you know, i don't want to listen to religious music any more than i want to listen to schmaltzy fake-soul quintets do pop covers, but the idea that your opinion on the band's religious views is in any way meaningful is exactly the reason religion won't die. the more you hack it down like this, the stronger it comes back. you really need to adopt an avoidance strategy, and learn to just ignore it.
besides. a couple of dorks singing lame songs in a cave is hardly the dark side of christianity.
PhourQ
lol @ your emotional fear of theism. Face it, religion will never die and thank God for that...since it is our human experience to apprehend that God exists...no matter how much it scares you to believe it.
deathtokoalas
i sure hope that religion has a best before date, but i don't deny that i have an immense fear of what religion is capable of.
that's a circular argument, by the way. you're stating that god must exist because god created us to have a "human experience" to apprehend it. most atheists would toss your whole conception of "human experience" in the trash heap.
i don't think there's any reason we exist at all, except to carry the dna to the next level. i get that it's maybe a bit overwhelming to get your head around it, but i think it's a pre-requisite to building a truly free society.
it's a catch-22. religion is incompatible with freedom, and it consequently must be abolished on the cultural level in order to attain a free society. but, forcing people to drop it creates a backlash which merely stunts the process. don't get me wrong - i'd be in favour of rounding up all the theists and sending them on a one way trip to jupiter if i thought it would work. but, i know it just pushes it underground, where it forms the basis of the next inevitable revolt against state tyranny. it places a flavour on the revolutionary character that is difficult to transcend.
people have to figure this out on their own. a little bit of ridiculing is maybe a step in the right direction, but it needs to be done carefully. censorship or persecution is just out of the question - it's simply counterproductive.
PhourQ
I wasn't trying to argue for the existence of God in saying it is part of our human experience. I am making that statement with God's existence as a given. I am not concerned about atheists tossing my arguments anywhere. My beliefs will never be swayed by what someone else thinks of them. The fact that theists find meaning in life makes atheists uncomfortable, but atheists provide no rational basis for theists to chuck their beliefs. The problems atheists associate with religion completely disregard the fact that those problems arise when the theist is not in accord with his own beliefs...the problems voiced are rarely the teachings of religion themselves. Furthermore, to suggest that religion is incompatible with freedom may be your opinion, but again, disregards the freedom that the religion teaches itself. Mankind naturally will seek to control and destroy regardless...some corrupt theism to accomplish this, others use atheism. Completely removing beliefs in religious ethics or morals in exchange for varied and subjective morality will have obvious results.
deathtokoalas
right. so obviously that statement about "human experience" isn't going to mean anything to me, then. you'd might as well have been speaking to the wall. it's about as useful to me as a discussion about pink unicorns. which is kind of a refutation, but why bother...
the idea that atheists ought to be convincing theists to modify their beliefs is again a circular presentation. atheism argues that we need to look at the world in terms of evidence-based reasoning. it wouldn't argue in favour or against any specific belief, so much as it would demand that evidence is gathered to argue in favour of the belief. it's nothing more complicated than backing up your argument, which is something we teach kids to do in grade school - and place a great emphasis on. for example, i have a belief that extra-terrestrials exist in the universe, and the bible is evidence of their contact with us in the past. that's an evidence-based argument that is consistent with atheism, but it is still a belief. what we get upset about is not over the fact that you believe things but that you use faith-based reasoning to back it up. we then get frustrated over your refusal to accept the superiority of evidence-based reasoning over....magic, basically. let's be sure that this much is clear.
atheists tend to use the same process to deduce morality that the christian fathers did, which is rational discovery. atheism is not the elimination of morals, it is the elimination of magic. now, that necessarily eliminates any kind of authoritarian basis underlying legal systems, but that's the point. "infringing the rights of others is to be discouraged" is a much better statement than "thou shalt not kill" - an improvement, an advance, a step forwards - for the precise reason that it provides for more subtlety in analysis, and stops people from enforcing the rules with a blunt stick. few atheists are going to argue with the general content of religious morality (the few points of contention are largely going to be in the heteropatriarchal nature of the religious systems, but that these exist in religion is reflective of society's influence on religion, rather than the other way around); the point is more that it oversimplifies complex issues, often leading to undesirable outcomes. if the religious texts were thousands of pages long and full of carefully analyzed case notes, there'd be less contention. but, then nobody would read it. it's a tragic flaw in the outcome.
which is where the issues of freedom exist. a group of people that believe a book tells them what is right and wrong and belong to a culture that requires the enforcement of it's contents to reach immortality is....it's insane. whatever the cause, whatever social ill, it's organized madness. and, a free society simply cannot exist in these conditions of coercion and self-righteousness. the proselytism that enforces this self-righteousness into hierarchies and tyrannies is worked into the bulk of the major religions. the idea of free will may be inherent to most religions, but this idea that religion mostly preaches tolerance is absolutely false. every religion seeks to convert the entire world to it's path. this is simply not compatible with a free society.
