Entertainment For Lively Minds
What are the best atheist anthems?
So Paul Du Noyer's review of the "new" Prefab Sprout album got me thinking... Why is that, 250 years after the Age of Reason, while the rest of Britain has taken giant steps towards becoming a secular nation, God still rears His head in so much of our music - even the music by very, very smart people like Paddy McAloon or Stuart Murdoch?
Is it because music is, at least in part, essentially a spiritual experience, with its roots in worship? Is it because so many singers started out in church choirs (or is that a uniquely American tradition?) Or is it because the artistic, creative mind is intrinsically vulnerable to the sort of woolly, heart-rules-head thinking that lets God in?
So my question is: What are the best atheist songs in pop music? This one seems an obvious place to start. I'd welcome your thoughts / suggestions...
- More from Darcy.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I searched for this recently
As I was trying to compile a religious v atheist playlist. A couple of atheist sites have had this debate and apart from Dear God and something by Rush, the majority of tracks were from the wilder fringes of heavy metal, like "Fuck God" by Horrific Death (I may have made that up, but you get the point)
Oh, there's an ELP song from Tarkus too...
I think the issue is that
I think the issue is that the religious want to write about their relationship with/ love of God but atheists will write about other things and see no point in writing about the non-existance of God.
Does this count?
It acknowledges the existence of a higher power, but one that no longer seems to bother:
A gentle rain falls on me
And all life flows back into the sea
We contemplate eternity
Beneath the vast indifference of heaven
Warren Zevon, 1993
Into the Cave
Likewise Nick Cave's Into My Arms - the first line, after all, is 'I don't believe in an interventionist God'. He then uses the power of religious imagery - angels etc - to express a non-religious emotion.
Not strictly atheist but a fantastic song...
In fact...
not atheist at all. To say you don't believe in an "interventionist God" isn't a statement of disbelief. Plus, Nick Cave is on record as being certainly deist, if not theist, in his belief.
Correct! The debate is clearly between the possible existence
of a immanent or a transcendent God; i.e. a God who is prepared to intervene in the activities of humans or nature (stopping wars, earthquakes etc) and a God who prefers to be 'out there somewhere' letting the human race make its own decisions. As St Theresa of Avila phrased it 'God has no hands but ours'. Something to think about there then!
How unusual, for a Catholic nun to consider God
armless.
St Theresa of Avila
Self flagellant and visionary.
A sound source of wisdom.
Um
>>woolly, heart-rules-head thinking
Just think what Bach could have achieved without this, after all ;-);-)
Or indeed Finzi, the most devout of agnostics, in his setting of these words:
GOD
can i suggets this cheerful little john lennon tune....
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Imagine
there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try.
Lennon again.
' God ' : Typical
up-my-own backside Lennon bollocks. Not even a good tune.
God is a what?
If aliens came down from space and wanted to know why Lennon is so revered, you'd have a hard time saying "God is a concept by which we measure our pain" to them without everybody breaking into hysterics, no?
Stop!
I nearly drowned just now on my beverage! Hilarious and so right.
Both of these Lenon songs miss the point as atheist anthems ...
Lennon wasn't an atheist by any stretch of the imagination. Both songs are the product of his primal scream therapy, and belief in stripping back everything 'extraneous' from his self-reliance. I guess they could both be used as atheist anthems, but I think that would do them a disservice.
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about songs as 'anthems of membership' for a particular point of view - either for those who have a religious faith (like myself) or those who are radically opposed. At worst, 'membership anthems' can just ossify people's viewpoints. A truly successful song about God or religion should leave me thinking (or looking at/feeling things in a slightly different light) rather than reminding me that I am self-evidently right...
Well said
eg.Lennon flirted with Hinduism, was a pantheist according to many quotes in interviews, and as they say, was a recovering Catholic. He was always searching, and that is his wonderful flawed appeal. Pratfalls vs. Mountain Tops.
Sorry
You've lost me there. Do you mean Yoko was his god, as well as mother, substitute ?
So you cut it before he gets to Yoko? ;)
The 'me' at this stage being someone
who seemed incapable of drawing breath without the permission of the dreaded Yoko. Perhaps if he had believed in her a little less he might have stopped coming out with all this drivel.
What A Wonderful World
Not Atheist in the "Here's me denying any God" sense, but in a ignoring the concept altogether kind of thing instead.
