Weird religions you've heard of

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] God wanted to Test Him. He wouldn't have let him kill His son. If Abraham walked away his Son would have lived either way. wolverine4262

Cthulhuism, If you have not heard of Cthulhu it is essentially a giant octopus who lives under the ocean. The people who believe in it say he will rise out of the ocean one day and devour the whole world, starting with unbelievers so it dosent even save them. :|

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] God wanted to Test Him. He wouldn't have let him kill His son. If Abraham walked away his Son would have lived either way. jeremiah06

And one more thing, why should I question the validity of something that is considered to be a well known fact, anyway?

Animatronic64

A better question is, "Should I question the validity of what I am told?" Obviously, if I live in Pakistan, "well known facts" are going to be different than if I live in Boston. In any case, you're asking a philosophical question here, while claiming to have no interest in the subject. A question involving beliefs is inherently philosophical.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"] well, i think if we keep going like this, we will en up saying the same things 3 or 4 times...Ill just put it simply and say that the moral of the story is that you must be willing to kill for God.

wolverine4262

However, as snipes has tried to point out the death of his son wasn't really God's will. Also as you might bring up the fact that this very belief is what drives most terrorists to commit the atrocities that they believe is God's will. As Christianity is all about love it contradicts the religion to believe that God will instruct you to kill someone else.

jeremiah06

atheist as they have no proof. second would be any religious zealotsurrealnumber5

Jedi. Because it had to come up sometime.GHlegend77

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

And one more thing, why should I question the validity of something that is considered to be a well known fact, anyway?

Palantas

A better question is, "Should I question the validity of what I am told?" Obviously, if I live in Pakistan, "well known facts" are going to be different than if I live in Boston. In any case, you're asking a philosophical question here, while claiming to have no interest in the subject. A question involving beliefs is inherently philosophical.

A lack of belief in something is a belief it doesn't exist.

Espada12

Is English your first language? That makes no sense at all.

A lack of belief is...a lack of belief. It is unknowing, that is: to not claim that you know one way or the other. It does not require belief in the nonexistence of said thing.

Not all "Atheists" adhere to this philosophy, of course. Many are vehement that there IS NO "God" as he/she/they/it is commonly defined.

^ Atheism isn't a set of beliefs.Good-Apollo

edit: so youre wrong are you still atheist ? now that you know it is a set of beliefs?

religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universesurrealnumber5

So?

You're trying too hard, I think. Atheism concerns the (non-)existence of a "God", not the cause/nature/purpose of the universe.

Also, check definition #2 of Atheism:

2) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Atheism is not necessarily a belief system. It can simply be a lack thereof.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]A lack of belief in something is a belief it doesn't exist.

Velocitas8

Is English your first language? That makes no sense at all.

A lack of belief is...a lack of belief. It is unknowing, that is: to not claim that you know one way or the other. It does not require belief in the nonexistence of said thing.

Not all "Atheists" adhere to this philosophy, of course. Many are vehement that there IS NO "God" as he/she/they/it is commonly defined.

A lack of belief doesn't mean you don't know..... a lack of belief means you do not believe its existence...

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universeVelocitas8

So?

You're trying too hard, I think. Atheism concerns the (non-)existence of a "God", not the cause/nature/purpose of the universe.

Also, check definition #2 of Atheism:

2) a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Atheism is not necessarily a belief system. It can simply be a lack thereof.

religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universesurrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]A lack of belief in something is a belief it doesn't exist.

Espada12

Is English your first language? That makes no sense at all.

A lack of belief is...a lack of belief. It is unknowing, that is: to not claim that you know one way or the other. It does not require belief in the nonexistence of said thing.

Not all "Atheists" adhere to this philosophy, of course. Many are vehement that there IS NO "God" as he/she/they/it is commonly defined.

A lack of belief doesn't mean you don't know..... a lack of belief means you do not believe its existence...

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universeAnimatronic64

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universesurrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Animatronic64"] Atheism is not a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. In other words, atheism does not state what the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe is. It simply asserts that there are no deities. It is NOT a religion.

Animatronic64

A lack of belief doesn't mean you don't know..... a lack of belief means you do not believe its existence...Espada12

Is this concept really that hard to understand...?

"Belief" means that you know, or feel very strongly that something is likely.

"Lack of belief" can mean many things.. ranging from unknowing, to skepticism, to outright rejection and a belief in some other explanation.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] odd that is not how atheism is defined you may want to find a belief stricter that fits you but atheism is not itsurrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Espada12"]A lack of belief doesn't mean you don't know..... a lack of belief means you do not believe its existence...Velocitas8

Is this concept really that hard to understand...?

"Belief" means that you know or feel very strongly that something is likely.

"Lack of belief" can mean many things.. ranging from unknowing, to skepticism, to outright rejection and a belief in some other explanation.

the dictionary does not seem to have any problem with the words, any of themsurrealnumber5

I don't understand what you're saying. Please take more time with your posts..

