• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in a supreme being?


  • Total voters
    209
Yeah. I was saying that even if your theory is true(which seems to be deistic imo)

I would like to remind you that I`m an atheist as well so I don`t believe in God or Satan either. And I don`t actually "believe" in my theory. It just crossed my mind. I think there is no God at all.

It also seemed like you misunderstood my point. (Sorry, guess I did`t explain well enough). My point was that if god existed and he does`t care what happens on earth, then maybe Satan made a "fake" religion by acting as the God and then made people to create Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This whole religion thing is just a trick made by Satan. So, Christianity, Judaism and Islam was not made to follow God`s teachings, because God did`t do anything because he does`t care, but Satan`s lies.

Understood now? Or am I just bad at explaining things?
 
Just a poll. Do you believe, or not. If we want to get into specific arguments I'd suggest opening a separate thread so as not to muddy the waters here too much.

Ah, yes of course. Sorry, got a little bit too excited.
 
Well, yeah, but I thought the idea of Satan was dependent on God's existence and a Christian idea anyway and why would God create a worst enemy when he's a depressed nihilist who can't be bothered with anything?
And it is deistic imo 'cause afaik deism is the belief of a deity but it being inactive and having no real effect on our lives.
IDK, I'm probably just rambling...
In all honesty I actually skipped the last two paragraphs or so of your post because I was only interested in the first couple. I do that a lot with posts, both accidentally and deliberately.
But yeah ;D.
EMZ=]
 
Well, yeah, but I thought the idea of Satan was dependent on God's existence and a Christian idea anyway and why would God create a worst enemy when he's a depressed nihilist who can't be bothered with anything?
EMZ=]

That Satan was just an example. By Satan I did`t mean the one which God created. No one created Satan or God. They just exist. God did`t do anything. Satan made up the stories of the Bible. That`s why Bible is just a fairytale book. And just in case i say it again; I don`t believe in this theory of mine. Just crossed my mind. But I`m shut up about this now.
 
Well afaik the biblical/Christian version of Satan was an angel which went bad or something... idk...
I'm just rambling and being trivial here. I get your point (Y).
EMZ=]
 
Satan was God's most beloved angel. He refused to bow to God and was cast out of heaven. That was what I learned at Catholic School anyway. If you do a google on Satan you get to find out all sorts of other meaningless nonsense as well.

Satan predates Christianity, for example when he was tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden.

All bollocks really IMO.

Sipe and Emor have hit on very some good points. I've heard that:

If God created mankind in His own image, then mankind has certainly returned the favour

If there is a God, it doesn't seem likely that He is anything like us. That he cares about what we do. That we are little more than an infestation on one insignificant planet among countless trillions. God may not even be intelligent in the way that we think of intelligence - our evolved, organic intelligence.
 
Ah, yes of course. Sorry, got a little bit too excited.

Sorry, that was my original post (check the date), not some party pooper contribution to the debate at hand.

Please carry on, I find the current line of discussion very interesting.
 
The same thing again? Oh, for Porphyry's sake. <_<

I find the whole topic more than just boring right now. It's non-intellectual and non-philosophical at the far end; I've explained why. It's easily childish gibberish.

No matter what one's stance is, one shouldn't explicitly mention Christianity, Judaism, and Islam---or Hinduism, Buddhism, or whatever. It's not exactly the same as mentioning God and Satan. It's so rude, no matter what. It's more like calling someone's parent by name---to thresh the person indulgently, while having only so little first-hand knowledge about that actual person---while what reigns heavily and yet freely in the air is just a bunch of rumors received by us non-critically.

I've been around the world and I know very, very good Jews, Christians, and Muslims (there are many Turkish and Iraqi (Kurdish) immigrants in Sweden as well), as well as many benevolent atheists. I have a friend from Iraq who was blinded and handicapped by an American bomb at age 4---while at home. He and his family eventually sought asylum in Sweden.

Besides, do you know that they too do not acknowledge suicide bombers and such? A Muslim professor I know calls them 'cancers' in the body of Islam, and no such Muslim actually regards them as being fellow-Muslims. In the entire stretch of history, which human would be so stupid to embrace a religion of shallow precepts in the first place? You're dealing with the humanities here, the sciences (from psychology to history to anthropology), not just narrow rationalizations.

