Jump to content

Pushing religion on others


Viking

Recommended Posts

I'm not a pagan, but I used to hang out with a bunch of pagans when I lived in Raleigh. Some of my favorite people. I have a Mjollnir on my keychain, probably had it for about 15 years now - the one thing that hasn't changed. And yes, I still have an impulse to offend people when I get accosted by their opinions about god. Growing up in the South, if nothing else, made me hate sappy-ass passive-aggressive christian pandering. Trying to keep it cool now that I'm all over the neighborhood with my kid, but sometimes nothing but "Fuck Off" seems to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this is interesting. Being a law student I have encountered such thinking in the course of my studies relating more specifically to a legal principle. For me objectively testing the subjective thoughts of an individual is nigh on impossible. Yes we can say "well you probably thought this" but only the individual knows for certain what was going through their mind or what they percieve as having happened to them. This being the case whilst we can hypothesize about supposed metaphysical events we can not categorically state that any set of events must have occurred in a given manner. This is a very vague area and one can not be certain that the same event occurring to two different people will have the same effect. For example I believe in ghosts and the paranormal however a set of events which I interpret as easily explainable using logic could just as easily be interpreted as paranormal by another individual in the same circumstances

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very vague area and one can not be certain that the same event occurring to two different people will have the same effect.
That's exactly why it's worth real study. Dennett explains his concept far better than I could. "Consciousness Explained" is worth reading for argument's sake if you're into thick wordy stuff' date=' even if you wind up thinking it's either wrong or irrelevant at the end (I think neither; I love that book). But the point, which you've taken, is that individuals' perceptions can be different, their interpretations of those perceptions can be different, and their memories of them can vary wildly in accuracy, strength, etc. - so the individual's reports of their own experiences are treated as [i']one set of data. There can, and should, be others, like "what brain events took place while subject A was reporting feeling X? What about subject B?" It's a lot like classic experiments in neuroscience. (I imagine that as a law student, you're used to dealing with adversarial subjects; we'd want to assume they weren't lying, but if they were, the question would become "why did A choose to lie about X?") Self-reporting is widely used in experiments to begin with, and it's not worth disregarding in this one special case - in fact it might be eminently useful. To establish a library of these reactions, to really map it out with a lot of people instead of just saying "we're all different, end of story", would be a worthy undertaking. To come at it from a different angle - the question of the "soul". The brain is a physical object, and physical, chemical/electrical things happen in it that precede our actions and respond to stimuli, and those things comprise our thoughts (unless you follow someone like Sheldrake, who is A) guilty of wishful thinking and B) full of shit, IMHO). In any case it follows that the "soul," however immeasurable or indescribable it might be, must have some physical ramification, some point of contact - if it exists, it's our tether to the metaphysical. They have been looking for this point of contact for centuries with no success (the pineal gland, anyone?). Not to say it won't be found - the odds aren't very good - but the basic point of both of my little arguments here is that we're not up against things that are unknowable in principle. We're up against things we haven't figured out; we're up against things we haven't figured out how to figure out. I don't think that evolution has gifted us with the miraculous ability to comprehend the totality of existence, but there are a lot of easy questions in here, and I'm betting the hard questions will get broken down into easier ones, and eventually disappear. It's far more interesting/illuminating to me to wonder why we as humans are susceptible to metaphysical thinking, than to just accept A) the fact of metaphysical thinking, and B) some people's insistence on their interpretation of things they may or may not have actually experienced, as actual evidence of a metaphysical plane. All it's evidence of, really, is that a lot of people think a certain way. And not too much light has been shed on that. Saying it's "unknowable" is a copout. Saying it's "non-linear" is semantics. We have to try harder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is difficult though given much research which returns proof of the metaphysical (though no proof of a god, gods in the plural form, demons or a devil) is not taken seriously. For example in the paranormal field for a long time there were considered to be demons. This line of thinking has been slightly modified and the term demon is no longer considered correct the phrase elemental is now used to describe such activity. The idea is these entities are born in a location where a tremendous amount of negative energy has been stored at that location or in rare cases attached to an object. There is evidence accepted widely by paranormal researchers but considered to be either fraudulent or not in the least bit credible by more "traditional" sciences. It therefore is not so much that we are not trying hard enough to explain the metaphysical but rather we do not want to explain it. This is a fear which is quite understandable given