Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×
Sign in to follow this  
Crocefisso

Census 2.0

About You  

180 members have voted

  1. 1. Your race is...

    • Caucasian
      152
    • African (incl. black westerners)
      4
    • Arab
      1
    • Persian
      0
    • Turkic
      0
    • East Asian peoples (Chinese et al)
      9
    • Indigenous American
      0
    • Indian
      3
    • Indigenous Australasian
      0
    • Other
      4
    • Mixed
      7
  2. 2. Your religious beliefs are...

    • Christianity
      32
    • Islam
      0
    • Judaism
      2
    • Buddhism
      1
    • Taoism
      0
    • Hinduism
      1
    • Sikhism
      1
    • Zoroastrianism
      0
    • Caodaiism
      0
    • Jainism
      0
    • Shintoism
      0
    • Primal Indigenous
      0
    • African Traditional
      0
    • Bahá'í Faith
      0
    • Neo-Paganism
      1
    • Rastafarianism
      1
    • Scientology
      1
    • Chinese folk religion
      0
    • Atheism
      103
    • Other
      37
  3. 3. Your sexual preference is

    • Heterosexuality
      134
    • Homosexuality (g & l)
      16
    • Bisexuality
      17
    • Asexuality
      8
    • Confused
      5


Recommended Posts

 

The Catholic Church has spent its entire history breaking its own teachings; as such, I don't really think them changing their official stance should be an issue to anyone that realises this.

 

E.g.:

 

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

-Yet the Spanish Inquisition was a perfect example of this. It's essentially the European equivalent of the Salem witch trials, except on a far, far larger scale over 200+ years. Similarly, the Crusades also broke this commandment.

 

Yes, the crusades and the inquisition broke the morals of the church.

 

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

-Catholic places of worship are typically filled with statues and other such examples of idolatry which, though beautiful, do technically break this commandment.

 

The statues are not being worshiped, they are symbols of God.

 

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour."

-Spanish Inquisition used to force people to do this.

 

Once again, broke the morals of the church.

"You shall not steal."

-Catholic Church spent centuries doing this to the people of Europe, in the form of tithes and so on.

 

"You shall not murder."

-Many, many examples of this by the Catholic Church; Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, and most importantly, Pope Alexander VI. Please look this man up, he was absolute scum - a murdering, warmongering, nepotistic and power hungry man with no moral fibre whatsoever. Many Popes throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern periods displayed similar traits.

 

 

All you're demonstrating is that various corrupt members of the church have broken the morals that the church holds. It doesn't mean they've changed their teaching - it means that when humans are given power, many times they will abuse it. It says nothing about the morality of the church itself.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic Church has spent its entire history breaking its own teachings; as such, I don't really think them changing their official stance should be an issue to anyone that realises this.

Never in the Church's history did it teach murder was "right".

If your point is that Catholics are hypocrites, my answer is "duh." The Church teaches to be like Christ; whenever someone professes and teaches the Catholic faith sins they've effectively done what they said not to do.

 

Anyhow, I suggest you create a new thread, "Bash Catholicism Here," so at least I know which thread to avoid instead of soiling this one.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The statues are not being worshiped, they are symbols of God.

 

 

The distinction is incredibly hazy. They may not be worshipping the statues per se, but they still worship with them and they can easily be seen as idolatry, including by most Christians outside of Catholicism.

 

Anyway, I think sees is right and we've gone a little too off topic, and we should probably leave the discussion.



"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The statues are not being worshiped, they are symbols of God.

 

 

The distinction is incredibly hazy. They may not be worshipping the statues per se, but they still worship with them and they can easily be seen as idolatry, including by most Christians outside of Catholicism.

 

Anyway, I think sees is right and we've gone a little too off topic, and we should probably leave the discussion.

Do you have a poster in your room, by any chance? Perhaps of a band, or actor, or sports figure?

 

Do you have it there because you like the piece of paper with ink on it itself? Or because you like what it represents?

 

But at any rate, we are getting off topic.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rastafarianism? Kind of interested by that result.

 

Nice thread, by the way.


SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, and it is a little late to correct it, but isn't Buddhism more of a philosphy, rather than a religion? Because, although Buddha is oftentimes elevated to a godlike status, didn't he consider himself a normal guy, and preach that morality and truth comes from within, and that you must find the religion (or lack thereof) that fits you the most? So, I, as an Atheist, can be Buddhist because I've found that my atheism is the most correct, moral path for myself. Right?


