• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Religion in the Furry Community

Which Organised Religion Do You Adhere To?


  • Total voters
    175
  • Poll closed .

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Holy… where to start in this mess XD



That my friend is the definition of being not only taken out of context, but also misunderstood, I said the exact same thing in a later post so please read my posts before quoting my older posts XD. And also please next time include the rest of what I say to provide this beautiful thing called ‘context’ meaning I wouldn’t have to have explained what I mean haha. Now what I also meant to say was “Atheism is just as amazing as ANY other religion” not to say Atheism is another religion but rather to say it is just as deserving of respect as any religion would. Just to clarify, sorry about the spelling mistake.



Now this is my favourite argument, seen it so many times and it never ceases to brings a smile to my face, the good old “Atheism is logical or scientifically argument”. Considering we are talking ‘evidence’ and ‘sense’ or ‘logic’ let me run this by you. Both Theism and Atheism have NO proof, either of them, none, whatsoever. Either way you swing, you may be able to prove specific beliefs and theories wrong in both Atheism and Theism, but scientifically and LOGICALLY speaking, you CANNOT prove if there is or isn’t a G-d, sure you can disprove theories such as a Primitive Creationist Theory based specific rules and regulations that deem it physically impossible/improbable but the same goes for an Atheist’s early theory of the big bang, (I say ‘early’ to depict a less sound theory) it can be proved wrong or improbable with logic, and even science.

But the pure notion of Atheism and Theism have no evidence for either one. And therefore scientifically and logically, because there is no evidence for either case, it is more rational to believe either is entirely possible and to keep an open mind, making agnosticism the only scientifically and logically sound belief while making theism and Atheism both just as irrational as one another.

You may make the case (or something along the lines of) “It’s ridiculous to believe there is something there when there is no evidence to support it” which humanly, it is, almost crazy even. But in no way is it scientific or logical to assume there is not, it is logical to assume there is a possibility for both.

Please keep in mind I am a Confucian Theist and all that I say is light-hearted and I recognise I just called myself crazy, haha so I’m not purely promoting agnosticism for my own gains, and I also have just as much respect for atheism as I do any other belief but please people think philosophically as well as scientifically.


You're not familiar with the burden of proof. In science and philosophy positive claims must compete with a null hypothesis. If you claimed 'fairies live in my garden' I would be entitled to believe you were wrong until you showed me otherwise. 'There are no fairies' is the null hypothesis.

It would be unreasonable to say 'my disbelief in fairies is a position of faith', indeed if there really were no fairies it would be impossible to demonstrate it.

'There are no Gods' is the null hypothesis in this situation.

For the record, the Big bang theory was initially proposed by a Catholic physicist, not an atheist.
 

TrishaCat

The Cat in the FAF
The term burden of proof isn't without flaw. One could make a claim out of nowhere with no support whatsoever and it turn out to be true, thus making anyone who told him he was wrong or incorrect, incorrect.
This is not to say proof doesn't add more validity to a claim, its just that a lack of proof does not mean an idea or thing is not true.

I don't like the idea of automatically rejecting a claim without proof as false.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Sparta

Scale Face
Wow. This thread is going places.

Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.
 

Ame

Member
Haha, see! Now that's philosophical thinking at its finest, now that gets us somewhere. I didn't know that philosphical hypothesis and now I do :D.

Although, is that hypothesis merely philosophical in its nature or more scientifical, I personally see it more as a philosophical argument/idea (which does not make it less valid). But considering it is more progressive and scientific in a way to propose that there is a posibility for both arguments, I would argue the idea of acknowledging the possibility for both is more logical.

Both ideas have their faults, the "scientific" (I use the word in the context of what I just said) hypothesis leaving the question open ended. But the null hypothesis is ignorant to the other perspective. But Is it not more helpful to believe in the possibility for both, rather than remain adamant against another perspetive just from a lack of evidence.