Let Roy Harper be your atheistic light
The Same Old Rock is one of his own favourite songs:
The Spirit Lives is a good one "to say that god is dead presupposes he must have been at some time alive".
While not strictly an atheist song Don't You Grieve is irreligious - in the introduction Harper asks "Who else would you get to go and tell the Romans where you are, but your best friend?"
The Lord's Prayer, again while not an atheists anthem is a song Harper suggests in his sleeve note "because it semed to say all that the other doesn't".
He doesn't just have a go at Christiaity, as The Black Cloud of Islam testifies.
In more recent years These Fifty Years is another fine example. Harper dreams of a meeting between himself, god and Tom Huxley.
"God you've been with me these fifty years
A figment or a fantasy or what
It's time you could hear me and feel me and touch me
And teach me you're something that I'm not"
However he capped all these with his song The Death Of God:
Finally a mention for Leon Rosselson's Stand Up For Judas, although the version most people knw wa by Dick Gaughan.
The Same Old Rock
Hear hear. Wonderfully hypnotic rant against organised religion, with blistering - if buried in the mix - Jimmy Page acoustic guitar solo. I won't do the Youtube link to their badly mic'ed Whistle Test desecration of the song back in the '80s...
I think there's a difference
between writing about religion and being religious.
Religion is a treasure trove of interesting symbolism but it doesn't necessarily follow that an artist using that symbolism is buying into the whole thing.
Cat ( not Yusuf ) Amongst The Pidgeons
For starters... Nobody KNOWS whether " god " exist or not. Fact.
I myself do not believe in an anthropomorphic being in the sky, I find it rather reductionist and limiting from a philosophical/spirtual point of view. If others do, that's perfectly ok. Richard Dawkins is a theological cretin and a narcissistic bully who behaves in the very manner of those he wishes to debunk, whilst getting his kicks from soft targets.
Anyway, fulsome apologies for the rant. My vote is Kumbaya.
Also, 'Imagine ' is the most awful naive dirge and pile of shite. I'd rather have the frogs. Peace and Love.
Temple of the Dog
The grunge supergroups Temple of the dog, has a song called Wooden Jesus. Which is at least anti money-grabbing-religion. And Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, who was involved with the recording of the album, is known to be an atheist.
Jerusalem
Words by William Blake.
Full of questions. No real answers.
William
he was a gloriously mad old bugger wasn't he? Top geezer.
He was that...
'Songs of Innocence and of Experience' is one of the best things college put my way. The illustrated edition is just wonderful. I must admit I find his art more accessible than most of his writing.
A friend of mine was told she couldn't have 'Jerusalem' at her wedding because it was written by an atheist. But I had it at mine with no quibbles from the vicar. He was probably too stunned at my presence in a church to argue!
He was no atheist
He was just thinking mysticaly an poeticaly outside of his time-
that's why he was so ridiculed at his first and only exhibition.
He could see the bigger concept beyond the unquestioning judeao-christian bullshit. I bet he would have been a bugger on blues harp though. That could be a thread. Charles Dickens on tympani.. ( obvious Bonzo ref. apologised for ).
Just demonstrates the fear & ignorance
still lingering within much organised religion. I have no problem with sprituality and faith, it is the institutions that bother me.
Charles Darwin on sax?
Charles Hawtrey
on Melotron perhaps ?
And Charlie's Angels
on backing vocals. (The original ones of course!)
And the front man?
Neitzche on vocals...
That's not fear and ignorance, it's just thick
William Blake used to sit in a tree in his garden starkers, taking dictation from angels. Not the hallmark of a disbeliever - not the hallmark of a sane man, either, but there you go.
I thought It was
Robbie Williams who was loving angels.
Well
seeing angels in trees whilst bollock naked in your garden with your mrs seems perfectly sane to me. In fact we should have more of that sort of thing.
I find the Billy Bragg version sounds oddly 'authentic'
as if it was his song.
Although The Jeff Beck had a good crack at it earlier this year
I like the BB version
It's definitely in the same postcode as some his songs!
We're all Atheists.
I don't believe in your god, you don't believe in mine.
Atheists
have to have a god to not believe in.
Indeed...
Atheists believe in the non-existence of God as strongly as deists believe in the existence of God.
Agnostics, on the hand, understand that it's impossible to prove the existence - or non-existence - of God, so don't worry about it one way or the other.
They might believe it as strongly
but then, unlike deists, they do have the entire weight of all the available evidence on their side. That's gotta count for something, right?
