# Has anyone heard of the The Atheist Codger Series?



## Doctuses

His name is David Goza and he has a wonderful YouTube channel doing very detailed and spot on analysis of some of the best pieces in classical. For example, he's gone through all of Beethoven's symphonies and String Quartets. He gives an introduction before each movement, then puts up the sheet music to go along with the music and has notes at the top.

Here's his channel. Tell me what you think!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-7OANxfwjjSAoLr2MdJtWQ


----------



## Larkenfield

Well done with intelligent commentary on Sibelius’s 5th Symphony. I very much like the format he uses because one can read about the music without it interfering with the hearing of it at the same time. His love of the music comes through and that’s heartening to see. I don’t think he could live without it. But I might question if he could possibly have any understanding of a composer’s philosophy or spiritual inclinations from an atheist’s point of view and I hope he doesn’t try. But for an explanation of the scores, these look like they could be excellent presentations.


----------



## Merl

These are interesting and thought-provoking commentaries. I particularly enjoyed the Beethoven symphony commentaries (what a surprise!). Interesting too that he chose (apart from the 9th) Rattle's VPO cycle as accounts that adhere most strictly to the score. He voices his disdain at the performances of the 9th with much conviction. I wonder how many recordings he's actually heard. I'll return to these commentaries in the future. Nice find, Doctuses!


----------



## Nate Miller

isn't that one of the discussion groups here at TC?


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> I might question if he could possibly have any understanding of a composer's philosophy or spiritual inclinations from an atheist's point of view and I hope he doesn't try.


I, on the other hand, might question what you're assuming about "an atheist's point of view" that leads you to make such a condescending remark.


----------



## KenOC

Many thanks for the pointer to the "Atheist Codger" series on YouTube. I just watched the Op. 135 quartet video and found it quite good. I'll certainly be watching others!


----------



## millionrainbows

I wonder what kind of an atheist he is? The term 'atheist' doesn't describe much. He could be a poet, a philosopher, a politician, or a priest. So how could anybody get offended by a condescending attitude to...what?


----------



## Larkenfield

Woodduck said:


> I, on the other hand, might question what you're assuming about "an atheist's point of view" that leads you to make such a condescending remark.


 Use your imagination. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Sibelius, and many others were hardly atheists. If someone uses the word as his first name then chances are the person is going to be highly invested in that point of view and hardly in a position to understand any composer's spiritual or religious convictions except as some kind of aberration, which wasn't the case at least from their point of view. And I wasn't going to watch a lot of his videos to find out. So, undoubtedly his point of view could potentially greatly misrepresent or discount a composer's convictions and distort it. I'd feel the same way about a religionist's point of view if discussing atheism. One would have to watch a number of his presentations to see how invested he might be in his own personal philosophy and whether he projects it onto others. I would hope not. It's been known to happen with teachers and reviewers with an ax to grind. And I think his choice of name is rather unfortunate because it's potentially polarizing from the get-go. Nevertheless, I praised his Sibelius 5th presentation and I hope his other videos are worth seeing without his misunderstanding or misrepresenting a composer's life. If someone called himself Republican Ralph or Democrat Dan, I would think it might also call into question the person's understanding or appreciation of the other side politically. I'd rather not know.


----------



## KenOC

I've now watched a couple of his videos and can't see that his religious beliefs (or unbeliefs) have any relevance whatsoever. The individual analyses are very well done and quite informative.

