Another Fucking Religion Thread

Thats a stupid point to bring up because:

a. Animals don't usually sit down with a cup of coffee and tell us shit.

b. Humans have had free time for several thousand years because of innovations in agricultural technology. People wouldn't be sitting around thinking about this shit if they had to spend all day gathering food in order to survive.

c. The human mind grasps for explanations for phenomena, and will usually fill in missing peices with with something paranormal.

ex.: Some random cave guy eats a berry he wasn't supposed to. Perhaps he doesn't remember eating it, or perhaps it fell in with the other berries he was cramming his mouth with. He begins to hallucinate. Would he :

Claim he's had a supernatural experience?

Assume he's ingested a toxin that has caused him to hallucinate but has not killed him?

Kind of like all the oracles in history hung out in gaseous caves, mercury laced toxin filled labs, or somehow ingested a shitload of toxins before gargling out thier unprecise, undated predictions for some moron to warp to the context of any situation.

I must say that was an interesting post.
 
Mathiäs;6773089 said:
I agree with much of this post. I too dislike the whole Catholic faith. I basically despise the Baptist church and similar sects.

I am what you would call a radical Episcopalian, as my views are often totally different than that of the church.



If there is a hell, you will go to it...



One of my beliefs is that there is no "right" religion...there is one divine power for all religions, etc. This is hard for me to explain, but here is my basic idea of it:

Atheists - go and stay in the grave
Christians - go to their own heaven
Satanists - go to hellz
Pagans - go wherever (fuck I don't know..)

etc
I'm actually not a "devil worshipper", Anton Lavey's form of Satanism is philosophical, and some atheists and agnostics follow it.
 
I find something like this to be a far more compelling argument for god than any of the historical religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point

One element I like of this idea is that it supposes that humanity needs to be progressively more creative in order to approach the omega point. For some people, theistic beliefs might have been required to develop creatively, while for other (smart) people, no god was needed to progress.
 
Interesting, but I don't really find much merit in it because it sounds like he just made it up randomly and added some rules in after.
 
It's easy enough to apply rules you feel are valid, and I can totally understand the tendancy to do so. It's what comes naturally. But if there is a Creator who has his own rules which don't necessarily fit with what your used to, then how valid are those rules in that situation? That's all I am saying. But it is true that nobody is under any obligation to believe it.

except according to your beliefs we're obligated to believe it or we go to hell.

well on what basis would you believe in your deity if you do not have sufficient proof? you could say "it makes moral sense to me" or "it feels right" or "my experiences confirm it" yet thousands or millions of others who follow different religions use the same 'reasons' to justify their beliefs... so evidence HAS to be included in the criteria as to determining which faith if any is right.
 
whokilledmoreinbiblethulk2.png
[/IMG]