In philosophical terms, it's not about evidence.
it's about belief systems. Both deists and atheists have a belief in the existence/non-existence of God.
The fact that one might be backed up by evidence isn't philosophically relevant as neither point of view can be indisputably proven.
In scientific terms, it most certainly is about the evidence.
A scientist doesn't have a belief in the non-existence of God, a scientist does not believe there is any evidence for the existence of a God.
But, the point Darcy was making is that
"they have all the available evidence on their side"
Surely there's NO evidence either for the existence or non-existence of God?
As you say, a scientist doesn't have a belief in the non-existence of God, whereas specifically believing in the non-existence of God is pretty much the dictionary definition of an atheist.
Any scientist worthy of the term would only ever describe himself as an agnostic.
What about Tarzan?
Raised by apes thousands of miles from the nearest Vicar, Mullah or Priest, he grows up completely ignorant of any doctrine or scripture, the lucky boy, and has no opinion on the existence or otherwise of any superior being he can't either run away from or smash over the head with a rock.
Is he an atheist or an agnostic? Surely, if anything he's an atheist, but he doesn't specifically believe in the non-existence of God.
He's not in a position to say 'Hmmm, I'm not convinced one way or the other, so I'll keep an open mind'; he hasn't got the sophist luxury of opting for agnosticism, he simply doesn't have an opinion.
If he doesn't *specifically* believe in the non-existence of God
then he's an agnostic.
Being an agnostic isn't about 'keeping an open mind'; it's about not positively and specifically believing in either the existence or non-existence of God. It's a commonly held fallacy that agnosticism is in some way about 'not having decided yet'
If you believe in God; you're a deist
If you believe in No-God; you're an atheist
If you believe in neither; you're an agnostic
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Someone who believes in a God or Gods of some kind is a Theist.
Someone who doesn't do this is an Atheist.
It's there in the root of the words.
Plenty of people take the view that agnosticism is simply a weak form of atheism.
Let's agree to disagree :-)
Oh Please Vulpes
really....
Aha!
But what about the scientists who believe in God? Like Einstein? Or Schrodinger? Or Isaac Newton?
They
are hedging their bets, the chickenshits.
Well...
Do you think that millenia of the greatest known/unknown sages, mystics, scientists,philosophers and artists, whatever their conclusions, are suitably termed as chickenshits ?
Calm down.
Allow a little levity.
Believe Me
It's a funny discussion and my comment was meant in exasperated humour. No offence meant whatsoever, Vulpes.
Einstein believed in God?
I don't think so:
"I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
I Don't Believe in, I Know.
Carl Jung.
The key passsge
Is "from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist". Einstein claimed to believe in a Spinozan God, i.e. he didn't believe in the figurehead-style of god that a Jesuit priest might recognize, but one found in the harmony of nature. But then at other times he claimed to be agnostic. As far as I know, he actually opposed atheism.
Einstein's concept
embodied an idea of the physical world, an orderly system. We seem to agree on that. My understanding of this is that Einstein did not believe in a supernatural consciousness that set out to create a universe; that set rules for humans to live by; that envisaged a life after death.
I think all those who argue for the existence of god believe in those tenets.
Almost
Spinoza's philosophy was actually open to the idea of a creator - it just didn't believe in a supreme being who sat in judgement of mankind, or set rules like you say, etc.
I can't believe I'm discussing this. Two years of religious philosophy was the reason I quit college to go and work in a record shop.
In my 1st year
as an undergraduate I had a grlfriend for most of the year who was a Theology student.
I think I can feel us bonding ;)
Scuse me
I believe Einstein actually believed in Tarzan.
It's not a worry
Let me reasure you, atheism is a relief and is definitely not a worry.
If you're going to tell me that a for instance a Christian god does exist I want some evidence other than a faith based text. Why should the any of the Abrahamic religions be believed in any more than the gods of ancient Greece or Rome? Or the Norse gods or the Hindu gods?
Where's the evidence for there specifically NOT being a God?
If you're an atheist then, presumably, you believe there to be such evidence?
If you simply 'dont believe in God due to lack of evidence' but don't specifically believe there is NO God, then you're an agnostic.
It's a common misunderstanding of the terms.
Where does it say that
if you don't believe that something exists, you must therefore believe that that thing does not exist?
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God or Gods.
An agnostic is just trying to hedge his or her bets.