Well, he does slip in the occasional comment:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> I've now watched a couple of his videos and can't see that his religious beliefs (or unbeliefs) have any relevance whatsoever. The individual analyses are very well done and quite informative.
> 
> Well, he does slip in the occasional comment:


He is my kinda guy


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Use your imagination. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Sibelius, and many others were hardly atheists. If someone uses the word as his first name then chances are the person is going to be highly invested in that point of view and hardly in a position to understand any composer's spiritual or religious convictions except as some kind of aberration, which wasn't the case at least from their point of view. And I wasn't going to watch a lot of his videos to find out. So, undoubtedly his point of view could potentially greatly misrepresent or discount a composer's convictions and distort it. I'd feel the same way about a religionist's point of view if discussing atheism. One would have to watch a number of his presentations to see how invested he might be in his own personal philosophy and whether he projects it onto others. I would hope not. It's been known to happen with teachers and reviewers with an ax to grind. And I think his choice of name is rather unfortunate because it's potentially polarizing from the get-go. Nevertheless, I praised his Sibelius 5th presentation and I hope his other videos are worth seeing without his misunderstanding or misrepresenting a composer's life. If someone called himself Republican Ralph or Democrat Dan, I would think it might also call into question the person's understanding or appreciation of the other side politically. I'd rather not know.


It's ironic that you are concerned that the "atheist codger" might misunderstand or misrepresent composers' religious views when you seem to have no hesitation in making assumptions about his. Since we have no idea what the codger intends by what he calls himself, what moves you to bring it up? And why take the opportunity to make squishy and demeaning guesses about what the man can and cannot understand and speak about?

You may have your views about atheists, but you can hardly expect any actual atheists to appreciate being characterized by those views, particularly when you've introduced the subject gratuitously into what is ostensibly a discussion of music. In any case I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to delve into the subtleties of Beethoven's religious philosophy in order to discuss intelligently and appreciatively the _Eroica_, or even the _Missa Solemnis._ I can assure you, having been both a Christian and an atheist, that my understanding of Beethoven's music, as well as his religion, have not been the slightest bit dependent on which beliefs I've held. You can probably feel confident that the atheist codger is capable of a similar breadth of understanding.

Democrats and Republicans can understand each other too, by the way. But what an awful analogy!


----------



## Triplets

At the risk of derailing this thread...one doesn’t need to be a believer to be intensely spiritual in feeling. Brahms and Vaughn Williams, to name just two Composers, were both avowed nonbelievers that wrote music of great beauty and and philosophic import. And I am not sure that I will allow Larkenfield to claim Beethoven and Mahler as belonging to the True Believer Camp


----------



## jegreenwood

http://www.ou.edu/finearts/music/faculty-staff/david-goza

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1315047


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It's ironic that you are concerned that the "atheist codger" might misunderstand or misrepresent composers' religious views when you seem to have no hesitation in making assumptions about his. Since we have no idea what the codger intends by what he calls himself, what moves you to bring it up? And why take the opportunity to make squishy and demeaning guesses about what the man can and cannot understand and speak about?


I think that's because Atheist Codger is in an easy position. He doesn't have to define what his belief/non-belief system is, so it remains in a grey area of denial; denial of belief. So he can chip away at whatever aspects of belief show up, without having to commit himself to any real position. He's in a "meta-space" between the cracks of philosophy and belief systems. That reeks of "smash and run" to me, sort of a coward's position.



Woodduck said:


> You may have your views about atheists, but you can hardly expect any actual atheists to appreciate being characterized by those views, particularly when you've introduced the subject gratuitously into what is ostensibly a discussion of music. In any case I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to delve into the subtleties of Beethoven's religious philosophy in order to discuss intelligently and appreciatively the _Eroica_, or even the _Missa Solemnis._ I can assure you, having been both a Christian and an atheist, that my understanding of Beethoven's music, as well as his religion, have not been the slightest bit dependent on which beliefs I've held. You can probably feel confident that the atheist codger is capable of a similar breadth of understanding.


It sounds like Atheist Codger wants to have his cake and eat it too. If belief/non-belief systems are truly irrelevant to appreciating music, then it would be best to leave all labels out, including "atheist;" that way, nobody gets offended. But that's not the case here; that's what he calls himself. If he can't take the heat, he should get out of Hell's Kitchen.

