New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Hans Blaster · Jul 17, 2025

Fervent said:
Perhaps there is a disconnect on this, because opinions aren't subject to true or false categories. They're purely matters of subjective taste.

Then I don't know why the confusion on the personal opinion which is ones faith.

Fervent said:
I got the joke, didn't find it funny. So I decided to make a point.

I saw no point to your reply in that section to be made.

Fervent said:
I can't, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize dishonesty. Whether that is dishonesty with me or with yourself, I don't know. But if you think your evaluation is just your opinion and not reflective of reality, then why do you think you can supply arguments rather than just falling back on it being a matter of opinion and not objective reality?

Now you are venturing into territory which last time lead me to conclude you were using presuppositional apologetics as your POV. That feeling is coming back...

Fervent said:
Your definition of "belief" is lacking, or rather a contradiction of terms.

Beliefs are one category of opinions. Don't know why this one is so hard. You seemed to agree several times already, but change your mind, usually in the same post.

Fervent said:
Perhaps you can enlighten me. What is the difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I don't believe there are any gods"? How is that not a distinction without a difference?

For starters-- those ARE NOT the two things that have been compared. And they certainly look the same.

The position I don't hold: "I believe there are no gods."
The position I do hold: "I don't believe in any gods."

Fervent said:
Nope, there is no presumption of atheism as there is a presumption of innocence. That's an argument from ignorance.

Not only am I not tying to analogize atheism to innocence, but even if I had been it was not an argument from ignorance. I'm beginning to question your familiarity with philosophy, or at least argument and logic.

Fervent said:
There isn't, atheists just insist there is as a matter of tactics and a basis for flawed arguments.

I think this confirms my suspicion. It's not even the dumbest thing about this thread, because the definition of atheist has nothing to do with the thread or even anything I have been arguing elsewhere in the thread.

Hans Blaster · Jul 17, 2025

Ophiolite said:
Off topic comment: Removing the "not proven" option from the Scottish Justice system has been proposed, though I think the three options, guilty, not guilty, or not proven, currently remain as options. The important nuance between not guilty and not proven apparently evades, or confuses many jurors. Claiming they are different ways of saying the same thing, as some do, is rather like conflating butchery with an axe with surgery with a scalpel. Odd really. I think it is a nice distinction, in both senses of the word.

I didn't realize they used all three. I thought it was that "not proven" was used instead of "not guilty".

Fervent · Jul 17, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Then I don't know why the confusion on the personal opinion which is ones faith.

Are you saying your atheist beliefs are your faith?

Hans Blaster said:
I saw no point to your reply in that section to be made.

It was about there being no functional distinction between moral and personal taste if all beliefs are simply opinions.

Hans Blaster said:
Now you are venturing into territory which last time lead me to conclude you were using presuppositional apologetics as your POV. That feeling is coming back...

I don't begin presuming God exists, though there might me some affinity with presuppositional apologetics since I do maintain that the undefended metaphysical commitments of atheists are often more responsible for their conclusion than any real evaluation of evidence or argumentation.

Hans Blaster said:
Beliefs are one category of opinions. Don't know why this one is so hard. You seemed to agree several times already, but change your mind, usually in the same post.

I let it slide, but beliefs are stronger than simply opinions. Opinions aren't subject to truth constraints, as they are purely a matter of taste.

Hans Blaster said:
For starters-- those ARE NOT the two things that have been compared. And they certainly look the same.

What do you mean?

Hans Blaster said:
The position I don't hold: "I believe there are no gods."
The position I do hold: "I don't believe in any gods."

So what's the difference? All I see is you've switched "there" to "in" which I fail to see the semantic change.

Hans Blaster said:
Not only am I not tying to analogize atheism to innocence, but even if I had been it was not an argument from ignorance. I'm beginning to question your familiarity with philosophy, or at least argument and logic.

If you weren't analogizing the two, then what were you attempting to do with it? And it is an argument from ignorance, because it presumes an objective fact from a state of ignorance.

Hans Blaster said:
I think this confirms my suspicion. It's not even the dumbest thing about this thread, because the definition of atheist has nothing to do with the thread or even anything I have been arguing elsewhere in the thread.

There's no semantic difference, you made a syntactical change and presented it as a semantic change when none is apparent. So how does changing "there" to "in" make any difference?

Hans Blaster · Jul 17, 2025

I think my conclusions about this conversation we have been having for a couple days was headed this way, but your response to someone else has "sealed the deal" for me. Let's take a look at it...

Fervent said:
Last I checked, such an entity would be the one to set the rules not us.

[The "entity" in question is a being that caused the universe to come into existence.] At most we could say that such an entity would set the rules of nature (create physics). There is no reason to think a priori that it would create moral rules, or even care about such things.

Fervent said:
My guess is you're jumping in mid-stream and not digging deep to the core of your epistemology and ontology.

@Ophiolite may be "jumping in mid-stream", but this is the exact same claim you make against all of us who disagree with your religious assertions (which seem hardly relevant to anything in this thread, particularly the OP). The next step after telling us we don't dig deep enough into our own philosophical foundations, is to tell us that we are wrong when we try to define them.

Fervent said:
I see no need to present evidence or arguments, because God in His wisdom has chosen to hide Himself from those who esteem themselves wise in the world.

So, the whole philosophy thing was just a deflection. Figures. I should have picked up those clues that my opinion was dismissable because I don't follow your religion. That seems to be why you got so hung up about my beliefs then and now.

Fervent said:
Nah, I was commissioned to preach not to argue. You want to look a gift horse in the mouth, that's on you.

No one is interested in your preaching, especially any of us whom you claim are not worthy for God to not hide from.

I am done with this part of the conversation, and any continued participation on this thread will be only related to teens that think they are werewolves or whatever it is.

Fervent · Jul 17, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
I think my conclusions about this conversation we have been having for a couple days was headed this way, but your response to someone else has "sealed the deal" for me. Let's take a look at it...

[The "entity" in question is a being that caused the universe to come into existence.] At most we could say that such an entity would set the rules of nature (create physics). There is no reason to think a priori that it would create moral rules, or even care about such things.

Oh? And how did you come to conclusions about what kind of rules such a being would put in place? What basis do you have for speculation?

Hans Blaster said:
@Ophiolite may be "jumping in mid-stream", but this is the exact same claim you make against all of us who disagree with your religious assertions (which seem hardly relevant to anything in this thread, particularly the OP). The next step after telling us we don't dig deep enough into our own philosophical foundations, is to tell us that we are wrong when we try to define them.

If you've got "foundations" then I suspect you didn't keep digging til you hit bottom. Cause as far as I can tell, there are no viable solutions to Munchaussen. But I am skeptical even of that.

Hans Blaster said:
So, the whole philosophy thing was just a deflection. Figures. I should have picked up those clues that my opinion was dismissable because I don't follow your religion. That seems to be why you got so hung up about my beliefs then and now.

Not at all, perhaps you might have seen in my response to another that I am a philosophical skeptic? I'm not kidding about that, I am skeptical of all truth claims that are not tautologies. So the one thing I know is Truth is Truth. Beyond that, my recourse is faith.

Hans Blaster said:
No one is interested in your preaching, especially any of us whom you claim are not worthy for God to not hide from.

Not my claim.

Hans Blaster said:
I am done with this part of the conversation, and any continued participation on this thread will be only related to teens that think they are werewolves or whatever it is.

Cool, glad we ended up exactly where we started off.

Ophiolite · Jul 19, 2025

Fervent said:
Cause as far as I can tell, there are no viable solutions to Munchaussen.

If you had told us that earlier, all this discussion would have been unnecessary, since clearly your own beliefs are without foundation. Or did you not dig deeply enough to recognise that?
My reference to Matthew 7:3-5 seems even more appropriate now.

Fervent · Jul 19, 2025

Ophiolite said:
If you had told us that earlier, all this discussion would have been unnecessary, since clearly your own beliefs are without foundation. Or did you not dig deeply enough to recognise that?

Oh? Did you miss the part where I said my recourse is faith? I do not pretend to know from my own philosophical foundations, but instead depend on revelation from on high. My foundations do not depend on the powers of my intellect, because when I looked there for solid ground the only thing I found was a tautology.

Ophiolite said:
My reference to Matthew 7:3-5 seems even more appropriate now.

Not at all, because I unabashadly embrace faith. I do not pretend that my beliefs are built on claims of "evidence" which somehow vanishes and turns into demands for proof the minute such "evidence" is requested.

Ophiolite · Jul 19, 2025

Fervent said:
Oh? Did you miss the part where I said my recourse is faith? I do not pretend to know from my own philosophical foundations, but instead depend on revelation from on high. My foundations do not depend on the powers of my intellect, because when I looked there for solid ground the only thing I found was a tautology.

Not at all, because I unabashadly embrace faith. I do not pretend that my beliefs are built on claims of "evidence" which somehow vanishes and turns into demands for proof the minute such "evidence" is requested.

I've already expressed my views about faith. Forum rules forbid me from defending those views. But leaving your comments unanswered is more of a load on my ehtical drives than breaching those rules. Your faith position is a cop out to justify believing in something for which there is no substantive evidence, but which you wish to believe because . . . . . . you wish to believe it. To avoid an infinite regress of this discussion I am placing you on Ignore until I've, more or less, forgotten what it was about. Should take about a month. See you on the other side.

Fervent · Jul 19, 2025

Ophiolite said:
I've already expressed my views about faith. Forum rules forbid me from defending those views. But leaving your comments unanswered is more of a load on my ehtical drives than breaching those rules. Your faith position is a cop out to justify believing in something for which there is no substantive evidence, but which you wish to believe because . . . . . . you wish to believe it. To avoid an infinite regress of this discussion I am placing you on Ignore until I've, more or less, forgotten what it was about. Should take about a month. See you on the other side.

The fact that you get upset at my acceptance of faith is evidence in and of itself. If atheism is true, why is there any issue with me choosing to believe in things because I want them to be true? Why should I care about silly little things like what can be proven, when at the end of the day it really makes no difference? If faith improves my life, why would I not embrace faith? To be left with existential angst in an uncaring universe for my short miserable life? You cite ethics, but you have no basis for any sort of ethical high horse since in your view it can only be a matter of personal preference with no reason to abide by ethical principles so long as they aren't convenient.

Hvizsgyak · Aug 10, 2025

Ophiolite said:
I am confident those gay and trans individuals reading this will be deeply moved by the Christian compassion that causes you to place them in the same category as criminals and sexual predators.
/deeply saddened sarcasm

Unfortunately, this is where it all began. We as a society started recognizing immoral practices as normal everyday things. Instead of saying, "hey Betty, you can't marry a person of the same sex, it's immoral" or "hey Louis, you can't be a girl, it's immoral" or "hey Susie, just remember you aren't really a fox, you can pretend to be one at home but when you go outside, act like the adult that you are", we say to our children, "oh, that is so cute". Children need to know the boundaries, and they need to be re-enforced by explaining it you the child. Will they always listen, probably not but you can't give in and think it not going to harm them. You might have a child who can't process right from wrong properly and being allowed to continue to seriously entertain the immoral thought only strengthens their belief that it is okay. By dealing with it when they are young, sets the boundaries for them later in life.

Ophiolite · Aug 10, 2025

Hvizsgyak said:
Unfortunately, this is where it all began. We as a society started recognizing immoral practices as normal everyday things. Instead of saying, "hey Betty, you can't marry a person of the same sex, it's immoral" or "hey Louis, you can't be a girl, it's immoral" or "hey Susie, just remember you aren't really a fox, you can pretend to be one at home but when you go outside, act like the adult that you are", we say to our children, "oh, that is so cute". Children need to know the boundaries, and they need to be re-enforced by explaining it you the child. Will they always listen, probably not but you can't give in and think it not going to harm them. You might have a child who can't process right from wrong properly and being allowed to continue to seriously entertain the immoral thought only strengthens their belief that it is okay. By dealing with it when they are young, sets the boundaries for them later in life.

