So faith in “God” requires no faith?
What is the basis, then?
1 Like
By saying this, you display a deep ignorance of Atheism, dogma, game rules, popes, and the Vatican. Also, a tremendous, confrontational arrogance in your ignorance.
It makes it hard to have a reasonable conversation with you.
By saying this, you display a deep ignorance of faith and God. Also, a tremendous, confrontational arrogance in your ignorance.
It makes it hard to have a reasonable conversation with you.
7 Likes
Yes, but what if you’re believing in the wrong one? Your odds are one in thousands. Not good. You’re best off rejecting them all.
7 Likes
They are what they are. How could they be more suspicious? What are you suspicious of? For cool tools and nifty items, if you buy them, BB gets a cut. What is more sinister going on that you’re aware of?
TELL US
Especially if it’s a jealous god. Being naive > picking the wrong side.
2 Likes
Woodn’t you like to come in?
4 Likes
What are the game rules? Who are the popes? Where is that Vatican?
2 Likes
Like you have faith that the falsehoods you wrote above the quote are real.
4 Likes
I want to be the Atheist Pope, so I declare that I am the Atheist Pope
13 Likes
I don’t know why the right-wing gets so bizarrely projecting of their own failures in life.
All I have to do is not believe. You’re the one attempting to impose beliefs on others, drop the smug act.
9 Likes
One of the reasons the mythology of Christianity had become so large was the syncretism of the Jews. As they travelled around, their religion incorporated many diverse bits from other, now extinct religious traditions all over the near east. Not only that, but early Judaism was polytheistic, and was converted to monotheism later. So there are countless weird contradictions on who is who over a few thousand years.
Beelzebub is not only a devil, but also a corruption of Baal, which is itself a name which was used as a title for gods. And also refers to a specific Canaanite deity. The demon Asteroth “The Prince of Hell”, is a corruption of Asherah, who was Jehovah’s WIFE, FFS. And is also more or less cognate with the later goddesses Astarte and Ishtar. Even Jehovah, Yahweh, and El have quite distinctly different implications as representing “one true god”. The many angels of the deity are simply re-categorized gods themselves, making it a polytheism in disguise.
I get annoyed with the conflation of Baphomet with “Satan”. Baphomet, as a deity, is more like the living personality of all life itself. Which has practically nothing to do with the Christian or Judaic conception of devil. Just as Satan has practically nothing to do with Set, Sutekh - the First Divine Shield of Ra.
This is why many people who profess to be “religious types” fervently hate comparative religion!
4 Likes
I’m not going to disagree with most of this post, because Judaic scholarship is not my thing. However…
“Jehovah” and “Yahweh” are just two different guesses of the proper way to pronounce the Tetragrammaton (YHWH).
He’s the one sitting over in the corner saying
“Well, am I a Catholic? Really?”
4 Likes
Most modern religious practices are less matters of belief and more matters of tribal identity and belonging.
See, for instance, the vociferous, desperate instance in some conservative Christian circles that “God” and “Allah” are two different deities.
2 Likes
Sweet. What benefits do I get for being Pope of Agnosticism?
4 Likes
You get the true knowledge and smugface righteousness!
3 Likes
Ah. So that’s how I got those!
2 Likes
That’s why I said different implications, rather than different deities. Usage-wise, there is about 1000-2000 years between them, which I think makes them differ in cultural context somewhat. But not to the same degree as El, who was by all accounts a different deity entirely.
It seems to me more the opposite, that stress upon belief/faith is the more recent trend, especially in the west. Traditionally, I think that religion as tribal identity was more functional. Meaning actual mythologies and disciplines which outline the real structure of cultures themselves, rather than merely clubs or charismatics. Which is why I think religion has lasted so long, because it has not ultimately been about believing random nonsense. Even atheists have rituals in their lives, even if they are as simple as brewing coffee, having a wank, or watching movies. They would be hard pressed to argue that these things are universal, or necessary, but they do them anyway. The activities are merely those they chose in preference over others, and so become meaningful to them. It’s their personal mythology. That’s all religion is.
[quote=“popobawa4u, post:78, topic:62599”]
It seems to me more the opposite, that stress upon belief/faith is the more recent trend, especially in the west.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that lines up - the Pope still thinks birth control is immoral, yet look at how many US Catholics use it with aplomb. Their belief is wrong according to the doctrine, yet they consider themselves Catholics still.
Personally, I’d disentangle religion from ritual. Religion often involves ritual, but ritual by itself I don’t think makes religion. Brewing coffee in the morning can be a ritual, but it isn’t seen to have have metaphysical significance by most who do it (insert caffeine joke here). Similarly, folks who never go to church consider themselves still good Christians. So ritual doesn’t seem necessary or sufficient for religiosity to me, though religions often use ritual extensively (as a way, I’d hypothesize, to create that tribal identity - we are people who share rituals, who do things together).
4 Likes
Maybe those rituals actual do something. …or did before they were perverted by bureaucrats.