Also, with the null hypothesis can't you also say (using your example) "there are not fairies in my garden" and run into the same result? Meaning that we have to assume there is fairies? (hence why I noted both Theism and Atheism are just as crazy as one another in my previous post)


Wow. This thread is going places.

Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.

Yes! that was another note I wished to touch on, although from my memory it wasn't the catholics but rather the Islamic thinkers and philosophers that not only preserved but improved upon great works such as that of Aristotle and such. Islam also dramatically forwarded our knowledge of mathamatics and the shape of the earth because Islamic mathematicians had to work out how to work out the direction of Mecca which involved very complex calculations , from which they also discovered the earth was round (or maybe they found that out from the greeks not sure) But people who say religion held back science are very very ignorant, religion in alot of ways enhances science and thought.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
The term burden of proof isn't without flaw. One could make a claim out of nowhere with no support whatsoever and it turn out to be true, thus making anyone who told him he was wrong or incorrect, incorrect.
This is not to say proof doesn't add more validity to a claim, its just that a lack of proof does not mean an idea or thing is not true.

I don't like the idea of automatically rejecting a claim without proof as false.

The burden of proof cannot guarantee we reach the correct conclusion immediately, but it provides the most appropriate and successful route to reaching the correct conclusion- if indeed a conclusion is even accessible.

Bogus claims can be rejected until proven right. This does not mean they will never be considered, it means that compelling support is necessary for their meaningful consideration; that's only fair isn't it?

Wow. This thread is going places.

Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.

Of course it's not homogenously true. It's a mosaic, in which a majority of the squares produce an unpleasant image of temples hounding science out of their communities.

Haha, see! Now that's philosophical thinking at its finest, now that gets us somewhere. I didn't know that philosphical hypothesis and now I do
icon_biggrin.gif
.

Although, is that hypothesis merely philosophical in its nature or more scientifical, I personally see it more as a philosophical argument/idea (which does not make it less valid). But considering it is more progressive and scientific in a way to propose that there is a posibility for both arguments, I would argue the idea of acknowledging the possibility for both is more logical.

Both ideas have their faults, the "scientific" (I use the word in the context of what I just said) hypothesis leaving the question open ended. But the null hypothesis is ignorant to the other perspective. But Is it not more helpful to believe in the possibility for both, rather than remain adamant against another perspetive just from a lack of evidence.

Also, with the null hypothesis can't you also say (using your example) "there are not fairies in my garden" and run into the same result? Meaning that we have to assume there is fairies? (hence why I noted both Theism and Atheism are just as crazy as one another in my previous post)


Proposing unfalsifiable hypotheses is not more logical. It is useless.

Claiming 'there are not fairies in my garden' is a positive claim is incorrect. It's a negative claim; that's why it has 'not' in it. Ten year olds should be taught this in school. I would expect them to be able to identify positive and negative statements in English classes.

If we were to always take the middleground, on all unfalsifiable claims that could possibly be made, regardless of whether they were positive or negative, we would hold a collection of mutually exclusive views simultaneously even though they serve no pragmatic function.

That's crazy.

That's why we have null hypotheses. To pierce the fog.
 
Last edited:

Ame

Member
Now now, the insult to my intelligence was un-called for Fallow, and does not acheive anything useful. We can argue what is a "negative claim" all day, and I can think of plenty of ways to phase that question to where it does technically become a positive claim, but I thought simple word play was beyond us? We are not focusing on simple semantics but rather the broader philosophical implications of what we are discussing.

It is true that assuming that "fairies are not in the garden" Is quite logical, and the null hypothesis does prove useful, and does "pierce the fog" as you say. But in much larger and more significant claim such as the possibility of there not being or being G-d of any sort, something that in most belief's is beyond being able to prove would it not be ignorant to ignore possibilities of the latter rather than be open to both ideas. Sure the null hypothesis has its uses on a small scale but with something so broad can we make such assumptions and still call it logical?
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Now now, the insult to my intelligence was un-called for Fallow, and does not acheive anything useful. We can argue what is a "negative claim" all day, and I can think of plenty of ways to phase that question to where it does technically become a positive claim, but I thought simple word play was beyond us? We are not focusing on simple semantics but rather the broader philosophical implications of what we are discussing.

