Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Liberstopolis]

There's not a shred of evidence that supports the existence of any sort of theistic or deistic power. I'll take, reason, evidence and skepticism to shape my world, thanks.

[Alvecia]

I just think it's funny that a religion that claims to have the absolute truth has so many differing opinions on what that truth is.

Is it odd for humans to be diverse and generally to have an hard time to agree on anything?

I don't find that odd. For the better or worse, that's also part of humanity.

But the agreement of humans on how the world works, doesn't influence itself how the world works. The world is objective, and always the same, regardless of how many opinions are created over it.
Same goes for religion, any religion, there are some fundamental truths, and many lines of thought trying to reach those truths.

You're rather conflating those truths with the opinions over them.

I didn't say it was odd, just that it was funny.

The thing is, religion doesn't try to answer any actual objective measures of the world. It takes the inherently subjective questions and claims to have the "right" answer.

Which again is why it's funny when there are as many "right answers" as there are Christians.

[GrarG]

There's not a shred of evidence that supports the existence of any sort of theistic or deistic power. I'll take, reason, evidence and skepticism to shape my world, thanks.

What about the miracles of Christ, which were witnessed by thousands and recorded by dozens? Are eye-witness accounts of supernatural powers 'not a shred of evidence?'

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Not at all.

I would bet five hundred bucks that it is true.

Where is your humility?

[Coruscanti Nations]

Is it odd for humans to be diverse and generally to have an hard time to agree on anything?

I don't find that odd. For the better or worse, that's also part of humanity.

But the agreement of humans on how the world works, doesn't influence itself how the world works. The world is objective, and always the same, regardless of how many opinions are created over it.
Same goes for religion, any religion, there are some fundamental truths, and many lines of thought trying to reach those truths.

You're rather conflating those truths with the opinions over them.

I didn't say it was odd, just that it was funny.

The thing is, religion doesn't try to answer any actual objective measures of the world. It takes the inherently subjective questions and claims to have the "right" answer.

Which again is why it's funny when there are as many "right answers" as there are Christians.

Right answers to what, exactly?

It seems you are ignoring the universally accepted doctrines across Christianity (the Trinity, the Resurrection, that Christ is the answer to the problem of the wrath of hell, and etc) and making it out as if literally everything is disagreed on when most of these disagreements are so minor (the color of the carpet, tithes, women leaders, music preferences, etc) that they might as well not matter to Christ Himself.

The only big disagreement is between Protestants and the other two on the route of salvation, and that doesn’t remove their shared belief in the Trinity, the Resurrection, the divnity of Christ, and other shared doctrines across “bare Christianity”.

To what extent do consider differences to be an actual problem?

[Coruscanti Nations]

Is it odd for humans to be diverse and generally to have an hard time to agree on anything?

I don't find that odd. For the better or worse, that's also part of humanity.

But the agreement of humans on how the world works, doesn't influence itself how the world works. The world is objective, and always the same, regardless of how many opinions are created over it.
Same goes for religion, any religion, there are some fundamental truths, and many lines of thought trying to reach those truths.

You're rather conflating those truths with the opinions over them.

I didn't say it was odd, just that it was funny.

The thing is, religion doesn't try to answer any actual objective measures of the world. It takes the inherently subjective questions and claims to have the "right" answer.

Which again is why it's funny when there are as many "right answers" as there are Christians.

Science and religion answer different questions. That doesn’t diminish the importwnce of one or the other. After all, science doesn’t answer “what is right”, it answers “ is the universe expanding?”.

Saying religion is crap because it doesn’t answer the age of the Earth is like saying that math is useless because it doesn’t answer the question of if the verb or the noun goes first.

[Coruscanti Nations]

Literalism doesn't apply well to prayers.

Those (christians) who pray with the expectation of getting something back are in the wrong, in the wrong from christian doctrine itself, or rather they are still subjected to a renmant of old pagan customs or habits.
(it could also be that some denominations of christianity teach prayer in a shallow way)

Though, as christianity is very complex, making mistakes or being in error is understandable, as it's all a route for betterment, it wouldn't make sense if we were perfect from the start. Perfect people are unable to improve and grow.

It always seems to loop back round to "those Christians are Christianing wrong"

Of course they are.

[Alvecia]

I didn't say it was odd, just that it was funny.

