well, and I mean this sincerely, you just listed a bunch of culty stuff, so my question and yours have both been answered. I'm just some useless fuck who's trying to get to 100 reviews and then bow out, so its not like any of this mattes; it's just a refreshing debate. I dont have any skin in the game, other than preferring a version of things we used to have, rather than now when everything's a mess. Things were periodically less messed up in the beforetimes.

on the topic of atheism, I never met an atheist who wasn't also x y z other stuff, and you can usually predict it all fairly easily. They usually all say atheism is the default cognitive position for thinking humans, and then they say OTHER atheists are like this, 'but i'm not like that'

so in those ways atheism is a bit culty. All the other stuff is too. I dont think any human can be free of embedded biases, what can you do?

I guess I just don't like the word "cult". As a "cult" is a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object. But yet again there are Spiritualist Athiests and even though I consider myself an Athiest I don't assume everyone without a belief in God(s) is the ultimate intelligence, hell I dated a girl who hated the Thiestic just because it was the "metal" thing to do.

yah well atheism is a cult, sorry bro. I think people are just hardwired to certain things, maybe someone will comment on free will. maybe we are all enslaved to our beliefs by mechanisms we cant see

Ayn Rand, Jan Bockelson, Bolsheviks, Jacobinists - if you want to know what an atheist cult is, look into these nasty examples.



The reality is change. The progress itself is difficult to define and some things viewed as progressive in the West, might be seen as regressive in the East. Nevertheless, history shows us that nothing is permanent - every empire ultimately collapsed. Imagine a WWIII where North Korea, China and Russia win (or some islamic theocracy). Would that be progress and how do we know for sure something like this won't happen? Why are we so sure that Western civilization has no end? (Someone mentioned Nietzsche who saw history as cyclical).

If you ask me, there is no progress within ecocidal humanity on this planet. So called Anthropocene era is anything but progressive.

Progress is relative to a goal; I'm not sure how to make sense of just the term "progress" by itself. Progress is towards something, and getting clear on that "something" amounts to understanding (or establishing) the purpose of one's life.

The purpose of life need not be something mystical or transcendent (at least, not without argument). Many people are content to pursue the ideals aimed at by relationships, science/technology, art/entertainment, and politics - these are elusive enough anyway. (But sometimes religion has a way of creeping in the back door as a person wonders "What's left?" when all those goods are more-or-less attained. There's a famous essay by Tolstoy in which he has an existential crisis at the height of his fame and fortune, and thus turns to Christianity.)

edit: Here's a bit of commentary on the Tolstoy essay: https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/06/03/tolstoy-confession/

Atheism is not a "cult", nor is theism a "cult". There are plenty of cults out there, and those cults can be atheistic or theistic in nature (usually theistic), but the idea that some general descriptor is equivalent to a cult is absolutely nonsense. Sorry, bro.

I mean I kind of believe the idea of God in and of itself is nothing more than disavowal of the fact that humans and nature are the only things phenomena can be attributed to ("there's no way something could do such a thing, there MUST be something bigger I can't see...") so I am an atheist, but I don't believe addressing religion in a skeptical New Atheist sense is very intelligent. I don't see what makes atheism specifically cult-like any more than any certain "belief" one happens to arrive at, tbh. Atheism is like pragmatism, a corridor that connects various ways of observing and examining the world. Even Auselesspileofflesh's post doesn't quite cut it, they just separated various arbitrary categories of atheist and attributed behaviours towards them. In my experience those who make it into an identity are more interested in making anti-religious "gotchas" rather simply, you know, reaping the benefits of not having to feel like God needs bothering. Not incidentally, I don't really believe in consciousness either.

That said, better thinkers than I have wrestled with the idea of God and what he does in the world, to the world, and what is our relationship towards him. God as metaphor for how the world manifests itself to someone is a very compelling idea. But it seems ridiculous and invasive to me to insist on the metaphor to someone else. And a lot of proselytizing Christians are highly obnoxious and potentially fascistic, in my experience.

Well, if we're really going to be pragmatic - can we really attribute phenomena to "humans"? Right now, I don't see a human, I see arms typing. When I close my eyes or turn my head they are gone. So where's the human?

