There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Sparko]

So therefore if atheist is defined as someone who rejects God or gods then that too becomes meaningless, right?

way to miss the point again.

[Adrift]

I watched Metal: A Headbanger's Journey and Global Metal by Sam Dunn. Guys like Gaahl (from Gorgoroth) and Count Grishnack (of Burzum) hold to occult beliefs (as well as white nationalism.) In fact, their beliefs are very similar to that of Hitler and the Thule Society. Atheists tend to gravitate towards to Death Metal. Folk metal, which you mention, tends to attract more "easy going" pagan and wiccan types.

Not folk metal, "Neo"-folk. Its got its roots in post-punk, experimental, and post-industrial. Bands are diverse, but the sound can range from traditional northern European folk and world music stuff, neo-classical, ambient electronic stuff, and military parade, and cadence music. Popular bands would be Death in June, Current 93, Sol Invictus, Blood Axis, Von Thronstahl, stuff like that. Themes often include a sort of unhealthy interest in fascism the occult and pagan heathenism.

I'm sure there are some neofolk/folk metal blends out there somewhere, but they're pretty distinct music genres.

[Challenger Grim]

I like how he repeatedly ignores contrary evidence, changes his position, and then re-interprets all the evidence in favour of his new position.

If we had a drinking game for it - we'd all be alcoholics.

[Rational Gaze]

"Neo"-folk. Its got its roots in post-punk, experimental, and post-industrial. Bands are diverse, but the sound can range from traditional northern European folk and world music stuff, neo-classical, ambient electronic stuff, and military parade, and cadence music... Themes often include a sort of unhealthy interest in fascism the occult and pagan heathenism.

That pretty much covers a number of folk metal, black metal, and death metal bands. For example, Amon Amarth, are death metal but they sing about Vikings and "pagan heathenism." Whereas Gorgoroth and Burzum are black metal, and sing about occultic, pagan, and heathen themes. Neo-folk is therefore not a musical genre, but a movement similar to the new age movement. It is quite eclectic but common ideas, beliefs, motifs, and themes include:

• A belief in a distant golden age that was corrupted. Specifically, since many are from Scandinavian regions, they tend to hearken back to the days of the Vikings and bemoan the arrival of Christianity, which they believe "corrupted" society.
• Fascist, nationalistic ideals. From above, since many believe in a distant, pre-Christian age that was corrupted by Christianity, they also believe that the Vikings and their other pre-Christians ancestors were superior. Many are anti-Semites as a result since Christianity was originally a Jewish religion.
• Occultic, pagan, "heathen" beliefs. Whilst there is no solid core of religious beliefs, there is a general hearkening back pre-Christian religion. Of course, what results is a mish-mash of neo-paganism, wicca, and satanism. Others are just anti-Christians who just use the imagery to offend and insult Christianity or take pagan deities/Satan as metaphoric representatives of ideal human ethics.

This is very similar to the beliefs of Hitler and the Thule Society. The whole belief in a distant Aryan race that was corrupted by Jews and so on. I recently read a book called This is the Sun?: Zeitgeist and Religion Volume I: Comparative Religion by Albert McIlhenny, that traced the ideas that influenced the Zeitgeist. Amongst other things, it noted that some of the ideas that eventually went on to influence Zeitgeist, influenced the Thule Society, et al.

[Rational Gaze]

If we had a drinking game for it - we'd all be alcoholics.

I'd expect we'd have all died of alcohol poisoning a long time ago.

[Adrift]

That pretty much covers a number of folk metal, black metal, and death metal bands. For example, Amon Amarth, are death metal but they sing about Vikings and "pagan heathenism." Whereas Gorgoroth and Burzum are black metal, and sing about occultic, pagan, and heathen themes.

Okay.

Neo-folk is therefore not a musical genre, but a movement similar to the new age movement. It is quite eclectic but common ideas, beliefs, motifs, and themes include:

I think we're miscommunicating, I was specifically referring to "Neo-Folk", the music genre, in my previous posts. The following links may help:

http://www.heathenharvest.com/phplinks/index.php?PID=13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofolk

I was just pointing out that they commonly have themes sometimes shared in the black metal scene.