See how the term "atheist", while undefined and meaningless, causes conflict with anyone of a metaphysical bent? I think that's what it is designed to do; cause conflict, and create "victims" out of themselves, to be defended. It's definitely a form of projection and invalidation.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Here is the anti-Atheist version of Imagine. lets see how it works out

Imagine there's is a heaven
It's easy if you try 
With hell below us
Above us only Pie
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And yes religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you


Nah, it doesn't work


----------



## millionrainbows

"With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism."

That ain't gonna work for me. What am I, a scientist?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think that's because Atheist Codger is in an easy position. He doesn't have to define what his belief/non-belief system is, so it remains in a grey area of denial; denial of belief. So he can chip away at whatever aspects of belief show up, without having to commit himself to any real position. He's in a "meta-space" between the cracks of philosophy and belief systems. That reeks of "smash and run" to me, sort of a coward's position.
> 
> It sounds like Atheist Codger wants to have his cake and eat it too. If belief/non-belief systems are truly irrelevant to appreciating music, then it would be best to leave all labels out, including "atheist;" that way, nobody gets offended. But that's not the case here; that's what he calls himself. If he can't take the heat, he should get out of Hell's Kitchen.
> 
> See how the term "atheist", while undefined and meaningless, causes conflict with anyone of a metaphysical bent? I think that's what it is designed to do; cause conflict, and create "victims" out of themselves, to be defended. It's definitely a form of projection and invalidation.


Atheist Codger has a right to call himself anything he wants and for any reason, stated or unstated. It isn't for you to make assumptions about his motives or his philosophy or his waist size or anything else. Everything you've said about him is sheer bigoted presumption and isn't worth a flying ****.

I've watched and listened to a bit of him, and from what I've observed, he has a loveliness of spirit that I'll take over the pronouncements of any self-important "spiritual" gasbag out there.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> "With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism *may* counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism."
> 
> That ain't gonna work for me. What am I, a scientist?


Read and think again, this time more precisely. The operative word is "MAY." Hence there is no "that" which does or doesn't work for you, unless of course you believe ALL the horsepucky propagated by all of the above.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Read and think again, this time more precisely. The operative word is "MAY." Hence there is no "that" which does or doesn't work for you, unless of course you believe ALL the horsepucky propagated by all of the above.


The only reason "may" is used, is because nobody knows what it is they are rejecting, even them. It changes from person to person, day to day. The council of elders is trying to rectify this problem.

So you might as well say that you reject ALL metaphysical horsepucky.

Maybe we'll just have to leave it up to your "unconscious" to sneak up on you. You'll know it when you feel like there's a giant eyeball looking at you all the time. Don't ask it to show itself, though. If you do, you'll fall into a great spinning vortex.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

millionrainbows said:


> The only reason "may" is used, is because nobody knows what it is they are rejecting, even them. It changes from person to person, day to day. The council of elders is trying to rectify this problem.
> 
> So you might as well say that you reject ALL metaphysical horsepucky.
> 
> Maybe we'll just have to leave it up to your "unconscious" to sneak up on you. You'll know it when you feel like there's a giant eyeball looking at you all the time. Don't ask it to show itself, though. If you do, you'll fall into a great spinning vortex.


"The council of elders" on Vulcan or where?


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> The only reason "may" is used, is because nobody knows what it is they are rejecting, even them. It changes from person to person, day to day. The council of elders is trying to rectify this problem.
> 
> So you might as well say that you reject ALL metaphysical horsepucky.
> 
> Maybe we'll just have to leave it up to your "unconscious" to sneak up on you. You'll know it when you feel like there's a giant eyeball looking at you all the time. Don't ask it to show itself, though. If you do, you'll fall into a great spinning vortex.


Everyone has a gift, and millionrainbow's gift is to spin out these wonderful posts. I never tire of them. mr, when you gonna come back down into Groups?


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> That ain't gonna work for me. What am I, a scientist?


I'd say no, not a scientist.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The only reason "may" is used, is because nobody knows what it is they are rejecting, even them. It changes from person to person, day to day. The council of elders is trying to rectify this problem.
> 
> *So you might as well say that you reject ALL metaphysical horsepucky. *
> 
> Maybe we'll just have to leave it up to your "unconscious" to sneak up on you. You'll know it when you feel like there's a giant eyeball looking at you all the time. Don't ask it to show itself, though. If you do, you'll fall into a great spinning vortex.


I _do _reject all metaphysical horsepucky, and I reject every confused and pompous load of it that's clogging this thread which, true to form, you're intent on perverting and turning into a soapbox for your private obsessions. In doing this you're insulting an interesting human being whose mere nickname sends you into a tailspin, and you're insulting everyone who comes here to discover what he has to offer.

In gratuitously characterizing the beliefs of people you don't know, in telling others what they believe and value, you are wrong both factually and morally. To be terse: you have no idea what you're talking about. But the Codger owes you no explanations. What he or any other unique individual means by what he calls himself is simply none of your business unless he makes it so. And frankly, given the fantasies you spin about other people based on the tiniest mote of information, I can't imagine anyone wanting to share any of their business with you.

We've been through this before, million, and more than once. You seem never to "get it." But let me remind you again of what is and isn't appropriate discourse here. Your weird obsession with "exposing" the "truth" about "atheists" is unacceptable, to me personally and to anyone who values rationality and civility, and you need to take it somewhere else - maybe to some YouTube channel where people are not prevented by a code of conduct from telling you where you can put your egocentric "spirituality" and the ineffable, shining "essence of your being."

Am I making myself clear?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Define "metaphysical horsepucky" and is it different to Donkeypucky


----------



## Merl

I'd never heard of 'horsepucky' until this thread. Cheers Woody!! Now I have I want to use the term whenever I can. Let's see if i can squeeze it in at some juncture, today.


----------



## Strange Magic

Metaphysical horsepucky is much like "Gobbledygook". Or Woo-woo.


----------



## Woodduck

Merl said:


> I'd never heard of 'horsepucky' until this thread. Cheers Woody!! Now I have I want to use the term whenever I can. Let's see if i can squeeze it in at some juncture, today.


On this forum, opportunities abound.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Metaphysical horsepucky is much like "Gobbledygook". Or Woo-woo.


Indeed. But more visually and olfactorally evocative.


----------



## Merl

Strange Magic said:


> Metaphysical horsepucky is much like "Gobbledygook". Or Woo-woo.


I thought 'woo-woo' was a cocktail containing vodka, peach schnapps and cranberry juice. That post was horsepucky and you know it, Strange Magic!


----------



## Strange Magic

Merl said:


> I thought 'woo-woo' was a cocktail containing vodka, peach schnapps and cranberry juice. That post was horsepucky and you know it, Strange Magic!


The beauty and power of woo-woo is that it can be anything you want it to be today. And tomorrow it can be something else .

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo-woo


----------



## millionrainbows

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> "The council of elders" on Vulcan or where?


It might as well be The Council of Elders on Vulcan. Actually, that was a humorous comment on the fact that there is no organized faction which can represent atheists, since they can't decide on what it is they don't believe.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I _do _reject all metaphysical horsepucky, and I reject every confused and pompous load of it that's clogging this thread which, true to form, you're intent on perverting and turning into a soapbox for your private obsessions. In doing this you're insulting an interesting human being whose mere nickname sends you into a tailspin, and you're insulting everyone who comes here to discover what he has to offer.


No, that's not true; I'm not insulting anyone.



Woodduck said:


> In gratuitously characterizing the beliefs of people you don't know, in telling others what they believe and value, you are wrong both factually and morally.


They don't believe in anything, according to definition; they only disbelieve, and even on that, there's no concensus.



Woodduck said:


> To be terse: you have no idea what you're talking about.


All I'm saying is that there is no definition, or term, which explains anything about so-called atheists. Why does anybody want to call themselves by that term?



Woodduck said:


> ...But the Codger owes you no explanations. What he or any other unique individual means by what he calls himself is simply none of your business unless he makes it so.


