What does "Godbluff" mean?

[Bucka001]

The vast majority of atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist. So, in that respect, PH is no different than all us other agnostic atheists.

The question atheism is answering has nothing to do with positions of knowledge.

As far as Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, are concerned, they are also agnostic. They do not claim to know that a god or gods do not exist.

Then by your standards Peter is confused because he has specifically stated that he can't go for atheism because (according to him) it means believing in a 'not something' as much as those who believe in a something. One is definitely incorrect when they say that PH is an atheist, as he himself does not label himself that way and (from impressions I get) would be uncomfortable to be labeled so.

[A. Scherze]

It's a binary situation. If PH believes in a god or gods, he is a theist. Anything else, then he is an atheist of some type.

It does not matter what he wants to be labelled.

[Digital_Man]

I always assumed PH was an atheist but I'll buy he's an agnostic. There can be a thin line between the two anyway. To me an agnostic is basically just a non committal atheist anyway. Regardless, both are non believers.

Peart always struck me as either an atheist or agnostic.

Also, to get somewhat off topic, I find it funny that some people consider Echolyn a christian or even spiritual band. They might have spiritual elements but when I interviewed them Brett mentioned a few writers he likes and it turns out all of them are atheists. I don't think that was a coincidence. You can admire the planet and see things in a positive light without being a christian or whatever although most atheists and agnostics do by nature seem to be pretty dark and pessimistic (imo).

I personally don't really care much about an artists personal beliefs. Rush, VDGG, Kansas, Yes and Echolyn(and a few others) all have interesting lyrics regardless of what their personal beliefs are. What tends to bother me is when a band or artist gets preachy about it(ie Neal Morse). I have yet to encounter preachy lyrics that lean in the agnostic or atheist direction although I suppose it's possible. Actually I can think of one example and that is "dear god" by XTC. They were obviously trying to make a point and one that is often not allowed to be heard so good for them.

[simon moon]

Then by your standards Peter is confused because he has specifically stated that he can't go for atheism because (according to him) it means believing in a 'not something' as much as those who believe in a something. One is definitely incorrect when they say that PH is an atheist, as he himself does not label himself that way and (from impressions I get) would be uncomfortable to be labeled so.

Then PH is using an incorrect definition of atheism

Atheism is NOT a belief system. Atheism is just not believing that a god or gods exist. Atheism says nothing about what one does believe.

In effect, atheism is nothing more than responding, "I don't believe you. Please provide me with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim", when someone says that a god exists.

It really doesn't matter what one labels themselves or not, as long as they don't have an active belief that a god exists, they are an atheist.

It's a binary situation. If PH believes in a god or gods, he is a theist. Anything else, then he is an atheist of some type.

It does not matter what he wants to be labelled.

Exactly.

[Dok]

Atheists just have a heavy tendency to overly identify with the body, a natural inclination given the Ego's grip. If you have to be shown something you're missing the point. But only temporarily... no soul is forever ignorant. All you have to do is remember the song you learned in kindergarten or even earlier... have you forgotten?

Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a DREAM.



Hmmm.. I have that Godbluff CD around here somewhere...

[Bucka001]

Then PH is using an incorrect definition of atheism

Atheism is NOT a belief system.

I would think there is some confusion here; maybe the definition has changed over the years. My 2003, 11th edition of Webster's Dictionary defines 'atheism' as "the doctrine that there is no deity." That does make it sound like a belief system (the use of the word 'doctrine') but maybe not. Ultimately, it's probably just a question of semantics.

It's a binary situation. If PH believes in a god or gods, he is a theist. Anything else, then he is an atheist of some type.

It does not matter what he wants to be labelled.

Not the way I (and obviously PH) have always understood it, but I haven't given it a whole lot of attention. But, even in the context you've presented, we could probably say that PH is not an atheist, vis a vis this interview snippet from some time back ('80):

"I was taught by the Jesuits for nine years which I think is significant not only in this area but in terms of my whole approach to things. I'm fairly classic Jusuit -- educated ex-Catholic Artist, of which there are many examples... [On the question of guilt] Perhaps, but not at the top of my brain. Perhaps that's the driving force down there, perhaps that's the Jesuit gift. It's not something I'm consciously aware of all the time as I say I'm not a Catholic anymore. But if it was a 'yes' or 'no' then I'd have to say I believe in God, or all gods, or something. I feel it, but I don't know. Even 'The Lie' is actually a highly religious song because it's not "All religion is bunk," it's "why is this sort of religion bunk when I have these feelings?" "

So, from this, maybe PH is a theist agnostic (? to use your terms; do I have that right?). The confusion for me is that atheist and agnostic are two very different things, or so I always thought. Atheists deny the existence of God (i.e., "the doctrine that there is no deity" according to the dictionary), and agnostics don't deny anything, saying they just don't know (Webster: "Agnostic: One who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god") and it seems that PH views it this way as well. One thing from this interview snippet (originally appearing in The Bristol Recorderd) is that PH doesn't seem like an atheist.

