Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
alexanderthegreat
Metal Barbarian Dinosaur

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:34 pm
Posts: 1916
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:44 pm 
 

Gorgo wrote:
I like to study religion because it lets me see the insanity of it. All the rules religious people invented because some sort of "god" wouldn't like it, it is really pathetic.


You mean back in the days when science, technology and the like was at the rubbing sticks and stones together level and "big thundering dude in the sky" was the most reasonable thing they could come up with?

Kind of unfair calling them pathetic, considering the stage of cultural development they were at.

[big rant coming up]

It baffles me how people can be so amazingly aggressive and spiteful towards religion as an institution. Treating it as the root of all human misery and evil as if it were some gigantic malignant tumour in the brain of society. It's never as simple as that. For all the holy wars, inquisitions, paedophile coverups, witchhunts and jihads, the universal rules espoused by religions can give rise to plenty of good too. Witness the various charities and organisations that ease suffering and hardship in the world, and the scientific and social advances of Christian institutions and scholars. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Another thing that amuses me is how terribly offended some people seem to get with Christianity. Burning a church in Satan's name is fine, but a Christian group calling for a ban on a video game is WRONG! Freedom of speech and expression is paramount and to be defended to the death, but banning religion is a-ok. Calling a Muslim a dogmatic, insensitive asshole is fine, but don't you dare call an atheist that! Some people who criticize religion for hypocrisy, inciting hatred and attacking free speech are unaware of falling into those same traps.

I'm fully aware religions of the world have tons of problems and need to be called out on them, but I just wish it didn't result in "Yeah, fuck religion in the ass!" redundancy.

[/rant]

Sorry about that, carry on.
_________________
Hitherto known as... The SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS.
The Cimmerian
The Blog That Time Forgot

Top
 Profile  
ReigningChaos
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:36 pm
Posts: 339
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:54 pm 
 

It's more than the atrocities committed in its name. Religion as an institution pisses on rationality and free inquiry; the backbone of a successful modern society. It served its purpose in human evolution, but now it is outdated. At the very best, it ought to be treated like a senile uncle. Let it be, but don't let it do much else.
_________________
droneriot wrote:
the meek shall FUCKING LEAVE THE HALL.

Top
 Profile  
Nya36
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:02 am
Posts: 1
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:29 pm 
 

alexanderthegreat wrote:
n be so amazingly aggressive and spiteful towards religion as an institution. Treating it as the root of all human misery and evil as if it were some gigantic malignant tumour in the brain of society. It's never as simple as that. For all the holy wars, inquisitions, paedophile coverups, witchhunts and jihads, the universal rules espoused by religions can give rise to plenty of good too. Witness the various charities and organisations that ease suffering and hardship in the world, and the scientific and social advances of Christian institutions and scholars. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Another thing that amuses me is how terribly offended some people seem to get with Christianity. Burning a church in Satan's name is fine, but a Christian group calling for a ban on a video game is WRONG! Freedom of speech and expression is paramount and to be defended to the death, but banning religion is a-ok. Calling a Muslim a dogmatic, insensitive asshole is fine, but don't you dare call an atheist that! Some people who criticize religion for hypocrisy, inciting hatred and attacking free speech are unaware of falling into those same traps.

I'm fully aware religions of the world have tons of problems and need to be called out on them, but I just wish it didn't result in "Yeah, fuck religion in the ass!" redundancy.


You, sir, I wish I had $1200 to fly to the UK and give you a, "at'ta boy" slap on the back along side a beer.But I can't really say at one point I wasn't also in the ranks pointing fingers and denouncing others for my own fulfillment.One can only hope to come to a better understanding with ones self and truly transcend.But then again, devolution is slowly in its stages.

Top
 Profile  
Chaos_Llama
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:04 pm
Posts: 430
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:42 pm 
 

I agree, the mindless religion hating is retarded. But I hate it for a lot of GOOD reasons. That's not to say I want to see it silenced- freedom of speech is important. I don't see church burnings as good, nor do I see church-sponsored censorship as good. I think freedom of speech is something that transcends values.

I'm just so fed up with religion at this point that I don't see it as something worth respecting. I can respect its followers as people, but definitely not their religious beliefs (or their morals/philosophy in general). It's weakness.

Top
 Profile  
alexanderthegreat
Metal Barbarian Dinosaur

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:34 pm
Posts: 1916
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:27 pm 
 

ReigningChaos wrote:
It's more than the atrocities committed in its name. Religion as an institution pisses on rationality and free inquiry; the backbone of a successful modern society. It served its purpose in human evolution, but now it is outdated. At the very best, it ought to be treated like a senile uncle. Let it be, but don't let it do much else.


It doesn't really piss on rationality any more than other human mores, i.e. believing in fate, or ghosts, or alien abductions. And there's always a lot of interpretation: plenty of christians and muslims are scientists, and they aren't apostates or heretics to their own faith. Certainly there are some scientific studies that have been met with opposition: currently in the UK, embryonic research into animal/human hybrids is top of the agenda. Yet debate can only be healthy: thus far, none of the scientists have been assassinated or labs vandalised, just subject to polite protests.

In America, however, I'm sure it's a different story.

Quote:
I've always decounced religious persecution towards the minorities, however. Christians have a lot of power, and they abuse it. It is for this reason that I support church burnings, shootings, and whatnot.


The problem with church burnings is that it isn't hitting the root of the problem, those being the higher-ups in the church who are abusing that power. Burning churches just hurts the plebes that need their weekly church routine for their spiritual well-being. It forces "rebuilding fund" collections where the charity of those same plebes is taken instead of the pockets of rich clergymen or whatever. Like many terrorism acts, they're usually hitting the wrong targets.

I think religion is largely anachronistic and really needs to haul itself into the 21st Century if it's to be useful, but to abolish it? It's not the time. People have shown themselves not to be of the mindset to accept science and atheism as the truth: a sizeable number of believers have said in surveys that even if incontrovertible proof was shown of the nonexistence of God, they'd still continue to believe and worship. This proves that the routine, community and spiritual fulfillment of worship of a big dude in the sky is still relevant and important to many people. When people stop having those needs, then there'll be no more religion: at least nowadays most religions aren't quite as extreme and violent as they used to be.
_________________
Hitherto known as... The SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS.
The Cimmerian
The Blog That Time Forgot

Top
 Profile  
Reptilian
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:32 pm
Posts: 13
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:25 am 
 

Alexander is absolutely correct. The moral idea of Christianity, as with other religions paints a pretty picture. Love and peace, blah blah blah. Now, I know that some of you may think that love and peace is stupid and untr00 and all of that, but for those of us with families, what could be better? No parent (that is sound of mind) wants his or her child to grow up in a world like the one we find ourselves in. Unfortunately, my personal animosity grows towards Christianity not only because of it's bloody and sordid past, but because it welcomes whores, theives and murderers into it's realm. Where did Dante's verson of hell go? Why is it okay to leave your husband and take the kids if he is not a beliver, and then tell your children that Mommy left Daddy because he doesn't believe in God and Jesus. All of a sudden you are having a theological debate with a 3 and 6 year old. That is very fucking ugly. So certainly, Christians can hide behind their man in the sky, and think they are the world's chosen and how they have to *show* everyone else what is true, even if they themselves don't adhere or even worse, don't care to know the foundations of their religion.
_________________
----

There is one kind of prison where the man is behind bars, and everything that he desires is outside; and there is another kind where the things are behind the bars, and the man is outside. - Upton Sinclair

Top
 Profile  
incarcerated_demon
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:00 pm 
 

alexanderthegreat wrote:

You mean back in the days when science, technology and the like was at the rubbing sticks and stones together level and "big thundering dude in the sky" was the most reasonable thing they could come up with?

