I dislike all religion for obvious reasons. Example, god would never allow the mass starvation of children no matter which god. He doesn’t work in mysterious ways. But freedom of speech to allow me to express my freedom to not believe in any god and to call god and any political party and or company stupid is Paramount to anything else.
I don’t get it, I don’t see any religious connotations and the rings look cool.
Example, god would never allow the mass starvation of children no matter which god.
What makes you think that? Your concept of a god is that if they exist they would conform to human ideals of good or that their own rules would apply to them. You could instead argue that if god isn’t good then they therefore do not deserve to be worshiped which is a fair argument as well. However, if god does exist, does not conform to human ideals of good, and there are consequences for not believing in it or obeying it’s orders then you’re just up shits creek.
Just to throw out some examples from the bible but God allowed Satan to torment Job because Job was a loyal and good person, God allowed Lot to offer his daughters for rape rather than some angels, God turned Lots wife into salt for looking in a direction, God flooded the world and killed everyone but one small family, the plagues of Egypt, when the Israelites came to the promised land they encountered other civilizations which God told them to kill every man, woman, child, and beast. We don’t need to look at modern examples, we don’t get past the old testament without it being clear that if the Christian (or Jewish for that matter) God exists he doesn’t follow his own rules.
I don’t know other religions as well as Christianity, but considering Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share some commonalities I’m going to lump them together. In Greek mythology the gods are straight up sadistic at times and the people were supposed to be ok with it, Hera tormented Hercules for being born and the Trojan War was started because one god didn’t get invited to another god’s wedding. I don’t know a lot about the Aztec gods, but as far as I can tell it was believed they required human sacrifice at least on some frequency. I’m sure there are more examples in other religions, but the fundamental argument is the same.
I’m not really trying to change your mind, I myself would probably be closer to agnositic, but a lot of atheists try to logic their way around the existence of god as if god is another person when in reality the relationship may be similar to you conversing with an ant. You might be right and god doesn’t exist, but to say they don’t exist because they allow suffering in the world is fundamentally counter to what most religions say about their god(s).
That’s the assumption that god is benevolent and would like to not murder people. Any other god doesn’t deserve any admiration.
If there was nothing to tell you that those gods exist then you’d never know and wouldn’t be bothered by connecting bad or good things to the existence of a god.
But as we know, Gazan people and Ukrainians are being murdered every day for ~the past 5 years. At any point of those 5 years of suffering god could have stopped it. But nah, ratchet it some more instead. and that’s reason enough to not believe in a god or to even hate an asshole in power who won’t move a finger to prevent suffering. And I don’t need to stand on moral high ground. I think most of us could agree that feeding the hungry is the logical thing a good person would be doing at this time.
That really only addresses one kind of conception of deity, namely the mono-theistic, primarily Abrahamic variations. As one alternative, if you let go of the idea that a God or Gods must be omnipotent, then things become relatively more sensible. In polytheism for example, you have deitys who are associated with all kinds of things, some that we consider positive, and others we consider negative. These kinds of models at least tend to more accurately fit the way things actually go in life - sometimes justice prevails, sometimes it doesn’t.
Or as another model, there’s the highly dualistic Cathars. For them there was two principles, one Good, the other Evil. Their argument was essentially that God’s power was inseparable from God’s nature, and thus God is incapable of doing anything that goes against their nature to do - including any harm even to evil itself. This model is very reminiscent of the kinds of criticisms people often have of those who practice strict nonviolent ideologies - that their ways and methods lack potency, or any efficacy to adequately deal with malicious forces.
Not all models even assume God is benevolent. Most Gnostic branches outright believe that the chief deity of this universe is either blind and inept at best, or outright malevolent.
At least as far as I understand some Buddhist cosmologies, the Devas, while being powerful beings roughly equivalent to most polytheistic religions, they are neither considered to be the creators of reality or the universe, nor even have complete dominion over it, or even complete knowledge of it. They are also subject to samsara just as we are, and suffering ultimately is inherently baked into reality. An interesting quirk of some Buddhist sects is the notion that even deitys from other religions can be persuaded to follow Buddha’s teachings to follow the path out of suffering.
