Rayman Pirate-Community

Adsolution wrote:

Ambidextroid wrote:Nothing proves that Santa's existence is impossible either

You just said that you "learned how it was impossible" for Santa to exist.

Yeah, I mean it in two different ways really.

Nothing is really impossible. 'Impossible' means there's no way of it ever being possible. It's not impossible that we're in a The Matrix like situation, because we'd never know. It's not impossible that 2+2=5, and that, with the combined mental power of all of the herring in the sea, whenever anyone tries to work out that sum, we are tricked into thinking the answer's 4 and that it makes perfect sense. In this way, nothing is impossible, so the word is almost utterly useless.

To give the word a use, we need to stop thinking so... well, philosophically I suppose. It's impossible to swim in lava naked and climb out like nothing happened, though it's not truly impossible, because there could be a godly broccoli lord who decided to give you heat-resistant skin for a few minutes. For the purpose of using the word 'Impossible', we'll have to ignore these kinds of theories.

The first time I said impossible, I really meant impossible, but the second time I should have probably used a different word. "Incredibly ridiculously ludicrously unlikely" might have been good for how likely Santa's existence is.

Lava we know. We know where it comes from, what it's made of, and how it functions. We have reason and scientific evidence to suggest that swimming in it will almost certainly kill you. Higher powers, these are Russell's teapots. There's no reason to believe they should be likely or unlikely, we have nothing, nor is there any way of finding out.

I was raised Christian and until about 9th grade, I blindly accepted it. It was at that age that I began to really think about the world around me, and I realized that logically there is no god. Of course, I've never told my family, as that would break their hearts and cause them to panic that I won't be spending "eternity" with them. I find that life is a much more beautiful thing without the reliance on a convenient "God" who we can use to explain away any mystery--how did the universe begin? God did it. Where did we come from, and why are we here? God did it.

Now I'm a freshman in college, and I've gotten to the point where I genuinely have no idea how anyone could believe in the Bible. Almost all of its statements about the world have been disproven by science, and there is literally no physical evidence in the world around us corroborating anything presented within its pages. I'm not trying to be a high-and-mighty atheist here, but can anyone tell me if there's any actual, substantial evidence in the real world that supports Biblical ideals? Again, not trying to be condescending. I would seriously love to know.

Yeah.
Pope John Paul II said that in a view to a Charles Darvins' theory, Book of Genesis doesn't really denies with it.
Because actually Bible not excludes theory of evolution.


There are more then few unresolved matters of Christian miracles.
Eg. Turin Shroud, which needed energy power to create it, which was unreachable in those times. It's origin was also examined.
Scientists with various religion views had an opportunity to study it and decreed.

Once I saw the man who was exorcised and spit with nails on the floor.
He shouted, blasphemed, and then spit.

Sabertooth wrote:I was raised Christian and until about 9th grade, I blindly accepted it. It was at that age that I began to really think about the world around me, and I realized that logically there is no god. Of course, I've never told my family, as that would break their hearts and cause them to panic that I won't be spending "eternity" with them. I find that life is a much more beautiful thing without the reliance on a convenient "God" who we can use to explain away any mystery--how did the universe begin? God did it. Where did we come from, and why are we here? God did it.

Now I'm a freshman in college, and I've gotten to the point where I genuinely have no idea how anyone could believe in the Bible. Almost all of its statements about the world have been disproven by science, and there is literally no physical evidence in the world around us corroborating anything presented within its pages. I'm not trying to be a high-and-mighty atheist here, but can anyone tell me if there's any actual, substantial evidence in the real world that supports Biblical ideals? Again, not trying to be condescending. I would seriously love to know.

Logically no Christian god, yes. But to say there is no >god<, logically, you need more than lack of evidence, because evidence lacking does not mean something is illogical. It is illogical to science of course, but so is an infinite cardinal.

Anyway, I am obviously an atheist.

I am not atheist, I am even quite pious, but I do not stick to any particular religion, I am actually following a dogma I created with a mix of many cultures, science, and rules of life and behaviour.

"I am devout to believing only the thing I know I made up."

Have fun with that!

I'm somewhat religious (Catholic btw) and I don't believe anything in the Bible. I find the bible to be a story of morals for people, not legitimate stories.

If you're (somewhat) Catholic and don't believe anything in the Bible, what do you believe?

I'm not a good Catholic.

I guess I believe that too. Should we build a church for us?

What's the point? I wouldn't go there.

My religious views are mixed. I don't believe anything in the Bible and I listen to the most logical and scientific reasoning. But sometimes, I do question if there is a greater force out there, because sometimes coincidences just doesn't add up.

anaphasiia wrote:"I am devout to believing only the thing I know I made up."

Have fun with that!

I don't know what is fun in that, my religious view is actually wide and open and advocates tolerance.
It includes Christian, induhist and Buddhist philosophy.

incognito wrote:I don't know what is fun in that, my religious view is actually wide and open and advocates tolerance.

Religion cannot advocate tolerance, tolerance is a personal matter. Religion is only about the supernatural, and the supernatural can only encourage tolerance through threat. If only religion has motivated you to be kind to your neighbor, you are selfish. If you see good in humanity after becoming Christian, doing good to your neighbor was not a result of Christianity, it's an incidental side-effect. If a religious authority advocates tolerance, it is "side" objective reasoning, not related to religion.