Kind of unfair calling them pathetic, considering the stage of cultural development they were at.


Does that mean we're sufficiently advanced now to give up the idea of religion? I'm not criticising your point, just asking. If you equate or at least correlate progress with religion, surely advances in science have replaced at least the mystical function of religion in some way.

Quote:

It baffles me how people can be so amazingly aggressive and spiteful towards religion as an institution. Treating it as the root of all human misery and evil as if it were some gigantic malignant tumour in the brain of society. It's never as simple as that. For all the holy wars, inquisitions, paedophile coverups, witchhunts and jihads, the universal rules espoused by religions can give rise to plenty of good too. Witness the various charities and organisations that ease suffering and hardship in the world, and the scientific and social advances of Christian institutions and scholars. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I completely agree with some of the good things religion have done. The magnificence of the Sistine Chapel for example. Religion has undoubtedly enriched the fabric of world human society immeasurably - art, literature, etc. However, when it starts expounding supernatural beliefs as truth, and telling people to live their lives according to these revealed truths, that's when I have a problem with religion. Also, equating religion with morality is a path fraught with pitfalls - I don't think you want to take that route. Lastly, there are plenty of non-religious organisations that do good as well, charity is not the exclusive province of the religious.

Quote:
Another thing that amuses me is how terribly offended some people seem to get with Christianity. Burning a church in Satan's name is fine, but a Christian group calling for a ban on a video game is WRONG! Freedom of speech and expression is paramount and to be defended to the death, but banning religion is a-ok. Calling a Muslim a dogmatic, insensitive asshole is fine, but don't you dare call an atheist that! Some people who criticize religion for hypocrisy, inciting hatred and attacking free speech are unaware of falling into those same traps.


I am offended by both acts. Satanism (or at least the Crowley version) is a sham, on par with the great lie of religion. I have some sympathy for LaVeyan Satanism, but I wouldn't choose to adhere to it purely because of the practice of its rituals. Self-empowerment and all that I agree with. Banning a video game because of some bad language is pure stupidity and just shows how religious people (a) think they're right and (b) want to impose it on the rest of us. Wrong example to choose.

Also if you're talking about the Norwegian church burnings, they were performed by black metal musicians who more likely than not adhered to near-paganist beliefs, and who had more sympathy with their Norse/Viking/Scandinavian ancestry than with the Christian construct of "satan".

I certainly hope you're not lumping atheists in with Satanists. I've never heard an atheist advocate burning a church. I've never heard an atheist say destroying an object or place of worship was "fine" (strangely, idol burning was and is quite popular - can anyone say Bamiyan Buddha?)

Lastly, a Muslim may be dogmatic, an asshole or both, and an atheist may be dogmatic (highly unlikely - the whole concept of atheism denounces dogmatism), an asshole or both. And I'd point out the fact to both of them equally. Not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

Banning religion has never been on any atheist's agenda. Sure, I'd like to see it replaced by scientific enquiry and rational thought, but I would never impose my views on anyone, and certainly not construct a legal code and system of morals around it.

You've got so many strawmen there you want to be careful when putting out your cigarette.

Quote:
I'm fully aware religions of the world have tons of problems and need to be called out on them, but I just wish it didn't result in "Yeah, fuck religion in the ass!" redundancy.

[/rant]

Sorry about that, carry on.


Equating atheism (or at least anti-religionism) with puerile name calling is just wrong man. I hope I haven't concluded by saying "fuck religion in the ass". That's beneath me. Calling religion on its flaws, shortcomings and even lies is to me sensible and laudable. After all, religion had it good for more than a few millennia, time for its comeuppance I reckon.

Top
 Profile  
alexanderthegreat
Metal Barbarian Dinosaur

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:34 pm
Posts: 1916
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:14 pm 
 

incarcerated_demon wrote:
Does that mean we're sufficiently advanced now to give up the idea of religion? I'm not criticising your point, just asking. If you equate or at least correlate progress with religion, surely advances in science have replaced at least the mystical function of religion in some way.


They have for many people, but like scientific theories there are always some who simply disagree with the evidence that's been provided. Paradigm shifts always have people who cling to the old ways.

Quote:
I completely agree with some of the good things religion have done. The magnificence of the Sistine Chapel for example. Religion has undoubtedly enriched the fabric of world human society immeasurably - art, literature, etc. However, when it starts expounding supernatural beliefs as truth, and telling people to live their lives according to these revealed truths, that's when I have a problem with religion.


People should really be intelligent enough to make their own minds up. Western society takes pride in freedom and choice, which even the most dogmatic Christian will at least have been exposed to. Anyone who would choose not to follow Christianity would move away from it when they realized it wasn't for them: it's just unfortunate that parents and family members have so much strife over the issue. Raiding children as Christians is complicated and I don't really know one way or the other whether kids should be raised in a religion at all, but whatever creates the most stable home environment should take precedence.

Quote:
Also, equating religion with morality is a path fraught with pitfalls - I don't think you want to take that route.


I think the idea of Christianity in most Christian's consciousness is largely different from a close reading of the scripture.

Quote:
Lastly, there are plenty of non-religious organisations that do good as well, charity is not the exclusive province of the religious.


I wasn't saying that it was. Indeed, a lot of charities that seem religious on paper are secular in practice.

Quote:
You've got so many strawmen there you want to be careful when putting out your cigarette.


I think you misunderstand, and I'm pretty sure I could've worded that better. I am not criticizing atheists, or lumping them in with satanists, or anything like that: I was criticizing the black metal cult kiddies who are basically just attacking religion and applauding acts of vandalism because they're rebellious teenagers wanking their e-penises - those people who actually say "fuck religion in the ass" and the like. You've quite clearly shown yourself to be an intelligent chap (most of the most vocal atheists here are), so you were not a target of those barbs.

I can accept and to an extent appreciate even strong criticism of religion when it's worded politely and intelligently, like you did: I just hate when it's some angry child spouting a load of garbage. Hence why it was a rant more than anything else.

I apologize for not being clearer. Hope that cleared things up. :)
_________________
Hitherto known as... The SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS.
The Cimmerian
The Blog That Time Forgot

Top
 Profile  
incarcerated_demon
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:22 pm 
 

Oh I see. Sorry for jumping on you then, I just thought it was a bit disingenuous to lump all anti-religion in together. Misunderstanding, all cleared up, no offence taken I hope :)

Basically angry children spouting loads of garbage shouldn't be tolerated - black metal kiddies or nice Christian boys alike :D Point made and taken.