If we want to critique theism with any degree of impartiality, we should at least be consistent about what we believe.

DAMN, this thread has definitely gone over my head(not hard to do apparently) and generated a lot more of a response than I ever thought it would. I just seem to see a lot more people like myself whenever I'm at a show, which is a good thing. Birds of a feather? I guess I figured most of us would be non-believers.
But am I an atheist because I love black metal music, horror movies and books, Halloween, the Occult, European history, cemeteries, etc?
Or is it because I was born and raised in a catholic family that went to mass every Sunday and that sent us to catholic school? I definitely have memories of not believing any of it as young as 8 or 9 years old.
I wasn't made, I was born this way.

I've seen zero evidence for any god/gods, therefore, I'm an atheist.

Don't just state something like it's fact when it's not.

Atheism - a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Cult - a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object

These do not match, yes as I previously stated some atheists do have beliefs in sense of spirituality or the supernatural but to say as a whole that everyone who doesn't believe in god or gods is automatically in a cult is just very much a false characterization.

Exactly right. Grew up being told God was the almighty end of all days yet still do not see any proof or have any contact with him/her/it.
All power to those who find solace and conform it a belief system however the fact so many try to force it on others especially in politics and societal issues is what makes me despise organized religion in general. If your "peaceful" religion requires bloodshed and oppression then it doesn't deserve prosperity in our modern world.

Can I just say someone has misattributed a couple quotes to me? Just for the sake of discussion 2 points:

1: Atheism is a cult isn't a blank statement, it's kind of a statement that on its own terms atheism must be defined as a cult, on the basis of everything the atheists here have said themselves. it's up to you guys to turn that around, using your own commentaries. I don't think you can do it, which is why 'atheism is a cult'. I don't think the average person can parse it out, but anyway, I've made the comparison, someone else can provide a counterargument. I dont have the lived experience of strong atheism or satanism or anything else.

2: I didn't actually say I've seen no evidence therefore atheism, someone else said that. Actually there's evidence for everything, but I'd argue atheism has the least evidence of all. I would argue there is much more evidence for a misguided god or a cruel god than none at all. There might even be evidence for a decent god, but it's a long journey to get there.

You are trolling, right? Or you don't speak English.


Evidence of what?


What evidence are there?


There might be evidence, but there aren't?

Look, all this really belongs in 2005. If you need me to answer everything here you can start paying me. I've been completely reasonable so far, but don't accuse me of trolling. I prefer the people who respond thoughtfully. Anyway, thanks to those who gave some of their reasons for believing certain things. And now we have our token socially awkward Scandinavian materialist. What are the chances he's an engineer or computer scientist?

Um what? Least evidence for not being believing?

Lol why in that specific year?
And I think I'd rather pay for bitcoin to be honest matey

Several years ago, when my devoutly christian wife was still preaching at me about how I needed to "come to Jesus" in order to avoid hell and eternal torment, I asked her one simple question.
Why do christians always try to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat, and she said that was easy to answer. Because it says to do it in the Bible, the fucking bible. The best selling collection of fictional works ever published.

We were in the grocery store last week, and I was wearing an UNLEASHED shirt, As Yrddasil Trembles". Their logo has an inverted crucifix in it's center, and as we were going down an aisle, a woman passes us in the opposite direction, then suddenly needs to see my shirt again because of what she thought she saw. Yup, there it was.
She proceeded to tell us(me) that wearing that was inappropriate, and that Jesus loves me. Before I could say a single word, my wife had to tell her that she was a fellow "believer", and that we were just opposites on the subject. Then she tells us that she's an evangelist, and walks away saying that god still loves me.

If my wife hadn't been there, I would have told her where she could shove her holy book, and to mind her own fucking business.
They can't help themselves.

The question "What evidence is there that God exists?" increasingly strikes me as maybe an odd or borderline inapt question. To me it seems that not every aspect of the human experience demands to be legitimized by standard scientific/investigative/experimental procedure; in some ways, even some more-or-less strictly intellectual endeavors seem in principle unconcerned with it. (Like, it'd seem odd to ask for "evidence" that the past is real, that the number line goes on forever, that two wrongs don't make a right...)