Ask Randy Newman:
Hasn't anybody seen me lately
I'll tell you why
Hasn't anybody seen me lately
I'll tell you why
I caught something made me so sick
That I thought that I would die
And I almost did too
First me knees begin to tremble
My heart begin to pound
First my knees begin to tremble
My heart begin to pound
It was arrhythmic and out of tune
I lost my equilibrium
And fell face down upon the ground
As I lay there on that cold pavement
A tear ran down my face
'Cause I thought I was dying
You boys know I'm not a religious man
But I sent a prayer out just in case
You never know
Lo and behold almost immediately
I had reason to believe my prayer had
been heard in a very special place
'Cause I heard this sound
Ooooh
Yes
Oooh
Yes, it was harps and angels
Harps and angels coming near
I was too sick to roll over and see them
But I could hear them singin ever so beautifully
in my ear
Then the sound began to subside
And they sounded like background singers
And a voice come down from the heavens above
It was a voice full of anger from the Old Testament
And a voice full of love from the New One
And the street lit up like it was the middle of the day
And I lay there quiet and listened to what that
voice had to say
He said, "You ain't been a good man
You ain't been a bad man
But you've been pretty bad
Lucky for you this ain't your time
Someone very dear to me has made another
clerical error
And we're here on a bit of a wild goose chase
But I want to tell you a few things
That'll hold you in good stead when it is your time
So you better listen close
I'm only going to say this once
When they lay you on the table
Better keep your business clean
'Fore they lay you on the table
Better keep your business clean
Don't want no back stabbing, ass grabbing
You know exactly what I mean
Alright girls - we're outta here"
Ooooh
"Encore. Encore."
Ooooh
(He spoke French)
"Tres bien
Encore"
And off they went into the night
Almost immediately I felt better
And I come round to see you boys
'Cause you know we ain't living right
And while it was fresh
I wanted to tell you what he told me
He said, "When they lay you on the table
Better keep your business clean
When they lay you on the table
Better keep your business clean
Else there won't be no harps and angels
coming for you
It'll be trombones, kettle drums, pitchforks,
and tambourines."
Sing it like they did for me one time
Ooooh - yes
Ooooh - beautiful
Wish I spoke French
So actually the main thing about this story is for me
There really is an afterlife
And I hope to see all of you there
Let's go get a drink
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God - discuss
"Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God or Gods.
An agnostic is just trying to hedge his or her bets.">/I>
With the greatest of respect Vulp, that's just wrong.
Atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist. That is as much a position of belief as deism.
An agnostic believes in neither the existence nor non-existence of God
Change the question to (say) "Did John Bonham play guitar with Led Zeppelin?"
The deist says "I believe that he played guitar with Led Zeppelin"
The atheist says "I believe that he didn't play guitar with Led Zeppelin"
They're both positions of belief.
The agnostic says "It is not possible to conclusively prove nor disprove the statement, therefore I hold no position of belief either way. Once there is evidence to hold one position or the other, then I will hold that position"
'a' means without, and 'theist' means believer in God(s).
Atheist = one who doesn't have a belief in a God or Gods.
Which is NOT the same as "a belief that God doesn't exist".
Atheism is a position of non belief, not necessarily belief in the opposite.
Why do you keep using the term deist? I know someone used the term earlier, but it's irrelevant to the distinction between 'theist' and 'atheist'. It just obfuscates the simple fact that an atheist is described by the addition of 'a', meaning without, to 'theist'.
It seems to me that one might wish to state one's position as agnostic 'just in case', after all, as Randy says, "you never know". Which is just a weak form of Atheism. We can agree to disagree, but for the record, my view is that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, and I'm not alone in taking that view.
If I won't buy a Ford, it doesn't mean I have to buy a Chrysler.
After all, Jesus Chrysler drives a Dodge.
:)
I know I've been drawn off my own topic but...
we can confidently state the non-existence of God to be a FACT.
The argument continually trotted out by believers is that we cannot prove that God does not exist. But on the same basis we cannot disprove, or indeed prove, ANYTHING. For example, you might state as a fact that The Word exists, and that its current issue has Robert Wyatt on the cover. But what if my religion is founded on the belief that aliens are infecting the Earth’s water supply with psychotropic drugs specifically designed to make us all believe The Word exists (actually quite a feasible scenario compared to most religious theories)? You can’t disprove it, ergo the publication’s existence ceases to be a fact, merely a point of view. Similarly, my religion might posit the existence of a 500-metre wide invisible tomato, undetectable by any physical means, hovering over central London. As you cannot prove it does not exist, its non-existence passes from the realm of fact into the realm of conjecture (a bit like Bertrand Russell's "the world was created five minutes ago" scenario).