And then of course there are the pantheistic and panentheistic models, which stress the inseparability of deity and universe. The “we are God” groups. Why doesn’t God end the suffering and evil in the universe? Yeah, why don’t we do more?
Just wanted to give some examples to illustrate that there are a lot of religions with a lot of perspectives on what’s called the problem of evil. Want to be clear that I have no interest in changing whatever your beliefs are. I just think it’s boring and unfortunate that people usually only bring up the problem of evil when they’re using it to criticize the easy punching bag religions.
The mind set just might have been a lot different from how we think today…
I dunno who “we” is, but it’s exactly the same for the vast majority of people in imperial core. Just not with scary arabic. See my other comment for a few examples out of countless.
And if you want a copy of a 1000 year old ring, you really should copy it and not edit it to fit someone else’s notions about religion.
“We” is the majority of people compared to way back when and today. Don’t be obtuse. Just compare the thoughts and beliefs of one mere generation ago from anywhere on the planet as compared to today if you need an example. And people across the planet and history have always had different thoughts and beliefs than they do today. No matter your take on the “imperial core”.
As to why copy a rare 1000 year old design as close as possible? It’s their bauble and choice, not yours or mine, (though I will defend their right to do so). And besides it’s what the word “copy” means. Not “similar” or “kind of like it”.
I dislike all religion for obvious reasons. Example, god would never allow the mass starvation of children no matter which god. He doesn’t work in mysterious ways. But freedom of speech to allow me to express my freedom to not believe in any god and to call god and any political party and or company stupid is Paramount to anything else.
I don’t get it, I don’t see any religious connotations and the rings look cool.
What makes you think that? Your concept of a god is that if they exist they would conform to human ideals of good or that their own rules would apply to them. You could instead argue that if god isn’t good then they therefore do not deserve to be worshiped which is a fair argument as well. However, if god does exist, does not conform to human ideals of good, and there are consequences for not believing in it or obeying it’s orders then you’re just up shits creek.
Just to throw out some examples from the bible but God allowed Satan to torment Job because Job was a loyal and good person, God allowed Lot to offer his daughters for rape rather than some angels, God turned Lots wife into salt for looking in a direction, God flooded the world and killed everyone but one small family, the plagues of Egypt, when the Israelites came to the promised land they encountered other civilizations which God told them to kill every man, woman, child, and beast. We don’t need to look at modern examples, we don’t get past the old testament without it being clear that if the Christian (or Jewish for that matter) God exists he doesn’t follow his own rules.
I don’t know other religions as well as Christianity, but considering Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share some commonalities I’m going to lump them together. In Greek mythology the gods are straight up sadistic at times and the people were supposed to be ok with it, Hera tormented Hercules for being born and the Trojan War was started because one god didn’t get invited to another god’s wedding. I don’t know a lot about the Aztec gods, but as far as I can tell it was believed they required human sacrifice at least on some frequency. I’m sure there are more examples in other religions, but the fundamental argument is the same.
I’m not really trying to change your mind, I myself would probably be closer to agnositic, but a lot of atheists try to logic their way around the existence of god as if god is another person when in reality the relationship may be similar to you conversing with an ant. You might be right and god doesn’t exist, but to say they don’t exist because they allow suffering in the world is fundamentally counter to what most religions say about their god(s).
Pretty simplistic conception of god.
That’s the assumption that god is benevolent and would like to not murder people. Any other god doesn’t deserve any admiration.
If there was nothing to tell you that those gods exist then you’d never know and wouldn’t be bothered by connecting bad or good things to the existence of a god.
But as we know, Gazan people and Ukrainians are being murdered every day for ~the past 5 years. At any point of those 5 years of suffering god could have stopped it. But nah, ratchet it some more instead. and that’s reason enough to not believe in a god or to even hate an asshole in power who won’t move a finger to prevent suffering. And I don’t need to stand on moral high ground. I think most of us could agree that feeding the hungry is the logical thing a good person would be doing at this time.
That really only addresses one kind of conception of deity, namely the mono-theistic, primarily Abrahamic variations. As one alternative, if you let go of the idea that a God or Gods must be omnipotent, then things become relatively more sensible. In polytheism for example, you have deitys who are associated with all kinds of things, some that we consider positive, and others we consider negative. These kinds of models at least tend to more accurately fit the way things actually go in life - sometimes justice prevails, sometimes it doesn’t.
Or as another model, there’s the highly dualistic Cathars. For them there was two principles, one Good, the other Evil. Their argument was essentially that God’s power was inseparable from God’s nature, and thus God is incapable of doing anything that goes against their nature to do - including any harm even to evil itself. This model is very reminiscent of the kinds of criticisms people often have of those who practice strict nonviolent ideologies - that their ways and methods lack potency, or any efficacy to adequately deal with malicious forces.
Not all models even assume God is benevolent. Most Gnostic branches outright believe that the chief deity of this universe is either blind and inept at best, or outright malevolent.
At least as far as I understand some Buddhist cosmologies, the Devas, while being powerful beings roughly equivalent to most polytheistic religions, they are neither considered to be the creators of reality or the universe, nor even have complete dominion over it, or even complete knowledge of it. They are also subject to samsara just as we are, and suffering ultimately is inherently baked into reality. An interesting quirk of some Buddhist sects is the notion that even deitys from other religions can be persuaded to follow Buddha’s teachings to follow the path out of suffering.
And then of course there are the pantheistic and panentheistic models, which stress the inseparability of deity and universe. The “we are God” groups. Why doesn’t God end the suffering and evil in the universe? Yeah, why don’t we do more?
Just wanted to give some examples to illustrate that there are a lot of religions with a lot of perspectives on what’s called the problem of evil. Want to be clear that I have no interest in changing whatever your beliefs are. I just think it’s boring and unfortunate that people usually only bring up the problem of evil when they’re using it to criticize the easy punching bag religions.
I’m trying to come up with a reasonable context for words “for Allah”. When have you heard anyone say “For Jesus”? In what scenario would you say it?
The Crusades?
The Crusades 2 (In Development)?
Exactly, but pointing out the historical context for this is going to get you downvoted.
Oooo, what if I said I was doing it for God, though?
Nah, You’re right. I know the measure of this audience.
Something something kill the concept of a benevolent God and destroy capitalism. I don’t even disagree, but we got a little reductionalist.
“Jesus saves”, “God is my co-pilot”, “OMG”, “god is love”, “the lord is my savior”, “christ is king”, etc etc etc…
It’s literally everywhere in English. I’m constantly bombarded with the exact same stuff that the brainwashed cry about when it’s “allah”.
Except all your examples are in opposite direction whereby god does something to you or loves you.
The mind set just might have been a lot different from how we think today…
And if you want a copy of a 1000 year old ring, you really should copy it and not edit it to fit someone else’s notions about religion.
Second point makes me think you are misunderstanding the post.
They did not recreate a 1000 year old viking ring and carve “For Allah.”
They recreated a 1000 year old “viking ring with the words For Allah carved in it.”
The Viking likely getting the ring during a raid. Spain was Muslim-majority back then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_raid_on_Seville
I dunno who “we” is, but it’s exactly the same for the vast majority of people in imperial core. Just not with scary arabic. See my other comment for a few examples out of countless.
Why not? Who cares?
“We” is the majority of people compared to way back when and today. Don’t be obtuse. Just compare the thoughts and beliefs of one mere generation ago from anywhere on the planet as compared to today if you need an example. And people across the planet and history have always had different thoughts and beliefs than they do today. No matter your take on the “imperial core”.
As to why copy a rare 1000 year old design as close as possible? It’s their bauble and choice, not yours or mine, (though I will defend their right to do so). And besides it’s what the word “copy” means. Not “similar” or “kind of like it”.