Black Gospel Choir Makes Man Wish He Believed In All That God Bullshit

[iandhr]

COLUMBUS, OH—The gloriously jubilant gospel singing that pours forth each Sunday from Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church is enough to make local resident Doug Kamin wish he believed in all that God bullshit.

Kamin, who lives two blocks from Bethel AME Church, passes the church most Sundays en route to his local Starbucks. Though he has rejected the existence of God ever since discovering Marx and Nietzsche in the 10th grade, Kamin admitted that the exuberant singing of the church choir often produces in him a feeling of longing.

"It must be so life-affirming to be in there, connecting with fellow human beings and celebrating your faith while making that joyful noise," said Kamin, a doctoral candidate in political science at Ohio State University. "I still say it's a big, delusional fairy tale, this whole religion thing, but what's the harm in believing in a 2,000-year-old carpenter and some 'holy ghost' if it makes you happy?"

Kamin first discovered Bethel AME Church in May 2000, shortly after moving to the neighborhood. Long accustomed to dismissing all forms of Christian ceremony and worship as "hysterical" and "cult-like," Kamin overheard a rendition of "The Old Ship Of Zion" that led him to amend his opinion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-gospel-choir-makes-man-wish-he-believed-in-a,231/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus

[msongs]

1. religion and gospel are learned behavior. some of it's enjoyable as entertainment nt

[BKH70041]

2. Gotta love The Onion!

[kwassa]

3. It worked for me.

( and I know all about The Onion, thank you very much. )

The black gospel experience is about ecstatic worship of the divine. So are other traditions, like the Sufis.

My freshmen dorm at college was across the street from such a church. The music was incredible.

The reason it resonates and has an emotional impact on people is because there is truth in it. If there wasn't truth in it, it would have no impact. Clearly, that isn't the case.

[edhopper]

5. clearly that's bullshit.

What truth?
The Magic Flute and the Ring Cycle move people as well, as does the theme to Star Wars.

[kwassa]

6. Clearly to you.

Not to me. Or millions of others.

Enjoy your atheism.

[jonno99]

9. +1000 Thank you...

[uponit7771]

23. +1

[edhopper]

24. I don't doubt that millions love it

and are inspired by it.
In fact I like a good Gospel Choir.
But it is you who claim there is a "Truth" in it and that "Truth" is the reason for it's impact.

So I ask you again what "Truth" that is so clearly the cause of this emotional impact.

Why is this music different from all the other music that has an emotional impact!

[Susannah Elf]

77. There's more than one kind of truth.

If you're talking literal truth, yes gospel music celebrates the christian system and if you don't believe that yourself, then the words of the songs don't represent truth.
What unbelievers respond to is the emotional truth of the music. Like I can respond to a love song about someone I've never met, the truth of gospel music is in the feeling. Sorrow. Joy. Longing. Love.

[Gore1FL]

106. That isn't what the poster said.

He said "The reason it resonates and has an emotional impact on people is because there is truth in it."

There is no truth in Gospel music. The music may be inspiring. The words may be inspiring. Inspiration is not truth, nor does inspiration only come from truthful things. The poster implied it was was inspiring because Jesus. This implication is further revealed in the next response with the included "Enjoy your atheism" swipe.

[edhopper]

133. Thanks Gore

said it better than I could.

[Susannah Elf]

141. The original post

was a reprint of a humorous piece in The Onion. If it anywhere implies that " the reason gospel music is inspiring is because Jesus " well, the OP says no such thing.

[Gore1FL]

144. I'm not talking about the orignal post, but rather the one we were talking about in this sub thread.

That post said "The reason it resonates and has an emotional impact on people is because there is truth in it."

That assertion is clearly bullshit.

[Gore1FL]

104. Fly what ever way you want.

But don't proclaim there is "truth" to it without providing meaningful evidence of said "truth."

[Susannah Elf]

150. Many ineffable things can't be proved

Telling someone you love them. Does that often inspire the statement "Prove it"?

[Gore1FL]

153. When someone says "I love you" the assertion comes from an authoritative source.

"The Gospel is True" does not.

[Susannah Elf]

159. "I believe in the gospel", (not me but just saying

is a statement coming from the original source.

[Gore1FL]

175. You believeing in it is different than it being true.

That's an important distinction.

I know people who believe with all of their heart that giving tax breaks to the rich is a good thing. That doesn't make it true.

[Susannah Elf]

187. So you believe (maybe)

that the feeling you get when you look at your spouse or child is the emotion we call love. I believe that the feeling I get when I am moved to tears is a manifestation of my connection with god.
Love and belief are experienced in the heart, not the mind.

[Gore1FL]

207. Your emotion is very real

You are credible source for the description of your feelings. I applaud your abilities to both reach and describe them.

That doesn't equate to the beliefs being being true. I'm totally OK with you having them. I'm not trying to deconvert you. My point is that beliefs, and hopes, and the inspiration derived from them are not necessarily true. The feelings do not provide evidence of truth. That in no way minimizes the feelings and the very real set of emotions you experience in music, art, theater, et al.

I'm not so much arguing the data. I am arguing the conclusion.

[Susannah Elf]

218. I'm just glad that people are able to be moved by art.

How they interpret it... is quite beside the point.
It's the experience that matters. That of having your perspective changed or your heart expanded after encountering that another human created.

[Gore1FL]

235. On that we agree on all points! n/t

[hifiguy]

173. Thank you. There is not one bit of logical difference

in citing the bible for the existence of a god than there is in citing Action Comics for the existence of Superman.

IIRC you can label it either begging the question or circular reasoning.

[jonno99]

10. Clearly? LOL!

What's clear is that you have an OPINION - you own brand of faith - that apparently brings you peace of mind.

Well, I wish even more peace & happiness for you on your journey my friend...

[edhopper]

25. And it is kwassa's OPINION

that this music has some truth that every other piece of music that has impact does not.
The subtext is that it has some religious "truth". But it is evident that lot's of music has emotional impact.
So what is this "truth" kwassa speaks about?
Does Debussy's Afternoon of the Fawn contain this "truth, if not, why does it also have an emotional impact.
Is that impact less than that of the Gospel music because it doesn't contain this "truth"

[kwassa]

32. Sorry, Mr. Hopper, I never said that.

that this music has some truth that every other piece of music that has impact does not.

This is on you.

[edhopper]

35. so what truth

Does it clearly have?

[kwassa]

39. Music is a means of accessing the divine.

This is true in cultures around the world.

This is not the only purpose of music, but it is a means or worship. If there were nothing true about it, no one would listen.

More Jesus for you.

[edhopper]

42. oh bother

I'll stick with my clearly bullshit post.

You meant exactly what I assume yo meant.

And its a load of hooey.

[kwassa]

43. Here is a fine Edward Hopper painting for you, edhopper.

[edhopper]

46. Thank you

he is quite amazing.

[phil89]

54. Please offer some evidence to support

the claim that music a means to access the divine. What on Earth are you even thinking with that nonsense?

[beam me up scottie]

60. Well I like music therefore God.

See how easy that was?

Of course atheists like me are moved to tears by all kinds of music so that must mean there are no gods.

They cancel each other out, no?

[AtheistCrusader]

65. No, god is like voltron. the more you hook up, the better it gets.

[beam me up scottie]

66. You heathens just don't know the Truth™.

There's truth and then there's Religious Truth, aka Truthiness.

Religious people are in on it because...God.

[Arugula Latte]

74. Well, there are "other ways of knowing," ya know!

Like, you can get to know God through networking at seminars. I've got a LinkedIn request pending with The Deity. I'm sure He will accept it at any time.

[beam me up scottie]

164. I'm sure God reads DU.

Yesterday when I was laughing at the responses on this thread lightning knocked out my connection for hours.



