# To Atheists/Agnostics: Does "religiosity" in Classical music puts you off?



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

A friend of mine, an Atheist can't listen to the religious works of Bach and Allegri's Miserere ( he listens to Mozart and Verdi's Requiem, though), because he thought these works even though beautiful is violation to his beliefs. I know, he is one of the few exceptions of these, but I ask our Atheist/Agnostic members:

*Does "religiosity" in classical music puts you off?*

I hope we can have a good and intelligent discussion here.

Disclaimer: I'm an Agnostic.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I can easily answer this question with a profound "no". It honestly doesn't change my opinion of the piece any more so than a great novel steeped in religious themes, etc. I'm an atheist but I've done extensive studies on religion and I collect religious texts. Religion is a strong part of our history and we must accept and embrace that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm not a huge fan of Christian religious works. If I were Christian I might find a lot more meaning in them and like them more. Then again if I were Hindu I might like Indian classical music more, or if I were Muslim I might like Islamic music more.

I suppose any religious music is fine in small doses. I don't mind de-emphasizing a big chunk of the classical music canon to keep those doses small.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Not for me. Even though I am really not a "believer" in any true sense of that word, I can admire and respect the strength and intensity of the belief and love someone such as Bach or Handel obviously felt towards their God. When I listen to some of their works--or something like _Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis-_-I don't discern any attempts to convert me or anybody else, but can appreciate the beauty and the often ineffable and uplifting qualities of the music, which is, after all, to a certain extent exploring a mystery.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Not at all. Even though I'm not religious, and I don't like religion, I still enjoy a ton of music that has a religious subject. Personally I tend to prefer works based on secular subjects, or that are abstract and not tied to any subject, but there's some gorgeous music that served religious purpose or is based on elements of Christian and Jewish mythology, and others too.


----------



## idomeneo (Oct 2, 2012)

Absolutely not, it's just music, often some of the best music ever created.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> I can easily answer this question with a profound "no". It honestly doesn't change my opinion of the piece any more so than a great novel steeped in religious themes, etc. I'm an atheist but I've done extensive studies on religion and I collect religious texts. Religion is a strong part of our history and we must accept and embrace that.


Indeed. For example, when listen to a Requiem, there's no need to be a religious person to understand it or to "feel" the emotions. The emotion on a Requiem is the fear of death. All people, religious or not religious understand this feeling in deep. Religious people have the same philosophical worries of non-religious people. The difference is that they have accepted an answer to these worries that I find unsatisfactory.


----------



## Hayze (Jul 4, 2012)

I'm an atheist and the Agnus Dei from Bach's Mass in B minor makes be believe in heaven.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Indeed. For example, when listen to a Requiem, there's no need to be a religious person to understand it or to "feel" the emotions. The emotion on a Requiem is the fear of death. All people, religious or not religious understand this feeling in deep. Religious people have the same philosophical worries of non-religious people. The difference is that they have accepted an answer to these worries that I find unsatisfactory.


Indeed! As an atheist one should be able to note that these feelings expressed in these works are very much rooted in the human psyche and are not somehow transcendental just because they happen to be inspired by religious. They happen to be relatable and I feel are very firmly planted in this world. I can choose to interpret these religious works as I choose and perhaps in this manner they take on even a grander beauty than their original intent. Besides this, I really happen to like choral music.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I appreciate religious music in a more abstract sense than "this is about jesus sitting in a cloud smiling". There's so much history and culture there you can't really reduce it to "I don't believe in this stuff, so there's no way to relate to it".


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

> because he thought these works even though beautiful is violation to his beliefs


Atheists who hate religion are usually fresh out of abusive relationship with religion. Real atheists don't care. Just like honey badger. However, many people wrongly think that attacking the church for its crimes is hate, but that's another story.

That being said, I like religious music just like any other music. And contrary to what some religious people like to think, you don't have to be a believer in order to enjoy it "fully", or "properly". I should know, as someone who was practicing Christian, but now is (non-practicing) atheist.


----------



## Clump (Sep 5, 2012)

Only in the sense that I'm probably more likely to relate to and understand works which express something close to my own worldview. But even then, if something like absolute truth or whatever is expressed beautifully there's no reason I can't enjoy it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Doesn't bother me at all. Never occurred to me that it might bother me.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Nope.

P.S.: Nope.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Not all all. Many ideas inspire great music - belief in God for example - the beauty of the music does not prove the existence of god any more than the beauty of the magic flute proves the philosophy behind the magic flute. 
If you believe - great religious music can bolster your belief - but as an atheist it has no bearing on my own convictions.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

Well, I'll not rush off to listen to anyone's masses, but it'd be difficult to enjoy classical without accepting that it might have been inspired by a belief in a god, and then setting that to one side and just enjoying the ride.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

Never gave this much thought. I'm not religious, but it does't bother me to listen to a requiem or any religious work.

In fact, if you're interested in classical art (music is just a part of that), you will find that it is firmly rooted in religion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Do any Christians have a hard time listening to Bantock, R. Strauss, or Delius?


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

science said:


> Doesn't bother me at all. Never occurred to me that it might bother me.


Same here, I'm not religious but I like a lot of church music.
I listen to it as beautiful music and if it moves me it's not in anyway a spiritual thing.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

not at all, i'm agnostic and a lot of my favorite music and art in general is religious.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

No. But I recall some members here have found some of JS Bach's music difficult as if the composer was trying to preach the listener.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> No. But I recall some members here have found some of JS Bach's music difficult as if the composer was trying to preach the listener.


Was he really? I mean, whas preaching his true motive ? Or was it just the form he had to use in order to be able to produce music that people would listen to ? I think this is an interesting question, let's have some debate.


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

Absolutely not. I'm a staunch atheist but I thoroughly enjoy Bach and composers like Dufay and Von Bingen, for example. The funny thing is though I can't say the same for literature or visual arts. The later Dalí paintings are an example. Apart from his polished style from those years he also indulges regularly in kitschy scenery based on his brand of hyper Roman-Catholicism. Let's just say, I don't think it is his best work.

An example from literature is "Brideshead Revisited". Parts of the book are clearly meant as a triumph of Catholicism over secularism and modernity. Throughout the book I was getting more and more depressed by the choices the protagonist made, although they were intended by Evelyn Waugh as something positive. I especially remember the ending, which is supposed to be the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, as being rather grating for an unbeliever.

In music, religion often seems to have the opposite effect for me. John Tavener's music is absolutely beautiful though it deals almost exclusively with his orthodox faith. The same goes for a lot of Arvo Pärt. My problem with him isn't his religious faith which permeates his music, but rather his tendency to repeat himself musically. The later Steve Reich also deals with his rekindled Jewish faith and the quality certainly hasn't suffered (viz. Tehillim, The Cave and Three Tales).

So no, it doesn't put me off. It does in pop music, though, I find christian rock bands quite terrible. I'm not sure what makes me cringe, could be the lyrics or the clash between rock culture (which tends to be rather wild) and christian devotion (which generally isn't).


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Most certainly not. Some of my favourite classical compositions include the requiems by Mozart, Verdi, Brahms and Faure, the main passions and lots of cantatas by JS Bach, to name a few. As an agnostic, the clear Christian message in these works never bothered me.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

mensch said:


> Absolutely not. I'm a staunch atheist but I thoroughly enjoy Bach and composers like Dufay and Von Bingen, for example. The funny thing is though I can't say the same for literature or visual arts. The later Dalí paintings are an example. Apart from his polished style from those years he also indulges regularly in kitschy scenery based on his brand of hyper Roman-Catholicism. Let's just say, I don't think it is his best work.


it's not his best work for sure, but I don't know if its quality has something to do with his religiosity. Frankly I don't think so.


----------



## mensch (Mar 5, 2012)

norman bates said:


> it's not his best work for sure, but I don't know if its quality has something to do with his religiosity. Frankly I don't think so.


There are other factors at play, of course. Dalí became increasingly commercial as his popularity soared, even selling autographed pieces of paper. But his choice of subjects to cover became increasingly more religious, "The Ecumenical Council" is a good example in this regard.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I love music that is solemn and serious and full of dignity. Grand and austere. Awe-inspiring. I find that sacred works often exhibit these characteristics more than any other music.

To me, sacred works also convey a certain sense of humility. They express the notion, implicitly or explicitly, that the human being is not the beginning and end of everything. Not the centre of the universe. That our emotions and needs are indeed small and petty, if one considers the Bigger Picture.

I like the idea that sacred works are dedicated to Something Else. That they are not just exercises in egomania.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mensch said:


> The later Dalí paintings are an example. Apart from his polished style from those years he also indulges regularly in kitschy scenery based on his brand of hyper Roman-Catholicism. Let's just say, I don't think it is his best work.


My philosophy of art professor believed Dalí was being satirical in those works.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

Some of the most popular religious works were written by composers who weren't religious themselves. Like Verdi, Fauré and Vaughan Williams. Brahms was also ambiguous when it came to religion. Although I don't think there's any clear evidence he was an actual atheist, it seems at least clear that he wasn't a 'traditional christian'. Even someone like John Rutter, who's basically only known for very accessible religious stuff is actually an atheist.

I guess I'm the odd one out. I've actually slowly gone from having church music as more or less my favorite genre, to listening fairly little to it exactly because it is church music. So yes, I guess I could say it can be a put off. I've never been religious, but I clearly used to have less problems with religion than I have now. But it depends alot on what sort of mood I'm in, too. I can still listen to it now and then, it's just that I usually choose music that doesn't explicitly celebrate Christianity.



Dongiovanni said:


> Was he really? I mean, whas preaching his true motive ? Or was it just the form he had to use in order to be able to produce music that people would listen to ? I think this is an interesting question, let's have some debate.


For Bach, writing e.g. cantatas for church services was part of his job. So in that sense it's a form he 'had to' use. This was before the time of Beethoven (and late Mozart) when composers started becoming 'free artists'. I'm not sure it makes that much sense to talk about his one "true motive", but I don't see any reason to doubt Bach was in some pretty clear sense preaching through his music. In Bach's case, even secular instrumental works can have religous symbolism incorporated, and are often 'signed' with S.D.G (Soli Deo Gloria).


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm not Christian too, but those choral works have introduced me a divine sense that I didn't have before listening to them. 

Any Deist, Theist, Duelist here?!

A fun fact: in the main group of muslims 'Sunnis' Music is forbidden. If you listen to anything musical from islamic middle east, its from Shias, Sufis or Christian Arabs.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Not at all.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I don't like Christian Rock or any of that kind of "God" music, but I love Classical Masses, Requiems, Litanies, etc. 

Maybe it's because Classical works are usually in Latin and I don't know what they're saying...lol...jk. On a whole I like Choral works. As someone else put, they create a kind of powerful "awe" musically. Mozart's requiem is a prime example for me. The contrast between what the orchestra is doing and the different voices are doing is absolutely amazing. 

I don't feel anything religious really violates my beliefs. If you want to pray, go ahead, but when I see some kind of cheesy "contemporary christian" music on TV that shows the crowd all holding hands, swaying back and forth with their eyes closed with their faces to the sky while some pansy looking guy is singing "You Lift Me Up, Our Savior Is Great"...I'll admit, it makes me want to vomit.


----------



## Jord (Aug 13, 2012)

I can still listen to it however it would still irritate me


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

As an agnostic theist (believing in the Unknown God), I trust Classical religious music is much easier appreciated, in every possible aspect (apart from the obvious musical reasons) by listeners or audiences who may share the meaning of the text sung. I would not feel the immense power of the religiously emotional message in the _Sanctus & Benedictus_ of Missa Solemnis by Beethoven, if I just had to "deprive" the musical experience from the actual message coming from a very obvious text. I would feel I "insult", to some extent, all these performers (singers, players, conductor) who, believers or not, give whatever they have to convince us for the message sung. As quite a few singers have told me :when I have to sing some hundreds of time "Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domine", I have to pass the message of what is the meaning of _Benedictus_.
Of course, the music transcends the meaning of the words. That is more obvious in the transformation of tedious, trivial stories of Operas and sometimes profane songs. However, in this standard, mostly Latin, texts, the composers actually _serve_ the purpose of spreading the message of Faith. 
Personally, whenever I listen to Bach's Mass in b minor or Beethoven's Missa Solemnis or Mozart's Great Mass in c minor (or his Requiem), I feel I have to be at least faithful to get _in full_ everything this works have to provide. In the same way, when I first listened to Hungarian Rhapsody no.2 by Liszt, I claimed that, if this is Hungarian music, I wish I can be an Hungarian, so that this music can be mine and not simply to admire it as a mere listener.
On the other, it is very encouraging that most members of this forum and listeners worldwide enjoy (at least) this music. However, I can imagine how boring or irrelevant should be the 100 times repetition of _Kyrie eleison_ or a relentless Fugue on a single _Amen_ for a non-believer or atheist. 
I wonder whether anyone of us could still "enjoy" the same scores of the greatest religious works, if, instead of the indifferent (to some or most of us) religious texts, he/she had to be faced with a text hailing a politically or socially negative notion. Will we still call these works "great music" to enjoy to listen?

Principe


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

realdealblues said:


> When I see some kind of cheesy "contemporary christian" music on TV that shows the crowd all holding hands, swaying back and forth with their eyes closed with their faces to the sky while some pansy looking guy is singing "You Lift Me Up, Our Savior Is Great"...I'll admit, it makes me want to vomit.


I have the same problem, and I'm a Christian.  As you observed, they're missing out on the "powerful awe musically."


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

realdealblues said:


> I don't like Christian Rock or any of that kind of "God" music.


Agree, but this one cracked me up:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

science said:


> Do any Christians have a hard time listening to Bantock, R. Strauss, or Delius?


Do I have a hard time listening to them because their personal beliefs are different from mine? Not really. I actually like Shostakovich, because it helps me understand how an atheist deals with life at its worst.

But if there were an oratorio titled, "Christians Are Stupid for Believing in God," I probably wouldn't go out of my way to hear it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> A friend of mine, an Atheist can't listen to the religious works of Bach and Allegri's Miserere ( he listens to Mozart and Verdi's Requiem, though), because he thought these works even though beautiful is violation to his beliefs. I know, he is one of the few exceptions of these, but I ask our Atheist/Agnostic members:
> 
> *Does "religiosity" in classical music puts you off?*
> 
> ...


He needs a better excuse.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Well, I am a Christian (though maybe not as enthusiastic as I used to be), but I certainly have no problem with operas where the main characters are heathen Norse gods. They are a part of European cultural legacy as well and as such deserve to be remembered.

However I would probably not listen to anything explicitly directed against Christianity. At least it's my criterion when it comes to metal and other non-classical music.



realdealblues said:


> Maybe it's because Classical works are usually in Latin and I don't know what they're saying


That is why I like sacred music in German much better


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Norse said:


> Brahms was also ambiguous when it came to religion. Although I don't think there's any clear evidence he was an actual atheist, it seems at least clear that he wasn't a 'traditional christian'.


It's a funny thing about Brahms. I know Dvorak was exasperated that Brahms had "such a soul - and he doesn't believe in anything, he doesn't believe in anything!" But he has written sacred music with such depth, regardless of his personal convictions (I seem to recall he that boasted that he made one of his motets godless), that at times it has brought me through several dark periods and actually strengthened my faith. I hope that doesn't bother him.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Not at all.
But as far as appreciation goes of such music, as much as I would like to agree that it's only music and such, I still think that a religious person would experience more by listening to a Requiem than a non religious one. Just look how cheesy Christian rock can make people feel as if they are in heaven. I guess that with faith certain experiences can be enhanced.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> But if there were an oratorio titled, "Christians Are Stupid for Believing in God," I probably wouldn't go out of my way to hear it.


As an atheist I despair at how unpleasant, intolerant and stupid some atheists are, but this sounds fascinating and i'd probably make it a priority to hear.


----------



## tahnak (Jan 19, 2009)

peeyaj said:


> A friend of mine, an Atheist can't listen to the religious works of Bach and Allegri's Miserere ( he listens to Mozart and Verdi's Requiem, though), because he thought these works even though beautiful is violation to his beliefs. I know, he is one of the few exceptions of these, but I ask our Atheist/Agnostic members:
> 
> My only answer to such lost people is that just like the Requiem of Wolfgang has a creator in Mozart; so thus each human has a Creator! The drama enfolds with the strings but the puppets are being controlled by the Director.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Chrythes said:


> Not at all.
> But as far as appreciation goes of such music, as much as I would like to agree that it's only music and such, I still think that a religious person would experience more by listening to a Requiem than a non religious one. Just look how cheesy Christian rock can make people feel as if they are in heaven. I guess that with faith certain experiences can be enhanced.


But isn't that like saying a believer in giants, invisibility cloaks and other magical powers will experience more when listening to Wagner's Ring than a sane person would?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> Not at all.
> But as far as appreciation goes of such music, as much as I would like to agree that it's only music and such, I still think that a religious person would experience more by listening to a Requiem than a non religious one. Just look how cheesy Christian rock can make people feel as if they are in heaven. I guess that with faith certain experiences can be enhanced.


There is no way of knowing if that is true or not. Happy clappy Christians listening to a cheesy christian pop song do go all happy smily - but so do alcoholics when they swig a bottle of vodka.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

tahnak said:


> My only answer to such *lost people *is that just like the Requiem of Wolfgang has a creator in Mozart; so thus each human has a Creator! The drama enfolds with the strings but the puppets are being controlled by the Director.


If this is to be a question of whether agnostics and atheists can enjoy music written by those of faith, let's not throw in needless remarks such as this. Who's lost? Not me.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

I think all great music is somehow inspired by a divine revelation, not necessary religious. Religion is an invention of mankind, but religious feelings are human. I think it's very hard to make differences between atheists and believers if you take off all the religious convention that mankind has created throughout history. What unites us is our opening to spirituality, not adherence to a religion or other. If you choose to see things in this way, you realize that the any revelation, any divine sense, any religious feeling is accessible to all humans, regardless of their religion/beliefs. Anyway, people like Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Mozart were not religious in the sense we think they were, they were more than religious fanatics, for sure. Beethoven for example had "unorthodox" religious views, but his Missa Solemnis moves me to tears. Any music with a strong spiritual inspiration is very good for me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nope. Even though I think religious institutions cause harm and don't really believe in a "spiritual realm" I think the experience of "spirituality" can still be a very beautiful expression of humanity.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> But isn't that like saying a believer in giants, invisibility cloaks and other magical powers will experience more when listening to Wagner's Ring than a sane person would?


A bit of an offtopic: actually, _Asatru_, a belief system based on the same Norse sagas Wagner had used as his source material, is a recognized religion in a few countries (Norway and Iceland at least). But for the adherents of that religion it is more about following the traditions of their fathers, the ancestral values with a bit of nationalism thrown in, not about believing in giants  I don't know what they think about Wagner's Ring, however.

Even more offtopic: one of the main reasons I love The Ring so much myself, is exactly that ancient Nordic atmosphere, the "Northernness" as C.S. Lewis called it.

I also think that a believer is able to relate to sacred music in a slightly different way as an atheist. It is simply the question of sharing the same experience, the same attitude as is expressed in the music. The same way someone who is passionately in love can probably relate to music which speaks of love differently from someone who has never experienced it.

I have not heard many requiems in my life yet, but in my favorite one, Brahms' "German Requiem" I hear not so much the fear of death as hope, resolution and courage.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

violadude said:


> Nope. Even though I think religious institutions cause harm and don't really believe in a "spiritual realm" I think the experience of "spirituality" can still be a very beautiful expression of humanity.


Just because our logical mind fails to understand it doesn't mean that it's inexistent. All that exists has its logic. Human logic doesn't have to be the ultimate judge of the reality. If we humans can experience this sort of sensations doesn't meant they don't exist. They don't exist in the same form that our mind would expect, but this is a very different thing. They exist and they are very real, otherwise you wouldn't feel them. But our common-sense tends to match everything in simplistic terms and imagines, that's why you can't imagine the "spiritual realm" in this way. Just allow it to exist within you, and you will feel it as it is, unspoiled by prejudices and pattern thinking. There is a kind of sense that needs to be discovered in order to understand such things, that's all. In the same way that we develop our intelligence, our logical reasoning, critical thinking we can develop this sense as well.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

*To Atheists/Agnostics: Does "religiosity" in Classical music puts you off?*

Answer:

*Nope*. ut:


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> But isn't that like saying a believer in giants, invisibility cloaks and other magical powers will experience more when listening to Wagner's Ring than a sane person would?


Maybe they would? But still, those mythical elements in a Wagnerian epic have a pretty different function from something like the creeds etc that are presented in e.g. a mass. Nobody (I believe) has a huge emotional investment in, or organize their life around the fact that invisibility cloaks are real. While on the other hand, church music expresses, celebrates and 'reinforces' what are considered to be truths, and thruths of the most important kind. The deeper message that Wagner wants to convey doesn't really have that much to do with 'surface details' like magical cloaks. Even people who believe in magical powers would probably recognize that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> A friend of mine, an Atheist can't listen to the religious works of Bach and Allegri's Miserere ( he listens to Mozart and Verdi's Requiem, though), because he thought these works even though beautiful is violation to his beliefs. I know, he is one of the few exceptions of these, but I ask our Atheist/Agnostic members:
> 
> *Does "religiosity" in classical music puts you off?*
> 
> I hope we can have a good and intelligent discussion here.


Did you ask your friend what it is about the "religiosity" of Bach's and Allegri's works that violates his beliefs that he doesn't find in Mozart's and Verdi's Requiems? In terms of the amount of religious sentiment, I would have thought that there's no material difference between the two sets. Without further explanation, this dichotomous treatment sounds peculiar to me.

Speaking personally as a believer in traditional, mainstream Christianity, I am perfectly happy listening to sacred works. I think it may help my appreciation of them because I know what they refer to, so that I can appreciate both the musical and religious aspects simultaneously. I see no reason why non-believers shouldn't be able to appreciate the musical aspects, and would guess that only a small proportion might be put of because of its relgious connotations.

I would say that a higher proportion of my favorite classical works are of a religious nature than would otherwise be the case if I were not a believer. A precondition for me to like relgious works is that I must like the music first and foremost. Even so, the vast majority of classical music that I like most is secular. The religious works that I like most are Bach's sacred Cantatas, rather than Masses/Requiems etc.

I have no idea whether, among the wider classical music loving public, there is any evidence of a positive correlation between the amount of preference for religious works versus secular works and the degree of belief in what those works relate to. It would be difficult to test for that, although possibly someone might think of setting up a poll of some description.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> A friend of mine, an Atheist can't listen to the religious works of Bach and Allegri's Miserere ( he listens to Mozart and Verdi's Requiem, though), because he thought these works even though beautiful is violation to his beliefs


I'm confused - how can (or why does) he make exceptions for Verdi and Mozart yet exclude all else?


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> I'm confused - how can (or why does) he make exceptions for Verdi and Mozart yet exclude all else?


I'm not sure why this person would exclude one and not the other...

All things religious/spiritual even meaningful are made so by the listener who imparts meaning onto them not the other way round to think otherwise is rather insulting to humans I'd think.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Norse said:


> Maybe they would? But still, those mythical elements in a Wagnerian epic have a pretty different function from something like the creeds etc that are presented in e.g. a mass. Nobody (I believe) has a huge emotional investment in, or organize their life around the fact that invisibility cloaks are real. While on the other hand, church music express, celebrate and 'reinforce' what are considered to be truths, and thruths of the most important kind. The deeper message that Wagner wants to convey doesn't really have that much to do with 'surface details' like magical cloaks. Even people who believe in magical powers would probably recognize that.


Well that depends on the what one considers to be 'real' or 'truths'. Wagner's characters are vehicles through which he expresses feelings of love, jealousy, redemption, sacrifice and greed to name a few examples. I don't believe that to fully appreciate the joyous chorus, 'For Unto Us A Son Is Born' from Handel's Messiah, it is necessary to accept immaculate conception and resurrection from the dead as a truth. Any more than it is necessary to accept that Valhalla exists.
However, since no two people are identical it is impossible to say whether the religious person has an enhanced experience listening to a setting of a religious text. If the opposite occurs, someone being 'put off' by it, then I feel sorry for that person who may be missing out on great music.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Well that depends on the what one considers to be 'real' or 'truths'. Wagner's characters are vehicles through which he expresses feelings of love, jealousy, redemption, sacrifice and greed to name a few examples. I don't believe that to fully appreciate the joyous chorus, 'For Unto Us A Son Is Born' from Handel's Messiah, it is necessary to accept immaculate conception and resurrection from the dead as a truth. Any more than it is necessary to accept that Valhalla exists.


