• Christian school teacher arrested for alleged sexual assault; more victims suspected
(archived link)
• Christ the King bookkeeper gets 2 years in prison for embezzling church funds
(archived link)
• Ex-teacher at Pope John XXIII High School is sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking upskirt photos of students
(archived link)
• Pakistani religious body declares using VPN is against Islamic law
• Hate pastor renegs on promise to refund tithes
• Priest faces life imprisonment over third child sex offences conviction
• Church of England head resigns over handling of sex abuse scandal
(archived link)
• Ohio pastor accused of raping a juvenile facing 6 felony counts
(archived link)
You must log in or register to comment.
With local gods I think it’s more like a million.
Thank you the local god I worship is acknowledged to be fake, but also too cool to care about not existing.
Fake gods?
Impossible.
/s
BTW my country of birth decided to trade Thor, Oden and Freja against a meak jesus guy… Worst idea ever. I mean who is going to defend against the ice giants now?
The Buddha is not a god. Buddhism is nontheistic and shouldn’t be included in this meme.
Trust me, for many Buddhists in Asia he plays the same role.
Source: Grew up as one.
I grew up Buddhist and I feel like people might think Buddhas are gods but they’re more like role models. I hope Buddhists see that.
The picture is not of the Buddha. That’s a picture of Budai, who was a Buddhist monk and has a variety of religious traditions and worship associated with him. Fat Buddha =|= the Buddha.
Some varieties of Buddhism are nontheistic, but not all varieties. There’s the “little wheel” versus the “big wheel.” Some varieties of Buddhism have hundreds of gods.
Edit:
I do see someone that looks like “the Buddha” in the background - that is, Siddhartha Gautama.
But the idea that Buddhism is some rational atheist philosophy is very much a western gloss. Friend did a study abroad in Myanmar - the Buddha is so revered that having tattoos/casual iconography is sacrilegious and dangerous. A very popular form of Buddhism is “Pure Land” Buddhism, where the goal is to not necessarily reach nirvana, but to be good enough to get to chill in a nice place with the gods in your next life. Buddhist traditions tend to recognize their gods as trapped in samsara just as much as we are, but again, lay practice is going to treat various Buddhas as Demi-gods.
Fat Buddha =|= the Buddha.
And icon to contemplate is very different than a god to worship.
Budai/Hotai is worshipped though. He’s not treated as an “icon to contemplate” - in some traditions he’s even considered a messianic figure (the Maitreya Buddha) himself. That’s why there are statues and shrines.
You are reading a lot of western understandings of religion into practices that are not western. The Alan Watts style of Buddhism is not the style of Buddhism that is practiced by the majority of Buddhists.
He’s not treated as an “icon to contemplate”
Okay buddy
Have you read a sutra? Can you distinguish Chan Buddhism from Zen Buddhism? Can you identify any of the Buddhist hells?
My guy, you’re only digging yourself deeper
Bro, I literally have taken a graduate religious historiography class and I’m citing sources - if you want, later tonight I can give you a ton of more academic sources. Arguing that Buddhism is nontheistic indicates a serious lack of understanding of Buddhism.
How very pedantic of you!
Pointing out a basic fact is not pedantry. I am definitely pedantic, but this isn’t an example of it.
You might want to look up the definition of pedantic. Pointing out and drawing attention to the fact that Buddha isn’t a god figure for some Buddhists, while technically correct, has nothing to do with the point this post is trying to make. Furthermore, even though Buddha might not be seen as a literal god, his teachings are still the basis for the religion. So his likeness is still an appropriate addition to the image posted.
Your basic fact is useless information and it’s by definition pedantic. Seriously, just look up the definition. I don’t know if I’ve ever used it more appropriately.
There seems to be a large religious figure missing from this image… I wonder why that is?
He’s there, but he’s invisible!
Muhammad was a prophet, not a god figure. Jesus is said to be both.
Edit: I guess, by this logic, the Buddha probably shouldn’t be there maybe.
I wouldn’t give two shits what other people believe but they keep trying to force the rest of us to live in their lifestyles.
NOPE.
Religious belief informs ethical understanding. And ethics aren’t an individual concern. They’re social code of conduct.
Religious belief informs ethical understanding.
one would hope
And ethics aren’t an individual concern. They’re social code of conduct.
seems like wishful thinking
It’s sociological. Traditions and taboos aren’t unique to religion. Communities form them as a means of building trust between members.
and yet, the pedos in the news so often skew ecclesiastical or conservative.
so what’s that ethical understanding again?
what a gigantic load of horse shit. unless you’re asserting the ethics of the church is focused on buggering children, which I would have to concede is amply endorsed by the evidence so far.
I believe in 🗿.
🗿
This argument doesn’t really hold up to polytheistic religions, nor the problem of evil with cultures who expect gods to be evil, nor the argument of poor design to non interventionist religions.
Actually I would have a hard time formulating an argument for polytheistic not interventionist evil pantheon. Maby the canaanite’s had it right the whole time.
Or none
This reminds me of Otep, “Noose and Nail”
*Yours are
Do we have a /c/Im14andThisIsEdgy?
Based on the description of this community, I think this is it
Yeah I think this one is going on the blocklist.
This user really got banned for this? Fuck it, I’m leaving too.
Not this comment, the other comment.
Money isn’t real
deleted by creator
This argument is only as compelling as “There are over 5,000 explanations for what the sun is. But don’t worry, only yours is correct.” Or “There are over 5,000 ideologies believed in by humanity. But don’t worry, only yours is correct.”
The difference is, with the sun, you can actually look up and see it. You can use a telescope to see it in detail. You can determine which of the 5000 statements is true. You can study and understand it. With religion, they all have an equal basis in reality
What if my god is the sun? Check and mate.
Before you try and blaspheme, just know the power of my deity can and will give you cancer if you don’t anoint yourself with the proper sacrificial ointments.
What Solar Piety Factor ointment do you recommend?
It depends on the types of sin happening in your local environment. Some places are exposed to more levels of gods wrath than others.
My environment is apparently steeped in sin based on current wrath levels, and only shows signs of increasing. Additionally, I am one of God’s cursed races, I bear the Nuclear Overlord’s most spited complexion.
The sun is a cruel, but righteous god. May your melanomas be painless and swift.
Understandable
Uh, my god is a giant space lobster that eats planets. I’ll have to ask if they can eat stars, but I’m guessing the answer is yes.
They also spit acid and fire, have laser eyes, and have a saddle so the faithful can ride them when they come to eat the planet.
The proof of my gods’ power is that lobsters are delicious
But do you agree that the argument is bad? If there was an actually legit religion then it would be logical that one is real and the 5000 are not. Doesn’t matter if religions are bogus, this logic is bogus too.
The logic is, unless your religion has an actual basis in reality, you don’t have any more claim to being more well reasoned than any other. Without this, any (and none) are on equal footing. If you believe just because you believe in something but you don’t have any particular reason to believe in your one, odds are you’re wrong.
It confronts people who claim they believe the true god(s) to say why they’re correct over the infinitely many others that could exist.
This is largely the thing that led me on my path towards atheism. I had a Buddhist friend in middle/high school, which led to me having an interest in other religions. Once you recognize all of them have equal reasons for their belief, it makes it hard to believe you happened to just be born into the one that’s real.
Not all religions have an equal basis in reality. If you have a religion that claims the sun is literally a divine, disembodied head that’s so mad it’s glowing, we can empirically disprove that. That’s just not what stars are. If you have one that correctly states what the sun is, that means the second religion has a better basis in reality than the first.
We can also know things logically or philosophically, but can’t debate them scientifically. That’s often how we come to moral conclusions - we can’t strictly base how we should behave off of evolutionary advantages, for example.
I mean, that’s a pretty human-chauvinistic view. You can prove that the sun is a gigantic nuclear furnace, but you can’t really prove that gigantic nuclear furnaces aren’t what disembodied godheads look like.
We know what a head is. It’s a part of a biological creature. In the absence of some convincing evidence or argumentation otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to assume it’s a head.
Robots are not biological, yet many have heads that fulfill the same sensory function as biological heads. It is very possible that non-biological sentient entities exist, and in absence of some convincing evidence or argumentation otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to definitively assume nuclear sentiences can’t exist.
You’re piling on assumptions like crazy, which makes for a logically weak position. All other things being equal, the claim that relies on the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. Given the increasingly outlandish assumptions at play, it makes more sense to believe that the sun is not a sentient head glowing with rage.
Not really, no. My position is objectively based on fewer assumptions than yours. Occam’s razor is certainly useful, but it is not a tool for determining truth. It’s only a tool for determining the simplest explanation.
Your assumption that sentient beings, and their heads, must be biological places your claim in a much more precarious position relative to the razor than mine.