'splain that science-ists!

[Arugula Latte]

167. Must've been Zeus!

[tblue37]

245. Maybe Thor. nt

[DetlefK]

76. What if I listen to Tenacious D praising Satan?

Does that bring me closer to the divine?

[Susannah Elf]

81. If it moves you to tears...

[beam me up scottie]

162. I think Randy Newman's 'God's Song' brings us closer to the truth...

"God's Song (That's Why I Love Mankind)"

Cain slew Abel, Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

Man means nothing, he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said

I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind

[Susannah Elf]

182. But that song creates

an imaginary version of god and then condemns that god. What's true about that?
.

[beam me up scottie]

183. Imaginary?

Other than the man-made god, what's imaginary about Newman's portrayal?

Take original sin: did he or did he not condemn his creation?

There's truth in citing the extreme homicidal rage depicted in the bible.

[Susannah Elf]

185. You are conflating

religious doctrine with the concept of god. Yes, the bible says some messed up stuff. I don't have to accept any of it to believe in god.

[beam me up scottie]

186. So which part is imaginary?

How do you know which parts of the bible you're supposed to dismiss?

And if you can accept all or none of it at will how truthful is it?

[Susannah Elf]

188. I don't believe in any of it.

I'm not Jewish nor am I a christian.
The Randy Newman song is false because its premise is false. There is no vindictive cruel old man in the sky who periodically visits horrible disasters on the human race. Which is the literary conceit that Newman uses.

[beam me up scottie]

189. But according to the bible there IS a "vindictive cruel old man in the sky...

who periodically visits horrible disasters on the human race.

Pointing out that fact isn't "literary conceit", it's the very definition of being truthful.

[Susannah Elf]

191. I've already said that I don't believe in the bible.

So I have zero responsibility in defending anything that's in it.

[beam me up scottie]

193. Then why did you say Newman created an "imaginary version of god"?

When you admit that "the bible says some messed up stuff"?

Either his portrayal of the biblical god is accurate or it isn't.

[Susannah Elf]

201. Okay so he imputed certain words

to the imaginary version of god that is described in the bible. Whoever wrote the bible made up a character who puts people in impossible positions, incites them to violence and generally behaves like the dysfunctional parent that they may have had themselves.
Got nothing to do with the god I believe in.

[beam me up scottie]

208. I'm confused.

First you said "that song creates an imaginary version of god"

You conceded that "the bible says some messed up stuff"

But followed with "The Randy Newman song is false because its premise is false. There is no vindictive cruel old man in the sky who periodically visits horrible disasters on the human race."

Even though you actually admitted that "Whoever wrote the bible made up a character who puts people in impossible positions, incites them to violence and generally behaves like the dysfunctional parent that they may have had themselves."


So what are you saying?


If you want to believe that the biblical god is imaginary and your's isn't, that's one thing, but you still haven't proved that the god in his song was imaginary or that his portrayal was inaccurate.



Afaic, they're all imaginary.

[Susannah Elf]

192. And it is a literary conceit

because it creates a conversation that did not actually occur. Literary conceits are not a bad thing BTW.

[beam me up scottie]

194. How do you know it didn't actually occur?

I don't know that.

Maybe Randy has other ways of knowing.

[Susannah Elf]

197. I'm going to assume that you are joking

or that you believe that Randy Newman is a prophet...

[beam me up scottie]

198. Who am I to doubt it?

I'd have to question everything all the other prophets said.

And then where would I be?

[Susannah Elf]

202. Right exactly where I am, Scottie.

Trusting my own experiences, questioning the wisdom of people I don't know and living a subjective life on an objective planet!

[beam me up scottie]

210. Now you're getting where I'm coming from.

I've been doing this DU thing a long time, what we agree on is much more important than disputing the existence of gods.

[Susannah Elf]

211. Exactly!

I haven't been on DU for long, and honestly I am already a bit burnt out! The whole "prove that god exists". " no I don't have to prove it. . " yes you do " and return to start...
Quite the merry go round!

[beam me up scottie]

220. This thread is one of the most civil I've ever seen when it comes to religion in GD.

Your responses have been thoughtful and civil even though this is definitely not a good topic for beginners.

Congratulations for sticking it out and welcome to DU, Susannah Elf!

[Susannah Elf]

224. Hey I may be new to DU

but I'm an old hand at engaging in debate.
I'm just glad nobody brought Hillary into it!!

[Susannah Elf]

227. P.S.

On Discussionist I'm arguing for more gun control.
Hey I didn't come here for tea and cookies!

[beam me up scottie]

228. Have you been to the gun forums here?

They make this thread look like an episode from Mr. Rogers' neighborhood.

I won't even go there...

[Susannah Elf]

230. Yikes!

I'm not looking to borrow trouble! These sidebar issues just seem to find their own way in..

[EvolveOrConvolve]

205. Aren't all gods "imaginary"?

I dunno, maybe there's been some evidence found for god(s) since the last I looked?

[Susannah Elf]

80. If you've never experienced

connecting with the divine ( god, to religionists..) that's unfortunate.
But next time you're looking at the sunset, or walking through a fragrant forest, and you get a lump in your throat, that's it.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. We don't use the word 'divine' the same then.

Because I can be in awe of, and enjoy light diffraction as much as anyone, but I know that the experience is entirely materialistic, and entirely subjective to me, in my physical position on the earth's surface at a specific point in the planet's rotational cycle. I also know it is generally made more spectacular (more colorful) by way of noxious pollution, whether from humans, forest fires, or volcanoes.

Another human looking at the same star, 20 degrees ahead of me on the planet's surface, isn't experiencing it at all. Neither is the person 20 degrees behind me; that person is experiencing different wonders, if they look and appreciate, subjective to their position and local conditions.

None of this makes your perception of the conditions any better or different than mine. You've just chosen a different word for how you feel about it.

[Susannah Elf]

98. Wonder. Resonance. Joy. Connection.

Whatever you call it, it's a great thing.

[skepticscott]

125. If the "divine" is entirely a product of your inagination

then I'm sure all that works just fine. If you're claiming it's something more than an invention of yours, then you got some 'splainin' to do yet.

[Susannah Elf]

142. No, I don't.

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I won't ask you to explain how your mind works. And I have no obligation to justify mine.

[skepticscott]

158. As I said, if the "divine" is all in your head

no you don't. If you're willing to admit that your "god" is a completely imaginary invention, either cooked up or borrowed from others to help you get through the day, you're welcome to go with that. But if, as I suspect, you claim a more substantial status for all of that, it does require more justification.

[Susannah Elf]

203. All that anyone thinks or believes is in their head!

Where else would you keep it?

[skepticscott]

239. Um…no

I'm convinced that the moon exists..but it doesn't only exist in my imagination. Some things have real, physical existence and some don't.

[Susannah Elf]

240. Thoughts have no physical reality.

The moon exists. Your thoughts about it are in your mind.

[skepticscott]

248. Um...yes they do

Thoughts are chemical processes going on in your brain. The neurons and chemicals exist physically.

And in any case, the physical existence of a thought about something is not the same as the physical existence of that thing.

[Gore1FL]

155. You are confusing awe with religion

The two are not the same.

[Susannah Elf]

181. Thanks for that

[Gore1FL]

109. Actually your quote reads this way:

The reason it resonates and has an emotional impact on people is because there is truth in it. If there wasn't truth in it, it would have no impact.

Please demonstrate or give examples of the "Truth" gospel music has.


What Truth does "Uptown Funk" have? It was last week's number 1, so it clearly has emotional impact and therefore "truth."

[AtheistCrusader]

113. Clearly uptown funk is going to give it to you

If you don't believe me just watch.

