Animsim.

[Hendly Devin]

The ideas behind every religion suck in their entirety, as far as the idea of souls, spirits, and any kind of afterlife or haunting or all that crap.

just innately?

I feel the same about secularism. :/

 

[Bliss]

just innately?

I feel the same about secularism. :/

You are weird even by furry standards. It doesn't count. :V

 

[FlynnCoyote]

Animism offers a crude explanation for the life cycle of biological creatures. As one perishes, its energy flows through the aether or whatever and mingles with other energies from other creatures. Eventually a portion of energy will inhabit a new living form, be it human, animal or whatever.

This concept is used as a plot device in several of the Final Fantasy video game series as well as both movies of that title. Really it`s not that much different from hindu apart from the lack of gods and the revering of specific animals above others.

Personally, I used to think like this, but having delved further into the study of various religious texts I have come to find that animism is, while plausible, fairly empty handed on explanations when it comes to the origins of life and the universe. Other texts offer more explanation without completely going against animistic principles.

 

[Kyrodo]

I had a cool Native American teacher who told us about something highly similar to this, except without the human exclusion. The idea of an interconnected world, where even the littlest action presents a ripple throughout the universe. I think it's a very interesting concept, I mean awesome even. Though I don't necessarily view it with a serious eye myself.

 

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Claim: All objects have souls.
Supporting evidence: None.

Claim: There is both a spirit and a physical world.
Supporting evidence: None.

Verdict: It's rubbish. But if you want a religion please start worshipping my wallet. It actually created the universe and like to toy with human lives. I can't prove it as my wallet is all powerful and erases any possible evidence supporting or disproving it's abilities but if you send it money at regular intervals it may or may not bless you.

 

[FlynnCoyote]

Oh Rakuen, why so faithless?

Tell you what, next time I die I`ll be sure to send you a note from the other side. :v

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

You are weird even by furry standards. It doesn't count. :V

Are ALL the Michigan furs like this?

 

[Cain]

Claim: All objects have souls.
Supporting evidence: None.

Claim: There is both a spirit and a physical world.
Supporting evidence: None.

Verdict: It's rubbish. But if you want a religion please start worshipping my wallet. It actually created the universe and like to toy with human lives. I can't prove it as my wallet is all powerful and erases any possible evidence supporting or disproving it's abilities but if you send it money at regular intervals it may or may not bless you.

Prove that Jesus is god's son. :V

But really, there isn't any proof for any religions, which some may reason as they're all stupid, but... Meh.

 

[TechnoGypsy]

i.e The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

Prove that Jesus is god's son. :V

*Puts on reading glasses; opens book*
"Derka derka Isa messiah derka sacrifice. Prederkastination hu ancient sand #*%s, herp scapegoat derka der. Chosen few derk, Satan yadda yadda."
Any questions?

 

[LizardKing]

The idea of an interconnected world, where even the littlest action presents a ripple throughout the universe.

Hello, I'm chaos theory, pleased to meet you.

 

[Cain]

*Puts on reading glasses; opens book*
"Derka derka Isa messiah derka sacrifice. Prederkastination hu ancient sand #*%s, herp scapegoat derka der. Chosen few derk, Satan yadda yadda."
Any questions?

D:

EVERYTHING I KNOW IS FLAWED

 

[Randy-Darkshade]

D:

EVERYTHING I KNOW IS FLAWED

The only thing I see religion as, is an excuse to control people. You can't do anything but what that specific religion states. Of course no religion will ever admit to that.

 

[Bliss]

Personally, I used to think like this, but having delved further into the study of various religious texts I have come to find that animism is, while plausible, fairly empty handed on explanations when it comes to the origins of life and the universe. Other texts offer more explanation without completely going against animistic principles.

Other religious texts have a better explanation?

I had a cool Native American teacher who told us about something highly similar to this, except without the human exclusion. The idea of an interconnected world, where even the littlest action presents a ripple throughout the universe. I think it's a very interesting concept, I mean awesome even.

Did he happen to play Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II during breaks? :V

 

[Cain]

Heh, I told one of my... friend isn't the right word, because frankly, I think the guy's an outright dick and arse.

Anyways, I told him I switched from Atheism to Animism, and obviously, he went 'Durrr, what's dat?' Instead of explaining it to him, which I know he'll just immediately forget or twist it into something stupid, I just said "Go Wiki it."

 

[Kyrodo]

http://skepticalcubefarm.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/creationismposter.jpgDid he happen to play Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II during breaks? :V

Heh, wouldn't be surprised. He was a crazy old guy who rode a motorcycle and gave people pennies for good luck.

 

[Azure]

just innately?

I feel the same about secularism. :/

Why? Explain yourself. What does religion create for you beyond the security blanket? What does secularism take away from the world that only religion can replace? Or are you just angry at vocal atheists for whatever reason.

 

[Cain]

Why? Explain yourself. What does religion create for you beyond the security blanket? What does secularism take away from the world that only religion can replace? Or are you just angry at vocal atheists for whatever reason.

