Metal Reviews

Umm, science and philosophy could care less about arguing over ideas that aren't falsifiable. And who is to say there has to be a higher power? There is no evidence saying it is necessary and there isn't any evidence completely refuting it but to add that higher power in isn't necessary until we can't figure everything out.

I'd agree.

True, but the issue does tend to creep into science (which admittedly isn't particularly healthy for science). Mainly because the essence of science is to learn as much about the universe as humanly possible. If you really think about it, it's basically impossible to have that kind of curiosity without including some kind of opinion of religion in it. You may be a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist. But either way, your view of religion is going to impact your outlook of the world. Which could be an either subtle or critical factor in both what you study and how you study it.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. Aside from the personal benefits that religion provides for many (ie, increased happiness, sense of meaning, an ability to commune with the natural world in a sense that most atheists, including myself, seem to lack), religion has done wonders for human societies. Hell, just look at classic anthropologists; Malinowski, Durkheim, Burkert and Vernant have all argued that religion, in some sense, has kept societies together. Burkert, for example, argues that religion channeled violence into a socially acceptable form, sacrifice, therefore channeling the dangerous aspects of violence through religion. Malinowski argues that religion can justify societal values and institutions. Whatever you think of religion or these arguments (some of which are pretty flimsy at this point), most anthropologists still agree that religion has contributed a lot to the development of society in a positive way. I'm not denying that it has some negatives, I would say that the concept of property does as well. So then..



So then why arbitrarily choose to suppress religion? Is religion really the worst thing in the world right now? Is it really necessary to expend energy sneering at religious people and telling them how silly they are and how intelligent us atheists are, doing all the missionary things we bitch about them doing when there are... more real problems out there?

As to your other question, I don't know how to answer it. If "paganism" had survived, the world would be a completely different place in just about every way. I think that in some sense metalheads are just reacting against authority, but our modern concepts of religion are completely coloured by a Christian type; I have no idea how we'd react to a dominant, completely different type of religion.

The essence of democracy, and of liberalism, is that one can express their opinion honestly, without censorship if they so choose. Discouraging such is what is truly threatening.

And obviously, I agree with these atheists: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others. Religion is destructive and it should be attacked (with reason, not violence). Say what you will, but the new atheist movement has caused no violence at all.

Those positives that you mention are highly suspect, Brahm! It might be better for people in the short term to believe that their problems will be solved by an invisible sky-man, but it's really not helpful in the long run. Blissful ignorance or informed torment? At least the latter is honest. Like in The Matrix ( ) do you choose to see the real world, or do you continue in your little bubble?

Sense of meaning really, really depends. How much of a sense of meaning does a slave have waiting to be sacrificed? Is that the meaning that you'd want to choose for your existence? Is life better believing that there's a heaven waiting at the end of it? Not got time to go into this deeply, bu I don't think so.

And considering that it's religious types who have done the most harm to our planet with the ridiculous notion that the/a god/s put it there to serve man, thereby giving them freedom to cut it up and tear it down...!

Religion may well have kept societies together, channelled violence into socially acceptable forms, but as you admitted, these aren't outright positives. Religion has done good, but it depends on what you define as 'good' - I like the architecture, for instance, of the cathedrals that dot England, I like gospel and lithurgical music for the uplifting qualities.

So, what is the worst thing in the world? Radical Islam? Right-wing warmongering neoconservative governments in the west? Nuclear power? Diet Pepsi? Rape? What other problems are there? The environment? It'd be a heck of a lot easier to warn people of the dangers of global warming without the god squad sitting there claiming that god will never bring a flood again, because 'he promised with a rainbow'!

I'm not calling for a Satanic war, but I am very cynical about this sudden backlash against atheists willing to identify themselves as such and make an argument for themselves. Seems a bit managed...

Heh, the 'pagan replacing christianity' thing was more me musing out loud than an attempt to find a definite answer.

no, of course not. Religion will always indirect influence on politics, like the examples you pointed out. I'm not sure it depends largely on ones religious beliefs when it comes to the socio-political issues, it all depends on how literally you take the written word and your religious direction. But generally speaking, it isn't good for democracy or personal freedom when politicians start to use religious rhetoric or mix their political views up with religious doctrines. Easy examples would be your own examples. If christians are more likely to be against gay rights and abortion, well, that's a violating of other peoples personal freedom - it is okay to limit other ppl's personal freedom if they pose some sort of threat, but that's not the case in this example.



concerning sin... I just don't like the sound of it. To me sin is about doing something wrong according to religious doctrines and later recieve a jugdement on jugdementday or what ever. I is also said that we are all born sinful, mainly due to Adam and Eve - i don't believe that either. We are born as human and that is that, it is human to do good and wrong - not sinful

But nowhere does the Bible say that God just "solves all your problems without some effort on your part." If anything, the Bible supports the exact opposite belief: that God helps those who help themselves. I certainly don't disagree with you here, but I think suggesting that religious people all believe God will just "solve all their problems" without personal effort is an over-generalization. Some of them do (and I should know, because I live near Detroit - which has a lot of Fundamentalist Christianity), but many don't.



At the very least, it would give the slave a sense of comfort and something positive to believe in. I mean, put yourself in the shoes of the slave: If you were mercilessly tormented and abused throughout your life, you'd probably also want something positive to believe in (such as salvation at the end of it all). To be fair, though, a lot of slaveholders were using the Bible as justification for what they were doing (even though nowhere does the Bible support slavery).

Perhaps, but I think the Bible does present god as an answer to your troubles - isn't there something about casting your bread on the waters? Not as familiar with New Testament, sorry.



Yeah, well, it depends on the person but it's hardly desirable, is it? And I think you'll find there is support for slavery, at least in the Old Testament: burglars are sold into slavery to pay back the damages, for instance, and there's lots of laws related. Plus, of course, the disgusting 'paying the father of the girl you just raped a fine and then taking her as a wive who can't be divorced'.

There's a whole load of Talmudic crap in relation to it, all about how you have to treat slaves well, but I can't remember the details, and it's still slavery...

There's actually a lot in the New Testament that deliberately contradicts certain passages in the Old Testament. In fact, I believe a big part of Jesus' mission when he was here on this Earth was to dispel certain commonly held notions at the time of right and wrong (many of which were documented in the Old Testament). For example, Moses taught us to "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." Jesus modified this teaching by telling us to "Love your neighbor and pray for your enemy."

As for the whole "God is the answer to all your problems" issue, while Jesus taught the importance of prayer and doing God's will, he also taught the importance of free will and thinking for yourself. When he spoke in parables to his friends, he'd often deliberately choose not to explain what they literally meant. Because he wanted his friends to think about them and figure out for themselves what they meant. As well as interpret them however they personally saw fit.

Ironically, if Jesus came back right now, he'd probably have a lot of problems with many of these fundamentalists. Because these "holier than thou" types were often the people he had the most issues with when he was here on this Earth.

I've heard most of this before from street-preaching missionary types, and still think it's rubbish - I really don't want to start a huge battle over it but I give the N.T very little credence as an actual historical source for Jesus' life. Let's agree to leave it here...

I've always felt that the New Testament was written soley because the angry, vengeful, wrathful God of the Old Testament wasn't exactly bringing in droves of converts. The New Testament tries to make it more human and relatable, hence the avatar of Jesus the human.

I agree. But the simple fact is that religion impacting political views is basically unavoidable. In theory, it shouldn't have such a huge influence on politics. But it does. Because religious beliefs heavily shape your outlook of the world. And your outlook of the world heavily shapes your political views. So it essentially becomes an "A > B and B > C. Therefore, A > C" situation.

True, many conflicts are caused by non-religious factors... But how do you inspire people to kill? Not by sending them of in the name of Adam Smith. Probably the two greatest kill-motivating factors are patriotism and religion.

And I agree with Jaden, by proxy with the neo-atheists. Religion should be attacked, brought down and left behind by an enlightened society. It causes unneccessary evil, and any good it may do does not depend on it.

In the manner of Stalin trying to destroy all traces of the church in Russia?

Of course, you could say that Stalin's Russia was not enlightened, but you'd be missing the point. A truly enlightened society doesn't try to eradicate other modes of thought. That is all there is to it. Anything else leads to oppression, no matter how much you try to justify that oppression as the force of reason and enlightenment.

EDIT: Oh, and fuck, maybe nobody nobody specifically used Adam Smith's name on a banner, but I'll be bolloxed if we haven't had an unquantifiable amount of bloodshed carried out in the name of furthering global capitalism. The British Empire, anyone?

And another thing, while we're trying to scapegoat religion again.

How about the nation-state as an institution that has caused more bloodshed. In fact, I'd be willing to bet many, many, many times more than religion. I should hardly have to explain this one at all, but look at World Wars One and Two for starters.

EDIT: Frigid, I see you did in fact touch on this by mentioning patriotism. I'd hardly put religion in even the same league as that.

I'm not as moronic as I may seem XD

The point I'm trying to make is that economic systems, unlike religion and patriotic feelings, are no great motivators. A man may feel moved to go to war for his God or his country (or both), but we won't go enroll after hearing a speech on Thomas Hobbes.

But then if you think about the question "what causes bloodshed?" it's not the same thing as "what can motivate people to go to war?". To use European imperialism as an example again- support for imperial wars was generated by the elites and the leaders of the countries involved by portraying these violent adventures as being about furthering the glory of France or Britain or whoever. But what were they really about? They were about an economic system. We wanted cheap labour, more resources, more trading posts, and more markets.

The point is, patriotism was harnessed as a means of justifying violence. But the PURPOSE of that violence was the furtherance of an economic system.

Then what's the actual cause? If I tell someone to jump off a bridge, and he's stupid enough to do it, is it me or his stupidity to blame? If politicians openly declared war on economic reasons (ex. "We will go to war in Iraq to increase our oil holds!" instead of "to protect America", don't you think the opposition would have been a lot stronger? Apparently you can't kill for the economy, but you can kill for imaginary friends or imaginary boundaries).

The actual cause is the unavoidable urge of the leaders of each nation to expand their own power, militarily and economically, with the two depending on eachother.

I'm not sure I 100% get your point here. Your cliff analogy simplifies things too much. People have huge attachments to their countries of birth, and this attachment is easily exploited. When you add to this the overwhelming power of the national media and the seduction of the military-industrial complex (often war is good for people's wage packets) then it's quite arrogant to say that it's all their own fault for being suckered into conflict. After all, how often are you on here going on about how awesome Switzerland is? All it would take would be a few well-placed articles in the "respectable" media about how those French are looking at you funny and I'm sure you'd be spoiling for a fight with them

But Charles, you're missing the point entirely. What makes it possible for the elite to cause wars for resources, what stops the plebs from saying, 'oi, stop it?' Bringing Christ to the darkies, of course. The protestant work ethic. The slave mindset, right-hand path. Etc.

And no-one here is saying, from what I can see, 'YEEHAW BURN THE CHURCHIZ!!!11' We're simply speaking out in favour of our right to say, 'that's bollocks, that is', in the face of a sudden flurry of people wanting to cut into our free speech rights.