International Over 70 Christians found beheaded in a church in Congo

[UberHere]

"A shaiṭān or shaytān refers to evil spirits in Islam, inciting humans and jinn to sin by whispering in their hearts. According to Islamic tradition, though invisible to humans, shayāṭīn are imagined to be ugly and grotesque creatures created from the fires of hell."

Good and evil is a theme in the vast majority of religions whether or not they are personified as beings.

 

[ReligiousDiscipline]

The various super- natural fables and fairy tales of all religious texts and stories I have heard or read, are all universally nonsensical and absurd.

Your comment is not a serious philosophical objection to religion—it’s an emotional dismissal without substance. If the goal is to critique religious belief, you should engage with actual arguments rather than relying on sweeping generalizations and rhetorical shortcuts.

Many religious traditions contain highly developed philosophical and theological frameworks that are anything but “nonsensical.” Christianity, for example, has a long intellectual tradition with thinkers like Aquinas, Augustine, and more recently, philosophers such as Edward Feser and Alexander Pruss, who argue rigorously for the coherence of religious belief. To call all religious ideas "absurd" is to ignore centuries of intellectual engagement with fundamental metaphysical and moral questions.

By declaring all religious narratives to be universally absurd, you assume an almost godlike knowledge—that you have perfectly analyzed and refuted every religious tradition throughout human history. This is an impossible claim. You would need exhaustive knowledge of theology, philosophy, and history to make such a sweeping statement, yet you provide no argument or evidence.

Religious thought has shaped civilizations, moral systems, and philosophical traditions for millennia. Dismissing all religious texts as "nonsense" ignores their role in forming the intellectual and ethical foundations of societies, including the development of human rights, law, and even science (many early scientists were devoutly religious).

A serious critique of religion would engage with specific claims, doctrines, or philosophical arguments and demonstrate why they fail. Simply declaring something to be “nonsensical” is not an argument; it’s just a personal opinion disguised as a refutation. Imagine responding to Einstein’s theory of relativity by saying, “That’s absurd.” It adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[The Diplomat]

I'm gonna give a hot take, and say they shouldn't have done that. Cancel me if you must, but that's not good.

 

[Flower2dPeople]

"A shaiṭān or shaytān refers to evil spirits in Islam, inciting humans and jinn to sin by whispering in their hearts. According to Islamic tradition, though invisible to humans, shayāṭīn are imagined to be ugly and grotesque creatures created from the fires of hell."

Muhammad copied it(along with Zoroastrianism) after hanging around with Arab Christians. Then he had a Joseph Smith moment. The rest is history.

 

[KnightTemplar]

I'm gonna give a hot take, and say they shouldn't have done that. Cancel me if you must, but that's not good.

Different culture...

 

[pugilistico]

This thread is how divisive people are. If you criticize Christianity people automatically assume you're an atheist and therefore leftist and therefore pro-Islam.

I have buddhist leanings and don't care for christians, but muslims are another story. Because beheading 70 people in a church is something more on brand with muslims than christians. Pro-islam leftists are the funniest bunch because they don't see the irony in supporting in an ideology that is the antithesis of their own. Beheading 70 people in a church is also on brand with conflicts in Africa.

 

[ermac88]

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to read and comprehend a basic sentence, but let me put it in big letters so you don't miss it this time, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS TEXT... SOME GREATER FORCE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL IT GOD.

So yeah, that PHENOMENA you mention would fall into this category.

What's more feasible, some phenomena, OR everything out of nothing, suddenly and with no purpose or reason?

Well you said "creator" which implied a mythological deity, now you are saying "force". Which is why I ask for specificity.

"What's more feasible, some phenomena, OR everything out of nothing, suddenly and with no purpose or reason?"

How is "some phenomena" different from "everything out of nothing", when the latter is a phenomena as well?

"A shaiṭān or shaytān refers to evil spirits in Islam, inciting humans and jinn to sin by whispering in their hearts. According to Islamic tradition, though invisible to humans, shayāṭīn are imagined to be ugly and grotesque creatures created from the fires of hell."

Shaytan in Islam isnt the same as the Christian Satan, further Im quite sure satanist see themselves anti-thetical to the christian mythos


It the difference between the Greek and Roman gods deities like Hades and Pluto.

 

[ermac88]

A serious critique of religion would engage with specific claims, doctrines, or philosophical arguments and demonstrate why they fail.

There are thousands of religions, with millions of fable and stories


sharing each and every single absurdity of them (on a karate forum) is beyond impossible

 

[Koro_11]

Well you said "creator" which implied a mythological deity, now you are saying "force". Which is why I ask for specificity.

"What's more feasible, some phenomena, OR everything out of nothing, suddenly and with no purpose or reason?"

How is "some phenomena" different from "everything out of nothing", when the latter is a phenomena as well?






Shaytan in Islam isnt the same as the Christian Satan, further Im quite sure satanist see themselves anti-thetical to the christian mythos


It the difference between the Greek and Roman gods deities like Hades and Pluto.

Everything... out of NOTHING... with no purpose.... that seems more feasible to you?

 

[CatchnShoot]

There's a reason why atheists only ever go after Christianity - because it is the truth.

So...... you think it was atheists that beheaded those folks?

 

[Flower2dPeople]

Shaytan in Islam isnt the same as the Christian Satan, further Im quite sure satanist see themselves anti-thetical to the christian mythos


It the difference between the Greek and Roman gods deities like Hades and Pluto.

"Keeping the Torah and Injil" refers to the concept of following the teachings and laws found in both the Jewish Torah and the Christian Gospel (Injil in Arabic), which are considered sacred texts in their respective religions

• Satan is mentioned in the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Revelation

 

[Mack Yancy]

@OneOfOne @Kassitus still think Race and Culture aren't linked at all?

