Do atheists read the primary sources?
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Everyone likes Christmas. And Easter for that matter. No one's going to go spoil it. You're safe.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Really?Dalek Prime wrote:Everyone likes Christmas. And Easter for that matter. No one's going to go spoil it. You're safe.

- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Yeah you've not spent much time in the USA. The place that thinks itself modern and progressive is hidebound with conservatism and being ashamed of its newness clings to whatever crumbs of tradition it can find.Obvious Leo wrote:Indeed I've never been in the USA at Thanksgiving time and I was unaware of this. My illusions have been shattered and it seems the shopkeepers have in fact taken over the world.Hobbes' Choice wrote: You've obviously never been to a Thanksgiving in the USA. There is plenty of commercialism involved.
If such rituals conflicted with my own personal ethic I would have no choice but to refuse. However in many cases one can attend without participating in the rituals. One of the disadvantages of getting old is that one gets to attend a lot of funerals, many of which are still held in churches regardless of whether either the deceased or the family were churchgoers. I have no problem standing silent in a church without mumbling my way through any of the vacuous prayers because when I look around this is what almost everybody else is doing. Most people just want this bit over with so they can get into the free food and drink and tell a heap of lies about what a shit-hot bloke old Joe was. Funerals are not for the dead. Funerals are for the living, so if I don't go to Joe's funeral he won't come to mine.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Well that depends. If you get invited, are you allowed to refuse the invitation on the grounds that you don't want to participate in some of the rituals?
When I comes to church. I will stand up, head held high, with other people, as it looks ridiculous to remain seated. But I do not mumble. I simp;ly do not participate in prayers or hymns. In this way I show respect for the humans and distain for God.
Actually I'm not a vegetarian AND I can't stand turkey, but I can pig out with the best of them on whatever else might be on offer. If somebody were to invite me I would most certainly accept.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Maybe you are invited to Thanksgiving but are a vegetarian and can't stand turkey?
I haven't sat down to a meal where "grace" has been said since my childhood, and even then this would only have occurred a handful of times. In my country to do such a thing in front of a guest would be regarded as most uncool.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Or maybe you can't stand people saying "grace".
You silence is taken as acquiescence. That would be a unforgivable stance.
I'll never forget when in St. Berdo being told with great pride that many of the building were nearly 100 years old, and some even older. Back home in England my house was older than the USA was a dream.
This is a keen part of the American psyche- the need to cherish a tradition but stuck with a new nation. Much of which was not colonised until the late 19thC. They crave history.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
The only concession we play to xmas in our home is some gift giving, and a nice meal.Dalek Prime wrote:Everyone likes Christmas. And Easter for that matter. No one's going to go spoil it. You're safe.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
You have a strange perception of the U.S.. Fully half the country thinks of 'progressive' as a dirty word. I find that most dumb Americans (which is what everyone overseas focuses on) have absolutely no sense of history or tradition. And although Christmas is revoltingly commercialized over here, Thanksgiving really is not - the only thing sold and advertised a bit is turkey.Yeah you've not spent much time in the USA. The place that thinks itself modern and progressive is hidebound with conservatism and being ashamed of its newness clings to whatever crumbs of tradition it can find.
I'll never forget when in St. Berdo being told with great pride that many of the building were nearly 100 years old, and some even older. Back home in England my house was older than the USA was a dream.
This is a keen part of the American psyche- the need to cherish a tradition but stuck with a new nation. Much of which was not colonised until the late 19thC. They crave history.
If you are speaking of the liberal intelligentsia, then I suppose there is some truth to what you say; but they are generally reviled, for better or worse, by the rest of the country which views history as beginning in 1776 (shortly after Genesis).
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Many of us who revile the 'liberal intelligentsia' are highly educated and atheists. Don't lump me in with the unwashed Arkansasnians. I regard the 'liberal intelligentsia' as crass, ignorant barbarians who use faulty logic and manipulate their followers. Noam Chomsky is a prime example.Wyman wrote:You have a strange perception of the U.S.. Fully half the country thinks of 'progressive' as a dirty word. I find that most dumb Americans (which is what everyone overseas focuses on) have absolutely no sense of history or tradition. And although Christmas is revoltingly commercialized over here, Thanksgiving really is not - the only thing sold and advertised a bit is turkey.Yeah you've not spent much time in the USA. The place that thinks itself modern and progressive is hidebound with conservatism and being ashamed of its newness clings to whatever crumbs of tradition it can find.
I'll never forget when in St. Berdo being told with great pride that many of the building were nearly 100 years old, and some even older. Back home in England my house was older than the USA was a dream.
This is a keen part of the American psyche- the need to cherish a tradition but stuck with a new nation. Much of which was not colonised until the late 19thC. They crave history.
