Are Opeth religious???

[HoserHellspawn]

Originally posted by MountainDweller
Enough of this crap already. I'm tired of all this atheist vs. religion bullshit.

I hold the swellheaded, pretentious, extreme atheists and their psuedo-intellectualism as opposite equals to blind faith.

No, Opeth aren't particularly religious from what I've heard, but neither am I. So what? It doesn't mean we aren't spiritual in any way. ENOUGH OF THIS! NO MORE!

Theistical debate on the Opeth Forum is like a submarine in the ocean - it can stay under for awhile, but it always comes back to the surface. And that's okay... a good thing even. Why? 'Cause I enjoy it. The vast majority of entertaining moments on this forum come through this topic. And, I find some of the ideas exchanged interesting.

Much like, say... science, I'm always looking for new ways to look at things, new perspectives, as well as new information, facts, and ideas. Nobody ever got dumber (objectively) by discussing things, now have they? And no ideas were ever lost over overlooked by re-examining the accepted, were they? Science makes no claim to have the definitive, the final, answers, and thus can progress, can... EVOLVE. How important is it that we understand EVERYTHING?! Doesn't matter - we never will. But where will we get if we keep accepting 2000 year old explainations and not pushing the proverbial mail-enclosing paper device? If we never questioned anything we'd all be ploughing the fields of the manor right now!

What people so often fail to notice in seemingly endless fields and mediums is that the "result", or "consequence", or "solution" is far less significant (if, at all) than the process of progressing to seek said finality. Because, without progress, the Opeth life we love is reduced to the Backstreet Boys stuck on repeat.

Originally posted by Satori
We can respect a monk for his wisdom and a priest for his morality...

Well, when they keep their hands off of the alter boys, anyways.

There are lots of intelligent christians, though they are a minority, but not very many deep ones.

From my view, this seems accurate. I know a couple of deep christians, and it always seems obvious to me at which points they have to flip on their idea-shield safeguards. They can come up with endless points and excuses and contradictions... but when the core points are stripped down to the bare minimum they have to forgo logic and fall onto plain faith. The length of meaningless argument they can go on to is amazing... but I always listen. I usually want to hear more than they're willing to tell me before they give up. Maybe if they truly do understand and just don't let themselves "believe" (for lack of a less disputed word), it's not so bad. Maybe it's all the more tragic. I'm really not sure.

 

[Garm]

Whats religion got to do with it, got to do with it. Whats religion if you don't ...øhh..nahnahnahnaaahaa...

 

[Garm]

I'm ready to accept the personal god thing to explain all the wierd stuff that do happend in this world (such as witchdoctors' skills ans the likes) but a full scale worshipping of a book is going too far. Take the example of the Bible (mainly because that is the only book or religion I now something about) where half of it's contets is proved to be false.

 

[mindflesh]

Originally posted by Misanthrope
There is no way to prove it exist but there is not a way NOT to.

That's true but does a suspect get a life sentence just because it cannot be proven that he has NOT killed someone? We cannot be absolutely sure that there is no god but we have to assume that something like god doesn't exist until we can prove that it does.

 

[Misanthrope]

have never met a deep christian who has remained a christian after encountering me, after they've had their own personal reasons for believing exposed as nothing more than ideas built on illogical assumptions which they've held since childhood and never questioned.

There are lots of intelligent christians, though they are a minority, but not very many deep ones .

I have. I know someone that while not christian belives in god, and accepts that has convinced herself to believe that and that there is no way to prove anything but just believes out of a necesity. Not exactly that but she truly understands we all have needs to believe in something and sometimes we do, even like we the ones that believe in nothingness....

Life gives you surprises like that sometimes

 

[MountainDweller]

I said I wouldn't respond, but someone actually had an intelligent response to one of my posts, without feeling the need to become offensive. So I will respond to that.

First, I just had a knee-jerk reaction to this and came off a bit too aggressive, I guess. I did explain my reasons in my second post, which everyone seems to ignore and just attack my first post when most of the things they say can be countered by my second post.

You like exploring new things? Well, another thread with arguments on this subject isn't going to bring much else to the table. It's just the same nonsense, repeated, coming from the left and the right with insults and idiotic offensive remarks coming from one while ganging up on the other, and in the end nobody's going to change their mind. The "scientists" will go back to their "science" and the religious will just go back to their religion with a stronger conviction.

