Religion Amongst Metalheads

[arg]

I’m atheist but I think christians and catholics are cool

 

[Draehl]

Agnostic, yet realizing some folks need religion to keep it together- they need some kind of deeper meaning/structure and that's fine so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others. For me? I'll just stick to responsible hedonism.

 

[The Ozzman]

Agnostic, yet realizing some folks need religion to keep it together- they need some kind of deeper meaning/structure and that's fine so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others.

Probably the most rational viewpoint on the matter. I think anyone who is super atheist or super religious is a nutcase. There is no proof either way so why try and convince people otherwise?

 

[EternalMetal]

Meh, agnostics are just atheists who still have the 'fear' instilled by mainstream religions. Sellouts among rational thinkers as far as im concerned. The "proof" against religion is that aside from faith and tradition (both intangibles), nothing tangible exists that corroborates their beliefs. Religion isnt even worthy of debate because they argue with scripture (which is meaningless) or belief/faith (which is delusional). It makes more sense to deny illogical viewpoints than to gather logical evidence to disprove them. If you heard a 5 year old scream themselves awake and swear that they saw a purple dragon in their bedroom, would you feel like you needed solid evidence to deny it?

That said, im not denying the possible existence of (lets just call them) supernatural forces or events. Just as I cant prove that life does or does not exist somewhere else in the universe, I can't prove that supernatural and spiritual phenomenon dont exist. I just deny any factual basis for religion in general. Does religion help many people get on with their lives? Yes, definitely. Is it true? Probably not.

 

[The Ozzman]

are just atheists who still have the 'fear' instilled by mainstream religions

Yeah no

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

religion: metal
sect: thrashism

 

[CiG]

You're of the slaybrahamic faith.

 

[PrincessHades]

Yeah no

What he said was pretty much true, either that or they just don't want to appear edgy and affect their relationships with religious people. Sometimes they are just misinformed on the terminology which is fine.

 

[CiG]

Probably the most rational viewpoint on the matter. I think anyone who is super atheist or super religious is a nutcase. There is no proof either way so why try and convince people otherwise?

Inverted burden of proof fallacy, atheists don't need proof or evidence to dispute religious claims that come with neither.

 

[Krow]

I don’t really fault people for being religious because they mostly had it pounded into their skulls since birth. People that return to it because they’re afraid of dying are faggots though. Bobby Leibling is a massive faggot for this. The devil didn’t make you a piece of shit, you did.

Agnostics are barely different, just scared they might be wrong and scared to pretend.

I’m glad my parents let me decide for myself.

 

[CiG]

Agnosticism is essentially just the religious equivalent of political centrism. At its core it basically just admits the atheist position that religious people can't prove anything they say because nothing is known and can be known about the nature of God.

It's an admission wrapped in fence-riding faggotry.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Penn Jillette sums it up best.

 

[CiG]

Especially agree with what he states at the end. I also agree with Dawkins' measurement here and that landing anywhere between 0 and 10 (ie certain there is a God vs certain there isn't a God) does technically make you agnostic.



The real argument if we set aside what violent zealots are willing to do for their beliefs to me is about what can be proven and what has been proven up until now. This is what I see many agnostics relating their position to, that the evidence for or against religious claims is basically relative and this is why I tend to dislike them. Fine, be agnostic about the question of "is there a higher being" but being agnostic about whether there's any proof or evidence buttressing the claims of the religious is pathetic.

 

[The Ozzman]

the question of "is there a higher being"

Thought that was the whole point of agnosticism *shrug*

To me, that's what it is: the question of whether there is or isn't a higher power, not that those who are religious have any veracity to their claims.

 

[CiG]

Thought that was the whole point of agnosticism *shrug*

I also agree with Dawkins' measurement here and that landing anywhere between 0 and 10 (ie certain there is a God vs certain there isn't a God) does technically make you agnostic.

It is, which is why I said this. ^

Agnostics often react with nobody can know platitudes when religious claims are brought up and challenged. There's definitely some kind of instinct to centrist-shrug over anything related to religion.

 

[The Ozzman]

It is, which is why I said this. ^

Agnostics often react with nobody can know platitudes when religious claims are brought up and challenged. There's definitely some kind of instinct to centrist-shrug over anything related to religion.

So is this what you're saying?:

"It's fine to question the existence of a higher power but don't act like the religious arguments are on equal footing with the scientific ones"

 

[CiG]

Something like that, sure. More specifically don't act like unproven religious claims are on an equal footing with atheists being unconvinced by them.

Edit: the main thing religion has on its side as some kind of positive is communalism and people (especially today) can get this benefit from many other sources which don't came with inherently anti-scientific claims baked into it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Probably the most rational viewpoint on the matter. I think anyone who is super atheist or super religious is a nutcase. There is no proof either way so why try and convince people otherwise?

I don’t agree with this dichotomy. Atheists who argue with Christians may be wasting their time, but they’re not trying to make Christians believe in atheism. They’re trying to point out gaps in theistic logic (which is a misguided effort from the start, I agree).

It’s important to remember that atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism is more accurately described as a disbelief, or lack of belief. It’s neither a fundamentalism nor does it require any leap of faith. An atheist basically just says there’s no compelling evidence for god’s existence, therefore I don’t believe in god. It’s an absence of belief, hence a-theism. I don’t believe in god, but I also don’t believe in godlessness.

To give an analogy, an amoral person doesn’t believe in believe in amorality. An amoral person simply has no moral beliefs.

 

[CiG]

It’s important to remember that atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism is more accurately described as a disbelief, or lack of belief.

I slightly disagree with this. Atheism does have the belief that religion is a negative aspect of humanity baked into it and has, at times, been extrapolated into violence against the religious.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Yeah, but that doesn't change what it is: non-belief.