To appreciate it, or even to appreciate it 'fully', I don't think that's necessary either, but I do think someone who actually believes what the music/text is 'about' in this case will, or at least can, have a different connection to it than one who doesn't, and who possibly just 'goes along with the story', like I have personally done many times. Wether that automatically makes it a superior experience.. well, maybe that can be discussed, too. I think it might, but there isn't really a problem here, as this thread proves. A powerful experience is a powerful experience, even if it could have been even more powerful.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

@Stomanek - But wouldn't you agree that an alcoholic would experience an enhanced pleasure from drinking a bottle of beer than a non alcoholic? 

@Petwhac - Norse has pretty much said it all. A religious person might find the bible more emotional than the average person. It really doesn't matter what is the "truth" here, but rather how much you believe that it's the truth. I think a kid would find a friendship story between a couple of fairies more compelling and engaging than an adult, since he might actually believe that fairies exist, although that the same concept of friendship could be displayed using real people.

I think your hypothetical people that believe in wizards and such might experience something different and maybe even something more than the average person listening to Wagner. It's not only the point of understanding the meaning of the virtues you find in various sacred music, but also the origin of it - the one (or ones) who provided it. I guess, for some reason, it's easier for many to actually believe that something made it.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> If this is to be a question of whether agnostics and atheists can enjoy music written by those of faith, let's not throw in needless remarks such as this. Who's lost? Not me.


Nor I. Thank you for posting that response, MacLeod.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

I suspect that the majority and possibly all of the "agnostics" in this thread are, in fact, atheists.

I'm an atheist but I listen to Renaissance polyphony and bands that claim to worship Satan. *shrug*


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> I suspect that the majority and possibly all of the "agnostics" in this thread are, in fact, atheists.



this is a strange sentence to say the least.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

norman bates said:


> this is a strange sentence to say the least.


But that strange sentence might easily be very true - many people use the words atheist and agnostic the wrong way, which gives rise to many popular myths. Some of those would be that atheism is a belief, or that agnosticism is somehow somewhere between atheism and theism - so if you don't want to offend pious people, agnosticism is seen as somewhat better way to break the news. Then there are (at least) two definitions of agnosticism, only adding to confusion...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

graaf said:


> But that strange sentence might easily be very true - many people use the words atheist and agnostic the wrong way, which gives rise to many popular myths. Some of those would be that atheism is a belief, or that agnosticism is somehow somewhere between atheism and theism - so if you don't want to offend pious people, agnosticism is seen as somewhat better way to break the news. Then there are (at least) two definitions of agnosticism, only adding to confusion...


People who say they are agnostics are really atheists - it's just that they are fluffy atheists and dn't want to offend anyone - agnostic is a kinder label. I suppose they are also agnosstic about santa clause, aliens, the tooth fairy and everything else you can't prove the abscence of.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

lukecubed said:


> I suspect that the majority and possibly all of the "agnostics" in this thread are, in fact, atheists.





graaf said:


> many people use the words atheist and agnostic the wrong way, which gives rise to many popular myths. Some of those would be that atheism is a belief, or that agnosticism is somehow somewhere between atheism and theism - so if you don't want to offend pious people, agnosticism is seen as somewhat better way to break the news. Then there are (at least) two definitions of agnosticism, only adding to confusion...





stomanek said:


> People who say they are agnostics are really atheists - it's just that they are fluffy atheists and dn't want to offend anyone - agnostic is a kinder label. I suppose they are also agnosstic about santa clause, aliens, the tooth fairy and everything else you can't prove the abscence of.


But since almost all (all?) who have posted about the substance of the thread have said they can still listen to the music, and that their atheism/agnosticism doesn't matter, it also doesn't really matter whether their use of terminology is precise. Let them self-define. After all, no-one is being asked to define their religious beliefs.

As to what else they don't believe in...FPS!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Just because our logical mind fails to understand it doesn't mean that it's inexistent. All that exists has its logic. Human logic doesn't have to be the ultimate judge of the reality. If we humans can experience this sort of sensations doesn't meant they don't exist. They don't exist in the same form that our mind would expect, but this is a very different thing. They exist and they are very real, otherwise you wouldn't feel them. But our common-sense tends to match everything in simplistic terms and imagines, that's why you can't imagine the "spiritual realm" in this way. Just allow it to exist within you, and you will feel it as it is, unspoiled by prejudices and pattern thinking. There is a kind of sense that needs to be discovered in order to understand such things, that's all. In the same way that we develop our intelligence, our logical reasoning, critical thinking we can develop this sense as well.


That is irrational and meaningless. First you have to establiish the existence of something in order to understand it. Once you have established its existence - it can then be studied in order to be understood. 
I don't understand the blah monster - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist - I just have to open myself to the blah monster and allow it to exist within me - that is what you are saying
. Just meaningless nonsense.
So you have feelings which are a response to music - they are just feelings - there is no reason to assume those feelings point to the existence of the blah monster. As we all know - feelings are not the best way to evaluate reality - they can be misleading (such as paranoia) - that is why you must use your brain correctly - stick to the facts unless you want to end up worshipping the blah monster.

Of course there is blind faith - but with that you don't use your brain you just believe regardless of what the facts say.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> But our common-sense tends to match everything in simplistic terms and imagines, that's why you can't imagine the "spiritual realm" in this way. Just allow it to exist within you, and you will feel it as it is, unspoiled by prejudices and pattern thinking. There is a kind of sense that needs to be discovered in order to understand such things, that's all. In the same way that we develop our intelligence, our logical reasoning, critical thinking we can develop this sense as well.


So, if I understand this right, you reject violadude's belief that there is no such thing as a 'spiritual realm', on the grounds that the standard means of perception won't help us to find it or confirm its existence?

Violadude doesn't elaborate on what he means by 'spirituality', presuming, I guess, that we all have at least some rough and ready understanding of the term. I'd be interested to know what folk _do _understand by it, since music is often described as providing a 'spiritual' experience - and presumably the OP might have had something like this in mind: if you don't share the beliefs of those who wrote 'religious' music, can you still have a spiritual experience listening to it?

I don't believe that the spiritual realm exists, or that 'spirituality' is connected to some real, but transcendent world, but I can still have uplifting and 'heavenly' experiences listening to music. I just attribute it to something else, that's all.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

You don't even know what "real" means, but you judge things according to this criterion. Everything that exists is real, including your experiences. Why believing only in what your eyes show you ? We know today how misleading they can be. Colors, smells, sounds, aren't the only senses we posses.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Agnostic Theist = Deist

It's like (0+2) / 2 = 1
Atheists are -1, -2, -3 in deity degree.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

I'm frightened that there are people out there who avoid religious works due to "belief violation." What, is atheism the new intolerant religion?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Can we keep discussion on religion, whether it comes from the Christian view or from the Atheist view, out of this thread please? Thanks.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Just a matter of time before this thread gets closed imo.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

stomanek said:


> That is irrational and meaningless. First you have to establiish the existence of something in order to understand it. Once you have established its existence - it can then be studied in order to be understood.
> I don't understand the blah monster - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist - I just have to open myself to the blah monster and allow it to exist within me - that is what you are saying
> . Just meaningless nonsense.
> So you have feelings which are a response to music - they are just feelings - there is no reason to assume those feelings point to the existence of the blah monster. As we all know - feelings are not the best way to evaluate reality - they can be misleading (such as paranoia) - that is why you must use your brain correctly - stick to the facts unless you want to end up worshipping the blah monster.
> ...


Irrational and meaningless...People use these words as if they knew what they mean. But they don't. There is a difference between rational and pattern thinking. Does love need to be understood to know that it's real ? How do you establish its existence ? I suppose that in the same way as you do with your spiritual experiences. You just feel. Why shouldn't be real this way ? Who decides what is real and what is not ? Your eyes ? Your ears ? They have limited spectra of detection. Just because it's harder to understand your emotions, doesn't mean that they provide you non-senses. This is a term that only applies in rational thinking, and the rational thinking isn't the end. Do you find that living is rational ? If not, why living anymore ? On this criterion, life is a waste, a meaningless thing. Why listening to music ? Why so many complications ? What does "rational" really mean and why everybody thinks about himself that he is rational ?? It's stupid. It is irrational even to think that you are rational, because logic on itself doesn't make a big deal at all. Any definition you would find for this word, "rational", is insufficient. The truth, the reality doesn't conform to your logic and rational thinking, but your rational thinking conforms to the small piece of reality you can understand. As usually, we just use words and concepts that we don't know what they mean. But this is how society educates us... Or maybe I don't make myself understood, I don't know what to think.

And where did I tell that I worship something ?? My friend, I worship nothing. 
And to finish with this, yes, I am irrational, very irrational because what you people define as "rational" is boring for me. I was a "rational" guy as well until I understood more.

About paranoia, and other mental illness, not feelings are the cause of the problem, they are only an effect.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

macgeek2005 said:


> I'm frightened that there are people out there who avoid religious works due to "belief violation." What, is atheism the new intolerant religion?


"Frightened"? Really?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I don't believe in religions, but that doesn't stop me to listen to great music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> You don't even know what "real" means, but you judge things according to this criterion. Everything that exists is real, including your experiences. Why believing only in what your eyes show you ? We know today how misleading they can be. Colors, smells, sounds, aren't the only senses we posses.


I'm not sure who you are addressing, but I'm assuming you're picking up this



> I don't believe that the spiritual realm exists, or that 'spirituality' is connected to some real, but transcendent world


There's no need to rush to assert that I don't know what "real" means. I didn't claim that I do, only what I believe. Let's just exchange our beliefs and stick to the OP. No need to try to convert.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

stomanek said:


> People who say they are agnostics are really atheists - it's just that they are fluffy atheists and dn't want to offend anyone - agnostic is a kinder label. I suppose they are also agnosstic about santa clause, aliens, the tooth fairy and everything else you can't prove the abscence of.


 i'm tempted to say oh my god :lol:
Are you serious?

I want to explain you the difference:
atheist: he believe that doesn't exist anything like a superior being 
agnostic: he simply doesn't know if something like this exists or not. Yeah, considering the christian god i'm positively atheist, sure. That doens't mean that i have an answer for life or the birth of the universe


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

norman bates said:


> i'm tempted to say oh my god :lol:
> Are you serious?
> 
> I want to explain you the difference:
> ...


Actually, a more accurate definition is that atheism has to do with what you believe, gnosticism has to do with what you know. So you can be an atheist agnostic and it means you don't believe there is a god, but you don't claim to know for sure that there isn't one.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

violadude said:


> Actually, a more accurate definition is that atheism has to do with what you believe, gnosticism has to do with what you know. So you can be an atheist agnostic and it means you don't believe there is a god, but you don't claim to know for sure that there isn't one.


i don't see great difference. I mean, the fact that one doesn't believe that ONE god (usually identified with the christian god) exists doesn't imply that one is against the idea of transcendence. Delius is considered an atheist, but i suspect that (considering his music with all those poetic descriptions of nature) maybe he should be considered as a pantheist.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

violadude said:


> Actually, a more accurate definition is that atheism has to do with what you believe, gnosticism has to do with what you know. So you can be an atheist agnostic and it means you don't believe there is a god, but you don't claim to know for sure that there isn't one.


That's what my post implies he just does not understand it.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

> agnostic: he simply doesn't know if something like this exists or not.


Then everyone is an agnostic (since nobody knows), so what's the point of the word? Agnostic actually claims that the existence of god is unknowable, unprovable. Or, as the dictionary says: 
agnosticism n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.



> atheist: he believe that doesn't exist anything like a superior being


strong atheism - yes. weak atheism - no. Weak atheism does not deny god, weak atheism means not believing without any positive statement about god not existing - like Buddhists: neither they believe in, nor they deny god, they are simply not interested in the issue.



> I want to explain you the difference


How about learning it first?



> i don't see great difference.


Exactly.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> And to finish with this, yes, I am irrational, very irrational because what you people define as "rational" is boring for me.


Yes that is obvious to anyone who reads your posts on this matter. Good luck to you.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

graaf said:


> Then everyone is an agnostic (since nobody knows)


Really? try to tell it to a believer, that he's not sure about the existence of a god.



graaf said:


> , so what's the point of the word? Agnostic actually claims that the existence of god is unknowable, unprovable. Or, as the dictionary says:
> agnosticism n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.


It's exactly what I've said.



graaf said:


> yes. weak atheism - no. Weak atheism does not deny god, weak atheism means not believing without any positive statement about god not existing - like Buddhists: neither they believe in, nor they deny god, they are simply not interested in the issue.


it seems in many aspect something very similar to the idea of agnosticism (the only difference is probably that an agnostic is often interested in the issue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
_
Among "implicit" atheists are thus sometimes included the following: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who have heard of deities but have never given the idea any considerable thought; *and those agnostics who suspend belief about deities*, but do not reject such belief. All implicit atheists are included in the negative/weak categorization._



graaf said:


> How about learning it first?


how about reading better?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

graaf said:


> Then everyone is an agnostic (since nobody knows), so what's the point of the word? Agnostic actually claims that the existence of god is unknowable, unprovable. Or, as the dictionary says:
> agnosticism n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
> 
> strong atheism - yes. weak atheism - no. Weak atheism does not deny god, weak atheism means not believing without any positive statement about god not existing - like Buddhists: neither they believe in, nor they deny god, they are simply not interested in the issue.
> ...


Even Richard Dawkins does not rule out the possibility that god exists yet he calls himself an atheist. But he also does not rule out the possibility that unicorns, santa clause, aliens, poltergiests exist. He is, as we all are - really in a position of not knowing - but that does not give any more credence to the existence of god - than it does the existence Thor, Woden or any other deity.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

> Really? try to tell it to a believer.


I did. the fact that they are irrational (and some admit it, in this very thread) does not mean they know god's existence, it just means what they already admitted anyway - irrationality.



> It's exactly what i've said.


No. You said: "agnostic: he simply doesn't know if something like this exists or not. " I said: "Agnostic actually claims that the existence of god is unknowable, unprovable. "
Once again you see "no great difference" I suppose?



> how about reading better?


Yes, you could try by comparing those two sentences about agnosticism above. Hint: not knowing and not being able to know - not quite the same.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

norman bates said:


> i'm tempted to say oh my god :lol:
> Are you serious?
> 
> That doens't mean that i have an answer for life or the birth of the universe


And you think "god did it" is any kind of answer?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

graaf said:


> I did. the fact that they are irrational (and some admit it, in this very thread) does not mean they know god's existence, it just means what they already admitted anyway - irrationality.
> 
> No. You said: "agnostic: he simply doesn't know if something like this exists or not. " I said: "Agnostic actually claims that the existence of god is unknowable, unprovable. "
> Once again you see "no great difference" I suppose?
> ...


He did not understand my post - why do you think he will understand yours?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Even Richard Dawkins does not rule out the possibility that god exists yet he calls himself an atheist. But he also does not rule out the possibility that unicorns, santa clause, aliens, poltergiests exist. He is, as we all are - really in a position of not knowing - but that does not give any more credence to the existence of god - than it does the existence Thor, Woden or any other deity.


well, i'm pretty sure that santa clause doesn't exists. So in that regard i'm an atheist.:tiphat: 
But that's not the same for other things, simply put. An atheist is someone who BELIEVE with CERTAINTY that there's anything like a superior will or something beyond our knowledge (talking of transcendence obviously). If one does not deny that something like a god (for the lack of a better word) could exists and he call himself "atheist", he's using the wrong word.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

stomanek said:


> He did not understand my post - why do you think he will understand yours?


I guess you're right. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

stomanek said:


> And you think "god did it" is any kind of answer?


No, i think that "i don't know" is my answer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

graaf said:


> I did. the fact that they are irrational (and some admit it, in this very thread) does not mean they know god's existence, it just means what they already admitted anyway - irrationality.


the difference is that they believe that god exists. Sure, they don't really know, but so if anybody doesn't know if a god or something exists all are agnostics? That's not the meaning of the word (why use a word that does not define anything)



graaf said:


> No. You said: "agnostic: he simply doesn't know if something like this exists or not. " I said: "Agnostic actually claims that the existence of god is unknowable, unprovable. "
> Once again you see "no great difference" I suppose?


Yes, you suppose well, it's EXACTLY the same thing. If i can't prove the existence of something, how can i say if it exists?



graaf said:


> Yes, you could try by comparing those two sentences about agnosticism above. Hint: not knowing and not being able to know - not quite the same.


so where's the actual difference for you?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

norman bates said:


> No, i think that "i don't know" is my answer.


But you believe in god - although not the christian one - which one then?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

norman bates said:


> well, i'm pretty sure that santa clause doesn't exists. So in that regard i'm an atheist.:tiphat:
> But that's not the same for other things, simply put. An atheist is someone who BELIEVE with CERTAINTY that there's anything like a superior will or something beyond our knowledge (talking of transcendence obviously). If one does not deny that something like a god (for the lack of a better word) could exists and he call himself "atheist", he's using the wrong word.


How can you be certain that santa clause does not exist? I am not certain at all. He may exist though I think he probably does not.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

stomanek said:


> But you believe in god - although not the christian one - which one then?


i don't think i've said i believe in any god, in fact i am agnostic.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

norman bates said:


> i don't think i've said i believe in any god, in fact i am agnostic.


"agnostic: he simply doesn't know if something like this exists or not. Yeah, considering *the christian god *i'm positively atheist, sure. That doens't mean that i have an answer for life or the birth of the universe "

That implies you believe in some god.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

stomanek said:


> How can you be certain that santa clause does not exist? I am not certain at all. He may exist though I think he probably does not.


i'm certain because the idea of a old man living in the north pole with flying reindeers is simply absurd.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

stomanek said:


> "agnostic: he simply doesn't know if something like this exists or not. Yeah, considering *the christian god *i'm positively atheist, sure. That doens't mean that i have an answer for life or the birth of the universe "
> 
> That implies you believe in some god.


No, that implies simply that i don't believe in a god created by humans with a set of moral rules and heaven/hell etc.
I am agnostic (if i can use the word) also about the scientific theories like big bang or the theory of strings. What is more difficult to understand, a god or something like that who creates the universe or the universe that a certain point creates itself? The second is not easier to understand.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

norman bates said:


> No, that implies simply that i don't believe in a god created by humans with a set of moral rules and heaven/hell etc.


So you are certain that type of god does not exist.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

stomanek said:


> So you are certain that type of god does not exist.


yes, for me the god of christians is something like santa clause or the horoscope or the homeopathy.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

Before this thread is entirely derailed, it's worth pointing out that a more relevant distinction for the purposes of the OP is between 'believing' and 'knowing'.

Whilst some composers will have been inspired by their religious beliefs, or will have chosen to write in an explicitly religious format, or on an explicitly religious theme, it would be a mistake to assume that any of them wrote from a position of certain knowledge. The social context in which they wrote (not least the beliefs of their patrons) is an important consideration. Any composer setting out now to write something that reflects their explicit atheism or agnosticism would not attract the same attention as one who did so two hundred years ago. Western society's default position until quite recently was the certain conviction that the Christian God existed (though I don't mean of course that _every _individual believed in the Christian God). Even doubt itself was not a popular position, never mind any conviction that there is no God.

So, listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony, one detects an element of doubt about the exact nature of the God that LvB appeared to believe in. It's the word 'mensch' that dominates, not 'gott'!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I believe in Creator/Architecture ... Yes, I don't need empirical evidence to understand that the universe simply didn't create itself! :lol:

And how much empirical instruments/senses are strong to understand and conclude everything with them? Have they the ability to enter any realms of truth? Not every knowledge is caused by a posteriori, try to understand A priori (from Plato and Kant)...
At the end, Atheists are also believers.

So I'm a deist not a Agnostic deist or atheist ... these terms are just absurd. The arrogance on Atheist part, makes a clear distinction with modest agnostic part. Deist claim is also obvious.

Don't forget there's also pantheists who believe that the God lives in this universe and influences everything in the world (somewhat unbelievable)


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> So, listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony, one detects an element of doubt about the exact nature of the God that LvB appeared to believe in. It's the word 'mensch' that dominates, not 'gott'!


Yes, but to a Christian the very existence of Beethoven and all other great music masters, whether believers or atheists, and even more, the very desire of human beings to produce and appreciate things of beauty is already proof of the existence of God.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Yes, but to a Christian the very existence of Beethoven and all other great music masters, whether believers or atheists, and even more, the very desire of human beings to produce and appreciate things of beauty is already proof of the existence of God.


I'm not here to debate the existence of god, nor is that what this thread is about. I'm using Beethoven as an example of the unreliability of the idea that just because someone wrote "religious music" they must also believe unequivocally in the existence of god. By all means offer a counter from your knowledge of the life, works and expressed opinions of LvB.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Well, I do not know that much about Beethoven's own beliefs, I am only saying that one does not need to become an atheist while listening to the 9th symphony, even if it if atheistic. Same is true about atheists listening to sacred music, of course, as has already been said many times.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Attempting to pull this back from the brink of non-belief inquisition it would be interesting to focus on the degree of religiosity of classical works. The person mentioned in the first post liked Verdi and Mozart's requiems but not Bach and Allegri. What is the difference between these works, do the athiests/agnostics in this thread, or indeed the christians/jews/buddhists etc see a distinction? Is it because Mozart and Verdi are more impersonal, grand opera style and Bach is more intimate. Are there religious works people do have a problem with, that are too 'preachy' or that sing about all non-believers will burn in hell.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

The God of the Old Testament is certainly one of the biggest obstacles for anyone who's interested in the Christian religion. It's the same God which Nietzsche pronounced dead.

But in a way, Jesus had already done that too. He had a very different idea of what God was like. Jesus' God was not the Old Testament God. The same way Jesus rebuked many of the Old Testament teachings in his Sermon on the Mount and generally through his actions.

Coming back to the original topic, I will say that I find it more difficult to enjoy religious music that deals with God or other Old Testament subject matter. Mendelssohn's Hymn of Praise symphony, for instance. I adore it musically, but its main inspiration (Psalm 150, "Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!") does not really mean much to me.

For me personally, Christianity begins with the one they call Christ, and therefore I feel a much closer connection to works that revolve around the New Testament.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> I believe in Creator/Architecture ... Yes, I don't need empirical evidence to understand that the universe simply didn't create itself! :lol:


Nevermind, I should not get into this.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> It's quite a funny thing to say, since Pagans probably said the same thing about the sun and other natural phenomena that we now can explain without applying nonsensical deities. The point is that you can't understand that the universe simply came into existence is probably because you lack knowledge in Physics, since some physicists argue that it is possible that the universe indeed came from nothing. In these days arguing what you said, is the same as saying that we should still sacrifice some goats to Ra, so our sun will keep shining, because we don't need empirical data to understand that Ra is the one behind it!


Oh really?

Consuming some tiny sub-atom materials with lots of energy in a 40 km long underground facility *built by humans* to create some unstable garbage, is not as same as *creating a world out of nothing in voidness by mere chance*. The universe is not created like these pathetic ways.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Oh, I was indeed right saying I should not get into this.
Certainly, you won Arsakes. :tiphat:


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

I've always believed in God since I exist and I am God too... now, don't get me wrong... my view of God is not based on ego... when I say that 'I am God' I mean that every one of us is God. God is not 'out there'. God is here. God is everything that was, that is and that will be. God is life itself. We are his manifestation on physical level. He lives through us and we live through him/her/it. 
There's no single thing that is no God. From atom to galaxies... it's all God. When we think it's actually God thinking, but the problem is that we are not on this level able always to remember where we came from. That's why world seems 'bad'. It's not bad... it's just our view on it and world is only changing as we evolve on spiritual level. Actually, the world is exactly now the way we like it. We always have what we want. 
We're on our path from fear to love to realize again who are we and from where we came from. 
But no, I don't like religions because of many reasons.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

nikola said:


> I've always believed in God since I exist and I am God too... now, don't get me wrong... my view of God is not based on ego... when I say that 'I am God' I mean that every one of us is God. God is not 'out there'. God is here. God is everything that was, that is and that will be. God is life itself. We are his manifestation on physical level. He lives through us and we live through him/her/it.
> There's no single thing that is no God. From atom to galaxies... it's all God. When we think it's actually God thinking, but the problem is that we are not on this level able always to remember where we came from. That's why world seems 'bad'. It's not bad... it's just our view on it and world is only changing as we evolve on spiritual level. Actually, the world is exactly now the way we like it. We always have what we want.
> We're on our path from fear to love to realize again who are we and from where we came from.
> But no, I don't like religions because of many reasons.


Wait, so when we want to kill or rape someone it's actually God thinking, but since everything is God, he actually wants to harm himself? Or when we are thinking about love, does it mean that God actually wants to make love to himself?


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> Wait, so when we want to kill or rape someone it's actually God thinking, but since everything is God, he actually wants to harm himself? Or when we are thinking about love, does it mean that God actually wants to make love to himself?


If you want to rape or to kill that's probably path of your soul unfortunately. But every action has a reaction and you will have to deal with consequences of your actions, but you will still at the end go where every soul is. 
To kill or to rape is opposite of love and love and opposite of love is fear. That's why we exist and killing people is part of physical level. It's actually very simple. 
Don't try to overanalyze because t's not that much important. This life is just one aspect of God. We're not here to do or to learn something. We're here to live over and over again, so God can experience life through us/him not only through him(love), but also through opposite of him(fear). We're only here to remember who we are if there must be any reason for being alive and here.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

nikola said:


> If you want to rape or to kill that's probably path of your soul unfortunately. But every action has a reaction and you will have to deal with consequences of your actions, but you will still at the end go where every soul is.
> To kill or to rape is opposite of love and love and opposite of love is fear. That's why we exist and killing people is part of physical level. It's actually very simple.
> Don't try to overanalyze because t's not that much important. This life is just one aspect of God. We're not here to do or to learn something. We're here to live over and over again, so God can experience life through us/him not only through him(love), but also through opposite of him(fear). We're only here to remember who we are if there must be any reason for being alive and here.


 Hey, people! Put some music on and shut up already!


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I am only saying that one does not need to become an atheist while listening to the 9th symphony, even if it if atheistic.


I didn't say it was atheistic, nor did I suggest that the listener must share the philosophies, values or beliefs of the composer whose music they listen to.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ha - this thread is totally derailed!
NEVER bring up religion except when you are being sick.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> Irrational and meaningless...People use these words as if they knew what they mean. But they don't. There is a difference between rational and pattern thinking. Does love need to be understood to know that it's real ? How do you establish its existence ? I suppose that in the same way as you do with your spiritual experiences. You just feel. Why shouldn't be real this way ? Who decides what is real and what is not ? Your eyes ? Your ears ? They have limited spectra of detection. Just because it's harder to understand your emotions, doesn't mean that they provide you non-senses. This is a term that only applies in rational thinking, and the rational thinking isn't the end. Do you find that living is rational ? If not, why living anymore ? On this criterion, life is a waste, a meaningless thing. Why listening to music ? Why so many complications ? What does "rational" really mean and why everybody thinks about himself that he is rational ?? It's stupid. It is irrational even to think that you are rational, because logic on itself doesn't make a big deal at all. Any definition you would find for this word, "rational", is insufficient. The truth, the reality doesn't conform to your logic and rational thinking, but your rational thinking conforms to the small piece of reality you can understand. As usually, we just use words and concepts that we don't know what they mean. But this is how society educates us... Or maybe I don't make myself understood, I don't know what to think.
> 
> And where did I tell that I worship something ?? My friend, I worship nothing.
> And to finish with this, yes, I am irrational, very irrational because what you people define as "rational" is boring for me. I was a "rational" guy as well until I understood more.
> ...


You realise that love is only an effect of body chemicals and cognitive processes and not some metaphysical entity itself, right? You do realise that love is actually studied scientifically and there are courses and textbooks concerning the subject matter, right? You realise we have devices which can scan the brain and tell us what is going on when you're perceiving these experiences and feelings, right? In essence, you're damning spirituality to nothing more than being a sensation manifested in the human mind.

I'm not here to debate religion, but I thought I should point this out.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

those church people transformed music so if you were put off you would hate all music.

they allowed the melody to be more important than the clarity of the words. they made people sing in harmony. they inspired people to buy other instruments. popularized the pipe organ.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

The OP asked:

Does "religiosity" in *classical music *puts you off?

This is fine as it concerns music directly, but any talk purely about religion should not be held here.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

On the note of religious classical music, is there perhaps any satanic stuff?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> On the note of religious classical music, is there perhaps any satanic stuff?


Ligeti, Etude no. 13: The Devil's Staircase. Just kidding.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> On the note of religious classical music, is there perhaps any satanic stuff?


Of course there's the Black Mass sonata by Scriabin, and stuff like _Walpurgis Night_ by Mendelssohn or _Night on Bald Mountain_ by Mussorgsky, maybe Liszt's Faust symphony? These are really just portrayals of Satan or satanic ritual.

Warlock portrayed himself a bit as an actual occultist, and of course so did performers like Paganini. I'm not sure it got into Warlock's compositions.

Delius' Mass of Life and Requiem may be the most pointedly anti-Chrisitian classical music that I know of. Strauss and Mahler both alluded to Nietzsche's thought, but neither of them did so with the emphasis that Delius places on the rejection of religion.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> You realise that love is only an effect of body chemicals and cognitive processes and not some metaphysical entity itself, right? You do realise that love is actually studied scientifically and there are courses and textbooks concerning the subject matter, right? You realise we have devices which can scan the brain and tell us what is going on when you're perceiving these experiences and feelings, right? In essence, you're damning spirituality to nothing more than being a sensation manifested in the human mind.
> 
> I'm not here to debate religion, but I thought I should point this out.


These are only effects ! Not causes, they are not just random things happening by themselves. All these chemicals DO NOT explain the sensation/feeling in itself, but only the physiological response to them. That is a BIG difference. Do you really think that there are some chemicals "dancing" into your head that deciding what you will do ? Of course there is a kind of interdependence between these physical changes and behavior, but it is not an unidirectional relation. You can't know if the physical changes in the brain generate the feeling. They are the only measurable parameters, but this doesn't mean at all that they indicate us the origin of something. This view is so limited and mechanical and really can't explain much. There are so many drugs that don't do their work. Have you ever took drug ? I mean anti-depressants, anti-anxiolytics ? As much as you take them, you still feel those negative emotions, but you won't feel the physiological responses, because they block some cellular receptors associated with the stimulation of sympathetic nervous system, and so those very known effects we can all observe disappear. But not the feelings themselves. Just because we haven't discovered some mechanisms to control them doesn't mean that they function in the same way as things we know. Feelings and emotions are just somewhere between psyche and body. We just discovered some chemicals out there and now we think we know all answers...well it is not that simple. Physics has abandoned this simplistic, mechanical view of matter. When will biology do the same ? It is required some knowledge of molecular biology to understand what these chemicals are doing and how they do what they do. There is a trend today to generalize every scientific discovery in every field we can imagine. Unfortunately, scientific method has its limits and can't be applied everywhere. To categorize love as an "effect of body chemicals" is very sad, because you don't have (and nobody has) any prove to state such things. This is NOT science, this is opposed to what science is supposed to be. Nowadays, even Dawkins is considered a scientist, and is really sad. I wonder if all these information we have anytime through internet/media is a good thing, because they certainly facilitate a superficial knowledge and understanding. What modern scientist promotes today is excessive materialism. Everything gets explained in mechanisms and hypothesis, and if we don't know something, that's no problem, we just apply the same pattern to all. Nothing more wrong than this. These mechanisms are only a theoretical overview of a phenomena, and certainly not what causes it. And these things are always incomplete, arbitrary, and it changes in time. They were elaborated only using the perspective of that time when they were formulated/discovered. But we can't stay forever into the same patterns, we have to move on and this is difficult when you denature things for the false impression of understanding. As the knowledge advances, the perspective also must change in order to incorporate more.

I am certainly not anti-science, but I don't like at all these medieval mentalities that some scientists promote so violently. (for example physicists telling that the world was created out of nothing and biologists "selling" us their frustrations marked as "scientific facts". ) And I am definitely not for organized religions as they don't value real knowledge. I am just saying that we should also accept others senses as well as real even though they are not so objective as those 5 we all know.

*Sorry for off-topic, this is my last post on these subjects because I have neither time nor linguistic abilities to debate such things.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

So much of the supposed 'religious' works of many an artist, including the other plastic arts and letters, is / was made by 'non-believers.'

The objection is usually from those wholly too occupied [Edit Ad: preoccupied] with some over-reaction to a bad experience... pity, that, like being afraid of all dogs and cats because one was once bitten.

If you want to consume art, the arts -- religion -- as subject / topic, earnestly or more glancingly, is part and parcel of the whole ball of wax.

The objectors are paying a price, missing out on much because of a highly personalized 'tic.'


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Where is Sid James to scream "FALSE DICHOTOMY" when you need him?


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> Agnostic Theist = Deist
> 
> It's like (0+2) / 2 = 1
> Atheists are -1, -2, -3 in deity degree.


I thought a "Deist" believed in a kind of force with purpose as if the universe was a watch each part in it's place to keep it ticking. I think a lot of deist were indeed atheists but in their day they'd have ended up at the stake or in the gallows.

An Agnostic is someone who does not wish to say yes or no "just in case" which makes me think they don't believe but are too afraid to say so lest thee be slain by *Odin* etc.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Where is Sid James to scream "FALSE DICHOTOMY" when you need him?


Maybe he is passing the torch? This is your time to shine *Cnote* my friend.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2012)

PetrB said:


> So much of the supposed 'religious' works of many an artist, including the other plastic arts and letters, is / was made by 'non-believers.'
> 
> The objection is usually from those wholly too occupied [Edit Ad: preoccupied] with some over-reaction to a bad experience... pity, that, like being afraid of all dogs and cats because one was once bitten.
> 
> ...


And the objectors are...where...I barely counted a one?


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

norman bates said:


> An atheist is someone who BELIEVE with CERTAINTY that there's anything like a superior will or something beyond our knowledge (talking of transcendence obviously).


This is completely incorrect. An atheist does not have to believe anything or deny anything. An atheist may well have no opinion on the existence of supernatural beings and/or deities. All the word means is "without belief in God or gods." So if you lack belief in God or gods, you're an atheist. The majority of atheists do not take an active position (ie: belief) on the existence of god/s. Only "strong" atheists take up such a position.

Lack of belief does not equal negative belief. This attribution of beliefs about god is a common misconception applied to atheists. Which leads to people avoiding the term and labeling themselves agnostic. But if you're calling yourself agnostic because you're "uncertain" about the existence of God--unwilling to say God does exist, but equally unwilling to insist that it doesn't--then you clearly lack belief, and, thus, are an atheist.

I realize that others have posted to this effect but it's something that rankles me and the point is clearly being missed by some.


----------



## Noak (Jul 18, 2009)

Not even a little.


----------



## Morgante (Jul 26, 2012)

The music is a confirmation of existence of God in the three person of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

aleazk said:


> Indeed. For example, when listen to a Requiem, there's no need to be a religious person to understand it or to "feel" the emotions. The emotion on a Requiem is the fear of death. All people, religious or not religious understand this feeling in deep. Religious people have the same philosophical worries of non-religious people. The difference is that they have accepted an answer to these worries that I find unsatisfactory.


"The fear of death"? A Requiem is a mass, my friend. Made to glorify God. The subjects of it are peace for the dead, God's glorious day of judgment, etc. It has nothing to do with fear of death. Try looking at the lyrics of a requiem and telling me where the fear of death fits into that. It isn't in there anywhere, I tell you.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> Indeed! As an atheist one should be able to note that these feelings expressed in these works are very much rooted in the human psyche and are not somehow transcendental just because they happen to be inspired by religious. They happen to be relatable and I feel are very firmly planted in this world. I can choose to interpret these religious works as I choose and perhaps in this manner they take on even a grander beauty than their original intent. Besides this, I really happen to like choral music.


How can they take on a grander beauty when you limit their scope and consequence? How can human relations compare to a supracosmic God as anything but our mundane to His grandiose? How can Dies Irae become more grand when it isn't going to happen? Is it more grand than people can think of Dies Irae, or is it more grand that God will set everything right, create a new heaven and earth, and come down amongst us, as an uncountable and greatly varied and fantastical host sings His praises?

What on earth could be more grand than this:

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. 3 And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald. 4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, 6 and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.

And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: 7 the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. 8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say,

"Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!"