You have made your position clear. I thank you for that. Unfortunately it is a position based upon specific interpretations of one of many global religions. In contrast, my position of tolerance and acceptance, compassion and empathy is based on observable and verifiable facts. Since a more active and specific expansion of that point would infringe at least one forum rule, do not expect me to comment on any response you may make.

loveofourlord · Aug 11, 2025

just a few things, for therians many see it as more spiritual more akin to a different type of wicca/shamanism or even reincarnation, that they have the soul of the animal, others realize there might be a psychological part to it. And then like any internet thing there are all the fakers/fadders and so on.

Hvizsgyak · Aug 11, 2025

Ophiolite said:
You have made your position clear. I thank you for that. Unfortunately it is a position based upon specific interpretations of one of many global religions. In contrast, my position of tolerance and acceptance, compassion and empathy is based on observable and verifiable facts. Since a more active and specific expansion of that point would infringe at least one forum rule, do not expect me to comment on any response you may make.

Hvizsgyak · Aug 11, 2025

Hey, aren't you one of the people who are trying to convince me that humans evolved from a single celled organism swimming in a primordial bowl of soup in another thread here? So we are back to the facts stuff here. Well, unfortunately for you, this is a theological situation that our culture needs to address and here, your facts are wishful thinking and theology has the facts correct. Sorry, show us the facts (and not the ones falsely created by ultra-liberal minded people who are not in touch with the "common man").

Tropical Wilds · Aug 13, 2025

Hvizsgyak said:
Unfortunately, this is where it all began. We as a society started recognizing immoral practices as normal everyday things. Instead of saying, "hey Betty, you can't marry a person of the same sex, it's immoral" or "hey Louis, you can't be a girl, it's immoral" or "hey Susie, just remember you aren't really a fox, you can pretend to be one at home but when you go outside, act like the adult that you are", we say to our children, "oh, that is so cute". Children need to know the boundaries, and they need to be re-enforced by explaining it you the child. Will they always listen, probably not but you can't give in and think it not going to harm them. You might have a child who can't process right from wrong properly and being allowed to continue to seriously entertain the immoral thought only strengthens their belief that it is okay. By dealing with it when they are young, sets the boundaries for them later in life.

*Right and wrong according to you, not according to universal standard.

In that scenario, my suggestion would be if you disagree with being gay, trans, or whatever, don't pursue that lifestyle, or be grateful your innate nature doesn't conflict with that ideology and go about your life accordingly.

Ophiolite · Aug 18, 2025

Hvizsgyak said:
Hey, aren't you one of the people who are trying to convince me that humans evolved from a single celled organism swimming in a primordial bowl of soup in another thread here?

Do you understand that whether or not I am "one of those people" is irrelevant to point under discussion. Of course, as seems to be the case, you choose to focus on your misguided interpretation of people's beliefs, rather than objectively validated observations, than I can see you might think it relevant.
But you have raised it. I probably am one of the people you've run across on the forum who accept evolutionary theory as the most effective and multiply validated explanation for the diversity of life on the planet and who know - not think, know - that it beats all alternative explanations by a country mile. But I am not one of those people who "belief in" your cartoon version of evolutionary theory.
If you are going to contest such a profoundly well-established theory as evolution, don't you think you should know a little more about it than you seemingly do?

Hvizsgyak said:
So we are back to the facts stuff here.

If only that were true. (I've read ahead and all I see from you is mistaken and unfounded assertions. No facts.)

Hvizsgyak said:
Well, unfortunately for you, this is a theological situation that our culture needs to address and here, your facts are wishful thinking and theology has the facts correct.

Theological situations are irrelevant if there is no god, God, or gods, or Gods. You claim our culture needs to address inclusiveness and tolerance and diversity and acceptance. It should do so by being for them. I have already stated that I understand you position. Now clearly understand mine. I think you are mistaken. I think your assertions are offensive, as you no doubt consider mine to be. There is little to be gained by recycling those opposed viewpoints. I'll let you have the last word, then let's be done with it.

