Your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and why?

[Menassa]

What?

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

Problem therein is that truth isn't dependant upon the flip of your coin.

[Gingeska]

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

Problem therein is that truth isn't dependant upon the flip of your coin.

Since we don't know what the truth is, it's as good as any method to decide.

[Persica Prime]

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

Problem therein is that truth isn't dependant upon the flip of your coin.

Truth is entirely subjective. The problem lies when people throw adjectives in front of it like "absolute" or "one". The word people should use more accurately is fact, something empirical and verifiable; something that does not change with individual perspective.

[Menassa]

Problem therein is that truth isn't dependant upon the flip of your coin.

Truth is entirely subjective. The problem lies when people throw adjectives in front of it like "absolute" or "one". The word people should use more accurately is fact, something empirical and verifiable; something that does not change with individual perspective.

The semantics are real batman.

truth
tro͞oTH/Submit
noun
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Well that eliminates the word fact.... maybe I should use the word malarkey as an avid description?

[Sun Wukong]

What?

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

Well... that's the most intellectually dishonest stance possible. Kudos.

[Gingeska]

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

Well... that's the most intellectually dishonest stance possible. Kudos.

Not really. But alright dude.

[Captiotia]

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

Well... that's the most intellectually dishonest stance possible. Kudos.

Well, hell, it works for them. At least they aren't running a country based on it. Or protesting funerals because God Hates Fags. Or yanking hijabs off of Muslim women.

[Northfarthing]

I'm an atheist. I was raised in a very evangelical christian household (with Roman Catholics on the other side of the family). I got tired of losing my arguments with atheists and finally read the parts of the bible glazed over and realized I couldn't believe in anything so morally reprehensible and everything else just slipped away with more science classes at the Uni.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

As for your first source, it has some very egregious and laughable errors right off the bat that makes me question the legitimacy of the whole thing. Firstly, it claims that capitalism only developed in the West, which is ridiculous. Capitalism was very much alive and well in many parts of the world outside of Europe, as most evident in the Indian Ocean trade routes and the silk road. There were limited varieties of capitalism, sure, but capitalism as an essential system existed far and wide. Industrial capitalism is what rose in the West, and that didn't come until much later and only with the advent of new technologies.

Secondly, your first source claims that levels of science and technology in the "three great non-christian cultures" was crippled by various things. He then goes on to claim this was not the case in Europe, and again he is wrong. The Muslim caliphates and Chinese dynasties had massive scientific and cultural outputs at a time when Europe sat in its "Dark Ages*," producing comparatively little. Of course, later in history Europe began to surpass their rivals, however this was actually after substantial weakening of the Church's influence.

On to your next source: it is a blog. I will address it anyways, but for future reference you should avoid using blogs as a reference. So it's central claim was that there were massive scientific and technological advancements in the middle ages, and that these were fueled by the Church. I think they are overblowing the scientific output of middle age Europeans. Besides that problem, there is one other obvious one: the fact that technological progress after the middle ages, when the Church was at its weakest ever, blew everything else out of the water. So sure, the Church supported science in that time, but one can't ignore the fact that after a weakening of the Church's power a massive technological revolution occurred.

I know Islam and all these other religions committed atrocities, and they also had many positive influences, just like the Church. Your point that "other religious authorities have committed atrocities too" is irrelevant.

Finally, with your plea for me to cite an example of a better force. That's not how arguments work. I am not the one claiming that the Church was the largest positive force. You are the one making a claim, so it's your job to substantiate it. Not mine.

I know the church has done a lot of good, but it has also done a lot of bad. I'm not saying the Church was evil in this argument, I'm merely saying that it's legacy is complicated and that to claim it's overall influence was positive is disingenuous.

Oh, and as for your final question: I don't know why people don't say that about Rome. Perhaps they are historically ignorant. Advances in science and culture do not justify genocides and atrocities.

Good, now we're talking, but it seems we're mirroring the conversation you started off with the other dude.

It is a historically known fact that capitalism developed in Western Europe. It seems that you just take traders and markets selling goods anywhere and take it as a form of capitalism.

And in that second source, obviously you had not read the source I provided. The Dark Ages was nothing but an illusory era created by biased historians who wanted to prove that the modern times is always superior to their "barbaric ancestors".

Many historians and experts had already testified that the Dark Ages is nothing but a myth, Europe in the "Dark Ages" was a hotbed of technological and cultural innovation surpassing the achievements of the "enlightened Classical Greece and Rome". For starters, the windmill, the blast furnace, the stirrup, the mechanical clock are all technological innovations made in the so-called "Dark Ages". The Gothic cathedrals testified the architectural sophistication of the aforementioned times and there was development in arts and music, as well. Also, we haven't mentioned military technology yet. And, all of this was made at an era where the Church's influence is well, strong.

And, to your Muslim caliphates and Chinese dynasties, it is common knowledge that lots of scientific and technological progress was made under the Muslims and the Medieval Chinese. Yet, there are hindrances in real technological progress. First, Confucians and Taoists were reluctant to believe in a "science of explanations" and did not pursued science.

And dealing with the Muslims, the Muslims believed that Allah is too strong to be bounded by even the "laws and physics". Second, Muslims held on to Aristotelian thought adopting the Greek view of the Universe as absolute.

These were the difference of China, Middle East and Western Europe and partly explains why modern sciences and technology developed in Western Europe and not outside of it.