• A belief in a distant golden age that was corrupted. Specifically, since many are from Scandinavian regions, they tend to hearken back to the days of the Vikings and bemoan the arrival of Christianity, which they believe "corrupted" society.
• Fascist, nationalistic ideals. From above, since many believe in a distant, pre-Christian age that was corrupted by Christianity, they also believe that the Vikings and their other pre-Christians ancestors were superior. Many are anti-Semites as a result since Christianity was originally a Jewish religion.
• Occultic, pagan, "heathen" beliefs. Whilst there is no solid core of religious beliefs, there is a general hearkening back pre-Christian religion. Of course, what results is a mish-mash of neo-paganism, wicca, and satanism. Others are just anti-Christians who just use the imagery to offend and insult Christianity or take pagan deities/Satan as metaphoric representatives of ideal human ethics.

Right, a lot of Neofolk bands share similar themes in their lyrics. There are a number of bands who show interest for fascism, but deny the allegations that they're neo-nazi, or racist. Douglas P of Death in June (the bands name is a reference to the Night of the Long Knives), is openly gay and used to be in the anti-racism punk band Crisis. So, its pretty confusing. Also, though they're rare, there are a number of neofolk bands that take a pro-Christian stance.

This is very similar to the beliefs of Hitler and the Thule Society. The whole belief in a distant Aryan race that was corrupted by Jews and so on. I recently read a book called This is the Sun?: Zeitgeist and Religion Volume I: Comparative Religion by Albert McIlhenny, that traced the ideas that influenced the Zeitgeist. Amongst other things, it noted that some of the ideas that eventually went on to influence Zeitgeist, influenced the Thule Society, et al.

Yeah. I'm familiar with all that. A lot of those stupid Discovery Channel shows covered that stuff too, so it's probably not as spooky and mysterious as it once was in the 80s and early 90s when a lot of these bands were writing their lyrics.

[The Pixie]

Most likely, you do not like what the answer says…

The answer to a questionyou never asked?

Too bad I got it from other atheist, eh?

There is no organising principle behind atheism, so why be surprised that one group say one thing, and another says something

else?

So if we can simply call ourselves whatever we want, despite what our beliefs say, does that make Christians, atheist

now?

Personally, I say no, which is why I disagree with the America Atheists association. The dictionary definition RG

thoughtfully proved said only that atheists reject God and gods, and not the supernatural, and that is how I understand the

term.

Let me try this:

A lot of Christians do not believe in God, which is true. But that is not how a Christian is defined, and believing in no

God, does not stop one being a Christian.”

Are you seriously claiming that a lot of Christians do not believe in God? That sounds doubtful, to say the least. Can you

back that claim up?

Pretty funny because words have specific meanings and I’m sorry, you can’t change them up, on a whim, because you want

your point supported.

Great. so we are going with the dictionary definition, right? Oh, wait. The dictionary disagrees with you, so on a

whim, you have decided to change the definition because you want your point supported.

And then you want to whinge about me doing it.

Same old same old.

There are specific terms that are applied to these beliefs and again, I didn’t make this up. It comes straight from

other atheist and other atheist groups.

And you seriously want to take their word over that of the dictionary?

Is this a general policy, lpot, or just something you have adopted for this argument, because it happens to be convenience?

It is okay, you do not have to answer that one.

Which doesn’t make one an atheist dear heart. Do you even know what your own belief system says about things that are

outside of nature or can you just make things mean whatever you want when you want your numbers to look bigger than what

reality shows?

Thankfully, RG provided that useful dictionary definition.

Only on a whim you have decided to change the definition because you want your point supported.

Do you because here is your own quote against you about Wiccan beliefs:

"Wiccan views on theology are numerous and varied and there is no overall religious canon, but one form is to venerate both a

god and a "Triple Goddess"."

Meaning some forms of Wiccan beliefs, do not include a ‘Triple Goddess’. I love it though, you can’t even spot your own

inconsistent standards and thus flip flop, at will, between looser and more strict definition whenever it suits you.

So that makes some of them atheists? I am not familiar with Wicca, but my guess is that those that do not include a ‘Triple

Goddess’ have some other god or gods. It is my understanding that it is based on old pagan religions, and they did have gods, which makes them not atheists.

If you have evidence of wiccans who do not believe in gods, please present it, but at the moment it looks like you are just

blowing smoke.

lpot: Perhaps you should go and let your fellow atheist know that atheist can believe in the supernatural and see how

accepted they are of the idea.

Pix: Are you aware that atheists besides myself are posting on this thread?

lpot: And I have watched every last one of them argue that nature is the only thing that exist and now they seem to be

aruging that an atheist can believe otherwise, as long as it boost their numbers. I bet though they will all flip flop (you

included) if it can be used against them.

