The great and all powerful religion thread!

I missed this thread.
I take a backseat when it comes to religion. I'd rather sit and listen to everyone else argue about it, and determine who is more retarded from there. I am not a member of any particular religion and I would have to say that I lean toward Atheism, if anything.
I am Agnostic, though, because I can't make any definitive argument that there is no god... nor can anyone else, really.
All in all, though... I really don't care. Whatever happens in the afterlife, I'm sure they can't keep me out of the equivalent of Christian Heaven if I live my life well... so I tend not to worry about it.
Choosing a religion sounds like a major crap shoot. I figure I won't worry about it, and whatever happens, happens.
 
It's impossible to have positive certainty that there isn't something supernatural about the universe, just because a logical approach to explaining how the universe exists ends up conflicting with the cause-effect concept that we use to explain virtually everything else in nature.

Agree. If something hasn't been disproved, dismissing it as total impossibility is illogical.
 
I missed this thread.
I take a backseat when it comes to religion. I'd rather sit and listen to everyone else argue about it, and determine who is more retarded from there. I am not a member of any particular religion and I would have to say that I lean toward Atheism, if anything.
I am Agnostic, though, because I can't make any definitive argument that there is no god... nor can anyone else, really.
All in all, though... I really don't care. Whatever happens in the afterlife, I'm sure they can't keep me out of the equivalent of Christian Heaven if I live my life well... so I tend not to worry about it.
Choosing a religion sounds like a major crap shoot. I figure I won't worry about it, and whatever happens, happens.
This is pretty much me, tbh. Thanks for putting it in words for me. :lol:
 
Mathiäs;7864851 said:
Agree. If something hasn't been disproved, dismissing it as total impossibility is illogical.

Of course, it's also illogical to assume there is a god out there who gives a shit what we think of him, and is going to judge us based on our actions after our deaths.

And I think you can still "dismiss" the idea of there being a god, even if it can't be proven as impossible, just because the idea of a god would have to be so minimal to remain logically consistent that it ends up being little more than a metaphysical model.
 
Again I must comment on the fact that we're using human terminology and concepts such as logic to deal with a metaphysical and hyper-beyond entity here, assuming his existence for a moment just to point that out.
 
I blame the faggots who came after him for writing really shittily about things they didn't properly understand. It's, to be blunt, the very reason that I hate fantasy.
 
...
All in all, though... I really don't care. Whatever happens in the afterlife, I'm sure they can't keep me out of the equivalent of Christian Heaven if I live my life well... so I tend not to worry about it.
...

"Well" in relation to what? What is the standard? How do you know if your good outweighs your bad? How do you know that that has anything to do with anything?
 
I blame the faggots who came after him for writing really shittily about things they didn't properly understand. It's, to be blunt, the very reason that I hate fantasy.

It's the reason that I hate generic, hackneyed fantasy like David Farland and Robert Jordan.

There are some writers, however, who claim to be influenced by Tolkien and still manage to create something truly innovative. R. Scott Bakker comes to mind.

Lewis is a good writer. Ever read any of his non-fiction?

Lewis is indeed a good writer. You should check out his novel Till We Have Faces. It's a retelling of the Cupid and Psyche myth, and it's far better than the Narnia books in my opinion.
 
Robert Jordan may seem generic now, but I remember when I first read the first three Wheel of Time books 15 years ago. The world building was just waaaay beyond everything else out there at the time, and it was pretty mind blowing. Of course, 10 books later (that's a lot of unnecessary lines), it's easy to dismiss him, but his impact is unjustly overlooked these days, I think.
 
An interesting King Diamond interview i found where they talk about religion. Look at what King says 01:55-02:05 in the second part and how they just skip answering that.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rz47t92IH8&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWye6g9sN5Q&feature=related[/ame]
 
King Diamond contradicted himself as many times as any fundamentalist christian could ever be accused of, especially in the second half.

As far as what got skipped, he didn't get answered because he didn't even know what he was talking about in his reference.

It was Abraham (over a thouand years after Cain and Abel) who was asked to sacrifice Isaac, and the sacrifice was not allowed to actually happen.