Then there is no "social reality" to the term "atheist." It appears to be a fringe area of philisophy/religion which harbors outsiders and mavericks.



Woodduck said:


> ...And frankly, given the fantasies you spin about other people based on the tiniest mote of information, I can't imagine anyone wanting to share any of their business with you.


Is that supposed to make me feel like a bad person?



Woodduck said:


> We've been through this before, million, and more than once. You seem never to "get it."


Spoken like a true authority figure.



Woodduck said:


> ...But let me remind you again of what is and isn't appropriate discourse here.


I think the moderators have that covered.



Woodduck said:


> Your weird obsession with "exposing" the "truth" about "atheists" is unacceptable, to me personally and to anyone who values rationality and civility, and you need to take it somewhere else - maybe to some YouTube channel where people are not prevented by a code of conduct from telling you where you can put your egocentric "spirituality" and the ineffable, shining "essence of your being." Am I making myself clear?


Why should I have to leave? Other posters here are constantly asserting their "truths", albeit in a more subtle, less straightforward way; such as the general dislike which is frequently aimed at Beethoven's Ninth (because of its religious affirmation in the Ode to Joy), and the widespread insistence on "proof" and scientific objectivity which seems to pervade the entire culture of our modern era.

Whatever happened to magic, to mystery, to the ineffable? It's in the music, but not in many listeners.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> It might as well be The Council of Elders on Vulcan. Actually, that was a humorous comment on the fact that there is no organized faction which can represent atheists, since they can't decide on what it is they don't believe.


Atheists believe all sorts of things. But regarding gods or a god, they are united in not spending valuable time conjecturing about evidenceless, unsupported, unnecessary, predicate-free "concepts" that so obsess their neighbors. To quote Sam Goldwyn, "Include me out."


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Atheists believe all sorts of things. But regarding gods or a god, they are united in not spending valuable time conjecturing about evidenceless, unsupported, unnecessary, predicate-free "concepts" that so obsess their neighbors. To quote Sam Goldwyn, "Incude me out."


I'm not anti-deistic, since I can't prove one way or another whether deities exist or not.

But I am, in many cases, anti-religion, since fundamentalist religious thought seems to be the real problem.

As to evidence? Evidence is irrelevant when it comes to subjective metaphysics. Evidence is for scientists.


----------



## Woodduck

I'm not insulting anyone.

You insult people constantly. Even you are not so self-infatuated as not to realize it.

[Atheists] don't believe in anything, according to definition; they only disbelieve, and even on that, there's no concensus.

Atheists believe most of the things that non-atheists believe. Individuals are not "defined" by a belief or non-belief in supernatural beings. It's only you who are trying to define people collectively in terms a single idea. That is an insult of massive proportions. Think about it.

All I'm saying is that there is no definition, or term, which explains anything about so-called atheists.

The term "atheism" is one of the simpler philosophical terms. It certainly tells you more than "theism"; a theist may believe in an infinite variety of supernatural entities, whereas an atheist simply believes in none of them. Very neat and clean. 

Why does anybody want to call themselves by that term?

You'll have to ask them individually. They are individuals, you know, despite your need to lump them all together as unenlightened and inferior to your exquisitely spiritual self.

There is no "social reality" to the term "atheist." It appears to be a fringe area of philisophy/religion which harbors outsiders and mavericks.

Atheism implies clear social realities. The most important ones are, for the individual, a lack of interest in religious activities, and for society, a disapproval of the invasion of political life by religious dogma and its attendant oppression. The latter should be of great concern to more than outsiders and mavericks.

Is that supposed to make me feel like a bad person?

No comment.

I think the moderators have that covered.

The moderators do not cover adequately your efforts to blanket this forum with disparaging references to people who don't believe in your version of reality. At least three threads are currently infected with your toxic, ignorant anti-atheism nonsense. Do you enjoy diverting and tying up discussions with it? Does it make you feel important?

Why should I have to leave? Other posters here are constantly asserting their "truths", albeit in a more subtle, less straightforward way; such as the general dislike which is frequently aimed at Beethoven's Ninth (because of its religious affirmation in the Ode to Joy), and the widespread insistence on "proof" and scientific objectivity which seems to pervade the entire culture of our modern era.

Some "truths" are more benign, and more appropriate to certain venues, than others.

Whatever happened to magic, to mystery, to the ineffable? It's in the music, but not in many listeners.

You haven't the slightest idea of what's "in many listeners," and frankly what's in them is none of your concern. I may not believe there's a god, but I know a god-complex when I see one. "Many listeners" would be totally justified in telling you exactly where to put your condescending notions of what's "in them."


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> *[Atheists] don't believe in anything*, according to definition; they only disbelieve, and even on that, there's no concensus.
> 
> *Atheists believe most of the things that non-atheists believe.* Individuals are not "defined" by a belief or non-belief in supernatural beings. It's only you who are trying to define people collectively in terms a single idea. That is an insult of massive proportions. Think about it.
> 
> The term "atheism" is one of the simpler philosophical terms. It certainly tells you more than "theism"; a theist may believe in an infinite variety of supernatural entities, whereas an atheist simply believes in none of them. *Very neat and clean. *
> 
> Atheism implies clear social realities. The most important ones are, for the individual, a lack of interest in religious activities, and for society, a disapproval of the invasion of political life by religious dogma and *its attendant oppression.* The latter should be of great concern to more than outsiders and mavericks.




Atheists believe 'there is no God'. That is just as much an expression of faith as theism.

as an atheist does not believe in God - a life-defining fundamental view of people of faith - then I can't see the logic that atheists believe the same as people of faith.

I am not interested in beliefs being 'clean and neat'. I'm more interested in whether they are correct!

'Attendent oppression' - Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were atheists. Glad there was no 'attendant oppression' in their regimes! So glad as well they had such a regard for the individual and his conscience.


----------



## KenOC

An atheist believes no such thing. He/she merely fails to believe. I don't believe "there is no God," but I see no reason to believe there is one without reasonable evidence.

BTW I don't consider the intimations of my "highly spiritual nature" to serve as credible evidence. History and observation both tell us that people are willing to believe in almost anything, no matter how absurd. I've even seen some of that around here in the last hundred posts or so!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Atheists believe 'there is no God'. That is just as much an expression of faith as theism.
> 
> as an atheist does not believe in God - a life-defining fundamental view of people of faith - then I can't see the logic that atheists believe the same as people of faith.
> 
> 'Attendent oppression' - Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were atheists. Glad there was no 'attendant oppression' in their regimes!


Atheists may believe there are no gods, of whatever description. Or, they may simply not believe that there are. Those are two different positions. The first is based on evidence that points to the unlikelihood of supernatural entities; the second is based on the lack of evidence pointing to their likelihood. Neither position is a matter of faith, but of the commonly accepted rules of evidence.

I didn't say that atheists believe in _everything_ that theists do. That would be a stupid assertion, wouldn't it?

The fear of religiously motivated oppression and brutality is the reason for the "separation of church and state," one of the fundamental principles of my civilization and yours. Surely that's something you've thought of before now? The existence of oppression elsewhere does not dilute the point.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Atheists may believe there are no gods, of whatever description. Or, they may simply not believe that there are. Those are two different positions. The first is based on evidence that points to the unlikelihood of supernatural entities; the second is based on the lack of evidence pointing to their likelihood. Neither position is a matter of faith, but of the commonly accepted rules of evidence.
> 
> I didn't say that atheists believe in _everything_ that theists do. That would be a stupid assertion, wouldn't it?
> 
> The fear of religiously motivated oppression and brutality is the reason for the "separation of church and state," one of the fundamental principles of my civilization and yours. Surely that's something you've thought of before now? The existence of oppression elsewhere does not dilute the point.


Your 'commonly accepted rules of evidence' are actually not commonly accepted by many! :lol:

No you said atheists believe most things theists do which is plainly wrong if the theist is a person of real faith.

You appear to suggest that that atheism implies freedom from oppression. I was making the point from history that atheistic regimes have been among the most oppressive


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Your 'commonly accepted rules of evidence' are actually not commonly accepted by many! :lol:
> 
> No you said atheists believe most things theists do which is plainly wrong if the theist is a person of real faith.
> 
> You appear to suggest that that atheism implies freedom from oppression. I was making the point from history that atheistic regimes have been among the most oppressive


Why make a connection between private atheism and "state atheism"? Any kind of state-imposed beliefs run the risk of leading to the oppression of the people.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Atheists believe 'there is no God'. That is just as much an expression of faith as theism.


Nooo, not really. No "faith" involved. Just show me the evidence for gods or a god, and a reason we need to be talking about such, and I'll happily listen. I've opened, upon the urgings of The Faithful, past packages marked "Theism: Proof Inside!" and always found them empty.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Your 'commonly accepted rules of evidence' are actually not commonly accepted by many!


Since millionrainbows has already dragged in gay men and atheism, let's drag in anthropogenic global warming also, and "the commonly accepted rules of evidence": is there a theist's faith-based view of global warming?


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> Since millionrainbows has already dragged in gay men and atheism, let's drag in anthropogenic global warming also, and "the commonly accepted rules of evidence": is there a theist's faith-based view of global warming?


How's this? Jim Imhofe was Chairman until last year of the US Senate Environment Committee. 'In 2012, Inhofe's _The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future_ was published by WorldNetDaily Books, presenting his global warming conspiracy theory. He said that, because "God's still up there", the "arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." ' (Wiki)


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Your 'commonly accepted rules of evidence' are actually not commonly accepted by many! :lol:
> 
> No you said atheists believe most things theists do which is plainly wrong if the theist is a person of real faith.
> 
> You appear to suggest that that atheism implies freedom from oppression. I was making the point from history that atheistic regimes have been among the most oppressive


The commonly accepted rules of evidence are those governing scientific inquiry. They are not a form of "faith," which is defined by their absence. On their grounds there is no reason to believe in supernatural entities.

Again, atheists believe most of the things theists do - specifically, things not dependent on belief in supernatural entities. Your persons of "real faith" tend, as far as I know, to think that 2 + 2 = 4 and that pigs can't fly (but then, faith does strange things to people's brains).

What I _appear_ (to you) to suggest and what I actually say are evidently quite different. Atheism by itself can't prevent political oppression and conflict, but the separation of church and state, in which atheists must firmly believe, sure as hell would have prevented the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of witches, centuries of pointless wars in Europe, and the continuing horror of fundamentalist sects in both Islam and Christianity working tirelessly to keep human beings from living free and happy lives.


----------



## KenOC

I keep seeing suggestions that science, like religion, is some sort of “faith.” Quite the opposite. There is no “truth” in science, only hypotheses supported by observations and fulfilled predictions. Every hypothesis is subject to disproof by a single contrary observation or a bad prediction.

Religion, on the other hand, starts with the “truth,” and much of its intellectual effort seems to go toward explaining away observations. We all know of examples. For instance, late in the 19th century it was said that fossils had been placed in the earth by Satan at the time it was created, some 6,000 years prior, in order to lead mankind from the truth.

Of course, it's possible that if one is sufficiently spiritually advanced, that might be considered a rather sage proposition.


----------



## mmsbls

I posted this in the Religious Music thread, and I'll say it again here.

OK, we backed off a bit from our fairly hard line on purely religious/political discussion hoping people could discuss issues civilly without resorting to attacks, insults (direct or otherwise). The results were decidedly negative. Please refrain from purely religious (or political) discussions. This thread has the term Atheist in the title, but it is not about atheism but rather about a person's discussions of music .


