TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- I started a religion today
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

my participation in this thread is not required, I see..

So you're religion requires no faith, has no uniform system of believes, no method of practice, no symbols, no narrative, no theology, no moral code, no authority, and no deity... it seems to be lacking in everything that one would normally associate with a religion... hmmm... sounds more like a set of vague and poorly rationalized loosely linked thoughts to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That's why I said, "Something called faith" in an earlier post.

So why can't someone "believe" there isn't a God.

I worship the sun. I know it's there cause I can see it. I can rely on it to come back, and warm up the place when it gets cold. Long live Ra

So, I answered some shit in my updatepost, but now there is more to answer. Thanks a lot for all this attention by the way, I'm sure I don't deserve it and it will burn out in due time; please bear with me as I capitalize on it further.

One must realize this is all under construction and is at the moment a pile of chaos in my head that I havent quite formed a sane document out of yet, but progress is being made. You are getting in on the ground floor if you sign up now though, you could be a church father, a saint, think about it!

Symbols and narrative are nice ideas, I might try to come up with some stuff, you will remain dissapointed about the moral code though, I refuse to incorporate a moral code into the system, I assert that moral codes should be seperate from religion and in the domain of man instead. to include a moral code allows man to shirk responsibilities.

The method of practice has been contemplated, you are two posts away from that part, but for now I can say that there is some gathering and discussion and mutual support and stuff involved (things that most churches do), maybe we'll make some cool songs about it too. there will certainly be a fun part with the whole modularity of the deities part, people will collaborate and exchange their ideas and explain how they think their gods are helpful and as a community they will decide which ones to favor.

There is some uniformity, it isn't 100% uniform, there are principles which must be accepted, some of which I have already written, just because the pantheon is modular doesn't mean there is 0% uniformity of beleif, there is more to a religion than the deities.

It isn't asserting that deities are unidentifieable, just that they are modular. Surely you are familiar with several deities in traditional religions that have multiple avatars, or the arguments that the parallels between gods in the different religions are actually different manifestations of the same god. Modularity does not mean it's an agnostic declaration that god is not identifiable.

what sets it apart from secular atheism, atheists are a bunch of smug dicks, if you dont want to be a smug dick and want to accept that it is ok for people to beleive in stuff, and maybe you want to beleive in something yourself but have trouble getting over your insane need to have everything logically proven, then this might be a better fit than secular atheism.

my objections to athiests: smug dicks that are afriad to beleive in anything without evidence, humans need to leap before looking sometimes, that's why kirk is the fucking captain and that romulan psycho didn't suceeed in destroying earth
my objection to agnostics: no balls afriad to commit to anything or hurt anyones feelings carebears, they are sad jokes to the faithful and the faithless alike, if you want to keep going with star trek analogy, they are that ensign ricky guy that always dies on the away mission
objection to most faith based religions: this retarted need to deny the products of human reasoning, this sad tendancy to kneel and grovel and beg when one should really be standing up and taking action, this naive assumption that everything will be ok because your imaginary friend told you so, sorry I have no mroe trek jokes for this one.

But why should someone believe in your religion rather than not believing in it?

because it helps man understand and cope with the world, has the possibility to make people happy and stem healthy communities from it.

Isn't that what most religions try to do? What makes yours different?

yes, it is the same things most religions try to do, it is only that I think my approach is a more honest one, and might work better

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I'm also an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church - a nondemoninational church based in San Modesto California that believes that one should "Do the right thing."

Oh yeah I've been there. It's right next to San Turlock and Las Mantecas right?

Discounting reason is itself a step that needs to be justified. If there is a God that created a logical universe then his existance should be able to be proved using reason. Otherwise any set of conflicting arbitrary beliefs you can think of is equally valid.. So you're left with a world with an infinite set of often conflicting truths.. in otherwords absolute shite.

quote:

Originally posted by Audious So why can't someone "believe" there isn't a God.

Why are you asking me? I never said someone can't believe there isn't a god.

where can i sign up to get my free miracle spring water and to whom do i send this 20$ donation to?

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 what sets it apart from secular atheism, atheists are a bunch of smug dicks

we sure are.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 if you dont want to be a smug dick and want to accept that it is ok for people to beleive in stuff, and maybe you want to beleive in something yourself but have trouble getting over your insane need to have everything logically proven, then this might be a better fit than secular atheism.

highlighted: serious luls.

otherwise, what a crock of shit. "hey, let's believe in something! i don't really care what it is, what it means or whether there's any justification for it, i just want to BELIEVE. in something"

its shit like that which makes us atheists smug dicks. belief for the sake of belief makes these kind of people dumb vaginas.

pkc quit giving atheists a bad name. you know since we're all one group with the exact same beliefs and agenda

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail pkc quit giving atheists a bad name.

when did we have a good name?

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail you know since we're all one group with the exact same beliefs and agenda

damn straight. see you at the worldwide-domination meeting tonight. the password has been sent to you via the usual method.

********, you forgot to log out Zombie0915.

argh, again, this is not requiring faith in an all-creator; that part is entirely optional. This ashley stuff is cute and all, but there is a clear difference in his thing, which is this whole "everything is wonderful and happy and good" rationale which I am totally shooting down with my denial of a divine moral code or any sort of afterlife, cmon now.

belief for the sake of belief isn't a bad thing. If people didn't believe in any mythical shit, then imagine how much less inspiration there would be in the world. Seriously, people have done some amazing shit in the name of the things they believe in, we hardly have the right to deny people their beliefs and put a stop to a potentially good source of further amazing shit. Even if the thing they did their deeds in the name of was entirely fictional, if people find a fucking spear and assume that that spear was the same one that impaled jesus, and then that silly tale is enough motivation to win this huge unlikely fucking battle, that is amazing shit no matter how you feel about whether jesus was divine or not. These insanely powerful sources of inspiration for people to make amazing works of art or to turn the tides of battles and other shit, should not be denied to people, we would be so fucking boring if nobody believed in anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 argh, again, this is not requiring faith in an all-creator; that part is entirely optional. This ashley stuff is cute and all, but there is a clear difference in his thing, which is this whole "everything is wonderful and happy and good" rationale which I am totally shooting down with my denial of a divine moral code or any sort of afterlife, cmon now.

you clearly make more sense than ********. but there's just not anything particularly interesting or new about your new religion. its a bastard child of deism and atheism with perhaps a smidgen of theism in how you express it.

and i dont really see how it would differ from atheism in practical terms.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 belief for the sake of belief isn't a bad thing. If people didn't believe in any mythical shit, then imagine how much less inspiration there would be in the world.

im sure mythic beliefs inspire some people some of the time. but there is little that such beliefs inspire that is not inspired by any number of other facets of human society. and i would argue that such "beliefs for believing's sake" cause at least as much bad shit as good, so i dont find your argument particularly compelling.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 Seriously, people have done some amazing shit in the name of the things they believe in, we hardly have the right to deny people their beliefs and put a stop to a potentially good source of further amazing shit.

im not denying anyone anything. believe what you want. but we're at an age now where new religious doctrines (as you're supposedly creating) don't get automatic respect or deference anymore.

simply put, if this "god" (or whatever term you wish to use) doesn't care about us and has no plans or interest in human beings generally, then what is the point in recognising him in the doctrine at all? why care about the concept for a second, and thus, why start a religion concerning the position at all? if its some kind of secular argument you're making, you're well behind some other isms i could mention

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That's why I said, "Something called faith" in an earlier post.

Blind belief?

If it helps you deal with day to day life, good for you. Not for me thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton PKC, YOU PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD! OH WAIT, YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. WTF!?

[COPYPASTA]
the statement that �you cannot prove a negative� is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says �I think God exists� and Person B says �I don�t think God exists,� it�s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn�t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:

Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America

Clearly, it�s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God � that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if �God� is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of � except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement �you cannot prove a negative� is really just a different way of saying �You can�t prove me wrong because I don�t even know what I�m talking about.�

Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can�t prove that God doesn�t exist � no one even knows what God is supposed to be
[/COPYPASTA]

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I think what you are failing to see is... what is fact is what you beleive anyway. You can lump on a bunch of information - but how do you know the tse tse fly is not native - becomes some bloke said so? This all goes to authority.. who has authority to make a given statement. What it boils down to is interpretation of reality. The established frame work. Thing is it doesn't have to be that way. But base on fact or social consensus it is there. But fact changes overtime, it isn't truth, it is utility. None the less anything is provable or unprovable. People often look for real experience as proof, the tangible. Fact is - non beleivers may not have the same experience as beleivers, they may not interpret occurence the same way? Does science happen because it is just the way it is.. or does it happen because god lets it happen that way because god provides for people. The laws of nature and science are what they are... just because this is the way it is for one moment does not mean it is for the next. People historically have much different interpretations, science really only started gaining grounds around 200 years ago... Magic and religion have been around for much longer. Personally I beleive in magic and the occult because I have seen real results. Much like I beleive science has some correctness because as a time peice it has allowed for engineering of events. But all in all... I think it is little more than personal opinion - we shape reality not the other way around; and that is because of our personal union with god. If we fall away we are the world. It goes back to the will I suppose.. it happens this way because it what we will, if our spirit is alike then we can be lifted.

i was just about to say that.

ok, this is probably a bad idea, but I will bring up, for the sake of argument, an example of a deity that does not care about humans, and why it is worshipped.



Cthulhu

Go ahead and google him if you aren't already acquainted, but chances are most everyone knows about him. Cthulhu doesn't demand worship, doesn't protect or nurture humans in any way, in general doesn't give a shit, but has cultists following him the world over. There is so much art depicting this monster it is ridiculous, I have a small idol of him on my coffee table myself, not to mention a row of HP Lovecraft books on my shelf behind my head right now.

The fictional doctrine of the cthulhu cult was pretty simple, worship him and perform sick twisted rituals on his behalf, and he might not devour you right away. Most people don't worship cthulhu because of that reason though, most do it because he is quite possibly the coolest horror monster ever.

I will confess Lovecraft was a partial inspiration for this whole view on gods who have no concern for human morality. There are plenty of other gods like that though, Zeus didn't tell you to be good, he changed into a bunch of different animals and raped a bunch of mortals and bred a bunch of conquerors, wtf was the point of worshiping Zeus (I know this is like a horrendous abbreviation of all the shit we know about Zeus but its rhetorical). I depart from Lovecraft's vision a bit in that I have included principles that are intended to provide comfort to people and allow them this modular god structure as a coping mechanism which has been for too long a taboo thing from the view of faithful and faithless alike, whereas Lovecraft's system is just meant to scare the shit out of people.

quote:

Originally posted by Xan_2v2 [COPYPASTA] the statement that �you cannot prove a negative� is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says �I think God exists� and Person B says �I don�t think God exists,� it�s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn�t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily: Five is not equal to four The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld The tsetse fly is not native to North America Clearly, it�s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God � that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if �God� is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of � except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement �you cannot prove a negative� is really just a different way of saying �You can�t prove me wrong because I don�t even know what I�m talking about.� Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can�t prove that God doesn�t exist � no one even knows what God is supposed to be [/COPYPASTA]

Nonetheless the burden of proof is on the person making a positive assertion. The a priori position is that nothing exists in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.