I'm guessing you're somewhat of a hardcore atheist, Azure? ^_^

 

[FlynnCoyote]

Other religious texts have a better explanation?

Other religious texts do not dispute the evidence of the big bang or evolution. Nor do they dispute the existence of more than one god or spirit or whatever you want to call them. They simply give a better reason as to why.

Evidence: None.

Logic factor: Plausible without defying common knowledge and scientific advancement. The main weakness of most well known religions. This is because most of what the text tells us about the nature of existence happens beyond the physical universe, so trying to prove or disprove is completely moot.

In regards to telling people how to live, the only real guideline is to seek knowledge, which many people already do. Morals and crap like that are optional.

 

[BRN]

The faith is fine, just keep out of the dogma. Once you start believing in ritual, you've gone too far; but our spiritual beliefs can make us pretty happy - even the faith that nothing is sacred.

 

[Kyrodo]

Other religious texts do not dispute the evidence of the big bang or evolution. Nor do they dispute the existence of more than one god or spirit or whatever you want to call them. They simply give a better reason as to why.

Evidence: None.

Logic factor: Plausible without defying common knowledge and scientific advancement. The main weakness of most well known religions. This is because most of what the text tells us about the nature of existence happens beyond the physical universe, so trying to prove or disprove is completely moot.

In regards to telling people how to live, the only real guideline is to seek knowledge, which many people already do. Morals and crap like that are optional.

Spoken like a true stereotypical atheist. What's funny is I'm also loosely considered an atheist, though I am sometimes agnostic (as in I let my imagination run wid), and sometimes I'm a practicer of fox hole heresy as some of the more idiotic narrow-minded Westboro burn-holy would describe (as in during stressful times, I may use religion as a crutch, then just cast it aside when I no longer need it). Normally I don't believe in religions, because I recognize why they develop.

Religions develop to provide an explanation for the unexplained, to provide morals and good principles to live by, to provide a listener to wishes and stressful concerns, and to provide a sense of security concerning death for those that fear it or those who've experienced loss of such nature. The unintended side-effect is that the belief must remain solid, and other religions can not hold truth or it jeopardizes the religions validity. There are also those who abuse it for personal or political gain, and those that use it as a vent to blame all their problems upon. In many cases, it also interferes with trust in technology, trust in cultural activities, and trust in conflicting theories. I'd go as far as to even say it sometimes slows human growth and technological advances.

All religions of any nature has its pros and cons, as well as a history which normally turns out to be rather violent and war mongering. But moral values are good (when it doesn't involve another individual's state of belief). Providing strength to face our worst fears and stress is good. Sometimes it even provides the motivation to help out the unfortunate and make an effort to improve society.

My overly drawn out roundabout point is, I believe it's fine for people to believe whatever the f they want. Freedom of religion and all that jazz, as long as they don't interfere with the unwilling. Though in some cases, that does not seem to compute, for both atheists and the religious alike. On the bright side, it always provides a good subject for heated debate.

And respectfully, I don't give a flying fuck how the universe was created. I like Terry Pratchett's idea, where the world is flat, and held up by four elephants standing on a giant turtle wandering aimlessly through space. Best theory ever.

 

[BRN]

Religions develop to provide an explanation for the unexplained, to provide morals and good principles to live by, to provide a listener to wishes and stressful concerns, and to provide a sense of security concerning death for those that fear it or those who've experienced loss of such nature.

This isn't true. Religion developed because things were unexplained, and stayed because no explanation had yet been found. Religion doesn't provide good morals to live by; those come from social pressure, and religion was merely the carrot-and-stick to reinforce it. Religion was not created to console people afraid of death; it was that which made people fear death and the judgement that religion itself proposed - people who wanted to believe that criminals would be punished after death also had to accept that they might be, too. Religion was not made as a useful tool; it was the common doublethink between "I am alive" and "I am abitrary" that developed form when it became organised.

The unintended side-effect is that the belief must remain solid, and other religions can not hold truth or it jeopardizes the religions validity. There are also those who abuse it for personal or political gain, and those that use it as a vent to blame all their problems upon. In many cases, it also interferes with trust in technology, trust in cultural activities, and trust in conflicting theories. I'd go as far as to even say it sometimes slows human growth and technological advances.

Religion - faith - that is, does none of these things. It's dogmatic and organised religious tradition that leads to the hatred and differences of opinion; the idea of God is little more than a greatly expanded projection of self. A man filled with hatred of 'infidels' will see their God as a great smiter of those infidels; a man of tolerance and peace will see God as a pacifistic and benevolent keeper of world harmony.

All religions of any nature has its pros and cons, as well as a history which normally turns out to be rather violent and war mongering. But moral values are good (when it doesn't involve another individual's state of belief). Providing strength to face our worst fears and stress is good. Sometimes it even provides the motivation to help out the unfortunate and make an effort to improve society.