So you know that atheists are posting here, so you already know that my fellow atheists know my position. I see none

objecting. Do you?

And I have watched every last one of them argue that nature is the only thing that exist and now they seem to be

aruging that an atheist can believe otherwise, as long as it boost their numbers. I bet though they will all flip flop (you

included) if it can be used against them.

I see. So you are convinced that we are engaged in dubious tactics based on... what you guess we will do in the

future. Nice.

Which again, didn’t stop you from declaring that all Wiccans were not atheist, even when not all of them agree with

the ‘Triple Goddess’ idea and your own quote showed that. Why do you keep flip flopping between lose and tighter definitions

whenever they suits you?

You stated most atheists reject ghost, angels, demons, etc., which strongly suggests that in your opinion they do not all reject ghost, angels, demons, etc., which concurs with my position, and refutes your own.

Wiki says most Wiccans worship the ‘Triple Goddess’, which strongly suggests some do not, but - and this is the important bit

- that does not necessarily make them atheists. So this neither supports your position, nor refutes mine.

Can you see the difference here, lpot?

No really, you’re actually doing just what I thought you would do. Being too dumb to spot me backing you into a corner.

Now let me see you start this thread so I can watch other atheist attack you for what you’re trying to do here. It should be

pure entertainment.

I think it will be pretty dull, but we shall see. Thread started.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...07#post3364807

I see you’re too stupid to figure out they are basically saying the same thing, on is a rejection more specific to

religious thought and the other isn’t.

Well I guess if you do not understand the difference, then you will not think there is a difference (though the fact that they have two difference Wiki pages might have giving you a hint).

Yet again… picking lose or tight definitions whenever it suits you, eh?

I am consistently picking the standard definitions. The one in the dictionary; the ones you found in Wiki. Some definitions are broad, some are specific; such is the nature of the language. Surely you must realise that?

[Jaecp]

I think it will be pretty dull, but we shall see. Thread started.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...07#post3364807

Outside of a couple weird cases with Vansmack and Bertaberts, I can't really recall atheists attacking other atheists in the 4 years or so I've been posting here.

Oh, TP, I'm not sure how much of a response thats gonna get, the naturalism forum hadn't had a post in almost a month before you started that thread.

[Tassman]

I like how he repeatedly ignores contrary evidence, changes his position, and then re-interprets all the evidence in favour of his new position.

My position remains unchanged re the Adherents.com survey, despite the spluttering of the usual theist suspects who don’t like (or don’t understand) the statistics. Regarding the beliefs of individuals one can do no more than provide broad categories. Re the Swedish example the figures reveal 46% “hard-core atheists” and “soft-core atheists” 85%. I guess you didn’t notice that I provided both figures several times plus the link.

The survey explains its figures thus:

“Figures shown above are the total of "soft core atheists" (don't believe in god, but believe there might be life after death) and "hard core atheists" (disbelieve in god and disbelieve in life after death)”.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

The bottom line is that in such countries religion is not an issue in political debate and many senior political figures are atheist.

[Doug Shaver]

None of the atheist groups I know would accept that definition. They might agree that it is characteristic of atheists, but they would not consider it definitive of them.

That isn't what I found on the American Atheist web site. They seem pretty specific that a rejection of anything that isn’t nature, is one of the defining characteristics of an atheist.

You got me good on this one, Crystal. I had no idea that American Atheists was promoting this sort of intellectual garbage. Fortunately, they're not spending any of my money to do it, because I've never been a member of American Atheists. And I never will be, as long they keep doing this sort of thing.

If my memory is correct -- and I know you'll tell me if it isn't -- you have often ridiculed the notion that atheism is not a belief system. American Atheists obviously thinks it is one. Whether they would admit to thinking so I cannot say, but they have a belief system, of which atheism is a key component, and they call that belief system atheism. What is really is, is philosophical naturalism relabeled.

They're selling a product, and of course they can call their product whatever they like. In this country, it is probable that most atheists do happen also to be philosophical naturalists. But that does not justify anybody's saying that atheism is or ought to be defined as if it were equivalent to philosophical naturalism. American Atheists can say it all they want, and nobody has any authority to tell them to quit it, but having the freedom to say something does not constitute justification for saying it.

They said, "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity," and they should have stopped right there. By going on as they did, they imply that philosophical naturalism is the only alternative to theism. But it manifestly is not the only alternative. It can be argued that it is the only rational alternative, but even if that is so (I'm inclined to doubt it, myself), plenty of people do accept irrational belief systems.

