Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Jethro tull is the most anti-religous, religous
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Jethro tull is the most anti-religous, religous
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35762 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 14:42
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

People have used the example of a flying spaghetti monster. One who believes in a God would not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Why believe in one and not the other? Because an omnipotent being that created the universe, a prime mover, if you will, is more sensible to them than flying monsters or invisible pixies. They would be false equivalencies.


We're jumping around a bit. The flying spaghetti monster is a satirical joke, but it is conceivable that someone would believe that God is a flying spaghetti monster. That one thing is more sensible than another doesn't make it true.

I like Russell's teapot as an analogy to the God claim:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

The God claim is problematic to me because of its assumptive nature. I don't see the need for the assumption that God exists.

And of course one might argue that if the universe required a god to create it that that god would have needed something to create it and so on and so on.


Edited by Logan - April 25 2021 at 14:47
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 14:45
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Grumpyprogfan Grumpyprogfan wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Atheism is not a religion, since it assumes the non-existence of any such kind of transcendental being (the negation of theism).
Buddhism is a religion that does not believe in a transcendental being so why not Atheism?


<div style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">Oh, for crying out loud! Atheism does not have any patented tenets<span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">™</span> to enlightenment<span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">© 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.</span>
<div style=": rgb248, 248, 252;"><span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
</span><div style=": rgb248, 248, 252;"><span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">Norse myth is very cool. What's not to like about one-eyed Odin or hammer-wielding Thor? There is something inherently and intriguingly human in the vices of the Greek Pantheon, with their jealousies, dislikes, infidelities and deceits. And what's not to like about Tolkien's Valar and the commensurate evils of Morgoth and Sauron? We are most often born into a religious belief system and eschew the myths that do not accord with that belief. Atheism recognizes them all as myths.</span><div style=": rgb248, 248, 252;"><span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">
</span>
Theism: the belief in the existence of a God. Atheism: the belief that no God exists. As both are systems of belief with no empirical evidence to prove their beliefs, in that regard they are similar. Both are intellectual wastes of time, in my opinion.


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.
Very well then, let's say that those who engauge in these pro and cons arguments are intellectually wasting their time. Better?

Edited by SteveG - April 25 2021 at 14:47
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35762 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 14:51
I probably do think about it more because I married a born again Christian and am acquainted with lots of fundamentalist Christians who bring up God very frequently (I don't tend to tell them about my lack of belief). My kids are atheists, though.
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13054 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 14:52
Originally posted by Spaciousmind Spaciousmind wrote:

I guess for me the distinction is "being taught".  As in the East German example kids were being to taught "not to believe".  Where in the rest of the world people are taught "to believe".  Therefore impossible to distinguish one from the other with regards to the word religion.  As both were taught if you wish to impressionable young minds.  Little choice for those young minds there but to listen to the teacher, whoever that teacher might be.  (Parent or teacher).  Hence btw the higher percentage of Atheists in Germany.

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.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote siLLy puPPy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 14:57
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

People have used the example of a flying spaghetti monster. One who believes in a God would not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Why believe in one and not the other? Because an omnipotent being that created the universe, a prime mover, if you will, is more sensible to them than flying monsters or invisible pixies. They would be false equivalencies.


We're jumping around a bit. The flying spaghetti monster is a satirical joke, but it is conceivable that someone would believe that God is a flying spaghetti monster. That one thing is more sensible than another doesn't make it true.

I like Russell's teapot as an analogy to the God claim:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

The God claim is problematic to me because of its assumptive nature. I don't see the need for the assumption that God exists.

And of course one might argue that if the universe required a god to create it that that god would have needed something to create it and so on and so on.


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!

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35762 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 15:00
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.

Edited by Logan - April 25 2021 at 15:02
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
Spaciousmind View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 07 2020
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 724 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Spaciousmind Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 15:05
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Spaciousmind Spaciousmind wrote:

I guess for me the distinction is "being taught".  As in the East German example kids were being to taught "not to believe".  Where in the rest of the world people are taught "to believe".  Therefore impossible to distinguish one from the other with regards to the word religion.  As both were taught if you wish to impressionable young minds.  Little choice for those young minds there but to listen to the teacher, whoever that teacher might be.  (Parent or teacher).  Hence btw the higher percentage of Atheists in Germany.

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.

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 :)
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 15:08
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

People have used the example of a flying spaghetti monster. One who believes in a God would not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Why believe in one and not the other? Because an omnipotent being that created the universe, a prime mover, if you will, is more sensible to them than flying monsters or invisible pixies. They would be false equivalencies.


We're jumping around a bit. The flying spaghetti monster is a satirical joke, but it is conceivable that someone would believe that God is a flying spaghetti monster. That one thing is more sensible than another doesn't make it true.

I like Russell's teapot as an analogy to the God claim:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

The God claim is problematic to me because of its assumptive nature. I don't see the need for the assumption that God exists.

And of course one might argue that if the universe required a god to create it that that god would have needed something to create it and so on and so on.
I see your point and I'm not arguing against it, but I said that an omnipotent creater makes more sense to thiests than God as a spaghetti monster. Not that it makes it true. Btw, the example of a flying spaghetti monster wasn't satirical until South Park turned it around and made it satirical. Gotta love South Park.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote siLLy puPPy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 15:50
Originally posted by Logan 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.

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 15:55
Fair enough. But that's another realm of experience beyond the empirical. No external proofs to that one either.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote siLLy puPPy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 16:15
Exactly. I can't prove to you that i used to love peanut butter when i was 7  years old either but that doesn't mean it wasn't true! hehe

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Online
Points: 20240 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sean Trane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 16:23
Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:

Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:

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!! Tongue

You're not an atheist, and yet speak in their name.Angry
That's where you're going wrong here!! Evil SmileYing Yang

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



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)Smile but it's still close but no cigar Ying Yang
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 18:04
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Exactly. I can't prove to you that i used to love peanut butter when i was 7  years old either but that doesn't mean it wasn't true! hehe
True to you, not to me. Hee hee
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 18:06
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:

Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:


Originally posted by nick_h_nz nick_h_nz wrote:

But <font size="5" color="#9900FF">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!! Tongue

You're not an atheist, and yet speak in their name.Angry
That's where you're going wrong here!! Evil SmileYing Yang

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



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)Smile but it's still close but no cigar Ying Yang


Ah yes, the Holy Book of Atheism. Chapter 6 verse 12.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13054 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 18:32
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Exactly. I can't prove to you that i used to love peanut butter when i was 7  years old either but that doesn't mean it wasn't true! hehe

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.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote siLLy puPPy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 18:58
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Exactly. I can't prove to you that i used to love peanut butter when i was 7  years old either but that doesn't mean it wasn't true! hehe

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.

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 19:19
Oh, Jesus.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13054 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 19:46
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Oh, Jesus.

I'm out of this conversation. I have no intention of going down the rabbit hole more times than Alice. Curiouser and curiouser.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 19:55
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Oh, Jesus.

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?.


Edited by ExittheLemming - April 25 2021 at 20:07
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote siLLy puPPy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 25 2021 at 21:27
Originally posted by SteveG 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!

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.170 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.