 

[Kassitus]

@OneOfOne @Kassitus still think Race and Culture aren't linked at all?

The waters are muddied by inconsistent definitions of race, but I think you could make a case for some level of connection. E.g. civilizations where trade was vital tend to produce extroverted people even transplanted to another society in my experience.

 

[Mack Yancy]

The waters are muddied by inconsistent definitions of race

Give me the consistent Kassitus definition of race.

 

[Spam On Rye]

Your comment is not a serious philosophical objection to religion—it’s an emotional dismissal without substance. If the goal is to critique religious belief, you should engage with actual arguments rather than relying on sweeping generalizations and rhetorical shortcuts.

Many religious traditions contain highly developed philosophical and theological frameworks that are anything but “nonsensical.” Christianity, for example, has a long intellectual tradition with thinkers like Aquinas, Augustine, and more recently, philosophers such as Edward Feser and Alexander Pruss, who argue rigorously for the coherence of religious belief. To call all religious ideas "absurd" is to ignore centuries of intellectual engagement with fundamental metaphysical and moral questions.

By declaring all religious narratives to be universally absurd, you assume an almost godlike knowledge—that you have perfectly analyzed and refuted every religious tradition throughout human history. This is an impossible claim. You would need exhaustive knowledge of theology, philosophy, and history to make such a sweeping statement, yet you provide no argument or evidence.

Religious thought has shaped civilizations, moral systems, and philosophical traditions for millennia. Dismissing all religious texts as "nonsense" ignores their role in forming the intellectual and ethical foundations of societies, including the development of human rights, law, and even science (many early scientists were devoutly religious).

A serious critique of religion would engage with specific claims, doctrines, or philosophical arguments and demonstrate why they fail. Simply declaring something to be “nonsensical” is not an argument; it’s just a personal opinion disguised as a refutation. Imagine responding to Einstein’s theory of relativity by saying, “That’s absurd.” It adds nothing to the discussion.

I could tell he was reasoning with emotion so I started simple and tried to walk him through Hume's is/ought problem but he just ignored me after giving a circular argument over and over again. Reddit atheism at its finest.

 

[ermac88]

Everything... out of NOTHING... with no purpose.... that seems more feasible to you?

Everything... out of NOTHING... with no purpose.... that seems more feasible to you?


More feasible ?

More feasible than one of the thousands of human cultural mythologies that offer various explanations how magical entities created the universe?


Well the latter seems, infeasible.

 

[Koro_11]

Everything... out of NOTHING... with no purpose.... that seems more feasible to you?


More feasible ?

More feasible than one of the thousands of human cultural mythologies that offer various explanations how magical entities created the universe?


Well the latter seems, infeasible.

I can't imagine anything more "magical" than the big bang theory.

EVERYTHING, out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, for NO REASON OR PURPOSE AT ALL.

Makes Jesus walking on water look pretty ordinary.

 

[Madmick]

Everything... out of NOTHING... with no purpose.... that seems more feasible to you?

The "uncreated creator" would be everything out of nothing, too. There's no difference whatsoever. It's the notion of purpose to which your mind clings because it becomes confused without it. Effect must have cause. Because that's the world you know; the order you understand.

Yet...the atheist's uncreated universe, or the theist's uncreated God: they're exactly the same in this respect. Both are an effect without a cause. So, to answer your question, yes. They seem equally likely to me.

 

[Koro_11]

The "uncreated creator" would be everything out of nothing, too. There's no difference whatsoever. It's the notion of purpose to which your mind clings because it becomes confused without it. Effect must have cause. Because that's the world you know; the order you understand.

Yet...the atheist's uncreated universe, or the theist's uncreated God: they're exactly the same in this respect. Both are an effect without a cause. So, to answer your question, yes. They seem equally likely to me.

Sure, I guess... like you said, that's the world we know.

Either way the correct answer is that we have no idea, and I'm fine with admitting that I don't know one way or the other.

What bothers me is the people who speak about it with certainty. The religious zealots are definitely guilty of this, but if I'm honest the atheist types bother me even more because they pretend to come at it from some more rational angle which at the end of the day is just as bullshit. At least the religious types call it faith, so it's more like "I don't have scientific proof for you but this is what I believe". The atheist pretends to have science on his side, but at the end of the day he has zero evidence to disprove any of it, yet it doesn't stop him from being smug and talking down to those who believe in a creator as if he's somehow intellectually superior.

 

[ermac88]

I can't imagine anything more "magical" than the big bang theory.

EVERYTHING, out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, for NO REASON OR PURPOSE AT ALL.

Makes Jesus walking on water look pretty ordinary.

The "uncreated creator" would be everything out of nothing, too. There's no difference whatsoever. It's the notion of purpose to which your mind clings because it becomes confused without it. Effect must have cause. Because that's the world you know; the order you understand.

Yet...the atheist's uncreated universe, or the theist's uncreated God: they're exactly the same in this respect. Both are an effect without a cause. So, to answer your question, yes. They seem equally likely to me.

Absolutely.

In my case, I only ave a high school level of education of science.
But I have seen tangible evidence of science: physics, math, biology, astronomy ,astrophysics, microbiology on a day-to-day basis

So though quantum physics, higgs boison/ sub atomic particles etc. are all beyond my comprehension, I defer to experts in those, tangible fields of knowledge.


Stories about the creation of the universe from thousands of man made cultural mythologies like Cronus, Amen, Taquitz, The Christ God, Thor, etc. explaining the unexplained are not only absurd, but far too many to chose from even if they made any logical sense.



But Im at a point,where I think you should be free to believe whatever faith based mythology you want, even if its total bullshit, as long as you dont attempt to impose it on others, especially the way religions have historically brutally and horrifically done.