why are so many hardcore christians in this forum?

Discussion in 'NoFap Technical Support' started by meagainsttheworld, Jul 10, 2017.

  1. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    660
    93
    Nice list of religious scientists who lived at a time when being openly non-religious had such extreme conscequences. You can waste your time constructing flimsy arguments for your belief in god but the fact is that appeal to logic and reason renders belief in any god of a major religion impossible. Any possible god becomes synonymous with the universe itself or some undefined first cause incapable of interfering in current events. Your beliefbin god is not the result of exposure to these flimsy arguments you construct. This is simply scaffolding for your flimsy belief system, assigned to you at birth, or for some vulnerable individuals, when at rock bottom it was given as a trojan horse false promise of help.
     
    Properitas likes this.
  2. Properitas

    Properitas Guest

    These questions can not be answered universally. They have to be answered by the individual himself. And I for one can answer these questions without the help of god.
    We don´t say it´s the answer for everything. I am perfectly fine with not knowing the answer to every question. But some people aren´t. And these are the ones looking for their answers in god.
     
  3. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    1,391
    2,745
    143
    You speak with the same smug intellectual arrogance that virtually all atheists speak with, and you're using the same tired arguments, so I'm not very impressed by what you've had to bring to the table here.

    The notion that logic and reason lead to atheism is your opinion. It isn't a fact. Logic and reason point to God much more heavily than they point to atheism. For instance, you have no absolute standard for goodness, and yet you spend time in these forums invoking the notion of morality. Very convenient. Without God, morality would not exist. Atheists are typically very clever about sneaking theist principles into their worldviews when it's convenient for them.

    Actually, I arrived at my faith neither through being raised that way or by hitting rock bottom desperation. I simply recognized that there is more to life than this world and this physical body, that my life actually has objective, transcendent meaning. And it just so happens that Christianity has not only a full set of answers that address the problems of existence as I see them, but the answers are remarkably reasonable, and the evidence for those answers gives me a very compelling reason to embrace faith.

    You clearly disagree severely, and that is your right. Everyone gets to choose what they do with the free gift of grace.
     
  4. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    660
    93
    You will perhaps forgive me for pointing out that there are religious murderers and rapists, and moral heretics. People who claim to need a god to make them act morally creep me out. I try be nice even without the threat of eternal damnation. Also the rigid morality of religion is the same moral framework that condemns a tenth of the population for who they are attracted to and fall in love with. When, if there is a god behind this all, it is all their decision to make people that way in the first place. And i would love to hear the logical arguments that you claim support your worldview.

    I do not expect to impress you with my 'tired arguments' as you are clearly impervious to logic and reason.
     
  5. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    1,391
    2,745
    143
    Like every other atheist I've ever tried to have this discussion with, you've jumped to the same incorrect conclusion.

    You don't need to believe in God to be a moral person. However, you do need God for objective morality to exist at all.

    The atheist says, "I can be good without God." The theist knows that without God, you can't even define the word "good".
     
  6. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    660
    93
    Functional morality and moral relativism do the job. Having imposed, objective morality is not so important to me to decide to believe in miracles and sky gods.
     
  7. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    1,391
    2,745
    143
    The soldiers of ISIS believe they are doing good. Is their moral relativism "doing the job"?

    Atheists talk about moral relativism as if everyone agrees with their relative morals. As soon as someone comes along with a different set of morals, then suddenly atheists act is if morality is indeed objective.
     
  8. crispy

    crispy Fapstronaut

    35
    20
    18
    Also cbf to read this whole thread, but I think it's because Christians (and a lot of religious groups in general) really shame the idea of any sensuality and sex except for that between a married man and woman. Many or even most are told masturbation is a sin. That's pretty much where circumcision evolved from, in attempt to limit guys from masturbating. So those that even don't necessarily have any bad side effects from fapping, or don't even have a true addiction but just want to stop for the sake of stopping still might come here hoping to relieve their remorse.
     
  9. Toomuchh

    Toomuchh Fapstronaut

    265
    247
    43
    Because people are fallible regardless of religious belief.