In the case of God, the usual theological descriptors make it arguably meaningless to regard God's existence as varying shades of "probable" or "improbable" (rather than "necessary" or "impossible"); these are terms we might use in discussing cryptozoological species, lost cities, extraterrestrial life-forms, etc. - beings that would belong to many-membered classes, with finite careers in time, whose existence is brought about by other such beings.

I dunno, I generally steer clear of literature labeled "apologetics," as so many of its authors come off as ultra-conservative nincompoops, so I'm not at all well-acquainted with the controversy over what's called "evidentialism," but I imagine if I spent some time with it, I'd have to admit there were some compelling points.

Just some half-baked misgivings, anyway.

Yeah, stuff like this just makes no sense to me at all. If God loves everyone equally then how can wearing an inverted cross be inappropriate? How can anything be inappropriate? And this loving "God", who sees something wrong with being "inappropriate", he wants to punish us for it?



I have a feeling that if these evangelists thought even a little bit about what they're saying and realized it comes from a place of spite then there would have been no hatred towards Christianity in the first place, and no need for inverted crosses.

I dont think all evangelists operate from an instinct of spite. I mean some do, but a lot of them think they're right, and they may well be. Isn't odin a christ echo in the first place? a wooden cross or a wooden world tree, seems like a parallel rather than a competition. Wouldn't a satanist argue that odin, jesus, allah are avatars of each other? I'mot saying I believe that but, you know Yggdrasill, and a universal cosmic body are pretty similar conceptwise

But you can. These words read as if you would have been nasty to the lady and I see that as immature. An inverted cross is not Satanic, it is not even an evil symbol, it is the symbol of St. Peter who chose to be crucified upside down. So it is actually a good symbol and makes no sense to be hated by a "Christian". For a Christian to not know that shows a laziness that proves intelligence is not engaged with their beliefs. This info about the inverted cross can be found with a simple google search. So when you know you are right about something, what is the point of arguing?Genesis 30:39: "When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."I do not view anything of antiquity through a discarding lens. Anything of the past deserves to be remembered and understood for what it is. I view those religious texts as those societies best examples of trying to understand the world without the beauty of science and telling tall tales; two things mankind has proven to have a vetted interest in for as long as we have existed. I view religious texts like I view a photo album; snapshots in time of a people less educated to say the best. I do not mean that to disrespect those of yesteryear for we will all sound dumber than a bag of hammers as we progress towards enlightenment. However ... No matter how widespread the distribution of the Bible is, I fail to see the reverence for a book when even after being edited more times than countable to make it 'correct' left out 16 books about/by their Lord Jesus but still possesses a story where the main protagonist - 'God' - labels as a friend a man who would make Amon Göth stand in awe as a villain.

Read the story found in Judges, Chapter 19, all 30 verses. If you can defend "God's Friend" in that story - one complete with sexual slavery, childhood bondage, gangrape, victim blaming, torture and then human dismemberment - then you are a better person than I. Verse 25 is usually rendered as "...They raped her and abused her all night long until the morning." but the almighty Catholic sponsored King James Bible had the absolute audacity to render those same words as "'...and they came to know her..." - Yes, I bet they did. How despicable of a reading is that?

Oh, and just to make it even worse, the dismemberment conclusion comes without any description of rather the victim was already dead, so it could have begun at least while the beaten to near death sexual slave ( meaning a girl no older than 14 maybe ) was still alive.

The reason I harp on this story in particular is how realistic it sounds. There are parts of the Bible that explain moments from that time period, even correctly stating which king it was who led the charge on Babylon. It was not foretold but that is what happened. The book of Ruth has an entire chapter devoted to describing the weather throughout the year in Jerusalem, which you could ironically use to prove Jesus could not have been born any later than October, but still. I propose the Bible is 95% fiction and 5% embellishment of facts, think of it in how many fictional stories you have heard that took place in a real city. Mankind's fiction has always done that and the Bible is proof of that, but when you read it you might realize that unlike ridiculous stories - such as talking Donkey's, impossible genetic bottleneck of only 2 first humans, or Earth surviving 29K feet of water all over it, which a meteorologist could prove with zero difficulty would have created an atmospheric temperature as hot as the surface of the sun - Judges 19 reads like it could really happen.

Remember in that religion/culture there are some VERY despicable views on women and some are still practiced now in our enlightened age. So is it so hard to believe that something so evil, yet so apparently 'normal' to those less educated humans then, would have no problem corrupting humanity? ... To put another fine point on it, in the next chapter the man is questioned about his actions, says what he did proudly, gets instantly forgiven and then disappears from the Bible, never mentioned again despite being 56 other books to follow. 'God' made sure not include his son's - or his own if you believe in the Trinity - words of wisdom ( 16 Jesus-related Gospels ) but made damn sure you knew about the time he was watching some sick ass torture porn and called the catalyst his 'friend'.

The reason christians go apeshit whenever they see an inverted crucifix is because it's been adopted by Satanists as a symbol of mockery of their religion. I also have no problem being "rude" when someone insults me with their bullshit beliefs. Leave me the fuck alone, and I'll do likewise.

I'm not quire sure if the OP is under the assumption that atheism is congruent to metal or if they believe metal's themes require a worldview that welcomes religious beliefs. A lot of people make the misassumption that the theistic Satanism spoken about in many metal lyrics is monotheistic and inverse of Christianity.

Christianity is becoming radicalized and more appealing than Satanism for people making their entrance into extreme metal. The latter has become associated with the party culture that prioritizes drinking and socializing before playing an instrument proficiently.

Are we to conclude that a deity does not have a "finite career in time, whose existence..."? If so, why? How do we know this?

The story behind the God-concept (or rather concepts, plural) is long and complicated, and I'm definitely not familiar or acquainted with all of it, but AFAIK, there are few cases where God is viewed as finite, perishable, brought into existence by something else, etc.

A good list and brief explanation of the divine attributes as "standardly" or "classically" understood can be found here - https://iep.utm.edu/god-west/

On my phone at the moment, so I'll write more later.

--
Edited to add:

The way I look at the God-concept (at least that of traditional Western monotheism), what often motivates people to think of it in this way might be a combination of: (1) the sense that something is "problematic" or "imperfect" or "deficient" (etc.) about the universe itself, something that prompts a person to look at the world or the human experience and say, "Something doesn't make sense about this," "Something is wrong with this," etc.; and (2) the sense that no real "solution" to this can be found among the inhabitants or constituents of the universe itself, since these are what's problematic, deficient, etc. in the first place.

There's a common pattern of reasoning in what are called "cosmological" arguments for the existence of God: The world is understood to be made of so many finite, changing things which arise and perish and cause one another to change, and it's urged that nothing within the world - hence, nothing which is itself finite, changing, etc. - can be invoked to "answer the riddle" of the world itself. Whatever one thinks of this argumentative strategy, it implies that there may be "more to" reality than the sum total of finite, changing, perishable things - "something" that none of these descriptors apply to.

Watch out, people, we have a bad-ass here! Or possibly someone whose mom still makes him go to church every Sunday, and occasionally partakes on a bit of pot before posting.

So, atheism is a cult, eh? You really have no idea what atheism really is about, do you? Hint: cults and religions come with plenty of baggage. Atheism doesn't.

^ I don't think I could've said it any better myself.

Last time I checked, nonbelievers didn't start up the Crusades...or the Salem Witch Hunt...or the Spanish Inquisition

I mean, I could go on, but we'd be here until the end of time.

I'm an ex-Muslim Atheist. Born in a Muslim country, which means that "officially" everyone is Muslim by default, and in Islam apostasy is punishable by death, though fortunately most Islamic countries don't apply that (but it's still prison in most cases). I used to do the 5 daily prayers and the Ramadan fasting when I was a kid and growing up, but over time I just started growing tired of it. By 17 I was quite convinced of the absurdity of religion. There are many things that led to that but I think the biggest factor for me was this simple: if God doesn't need us in any way at all, then why does he order us to worship him? And if we don't, we'll burn in hell for all eternity? While he has the knowledge AND power to just stop that before hand. It makes no sense at all.
And that applies to Christianity I guess, and most religions in general.

