NATION

PASSWORD

NSG's Religious Census

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What religion are you?

Judaism
22
2%
Christianity
319
34%
Islam
33
4%
Hinduism
7
1%
Buddhism
22
2%
Shinto
7
1%
Paganism (Wicca, Druidry, Asatru, etc.)
41
4%
Atheist
297
32%
Agnostic
112
12%
Other
76
8%
 
Total votes : 936

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:20 pm

4years wrote:
Lost heros wrote:1. You certainly implied it
2. You're being very pessimistic in your views of religion, considering it was one of the factors that lead to various first civilizations.


1. I said you can do somthing worthwhile if you shuck the religion, I did not imply that you are not worthwhile, but that some of your actions are not worthwhile. I certainly hope that there is more to you than beleif in a specific diety.

2. You are being overly optimistic in your view and we are not in the first civilizations. Besides, religion was a negative in the first civilizations. Heard of human sacrifice?

Because we believe human sacrifice is bad now, does not believe it was bad back then.
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Norstal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41465
Founded: Mar 07, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Norstal » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:20 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:That's not atheism.


What's the rejection of a higher deity until flat-out proven, then?

Cuz that's my category.

Agnostic atheism. The two words have different meanings, but when put together, well, you know what I meant.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★


New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.


IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10


NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.



Supreme Chairman for Life of the Itty Bitty Kitty Committee

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:22 pm

Lost heros wrote:2. You're being very pessimistic in your views of religion, considering it was one of the factors that lead to various first civilizations.

What does this have to do with the validity of religion?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:22 pm

Lost heros wrote:
4years wrote:
1. I said you can do somthing worthwhile if you shuck the religion, I did not imply that you are not worthwhile, but that some of your actions are not worthwhile. I certainly hope that there is more to you than beleif in a specific diety.

2. You are being overly optimistic in your view and we are not in the first civilizations. Besides, religion was a negative in the first civilizations. Heard of human sacrifice?

Because we believe human sacrifice is bad now, does not believe it was bad back then.


So slavery wasn't bad back before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...

Image
Last edited by Agymnum on Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:22 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Lost heros wrote:
I can't deny it hasn't done anything, but I can say that without religion the early people who didn't understand science, wouldn't have settled and produce an understanding of science, therefore religion causes science.


Wrong, the natural desire for knowledge and understanding of our surroundings, which is selected for by evolution causes science.


And you can find that exact epigenomic sequence and point it out to me? And then prove it occurred via a random luck of genetic mutations?
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:25 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Lost heros wrote:Because we believe human sacrifice is bad now, does not believe it was bad back then.


So slavery wasn't bad back in the 1800s, before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...

Image

I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:26 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Lost heros wrote:2. You're being very pessimistic in your views of religion, considering it was one of the factors that lead to various first civilizations.

What does this have to do with the validity of religion?

We got off topic.
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:27 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
So slavery wasn't bad back in the 1800s, before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...

(Image)

I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.


Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Image
Last edited by Agymnum on Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Norstal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41465
Founded: Mar 07, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Norstal » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:27 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
So slavery wasn't bad back in the 1800s, before they abolished it?

No, obviously the slaves ENJOYED being whipped and beaten. Obviously they CRAVED it. I mean, why else would we endorse slavery back then other than because IT WASN'T BAD BACK THEN.

The amount of face-palm in this post is just... Just...


I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.


You said: "when an outcome isn't favorable what so ever, he pushes you away from it"

Tough luck, black people.
Last edited by Norstal on Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★


New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.


IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10


NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.



Supreme Chairman for Life of the Itty Bitty Kitty Committee

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:27 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
Wrong, the natural desire for knowledge and understanding of our surroundings, which is selected for by evolution causes science.


And you can find that exact epigenomic sequence and point it out to me? And then prove it occurred via a random luck of genetic mutations?

We probably could, given enough time. Prove it in a scientific sense or in the vernacular sense? In the vernacular sense, yes, quite easily. A desire to understand your surroundings is evolutionary beneficial. Imagine two Homo erecti are walking along a path. They hear rustling in the bushes, and see stripes. One of them concludes that a tiger lies in the bushes, and he came to this conclusion using a bare-bone form of the scientific method. The other refuses to understand his surroundings, and continues forward. He dies, while the other one escapes successfully.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Threlizdun
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15623
Founded: Jun 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Threlizdun » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:30 pm

Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?
Communalist, Social Ecologist, Bioregionalist,
Sex-Positive Feminist, Queer, Trans-woman, Polyamorous

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

If we've been friendly in the past and you want to keep in touch, shoot me a telegram

User avatar
The Emerald Dawn
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20824
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emerald Dawn » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:31 pm

Threlizdun wrote:
Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

Overpopulation is a growing concern....

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:32 pm

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

Overpopulation is a growing concern....

I'd rather stick with the VHEM's plan and just not reproduce.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:32 pm

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

Overpopulation is a growing concern....


We meant back then, when according to Lost heros, people actually might have done consensual sacrifice.

Makes about as much sense as consensual slavery.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:32 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.


Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Image

Were you there 4,000 years ago?

Mavorpen wrote:
Lost heros";p="<a href="tel:11421238">11421238</a> wrote:
And you can find that exact epigenomic sequence and point it out to me? And then prove it occurred via a random luck of genetic mutations?

We probably could, given enough time. Prove it in a scientific sense or in the vernacular sense? In the vernacular sense, yes, quite easily. A desire to understand your surroundings is evolutionary beneficial. Imagine two Homo erecti are walking along a path. They hear rustling in the bushes, and see stripes. One of them concludes that a tiger lies in the bushes, and he came to this conclusion using a bare-bone form of the scientific method. The other refuses to understand his surroundings, and continues forward. He dies, while the other one escapes successfully.