Surely, a lot more innocent people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan---and continue to die---VASTLY outnumbering the the victims of 9/11. We just don't hear them bereft of their loved ones---not everyday at least. Who---just who---is killing them? I think we are all murderers, whether by direct action or simply by compliance and ignorance. And worst of all is indifference, if not shallow prejudice. This has been happening long, for a few centuries now (see the history of colonialism), and surely predates modernism and 9/11.

Have you EVER read the Qur'an (Koran), which Goethe himself instantly treasured more than his own poetry and women? Could you even read it in the original language? Do you even know that one of the sayings of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, is, "First, love your mother. Second, your mother. Third, your mother. And then your father." This, while the Prophet himself had been a full orphan since age 6. Do you know that the term Jihad ('Holy War') refers, first of all, to 'self-struggle against the low vices' and then to 'establishing Justice and Equity on Earth'?

What about the Sanskrit Upanishads? The Buddhist Sutras?

Suicide bombers and terrorists? Why not talk about, say, the Sufis, poets, philosophers, and scientists---they are Muslims; far, far outnumbering the perverts beyond the pale of any true religion. (Plus, you could ask 142857 about the Muslims in Indonesia, where he lives at the moment.)

What about the massacre of the Muslims (the Moors and Arabs), Jews, and non-Catholic Christians in Spain, as Andalusia reverted back to (Roman) Catholicism by force? The Crusades? I'm sure no one is further interested in the genealogy of that kind of stupidity, irrespective of naming a particular religion.

But what about the golden age of Islam before Western colonization---when they produced really great scientists (lots of Doctor Maximuses), artists, and philosophers for a millennium, from Morocco and Spain, through Arabia and Persia, to India and Indonesia? Inspired by the Qur'an and Prophetic traditions, they reached the zenith and existential-humanistic strength that the Greek philosophers could not even reach. Now think, were they so so stupid and less intelligent than you (who explicitly call Christianity, Judaism, and Islam 'evil'), while, being Muslims, they were very consciously religious? They were polymaths, to be precise (recall or study Averroes and Avicenna, or the more recent Abdus Salam and Mohammad Iqbal, for instance). Or did they understand their religion holistically BETTER than just a few foolish buffoons and scumbags who think they 'well represent' their religion today?

The ailing ones of them are just a tiny, split fraction of the entire religious population. Hypocrites and transgressors, as they call such people, have always existed and have been very humanely distinguished from 'non-believers'.

Like I said, even Einstein was silent about mass-religion, let alone genuine spirituality beyond institutionalization and politics. It's very private. This is no place for insult (whether unintentional, pseudo-philosophical, or just explicit), really. There are better things to do still. We can rationalize about Asperger's instead---something we truly know about, or at least are getting to know better.

I just don't want both a pure-hearted religious fellow and a potential suicide bomber to read this thread. Think about it! I want a fully conscious, tolerant, peaceful Earth.
 
The same thing again? Oh, for Porphyry's sake. <_<

I find the whole topic more than just boring right now. It's non-intellectual and non-philosophical at the far end; I've explained why. It's easily childish gibberish.

No matter what one's stance is, one shouldn't explicitly mention Christianity, Judaism, and Islam---or Hinduism, Buddhism, or whatever. It's not exactly the same as mentioning God and Satan. It's so rude, no matter what. It's more like calling someone's parent by name---to thresh the person indulgently, while having only so little first-hand knowledge about the actual person---while what reigns heavily and yet freely in the air is just a bunch of rumors received by us non-critically.

I've been around the world and I know very, very good Jews, Christians, and Muslims (there are many Turkish and Iraqi (Kurdish) immigrants in Sweden as well), as well as many benevolent atheists. I have a friend from Iraq who was blinded and handicapped by an American bomb at age 4---while at home. He and his family eventually sought asylum in Sweden.

Besides, do you know that they too do not acknowledge suicide bombers and such? A Muslim professor I know calls them 'cancers' in the body of Islam, and no such Muslim actually regards them as being fellow-Muslims. In the entire stretch of history, which human would be so stupid to embrace a religion of shallow precepts in the first place? You're dealing with the humanities here, the sciences (from psychology to history to anthropology), not just narrow rationalizations.

