It is a commentary on religion in the main, although as Anderson has pointed out ad infinitum, not a concept album about religion. The commentary therein is extremely disparaging.

It is certainly anti-religious, particularly anti-institutional religion, but it is not anti-god. In fact, Ian offers sympathy to god for the way hypocritical man has missed the point and co-opted the message. The dichotomy between man-made religion and god can be found in two adjoining stanzas of "My God"...

Absolutely right, Greg. It was organised religion I was referring to, and perhaps should have made that clearer.

No problem, Steve. I got you. I was more replying to the OP. Ian was certainly not being "religious" in his attack on the Church, and although he wasn't being anti-god, one should never mistake him as being a religious bloke. He always sounded Deistic in his interviews, good with the general concept of god but not with a specific one. Hence, the line from A Passion Play...

Grumpyprogfan wrote: On the flip side, Neal Morse has been praising the imaginary one for 20 years.

Always thought that was the flop side...

Dare I say that good'ol Rog (Waters) surpasses easily the Mad Fultist as the best religious ennemy??

suitkees wrote: Grumpyprogfan wrote: On the flip side, Neal Morse has been praising the imaginary one for 20 years.   Always thought that was the flop side...

Good one

.

The Tull were very cynical about everything.

See TAAB.

Deep Purple actually has the Lord playing keyboards.

That was very "Airey" of you  having toured with Tull in 1987.

I haven't heard much Neal Morse at all. I take it the general consensus is he's too preachy?

It seems that the OP made this one topic and hasn't visited the forum since.

Just saying.

I just find it slightly puzzling.

I always ask people who say "God doesn't exist" how they define God because most actually don't know. I even got the answer "I don't need to define him; he doesn't exist".

They might be watching as we speak.

Hi,

I may be misinterpreting NM, but I always thought that simply quoting the "book" is not really a comment on anything ... except some idealistic thoughts, just like the Church of _____________ (name your own!) wants you to be and say, in order to collect a few coins on Sunday!

Ian, is much more "literary" in his comments, for lack of a better word, and he is no different than many writers, and artists around Europe that did the same ... although I think that at times he wanted to put forth the images but not say what he really wanted to say, to prevent direct criticism, specially from the the many folks that adhere to the Sunday thing, which would have cut a certain amount of fans ... 

The one thing that we know, is that rock music, and most pop music, has gone way beyond the church and other than a few countries where the secular law is more important than the civil law, in general, the younger fans of rock music do not exactly sit around and discuss religion ... 

I don't look at any, that I can mention right now, as anti-religious, at all ... I see a lot of comments, but the diversity is incredible.

One caution ... beware the "titles" for a piece ... the lyrics might not exactly describe what you think it is all about ... and we all end up thinking that it is this or that, and it might not be at all ... like us, there are many artists, writers and painters that are extremely clever and they can "hide" their real feelings and make us think something else ... unless you are into the kitchen/bathroom variety of mysticism that so much pulp fiction out there gives you! And you think the movie is great, of course!

I'm Catholic and I can't stomach most CCM either. Like, praising God is well and good and all for a variety of reasons I believe, but can't we find anything more interesting to say about such a potentially powerful topic? Also the music is usually as bland as humanly possible, actively asking its musicians to appeal to the lowest common denominator at times. At that point I just don't see how its art or entertainment, it's just sound. I was put off by the second side of Aqualung at first because of my aforementioned faith, but after getting more into Tull's other music and really giving the lyrics closer inspection, I realized that even if I disagreed with the sentiments or some of the logic I wasn't about to not listen to good art or try to understand a different perspective. 

So yeah, Aqualung is great, CCM is usually not, lol.

That is an entirely appropriate answer. It is virtually impossible to define something that does not exist. Defining god is no different to defining a vampire, a werewolf or the Loch Ness Monster. There are various definitions and descriptions of these creatures, some of which are contradictory. Any of the definitions are merely subjective, as no objective construct has yet been found in reality. Any definitions are realistically only attempts to define the unknown. So there is no need to define god, if one believes he doesn’t exist. No need and and no way....