(Accepts burden of proof, proceeds to offer empirical demonstration)

[wheniwasincongress]

11. Actually

there is science that shows that groups of people - a choir or a crowd - singing and being joyful produces endorphins to not only those participating, but those listening.

[Jamastiene]

156. There is also science that shows cats meow at certain frequencies

to mimic the same frequencies as human babies. The cats do it to get humans to do their bidding for them. So, are cats "God?" I do wonder sometimes, lol.

[Susannah Elf]

190. I don't know about you

but I have never been moved to tears by either the sound of a baby OR the sound of a yowling cat!

[beam me up scottie]

196. I have been.

The sound of my mom's cat crying for her after she died still haunts me.

[Susannah Elf]

200. I suppose I should have said

moved to tears with feelings of joy.
Which I stand by.
I was also touched by the reaction my mother's cats had after her death. It was many weeks before they behaved normally.

[beam me up scottie]

222. It was a combination of emotions.

Joy was one of them, that an animal could love and miss my mother as much as I did.

[Susannah Elf]

225. I definitely hear you on that.

[Jamastiene]

226. I have...by the sound of the cat.

Human babies don't really do much for me as far as the emotions go. I'm a bit sentimental about cats though.

[Arugula Latte]

12. There is truth in it in that humans are social beings who connect and share emotions through music.

However, that feeling is in no way evidence or proof of any supernatural workings.

[kwassa]

33. Whatever you say.

[Susannah Elf]

101. Nor is it the converse.

[Arugula Latte]

119. The person who asserts something exists should provide evidence.

No human has ever provided a shred of evidence for the existence of god/s or other supernatual creatures.

"It gives me a warm and tingly feeling when I hear music" is not evidence.

[Susannah Elf]

123. In science

an assertion must be demonstrated.
That is not the arena where believers hold their beliefs.
Science-ists try to drag religion-ists into their paradigm. It has no impact at all.

[Arugula Latte]

139. Science tests theories, relying on evidence.

Just because humans make something up out of thin air and feel it "deeply" doesn't give these beliefs equal status with things that demonstrably exist as based on evidence. There are some things that we have never seen (such as unbelievably tiny atomic particles that are too small to be seen even by the most powerful microscopes), yet there is enough evidence for their existence that scientists are secure in asserting that they do exist. There is nothing like this to support the existence of "the divine." ... "Music moves me" and "sunsets are pretty" have nothing to do with proving that supernatural phenomenon are at work in the universe.

[LanternWaste]

172. National borders, economics, politics and governments appear to be...

"Just because humans make something up out of thin air and feel it "deeply" doesn't give these beliefs equal status with things that demonstrably exist as based on evidence. ..."

National borders, philosophies, economics, politics and governments appear to be given equal status, indeed-- a much higher priority at times, despite each being also wholly imaginary.

As long as we realize it's all imaginary and none of it really exists though, no worries... except in our own minds.

[Arugula Latte]

176. Those things aren't supernatural, though.

Those are manmade, theoretical things, but they're not said to have paranormal properties.

So far, there is no evidence for magical creatures that exist and operate out of the laws of science, like magical beings/gods/demi-gods/angels/demons/ghosts/leprechauns/fairies/dead guys from 2,000 years ago coming back to life, and so on.

[Marr]

178. Religion isn't exempt from scientific criticism simply because it shouts "faith".

Religions make many claims about the nature of the universe, and how things work. Those claims often don't align with what we now know about the universe, thanks to the scientific process and reason.

That should have a lot of bearing on how much credibility is given to religion.

[Susannah Elf]

215. And your statement that

"a person who asserts something should provide evidence " is your belief which I don't share. This isn't a court of law, Latte. It's my life and your life and neither of us are obliged to prove anything as long as their beliefs don't harm anyone.

[Arugula Latte]

244. Of course. But this is a discussion forum.

Someone started this by implying that there is divine "truth" in music. Well, music that evokes emotions isn't proof of the supernatural. That's what we're pointing out.

[Susannah Elf]

246. I get that, Latte.

But I don't think it's terribly productive to keep having the same conversation:
Atheist: Prove that God exists!
Believer: I don't need proof and I don't have to provide you with evidence.
Atheist: Yes you do.
Back to start.
New as I am to DU, I'm already worn out participating in such a futile discussion. Let's take it as read that atheists/agnostics need proof in order to believe in god, and deists don't.

[Susannah Elf]

247. Or you could say that

theists accept their subjective experience as evidence and the A/A crowd don't.

[HERVEPA]

26. Clearly arrogance is your forte.

I like listening to gospel and I like singing gospel.
And I think the idea of a god is poppycock, but if you believe it fine.
You need a class in logic 101.

A ==> B ==> C
does not imply that
A ==> D

[kwassa]

34. Make an argument.

A bunch of letters and arrows is not an argument.

and now for your listening pleasure, some Jesus music.

[HERVEPA]

37. There is nothing in your statement which backs your assertion.

I listen to gospel music. I like to sing gospel music.

I think the whole idea of there being a god is silly.

How does that fit in with your scenario?

And now for your listening pleasure, some Jesus music.

[kwassa]

40. I don't feel a need to prove anything to you.

Like I said, millions disagree with you. That is good enough for me.

Show me one great atheist musical piece.

Bach, Handel, Mozart, Berlioz, Faure, Purcell, they were all terribly mistaken, weren't they?

[Oktober]

67. Are you suggesting that only those who believe in the supernatural...

... Can make great music?

What a load...

[Marr]

179. Huh? The vast majority of great music is small-a atheist.

As in, not religious in nature. I don't understand your point.

Also, believing a thing because many others do is a classic logical fallacy. It's called argumentum ad populum, or 'appeal to the people'.

[snooper2]

78. I thought this was Jesus music

[Susannah Elf]

83. Exactly.

For many years I sang in a community gospel choir. Fair to say the choir was evenly divided into Christians, the spiritual-but-not-religious, and agnostics/atheists. But when we made a joyful noise, we all felt joy, wherever it came from.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Sorry, faulty logic there.

If there wasn't truth in it, it would have no impact.

All sorts of music has emotional 'impact', whether or not there's 'truth' in it. What is the 'truth' in instrumental pieces that have been used in movies ever since sound was added? We react emotionally to the music as much or more than the words, which is why there are a lot of tunes out there that have had different words set to them over time. It's also why so many tunes use pounding rhythms similar to heartbeats in the background.

My favorite piece of 'emotional' music are all wordless. Night on Bald Mountain, for instance.

[kwassa]

36. There is no fault in my logic.

No music would have any impact unless it had truth in it. By that I mean that it resonates within us in that the sounds, and words, have deep meaning for us. That is the truth involved.

I react more to melodies and harmonies than words.

Much of the greatest music ever composed has been composed for religious purposes. Do you think these composers whose music still moves us, are deluded individuals?

[HERVEPA]

38. "In a cult, there is one guy at the top who knows it's all a scam. In a religion, that guy is dead"

And there is no logic in your "logic"

[kwassa]

41. I am devasted by the power of your, um, logic.

and now listen to one of the most beautiful songs ever. Oops, it is religious.

[HERVEPA]

45. Bigoted homophobic Mormons (see Boys Scouts and California Prop 8)

I'm impressed.

[kwassa]

56. Martin Luther King. I'm impressed.

[HERVEPA]

59. Uh, yeh, right. Huh? Non-sequitur.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Your logic is wildly flawed.

"Much of the greatest music ever composed has been composed for religious purposes. Do you think these composers whose music still moves us, are deluded individuals?"

Ignoring the fact that you have not established how much is 'much' and how you quantify 'greatest', which really just sounds a lot like your opinion, you have admitted that not all of your mysterious category of 'greatest' compositions, was created for religious purposes.