Rune Tips Merchanting Site!

"rune tips cc" if you would like to learn some tricks of the merching trade! We have a great community as well.

Each of us a cell of awareness/Imperfect and incomplete/Genetic blends with uncertain ends/On a fortune hunt thats far too fleet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, and it is a little late to correct it, but isn't Buddhism more of a philosphy, rather than a religion? Because, although Buddha is oftentimes elevated to a godlike status, didn't he consider himself a normal guy, and preach that morality and truth comes from within, and that you must find the religion (or lack thereof) that fits you the most? So, I, as an Atheist, can be Buddhist because I've found that my atheism is the most correct, moral path for myself. Right?

It varies widely by sect of Buddhism. Most people consider it to be a religion in the sense that it is a way of life, to be practiced consciously. A religion need not involve worship of a higher being (though many sects of Buddhism do elevate the Buddha to worshipable level.).


Flyingjj.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here, and it is a little late to correct it, but isn't Buddhism more of a philosphy, rather than a religion? Because, although Buddha is oftentimes elevated to a godlike status, didn't he consider himself a normal guy, and preach that morality and truth comes from within, and that you must find the religion (or lack thereof) that fits you the most? So, I, as an Atheist, can be Buddhist because I've found that my atheism is the most correct, moral path for myself. Right?

It varies widely by sect of Buddhism. Most people consider it to be a religion in the sense that it is a way of life, to be practiced consciously. A religion need not involve worship of a higher being (though many sects of Buddhism do elevate the Buddha to worshipable level.).

 

Flyingjj is right.

 

Haa Haa, in response to your question about Atheism/Buddhism: true, Buddhists are largely atheist, but being an atheist is just one very small aspect of Buddhism. There are many others that are necessary before you can call yourself a Buddhist; do you believe in the cycle of rebirth? Do you aspire to release yourself from said cycle by attaining nirvana? Do you have other beliefs around this that vary from sect to sect? If not, then you're not a Buddhist, but an atheist. Just because you find atheism to be the correct moral path for yourself doesn't make you a Buddhist.



"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caucasian, Atheist, Bisexual.

 

And damn...this thread is....well...."entertaining" to say the least. But I have to agree with sees_all, take the debate to an actual religious debate thread....I don't think debating was the intention of this thread when it was created. And it's kind of annoying to see the same debates everywhere I look when I happen to peek my head into OT.


"Don't get in my face, don't invade my space. I'll put you in your place.

I'll only tell you once, I'll never tell you twice. This is me being nice." ~Porcelain and the Tramps

 

Lqt9R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caucasian, Atheist, Bisexual.

 

And damn...this thread is....well...."entertaining" to say the least. But I have to agree with sees_all, take the debate to an actual religious debate thread....I don't think debating was the intention of this thread when it was created. And it's kind of annoying to see the same debates everywhere I look when I happen to peek my head into OT.

 

Though this thread wasn't created with the intention of sparking debate, I certainly do not mind there being a degree of debate. But that whole Catholicism debate did get a little too off topic.



"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caucasian, Atheist, Bisexual.

 

And damn...this thread is....well...."entertaining" to say the least. But I have to agree with sees_all, take the debate to an actual religious debate thread....I don't think debating was the intention of this thread when it was created. And it's kind of annoying to see the same debates everywhere I look when I happen to peek my head into OT.

 

Though this thread wasn't created with the intention of sparking debate, I certainly do not mind there being a degree of debate. But that whole Catholicism debate did get a little too off topic.

 

 

Well the debate in general doesn't bother me. But, yes I am atheist, BUT, I do like to have an understanding of others' religions. It's hard to explain, but I'll try anyway. I may not believe in any of it, but there is a part of me that enjoys listening to how others feel about their religion, more out of curiosity than anything, and it's really hard to get a good idea of how a person truly feels about such things when they are constantly defending it in a debate. I would just like to be able to poke my head into a thread that has "religion" in the topic of discussion and not see a debate, so that I can see people talking about their religion in a manner that isn't tainted by argument and debate. It's just hard to get much out of two sides arguing.

 

Yes, I know I can go look the information up, but that isn't as great as hearing (or reading in this case) from others around me that are part of the same community as I am (being this forum, weird analogy, I know, sorry). I hope all of that made sense. lol

 

EDIT: I used the word debate way too many times..... <.<


"Don't get in my face, don't invade my space. I'll put you in your place.