Top
 Profile  
alexanderthegreat
Metal Barbarian Dinosaur

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:34 pm
Posts: 1916
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:01 pm 
 

Glad we can agree. :)
_________________
Hitherto known as... The SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS.
The Cimmerian
The Blog That Time Forgot

Top
 Profile  
Driotheri
Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:06 pm
Posts: 27
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:53 am 
 

Maybe you guys can help me out by shedding more insight into your views, because I am Catholic and don't by off chance know any real true Atheists.

What is it that inspires you guys to believe that religion and God are false, especially since the atrocities of religion were really caused by the faults of man? To me at the moment it seems that Atheists have the same amount of evidence that God doesn't exists as do religious adherent people that he does exist. I always believed in the concept of evolution as well as God creating us just because compassion seems such a complete waste of an emotion on the evolutionary scale. Hell, I never viewed Science as being a contender for universal truth since Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation.

Please don't compare Southern Baptists to Catholics or any other rational sect of Christianity. The Catholic Church for awhile has accepted that Evolution explains the physical creation of man but not the spiritual.

Top
 Profile  
LucifersWhiskey
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:40 am
Posts: 6
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:47 pm 
 

I'll try to answer your questions, although I consider myself more of an agnostic that dislikes organized religion than anything.

Quote:
What is it that inspires you guys to believe that religion and God are false, especially since the atrocities of religion were really caused by the faults of man?


I think you're missing the point here. I've never met an atheist that disbelieved in any specific religion because of atrocities committed by its adherents, it's generally used more as a reason for disliking it. I agree that it's easy to ignore the good people following a religion do while focusing on the bad, but doing the opposite as you seem to be is equally as illogical. Ultimately whether a religion is deemed to do good or bad by outsiders is irrelevant as it's humans committing both the charitable and the violent acts they do in the name of whatever dogma they adhere to, not the dogma itself. Just as god and the bible are used as a scapegoat to blame for the Spanish inquisition, they are also used by others to credit charitable acts which were done by humanity. To me a person should be judged on their own worth, not based on whatever religion they claim to follow or how closely they follow it.

On a whole religion is seen as illogical by atheists, which is why they reject it outright. A lack of any tangible evidence supporting the existence of a god makes it hard for a lot of people to believe in one, myself included.

Quote:
To me at the moment it seems that Atheists have the same amount of evidence that God doesn't exists as do religious adherent people that he does exist.


Here is where the problem lies for me; there really isn't any credible evidence pointing in either direction, unless you see the lack of evidence supporting the existence of a god as proof that there isn't one. If the evidence supporting a god's existence isn't there, where is the logic in believing in one?

Quote:
I always believed in the concept of evolution as well as God creating us just because compassion seems such a complete waste of an emotion on the evolutionary scale. Hell, I never viewed Science as being a contender for universal truth since Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation.


I always felt that as there really is no information regarding how everything began, jumping to any conclusion makes very little sense. After all, where did the material the big bang began from come into being? If the answer is god, where did that god come from? An infinite being that always existed isn't something I can sincerely believe in as it feels like an answer which was created without any semblance of evidence just to try and explain something humanity currently has no explanation for.

I think I ranted a bit too much there, hopefully something coherent came out of it.

Top
 Profile  
Driotheri
Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:06 pm
Posts: 27
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:07 pm 
 

Thanks for the response. I sort of understand that Atheist point of view even if I don't believe the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence unless it's the Iraq War.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9632
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:11 pm 
 

Splitting those posts from the "religious studies and the occult" because they were getting a little off-topic.

And there's a lot of material to refute in there but I'm lacking time right now... let's just say that I see a lot of very obvious fallacies.

Top
 Profile  
Gorgo
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 441
Location: Belgium
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:14 pm 
 

To react ot the post of alexander: No, it is not about that. I was referring to the Medieval ages, when christians ruled Europe. People were killed because they said the world was round, just because it did not fit in the ideology of christianity, same with anatomy, was also forbidden while it was the best way to understand the human body. (There where some exceptions, it was legal for some time, christians even helped, but it didn't last long).

Though I must say that we shouldn't bash on christianity as a whole. Christianity has good values, but it seems that mankind isen't ready to controle such influential power, it probably never will.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/midgaardslang
"Flemish Nationalistic Black Metal"

http://www.myspace.com/onrust1
"Acoustic music"

Top
 Profile  
goatmanejy
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 218
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:25 pm 
 

alexanderthegreat wrote:
Gorgo wrote:
I like to study religion because it lets me see the insanity of it. All the rules religious people invented because some sort of "god" wouldn't like it, it is really pathetic.


You mean back in the days when science, technology and the like was at the rubbing sticks and stones together level and "big thundering dude in the sky" was the most reasonable thing they could come up with?

Kind of unfair calling them pathetic, considering the stage of cultural development they were at.

[big rant coming up]

It baffles me how people can be so amazingly aggressive and spiteful towards religion as an institution. Treating it as the root of all human misery and evil as if it were some gigantic malignant tumour in the brain of society. It's never as simple as that. For all the holy wars, inquisitions, paedophile coverups, witchhunts and jihads, the universal rules espoused by religions can give rise to plenty of good too. Witness the various charities and organisations that ease suffering and hardship in the world, and the scientific and social advances of Christian institutions and scholars. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Another thing that amuses me is how terribly offended some people seem to get with Christianity. Burning a church in Satan's name is fine, but a Christian group calling for a ban on a video game is WRONG! Freedom of speech and expression is paramount and to be defended to the death, but banning religion is a-ok. Calling a Muslim a dogmatic, insensitive asshole is fine, but don't you dare call an atheist that! Some people who criticize religion for hypocrisy, inciting hatred and attacking free speech are unaware of falling into those same traps.

I'm fully aware religions of the world have tons of problems and need to be called out on them, but I just wish it didn't result in "Yeah, fuck religion in the ass!" redundancy.

[/rant]

Sorry about that, carry on.



Im in total agreement here. Religion, particularly Christianity, is treated unfairly by many people. I especially sympathize with the thing about people being offended by religion; I spend a large portion of my time online in the Yahoo Answers religion forum, and everyone there is so hateful and bigoted it scares me.
_________________
I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.
Lord Slop wrote:
Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:
"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Top
 Profile  
goatmanejy
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 218
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:27 pm 
 

Nya36 wrote:
alexanderthegreat wrote:
n be so amazingly aggressive and spiteful towards religion as an institution. Treating it as the root of all human misery and evil as if it were some gigantic malignant tumour in the brain of society. It's never as simple as that. For all the holy wars, inquisitions, paedophile coverups, witchhunts and jihads, the universal rules espoused by religions can give rise to plenty of good too. Witness the various charities and organisations that ease suffering and hardship in the world, and the scientific and social advances of Christian institutions and scholars. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Another thing that amuses me is how terribly offended some people seem to get with Christianity. Burning a church in Satan's name is fine, but a Christian group calling for a ban on a video game is WRONG! Freedom of speech and expression is paramount and to be defended to the death, but banning religion is a-ok. Calling a Muslim a dogmatic, insensitive asshole is fine, but don't you dare call an atheist that! Some people who criticize religion for hypocrisy, inciting hatred and attacking free speech are unaware of falling into those same traps.