Some of ideas I see expressed here in this thread are exactly the same as the ones coming from Muslims when debating Atheists in Arabic Facebook groups or whatever. I mean in theory they're all worshipping the same god, Christians and Muslims, but of course in reality it's totally different. In Islam they really spent a lot of time telling us about how Christians "distorted" their Bible and that it no longer was a divine message etc. etc. And in the Quran it says that Jesus was never crucified but that Allah put someone in his stead that looked like him, which fooled everyone into thinking he was crucified, while Jesus directly ascended to heaven.

All of this to say, why do you believers think that convincing Atheists of the existence of god automatically means that YOUR god is the correct one? The exact same arguments with the exact same wording come from basically all religions (at least the major ones). What makes YOUR religion the correct one among the other thousands of other religions? I mean, even within the same religion there are different branches that have their own branches and so on, that no only don't agree with each other, but even go to war with each other.

There's also that "Atheism is a cult/religion" thing always coming up, too, and then the usual "you can't prove that God doesn't exist." Which god are you even talking about? If one can't disprove the existence of your god, then does that make all other gods real?

That's just the last straw of a religious person, driven into a corner and triggering their flight-or-fight reflex. It also completely ignores the idea that the one making outrageously unlikely claims needs to bear the burden of proof. I didn't need people like Hitchens or Dawkins to help me realize there very likely is no god/gods, and I cannot fathom why that would mean I'm in a cult.

Cults and religions both have strong persons who know the thoughts of God, and talk to him daily. The only difference is that in a cult, that person is still alive. Atheism is just a rational idea that there's no proof for either of those, ever.

And no, I don't feel like bashing anyone's religious ideas, as long as they keep them to themselves. That's where the idea of a keyboard warrior atheist nerd comes from.

and therein lies the problem

many times, they can't

the whole keyboard warrior thing didn't manifest out of nowhere, it came from people getting sick and tired of religion shoving its nose where it's neither needed nor wanted, then having the nerve to act as if they're being persecuted (in their tax free mansions) just because reasonable people don't and won't capitulate to their demands and expectations.

I also wouldn't have any issue with people's personal beliefs if it they just kept it that way.

There's a comparison between religions/faith and one's genitals.

It's fine that you have it/them, but there's a time and a place; make sure consent is solidly established beforehand in some way, don't pull it out in public and keep it the fuck away from kids.

I think that's a very fair comparison.

I'm proud of you, brother.

I'm a big believer in privacy in matters of faith and religion, but it baffles me that people don't understand why this witty little comparison might come across a little insulting to religious people. Who wouldn't be offended by the implication that something deeply personal and important to them is obscene and inappropriate, and that any interaction involving it and children is akin to pedophilia?

It's a dumb comparison, just say you think people should keep their faith private and personal. That's entirely fair and most people would agree with it.

Oh boo hoo, poor religious people

Perhaps if they wouldn't try and legislate reproductive rights, dehumanize the LGBTQ+ community, etcetera, etcetera...perhaps I would have a little more sympathy towards whatever level of offense they take towards such comparisons.

Now I am well aware not all people of faith are like this, many of them find it abhorrent, even. But there's enough of them to where it's a serious problem that's bled into politics and trying to regulate people's entire lives down to their reproductive choices.

Regarding the bolded bit, I've seen Dawkins state that quite explicitly.

But honestly, I'm a bit conflicted - with the nastier religions (and "nasty" doesn't always mean "marginal"), I can kind of see where he's coming from. Back when I was just getting introduced to atheism, and still eagerly sympathetic to it, I saw a clip of him interviewing a woman involved in some project offering therapeutic or quasi-therapeutic support to adults who'd had harmful formative experiences with religion; I remember her at one point pausing for several moments to collect herself as she remarked how she, too, was still haunted by what she'd been taught about Hell as a child. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find more dramatic examples.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that parents simply shouldn't be allowed to raise their children religiously, but I'd be open to hearing some heavily qualified proposals aimed at preventing trauma and the like. Maybe this is wrongheaded on my part...it's not something I've often thought about, and I'm nowhere near having worked out a detailed position or anything. (It's not as though I'd expect to see any such proposal become generally favored in my lifetime.)

