General religious discussion thread

[Hmmm lies she/her]

(Damn it, there's been so many responses I can't reply to all of them.)

5 hours ago, Ookla the Ansible said:

…

I don’t know whether to be offended or amused

Yeah I’m repping it

heres my counter anyways not trying to argue tho

  Reveal hidden contents

(Also that sounds like saying you don’t like presents cuz they might have bombs in them) [juuuust saying] {continuing with the present analogy, when you get a present, there can be anything in them. There are a lot more bad possibilities than the perfect present, which means that the present must be bad}

I also think there are differences in what I think the purpose of religion is and what you think the purpose of religion is

 

 

 

ANYWAYS GUYS

if u cudnt tell I’m religious

I think this is definitely trying to argue, which is fine, I love arguing. 

The thing about infinite possibilities is that it is only the case if omnipotence exists (at least in this argument). When omnipotence exists, I don't think there would necessarily be a data trend towards existing religions, since without more information about what or who is omnipotent, we have no way of knowing what it would do with this power. Meanwhile, I don't think there's infinite possibilities for a present, because of such things as the mentality of the gift-giver and such. Even if there was, the data would be heavily skewed toward common gifts, because of the factors that can impact that. It's not meant to be a counterargument to all religion, just religion with omnipotence.

5 hours ago, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

I’ve thought a lot about this recently and I honestly think if someone presented definitive proof that a god existed I still wouldn’t worship them just bc I think I want to be my own person bc that’s who I want to not bc some dude in the sky told me to be that person.

So this is a weird one for me. What a god means in this context is obviously important. (For example, in the Cosmere, Returned and Shards are both considered gods, despite being at vastly different levels of power.) 

But I think that if the existence of an afterlife was confirmed, I would take action. If an eternal afterlife existed, than life would be meaningless next to it, and I'd figure that getting an optimal afterlife would be necessary.

That brings me to something I consider a strange thought process in some people. 

I have met someone on the internet who basically told me "I think you're going to hell, but I'm not going to try to convince you of my views."

I could not comprehend this. Ignoring whether my own life would get me into hell or not, I do not understand how one could believe in an eternal afterlife, and not take action to make sure as many people as possible get in the good one. Cause, I figure it's literally infinite evil to not do this, since an infinite amount of suffering is happening (this is assuming the viewpoint that hell is eternal torment and heaven is eternal bliss, I know not everyone believes this). And yet they choose not to press the issue because of... politeness? Difficulty? (I wouldn't call myself a utilitarian, but I do believe in trying to cause the least harm possible.) 

Oh and please don't try Pascal's Wager on me. It's flawed. 

(Reasons why)

Spoiler

Pascal's wager assumed that either: God that punishes disbelief and rewards belief, or no god

It doesn't take into account: There are thousands of different gods one could choose to believe in, some of which forbid following other gods, that most scripture requires actions that comply with religion, not just belief, that it is possible that 'belief' through this wager is not sincere belief, since it is only for the hope of eternal bliss, that, even if we take into account actions as well as belief, different religions (and even denominations of said religions) disagree on what actions should/should not be taken.

Edit:

  

40 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

I just like picking at logic and arguments. I agree with your conclusion: I too am against organized religion and ideas like gods or God that call for worship.

Point F seems really weak due to the use of the notion of infinite possibilities. Imagine the geometry problem of "where will a dart hit on a dartboard?" If we imagine the dart board as being a finite plane, which is composed of infinitely many points, and we suppose the dart is a line, which is 1 point wide, then each point on the dart board only has a 1 out of infinity, or practically 0, chance of being hit. I think this shows that probabilities do not work properly with infinities that emerge from continuous possibilities.

I also suggest you consider reading Spinoza's Ethics or some secondary work that brings up the idea of God developed there. Spinoza's God is something like "The sum of all existing things", which I think is very interesting to think about.

