I'm a pastafarian and believe in His Pastaliness — The Flying Spaghetti Monster, may His carbs give us strength, and may His beer volcano never run dry — lot's of proof of existance; not to forget pasta itself, especially spaghetti. Scientifically it has for example been proven that climate change simply is due to the decrease in number of pirates — R'Amen...😇

2 hours ago, Brettoj said:

Which man made God do you believe in? Theirs been a few.

The only one not man made. God

To make it short, I don't believe in God, certain women, and most politicians.

4 hours ago, wil iam not said:

Up early today? Give it a rest Fred, please stop your silly answers here on AN, and keep your beliefs to yourself, and anyone else who follows these stories from the past.

'All the believers' you say, to house all the believers, in which religion you do not say, so only 70 million of them eh?

You are completely wrong saying that it was resevered by Islam for Jesus, if so, why do Christians call him The Messiah. It comes from the Hebrew word mashiach and it's Greek equivalent Christos.

And John Winston was absolutely correct when he said that The Beatles were more popular in UK, than JC at that time, and is probably the same, except substitute iPhone for The Beatles sadly. At least they are not going to ban under 16s from listening to music.on their phones usually.

No, I will not, as again, this topic asks what we believe in, and the most important thing to believers is God. You, again, believe what you want to, and I will also. If you look it up, you'll see Jesus was the messiah and a prophet, while Muhammed was a prophet.

In the Quran, he is highly revered as a major prophet, the Messiah (Al-Masih), and is given several other profound titles:

• Al-Masih (The Messiah): Recognized as the anointed one who performed miracles by God's will.

• When I say reserved, I meant Islam reserved Messiah when they were talking about Jesus, and not that others didn't also call him Messiah.

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

No, I will not, as again, this topic asks what we believe in, and the most important thing to believers is God. You, again, believe what you want to, and I will also. If you look it up, you'll see Jesus was the messiah and a prophet, while Muhammed was a prophet.

In the Quran, he is highly revered as a major prophet, the Messiah (Al-Masih), and is given several other profound titles:

• Al-Masih (The Messiah): Recognized as the anointed one who performed miracles by God's will.

• When I say reserved, I meant Islam reserved Messiah when they were talking about Jesus, and not that others didn't also call him Messiah.

I do believe what I want, so am I classed as a believer?

• Recognized BY YOU and your Believers as the anointed one who performed miracles by God's will.

I am not wanting to argue with you, but you only go on about YOUR God, Jesus and Believers.

Edited June 16Jun 16 by wil iam not

No belief in things, no idols.

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

No, I will not, as again, this topic asks what we believe in, and the most important thing to believers is God. You, again, believe what you want to, and I will also. If you look it up, you'll see Jesus was the messiah and a prophet, while Muhammed was a prophet.

In the Quran, he is highly revered as a major prophet, the Messiah (Al-Masih), and is given several other profound titles:

• Al-Masih (The Messiah): Recognized as the anointed one who performed miracles by God's will.

• When I say reserved, I meant Islam reserved Messiah when they were talking about Jesus, and not that others didn't also call him Messiah.

That is just Ai.

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

No, I will not, as again, this topic asks what we believe in, and the most important thing to believers is God. You, again, believe what you want to, and I will also. If you look it up, you'll see Jesus was the messiah and a prophet, while Muhammed was a prophet.

In the Quran, he is highly revered as a major prophet, the Messiah (Al-Masih), and is given several other profound titles:

• Al-Masih (The Messiah): Recognized as the anointed one who performed miracles by God's will.

• When I say reserved, I meant Islam reserved Messiah when they were talking about Jesus, and not that others didn't also call him Messiah.

When I first started researching Christianity, I realised the decision to deify Jesus was made mostly by King Constantin some 300 years after JC.

I spent some time going through everything available, specifically the Q source and came to the conclusion Jesus was no god in any shape or form.

So at that point I believed in all that Christianity taught, except Jesus.

Some time later I researched the Christian/Jewish/Islam god. All the evidence that believers pointed to god’s existence was actually evidence of his non-existence.

It was clear to me that all the religious texts were created by men and painted god as evil and full of negative emotions.

Those books not in the current Bible but in (for example) the Ethiopian Bible sealed the deal for me.

I’m sure most Christians, Jews and Muslims aren’t aware that their god is one of many detailed in the bible.

4 hours ago, Front Row said:

GG, I believe that every single one of your posts is pure drivel that belongs in a trash bin.

Then, you would first need to find a trash bin big enough...

Would you not?

31 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

When I first started researching Christianity, I realised the decision to deify Jesus was made mostly by King Constantin some 300 years after JC.

I spent some time going through everything available, specifically the Q source and came to the conclusion Jesus was no god in any shape or form.

So at that point I believed in all that Christianity taught, except Jesus.

Some time later I researched the Christian/Jewish/Islam god. All the evidence that believers pointed to god’s existence was actually evidence of his non-existence.

It was clear to me that all the religious texts were created by men and painted god as evil and full of negative emotions.

Those books not in the current Bible but in (for example) the Ethiopian Bible sealed the deal for me.

I’m sure most Christians, Jews and Muslims aren’t aware that their god is one of many detailed in the bible.

The main message in the Bible is that there is only one God, monotheistic, but it does mention that there are other "gods", Isaiah 43:10......You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”

.Some people worship other "gods", but they aren't spiritual or real, and not divine, but false gods, idols.The following from AI.............

Several biblical texts depict God causing destruction or authorizing severe punishments, which leads critics to question His nature, though theologians emphasize these actions represent His righteous judgment or discipline. Specific texts raise these questions: ]Isaiah 45:7: The King James Version (KJV) famously translates God as saying, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things". Modern translations usually interpret the Hebrew word ra here as "calamity," "disaster," or "woe" rather than moral evil.

1. Ezekiel 14:9: God declares, "And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet...". This is often interpreted as God permitting deception as a form of judgment on those who have turned their backs on Him. [1]

2. 2 Kings 2:23–25: After being mocked by a group of youths, the prophet Elisha curses them in the name of the Lord, and two bears emerge from the woods to maul forty-two of them.

3. Exodus and Revelation: God hardens Pharaoh's heart in Exodus to demonstrate His power through the plagues, and in Revelation, He unleashes catastrophic bowls of wrath upon the earth.

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

The main message in the Bible is that there is only one God, monotheistic, but it does mention that there are other "gods", Isaiah 43:10......You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”

.Some people worship other "gods", but they aren't spiritual or real, and not divine, but false gods, idols.The following from AI.............

Several biblical texts depict God causing destruction or authorizing severe punishments, which leads critics to question His nature, though theologians emphasize these actions represent His righteous judgment or discipline. Specific texts raise these questions: ]Isaiah 45:7: The King James Version (KJV) famously translates God as saying, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things". Modern translations usually interpret the Hebrew word ra here as "calamity," "disaster," or "woe" rather than moral evil.

1. Ezekiel 14:9: God declares, "And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet...". This is often interpreted as God permitting deception as a form of judgment on those who have turned their backs on Him. [1]

2. 2 Kings 2:23–25: After being mocked by a group of youths, the prophet Elisha curses them in the name of the Lord, and two bears emerge from the woods to maul forty-two of them.

3. Exodus and Revelation: God hardens Pharaoh's heart in Exodus to demonstrate His power through the plagues, and in Revelation, He unleashes catastrophic bowls of wrath upon the earth.

There are 14 books removed from the Bible in 1684, I suggest you read them.

6 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

There are 14 books removed from the Bible in 1684, I suggest you read them.

I've read the Bible a few times. The books were removed in 1684 from Protestant bibles, which I don't read. The Apocrypha. 17th and 19th centuries. Due to Doctrine differences and costs.You can read here why. It doesn't affect my beliefs anyway....https://thesevenlamps.medium.com/why-were-books-taken-out-of-the-bible-ec9aad8cf1f6

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I've read the Bible a few times. The books were removed in 1684 from Protestant bibles, which I don't read. The Apocrypha. 17th and 19th centuries. Due to Doctrine differences and costs.You can read here why. It doesn't affect my beliefs anyway....https://thesevenlamps.medium.com/why-were-books-taken-out-of-the-bible-ec9aad8cf1f6

I reject the 7lamps explanation as being circular, it’ attempts to justify what happened as being sensible and honest.

Some AI analysis…

• Theological utility: Books that supported desired doctrines stayed or were elevated; those that didn’t (or contradicted) were sidelined. Protestants removed/downgraded the Apocrypha partly because they bolstered Catholic practices like intercession for the dead or works-based elements. Catholics affirmed them against Protestant challenges. 