The folks at American Atheists seem to have bought into the notion that we atheists are smarter than everybody else, and to the notion that all smart people must embrace philosophical naturalism. What they're claiming in effect, then, is something like, "If you're smart enough to realize there are no gods, then you should be smart enough to realize that there can't be any other supernatural entities, either." I will thank you very much to believe me when I say I want nothing to do with that sort of intellectual arrogance.

But do pantheist themselves say they are atheist?

Apparently, some do. Over at About.com's Agnosticism/Atheism forum, we have a pantheist member who, when he first joined us, identified himself as an atheist. He no longer does, but I think it unlikely that he is the only pantheist who ever did.

Rejecting the idea of a creator God, does not make one an atheist because there's plenty of groups that do that, but are not atheist and would even be insulted at being called atheist.

I quite agree, and I have never said that someone is an atheist just because they don't believe in a creator God. I have said that someone is an atheist if they don't believe in any god of any kind. If a pantheist says the universe is God, I am not going to deny that he believes in a god, but I am going to deny that he is correct in attributing godhood to the universe.

it’s not atheist that decided what a person wants to call themselves

Right, and that goes for the folks in charge of American Atheists, too. I can believe in all the supernatural beings anyone can imagine, and as long as none of them is a god, I'm still an atheist, whether any other atheist likes it or not.

[The Pixie]

Outside of a couple weird cases with Vansmack and Bertaberts, I can't really recall atheists attacking other atheists in the 4 years or so I've been posting here.

Oh, TP, I'm not sure how much of a response thats gonna get, the naturalism forum hadn't had a post in almost a month before you started that thread.

Yeah, I very much doubt it will raise much interest at all, but if if shows lpot is talking nonsense it will serve some purpose.

[Jaecp]

Same old same old I'm afraid, gish gallops are a fun way to go about things, but patience wins the day

All in all, the atheists here who want to be crass tend to not stick around here very long or are generally marginalized. The insult-for-jesus crowd has apologists, I don't see the same for us here.

@Everyone, but specifically Doug,

http://atheists.org/atheism

This is where the quote of the definition from AA comes from. I read it again and noted where it said "this definition" which means, to me, that they know they aren't supplanting the strict definition, but putting forward something as it applies practically to the atheists people are going to actually meet. Especially people who are members of AA. It includes some quotes from the groups founder back in 63 which leads me to believe you are correct that the reason they phrased it how they did is because they see it as the only reasonable course after ridding oneself of theistic beliefs.

The URL where AA defines Atheism

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

© source where applicable

[Rational Gaze]

I can believe in all the supernatural beings anyone can imagine, and as long as none of them is a god, I'm still an atheist, whether any other atheist likes it or not.

The problem, as I've said before, is that people take the word 'atheist' to mean different things, and in proper philosophical discourse, we need to use carefully defined terminology lest equivocation results. I don't disagree with the definition of atheism you have provided, however, as LPOT, et al. it is not the only definition of atheism. An important factor to note is that words are defined by usage, not etymology (otherwise the word 'lady' would mean 'kneader of bread.')

I have no problem with atheism simply meaning a rejection of belief in God or gods, although, as I and other have noted, this definition runs into issues when considering people who hold to spiritual beliefs whilst not believing in a deity, such as certain sects of Buddhism and Hinduism, Native American religion, and Aboriginal religions, etc. One other issue that comes to mind is the definition of the term 'god' and 'God.' The deities of polytheistic religions are certainly portrayed as powerful spiritual beings, but I wouldn't call any of them a god, let alone God. I suppose we could just use 'atheist' and 'atheism' as broad categories, rather than as a reference to a specific group, and individual groups that fall under the term would have to be given their own sub-terms so as to avoid confusion.

[Rational Gaze]

Outside of a couple weird cases with Vansmack and Bertaberts, I can't really recall atheists attacking other atheists in the 4 years or so I've been posting here.

yo lunch accused Sea of Red of being a "Benedict Arnold" a year or so ago, and also said a bunch of other people were closet Christians. Then again, as I'm sure you'll agree, yo lunch was rather crackers.

[Jaecp]

yo lunch accused Sea of Red of being a "Benedict Arnold" a year or so ago, and also said a bunch of other people were closet Christians. Then again, as I'm sure you'll agree, yo lunch was rather crackers.

Hasn't he been banned for awhile? I remember hearing some people saying that one of the two I mentioned was just him making a new account