Home › Forums › Philosophy › Religion
This topic contains 95 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by 
Wally 4 years ago.
- AuthorPosts
This will be my last post on this topic also.
@frankone you made some good points there. My grandfather was Catholic and I learnt a lot about the IRA and the connected politics through him.
As regards Muhammad marrying Aisha at the age of 9, that is disputed and held to be 19 by some scholars. Not something that would be acceptable in western culture but in the Middle East and African countries people reach puberty at much younger ages (so 9 is not an uncommon age to reach puberty and is normal for many, even in UK there has been some cases of boys at age 6 and girls as I saw in a documentary some years back).
Even countries within the EU cannot agree at what age sex is appropriate and not appropriate. The age of consent for Austria, Germany, Portugal and Italy it is 14, and in France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Greece it is 15. Spain did have one of the lowest ages of consent on the continent at just 13, but recently agreed to raise this to 16., whereas in UK sex at such an age would be ‘statutory rape’.
As long as they have reached their teens I don’t see what the big deal is with the age of consent in the west at least.
I don't need pussy
Either way, whatever you believe in or whether you are atheist/agnostic etc, if you are MGTOW and don’t respect another MGHOWs views (i.e take the p~~~ out of their religious views) then perhaps you have more in common with the bitches who love to divide and conquer than being a ‘brother’ to your fellow MGHOW.
It’s like Vegas, what you do in Vegas stays in Vegas.
When I am in a religious debate, it stays within that debate and there is no ill will outside of that debate.You can't reason with unreasonable, there; women, figured out, there is nothing to reason.
Ancientwisdom: Yes, at 45, I’m in my ‘intractable’ years, haha. Long past my ‘formative’ years. I shouldn’t have implied you weren’t familiar with Einstein’s beliefs, which you clearly are familiar with. The link may still be of interest to others who’ve been following this thread. I find discussions on religion interesting, but problem is, it often gets inflamed and personal. In my case I have more of an academic interest, though I also like to joke about some faiths, especially Islam, due to its intolerance. Unfortunately these discussions often devolve into name-calling. I appreciate you keeping it civil.
Rebalanced: You are correct, the age at which Aisha married the prophet is disputed by modern Muslim apologists, in some hadiths it is stated as 9; other means of calculating it come up with older ages, but these hadiths are typically deemed most important, especially to Sunnis. I also agree with you, an age of consent of 18 is too old. Problem is, it varies by INDIVIDUAL. In my opinion, 15-16 is reasonable, but 9 is not. Everybody will probably have a different opinion on this too. I will say I disagree with how many countries in the Arab world have NO minimum age of marriage (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Yemen), and leave it at that. Also, the contemporary critics of Muhammad didn’t criticize him on this because that was the culture in the Middle East 1400 years ago. Since the age of puberty varies by 4-5 years among individuals, and ’emotional’ age varies, a one size fits all age is in itself problematic — but that can’t be codified into laws. The historic Muslim view has been no marriage before puberty. In Shakespeare’s time the age of consent was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.
Age of puberty has gone down in the last couple hundred years, with better nutrition thought to be the cause.
I agree about respecting others, and debating civilly! Spot on!
The burden of proof lies with religion.
And as Christopher Hitchens said: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
I became a MGTOW because this was the only logical solution for a man survive in a world replete of gynocentrism and biased against men!
Anonymous24Men have always created gods. I know of no gods that have created all that exists as of yet.
Most scientists believe in climate change too and we know that’s a crock.
The thing is, if you dont “believe” in it as a scientist, you dont get funded.
We do not have to respect each others religious views. We have to tolerate them.
I’ll second that. I’m not going to respect the Heaven’s Gate cult, or Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) for burning down the newspaper the Expositor, because he didn’t like what they wrote about him, for instance. Or respect the Roman Catholic Church’s persecution of Jews, witches, heretics, etc.
Actually the codified disrespect of religion has to do with what Frank was talking about regarding Mythology versus religion. He’s a little bit off though.
The powers that be call religions they wish to discredit mythology. Since the Abraham Cult religions are the ones currently being used to mindf~~~ people, they call everything else mythology or paganism. People still believe in Odin and thor etc, but the current crop of world controllers are trying to manipulate our identities by discrediting the pre-christian religions of europe, and by trying to make all people of earth believe that their only spiritual roots lead back to the middle east. They even go so far as to assert that northern europe was settled by the Tribe of Dan, from the bible.