I have no problem with "pushing the envelope". Hell, I love it when it's done! To quote Mr. Frank Zappa: "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible". I OWN a pin with that quote, along with one saying "Doing my best to piss off the religious right". I have no problem with debate as long as the people don't resort to playground tactics and insults, as many here feel the need to do in attempt to get their points across. Those people just prove my case with their own actions and I have no desire or time to play their game.

Another reason why debate fails in the forum is because you have about seven people on one side and maybe two on the other, then of course there's me in the middle trying to get both to step back from their convictions and realise they're both likely wrong. So, then I'm getting attacked by both sides, although moreso from the ones with the deeper convictions in their "truth" (or logicality thereof) and higher intellectual self-worth. If there's anyone else in the middle, they probably do the smart thing, and what I should have kept doing, and just let the left and right argue. I only stepped in because I got tired of idiotic insults being thrown around by five or more people ganging up on one or two who basically don't have much of an argument.

As I said, if you want a religious or philosophical debate, go to a forum dedicated to that instead of one as lop-sided as this one where you have a majority of agnostics who just don't bother to get involved (aka "smart"), and about seven hard-core atheists going against one or two poor souls who decide to step up to defend their religious or spiritual way of life. But seriously, I think the best thing to do is just let it go. If you feel you have anything more to add that hasn't been mentioned, go to one of the old threads and if it hasn't been mentioned, add it.

In the end, I think nobody should try to force their beliefs, or anything else, upon others. If they ask for your thoughts, then fine. And I'm sorry, but insulting them when they don't agree with your beliefs is proof that you're trying to force them to see things your way and are upset because they don't and that's not much different that the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Faldwell. To truly just show them another way of thinking without trying to force it upon them is to show it to them and let them think about it and if in the end they don't agree with it, let it go and agree to not agree. End of story. Just remember their convictions are probably as hard-held as your own, and without both sides being flexible, there is nothing to be gained.

I may not reply to this thread anymore because I feel I've said what I need to say and I didn't come here to be forced to defend myself from people who assume too much. So, if I don't reply, that is why.

 

[Hannu Mutanen]

It is a very common flaw among both those who oppose religion and who stand by religious dogma to take preconceived notions of what god is for granted. In supernaturalist religions we are taught that there is a supreme being in existence who holds command over the earth - or deistically, has created the earth and the universe and has since handed his power down to humanity, no longer acting but as an observer - and that is a prospect of religion that should never be questioned. And while critique is bestowed upon those who adhere to this dogmatic assertion, this is the exact same pitfall which also anti-religious people meet: the lack of ability to examine god not as supernatural, but metaphorical; to prove his existence as not physical but spiritual. And while this conclusion is rather vague unless scrutinized minutely for extensive periods of time, it gives more room for personal interpretations of the nature of divinity on a philosophical basis.

I agree with MountainDweller about the nature of atheism to a certain degree. Atheists may not be exact opposites to religious people - rather an oppositional force, which is significantly different from the former - but they are merely the other side of the coin with their acceptance of god's supernatural character. One has to accept something in order to oppose it. To say 'God does not exist' does not quite cut it here, since he does - but not in the manner these two counterparts assert. In the light of the aforementioned, atheism is fundamentally as flawed as is conventional religion.

Of course this is not to say that everyone who prefers reality and science over belief in otherworldly matters is essentially wrong. This opinion is based on concrete examples of things possible to happen and hence the side to overcome the other in a 'natural vs. supernatural' debate by its hands-down, logical portrayal of evidence. However, to get to my point, the very outset of arguing whether or not there is a god sitting on a cloud laughing at us all can lead to nothing else but further debate which ends up being nothing but a vicious circle. Science cannot touch philosophy or ethics beyond examining our brain-chemistry - and I would bow my head in respect should a scientist ever find the fluids which put together form 'the human morale'. Sounds unlikely, does it not? Well, as I see it this is the whole point of 'god'. He is our conception of the world, of ourselves - he is the cover each one of us puts to one's own book. And as the proverb goes, one should not judge a book by its covers - even if this is exactly what people do in examination of the concept of god: he is not considered as what he is, but what people associate with the word 'god' - what they have been taught of god. So eventually, 'god' is interchangeable with 'blip', 'blop', 'science', 'Buddha' and 'Ozzy': The name for the system through we organize our physical and metaphysical worlds as individual beings.

EDIT: As I exclaimed, this may sound rather vague but that is unavoidable given the time and space one has on an internet message board.