Metal Reviews

Last warning, or I'm locking this.

Jesus, can a guy not write a Classic review without being disturbed by the sounds of a flamewar on the forum? BEHAVE, Y'ALL.

Guys, I'm loving this argument but I've gotta go to bed. My closing statement for tonight: Fuck religion, it makes good people do bad things and lets bad people justify being bad, while making good people feel guilty for being human. Night all.

EDIT: Oh and DM, attack the beliefs and the ideologies, not the individual. More forceful argument that way.

I'm done. I've essentially made my point anyway, that he doesn't and won't get it is secondary.

edit - but in response to what he said hahahahahaha

WHERE IF THE FUCKING HELL DID I SAY I HATE GAY PEOPLE YOU FUCKING MORON

YOU ARE ONE FUCKING IDIOT YOU KNOW THAT. And you can come and say that's not how a Christian acts so what you make it so hard to be civil when you are shoving insults down my throat.

You have always been a jerk on this site one of the main reasons why you were fired from the staff here. When you left the site was nice and peaceful but now oh Lord here comes DM with this usual spew on this and that and when no one agrees with him he shoves insults down your throat like a little kid at a playground.

Whatever jackass

Well, I take both a rationalist/scientific and spiritual view of life. Hence my views of issues like homosexuality. Like you, I was also taught to question everything and maintain an open mind. But after pondering the issue quite a bit, I had to be honest: I believe in a greater power and that there's much more to existence than what science alone can tell us. I've curiously tried "not believing in God" before, but in the end, I just couldn't imagine something as linear (and intelligent) as the material universe being all there is nor the "greatest thing in existence."

May be this is why people take such an interest in the topic of why we believe in God. It seems your whole personality and way of thinking probably plays a big factor in how easy faith in God really is for you.

And for the record, I agree with Zad. Metalstorm and Dead Machine - please play nice!

I was playing nice until Dead Machine started his crap. I would have loved to debated this with him but he's making it so difficult doing it when hate spews from his mouth which is so ironic when he claims the same about me.

Belief in God seems to stem from the inability to explain things. My rationalistic POV is such that it is my opinion that anything we don't know now will in the future be explained by science. Current gaps don't mean the presence of God, just as they didn't mean that millennia ago, when gods were invented to explain how the sun rose each day. I don't think it's a personality issue. You face every other element in your life with an empirical approach. Why is it that when it comes to religious teachings, the demand for evidence seems to fly out the window? Evidence and spirituality can coexist. I am a deeply spiritual person, I just don't require anything supernatural or inexplicable to be thus.

What you described is textbook naturalism. Naturalism being the belief that everything there is to existence will eventually be discovered by science. Greg Graffin, among many other scientists, considers himself a naturalist. It should also be mentioned that "naturalist" and "atheist" aren't necessarily synonymous. Some naturalists consider themselves "monists", meaning they believe in a God that gradually developed as nature progressed and became more orderly.

I think what "God" actually is needs to be cleared up. God is simply the greatest power in all of existence. In other words, the constant greater power (or force, if you will) that maintains existence and made EVERYTHING in existence possible (including science itself). We Christians DO NOT literally believe in some guy in the clouds with a long white beard or robe. We simply believe in a greater intelligence/power that binds existence together and ultimately made our own existence (along with the universe itself) possible.

As for the issue of empirical evidence, there are a couple important things to consider. For one thing, if God created everything, then everything that exists would technically be evidence of God's existence (so, with that being the case, there'd be more evidence for God's existence than perhaps anything else). Second of all, there are those who believe they have witnessed miracles first hand, and that right there would (to them) be evidence of God's existence. It may not be evidence to you personally (as you could easily decide to look for a naturalistic explanation of such events), but bare in mind that evidence is more in the eye of the beholder than many people realize. There's more to this issue, but I'll probably get into it a little later.

One thing I don't understand is how you believe in spirituality without believing in anything supernatural. If there's nothing supernatural, then all there really is to existence is nature (one would think). And since spirituality implies something beyond standard physical nature, it would seem that you'd need to believe in some kind of greater power (if not "God" then something like a "life force") to believe in it. Because let's face it: If God doesn't exist, then our own existence is inherently meaningless. Which, to me, would seem to defeat the whole concept of spirituality since it would really just be an illusion while we would just be "silly biological accidents."

circular argument imo. before you can assume god created everything, you need to prove he exists. which i guess is impossible if he created everything.

When it comes to philosophy, circular arguments are probably unavoidable. Especially when dealing with the existence of God (regardless of what side of the coin you're on).

Not neccesarily. Why can't people find meaning for thier own life on their own terms? Why should the meaning of existence boil down to some greater cosmic intelligence? It seems a little silly to base life's purpose on such a vague concept.

but the burden of proof is on the believer.

I certainly agree that, without God, it's possible to manually bring meaning into your life. But full-blown existence (not just your own existence, but existence in general) is inherently meaningless if God does not exist. Because then it's, when all is said and done, just one giant natural accident.

Which is probably why a Christian has it harder in a debate than an atheist. "Classical atheism" (the denial of God's existence) is basically dead now. So, because of that, the atheist no longer has the burden of proof on him. Technically, a Christian shouldn't really have that burden either since (as you previously mentioned) God's existence can't really be "proven" if He created everything (otherwise, He'd be dependent on His own creation). But, typically in religious debates, the Christian has the burden put on him. While the atheist simply needs to ask questions and remain skeptical.

The most "rational/reason-based" belief system of them all is IMO probably agnosticism.

Why does it need meaning, though? I'm perfectly okay with everything being one giant natural accident. If you have a purpose for yourself, what more do you need?

Uh no. And the meaning of life can be determined by individuals, that's simple existentialism. A lot of things in nature are accidental but they can be beautiful. Ex: canyons, waterfalls, rainbows. All freak natural occurrences which are amazing.

Fair enough. But this is why it seems to me that atheism requires a certain degree of faith in and of itself. Basically, you have to believe in yourself, inspite of your existence just being a natural accident (at which, in theory, it would seem that you'd have no real logical reason to "believe in yourself").

Mongol General: What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

See my response to LOTN.

Perhaps I should've worded what I said about circular arguments a little better. What I mean is that, if you truly want to debate whether or not God exists, circular arguments may be almost impossible to avoid, since any way you slice it, the two best ideas we have is that either one greater power (God) created everything, or the universe simply "exists" (there also exist a few lesser known "in-betweens", which probably aren't really worth getting into right now). Both of these, however, basically hit a brick wall when it comes to evidence. And so, it's impossible to really prove either of them empirically. The best you can do is justify them. But since "right" and "wrong" don't really exist in philosophy, it's impossible to really make a firm justification either way without the opposition questioning you and putting you right back to where you started.