The dartboard problem does work though, every point does have an effectively 0 chance of being hit. However, if we take into account larger measurements we find higher chances. The biggest differences, however, are that 

a. The dartboard isn't infinitely big (so while there are infinite points, there are not, say, infinite square inches)

b. A dart is more likely to hit points near the middle (assuming they aren't going for like the triple 20 space or whatever I don't actually know what the rules of darts are), because of the aiming of the person throwing it. (A human is understood, and will aim for a certain location, with a certain margin of error. Meanwhile, a god is completely unknowable, and there's no reason to believe it would do one thing or another)

Edited December 10, 2025 by Ookla the Game Master

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Right I got a question for y'all. How is this debate handled? Trying to prove the existence of God amounts to trying to prove an abstraction, which isn't really possible, and trying to prove there is no God is trying to prove a negative, which is definitely impossible. How...like...how?

[Hmmm lies she/her]

1 minute ago, Ookla the Kansan said:

Right I got a question for y'all. How is this debate handled? Trying to prove the existence of God amounts to trying to prove an abstraction, which isn't really possible, and trying to prove there is no God is trying to prove a negative, which is definitely impossible. How...like...how?

I mean we haven't proven either so...

With negatives, I figure if you can prove them with >99.99% accuracy, they're pretty much proven though. (Not a statistician, I'm not certain how this stuff is proven)

 

[First of the Tide He/him]

1 hour ago, Ookla the Kansan said:

Right I got a question for y'all. How is this debate handled? Trying to prove the existence of God amounts to trying to prove an abstraction, which isn't really possible, and trying to prove there is no God is trying to prove a negative, which is definitely impossible. How...like...how?

I'm sorry to nitpick, but this particular statement really grinds my gears. Proving a negative is impossible if there is a relevant infinity (or unknown)  For example, if you wanted to prove "There is no dart on the bullseye of this dartboard" (A true negative, similar (grammatically and logically) to "There is no god") You could prove it by proving that:

A: There is one dart.

B: Shape X contains the dart

 No part of Shape X contains any part of the bullseye

(All this assumes 2d dartboard, and 1d dart) (some relevant infinities here would be: infinite dartboard(Shape X can never contain a non-zero percentage of the area of the dartboard) infinite(non geometric) bullseye(same problem, but instead, is impossible to rigorously prove there is no overlap between)Infinite/unknowable number of darts (impossible to prove that all darts are contained in Shape X))

 

 

Generally this is handled by attempting to prove that one side is more plausible than the other, rather than to rigorously prove or disprove a point

Me, personally, I came to the conclusion that a god would be either entirely unempatetic, really *Aviar noises*ing stupid, or non-existant, and I chose the least depressing one for me

(please don't argue at me I'm perfectly fine to leave your religion unattacked, please do me the same courtesy)

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

2 hours ago, Ookla the Kansan said:

Right I got a question for y'all. How is this debate handled? Trying to prove the existence of God amounts to trying to prove an abstraction, which isn't really possible, and trying to prove there is no God is trying to prove a negative, which is definitely impossible. How...like...how?

Well, thats the point.

I don't believe that there is 100% certinty in any god, and it could be either or.

I specifically believe that the concept of 'if you dont believe in this, you go to hell' is stupid, and i understand that that is people's beliefs, but i will never and can never subscribe or understand it.

[Myst He/Him]

37 minutes ago, Ookla the Dokja said:

Well, thats the point.

I don't believe that there is 100% certinty in any god, and it could be either or.

I specifically believe that the concept of 'if you dont believe in this, you go to hell' is stupid, and i understand that that is people's beliefs, but i will never and can never subscribe or understand it.

This is always a weird convo for me. I’m lds(yall know it’s The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) but it’s always weird for me when someone not believing in Christianity points out someone thing and I’m like, “yeah, exactly” because you’re right, I do find that idea very stupid, and I don’t believe that as a Latter Day Saint, but it’s always weird that I, Identifying as a Christian(I’m not going to worry whether yall think Lds is considered Christian or not) agree with non-believers. At the very least, it feels weird-ish to me. 
There have been some times when I’m trying to explain my beliefs and someone points out a problem with Christianity and I’m like, “exactly! This is why I believe in the Restoration” and they just assume that because I’m agreeing with them I’m saying that they’re stance won.

this is very rambly, so hopefully this makes sense to yall

[Trutharchivist he/him]

4 hours ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

I have met someone on the internet who basically told me "I think you're going to hell, but I'm not going to try to convince you of my views."

I could not comprehend this. Ignoring whether my own life would get me into hell or not, I do not understand how one could believe in an eternal afterlife, and not take action to make sure as many people as possible get in the good one. Cause, I figure it's literally infinite evil to not do this, since an infinite amount of suffering is happening (this is assuming the viewpoint that hell is eternal torment and heaven is eternal bliss, I know not everyone believes this). And yet they choose not to press the issue because of... politeness? Difficulty? (I wouldn't call myself a utilitarian, but I do believe in trying to cause the least harm possible.)

I don't know. Certain Christians take exactly this stance, which leads them to being incredibly intolerant of anyone who isn't their particular flavour of Christian.

I think this world is complex, and while people's eternal salvation can be very important to a person, not being a jerk is also important. And accepting that other people have different beliefs than you do is an essential part of not being a jerk.

I don't know if I'm phrasing this right. But essentially, if a person would go to me and do everything in their power to make me say that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour I would not admire their moral consistency, I'll be annoyed by their complete incapability in accepting that I don't share their beliefs. And I think this should be taken to account - maybe the best way to frame it is belief is different than knowledge. I don't know that G-d exists and serves punishment to the wicked, but I might believe it. At the same time, I can acknowledge that a different person does not believe it, and that this is their choice and not mine.

(Re: Pascal's Wager, I just want to 100% agree. Pascal's Wager is one of the most useless arguments because it assumes a binary over a topic that really isn't a binary. Even within religions that believe in omnipotence, according to the Wager you must be willing to serve God both as the Christians see Him and Allah as Muslims do, which tend to clash with each other.)

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

8 hours ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

The dartboard problem does work though

I think you too my words too directly. What I meant to draw was an analogy to how engaging in probabilities with infinities behaves non-intuitively. 

6 hours ago, First of the Tide said:

 

This is not very meaningful, but it the forum converting "C\:" into an emote really messed with the vibes. Does d colon...

5 hours ago, Ookla the Dokja said:

I specifically believe that the concept of 'if you dont believe in this, you go to hell' is stupid, and i understand that that is people's beliefs, but i will never and can never subscribe or understand it.

I actually have heard a good account of how to make that make sense, but it is more to do with the nature of God and hell. Now, I am going to preface this by saying I don't see the premise of a "soul" or a "next life" or any such thing as being meaningfully real. Never the less, there are interesting thought exercises that emerge from the idea as a sort of anti-unifromitarianism for morality.

The idea goes that rejecting God in life means being without God in the afterlife, in accordance with the freedom of the individual. However, since God is identical with The Good in a sense like Plato meant such, then the goddless residence of the soul is without anything good in proportion to how much the soul rejected God. I would further note that rejecting God does not just mean the truth claim of God existing, but also the claims of what God says is the right way to live. This idea fits well with a ontology of evil where there is not such thing as "evil in itself" but only the profound absence of good from something. Ergo, a wholly Godless realm would be a realm of evil.

Also, what is up with all of the accounts named "Ookla the" all of a sudden?

3 hours ago, Trutharchivist said:

I think this world is complex, and while people's eternal salvation can be very important to a person, not being a jerk is also important. And accepting that other people have different beliefs than you do is an essential part of not being a jerk.

I don't know if I'm phrasing this right. But essentially, if a person would go to me and do everything in their power to make me say that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour I would not admire their moral consistency, I'll be annoyed by their complete incapability in accepting that I don't share their beliefs.

I think what you are hitting upon are the questions of cosmopolitanism. How do we have a society where people hold differing fundamental values? Is such a society good? If so, are there any limits to what tolerant society can tolerate without its tolerance being compromised?

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

10 hours ago, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

I kinda agree I don’t rly have a problem with religion I have a problem with people who use it to justify being storming rust heads to other people

Exactly

For these reasons, I wouldn’t consider the Crusades valid Christianity

its a form of Christianity

 But it’s stupid and mean

9 hours ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

(Damn it, there's been so many responses I can't reply to all of them.)

I think this is definitely trying to argue, which is fine, I love arguing. 

The thing about infinite possibilities is that it is only the case if omnipotence exists (at least in this argument). When omnipotence exists, I don't think there would necessarily be a data trend towards existing religions, since without more information about what or who is omnipotent, we have no way of knowing what it would do with this power. Meanwhile, I don't think there's infinite possibilities for a present, because of such things as the mentality of the gift-giver and such. Even if there was, the data would be heavily skewed toward common gifts, because of the factors that can impact that. It's not meant to be a counterargument to all religion, just religion with omnipotence.