I'm fully aware religions of the world have tons of problems and need to be called out on them, but I just wish it didn't result in "Yeah, fuck religion in the ass!" redundancy.


You, sir, I wish I had $1200 to fly to the UK and give you a, "at'ta boy" slap on the back along side a beer.But I can't really say at one point I wasn't also in the ranks pointing fingers and denouncing others for my own fulfillment.One can only hope to come to a better understanding with ones self and truly transcend.But then again, devolution is slowly in its stages.


I agree with both of you on all accounts.
_________________
I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.
Lord Slop wrote:
Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:
"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Top
 Profile  
goatmanejy
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 218
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:32 pm 
 

Interesting thought: Do you know how oddly counterstereotype it is that the troll-infested religion section of Yahoo! answers is so much less hateful, bigoted, and unitelligent than this forum on metal?
_________________
I Crown me Tarzan, King of Mars.
Lord Slop wrote:
Me likes loud music

Bezerko wrote:
"You're honour, I do believe that Slayer is fucking awesome. I rest my case."

Top
 Profile  
greysnow
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 am
Posts: 378
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:37 pm 
 

goatmanejy wrote:
Interesting thought: Do you know how oddly counterstereotype it is that the troll-infested religion section of Yahoo! answers is so much less hateful, bigoted, and unitelligent than this forum on metal?

You mean they're more hateful etc., right?
_________________
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell.

Top
 Profile  
incarcerated_demon
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:46 pm 
 

Lucifer's Whiskey has given some really good answers, I'll try and fill in a bit and give my own take on it.

Driotheri wrote:
What is it that inspires you guys to believe that religion and God are false, especially since the atrocities of religion were really caused by the faults of man?


Like LW said, that's a separate issue. To be honest, I use it to score points off religious nuts (and there are a lot of them around where I am) who claim that religion is good and god is good and bla bla bla. It's not a good argument, it's not a sound one, it's more a "your dad is poorer than mine" argument, but it sorta works to shut them up. But there's an underlying point: I recognise that humans are just that, humans. They will be good, they will bad, they will be strong, weak, fallible, annoying, pious, beautiful, talkative quiet violent rude etc. That's just it. Humans are humans. We are responsible for our doings and wrongdoings, and that's all there is to it.

Quote:
To me at the moment it seems that Atheists have the same amount of evidence that God doesn't exists as do religious adherent people that he does exist.


That's a very good point, and I agree with you that the correct rational position, the one that can be intellectually defended the easiest, is agnosticism - that is, there is no evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of god, so you maintain an aloof non-belief.

However I do agree with atheists on two things. One is that the burden of proof lies on the religious to prove god, not on the atheists to disprove him. Second, atheism has been misrepresented to mean belief in a non-god. Which is just wrong. It's not a 'belief' as such. It's more a weighing of all arguments for and against the existence of god, and coming to the conclusion that his non-existence is more likely than his existence.

Also there are different types of atheists. Some deny the existence of all supernatural powers. Some just deny the existence of god as conceptualised by the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Quote:
I always believed in the concept of evolution as well as God creating us just because compassion seems such a complete waste of an emotion on the evolutionary scale. Hell, I never viewed Science as being a contender for universal truth since Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation.


Evolution dispels the intelligent design argument used by theologians for yonks to prove the existence of god. Or it at least provides an alternative to it. A more viable alternative, one that has some scientific proof. Sure, you can poke holes in all the empirical evidence that has been cited, but the fact remains is that there is evidence backing up a theory. I have not yet come across a definitive comprehensive refutation of the evolution theory, and until there's one, I reckon god will just have to battle it out with evolution. Bear in mind, that atheists don't 'believe' in evolution, they just consider it a superior alternative to the god theory. There's a major difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compassion", care to explain that point?

Quote:
Please don't compare Southern Baptists to Catholics or any other rational sect of Christianity. The Catholic Church for awhile has accepted that Evolution explains the physical creation of man but not the spiritual.


Awww :) I wasn't going to.

it's funny you should bring up "spiritual", but I would have to ask you to clarify what you mean before jumping in and making a fool of myself.

Final words: I regard atheism as another facet of my being, not the sole reason for it. It's the logical progression of the way I think, or try to think at least. You know, being rational, logical, all the rest of it. I have a problem with divine revelation as truth, and believing in god only because you were brought up that way. To me, that does nothing to enhance the religious claims of universal truth.

Fuck, that's a long post.

Top
 Profile  
incarcerated_demon
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:01 pm 
 

LucifersWhiskey wrote:
Quote:
I always believed in the concept of evolution as well as God creating us just because compassion seems such a complete waste of an emotion on the evolutionary scale. Hell, I never viewed Science as being a contender for universal truth since Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation.


I always felt that as there really is no information regarding how everything began, jumping to any conclusion makes very little sense. After all, where did the material the big bang began from come into being? If the answer is god, where did that god come from? An infinite being that always existed isn't something I can sincerely believe in as it feels like an answer which was created without any semblance of evidence just to try and explain something humanity currently has no explanation for.


Well, as far as I understand (read: very fucking little!), the whole thing about the big bang is that something came out of nothing, at the point of singularity. Basically, at t (time) = 0, time did not exist and the laws of physics were not the laws of physics as we know it today. Also, if you read up on some theories of the universe, one claims that universe expansion and contraction creates universes. I think, the theory goes that the universe expands, stops, then contracts - which means all that matter is compressed into that point of singularity, and then the whole process starts again. Don't ask me, I know this at very rudimentary levels - in fact I hope I haven't cocked it up immensely. I stand to be corrected here.

Like I said, atheism is more about trying to find the truth instead of claiming to have the truth. "Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation" - yes, at the moment. But to posit god as the answer is just wrong to me on a gut level, as it's a pretty big logical leap to make. "We don't know, therefore god". Sorry, I can't subscribe to that.

Top
 Profile  
Driotheri
Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:06 pm
Posts: 27
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:13 pm 
 

incarcerated_demon wrote:
Evolution dispels the intelligent design argument used by theologians for yonks to prove the existence of god. Or it at least provides an alternative to it. A more viable alternative, one that has some scientific proof. Sure, you can poke holes in all the empirical evidence that has been cited, but the fact remains is that there is evidence backing up a theory. I have not yet come across a definitive comprehensive refutation of the evolution theory, and until there's one, I reckon god will just have to battle it out with evolution. Bear in mind, that atheists don't 'believe' in evolution, they just consider it a superior alternative to the god theory. There's a major difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compassion", care to explain that point?


Well, from what I understand the whole Intelligent Design was just a cheap way to bypass the ban of Creation being taught in school. Southern Baptists tend to interpret the Bible a little too literally, that's why in America we still have a bunch of people disputing evolution while in Europe we have shitbricking on why America is so vehement against evolution.

