Atheist Music

[UnripeArbiter]

Actually - not exactly. The Gnostics were a Christian sect that claimed they had direct and special knowledge of the christian god. They were not popular at first (and later were very powerful).

The backlash to that - the agnostics - claimed to NOT have direct knowledge of God. But they were still Christians.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church early in it's history (prior to the schism and Protestantism) released a document on the nature of god. It contained 14 points - one of those points was that the nature of god is unknowable.

There is no relationship between agnosticism and atheism. The two are unrelated claims.

I forgot to respond to this.

Agnostic Atheism The two can go hand in hand.

"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one." - Robert Flint (Theologian and Philosopher)

 

[Sharksfan]

^^^^ Yep, yep, and yep. They can - but don't necessarily have to.

The point I was trying to make was slightly different - a lot of people see agnosticism as a point on a scale between atheism and belief. That's not the case.

Moving on - perhaps someone who is in the religious camp would like to demonstrate why there has never been a miracle - ever - recorded of a person who lost a limb re-growing it. All other miracles aside it appears god hates amputees.

brb - getting popcorn and lawn chair...

 

[PeerFly]

Moving on - perhaps someone who is in the religious camp would like to demonstrate why there has never been a miracle - ever - recorded of a person who lost a limb re-growing it. All other miracles aside it appears god hates amputees.

Miracle claims are absolutely preposterous. A true miracle, as you say, would be someone losing a limb and growing it back, definitely. However, miracle claims are usually confused with chance and coincidence.

I could claim recent miracles in my life... and I'm an atheist!

 

[hellblazer]

..Atheism had nothing to do with it...

Our actions are derived from our beliefs. Atheist, Hindu, Christian...our beliefs define us and cause us to do what we do. No explanation is necessary. It is a logical truth that our acts can be tied to our ideologies or belief systems.

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. The people they persecuted the most were often the religious, or those from the church. Their Darwinian beliefs were what allowed them to believe 'survival of the fittest', 'genetically inferior' democidal justification gibberish. And you fools say atheism had nothing to do with it? Are you people that wedded to your sick parasitical ideology that you will excuse even the most blatant of atrocities?

Watching atheists say, "Yes, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao killed all those people, but they didn't say "I'm doing it in the name of atheism", so it doesn't count.." is beyond ridiculous - it's kind of pathetic.

 

[WickedJoe]

Our actions are derived from our beliefs. Atheist, Hindu, Christian...our beliefs define us and cause us to do what we do. No explanation is necessary. It is a logical truth that our acts can be tied to our ideologies or belief systems.

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. The people they persecuted the most were often the religious, or those from the church. Their Darwinian beliefs were what allowed them to believe 'survival of the fittest', 'genetically inferior' democidal justification gibberish. And you fools say atheism had nothing to do with it? Are you people that wedded to your sick parasitical ideology that you will excuse even the most blatant of atrocities?

Watching atheists say, "Yes, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao killed all those people, but they didn't say "I'm doing it in the name of atheism", so it doesn't count.." is beyond ridiculous - it's kind of pathetic.

Well if you're just going to make extremely loose connections like that then I guess we can make extremely loose connections to any atrocity done by religious people and blame it on religion. Right?

Right now we're saying those who say "We're going to kill you in the name of God!!" are doing it in the name of religion.. because it seems pretty obvious. But with your advice we should be saying "Everyone who is religious and killed someone did it because they were religious!"

 

[hellblazer]

The point is religion has killed more than non-religion. Estimates are at around 800+ million.

If you're going to spout ridiculous figures, the least you can do is cite some statistics.

Atheists are generally peaceful people. We don't run planes into buildings and kill thousands in the name of religion, and we don't invade other countries and slaughter thousands and thousands because God told us to.

No, you have no problem eliminating life because you don't value it. After all, there's no creator or purpose, no consequences or moral laws, so what's the problem? And if one were to point to China or Russia's various torture methods and chambers, why, atheists can't be blamed for that, can they? Even if it were atheists who constructed and built such designs of inhumanity, why, they didn't clearly specify that their atheistic beliefs were the primary motivator, did they?

You speak of atheism as if it were another religion. Being atheist is the lack of belief in God. You were born atheist and only through indoctrination did you believe what you believe now. Remember that.

Atheism is another religion. You forget that religion is ideology, which is simply a collection of beliefs. Your kind simply argue that your collection of beliefs is more accurate or morally sound. I find that debate rather boring and only interjected when some fool on your side pretended atheists never kill other people.

 

[WickedJoe]

Atheism is another religion. You forget that religion is ideology, which is simply a collection of beliefs. Your kind simply argue that your collection of beliefs is more accurate or morally sound. I find that debate rather boring and only interjected when some fool on your side pretended atheists never kill other people.

Well, really, you just think Atheism is another religion because even after all this time you don't know the difference. No matter how many times it's explained to you. And that's ok, we understand. What you're saying is like saying EVERY belief is a relgion.

And to me really the moral debate is not important. What's important is the best method for finding out what is true and not true about the universe. Science wins, hands down.

 

[hellblazer]

Well if you're just going to make extremely loose connections like that then I guess we can make extremely loose connections to any atrocity done by religious people and blame it on religion. Right?

Right now we're saying those who say "We're going to kill you in the name of God!!" are doing it in the name of religion.. because it seems pretty obvious. But with your advice we should be saying "Everyone who is religious and killed someone did it because they were religious!"

No, what I'm saying is we base our actions upon our beliefs. Christians base their actions upon their beliefs.

Atheists base their actions upon their beliefs.

Muslims/Hindus/everyone bases their actions upon their beliefs.

Atheism tends to devalue life, as it tends to view it in a 'might makes right' way - survival of the fittest, only the strong survive, etc..

In addition, because there is no belief in a creator, there is no belief in justice, consequences after life, moral laws to follow, etc.. This opens up a remarkable amount of moral freedom for the atheist to move in, since there are no natural laws, except to be the strongest, most brutal, meanest, most depraved.

Atheistic communism historically persecuted the religious, the Christians, etc..

Just look at what the atheistic communistic Chinese government is currently doing to followers of an obscure religious sect. It's hardly even a religion - their beliefs are 'tolerance, compassion and truthfulness'.

And that's nothing new - they're following in the steps of their Dear Leader Mao, or their ideological brethren Stalin and Lenin. Might makes right. Survival of the fittest. Can't let those pesky Falun Gong members think they're stronger. Only the strong survive.

Well, really, you just think Atheism is another religion because even after all this time you don't know the difference. No matter how many times it's explained to you. And that's ok, we understand. What you're saying is like saying EVERY belief is a relgion.

You didn't prove me wrong at all. Religion is ideology is belief. It's all the same. You haven't proven me wrong at all, only referred weakly to your ideological brethren for backup because you have no rebuttal. Sets of beliefs are the same the world over. Your group simply thinks their set of beliefs are more accurate. That's all.

And to me really the moral debate is not important. What's important is the best method for finding out what is true and not true about the universe. Science wins, hands down.

Sure - but who's to say science is on your side, or even that your set of beliefs are true?

 

[WickedJoe]

Religion does not equal ideology.
Ideology does not equal religion.
Sets of beliefs do not equal religion.

 

[HarveyJ]

I find it hard to gel music that is anti-theistic with being atheistic.
Do the Evolution would probably come closest to that. Everything else becomes bashing or Satanic. And satanic music naturally requires the existence of a concept of god to be relevant in the first place.
That said, Deicide do put on an epic show, and Corporate Avenger are a good substitute for Rage Against the Machine.

Question for monotheists: Why is there such a huge time discrepancy between the creation of man (or the ejection from Eden, which could be claimed to be the beginning of "time" in the life of man), and god reminding people about his one true religion... three major times I might add (Judaism, Christianity, Islam... minor variations, i.e. Lutherans, don't count)?

You'd think after that whole flood, mythology common to all three iterations, he'd be like "Oh yeah, and Noah, remind people they better worship me correctly this time!"
But no, there's still a few generations until Abraham where god suddenly notices he did the deistic equivalent of leaving the stove on and got the Jews off to a running start.
And then kind of neglects to mention that actually, no, Christianity was the true religion, although he forgot to mention that for another 2500 years or so. And does that again for Islam about 650 years later.

 

[cardine]

Atheists base their actions upon their beliefs.

Muslims/Hindus/everyone bases their actions upon their beliefs.

Atheism tends to devalue life, as it tends to view it in a 'might makes right' way - survival of the fittest, only the strong survive, etc..

In addition, because there is no belief in a creator, there is no belief in justice, consequences after life, moral laws to follow, etc.. This opens up a remarkable amount of moral freedom for the atheist to move in, since there are no natural laws, except to be the strongest, most brutal, meanest, most depraved.

No, the difference is that an atheist doesn't need the threat of a god to do the right thing.

 

[hellblazer]

You'd think after that whole flood, mythology common to all three iterations, he'd be like "Oh yeah, and Noah, remind people they better fucking worship me correctly this time!"

According to the Bible, the only reason he saved Noah was because he was the only person left who worshipped God correctly. Implicit in Noah's righteousness was an assumption that he would raise his children correctly as well, to fear God and worship him too. With some it worked, others(Ham) it didn't. But God's not gonna appear to every single generation and say "Here I am! Worship me!"

That's why he consistently told the righteous to raise their children well, with the fear of the Lord. A clear pattern developed though, where the people would have a religious awakening and then slowly drift away from God until he would do something to jolt them back to reality.

It happened from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Jesus, and so on and so on. I suppose it is slightly understandable to the extent that it's easier to believe in a deity when he is clearly visible and communicating versus being taught of his existence from a parent, but what can you do..

 

[hellblazer]

No, the difference is that an atheist doesn't need the threat of a god to do the right thing.

If there is no God, what is 'right'? And who are you to tell me something is 'wrong'?

 

[WickedJoe]

Sure - but who's to say science is on your side, or even that your set of beliefs are true?

Science is not on my side. It, ideally, does not take sides. But a truthful person will admit science is not always practiced ideally. People practicing science can lie, cheat the data, seek fame, etc. They can also hold on to old theories that are continually proven wrong or inaccurate etc.

Once again, we ask ourselves what is probable, not what is 100% true. There is both personal and group-think in the process. But most of what rationalists agree on are theories that stem from vast amounts of peer-reviewed experimental research.

This is vastly different than how religion decides on what is true. Because your mommy or preacher told you so. And they got it all from a big book of fairy tales.

Yes, sometimes I'll say "True/Not true" because it's shorthand for "probably true/probably not true". I'll say "science is the best method for determining what's true about the universe", instead of saying "science is the best method for determining what is probably true about the universe".

And half of what I say is said to piss you off.. you have experience with that since you're an instigator too.

 

[PeerFly]

If you're going to spout ridiculous figures, the least you can do is cite some statistics.

Okay.

No, you have no problem eliminating life because you don't value it. After all, there's no creator or purpose, no consequences or moral laws, so what's the problem? And if one were to point to China or Russia's various torture methods and chambers, why, atheists can't be blamed for that, can they? Even if it were atheists who constructed and built such designs of inhumanity, why, they didn't clearly specify that their atheistic beliefs were the primary motivator, did they?

I'm an atheist and I don't wish harm on anyone; disproving your entire argument.

Atheism is another religion. You forget that religion is ideology, which is simply a collection of beliefs. Your kind simply argue that your collection of beliefs is more accurate or morally sound. I find that debate rather boring and only interjected when some fool on your side pretended atheists never kill other people.

No, religion is not "simply a collection of beliefs."

Wikipedia defines it best, "A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth." None of that has to do with being an atheist.

And for fucks sake, atheism is not even a collection of beliefs. It's the LACK thereof!

Just because I don't believe in Santa, does that mean I believe no child should get presents? Your logic is invalid.

 

[cardine]

If there is no God, what is 'right'? And who are you to tell me something is 'wrong'?

What is right is what each individual believes is right. I do not believe there are any "universal truths" and I certainly have no ability to tell you that any action you make is morally wrong.

 

[hellblazer]

What is right is what each individual believes is right.

Exactly. You're proving my point. Maybe Richard Dawkins believes it is 'right' to be tolerant of Christians; Stalin believed it was 'right' to torture and slaughter them.

When everything is right, nothing is right. There is no moral standard - which is what paved the way for atheistic atrocities. So you atheists can keep your mouths shut when piously bloviating on how morally superior atheism is.

 

[BluuueJammm]

If there is no God, what is 'right'? And who are you to tell me something is 'wrong'?

Well you'd better not get your moral standards from the bible or you'll be well fucked. Most of your arguments are a complete joke and just aren't thought through properly.

 

[hellblazer]

Well you'd better not get your moral standards from the bible or you'll be well fucked.

Yes, what a terrible idea to advocate honesty or marital faithfulness, or heaven forbid, not killing innocent people! What horror! Or how about respect for one's parents, or not lying about your neighbor! What terrible, fascist ideals!

 

[cardine]

Exactly. You're proving my point. Maybe Richard Dawkins believes it is 'right' to be tolerant of Christians; Stalin believed it was 'right' to torture and slaughter them.

When everything is right, nothing is right. There is no moral standard - which is what paved the way for atheistic atrocities. So you atheists can keep your mouths shut when piously bloviating on how morally superior atheism is.

So according to you, we all have to follow the same moral standard? Who sets that moral standard? The Bible? The Quran? There is no way to absolutely set a moral standard that everyone has to follow.

You are Christian, and you follow your own moral beliefs based on Christianity says is right and wrong. I have no problem with that. My own moral beliefs are based on my own belief system (that is based on what I think is right and wrong, and not what a religion thinks is right and wrong). To say that you need a god and/or religion to have a good ethical code is close minded and stupid.