So yes, flawed. Fatally so.

Who is 'us', anyway?

The ability to craft religious music that is moving to X percentage of the population isn't proof anyone is or is not laboring under a delusion.

[kwassa]

57. There is no flaw there.

Surely the atheists participating in this thread can do better than this. This is really weak.

You completely ignored the question I posed to quibble about the terms. Why don't you answer the question? Do you think the great classical composers I named are deluded individuals? Was J.S. Bach deluded?

The ability to craft religious music that is moving to X percentage of the population isn't proof anyone is or is not laboring under a delusion.

It isn't proof that they are laboring under a delusion, either.

There is clearly some universal truth involved, or it wouldn't continue to hold it's value to listeners hundreds of years later.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. "It isn't proof that they are laboring under a delusion, either."

You attempting to make that point is proof, however, that you don't understand operators like 'is or is not'. Don't repeat back to me what I just said, as if you are making a valuable contribution to the conversation.

I answered your question. You blithely ignored mine about Adiemus.

There is an enormous body of scientific research behind why some sounds and patterns are appealing to humans, and how various sounds and patterns alter the state of our minds. Well understood to the point that music producers can make informed offers on artist and album contracts by running their songs through algorithmic analysis to determine whether its a potential hit, and of what sort of magnitude. There are long-running musical pieces of broad appeal outside western, or even abrahamic faith cultural traditions. Congrats, you are a dollar sign on a spreadsheet, and that, there, is a "universal truth".

If broad or enduring appeal has the sort of meaning you simply assume without any evidence whatsoever, you have some explaining to do about that gospel choir shit you were spewing earlier.

Also, I have found your religious music can be co-opted for better purposes.

Make sure you watch it in HD and full screen.

[kwassa]

63. Sorry, you didn't answer my question. You did your very best to avoid it.

and we are done here.

Have a pleasant evening.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. "Bless your heart."

You seem awful concerned about trying to cast my direct answer as an evasion, all the while fully ignoring my question upthread. It wasn't even a difficult question.

Tell me, is there " universal truth" in honestly and earnestly engaging in actual debate/discussion, or will evasion suffice as a "universal truth" because it is appealing, or something?

[cleanhippie]

71. Kwassa's assertions of her own opinions and dismissal of everyone else's reminds me

of this meme...

[Arugula Latte]

73. This is offensive to me

because there should be an apostrophe when "its" is used as a contraction rather than a pronoun. Other than that -- spot on.

[Susannah Elf]

89. A lot of atheists seem to think

that anything that can be demonstrated is therefore proof that god doesn't exist.
All this scientific research just demonstrates what is, not how it got that way.
Also, I doubt that any manufactured pop song has ever moved anyone to tears. Except by happy accident.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Nice strawman. Can be seen from the ISS with the naked eye.

Pretty big one.

Search all my posts, in every thread going back 10 years or so, you won't find me claiming any evidence that is "proof that god doesn't exist".

[Susannah Elf]

105. Sorry Atheist

I've been on DU for less than two weeks. I don't know your historical posts
I was responding, not to anyone in particular. I was remarking on the hostility that exists between some believers and some supporters of science. It goes both ways. We've all heard some fundamentalists go on auto knee-jerk stance as soon as they hear the word "science". Conversely some atheists wave around any study that explains how anything works.
As far as I can see, science neither confirms nor denies the existence of god.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. If you're not responding to me, don't click the reply button under my post.

Addressing it to me informs me of the context of your statement. Historical posts are easy to find, there's a box in the upper right hand corner called 'search'.

"As far as I can see, science neither confirms nor denies the existence of god."

And the two propositions are not equal. X person claims Y god exists. Z person denies the claim as unsubstantiated. That is the whole of atheism. Lack of belief in the CLAIM of god(s).

Anti-theism is often cast as an active belief against the possibility of god or gods, but if you ask them very specifically about it, I've yet to meet one that will state unequivocally, without a doubt, there are not and can not be any god(s) out there. Not even Hitchens and Dawkins. They call it unlikely, at best.

Anti-theism is more of a reaction against believers, along the lines of 'fuck you, damnit, you WILL get your metaphysical bullshit out of my government, and out of our laws, and off my body and my life, and you WILL let me be.'

I have spent my life having religious morality imposed upon me by believers wielding the power of the state, and yeah, I'm a bit pissed off about it. Consider me 'on the attack' about it.

But it's a disagreement that can be resolved, with work, and time, and in no way involves me standing up and claiming I can prove that no supernatural beings (so defined) exist anywhere at any time, in this universe or any other. I'm not dishonest enough to make absolutist claims about things that I cannot prove do or do not exist. I can only evaluate the claims of others against the evidence they cite. So far, evidence in favor of the various thousands of supernatural beings, forces, and concepts humans keep selecting, are fully lacking.

[Susannah Elf]

114. Fair enough.

But I gotta tell you, I am NOT going to read everyone's post history before I reply to them. There aren't enough hours in the day!

[Susannah Elf]

151. I was responding to the general thread

which for the life of me I can't pinpoint the origin of.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Also, subjective claim, assumes your perspective on music is universally true.

"Also, I doubt that any manufactured pop song has ever moved anyone to tears. Except by happy accident."

Easily falsifiable. Typically dripping with meaningless angst about 'manufactured' popular music. Pretty shallow of you.

[Susannah Elf]

100. I used the term

manufactured music because you spoke about using logorhythms to create a product that is marketable.
By the way, I've been on earth for 53 years and you are the first person who has ever called me shallow!

[AtheistCrusader]

108. That's not what I said, but even that is a powerful tool, when used correctly.

There are entire corporations built around the idea of making sound into a 'hook' that can encourage consumers to buy things. Elias Arts would be a great example. You can use algorithms to better write music, but that's not what I said.

"Well understood to the point that music producers can make informed offers on artist and album contracts by running their songs through algorithmic analysis to determine whether its a potential hit, and of what sort of magnitude."

That is in the production process. Not the writing/recording. You actually need the song to exist to perform that sort of analysis, and then you allocate resources to shipping the product commensurate with its expected return on investment. Buying radio placement, tv ads, etc, is expensive. They don't do it for every single, from every artist. They target content that can be proven appealing to humans, within a particular culture. (Every culture is different on musical taste.)

But, what you were alluding to also has tools available to songwriters and recording engineers, to improve the appeal of various pieces. Sure. Doesn't make it crap just because it is marketable, or marketability has been maximized. Just means it's more appealing, to more people.

[Susannah Elf]

112. Record companies pre-select

for profitability. I'll assert, without any possibility of proving, that there are thousands of genuinely beautiful songs that will never be widely heard because they're not marketable.
And who knows? Maybe there were fantastically talented composer in Bach's time who weren't heard because they were atheists!

[AtheistCrusader]

115. What does 'genuinely beautiful' mean?

"Beauty" is a thing that can be measured and predicted, so, what does that term mean to you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/science-of-beauty_n_1239858.html

[Susannah Elf]

126. I'm really sorry that you are responding so

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

argumentatively. I don't think that you and I are completely at odds. I believe in god. You don't. Is that a reason to nit-pick and challenge every word l say?
Save your anger for religionists who want to impose their views on everyone by bullying lawmakers into passing legislation that impacts on the whole country.

[AtheistCrusader]

129. I do seek to understand.

I asked that question because we are using language and meaning differently, and I do not understand your usage.

If I wanted to be mean and insulting, I could just curse at you in every language available to me. I didn't. I asked a question.

If you do believe in god, then we do have fundamentally different starting points in perceiving the world around us. It can never hurt to understand the other's position more.