Surely, a lot more innocent people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan---and continue to die---than the victims of 9/11. We just don't hear them bereft of their loved ones---not everyday at least. Who---just who---is killing them? I think we are all murderers, whether by direct action or simply by compliance and ignorance. And worst of all is indifference, if not shallow prejudice. This has been happening long, for a few centuries now (see the history of colonialism), and surely predates modernism and 9/11.

Have you EVER read the Qur'an (Koran), which Goethe himself instantly treasured more than his own poetry and women? Could you even read it in the original language? Do you even know that one of the sayings of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, is, "First, love your mother. Second, your mother. Third, your mother. And then your father." This, while the Prophet himself had been a full orphan since age 6. Do you know that the term Jihad ('Holy War') refers, first of all, to 'self-struggle against the low vices' and then to 'establishing Justice and Equity on Earth'?

What about the Sanskrit Upanishads? The Buddhist Sutras?

Suicide bombers and terrorists? Why not talk about, say, the Sufis, poets, philosophers, and scientists---they are Muslims; far, far outnumbering the perverts beyond the pale of any true religion. (Plus, you could ask 142857 about the Muslims in Indonesia, where he lives at the moment.)

What about the massacre of the Muslims (the Moors and Arabs), Jews, and non-Catholic Christians in Spain, as Andalusia reverted back to Catholicism by force? The Crusades? I'm sure no one is further interested in the genealogy of that kind of stupidity, irrespective of naming a particular religion.

But what about the golden age of Islam before Western colonization---when they produced really great scientists (lots of Doctor Maximuses), artists, and philosophers for a millennium, from Morocco and Spain, through Arabia and Persia, to India and Indonesia? Inspired by the Qur'an and Prophetic traditions, they reached the zenith and existential-humanistic strength that the Greek philosophers could not even reach. Now think, were they so so stupid and less intelligent than you (who explicitly call Christianity, Judaism, and Islam 'evil'), while, being Muslims, they were very consciously religious? They were polymaths, to be precise (recall or study Averroes and Avicenna, or the more recent Abdus Salam and Mohammad Iqbal, for instance). Or did they understand their religion holistically BETTER than just a few foolish buffoons and scumbags who think they 'well represent' their religion today?


/applause

Love your speech! And yes, I agree with you. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians are hypocritical etc. I`m have to admit that I used to think like that about religions. But, I have become more wiser and now I accept all religions and their worshipers.

But I would`t count Buddhism as religion. It`s more like philosophy and a lifestyle. The main reason I don`t see Buddhism as religion is that there is no God/gods. Buddha (Siddhārtha Gautama) was just a normal human who lived in North-India around 2500 BC. The other good thing about Buddhism is that it can work with other religions and beliefs in settlement and Buddhism do not judge them or say that "That religion is wrong/evil". Buddhism accepts everyone no matter what religion you worship and the only thing Buddhism wants is peace and love be shared by everyone.
 
Evar, at which point were we speaking derogatory of any of the religions? At least on this page.
I don't know about the 3 pages prior. If so you're late :P.
EMZ=]
 
Evar, at which point were we speaking derogatory of any of the religions? At least on this page.
I don't know about the 3 pages prior. If so you're late :P.
EMZ=]

You don't even need to look past page 1 to find out.


To answer the original question:

Yes I do believe in a God.
 
In terms of the recent comments, those since Evar's most recent posts, I don't see how they could be seen as offensive. To be honest, Evar's post is enlightening but seems aimed at a thread that has been bashing Islam. Not this thread, and certainly not the most recent posts.

My opinion of Islam, having lived in the country with the world's biggest Muslim population for 5+ years out of the past 7, is mostly positive. Many of the worst perceived aspects of Islam, such as the treatment of women, are more related to the culture of some parts of the world where Islam is practised than Islam itself. I have an interesting theory on the true nature of Islamic terrorism in Indonesia, which maybe I will share some time.

