Atheist Music

rock/rap/"death metal" (or any genre for that matter) music with the purpose of proselytizing any religion is retarded.
 


Arguing back is pointless because you're falsely stereotyping how I view religion. I will make one point :

Why bash religion? Wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. <-- taken from Maher
Click to expand...
While religion brings about all those things, the people who commit the above acts are psychopaths looking for an excuse. In their manipulated state of mind, God is their excuse. You're using religion right now as an excuse to invoke destructive thoughts about something that isn't exactly what you think it might be. While mass organized religion is something to be upset about (I agree), looking for music to bash religion while touting your atheism is an insult to me and what I think are valid opinions.

Religious texts can actually be great reads with good messages on how to live. You can't stereotype them and believe what other people say you should "get" from reading them.
 
papajohn56 said:
rock/rap/"death metal" (or any genre for that matter) music with the purpose of proselytizing any religion is retarded.
Click to expand...

Definitely, this music isn't going to convert anyone. :)

Nothing can.

However, I'm not a fan of death metal, satanic music (not saying they're the same) either.

And with the exception of Greydon Square all rap is thumbs down, too.

So, agreed.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
Arguing back is pointless because you're falsely stereotyping how I view religion. I will make one point....
Click to expand...

Please tell me how you view religion.

I'm an atheist and your arguing with me. I just assumed you must be a theist of some type. You may be a deist, I dunno. But until you tell me what your beliefs are what else can I do? Do you know what you believe? Please share.

SUP3RNOVA said:
While religion brings about all those things, the people who commit the above acts are psychopaths looking for an excuse. In their manipulated state of mind, God is their excuse. You're using religion right now as an excuse to invoke destructive thoughts about something that isn't exactly what you think it might be. While mass organized religion is something to be upset about (I agree), looking for music to bash religion while touting your atheism is an insult to me and what I think are valid opinions.

Religious texts can actually be great reads with good messages on how to live. You can't stereotype them and believe what other people say you should "get" from reading them.
Click to expand...

So you stated religion brings about all those things. Agreed. It's dangerous. Take god out of the picture and they wouldn't have had that excuse. ("It's God's Will")

If me looking for music to bash religion is insulting to you, I'm sorry. I just think any particular religion in no way can "know" if they are right or not and given that there are thousands of flavors...odds are that any given one is probably wrong. I believe they are ALL wrong so I take the default position of atheism, and personally choose to bash religion for all it's committed atrocities.

If you think mass organized religion is bad you probably aren't a member of any of the major denominations. What personal religion have you found that is so valid and profound? (I still don't know what your beliefs are please do share.)

Religious texts can be good reads as any fictional material can be, they can have great messages on how to live (and terrible ones) this doesn't mean they are divine.

"You can't stereotype them and believe what other people say you should "get" from reading them."

Agreed. There's a million ways to interpet them.... hence all the atrocities and the reason for my position (atheist) in the first place.

Please tell me what your beliefs are so I won't make anymore assumptions.
 
All of the above posts are very interesting to me - but there's also some VERY broad brushes being used to describe atheists.

First of all - because this always comes up - atheism and agnosticicism are not related. Being agnostic means you claim no knowledge of a god or gods.

Being an atheist means you reject theism. This could be one (weak atheism) or all (strong atheism).

Weak atheism makes no claims. Strong atheism implicitly claims there are no Gods but a negative statement can not logically be proven.

For example, you can say "No New Mexico residents who are left handed will ever buy Acai berry products". You can not prove this statement. At best you can prove it is valid up to this point in time - but you could, in theory, disprove it.

And for people making a positive claim the opposite is true. If you are saying god is a flying spaghetti monster (which I do believe FTW - pirates forevere!) then you need to prove it. Proof = data. Nothing less.

Otherwise - just agree to disagree and keep posting fine ass music.

And yes - I did study this for years, thank you very much.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
So you stated religion brings about all those things. Agreed. It's dangerous. Take god out of the picture and they wouldn't have had that excuse. ("It's God's Will")
Click to expand...

You ever heard of eugenics.
I dont want to hijack your thread, but making statements like this just pisses me off.
Dont think your side is so pure and clean, its got lots of nasty skeletons in its closet. Historically in a very short period of time.
 
Sharksfan said:
All of the above posts are very interesting to me - but there's also some VERY broad brushes being used to describe atheists.

First of all - because this always comes up - atheism and agnosticicism are not related. Being agnostic means you claim no knowledge of a god or gods.

Being an atheist means you reject theism. This could be one (weak atheism) or all (strong atheism).

Weak atheism makes no claims. Strong atheism implicitly claims there are no Gods but a negative statement can not logically be proven.

For example, you can say "No New Mexico residents who are left handed will ever buy Acai berry products". You can not prove this statement. At best you can prove it is valid up to this point in time - but you could, in theory, disprove it.

And for people making a positive claim the opposite is true. If you are saying god is a flying spaghetti monster (which I do believe FTW - pirates forevere!) then you need to prove it. Proof = data. Nothing less.

Otherwise - just agree to disagree and keep posting fine ass music.

And yes - I did study this for years, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

I made the point above about agnostics and atheism. You can be agnostic (claiming no knowledge of gods) and atheist (rejecting the belief in gods).

In fact, it makes perfect sense. If you claim no knowledge of gods (agnostic) it would automatically follow that you don't believe in any of them (atheist).

So I think we agree. :) yay

Edit: And oh yeah flying spaghetti monster, FTW (it's my wallpaper)
 
Rusky said:
You ever heard of eugenics.
I dont want to hijack your thread, but making statements like this just pisses me off.
Dont think your side is so pure and clean, its got lots of nasty skeletons in its closet. Historically in a very short period of time.
Click to expand...

What does eugenics have to do with atheism?

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in eugenics... and there's no contradiction there... so I believe your point is invalid.
 
I'll post my beliefs in a little bit, if I don't pass out beforehand. I don't plan on dodging the question though.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
You can be agnostic (claiming no knowledge of gods) and atheist (rejecting the belief in gods).

In fact, it makes perfect sense. If you claim no knowledge of gods (agnostic) it would automatically follow that you don't believe in any of them (atheist).
Click to expand...

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.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
What does eugenics have to do with atheism?

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in eugenics... and there's no contradiction there... so I believe your point is invalid.
Click to expand...

Ok. So what do you believe in.
Eugenics is largely influenced by Darwin's ideas and his early followers.
Atheism, Macro Evolution, Darwin its basically the same crap.

Do you really want to get into this?
 
Rusky said:
You ever heard of eugenics.
I dont want to hijack your thread, but making statements like this just pisses me off.
Dont think your side is so pure and clean, its got lots of nasty skeletons in its closet. Historically in a very short period of time.
Click to expand...

Correct, in fact it could probably be argued that atheists have killed more people than religious ones. (Think Stalin, Lenin, Mao..)
 
^ You guys do know these are bottom of the barrel arguments? ^

Must step away from the keyboard, I'm burn out. (I'll post later...)

:forces himself to step away:
 
As far as I'm concerend, "militant" atheists that proclaim their disbelief every chance they get are just as bad as bible thumpers knocking on my door or hounding me as I walk my ladies into the abortion clinic.

The reason I like Bad Religion is because, contrary to what many people think based on their name, their lyrics are very open-minded and insightful at the same time. And when singer Greg Graffin talks about atheism, he has a positive attitude about it. Also unknown to most folks is that he holds a PHD in zoology as well as a masters in geology (for those of you that believe in diplomas).

Graffin even co-authored a book with a devout theist/professor called Is Belief In God Good, Bad, or Irrelevant? that I strongly recommend you guys check out.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3wpHBZV47U"]YouTube- Atheist Peace - Bad Religion[/ame]
 
Okay, okay, fine, one more.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_paG_RfYm2I]YouTube - Bad Religion - God's Love (Lyrics)[/ame]
 
Rusky said:
Heres mine
YouTube- Richard Dawkins interview
Click to expand...


Lying for Jesus?

Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom