Religious debate

I was thinking about something on a similar train of thought as this recently. Not exactly, but similar.

I was thinking about Thomas Hobbs, who was this philosopher who basically believed that humans, when left to their own devices, are a-holes. Or in other words, that people are selfish and always look out for themselves first, and what is best for their continued survival at optimal conditions. And a solution to that was to have a social contract of sorts, and a Leviathan.

So if I agree not to kill you, and you agree not to kill me, than we can both focus on growing a garden instead of sharpening tools to protect ourselves from one another. That's the contract bit. Then there is the need for an enforcer, or a leviathan, to make sure people adhere to the contract. In modern day first world countries, it's the government that takes this role. If I break the contract and kill you, the government will punish me.

It's still people looking out for their best interests though. Adhering to the contract and others doing so as well would in theory allow for me to live the best possible life, and for others to do the same.

So I was applying this to religion and two thoughts came to my head. One was what you were getting at Blue, in that it was man-made to function as a leviathan itself. Sort of as a "Hey! Don't murder people or you will spend eternity burning in hell! Isn't that much less in your best interest than, oh, I don't know, just not killing people?" So if that was the reality, that seemed to make sense to me.

On the other side, in argument for God's existence, and if the world is full of a-holes as Thomas Hobbs suggests, what's the dude supposed to do to stop people from acting like a-holes? I mean he could come down and be like "yo guys, it would be really awesome if y'all were nice to each other, and really it would be beneficial if you didn't have to sleep with one eye open, amirite?" but without any muscle to back it up, you're going to have plenty of people seeing the opportunity to take advantage of this system. If that were the case, it would also make sense for the reward and punishment system to exist as it does.

I don't really know though, those were just thoughts that popped in my head though. I've always struggled with the seemingly infinite number of unknown variables when discussing the topic. It's interesting to look at through a particular lens once and a while though.
That's definitely food for thought, vj :thinking: That theory would explain an awful lot of history.

(makes a note to do some in depth research on Thomas Hobbs, when she has some spare time)


Well-known member
Re: Official role-play thread!

Could you provide more information as to why oddeson?
You are clearly being sarcastic. If you wish to claim otherwise, then you have to say that Jesus did, in fact, appear to you. That does happen e.g. Father Themistocles Adamopolous, who comes from Melbourne and runs an orphanage in Sierra Leone in West Africa. However, from subsequent posts in this thread, that clearly did not take place.
Re: Official role-play thread!

You are clearly being sarcastic. If you wish to claim otherwise, then you have to say that Jesus did, in fact, appear to you. That does happen e.g. Father Themistocles Adamopolous, who comes from Melbourne and runs an orphanage in Sierra Leone in West Africa. However, from subsequent posts in this thread, that clearly did not take place.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic.

How about we ask the answers about religion with someone who has read the bible cover to cover multitude of times? They have actually read cover to cover 100s of times......instead of a university "world bible degree".

1 Corinthians 2:14:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 10:14:
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Last edited:
Re: Official role-play thread!

So what is the point then?
This thread was made for those who wish to debate religion. The admin stated this was a thread where one could state their thoughts without the fear of causing offence to others.
All points of view on the subject are welcome.

That is the point.

If you are offended by posts here or the thread itself I would suggest you refrain from reading it.
The problem in society is not kids not knowing science.
The problem is adults not knowing science.
They outnumber kids 5 to 1., they wield power, they write legislation.

When you have scientifically illiterate adults, you have undermined the very fabric of what makes a nation wealthy and strong.

- Neil deGrasse Tyson.


Well-known member
I think religion and believing in (any) god is a means for people to try and make sense of this whole life thing. It gives those who believe a reason for their life to exist, ie, if you behave and follow this set of rules, you'll go to heaven. The alternative is not believing in anything, which can come with an added weight of "what the hell am I doing here in this random place in the universe where there is so much pain and suffering, and all for nothing?".

In reality, religion and gods have always served the purpose of managing the herd. Too many people questioning their existence, might as well provide them with a purpose and have them follow these guidelines. There's always been tons of gods. Worshipping Jesus is the same as when people used to worship the sun. You can even worship Dumbledore and it'll be the same thing. It's just a book that someone (or more than one person), somewhere, wrote. Just like the Quran, or any other book.

That being said, I'm okay with people being religious if it makes them feel better, and if it makes them better people. It's organized religion and shoving beliefs down people's throats that bother me, or when you're an extremist and wish ill upon other faiths (or non-believers). There are tons of believers of any faith that are better people than you or I will ever be.

You want me to be okay with you believing in god? Then you have to be okay with me being agnostic, or worshipping Gandalf, or worshipping my neighbor's dog (who's a really good boy, mind you).
Last edited:


Well-known member
^ There is no contradiction with Christianity here - it is not being intolerant to say that someone is doing the wrong thing. The laws and policies are not discrimination but to prevent harm to other parties. What this is really saying is that whoever the girl represents believes she should be able to do whatever she likes with impunity. Hiding behind claims about being a fundamental part of identity does not work either - paedophiles also claim they can not help it. Even if that were true, preventing them from doing harm or acting in an unacceptable way is not discrimination.