What can hurt, however, is lending cover to the group you identified, which I agree is the problem, but they operate under cover of your acceptance of a supernatural something to believe in. Your beliefs can be totally different, but you've gone as far as saying there is something out there at all, to be believed in/accepted. That's a foundation they build upon to say that supernatural something has doctrines and ideas it wants us to live by, and that they are the sole purveyors of that revealed truth. They are just going a bridge further than you, and making different claims about the supernatural thing.

Cover and credibility they could not exercise if nobody outside their sect believed in the foundation upon which they rest.

[Susannah Elf]

134. I'm not sure how to respond to this

First of all, I did characterize a post as "insulting" but it wasn't yours. I was referring to the post that had an imaginary checklist that the OP supposedly used. That wasn't you, was it? I think it was Mr Blur or something..
One thing that I've learned is that using more words to explain the words you've already used does nothing to provide clarity and understanding. I used to be in a theater group that almost split up after a discussion of whether or not we all agreed on what "truth" was! Frightening times, they were... ( please don't ask me to explain what I mean by frightening.)

Secondly, you are putting all people who believe in god in the same group with the same motivations. You say that they are just a bridge further than I am. Frankly, I have very little in common with religionists. I deplore the attempts to highjack politics as much as or more than you do! My view of god is so different that I am as much at a loss to understand it as you are.
Yes I believe there is a creator. And you don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. That wasn't me. That's way downthread, different user. I asked you to quantify 'genuinely beautiful'

two posts up.

"Secondly, you are putting all people who believe in god in the same group with the same motivations. You say that they are just a bridge further than I am."

Yes, you've got it. So, I am starting on a baseline of zero, or no faith. Thus far, you have stated you believe in god, so you're one bridge down the road, or one step up the ladder, etc. You share a space with the people we identified that press for obnoxious social modification legislation based on the claims of their religious doctrine. You and they both believe god exists.

Where they diverge is, you have not claimed any particular doctrine that must be shared with (or inflicted on) the rest of humanity. They do. They go one step beyond what you have so far stated.

My position doesn't lend them any credence. Not even a scrap. Can't get there from here. I don't believe in the supernatural, to have a doctrine to share with us in the first place. You believe in the supernatural, but you don't agree with their interpretation of that god's commands/doctrine/desires, etc. And that's cool, except you've removed a step they need to justify. Before they can claim their god wants us to do X, they have to support the claim the god exists at all. You stand with them in 'completing' that step, you say god exists. Now we're down to 'what does he/she/it want, if anything'. Now you're down to just shades of interpretation. It allows them an enormous battlespace within which to maneuver their ideas.

You share the chessboard with them just not the positions of their pieces. I deny them even that a game is being played at all.

[Susannah Elf]

143. I actually think

that I have more in common with atheists and agnostics than I do with religionists. If you believe that the ladder goes two ways, then I'm just a step away from your point of view. Fundamentalist of any faith are so many steps farther up I can't even see them.

[Susannah Elf]

195. I am not sharing the same space

as people who believe that their interpretation of god gives them a right to dictate to others.
Any more than I can be grouped together with everyone who likes Earl Grey tea and have any responsibility for the evil that some may do.

[AtheistCrusader]

199. That's not what I said.

I don't know how to say it differently without repeating myself.

"My god commands X" is predicated upon accepting "God exists". You share that latter space with them. You presume god exists. I do not. You don't share their claims about that god, but you do accept on presumption that there is a god.

That extends them cover in the sense, they no longer have to prove their god exists before getting down to the made up BS they spew about what their god wants you and I to do with our money, our time, our privates, etc. That's the shared space.

[Susannah Elf]

206. But I don't share the space

in which anyone has the right to spew out what they think god wants us to do! All you know about me is that I believe in god. What I share with the atheists and agnostics is my disgust with religionists who
a) claim to know what god wants them to do, and
b) seek to control others based on their mistaken claims.
Surely you can see more overlap with the a/a crowd than with the religious crowd.

[AtheistCrusader]

213. No, I see a much bigger leap between A/A and belief in god, than I do between

belief in doctrine brand X and doctrine brand Y from competing groups of people that claim and agree a god exists, and disagree on specific points of doctrine.


'I need to get from point A to point B'

Solutions:
1. Depends on the distance between, I might use one or more of many different modes of transportation. (Atheist/Agnostic)
2. I shall use a red Ford Fiesta ST. (Abrahamic god brand X doctrine)
3. I shall use a blue Ford Fiesta ST. (Abrahamic god brand Y doctrine)

The latter pair agrees on the mode of transport, but differs on doctrinal details.

[Susannah Elf]

86. Where you expecting footnotes?

Or lots of parenthetical diversions defining our terms?
Because I don't see a lot of that outside academia.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. I expect people to support wild and over-broad claims, yes.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be fairly dismissed without evidence.”

[phil89]

55. Music is real, gods and "the divine"

have never been shown to exist. You're just making emotional appeals that have no basis in reality, and yes you are deluded in the strict sense.

[HERVEPA]

58. Somebody had to say it. :-)

[Silent3]

68. Do you have research demonstrating that emotional impact is reliably tied to truth?

I rather doubt you do. You're calling this concept "logic", but it's no more than your gut feeling, a cause-and-effect relationship that maybe makes sense to you in some way, but with no evidence to back it up.

Even if we granted that some relationship existed, how strong could it be? Many people were clearly greatly emotionally moved by speeches given by Hitler, and music played at Nazi rallies. What are we to make of that?

What about less sinister examples? How many people are deeply moved by fictional stories? Perhaps you could say that the "truth" in these stories isn't the names and places and events, but something about the "human experience". If that's how this game is played, just how much flexibility are we supposed to grant this indication of "truth"?

What part of gospel music are we supposed to accept is "true"? I'm sure you prefer to be vague about this, just leave it at "there's truth in there" without having to commit to whether it's truth about specifics of Christianity, broad generalities about divinity and spirituality, or anything in between.

As for your totally off-topic question, "Do you think these composers whose music still moves us, are deluded individuals?" -- I'll answer it anyway, just to deprive you of an excuse to say I'm being evasive of your off-topic gambit.

The quick answer is yes.

Oh, but I'm supposed to be ashamed to say that, right? Either ashamed, or, if I say with a lack of shame, then I'm, what, demonstrating the clueless arrogance of pronouncing myself much smarter than the greatest composers in history?

I could spend several paragraphs breaking down why that's all bullshit, but you're the one going off topic with that question, and for now just calling your bluff on an evasive rhetorical gambit will suffice.

How about we stay on topic and see if you can defend your claim that emotional impact is an indicator of truth, that it's "logically" so, and add necessary detail about how reliable this indicator is, and how specific one can be about which parts of an emotionally moving work of art are true.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

69. I think they're great composers, and still would be even if the music wasn't used for religion. nt

[Susannah Elf]

110. You have a point Erich.

Fact is religious ceremonies were a great time to hear good music. Churches sponsored many composers including Bach. Where else could you find a pipe organ that really kicked ass?

[snooper2]

79. You are correct, check out these melodies! Best of all time

And- this music is 100% truth!

[Susannah Elf]

96. Just substitute truth with resonance.

Two words. "Truth" for the believers.
"Resonance" for everyone else.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. This has impact for me.

Any for you?

[Orrex]

70. Please identify something that "resonates & has an emotional impact" that *isn't* "truth."

Some people find that violent, hardcore pornography "resonates & has an emotional impact."

Others find that extensive cocaine use ""resonates & has an emotional impact."


If you characterize the "divine" as something that "resonates & has an emotional impact," you set a pretty low bar.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. For me, it's 11,000+ RPM on the open road...

Let the angels sing....

[Susannah Elf]

120. I'm not sure who you are responding to

The thread has gone in so many directions that I couldn't trace it back.
But as far as the statement that "someone" said that what "resonates and has an emotional impact" is divine...
Fear is an emotion. So are fury, distaste, disgust, etc. All emotions are not divine. Nor does being moved by something make you a superior person (ex. Hitler).:
Anything -music, art, literature - that inspires joy, wonder and hope is creating a divine response.
Believe it or not.

[Orrex]

135. Thanks for your answer, but you're simply proselytizing.

My post was in response to Kwassa's Reply #3, which was pure proselytizing. Like all other proselytizing, that's argument by assertion, meaningless to anyone who doesn't already believe.

Also, we must be careful to distinguish "The Divine" from "the divine."

If we're talking about "The Divine" as an ineffable, transcendent force, phenomenon or experience, then I'm sorry but I'm simply not interested in that mythology. I see no evidence that it exists, and any appeal to it is invariably a declaration of religious faith.

If we're talking instead about "the divine" as an uplifting, positively invigorating experience, then that's an emotional experience that requires no transcendent force for validation, no matter how profound.

Conflating the two "divines" is intellectually dishonest.

Anything -music, art, literature - that inspires joy, wonder and hope is creating a divine response.
Believe it or not.

So, for the afficianado, violent hardcore pornography is also divine? Got it.

And which kind of "divine" are you talking about, anyway?

[Susannah Elf]

138. I'm not prosthetelyzing.

That would imply that I care how you think and am invested in changing your point of view to mine.
Believers and nons will never change each other's minds. I almost wish we could colour code the streams of something. Then believers could talk amongst themselves and agnostics and atheists could do the same.
'Cause no one is really interested in the other's opinion.

[Orrex]

145. I have no problem with your opinion.

But it is proselytizing when one asserts one's opinion as fact, as Kwassa asserted in Reply #3:

The reason it resonates and has an emotional impact on people is because there is truth in it. If there wasn't truth in it, it would have no impact. Clearly, that isn't the case.

and as you asserted in Reply #120:

Anything -music, art, literature - that inspires joy, wonder and hope is creating a divine response.
Believe it or not.

If those assertions can't be backed up with logic or evidence, then they're simple statements of faith.


Incidentally, it's unreasonable to equate belief and non-belief, because non-belief doesn't depend upon any unverifiable assumptions, while unverifiable assumptions form the very foundation of belief.

[Susannah Elf]

149. There is a huge difference between

stating stating your opinion and prosthetelyzing. I don't have to prove scientifically the existence of god because I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

[Orrex]

152. Again, I have no problem with your opinion

But when express your opinion as a statement of fact--as you've done--then intellectual honesty requires you either to back up the statement with logic/evidence or else disclaim that you're merely voicing an opinion.

If you are willing to do either of these, then there's no problem.

[Susannah Elf]

154. When did I characterize

god's existence as a statement of fact? I think I've used the word "belief" many times, the word "fact" never.

[Orrex]

160. When did I say anything about god? Never in this discussion.

However, in Reply #120 you wrote:

Anything -music, art, literature - that inspires joy, wonder and hope is creating a divine response.
Believe it or not.

You assert this to be true regardless of my belief or non-belief--that's a rather bold and unambiguous declaration of (perceived) fact.

Nothing in your phrasing, nor your framing, nor the context of the subthread suggested that you were stating opinion.

If, at this point, you wish to revise your statement as an articulation of your own opinion, then I have no problem with the statement. I still won't share your opinion, but I would have no basis for disputing the sincerity of it.

[Susannah Elf]

209. In my humble opinion, anything that....

and everything else that was in my post.

[Susannah Elf]

180. I'm referring to both meanings of divine.

You can impute it to whatever cause you want, brain cells quivering, the Lord moving in mysterious ways, endorphins. I'm OK with any of those explanations. What I TRULY don't understand is why it bothers people that someone chooses an explanation different from theirs.

[Susannah Elf]

184. And although I am sure that violent pornography

evokes a strong response, I doubt if it is joy or hope.

[kwassa]

161. Whatever. What I am speaking of ...

are great works of religious art that inspired thousands, perhaps millions of people over long periods of time. Or, religious ritual practices that have done the same thing.

Those that last over those long periods of time and inspire multiple generations have something essential to say to us that resonates across time, across space, and contains a type of truth that has great value for those who experience it. In my opinion. Feel free to disagree. The experiences you are talking about clearly don't do that.

I am not proselytizing, as I really don't care whether you agree with me or not, and I am certainly not trying to convince you of anything. Believe, or don't believe, whatever you like.

[Orrex]

166. You are welcome to your belief. Bully for you.

I see no need to respect your belief, however, insofar as I don't find it credible or well-supported, but I'm sure that you don't care about that.

What you are describing as "divine" is indistinguishable from any experience that generates a strong emotional response. I see no basis whatsoever for using that response as evidence of any transcendent or ineffable phenomenon. To do so suggests a lack of imagination, frankly.

As you say, whatever. Believe in whatever magical phenomena will satisfy your sense of aesthetics. However, the framing of your initial reply certainly made it seem like you were trying to convince people that your belief is fact--otherwise why would you strike that authoritative, definitive tone?

[mr blur]

72. "There is truth in it"? What does that even MEAN?

What nonsense.

Ticks all the boxes, you mean.
They're black? Check. You can feel good about yourself now, in a paternalistic sort of way.
"ecstatic worship of the divine"? Singing about religious drivel? Check.
Gives you a chance to insult non-believers? Check.

[Susannah Elf]

128. That is by far

the most judgmental post that I've ever read. What right do you have to assume motivations for someone you don't know?
Your post is insulting to anyone who respects the principles of civil discourse.

[beam me up scottie]

169. Seriously?

Have you met DU?

Start a thread about Pit Bulls, vegans, circumcision or women who smoke while breast-feeding at the Olive Garden and hang on for the ride.

I'd advise donning your cast iron undies beforehand.

[Susannah Elf]

214. I have been fairly warned!

However when someone makes such a death-defying leap of logic (you like gospel music therefore you are a self satisfied racist) I'm going to call them out on it. And not take any of it personally!

[beam me up scottie]

219. That's not what mr blur said.

He was referring to the popular DU meme that atheists hate believers.

There is a lot of history you're unaware of here, without getting into it let's just say kwassa is no saint.

If you're going to start choosing sides I wouldn't start with the players in this particular arena.

[Susannah Elf]

221. I am putting forward my own ideas, not taking sides!

If a new person can't enter a long standing debate without assumptions being made as to what team they're on... DU has written its own obituary!

[beam me up scottie]

223. Yes, but you judged mr blur based on your misunderstanding of his post.

Enter the debate by all means, but please don't condemn the warriors without knowing why or what we're fighting.

Anti-atheist rhetoric is common on DU, our anger is a reaction to it.

[Susannah Elf]

231. I'm sorry

but I just can't see how I can know when someone is rebutting what was just said, or is renewing a historical grievance.

[Susannah Elf]

232. And I also think that this inhibits

new people from wanting to join DU. And I hear that every once in a while someone leaves in a big huff.
Take a page from big tobacco (she said for the first time in her life). When your old customers start dying off, it's time to make the product appealing to new ones!

[beam me up scottie]

234. It's good to lurk and learn for a while.

I lurked for two years before joining, and I still hesitate before entering into certain discussions.

For those who are frustrated and/or discouraged temporary breaks can be therapeutic.

Hiding all of the Hillary rocks/sucks threads is already a full time job, just wait until the primaries.

[beam me up scottie]

233. That's why I was giving you a heads up.

Religion threads aren't usually allowed in GD, just like gun threads there's a lot of baggage and in-fighting.

Wait until you get called for a jury in one of the sub-forums, it's like trying to figure out what's going on in a soap opera by watching one episode.