the power in particular of the catholic church and the ramifications were we to prove that a life after death exists however there is no supreme deity or conglomerate of deities which rule over the affairs of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw I saw that guy sitting on the grass today at school. He wasn't handing out pamphlets or talking to anybody. I don't know if he gave up on the pamphlets or what. Could have been doing homework but I was ready! hahaha! Today was a good day to be a viking! Hail Thor! Hail Odin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again - I'd call that evidence of something peculiar about our way of thinking. A tendency, throughout history, to attribute events that we don't understand to the working of an active intellect. Having evolved as social creatures, it makes sense that we'd look for personal motives behind every occurrence. I grew up with the Hindu pantheon, but even as a child I started to see it as a metaphor. At some point it wasn't a useful metaphor anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see what you make of the post I made before Viking's comment
Alright. First, I'll point out that you're changing the subject. Before, we were talking about things that "couldn't be measured". Now you're talking about things that, you claim, have been measured. Then you're saying that those measurements have been rejected by the scientific community out of fear. To respond to that, I'll say that the "scientific community" as such isn't subject to any form of central control. It's not some big global conspiracy. In certain fields (like drug or weapons research) you can find situations where money or governmental controls override actual results, or common decency, but I don't think that's the norm. Also, you'll find many believers of different stripes within the scientific community. it's not a monolith by any means, and I think you would find a significant number of people who would jump at real evidence of what you're calling the "paranormal". The catholic church, on the other hand, is a global conspiracy, which I don't think they've ever denied; but I have to say that I honestly don't know what you mean by bringing them into it. Do you mean that they have an interest in the status quo, and are using their power to suppress the evidence? I'm sure that if there was proof of an afterlife, they'd love that to pieces, unless it proved the Hindus were right after all:D. If, on the other hand, you're saying that fear of catholic ascendancy is keeping researchers from admitting the truth about this evidence, eh... I think you'd find plenty of catholic researchers that would be very happy to trumpet that stuff to the skies. Then, you're talking about "elementals" (by whatever name - "demons" works for me too!). Not sure if you mean beings that inhabit physical bodies, or things made out of "energy" that aren't supposed to have a corporeal form. Given that I think there's plenty that we don't understand, I could accept either idea, in principle, but I'd give it the same credence I'd give the concept of a soul, which is to say, not much: in the former case, you say that there's a little person of some sort, that is somehow acting on my brain to produce those physical effects which turn into thoughts, actions, etc. If that's my soul, then I suppose that little person is the real me; if it's an "elemental" I guess you'd call it possession! although I'm not sure I see a practical distinction between the two. In the latter case, I mean, sure, what physical effects have they had? Feelings count - feelings are physical occurrences within the body. Thoughts, dreams, somnambulism, dead babies, and broken windows all count too. Then I'd be curious to see what it is about those events that leads you (or these researchers) to believe that they were caused by active agents, which is to say, thinking beings of some description. The basic point here is that the burden of proof is on you. If the best explanation that someone can give for a phenomenon is that it must have been caused by a thinking being that can't be reliably detected by any instrument or sense that we possess, and yet manifests physically in some way, yet at the same time manages to act with complete disregard for whatever physical limitations the universe seems to impose on everything else... well. To me it sounds like a failure of imagination, in the same way that farmers might have used to think bad crops were a direct result of something they'd done to anger their gods, rather than, say, potato blight. Last, to show evidence - for the sake of argument let's call it compelling evidence! - of thinking beings that don't fit within our usual physical parameters (and let me digress for a moment and say that I'm a big Star Trek dork and I think something like that would be really cool)... anyway... to show evidence of these beings has nothing to do with whether or not there is an "afterlife". They are two separate issues. It's possible to conflate them by talking about a soul that somehow exists outside of the body, and claiming (hoping) that, if it can exist outside of the body, then there's a chance it could continue to exist after the body is gone, to which I'd say: not a foregone conclusion! And yet, most people the world over believe in something like this, including a lot of scientists and philosophers, and they've brought their instruments and their logic and reason and poetry and all their other intellectual faculties to bear on it for millenia, and they haven't shown it to be true. At this point in the conversation, some people throw up their hands and say, "it's just not knowable by science!" (Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria", for instance.) My original point when I got into this was that that whole attitude is science, just science with limits. It was science when the Greeks thought testicles acted as weights on the male vocals cords, making our voices lower, and it was science when doctors believed in humors and vapors, or formulated the principles of Ayurvedic medicine. They believed these things for reasons. Those were later shown to be invalid reasons for incorrect beliefs, and there's a lesson in humility to take away from that, because we don't know everything. We might be talking past one another because you misunderstand what I mean by science. What I mean is nothing more or less than the attempt to understand the world around us. I am an atheist because that's where my attempt has led me. I can't call something "supernatural" or "paranormal", because I think that implies that we have a full understanding of the natural and normal, so much so that we can just say something isn't "of our realm" or "doesn't conform to known laws", when to me that sounds like ignorant arrogance in the face of a problem we haven't figured out. It's like failing to match up the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, refusing to count them, saying that they're not all there, and throwing the box away. The people who can usually be counted on to say they have all the answers (or that their god does, which isn't much of a difference as far as I'm concerned) are religious people like the guy that prompted Viking to start this thread. So, I don't usually get into these conversations, even online, because they're long and typically unsatisfying! You and I aren't researchers, and at the end of the conversation we can agree to disagree, and hang out on the forum and talk about music and have a good time. But in principle, that's not good enough. I'd like to know more. Blake called the body "the chief immanence of soul in this age". I think it's a nice metaphor, and that he got it backwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to your post in small chunks since it's so massively wrong. Firstly I was not changing the subject at all. In fact I was giving evidence that the supposedly unmeasurable can be quantified and analysed. As for your subsequent comment about the rejection of evidence based on fear that isn't really what I meant. The point I was getting at is that certain experts refuse to accept evidence of a certain nature based on the consequences. For example evidence of the paranormal is treated as highly suspect in particular by many physics students I talk to at university. In fact it seems the more compelling evidence in this field is the less likely it is to be treated as anything but a hoax. This may stem from a reluctance to accept the hitherto unchallenged rules of their field do not always apply as they are supposed to. I use the example of the paranormal because like the actions of a deity any paranormal activity is governed by the rules of our reality and the fourth dimension of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Catholic Church what I was saying is that proof of an afterlife without the existance of a heaven or hell removes the brainwashing capacity of the church itself. The church relies on fear vs reward to control people scientific proof that these things can not exist would be met with the most fierce response by the Catholic churh as a whole entity and that level of criticism by such a powerful organisation is not worth the scientific credit. As for the "elemental/demon" in paranormal discussion it is an entity which only exists in locations where tremendous negativity has occured. The idea of possession is utter nonsense so far as I am concerned it's a cheap parlour trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Pushing religion on others I feel like Father and I agree on many things and are looking at them similarly, but from different sides. Both of us are speaking of science's limits, which could certainly just be current limits that will be overcome, and there is plenty that we don't know and can't explain, which may not always be the case. It is true that science can explain much of the natural world, but there are still many things beyond its grasp. Also, I'm not sure why thinking that a different set of rules may apply is a cop out or some short sighted "ignorant arrogance", as this happens in science too. Newtonian physics was the standard and still is for many things, but molecular physics was developed because smaller particles are explained by different rules. Similarly, photons obey different rules than other sub-atomic particles, moving as both particles and waves. String theory is being worked on by scientists now which explain our universe in many dimensions (13 I think is the widely accepted number), yet we are only free to operate within 3, are confined by the 4th, and likely can't perceive the others, nor can we currently measure them. They exist only as theories now, and perhaps one day it can be proved, but as we still don't know, it's not unreasonable to think that different rules may apply. The point being, within realms that we don't understand and realms that may exist that we don't even understand in theory yet, the possibilities are endless. I'm not saying that we can't know those things and will never figure out how to figure them out, but whether we get there or not, we're not there yet. Perhaps it is all the same, perhaps things exist that are beyond even the limits of our imaginations, who's to say? I'm a bit of a skeptic myself, not just about crazy beliefs and self-imposed ignorance, but also about standard notions of causality. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I firmly believe in my gods but I understand what you say about the negative energy and the elementals. I definitely believe that is possible. I believe in ghosts too. There is nothing to prove that it doesn't exist.