• Historical and linguistic preferences: Preference for Hebrew originals over Greek translations, Jewish canon decisions (post-1st century CE), and questions of authorship/date. These are scholarly/textual debates, not divine revelations. 

• Power and identity: Canon formation reinforced group boundaries. Reformation-era fights were tied to breaking from Rome, nation-building (e.g., in England), and rejecting “superstition.” The Westminster era was explicitly political—Civil War, anti-episcopacy, etc. 

• No evidence of divine consistency: If these texts were truly inspired by an omniscient god, why the centuries of disagreement, regional variations (Orthodox have even more books), and later printing changes? Errors, contradictions, and cultural influences abound across all versions. “Inspiration” claims are post-hoc rationalizations by believers.

Other “removed” or excluded books (Gnostic gospels, pseudepigrapha, etc.) were rejected for similar reasons: they didn’t fit emerging orthodoxies, were too late, or promoted rival theologies. The process was messy, contingent, and human—much like how other religions curate their scriptures. 

If I might summarize, 1641-era decisions (and the broader Protestant shift) reflect reformers asserting their version of Christianity against rivals, using textual and historical arguments as tools. From a secular viewpoint, it’s fascinating evidence of how sacred texts evolve through debate, politics, and culture—not proof of any unchanging divine word.

If I can go back and quote my first post here…

We descend from a particular population of apes numbering several thousand strong at least, who set out on the road to our lineage at least a few million years ago. To be clear, this is a matter of objectively demonstrable scientific facts, not assumptions. Physical anthropologists and paleo primatologists can show how humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestry is an objectively verifiable fact in the absolute sense that it doesn’t change, meaning that it will not be corrected by new information. It’s not just a probability; it’s a certainty.

This inalienable fact is incompatible with religion.

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I reject the 7lamps explanation as being circular, it’ attempts to justify what happened as being sensible and honest.

Some AI analysis…

• Theological utility: Books that supported desired doctrines stayed or were elevated; those that didn’t (or contradicted) were sidelined. Protestants removed/downgraded the Apocrypha partly because they bolstered Catholic practices like intercession for the dead or works-based elements. Catholics affirmed them against Protestant challenges. 

• Historical and linguistic preferences: Preference for Hebrew originals over Greek translations, Jewish canon decisions (post-1st century CE), and questions of authorship/date. These are scholarly/textual debates, not divine revelations. 

• Power and identity: Canon formation reinforced group boundaries. Reformation-era fights were tied to breaking from Rome, nation-building (e.g., in England), and rejecting “superstition.” The Westminster era was explicitly political—Civil War, anti-episcopacy, etc. 

• No evidence of divine consistency: If these texts were truly inspired by an omniscient god, why the centuries of disagreement, regional variations (Orthodox have even more books), and later printing changes? Errors, contradictions, and cultural influences abound across all versions. “Inspiration” claims are post-hoc rationalizations by believers.

Other “removed” or excluded books (Gnostic gospels, pseudepigrapha, etc.) were rejected for similar reasons: they didn’t fit emerging orthodoxies, were too late, or promoted rival theologies. The process was messy, contingent, and human—much like how other religions curate their scriptures. 

If I might summarize, 1641-era decisions (and the broader Protestant shift) reflect reformers asserting their version of Christianity against rivals, using textual and historical arguments as tools. From a secular viewpoint, it’s fascinating evidence of how sacred texts evolve through debate, politics, and culture—not proof of any unchanging divine word.

If I can go back and quote my first post here…

We descend from a particular population of apes numbering several thousand strong at least, who set out on the road to our lineage at least a few million years ago. To be clear, this is a matter of objectively demonstrable scientific facts, not assumptions. Physical anthropologists and paleo primatologists can show how humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestry is an objectively verifiable fact in the absolute sense that it doesn’t change, meaning that it will not be corrected by new information. It’s not just a probability; it’s a certainty.

This inalienable fact is incompatible with r

6 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I reject the 7lamps explanation as being circular, it’ attempts to justify what happened as being sensible and honest.

Some AI analysis…

• Theological utility: Books that supported desired doctrines stayed or were elevated; those that didn’t (or contradicted) were sidelined. Protestants removed/downgraded the Apocrypha partly because they bolstered Catholic practices like intercession for the dead or works-based elements. Catholics affirmed them against Protestant challenges. 