I'll only tell you once, I'll never tell you twice. This is me being nice." ~Porcelain and the Tramps

 

Lqt9R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caucasian, Atheist, Bisexual.

 

And damn...this thread is....well...."entertaining" to say the least. But I have to agree with sees_all, take the debate to an actual religious debate thread....I don't think debating was the intention of this thread when it was created. And it's kind of annoying to see the same debates everywhere I look when I happen to peek my head into OT.

 

Tis the fate of all off-topic threads, either become religion threads or political ones. Still I cant really complain because i contributed to the switch on this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheist, Caucasian, and I identify as heterosexual, but I voted bisexual because I might one day identify as such. Let's just say that I'm exploring with that avenue. Really I don't like being pigeonholed on the issue of sexuality; it's just so fluid and changes as we grow (not in everyone, certainly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you include Bahai faith, which has less than 300k members in the United States and Europe (which is the vast majority of voters) and not agnosticism?

 

 

In addition, for those of you who seem to be unaware, agnosticism isn't a religion per se. All it means is that you do not claim to know that your beliefs are correct. So technically everyone in the world should be an agnostic, because nobody "knows," but of course people will claim to know they're correct even with quite literally 0 evidence :rolleyes:


PM me for fitocracy invite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you include Bahai faith, which has less than 300k members in the United States and Europe (which is the vast majority of voters) and not agnosticism?

 

 

In addition, for those of you who seem to be unaware, agnosticism isn't a religion per se. All it means is that you do not claim to know that your beliefs are correct. So technically everyone in the world should be an agnostic, because nobody "knows," but of course people will claim to know they're correct even with quite literally 0 evidence :rolleyes:

 

Agnosticism is not a religious position: it is an epistemological position. One is either a theist or an atheist; agnosticism is addressing a different question entirely - the availability of knowledge. Thus with regards to religious belief, one can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, but not simply an agnostic.


I found a panda and then we bought malt liquor. I hold my malt liquor better than a panda.

 

And I thought my weekends were good. ._.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you include Bahai faith, which has less than 300k members in the United States and Europe (which is the vast majority of voters) and not agnosticism?

 

 

In addition, for those of you who seem to be unaware, agnosticism isn't a religion per se. All it means is that you do not claim to know that your beliefs are correct. So technically everyone in the world should be an agnostic, because nobody "knows," but of course people will claim to know they're correct even with quite literally 0 evidence :rolleyes:

 

Agnosticism is not a religious position: it is an epistemological position. One is either a theist or an atheist; agnosticism is addressing a different question entirely - the availability of knowledge. Thus with regards to religious belief, one can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, but not simply an agnostic.

 

I regard Agnosticism as a belief in its own right. If someone says they are agnostic I assume it means that they believe there can be no evidence for the existence of God but they wont deny the possibility that one can/does exist.

 

I dont think this position falls under agnostic theist or atheist.

 

At any rate I think that Deism and Agnosticism should replace some of the options that have 0 votes since both of those would probably represent most of the "other" votes and perhaps some "atheist" and "christian" votes might switch to either of those given the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd strongly disagree, Ring. Theism is the explicit acceptance of the proposition "There exists a deity or deities." If one does not accept the proposition, one is not a theist - that is, an atheist (if you feel the word is too laden down with added, contemporary baggage - feel free to use the term non-theist).

 

As such, Deism is a subset of Theism - as it includes the belief in a deity (an impersonal creator god). Also, agnosticism in the sense that you define it is non theism; even if you haven't made up your mind, you still do not explicitly accept the core statement of theism. :thumbup:


I found a panda and then we bought malt liquor. I hold my malt liquor better than a panda.

 

And I thought my weekends were good. ._.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that Atheism is the belief that there is absolutely not a deity. Thus I would think that agnosticism could be used to define the middle ground. If I'm wrong on the first part then I'll have to rethink it :razz:


PM me for fitocracy invite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I posted, agnosticism addresses a seperate but related question. Admittedly, the exact meaning of 'atheism' is debated; if you want to be safe, using 'non-theist' is probably the best idea. The importance of these distinctions is to do with the burden of proof, a concept I'm sure you're familiar with. :wink:


I found a panda and then we bought malt liquor. I hold my malt liquor better than a panda.

 

And I thought my weekends were good. ._.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

 

It seems there are multiple viable definitions.

 

 

 

I'm just kind of confused now


PM me for fitocracy invite

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.