This, of course, is utter nonsense, and leads us into absolute madness. Which is why, in order to decide whether something is a fact or not, the only sensible option is to look at the wealth of evidence to support one position, and the lack of evidence to support the counter-argument. To this end, we should be prepared to stick our necks out and state as a fact that The Word exists, and that the invisible tomato and God do not.
To deny this is to deny the factual existence, or non-existence, of EVERYTHING in the Universe – essentially, to deny the very existence of facts.
Fuck Me
You don't exist !
Devil's Advocate
Can you cite one piece of evidence - from the wealth available - that supports the position that God doesn't exist? I'm not sure I can... or at least I can't think of any that's in any way conclusive. I'll happily be proved wrong - if it's possible.
I think you miss the point
The existence of a god is a wildly improbable thing. There's therefore no need for evidence that one doesn't exist. Like the lost island of Atlantis, dinosaurs in remote jungles etc. the onus is on believers to provide extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims.
I'm not missing the point, I'm just curious
It may indeed be wildly improbable - but you said "in order to decide whether something is a fact or not, the only sensible option is to look at the wealth of evidence to support one position, and the lack of evidence to support the counter-argument." And so I asked for the evidence to support your position. But now it turns out that you don't need any. You can probably see why I was confused.
'Twas
Darcy said that.
Not me...
...I think. However the point is that the onus is on the proponents of the improbable to produce evidence. If I walked into the Word office and said I had travelled there by tube (assuming you have a tube station nearby) you would accept that without comment. If I said "I travelled here today by my new flying car that runs on water!" you might reasonably ask to see some evidence.
Apologies
That was Darcy's post I was quoting, my mistake. I just think that the whole "prove it" argument is a non-starter because you only ask for it from your position as someone who finds it improbable to begin with. To the believer, who thinks that it's not only probable but entirely certain, the need for proof simply does not exist. Each argument perfectly suits the position of those making it, and neither can be proved wrong.
As to your example, if you turned up at the office claiming you'd got there by water-powered flying car, I'd just assume you were drunk :-)
Being certain of something without the need for evidence
is just arrogant. "Faith is believing in something you know ain't true" - Mark Twain.
It goes both ways
"Being certain of something without the need for evidence is just arrogant" applies to both sides of the argument. I'm not a believer, but I'm not arrogant enough to be certain I'm right.
At the risk of going round in circles
One side has all the evidence, the other has none. So which is the most arrogant in its beliefs?!
Even as
what Dawkins himself describes as a 6.9 agnostic (even he admits it's possible a God may exist, he just thinks the available evidence is overwhelmingly against) I don't really see the logic there.
Life itself is a wildly improbable thing, yet we analyse it and look for evidence of its history all the time. That's what Darwin did, after all. The existence of a God might be equally (or even more improbable), that doesn't mean he/she/it should not be searched for.
Search away
If you find any evidence, please let me know.
Evidence is not constituted by ancient papyrus scrolls, preserved in a clay pot in a previously undiscovered cave.
Yes
it is. What about yer missing link, old bean ?
No such thing
The idea of a "missing link" sees evolution as a ladder. It's not it's like a ladder. That famous picture series showing monkey evolving into man is to blame. It suggests that evolution has an aim.
But...
and I am in NO WAY a creationist, when all is said and done, it's not called Darwin's 'Theory' for nothing is it ? There's still a few grey areas on the evidence front, enough to deny it an irrefutable status in purely logical terms, to any open and enquiring mind at least.
Getting smaller
On another subject altogether, you might want to update your e-mail address on your account page - your hushmail address appears to have expired, so I can't answer the mail you sent me. But the answer to your question is yes, they're all available at iTunes.
Nail hit on head
'Theory' is exactly right and should be applied to all things with grey areas on the evidence front.
No position can offer irrefutable proof. That's were the belief comes in.
But is it any more improbable than the existence of a Universe
which appears to have come from nothing? (a scientific impossibility)
Big Bang theory
The theory is not that the universe sprang from nothing but that it sprang from a singularity.
"a 500-metre wide invisible tomato"
Everyone knows this doesn't exist. It would get in the way of the giant lemon that (of course) is there.
Not so
In claiming there is a god, a supernatural being that created the universe, you are making an extraordinary claim. It requires some evidence.