It is a fact that Aspies tend not to believe in God. And I've seen polls on other forums that are significantly more biased towards non-belief than this one. Discussing things like the fact that we don't believe in God and why we don't believe is pretty healthy. Those who wish to insult religion and who insult those who believe say more about themselves than anything else.
 
In terms of the recent comments, those since Evar's most recent posts, I don't see how they could be seen as offensive. To be honest, Evar's post is enlightening but seems aimed at a thread that has been bashing Islam. Not this thread, and certainly not the most recent posts.
I was referring to some of the earlier posts on page one specifically and in another thread. There seems to be a general negativity around Aspergic towards those who support a religion. As such a person myself, I have yet to insult/bash/flame or w.e. anyone who is a non believer.

I was actually reading through some of Evar's posts earlier and they are indeed enlightening and well constructed.

Those who wish to insult religion and who insult those who believe say more about themselves than anything else. 


Indeed it does.
 
Hi guys, thanks.

Yeah, I must have snapped off a murky branch somewhere in the woods yesterday. And I just lifted a weeping, murmuring voice of autumn a little bit.

No matter what, I just feel (or rather, realize) that we, as humans, have common roots that we have long abandoned, even to the point that they (the roots) have sought us. While nourishing individual uniqueness is a must, we have been wounded by the errant skies of indifference long enough.

I was actually reading the posts randomly. I was being offensive, but mostly just towards myself. Here's what I mean(t) by 'you':

* you = anyone (including me)

I completely agree that discussing the existence or non-existence of God is part of being a sensitive, existential, epistemic human being. Very much so. Since God, in discussion, can even be stripped of shallow anthropomorphic attributes and personality (which is actually what Islam really does in a sense), as we've shown elsewhere. We may be left with God without (the prejudice of) mass-religion. That, among others, is healthy.

Like Emor, one of my very early interests has been religion (while my familial surroundings were easily agnostic). I tried to objectively study all religions on Earth, and not just in my spare time. Thankfully, during my travels in the Middle and Far East, I came across the objects of my curiosity and passion even more closely. Reading books and narrow self-reasoning wasn't enough; I needed some direct, genuine experience and disclosure. I longingly needed the Real Itself to face and mirror my intellect and soul in a genuine, singular encounter. I do not brag, but I do know almost all religions, in the East and the West, and what is not of the East and the West at all (which is, by the way, the other name of Islam).

It's just that Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the West nowadays, due to a lot of unhealthy prejudice and propaganda. Suicide bombers and the like are not actually Muslims. They are called 'Wahabis' or simply 'transgressors' by the Muslims themselves. To be specific, Wahabism is only some 2 centuries old and was practically unknown until 1926. It was born in the midst of Western colonialism in oil-rich territories of Najd, belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

Usually only (the unbiased) professors of Religion quite understand it with some accuracy, and, unfortunately, not the public. For instance, it's not true that Islam was spread by the Sword. Rather, Muslims are spiritual existentialists; unlike some religious people who always, and always, give away the other cheek, when one cheek is slapped.

While attempting to reform what was the most arid, barren, desolate form of humanity and civilization on Earth (in the middle of 'nowhere', the wilderness of Paran, Arabia), the earliest Muslim Community (Umma) was subject to heart-shattering, horrendous oppression by the Pagans of Arabia (including the Roman rulers and the Romanized, Ghassanid Arabs), for over 10 years. But the Prophet of Islam refused to fight back and reminded the community that the first duty of his true companions in the Way was to 'fight your carnal desires for the sake of AllaH', based on, and along with, the attainment of pure 'Ma'rifat' (Gnosis). Hence, during that period, the first Sufis of Islam emerged. They were mirrors of the Prophet's Inner Reality. They were men and women of Self-Exercise, Self-Restraint, Purity, and Gnosis. The metal-welding of the Sword had not taken place.

