17 Replies to ““Atheists Don’t Have No Songs”

  1. 1
    bevets says:

    When smashing monuments, save the pedestals — they always come in handy. ~ Stanislaw Lec

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    semi OT: Atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a response about the flak from the recent debate, if it can be called ‘debate’, he had with William Lane Craig;

    Dealing with William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Let me now comment, with the gloves off, on the disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies that I regard Craig as having spouted.
    http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....lane-craig

  3. 3
    nullasalus says:

    That’s a flailing rant on Krauss’ part. He misrepresents Craig’s arguments across the board – whether he doesn’t understand them or is just being dishonest, I don’t know.

    But I loved this line: It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals.

    …The man says, in a letter he sends to Richard Dawkins, so Dawkins and company can discuss it and agree with each other in the comments section of their website…

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    OT;
    Protein Synthesis – Pretty Cool 3-D Molecular Animation
    http://www.nucleusinc.com/phar.....s&f=f

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    nullasalus,

    ‘…The man says, in a letter he sends to Richard Dawkins, so Dawkins and company can discuss it and agree with each other in the comments section of their website…’

    ,,, to be expected,,, William Lane Craig commented in the debate something to the effect, ‘if forsaking rationality is the cost of maintaining your worldview, you can keep it’.

  6. 6
    nullasalus says:

    What really strikes me in Krauss’ letter is how he clearly doesn’t understand WLC, or else he’s being dishonest. He talks about how both time and space (apparently) began to exist at the Big Bang, and how thus thinking about causality in temporal terms may be a mistake. But he says this to WLC, as if this isn’t a central plank in WLC’s own reasoning. Ditto for the “empty space versus the absence of space”.

    All five of his points are just plain mangled. But I loved that opening salvo, since it just illustrates beautifully how this guy does not think things through.

  7. 7
    GilDodgen says:

    BACK ON TOPIC:

    To be grammatically consistent it seems to me that it should be “Atheists Don’t Got No Songs.”

    I just got back from a rehearsal at our church playing piano with the many talented musicians in our worship team, in preparation for next Sunday’s service. This is such a joyful and life-enriching experience (which the atheist will never comprehend or experience), not just for the praise music but for the fellowship among us. At every rehearsal we have a time of prayer and share our personal lives and struggles with each other.

    As a former Dawkins-style atheist I can offer the following observations: Atheism is hopelessly irrational and illogical. It is soul destroying. And, it’s really, really boring.

    No wonder they don’t got no songs. They ain’t got nothin’ to sing about.

  8. 8
    markf says:

    Of course atheists don’t have songs. People write songs about fairies. They don’t write songs about not believing in fairies. The closest thing I can think of is “Always Look on the Bright Side” from “Life of Brian” – which presumably GilDodgen thinks is really, really boring.

    Isn’t Steve Martin agnostic?

  9. 9
    Muramasa says:

    I for one am taken aback by the complex scientific topics addressed in this thread.

    All science so far!

  10. 10
    CannuckianYankee says:

    “For life is quite absurd
    And death’s the final word
    You must always face the curtain with a bow.
    Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
    Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow.

    So always look on the bright side of death
    Just before you draw your terminal breath”

    There’s some inspiration for ya.

    Words and music by Eric Idle, from “Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.” (C) 1991.

    The thing is, markf, Monty Python included the life of Jesus alongside the life of Brian in the film. It was a side story. So you make Jesus into a side story, and the above is what you get?

    Gotta wonder why there is death in the first place if it really is the final word. Ooh, let me make it rhyme “it’s all absurd.”

    No, there’s nothing worth singing about there. As a loose matter of record, as the Monty Python crew and cast were sitting around the crosses, ready to tape the final scene, Eric Idle broke into this song, and they decided to include it, even though Eric himself didn’t like it.

    Again – not much inspiration there.

    I think you’re right, though, if atheism has a song, this’d be it.

  11. 11
    Joseph says:

    markf,

    Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?

  12. 12
    markf says:

    #11

    “Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?”

    Oh yes. For example,

    – no pressure to sit through hour long rambles or harangues once a week in a building with minimal heating and hard seats

    – easier to enjoy satires on religion

    – no need to repeat “I was once an atheist but now I know better” every week.

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    Maybe, Plato should be given a voice in this thread; from The Laws, Bk X, which shows what is really at stake:

    __________________

    >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . .

    [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.– [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke’s views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic “every man does what is right in his own eyes” chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >>
    __________________

    What do you have to say to these longstanding concerns, atheists?

    GEM of TKI

  14. 14
    Joseph says:

    So the bright side of being an atheist is being a moron?

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: I give you, Alcibiades, the impious . . .

  16. 16
    Muramasa says:

    Personal attacks Joe? How very Christ-like of you.

    And may I point out that Joe once again teeters on the edge of uncivil discourse.

  17. 17
    Joseph says:

    Muramasa

    I’m not a christian and it was an observation, not an attack.

Leave a Reply