19% of adherents believe in Hinduism, Buddhism, And another 12% are ‘other religions’; the sum of these, 31%, is on par with the fraction that practice Christianity (about 33%), and more than those practicing Islam — so a lot of people believe in non-Abrahamic religions. I’m not seeing a lot of ‘leaders’ trying to discredit pre-Christian religions, other than religious leaders trying to promote one Faith; mostly elected officials that are religious, at least in the West, are trying to stem the tide against disbelief, rather than worry so much about non-Abrahamic faiths. I would say religion was born in mesopotamia and/or Africa, so in that sense, tracing many of the religions back to the cradle of civilization makes some sense. It may truly be the oldest profession, or, maybe the second oldest profession. At least the oldest profession was an honest one! Can’t say the same for the second oldest one.
I believe the old Pantheons are discredited because they showed the gods as flawed as men, and were tales illustrating the pecadillos of human nature. The Abraham Cult prefers a god which abuses humanity into compliance, and has a favorite tribe; they believe that is a better template for the human mind.
Call me a cynic, but I would argue the ‘branches’ use an older religion/existing Gods, to make their beliefs more credible. i.e., a lot of people in ancient Israel believed in monotheistic Jewish God; so if you want to get converts, you need to mesh your beliefs into those that already exist — sell the Messiah prophesied in the OT. The sale didn’t go over too well with Jews, but the business plan still worked out when it was revised to include gentiles, a brilliant approach to capture additional ‘salvation’ and ‘meaning and purpose’ market share — two ‘products’ that have been in demand for the entire course of human civilization.
With Islam, it’s the same deal, weaving Jesus and Mary into their beliefs for good ‘ancient cred’, since it came on the ‘scene’ later
I’m going back to praying to the flying spaghetti monster before bedtime. I will be blessed by beer volcanoes and strippers. You infidels will get fat chicks with VD for believing in the wrong diety.
We do not have to respect each others religious views. We have to tolerate them.
NO, the exact opposite!
I think we should respect each other, despite of different views. BUT we dont have to tolerate them!
You’re upside down on your views , GT.
You should see my face now. YOU are the one that has the best overview out of all MGTOW I thought..
Survivor/GT: To me, ‘respect’ denotes ‘admiration’. I cannot admire a lot of these religions, because first off, many contradict each other. Second, many of them have political ambitions in the ‘temporal’ realm. If a country is dominated by devout Muslims, Sharia will likely be the Law. A corrupt, opaque system, that makes [government] corruption in the West look tame by comparison.
Similarly, there are far-right Christians who want to persecute Jews. And there is the Irish Republican Army that has killed protestants. While itself not a religion, it is composed of religious people.
So I would not even go so far as to say I can ‘tolerate’ all these religions — I can tolerate those that do not wish to control the civil authority to suppress other beliefs and non-belief. Since this sort of ‘humanism’ is now a part of mainstream Christianity in the West, I find it tolerable. Of course, this is a recent innovation; the Church used to exercise temporal power routinely. For similar reasons, I find Wahabbism (Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia) intolerable. This determination has nothing to do with which Sky Daddy is the True Sky Daddy and which is/are the Imposter — I’m a non-believer.
Toleration means we can all do our thing without violence. It doesn’t mean we have to like each other’s ‘thing’ or worship. Some of these practices might even be good. Snake handling in ‘literalist’ Christian Churches gets rid of stupid people when they get bit. Circumambulating the Kaaba and stoning the Devil is probably good exercise (if you don’t get trampled; though the Authorities have assured us that if you die on the Hajj you go straight to Paradise).
Without reading or knowing anything other than the introductory paragraph I will say this: Religion is an unavoidable facet of human nature.
All religion, regardless of what it is, is:
-a set of beliefs, rules, ceremonies.
-a belief in a diety/ies in some shape or form
-or something that is very important to a person(s).In that respect, everyone is religious in some shape or form, because religion is a fundamentally human characteristic.
To say it is fundamentally anti-mgtow or pro-mgtow is utter nonsense.
John Doe: Religion is avoidable. If a witch doctor or shaman, or High Priest, never stepped up out of the tribe, to sell a cure for a disease, sexual impotency, fertility, a good crop, a fat heiffer, a hot wife, etc, and claimed to Know the Divine, there would be no religion.
But alas, this isn’t what happened. And so, the second oldest profession, the Priesthood, was born.
Well, you might still have ascetism.
Anonymous24Conan: What gods do you pray to?
Subotai: I pray to the four winds… and you?
Conan: To Crom… but I seldom pray to him, he doesn’t listen.
Subotai: [chuckles] What good is he then? Ah, it’s just as I’ve always said.
Conan: He is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, “What is the riddle of steel?” If I don’t know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That’s Crom, strong on his mountain!
Subotai: Ah, my god is greater.
Conan: [chuckles] Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain.
Subotai: My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him.