• Historical and linguistic preferences: Preference for Hebrew originals over Greek translations, Jewish canon decisions (post-1st century CE), and questions of authorship/date. These are scholarly/textual debates, not divine revelations. 

• Power and identity: Canon formation reinforced group boundaries. Reformation-era fights were tied to breaking from Rome, nation-building (e.g., in England), and rejecting “superstition.” The Westminster era was explicitly political—Civil War, anti-episcopacy, etc. 

• No evidence of divine consistency: If these texts were truly inspired by an omniscient god, why the centuries of disagreement, regional variations (Orthodox have even more books), and later printing changes? Errors, contradictions, and cultural influences abound across all versions. “Inspiration” claims are post-hoc rationalizations by believers.

Other “removed” or excluded books (Gnostic gospels, pseudepigrapha, etc.) were rejected for similar reasons: they didn’t fit emerging orthodoxies, were too late, or promoted rival theologies. The process was messy, contingent, and human—much like how other religions curate their scriptures. 

If I might summarize, 1641-era decisions (and the broader Protestant shift) reflect reformers asserting their version of Christianity against rivals, using textual and historical arguments as tools. From a secular viewpoint, it’s fascinating evidence of how sacred texts evolve through debate, politics, and culture—not proof of any unchanging divine word.

If I can go back and quote my first post here…

We descend from a particular population of apes numbering several thousand strong at least, who set out on the road to our lineage at least a few million years ago. To be clear, this is a matter of objectively demonstrable scientific facts, not assumptions. Physical anthropologists and paleo primatologists can show how humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestry is an objectively verifiable fact in the absolute sense that it doesn’t change, meaning that it will not be corrected by new information. It’s not just a probability; it’s a certainty.

This inalienable fact is incompatible with religion.

This comes from AI, but there are multiple links showing same...............The "First Souls" (Pre-Adamite Hypothesis): Some religious scholars propose that God used the evolutionary process to create the human species over a long period. In this model, Adam and Eve represent the first two human beings whom God endowed with immortal souls and moral consciousness, separating them from the rest of the existing hominid population. [1, 2]

1. Literal Historical View: Some literal interpretations hold that Adam and Eve were directly and specially created by God as the very first humans. From this viewpoint, shared DNA between humans and animals is not considered evidence of a shared ancestor, but rather evidence of a common Designer who used similar genetic building blocks for different creations

35 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

This comes from AI, but there are multiple links showing same...............The "First Souls" (Pre-Adamite Hypothesis): Some religious scholars propose that God used the evolutionary process to create the human species over a long period. In this model, Adam and Eve represent the first two human beings whom God endowed with immortal souls and moral consciousness, separating them from the rest of the existing hominid population. [1, 2]

1. Literal Historical View: Some literal interpretations hold that Adam and Eve were directly and specially created by God as the very first humans. From this viewpoint, shared DNA between humans and animals is not considered evidence of a shared ancestor, but rather evidence of a common Designer who used similar genetic building blocks for different creations

You’re starting from the premise the Bible is wrong and creating a narrative that explains in religious terms how it supports the existence of god.

It’s complete nonsense.

300 approx years after JC’s death, a pagan emperor assembled around 300 people, politicians not prophets and ordered them to position JC as a deity and to dictate to YOU what you will believe. The gospel of Thomas - burned, the gospel of Philip -burned, the gospel of Mary -burned.

I think you need to approach your research with an open mind. I get the impression you’re looking for research to support your viewpoint.

It’s clear, as I said before, the Bible cannot be viewed in any divine way. It portrays your god as evil, capricious, jealous, inequitable and specifically as a mad man.

18 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

You’re starting from the premise the Bible is wrong and creating a narrative that explains in religious terms how it supports the existence of god.

It’s complete nonsense.

300 approx years after JC’s death, a pagan emperor assembled around 300 people, politicians not prophets and ordered them to position JC as a deity and to dictate to YOU what you will believe. The gospel of Thomas - burned, the gospel of Philip -burned, the gospel of Mary -burned.

I think you need to approach your research with an open mind. I get the impression you’re looking for research to support your viewpoint.

It’s clear, as I said before, the Bible cannot be viewed in any divine way. It portrays your god as evil, capricious, jealous, inequitable and specifically as a mad man.

