Choose your religion

Say, you had to choose a religion that everybody would be, not forced but by heart. What would it be?

For me it's easy (no troll):

Jehovah's Witness.

These people are legitimately nice, the women know their "place", actually peaceful, a "radical" JW is someone who knocks twice. Yeah there are more peaceful religions but they're the only peaceful ones that get shit done.

There will still be doctors, buildings will be built (the military has more than once expressed their amazement on how quick they are to build stuff etc), they're not perverted, they're generous, and 100% fucking trustworthy

Ya... one big problem. There are a ton of nigger JW.

I am a Jew and I enjoy being a Jew. Only white people at my temple.

Yeah but we wouldn't be racist. Don't think with your current state of mind. It's the best choice mate. Also, the reason why our women are fucking arabs and niggers is because of this left cuck fucking out of hand PC SJW bullcunt. Races would stick to their own mostly

I think I'd go Mormon over JW. It has all that good shit, but is much less cult-like (unless you get into the fringe sects). The JWs will excommunicate you and try to tear your family apart for asking too many questions.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
The world would then be fucking awesome.

Orthodox Kekism

>The JWs will excommunicate you and try to tear your family apart for asking too many questions.

No they won't, you cockgobbling faggot.

Catholic, obviously.

Greek Polytheism

Agreed, I know several and even studied the bible with them. Though they tend to avoid some shit but they [the bible] do have an answer to everything. That book is a solid fucking masterpiece. But it's by people, for people

I would chose buddhism

Buddhists are pretty based

this. alternatively Free Presbyterians or Old Regular Baptists

Roman catholic

>Roman catholic

We already know how that story ends

preach

>I'm calling the elders on you

We shouldn't be here man.
Glad I'm not the only one though...

>Say, you had to choose a religion that everybody would be, not forced but by heart. What would it be?
The religion i just made up called "dontbeanassholeism".

It is super easy, you just dont be a jerk to others and you go to paradise, if you do go ahead and be a jerk you will have to pain for every single sin you committed in your life before moving on to the afterlife.

Define "jerk"

This is part of the problem, people don't believe in truth anymore, just in interpretations and everyone's is equally valid!

It's called disfellowshipping, and all it is is people don't talk to you for like a year to teach you a lesson, because you did something bad. You can come back and are encouraged to, the elders meet with you regularly to gauge your repentance.

>Source: I was disfellowshipped and then got reinstated, and probably shouldn't be here...

Also my netherland brother, you cant convince people in a place like this. Despite us being JW, you know we come here because we are social outcasts anyways. Just like the rest of Sup Forums, we don't belong, so we come here...

I'm an atheism but Zoroastrianism always seemed cool

Out of the major religions, maybe Sufi Islam

>tfw I dread the day we get a local needs about "messageboards"

Catholicism

second choice would be the religion of ancient Greece

I heard a lot about this, and to be honest, it IS a fucking cult (I'm not JW but studied with them for over 2 years). Though without external influences in the world there would be very little outcasts

>implying inqusition was bad

Jew

Imagine 6 billion jews all jewing each other.

>Define "jerk"
Someone who makes cause problems for others just for the sadistic pleasure of whatching those people suffer.

Basically bullies, violent criminals, corrupt cops who abuse their authority and power that was given to them by the state.

Also, someone who purposedly do evil unto others for their own benefit with disregard for their suffering.

Like dirty politicians who steal tax payers money, resulting in people not receiveing proper medical care, food and housing and resulting in widespread poverty and misery.

It is not that hard to define who is a jerk and who is not.

Discordianism

PRODDIES IGNORE HISTORY

Based pol

You realise that you are obliged to do that door to door shit yourself too once you become one?

I choose Lutheranism.

Roman Catholic

"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.

He terms the Sacred Writings, which include Hebrews, Psalms, and Jeremiah, with Baruch as well. He refers to Baruch as Sacred Writings which are thus, inspired Scriptures. The Word, or Sacred Scripture, chides Israel through Baruch.

"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313

[I]t is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387.

This passage of the three youths in the furnace is found in the Catholic Bible, not the Protestant Bible. It is preceded by the passage "It is written" which applies only to Scripture. St. Athanasius refers to Colossians, 1st Corinthians, and John in the same breath as referring to the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel. He is using this passage to say that Jesus is not a creation, but is confessed as God. This is an important doctrinal point he is establishing. He makes no distinction between the inspiration of these books. He is showing through the Deuterocanonical passage, proof of the doctrine of Jesus deity.