I'd say that most (if not all) atheists have a much better idea of what "God" or "NotGod" is or isn't than most religious are idolizing it withput even knowing what it is or isn't.

Religions believe, while atheism knows.

.

You haven't explored very much black metal. I would say the absolute pinnacle of anti-Christianity would go to Deathspell Omega and its intellectual journeys through Satanic theology. Of course there has always been anti-religious themes in rock music including the one you mentioned. Phallas Dei was really blasphemous for 1969, even more so than Black Sabbath's early stuff!

Black Sabbath had straight up Christian lyrics at times. Just singing about Satan doesn't make you Satanic. Depends on what you say about him.

Spot on....I have always thought that agnosticism is  the only tenable position on this since there is absolutely no way we can know one way or the other if an omnipotent being exists (no matter how one envisions it).

Regarding Tull, I never felt he or they were particularly 'anti -religious'....though Andersen certainly had comments on the area over the years.

Just goes to show that a lot of folks don't bother to do their research before they start criticizing things they don't like. 

I am definitely an agnostic atheist. That is to say, I’m atheist in that I have no personal belief in the existence of a god or gods; but I’m agnostic in that the existence of a god or gods is ultimately unknowable.

It is possible, of course, also to be an agnostic theist, though I suspect this is a far rarer occurrence.

That is unfortunately the case in just about everything these days. Sabbath actually had some seriously positive lyrics and really was more in the hippie love and peace realm. I guess lyrics such as "Pope on a rope" invoked a bit of wrath from Christians but once one really delves into the history of the Catholic Church, it doesn't take long to realize that THEY are the ultimate satanic cult of all.

Being an atheist is simply another form of fundamentalism. All of creation is based on a spectrum of frequencies, each of which consists of a higher vibrational field or bandwidth frequency of reality (much like radio or TV). The godhead is simply the pinnacle of this creation and far beyond any human's ability to comprehend. If one deems a god or gods simply as "creator(s)" then of course there is a primary force in the universe however once one jumps to conclusions about what that imperceptible force actually is, then we have a problem. I was an agnostic for much of my life but sometimes the universe will provide clues as to a higher intelligence at play, whatever that may be, however i've had plenty of personal experiences that cannot be explained by rational human reasoning.

This is useless, as they're (or were, anyways) high-priestesses in some kind of Tree-worshipping christianity pagan rites.

Impossible to discuss seriously with them about this particular subject

It really isn’t. Atheism, per se, is not the denial that a god or gods exist. There are some atheists who will make that denial, and you could call them fundamentalists. But in general it just means that the person doesn’t hold a belief themselves.  My being an atheist doesn’t mean I deny the existence of a god or gods, so much as I don’t believe it at present.

My agnosticism says it’s knowable at present, which is not to say it is infinitely unknowable. There may well become a point where it becomes knowable, at which time my atheism will either be challenged or confirmed. But most atheists will be happy for their beliefs to be challenged, because that is how science works.

I mean... I did mention I'm Catholic right? Lol. I definitely don't agree with you about Catholocism being Satanic, but the Church definitely has more than its fair share of horrible, sacrilegious decisions in its long history (the crusades anyone?). So criticism, especially of the Church's history, is fine by me, so long as its well reasoned.

Dude. Atheism is EXACTLY the denial that a god or gods exist. That's its dictionary definition.

a·the·ism

 (ā′thē-ĭz′əm)

---

---

I was raised Catholic but once i became a serious researcher of all things esoteric, all roads of evil lead to the Jesuits of the Vatican. That does not mean all Catholics are bad. Most are beautiful souls. What that means is that the hierarchy very much worships Lucifer and the fish god Dagon. It's a long, long story but if you want a simple reference. Just view the Vatican from above and it resembles a pregnant serpent giving birth to the anti-Christ. Christ consciousness has basically been hijacked by evil over the ensuing centuries. This is a huge field of study and one i can't elaborate much on here. Sorry for even bringing it up. I slipped! Last thing i want to do is insult somebody's beliefs :)

I also at times have thought Rush were atheists although that is also hard to prove. However, in the Rush documentary there is a shot of Alex reading a book called "god is not good."