Non belief doesn't require evidence. I'm certainly not an agnostic, but if you want to convince me there is a god you have to convince with more than "it's an act of faith".
Sorry Carl
the way I've haplessly crowbarred my latest comment into this thread makes it look like you're arguing with someone who agrees with you. Philosophy I can do - rudimentary IT skills are clearly beyond me.
A scientist writes
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. By any stretch of the imagination, the existence of an all-powerful, invisible friend in the sky who will torture us forever unless we obey his arbitrary rules, is an extraordinary claim. I am therefore not inclined to think about it very much.
Is that 'agnostic'? Using your definition of 'agnostic' I find that I am also agnostic about pixies santaclaus and the tooth fairy. Which makes the word a bit pointless.
I'm sure you're a very nice chap
but that is the most smug and patronising nonsense. So many, but not all of you, are still waiting for the Shakespeare/Horatio bus. I think it's because hegemonys don't sit well with the odd shake up now again.
I happened to grow up in a 400 year old property where things most certainly happened. I knew, as did the my parents, brother, cats, dogs,and my previously no-nonsense Mancunian Grandmother ( no bullshit with her ) and many others including visiting tradesmen, friends and general visitors etc. All of it benign but unsettling. Just to make your laugh, it was actually on an energy line, there were two streams running throught the ground, and to cap it all, and I would not bullshit about this, a small celtic burial chamber on the north side of the property, at the foot of a well known local hillfort.
It's not easy to mention this even with the anonimity of this site, but I have met many sane,sober ordinary people with experiences of their own, and I do not suffer nutters. Anyway, spleen vented, seriously no offense and love to you, and all that you love.
Oh, but I've experienced that sort of thing several times.
One of my best friends had a property, parts of which go back to the 13th Century, that's definitely got presence of some kind. We've even been away on holiday in hired premises, both felt 'something or other' and both decided independently not to mention it at the time, only to compare notes, holiday over, and get the X-Files moment big time.
I fail to see what it has to do with a God or Gods, however.
Absolutely Vulpes
just trying to take make a point re. the inherent smugness of the majority of the scientific community and their ability to dismiss subjective experience within their own framework of self interested empiricism. Fancy starting a Van Morrison tribute act ?
But the thing is
that astounding, incredible, one-in-a-trillion things happen, simply by chance, every single day, don't they? Nothing 'supernatural' about them though. The fact that we can't explain what we see at that moment in time doesn't mean it can't ever be explained.
It's like that comedian (memory escapes) who opened his act with
"on the way here I passed a car with the number plate *insert random number here*. Of all the number plates in the world, what are the chances of that? Amazing."
Of Course.
nothing Super/Para. Just that which we choose not to conceive of.
Why are we labelled smug?
You find something difficult to argue against. So rather than try do so, you just say we're smug. Arguement over. We're defeated.
And...
...your point is, caller?
This is a call from Mr. God to Mrs. God....
Hello....... ?
Embraman keeps hanging up.
Evidence ?
If there is a separate causal influence emmanating all reality, how can it provide evidence of itself other then having us have this blog, for example? Whatever. A comment made by John Martyn referring to his wonder at the speckles on a trout summed up the mystery for me.
Isn't Fraser in charge
of this blog?
But Jams...
...John Martyn HIMSELF was a mystery to me.
And as for the non existence of a God / Gods / 'Supernatural Beings' / higher power we don't understand yet etc etc being dismissed because someone above (er, I mean someone above in this thread, not 'someone above' as such) thinks the very idea is "wildly improbable" - well, that's pretty poor stuff, isn't it?
Remember, there was a time when everyone in science thought the Duck-Billed Platypus was so "wildly improbable" that the first stuffed specimens to arrive in Europe were derided as taxidermic fakes made up from bits of other animals.
And Beatle John's Aunt Mimi thought it "wildly improbable" that the young fellow could make a living strumming a guitar.
There are a million and one things once believed "wildly improbable" which are now taken so much for granted that we probably can't immediately think of 99% of them - we have to try and imagine how the likes of telephones, microwaves, X-rays, chewing gum, motor cars, hovercrafts, airplanes, paperclips and the entire 'careers' of most modern 'celebrities' (ie. those people without any appreciable talent or admirable personal qualities) would have looked to our predecessors 100, 200, 300 years ago and so forth. I'd suggest they'd think the whole lot of it "wildly improbable". Ditto the recent discovery of deep-sea eco-systems around ultra hot vents that are wholly independent - unlike all other life on earth - of any relation to sunlight or the products of the sunlit world.