So this is a weird one for me. What a god means in this context is obviously important. (For example, in the Cosmere, Returned and Shards are both considered gods, despite being at vastly different levels of power.) 

But I think that if the existence of an afterlife was confirmed, I would take action. If an eternal afterlife existed, than life would be meaningless next to it, and I'd figure that getting an optimal afterlife would be necessary.

That brings me to something I consider a strange thought process in some people. 

I have met someone on the internet who basically told me "I think you're going to hell, but I'm not going to try to convince you of my views."

I could not comprehend this. Ignoring whether my own life would get me into hell or not, I do not understand how one could believe in an eternal afterlife, and not take action to make sure as many people as possible get in the good one. Cause, I figure it's literally infinite evil to not do this, since an infinite amount of suffering is happening (this is assuming the viewpoint that hell is eternal torment and heaven is eternal bliss, I know not everyone believes this). And yet they choose not to press the issue because of... politeness? Difficulty? (I wouldn't call myself a utilitarian, but I do believe in trying to cause the least harm possible.) 

Oh and please don't try Pascal's Wager on me. It's flawed. 

(Reasons why)

  Reveal hidden contents

Pascal's wager assumed that either: God that punishes disbelief and rewards belief, or no god

It doesn't take into account: There are thousands of different gods one could choose to believe in, some of which forbid following other gods, that most scripture requires actions that comply with religion, not just belief, that it is possible that 'belief' through this wager is not sincere belief, since it is only for the hope of eternal bliss, that, even if we take into account actions as well as belief, different religions (and even denominations of said religions) disagree on what actions should/should not be taken.

Edit:

  

The dartboard problem does work though, every point does have an effectively 0 chance of being hit. However, if we take into account larger measurements we find higher chances. The biggest differences, however, are that 

a. The dartboard isn't infinitely big (so while there are infinite points, there are not, say, infinite square inches)

b. A dart is more likely to hit points near the middle (assuming they aren't going for like the triple 20 space or whatever I don't actually know what the rules of darts are), because of the aiming of the person throwing it. (A human is understood, and will aim for a certain location, with a certain margin of error. Meanwhile, a god is completely unknowable, and there's no reason to believe it would do one thing or another)

(Actually argument contains negative connotation, and words like Discussion or even Debate are preferable for more positive or neutral connotations)

but you’re kinda ignoring all the context

what you could call the mentality of the gift-giver

 

The point of religion is not to define the world, not to just guess

If it were, I might agree

But that point isn’t really valid, because… SPOILER BOX!

Spoiler

I don’t have religion because some one told me that it’s true.

You—and most people who argue about theologies, including theists—are ignoring one of the most fundamental facets of religion.

Faith

Ik, it’s a weird place to attack it from.

But, again, I don’t believe because someone told me, I believe because of experiences I’ve had, and I believe because I’ve been (for lack of a better/more creative/more objective word) healed through religion.

Every time (*most times) a monotheistic religion is founded, it’s usually someone who builds on the teachings of previous generations—kinda stemming with Moses. And Moses didn’t believe because he was guessing—if he wanted to do that, he would have accepted the Egyptian mythos. He believed because he saw deity.

Ik you do not believe that, but arguing as you are completely ignores what we believe and say.

9 hours ago, Ookla the Kansan said:

Right I got a question for y'all. How is this debate handled? Trying to prove the existence of God amounts to trying to prove an abstraction, which isn't really possible, and trying to prove there is no God is trying to prove a negative, which is definitely impossible. How...like...how?

It isn’t.

going back, I told Honor’s Ghost that if I had no proof, or even if it was disproven one way or another, I would choose to believe bc it makes me warm and fuzzy inside. 

9 hours ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

I mean we haven't proven either so...

With negatives, I figure if you can prove them with >99.99% accuracy, they're pretty much proven though. (Not a statistician, I'm not certain how this stuff is proven)

 

But you can only prove negatives like this with proper data and measurements

Curious, what would you define these as?

Edited December 10, 2025 by Ookla the Ansible

[First of the Tide He/him]

3 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Also, what is up with all of the accounts named "Ookla the" all of a sudden?

From the Sharder FAQ:

On 5/30/2024 at 11:13 PM, Treamayne said:

OOKLA SEASON

  Hide contents

Summarized here: - Timewaster's Guide (TWG) Archive

On 11/21/2023 at 10:41 AM, Ookla the Pretender said:

Ookla Season Cometh!

Ookla Season is one of our most venerated traditions here on 17th Shard. To honor the birthday of Peter Ahlstrom, Brandon Sanderson's assistant, we change our names to "Ookla the [Epithet]" on his birthday, November 26th. Most people change back after a week, but Ookla Season doesn't officially end until Koloss Head-Munching Day (Brandon Sanderson's birthday) in December.

So, yeah. Ookla season! Hopefully you won't be as confused as I was my first time around.

Ookla was Peter's Forum Name for the Time Waster Guild Forums, which were the predecessor to these forums. Example WoB:

 

[Hmmm lies she/her]

2 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

I think what you are hitting upon are the questions of cosmopolitanism. How do we have a society where people hold differing fundamental values? Is such a society good? If so, are there any limits to what tolerant society can tolerate without its tolerance being compromised?

Ah, the paradox of tolerance. Always something that has troubled me. I really don't have any answers for it, although I do think it is somewhat prevalent in modern society.

[First of the Tide He/him]

52 minutes ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

Ah, the paradox of tolerance. Always something that has troubled me. I really don't have any answers for it, although I do think it is somewhat prevalent in modern society.

I've actually thought about this a lot. My thoughts, : (some are obvious, but still not practiced by a lot of people)

Some terms G/I = Group or individual B/P = Belief or Practice LLPH = Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness

0th: Ideally, all B/Ps ought to be tolerated, including those of minorities, and the B/Ps of large groups should only take precedence in a truly equal, binary system. 

1st: If a B/P causes no direct or indirect harm to any G/I other than the B/Ping G/I, it should be tolerated.

2nd: If a B/P actively and directly damages the B/P of any G/I, without directly protecting LLorPH for any G/I, or the B/P of some group larger than that whose B/P are being damaged, the offending B/P should not be tolerated.

3rd: If a B/P indirectly or passively damages the B/P of any G/I, and there can be steps taken to sever causality without bringing significant harm to LLorPH for any G/I, or the B/P of some group larger than that whose B/P are being damaged, those steps ought to be taken.

4th: If a B/P indirectly or passively damages the B/P of any G/I, and there cannot be steps taken to sever causality without bringing significant harm to LLorPH for any G/I, or the B/P of some group larger than that whose B/P are being damaged, the offending B/P should, regrettably, not be tolerated.

5th: If multiple B/Ps cannot be tolerated together, for whatever reason, and neither directly damages B/P outside of this system, then whichever B/P more greatly protects the LLandPH of people outside of the B/Ping G/I ought to be tolerated, and the others ought not to be. If they are equal in this, then whichever B/P more greatly protects the LLandPH of people inside of the B/Ping G/I ought to be tolerated, and the others ought not to be. If neither protects LLandPH, and neither damages B/Ps, then the protection of B/Ps is prioritized. If these are also equal, then the G/I with more members takes precedence. If these are still equal, none ought to be tolerated.

That's most of it. I have some more, and 5th is usually split into like 5, but the general idea is covered.

 

(please don't argue at me I'm perfectly fine to leave your religion unattacked, please do me the same courtesy. I don't mind discussion though)

[Hmmm lies she/her]

24 minutes ago, First of the Tide said:

I've actually thought about this a lot. My thoughts, : (some are obvious, but still not practiced by a lot of people)

Some terms G/I = Group or individual B/P = Belief or Practice LLPH = Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness

0th: Ideally, all B/Ps ought to be tolerated, including those of minorities, and the B/Ps of large groups should only take precedence in a truly equal, binary system. 

1st: If a B/P causes no direct or indirect harm to any G/I other than the B/Ping G/I, it should be tolerated.

2nd: If a B/P actively and directly damages the B/P of any G/I, without directly protecting LLorPH for any G/I, or the B/P of some group larger than that whose B/P are being damaged, the offending B/P should not be tolerated.