Organised religion as a whole develops its own protective autonomy by the neccessary delusion of those who weild power within it. By neccessity, one must be utterly indoctrinated before being granted high status within a religion; as a result, those in power of the religion desire to maintain the religion both for the religion's sake and their own. Moral values come from social pressure, and never needed religion to confirm it; before, during, and after the rise of religion, athiests have always existed, and those athiests are not remarked as ammoral beings; except where judged as heretics for the sake of - as you said - the people's belief remaining solid. A carrot for the faithful, a stick for the rest.

Faithful individuals acting for good are inspirational people, but it is their morals that guide them, not their religion. Individuals, faithful or not, perform good deeds every day.

My overly drawn out roundabout point is, I believe it's fine for people to believe whatever the f they want. Freedom of religion and all that jazz, as long as they don't interfere with the unwilling. Though in some cases, that does not seem to compute, for both atheists and the religious alike. On the bright side, it always provides a good subject for heated debate.

And respectfully, I don't give a flying fuck how the universe was created. I like Terry Pratchett's idea, where the world is flat, and held up by four elephants standing on a giant turtle wandering aimlessly through space. Best theory ever.

Faith is a pretty beautiful thing, but dogmatic religion is an extremely powerful and extremely deep-rooted inhibitor of humanity as a whole. It's why I'm always up for a discussion with an intelligent theist; it more often than not turns out that they're faithful, but find dogma distasteful. Thus the discussion of faith begins without being polluted by the discussion of religion.

However one might say that discussion on theories of how the universe was created does also provide a good subject for heated debate. Hell, I don't even trust the Big Bang theory; bring on String Theory.

 

[Cain]

GUYS.

Don't turn my thread into a religion megathread.

Please.

 

[Fiesta_Jack]

I teeter between Shintoism, Animism, and LaVeyan Satanism at any given time. Mostly consider myself Shinto lately though. Sensible religions to me, and I often make small tributes to things when I need their cooperation. Whether they genuinely are responding to my spiritual/emotional pleas, or whether coincidence, it seems to work.

 

[FlynnCoyote]

Spoken like a true stereotypical atheist. What's funny is I'm also loosely considered an atheist, though I am sometimes agnostic (as in I let my imagination run wid), and sometimes I'm a practicer of fox hole heresy as some of the more idiotic narrow-minded Westboro burn-holy would describe (as in during stressful times, I may use religion as a crutch, then just cast it aside when I no longer need it). Normally I don't believe in religions, because I recognize why they develop.

Religions develop to provide an explanation for the unexplained, to provide morals and good principles to live by, to provide a listener to wishes and stressful concerns, and to provide a sense of security concerning death for those that fear it or those who've experienced loss of such nature. The unintended side-effect is that the belief must remain solid, and other religions can not hold truth or it jeopardizes the religions validity. There are also those who abuse it for personal or political gain, and those that use it as a vent to blame all their problems upon. In many cases, it also interferes with trust in technology, trust in cultural activities, and trust in conflicting theories. I'd go as far as to even say it sometimes slows human growth and technological advances.

All religions of any nature has its pros and cons, as well as a history which normally turns out to be rather violent and war mongering. But moral values are good (when it doesn't involve another individual's state of belief). Providing strength to face our worst fears and stress is good. Sometimes it even provides the motivation to help out the unfortunate and make an effort to improve society.

My overly drawn out roundabout point is, I believe it's fine for people to believe whatever the f they want. Freedom of religion and all that jazz, as long as they don't interfere with the unwilling. Though in some cases, that does not seem to compute, for both atheists and the religious alike. On the bright side, it always provides a good subject for heated debate.

And respectfully, I don't give a flying fuck how the universe was created. I like Terry Pratchett's idea, where the world is flat, and held up by four elephants standing on a giant turtle wandering aimlessly through space. Best theory ever.

Atheist? Have you read any of my other posts mate?

I confessed to being Animist in the recent past and having recently made the switch to Gnosticism and Luciferianism. In fact those were exactly the "other religions" I was referring to. I`ve never been an atheist in any real sense of the word. Even when I gave up on Christianity I held onto belief in... well, more than we see.



But at the OP`s request, I will say no more on religion. My point was that animism does not attempt to provide any explanation on universe origins nor does it give any real deities or other figureheads to revere. Animism is simply the belief in some form of existence after death. That in itself is not a harmful thing to have faith in. Only when you come to specifics does dissent begin to occur.

So like has been said, this comes down to personal belief as well as having enough commonsense to apply sensible limits on how devoutly you practice or preach or whatever.

On your point of morals, I personally believe that these are engineered by ruling class of the time to facilitate smooth running of society. Whether or not belief is used as a basis depends on the strength of local faith. For example there are still modern cultures that massively restrict the freedoms of certain individuals while other countries are far too lenient with personal liberties. Again, this comes down to what the majority believe at the time and how such beliefs are applied.