Religion Amongst Metalheads

[Blurry_Dreams]

 

[EternalMetal]

Unconvinced by an adherence to a strict dictionary definition of atheism personally, but in the end I'm just trying to advance a theory so I'm not surprised that nobody agrees with me, but the fact that nobody seems to be able to explain how they (or anybody else) would arrive at a position of anti-theism except via atheism makes me think I'm on to something here.

Well, many Christians disavow Islam and vice versa, and most mainstream religions feel as though their religion is the only correct one, so fuck the rest (or bomb them). You can't possibly expect that a religious person would believe in his religion while simultaneously being against it (critical of sects perhaps, but not the whole organization). Inherently the only one who can hate em all would have to be atheist, but only because they are really the only category of non-participants - im not counting "bad" Christians or the like who say they believe but never read the bible, go to church, or do anything religion related other than pray to god when their life sucks.

I understand that atheism means non-belief in supernatural claims and will always mean that, but I reject the notion that atheism cannot accrue some small subset of beliefs commonly held in the "atheist community."

You are right in calling what you are trying to assert a subset of atheism. You can no more deduce the belief system of an atheist as one who can be identified as a theist.

To be completely honest, I think you are the one with the slightly antiquated view of atheism. Throughout history atheists have been viewed as malignant heretics who were against the religious rule and had the potential to rebel because of it. It is a very modern thought that atheists can actually embrace some value in theistic religion while simultaneously not wanting to take part in it.

Perhaps what you say is correct though, maybe we need a new word because it seems undeniable to me that atheism for most atheists comes with a set of assumptions and value judgements about religion and its place in society.

This sounds sort of like what LaVeyan Satanism was created for tbh.

 

[CiG]

Well, many Christians disavow Islam and vice versa, and most mainstream religions feel as though their religion is the only correct one, so fuck the rest (or bomb them). You can't possibly expect that a religious person would believe in his religion while simultaneously being against it (critical of sects perhaps, but not the whole organization).

Sure, but I have a strong feeling if given the option of keeping the other religions or getting rid of all religion, they'd choose the former because they at the very least support the concept of religion.

Inherently the only one who can hate em all would have to be atheist, but only because they are really the only category of non-participants - im not counting "bad" Christians or the like who say they believe but never read the bible, go to church, or do anything religion related other than pray to god when their life sucks.

You seem to be confusing religious and atheistic people's preferences for specific religions with their preferences for or against religion itself.

To be completely honest, I think you are the one with the slightly antiquated view of atheism. Throughout history atheists have been viewed as malignant heretics who were against the religious rule and had the potential to rebel because of it. It is a very modern thought that atheists can actually embrace some value in theistic religion while simultaneously not wanting to take part in it.

I disagree. I am merely describing what I see in the atheist community, to whatever degree such a thing exists. I've been an atheist since I was a kid so I've mingled with a lot of atheists throughout my life and the majority of them has expressed views like humanity would be better off without religion. That's not even close to the same thing as atheists suffering at the hands of religious propaganda that describes them as hateful anti-religious bigots.

Anti-theism is a thing, as Ein brought up earlier, and I have asked where this position comes from for most people who hold it, other than from a starting position of atheism.

This sounds sort of like what LaVeyan Satanism was created for tbh.

Isn't that shit just worship of the self? I mean, okay, not sure I follow...

 

[EternalMetal]

Sure, but I have a strong feeling if given the option of keeping the other religions or getting rid of all religion, they'd choose the former because they at the very least support the concept of religion.

Many modern Christians I have spoken to at least acknowledge some of the pitfalls of the Roman Catholic church. Of course the idea of getting rid of religion is preposterous to them, and for obvious reasons.

You seem to be confusing religious and atheistic people's preferences for specific religions with their preferences for or against religion itself.

Not really. My point was that religious people are capable of being critical of religion and its effects. At the most extreme they are capable of hating any religion other than their own. At the most apathetic they can roughly criticize the effects of religion, but in the end they would inherently have to acknowledge the reason why they identify with religion X (even if it is a tenuous connection). In my experience religious people arent necessarily blind robots who approve of everything done in said religion.

I disagree. I am merely describing what I see in the atheist community, to whatever degree such a thing exists. I've been an atheist since I was a kid so I've mingled with a lot of atheists throughout my life and the majority of them has expressed views like humanity would be better off without religion. That's not even close to the same thing as atheists suffering at the hands of religious propaganda that describes them as hateful anti-religious bigots.

Dont you think atheists in the past have thought about that as well? Why do you think that the religious propaganda had to exaggerate the plight of the atheist? Otherwise they would have been ignored. Religion deniers are the same types as they have always been, if not less persecuted. Only the outspoken get named in history.

Anti-theism is a thing, as Ein brought up earlier, and I have asked where this position comes from for most people who hold it, other than from a starting position of atheism.

Yea, it starts from atheism. I have never seen you this dense. How can anybody religious hate ALL religions? Many religious people hate all religions but their own, which is the actual start of the hatred. Only an atheist can hate them all (since he is affiliated with none). Why is hating one more religion such a landmark?