3rd: If a B/P indirectly or passively damages the B/P of any G/I, and there can be steps taken to sever causality without bringing significant harm to LLorPH for any G/I, or the B/P of some group larger than that whose B/P are being damaged, those steps ought to be taken.

4th: If a B/P indirectly or passively damages the B/P of any G/I, and there cannot be steps taken to sever causality without bringing significant harm to LLorPH for any G/I, or the B/P of some group larger than that whose B/P are being damaged, the offending B/P should, regrettably, not be tolerated.

5th: If multiple B/Ps cannot be tolerated together, for whatever reason, and neither directly damages B/P outside of this system, then whichever B/P more greatly protects the LLandPH of people outside of the B/Ping G/I ought to be tolerated, and the others ought not to be. If they are equal in this, then whichever B/P more greatly protects the LLandPH of people inside of the B/Ping G/I ought to be tolerated, and the others ought not to be. If neither protects LLandPH, and neither damages B/Ps, then the protection of B/Ps is prioritized. If these are also equal, then the G/I with more members takes precedence. If these are still equal, none ought to be tolerated.

That's most of it. I have some more, and 5th is usually split into like 5, but the general idea is covered.

 

(please don't argue at me I'm perfectly fine to leave your religion unattacked, please do me the same courtesy. I don't mind discussion though)

Damn this is really intensive and cool. I see just one missing piece. (I don't have an answer for what it's missing, nor do I think anyone could. It's not)

This missing piece is: What happens when there are disagreements on what causes harm, or even what harm is? 

I'm not gonna go too far into it, but if anyone has a good answer, that'd be cool.

 

I was going to begin a debate about what morality even is, but then I found that I don't have the energy for that right now.

[First of the Tide He/him]

2 minutes ago, Ookla the Game Master said:

Damn this is really intensive and cool. I see just one missing piece. (I don't have an answer for what it's missing, nor do I think anyone could. It's not)

This missing piece is: What happens when there are disagreements on what causes harm, or even what harm is? 

I'm not gonna go too far into it, but if anyone has a good answer, that'd be cool.

 

I was going to begin a debate about what morality even is, but then I found that I don't have the energy for that right now.

Yeah, I don't have a great answer. rn, that and 'significant' are the big holes b/c they're so ill-defined, but also really hard to quantify in the field of ethics. It definitely depends, I try to stay close to: the fundamental compromising of any political, social, or cultural right is considered harm, and any compromising to LLorPH is significant harm. and significant is: in a way that fundamentally changes any relevant meaning such that it's semantic correlation is less than about 0.6. this still doesn't work great, since semantic correlation is still subjective, and I can't always adhere to these exactly, but this is what I aim to use them as.

[Keke They/he]

*DEEP BREATH*

ok like… i dont wanna be like seeming mean

like

Ik a lot about Hellenism and all that jazz and like..

how do you al like… worship them? 

Like whats your whole religion in the modern day like?

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

3 hours ago, First of the Tide said:

If a B/P actively and directly damages the B/P of any G/I, without directly protecting LLorPH for any G/I, or the B/P of some group larger than that whose B/P are being damaged, the offending B/P should not be tolerated.

What about beliefs over innate minorities? Consider the case of children. Unless something has gone majorly wrong with a society, children are rarely the majority group compared to adults. Further, it is a common belief among many structures of family that parents are entitled to some measure of ownership and rights over their child.

Can this structure be allowed?

Further, does this mean we ought to accept belief's like "It is harmful to my child to witness certain practices or representations"? 

[First of the Tide He/him]

3 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

What about beliefs over innate minorities? Consider the case of children. Unless something has gone majorly wrong with a society, children are rarely the majority group compared to adults. Further, it is a common belief among many structures of family that parents are entitled to some measure of ownership and rights over their child.

I see what you're saying, but I would categorize that as (at least ideally) protecting life at the minimum, maybe pursuit of happiness. though it is true that I overlooked some similar situations.

 

6 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

Further, does this mean we ought to accept belief's like "It is harmful to my child to witness certain practices or representations"?

Good point, but a couple notes. you said acceptance, where as I had said tolerance, which are quite different, and yes, I think we should tolerate and respect those beliefs as long as it does not harm the G/I doing the practice, and is not in contradiction to the Pursuit of Happiness of the child(ren). 