Hvizsgyak said:
Sorry, show us the facts (and not the ones falsely created by ultra-liberal minded people who are not in touch with the "common man").

Finally, If I may borrow, and adapt, a phrase from @AV1611VET, the "common man" can take a hike if "he" argues in favour of your narrow minded, iinsensitive, etc, etc, etc, position.

Niels · Friday at 7:29 AM

I think this video is pertinent to the topic:

Although I'm neither a therian nor a technophobe, I value things like imagination and reconnecting with nature. It's good to put down the screen and touch grass every now and then. What we're witnessing might be a reaction to an increasingly artificial world. A consequence rather than a cause.

ViaCrucis · Saturday at 4:13 PM

One of the many things I remember hearing Rev. Tony Campolo (of blessed memory) say/talk about is the following which he gave in front of a large Christian gathering:

"While you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. And most of you don't give a ****. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said ‘****’ than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

It's something I think about every time I'm reminded of just how broken our moral priorities often are. There is so much genuine evil happening in this world, people are starving and dying and suffering, and there are things that could actually be done--in our neighborhoods, across the ocean. From our personal treatment of others, to how Christians act in our congregational and denominational structures; as well as things we can do nationally and internationally.

But instead, we freak out because some teenagers wear dog ears or because a gay couple wants to get married or because Harry Potter has pretend magic as part of its story device.

Could you imagine what would happen if Christians had even a fraction of the outrage about the suffering of those in poverty as they do about gay people wanting equal treatment under the law? If Christian leaders rallied the Faithful for things that actually matter to God?

-CryptoLutheran

Meowzltov · 2025-09-14T21:22:43-0500

loveofourlord said:
just a few things, for therians many see it as more spiritual more akin to a different type of wicca/shamanism or even reincarnation, that they have the soul of the animal, others realize there might be a psychological part to it. And then like any internet thing there are all the fakers/fadders and so on.

Yeap. We are not talking about furries, or little kids running around pretending they are horses. It is not uncommon for a person to believe they have a special, even spiritual, relationship with a certain animal. I don't find this threatening in the slightest.

I'm not pagan or an animist. But I can relate a little. It is not uncommon for me to have a dream in which I am visited by four creatures. One is always some kind of wild cat, and this is the one who plays the greatest role. One is always a tropical bird. One is always a beautiful tropical fish. And there are always, always ants. I always seem to get this dream just before something major (and often not so great) happens. I think there must be something in my unconscious mind that intuits this change is coming. I have always felt that these animals enter my dreams to give me strength for what is to come, kind of like angels.

That's only a shadow of what we are discussing, but it's enough that I can relate.

Meowzltov · 2025-09-14T21:27:12-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
Unfortunately, this is where it all began. We as a society started recognizing immoral practices as normal everyday things. Instead of saying, "hey Betty, you can't marry a person of the same sex, it's immoral" or "hey Louis, you can't be a girl, it's immoral" or "hey Susie, just remember you aren't really a fox, you can pretend to be one at home but when you go outside, act like the adult that you are", we say to our children, "oh, that is so cute". Children need to know the boundaries, and they need to be re-enforced by explaining it you the child. Will they always listen, probably not but you can't give in and think it not going to harm them. You might have a child who can't process right from wrong properly and being allowed to continue to seriously entertain the immoral thought only strengthens their belief that it is okay. By dealing with it when they are young, sets the boundaries for them later in life.

What makes something good and another thing evil? And don't say, "God says so," because that just begs the question: WHY does God consider some things right and other things wrong? I mean, I'm assuming its not random, that God's not flipping a coin to make the moral rules of the universe. What is the guiding principle?

When you can answer that, you will understand why so many, including many Christians, no longer see things like LGBTQ as sinful, and don't freak out if someone identifies closely with a particular animal.

New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Raised by bees

Raised by bees

Well-Known Member

Raised by bees

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Woodshedding

Confessional Lutheran

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Similar threads