This, then, was the true 'Jihad', as maintained by the Sufis of Islam, and indeed the mystics of all other religions. Only after many, many years of brutal, inhumane oppression, the Prophet gave permission for the most SELECT of his disciples to carry the Sword against the tyrants of the world: "Your first Sword is indeed the perfect 'Aql (Intellect), sheathed in the pure Qalb (Heart) of Rahman (the Merciful), purified of all undesirable vices. By the Secret of Ikhlash (Sincerity), hold fast unto these two, and FIGHT the oppressors. Fear AllaH, and carry the Sword with maximum prudence." Also, "Only Prophets (Anbiya) and the Truthful (Shiddiqin) have the right to carry the Sword." (This is whenever the situation demands it; such was, and is, the STRICT requirement for a Muslim to carry the Sword, comparable to the Zen Art of Fighting.) And, "Wherever you are, during battle, avoid assaulting women and injuring children. Also protect the handicapped among them, especially the blind." Also, "Do not fight your enemy if you greatly outnumber them."

That was the famous case when once, during the battle of Badr, 'Ali (the Prophet's most cherished disciple and successor (caliph), regarded as the first Sufi Master---after the Prophet) had knocked his enemy off the horseback and was in a vantage position to finish him off with a single, quick, almost painless blow. The defenseless, toppled man spat on 'Ali's face. 'Ali was silent; his face reddening, his heart trembling. After a while, with a tenderest, conspicuous shiver in the air, he told his enemy, "Now go, you're free by AllaH's Mercy." The enemy replied, "Why? Did I not just anger you by disrespecting your countenance?" 'Ali said, "We have been ordered by the Prophet not to fight you people out of anger, avarice, and vengeance; but only because severe injustice has manifestly befallen us." He continued, "If I had killed you, surely, I would have gone against the Beloved Prophet's injunction and would have invoked the anger of AllaH, the Mercy-Giving, the Merciful. Now, I have no reason to kill you justly; you are free." Then, that man embraced Islam, without compulsion.

The early historic expansion of Islam, out of the Hejaz (the Land of 'Sheba'), was due to establishing communities of Justice and Equity under the Light of Prophethood, as they call it, and not under any indifferent, discriminative racial and socio-cultural banner. But it wasn't possible due to the presence of the oppressive, vainglorious Romans, especially in the Levant. With regard to territorial expansion, the Romans were in constant, colossal war with the Persians, centered in the East. Eventually the three clashed and victory belonged to the fresh-spirited Muslims. Immediately, after fighting in the spirit of 'Ali, they dropped the Sword and concentrated on forming a Just Government according to the Prophetic-Qur'anic Standards. They recalled the Prophet's saying, "Sleep in your houses only after feeding orphans and clothing the destitute." Once Peace and Morality had firmly been established in the newly expanded Muslim society, the Sufis began spreading Islam far and wide---without the Sword, but with Hikmah (Pure Wisdom). Eventually, in quite a short time, its realm spanned from Morocco to Indonesia.

That is what distinguishes between Muhammad and Jesus: the Sword of Muhammad is both 'Zhahir' (outward, exoteric) and 'Bathin' (inward, esoteric). And so is his Kingdom. In him, the 'Seal of Prophethood', are combined all lofty, if not the loftiest, existential-essential human qualities in perfect, almost unbelievable balance (see Michael Hart's famous list of the 100 most influential persons in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100). And this is what, in a sense, likens Muhammad to the Hindu Avatar, Krishna (read the Bhagavad Gita), who, after witnessing the self-purification of Arjuna (his disciple), encouraged him to fight the 'dark forces' of Bharat in the name of Truth. Yet Muhammad's existential uniqueness surpasses Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha, if not all others, for he was born in the middle of 'nowhere', unlike the others who were lucky enough to be born in cradles of civilization.

Note that the mystical word 'AllaH' is highly untranslatable to any other language. Like 'YHWH' (of Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism), or 'EloH' (in Hebrew; or 'EloHiM', the respective equivalent of the Muhammadan 'AllaHuMMa'), or 'AllaHa' (Syriac/Aramaic), or the Hindu-Buddhist 'OHM', the word is not even Arabic in origin (not derived from any 'human language' as well), but regarded as a highly mystical, sublime Sign of Knowledge, Existence, Singularity, Truth, and Love-Intimacy---closest to the Human Breath. So you see, it's not even translated, by Muslims, to 'God' in various different local languages (at least it wasn't the trend at all then); because most people cannot yet understand That as That should be understood, both with and without attributes. The Prophet of Islam said, referring to the levels of Direct Cognizance of Reality (the Real: al-Haqq), "The Intellect, the dearest thing unto AllaH, has 7,000 veils of light and 7,000 veils of darkness." Also, "The First Reality created by AllaH was my Intellect/Spirit."