Thanks for being so respectful.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

(I think society is society and that trying to rank tolerance or diversity provides a blanket that ignores individual struggles)

(you could rank it by likelihood of those struggles, but at that point diversity is portrayed as bad)

(and defining struggles is bad. Do you think they are hurdles, or pitfalls? Do they encourage growth, or needless pain?)

(What justifies need? Society’s goals, the path of least pain, or another thing? The loudest voice?)

(What happens when the society rejects itself? What happens when the loudest voice become a polarizing influence, and society reorganizes itself? Do we then place value on a static/inelastic society, which is weak in the face of threats? Or do we place value on volatility? I think it’s some sort of middle ground, ya know, but how do you measure that?)

(How does this society interact with other societies? Do we stick to general convictions and ideals, then go to war when those are offended? And if we do, what about those who share something with the offender? Are they worth less (guys the answer is obviously no)?)

((Are topics like this even valid to measure societal value, or should we use more direct measure? For example, what about economic value? How efficiently does this structure utilize resources and utility? And how does science factor into that?))

(How do we integrate new beliefs?)

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 12/10/2025 at 3:10 PM, First of the Tide said:

Good point, but a couple notes. you said acceptance, where as I had said tolerance, which are quite different, and yes, I think we should tolerate and respect those beliefs as long as it does not harm the G/I doing the practice, and is not in contradiction to the Pursuit of Happiness of the child(ren). 

This has all been a bit vague and nebuelous, so I hope you do not mind me bringing in a more concrete case. How do you feel about this case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, the 2025 Supreme Court of the United States? I assume by your use of the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" you are either US American or somewhat familiar with the laws and customs of the same.

[First of the Tide He/him]

1 hour ago, ParaTulip said:

This has all been a bit vague and nebuelous, so I hope you do not mind me bringing in a more concrete case. How do you feel about this case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, the 2025 Supreme Court of the United States? I assume by your use of the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" you are either US American or somewhat familiar with the laws and customs of the same.

Absolutely, it's vague and nebulous. In that particular case, I'd side against the parents, but it's really hard to make generalizations that say that's OK, but others are not, and I'll admit that cases like that and similar might get overlooked. (though still might argue that it violates pursuit of happiness of the children, and does not particularly protect any of the three essential rights I layed down, but that would be iffy) Keep in mind that this would be in an idealized society, and, knowing that life isn't perfect, and neither are the people in them, many of these can't be perfectly practiced, as humans would naturally take advantage of them. (writing a set of laws/tenets so as to avoid any possibility of human corruption is much harder, and I might even argue near impossible)

I do live in the US, and agree with the three essential rights layed down by the Declaration(much better than locke's 'property') However, please do not take this to mean I agree with anything other than those Ideals to strive for, such as the implementation by the founding fathers, the rest of the declaration&constitution, or modern politics, or other things done In the supposed name of the protection of said rights

(thank you for being so respectful. I really appreciate it. None of this is meant to be abrasive. if I worded something in a way that made it seem so, please tell me and i'll gladly change it)

 

Honestly thanks to this whole thread for being so awesome. I stayed away for awhile, because I was expecting it to be seriously toxic and argumentative, but y'all are really chill.

Edited December 13, 2025 by First of the Tide

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

I got a bible from a friend of mine I’m going to read it and I’ll let you guys know if I have any thoughts or questions when I finish it

Edited December 15, 2025 by Ookla The Vessel Of Honor

[Frustration]

On 12/10/2025 at 12:36 AM, Ookla the Hyperpotamian said:

I don't know. Certain Christians take exactly this stance, which leads them to being incredibly intolerant of anyone who isn't their particular flavour of Christian.

I think this world is complex, and while people's eternal salvation can be very important to a person, not being a jerk is also important. And accepting that other people have different beliefs than you do is an essential part of not being a jerk.

I don't know if I'm phrasing this right. But essentially, if a person would go to me and do everything in their power to make me say that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour I would not admire their moral consistency, I'll be annoyed by their complete incapability in accepting that I don't share their beliefs. And I think this should be taken to account - maybe the best way to frame it is belief is different than knowledge. I don't know that G-d exists and serves punishment to the wicked, but I might believe it. At the same time, I can acknowledge that a different person does not believe it, and that this is their choice and not mine.

So I actually have a very interesting point of view in this.

I just returned from serving a full time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and during that time what I did was try and share my religious beliefs with others.

Now I can't speak for all Missionaries from my own church let alone for all religions, but my personal view of this always was that of invitation.

I having received what I believed to be the truth, and the path to peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come had a responsibility to make it available to others. If they didn't want it, that was their choice and I would respect it, but if I didn't offer it to them then I would share part of the guilt for any pain they could have avoided with my knowledge

2 hours ago, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

I got a bible from a friend of mine I’m going to read it and I’ll let you guys know if I have any thoughts or questions when I finish it

That's awesome.

Just a heads up, the Bible isn't one book, it's closer to 66(Possibly more if the version you had included apocryphal works such as the books of the Macabees) and I don't think the order they were put in is particularly helpful for new readers.

Are you looking for a study on any particular points of belief, or are you trying to understand everything?

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

So I actually have a very interesting point of view in this.

I just returned from serving a full time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and during that time what I did was try and share my religious beliefs with others.

Now I can't speak for all Missionaries from my own church let alone for all religions, but my personal view of this always was that of invitation.

I having received what I believed to be the truth, and the path to peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come had a responsibility to make it available to others. If they didn't want it, that was their choice and I would respect it, but if I didn't offer it to them then I would share part of the guilt for any pain they could have avoided with my knowledge

That's awesome.

Just a heads up, the Bible isn't one book, it's closer to 66(Possibly more if the version you had included apocryphal works such as the books of the Macabees) and I don't think the order they were put in is particularly helpful for new readers.

Are you looking for a study on any particular points of belief, or are you trying to understand everything?

Jeeeez that’s a lot of books god must have a huge publishing team lol anyways I’m not sure what book it is I’ll check later. I’m reading mostly just to understand I’ve never been religious and never will be but I’ve had many people argue against me using the bible so I figured I should try to see where their coming from.

[Frustration]

55 minutes ago, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

Jeeeez that’s a lot of books god must have a huge publishing team lol anyways I’m not sure what book it is I’ll check later. I’m reading mostly just to understand I’ve never been religious and never will be but I’ve had many people argue against me using the bible so I figured I should try to see where their coming from.

It's more of an anthology, one book right after another after another.

Full list

Spoiler

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

Ester

Job

Psalms

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Song of Solomon

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Ezekiel

Daniel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Obadiah

Jonah

Micah

Nehum

Habbukuk

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zachariah

Malachi

 

New Testament:

Mathew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelations

Note these books are not arranged in chronological order, they are organized by: Subject, Author, Length. Which makes reading the Bible straight through cover to cover to be very disorienting. I did it(almost, I'm not done yet, and I took the New Testament separately) do not recommend.

I'd probably recommend doing something like this:

Spoiler

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus chapter 16

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Isaiah

Mathew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

You'll notice a lot of the books are missing, but this is just my recommended starting place. Others will probably have different opinions on which books to read first, and which ones are more important than the others, a lot of which comes down to personal theology and preference.

[Shatter He/Him]

On 12/15/2025 at 8:47 PM, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

Jeeeez that’s a lot of books god must have a huge publishing team lol anyways I’m not sure what book it is I’ll check later. I’m reading mostly just to understand I’ve never been religious and never will be but I’ve had many people argue against me using the bible so I figured I should try to see where their coming from.

he sorta did. Knowing the bible even as a non-religious person is useful as you can use it in arguments and to understand Christianity and Judaism. 

On 12/15/2025 at 4:41 PM, Ookla The Vessel Of Honor said:

I got a bible from a friend of mine I’m going to read it and I’ll let you guys know if I have any thoughts or questions when I finish it

I can answer questions about the Old Testament. I'm sorta experienced in it. *looks at my 10 years of study* Yeah. Sorta experienced.
Warning: As a Jew, I do not accept the New Testament as true. 
Second Warning: There is also an oral (it was written down starting in 200 CE and mostly ending in 1565 CE but still being written down as new modern day issues arise) portion of the torah that is much larger and explains everything.

Edited December 17, 2025 by Ookla the Shattered