[Conan shoots Subotai a skeptical look. Subotai laughs]My favorite religions: Pastafarianism, Scientology, and Mormonism. How about yours?
Guys please, this asshole satanist is only sucking up your time and lies nonstop about the bible teachings.
Hes NOT having a normal conversation with you. Only time when he says something thats true, then it are facts that literally everyone knows anyways and he therefore cant deny anymore.
He cant only straightout lie…that wouldnt work.He picks out the well educated people like me or Survivor for example and waste their enery on him.
HE ONLY F~~~S WITH YOUR HEAD!!!!
HE LIES IN EVERY TOPIC but in these threats he only wants to ridicule christianity.wiki:
Pastafarianism, also known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a humorous religion whose doctrines satirize creationism, revering a creator deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pastafarianism
unless you didnt know, because i never heard of it before.Its not atheism, its actually satanism what they do when you look at their homepage.
I found what I expected. Nothing against muslims… only mocking christ nonstop.
Look they side with extremists even:http://www.venganza.org/page/6/
Melbourne counter-demonstration: Muslims and Pastafarians Vs. Atheists
Published June 11th, 2012 by Bobby Henderson
During lunch break on Sunday April 15th at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, a group of 20 or so courageous Muslim extremists gathered in front of the convention center filled with 4000 Atheist unbelievers. They were quickly joined by two Pastafarians and shoulder to shoulder they demonstrated against those ignorant Atheists who do not understand Creation nor fear God. Islam and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism have the same core beliefs in common; we believe (and truly know) that the universe and all living beings were created by a deity and a Prophet spoke in His name. We just have different opinions about the name of that god and Prophet and also treat our wenches slightly differently. Apart from that, Islam and Pastafarianism: Same struggle!In the attached pictures you will see the Muslims demonstrating in full Islamic regalia together with Pastafarians in colander head gear holding up the Gospel and a fresh pack of Spaghetti. On the windows in the background you might see the reflection of a Pirate Ship. Coincidence??
Pesto be upon all Believers,
and please, christian and islamic persecution of old religions is well known. Please stop with your revisionism frank.
You know so much Survivor, but why not that true christians may not kill and persecute.
The Catholic Church is paganism and is the opposite of christianity.
Being christian on paper doesnt make you christian. Following Christ does.
Christians that kill are NOT christians…Dont waste your time in educating this sob. His goal is to suck up your time…and thats because you want to world that is justice and fairness on this planet.
The Beatitudes
…5″Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. 6″Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7″Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.. Man you are a great teacher, but dont let this f~~~er waste your time. You getting tricked.
He just loves to waste your time here, because you are very intelligent and close to the truth.Its hard to believe without proof that you cant witness with your own eyes.
I put the 2 videos in my topic ” The Book of Daniel”
Just try it and watch them both to the end with concentration.
Im serious. I believe in you. See you in paradise hopefully. I mean it.John Doe: Religion is avoidable. If a witch doctor or shaman, or High Priest, never stepped up out of the tribe, to sell a cure for a disease, sexual impotency, fertility, a good crop, a fat heiffer, a hot wife, etc, and claimed to Know the Divine, there would be no religion.
But alas, this isn’t what happened. And so, the second oldest profession, the Priesthood, was born.
Well, you might still have ascetism.The scientists are the priests of the secular world. Instead of an altar a metal table. Instead of an gold covered idol a computer. And just like the “religious” no guarantee, other than faith, that it will solve all the world’s problems.
The human ego is the new “god”. Force of will is the new faith. Fear is the new hope. Triumpth is the new love.
Johndoe writes:
The scientists are the priests of the secular world. Instead of an altar a metal table. Instead of an gold covered idol a computer. And just like the “religious” no guarantee, other than faith, that it will solve all the world’s problems.The human ego is the new “god”. Force of will is the new faith. Fear is the new hope. Triumph is the new love.
Firstly, my post was to be taken jokingly; that the witch doctor arose as a charlatan to take people’s money.
Last I checked, theology doesn’t invent the light bulb, design bridges, build roads, or develop new drugs. Those are the domain of science and technology — the ‘temporal’ realm.
Religion is the domain of selling God, and making people feel good about themselves and the way they live, and making them conform to whatever religion you’re selling.
Are we more likely to solve the world’s problems by focusing on the here and now (physical reality), or an unproveable life after death?
Nobody worships a computer or prays to it five times a day–so you make a strange analogy.
I do have a question for you: What if all resources, since the beginning of mankind, spend on building Temples, Churches, Pyramids, etc, praying and worshiping in them, and sustaining the Priesthood, had instead been spent on improving man’s life on earth? Which alternative has a higher return on investment?
