Create A Religion
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
A battle of theology. Each of us shall do their best to create a religion with its own beliefs, pantheon, and history. IT MUST BE FICTITIOUS. Voters will decide who wins based on its believability(could it convert you?), cohesiveness(does it contradict itself anywhere), and just how interesting it is(make it cool bruh). Inspiration may come from outside sources and pictures are allowed, either made yourself or(if you are untalented like myself) stolen from the internet. If your theology is too closely resembling an existing theology(The God of my pantheon is Yeezus who was killed by capitalist Romans on a cross) than that is grounds for disqualification. That said, if it randomly resembles some super unknown fan fic religion, we can possibly let it pass. Just try to be honest. The first round is used only for the purpose of explaining your theology. The second round may be used to further explain your theology or attempt to debunk their theology as they explained in the round prior. And may the best theologian win!
- Life is designed to necessitate suffering. Suffering creates humility and gratitude, developing hope.
- Suffering is made possible by weakness.
- Accepting weakness and choosing to constantly improve brings hope and understanding.
- Weakness is failure in self control of one’s actions, one’s thoughts, and one’s emotions.
- A lack of suffering breeds indifference and imbalance.
- Weakness comes from the spirit, liberated by the death of the body
- The spirit is created by Tama Alu(Father Gone) and Tina Alu(Mother Gone)
- Continuous change is a result of human variation, interdependence a result of human commonality.
- Harmony comes from acceptance of change and lack of true independence.
- All sources of life come from other life.
- Spirit is the intelligence to be aware of morality and its consequences.
- All living carry the responsibility of life's continuation.
There's no structure laid out in the description and both me rebutting in this Round or not doing so could be seen as unfair on Pro. I will choose not to do so. Instead, I will point out some fundamental flaws in the nature of BoP in this debate and run a creative case whereby I believe I shall win due to both my religion being more believable than Pro's and at the same time Pro's violating the 'not resembling religions' more so than me.
The first round is used only for the purpose of explaining your theology. The second round may be used to further explain your theology or attempt to debunk their theology as they explained in the round prior. And may the best theologian win!
IT MUST BE FICTITIOUS...Inspiration may come from outside sources and pictures are allowed, either made yourself or(if you are untalented like myself) stolen from the internet. If your theology is too closely resembling an existing theology(The God of my pantheon is Yeezus who was killed by capitalist Romans on a cross) than that is grounds for disqualification. That said, if it randomly resembles some super unknown fan fic religion, we can possibly let it pass. Just try to be honest.
...believability(could it convert you?), cohesiveness(does it contradict itself anywhere), and just how interesting it is(make it cool bruh).
I know, I know, you're going to accuse me of either copying The Matrix or Star Trek here, please bear with me, I copied nothing. Unfortunately, I think my religion does slightly resemble Hinduism but it's virtually impossible to not resemble anything at all
The Seloo are the 'alpha' alien/demigod organisation way beyond this realm that we call our universe...The Seloo consist of a group of 7 demigods though it is possible instead of 7 individuals it is 7 pairs or even groups.
They had no why to their creation...Qveroo is possibly the first created or the last, it's not known or important, the force beyond them is an unnamed, untouchable force.
They are predicted to have many underlings, demigods and sub-factions serving each Seloo
(or groups of people, it is not known if each god and goddess is merely a masculine and feminine energy type that is in fact a group of demigods)
...though Spoora probably is the most appreciative of the depictions and is most certainly envious of us mortals for having a physical form to be vain about and dress up.
Spoora - Goddess of creativity and chaos (etc.)
Each of the 7 has their own agenda with what reality is supposed to resemble and be like and it tends to be that in heated disputes that Qveroo has to settle them down... each of the Seloo crave the unity of the other 6 with them as some innate, inbuilt need so even Keerah needs them and their rejection makes him weak, which is irritating (they don't have emotions as us mortals have, they're hormone-less but they do experience dissatisfaction on a spiritual level).
It is extremely immoral in Seloorem to censor and oppose those that are simply strange and offputting...To stand in the way of individualistic expression is very against Seloorem whilst being evil in a very individualistic, fascinating way is not inherently against it... Most warmongerers of history like Genghis Khan through to Bonaparte through to Hitler could be seen as actually supporting the religion though you must remember Borem when analysing how genuine a follower of it is.
This doesn't mean diplomacy is negated, Selooras seek to be very diplomatic indeed until it's disallowed for them to be and remain true to being pro-individuality.