Nobody dictates to me what I should believe. i read, reflect, and put common sense into the situation. Many years have passed and humans interpret things differently. What you said is how you interpret what's been written by many. God created everything, including the possibility of humans turning evil. free will, which is a smart idea. A choice. God has done things that have killed many humans, but he's God, and his reasons are far over our heads, seeing the only thing we can really know makes full sense, is that 100 years or so is nothing compared to eternity.

34 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Nobody dictates to me what I should believe. i read, reflect, and put common sense into the situation. Many years have passed and humans interpret things differently. What you said is how you interpret what's been written by many. God created everything, including the possibility of humans turning evil. free will, which is a smart idea. A choice. God has done things that have killed many humans, but he's God, and his reasons are far over our heads, seeing the only thing we can really know makes full sense, is that 100 years or so is nothing compared to eternity.

In your opinion only

11 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Nobody dictates to me what I should believe. i read, reflect, and put common sense into the situation. Many years have passed and humans interpret things differently. What you said is how you interpret what's been written by many. God created everything, including the possibility of humans turning evil. free will, which is a smart idea. A choice. God has done things that have killed many humans, but he's God, and his reasons are far over our heads, seeing the only thing we can really know makes full sense, is that 100 years or so is nothing compared to eternity.

Your mind is closed.

I don’t think you have ever researched “Paul’s” Christianity with an open mind and I don’t think you ever will.

16 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Your mind is closed.

I don’t think you have ever researched “Paul’s” Christianity with an open mind and I don’t think you ever will.

Fred never changes his mind on any topic. It does not matter how much evidence you present. Not once has he ever admitted to being wrong about anything. There is no proof of god nor is there proof god does not exist. Just theories.

33 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

Fred never changes his mind on any topic. It does not matter how much evidence you present. Not once has he ever admitted to being wrong about anything. There is no proof of god nor is there proof god does not exist. Just theories.

Agreed.

I find it incredible that sane, educated men would even consider the possibility of the existence of god. The whole idea is preposterous.

Regarding proof however, there is proof that religious texts supporting the existence of god is incorrect.

Every religious text said to be divine is incorrect too.

These texts, purportedly divine, were written by man and described scholastic thinking of the time period which scientifically has been disproven today.

We know that humans and apes share a common ancestor, two branches of the same evolutionary tree. There is no room for the bible’s explanations in any of that.

Whilst I am certain god does not exist, I am less certain of some other examples of post-death, pre-birth events, but I’m sure there is no god in those either.

18 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

When I first started researching Christianity, I realised the decision to deify Jesus was made mostly by King Constantin some 300 years after JC.

I spent some time going through everything available, specifically the Q source and came to the conclusion Jesus was no god in any shape or form.

So at that point I believed in all that Christianity taught, except Jesus.

Some time later I researched the Christian/Jewish/Islam god. All the evidence that believers pointed to god’s existence was actually evidence of his non-existence.

It was clear to me that all the religious texts were created by men and painted god as evil and full of negative emotions.

Those books not in the current Bible but in (for example) the Ethiopian Bible sealed the deal for me.

I’m sure most Christians, Jews and Muslims aren’t aware that their god is one of many detailed in the bible.

Christianity was already a growing movement, and the politicians understood the power in it. They were probably both worried and impressed by people willing to suffer and die for what they believed in.

Religion belongs to each time and each epoch, And Each time has its own challenges, therefor the Bible must be edited to fits its audience, same as Fred chooses his book of reference.

Religion can be used to abuse power, but also to support order, identity, charity, education, and progress. It can embrace power, and power can embrace religion.

That is why religion is never only one thing. It can help build a society, until it becomes the thing holding people back again.

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Christianity was already a growing movement, and the politicians understood the power in it. They were probably both worried and impressed by people willing to suffer and die for what they believed in.

Religion belongs to each time and each epoch, And Each time has its own challenges, therefor the Bible must be edited to fits its audience, same as Fred chooses his book of reference.

Religion can be used to abuse power, but also to support order, identity, charity, education, and progress. It can embrace power, and power can embrace religion.

That is why religion is never only one thing. It can help build a society, until it becomes the thing holding people back again.

I think on balance the world would be a better place without religion.

It has killed millions of people and continues to do so. Often about arguments about which of their imaginary gods is the real one.

Some are better than others but most are exclusionary and preach inequality.

Christianity was created by Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and cemented by Constantin.

Jesus was a Jew and believed in Judaism. Christians have different beliefs and worship a different religion from JC. This should alarm all Christians.