    I just want to point out north Koreans think Kim is some kind of God/divine being. I think the lesson to learn from this is people are gullible. We are probably all wrong on a fundamental level but believe whatever our environment feeds us.

    I honestly think religion was used to control masses of people to the agenda of powerful individuals in the past. Kings were given the divine right to rule because of God. And if everyone was religious, who is gonna do anything about that if they don't like the king. I won't say if it's wrong or right. Religion is a good construct for a system of morality because people believe anything you tell them. Religion is also a good social construct to create a prosperous community. Science doesn't conflict with religion as much as people think because scientific theory doesn't base the world in absolutes. The method it self is flexible that we accept hypothetical theories until they are proven false. But that can happen at anytime so it's like a working model of the world vs any definite truth.

    I can sympathize with people feeling uncomfortable with so much religious dogma because it's being forced down your throat without your consent. Like how I know some Christians hate pride parades even tho they don't mind homosexuals. They just dont need it being obnoxiously flashed in their face.

    In the end we are all just a bunch of idiots trying to act smart, especially me.
     
  10. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    660
    93
    I would just like to remind you that 'the soldiers of ISIS' are acting out of consideration (however twisted) of their religious moral doctrine, whereas those pesky athiests that upset you simply by disagreeing with your stance and explaining why are not. I think that someone who is absolutely certain that their actions are morally justifiable is a dangerous person. The fact that I, as an atheist, have to constantly reasses whether my behaviour is moral means that the society around me and how it responds can moderate my behaviour before it reaches the point of causing undue harm to others in society. A moral doctrine that states that those that follow it are worthy and that all others deserve damnation is never going to be the best model to benefit society widely. Also please stop generalising as if all atheists have the same outlook on morality and all act alike. We do not organise, have no doctrine and follow no commandments. What we share is an inability to believe in that for which we have no proof, hindered as we are with a critical and rational mind.
     
    Properitas likes this.
  11. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    1,391
    2,745
    143
    It makes no difference. You can dismiss their morality for being founded on religion, but in doing so, you reveal that you're not a moral relativist at all. You think your morals are better, higher, more righteous than those of ISIS. And by what standard? Your own notion of goodness? "Society's" notion of goodness (which doesn't let you off the hook, because then you have to explain why some societies are more moral than others)? There must be a standard in order for you to pass judgment. The Christian has an absolute standard. The atheist only has the shifting standard of public opinion. The fact is that atheists (sorry, most atheists) are only moral relativists when they're having a philosophical debate. In the real world, they judge as if 'right' and 'wrong' are real, absolute things. And of course they are ... but it would be nice if atheists would own up to it.

    And let's be clear--having an atheist disagree with me doesn't upset me in the least. It makes me sad for the atheist, but not upset. Being in truth is a very peaceful place to be, and being told I'm not in the truth doesn't change that.

    You must not be referring to Christian doctrine. The Bible is clear that people go to hell because they have no forgiveness for their sins, not for having sin beyond some arbitrary threshold of magnitude or frequency. Salvation is by grace, "and not by works, so that no man can boast."

    And I'm not particularly interested in what's the best benefit to society. I'm interested in what's true.

    A critical and rational mind would not conclude that something can come from nothing. Nor would it conclude that a single-celled organism could, over billions of years, evolve into you and I. Nor would it insist that it has the full knowledge of the entire universe necessary to conclude emphatically that there is no God. Nor would it expect science to answer questions that aren't scientific in nature. Nor would it insist that empirical evidence is the only kind.
     
  12. No. As far as I recall, circumcision was introduced by the Egyptians even before the Hebrews. In neither case did it have anything to do with limiting the boys from masturbating. I am unsure why you think having no foreskin correlates to less masturbation. :confused:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2017
  13. crispy

    crispy Fapstronaut

    35
    20
    18
    I think you misunderstood what I was saying in my post. I never said masturbation convinced people to stop masturbating. If you look at my previous posts, I mention several times that masturbation has been apart of human history forever; I would never go as far as to say that "egyptians introduced masturbation" since how could anyone even factually decide that? It's such a natural thing to do that no one needs to be taught, I'm very positive that early humans did it. The literature can't prove it, but it only makes sense.

