Skip Navigation
144 comments

  • I do not really know. I was not raised in a practicing family, and my country is very secular.

    Philosophically, I'm agnostic. I'm not convinced either by arguments for or against the existence of God. I think a being which could exist outside time and space is not approachable by our reason.

    But I can't stay neutral, the question is too important. And I feel the presence of God in my life. This feeling came first, and when I tried to understand it, I went to the culturally nearest place of worship, and it was Protestantism, and I felt at home. I read the Bible, not as a theology manual, but as the story of people who try to understand the presence of God; sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, but their quest is mine, and theirs inspires mine.

    • I feel the same way reading the Bible. Even as early as Genesis I was like damn Abraham I already don't understand why you tried to pimp out your sister-wife ONCE so why did you KEEP DOING IT? Somebody recently commented that they find the Bible boring and I was like you need to find a modern translation because if you can even vaguely understand what's actually going on that shit is WILD. Turns out humans have always been crazy AF and personally I actually find that kinda comforting. Makes a lot of modern shit seem less unmanageable. Another great example is the whole Onan thing. It's wild that somebody decided to make it about masturbation when if you really get down to it it's a story about a dude who thinks he's being slick by obeying the letter of the current law to (literally) screw his widowed sister in law out of her rightful property and THAT story is TIMELESS.

  • You sacrifice for me, I sustain you. I sacrifice for you, you sustain me.

    I believe this because nature is hungry, but expected to sustain life.

  • The closest thing I have to a religion is Buddhism. I practice it. I meditate daily. I read about it. As far as belief goes, though, it doesn't ask you to have faith outside of believing that if you follow the practice you will see the results they say you will. The millennia old texts that it's based on are called Suttas. One of them, the Kalama Sutta, explicitly tells the villagers of Kalama not to believe it just because they are told it is so.

    "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

    Personally I have seen the results of my meditation in my life. I'm still early on the path, but it seems to be progressing as they say it will. I have developed, through a few years of practice, the ability to focus on the present moment and still my mind to the point that, at least for a short time, thoughts don't arise. I'm fully aware of where I am and what is happening, but my mind is still. It doesn't last for long, but with more practice it will. I'm developing what's called samadhi, a type of concentrated focus where, eventually, nothing interrupts your concentration and you can maintain it as long as you like. I have a ways to go, but it appears to be progressing as expected.

    So to answer the question, I believe it because I have experienced it. Many of the parts I haven't yet experienced I suspect are true, though I will only understand and believe them when I do experience them for myself.

  • I believe it partially, I'm sikh and I think a lot of rules were based on them needing to identify each other or living in times of war, like keeping long hair and a beard, always carrying a kirpan (dull small blade these days used to be a full sized sword til the british forced changes)

    Most of the shit is legit just telling you to be a good person because we all come from the same place and goto the same place. Energy, doesn't really have an afterlife, which I hated as a kid. Was so jealous other ppl get afterlifes lol.

    I kinda like the concept, like the one omniscient god can't die or really live becaue they can't die, experince pain, or get hurt, so we live and exist to experience life/death, etc. for them. That's why once you stop caring about wordly desires you rejoin god.

    Idk it's kinda fun and makes sense, kinda supports my personal belief that we all evolved to eventually become god like beings (not us but descendants millions of years from now)

    Like if a god exists, they would set into motion all the events that need to occur for life to exist and eventually humans to evolve, but we aren't the final step or goal. It's like a simulation game where they know what combination of events leads to another god like being existing.

    Or the more fun option is that time isn't linear, and whatever god is, is the furthest evolution of the human race and it loops back creating itself in a paradox.

  • When I was a little kid, I took what I was told at face value and didn't question it.

    Magical thinking is normal for little kids. By about age 7 you're supposed to have grown out of that shit though - like it's normal to still enjoy the concept of magic, but there comes a point when you should have a pretty intuitive understanding that it's fiction.

    For some reason we give religion a pass.

    Some old dude in a dress raving about how ghosts built the pyramids is instantly recognized as crazy; but some old dude raving about how the chief master ghost shat out our entire universe in a week is... somehow worthy of respect?

    So, my religion is no religion: I believe what can be tested and verified.