It is true that assuming that "fairies are not in the garden" Is quite logical, and the null hypothesis does prove useful, and does "pierce the fog" as you say. But in much larger and more significant claim such as the possibility of there not being or being G-d of any sort, something that in most belief's is beyond being able to prove would it not be ignorant to ignore possibilities of the latter rather than be open to both ideas. Sure the null hypothesis has its uses on a small scale but with something so broad can we make such assumptions and still call it logical?

We can't argue what the definition of negative is all day, because the definition is already well-constrained.

It is as pointless as arguing 1 and 1 make 3.

The notion that you, sitting on a chair in front of your computer, could rip apart the syntax of English and hence restructure philosophy is absurd. If it were that easy, it would have been done by now.

The burden of proof is not 'to ignore'. It is the stipulation that we can't consider the idea meaningfully without new evidence or reason. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are inert. We cannot make any use of them.

Not only would you, if not following this standard, be made to entertain the notion of grand deities, but also a raft of ridiculous notions which cannot possibly co exist. For example we can propose the existence of more Gods ad infinitum, or even anti-Gods, and so on. We could even speculate upon the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.
 

Ame

Member
Exacally :) I did acknowledge that I am crazy didn't I? In referance to me ripping apart the syntax of english and restructuring philosophy etc etc. It is an interesting Idea, one which I wish I could profess to have hahaha but I was thinking along the lines of rewording the sentance to make it fit my purpose? (hence why I called it meaningless word play attributing not much to the conversation) :D

If it is not possible that something could co-exist than I would make no argument that they co-exist. But for the more grander possibilities of a deity, or several for that matter logically it would be just as useful if not more in their cultural and scientifical influance as assuming they do exist in comparison to the idea that they do not. But the usefulness of an idea or belief is sorta subjective anyway so I shouldn't touch on the matter so much.

I will say that following this standard would be more open minded, and progressive. Allowing communication between differant beliefs and breaking cultural barriers even if one chooses Atheism or Theism (or one of their many differant variations) rather than demanding that there be an answer or proof of the matter.

Anyway, I need some sleep :) I did enjoy discussing the issue and its great to have someone so well read and interlectual to debate this with, I will hopefully continue the discussion later friend :) G'night
 
Last edited:

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
But in much larger and more significant claim such as the possibility of there not being or being G-d of any sort, something that in most belief's is beyond being able to prove would it not be ignorant to ignore possibilities of the latter rather than be open to both ideas. Sure the null hypothesis has its uses on a small scale but with something so broad can we make such assumptions and still call it logical?

Here is my take on it:
There is a possibility that a highly advanced being that we may call a god could exist. It is impossible to know everything in the universe, outright denying this possibility would be unwise.
However! None of the gods that humanity has up come with exist. They simply can't exist because the holy texts that are tied to them are riddled with logical errors and contradictions. There is also the complete and utter lack of evidence.
But there is also no evidence for the god that could exist. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe in something that isn't supported by evidence? It makes no sense!

Then there is the fact that religion is an incredibly dangerous tool that only exists to controll the masses.
 
Last edited:

chesse20

Member
Wow. This thread is going places.

Also, in the middle ages, wasn't it the catholics/monetaries who helped preserve and copy books for future generations? Without them, we would not be as well off as we are now. So don't throw me that "religion holds us back" bullshit, it's not entirely true.
If Christianity didn't destroy the Roman Empire and create the dark ages we might have already been in space by the 1800s
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Exacally :) I did acknowledge that I am crazy didn't I? In referance to me ripping apart the syntax of english and restructuring philosophy etc etc. It is an interesting Idea, one which I wish I could profess to have hahaha but I was thinking along the lines of rewording the sentance to make it fit my purpose? (hence why I called it meaningless word play attributing not much to the conversation) :D

If it is not possible that something could co-exist than I would make no argument that they co-exist. But for the more grander possibilities of a deity, or several for that matter logically it would be just as useful if not more in their cultural and scientifical influance as assuming they do exist in comparison to the idea that they do not. But the usefulness of an idea or belief is sorta subjective anyway so I shouldn't touch on the matter so much.