Now imagine what it's like to be confident that this is actually true. What in this world is comparably grand? Revelation 4 and other such passages that have inspired music, is pretty much the definition of grand.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

As an atheist, I do not believe in a cosmic God. Therefore, the grandiose feeling one draws from such a belief is innately human. Therefore, any human can experience such feeling because it is within the realm of human expression which cannot transcend human capability. Perhaps one truly believing this has a slight edge in the experience because they have convinced themselves psychologically, but nevertheless it is within the bounds of human possibility. When we watch a movie we can easily let our mind slip into another "realm" if we wish it to, even if it is based upon something that we know doesn't exist or something we personally deny the existence of. 

I don't quite find religion in general to have a grand beauty. I actually find it to be rather dystopic and ugly. Forgive me for not being quite the romantic, but I don't find anything mystical or mysterious to be better than what you would label mundane. I find what you would label mundane to be entirely more interesting and beautiful. Perhaps this is why I love music like Stockhausen.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> What on earth could be more grand than this:
> 
> After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. 3 And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald. 4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, 6 and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.
> 
> ...


Grander than that? Oh I dunno, anything by Jarvis Cocker probably.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Andreas said:


> The God of the Old Testament is certainly one of the biggest obstacles for anyone who's interested in the Christian religion. It's the same God which Nietzsche pronounced dead.
> 
> But in a way, Jesus had already done that too. He had a very different idea of what God was like. Jesus' God was not the Old Testament God. The same way Jesus rebuked many of the Old Testament teachings in his Sermon on the Mount and generally through his actions.
> 
> ...


Ok, I've seen quite a bit of this, and while I like to be civil, this really does seem silly on basic grounds to me. Jesus can not have had a different idea of what God was like for a number of reasons:

1. In the Sermon on the Mount that you refer to, Jesus pointedly says that it is His goal to affirm every bit of the OT. In fact, one of the main schools of thought on the Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus was expressing to them how that they couldn't possibly meet up to the moral standard of the OT God. That He said some things that seem like a contrast to the OT makes great sense when you examine the several examples out there in which Jesus points out that OT law was either a concession that didn't represent God's ultimate goals and standards, and those in which Jesus points out the spirit/purpose of OT law when He heals on the Sabbath, has His disciples glean on the Sabbath, etc.

2. Jesus states over and over and over in the NT that He actually *is* that same God from the OT. They are one, according to Him. Is Jesus then pronouncing Himself dead? Is He rebuking Himself?

This kind of thought seems to be an example of cherrypicking to me. People pick their version of Jesus which must have rebuked the OT God, even though there abounds examples of Jesus saying that His goal was to resoundingly affirm that same God, and that all of His work must be seen in light of that. We just conveniently forget things, don't we?

There is no one or the other, unless we just intend to pretend that Jesus was something that He was not. Maybe He wasn't God. But He certainly agreed with Him and considered Himself to be Him. How can that just be ignored?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> As an atheist, I do not believe in a cosmic God. Therefore, the grandiose feeling one draws from such a belief is innately human. Therefore, any human can experience such feeling because it is within the realm of human expression which cannot transcend human capability. Perhaps one truly believing this has a slight edge in the experience because they have convinced themselves psychologically, but nevertheless it is within the bounds of human possibility. When we watch a movie we can easily let our mind slip into another "realm" if we wish it to, even if it is based upon something that we know doesn't exist or something we personally deny the existence of.
> 
> I don't quite find religion in general to have a grand beauty. I actually find it to be rather dystopic and ugly. Forgive me for not being quite the romantic, but I don't find anything mystical or mysterious to be better than what you would label mundane. I find what you would label mundane to be entirely more interesting and beautiful. Perhaps this is why I love music like Stockhausen.


You have missed the point of my question. My question was what is more grandiose between your world in which there is no cosmic God and my world in which there is. It wasn't whether one was true and the other wasn't, or where these sentiments come from. It wasn't whether religion was grand and secularism wasn't. God is simply more grandiose than us, if you compare the concept of us to the concept of Him. It's as simple as that. The world becomes less grand without Him in it. But maybe you and I don't have the same understanding of what it is to be grandiose. You may think of things that are grand as things that are preferable, lovely, wonderful, interesting, etc. I think of things that are grand as being of great consequence, of large import, of unrivaled qualities, etc.


----------



## Lasia (Oct 11, 2012)

Well I am an agnostic sort of or something, but religious stuff doesn´t turn me off at all. While I don´t believe in grey bearded old men sitting on a cloud, I still feel something divine when I listen something like Arvo Pärt´s Tabula Rasa.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> You have missed the point of my question. My question was what is more grandiose between your world in which there is no cosmic God and my world in which there is. It wasn't whether one was true and the other wasn't, or where these sentiments come from. It wasn't whether religion was grand and secularism wasn't. God is simply more grandiose than us, if you compare the concept of us to the concept of Him. It's as simple as that. The world becomes less grand without Him in it. But maybe you and I don't have the same understanding of what it is to be grandiose. You may think of things that are grand as things that are preferable, lovely, wonderful, interesting, etc. I think of things that are grand as being of great consequence, of large import, of unrivaled qualities, etc.


Ok, if Jarvis doesn't get your vote how about Darwin:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

I find nothing more inspiring than contemplating the theory of relativity or quantum electro dynamics ( so far as I can understand them, which is not very far admittedly)
However science always beats supernatural mumbo jumbo in the 'awe' stakes (for me).


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

science said:


> Of course there's the Black Mass sonata by Scriabin, and stuff like _Walpurgis Night_ by Mendelssohn or _Night on Bald Mountain_ by Mussorgsky, maybe Liszt's Faust symphony? These are really just portrayals of Satan or satanic ritual.
> 
> Warlock portrayed himself a bit as an actual occultist, and of course so did performers like Paganini. I'm not sure it got into Warlock's compositions.
> 
> Delius' Mass of Life and Requiem may be the most pointedly anti-Chrisitian classical music that I know of. Strauss and Mahler both alluded to Nietzsche's thought, but neither of them did so with the emphasis that Delius places on the rejection of religion.


Strauss considered subtitling Eine Alpensinphonie "The Antichrist" after Nietzsche's book.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I think its kinda rude to refer to things that reference the occult or pagan things as Satanic, a typical strategy for Christianity to discredit other religions.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

lukecubed said:


> This is completely incorrect. An atheist does not have to believe anything or deny anything. An atheist may well have no opinion on the existence of supernatural beings and/or deities. All the word means is "without belief in God or gods." So if you lack belief in God or gods, you're an atheist. The majority of atheists do not take an active position (ie: belief) on the existence of god/s. Only "strong" atheists take up such a position.
> 
> Lack of belief does not equal negative belief. This attribution of beliefs about god is a common misconception applied to atheists. Which leads to people avoiding the term and labeling themselves agnostic. But if you're calling yourself agnostic because you're "uncertain" about the existence of God--unwilling to say God does exist, but equally unwilling to insist that it doesn't--then you clearly lack belief, and, thus, are an atheist.
> 
> I realize that others have posted to this effect but it's something that rankles me and the point is clearly being missed by some.


Correct. I don't see how hard it is for people to get that an agnostic is a type of atheist, not something separate.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Ok, if Jarvis doesn't get your vote how about Darwin:
> 
> "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
> 
> ...


Christianity, in many forms, is pretty much that plus a gigantic, impossible to do justice to with a description, God.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> I think its kinda rude to refer to things that reference the occult or pagan things as Satanic, a typical strategy for Christianity to discredit other religions.


Yes, people all too often define occultic groups poorly as satanic groups. A satanic group is something very specific, and yes it will likely be a occultic group.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Well Christianity gave us Bach I suppose. However, it has also given us some truly terrible rock music (even by rock music's standards). It breaks about even.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm a strong atheist, and I can safely say that religious music doesn't put me off...but that all fits in context, I guess. If you're talking recyclable chord progressions and sounds from modern Christian Rock, I'd prefer to have more substance to the lyrics. However, Bach is one of my favorite composers, and if you're talking about people who wrote music during times in which there was little to no other option/view, the music does shine through. Plus, I don't view religious lyrics as bad ones. Just like someone is in debt to a lover and someone they admire, religious people are in love with God, and a lot of older compositions (Tallis being another one of my favorite composers) express the bleakness and human emotion that results from this type of belief system/relationship.

It's beautiful, actually.

I also have a friend who I was discussing the Bach cantatas with, and she said that she feels religious and above everything when she listens/performs them, yet she is completely atheist.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Grander than that? Oh I dunno, anything by Jarvis Cocker probably.


"I've kissed your mother twice/and now I'm workin' on your dad"

oh oh oohhhhh


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Well Christianity gave us Bach I suppose. However, it has also given us some truly terrible rock music (even by rock music's standards). It breaks about even.


Don't blame it on the religion. Blame it on the lame folks that make that music. Plenty of bad pop going both directions though. Modern Pop is just garbage in general.


----------



## Fragarach (Oct 7, 2012)

Not really. In general, I don't really like vocals in my Classical music, but I listened to Handel's "Messiah" a few weeks back and actually somewhat enjoyed it. I don't have an aversion to it because it's religious, I just prefer instrumental works over vocal.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> You have missed the point of my question. My question was what is more grandiose between your world in which there is no cosmic God and my world in which there is. It wasn't whether one was true and the other wasn't, or where these sentiments come from. It wasn't whether religion was grand and secularism wasn't. God is simply more grandiose than us, if you compare the concept of us to the concept of Him. It's as simple as that. The world becomes less grand without Him in it. But maybe you and I don't have the same understanding of what it is to be grandiose. You may think of things that are grand as things that are preferable, lovely, wonderful, interesting, etc. I think of things that are grand as being of great consequence, of large import, of unrivaled qualities, etc.


The idea that a world with a god is grand seems fair enough. Much fantasy fiction is created to provide us with a similar concept, and some of it successfully captures our imagination which seeks experiences beyond the mundane. However, the notes are the same in a piece of music, whether the listener hears grandness they attribute to god or to nature or to mere emotion.



Petwhac said:


> Ok, if Jarvis doesn't get your vote how about Darwin:
> 
> "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
> 
> ...


For me, "science" and "mumbo-jumbo" are not mutually exclusive alternatives. The uplifting experiences (or at least the awe and wonder moment) I've enjoyed have been prompted by various things, including music that has been written by composers with god either implied or explicit. A thunderous rendition of "God is Love, His the care" (Percy Dearmer) once made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. But then so did "The Fellowship of the Ring"! And "It's A Wonderful Life"

And when we have the sunny days we've just enjoyed this week in Northern England, and the leaves start to turn...that's grand too - annually and endlessly! I don't need to add a god on top.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> In the Sermon on the Mount that you refer to, Jesus pointedly says that it is His goal to affirm every bit of the OT.


Perhaps we have different ideas as to what OT exactly means. To me it means the way the texts of the OT, particularly the laws of Moses, were understood and taught.

I think Jesus did see things differently at least compared to the way these laws were taught.

OT law says that adultery is a sin that shall be punished by death (Deuteronomy 22). Yet when Jesus was confronted with an adulterous woman about to be stoned (John 8), he effectively forgave her and set her free.

The OT God seemed to want her condemned and dead, whereas Jesus apparently wanted her alive and forgiven.

To me, there is quite a difference here.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> This is completely incorrect. An atheist does not have to believe anything or deny anything. An atheist may well have no opinion on the existence of supernatural beings and/or deities. All the word means is "without belief in God or gods." So if you lack belief in God or gods, you're an atheist. The majority of atheists do not take an active position (ie: belief) on the existence of god/s. Only "strong" atheists take up such a position.
> 
> Lack of belief does not equal negative belief. This attribution of beliefs about god is a common misconception applied to atheists. Which leads to people avoiding the term and labeling themselves agnostic. But if you're calling yourself agnostic because you're "uncertain" about the existence of God--unwilling to say God does exist, but equally unwilling to insist that it doesn't--then you clearly lack belief, and, thus, are an atheist.
> 
> I realize that others have posted to this effect but it's something that rankles me and the point is clearly being missed by some.


so what's the difference for you between an agnostic and a weak atheist?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Correct. I don't see how hard it is for people to get that an agnostic is a type of atheist, not something separate.


so, you're an atheist because you don't believe in allah? Is there only one kind of spirituality?

anyway, I've been told by Science that there's another thread on this argument, but I can't find it, if anybody remember what thread was we could move there.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

norman bates said:


> anyway, I've been told by Science that there's another thread on this argument, but I can't find it, if anybody remember what thread was we could move there.


probably this one http://www.talkclassical.com/21863-composers-religion-2.html


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

It's not really a problem at all as I rarely know the lyrics. But I prefer the older stuff. Vivaldi's Gloria as opposed to any Janacek, Britten or 1900s similar religiously themed music. Janacek by the way was not religious.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

norman bates said:


> so, you're an atheist because you don't believe in allah? Is there only one kind of spirituality?
> 
> anyway, I've been told by Science that there's another thread on this argument, but I can't find it, if anybody remember what thread was we could move there.