Isn't that shit just worship of the self? I mean, okay, not sure I follow...

Among other things. LaVey denounces mainstream religion and its influence on the world in almost the same way you describe. He adds a bunch of hedonistic bullshit (imo, though I was raised Catholic) to his "writings", but for the most part tells people to be non-conformist and live life how they wish. It is an attractive read to most atheists without a doubt. I was originally going to say that what you propose is, ironically enough, like a religious sect of atheism, but LaVeyan Satanism parallels a lot of your points already, though maybe with some moral assumptions you dont agree with? It's similar enough imo, you should look into it a bit more. If you wanted a logical conclusion to "atheism", history already has one.

 

[CiG]

Many modern Christians I have spoken to at least acknowledge some of the pitfalls of the Roman Catholic church. Of course the idea of getting rid of religion is preposterous to them, and for obvious reasons.

This alludes to my whole point, that the idea of getting rid of religion mostly calls atheism its home.

Not really. My point was that religious people are capable of being critical of religion and its effects. At the most extreme they are capable of hating any religion other than their own. At the most apathetic they can roughly criticize the effects of religion, but in the end they would inherently have to acknowledge the reason why they identify with religion X (even if it is a tenuous connection). In my experience religious people arent necessarily blind robots who approve of everything done in said religion.

No you're definitely confusing the two IMO. Religious people are capable of criticising and even starting wars over theistic differences between themselves and other religions but that's a question of whether X religious group approves of Y religious group's particular beliefs. This does not really say much about what religious people think about religion itself.

Most religious people would rather all other people follow their religion rather than all other religious people not of their faith be made non-religious. Religious people do not agree with atheists when they say humanity would be better off without religion, but of course if you break it down by the different religions they will say "yes humanity would be better off without Islam" etc. That's not at all the same as agreeing with the better off without religion view.

Dont you think atheists in the past have thought about that as well? Why do you think that the religious propaganda had to exaggerate the plight of the atheist? Otherwise they would have been ignored. Religion deniers are the same types as they have always been, if not less persecuted. Only the outspoken get named in history.

Yea, it starts from atheism. I have never seen you this dense. How can anybody religious hate ALL religions? Many religious people hate all religions but their own, which is the actual start of the hatred. Only an atheist can hate them all (since he is affiliated with none). Why is hating one more religion such a landmark?

You conflating me pointing out a very common atheist belief (as in, a belief held by many atheists) with how atheists were viewed historically.

"Throughout history atheists have been viewed as malignant heretics who were against the religious rule and had the potential to rebel because of it."

The key here in your comment being atheists have been viewed as which implies a view of atheists coming from non-atheists, not from themselves. I'm not interested in how other people view atheists, I'm interested in how atheists themselves have very often come to the belief that humanity would be better off without religion. Some have said this belief was arrived at by looking at historical evidence but that only begs the question: why do religious people not also look at this historical evidence and agree with that belief? To me it seems obvious that to see the historical evidence and come to this conclusion you need to view it through a lens that causes you to think the bad outweighs the good and this is not a lens religious people share.

They are fully capable of saying "yes, religion has caused problems for people" but they will always conclude by saying "but overall religion has done more good than bad."

This is what I see as the atheist lens, which implies a belief accrued within atheism, unless somebody can show me another way that many atheists reach the bad for humanity belief that isn't sourced from atheism itself?

Edit: I suppose what I'm fundamentally interested in here is what causes the value judgement with many atheists when they conclude that the negatives of religion outweigh the positives.

 

[CiG]

Yea, it starts from atheism. I have never seen you this dense. How can anybody religious hate ALL religions?

I think it can just end here, you basically answered my question. Anti-theism starts from atheism, therefore atheism does have at least one belief baked into it to some degree.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think it can just end here, you basically answered my question. Anti-theism starts from atheism, therefore atheism does have at least one belief baked into it to some degree.

This is what people (including myself) are objecting to.

Saying a belief is baked into atheism implies that the belief is there from the start, i.e. that atheism entails a form of anti-theism. The problem for this discussion is you're intuiting the origin of a belief, which is personally-held; and you can never pinpoint the origin of such a radically experiential quality. Maybe an atheist begins by despising religion but still harboring vague spiritual beliefs, and then gradually gravitates toward atheism; maybe an atheist begins by denying all belief on god/spirituality, but hasn't yet developed any animosity toward, or critique of, organized religion.

It may be the case that many atheists develop some form of anti-theism, but you're presupposing a linear (i.e. causal) structure: i.e. something like skepticism --> disbelief --> hatred/animosity. But actually existing atheism doesn't necessarily follow this structure. The key word is "necessarily." I'm opposing here two philosophical concepts: necessity and contingency. Necessity implies a causal and deterministic order--that things had to play out a certain way, and that if you replay the tape of history (so to speak) things would happen in the same way. Their relationship is necessary. In this scenario, if animosity toward religion is "baked into" atheism, then all atheists should eventually develop this animosity, albeit to varying degrees perhaps.