It does trouble me that people who genuinely, confidently believe in Hell (for one thing) are often emotionally capable of having children without a second thought. (I think Robert Ingersoll said something about parents holding their newborns and somehow forgetting they may only be holding future kindling for hellfire.)

This is brilliant!!! I will definitely borrow this.
thank you!

and I think you just inadvertently pointed out a major, inherent problem with what you refer to as "nastier" parts of religion. Particularly Abrahamic faiths, because those are the most prevalent in Western society.

There is no way to truly separate the potential for abuse from a religious upbringing from a parenting context. There just isn't, nada, zip, doesn't exist

and this isn't a slippery slope fallacy, because that only applies when there aren't any examples to point towards to demonstrate the possibility of A leading to B. We have an incalculable number of real world examples of how A leads to B. It happens all the time! The lady you referred to is a drop of water in an ocean of people who have had the same exact experience, and some of those people's parents may even fall into the more "moderate" category as far as religiousness goes.

Oh, hey, it's my one-year anniversary for starting this MA account.



I don't think this is nuanced enough. For one thing, it seems to assume that it's essentially uncharacteristic of religion (or limited to marginal, exceptional cases) for it to get along without promoting fear/trauma, superstition, (self-)hatred, and so on. For another, there's no way to separate the potential for abuse from parenting (or caregiving, etc.) in general.

Maybe a more workable approach would be to look more closely at the specific forms and predictors of abuse/trauma, and to provide correctives and preventative measures for those (where it's possible to do so without violating people's autonomy). I was thinking again about this -



...now, as long as people (correctly, IMO) acknowledge one another's rights to become parents and practice their religion (within limits, e.g. without endangering others), there are going to be cases where children are at higher risk of incurring (or actually do incur) social/psychological harm - things that are detrimental to their well-being and also to their functioning in society. As we all know, there are religions that instill hostility to scientific and multi-cultural knowledge, hostility toward vulnerable minority groups, belief in one's neighbors' (and one's own) worthlessness and deservingness of endless suffering, and so on. There are also religions that tend to be more benign, while still possessing traces of the same dark underside.

Maybe the best thing a society can do here is to be found in the arenas of universal education and health-care, including mental health-care - preventing, monitoring, and correcting those cases where children are deprived of the knowledge and resources to live healthfully and eventually become well-rounded, functioning adults. Sounds trite, I know, but I think it's the best I've got - and again, it'd seem a losing battle IMO to hope for society to drastically restrict the right to become parents, practice religion, and parent religiously.

This is the only study I could find on the topic:


"Extrinsic religiosity" seems to be "characterized as religion that primarily serves other more ultimate ends rather than central religious beliefs per se. Thus, individuals described by extrinsic religiousness use their religion to fulfill more basic needs such as social relations or personal comfort, but “the embraced creed is lightly held or else selectively shaped to fit more primary needs”. (https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 005-9_1582)

In other words, abuse potential with regard to religiosity isn't related to the beliefs held, but is related to the outward forms associated with those beliefs.

Historically, that has been exactly case more often than not.

This whole

"the embraced creed is lightly held or else selectively shaped to fit more primary needs”

that Disembodied is referring to is a very recent phenomenon, frankly. I've always theorized that a lot of people who would fit into the category of "moderate" or "loosely religious" just want to believe in Religion A, but, many of the beliefs and ideas that said religion espouses are fundamentally incompatible with the world we live in today. There's only so much nonsense reasonable people can accept without some seriously crippling cognitive dissonance.



And I suppose that does present a problem, how do we manage to successfully do this without violating people's liberties, freedoms an autonomy. I'm immediately skeptical of anyone who's eager to limit people's rights for some perceived, idealistic "greater good". There's always a level of caution to be exercised and a very solid line in the sand that needs to be drawn.




Crazy thing, where education and healthcare gives way, religiousness starts to dwindle, if not die off entirely. Funny how that works, huh?