Judaism is a very rational religion as well as a complete law system. The study of the Talmud is a great way to develop and sharpen one's ability to think logically, hence why Jews are generally smart.

 

Have you ever wondered why Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah? Here are the logical explanations:

The Real Messiah - Part 1

The Real Messiah - Part 2

Edited by Ynusgridorh
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ynusgridorh The number of existing things is not necessarily finite.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ynusgridorh said:

 

I'm an atheist looking for proof of the existence of God(s).

 

The number of existing things is finite, the number of nonexisting things is infinite.

 

There are bipeds, quadrupeds and octopeds, but there are no animals with 1, 2, 3, 4 billion legs and so on.

 

Non-existence is the rule, existence is the exception.

 

If something's existence isn't proven, its non-existence must be postulated.

 

It goes like this:
- Irrebuttable evidence = existence
- Indication of existence = possibility of existence
- Nothing = non-existence

 

Not sure if you care, but this proof is very flawed. You conclude that the number of nonexisting things is infinite without reasoning. Or rather, it seems that you assume that existence is a rarity on the assumption that a large number of things do not exist. And yet you have only assumed that these things don't exist because you have assumed that existence is a rarity. In other words, your reasoning is circular.

 

Existence and human knowledge is actually logical paradox in itself, as shown by some cool tricks in set theory. Let S be the non-empty set of all objects whose nonexistence has been proven by human knowledge. Human knowledge is clearly incomplete, and thus it is impossible to prove that any particular object belongs to S. Thus, it seems as though S must be empty. Therefore, S does not exist. However, by proving that S does not exist, that means that S must be a member of itself! Since we have found a member of S, we have proven that S is non-empty (and therefore it does exist), and thus have simultaneously proven both its existence and its nonexistence.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dfd.png

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read a lot of stuff but i was raised under baptist christianity. i dont really know or care anymore. i think the satan/god story is pretty cool. ive read about atlantis, some hermetic stuff, i read the kyablion with reggie, i think its all pretty cool.

 

i think most religions have truth to them. i believe atlantis was real. i believe in aliens. i believe in martians. i browse /x/ sometimes. 

 

i just say im an occulitist or a baptist to people usually. idk, i believe in jesus el savior grande. mohammed was a child raping warlord. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ACP said:

Not sure if you care, but this proof is very flawed. You conclude that the number of nonexisting things is infinite without reasoning. Or rather, it seems that you assume that existence is a rarity on the assumption that a large number of things do not exist. And yet you have only assumed that these things don't exist because you have assumed that existence is a rarity. In other words, your reasoning is circular.

 

My conclusion that the number of nonexisting things is infinite is actually based on reasoning. For each thing that exists, an infinite number of variations can be imagined. For instance, you can take any animal with a defined number of legs and picture a version of the same animal with 1, 2, 3 or 100 additional legs. The possibilities are limitless because there's always an infinite amount of numbers greater than any given number.

 

The second part of my reasoning is that the number of existing things is finite. This could very well be false as Gojira pointed out and I encourage anybody with a science background to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm aware this is more of an assumption than a deduction.

1) The universe could be finite and if it was, the number of existing things would also be finite.

2) Even if the universe was infinite, the amount of matter it contains could be finite.

3) Even if the amount of matter was infinite, the fact the universe has unchanging laws could limit the variety of things that exist within it. Since objects can't exceed a certain size without collapsing, the number of combinations of elementary particles could be limited.

 

16 hours ago, ACP said:

Existence and human knowledge is actually logical paradox in itself, as shown by some cool tricks in set theory. Let S be the non-empty set of all objects whose nonexistence has been proven by human knowledge. Human knowledge is clearly incomplete, and thus it is impossible to prove that any particular object belongs to S. Thus, it seems as though S must be empty. Therefore, S does not exist. However, by proving that S does not exist, that means that S must be a member of itself! Since we have found a member of S, we have proven that S is non-empty (and therefore it does exist), and thus have simultaneously proven both its existence and its nonexistence.

 

 

While this is an interesting paradox, I don't think talking about of objects whose nonexistence has been proven makes sense to begin with. You can prove that something exists but you can never prove something doesn't exist. There could be no evidence of nonexistence as something that doesn't exist doesn't leave any mark in the world. That's why the burden of proof is on those who assert the existence of something rather than those who contest it. That's also why you shouldn't ask somebody to prove he's not guilty of a crime as it would require that person to prove the nonexistence of his crime.

 

Edited by Ynusgridorh
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're acknowledging that it's impossible to know that something doesn't exist, but you're still asserting that there are an infinite number of things that don't exist?

 

Realize that so far you haven't clearly defined what existence is. Your arguments are talking about our own universe, when theoretical physicists at this point will acknowledge that there are many (and probably infinite) universes. Realize that if God did exist, its quite possible that God exists outside of our own universe. In fact, he would kind of have to. If God was part of own universe and also created the universe, that would mean that he created himself.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ynusgridorh said:

 

My conclusion that the number of nonexisting things is infinite is actually based on reasoning. For each thing that exists, an infinite number of variations can be imagined. For instance, you can take any animal with a defined number of legs and picture a version of the same animal with 1, 2, 3 or 100 additional legs. The possibilities are limitless because there's always an infinite amount of numbers greater than any given number.