In Islam, like in Taoism, the Hindu Vedanta, and the Buddhist Vajrayana, 'God'---as many people understand or misunderstand it---is just an attribute of That, not the Essence (Dzat, 'Ayn al-Haqiqah) Itself, let alone Being-in-Itself (Wujud). Rather, the Singular Essence is often denoted simply by 'Hu' (or 'Huwa', taking only the last letter H of 'AllaH', while the silent W (WaW, the Universe) faintly mirrors That), or 'HuM' (where M signifies the First, Absolute Manifest Mystery of the Unknown, the Logos, the First Intellect), or simply { }.

Hence, it's just relevant to focus on Islam here, as it shall mirror the cases with other religions quite profoundly. I'd suggest you read Karen Armstrong's brilliant works. She, a professor of Comparative Religion and further specializing in Islam, is not a Muslim, but is 'in love' with the teachings and magnificent history of Islam. She, like Goethe, finds, in Islam and the Qur'an, her Love carved in the violin of the spirit.
 
IDK much about Islam so I don't comment on Allah, just the biblical God.
I'm trying to learn more about Islam but doing so is basically impossible with contradicting sources :S.
I dislike religion as a whole because I just don't think one authority having so much control over the minds of so many people can be good. I think it allows unjustified stigmas to occur and such.
Though this might just be based on my exp. with the Catholic church specifically.
EMZ=]
 
@ Evar: Very interesting. I should look for that Karen Armstrong`s books since you recommend it. I would love to know more about Islam`s history. Thank you for the information you gave us.
 
@ Evar: Eeer... I found many books of hers. Way too many. Can you recommend some certain books? Which ones you liked the best and you truly recommend?
 
Thanks Sipe ^_^, and you're welcome.

What about this sorted list of her books?

Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (2006)
A History of God (1993)
Faith After September 11 (2002)
Buddha (2001)

I see that you're genuinely into Buddhism and Philosophy. Or perhaps any esoteric school and Philosophy. They would make good, fresh, resultant salad, since one speaks of the other---though, ultimately, the former transcends the latter for sure. But when the Sage 'goes out' of non-dual Stillness and Silence temporarily, for the sake of speech, Philosophy is the natural tongue.

There are many kinds of Buddhism, of course, but with your true passion, you won't have any problem with variation. I'd suggest Tibetan Buddhism, Vajrayana (the golden chain of Padmasambhava), or Zen (Ch'an).

Good luck to you and Finland! (I am a fan of Jari Litmanen.)
 
Don't worry that much Em. I know those stigmas. But hold on there. Surely, there's more to come in the way of understanding things, both for you and me. Well, hey :shifty: I'm just glad that you've survived even if you feel it's highly paradoxical at best. Hug.


IDK much about Islam so I don't comment on Allah, just the biblical God.
I'm trying to learn more about Islam but doing so is basically impossible with contradicting sources :S.
I dislike religion as a whole because I just don't think one authority having so much control over the minds of so many people can be good. I think it allows unjustified stigmas to occur and such.
Though this might just be based on my exp. with the Catholic church specifically.
EMZ=]
 
I have a very diffcult relationship with reigion and religious people. I can to some degree understand the theïstic interpretation of the term "god" as the creator of the unierse and it's laws, a perfect watchmaker, but it baffles me how people can believe in a personally involved god, who has a clearplan for humanity or even individual persons. A divine entity who not only governs the laws of nature and physics but also of morality...
Sorry but I find these kind of thoughts to be dwnright disturbing and dangerous. The fact that these kind of beliefs have been absorbed into organisations with a great deal of power scares me even more. "Belief" itself, the assumption of concepts without any factual evidence is, in my opinion, the most dangerous thing the human mind can do. I realise that not all believers are fundamentalistic madmen who would destroy anything in their path that clashes with their fate, but the world would be much better off without religion as a whole.

Maybe I can't think rationally about this because I simply get so pissed off by the whole "you're gonna burn in hell" concept.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom