Do themes such as Satanism or Anti-Christianity Affect Your Metal Preferences?

[skeptik]

Do you really know that there is no God any more than any Christian knows there is?

Atheists feel strongly with a high probability that there is no God. Christians know there is a God. Atheists know that there is no way to prove that there is no God just the same that there is no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. That is because the existence or nonexistence of God is not merely, as Hume would describe, a relation of ideas, but rather a matter of fact. Matters of fact cannot possibly be proven beyond doubt, they can only be proven false. That said, I feel as strongly that there is no God as I do that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Under The Oak]

Atheists feel strongly with a high probability that there is no God. Christians know there is a God. Atheists know that there is no way to prove that there is no God just the same that there is no way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. That is because the existence or nonexistence of God is not merely, as Hume would describe, a relation of ideas, but rather a matter of fact. Matters of fact cannot possibly be proven beyond doubt, they can only be proven false. That said, I feel as strongly that there is no God as I do that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I wouldn't say we Christians know there is a God, although I won't deny there are many who will claim they do. I believe there is a God, but like you say of atheists, I recognize that you can't prove or disprove God beyond a shred of doubt. That's where faith comes in for me, instead of using faulty logic in assuming that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Any good scientist will tell you that's not true. It doesn't mean we should blindly believe in all kinds of absurdly unrealistic possibilities, but your reasons for labeling the concept of God as an absurdly unrealistic possibility are no more logical than those who think it's absurd not to believe in God.

 

[skeptik]

your reasons for labeling the concept of God as an absurdly unrealistic possibility are no more logical than those who think it's absurd not to believe in God.

This is blatant bullshit.

 

[Hatebreeder]

Having different religions is like having different taste in music, really.

 

[Under The Oak]

This is blatant bullshit.

Lots of people simply call something bullshit instead of explaining themselves like a civilized and intelligent person. That's a great way to be taken seriously. :Smug:

 

[Pessimism]

Having different religions is like having different taste in music, really.

Well...that is definately one way to put it.

Makes me fucking hate scientology that much more though.

 

[Ender Rises]

Scientology is the polka of religion.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Having different religions is like having different taste in music, really.

I disagree. Religions make claims about reality and hence must be tested against evidence. Thus religions should have nothing to do with taste but with fact. Just like science shouldn't have to do with taste but with actual scientific fact and evidence.

 

[Melkor66]

I don't really mind if its satanic metal as long as the musics good. I dont personally agree with organised religion but i dont believe in satan either so it does'nt bother me. I've been brought up a roman catholic and i totally disagree with religion being forced on people. It 's just a form of brainwashing. O.K if you have found god on your own fair enough i've got no problem with that.

 

[Dee Snarl]

I disagree. Religions make claims about reality and hence must be tested against evidence. Thus religions should have nothing to do with taste but with fact. Just like science shouldn't have to do with taste but with actual scientific fact and evidence.

Interesting.

Most people would say that religion, by definition, stands outside the realm of science (and so, testing with evidence, etc.), and is inherently tied to faith.

I strongly agree, though, that religious preference shouldn't be based on aesthetics or "what works for you", but the facts of the matter, i.e. is there a God? Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Of course, if and when we get verifiable answers to those questions, they become science, not religion (see evolution). I suppose that's why one informs the other?

 

[Teh Grimace]

most people who proudly claim to unquestioningly follow any "organized" religion are simple minded and weak of actual "spirit".

most atheists/agnostics are pessimistic and self absorbed and usually somewhat angry at the world.

most people who claim to believe in/follow the figureheads and traditions of an "organized" religion but not to be part of the "organization" itself ("i belive in jesus but i'm not necessarily a chrisitian") are extremely weak of "spirit" and completely lacking in the ability to assert themselves.

most people who follow any exclusive "off-brand" religion (scientology, jehovah's witness, mormons, race-based faiths, etc etc.) have some sort of deep-rooted social complex that causes them to justify their own actions/'beliefs' by aligning them with the actions/beliefs of people whom they deem "superior" to the "masses".

most people who claim to be "spiritual" but lacking "faith" in any specific cosmic power are really just superstitious and lack the ability to deal with life's big questions in a realistic way, realism being far too painful for them to live with. these people account for 97% of the uber-shiny lab-created crystals and fung-shewey manuals and "spirit beads" sold in the western hemisphere.

most people over the age of 45 basically believe the same thing their parents believed for no good reason other than it's significantly easier than beating a unique path through life. they tend to think that "go to school, get married, kids, retirement fund, RV/florida, death, and try not to bother anybody else in the process" is life's ideal gameplan, and thinking too much about the nature of "god" or "spirit" just gets in the way.

most people under the age of 45 have rejected their parents beliefs for no reason other than that they were allowed to do so after faith-based education and government religious intolerance went through a massive decline in the 60s. they now either wander aimlessly through the quagmire of a new world where any freak with a suit/cermonial robe and a few good one-liners is regarded as a legitimate "spiritual leader", or they adhere to whatever religion/faith is most popular in society since they don't consider enlightenment or spiritual growth to be anywhere near as important as, again, getting a good job or an attractive mate or just being "cool".