I will say that following this standard would be more open minded, and progressive. Allowing communication between differant beliefs and breaking cultural barriers even if one chooses Atheism or Theism (or one of their many differant variations) rather than demanding that there be an answer or proof of the matter.

Anyway, I need some sleep :) I did enjoy discussing the issue and its great to have someone so well read and interlectual to debate this with, I will hopefully continue the discussion later friend :) G'night

You can't reword a positive claim to make it a negative claim, or vice versa. If you try, you will create a sentence which looks like a child composed it, and it will be easy to cancel the double negatives- because that is the mechanism by which you will try to do it.

Open mindedness does not mean refusing to recognise objectives when we find them [as toying with words to convert negative claims to 'positive' ones is], and it does not mean taking a middle position. It means the willingness to consider new ideas. Comparing an idea to its null hypothesis and making the best possible informed decision is an open minded process.

If Christianity didn't destroy the Roman Empire and create the dark ages we might have already been in space by the 1800s

I'm not sure christianity is to blame for the fall of rome, and am skeptical that the future could be predicted several centuries in advance, given that historic event were erased.
 
Last edited:

chesse20

Member
I'm not sure christianity is to blame for the fall of rome, and am skeptical that the future could be predicted several centuries in advance, given that historic event were erased.
Yeah well , it had a influence on the fall of Rome(I think?) but yeah I still think the argument presented by mr. Sparta is arguable , since it's 2014 and monasteries preserving books doesn't really matter anymore since we have the internet and the library of congress doing the preservation of books nowadays
 

tisr

I exist perhaps
Some gods also cannot exist because they are self-contradictory.
For example, you can't have a god which is omnipresent but yet spaceless and timeless, or omnibenevolent while requiring an abundance of evil, suffering and sacrifice, or have a predetermined plan while still allowing free will, or be omnipotent while still having an enemy which tries to defeat him.
 

Ame

Member
Yeah well , it had a influence on the fall of Rome(I think?) but yeah I still think the argument presented by mr. Sparta is arguable , since it's 2014 and monasteries preserving books doesn't really matter anymore since we have the internet and the library of congress doing the preservation of books nowadays

Now people please learn your history, Christianity played little to no influence in the fall of Rome, The fall of Rome can be generally found to be in their very large and generous territory expansion (often reaching as far the British Isles to the borders of Egypt) which is similar to the fall of the great Mongolian where their borders and kingdoms became so large it was difficult to govern. Another influence is despite Rome inducting other empires into the Roman Empire, very often would there be civil wars, and civil unrest (which is a pretty big problem as an empire hahaha)

If you want a fun more in-depth look at what happened to the Roman Empire, John Green does a great job at really nailing what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PszVWZNWVA
Also note he does another video detailing the Dark ages and why they aren’t so dark (knowledge wise) if you’re interested.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7CanyzhZg


Here is my take on it:
There is a possibility that a highly advanced being that we may call a god could exist. It is impossible to know everything in the universe, outright denying this possibility would be unwise.
However! None of the gods that humanity has up come with exist. They simply can't exist because the holy texts that are tied to them are riddled with logical errors and contradictions. There is also the complete and utter lack of evidence.
But there is also no evidence for the god that could exist. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe in something that isn't supported by evidence? It makes no sense!

