I don't understand being attached to your religion

[Walk on Water]

I just wanna ask why?? You have one life to live, that we know. Why waste it? Let's be honest. Isn't religion just a crutch? Something to make you feel better? Let's be honest. You have no proof. You are allowed to believe whatever you want. But to act like you're right and all superior, is dumb.

Not taking the vaccine because of your religion also doesn't make sense. But you see how religion messes people up? People like Kyrie Irving are afraid all because of what some religion might have suggested.

At the end of the day, religion is religion. It's not fact. Fact is fact. Religion is not fact, it's belief.

What I'm asking is why can't you be open minded? See, non religious people are open minded. If we see proof, then we might go for it. But many of you just jump on a religion based on feeling.

Just try looking at it from the outside in. Try looking at it from a 3rd persons perspective. We don't understand you. I'm talking about extreme people. If you just do it because you like it and you don't let it interfere with your personal decisions then fine.

But let's look at it for what it is. We're in 2021. We have come so far, at least some of us. At some point, don't you gotta start thinking more logically? You can't just depend on information that was given in the caveman days all the time. There's no proof that any of it's true. But people are so deep into their beliefs, that nothing anyone can say will change their mind. They're set in stone.

[theman93]

Are you an atheist? Agnostic?

[GimmeThat]

there's a voice in your head that is triggered like knee jerk reaction. you know how to turn it off, only, it's rude.

[Patrick Chewing]

Are you an atheist? Agnostic?

He's an idiot.

[theman93]

He's an idiot.

I've noticed he can't defend his worldview, only attack others. He has no way to justify morality, laws of logic, the principle of induction, or even science.

[Walk on Water]

I've noticed he can't defend his worldview, only attack others. He has no way to justify morality, laws of logic, the principle of induction, or even science.



Why can’t the worldview just be what it is and how it is presented? Let’s not over complicate it.

[theman93]

Why can’t the worldview just be what it is and how it is presented? Let’s not over complicate it.

Because nobody is neutral.

Let's start with the moral argument. Why is anything right or wrong and by what standard? I'll give you an example to shoot at: The child molester finds it good to rape children and it makes him happy. By what standard would you call him right or wrong?

[Walk on Water]

Because nobody is neutral.

Let's start with the moral argument. Why is anything right or wrong and by what standard? I'll give you an example to shoot at: The child molester finds it good to rape children and it makes him happy. By what standard would you call him right or wrong?


You sound nuts.

[Walk on Water]

How is religion different than having a mental illness and being delusional?

[theman93]

You sound nuts.

Justify your position, I'm still waiting. You have no standard for anything. What even is "nuts"?

[theman93]

How is religion different than having a mental illness and being delusional?

What is "delusional"? Why aren't you the delusional one?

[diamenz]

What is "delusional"? Why aren't you the delusional one?

i wouldn't call either side of the argument of "god's" existence delusional, but if you HAD to pick a delusional (there must be a better word) side, it would be the believers, imo.

having faith isn't in the least bit delusional, but believing without evidence arguably is. without evidence, have faith. with evidence, begin to believe.

[Patrick Chewing]

Justify your position, I'm still waiting. You have no standard for anything. What even is "nuts"?

Anyone without a simpleton mindset like his. Don't waste your time with this troll.

[Off the Court]

Because nobody is neutral.

Let's start with the moral argument. Why is anything right or wrong and by what standard? I'll give you an example to shoot at: The child molester finds it good to rape children and it makes him happy. By what standard would you call him right or wrong?
The standard where raping a child has a negative impact on the child's life. So it's similar to religion I suppose. Good point mate.

[theman93]

i wouldn't call either side of the argument of "god's" existence delusional, but if you HAD to pick a delusional (there must be a better word) side, it would be the believers, imo.

having faith isn't in the least bit delusional, but believing without evidence arguably is. without evidence, have faith. with evidence, begin to believe.

I would challenge that notion.

By what standard can a non-believer (atheist) justify his moral position? By what standard?

How can an atheist account for science? Where does uniformity in nature come from in a world that he believes at it's foundation is time and chance acting on matter?

[theman93]

The standard where raping a child has a negative impact on the child's life. So it's similar to religion I suppose. Good point mate.

Why would he care if it has a negative impact on the child's life? It had a positive impact on his. So what?

[Off the Court]

Why would he care if it has a negative impact on the child's life? It had a positive impact on his. So what?
Good point, that's like if someone stabbed you to death and then pissed on your body maybe it's a good thing if he got enjoyment from that. You know.

OH, but what if he killed you, pissed on you AND he shit on you? And then spit on you? and then jerked off all over you? Then is that negative or still no? :confusedshrug:

[theman93]

Good point, that's like if someone stabbed you to death and then pissed on your body maybe it's a good thing if he got enjoyment from that. You know.

OH, but what if he killed you, pissed on you AND he shit on you? And then spit on you? and then jerked off all over you? Then is that negative or still no? :confusedshrug:

What makes something negative? Again I’ll ask: By what standard are you calling anything moral or immoral? Feelings aren’t a standard.

[Patrick Chewing]

i wouldn't call either side of the argument of "god's" existence delusional, but if you HAD to pick a delusional (there must be a better word) side, it would be the believers, imo.

having faith isn't in the least bit delusional, but believing without evidence arguably is. without evidence, have faith. with evidence, begin to believe.

There isn't a better word because there doesn't have to be one. If one believes in God through religion and personal faith, then they are no different, no better or no worse, than someone who doesn't believe in God because he cannot see evidence.


And the evidence to God that the over 4 billion people who are part of the Abrahamic religions believe in is in the scriptures.

[Off the Court]

What makes something negative? Again I’ll ask: By what standard are you calling anything moral or immoral? Feelings aren’t a standard.
True true.

Also what makes something real? Maybe everything is fake like that one Keanu Reeves movie where he knew he was in a simulated world so he could do magic shit. What about that?

[theman93]

True true.

Also what makes something real? Maybe everything is fake like that one Keanu Reeves movie where he knew he was in a simulated world so he could do magic shit. What about that?

So there is no morality in your world view. Moving on.

What evidence is there that our reality is dictated by robots?

[Off the Court]

So there is no morality in your world view. Moving on.

What evidence is there that our reality is dictated by robots?
Exactly, that's what I'm saying. And how do you know you aren't a robot? Have you seen your own brain? Maybe it's all computery shit inside your skull. What evidence do you have? :confusedshrug:

[theman93]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. And how do you know you aren't a robot? Have you seen your own brain? Maybe it's all computery shit inside your skull. What evidence do you have? :confusedshrug:

No, ask a brain surgeon and he will tell you the anatomy of your brain, how it functions, and what needs to happen to perform a successful surgery. Not that it’s “computery shit”. Sounds like a weird fairy tale your making up here.

Your world view has led you to a place of absurdity where you don’t even know if child molestation is immoral or if a brain is a computer.

[Off the Court]

No, ask a brain surgeon and he will tell you the anatomy of your brain, how it functions, and what needs to happen to perform a successful surgery. Not that it’s “computery shit”. Sounds like a weird fairy tale your making up here.

Your world view has led you to a place of absurdity where you don’t even know if child molestation is immoral or if a brain is a computer.
By what standard does the world even have a view? I think you have to ask yourself that. And what if a child molested a brain surgeon using his computer? If you think that question is absurd you better think again buddy. It's real. I mean it might be real, it could happen.

[diamenz]

I would challenge that notion.

By what standard can a non-believer (atheist) justify his moral position? By what standard?

How can an atheist account for science? Where does uniformity in nature come from in a world that he believes at it's foundation is time and chance acting on matter?


There isn't a better word because there doesn't have to be one. If one believes in God through religion and personal faith, then they are no different, no better or no worse, than someone who doesn't believe in God because he cannot see evidence.


And the evidence to God that the over 4 billion people who are part of the Abrahamic religions believe in is in the scriptures.

because again, there's just no evidence.

like i said, there's nothing at all wrong with having faith, and no one can knock anybody for that. it's when you start believing without evidence is when it becomes... not quite 'delusional', but i would instead say simply a mistake. withhold belief until there's compelling evidence, is what i would say.

IF the shoe were on the other foot, and there WAS compelling evidence, then it's the atheists that would be the ones making the mistake. btw... i'm no athiest. i like to think i have faith, and i WANT to believe, but for the aforementioned reaons, i can't bring myself to do so.

i'll just leave it at that, that's my take. because you can argue this topic six ways from sunday from defining god as an outsized white-bearded man in the sky to simply being the sum total of the laws of the universe. you'd have to get that argument out of the way first before diving any deeper, lol.

[theman93]

By what standard does the world even have a view? I think you have to ask yourself that. And what if a child molested a brain surgeon using his computer? If you think that question is absurd you better think again buddy. It's real. I mean it might be real, it could happen.

The world doesn’t have a view. Individuals hold world views.

Given that you have no certainty about anything I see why you might think that’s a possibility. You could magically turn in to a velociraptor after reading this for all you know. You don’t even have a basis for conducting simple science.

[theman93]

because again, there's just no evidence.

like i said, there's nothing at all wrong with having faith, and no one can knock anybody for that. it's when you start believing without evidence is when it becomes... not quite 'delusional', but i would instead say simply a mistake. withhold belief until there's compelling evidence, is what i would say.

IF the shoe were on the other foot, and there WAS compelling evidence, then it's the atheists that would be the ones making the mistake. btw... i'm no athiest. i like to think i have faith, and i WANT to believe, but for the aforementioned reaons, i can't bring myself to do so.

i'll just leave it at that, that's my take. because you can argue this topic six ways from sunday from defining god as an outsized white-bearded man in the sky to simply being the sum total of the laws of the universe. you'd have to get that argument out of the way first before diving any deeper, lol.

I just gave you the compelling evidence. Atheists cannot even do the science they base their world view on without God. Time and chance acting on matter does not bring about order, which makes it impossible to have uniformity in nature, which makes it impossible to have the principle of induction which the foundation of science is built upon.

Atheists must borrow from the Christians world view to make sense of their own.

[SATAN]

It's funny how these retards start dancing around the topic and start asking questions like "what is real?", "what is nuts?" etc. distracting from what OP is actually saying and turning it back on him.

Typical right wing nutjob behavior. Pathetic.

[Off the Court]

The world doesn’t have a view. Individuals hold world views.

Given that you have no certainty about anything I see why you might think that’s a possibility. You could magically turn in to a velociraptor after reading this for all you know. You don’t even have a basis for conducting simple science.
The world has no view? That is deep af dawg.

Okay let's wipe the slate clean here. I have a new moral dilemma for you to ponder. You really have to open your mind here. What if.....what if.....you were freezing to death in Alaska. Out in the snow, no clothes on, freezing cold, in severe pain. Are you visualizing that? Okay now imagine me driving up to you and I see you alone in the snow freezing so I stop my car to help you. And at this moment I REALLY have to use the bathroom really bad. So I think hey I can kill two birds with one stone here and defrost your freezing body with my urine. So then I do that, I urinate all over your freezing body. Imagine that for while. Imagine how good my warm urine feels all over you. Seriously imagine that for the next hour or so. Still with me? good. Okay so the question is.....wait a sec. I completely forgot where I was going with that. Damn it. Never mind man I'm sorry.

[Patrick Chewing]

because again, there's just no evidence.

like i said, there's nothing at all wrong with having faith, and no one can knock anybody for that. it's when you start believing without evidence is when it becomes... not quite 'delusional', but i would instead say simply a mistake. withhold belief until there's compelling evidence, is what i would say.

IF the shoe were on the other foot, and there WAS compelling evidence, then it's the atheists that would be the ones making the mistake. btw... i'm no athiest. i like to think i have faith, and i WANT to believe, but for the aforementioned reaons, i can't bring myself to do so.

i'll just leave it at that, that's my take. because you can argue this topic six ways from sunday from defining god as an outsized white-bearded man in the sky to simply being the sum total of the laws of the universe. you'd have to get that argument out of the way first before diving any deeper, lol.

If you're implying that believers are making a mistake in believing, then that's also a mistake. The non-believer doesn't know one way or the other as well. You can't tell someone of faith, "Well, because I can't see God, then the perception or concept of God is not real".

And again, evidence to the believer is through scriptures and through actual historical record as archaeologists begin to uncover more and more every day. And I know that is not proof to the non-believer. I'm happy leaving it with one doesn't know for sure, but one can have "FAITH" and through Faith and through scriptures, one can become a believer. To each his own though as well.

[Patrick Chewing]

It's funny how these retards start dancing around the topic and start asking questions like "what is real?", "what is nuts?" etc. distracting from what OP is actually saying and turning it back on him.

Typical right wing nutjob behavior. Pathetic.

Are you really a loser? The undeniable answer to that question is yes.

[theman93]

It's funny how these retards start dancing around the topic and start asking questions like "what is real?", "what is nuts?" etc. distracting from what OP is actually saying and turning it back on him.

Typical right wing nutjob behavior. Pathetic.

It's called epistemology. You probably don't even know what that means without googling it tbh.

Both sides come to the table with presuppositions btw.

[GimmeThat]

not sure how people expect to sound intellectual when posting ideas created when women weren't allowed an education

[bladefd]

not sure how people expect to sound intellectual when posting ideas created when women weren't allowed an education

and when most people believed the Earth was the center of the universe with the Sun going around until ~4 centuries ago. Most people also thought the Earth was flat for most of human history until maybe just ~5-6 centuries ago

We didn't find out that our galaxy is just 1 of trillions until perhaps a century ago..

[Chick Stern]

If you're implying that believers are making a mistake in believing, then that's also a mistake. The non-believer doesn't know one way or the other as well. You can't tell someone of faith, "Well, because I can't see God, then the perception or concept of God is not real".

And again, evidence to the believer is through scriptures and through actual historical record as archaeologists begin to uncover more and more every day. And I know that is not proof to the non-believer. I'm happy leaving it with one doesn't know for sure, but one can have "FAITH" and through Faith and through scriptures, one can become a believer. To each his own though as well.
The reality is that archeologists are not uncovering more and more every day. It is generally pure myth, designed to fit a predetermined conclusion. The evidence is either nonexistent, or considered highly questionable in peer-review.
I always find ads about “visiting the Holy Land and seeing the places where jesus walked” hilarious. These sites were created out of thin air by Constantine’s Mom, on her grand tour. Her type of fabrication is still occurring today.
I find that anyone who does not subscribe to believer’s religious story is immediately labeled an atheist. It’s not that they have spoken against a god, but that they have rejected the others flavor of worship.
The reality is, the term “atheist” is a term used by the religious.

Since we are asking questions, what is the difference between a religion, and a cult?

[GimmeThat]

and when most people believed the Earth was the center of the universe with the Sun going around until ~4 centuries ago. Most people also thought the Earth was flat for most of human history until maybe just ~5-6 centuries ago

We didn't find out that our galaxy is just 1 of trillions until perhaps a century ago..

just because someone makes a statement, doesn't mean you have to believe it or spread it. unless the guy invented the question mark was a real dumbass for having no faith.

[Patrick Chewing]

The reality is that archeologists are not uncovering more and more every day. It is generally pure myth, designed to fit a predetermined conclusion. The evidence is either nonexistent, or considered highly questionable in peer-review.
I always find ads about “visiting the Holy Land and seeing the places where jesus walked” hilarious. These sites were created out of thin air by Constantine’s Mom, on her grand tour. Her type of fabrication is still occurring today.
I find that anyone who does not subscribe to believer’s religious story is immediately labeled an atheist. It’s not that they have spoken against a god, but that they have rejected the others flavor of worship.
The reality is, the term “atheist” is a term used by the religious.