Keera is in fact ironically a significant ally of Qveroo, despite it having been Qveroo who, after Borem, forced Keera to settle down in his earlier days (when they began Keera destroyed everything nonstop, it was infuriating and he loved that spreading of fury amongst the Seloo,
...though their version of anger is less 'intense' than ours it is definitely there and experienced (they don't have the hormones or body to experience anger as we know and feel it).
If we weren’t suffering to get closer to God, what was the point of life? From whom now would we draw the strength to endure life’s difficulty?
While nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism, for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself–all action, suffering, and feeling–is ultimately senseless and empty.In The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles’ observation that “the life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life,” for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesias of Cyrene. Because miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide. Centuries later during the Renaissance, William Shakespeare eloquently summarized the existential nihilist’s perspective when, in this famous passage near the end of Macbeth, he has Macbeth pour out his disgust for life:Out, out, brief candle!Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor playerThat struts and frets his hour upon the stageAnd then is heard no more; it is a taleTold by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing.
An athlete, such as a bodybuilder, is the epitome of this idea. A bodybuilder subjects his body to the pain and suffering of training in order to create a physique that is aesthetically pleasing. The weightlifting adage, “No pain, no gain,” is an echo of Nietzsche’s ideas.Nietzsche sharply criticizes those people who wish to abolish suffering. According to him, suffering is the only thing that bestows value upon the world. Without pain and misery, life would be absurd and worthless.You want, if possible – and there is no more insane “if possible” – to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?To Nietzsche, suffering provides the only test by which a person’s worth can be determined. In other words, the person who can endure the greatest suffering is the greatest of men.To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities – I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not – that one endures.Finally, Nietzsche asserts that pain is sacred, and that mankind ought to revere pain as religious followers revere their gods. He explains that the ancient Greeks were the first and perhaps only people to realize this.For the Greeks the sexual symbol was the venerable symbol par excellence, the real profundity in the whole of ancient piety. Every single element in the act of procreation, of pregnancy, and of birth aroused the highest and most solemn feelings. In the doctrine of the mysteries, pain is pronounced holy; the pangs of the woman giving birth hallow all pain; all becoming and growing – all that guarantees a future – involves pain.To conclude, many philosophers, theologians, and people in general regard suffering as something undesirable and as something to be abolished. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts that life without pain is meaningless. Pain is the source of all value in the world; it is the test of one’s true worth; and it is as sacred as the gods.
We begin with the first harmony within our own mind. Wepractice by cultivating harmony or peace within ourselves so thatwe can eventually be free of the suffering originating in fear, anger,and selfishness. Then we are prepared to spread harmony from selfto another person, progressing to our family, our community, oursociety, and the rest of the world.
Of course, you can’t purify the mind of another. The Buddha is very clear about that. But it’s also true that if we’re not skillful our contribution can further devolve the circumstance into more delusion and more suffering.There can’t really be social harmony if there is not widespread basic morality. Ethical conduct is key in that it reduces actions which harm and which invite retaliation.
There’s a certain way in which I see the Buddha’s teachings as allowing us to move into a recognition that many of these deep forms of suffering are causally conditioned and arising in the present in an impersonal way. Without taking on shame or blame in response to these circumstances, there’s still the possibility of acting with wisdom and compassion and hopefully some skillfulness. Why? Because this is what’s happening, this is the suffering that’s present. It needs to be met for the conditions for healing and reconciliation to occur.
Weakness comes from the spirit, liberated by the death of the body
n The Dark Side: Thoughts on the Futility of Life (1994), Alan Pratt demonstrates that existential nihilism, in one form or another, has been a part of the Western intellectual tradition from the beginning. The Skeptic Empedocles’ observation that “the life of mortals is so mean a thing as to be virtually un-life,” for instance, embodies the same kind of extreme pessimism associated with existential nihilism. In antiquity, such profound pessimism may have reached its apex with Hegesias of Cyrene. Because miseries vastly outnumber pleasures, happiness is impossible, the philosopher argues, and subsequently advocates suicide.it’s the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1905-1980) defining preposition for the movement, “existence precedes essence,” rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being “thrown” into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It’s a situation that’s nothing short of absurd. Writing from the enlightened perspective of the absurd, Albert Camus (1913-1960) observed that Sisyphus’ plight, condemned to eternal, useless struggle, was a superb metaphor for human existence (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942).
