• 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 .

zanian

Weyland Yutani Human ressource
The only label I need is secular humanist.
 

tisr

I exist perhaps
You basically gave the exact definition of Agnosticism. So, you are an agnostic.

Agnosticism claims that the existence of a god is unknowable.
Ignosticism claims that a god is an undefined and therefore meaningless concept.

Similar, but slightly different.
 

Ayattar

Banned
Banned
Atheism is getting boring I'm considering paganism or buddhism

Then come to central/eastern Europe, taste our mead, dance around the flames, enjoy our awesome music, and get involved into historical reenactment

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.

That's because we're forgetting about the Byzantium. Whilst in the western Europe monasteries and church focused on preserving the knowledge without spreading it (and no wonder, since there were no conditions to spread the knowledge among the barbarians) when we look at the eastern empire... Then we see that first European university was founded not in Bologne but in Constantinople, in 842, with its roots reaching as early as 425 when Teodosius II founded the school. Next two european universities were also founded in the Byzantium (Ohrida, Preslav), and them there is Salerno, which was founded in the area heavily influeanced by the Byzantium. Of course their model was totally different from the western model, focusing on creating highly qualified administrative staff (so it was more like trade school) but that doesn't change a thing when it comes to overall education level.

There really is no denying that all religions have their crazy fucktards, whether you like it or not. They are all the damn same.

Same with atheism. You have your crazy fucktards too. Agnosticism in its' various aspects is the only reasonable way to go, deal with it.

I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic since I personally couldn't give two shits about religion in general. If there's no god then welp whatever, and if there is one I hope he's nice enough not to damn me to hell or something because I didn't go to church on sundays.

Exactly my approach o7
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I don't think agnosticism is 'the only viable choice', or that all agnostics are guaranteed not to be fucktards. I view agnostics, or at least the people who use the word agnostic to the effect of 'I'm not sure, maybe gods do exist' as people who have executed a middle ground fallacy, rather than understanding that unfalsifiable ideas are not 'neither wrong nor right until proven either way', but 'wrong until shown to be true'.


Consider a teapot floating in space, just beyond the range of our best telescopes. It is impossible to show this is incorrect or correct, but we can dismiss this idea because it is a grand claim, with no viable physical mechanism. If an image of the teapot is captured at some point, then we can reevaluate our ideas.

The notion of god is worse, because god isn't just beyond observation and not properly defined. She is magic, so unlike the teapot she doesn't have to obey physical laws and will always be beyond any kind of physical inquiry- whether theoretical or experimental.

To entertain the notion of her existence, and not entertain the teapot's existence, or indeed notion of millions of other gods, of contradictory character, would be unfair- if 'you can't prove it wrong' was justification enough to regard skepticism as 'not a logical choice'.
 

Ayattar

Banned
Banned
It's absolutely possible to prove that there are no unicorns or sprats in my garden, because parameters of the unicorns and sprats are more or less known (they are material, they are visible, they reflect light, they have mass et cetera). Now, when it comes to gods, or at least some of them there is almost absolute lack of parameters which are measurable by our current apparatus. You can only use common sence and logic which can tell you that existance of an entity with mentioned parameters should be impossible. Thus the safest assumption is the one presented by the atheising agnosticism.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
It's absolutely possible to prove that there are no unicorns or sprats in my garden, because parameters of the unicorns and sprats are more or less known (they are material, they are visible, they reflect light, they have mass et cetera). Now, when it comes to gods, or at least some of them there is almost absolute lack of parameters which are measurable by our current apparatus. You can only use common sence and logic which can tell you that existance of an entity with mentioned parameters should be impossible. Thus the safest assumption is the one presented by the atheising agnosticism.

I would agree that the term agnostic, to mean 'impossible to know' is appropriate for any poorly defined construct. This would include unicorns and sprats provided that the adjective 'magical' were affixed to them.

I do not think that 'we must entertain the possibility of their existence' is an appropriate stance though. We can do that when the subject matter is properly defined and reason is provided to suggest existence.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Humans can think beyond what is "logical". I pity those who restrict themselves from doing so.

Thinking logically has achieved this:
a11_h_40_5878.gif


What has 'beyond logic' achieved?
twin20towers20pics.jpg


Logic is not our restriction. It is the liberation of the mind from confusion and magic.
 

Ayattar

Banned
Banned
Ok, screenshot taken. Now I have a proof that Fallowfox can lower himself to cheap demagoguery too.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Ok, screenshot taken. Now I have a proof that Fallowfox can lower himself to cheap demagoguery too.

Unfortunately this isn't prejudicial. Magical thinking has only ever achieved good by coincidence, while logical thinking is responsible for almost all of the technology and achievement to ever take place.
When newton deciphered his laws of motion, they were derived and proliferated by his arguments based on logic. They were not proliferated by divine inspiration and appeals to religious sensibility.

This is the problem though, when people criticise others for thinking logically. I mean come on. Such an argument is pointless since it criticises the structure of argument per se. It is like sawing off the branch you are sitting on.
 
Last edited:
You can think however you want, but Atheist or Theist, don't you dare use your personal belief to spread hate and violence. All I have seen from Fallow and CaptainCool in this thread is the two of them spreading the same intolerance that they pretend to be crusading against.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
You can think however you want, but Atheist or Theist, don't you dare use your personal belief to spread hate and violence. All I have seen from Fallow and CaptainCool in this thread is the two of them spreading the same intolerance that they pretend to be crusading against.