    Further, I'm not sure if you've looked into how circumcision became so predominant, especially in the U.S. Prior, it was basically just a jewish thing I believe. But before you know it, people would recommend circumcision since it apparently prevented boys from masturbating, which was mere rumor/hearsay. Nowadays, that myth has been debunked, but circumcision is still widely apparent in the US not to prevent children from masturbating, but for cultural/aesthetic reasons and for some other reasons (not saying they're valid or even true) such as hygiene or STI infection. I never said that I believe circumcision prevents masturbation, I only simply talked about how that simple rumor alongside people believing that masturbation is a sin made circumcision so prevalent. I'm personally against infant/child circumcision for anything other than health reasons and otherwise believe circumcision should be a decision made by the individual as an adult.
     
  14. True. I've edited my post, as the first use of the word masturbation was in error. It should have read: circumcision, lol! :D
     
    crispy likes this.
  15. We agree on this. It is strange that such a progressive country has such a backward culture when it comes to the male sex organ! In my view, the most aesthetically pleasing human body is clearly one that has not been surgically altered. o_O :oops: :eek:
     
  16. thorswrath32

    thorswrath32 Fapstronaut

    535
    1,093
    123
    Going back to the original question, i think some of it has to do with a feeling of guilt and of going against the moral teachings of the bible, hence a solution is sought out and NoFap can be part of that solution. I think that even if one declares they are 100% athiest they will find many social norms and traditions and laws heavily influenced by religious ideals, if you are in a western country then Judaism and Christianity will be the main influences, whereas if you live in a far eastern country then it will be Islam, Hinduism and Budhism. I think the interesting part about many religious teachings is they seem to be quite cautious about sex, i'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing but it clearly points to trying to understand the morality of sexual behaviour, we are the only species on the planet who try to attach meaning behind sex, whereas animals do it out of a biological instinct for procreation, nothing more nothing less. Although I am agnostic, neither athiest or theist, i find wisdom in some of the religious teachings, of course some might not be scientifically accurate or they may have been altered over the years by scholars etc but I think a reason why we have people today studying things like theology (of any faith) is to try and relate it to modern life since so many people today still have a faith. I'll echo what someone else said that addiction does not discriminate whether you are green, purple, Christian, Muslim, Man or Woman
     
  17. Steve1453

    Steve1453 Fapstronaut

    160
    46
    28
     
  18. Steve1453

    Steve1453 Fapstronaut

    160
    46
    28
    Hi samnf,
    I entirely agree with you about the danger of people who are utterly convinced of the rightness of their beliefs. Such arrogance led to the Inquisition, the Gestapo, the NKVD, etc .... the list goes on and on. What is the difference between a religious fanatic who is a murderer, and a political fanatic (like Lenin, for example) who is a murderer ? I can't see that there is any difference at all.
     
  19. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    660
    93
    Just a belief in a supetnatural being (usually) and employing certain behaviours as set out in a religious text. Political outlooks and believes may be held just as firmly and be almost religious in many senses, but political ideologies tend to focus on social and economic systems and how they out to behave or change, rather than involving creation myths or higher powers. There is nothing inherent in religion that causes evil to be done, rather it can provide the right individuals with a reason or excuse to act out their violent and malicious tendencies whilst claiming to be moral. Because religions so often make it a sin or moral wrong to question the doctrine that they put forward, perhaps members of a religion are less likely to question the validity or the religion they are born into, than perhaps a person born into a left or right wing family might be likely to question the polotical positions and beliefs of their parents. To me the most offensive thing about religions is their requirement of their followers to be selectively ignorant and never to question their 'faith'. Faith to me should not be seen as a virtue, but a flaw. The same critical and analytical ways of thinking about any other issue, matter etc just cannot be applied to the firmly religious to their own faith/belief in religion. Does that answer your question?
     
  20. Steve1453

    Steve1453 Fapstronaut

    160
    46
    28
    With all due respect, can you please explain to me how logic and reason lead to faith.
     

Share This Page