I'm saying (and I think others are saying) that anti-theism is one possible avenue of atheistic belief. Many atheists may share critical views of religion and its role in human history, but they also probably would reject the idea that their animosity was determined by their atheism, since atheists tend to sympathize more with ideas of philosophical contingency (since they don't believe in god/spirituality, they believe religion is a contingent episode of human history--it could just as easily have not happened). This is a key sequence in the argument. They would almost undoubtedly agree that their atheism at the very least conditioned their anti-theism (if they developed anti-theistic ideas after abandoning religious beliefs); but they would likely deny that their atheism caused their anti-theism. Rather, anti-theism is a contingent consequence of atheism. They could just as easily have not developed anti-theistic beliefs.

I absolutely agree that many (if not most) atheists today harbor critical attitudes/beliefs toward religion. I just don't agree with your description of the relationship between atheism and anti-theism, for two reasons: a) I think it's an impossible relationship to discern (being an entirely subjective/internal experience), and b) I think that actually-existing examples disprove the relationship, which suggests that anti-theism necessarily arises from atheism.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[Einherjar86]

Wow.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

 

[The Ozzman]

Maybe they could start speaking Esperanto. It's the ultimate in crowd language after all.

 

[Onder]

Yay memes.

 

[CiG]

I agree it's not the most rigorous work, but as I understand it, although this book was pecked around the edges by other academics, the basic thrust is not overly contentious, in fact the most significant criticism is that it's not new scholarship.

This is a fair and qualified review I think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/...-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html

I know I'm being lazy by linking this video, but after over a decade of debating religion I just don't have the passion anymore. The lines of evidence supporting the Historical Jesus position I feel have been debunked and delegitimized years and years ago. The only people who really seem to still think Jesus was an actual single individual who existed at one time are religious people as far as I can tell. I think it's pretty obvious that Jesus Christ is a collection of different people from different eras and locations who eventually became indistinguishable from each other and thus became a single figure.



This is extensive. Similar videos like the archeologists who went to Egypt to try and find the remains in the desert that would prove Moses' exodus actually happened ended up finding nothing, which debunks that whole tale about the Jewish slaves of Egypt and their leader who took them across the desert to Mount Sinai etc. The historicity of much of this stuff is horseshit.

 

[challenge_everything]

This is all a bit straw man, because even the historical Jesus analyses I've read don't go much beyond saying there is enough evidence there was a person called Jesus from Nazareth but as to evidence of his persona and actions most of it appears to be an indistinguishable blend of him and others, in particular John the Baptist whose historical existence is well-established.

 

[CiG]

Can I ask, are you a Christian?

 

[challenge_everything]

Hell no.

 

[challenge_everything]

So no particular vested interest in his existence or non-existence if that's what you are getting at.

 

[CiG]

Yeah just making sure before this goes any further.

It's not exactly a strawman because the Historical Jesus analyses takes some "evidence" that a Jesus of Nazareth existed and then attributes every Jesus ever noted to have existed to this one Jesus of Nazareth even though there are decades between the lives of these different Jesus characters. In some cases there are over a hundred years between them, I'm pretty sure the Jesus who was noted to have been executed by the Romans was executed over a hundred years after the Jesus born in Bethlehem. There are so many holes that you would literally require some kind of religious faith to overlook them.

 

[CiG]

The fakery of the story also proves some kind of ahistorical lie here when it comes to Jesus. The prophecy says (and I'm paraphrasing) this man must be born in the house of David, of David's line, of David's time. It means he must be born in Bethlehem which contradicts the claim that he was born in Nazareth (ie Jesus of Nazareth) and none of the gospels agree with any of the others on this issue of his nativity.

There are also no contemporary eyewitnesses either, every claim that Jesus existed is made by people who lived and wrote on this years and years and years after his lifespan would have been spent and none of these pseudo-witnesses or writers are non-Christian which suggests an obvious bias to make sure people think he was an actual individual. Let's not even get into the dogshit-tier quality of the witnesses to his so-called resurrection.

 

[challenge_everything]

No, again, this is a case of ships passing in the night, you are importing messiah myths on the historical evidence. I don't know what 'histories' you are reading but as far as I know, no reputable historical analysis has ever contended he was born in Bethlehem, and the tension you refer to in the gospels was precisely because they were written long after his death and with vested interests (in varying degrees depending on which one you read) in promoting the messiah angle.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians recognize the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][110][111] Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[112] In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."[113]:15-22 Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[114] Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[7] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[8][115]:24–26

There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[116][117] However, there is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and secular historians tend to begin from the assumption supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus are questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[118] Underlining these differences, Bible scholar Gerd Theissan writes that there is only limited consensus among contemporary historians on the broad range of issues concerning the life of Jesus.[18] Yet Bible scholars James Beilby and Paul Eddy say there is some: they write that consensus is "elusive but not entirely absent".[91]:47 The majority agree "Jesus was a first century Jew, who was baptized by John, went about teaching and preaching, had followers, was believed to be a miracle worker and exorcist, went to Jerusalem where there was an "incident", was subsequently arrested, convicted and crucified."[91]:48-49[119]