It may have been an off the cuff remark but, frankly, anyone who chooses to argue about God (TBC) - and, honestly, I'm not knocking the belief/lack of belief itself, merely the argument - with only "wildly improbable" in their ammunition just won't make converts.
As Sherlock Holmes once said, 'Once you have eliminated the impossible, Watson, whatever remains - however improbable - is the truth.' Or something along those lines anyway. (I expect someone to fire back the exact quote on this thread within 24 hours!).
Then again, Conan Doyle did believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden...
Quite.
Well said.
FPO in the area
My wife just walked in the room played air guitar, said that was dreadful and walked out again.
Ace.
Mug
"Mug" by Creaming Jesus.
can't remember exact lyrics but it goes a little like this (apologies for paraphrasing):
"he died for our sins - mug!
nailed him up on a cross - mug!"
etc...
When I saw them back in '89/'90 in Glasgow they were selling Creaming Jesus mugs, with cartoon crucified Jesus motif, at the merchandise stall. I snapped one up immediately.
It's got a little chip on the rim but I still use it.
I remember 'Nailed up for nothing'
Brilliant title.
Come Down Jehovah by Chris Wood
This has to be the clearest and most concise song to fit this thread. A magnificent song and a great player, in my view.
Nice one..
..Drizzle - I'd forgotten that. Nice version by Martin Simpson too.
Randy Newman
check this version of GOD'S SONG live with an orchestra from 1979
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this:
"My God" by Jethro Tull from the album 'Aqualung'.
People, what have you done,
locked him in his golden cage.
Made him bend to your religion,
Him resurrected from the grave.
He is the God of nothing,
if that's all that you can see.
You are the God of everything,
he's inside you and me.
So lean upon him gently,
and don't call on him to save, you
from your social graces,
and the sins you used to waive.
The bloody church of England,
in chains of history,
requests your earthly presence at
the Vicarage for tea.
And the graven image you-know-who,
with his plastic crucifix,
he's got him fixed,
confuses me as to who and where and why,
as to how he gets his kicks.
Confessing to the endless sin,
the endless whining sounds.
You'll be praying till next Thursday to
all the Gods that you can count.
Ian Anderson
what a delight. never saw this before? is it available commercially? Ian Anderson was such a crazy, talented genius and showman in those days.
My God
It's from the Isle of Wight concert - the Nothing is Easy DVD should have it, although a glance at the Amazon reviews suggests it may or may not be complete. Another wonderful choice - ditto the whole of side 2 of Aqualung really.
Always look on the bright side of life?
Perhaps not atheist, but bloody funny.
My own favourites
The old agnostic hymns from Hyperdrive:
Whoah !
I appear to have arrogantly replied to myself by accident there !
Absolutely not, I assure you. I had been agreeing with Stimpy,and then adding an afterthought.
Nope
Your earlier comment is in the right place.
Josh Ritter
Girl in the War.
http://open.spotify.com/track/1p9iL6Vd0StyEViR1LkFxU
'No Gods and Precious Few Heroes'
...is a pretty blistering bit of Scottish folk-rant polemicism with a fairly stirring set of lyrics and melody. Written and recorded by Brian McNeill on the album 'No Gods' in the 90s and subsequently recorded by Dick Gaughan - a man whose delivery can generally put further blisters on even the most blistering of barnacles... Haven't checked for youtube performances...
McAloon
I'm a fan of Paddy McAloon's work, particularly the less arch variety, but I agree with the OP in that there is something quite amazing, in 2009, about his continuing religious belief. It just demonstrates the incredible power of religious indoctrination at an early age, particularly, it seems, Roman Catholicism. The number of otherwise thoroughly modern artists and media types who feel unable to leave their religious origins behind (Dara O'Briain - 'I don't believe in God, but I'm still a Catholic') as their Protestant / Anglican counterparts have done is remarkable imho.
but 'Catholic'
isn't just about religion. It's also about a whole load of cultural and social cues and tropes that, as Dara O'Briain's quote quite adroitly suggests, are very difficult to divest oneself of.
'Belief in' doesn't necessarily mean 'flagwaving for'
Paddy's background would require him to take a major leap to chuck his faith. I think his stance is 'questioning'. Viz The Sound Of Crying. Not an atheist anthem but a song of exasperation with his God. And beautifully done.