One of the few things I researched awhile ago for a project was Science and Catholic Church, John Paul II accepted that Evolution is a sound explanation why humans look like we do. However he also stated that evolution does not account for our spirits and God created our spirits. So it's pretty much a God created your sole, and your body is the result of beneficial adaptations. Personally I thought that was a decent explanation because compassion or other noble emotions like sacrifice seem contradictory to the goal of evolution which I see it as passing off your offspring. I find it odd that humans are willing to sacrifice the chance to ensure their genetic survival for someone else's genetic survival which is really what anything we ever do is. Other animals probably do it, but I don't believe to the extent of which man can and has done.

I may have gone in circles, I apologize if I did.

Top
 Profile  
BM_DM
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:47 am
Posts: 65
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:23 pm 
 

alexanderthegreat wrote:
[big rant coming up]Witness the various [religious] charities and organisations that ease suffering and hardship in the world, and the scientific and social advances of Christian institutions and scholars. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The fact that some humans want to help other humans is great - but let's do it in the name of our common humanity rather than an invisible, fictitious deity.

alexanderthegreat wrote:
Another thing that amuses me is how terribly offended some people seem to get with Christianity.[...] Calling a Muslim a dogmatic, insensitive asshole is fine, but don't you dare call an atheist that! Some people who criticize religion for hypocrisy, inciting hatred and attacking free speech are unaware of falling into those same traps.

The less mannered atheist may call adherents of any religion assholes as a time-saving device, but I understand why people get angry at religions per se when you consider all the time, effort, resources and human capital that are wasted in propagating their respective fantasies in a world where we wilfully neglect to set right so many things that are potentially in humanity's power to correct.

Atheists only tend to take offence when The Elect want to deny them the right to use their powers of reason. When an atheist denounces a theist, they speak up for free-thinking in the name of those who wish to promote it against those who wish to deny it.

To be a 'free-thinking [theist of any stripe]' is a contradiction in terms.

If we could all wake up tomorrow in a world where no religion had ever existed, do you seriously think it wouldn't be a better place?
_________________
Gerhilde wrote:
Hojotoho! Hojotoho! Heiaha! Heiaha!

Top
 Profile  
BobSaget
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:42 pm 
 

Good people do good things, religion seldom begets good things, it's the individual. By claiming religion creates benevolent and altruistic stimuli is degrading to the individual (as if we are not capable of the aforementioned without a platform in religion), and furthermore whitewashes religious history.

However, I do greatly appreciate religious organizations that mobilize for great deeds.. In this case, religion is a platform for good things.. solidarity and fraternity!

Top
 Profile  
incarcerated_demon
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:08 pm 
 

Driotheri wrote:
incarcerated_demon wrote:
Evolution dispels the intelligent design argument used by theologians for yonks to prove the existence of god. Or it at least provides an alternative to it. A more viable alternative, one that has some scientific proof. Sure, you can poke holes in all the empirical evidence that has been cited, but the fact remains is that there is evidence backing up a theory. I have not yet come across a definitive comprehensive refutation of the evolution theory, and until there's one, I reckon god will just have to battle it out with evolution. Bear in mind, that atheists don't 'believe' in evolution, they just consider it a superior alternative to the god theory. There's a major difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compassion", care to explain that point?


Well, from what I understand the whole Intelligent Design was just a cheap way to bypass the ban of Creation being taught in school. Southern Baptists tend to interpret the Bible a little too literally, that's why in America we still have a bunch of people disputing evolution while in Europe we have shitbricking on why America is so vehement against evolution.


I didn't realise that there was a difference between ID and Creationism - could you explain please?

Quote:
One of the few things I researched awhile ago for a project was Science and Catholic Church, John Paul II accepted that Evolution is a sound explanation why humans look like we do. However he also stated that evolution does not account for our spirits and God created our spirits. So it's pretty much a God created your sole, and your body is the result of beneficial adaptations. Personally I thought that was a decent explanation because compassion or other noble emotions like sacrifice seem contradictory to the goal of evolution which I see it as passing off your offspring. I find it odd that humans are willing to sacrifice the chance to ensure their genetic survival for someone else's genetic survival which is really what anything we ever do is. Other animals probably do it, but I don't believe to the extent of which man can and has done.



I think there's a critical misunderstanding of evolution, and it's a very easy one to fall into. Firstly, evolution happens at a purely genetic level, and I don't reckon that there is a 'gene of compassion'. You can't ascribe intentions or anthropomorphise a gene. Secondly, evolution is purely reactionary. There is no intention behind it. There is no hidden hand. It just happens. There is no "goal of evolution" as you put it. I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you, but that's the way I can see it. Maybe you had a different point, but put it slightly inaccurately.

I agree with you that evolution describes the body. However, the "soul" (which I don't believe in), or using your examples, compassion, nobility, can be explained on purely social grounds, nor does it conflict with evolution and "survival of the fittest" (to put it colloquially). Nobility and sacrifice and altruism were explained by some biologist to show some extraordinary strength of character, that would have been desirable to both the society and to members of the opposite sex. Taking the example of altruism, he reckoned that a person who could afford to be altruistic would be seen as "stronger" than a person who couldn't afford to be. It's like, look at me, I can afford to give to charity, or I can afford not to stab my enemy, I must be "stronger". I can't find better words (fuck!) but I hope you understand what I'm babbling on about. Also remember if you wanted to couch this in evolutionary terms, our showboating bragging altruistic macho man only had to survive long enough to pass on his genes to a female, not to survive to the ripe old age of whenever. ANYWAY, it's an explanation, again preferable to me than just "god made my soul".

it's funny though. Something I read (or watched). Modern mankind has always disobeyed his "selfish gene", his apparent instincts for survival. That's why we do things purely for aesthetics or pleasure, like using condoms when having sex, or making art, or engaging in philosophy, instead of basically trying to fuck everyone you meet and kill all your rivals so that your gene survives.

Top
 Profile  
Driotheri
Butthurt

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:06 pm
Posts: 27
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:49 pm 
 

Sorry about the confusion. Intelligent Design is Creation with another name, that's what it really is except one can be taught in schools and the other one can't.

I understand that evolution is a reactionary process that changes species as a whole in order to survive in a changing world. While I do like your theory on altruism, I don't exactly agree with it because I can't see it working the further back in time we go. It seems a bit iffy to me but that could also be the result that I sort of find it a bit hard to believe that we exist due to billions upon trillions of random occurrences between bacteria and us, I guess that's just me thinking it's very irrational (sort of like Atheists and God).

On the topic of Christianity as a religion I fully support the notion that it has been more helpful than hurtful. People have mentioned the repression of scientific knowledge but even as that happened religion sponsored the creation of music, arts as well as spreading education to places where it might have not had the opportunity. I also believe it is a helpful check against greed. I don't think society would be any better if we believed that whatever we did for ourselves was good and fuck the little man.

Top
 Profile  
SigurdOrSiegfried
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:25 am
Posts: 65
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:09 am 
 

Driotheri wrote:
Sorry about the confusion. Intelligent Design is Creation with another name, that's what it really is except one can be taught in schools and the other one can't.

I understand that evolution is a reactionary process that changes species as a whole in order to survive in a changing world. While I do like your theory on altruism, I don't exactly agree with it because I can't see it working the further back in time we go. It seems a bit iffy to me but that could also be the result that I sort of find it a bit hard to believe that we exist due to billions upon trillions of random occurrences between bacteria and us, I guess that's just me thinking it's very irrational (sort of like Atheists and God).

On the topic of Christianity as a religion I fully support the notion that it has been more helpful than hurtful. People have mentioned the repression of scientific knowledge but even as that happened religion sponsored the creation of music, arts as well as spreading education to places where it might have not had the opportunity. I also believe it is a helpful check against greed. I don't think society would be any better if we believed that whatever we did for ourselves was good and fuck the little man.


For life to begin, the basic building blocks such as amino acids and sugars must've been formed somewhere on Earth. A famous attempt to reconstruct how life might've formed was done by American scientist Stanley Miller in 1953. He took a closed flask containing a solution with composition corresponded closely with what the conditions of life where on primitive Earth. (He filled flask with ammonia, methane, hydrogen etc. all gases floating around in atmosphere). To stimulate the effect of lightning, volcanic activity and sunlight, the flask was heated and sparked(two electrodes were used). The contents of the flask were promising, three of the most common amino acids found in living systems had formed(they are glycine, aspartic acid, alanine).

I'm sure many other attempts have been tried to reconstruct how life began. Here's an interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/12/science/12POLI.html
This synthesis of virus is a good step. This, perhaps bacteria and gradually prokaryotes.

Edit: The Miller experiment may be old(I think 51 years old) but its still one of the most prominent arguements for biogenisis. It proved organic compounds could be formed through non-organic processes.
_________________
LOLWUT

Top
 Profile  
Osmium
The Hateful Raven

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:18 am
Posts: 2521
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:14 am 
 

Driotheri wrote:
Sorry about the confusion. Intelligent Design is Creation with another name, that's what it really is except one can be taught in schools and the other one can't.


Actually, Intelligent Design cannot be taught in school either. The Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District ruling stated that teaching Intelligent Design is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow.

Top
 Profile  
SigurdOrSiegfried
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:25 am
Posts: 65
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:39 am 
 

incarcerated_demon wrote:
LucifersWhiskey wrote:
Quote:
I always believed in the concept of evolution as well as God creating us just because compassion seems such a complete waste of an emotion on the evolutionary scale. Hell, I never viewed Science as being a contender for universal truth since Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation.


I always felt that as there really is no information regarding how everything began, jumping to any conclusion makes very little sense. After all, where did the material the big bang began from come into being? If the answer is god, where did that god come from? An infinite being that always existed isn't something I can sincerely believe in as it feels like an answer which was created without any semblance of evidence just to try and explain something humanity currently has no explanation for.


Well, as far as I understand (read: very fucking little!), the whole thing about the big bang is that something came out of nothing, at the point of singularity. Basically, at t (time) = 0, time did not exist and the laws of physics were not the laws of physics as we know it today. Also, if you read up on some theories of the universe, one claims that universe expansion and contraction creates universes. I think, the theory goes that the universe expands, stops, then contracts - which means all that matter is compressed into that point of singularity, and then the whole process starts again. Don't ask me, I know this at very rudimentary levels - in fact I hope I haven't cocked it up immensely. I stand to be corrected here.

Like I said, atheism is more about trying to find the truth instead of claiming to have the truth. "Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation" - yes, at the moment. But to posit god as the answer is just wrong to me on a gut level, as it's a pretty big logical leap to make. "We don't know, therefore god". Sorry, I can't subscribe to that.



No, that is the basic idea. According to the Big Bang model, as you travel forward in time, space expands. If we want to look back in time, we just reverse the expansion. If we go back, the Universe should be much smaller, and so the net density of the matter and energy in the Universe would increase (as there is less volume to put inside the same amount of matter an energy, since neither can be created or destroyed). If you go waaay back, the Universe was very hot, small, and dense that normal matter the way we know now was unrecognizable, it assumed the form of a quark-gluon plasma, simply an extremely dense soup of particles so hot that they can't even form into neutrons, protons, or electrons.

If you go back a further still, our current laws of physics stop functioning, the mathematical models stop making any sense at all. This is the period between T=0 and T=10^-43, a small, tiny fraction of a second, and like you mentioned this is singularitary: a point where the current rules no longer apply, and this is the part scientists are confused about.

From this model, scientists can make inferences and test their results.
_________________
LOLWUT

Top
 Profile  
The_Beast_in_Black
Metal freak

Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:34 am
Posts: 7741
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:36 am 
 

I am strongly anti-religion, but absolutely not anti-spirituality. People can have their beliefs, they can discuss them, but if they form some sort of dogmatic institution or try to force their views on others then it goes from okay to wrong.

I don't believe in God or gods for the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns. There's no evidence. I think it's quite possible there is some sort of supernatural thing beyond our understanding; I don't claim to know what lies beyond, I'm just damn sure nobody else knows either.

I'm of the opinion that people are allowed to believe what they like, I won't respect all those beliefs, but it's an important human right. However, I dislike people who preach their faith or belief, be they hardcore theist or militant atheist.

That said, if some jackass Christian fundamentalist starts posting YouTube videos "refuting" evolution or some shit, I'll return fire. I'll do so intelligently, though, not with name-calling.
_________________
gomorro wrote:
Fortunately the seminar started and when it finished, I runed away like if Usain Bolt were about to rape me.

Top
 Profile  
Osmium
The Hateful Raven

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:18 am
Posts: 2521
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:34 pm 
 

Driotheri wrote:
I understand that evolution is a reactionary process that changes species as a whole in order to survive in a changing world.


A key idea to grasp here is that evolution is not goal-oriented: natural selection favors those organisms (and genes) that are capable of survival and reproduction out of a given population. It does not seek to keep any species around. The wording might seem like hair-splitting, but it's a very crucial distinction.

Quote:
While I do like your theory on altruism, I don't exactly agree with it because I can't see it working the further back in time we go. It seems a bit iffy to me but that could also be the result that I sort of find it a bit hard to believe that we exist due to billions upon trillions of random occurrences between bacteria and us, I guess that's just me thinking it's very irrational (sort of like Atheists and God).


Altruism is perfectly explicable in terms of kin selection, which is just a logical extension of individual selection. Studies in Belding ground squirrels have shown that squirrels that are closely related are more likely to expose themselves to danger by warning fellow squirrels of predators. This makes sense: if we think of evolution at the level of the gene, then helping out a close relative even at a cost to yourself will increase the overall fitness of the genes that you share. Now, kin selection--which leads to altruistic acts--is a very basic and well-supported theory. It's certainly not enough to account for human morality, but it's a good starting point, and demonstrates that evolution can generate altruism.

Some researchers have proposed that human morality is an extension of kin selection and evolved as a result of inter-tribal warfare. If you read the Old Testament, you will find that genealogy is of extreme importance, and while the Israelites must treat each other ethically, they are often given commands to treat their enemies in extremely brutal ways. This is consistent with the kin selection model. It doesn't explain universal human morality, but it's obviously consistent with the fact that we act much more ethically toward members of an in-group rather than the out-group.

Regarding "random" events, you have to remember that for all the random events that occur, only those that are beneficial to the organism's reproduction are selected for. While mutation provides the necessary ingredients for natural selection, natural selection is far from random: it is undirected, but very specific, selecting only those genes which assist fitness.

Quote:
On the topic of Christianity as a religion I fully support the notion that it has been more helpful than hurtful. People have mentioned the repression of scientific knowledge but even as that happened religion sponsored the creation of music, arts as well as spreading education to places where it might have not had the opportunity. I also believe it is a helpful check against greed. I don't think society would be any better if we believed that whatever we did for ourselves was good and fuck the little man.


You've set up a false dichotomy. Disbelieving in a deity does not necessitate extreme selfishness. Whether or not religion has been beneficial or harmful overall is irrelevant to whether it is true. Even if religion actually made people behave in desirable ways, which I will not grant without some argument, that would still not be an argument for its validity. I feel the epistemological, metaphysical, and empirical problems of religion weigh heavily in favor of atheism.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9632
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:50 pm 
 

On second thought, I think I'm going to sit back and let Osmium do the grunt work of refutation for me. He's better at it than I am, and far more patient. :)

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:58 pm 
 

Also, religious institutions having a positive contribution to society does not necessarily make the religious beliefs held by said religion to be true, positive or meaningful.

As a result I do not necessarily regard them as the 'enemy', as there is some crossover in political ideology, even if my political beliefs are rooted in the empirical rather than spiritual, or so I like to think.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
Osmium
The Hateful Raven

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 2:18 am
Posts: 2521
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:59 pm 
 

Grugghhhh... Osmium refute misconceptions... Gruuughhh... Osmium get food...

More on kin selection: the following mathematical condition is used to determine whether an act of altruism is likely to occur:

rb > c

where r is the level of relatedness of the two (or multiple) organisms, b is the net fitness benefit to those organisms, and c is the cost to the actor in terms of fitness. So, say that a squirrel is hanging out with its siblings and it sees a predator approach. Since the level of relatedness (the amount of genes that are shared) is 1/2 between the actor-squirrel and its siblings, you multiply that times the likelihood that an alarm call will prevent the predator from eating the squirrels and then compare that to the likelihood of the actor-squirrel getting eaten. If rb is greater than c, then an altruistic act is likely to occur.

Top
 Profile  
incarcerated_demon
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:02 pm 
 

Thanks Osmium, you word it better than me, plus you have concrete examples to back up what you're saying :)

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:06 pm 
 

I know it sounds like total arse-kissing but scarcely in real life do I meet people who are a hotbed of information and a total fucking machine at refuting other people's arguments.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
opprobrium_9
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 98
Location: Heard and McDonald Islands
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:23 pm 
 

alexanderthegreat wrote:
Witness the various charities and organisations that ease suffering and hardship in the world


This actually is a problem. And it might seem a ridiculous argument coming from a more-or-less well fed mouth. However, this pro-life pro-health bullshit is exactly the kind of problem that, not necessarily exacerbates religious problems (although that may be some of it), but it exacerbates humanity's problems. Sure, if i was poor and hungry, i would want food, its only natural; but, it is a problem that we have the poor and hungry, the infirm that cannot cure their own infirmities, etc. Why is this? Because there are too many humans. Pro-life social diktats exacerbate the population problem, and supplying need to the needy is a self-fulfilling ruination of this planet. The more of us that are healthy, the more will be demanded of the planet, the more the planet will buckle under the influence of the human stain. Furthermore, with more well off, there will be certain overpopulation of poor individuals. There shouldn't be enough of us that there is a homeless, moneyless, incurable for lack of monetary capability, etc population on this earth.

Good will can only go so far, if they were realists they would see the very palpable problem THEY THEMSELVES exacerbate. Sure there may be environmentally inclined religious people, that is all well and good - though that should be the entirety of their contributions. Doing good for the end result of doing good only appeals to the ego, like it or not, agree with it or not, and fulfills only to that point. There needs to be another element: realism - what makes sense given our population, lack of resources, pollution, etc. Does feeding the flame make sense? FUCK NO!

Pro-life Pro-health needs to be given up for the sake of our quickly deteriorating home, THIS IS OUR HOME. If we allow moralities and social rulesets to sway all our thoughts this planet is only gonna get worse. If you can't survive, because: you're an idiot, you are so poor and cannot strive to build up to become financially stable, you live in a poor country (tough luck), etc. The world should not be helping these people, they should be weeded out and let they wither and die as is the natural way, just like the infirm animals in the wild meet their end QUICK. This is the problem here, the Judeo-christian moralities that dominate Western culture, not only informs a religious sense, but a social sense of guilt and impetus to act MORALLY - it has become ingrained. So in that sense, FUCK THAT, in that sense FUCK Judeo-Christianity and all those that it has influenced to act by a guilt-trip moral system. I don't care what those people do inside their churches, in their personal lives, but when their religion or their social sense of duty informs them to act on a Humanitarian global system then it becomes a problem. Those people at the bottom should be killed off by nature and amputated as a cancer of humanity - if they were born into the situation, well, sucks for them, seriously.

If i somehow lost all my money, if i lost all monetary connections, and did not have the motivation to build myself up, watch out for my well being so i could survive, you are damn well right i should be killed off too.

[/rant]

EDIT: I only read the first post so if this has already been brought up too bad, if it hasn't, good.
_________________
Earthcubed wrote:
I'ts gayer than a pack of lions making wuupy to a male horses with "DRONERIOT" branded in it's anus.

Irenicus wrote:
I beat a chink today at Microsoft internet checkers... The red dragon soars no more.

Top
 Profile  
incarcerated_demon
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:57 pm 
 

opprobrium_9 wrote:

This actually is a problem. And it might seem a ridiculous argument coming from a more-or-less well fed mouth. However, this pro-life pro-health bullshit is exactly the kind of problem that, not necessarily exacerbates religious problems (although that may be some of it), but it exacerbates humanity's problems. Sure, if i was poor and hungry, i would want food, its only natural; but, it is a problem that we have the poor and hungry, the infirm that cannot cure their own infirmities, etc. Why is this? Because there are too many humans. Pro-life social diktats exacerbate the population problem, and supplying need to the needy is a self-fulfilling ruination of this planet. The more of us that are healthy, the more will be demanded of the planet, the more the planet will buckle under the influence of the human stain. Furthermore, with more well off, there will be certain overpopulation of poor individuals. There shouldn't be enough of us that there is a homeless, moneyless, incurable for lack of monetary capability, etc population on this earth.

Good will can only go so far, if they were realists they would see the very palpable problem THEY THEMSELVES exacerbate. Sure there may be environmentally inclined religious people, that is all well and good - though that should be the entirety of their contributions. Doing good for the end result of doing good only appeals to the ego, like it or not, agree with it or not, and fulfills only to that point. There needs to be another element: realism - what makes sense given our population, lack of resources, pollution, etc. Does feeding the flame make sense? FUCK NO!

Pro-life Pro-health needs to be given up for the sake of our quickly deteriorating home, THIS IS OUR HOME. If we allow moralities and social rulesets to sway all our thoughts this planet is only gonna get worse. If you can't survive, because: you're an idiot, you are so poor and cannot strive to build up to become financially stable, you live in a poor country (tough luck), etc. The world should not be helping these people, they should be weeded out and let they wither and die as is the natural way, just like the infirm animals in the wild meet their end QUICK. This is the problem here, the Judeo-christian moralities that dominate Western culture, not only informs a religious sense, but a social sense of guilt and impetus to act MORALLY - it has become ingrained. So in that sense, FUCK THAT, in that sense FUCK Judeo-Christianity and all those that it has influenced to act by a guilt-trip moral system. I don't care what those people do inside their churches, in their personal lives, but when their religion or their social sense of duty informs them to act on a Humanitarian global system then it becomes a problem. Those people at the bottom should be killed off by nature and amputated as a cancer of humanity - if they were born into the situation, well, sucks for them, seriously.

If i somehow lost all my money, if i lost all monetary connections, and did not have the motivation to build myself up, watch out for my well being so i could survive, you are damn well right i should be killed off too.

[/rant]

EDIT: I only read the first post so if this has already been brought up too bad, if it hasn't, good.


This is rather offtopic, maybe the subject of another thread split. I'd just like to say that I HAVEN'T been brought up in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and yet I believe that there is a bit more value in humanity than just measuring them by whether they can survive or not.

Also, there are very good practical reasons not to follow your way of thinking. The French Revolution took place because of the discontentment of the have-nots against the haves. The apocryphal anecdote of Marie Antoinette and her "let them eat cake", for example. Like it or not, there is power in a collective, and when the majority is poor and deprived, and you're sat there with fifteen cars, well, who can blame them for feeling resentment and rising up against you.

Thirdly, you assume everyone starts on equal footing, where everyone has his equal chance, if he can't hack it, "tough", to use your phrase. Well it doesn't work like that. Poverty and deprivation is a cycle, linked with economic factors and social, education and such forth. I don't think it is wrong to try and level the playing field a little, by giving access to education etc.

Fourthly, I think it's rather sweet you would willingly be killed off instead of accepting a helping hand. Maybe it's just me and my soft old heart, but I prefer to 'survive', even if it means accepting aid.

I do take your point about charity organisations. I think they create a culture of dependence, teach a man to fish and all that (whoopsy, a Biblical anecdote, will I be stoned to death by opprobrium_9?) I prefer to think education, investment that is fair and just, and involvement of the 'natives' in the rebuilding of their economy is more beneficial. I wholeheartedly disagree with your 'let them die' conclusion. Like I said, there's more value and resource in humans that just whether they can survive or not.

Top
 Profile  
opprobrium_9
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 98
Location: Heard and McDonald Islands
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:41 pm 
 

incarcerated_demon wrote:
Like it or not, there is power in a collective, and when the majority is poor and deprived, and you're sat there with fifteen cars, well, who can blame them for feeling resentment and rising up against you.


clearly there is idiocy on many planes, and generally those people at the very top are almost more problematic. They, in my opinion, should also be amputated, for they are clearly only self-serving and thus cancer. Secondly, on this point, they are likely to contribute to the cycle of Humanitarianism, again to self-serve and push away guilt.

Quote:
Thirdly, you assume everyone starts on equal footing, where everyone has his equal chance


i would be interested if you could refer me to the point where i said this, or even implied it.

Quote:
Continued:
if he can't hack it, "tough", to use your phrase. Well it doesn't work like that. Poverty and deprivation is a cycle, linked with economic factors and social, education and such forth. I don't think it is wrong to try and level the playing field a little, by giving access to education etc.


I agree, equal education should be given. I agree, leveling the playing field should be done to some degree. However, it is how those individuals use that education, how those individuals use that leveling. If they are generally only self-serving to survive, pro-create, eat, and all the rest, then there is very little value in supplying those individuals with any kind of support. I am a firm believer in a strong educational system, all humanity needs it. Again, it is how they use this. If they cannot claim their destiny and rise above the basics of survival - whether that means scrounging around for food to any other completely self-serving existence - then they clearly don't deserve any help that can be given them and are wasting valuable resources. If they give nothing to posterity but 4 to 12 children they are filth, even if one of those children goes off to be an amazing groundbreaking something-or-other. Further, if incited by the parent's moral system and also following by example, it would take an extraordinary individual to rise up from the dirt like that - and i am not saying that it doesn't happen. However, this is clearly problematic as most of the 3 to 11 other children will not rise to some level of meaning by the laws of logic (there are irregularities, of course).

Quote:
Fourthly, I think it's rather sweet you would willingly be killed off instead of accepting a helping hand. Maybe it's just me and my soft old heart, but I prefer to 'survive', even if it means accepting aid.


Why not tout and ideology if you cannot live up to its standards personally? If i cannot overcome, i by nature, should be destroyed, it is the natural way. Humanism is not - it has become the natural way, or the striven for and praised ideal, for humanity by the point in our history though (for quite some time actually).


I must excuse myself as i was not all inclusive. I apologize, i come from Western culture, so my natural instinct is to first apply to this culture my judgment, as it were. I left out many different peoples of the earth, again my apologies, as this problem certainly circulates through the veins of every country in some way or another - certainly correct on your part. But then again, considering even the most obscure locations are already starting to be heavily westernized... well i won't get into that because it is another discussion.

In anycase the reason why i brought it up was because i was relating it to Judeo-Christian influence.

Quote:
(whoopsy, a Biblical anecdote, will I be stoned to death by opprobrium_9?)


:lol: i don't care what religion you are or what you reference to make points.

Quote:
I prefer to think education, investment that is fair and just, and involvement of the 'natives' in the rebuilding of their economy is more beneficial. I wholeheartedly disagree with your 'let them die' conclusion. Like I said, there's more value and resource in humans that just whether they can survive or not.


I don't disagree with this statement, but it depends on how much they nurture the leech as opposed to building to overcome.
_________________
Earthcubed wrote:
I'ts gayer than a pack of lions making wuupy to a male horses with "DRONERIOT" branded in it's anus.

Irenicus wrote:
I beat a chink today at Microsoft internet checkers... The red dragon soars no more.

Top
 Profile  
WakeLift
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:00 am
Posts: 17
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:09 pm 
 

Its fine that religion provided the foundation of morale and beliefs...back then.

Now that we have tangible evidence and are capable of doing so much, theres no need to believe that a higher power orchestrates our lives. Especially one that a person only believes in because they haven't seen them, thus one can't prove or disprove the existence of that god.

The latter reason alone should help people see just how frivolous the whole concept of religion is.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crick, darkeningday, IntoNevermore, jugchord07, martinsane, PvtNinjer, TheStormIRide and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group