However, we seem to share the same beliefs in the second to the last paragraph, my first impression of your arguments is that you claim that the Church did no good and only held negative influences on Western Europe full of death and oppression. Please understand that I'm not a Roman Catholic and I would probably not be found constantly supporting and defending the Church throughout its whole history. I am just claiming that even if the Church have done a lot of bad things, it had made positive influences for Western Europe and that, Christianity, overall, had made good influences on Western Europe. It is related as the Church, as a Roman Catholic institution would be a Christian institution.

[Bari]

I am a strong Roman Catholic.

[Menassa]

I am a strong Roman Catholic.

Are there weak Roman Catholics?

[Bari]

I am a strong Roman Catholic.

Are there weak Roman Catholics?

As in nominal Roman Catholic, yes. And if physically weak ones too, yeah. Or if you will, ones that don't hold the faith firmly, yeah.

[Immoren]

Honestly to pick theist or atheist, I'd just flip a coin.

Two-Faceist. *nods*

[Benuty]

Honestly to pick theist or atheist, I'd just flip a coin.

Two-Faceist. *nods*

Smells like facism.

[Immoren]

Two-Faceist. *nods*

Smells like facism.

There might or may not be two fasces.

[Couasia]

atheist, always have been and (presumably) always will be

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I choose to believe in a God - if I am wrong and there is no God, I stand to lose nothing anyway, but in case there is one after all, I'd rather want to be on good terms with him when my time to meet him comes.

I don't subscribe to any particular religion though. I'm more fond of my ancestral pagan beliefs and ethics than those of contemporary organized religions, but it would be an overstatement to call myself a Pagan.

[Cyrisnia]

I choose to believe in a God - if I am wrong and there is no God, I stand to lose nothing anyway, but in case there is one after all, I'd rather want to be on good terms with him when my time to meet him comes.

I don't subscribe to any particular religion though. I'm more fond of my ancestral pagan beliefs and ethics than those of contemporary organized religions, but it would be an overstatement to call myself a Pagan.

*Holds sword up to your neck*
YER A HEATHEN EITHER WAY.
/joke

[Othelos]

I choose to believe in a God - if I am wrong and there is no God, I stand to lose nothing anyway, but in case there is one after all, I'd rather want to be on good terms with him when my time to meet him comes.

I don't subscribe to any particular religion though. I'm more fond of my ancestral pagan beliefs and ethics than those of contemporary organized religions, but it would be an overstatement to call myself a Pagan.

So, deist with pagan leanings?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I choose to believe in a God - if I am wrong and there is no God, I stand to lose nothing anyway, but in case there is one after all, I'd rather want to be on good terms with him when my time to meet him comes.

I don't subscribe to any particular religion though. I'm more fond of my ancestral pagan beliefs and ethics than those of contemporary organized religions, but it would be an overstatement to call myself a Pagan.

So, deist with pagan leanings?

So to speak. Personally I prefer to avoid labeling my beliefs as any particular -ism, since -isms imply a particular set of beliefs and particular requirements one is required to meet in order to qualify as a genuine -ist.

I think "believer in God" is quite adequate in describing my religious beliefs.

---

One of the reasons why I reject organized religions is their emphasis on extracting favours from God through prayer and observance of religious norms. I think that God has already given men everything they will ever need - a pair of legs, a pair of arms and the power of reason to decide how to best wield them, and a whole world to make into heaven or hell at their own discretion. To ask for anything more would be insolence of the worst kind.

I find that the reason why many people renounce God is their failure to understand they aren't in any way deserving of special treatment, of divine intervention on their behalf. God isn't there to nurse and pamper people and their individual wants and desires, he's is simply the Creator and Provider, creating things and providing them with just what they need to grow and thrive, no more and no less.

[Great Kleomentia]

I am a strong Roman Catholic.

Are there weak Roman Catholics?

[Othelos]

So, deist with pagan leanings?

So to speak. Personally I prefer to avoid labeling my beliefs as any particular -ism, since -isms imply a particular set of beliefs and particular requirements one is required to meet in order to qualify as a genuine -ist.

I think "believer in God" is quite adequate in describing my religious beliefs.

---

One of the reasons why I reject organized religions is their emphasis on extracting favours from God through prayer and observance of religious norms. I think that God has already given men everything they will ever need - a pair of legs, a pair of arms and the power of reason to decide how to best wield them, and a whole world to make into heaven or hell at their own discretion. To ask for anything more would be insolence of the worst kind.

I find that the reason why many people renounce God is their failure to understand they aren't in any way deserving of special treatment, of divine intervention on their behalf. God isn't there to nurse and pamper people and their individual wants and desires, he's is simply the Creator and Provider, creating things and providing them with just what they need to grow and thrive, no more and no less.

That's often why people accept god (they are promised to have a personal relationship with him, and to basically be taken care of).

People stop believing in god for other reasons.

[Kelinfort]

Atheist until proven otherwise. Besides, what deity would care that we believe solely in itself? Wouldn't it be a benevolent deity's will that we serve and love our fellow man?

[Great Kleomentia]

Atheist until proven otherwise. Besides, what deity would care that we believe solely in itself? Wouldn't it be a benevolent deity's will that we serve and love our fellow man?

And if it wasn't a benevolent diety with common sense then you shouldn't worship it. Wise words from a wise emperor.

[Zavina]

I'm actually a deist. Believe it or not, we still exist.