Andromeda Heights
Been listening to this excellent and quite underrated album tonight. Very pertinent to this thread is the track 'Life's A Miracle'. It's a hard heart that is unmoved by this song.
http://open.spotify.com/track/3N68DDBvmfs8Ta8j4uwUyS
Funnily enough I was also listening to that album today
and was struck by the lines in The Mystery of Love where he asks "Have you ever thought who made all those stars in the endless sky above?" before pondering "Should I live to see someone smarter than me explain the secrets of the skies..." Erm, Paddy, I think you'll find yer average GCSE physics students could clear that one up for you in a matter of seconds.
Still a bloody genius, though.
Fed up with those of a superstitious bent..
Then 'Atheist Peace' by Bad Religion
On an Island, it felt right...
David Gilmour's "On An Island" is one that immediately springs to mind. Song and entire album.
Not the most obvious of choices granted, but certainly one which goes with my view of nature and our natural surroundings being heaven. Throughout this mellow disc, Gilmour sings of being a humanist and about finding spiritual comfort on 'his island' i.e. earth. "This earthly heaven is enough for me" as he says on one song.
The album as a whole - and Gilmour's beliefs generally if you look at his lyrics through the years - may not be a dictionary definition of atheism, but he's singing off a similar hymnsheet.
Theories and Scientific Theories
I'm not going to squeeze this in above with a single word per line.
You may have a theory why your bus is late every day. It's an idea or number of ideas, but you don't really have any idea why it happens.
A scientific theory is different: a theory is postulated, but not on the basis of unsubstantiated ideas. It explains something clearly. There is evidence to back up the theory. Not only is there evidence but the theory can be tested. The theory is written up in a paper, it is published and anyone can read it; anyone can test the evidence; if the evidence doesn't support the theory and it is found wanting the theory falls.
It is called a theory because in science a scientist doesn't state unequivocally this is the final answer. Science accepts that new evidence could come to light but unless or until it does the current theory stands.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is by the far the best explanation for why the world we live in is the way it is. Please do not try to insert belief because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I agree with you [I think]
My point above [perhaps not very well put] was that belief comes in when proof leaves the room.
There is no proof of God, that much is undeniable. There is only belief that this, or that, is the work of *God* and as such *God* must exist. And if that is what you believe then that's what you believe. Maybe there is a God or Gods [perhaps they worked in tandem], but I haven't seen proof of it myself.
Someone should start this as a stand alone post.
I'm sorry but kneejerk Darwinism...
A little independent investigation throws up a lot about the scientific hegemony manipulating archeological data in terms of self interest. Anyone can obtain this information and make there own minds up. It belongs to the scientific establishment after all. However, I suppose the archeologists and geologists who discovered startling anomolies that were not acceptable to the establishment were just nutters, and their careers died of natural causes. Obviously.
Startling anomalies
You can throw up a startling anomaly. If it stands up to analysis it's accepted.
Your view that there is a scientific hegemony is palpable nonsense. All areas of science have scientists in strong disagreement with each other. Ultimately your ideas have to stand up to scrutiny, to peer review. You stand or fall if your theory can be shown to be scientifically credible. that's how science advances.
Credible versus acceptable
is not the accepted game. Anomalies don't quite fit do they ? and when they become apparent, they will be explained and absorbed. What's your thoughts about the OBE experiments currently underway ? By the way, I apologise if this is comes across a bit personal Carl, I do not mean it that way at all.
Just interesting stuff.
OBE
I'm guessing you mean Out of Body Experience?
No particular thoughts as I haven't been following any news about current research.
If OBE is something else, I haven't a clue at all.
Atheist anthem?
She's Not There
Better late than never
Quiet week at work so dipping into various blogs, belatedly in this case.
Surprised no one has mentioned this atheist call to arms from The Cardigans of all people.
Divine Comedy
Don't Look Down
again, not strictly atheist - but worth a listen anyway, so what the hey?
Most people are actually agnostics...
Basically all but the most absolutely fervent believer will have some small part of their brain which questions their belief (even Mother Theresa apparently). Equally I am informed that even the majestic Richard Dawkins has admitted that you can never be 100% certain. ("There PROBABLY isn't a God...")
Hedging my bets
I am a daylight atheist- Brendan Behan
Then I saw her face
Now I'm a believer
Depeche Mode - Blasphemous Rumours
Here's a classic 80's anthem