----------



## Guest

I'm not sure whether I've found this guy's posts useful or not. I watched/listened to his analysis of Sibelius 6th. It adds to my technical understanding to know that there is a tension in moving from D minor to C major, but what does this signify? And in what way is this symphony a "sonic dreamscape"? Do I like it because it recalls "high Renaissance church music"?

I'm not complaining, by the way, just wondering how to connect the analysis to the experience of listening.


----------



## Doctuses

oh wow this turned into a popular thread. glad you guys are liking his videos!


----------



## HelpMeUnderstand

I have not heard of him brother.


----------



## fluteman

Doctuses said:


> His name is David Goza and he has a wonderful YouTube channel doing very detailed and spot on analysis of some of the best pieces in classical. For example, he's gone through all of Beethoven's symphonies and String Quartets. He gives an introduction before each movement, then puts up the sheet music to go along with the music and has notes at the top.
> 
> Here's his channel. Tell me what you think!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-7OANxfwjjSAoLr2MdJtWQ


I've checked out his take on the Schubert C-major quintet and the Beethoven A-minor quartet Op. 132, I think this guy is absolutely fantastic.

However, I think it would be better if in his introductory remarks for each movement, he gave a road map, discussed the overall structure and introduced the principal themes, how the composer transitions between themes and incorporates earlier material later on, assigns varying roles to the instruments, and other characteristic techniques, illustrated with brief musical snippets of the upcoming movement. Then, when the listener reaches these pivotal places in the music, he thinks, "Aha! I hear what he was talking about!" I've heard lectures where this is done very effectively.

He is tackling some seriously complex and sophisticated music, and unless you are already familiar with it, it won't be easy to follow all that information about modulations, transitions and recapitulations and so forth with his line by line running commentary unless you are very well prepared. You don't really need his precise line-by-line analysis, and all that information, voluminous as it is, is still very much incomplete, as he readily admits.

Still, good stuff, thanks for linking it. As for the discussion above about his moniker, come on, guys, just stop it. I try very hard to respect the opinions and beliefs of others, but even if some of us can't do that, you are entitled to go by any name you @#$%ing want to go by, so long as you aren't saying anything offensive about anyone else. This guy has my respect for creating this considerable youtube project, flawed as it may be. The end.


----------



## The Atheist Codger

I just now discovered this discussion, and figured maybe I ought to introduce myself. I'm David Goza, and I teach World Music at the University of Oklahoma. During my checkered past I have taught at a number of such institutions, sometimes directing the orchestral program and often teaching courses in symphonic lit, chamber lit, and theory courses of various sorts. I love *some* music very deeply, and couldn't live without it. I hope that comes across in my videos.

My moniker isn't exactly one I chose - a few years ago, one of my neighbors referred to me as "that old atheist codger who lives down the street." He didn't say that to my face: he referred to me that way in conversation with another neighbor, and word got back to me. (On another occasion, I understand he referred to me as "that old Jew." Something tells me he was a man of rather narrow opinion.) I liked his characterization so much that I adopted it for my YouTube channel.

Of course, my channel isn't about atheism, so sorry to disappoint some of those who have responded. As far as my atheistic stance being "cowardly" goes (I'm responding now to a particular criticism I read here), I'd suggest it reflects indifference rather than cowardice. I was raised in a right-wing fundamentalist religious cult, and I understand full well the damage that kind of thing does, but I'm pretty much over it and have relatively little to say about it. The music's the thing for me. 

As far as my analytical approach is concerned, I go with what works for me. If it works for others as well, I'm happy about that. If it doesn't - well, one can't be all things to all people, can one?

To anyone who's getting anything useful out of my videos, I want to say you're very welcome. At a time with so much ugliness and stupidity engulfs the world, I consider it an honor to try to bring a little beauty into it.

Regards,
David


----------



## Tusker

Thanks for connecting me to this resource. Having only viewed a couple of his analyses, I think I am going to be spending a lot of time on his youtube channel.


----------