I often theorize what an all-good god would want from us. I keep coming back to; he would want us to be good, kind and helpful to each other. He wouldn’t want anything else, and why would he?

He would hold us all as equal in value. There would be no favoritism (no chosen people, no requirement for worship, no inequality based on gender, sexuality, genetics, beliefs).

In other words, the test of goodness. Does every aspect of every religion pass the test of goodness?

The bible is full of horrors and evil. Likewise the Quran, the Torah, the Talmud.

This alone should be ringing alarm bells in an intelligent, curious mind.

21 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think on balance the world would be a better place without religion.

It has killed millions of people and continues to do so. Often about arguments about which of their imaginary gods is the real one.

Some are better than others but most are exclusionary and preach inequality.

Christianity was created by Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and cemented by Constantin.

Jesus was a Jew and believed in Judaism. Christians have different beliefs and worship a different religion from JC. This should alarm all Christians.

I often theorize what an all-good god would want from us. I keep coming back to; he would want us to be good, kind and helpful to each other. He wouldn’t want anything else, and why would he?

He would hold us all as equal in value. There would be no favoritism (no chosen people, no requirement for worship, no inequality based on gender, sexuality, genetics, beliefs).

In other words, the test of goodness. Does every aspect of every religion pass the test of goodness?

The bible is full of horrors and evil. Likewise the Quran, the Torah, the Talmud.

This alone should be ringing alarm bells in an intelligent, curious mind.

Have you ever asked yourself what would replace religion?

We are talking about humans here. Flesh and blood humans, with all their hunger for power, wealth, security, resources, protection, safety, and meaning. You also have to remember that religious books are not only about faith. They are also describing history, enemies, power, war, and the justification for killing the enemy. They describe methods, motives, and rules, all written down by humans living in their own time.

That is not so different from leaders today justifying bombing other countries, or attacking boats because they are suspected of carrying drugs. Do you think men like Trump are truly religious? Or are they using the same old human methods: power, fear, enemies, and justification?

Back then, men like that helped shape the world we see today. Some of them are described in the Bible through how they wanted their time, their actions, and their enemies to be understood. Desperation does something to people who cling to power.

Take religion away, and those same human instincts do not disappear. They just find another flag to march under. The problem is not only religion. The problem is humans.

You got your Christians prayin' to the sky, Muslims bowin' five times a day, Buddhists meditatin' for that inner peace, Hindus doin' they rituals, atheists sayin' "God who?", and all these other folks holdin' tight to they ideology, they rules, they holy books, they big philosophies about why we here and what it all mean.

They build they whole life around it—church on Sunday, temple on Saturday, fastin', prayin', marchin', votin', fightin' for what they believe is right. They swear up and down that THIS the truth, THAT the path, and everybody else trippin'.

At the end of the ride—when the lights go dim, the beat stop bumpin', and that last breath slip out—none of that <deleted> hold weight no more.

The Bible? The Quran? The Vedas? The manifestos? The flags you waved, the causes you died on the hill for? They all just words on paper, ink dryin' up while the universe keep spinnin' cold and quiet. Religions promise eternity, ideologies promise justice or utopia, beliefs promise purpose... but death come through like "nah, fam, checkmate."

Everything fade. Your name get forgotten in a couple generations, your achievements turn to dust, your enemies and your homies all end up in the same dirt nap. No heaven throwin' a party just for you, no karma wheel spinnin' you back for round two, no grand meaning waitin' at the finish line. Just... nothin'. Void. The big empty.

No matter how hard you grip your faith, your politics, your "truth"—nihilism always win in the last round. It don't argue, it don't debate, it just sit there patient, smilin', knowin' the clock runnin' out on everybody. All them structures we build to make sense of the chaos? They temporary decorations on a stage that's gettin' torn down.

19 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Have you ever asked yourself what would replace religion?

We are talking about humans here. Flesh and blood humans, with all their hunger for power, wealth, security, resources, protection, safety, and meaning. You also have to remember that religious books are not only about faith. They are also describing history, enemies, power, war, and the justification for killing the enemy. They describe methods, motives, and rules, all written down by humans living in their own time.

That is not so different from leaders today justifying bombing other countries, or attacking boats because they are suspected of carrying drugs. Do you think men like Trump are truly religious? Or are they using the same old human methods: power, fear, enemies, and justification?

Back then, men like that helped shape the world we see today. Some of them are described in the Bible through how they wanted their time, their actions, and their enemies to be understood. Desperation does something to people who cling to power.

Take religion away, and those same human instincts do not disappear. They just find another flag to march under. The problem is not only religion. The problem is humans.

The flippant answer to what would replace religion would be “sanity”.

I don’t think anything has to replace it, we’ve already proved morals and adherence to laws comes from parental guidance and from within all of us except those with personality disorders like Trump who appears to have Malignant Narcissistic personality Disorder.

Religion often helps people to achieve evil by claiming they are doing it for their god eg Putin, Trump, Hegseth.

It’s fairly obvious countries that are not secular tend to have problems and human rights abuses.

A world without religion would be a better, safer place.

34 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Have you ever asked yourself what would replace religion?

We are talking about humans here. Flesh and blood humans, with all their hunger for power, wealth, security, resources, protection, safety, and meaning. You also have to remember that religious books are not only about faith. They are also describing history, enemies, power, war, and the justification for killing the enemy. They describe methods, motives, and rules, all written down by humans living in their own time.

That is not so different from leaders today justifying bombing other countries, or attacking boats because they are suspected of carrying drugs. Do you think men like Trump are truly religious? Or are they using the same old human methods: power, fear, enemies, and justification?

Back then, men like that helped shape the world we see today. Some of them are described in the Bible through how they wanted their time, their actions, and their enemies to be understood. Desperation does something to people who cling to power.

Take religion away, and those same human instincts do not disappear. They just find another flag to march under. The problem is not only religion. The problem is humans.

You also forget that religion and belief systems keep humans occupied, focused, and disciplined.

Nihilism does not give people much reason to get up in the morning, push themselves, or try to become the best version of themselves. If you are going to die anyway, and nothing matters in the end, then what is really holding you up. Enjoying every day without purpose sounds free, but after a while it can become a vacuum. Every new discovery becomes just the next happening, the next experience, the next distraction. In the end, motivation runs out.

Humans need purpose to live. With purpose comes responsibility. With responsibility comes framework. And with framework, people have something to build their life around.

That does not mean every religion is true, or that every belief system is good. But it means they serve a human function nihilism does not replace very well.

10 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

The flippant answer to what would replace religion would be “sanity”.

I don’t think anything has to replace it, we’ve already proved morals and adherence to laws comes from parental guidance and from within all of us except those with personality disorders like Trump who appears to have Malignant Narcissistic personality Disorder.

Religion often helps people to achieve evil by claiming they are doing it for their god eg Putin, Trump, Hegseth.

It’s fairly obvious countries that are not secular tend to have problems and human rights abuses.

A world without religion would be a better, safer place.

If sanity had always been humanity’s strongest trait, you certainly put a lot of trust in humans.

History shows humans do not need religion to lose their minds. They only need fear, power, tribe, and an enemy.

18 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You also forget that religion and belief systems keep humans occupied, focused, and disciplined.

Nihilism does not give people much reason to get up in the morning, push themselves, or try to become the best version of themselves. If you are going to die anyway, and nothing matters in the end, then what is really holding you up. Enjoying every day without purpose sounds free, but after a while it can become a vacuum. Every new discovery becomes just the next happening, the next experience, the next distraction. In the end, motivation runs out.

Humans need purpose to live. With purpose comes responsibility. With responsibility comes framework. And with framework, people have something to build their life around.

That does not mean every religion is true, or that every belief system is good. But it means they serve a human function nihilism does not replace very well.

You don’t need religion to have purpose in life. I don’t and I have a strong purpose.

I think religion actually dumbs down any idea of purpose. The philosophy in religion tends to be this life is transitory, the next one is eternity.

25 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

You don’t need religion to have purpose in life. I don’t and I have a strong purpose.

I think religion actually dumbs down any idea of purpose. The philosophy in religion tends to be this life is transitory, the next one is eternity.

You and me may not need imagined purpose. I speak for myself when I say I need real purpose to be happy, and that comes from structure, discipline, and room to grow. That is also what society is built on. Structure, discipline, responsibility, possibilities, growth, and some kind of purpose.

Still, many people fall outside for one reason or another. For some of them, religion or belief becomes a positive distraction. It gives them routine, community, rules, and something to hold on to. And to be honest, maybe we should be happy that many of those people found something that keeps them inside society, instead of outside it.

That is more a philosophical question than a religious one.

I believe in me.