If you are speaking of the liberal intelligentsia, then I suppose there is some truth to what you say; but they are generally reviled, for better or worse, by the rest of the country which views history as beginning in 1776 (shortly after Genesis).
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Melchior wrote:Many of us who revile the 'liberal intelligentsia' are highly educated and atheists. Don't lump me in with the unwashed Arkansasnians. I regard the 'liberal intelligentsia' as crass, ignorant barbarians who use faulty logic and manipulate their followers. Noam Chomsky is a prime example.Wyman wrote:You have a strange perception of the U.S.. Fully half the country thinks of 'progressive' as a dirty word. I find that most dumb Americans (which is what everyone overseas focuses on) have absolutely no sense of history or tradition. And although Christmas is revoltingly commercialized over here, Thanksgiving really is not - the only thing sold and advertised a bit is turkey.Yeah you've not spent much time in the USA. The place that thinks itself modern and progressive is hidebound with conservatism and being ashamed of its newness clings to whatever crumbs of tradition it can find.
I'll never forget when in St. Berdo being told with great pride that many of the building were nearly 100 years old, and some even older. Back home in England my house was older than the USA was a dream.
This is a keen part of the American psyche- the need to cherish a tradition but stuck with a new nation. Much of which was not colonised until the late 19thC. They crave history.
If you are speaking of the liberal intelligentsia, then I suppose there is some truth to what you say; but they are generally reviled, for better or worse, by the rest of the country which views history as beginning in 1776 (shortly after Genesis).
I'm more sympathetic to your view than you think. I was generalizing - they are reviled by others besides the Bible thumpers.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Sometimes I feel ostracized from every possible group. That's because my opinions are rational, not based on emotional hysterica. I'm an atheist but find myself aligned politically with many Christians on several (but not all) issues. For example, I regard our educational system as a farce, so I support home schooling. Hollywood has produced nothing but vile crap for decades. I don't go to films anymore because they offend my taste and intellect. Much of our culture has been destroyed and supplanted by 'black urban' culture. Nobody makes decent music anymore. I could go on....Wyman wrote:
I'm more sympathetic to your view than you think. I was generalizing - they are reviled by others besides the Bible thumpers.
It's sometimes difficult to explain that you might agree with others on a certain political issue, but not accept their reasons or their beliefs.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
I'm a moderate - not by choice but by disposition - so I moderately agree with you. There have been a few good movies and there are still a few good schools left. I do miss rock and roll. But, as a moderate, I don't get too worked up over these things.Melchior wrote:Sometimes I feel ostracized from every possible group. That's because my opinions are rational, not based on emotional hysterica. I'm an atheist but find myself aligned politically with many Christians on several (but not all) issues. For example, I regard our educational system as a farce, so I support home schooling. Hollywood has produced nothing but vile crap for decades. I don't go to films anymore because they offend my taste and intellect. Much of our culture has been destroyed and supplanted by 'black urban' culture. Nobody makes decent music anymore. I could go on....Wyman wrote:
I'm more sympathetic to your view than you think. I was generalizing - they are reviled by others besides the Bible thumpers.
It's sometimes difficult to explain that you might agree with others on a certain political issue, but not accept their reasons or their beliefs.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
I always hated rock and roll, except for groups that transcended it. Pink Floyd did for a while, and I love Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler. I am fond of some British pop groups, (Everything But The Girl, Pet Shop Boys, and Prefab Sprout come to mind). But the only 'rock' music I ever listen to is Italian progressive (Banco del Mutuo Soccorso). But the whole premise didn't make sense to me; the 'rebellion' was just nauseating. Back to the Future made fun of that. And I hope there is a special place in hell for Leslie Gore.Wyman wrote:I'm a moderate - not by choice but by disposition - so I moderately agree with you. There have been a few good movies and there are still a few good schools left. I do miss rock and roll. But, as a moderate, I don't get too worked up over these things.Melchior wrote:Sometimes I feel ostracized from every possible group. That's because my opinions are rational, not based on emotional hysterica. I'm an atheist but find myself aligned politically with many Christians on several (but not all) issues. For example, I regard our educational system as a farce, so I support home schooling. Hollywood has produced nothing but vile crap for decades. I don't go to films anymore because they offend my taste and intellect. Much of our culture has been destroyed and supplanted by 'black urban' culture. Nobody makes decent music anymore. I could go on....Wyman wrote:
I'm more sympathetic to your view than you think. I was generalizing - they are reviled by others besides the Bible thumpers.
It's sometimes difficult to explain that you might agree with others on a certain political issue, but not accept their reasons or their beliefs.