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the dictionary does not seem to have any problem with the words, any of themVelocitas8

I don't understand what you're saying. Please take more time with your posts..

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the dictionary does not seem to have any problem with the words, any of themsurrealnumber5

I don't understand what you're saying. Please take more time with your posts..

There are multiple definitions. You not only quoted just the one definition of Atheism, but you still did not see that even that didn't support your argument. Atheism does not concern the general nature of the universe. It only concerns the subject of a God. You didn't help your own argument by quoting those definitions. You helped every one else's.

This is getting tiresome. I'm NOT arguing the definitions of those words. I'm telling you to read the definitions instead of just posting them.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

I don't understand what you're saying. Please take more time with your posts..

Velocitas8

There are multiple definitions. You not only quoted just the one definition of Atheism, but you still did not see that even that didn't support your argument. Atheism does not concern the general nature of the universe. It only concerns the subject of a God. You didn't help your own argument by quoting those definitions. You helped every one else's.

This is getting tiresome.

There's a sect in Islam called the Dervish. They live in extreme poverty and do an interesting ritual in which they wear dresses and spin around in circles hundreds of times (consecutively). They're called the whirling dervish.

it is as it seems you cant even read the definitionssurrealnumber5

Oh, I read them. Didn't need to, but I did.

It seems you didn't, however. If you did, tell me how Atheism fits:

religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universesurrealnumber5

^Into that definition of Religion, which you quoted.

I've already told you how it doesn't: Atheism does not concern the general cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. It only contests or questions the existence of a God. It offers NO explanation of how the universe came to be, nor of its purpose, nor nature.

While you're at it, also explain how Communism, Socialism, Anarchy, Democracy fit the definition of "religion", as you claimed earlier in the thread.

that is not atheist that is ag·nos·tic    /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.surrealnumber5

The two viewpoints (Atheism, Agnosticism) obviously have some overlap. This doesn't affect what I said.

I know that there was a sect who made things happen by thinking of thousands of reasons for it to happen. I'm actually looking for them but i can't remember their name.

I choose to believe in what I personally find to be probable. Universal facts, to me, are probable. They make logical sense. Have I ever questioned if something was a lie? Yes, but frankly, I've made it back to planet Earth. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. The earth ain't flat, gravity exists, space is real, we aren't in the matrix... well, scratch the last one, I could be wrong. I'm just not the one for having my head in the clouds when debating reality.

Animatronic64

"Universal facts" is limited to observations, assuming you're not a total sceptic, and limited to observations you make yourself if you're a c|assical sceptic. Logic doesn't prove or disprove observations. In any case, you're discussing religion and metaphysics, which is immune from observations.

religion 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universesurrealnumber5

Science is falsifiable. Religion isnt. There's your major difference between the beliefs of atheism and the beliefs of religion. The only comparable beliefs between religion and atheism is the specific belief aboutthe existence of God. All the rest (the cause, nature and purpose of the universe), not at all.

I cannot believe how long this debate over atheism being a religion has gone on. It is clearly not a religion, anyone who has spent any bit of time studying religion will know this.

Religion requires three major things to be cIassed as a religion:

1) Dogma: a set of beliefs and rituals held by the group, claimed as "true" and "powerful" and to be practiced with complete faith and devotion in whatever deity or focus the religion has. (There is no agreed upon dogma among atheists)

2) Holy text: a set of mythological stories, transmitted either textually or orally, that outline the beliefs in a structured manner that focuses on supernatural exaggeration and moral parables. (There is no "Atheist Bible.")

3) Community: a group of individuals that profess to be of the same "faith", meet on a regular basis to practice ritual, and are either run by or officiated by a single or multiple individual(s) that are given the "ability" to do their job by the deity/power. (There is no atheist community club that practices human sacrifice to Atheismo).

Atheism has none of those things. It is a position regarding the theist claim that the supernatural exists; one that doubts its truth and remains sceptical until proper evidence or experience proves otherwise.

Religion requires three major things to be cIassed as a religion:

1) Dogma: a set of beliefs and rituals held by the group, claimed as "true" and "powerful" and to be practiced with complete faith and devotion in whatever deity or focus the religion has. (There is no agreed upon dogma among atheists)

2) Holy text: a set of mythological stories, transmitted either textually or orally, that outline the beliefs in a structured manner that focuses on supernatural exaggeration and moral parables. (There is no "Atheist Bible.")

