are any guys of opeth satanists?

the_3_toed_sloth said:
ps: there are far, far more religious-run charities than there are athiest ones. That is a fact.
yar. my understanding is that the Catholic Church is the number one charitible institution in the world, by an absurd margin. i wish i could find some numbers somewhere.
 
Trey Parker said:
no i'm quite aware of what's around me. and i think it's stupid as hell. too many brainwashed drones. let's use christians as an example. here are the two groups of people that are christians:

1: people who were brainwashed since birth
2: ex-inmates who are on parole and trying to prove they've changed so they can keep a job

no exceptions. christians are stupid. i hate you as well
see above post about "ignorance" :lol:

unless you're being extremely satirical.

1. i was brought up differently. i didn't agree with it. i rebelled and so believe now what i do on my own choosing.
2. i've never been convicted of a crime so i've never been to prison, therefore never never been an ex-inmate. no exceptions? i guess you're wrong... :wave:
 
Ok one thing I'm curious about from the Christians here: what is your philosophy behind believing your one and only true Christian God who is all knowing and all powerful? Out of thousands of other gods created by man since the dawn of our species, what is your reason believing that yours is the only true God. Why do not only the other believers' gods not exist, but they are punished for having a different view than your own? It's this ignorant(IMO) reasoning expressed by not only Christianity but most other religions which leaves me to reject religion as a whole.

Personally, I just stick to my agnosticism in which I acknowledge that I don't know exactly how we got here, and that I'm not willing to accept any human explanation for it because as stated earlier in this thread, it is likely to be far beyond our comprehension.
 
Opeth likes eating baby soup.

Oh, I think the only thing God has done for us is create the Big Bang. Everything else that happened afterwards is just chance and coincedence. Also, I think humans might have been a mixture of alien DNA from other planets and monkey DNA. I'll prove this some other time, not now.

Oh, and there was a Jesus. But he wasn't Holy. No one is holy, not even God. God is heavenly, not holy. Fact.
 
the_3_toed_sloth said:
ps: there are far, far more religious-run charities than there are athiest ones. That is a fact.
Well I think that is because religious folk greatly outnumber us and that they are part of an actual "organization"-- it's the same way many companies donate part of their profits to charities. The problem is that there is no real organization of Atheists, so any time we do make a contribution it is most likey on an individual basis and thus gets no real recognition.

Silent Song said:
I don't understand what you mean by punishment
Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
etc etc... I'm sure I could dig out many quotes from several religions "holy books" if I had the time.
 
R0l0 said:
It's this ignorant(IMO) reasoning expressed by not only Christianity but most other religions which leaves me to reject religion as a whole.

There are many schools of religious/hermetic thought which do NOT hold one deity exclusively supreme, I think it's basically the monotheistic religions which do that (one reason why I think that most monotheistic religions are seriously and fatally flawed).
Still, I don't see how you can reject ALL religion/belief in deity (-ies) simply because a couple of religions are exclusive, 'members only' type affairs.
 
^ you're right. I probably should have said something along the lines of rejecting mainstream or organized religions. I happen to respect some of the more philosophical religions which are not primarily centered around elitism or “serving” a single deity (e.g., Buddhism).

Silent Song said:
a "fact" is a popularly held opinion.
wrong
 
R0l0 said:
actually thats not too bad a definition. "truth" or "fact" as we know it based on statistical data retrieved from repeatable experiments. it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth until that paradigm was demonstrated to be wrong with empirical evidence. technically speaking, nothing can be "proven" 100 percent. when you get down to brass tacks, it really is an opinion of a certain group of people, albeit a very very very accurate opinion - one that wont soon - but could be - demonstrated false. i am paraphrasing my wife's uncle who was a physicist that worked on the Manhattan Project -and a staunch atheist. i consider him to be an expert on the subject. it broke my heart when he explained the notion of "fact" to me. i wanted to believe i could be 100% correct on everything.
 
dorian gray said:
actually thats not too bad a definition. "truth" or "fact" as we know it based on statistical data retrieved from repeatable experiments. it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth until that paradigm was demonstrated to be wrong with empirical evidence.

Yeah but this is shown to be closer to the truth based on the evidence in favor of it, not whether it is widely accepted or not. The evidence is still there even if most people were to choose not to believe it. Popular opinion has nothing to do with the matter. In fact, it looks like you merely argued my point for me and then proceeded to tack on this popular opinion thing.
 
Cythraul said:
Yeah but this is shown to be closer to the truth based on the evidence in favor of it, not whether it is widely accepted or not. The evidence is still there even if most people were to choose not to believe it. Popular opinion has nothing to do with the matter. In fact, it looks like you merely argued my point for me and then proceeded to tack on this popular opinion thing.
dude, thanks for chopping off the rest of my post!
firstly, you didnt have a point. if you did, you didnt bother to post it. secondly, the only thing i said about kenneth's definition was that it wasn't that bad. i didnt say it was totally accurate. he was on the right track though in that a "fact" really is an opinion. nothing's 100%. God *could* exist - it's just not probable or likely giving what we "know" and can "prove" about our universe.
i didnt comment on the "popular" part. i dont know exactly what he meant by that. but thanks for trying to twist my words around so it looks like i did.
 
dorian gray said:
dude, thanks for chopping off the rest of my post!
firstly, you didnt have a point. if you did, you didnt bother to post it. secondly, the only thing i said about kenneth's definition was that it wasn't that bad. i didnt say it was totally accurate. he was on the right track though in that a "fact" really is an opinion. nothing's 100%. God *could* exist - it's just not probable or likely giving what we "know" and can "prove" about our universe.
i didnt comment on the "popular" part. i dont know exactly what he meant by that. but thanks for trying to twist my words around so it looks like i did.

I don't read posts; I skim.

edit: and my original *point* was that Silentsong's comment was fucking idiotic.
 
So Christians still do good because they give money right? So what if I organized a group of murderers and child rapists and then they gave money to charities? Would they be considered good then? Just because they have money to give doesn't mean they are good, remember don't take money from strangers.....