 

The second part of my reasoning is that the number of existing things is finite. This could very well be false as Gojira pointed out and I encourage anybody with a science background to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm aware this is more of an assumption than a deduction.

1) The universe could be finite and if it was, the number of existing things would also be finite.

2) Even if the universe was infinite, the amount of matter it contains could be finite.

3) Even if the amount of matter was infinite, the fact the universe has unchanging laws could limit the variety of things that exist within it. Since objects can't exceed a certain size without collapsing, the number of combinations of elementary particles could be limited.

 

 

While this is an interesting paradox, I don't think talking about of objects whose nonexistence has been proven makes sense to begin with. You can prove that something exists but you can never prove something doesn't exist. There could be no evidence of nonexistence as something that doesn't exist doesn't leave any mark in the world. That's why the burden of proof is on those who assert the existence of something rather than those who contest it. That's also why you shouldn't ask somebody to proof he's not guilty of a crime as it would require that person to prove the nonexistence of his crime.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ACP said:

So you're acknowledging that it's impossible to know that something doesn't exist, but you're still asserting that there are an infinite number of things that don't exist?

 

Realize that so far you haven't clearly defined what existence is. Your arguments are talking about our own universe, when theoretical physicists at this point will acknowledge that there are many (and probably infinite) universes. Realize that if God did exist, its quite possible that God exists outside of our own universe. In fact, he would kind of have to. If God was part of own universe and also created the universe, that would mean that he created himself.

 

The only way there isn't infinite number of things that don't exist is if everything exists. If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light then I can imagine an infinite number of things that travel faster than the speed of light and none of those things will exist. I can't prove to you they don't exist, I can't take a picture of their nonexistence or catch it on tape but I'll have to postulate it.

 

Existence is similar to time in the sense that we all know what it is but struggle to define it. I can't give you a satisfactory definition but if you come up with one, I'm sure I'll agree with it.

 

Parallel universes are mathematically possible but still unproven. We can acknowledge their possibility but not their existence so I won't base my reasoning on them.

 

In any case, it's up to those who affirm the existence of God to prove that God exists. It's not up to those who deny it to prove God doesn't exist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ynusgridorh, i dislike your conception of non-existence. i think that any capacity to describe it has to be based in existence, and so it cant describe it. in a word, its the opposite of what can be described. so characteristics, like "an infinite number of things don't exist," dont make sense because to be a "thing," it would have to exist in the first place. 

 

for me, anyway (and this is devoid of the comment about my religious position i made earlier which has more to do with ml and classcon than anything,) i think all that exists is the relation between nothing(s,) and that these nothing(s) are the only "objects." since it only outwardly relates, i wouldn't be breaking the aforementioned rule of describing it, cus its only a lack of any characteristic. consequently, i believe existence is that relation (as the objects which relate being nothingness, would be the opposite)

 

also i know its an old argument but i think time is just motion and that the contention of conceiving of "time without motion" is flawed in multiple ways, regarding what you said on that front.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monahan said:

ynusgridorh, i dislike your conception of non-existence. i think that any capacity to describe it has to be based in existence, and so it cant describe it. in a word, its the opposite of what can be described. so characteristics, like "an infinite number of things don't exist," dont make sense because to be a "thing," it would have to exist in the first place. 

 

for me, anyway (and this is devoid of the comment about my religious position i made earlier which has more to do with ml and classcon than anything,) i think all that exists is the relation between nothing(s,) and that these nothing(s) are the only "objects." since it only outwardly relates, i wouldn't be breaking the aforementioned rule of describing it, cus its only a lack of any characteristic. consequently, i believe existence is that relation (as the objects which relate being nothingness, would be the opposite)

 

also i know its an old argument but i think time is just motion and that the contention of conceiving of "time without motion" is flawed in multiple ways, regarding what you said on that front.

go monahan, kick his butt

 

send that weird man back to yugioh cardmaker forums

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bash the fash

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheist, grew up as a Jehovah's Witness.  I reason that there is no god, but humans can have spiritual experiences which are clearly measurable but they are not related to any supernatural phenomenon. I assert that religion is the result of codified traditional law at the time of writing history and mythology written in an attempt by man to explain what they did not understand at the time. 

If I had to believe in a god it would be whatever consciousness you get from using galaxy's as neurons, and that consciousness is unaware of us at best.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Monahan said:

ynusgridorh, i dislike your conception of non-existence. i think that any capacity to describe it has to be based in existence, and so it cant describe it. in a word, its the opposite of what can be described. so characteristics, like "an infinite number of things don't exist," dont make sense because to be a "thing," it would have to exist in the first place. 

 

 

 

I don't quite understand this part. Does that mean I can't say "a one eyed boogeymonster under my bed" doesn't exist because it has characteristics of something that exists. If its true then can I just replace one with numbers from 1 -> inf and therefore infinite things don't exist?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well again, the "universe" that you're using here is "under your bed" and thus any rationale only applies to that universe. Yes, you could argue that there are an infinite number of things that don't exist under your bed, but no one really cares about existence in a universe that is confined only to your bed.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.