    The most concise test to disprove the notion of God is one of simple logic: the Epicurean paradox, which recognizes the mythology of God being composed of three core pillars: that he is 100% good (complete absence of evil), 100% powerful (his will is our reality), and 100% omniscient (he knows everything about everything)... but despite those three pillars, it takes no time at all to recognize evil behavior all around us, and for evil to be able to exist in our reality, one of those pillars must always fall.

    He either doesn't know evil is happening in his universe, is powerless to stop it, or is okay with it.

    Every single time a religious person attempts to address the Epicurean paradox, the just shuffle the pillars to fill in the gap left open by the missing third (feel free to take that as a challenge if you think you've got the answer).

    Anyway, it became clear that at the very least, my religion wasn't being honest about the nature of its own god, and that realization was the final nail in the coffin for me.

    • (feel free to take that as a challenge if you think you've got the answer).

      Muslim here and sure (I've wanted to try this for a while now): The criteria for the first pillar are arbitrary. What's being proposed is that a good creator wouldn't allow their creation to suffer, or—taking it a step further—wouldn't create a world where suffering is even possible. However, that would require human (or, really, lite in general) not to exist; give humans free will and suffering will happen. You could argue then that the act of creating humans was evil, which would be logically consistent, and in that case my answer is: I'll drop (your conception of) the first pillar. God knows about suffering and is capable of stopping it but tolerates it for one purpose or another.

      • Muslim

        Full disclosure, I have no idea if the Muslim concept of god applies to the Epicurean paradox. I'm much more familiar with the Christian version which presents god as perfect in an absolute sense.

        a good creator wouldn't allow their creation to suffer, or—taking it a step further—wouldn't create a world where suffering is even possible.

        Yeah there's a degree of obscurity - for the sake of this conversation I'd be okay with defining evil as deliberate suffering. Step on a Lego > hurts > not evil. Stick a knife in someone or like commit genocide > very clearly evil. Idk if the former is technically incompatible with the Epicurean paradox, but we have no shortage of actual extremes to choose from, so might as well focus on those.

        create a world where suffering is even possible. However, that would require human (or, really, lite in general) not to exist; give humans free will and suffering will happen.

        Under the current laws of our universe, yes, but those are what are being scrutinized. The question this prompts is: is god not capable of creating free will without evil?

        my answer is: I'll drop (your conception of) the first pillar. God knows about suffering and is capable of stopping it but tolerates it for one purpose or another.

        Needing to drop a pillar to make god work is the point of the whole exercise: a god that's aware of evil and has the power to stop it, but chooses not to, is himself some degree of evil.

    • I think for some people the scale of God simply doesn't compute, which is why old man with big beard image persists. Look at the size of our galaxy, and the size of the universe as a whole. If any being was the creator of such a vast and complex universe as ours, that being would be to us like we are to a "Hello world" script.

      The analogy is flawed, but that is what we are saying if we believe in a being capable of creating our universe, defining its laws and bending them to create us. We could not truly begin to comprehend such a being, and largely we are left to our own. However, if you believe, then this being does care about us in some way. And it has shown us this through inspiring humans to share its path for our improvement.

      That is the reason I believe in the teachings of the Christ. The path of loving your enemies, of caring for everyone as one would your own family, forgiveness, that is the path to a better world, revealed to us through a man and his story. I am unable to fully live up to such ideals, but like Data says, the struggle yields its own rewards. Those who take such ideas to heart are worthy in the eyes of the creator, because if all people were such, there would be little suffering in our world. We have the means to reduce our suffering, but we choose not to. God could, remove it for us, but then we will not become the free and good beings we are meant to be.

      You don't need God to have such ideals as the Christ demonstrated, but I find such ideas so much better than any of the alternatives, that I suspect they have divine origin. And even if they don't, if I follow them, then I will contribute to making the world better regardless. God could take away my struggle and suffering, but that would leave me still flawed and unable to improve, and so it would be for all humanity as well.

  • I believe in the Goddess of Luck because, hopefully not sounding too cocky, she's been kind to me. I've told people about her before and they think I'm slightly insane, but then as they hang out with me they start to thank her on thier own luck because they see how she speaks in crazy ways.

    All you have to do is thank her when luck is on your side and you'll see the difference.

  • My religion is fundamentally based on the idea of gay catgirl supremacy and worship. Service to the catgirls may come in the form of headpats and sacrifices are accepted in the form of baked juicy chicken :3

144 comments