Yeah I don't see a snake or anything, not sure where that comes from. Just looks like an ancient fortress wall surrounding a complex of buildings, the highlight being a rather large hybrid of a basilica plan and cross planned church with a wonderful baroque colonnade defining the piazza in front of it. I'm also a student of architecture in case that wasn't just made apparent, lol. Certainly I believe evil people have gotten to powerful positions in the Church in its history, and certainly there may be some there now. But I'm not willing to believe the whole Church has been under the control of actual Satanists for centuries. That sounds pretty far fetched to me.

I think Neil was an atheist. Agnostic at least. He definitely had a lot of qualms with organized religion in any capacity, and it's hard to find any lyric signaling that he might believe in anything greater than, say, love as a general human concept. Alex and Geddy I'm not so sure. I doubt they were unsympathetic to Neil's views (especially Ged who had to sing the lyrics), but I've never really heard any of their own thoughts on the matter. I wouldn't be surprised if it just didn't really matter to them. 

Yessss and no. Atheism has been described as a religion by idiots that have no idea of what atheism is. Amongst the people who claim to be atheists, some idiots have even created a chart of atheism that closely followed the 10 commanments (I believe that sect is based in Frisco). "Believing" or "Disbelieving" is simply not part of atheism, period.

AFAIAC, atheism cannot be described or defined, precisely because there is no standard of atheism.

.

Anecdotal, I know, but every atheist I know fits the disbelief rather than the denial. There are, of course, plenty of atheists out there who take the more strident denial route, and they are generally the more loudly spoken and more visible - but that doesn’t make them the majority.

Atheism is only the denial of the existence of a god or gods, if you choose that to be the case. Otherwise, it remains only the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

I believe in Alanis.

Bla-bla-bla-blahhhhh....

You just don't get it , do you??

How can one deny the existance of something that doesn't exist??

How can one disbelieve in something that doesn't exist??

I think I do get it, and it is confusion in either language or semantics.

Whether or not something exists is actually quite irrelevant, as to whether or not someone believes it. There are many people out there who believe in things that don’t exist, and as many people out there who don’t believe in those things. Take any conspiracy theory for example. It’s immaterial whether or not there is any truth, some truth or no truth in the “facts” presented by the conspiracy theorists. Some people will believe, and some will not. Even if what they believe or disbelieve does not, in fact, exist.

As an agnostic (which most atheists are, even if they aren’t necessarily aware of that), I don’t believe anyone can say with any certainty whether or not a god or gods exist. There is currently no way to prove or disprove their existence. So therefore, whether or not a god or gods exist has no bearing on whether or not I believe.

But I’m an agnostic atheist, as opposed to an agnostic theist - and therefore I choose not to believe. You can bang your emoji head against the wall as much as you like, but there really is nothing odd not believing in something that (almost certainly) doesn’t exist.

I'm banging your head against the wall, here!!

You're not an atheist, and yet speak in their name.

That's where you're going wrong here!!

Nothing against agnostics (either sort you claim existing), mind you, I find them much more intelligent and certainly less gullible than religious heads.

.

I am an atheist, though! I guess you missed that part..... 🤷🏻‍♂️😄

Just wondering if Atheism itself is a religion?

It seems that atheism was taught through schools to kids in East Germany as a belief since religion was not encouraged at all.  Interesting is that this region/certain population of Germany has continued to have this high percentage of believers of atheism.  Germany actually has the highest concentration in the world.

I used to absolutely not believe in the existence of god but nowadays I have moved from that firm standpoint to more of the agnostic standpoint of I don't know or is it even knowable.

I certainly still don't believe in religion and churches, but to each their own.  I do have to acknowledge that for a community they also can do good as in supporting that community in a disaster.  I saw that only a few weeks ago in March when a tornado destroyed a lot of houses and badly damaged many others in my neighborhood.  (Don't know how it missed mine as the path of destruction was the length of my garden away) The local church that I have never set foot into the 10 or so years I have lived here, immediately organized (within an hour) relief and labor to board up walls and broken windows, cut down the trees that landed on top of houses, provided shelter in their church and food and water to all the people that needed help.