...


most people who can be described as anything other than "comfortable with their own unique degree of faith in whatever spiritual beacons compell them at the moment, without any need for justification by any person or group and without the need to change/retain any of their beliefs for any reason other than that they have deemed this change/retaining necessary" are, at best, amusing fools and, at worst, a plague upon the rare few truly enlightened individuals in this world.


...

 

[Hatebreeder]

I strongly agree, though, that religious preference shouldn't be based on aesthetics or "what works for you", but the facts of the matter, i.e. is there a God? Did Jesus rise from the dead?

The problem with that is people often don't read up on the "facts" and join a religion based on what people tell them (which could be untrue). Most people are looking for a religion that will make them feel good, not the one that is the most factual.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I hate when people say "dude how can you be atheist; how can you be SURE there is no god?"

The difference is the amount of faith I have, which is absolutely fucking none.

 

[Nico]

most people who can be described as anything other than "comfortable with their own unique degree of faith in whatever spiritual beacons compell them at the moment, without any need for justification by any person or group and without the need to change/retain any of their beliefs for any reason other than that they have deemed this change/retaining necessary" are, at best, amusing fools and, at worst, a plague upon the rare few truly enlightened individuals in this world.

Dead fucking right. And the rest of your post.

 

[skeptik]

Lots of people simply call something bullshit instead of explaining themselves like a civilized and intelligent person. That's a great way to be taken seriously. :Smug:

Being that what you said is blatant bullshit, even you should be able to figure out why it is bullshit. It is far more illogical to believe in something that there is no evidence for than to not believe in something that there is no evidence for.

 

[cookiecutter]

Lots of people simply call something bullshit instead of explaining themselves like a civilized and intelligent person. That's a great way to be taken seriously. :Smug:

Care to explain YOURSELF? Lack of any evidence IS a very valid reason for not believing in something.

 

[Dee Snarl]

most people who claim to be "spiritual" but lacking "faith" in any specific cosmic power are really just superstitious and lack the ability to deal with life's big questions in a realistic way, realism being far too painful for them to live with. these people account for 97% of the uber-shiny lab-created crystals and fung-shewey manuals and "spirit beads" sold in the western hemisphere.

I like this part.

Though I will say that I think the condition you describe here runs much, much deeper than the fringe types cited....

 

[Under The Oak]

Being that what you said is blatant bullshit, even you should be able to figure out why it is bullshit. It is far more illogical to believe in something that there is no evidence for than to not believe in something that there is no evidence for.

I believe there is ample evidence for God's existence in science, nature and history, though it won't ever be enough to prove His existence to the doubting masses. Ask yourself what kind of evidence it would take for you to believe in God. Odds are that you'd only be happy with some kind of overwhelming revelation that would eliminate the need for faith.

 

[skeptik]

I believe there is ample evidence for God's existence in science, nature and history, though it won't ever be enough to prove His existence to the doubting masses. Ask yourself what kind of evidence it would take for you to believe in God. Odds are that you'd only be happy with some kind of overwhelming revelation that would eliminate the need for faith.

What evidence do you have for God? And by evidence I don't mean "I look around me and I see such articulate and complex intricacy and the only solution I can possibly conjure is that of an intelligent designer."

 

[Demilich]

[huge edit]To know there is no god is as much of a leap of faith as to know there is a god. If atheism to you means that you're PRETTY SURE there's no god, then fine, you're not the people I have a problem with and this doesn't concern you. But there are people out there who yell at anyone who even suggests the possibility of a god, and its with those people that I take issue.

Now, to claim to know so many specifics about him such as what he allows, what behaviour he punishes, what happens after we die, that is just fucked up. When you get into talk of direct communication with the divine and revelations and the like you just open up room for total manipulation and legislation of morality. That is the problem with organized religion as I see it.

For TaylorC and Necuratul specifically: Do you really believe that when you write something like "Atheists don't think this, they think this" or "Christians say that..." that there is actually anything close to a consensus, especially considering the polarizing nature of the issues you're talking about?