3) Community: a group of individuals that profess to be of the same "faith", meet on a regular basis to practice ritual, and are either run by or officiated by a single or multiple individual(s) that are given the "ability" to do their job by the deity/power. (There is no atheist community club that practices human sacrifice to Atheismo).

foxhound_fox

First, I want to say that I don't think atheism is a religion. I do have some questions about your definitions, though. When you say "dogma," you exclude the common atheistic prinicple that the supernatural does not exist. Why? Am I mistaken on that principle? Also, I don't think a religion requires a community. Religions typically have communities, but I don't see why you need one for a religion to be a religion.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Religion requires three major things to be cIassed as a religion:

1) Dogma: a set of beliefs and rituals held by the group, claimed as "true" and "powerful" and to be practiced with complete faith and devotion in whatever deity or focus the religion has. (There is no agreed upon dogma among atheists)

2) Holy text: a set of mythological stories, transmitted either textually or orally, that outline the beliefs in a structured manner that focuses on supernatural exaggeration and moral parables. (There is no "Atheist Bible.")

3) Community: a group of individuals that profess to be of the same "faith", meet on a regular basis to practice ritual, and are either run by or officiated by a single or multiple individual(s) that are given the "ability" to do their job by the deity/power. (There is no atheist community club that practices human sacrifice to Atheismo).

Palantas

First, I want to say that I don't think atheism is a religion. I do have some questions about your definitions, though. When you say "dogma," you exclude the common atheistic prinicple that the supernatural does not exist. Why? Am I mistaken on that principle? Also, I don't think a religion requires a community. Religions typically have communities, but I don't see why you need one for a religion to be a religion.

atheist as they have no proof. second would be any religious zealotsurrealnumber5

edit: I feel compelled to point out that theism isn't religion either, it's part of many religions. But by itself is just a stance on whether there are god(s) or not. So I don't quite know where this "atheism is religion" is heading.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

Is English your first language? That makes no sense at all.

A lack of belief is...a lack of belief. It is unknowing, that is: to not claim that you know one way or the other. It does not require belief in the nonexistence of said thing.

Not all "Atheists" adhere to this philosophy, of course. Many are vehement that there IS NO "God" as he/she/they/it is commonly defined.

surrealnumber5

A lack of belief doesn't mean you don't know..... a lack of belief means you do not believe its existence...

First, I want to say that I don't think atheism is a religion. I do have some questions about your definitions, though. When you say "dogma," you exclude the common atheistic prinicple that the supernatural does not exist. Why? Am I mistaken on that principle? Also, I don't think a religion requires a community. Religions typically have communities, but I don't see why you need one for a religion to be a religion.

Palantas

And dogma is belief and ritual, not just belief.

foxhound_fox

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Why must dogma include ritual?

No religion is without a community. One can be religious and not be a part of a community, but no "religion" as a whole would exist without a community.

foxhound_fox

Do you believe that a person must be either religious or atheistic (or agnostic, which you include in that definition)? I have a line of thought in response to the above, but I don't want to go into it until we settle the question I just asked.

EDIT:

Most atheists do not believe in anything, either God or not-God... and most of them don't even put absolute certainty in science and rationalism (in that science is the "be-all and end-all" to everything).

foxhound_fox

I dunno about this. Atheists who put serious thought into their beliefs may be as you describe above. However, the typical "atheist" I run into in life or on the Internet justifies their belief like this: God is irrational, God can't be proven, God against science, and so forth.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Why must dogma include ritual?Palantas

Do you believe that a person must be either religious or atheistic (or agnostic, which you include in that definition)? I have a line of thought in response to the above, but I don't want to go into it until we settle the question I just asked.Palantas

I dunno about this. Atheists who put serious thought into their beliefs may be as you describe above. However, the typical "atheist" I run into in life or on the Internet justifies their belief like this: God is irrational, God can't be proven, God against science, and so forth.

Palantas

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

I choose to believe in what I personally find to be probable. Universal facts, to me, are probable. They make logical sense. Have I ever questioned if something was a lie? Yes, but frankly, I've made it back to planet Earth. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. The earth ain't flat, gravity exists, space is real, we aren't in the matrix... well, scratch the last one, I could be wrong. I'm just not the one for having my head in the clouds when debating reality.

Palantas

"Universal facts" is limited to observations, assuming you're not a total sceptic, and limited to observations you make yourself if you're a c|assical sceptic. Logic doesn't prove or disprove observations. In any case, you're discussing religion and metaphysics, which is immune from observations.

And you're discussing a philosophy that has no place down here in reality. Animatronic64

Oh? Which philosophy is that? How did you determine it has no place "down here in reality," whatever that means?

Relgious dogma is usually centered around ritual.

Only religious dogma must include ritual...

foxhound_fox

Emphasis mine. These statements are logically incompatible.

You must not know very many atheists. The only atheists that I have ever met that profess truly gnostic positions, that deny any possibility of a non-rational explanation (not necessarily non-natural however, as I am gnostic towards anything non-natural) and rely completely on rational thought generally tend to be recently ex-religionists, who are merely rebelling against their childhood teachings and haven't truly found their educated position yet. I used to be one of those arrogant adolescent atheists...

foxhound_fox

That would describe most of the atheists I've met. I'm not being unfairly harsh on atheists. Most religious people I've met haven't put serious thought into their faith either.

Christianity.

Yevonism. :P

Mormanism is a pretty interesting one :P