The discussion group: http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group.html

It's a bit safer there; discussion of religion (rather than music, even religious music) has been discouraged outside of that group.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

science said:


> The discussion group: http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group.html
> 
> It's a bit safer there; discussion of religion (rather than music, even religious music) has been discouraged outside of that group.


Thanks Science for mentioning this.

Let's keep on topic here please, and as Science mentions, keep discussion of personal belief in the discussion groups.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Andreas said:


> Perhaps we have different ideas as to what OT exactly means. To me it means the way the texts of the OT, particularly the laws of Moses, were understood and taught.
> 
> I think Jesus did see things differently at least compared to the way these laws were taught.
> 
> ...


You are drawing a distinction between the OT God and Christ, though. There is no Christian perspective without Christ being one with Yahweh. Their teachings were not separate or exclusive, because they are the same being. How much more clear can He be when He says He and His Father are the same, they are one, they are both I AM?

Christian, Hindu, atheist, whatever a person may be, this much should be obvious to them given the text.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

norman bates said:


> so, you're an atheist because you don't believe in allah? Is there only one kind of spirituality?
> 
> anyway, I've been told by Science that there's another thread on this argument, but I can't find it, if anybody remember what thread was we could move there.


What on earth... what kind of a question is that? What is it that you think I implied?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> What on earth... what kind of a question is that? What is it that you think I implied?


here
http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group-d48-spirituality-thread.html


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

mamascarlatti said:


> Thanks Science for mentioning this.
> 
> Let's keep on topic here please, and as Science mentions, keep discussion of personal belief in the discussion groups.


This seems not to have been clear enough.

If this discussion veers into question of personal belief, which inevitably become heated, this thread will be closed.

The subject of this discussion is *To Atheists/Agnostics: Does "religiosity" in Classical music puts you off? *

You have the link above for discussions of religion per se.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2012)

In my opinion the one thing that religion (any) has done for mankind is to provide us with a wealth of great choral music.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Comments on the video of Schubert's Ave Maria in *YouTube*.










Typical YouTube Commenter.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"To Atheists/Agnostics: Does "religiosity" in Classical music puts you off?"

The thread question itself is somewhat divisive, conflict-seeking, and generally "loaded", in its address to "atheists/agnostics" and deficient in limiting this religious element to "classical music." ("Either you're with us or against us!")

The implied bias is that "religiosity" means Christianity, as it appears in Western music. 

What if the question were asked, "Does North Indian raga music put Christians off?" Since Buddhists and Hindus do not believe in one central deity, they are technically "atheist," but would better b called "non-deistic."

In order to absorb & appreciate Western classical art with religious subjects (which includes painting, etc), we must see it as "art" before all. This means to appreciate Bach's Mass in B minor for its artistic elements, regardless of its original function as religious music for a mass ceremony. 

We must also see religion itself as a universal, multi-cultural phenomena, and approach Thai ceremonial music, Indian raga, Japanese Gagaku, etc. with the same objectivity. We can call this universal religious element "spirituality".

More abstractly, we can even define certain music with certain musical characteristics as being "religious" or "spiritual," if it is intended to quiet the mind and sooth the soul. It can do this by being "smooth," having "drone" elements, and so on.

In this expanded context, even John Cage's music can be seen as being spiritual.

This being said, "Religious Western Classical Music" is just another form of spiritually-based music. Why should this bother an "Atheist/Agnostic"?


----------



## Namito (Oct 12, 2012)

No. But I wonder if being atheist or agnostic make you feel the religious musics less. I really love Bach's cantatas and other religious works. But they don't make me think of religious things. Maybe it's because my German is not that good.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

norman bates said:


> here
> http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group-d48-spirituality-thread.html


The religion discussion groups seem very quiet compared to the responses on this thread.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> "To Atheists/Agnostics: Does "religiosity" in Classical music puts you off?"
> 
> The thread question itself is somewhat divisive, conflict-seeking, and generally "loaded", in its address to "atheists/agnostics" and deficient in limiting this religious element to "classical music." ("Either you're with us or against us!")
> 
> ...


And why must we observe it purely as art first? It's not as if it's a problem that I primarily enjoy religious music using a religious frame of mind, is it? And in so many cases it actually isn't art first, it's religion first. That was the case with Bach, his Lutheran predecessors, whole schools of music in France as well (and when the musicologists call a musical group a "school", they mean that there were quite a few members of that group). So many composers who emphasized religion primarily.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_millions said: In order to absorb & appreciate Western classical art with religious subjects (which includes painting, etc), we must see it as "art" before all. This means to appreciate Bach's Mass in B minor for its artistic elements, regardless of its original function as religious music for a mass ceremony. 
_



Lukecash12 said:


> And why must we observe it purely as art first? It's not as if it's a problem that I primarily enjoy religious music using a religious frame of mind, is it? And in so many cases it actually isn't art first, it's religion first. That was the case with Bach, his Lutheran predecessors, whole schools of music in France as well (and when the musicologists call a musical group a "school", they mean that there were quite a few members of that group). So many composers who emphasized religion primarily.


Sure, you can listen to religious music using a religious frame of mind; after all, that's what it was designed to induce and enhance. And while it's true that the original function of such music was religious, for ceremonial and Church contexts, it can transcend this function to be seen as art.

Thus, the "art" approach allows us to listen to and absorb a wide range of spiritually-based musics, of other denominations and faiths. Because of its inherent "musical infrastructure," such spiritual music can even put us into a spiritual state of mind, as it was designed to do.

Thus, I can be an "atheist/agnostic" and still get into a "transcendent spiritual frame of mind" by listening to Hildegard von Bingen, even though I am not Catholic. Plus, I can tune into Ravi Shankar, and walk away fulfilled spiritually. With the "art" approach, I can have it all, and appreciate each form of music on its own merits, because the criterion of "art" takes into consideration all the religious elements, but is not limited by them.

If you want to listen to Bach or 'French-school' religious music in a Church context only, then that's your choice; nobody is saying you cannot.

Religious-based music can be appreciated by everyone, though, regardless of their belief system.

If you feel your "religious state of mind" or faith entitles you to a 'superior' position in consideration of this music, then go ahead and think that.

We don't really care; we just like good music.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

norman bates said:


> so what's the difference for you between an agnostic and a weak atheist?


An agnostic is an atheist who doesn't want to admit it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> An agnostic is an atheist who doesn't want to admit it.


That is incorrect!


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

science said:


> Do any Christians have a hard time listening to Bantock, R. Strauss, or Delius?


Not at all, just as most atheists are not offended by Bach.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> An agnostic is an atheist who doesn't want to admit it.


no, you simply don't know what an agnostic is.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2012)

norman bates said:


> no, you simply *don't know* what an agnostic is.


Brilliant old chap :tiphat:


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

My enjoyment of music is based on how it sounds. I couldn't care less about the meaning of the words (if words are present). Having said that, I acknowledge that religion can perpetuate an extreme emotional response, and that translates well in music - so a lot of religiously centered music is quite enjoyable as a result.

Now, when you get to popular music, you've got music that's just written to deliver a message (that modern gospel stuff), and usually sounds horrible.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

dmg said:


> My enjoyment of music is based on how it sounds. I couldn't care less about the meaning of the words (if words are present). Having said that, I acknowledge that religion can perpetuate an extreme emotional response, and that translates well in music - so a lot of religiously centered music is quite enjoyable as a result.


The Church Fathers see the singing of Gregorian Chant as _*actual prayer.*_ Doesn't this give you pause?



dmg said:


> Now, when you get to popular music, you've got music that's just written to deliver a message (that modern gospel stuff), and usually sounds horrible.


You better not say that in front of Aretha Franklin.

Sure, you say that you could care less about the words or original intent and function of religious music, but much of this music was designed to "get under your skin."

What if we reversed the situation, and you started listening to Satanic chants or something similar. Don't you believe in the power of music? It seems to me that repeated and prolonged exposure to certain kinds of extreme music would affect the listener.

Remember those two kids who listened to "Suicide Solution" and then committed suicide?





















So, let's reframe the question "To Atheists/Agnostics: Does "religiosity" in Classical music puts you off?" and change it to:

_*"To Christians/Monotheists: Do "Satanic" or "evil" elements in certain forms of extreme music put you off?"*_


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Sure, you can listen to religious music using a religious frame of mind; after all, that's what it was designed to induce and enhance. And while it's true that the original function of such music was religious, for ceremonial and Church contexts, it can transcend this function to be seen as art.
> 
> Thus, the "art" approach allows us to listen to and absorb a wide range of spiritually-based musics, of other denominations and faiths. Because of its inherent "musical infrastructure," such spiritual music can even put us into a spiritual state of mind, as it was designed to do.
> 
> ...


It isn't a superior position. It's just a position that by it's very nature can't be shared with those not in it. There is no vicarious substitute that can communicate the substance of it all that well. The difference is that people who aren't Christian have to play pretend, while Christians are genuinely serious about it. I don't agree with it's sentiment for the sake of art. It resounds within me. Unlike all kinds of other art I could listen to, this art illustrates for me *the truth*. Referring back to the point I made before: can you really fathom what it's like to be strong and confident in the fact of Revelation?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

A large portion of atheists are ex-Christians, so I'm going to assume the answer is _yes_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> It isn't a superior position. It's just a position that by it's very nature can't be shared with those not in it. There is no vicarious substitute that can communicate the substance of it all that well. The difference is that people who aren't Christian have to play pretend, while Christians are genuinely serious about it. I don't agree with it's sentiment for the sake of art. It resounds within me. Unlike all kinds of other art I could listen to, this art illustrates for me *the truth*. Referring back to the point I made before: can you really fathom what it's like to be strong and confident in the fact of Revelation?


In light of what I said about Gregorian Chant being "actual prayer," then I see your point, and it resounds strongly. On the other hand, I see Humanity's spiritual essence as a higher truth as well; and I'm not just "playing pretend" when I celebrate and cherish the fact that my "soul" is alive, and_ resounds_ in me!



Lukecash12 said:


> It's just a position that by it's very nature can't be shared with those not in it.


That's unfortunate; is that what drove Mother Theresa? I somehow doubt it.



Lukecash12 said:


> Referring back to the point I made before: can you really fathom what it's like to be strong and confident in the fact of Revelation?


Hallelujah, brother, I'm in it with you! (although you may not acknowledge this until you are reincarnated as a starving African child, and I give you food, water, and love)

Even if reincarnation is not true, it's the idea that is potent: total empathy.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> A large portion of atheists are ex-Christians, so I'm going to assume the answer is _yes_.


But they can no longer fathom it. They can't actively and genuinely believe while they listen. They can't wake up in Christ with Bach as he charms us with the line _wachet auf_.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> In light of what I said about Gregorian Chant being "actual prayer," then I see your point, and it resounds strongly. On the other hand, I see Humanity's spiritual essence as a higher truth as well; and I'm not just "playing pretend" when I celebrate and cherish the fact that my "soul" is alive, and_ resounds_ in me!


But you are playing pretend if you try to share in the Christian religious sentiment. You may very well have your own religious sentiment, and it sounds positive and joyful enough, but it just isn't the same. That's all I meant to express. I don't mean to diminish the views of others. I mean to point out that it just isn't the same, what they get from that music.



> That's unfortunate; is that what drove Mother Theresa? I somehow doubt it.


You seem to have misinterpreted me. Of course, being a Christian, I believe that anyone can come into God's family. But the simple truth is that if they aren't they aren't. They can be, but they currently aren't.



> Hallelujah, brother, I'm in it with you! (although you may not acknowledge this until you are reincarnated as a starving African child, and I give you food, water, and love)


But if you aren't strong and confident in Revelation (just an example), then there is no being in it in the same way. You can't possibly be praying the same prayer, because you don't share in the necessary sentiments to do so. That is, under the assumption that you aren't a Christian.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Suicide Solution isn't about committing suicide, as a side note. It's a rather sappy song about alcoholism. I mean, just read the lyrics. God the media's dumb.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> But they can no longer fathom it. They can't actively and genuinely believe while they listen. They can't wake up in Christ with Bach as he charms us with the line _wachet auf_.


Nobody can truly wake up in Christ if he doesn't exist. It is a psychological phenomenon. I merely replace the thought of Christ with Food and I then get the same feeling that a Christian gets.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> Nobody can truly wake up in Christ if he doesn't exist. It is a psychological phenomenon. I merely replace the thought of Christ with Food and I then get the same feeling that a Christian gets.


And those two are psychologically the same? Now you are *really* trivializing religion.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> And those two are psychologically the same? Now you are *really* trivializing religion.


Or perhaps you're trivializing my love of food


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Suicide Solution isn't about committing suicide, as a side note. It's a rather sappy song about alcoholism. I mean, just read the lyrics. God the media's dumb.


And even if it was about suicide, its dumb to blame suicides on a song.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> And even if it was about suicide, its dumb to blame suicides on a song.


If anything, we should blame suicide for the song.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> You may very well have your own religious sentiment...but it just isn't the same...I don't mean to diminish the views of others...I mean to point out that it just isn't the same, what they get from that music...I believe that anyone can come into God's family, but the simple truth is that if they aren't they aren't. They can be, but they currently aren't...if you aren't strong and confident in Revelation (just an example), then there is no being in it in the same way. You can't possibly be praying the same prayer, because you don't share in the necessary sentiments to do so. That is, under the assumption that you aren't a Christian....


You seem to be emphasizing the _differences_ rather than the _similarities_ in people & faiths. This tells me that you have a lot of your "identity" or individual ego tied-up in your religion. I don't see how this can be the most noble purpose of religion: to define our identity and see those not in it as "other?"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Suicide Solution isn't about committing suicide, as a side note. It's a rather sappy song about alcoholism. I mean, just read the lyrics. God the media's dumb.


While that is true, the song is not about that, the two teens who made the pact saw it incorrectly as well. They used a shotgun; one died, and the second one held the shotgun at the wrong angle and blew his face off, but lived. (See "Answer Me!")


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> It isn't a superior position. It's just a position that by it's very nature can't be shared with those not in it. There is no vicarious substitute that can communicate the substance of it all that well. The difference is that people who aren't Christian have to play pretend, while Christians are genuinely serious about it. I don't agree with it's sentiment for the sake of art. It resounds within me. Unlike all kinds of other art I could listen to, this art illustrates for me *the truth*. Referring back to the point I made before: can you really fathom what it's like to be strong and confident in the fact of Revelation?


i wonder what you think of those religious works written by agnostics.
Something like this (one of my favorite piece of music ever):





I have to add that when i look to a horror movie sometimes i'm genuinely scared, even if i know all the time that i'm looking a movie... so why it must be different for music?


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I have to add that when i look to a horror movie sometimes i'm genuinely scared, even if i know all the time that i'm looking a movie... so why it must be different for music?


But again, wouldn't those who don't know that it's a movie be more scared? 
Watching August Underground without knowing that it's not a real snuff movie might make you feel even more terrified and sick than watching it knowing it's fake (which is just disturbing and sickening to the bone).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Chrythes said:


> But again, wouldn't those who don't know that it's a movie be more scared?
> Watching August Underground without knowing that it's not a real snuff movie might make you feel even more terrified and sick than watching it knowing it's fake (which is just disturbing and sickening to the bone).


this compares maybe more with a real apparition of Christ during a mass that to music itself: probably it would be an experience more powerful than the greatest composition of Bach.
But let's use another example: is a movie like The exorcist more frightening for a believer?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

norman bates said:


> this compares maybe more with a real apparition of Christ during a mass that to music itself: probably it would be an experience more powerful than the greatest composition of Bach.
> But let's use another example: is a movie like The exorcist more frightening for a believer?


Personally I'd rather listen to Bach.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> You seem to be emphasizing the _differences_ rather than the _similarities_ in people & faiths. This tells me that you have a lot of your "identity" or individual ego tied-up in your religion. I don't see how this can be the most noble purpose of religion: to define our identity and see those not in it as "other?"


But I never pointed out anything as "better". Of course, being a Christian, I believe that I'm bound for a better state of affairs. However, that doesn't make me any better than anyone else. I want the same good things for other people because I value them. However, Christianity isn't totally universal. There are conditions within it, that I do find sensible. It's not about the "us vs them", or "look how different we are from them". Whatever is emphasized can really be dependent upon the context, because the simple fact of the matter doesn't change.

Furthermore, considerations like "noble purpose of religion" seem peripheral. Questions that Christians ask are: "Who is God"? "What does He want?" "And what type of God is He?" Other folks seem to pose a lot of if/then and conditionals. But we don't have the resources to understand the if/then.

And what's so ignoble about stating the fact? If people are different they are different. There seems to be this big push for everyone considering each other more and more the same. I don't buy it. In no way am I devaluing someone else if I point out that we are different. In no way am I devaluing them with my views of theology. It's not as if Christians think that their s*&t's so clean that they deserve communion with God and others don't. Non-Christians have the same merit and potential as Christians.

Your last clause there is a kind of misnomer, too. There is no such thing as identity if everyone is the same. I don't see how hard it is to accept that you can't share in the same experience as me without sharing some of the same sentiments. Let's look at the other side of the coin: I can't share in whatever your universalist (I don't mean to offend if I have poorly defined you) experience is, either. I can have no idea what that is like. And this isn't a problem to me. You can have your experience and I can have mine. This doesn't separate us. It just means that we are different.

It's a delusion to have a worldview in which we can't allow for the simple fact of difference. Without contrast, there is no definition. No such thing as a bad state of affairs without a good state of affairs. Distances are measured by the relative positions of objects. One object is one place and another object is in another place. They aren't the same object. There can be elegance in the idea of difference as well.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

norman bates said:


> i wonder what you think of those religious works written by agnostics.
> Something like this (one of my favorite piece of music ever):
> 
> 
> ...


I can enjoy their work on a religious level, so long as it is about sentiments that we share. Otherwise, I just look at it as art, and still enjoy it plenty that way.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> A large portion of atheists are ex-Christians, so I'm going to assume the answer is _yes_.


I would say that a larger portion of Christians are ex-atheists.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> _*"To Christians/Monotheists: Do "Satanic" or "evil" elements in certain forms of extreme music put you off?"*_


Evil, as in, like, _Wozzeck_? That's alright. I would say that every opera has some form of "evil" or sin in it. But we live in a fallen world and are surrounded by such "evil". However, anything Satanic is off-limits.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I would say that a larger portion of Christians are ex-atheists.


I seriously doubt this. The large majority of the world is introduced to a religion upon birth. There isn't a large population of atheists from birth. Therefore, I can't imagine a small population turning out to be a greater ratio of conversion compared to a small subset of a FAR larger population turning into atheists.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> I seriously doubt this. The large majority of the world is introduced to a religion upon birth. There isn't a large population of atheists from birth. Therefore, I can't imagine a small population turning out to be a greater ratio of conversion compared to a small subset of a FAR larger population turning into atheists.


Oh, well if you are referring to teenagers who have been raised by Christian parents that leave the church the day they graduate from highschool, then I would absolutely agree. It is a grave issue among Christians, but most of us would say that those teenagers were never really Christians in the first place if they leave the faith so quickly.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Doesn't that seem like you're simplifying the reasoning for these people leaving the church or marginalizing the population who feels the need to do so? It almost feels like you're teetering on the line of Sid Jame's favorite fallacy. Either way, I guess this isn't really the proper thread for such discussion. 

The musical part of Bach is better than the religious portion for me.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> I seriously doubt this. The large majority of the world is introduced to a religion upon birth. There isn't a large population of atheists from birth. Therefore, I can't imagine a small population turning out to be a greater ratio of conversion compared to a small subset of a FAR larger population turning into atheists.


Strange as it sounds, that is more or less a fact. In countries where enough education is present for people to convert on what they consider a rational basis, there are actually more people pulled into the folds of Christianity through Apologetics, than there are people pulled away from Christianity. In other countries, I don't imagine there is much conversion in smaller populations. The cultural dynamics of a smaller population tend to prevent conversion.

Many folk in the western world seem to assume that atheism has the upper-hand in the academic world, but the academic world has many pockets of support for theism and religion as well. It's hard to do a head count, but surely Christians aren't a small ridiculed group like some would think (and like some would maybe like to think).


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Perhaps, but the problem lies in how the parents raise the children. Christian parents who raise their children well have children that continue to blossom spiritually. It is probably the greatest crisis in the church today.

And of course Bach's musical part was genius. The religiosity only makes me admire him more.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Strange as it sounds, that is more or less a fact. In countries where enough education is present for people to convert on what they consider a rational basis, there are actually more people pulled into the folds of Christianity through Apologetics, than there are people pulled away from Christianity. In other countries, I don't imagine there is much conversion in smaller populations. The cultural dynamics of a smaller population tends to prevent conversion.


Do you have proof for this? Last time I checked the opposite trend was happening.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Also, it is rather obvious that Christians aren't exactly a minority in the academic world. A good-sized portion of the people I run across in the academic world are indeed Christians. Christianity is basically the default in this country, after all. Pure statistical probability would refrain one from stating that there is a lack of Christians in academia.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I would say that a larger portion of Christians are ex-atheists.


Which is of great concern, but most of _us_ would say that they aren't really atheists to begin with.... 

I'll go back to listening to Bruckner's Mass No. 1. If ever there was a man who could put supplication and religious passion into a mass, it was Bruckner. Truly awesome music!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> Do you have proof for this? Last time I checked the opposite trend was happening.


Last time you checked with who/what? The opposite trend happened (and still happens) in a lot of European colleges. However, in America, and now in the UK and several European countries (maybe Latvia soon), that is definitely the trend. I get great international figures all the time from the committees I associate with and the journals I've subscribed to. Maybe later I'll get the chance to pull up a bunch of groups that keep some records of their international success.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> The Church Fathers see the singing of Gregorian Chant as _*actual prayer.*_ Doesn't this give you pause?
> 
> You better not say that in front of Aretha Franklin.
> 
> ...


I don't care about words. I often don't even recognize them when listening to music. I can listen to music in a foreign language and be completely content if it sounds good. It's the musicality that turns me on or off. If a musician can perform 'holy' lyrics well, then I'll like it. If it sounds plain, like it was only meant for those who listen to the meaning of the words, then I don't care for it. Aretha Franklin had pipes. She can perform. That's completely different from the watered down poppy gospel crap you find on modern "christian" pop stations.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Strange as it sounds, that is more or less a fact. In countries where enough education is present for people to convert on what they consider a rational basis, there are actually more people pulled into the folds of Christianity through Apologetics, than there are people pulled away from Christianity. In other countries, I don't imagine there is much conversion in smaller populations. The cultural dynamics of a smaller population tend to prevent conversion.
> 
> Many folk in the western world seem to assume that atheism has the upper-hand in the academic world, but the academic world has many pockets of support for theism and religion as well. It's hard to do a head count, but surely Christians aren't a small ridiculed group like some would think (and like some would maybe like to think).


Maybe preface your posts with a warning so we may be cautioned that further reading may cause strain associated with violent eye-rolling.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Strange as it sounds, that is more or less a fact. In countries where enough education is present for people to convert on what they consider a rational basis, there are actually more people pulled into the folds of Christianity through Apologetics, than there are people pulled away from Christianity. In other countries, I don't imagine there is much conversion in smaller populations. The cultural dynamics of a smaller population tend to prevent conversion.
> 
> Many folk in the western world seem to assume that atheism has the upper-hand in the academic world, but the academic world has many pockets of support for theism and religion as well. It's hard to do a head count, but surely Christians aren't a small ridiculed group like some would think (and like some would maybe like to think).


There is a % of scientists who believe in god - though only about 8% according to this study

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It just shows how an attractive idea can disbalance an otherwise rational mind.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Maybe preface your posts with a warning so we may be cautioned that further reading may cause strain associated with violent eye-rolling.


Cynical comments are only appreciated if they are not entirely insulting, thank you very much. There is a difference between explaining _why_ you disagree with a stamenent and simply claiming that it causes you "violent eye-rolling".


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

This thread is now closed for repairs.


----------