Imagine two Homo Erecti walking down a path. They see the stripes and don't know what it is.
God tells one of them, "Hey dude don't walk that way. You'll die." That one doesn't walk, and since god didn't tell the other one not to walk he goes off and dies, while the other doesn't.
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:33 pm

Agymnum wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Overpopulation is a growing concern....


We meant back then, when according to Lost heros, people actually might have done consensual sacrifice.

Makes about as much sense as consensual slavery.

Because you were definetly there 4,000 years ago when it could have been practiced.
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54181
Founded: Antiquity
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Big Jim P » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:33 pm

Lyncanestria wrote:
Immoren wrote:
There isn't room for all denominations on poll.
Also Mormons aren't Christians. :P

I know they aren't, yet they call themselves Christians. Another denomination other than the LDS Church that fall into that category are the Jehovah's Witness among others.


They worship Christ. They are Christians. :palm:

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:33 pm

Lost heros wrote:Imagine two Homo Erecti walking down a path. They see the stripes and don't know what it is.
God tells one of them, "Hey dude don't walk that way. You'll die." That one doesn't walk, and since god didn't tell the other one not to walk he goes off and dies, while the other doesn't.

Good, now provide evidence for God so your hypothesis can actually be taken seriously. Image
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:33 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Image

Were you there 4,000 years ago?


No, but I'm fairly sure based on archaeology that human sacrifice was seen as dirty work to appease the gods. I'm sure no Aztec dad was proud if his son was to be sacrificed, because I'm so no parent, at ANY TIME IN HISTORY, ever wanted to see their child die before they did.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:34 pm

Threlizdun wrote:
Lost heros wrote:I'm sorry. You know all, obviously! It is impossible that early humans could have thought it as an honor to be given to their gods.

Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

They would be honoring their gods and be doing a 'good thing'
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Threlizdun
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15623
Founded: Jun 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Threlizdun » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:34 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Agymnum wrote:
Right, because the Aztecs OBVIOUSLY practiced voluntary human sacrifice.

It's not like they sacrificed captured enemies, who were probably horrified out of their damn minds.

The...

I just can't...

Image

Were you there 4,000 years ago?

Mavorpen wrote:We probably could, given enough time. Prove it in a scientific sense or in the vernacular sense? In the vernacular sense, yes, quite easily. A desire to understand your surroundings is evolutionary beneficial. Imagine two Homo erecti are walking along a path. They hear rustling in the bushes, and see stripes. One of them concludes that a tiger lies in the bushes, and he came to this conclusion using a bare-bone form of the scientific method. The other refuses to understand his surroundings, and continues forward. He dies, while the other one escapes successfully.

Imagine two Homo Erecti walking down a path. They see the stripes and don't know what it is.
God tells one of them, "Hey dude don't walk that way. You'll die." That one doesn't walk, and since god didn't tell the other one not to walk he goes off and dies, while the other doesn't.

Just...stop.
Communalist, Social Ecologist, Bioregionalist,
Sex-Positive Feminist, Queer, Trans-woman, Polyamorous

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

If we've been friendly in the past and you want to keep in touch, shoot me a telegram

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:34 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

They would be honoring their gods and be doing a 'good thing'


I wish Christians practiced ritual sacrifice so I could throw all the stupid people in a pit of spikes or something and have a free pass out of jail.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
The De Danann Nation
Diplomat
 
Posts: 917
Founded: Jan 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The De Danann Nation » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:36 pm

Big Jim P wrote:
Lyncanestria wrote:I know they aren't, yet they call themselves Christians. Another denomination other than the LDS Church that fall into that category are the Jehovah's Witness among others.


They worship Christ. They are Christians. :palm:


I couldn't agree more.It always bugs me when people say they aren't.Christians worship Jeebus,so Mormons are Christians.
De Dana is an island nation off the coast of Asia settled by Celts around 100 B.C. and containing a mix of Eurasian culture.

User avatar
Threlizdun
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15623
Founded: Jun 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Threlizdun » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:36 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:Ignoring the likelihood of consensual sacrifices, how is something that would convince people to kill themselves possibly a good thing?

They would be honoring their gods and be doing a 'good thing'

Why is honoring a god a good thing? With all respects to Chaos, I do not wish to spill my blood my blood simply to appease the Blood God's hunger.
Communalist, Social Ecologist, Bioregionalist,
Sex-Positive Feminist, Queer, Trans-woman, Polyamorous

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

If we've been friendly in the past and you want to keep in touch, shoot me a telegram

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:37 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Lost heros wrote:Were you there 4,000 years ago?


No, but I'm fairly sure based on archaeology that human sacrifice was seen as dirty work to appease the gods. I'm sure no Aztec dad was proud if his son was to be sacrificed, because I'm so no parent, at ANY TIME IN HISTORY, ever wanted to see their child die before they did.

Because you were there 4,000 years ago. Point is you have no clue what civilization was like before you, unless you have a time machine.
You can repeatedly say, "Archaelogist analyzed this building and hypothesize this is what happened," but you won't be able to prove it until you see it for yourself, because some hypothesis are wrong,
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Diahon, DiscGolfLand, Dreria, Eahland, Galloism, Google [Bot], Herador, Ifreann, Neanderthaland, Necroghastia, Nora Xent, Sundiata, The Lone Alliance, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads