Does anyone write atheist based songs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WEBCYAN
  • Start date Start date
grimtraveller said:
If your first point were true, the world and every society within it would be an incoherent mush where nothing has any meaning and any attempt to describe anything would be a complete waste of time and breath.
Dude-bro...I mean, certainly we can agree that while certain words do have distinct definitions related to their etymology they also carry alternate meanings based on the user. So yeah, I have some friends who call themselves Christians and if you asked another Christian if my friend were a Christian they would say, "No, they are not a Christian because they do x, y, and z." I'm from Detroit and we just had some terrorist plane scare. The man who attempted to blow up the plane was a Muslim. A bunch of other people considering themselves Muslim's just got done protesting outside the courthouse and one of them interviewed said, "That man who did this is not Muslim". I know that if I open Webster's there's a definition for Muslim but people make the world and the words that describe them into what they want. The definition of words can and will change from the individual user and culture.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I understand what you mean there, but that's a kind of different thing. Two people may call themselves Muslims and express what they are differently. The meaning isn't what has changed. One of them may say "no one would do that if they were a real muslim". But within all modes of thought, there is a wide spectrum.
On a totally different note, I just read somewhere you were listening to "Bringing it all back home". Funny thing, I've been listening to that over the last couple of days. It's a great album, one of the great 60s groundbreakers. You got taste !
 
grimtraveller said:
Labels need to be diffrentiated from meanings of words. If you do not believe God exists, there is a word that describes you. That word is 'athiest'. Nothing to do with a label. If you play guitar, you are a 'guitarist'. Nothing to do with a label. And so on. Mind you, labels are actually quite important. How they are used is where we need to be careful, not whether they are used.
"Most people don't know what an atheist is, probably even dear old Johnny". How can any of us know what most people do or don't know ?
Hmmmm......I used to be an atheist. I decided back in 1977 at the age of 14 that there was no God. I was very definite about that for years. I knew what an atheist was then, at 14. It's kind of stretching the bounds of believability to conclude that a well read, much travelled, world weary, longsearching, heavilly debating guy like Lennon wouldn't know, two or three weeks before his 40th birthday, not only what an atheist was, but whether or not he was one.
Click to expand...

And see, you just kinda proved my point there, because you were a bit off on your definition of atheism.

An atheist is NOT someone who doesn't "believe" in God. You know how most theists point out the logic of "it takes more faith to NOT believe in God"? Its because it fits to the false definition.

What is an atheist? Someone whose combined knowledge and observations of the universe around him contradict the existence of a supreme being, creator, or deity. There is no "belief." Sure, can a god exist? There's always the possibility. But the god as described by every religious text contradicts observable evidence and scientific study developed over the past 500 years. And that's what an atheist is.

Most of the prominent atheists just shorten that to "I don't believe in God" but when they're called out on that statement, they just refer to the explanation I gave.

I'm sorry for dragging this off topic, I just wanted to make the "labels" to everybody discussing this topic clear.
 
Id doubt there would be a market...where do athiest gather to not worship anyway?
 
Seafroggys said:
What is an atheist? Someone whose combined knowledge and observations of the universe around him contradict the existence of a supreme being, creator, or deity. There is no "belief." Sure, can a god exist? There's always the possibility. But the god as described by every religious text contradicts observable evidence and scientific study developed over the past 500 years. And that's what an atheist is.
Click to expand...
What you are describing is an agnostic. Atheists believe by definition there are no gods -from the greek word atheos, meaning "without gods."


Edit: Seeing this is English and meanings warp, an atheist can be called a non believer which is in line with what your saying. All in all, that's just semantics. There is either a God - or not or -maybe for choices.
 
NYMorningstar said:
What you are describing is an agnostic. Atheists believe by definition there are no gods -from the greek word atheos, meaning "without gods."


Edit: Seeing this is English and meanings warp, an atheist can be called a non believer which is in line with what your saying. All in all, that's just semantics. There is either a God - or not or -maybe for choices.
Click to expand...

No, agnostics are apathetic. There's a difference.

Talk to any atheist scholar, and they'll tell you that logically, you cannot prove a negative. Just like you can't prove there's not a million trolls living in my lungs. Or that there's not a teapot in orbit in the vincinity of Mars. PROVE THAT ITS NOT THERE! HUH? HUH?

So really, there is no such thing as an atheist if we go by the "old style" definition. Agnostics is way too broad of a term to be used.

EDIT: Again, apologize for thread derailment.
 
Einstein bemoaned hostile atheists as misguided, and he referred to them as antitheists because they appear to hate a god they claim is not there.

So we have agnostics, atheists and antitheists. Many people that fancy themselves atheists really fit Einstein’s concept of the antitheist because of the irrational and active hostility towards a deity and towards people of faith.
 
Seafroggys said:
And see, you just kinda proved my point there, because you were a bit off on your definition of atheism.

An atheist is NOT someone who doesn't "believe" in God. You know how most theists point out the logic of "it takes more faith to NOT believe in God"? Its because it fits to the false definition.

What is an atheist? Someone whose combined knowledge and observations of the universe around him contradict the existence of a supreme being, creator, or deity. There is no "belief." Sure, can a god exist? There's always the possibility. But the god as described by every religious text contradicts observable evidence and scientific study developed over the past 500 years. And that's what an atheist is.

Most of the prominent atheists just shorten that to "I don't believe in God" but when they're called out on that statement, they just refer to the explanation I gave.

I'm sorry for dragging this off topic, I just wanted to make the "labels" to everybody discussing this topic clear.
Click to expand...
I've just looked at three dictionaries and each of them says under "Atheism" - the belief that there is no God and the atheist is one that does not believe in the existence of God. I don't think we can be any clearer than that - unless of course all of those dictionaries are wrong. If that's the case, then it's a different story.
The reasons why a person may not believe in the existence of God are really quite irrelevant to the definition because those reasons can only ever be subjective and the definition cannot be concerned with the path one has taken to reach the point of (as we are discussing it) atheism. Sure, there is no "organized" "codified" set of atheist 'beliefs' - although in the last half century, atheistic and humanistic groups (who claim to be atheist) have tentatively set about trying to change that. Or at least, they have in England. Outside of the question of God, I share loads of common ground with people who do not believe there is a God.
By the way, I think theists make the point that it takes as much faith to believe the world came in to being from the explanations given to us by the scientific community that by and large reject the idea of us being made by God, which from where I stand is kind of logical. In both instances a trust in what you do not know as diehard fact is operating.
I don't know if you ever listen to Rush, but their song "Natural science" kind of comes from that perspective (not the theist one, the other). It's a great song actually.
I think it's been a fascinating discussion and your contribution, among others, has been brilliant. For me, an artist puts forth their viewpoint. Sometimes we'll agree, sometimes we won't. I can tell you right off the bat, I don't agree with at least or close to half of the views I find in many christian songs, but I'll enjoy the songs. Same with many others. Sharing the same beliefs by no means equals sharing the same views.
 
grimtraveller said:
By the way, I think theists make the point that it takes as much faith to believe the world came in to being from the explanations given to us by the scientific community that by and large reject the idea of us being made by God, which from where I stand is kind of logical. In both instances a trust in what you do not know as diehard fact is operating.
Click to expand...

And were theists to make that point, it would only apply to some people. I trust science because it is falsifiable. Science abounds with theories (relativity, gravity, evolution etc.). These theories are not just conjectures or speculations; there are vast bodies of evidence, observations and experiments that support them. But for the thousands bits of supporting evidence, it only takes one piece of evidence to disprove them; that is the elegance of the scientific method. It is always possible to prove a scientific theory wrong. But religion is not falsifiable . . . it is not possible to provide contrary evidence to an assertion that, say, there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Astronomy, a science, is falsifiable. Astrology, a non-science, is not.

Importantly (for me at least), we have discovered many times that what was once mysterious, miraculous and inexplicable has turned out to have a natural, physical explanation (bacteria causes disease, not spirits, lightning is not a bolt from the supernatural, and so on). I am confident that other unknown things will eventually reveal their natural causes . . . so that means, for me, there is no necessity for the supernatural (just as there is no necessity for the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas).

Unsurprisingly then, my material never dwells on supernatural. It is not theist, but nor is it atheist. It is just secular.
 
gecko zzed said:
... I trust science because it is falsifiable. Science abounds with theories (relativity, gravity, evolution etc.). ...It is always possible to prove a scientific theory wrong.
Click to expand...
It is not always possible to prove theories and that is why they remain theories, educated guesses.
But religion is not falsifiable . . . it is not possible to provide contrary evidence to an assertion that, say, there are fairies at the bottom of my garden...
Click to expand...
That's not true either and that you show yourself saying some assertions were falsified and fittingly enough by using scienctific methods.
we have discovered many times that what was once mysterious, miraculous and inexplicable has turned out to have a natural, physical explanation (bacteria causes disease, not spirits, lightning is not a bolt from the supernatural, and so on)...
Click to expand...
To bottom line it, both God and science utilize faith to obtain belief. There is an element of trust in both. I don't see them as mutually exclusive and I believe in both.

Actually, I have alot of scientists in my bible study class and I strongly disagree that the scientific community rejects God. There's no good reason to hold science in opposition to God or vice-versa. Live long and prosper :)
 
I realised that this was going to happen when I hit the submit buttom, and with the direction this discussion is taking, it more properly belongs in the cave. But seeing as it is here (for the moment), I will continue.

NYMorningstar said:
It is not always possible to prove theories and that is why they remain theories, educated guesses.:)
Click to expand...
I would say it is never possible to prove theories. My contention is that scientific theories allow themselves to be disproved, i.e. they are falsifiable. It is this capacity to be disproved that differentiates a scientific theory from a speculative assertion. Theories will always remain theories, but they are more than 'educated guesses', because the enudring ones have the the weight of evidence supporting them.


NYMorningstar said:
To bottom line it, both God and science utilize faith to obtain belief. There is an element of trust in both. I don't see them as mutually exclusive and I believe in both. :)
Click to expand...

There is an element of trust in both, but there is a difference. Faith is not contingent on evidence; science is. This means, of course, that I agree that they are not mutually exclusive . . . they are just different thought processes.

NYMorningstar said:
Actually, I have alot of scientists in my bible study class and I strongly disagree that the scientific community rejects God. There's no good reason to hold science in opposition to God or vice-versa. Live long and prosper :)
Click to expand...

Many scientists have religious convictions, and I'm fine with that, and I wasn't suggesting that the 'scientific community' rejects God. I was saying that the science method rejects God; it has no need to postulate a supernatural entity, and my original point: nor have I.

May you live long and prosper as well.
 
I didn't mean to sound like you were suggesting the scientific community rejects God. That was something grimtraveller was saying in your quote.

I agree to disagree with you about science contigent on proof because a large part of it concludes on theory. Kinda makes me wonder though... why we don't have a scientific theory of God?

I agree about the cave too but this has survived out here over 8 years:D
 
I haven't read this entire thread, however....

What's the point? I mean, I could write a Christmas song about there not being a Santa Claus, but for what purpose other than sticking my finger in the eye of someone who does believe. Personally, I am a believer.
 
NYMorningstar said:
I didn't mean to sound like you were suggesting the scientific community rejects God. That was something grimtraveller was saying in your quote.
Click to expand...
Neither was I saying that the scientific community as a whole rejects the idea of God. Many do not. In fact for hundreds of years there has been a contingent of scientists that have seen their role as explaining the workings of God in nature. No, my comment was aimed purely at those members of the scientific community that do reject the idea of God.
The topic of this thread has been an interesting one with many interesting points of view. Gecko pointed out that he would see his songs as secular rather than atheist and I would say that a huge amount of popular music falls into that category. I think that secular stuff overlaps music on all sides of the spectrum, you know, many religious writers have written secular songs and still do. And I go back to a point I made earlier somewhere - actual atheist songs are a relatively new phenomenon and I would hazard a guess, something of a minority sport.
There came a point around the mid 60s where writers of songs in the popular vein went beyond the 'girl meets boy' love theme. This coincided with the media seizing upon pop stars to share their opinions and thoughts. And after Dylan began writing 15 verse songs and a load of things that seemed to make little sense but sounded wonderful:D, it gradually dawned on people that their inner thoughts and feelings actually could make good subject matter for songs. I see it as inevitable that all kinds of things would then find their way into songs, ranging from menage a trois' {Triad- David Crosby} to paedophile rape {Fiddle about- the Who} to jealous rage murder{Hey Joe - Jimi Hendrix} and alot more besides. Including atheistic thinking. There isn't much that has been left out in the last 45 years.....
 
Mick Doobie said:
What's the point? I mean, I could write a Christmas song about there not being a Santa Claus, but for what purpose other than sticking my finger in the eye of someone who does believe. Personally, I am a believer.
Click to expand...

it goes both ways

John Lennon did it with God!
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure he masturbated in his time.
 
If anyone listened to my song contribution to this thread, what did it say to you?
Athiest? or just cathartic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top