The thing is, religion doesn't try to answer any actual objective measures of the world. It takes the inherently subjective questions and claims to have the "right" answer.

Which again is why it's funny when there are as many "right answers" as there are Christians.

Right answers to what, exactly?

It seems you are ignoring the universally accepted doctrines across Christianity (the Trinity, the Resurrection, that Christ is the answer to the problem of the wrath of hell, and etc) and making it out as if literally everything is disagreed on when most of these disagreements are so minor (the color of the carpet, tithes, women leaders, music preferences, etc) that they might as well not matter to Christ Himself.

The only big disagreement is between Protestants and the other two on the route of salvation, and that doesn’t remove their shared belief in the Trinity, the Resurrection, the divnity of Christ, and other shared doctrines across “bare Christianity”.

To what extent do consider differences to be an actual problem?

"Minor" differences that seem to have quite an effect on actions in the real world. Like whether or not gays should be stoned, shamed or accepted.
More pertinently, it makes any discussion on theology rather difficult due to the inconsistencies in logic and belief inside the religion itself.

I didn't say it was odd, just that it was funny.

The thing is, religion doesn't try to answer any actual objective measures of the world. It takes the inherently subjective questions and claims to have the "right" answer.

Which again is why it's funny when there are as many "right answers" as there are Christians.

Science and religion answer different questions. That doesn’t diminish the importwnce of one or the other. After all, science doesn’t answer “what is right”, it answers “ is the universe expanding?”.

Saying religion is crap because it doesn’t answer the age of the Earth is like saying that math is useless because it doesn’t answer the question of if the verb or the noun goes first.

"Non overlapping magisteria", ey?
It's a cute concept, but rarely works out in practice. You don't have to look very far to find the religious in general trying to use their religion to answer the questions that science already has the answer for.
Young Earth creationists spring to mind, given your example.

It always seems to loop back round to "those Christians are Christianing wrong"

Of course they are.

Hmm, and I'm sure they'd say the same.

[Minzerland II]

I would bet five hundred bucks that it is true.

Where is your humility?

Except it relates to humility rather than refugees.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Whymst the fucceth would that matter in the slightest.

It's not our fault that your points are so consistently illogical that we occasionally can't tell whether you're being serious or not.

Can someone more fluent in Korhal than I tell me what this actually means and how it's relevant to what I said?

Christians have been trying to come to a consensus on what the actual nature of God is for thousands of years. The issue is so contested that I can't even adequately reply to this because I genuinely don't know what your opinion on the nature of God is (although, tbh, I probably wouldn't care even if I did).

Deal with it.

We are just pointing fingers and shouting “You are illogical” at each other at this rate, so meh.

And yet, the three branches of Christianity agree on the nature of God for the most part. A few disagreements here and there, yes, but not enough for it to be a problem.

Aight, fine, I'll deal with your word salads. Not like they make any more sense than your intelligible arguments.

If you don't care enough to make your point understandable, then why should we care enough to dignify it with a response?

First of all, there are more than three main branches of Christianity (unless you're arbitrarily deciding what is and is not part of a doctrine again). Second, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on what exactly God is to Jesus (but I guess that's not important, as is everything else that would disprove what you believe ), and Protestantism is such a fractured mess that trying to argue that it agrees with anything is pointless.

If you could be a brain in a vat how can you know anything?

When you think about it, we are all just brains in vats.
Fleshy, mobile vats, but vats nonetheless.

Humans are just brains piloting fleshy mech suits, change my mind

There's not a shred of evidence that supports the existence of any sort of theistic or deistic power. I'll take, reason, evidence and skepticism to shape my world, thanks.

What about the miracles of Christ, which were witnessed by thousands and recorded by dozens? Are eye-witness accounts of supernatural powers 'not a shred of evidence?'

Not if there's no evidence that they didn't just make the story up. If "eyewitness accounts" were enough to prove a religious doctrine as correct, and evidence of their veracity is not required, then every religion ever is correct.

[Tarsonis]

Deal with it.

We are just pointing fingers and shouting “You are illogical” at each other at this rate, so meh.

And yet, the three branches of Christianity agree on the nature of God for the most part. A few disagreements here and there, yes, but not enough for it to be a problem.

Aight, fine, I'll deal with your word salads. Not like they make any more sense than your intelligible arguments.

If you don't care enough to make your point understandable, then why should we care enough to dignify it with a response?