Since we are asking questions, what is the difference between a religion, and a cult?

Oh damn so it's pure myth?? Man you've opened my eyes. I'm done with believing in God. Thanks for the clarity bro. :cheers:

[GimmeThat]

Since we are asking questions, what is the difference between a religion, and a cult?

one is role playing, one is applying the role of those role playing in real life scenarios - taking words in the literal concept.

one is getting rid of the followers, one is being content with being the followers and being rid of

one is just in case, one is 'this is it'

[Axe]

Op has eminem as his personal god.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Religion exists because it is easier not to think.

[Chick Stern]

Oh damn so it's pure myth?? Man you've opened my eyes. I'm done with believing in God. Thanks for the clarity bro. :cheers:
Maybe you should try opening your eyes to read what I wrote with comprehension.

[Chick Stern]

one is role playing, one is applying the role of those role playing in real life scenarios - taking words in the literal concept.

one is getting rid of the followers, one is being content with being the followers and being rid of

one is just in case, one is 'this is it'

https://youtu.be/MESEQQaX1M4

[SATAN]

Are you really a loser? The undeniable answer to that question is yes.

You sell melted rocks at a second hand store and pretend they are valuable fashion accessories. Checkmate, Chicken Patty.

[Patrick Chewing]

Maybe you should try opening your eyes to read what I wrote with comprehension.

You didn't write anything worth comprehending. You wrote some stupid opinion which is yours. You Atheists believe you know more than those who are religious. That's your first mistake.

[Patrick Chewing]

You sell melted rocks at a second hand store and pretend they are valuable fashion accessories. Checkmate, Chicken Patty.

You mean I have my own business and don't rely on allowance money from Mommy and Daddy??

[Chick Stern]

You didn't write anything worth comprehending. You wrote some stupid opinion which is yours. You Atheists believe you know more than those who are religious. That's your first mistake.


The reality is that archeologists are not uncovering more and more every day. It is generally pure myth, designed to fit a predetermined conclusion. The evidence is either nonexistent, or considered highly questionable in peer-review.
I find that anyone who does not subscribe to believer’s religious story is immediately labeled an atheist.

Provide a link to a post where I have stated I am an atheist.
I wrote fact

-The reality is that archeologists are not uncovering more and more every day. The evidence is either nonexistent, or considered highly questionable in peer-review. FACT

[2much_knowledge]

Its a combination of what your parents have passed on from generation to generation mixed with witnessing some paranormal events. After seeing that, its hard to turn a blind eye just cause atheism is popular now or science.

For example, i have seen a couple of people get possessed out of nowhere at church or around it. If theres out of this world evil, then there's also good from a higher power. I say this because if it was just a epileptic attack or nervous breakdown, it would only get better with medical attention. But literally, the 2 times I've seen people act like they are momentarily possessed, only the priest has been able to make them snap out of it.

In terms of logic vs faith.... for me, its smarter to give God, afterlife and all that stuff the benefit of the doubt and have a chance to experience the promised reward after death

Than just go by science and neglect God to later die and realize it was real.

If it is real, science and logic won't save your ass

[GimmeThat]

In terms of logic vs faith.... for me, its smarter to give God, afterlife and all that stuff the benefit of the doubt and have a chance to experience the promised reward after death

Than just go by science and neglect God to later die and realize it was real.

If it is real, science and logic won't save your ass


the only problem I had, was how dry/bored it got when waiting for God and afterlife. so being a rockstar became an attractive choice.

[Lakers Legend#32]

He's an idiot.

Give it up Poopsie. No one believes you are a Christian much less religious.

[HighFlyer23]

A sense of identity comes from religion for some

And if you believe your religion is true and divine then why wouldn't you be attached to it?