(May 31, 2012 at 7:08 am)StatCrux Wrote: I think this is related to life having a meaning and purpose. Anyone who thinks life has no meaning is unlikely to produce great art, unless of course it is depicting the meaningless nature of existence. Religious thinking sees meaning and purpose which is conducive to creating great art. The problem for the atheist is that ultimately life has no meaning. If you then say that you create your own meaning, that is the definition of delusional thinking, unless you truly believe in your own meaning..which is putting you in the realm of faith, faith in no God.

LIFE HAS NO MEANING, GET OVER IT!

Think about what you were 1 billion years ago and that is what you will be 1 billion years from now.

THAT DOES NOT mean you cannot find meaning while you are alive, and that meaning is what you give it, and it is not handed down by any fictional being, anymore than worshiping the sun made it a deity.

When our species goes extinct there wont be any future generation to sell our human invented superstitions to. The planet will go on without us until it too burns out it's core and dies. The sun also has a time span and it too will end. The universe will continue with no record of us just like it had no record of us when the solar system first formed.

I still find "awe" in nature without assigning it to myth. I feel that sense of awe with my mother. I feel it with my cat. I feel it with a pretty sunset. But I also feel it when thinking about the awesome destructive side of nature in volcanos, earthquakes, black holes. And all without assigning the good or bad to Superman vs Kriptonite.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Please correct me then; Are you saying that Religion has simply provided the focus for great pieces of art, but the artists would have created amazing pieces of art anyway. Confirm or deny?

Deny. Religion is more than simply a focus, it is the impetus. Religion induces the mind to open to the transcendent, where all great art is derived from. So whilst not essential it is most definitely positive in its effect.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:08 am)StatCrux Wrote: I think this is related to life having a meaning and purpose. Anyone who thinks life has no meaning is unlikely to produce great art, unless of course it is depicting the meaningless nature of existence. Religious thinking sees meaning and purpose which is conducive to creating great art. The problem for the atheist is that ultimately life has no meaning. If you then say that you create your own meaning, that is the definition of delusional thinking, unless you truly believe in your own meaning..which is putting you in the realm of faith, faith in no God.

And what meaning to life do you think religion gives?

That when you die you can look forward to an eternal monotony of constantly praising god.

I can hardly wait

---

(May 31, 2012 at 7:31 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 7:19 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Please correct me then; Are you saying that Religion has simply provided the focus for great pieces of art, but the artists would have created amazing pieces of art anyway. Confirm or deny?

Deny. Religion is more than simply a focus, it is the impetus. Religion induces the mind to open to the transcendent, where all great art is derived from. So whilst not essential it is most definitely positive in its effect.

Bullshit, religion induces the mind to unquestioning servitude and blind obedience.

Nothing else.

So me being an atheist, who considers life to be meaningless, makes it impossible for me to compose music, write (prose and poetry), draw and paint? Wow, I'm truly a freak of nature.. :p

(May 31, 2012 at 7:28 am)Brian37 Wrote: LIFE HAS NO MEANING, GET OVER IT!



THAT DOES NOT mean you cannot find meaning while you are alive, and that meaning is what you give it,

Don't you find this contradictory?

1.Life has no meaning
2.The meaning is what you give it.

Life can't have no meaning and a meaning you give it.

If there is no meaning and you simply make one up, that's delusional. Unless of course you "believe" your own meaning, which is faith. You have created your own religion to fill the meaningless reality which you have defined yourself.

---

(May 31, 2012 at 7:35 am)Kayenneh Wrote: So me being an atheist, who considers life to be meaningless, makes it impossible for me to compose music, write (prose and poetry), draw and paint? Wow, I'm truly a freak of nature.. :p

Ahh one more for the list of words i never said, "impossible" I never said it was impossible for atheists to create art...

(May 31, 2012 at 7:19 am)StatCrux Wrote: Deny. Religion is more than simply a focus, it is the impetus. Religion induces the mind to open to the transcendent, where all great art is derived from. So whilst not essential it is most definitely positive in its effect.

Excellent.

Now quantify your statement. How has it been positive in its effect.

From my point of view, the Mona Lisa is a non-religious piece of art, and the last supper is a religious piece of art. Both are considered masterpieces by the same artist.

I would submit that Da Vinci would create amazing pieces with or without religious "inspiration".

I agree that Religion provides inspiration for some great pieces, however, the source of the inspiration is irrelevant to the standard of the piece, rather the talent of the individual, which is exactly the point which renders your argument that it is the impetus either inconclusive or irrelevant.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:31 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Bullshit, religion induces the mind to unquestioning servitude and blind obedience.

Nothing else.

I'm sure you would like to believe that, unfortunately the evidence of many great religious thinkers, scientists, poets, mathematicians, musicians etc etc prove you wrong.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:44 am)StatCrux Wrote: I'm sure you would like to believe that, unfortunately the evidence of many great religious thinkers, scientists, poets, mathematicians, musicians etc etc prove you wrong.

That's not evidence, that's appeal to authority.
Great philosophers, scientists poets, mathematicians and musicians would also have agreed with the summary.

So what's your actual point? I suspect you do not have one. Again.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:42 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: From my point of view, the Mona Lisa is a non-religious piece of art, and the last supper is a religious piece of art. Both are considered masterpieces by the same artist.

I would submit that Da Vinci would create amazing pieces with or without religious "inspiration".

I agree that Religion provides inspiration for some great pieces, however, the source of the inspiration is irrelevant to the standard of the piece, rather the talent of the individual, which is exactly the point which renders your argument that it is the impetus either inconclusive or irrelevant.

The subject of the painting doesn't need to be religious, the mind of the artist remains religious in its way of understanding reality. In the same way a monk cleaning his cell is continuously in union with God, his life becomes continual prayer, so the mindset of the artist doesn't stop being religious if they paint a non religious subject.

(May 31, 2012 at 7:37 am)StatCrux Wrote: Ahh one more for the list of words i never said, "impossible" I never said it was impossible for atheists to create art...

[---]

I'm sure you would like to believe that, unfortunately the evidence of many great religious thinkers, scientists, poets, mathematicians, musicians etc etc prove you wrong.

Hmm.. You were the one to declare that atheism inspires nothing and that religion is the source of inspiration. So where does mine come from? (Hint: the answer isn't any nonexistent god..)

Sure, there are all kinds of believers out there, even people who don't play any instrument, who don't dance or sing, who don't write, who don't think beyond their own navels, who don't paint, draw or make sculptures. Your point is..?