The main thing is that the OP should be able to play VdGG's music for his religious pal without any worry that his friend's beliefs will be attacked as fairy tales, etc. There are some (very good, imo) songs criticizing The Church, and PH certainly comes off in these tunes as a person who may not believe in God (which is why the Bristol Recorder interview surprised me when I read it), but even so he never adopts a mocking or belittling tone -- he just always sounds like he's in the midst of an honest search for some sort of answer or resolution, and that's fine (and extremely interesting in his case, because he's a great artist).

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

I cant say I know what "godbluff" means, but I *have* heard the album as well as other VDG albums and ... lets just say that 'lyricists caterwauling about their insignificant opinions over what could otherwise be some good music' is why I tend toward instrumental Prog.

[Trane]

The first of the two Cha-cha-cha bits in that video are from minute 3:00 until 3:28 ... Of course the "cha-cha theme" is toyed around with in other sections of the song (the band dosn't quit right away the theme after the cha-cha-cha bursts...

The vast majority of atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist. So, in that respect, PH is no different than all us other agnostic atheists.

The question atheism is answering has nothing to do with positions of knowledge.

Kind of disagree...

Theoretically an atheist is convinced (and therefore "knows") there is no "creator" and even less one that would want to be "adored" the way "it" is.... However, most atheists understand that one can doubt that there could be some source (whether willing or not) that created this "big bang"... Beit some kind of superstition and the fear of the afterlife...
I'm of the kind of athests that even doubts of the "big bang"... why must there have absolutely been a "start" of things??

---------------------

Like Simon Moon, from what I've rzed of Hammill's beliefs in this thread (just the facts that he has some "beliefs" is ousting him from the atheists ranks), I'd rank him in the agnostic ranks

(though my use of the word "ranks" is disputable, because there are no ranks in these.... More like a loosely clattered and cluttered unstructured mass that normally refuses any classification or order... ) IMO, of course

[Trane]

In effect, atheism is nothing more than responding, "I don't believe you. Please provide me with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim", when someone says that a god exists.

It really doesn't matter what one labels themselves or not, as long as they don't have an active belief that a god exists, they are an atheist.

Sorry, but if you "believe" or ask for proofs of the other's beliefs, you're not an atheist...

Atheists just have a heavy tendency to overly identify with the body, a natural inclination given the Ego's grip. If you have to be shown something you're missing the point. But only temporarily... no soul is forever ignorant. All you have to do is remember the song you learned in kindergarten or even earlier... have you forgotten?

I'm not ging to touch that one long (for fear of turning this thread in a vaster debate), because the body/ego relation in religions is very strong in those currents that want to dominate the others with their "wisdom/knowledge"... they want to be respected/admired and obeyed in an "organisation" that has ranks (lust like the army has colonels or seargents, religions have popes, preachers and priests)... It's all about having an "ascending power" over the "clubbed-into-submission" sheeps (NB: the " are important)
Atheism has nothing of the sorts, because in some ways, it's not aeven a movement ... barely a written train of thoughts...

I would think there is some confusion here; maybe the definition has changed over the years. My 2003, 11th edition of Webster's Dictionary defines 'atheism' as "the doctrine that there is no deity." That does make it sound like a belief system (the use of the word 'doctrine') but maybe not. Ultimately, it's probably just a question of semantics.

That's probably because Webster is not a neutral (ie: atheist or laïc) organization.... There is no dogma or doctrine in atheism or even in agnosticism... This is rather hard to religious people to grasp... but there are no clear lines in atheism... no rules, no rites, no scriptures... nothing, except total freedom (which can be dangerous in social life in society, if you don't have an egaletarian mind)

It's not just a question of semantics, IMHO... by placing the word dogma or doctrine in atheism, one tends to reduce atheism to a "religion" of some sorts...