Weakness comes from the spirit, liberated by the death of the body
I'd like to do this debate with someone.
Anyone. This is a field of very niche interest for me and I have no outlet.
What a fantastic theme for a debate. Who ever wins should think about hosting a tv show based on that religion. You should also get a woman cohost that would have coal-black streaks of mascara that would run down her eyelids.
As in a D&D sort of thing or more a novel world? I mean, if its cool no one is gonna mind you sharing.
Neither shall I. I am surprised someone accepted this so quickly. I am also both honored and intimidated that it is someone as experienced as yourself. I hope I can prove a fun contender, this should be a good time.
Religions tend to adhere to a typical format.
Something to ritually worship and embellish unnecessarily.
I will be interested to see if either of you can come up with something new.
Weighting: I’m going to treat this like a doorway sales pitch, ranking each criteria out of 10, IE:
Believability. (FSM - 1, to atheism at 10)
Cohesiveness. (Christianity at 1, the good place at 10)
Interestingness (Christianity at 1, bill and Ted at 10)
Fictionalness: RM tried to claim this was not a fictional religion. While I’m sure it shares some philosophical similarities - I can’t say that I agree. And it would be particularly crappy of me to award a debate because it has some nihilism in there. It’s certainly a unique jumble, rm himself says: “it's virtually impossible to not resemble anything at all”
Rules state the religion must be fictional - but doesn’t specify that how fictional it is should factor in to the voting decision; so as long as neither side outs forth a real or repackaged religion - I don’t see an issue.
Believability: I like the idea of the idea purging religions, and the concept that AI is used to confirm or disprove the religion - the origin story In general. I’m not sold on the principle that what you came with would be validated entirely; but there’s nothing otherwise super-out-there; it’s all sort of new-agey with focus on growth, responsibility
, suffering being necessary - etc. The best part of it, IMO was the idea that the gods f***ed off after creation and left us to it. I did like the idea that suffering is necessary to promote growth, that’s kinda neatly dovetailed into what the universe is.
In terms of believability objections - RM didn’t really raise any issues with believability (what about this appears silly, or unbelievable), so I have to weigh as is: 8/10
The idea actually sounds pretty cohesive, it all kinda seems to make sense with respect to itself. Two gods introduced spirit as an agent of change into the universe then f***ed off; motivations seemed reasonable, goal sounds reasonable, with the 20 minutes or so I spent re-reading it, I didn’t see any major flaws. So it seems pretty reasonable.
RM questioned whether it made sense; but seemed to be talking about weird interpretations: arguing as if the religion promoted suicide or suffering - which I’m struggling to understand the logic of. It seems more the case of weakness and suffering as a necessity to promote growth more than anything else, and about embracing them to achieve it.
Given that, I’d rate cohesiveness at an 7; it would score higher if it were more complex.
Started with cool AI; faded out as a bit new agey. I think this is where it fell down a bit. Some interesting concepts on balance, but a bit bland overall: 4.
Rm didn’t question interestness other than to note similarities with philosophical concepts
Total score: 19/30
So RM goes with a pantheon, there’s descriptions of the pantheon, and interactions and motivations with each other; but it doesn’t really have a framework for existence as monkey does: ie, we are here because the 7 gods were bored, and we’re there for their amusement.
While Monkey ties in stuff about how the world works and the religions origins (AI); RMs approach leaves the relationship between the gods and mortals pretty open ended. All together the religion appears thrown together without the same level of underpinning with a central theological theme. Together with statements about morality that extreme evil is not necessarily against the religion, drops the believability through the floor.
And I mean qveroo as the genderqueer god and borem as the god of patience? Lol.
I can rely on monkey here for the run down. The gods are both gods and demigods: they both have emotions and don’t really have emotions.
The central tenant appears to be not to stand in the way of individualistic expression - yet have heated disagreements and crave unity between them indicating they are codependent.
In fact, there is little said at all about overall goals of the religion or the gods: and frankly what is said appears to sort of contradict itself a little. So in this respect I can’t really score cohesiveness highly.
Weird pantheons are always interesting. I like the description of borem, and the idea that they’re outside the simulation is somewhat unique. The concept is interesting, but would like to have it a bit more thrashed out with a basic creation story, or angled in a way that explains their reality. Without that, it feels wrong scoring it higher than monkey. While the concept is more promising, the lack of fleshing out balances it out.
Arguments to monkey (pro)