First of all, there are more than three main branches of Christianity (unless you're arbitrarily deciding what is and is not part of a doctrine again). Second, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on what exactly God is to Jesus (but I guess that's not important, as is everything else that would disprove what you believe ), and Protestantism is such a fractured mess that trying to argue that it agrees with anything is pointless.

When you think about it, we are all just brains in vats.
Fleshy, mobile vats, but vats nonetheless.

Humans are just brains piloting fleshy mech suits, change my mind

What about the miracles of Christ, which were witnessed by thousands and recorded by dozens? Are eye-witness accounts of supernatural powers 'not a shred of evidence?'

Not if there's no evidence that they didn't just make the story up. If "eyewitness accounts" were enough to prove a religious doctrine as correct, and evidence of their veracity is not required, then every religion ever is correct.

It’s why I’m a bit chubby. My body is just a vehicle for my brain and my brain deserves a smooth and luxurious ride

[Coruscanti Nations]

Deal with it.

We are just pointing fingers and shouting “You are illogical” at each other at this rate, so meh.

And yet, the three branches of Christianity agree on the nature of God for the most part. A few disagreements here and there, yes, but not enough for it to be a problem.

Aight, fine, I'll deal with your word salads. Not like they make any more sense than your intelligible arguments.

If you don't care enough to make your point understandable, then why should we care enough to dignify it with a response?

First of all, there are more than three main branches of Christianity (unless you're arbitrarily deciding what is and is not part of a doctrine again). Second, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on what exactly God is to Jesus (but I guess that's not important, as is everything else that would disprove what you believe ), and Protestantism is such a fractured mess that trying to argue that it agrees with anything is pointless.

When you think about it, we are all just brains in vats.
Fleshy, mobile vats, but vats nonetheless.

Humans are just brains piloting fleshy mech suits, change my mind

What about the miracles of Christ, which were witnessed by thousands and recorded by dozens? Are eye-witness accounts of supernatural powers 'not a shred of evidence?'

Not if there's no evidence that they didn't just make the story up. If "eyewitness accounts" were enough to prove a religious doctrine as correct, and evidence of their veracity is not required, then every religion ever is correct.

Protestantism is not as fractured as you think.

They are all salvation by grace, for example.

And you ignored “for the most part”. Meaning, not all of it.

Unless if you subscribe to the utterly false number of 12,000 or so denominations... What are the other branches of Christianity then?

[Alvecia]

Aight, fine, I'll deal with your word salads. Not like they make any more sense than your intelligible arguments.

If you don't care enough to make your point understandable, then why should we care enough to dignify it with a response?

First of all, there are more than three main branches of Christianity (unless you're arbitrarily deciding what is and is not part of a doctrine again). Second, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on what exactly God is to Jesus (but I guess that's not important, as is everything else that would disprove what you believe ), and Protestantism is such a fractured mess that trying to argue that it agrees with anything is pointless.

Humans are just brains piloting fleshy mech suits, change my mind

Not if there's no evidence that they didn't just make the story up. If "eyewitness accounts" were enough to prove a religious doctrine as correct, and evidence of their veracity is not required, then every religion ever is correct.

Protestantism is not as fractured as you think.

They are all salvation by grace, for example.

And you ignored “for the most part”. Meaning, not all of it.

Unless if you subscribe to the utterly false number of 12,000 or so denominations... What are the other branches of Christianity then?

"What other branches of Christianity are there apart from the ones that don't count?"

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Aight, fine, I'll deal with your word salads. Not like they make any more sense than your intelligible arguments.

If you don't care enough to make your point understandable, then why should we care enough to dignify it with a response?

First of all, there are more than three main branches of Christianity (unless you're arbitrarily deciding what is and is not part of a doctrine again). Second, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on what exactly God is to Jesus (but I guess that's not important, as is everything else that would disprove what you believe ), and Protestantism is such a fractured mess that trying to argue that it agrees with anything is pointless.

Humans are just brains piloting fleshy mech suits, change my mind

Not if there's no evidence that they didn't just make the story up. If "eyewitness accounts" were enough to prove a religious doctrine as correct, and evidence of their veracity is not required, then every religion ever is correct.

Protestantism is not as fractured as you think. [1]

They are all salvation by grace, for example. [2]

And you ignored “for the most part”. Meaning, not all of it. [3]

Unless if you subscribe to the utterly false number of 12,000 or so denominations... What are the other branches of Christianity then? [4]

1: There are at least five different kinds of Protestantism in my hometown alone (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians) and it's not a big place. Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the other hand, are largely monolithic in comparison.
2: Unless you define "salvation by grace" as "give us money and you'll be saved", there are some that disagree.
3: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't assume that "not all of it" meant "basically none of it".
4: The pre-Protestant Reformation branches (Coptic and Cathar being the big ones IIRC) should count as a separate thing, since they predate Protestants and they definitely aren't Catholics or Orthodox, and Anglicanism doesn't really fit into either Catholicism or Protestantism (since IIRC they're basically Catholics that don't listen to the Pope). Then there's the Mormons, who don't fit into any above category. That's at least six by my standard.

[Alvecia]

Protestantism is not as fractured as you think. [1]

They are all salvation by grace, for example. [2]

And you ignored “for the most part”. Meaning, not all of it. [3]

Unless if you subscribe to the utterly false number of 12,000 or so denominations... What are the other branches of Christianity then? [4]

1: There are at least five different kinds of Protestantism in my hometown alone (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians) and it's not a big place. Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the other hand, are largely monolithic.
2: Unless you define "salvation by grace" as "give us money and you'll be saved", there are some that disagree.
3: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't assume that "not all of it" meant "basically none of it".
4: The pre-Protestant Reformation branches (Coptic and Cathar being the big ones IIRC) should count as a separate thing, since they predate Protestants and they definitely aren't Catholics or Orthodox, and Anglicanism doesn't really fit into either Catholicism or Protestantism (since IIRC they're basically Catholics that don't listen to the Pope). Then there's the Mormons, who don't fit into any above category. That's at least six by my standard.

Reminds me of a joke I wrote down some time ago

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"

He said, "Why not? Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[Hammer Britannia]

Protestantism is not as fractured as you think. [1]

They are all salvation by grace, for example. [2]

And you ignored “for the most part”. Meaning, not all of it. [3]

Unless if you subscribe to the utterly false number of 12,000 or so denominations... What are the other branches of Christianity then? [4]

1: There are at least five different kinds of Protestantism in my hometown alone (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians) and it's not a big place. Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the other hand, are largely monolithic.
2: Unless you define "salvation by grace" as "give us money and you'll be saved", there are some that disagree.
3: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't assume that "not all of it" meant "basically none of it".
4: The pre-Protestant Reformation branches (Coptic and Cathar being the big ones IIRC) should count as a separate thing, since they predate Protestants and they definitely aren't Catholics or Orthodox, and Anglicanism doesn't really fit into either Catholicism or Protestantism (since IIRC they're basically Catholics that don't listen to the Pope). Then there's the Mormons, who don't fit into any above category. That's at least six by my standard.

According to Wikipedia, there are over 900 branches and sub-branches of Christianity, many of them are either so similar they shouldn't exist outside of personal gain or they are so different they shouldn't be considered the same religion.

You have Catholics, who believe in an oligarchal elected official who is the mouthpiece of God. You have the Orthodox, who don't believe in that Pope Crap, you have the hundreds of Protestant churches, ranging from Church of the Lutheran Confession to the Non-Trinitarian Church of Almighty God.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

1: There are at least five different kinds of Protestantism in my hometown alone (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians) and it's not a big place. Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the other hand, are largely monolithic.
2: Unless you define "salvation by grace" as "give us money and you'll be saved", there are some that disagree.
3: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't assume that "not all of it" meant "basically none of it".
4: The pre-Protestant Reformation branches (Coptic and Cathar being the big ones IIRC) should count as a separate thing, since they predate Protestants and they definitely aren't Catholics or Orthodox, and Anglicanism doesn't really fit into either Catholicism or Protestantism (since IIRC they're basically Catholics that don't listen to the Pope). Then there's the Mormons, who don't fit into any above category. That's at least six by my standard.

According to Wikipedia, there are over 900 branches and sub-branches of Christianity, many of them are either so similar they shouldn't exist outside of personal gain or they are so different they shouldn't be considered the same religion.

You have Catholics, who believe in an oligarchal elected official who is the mouthpiece of God. You have the Orthodox, who don't believe in that Pope Crap, you have the hundreds of Protestant churches, ranging from Church of the Lutheran Confession to the Non-Trinitarian Church of Almighty God.

I was assuming that if they were going to count Protestants as one branch, then the best way to argue for more branches existing was to explain why some forms don't fit into it. If you reduce the religion to "catholics, orthodox, and protestants", then "protestant" means "any christian who isn't catholic or orthodox", which is A) stupid and B) not what 'protestant' means.

[Hammer Britannia]

According to Wikipedia, there are over 900 branches and sub-branches of Christianity, many of them are either so similar they shouldn't exist outside of personal gain or they are so different they shouldn't be considered the same religion.

You have Catholics, who believe in an oligarchal elected official who is the mouthpiece of God. You have the Orthodox, who don't believe in that Pope Crap, you have the hundreds of Protestant churches, ranging from Church of the Lutheran Confession to the Non-Trinitarian Church of Almighty God.

I was assuming that if they were going to count Protestants as one branch, then the best way to argue for more branches existing was to explain why some forms don't fit into it. If you reduce the religion to "catholics, orthodox, and protestants", then "protestant" means "any christian who isn't catholic or orthodox", which is A) stupid and B) not what 'protestant' means.

I mean, even calling the Catholics one branch is wrong. You have the Western Catholic Church, The Eastern, The Independent Churches, etc.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I was assuming that if they were going to count Protestants as one branch, then the best way to argue for more branches existing was to explain why some forms don't fit into it. If you reduce the religion to "catholics, orthodox, and protestants", then "protestant" means "any christian who isn't catholic or orthodox", which is A) stupid and B) not what 'protestant' means.

I mean, even calling the Catholics one branch is wrong. You have the Western Catholic Church, The Eastern, The Independent Churches, etc.

Then there's Orthodox, which is even more fragmented - IIRC, every nation with a sizable Orthodox population has slightly different doctrines from the rest because of how the Patriarchs work.

[Audioslavia]

Every Atheist in the thread prayed that God would give them five hundred bucks, but He didnt and now they’re salty.

To buy foreign prostitutes?

Regardless, salty God didn’t give whatever you wanted.

Minzerland, stop trying to troll people, you're not very good at it.

*** Warning for trolling ***

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Aight, fine, I'll deal with your word salads. Not like they make any more sense than your intelligible arguments.

If you don't care enough to make your point understandable, then why should we care enough to dignify it with a response?

First of all, there are more than three main branches of Christianity (unless you're arbitrarily deciding what is and is not part of a doctrine again). Second, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on what exactly God is to Jesus (but I guess that's not important, as is everything else that would disprove what you believe ), and Protestantism is such a fractured mess that trying to argue that it agrees with anything is pointless.

Humans are just brains piloting fleshy mech suits, change my mind

Not if there's no evidence that they didn't just make the story up. If "eyewitness accounts" were enough to prove a religious doctrine as correct, and evidence of their veracity is not required, then every religion ever is correct.

It’s why I’m a bit chubby. My body is just a vehicle for my brain and my brain deserves a smooth and luxurious ride

I just noticed this post and I'm not 100% sure how to feel about it but I definitely approve.

[Tarsonis]

It’s why I’m a bit chubby. My body is just a vehicle for my brain and my brain deserves a smooth and luxurious ride

I just noticed this post and I'm not 100% sure how to feel about it but I definitely approve.

It's a third rock from the sun reference.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/db/30 ... 25c43b.jpg

[Dogmeat]

What the fuck, you're right. God murdered Jesus to appease himself.

Except Jesus went willingly

So did the daughter of Jephthah and Issac. What's your point?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Except Jesus went willingly

So did the daughter of Jephthah and Issac. What's your point?

Probably that he's right and everyone else is wrong because *mumble mumble*. That's usually what Korhal's point is, anyway.

[Tarsonis]

Except Jesus went willingly

So did the daughter of Jephthah and Issac. What's your point?

It's not murder, it's sacrifice. Jephthah's daughter would have been an improper sacrifice and its debated if Jephthah actually went through with it. Isaac followed his father, but it'd be a stretch to say he willingly went to death. The story suggests Isaac didn't know he was gonna be the one sacrificed.

The same can't be said for Christ who knew full well what the stakes were, what was required, and why he was doing it. The scene in Gethsemane tells us that though Christ was afraid, but willfully going to his Passion.