[Susannah Elf]

236. I already have been summoned!

And for the life of me could not understand why anyone had complained about it.
Must have been one of those ancient grudge scenarios.

[Susannah Elf]

91. I love them equally.

I've sung in a gospel choir, chanted Sikh texts and chanted to Hindu gods. It's all divine to me!

[AtheistCrusader]

103. How you feel about that material, is likely indistinguishable from the moment you pass

vee 1, your heartbeat responds as staying on the ground is no longer an option, lift overcomes gravity and an aircraft buoys up into ground effect, and the wheels actually lift off the ground, the rigid stability of the earth falls away like the structure of a sand castle under a massive wave, and the craft starts reacting to all the control surfaces 360 degrees in 3 dimensions...

What you call 'divine' might be exotic, might well be overwhelming to the senses, but it can be fully explained, and to date, not a scrap of it seems to require a supernatural anything to power or reveal it.

[Susannah Elf]

118. Well, and I'm sure I'm exposing myself to ridicule

scientists have never explained why the universe came into being. I know that there's been a lot of strong theories about how..
To a believer in god, a building implies the fact of a builder. The discovery of all these complexities that exist in nature make some more convinced than doubting.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. And that's the difference.

In your first sentence, you imply burden of proof on the scientists to explain how the universe came into existence.

In the last, paragraph, you seem to grant believers the benefit of the doubt that what they call a 'building' is correctly perceived as having been built at all. That there is purposeful design that requires a designer at all.

If you start with the assumption that something appears to be designed by mind, you could rightly expect a denier to prove that the design is actually non-mindful processes exerting the appearance of design by natural forces. But that's not a convincing assertion, and in fact, that's all it is; an assertion. No evidence, let alone proof.

An atheist doesn't assume a designer at all, and simply tackles the problem of why and how the universe exists as a full question on its own, not assuming a designer even if at times some elements of it kind of look like design to us. We start by understanding processes at the micro level that illustrate the appearance of design in organic, and even inorganic natural processes. If the answer to the question leads to a designer with a mind, well, we'll find it. What we won't do, is assume it.

[Susannah Elf]

130. I think that the gist of what I was saying was that

I apply the benefit of proof to both sides. Actually I don't see it as being two sides of the same thing but two assertions about completely different things.
The part I really don't understand is why theists and atheists are so bothered by the others' point of view.
I genuinely don't care what other people believe, as long as it doesn't affect my freedoms.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. It does affect your freedoms. If not you personally, your neighbors.

If not your countrymen, many billions of your species.

It's an issue of top-level importance, and even speaks to our viability as a species. It also ties into other top-level existential issues like climate change. I can illustrate the links for you, if you prefer.

[Susannah Elf]

136. Please do.

The only link between having a belief in god and being a climate change denier is that sometimes one group contains some of the other. Some climate change deniers are also Christians. Some make huge profits by denying any human causation of it. Some, like my neighbour, just want to keep driving a gas-guzzler.
Other believers- like the Pope for example, take the view that as god created the planets and all its natural laws, then we best start taking care of it. And although I'm not catholic, the man does have a lot of twitter followers.

[beam me up scottie]

170. The pope is a misogynistic homophobic politician who uses his influence to oppress others.

According to the church women and glbt people are second class citizens and he intends to keep it that way.

The part I really don't understand is why theists and atheists are so bothered by the others' point of view.

It bothers me that his point of view motivates him to use the church's wealth and influence to adversely affect the lives of billions of people.

He's far more dangerous and powerful than the right wing conservatives in this country.

It bothers me that his fans either don't see that or do and just don't care.

[AlbertCat]

107. Truth in music????

Music?

Don't you mean the lyrics?

And they're ridiculous.


Bach cantatas move me immensely.... but I don't understand German and the librettos are a bunch of Lutheran "I'm a wretched clod of earth ...oh lord...I can't wait to die...it is enough!" baloney.

The music is great tho'! Doesn't make we the least bit religious however.

[Kalidurga]

4. Got me

But, I have heard real live atheists say as much and now there are atheist Sunday meetings. It's a great idea IMO a celebration of life without having to add god to the mix.

[kwassa]

7. Precious Lord

[kwassa]

8. O Happy Day

[Electric Monk]

13. ibtl?

[struggle4progress]

14. Ain't Got Time To Die

[struggle4progress]

15. People Get Ready

[struggle4progress]

16. Wade in the Water

[struggle4progress]

17. Lord, don't move that mountain

[struggle4progress]

18. Lay down my heavy load

[struggle4progress]

19. Hold on

[struggle4progress]

20. Climbing Jacob's Ladder

[struggle4progress]

21. Ain't No Grave Can Hold My Body Down

[struggle4progress]

22. Welcome Table

[Tanuki]

27. Hank Williams singing "Bound for the Promise Land"

[thucythucy]

29. K & R for all the wonderful music

posted on this thread.

Thank you so much for this!

[Tanuki]

31. I [we]shall not be moved

sung here in the original version by a very young Johnny Cash

The song was modified to give voice and strength to so many civil rights sit-ins and marches. Mavis Staples sings one such version:

&feature=player_detailpage

My personal hero Pete Seeger sings another:

&feature=player_detailpage

Joan Baez brings it in Spanish....No nos moveran

[snooper2]

82. Oh my that was bad LOL, you should try this out!

Voices are much more soothing-

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. The low income apartment in which a friends daughter and grandkids live burned on Thursday.

Their unit was the furthest away from the flames and was thus mostly intact. Rumor has it that the unit in which the fire started was a meth lab. The stench in the apartment was horrible, and the water damage was worse. Luckily, no one was hurt.
So yesterday, her dad and I worked all day to move all the belongings that could be saved (which was most of it, thankfully) to his garage.
It's a small town in which everyone knows everyone so naturally, people were concerned and facebook was flooded with people offering "prayers of support".
I never actually saw any of these people, but I did see a facebook post last night thanking God for sending help.
I hope that next time God sends someone other than an atheist, it seems like the faithful have more spare time on their hands.

[beam me up scottie]

44. +1

[Curmudgeoness]

47. +2

You make me laugh, even when I know that you are frustrated by all that "support".

Don't pray for me, I would prefer you actually do something to help.

[Arugula Latte]

48. I guess God was just fucking with them when He caused/allowed the fire in the first place.

That God...Such a prankster!

[Susannah Elf]

146. Seems that you atheists

are just as sure as the fundamentalists of what god is thinking.
He certainly does take the blame for shit people do...

[Arugula Latte]

148. Uh, in reality, we don't think that god thinks anything ...

because there is no reason to think it exists, let alone has thoughts.

We do like our snark and sarcasm, though, I'll give you that.

[Susannah Elf]

157. Then why even mention god

in relation to tragedy? I can't tell you how many times I've heard it done.
My point when people do things that have disastrous consequences, nobody needs to look further than said person.

[Arugula Latte]

168. Point was, people were praying go their god to help them after the tragedy

when that lazy asshole of a deity couldn't be bothered to prevent the tragedy in the first place (or maybe it caused it ... like I said, such a prankster). If they think their god is powerful enough to help them, then why didn't it lift a finger? It's illustrating the point that the fictional character known as "God" has some damn good PR because a good portion of religious people give it credit for the good but never blame it for the bad. Like if a plane crashes and one person survives it's "due to the grace of God." Well, too bad about those miserable schmucks who died, huh? Guess they weren't worthy of divine intervention.

The other point was: It's all nonsense.

[beam me up scottie]

174. We don't.

Usually it's arrogant believers who attribute everything goshdarn wonderful that happens to god and everything bad to satan or freewill or infidels.