If scientists and technologists are the new priesthood, they’re doing a s~~~ty job. First, they’re not taking 10% of people’s income. Second, they’re improving Man’s temporal lot with new inventions and improving our lives, not blowing hot air about a ‘life to come’. And unlike real priests, we don’t have to take what they say on faith, it is verifiable. These scientists need to go to Divinity School, to learn how it’s done. Or, at least watch some Sunday morning televangelists.
Nobody worships a computer or prays to it five times a day–so you make a strange analogy.
We spent our days hunched over it, waving our hands before it, giving it all our thoughts, dreams, wishes and wants. We ask it to solve our problems, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think computers are evil. They are just tools. But we have deified them to such a point they might as well be idols of stone and precious metals. Hell, we even replicate images of the natural world (much like the idols of old) and give praise and homage to them.
I really don’t have a problem with technology at all. I just don’t see it as the be all and end all of life.
I do have a question for you: What if all resources, since the beginning of mankind, spend on building Temples, Churches, Pyramids, etc, praying and worshiping in them, and sustaining the Priesthood, had instead been spent on improving man’s life on earth? Which alternative has a higher return on investment?
And what is improving man’s life on earth? Because that is a subjective question you are demanding an objective answer for. Last time I checked war, starvation, poverty, and p~~~ed off people yelling “Freedom, Freedom” are still around so we cannot really say anything really change. You might point to a population boom, but at the same time you will say it is the problem. So you might want to clarify how you feel.
Technology isn’t the be-all and end-all, but it’s reduced infant mortality, cured many diseases, and made our lives much more agreeable.
I don’t see how we’ve deified our computers, any more than our dishwasher, stove, or TV. They’re just tools to make life easier or more enjoyable, or to get work done.
And what is improving man’s life on earth? Because that is a subjective question you are demanding an objective answer for.
Is this even a serious question? Are we better off now than in the past? World poverty rates have dropped from 83% to under 10% in the last 200 years. We now have electric light, air conditioning, central heat, near instantaneous communication, and rapid travel. On average, we live decades longer than we did a few hundred years ago. We get to retire if we wish to. Yes, we still have poverty and war, but we are so much better off than in the past, due to technological advancement, it is not even funny.
I think I answered your question adequately; please answer mine:
FrankOne wrote: I do have a question for you: What if all resources, since the beginning of mankind, spend on building Temples, Churches, Pyramids, etc, praying and worshiping in them, and sustaining the Priesthood, had instead been spent on improving man’s life on earth? Which alternative has a higher return on investment?
Presumably, by extrapolation, the answer is: we would have attained our current technological state of advancement SOONER.
But we’d be missing the pretty pyramids, the lovely Cathedrals, minarets, synogogues, temples, mosques, and Churches. And the televangelists. And colorful figures like Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. ‘Investment’ in these artifices, does not appear to have provided much return.
Technology isn’t the be-all and end-all, but it’s reduced infant mortality, cured many diseases, and made our lives much more agreeable.
But then you will say their is a problem with over population.
I don’t see how we’ve deified our computers, any more than our dishwasher, stove, or TV. They’re just tools to make life easier or more enjoyable, or to get work done.
And girls/young men walking around with iphones/ipads all day looking at pictures of themselves isn’t a form of idolatry?
Is this even a serious question? Are we better off now than in the past? World poverty rates have dropped from 83% to under 10% in the last 200 years. We now have electric light, air conditioning, central heat, near instantaneous communication, and rapid travel. On average, we live decades longer than we did a few hundred years ago. We get to retire if we wish to. Yes, we still have poverty and war, but we are so much better off than in the past, due to technological advancement, it is not even funny
Yes we have all these things. Yet we still don’t have what we want, nor do we know what we want. Even with all these things we are just as poor as our ancestors who were always reaching for more. What good is it to get what one wants when all it does is leave him wanting more?
We might “have” more physically but we really don’t possess anything other than an appetite for more.
Mankind continually wants, and mastering the physical world doesn’t change anything.
The rich man and the poor man have one thing in common that make them both equals: wanting more.
Presumably, by extrapolation, the answer is: we would have attained our current technological state of advancement SOONER.
I think that is judging the book before reading the final chapter because we really do not know if where we are is where we really want to be. It is no different then when Rome shouted about their “God-like” powers only for hindsight to prove them fools.
We do not really know whether the “superstitions” of old allowed us to keep a part of ourselves that we are lacking today.
To be quite frank I do not see how moral relativism allows one to value anything other than one’s personal ego and its drive to consume at the expense of oneself.
After all, if I were to be empathetic, I have to see your world view through the eyes of a moral relativist.
And if that was the case, well I could say but you already know as I think your avatar already shows how you see the world, a vortex into oblivion.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