That's negative reasoning though. Something simply being difficult to disprove is not sufficient to suggest existance. My point was that there is evidence out there provided by people who have no reason to fake it. Sadly legitimate research in the field will always be overshadowed by these rediculous tv shows where everything is faked to attract gullible viewers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest it never happened to me. Or at least I didn't get it that way. I love my freedom of choice and nobody ever tried to impose religion on me. I don't do it to others either, no matter if it's religion or the way you should cook a steak, for example. At least among the people around me religion is a bit of a tabou subject, we never bring the topic. Or almost never. And to be honest I like it that way, as it is something waaay to personal to mess with. If a person considers God as a tyran or a saviour or non existant it's motivated by toughts and feelings that are almost physical to be changed by other people's blabbering. It's a path one should walk alone I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why thinking that a different set of rules may apply is a cop out or some short sighted "ignorant arrogance"' date=' as this happens in science too.[/quote'] I don't disagree with anything you said! To clarify this particular point... What I'm calling a cop-out is the argument that some particular thing (like "god", for instance) is beyond the realm of science and forever unknowable. That's an argument that has been put forward pretty seriously (I mentioned Stephen Jay Gould). I've run into it in conversations a few times. The reason I think it's arrogant is because it implies that we've already reached the limits of our understanding. People draw a line in the sand and say, "Knowledge stops here!" It's fundamentally different to say, "We don't know, but we're working on it." That's the attitude I agree with. Different rules may very well apply! There may be different "planes of existence"! And as I keep saying, I'm positive that there are plenty of things that will prove to be beyond our grasp, because I don't think we evolved to be capable of perfect understanding. But that's no reason to give up trying. RelentlessOblivion: I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making too many assumptions. You're so convinced by the evidence you've seen/read that you think everyone else should be convinced too. You're assuming (and maybe you're right) that people are rejecting it out of fear, because they can't handle the truth; but, maybe they just didn't find your evidence to be as conclusive as you think it is. I haven't seen it. I'd be happy to have a look and form my own opinion. I will say, it will take a lot to convince me. I'm extremely skeptical of claims about spirits, by any name; and the more I read and try to understand the world around me, the more I see "the afterlife" as nothing but a human construct born out of illusions and wishful thinking. FWIW, my wife believes in spirits; she thinks negative energy surrounds her, and that destructive beings attack her in her dreams. I've known her for seventeen years, and we get along fine! I'm not going to tell her she's wrong; I reserve judgement. I'd really like to talk about metal and beer now. edit - I want to add, I've only been here a few days and I'm really not trying to piss anybody off. I like it here so far. I just get obsessive about conversations like this. So, especially @RO, I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm sorry if it comes off that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe in what you want. Just don't push it on others. That is the reason why I hate christianity because since it started they have been trying to spread it everywhere. I can't stand that. People should believe in the religion of their people, not some middle eastern religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 10 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • Full length number 19 from overkill certainly makes a splash in the energy stakes, I mean there's some modern thrash bands that are a good two decades younger than Overkill who can only hope to achieve the levels of spunk that New Jersey's finest produce here.  That in itself is an achievement, for a band of Overkill's stature and reputation to be able to still sound relevant four decades into their career is no mean feat.  Even in the albums weaker moments it never gets redundant and the energy levels remain high.  There's a real sense of a band in a state of some renewed vigour, helped in no small part by the addition of Jason Bittner on drums.  The former Flotsam & Jetsam skinsman is nothing short of superb throughout "The Wings of War" and seems to have squeezed a little extra out of the rest of his peers.

      The album kicks of with a great build to opening track "Last Man Standing" and for the first 4 tracks of the album the Overkill crew stomp, bash and groove their way to a solid level of consistency.  The lead work is of particular note and Blitz sounds as sneery and scathing as ever.  The album is well produced and mixed too with all parts of the thrash machine audible as the five piece hammer away at your skull with the usual blend of chugging riffs and infectious anthems.  


      There are weak moments as mentioned but they are more a victim of how good the strong tracks are.  In it's own right "Distortion" is a solid enough - if not slightly varied a journey from the last offering - but it just doesn't stand up well against a "Bat Shit Crazy" or a "Head of a Pin".  As the album draws to a close you get the increasing impression that the last few tracks are rescued really by some great solos and stomping skin work which is a shame because trimming of a couple of tracks may have made this less obvious. 

      4/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...