A tornado rips through a small town killing many, the survivors blather on endlessly about how Jeebus saved them and their loved ones.

So what are the bereaved supposed to think?

Did he not care about them, were they unworthy?

Why let the tornado happen in the first place?

Things that make you go

[snooper2]

84. +48

[Octafish]

50. Gee. What percentage of Democrats are Christians? Zero? Ten?

These guys break it down by party affiliation, religious denomination and a few other ways:

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-groups-affiliation/

The numbers show a sizable fraction of Christians identify themselves as Democrats.

Just a thought: If Democrats crap on people for holding religious views, a situation could arise where those with religious views find some other party to support. That would lower the percentage of Democrats who also are Christians.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. That sort of thing is one decision away at all times. You know what else is as simple as one decisio

n away?

Being religious.

[Octafish]

61. Right.

Live and let live, I always say.

As I respect other's opinions, beliefs and lawful actions, when someone tells me they don't like what I think or say or do when it's no business of his or hers, then I have a problem with him or her.

So, seeing how in politics the point is to win elections, it'd be a good policy for others who are interested in winning elections to follow.

[Arugula Latte]

75. Sooooo ... we should never say anything remotely negative about religion?

Yeah, not gonna happen.

[Octafish]

94. Never wrote that, did I?

I said to respect one another's religious beliefs, you know, follow the Golden Rule.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. There are a lot of religious beliefs that are as genuinely offensive to me, as "crap on" religious

views is, apparently, to you.

[Arugula Latte]

122. If only the major monotheisms would follow the Golden Rule.

As it is, their doctrines make women and gays second-class citizens.

[snooper2]

85. Oh please, please don't tell me with all the shit you believe...

religion isn't one of them...

PLEASE!

[Octafish]

93. Well, if you crap on me for being religious, what's that make you?

Really?

[snooper2]

99. I'm not crapping on you, just looking out- you seem to have great deductive reasoning

don't fail me!

[JI7]

52. i enjoy a lot of it without feeling the need to believe in it

the music, buildings, food etc.

[Bigmack]

87. I believe that our brains make us happy...

... when we experience music. I'm not alone.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/music-and-happiness1.htm

"Accessing the Divine..."?

I think it's more like "accessing the dopamine".

FWIW... I grew up in Detroit as an Irish Catholic - 12 years of Catholic education. (I'm OK now, though) The dolorous Catholic music was nothing like the joyful, exuberant performances in the black store-front churches. Us white boys were reelin' with the feelin' at those churches. I certainly didn't believe what those folks did, but I came out of there happy and buzzed.

It's brain, not spirit.

[Orsino]

102. Really good satire fools us.

For instance, this article pretty clearly poking fun at some the rudest rhetoric of atheism, but being mistaken for an indictment of Christianity.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

124. Look at the nesting of comments.

Very few of the comments are actually directly about the OP, and about half of those nested directly under it are just posted videos.

Most of the comments are replies to other commenters. There might be one or two comments tops that are actually about the posted OP and mistake it 'for an indictment of Christianity'.

[Arugula Latte]

140. Yep. I've been participating in this thread and I knew what the Onion was going for.

I do find it funny -- because no one can deny the awesomeness of a talented and enthused choir, and it probably would be even more awesome if you really did believe in the ... uh ... god bullshit.

[pipi_k]

117. Gotta love

"The Onion"


Aside from that, though, and in relation to a truth vs non-truth subthread, I'm an Atheist, but I still enjoy Gospel music.

Well, some anyway. I love the joy and energy.


One of my favorites:

[Vinca]

127. I'm also an atheist and I love gospel music.

I would consider going to Sunday services just for the music. LOL.

[Susannah Elf]

147. I actually did go to my local evangelical Baptist church

The music was fantastic, but oh, those sermons...

[pipi_k]

165. Way back many years ago

I sang in the Jr. and Sr. choir of my protestant church.

One Sunday our choir went to a black church to sing with their choir.

It was a blast!

[pipi_k]

163. Me too!

[MellowDem]

132. You can tell when the Onion strains for satire...

It's tough to "punch down" in satire, so it's not surprising that the Onion uses another minority group in this piece to make it seem more palatable, and gives a very privileged, stereotypically caricatured face to atheism.

Even then, the message of "don't think too hard" is pretty lame. Not very good satire IMHO. But this sort of satire is inherently tough to do.

If there were lots of prominent examples of white atheists insulting minorities for their religion with no thought of social context it would make more sense. It's why satire on things like gay marriage is much more successful.

CNN just did (a not very good IMHO) episode on atheists in the U.S. and CBS Morning did a much better one yesterday, perhaps as signs that atheists are gaining more visibility in the U.S. It will take time for comedians to know how to grapple with this new group. The crudest will simply utilize the demonization of millennia and popular opinion to punch down against simple caricatures. This one does a little bit of that, but tries to go for a more reconciliatory meaning (don't sweat the small stuff, don't think too hard). Not very successfully, given how religion isn't small stuff, but they try.

[LanternWaste]

171. Seems many funny Onion articles encourage its targets...

Seems many funny Onion articles encourage its targets-of-satire to rationalize why it's neither satire nor funny.

[Enrique]

216. i might be one of those targets

i don't especially care.

[Marr]

177. That is so funny. I had that exact experience, lol.

I was raised in a non-religious home, but in my teens, my walk home from work took me through a little alley on the side of an old movie theater, and once or twice each week, there was a service going on inside one of the tiny, unused cinemas, with singing and all that. Looked like such a blast. I wanted to go in just for the party, but I felt like it would be sort of inappropriate, seeing as I didn't buy into the religion.

[PeaceNikki]

204. Well, that escalated quickly.

Lol

[Jesus Malverde]

212. .

[Coventina]

217. Yep. This is one of the funniest flame wars we've had in a while.

[pipi_k]

241. No kidding!!!

I mean, I'm an Atheist and have my own opinion about religion, but geeze...why start (or get involved in) a flame war over something nobody can prove or disprove?

[Coventina]

243. The Onion is powerful stuff, man!!

It brings out the crazy!

I got slammed for posting the one about Obama's first election:

"Black man given worst job in America."

My guess? Spot-on satire enrages the humorless.

[el_bryanto]

229. Maybe this should have been moved to the Religion room

Just seemed like a funny story to me but it seems to have aroused some real ire.

Bryant

[Manifestor_of_Light]

237. My favorite religious music is performed in concert halls.

Generally written for the Catholic church. Stuff performed generally in Latin, like the Mozart Requiem, the Berlioz Requiem, the Allegri Miserere, stuff like that. Works performed by The King's Singers, The Tallis Scholars, Anonymous Four, groups like that.

They can keep the Protestant dirges. I never found out what a "bulwark" was, in "bulwark never failing". I thought it was a part on a bull, possibly.

This is one example. This is the "Nimrod" variation from the Enigma Variations, an orchestral piece by Sir Edward Elgar, placed into a choral setting of "Requiem aeternam, lux aeterna" (eternal rest, eternal light). This is often sung in England for Remembrance Day, which is their Veteran's Day. I had this recording played at my father's funeral which was held in a little Methodist church in East Texas. I was proud of myself for sneaking some excellent music in Latin into a Methodist church.

I told a lady in The Tallis Scholars about doing this, and she said, "You did right by him, dear". That meant an awful lot to me coming from a member of one of the greatest a capella choral groups in the world!!!

[pipi_k]

242. Two beautiful things

religion gave to the world...

Music and architecture (churches).


I like religious music too...even some of the solemn dirges.

But partial to Gospel and Gregorian chants.

[Susannah Elf]

238. I'm out.

It was fun to get to know some of you through civil discourse and exchange of ideas.
I'm sure I'll be seeing you around.....

THE UNDERGROUND.