When I was younger, I probably acted good because that was taught in Church and by other family members saying it's because God punishing those who don't. But now growing older, I act good because it's how everyone should be towards each other. No one good act I have done recently was because I thought of God, I did it out the kindness out of my heart, as gay as that sounds.

@Bradandez
Hey, it's not bad attitude. Probably even better. And in fact, doesn't have to exclude any religious approach.
Like in Darvin's therory.

anaphasiia wrote:If you're (somewhat) Catholic and don't believe anything in the Bible, what do you believe?

Bradandez wrote:I'm somewhat religious (Catholic btw) and I don't believe anything in the Bible. I find the bible to be a story of morals for people, not legitimate stories.

Protestants used to skip Bible as a revealed truth, but they consider it more like a historical source.
Looks like your views are straying from Catholicism. That's why question:

If you're (somewhat) Catholic and don't believe anything in the Bible, what do you believe?

is very appropriate here.

But to say there is no >god<, logically, you need more than lack of evidence, because evidence lacking does not mean something is illogical. It is illogical to science of course, but so is an infinite cardinal.
Anyway, I am obviously an atheist.

I am devout to believing only the thing I know I made up."

Have fun with that!

@anaphasiia
For a moment I was thinking you just play atheist to not let anyone laugh at you here, and to still successfully smuggle very catholic-sounding arguments, to stimulate in others some new thinking, but when I saw that you are a woman, maybe you are just very clever, and invent such things which I actually "heard somewhere before".

deton24 wrote:but when I saw that you are a woman, maybe you are just very clever, and invent such things which I actually "heard somewhere before".

What does gender have to do with an ability to argue? Broad statistics of a demographic with high variance do not define individuals. I received the same education and nourishment as my peers, especially when I came to the US.

I wasn't quoting anyone, so if you've heard anything I've said before, it's because reason is consistent. If you reason enough, we should all reach the same conclusions. Convincing arguments are just different analogies making the same familiar point.

I agree with you, but, I just try to note that these arguments are usually given in some Catholic's environments, and that very positively surprises me.


Female on such forum - more sensitive on some points, it's rather not about ability, but inclination. Eg. more deeper leading of discussion, more interesting arguments, esp. on more philosophical matters. You know, men are more easier.

Reading back, I see how I sounded like I might be defending religion/Catholicism, but I wasn't. I just know Catholicism well because of the Orthodox climate, and most of my peers started following Catholic churches when we moved here. I never believed, though I felt some belonging pretending that I did when I was very young.

I've never been religious, there's nothing appealing about it and it feels more like an outdated cultural aspect clinging onto people the more I get exposed to it here in the bible belt. It just seems kinda naive? I don't buy any "it's all about love and peace in the end !" concept which too conveniently appeals to everything people associate with good qualities. I mean looking at religious history, religion's place in society has always been about keeping people within the boundaries during less secure times, and manipulating the lower social classes in believing the top class' bullshit is justified and they're to be respected instead of opposed - something which you can find in Egypt thousands of years ago, or in ISIS right now.

I'm open to agnostic views, but I both prefer and hate the atheist take on it. Literally ceasing to exist is something I don't think many people can ever wrap their head around and if religion keeps declining like it is we're going to get some existential folks. And it is scary, because it literally implies that your life as a whole just fades away and nothing really matters, but I can also find comfort in the certainty of that theory over religion and agnostic views which often advocate some sort of "eternal" concept, which just sounds unsettling to me - in the kind of way that most people would agree that they'd accept death much quicker if life lasted a 1000 years. It gives a certain edge to life that pushes you to make the most of it and to appreciate your limited time, which I think is much more inspiring than an ideology of constant reliance on a spiritual being: Good things happen because God, bad things happen because of God's plan, God is always there to fall back on, and when we die we can comfortably stay inside his safety bubble forever. Doesn't sound comforting, sounds like that asshole who doesn't follow politics because it "makes them sad."

And hey, what if the "Afterlife" turns out to be really shitty? I don't believe in any religion's take on it, but agnosticism is what makes death spooky shit to me - could just end up in an eternal life that sucks dick. I remember there's some people in history who believed afterlife was a dark dusty chamber where you'd just feel nothing and be alone forever... I'd pick nothing over that.

anaphasiia wrote:

incognito wrote:I don't know what is fun in that, my religious view is actually wide and open and advocates tolerance.

Religion cannot advocate tolerance, tolerance is a personal matter. Religion is only about the supernatural, and the supernatural can only encourage tolerance through threat. If only religion has motivated you to be kind to your neighbor, you are selfish. If you see good in humanity after becoming Christian, doing good to your neighbor was not a result of Christianity, it's an incidental side-effect. If a religious authority advocates tolerance, it is "side" objective reasoning, not related to religion.

Which ironically just leads to a lot of entitlement and confused ideological agendas too. That's why I hate Ted Cruz so much - Sleazy, corrupt politician who discriminates against minorities and gets caught lying all the time, but he treats himself like he's fucking Moses just following god's will. His critics? They need to find the light man, they just don't get it. Too shitty to face himself so he hides behind religion to feel like he doesn't have to face anything, and that's why it still exists.