Music for Atheists!

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Dean wrote:

*sigh* earwig-o-again.
 SteveG wrote:

 Dean wrote:

 SteveG wrote:

 This thread was not posted for secular music, which is devoid of any spiritual or supernatural references, but actually to music that is critical of religions, dogmas and the like.
That's not necessarily atheist music since religious music can (in theory) be critical of other religions and/or beliefs, however unlikely that is for fear of being tagged anti-semitic, isalmaphobic or just sectarian.  

 SteveG wrote:

Instrumental New Age music is secular.

Then all instrumental music would be secular, which is debatable. Music written for a spiritual purpose would not necessarily be secular, for example there are many pieces of (christian) sacred instrumental music, such as Mozart's Church Sonatas, that are non-secular. By that argument then New Age music written for spiritual ends, such as for meditation, would be non-secular.
 SteveG wrote:

The Hangman and the Papist by Strawbs (always loved Wakeman's organ in this one) is not.

Correct, it's about sectarianism.

This is a bit of nitpicking as New Age, specifically stated, can be used for spiritual purposes but it's not the intention of it's creator, and that goes for a majority of other instrumental music as well. In you're argument, no instrumental music can be secular and, ironically, you were the one that proposed that it was.
In my "argument" I never said any such thing. You raised the point about Instrumental New Age music and stated that it was secular. The only prior mention I made to New Age was referring to the spiritual New Age Movement and not the music genre of the same name. In response to your claim that New Age music was secular I merely pointed out that instrumental music written for spiritual/religious ends would be non-secular. (i.e. by the intent of its creator). Of course music not specifically written for such purposes (ie secular music) that was later used in a spiritual/religious role would remain secular music.

 SteveG wrote:

 The Hangman and the Papist being strictly sectarianism is a stretch, as the song does reveal the inherent pitfalls that's has been the bane of religions since time began, I.E. "killing someone is God's name." Generally, one of an atheist's main criticisms of religions, if he's sincere.
I never said it was strictly sectarianism, nor did I say it was sectarianism - I clearly said it was about sectarianism. The song is written about the sectarian "troubles" in Northern Ireland but it is not a sectarian song.

 SteveG wrote:

  Semantics does little for these points except to criticize and alter generally understood meanings and remove someone from participation in the discussion. That's why people use slang. It keeps the bookworms out of the discussions and allows people to focus on the topics without distractions, and with a vernacular that's full of terms that they are familiar with and as they generally understand them.
That presupposes that a term has a generally understood meaning, and from Hugues' post from last Tuesday ("Mmmhhh!!!.. Haven't seen many examples about atheism itself in this thread. Most of what I saw/heard is mostly attacks against religions") the meaning of "Music for Atheists" was not unequivocal. Slang is not generally understood, that's kinda the point of it.

 SteveG wrote:

  I belong to an atheist's group, but I don't expect the general population to understand the deeper philosophical meanings of atheism, let alone related concepts such as teleology and ontology.
Meh, I couldn't give a flying fart about the deeper philosophical meaning of atheism, nor teleology and ontology, (and epistemology to complete the set). If all that floats your boat then good for you, I have no wish to explore such navel gazing.

 SteveG wrote:

  This thread is supposed to be for some light hearted fun. I see no need to turn this into a dry (cough, cough) academic discussion, why do you?

All I was searching for was clarification on what you actually meant by Music for Atheists, you answered that to my satisfaction but then went on to make two points that I didn't entirely agree with. Your subsequent misunderstanding of my reply was hardly a dry academic discussion. 
Stand by, I'm trying to find an emoticon that represents a scorching dessert to use with my response.