I'm not inciting violence in anybody, and people can think however they want. Some of those ways of thinking, for example racist attitudes, or beliefs that vast numbers of people deserve to be tortured for eternity for not failing to worship the right deity, do deserve to be hated though. Views like that shouldn't be tolerated, we should voice our criticism of them.

Similarly objectively wrong views should not be tolerated when they are professed, especially in professional circles. If a person thinks rubbing kyanite on their skin or taking homeopathic medicine will heal their cancer, this view should receive sharp criticism.


It is the same criticism we would direct against a person claiming that ice is denser than water. Emotional attachment to opinions does not mean those opinions are immune from criticism.
 
I'm not inciting violence in anybody, and people can think however they want. Some of those ways of thinking, for example racist attitudes, or beliefs that vast numbers of people deserve to be tortured for eternity for not failing to worship the right deity, do deserve to be hated though. Views like that shouldn't be tolerated, we should voice our criticism of them.

Similarly objectively wrong views should not be tolerated when they are professed, especially in professional circles. If a person thinks rubbing kyanite on their skin or taking homeopathic medicine will heal their cancer, this view should receive sharp criticism.

Oh please. Stop pretending that every religious person thinks that way and that it is grounds for abolishing all religion. Religion is most often times not the culprit in these cases. Its individuals wanting to push an agenda, power over others or material possessions, cloaking their own agendas under the guise of religious doctrine. As it has already been said in this thread, even if religion were abolished then people would find other excuses to act horribly to one another.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Oh please. Stop pretending that every religious person thinks that way and that it is grounds for abolishing all religion. Religion is most often times not the culprit in these cases. Its individuals wanting to push an agenda, power over others or material possessions, cloaking their own agendas under the guise of religious doctrine. As it has already been said in this thread, even if religion were abolished then people would find other excuses to act horribly to one another.

I never argued that we have a grounds for abolishing religion. I think that banning people from having magical views would be oppressive, even if I can demonstrate those views are categorically incorrect.

I think I do have a right to show why those magical beliefs are wrong though.

Living inside your head must be rather strange, if you believe other people want to establish cloak and dagger governments to oppress the religious for daring to suggest that religious thinking is fundamentally flawed, even if it makes people feel fuzzy inside.
 
Last edited:
I never argued that we have a grounds for abolishing religion. I think that banning people from having magical views would be oppressive, even if I can demonstrate those views are categorically incorrect.

I think I do have a right to show why those magical beliefs are wrong though.

I don't understand why anyone would want to butt into anyone's personal life just to argue with them over beliefs, but indeed that is your right.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I don't understand why anyone would want to butt into anyone's personal life just to argue with them over beliefs, but indeed that is your right.

This is a public discussion. It is not somebody's personal life. I am not going door to door, which is a common practice religious proselytisers [who often demand special protection from criticism] undertake.

Pfff, infidels. You'll never experience the joy of feasting at the Svarogs' table!

Woden was always more my kind of deity anyway.
 
Last edited:

Alexxx-Returns

The Sergal that Didn't Vore
When something is explained by science, and validated by science, it BECOMES a scientific statement. If there was magic and other such things (I say IF, I know this is not a real thing), if humans discovered it, and explored and researched it, it would be grounded in science. Magic would become a scientific interest. Maybe at one point, humans thought there was something very magical about the cosmos around us, but now this is science.

E. And humans worshipping the sun. That's what I was trying to remember. It was hailed as a deity, but now it's science, and it's taught about in science classes.

I'm not trying to conflict with anyone's opinions or beliefs when I say this, but if there was a god, some all-powerful deity, it would become science.
 

Ayattar

Banned
Banned
Why do I feel like you only exist for conflict, Melodram Patheticus

It's because he's not made from plasticine but from iron, thus it's easier to break him than incline and convince. Plus, I have vague suspiction that IRL he's some kind of very well written bot, as there is rarely something else than logic in his posts! Hahaha! I got you, Roy Batty! It's time to get decomissioned!
 

ADF

Member
It always amazes me how religion can be so dominant and widespread, so influential and imposing, yet can declare oppression whenever it's criticised.
 
It always amazes me how religion can be so dominant and widespread, so influential and imposing, yet can declare oppression whenever it's criticised.

We've stepped into an age that the world is becoming increasingly polarised, and with the fact that info and rumours can spread to millions in a matter of seconds, it's really hard to get away with saying shit that might offend others. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes, for worse.

I blame the extreme Christian right-wingers, especially American ones, who've been taking this I-can't-be-bigoted-without-getting-a-bunch-of-flak thing and trying to turn it around by calling "oppression!" in their last feeble attempt to hold onto the ability to spout whatever bat-shit-crazy nonsense inspired them that day - It's their last defence mechanism (except...guns? And the 1st amendment). It can be excessively bad from both parties, but it's more consistently bad from the right-wingers, who make up things like the "gay agenda", or "godless heathen agenda", or what the fuck ever >_>
 

tisr

I exist perhaps
Regarding atheism and agnosticism...

Atheism is not the assertion that no gods exist. It is simply the lack of belief in gods. Many people mix that up a lot. Atheism is not a fundamentally flawed viewpoint.

To me, I see no difference between a teapot in space which has not been observed, or a god. There is no way to prove that either one is different from each other, and there is no practical, falsifiable test we can perform to determine a difference in their identities. Perhaps this clears up the reasons why I am ignostic.
 
Top