|
So, I answered some shit in my updatepost, but now there is more to answer. Thanks a lot for all this attention by the way, I'm sure I don't deserve it and it will burn out in due time; please bear with me as I capitalize on it further.
One must realize this is all under construction and is at the moment a pile of chaos in my head that I havent quite formed a sane document out of yet, but progress is being made. You are getting in on the ground floor if you sign up now though, you could be a church father, a saint, think about it!
Symbols and narrative are nice ideas, I might try to come up with some stuff, you will remain dissapointed about the moral code though, I refuse to incorporate a moral code into the system, I assert that moral codes should be seperate from religion and in the domain of man instead. to include a moral code allows man to shirk responsibilities.
The method of practice has been contemplated, you are two posts away from that part, but for now I can say that there is some gathering and discussion and mutual support and stuff involved (things that most churches do), maybe we'll make some cool songs about it too. there will certainly be a fun part with the whole modularity of the deities part, people will collaborate and exchange their ideas and explain how they think their gods are helpful and as a community they will decide which ones to favor.
There is some uniformity, it isn't 100% uniform, there are principles which must be accepted, some of which I have already written, just because the pantheon is modular doesn't mean there is 0% uniformity of beleif, there is more to a religion than the deities.
It isn't asserting that deities are unidentifieable, just that they are modular. Surely you are familiar with several deities in traditional religions that have multiple avatars, or the arguments that the parallels between gods in the different religions are actually different manifestations of the same god. Modularity does not mean it's an agnostic declaration that god is not identifiable.
what sets it apart from secular atheism, atheists are a bunch of smug dicks, if you dont want to be a smug dick and want to accept that it is ok for people to beleive in stuff, and maybe you want to beleive in something yourself but have trouble getting over your insane need to have everything logically proven, then this might be a better fit than secular atheism.
my objections to athiests: smug dicks that are afriad to beleive in anything without evidence, humans need to leap before looking sometimes, that's why kirk is the fucking captain and that romulan psycho didn't suceeed in destroying earth
my objection to agnostics: no balls afriad to commit to anything or hurt anyones feelings carebears, they are sad jokes to the faithful and the faithless alike, if you want to keep going with star trek analogy, they are that ensign ricky guy that always dies on the away mission
objection to most faith based religions: this retarted need to deny the products of human reasoning, this sad tendancy to kneel and grovel and beg when one should really be standing up and taking action, this naive assumption that everything will be ok because your imaginary friend told you so, sorry I have no mroe trek jokes for this one.
|