Then there is the fact that religion is an incredibly dangerous tool that only exists to controll the masses.
Some gods also cannot exist because they are self-contradictory.
For example, you can't have a god which is omnipresent but yet spaceless and timeless, or omnibenevolent while requiring an abundance of evil, suffering and sacrifice, or have a predetermined plan while still allowing free will, or be omnipotent while still having an enemy which tries to defeat him.
You have to be careful, what you say is true, but you’re being very Christo-centric in your ideas, other faiths such as Modern Confucianism and contemporary Taoism (and many more) have very different ideas about a G-d or ‘Tao’ (they are very similar in both faiths) but rather than G-d has knowledge, G-d or the Tao IS knowledge itself, rather than G-d being everywhere and separate G-d IS Everything… It’s hard to explain I find Wikipedia explains it a lot better surprisingly
“Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe.”

But I find that Taoism and Confucianism (The modern adaptions without the mysticism from 3000 years ago) often have very little contradiction because any idea of a G-d is innate within everything, and G-d itself does not necessarily have emotions or even really a consciousness bit G-d just is all that there is and is not separate from us, both good and evil.
 

Ame

Member
I think that definition of God is too diffuse to be meaningful.

It is much more complex than it seems, there is alot more to it that I just explained but if your interested take a look yourself, there are piles of texts on Taoism and Confucianism. Both religions take a differant approach to the Tao, or Tian, Taoism says we should live in harmony with the Tao, enacting Wu Wei, which is non action and allowing ourselves to "flow like water, and the Tao is the riverbed, guiding us" while confucianism does have some Taoist ideas and though but is more focused on cultivating oneself, studying and learning, as well as teaching us how we should act withing society in order to make society better.

Lol, gotta love that post d.batty XD but I say G-d out of respect for other beliefs, for the most part anyway hahaha
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
You have to be careful, what you say is true, but you’re being very Christo-centric in your ideas, other faiths such as Modern Confucianism and contemporary Taoism (and many more) have very different ideas about a G-d or ‘Tao’ (they are very similar in both faiths) but rather than G-d has knowledge, G-d or the Tao IS knowledge itself, rather than G-d being everywhere and separate G-d IS Everything… It’s hard to explain I find Wikipedia explains it a lot better surprisingly
“Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe.”

But I find that Taoism and Confucianism (The modern adaptions without the mysticism from 3000 years ago) often have very little contradiction because any idea of a G-d is innate within everything, and G-d itself does not necessarily have emotions or even really a consciousness bit G-d just is all that there is and is not separate from us, both good and evil.

Of course I am concentrating on christianity. It is the fairy tale that is causing the most trouble in the west.
But I do think that the other religions are a load of wet farts, too. None of it is based on evidence and believing in things that are not based on evidence, and some times even factually refuted, is plain dangerous and in my honest opinion also extremely stupid.

Also, why aren't you writing the word "god" in full? It's just a word, that is pretty annoying...
 

Ame

Member
Religion is just people trying to comprehend the mysteries of the world, nothing bad or evil unless used as an excuse
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
Religion is just people trying to comprehend the mysteries of the world, nothing bad or evil unless used as an excuse

That is a problem that I have with it. You can't explain things based on a lie!
For example, christianity tries to explain the existence of the world and all creatures on it through creation. But that never happened! Believing in bullshit like that isn't beneficial in any way!
And it IS being used as an excuse to do evil... Just look at Iraq right now! >__>
 

Ame

Member
I did explain in an earlier post about how any idea can be used to promote war and evil, such as anti-semitism and even anti-theism if used in the wrong hands. And Creationists have every right to speculate the universe was created however way they like hahaha there is nothing wrong with that, its just a differant idea, whether it is wrong or right is yet to be seen lol.
 

Batty Krueger

DJ Nailbunny
Furry is an idea, so does that mean we can promote war and evil? The evil part I can get, but war?
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
And Creationists have every right to speculate the universe was created however way they like hahaha there is nothing wrong with that, its just a differant idea, whether it is wrong or right is yet to be seen lol.

Right, and I have every right to think they are freaking retarded for believing something like that. Because there is EVERYTHING wrong with believing in something this big that isn't supported by any evidence.

And no, we don't have to wait because it isn't a mystery anymore. Science has solved that already. Cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. The end.
 
Top