Daniel said to Astyages, 'I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh;' [Daniel 14:5-Bel & the Dragon]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 3:30 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2, IV:410.

Here is another Deuterocanonical part of Daniel not contained in the Protestant Bible.

"But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391

nah dude teamspeakianism or fuck off

I am god

the only logical answer desu

kill proddies

>Beliving Judeo-Dutch/German propaganda from the reformation
Tbh Protestants were still burning women as witches when the Catholic Church had come to the conclusion that it was nearly impossible to prove that someone was a witch.

better than proddi

Roman-Catholic.

proddi deny science

You're worse than a leaf. I would go so far as to say that you are the worst poster on this board.

Paganism which is what I am

Sikhism desu

W hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

global polytheistic chaos

Tengrism

It's not really like a organized religion but yeah

assmad proddie

I am the best poster on Sup Forums

>(((white)))
No

Define "evil". One example is not enough. I get your point but you're far from a concrete definition.

Neither are 3 examples of criminality that's currently happening in Brasil right now. What definitions are true now, but were also 10.000 years ago and will be in 10.000 years? The New World Translation got this covered

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

which branch of christianity lets you be gay

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

proddi

Jews are not white

I'm more of a Talos man myself

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

The only true path, HAIL BOB!

Cult of Genghis Khan - Mongolian shamanism

Shinto

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

better than proddi

Jainism

No fucking doubt, Jainism

Jains are the nicest fucking people ever. Their entire philosophy is based on not hurting others (any living creature in general). But they're not fanatic about it. Only the priests are (they wear cloths over their mouth so they wont breathe in insects, and they carry a broom that they use to constantly sweep in front of their feet so they wont step on anything).

Jainism sprung out of buddhism. Where Buddha said, "its the thought that counts", Jains were all "no, if you kill anything at all ever, thats bad karma. Only be nice, always". Also, they are actually pretty financially successful

Ya, theyre fucked, but its the only religion in the world that can in no way whatsoever justify violence. Its the best religion ever. Any suggestion other than Jainism is shit

Esoteric Jahanism.

>The New World Translation got this covered
What is that exactly?

I prefer this to proddies

Protastant no stupid pope no rag heads and lax cristan rules

>> 95953052

Off with their heads

Yes Jains are more logical than proddies

Also better than proddies

stupid proddie anti science deny evolution

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

>Mormon
Only if we're talking Army Jack Mormons. Salt of the Earth.

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

I've been studying with a Witness in southern California for the past 6 months. I like attending the Kingdom Hall and listening to the public talks on Sunday. My only issue is that I don't want to be a Witness. Once I'm done with What Does the Bible Really Teach book, will I be pressured into becoming baptized? Also, will people start to treat me differently if I keep attending meetings if I never become baptized?

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

All you retards debating:

Theres no debate. The answer is "Jainism". Every other religion proposed here has been used to justify violence. Jainism has existed longer than judaism, but it has never been used to justify violence fucking ever. Against anything

JWs aren't nice people you twat. I have JWs in my family and they refuse to speak with family who isn't JW. They're know-it-alls but they don't actually know shit. They aren't allowed to research information that isn't strictly related to JW teachings. Fuck off OP

you are so stupid to join a shitty false illegitimate sect

Church of the Fonz B-T-DUBZ

Which is better than proddi

This.
source: the faggot JWs in my family. literal autistic retards who can't answer shit

Preferable to proddi

truth

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The bible translated from the original manuscripts. So without the editing of the power-crazed catholics. The JW's are the only ones to use this afaik

again, you guys are all wrong. The only correct answer is "Jainism". Google it. its THE most peaceful & cool religion that has ever existed

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

Buddhist.

eat shit

is it better than proddi

Can't be better than Jack Mormons

better than proddi

Are you guys actually debathing whether there is vailidity to religion? Of course there isnt! Anyone who is religious is a buttfucking retard.

BUT:

The most peaceful religion ever is jainism. Its the coolest & most peaceful religion to ever exist

i am god

Grew up Jehovah's Witnesses - NO NO NO NO NO. This is a god damn cult that promotes illiteracy, poorly educated morons waiting for the world to end - they baptize children then if they do anything wrong they get excommunicated and lose their friends and family. They are young earth creationists, deny evolution, let babies die instead of giving them blood transfusions. For the love of fuck, no.

proddi the worst religion

Mormonism, definitely. 7 wives? No nigs? Sounds pretty sweet. Also, they got info on everyone who ever lived deep in a cave, so after the collapse of society the Mormons will be a living google.

see? still want to eb a proddie?