As you live your life things happen around you, circumstances occur to you that sometimes are really hard to logically explain (and I don't mean the Tornado), and that is where the self questioning occurs that shakes your absolute belief of "No" to a hmmm.. maybe there is more to it that my poor brain just don't have the capacity to understand.

Maybe that's the reason why a lot of people (famous intellectuals even)  let themselves be converted by a priest on their death bed.  Hedging your last minute bets :)

Hopefully when the time comes for me I will be able to resist and not be that hypocritical.

Based on Ian Anderson's lyrics and albums it seems that he has and is still questioning and searching for his own reason for existing.

Big Bang theory... also wondering if a few hundred years from now this ends up being laughed at and placed into the world is flat category.  After all we are still just babies in nappies when it come to knowledge of how things work in nature and in our universe.

Nick

No. The East German example you provided was not so much proselytizing atheism as it was a communist effort to destroy religious dogma among the population.

Atheism is not a religion. The only central belief is actually an absence of belief -- as in not believing in some external deity. It is as daft as saying not believing in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny is a religion. Missionaries don't knock on your door or accost you at bus stops with pamphlets prophesizing doom to the unrepentant. There is no church atheists go to on Sundays, who then break the non-existent atheist commandments the rest of the week. 

As a matter of fact, in most of the non-totalitarian world atheists are more tolerant of other belief systems, unless you try to force your fairy-tale beliefs on them, as in the U.S. where fundamentalists flout their tax-free status by plunging headlong into politics and attempt to change legislation to accord with mythology written by a patriarchal priest-caste thousands of years ago with the intention of controlling superstitious shepherds and illiterate fishermen, and in the process increase their own status and perpetuate their caste.

Spaciousmind wrote: After all we are still just babies in nappies when it come to knowledge of how things work in nature and in our universe.

Exactly! That's why humans invented gods: to explain the unexplainable. Some humans think there is only one such transcendental being. All that is religion. Many people cannot stand to "not know", so they invent(ed) explanations.

Atheism is not a religion, since it assumes the non-existence of any such kind of transcendental being (the negation of theism). But, imo, it is a belief, not a knowledge, in the same sense that I believe that my baker will have fresh bread again, tomorrow...

I don't know that that there are no such transcendental beings (God, gods, or other things), but I assume that there are not since I'm convinced they're Man made: Humans created God, not the other way around.

Hi,

I always thought that too many "humans" always thought themselves and their ideas bigger than the universe ... I wonder if the sun gives a damn?

For me, the "explanations" are a result of thousands of years of bad translations and the changing of the stories to create a "mandatory" rule, so a few "chosen" could be in charge and the rest subservient and paying the taxes.

But some of the translations that were done for one book, alone ... is so insane ... that only folks that are in the dark, and can not imagine that the book is not exactly a good guide ... btw, in some places, the definition of "devil" is someone that hides the light from you ... so guess what makes many of those translations? AND, it wasn't because the scholars were stupid ... it was for other reasons!

Oh, for crying out loud! Atheism does not have any patented tenets™ to enlightenment© like Buddhism. There are no commandments ("Thou shalt not have false idols upon thy non-existent altar"), there is no creation myth or messiah or deity. Nothing is worshipped in an effort to make wishes come true, or in hopes that there is some place post-mortem that is better than the miserable spot on earth you created for yourself. As humans, it is not necessary to have an avenging god, or the opposite negative and evil deity fanning the flames of hell, to do the right thing or to treat people with respect. I can say with fair certainty that atheists do not dwell on their atheism, try to adhere better to their atheism, or seek out other atheists to waste an hour or two on the weekend to sing praises of their atheism.

Sounds far fetched if you haven't delved into this from many angles. Just one example is the domination of Maritime Admiralty Law which is the law of commerce, statutory law and also known as the Rules of Civil Procedure which is a Babylonian money magic system that dates back to ancient Rome and has been implemented by the Jesuits of the Vatican.

It all becomes quite apparent once one learns the language of symbology.

Check out the Vatican's audience hall images. Not very Christ-like at all.

http://www.startpage.com/sp/search" rel="nofollow - https://www.startpage.com/sp/search

Actually, no. As an atheist, the only time I waste is in these fruitless internet arguments. As they are far and few between, I literally expend little energy on them. Otherwise, I don't think about it all, because it has no bearing on how I live my life or treat others.  It's rather like when one is confronted on the interwebz with the deluded who believe that pedophilic, cannibalistic lizard men run the political affairs of mankind, or any other crackpot conspiracy that allegedly has been occurring for centuries. It's simply a momentary inconvenience as you suggest they read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, and then laugh them off.

As a result since a person has difficulties in finding out his way for himself both are equal as I see it with regards to my question on religion, as neither in reality can be proven or disproven today.

Nick

Actually, Germany is not even one of the top atheist countries, so your argument regarding communist teaching fails. It is certainly true in China, where eradication of religions is more systematic and ingrained over far longer than what occurred in East Germany. But Germany trails France, Japan, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Spain, Belgium and Sweden in western democracies who have the highest percentage of disbelief.

The term "god" really refers to the ultimate power of the consciousness hierarchy. Patterns arise in the  universe and exist multi-dimensionally much like energetic frequencies (ie. infrared, radio, gamma etc). It is apparent in observable power structures that hierarchies do indeed exist. Some life forms are much more powerful than others. The "god" construct simply applies to the conscious being that has more power than the rest whether or not that entity was the actual creator or not. Spirituality is a term that refers to accessing multi-dimensional consciousness and also applies to one's relationship to the larger omniverse. Belief is optional but participation in a universe that is governed by cause and effect natural laws is not negotiable therefore the "god" energy is that which governs these immutable abstract laws beyond human perception. The need to personify and anthropomorphize such things is a common human trait but in reality it is all so far above any human being's comprehension that any claims of ultimate knowledge are laughable really.

I love how these threads go off into wider concepts than the original post intended LOL

Don't know about JT and Aqualung and how anti-religious it was but it sure is a mighty fine prog album!

Thanks that's good to know.  Keeps the discussion the same though... teachings and being influenced.. btw.. the word God always makes people go nuts. Maybe the quest is for a knowledge of a higher level of existence, to make our lives mean something or that we could live forever :)

Logan wrote: People define and refer to a God or gods in different ways. It's useful when someone makes a God claim, or expresses a belief in God, to try to understand what they mean by God, and what attributes they prescribe to God.

True dat. I'm just instilling a logical perspective as i perceive others' claims to the god equation. Ultimately i've come to the conclusion that the creator or "god" is unobtainable through logic alone. Such a discovery can only be obtained in the emotional, astral and etheric bodies. How one relates to the "god" force is ultimately a very personal experience that no other can understand.

Not in atheists' book, you're not

You may fancy yourself as one of them, but

You tend to go that way (and it's quite fine that way) but it's still close but no cigar

It is not the same thing. It could probably be verifiable via parents, siblings or schoolmates. Now, if you were riding a unicorn through Narnia while you ate your peanut butter sandwich, that would be more comparable.

Not if my parents were dead, i had no siblings and i didn't take lunches to school.

The point was i can't prove to someone reading this.

As far as proving if a spiritual world exists, that has definitely been proven scientifically in many ways.

I'm out of this conversation. I have no intention of going down the rabbit hole more times than Alice. Curiouser and curiouser.

I'm really not sure which brand of clueless PA poster is preferable: the post modernists who posit ducks are merely social constructs or the spiritual quacks?.

SteveG wrote: Oh, Jesus.

Hallelujah! Jesus saves! By clipping double coupons and shopping wisely. Praise the Lord.

Lighten up, guys. I'm just bustin' yer balls.

Spirit science is quite real.

Western science is not the only game in town.

Tibetan Buddhism and other ancient scientific processes have been much more comprehensive than limiting themselves to the three dimensional physical.

New advances in scalar energy have opened up the door to what the east calls chi or prana as well in western circles. There is even technology that can read soul frequencies now.

Perhaps these things don't make sense to you simply because you have not explored them.

Anyways, all of this is way beyond the scope of a music forum so i'll shut the F up now.

Big proggy hugs!