Last edited by Melchior on Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
You have an weird concept of the US, and then you almost agree with me. Yes, progressive is a dirty word, americans are conservative. Americans crave history as they have none. 3 years ago the obsession with the war of 1812, was laughable by British standards. And the claim that the US won was fucking hysterical. In the US could call getting a punch on the nose a victory. The US failed in its bid to take Canada, got the Whitehouse gentle fried and one the Brits had taught the US the lesson they needed went home- job done!Wyman wrote:You have a strange perception of the U.S.. Fully half the country thinks of 'progressive' as a dirty word. I find that most dumb Americans (which is what everyone overseas focuses on) have absolutely no sense of history or tradition. And although Christmas is revoltingly commercialized over here, Thanksgiving really is not - the only thing sold and advertised a bit is turkey.Yeah you've not spent much time in the USA. The place that thinks itself modern and progressive is hidebound with conservatism and being ashamed of its newness clings to whatever crumbs of tradition it can find.
I'll never forget when in St. Berdo being told with great pride that many of the building were nearly 100 years old, and some even older. Back home in England my house was older than the USA was a dream.
This is a keen part of the American psyche- the need to cherish a tradition but stuck with a new nation. Much of which was not colonised until the late 19thC. They crave history.
If you are speaking of the liberal intelligentsia, then I suppose there is some truth to what you say; but they are generally reviled, for better or worse, by the rest of the country which views history as beginning in 1776 (shortly after Genesis).
Americans are obsessed with the so-called "heritage", the Irish cringe when US tourist come over claiming to be "Irish", they make damn fools of themseleves.
When you ask an American about themselves its always "Italian", "German", Hispanic with a bit of Indian" as if that defines them. I only ever met one who always said "American".
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Which groups did not transcend it? What is "Rock and Roll" that it is transcend-able anyway? R&R has a history, which at each step evolved from the previous steps. Some bands consciously preserved a traditional or retro style, but most bands have added their own interpretation.Melchior wrote:I always hated rock and roll, except for groups that transcended it. Pink Floyd did for a while, and I love Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler. I am fond of some British pop groups, (Prefab Sprout comes to mind). But the only 'rock' music I ever listen to is Italian progressive (Banco del Mutuo Soccorso). But the whole premise didn't make sense to me; the 'rebellion' was just nauseating. Back to the Future made fun of that. And I hope there is a special place in hell for Leslie Gore.Wyman wrote:I'm a moderate - not by choice but by disposition - so I moderately agree with you. There have been a few good movies and there are still a few good schools left. I do miss rock and roll. But, as a moderate, I don't get too worked up over these things.Melchior wrote: Sometimes I feel ostracized from every possible group. That's because my opinions are rational, not based on emotional hysterica. I'm an atheist but find myself aligned politically with many Christians on several (but not all) issues. For example, I regard our educational system as a farce, so I support home schooling. Hollywood has produced nothing but vile crap for decades. I don't go to films anymore because they offend my taste and intellect. Much of our culture has been destroyed and supplanted by 'black urban' culture. Nobody makes decent music anymore. I could go on....
It's sometimes difficult to explain that you might agree with others on a certain political issue, but not accept their reasons or their beliefs.
I can see where B del MS is coming from..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkWac-Nm0A
Give it a serious listen, the rhythms are not conventional, and some of the references are quite jazz based.
Or try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSxZHMkZWM
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Yes never did anything remotely close to what Banco did. Vittorio Nocenzi is a genius composer and pianist. He has a couple of solo albums if you are interested. Their music is a mixture of Baroque opera, folk, and classical with some jazz and rock elements all mixed together. Listen to Non Mi Rompete....Hobbes' Choice wrote: Which groups did not transcend it? What is "Rock and Roll" that it is transcend-able anyway? R&R has a history, which at each step evolved from the previous steps. Some bands consciously preserved a traditional or retro style, but most bands have added their own interpretation.
I can see where B del MS is coming from..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkWac-Nm0A
Give it a serious listen, the rhythms are not conventional, and some of the references are quite jazz based.
Or try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSxZHMkZWM
https://youtu.be/53O81rAzt7o
https://youtu.be/bUys2fJe6-Q
There are numerous recorded versions from live shows. The studio version is from 1972 (from the album Io Sono Nato Libero), but I cannot get it due to copyright limitations. Emerson Lake and Palmer and Yes were big, but neither was as good as Banco. They all started at about the same time. Banco did not steal the idea.
Last edited by Melchior on Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
David Handeye
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:39 pm
- Location: Italia
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
wow Mel, sei un mito come il BancoMelchior wrote:Wyman wrote: But the only 'rock' music I ever listen to is Italian progressive (Banco del Mutuo Soccorso).
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
What? I don't speak Italian.David Handeye wrote:wow Mel, sei un mito come il BancoMelchior wrote:Wyman wrote: But the only 'rock' music I ever listen to is Italian progressive (Banco del Mutuo Soccorso).