JTM Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 No, I mean from some videos I've seen he comes off as very snobbish. It just got to me is all. I honestly don't care that he's atheist, I enjoy listening to others like him, makes ya think. But Dawkins himself...he just gets under my skin I guess. Richard Dawkins is not an atheist, can't recall of the top of my head how he describes himself , but it's definitely not atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireOpal Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I dunno: his official web site has "Atheist Resources" and the International Atheist Alliance named their annual award after him. I'd say he's probably an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 It is a fact that atheist's are in a vast minority on this planet. There are certainly many that would be considered agnostic and would consider themselves as such before claiming to be atheists. I seem to find more on this site than any other place I have ever been. The referances Led Zeppelin make in In My Time Of Dying would lead me to the conclusion that at least one or more of the band members believe in a divine being. Not that is that important in iteself, but since this is a Led Zepp website, I thought it was worth mention. Zeppelin copied/covered "In My Time Of Dying" from Bob Dylan who did the same from Blind Willie Johnson in 1962. source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_My_Time_of_Dying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Richard Dawkins is not an atheist, can't recall of the top of my head how he describes himself , but it's definitely not atheist.I read a "debate" between him and this very religious scientist. Dawkins ended up contradicting himself multiple times and I just laughed. He's an intelligent man, I'll say that. I just don't like how he comes across. It was a Time magazine interview, it was a while ago. I'm at a friend's room so I'm not gonna search for it but I recommend it to anyone who cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Then why didnt they lists him in the credit? Or did they? Like they did with I belive Willie Dixon on the song "Icantquityoubabe". Remember that one? Cough. You would need to ask Jimmy about that, but i suspect that they thought that they had changed the song enough to call it their own composition. Back in the old days things were done differently than today. Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Then why didnt they lists him in the credit? Or did they? Like they did with I belive Willie Dixon on the song "Icantquityoubabe". Remember that one? Cough. You would know that song quite well, wouldn't you. Slick, you ain't. Anywhoozles, the subject of Led Zeppelin not giving proper credit to artists of songs they re-did, has been hashed and re-hashed to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I'm a very faithful Protestant and for every awesome atheist I know there are 40 who are F'd in the head or have daddy issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Uh-huh. It's only been debated around here how many times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I wasnt really trying to be slick. I figured you would be the fist to respond. I wasnt aware of Led Zepp not giving out credits. I would hope they didnt steal too much material. Then your hopes are dashed mate. But then many people/bands borrowed from other people that didnt get credited. They didnt steal anything really as all music and lyrics are of no real substance and could never be reported to the police as stolen as the original artists still had them, they only borrowed them just as Willie Dixon and others borrowed other peoples music and lyrics and never gave any credits to the other artists they borrowed from. Zepp did give out credits later when the error of their ways were pointed out to them. The fact that Led Zeppelin borrowed their songs in the first place gave the original artists more royalties as like myself Led Zeppelin turned many people on to music like the Blues and not the other way around. Hope this helps, Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel With A Broken Wing Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 this came to me the other day, I wrote it down, ya can't see the wind except what is evidenced by its moving. thats how I feel bout GOD. A power greater than myself moving. I need one fo sure!! but I respect all of u who do not. peace and love I think u may enjoy this bit!! We're all god. I'm not A god or THE god, but we're all god and we're all potentially divine and potentially evil. We all have everything within us. There is a power we can all tap. God is a power and we're all light bulbs that can tap the electricity. You can use electricity to kill people or to light the room. God is that. I don't need to go to church. I think people who need a church should go. The others who know the church is in your own head should visit that temple 'cus that's where the source is. John Lennon, 1969 Thank you, John Lennon Lovely sentiments katydidgood, you've "brightened" my day. It is a fact that atheist's are in a vast minority on this planet. There are certainly many that would be considered agnostic and would consider themselves as such before claiming to be atheists. I seem to find more on this site than any other place I have ever been. The referances Led Zeppelin make in In My Time Of Dying would lead me to the conclusion that at least one or more of the band members believe in a divine being. Not that is that important in iteself, but since this is a Led Zepp website, I thought it was worth mention. Yeah, same here. And I'm a member of MANY online fan forums. Of course I don't visit the other sites as often as I do here so may have overlooked such conversations on those boards. Or maybe Zep fans are simply just more open and generous with their thoughts and opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBlackZeppelin Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Then your hopes are dashed mate. But then many people/bands borrowed from other people that didnt get credited. They didnt steal anything really as all music and lyrics are of no real substance and could never be reported to the police as stolen as the original artists still had them, they only borrowed them just as Willie Dixon and others borrowed other peoples music and lyrics and never gave any credits to the other artists they borrowed from. Zepp did give out credits later when the error of their ways were pointed out to them. The fact that Led Zeppelin borrowed their songs in the first place gave the original artists more royalties as like myself Led Zeppelin turned many people on to music like the Blues and not the other way around. Hope this helps, Regards, Danny You can still "steal" lyrics from a song, that is called plagiarism. Royalties can't be given to the original artist if the other artist does not, at all, credit the original artist. Willie Dixon didn't gain the royalties to Whole Lotta Love until he took them to court. Now borrowing can be known as simply gaining influence from another artist, but taking the influence and making it your own. When lyrics are copyrighted and you take the lyrics, word by word or incredibly close to it, and credit the stolen lyrics as your own, that is still a lawsuit waiting to happen. Even if it isn't of substance, the artist shouldn't strictly and directly steal from the original artist, for he gains money, and every single cent of it, for something that is not of his creation. If he twists it to the point in which it cannot be directly correlated to the original source, that is a risk but most likely, not a successful lawsuit waiting to happen Plagiarism and influence are different, and that is what separates the background of songs like Communication Breakdown and Whole Lotta Love apart. And for that, you did point out the errors of their ways, and they did comply to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 You can still "steal" lyrics from a song, that is called plagiarism. Royalties can't be given to the original artist if the other artist does not, at all, credit the original artist. Willie Dixon didn't gain the royalties to Whole Lotta Love until he took them to court. Now borrowing can be known as simply gaining influence from another artist, but taking the influence and making it your own. When lyrics are copyrighted and you take the lyrics, word by word or incredibly close to it, and credit the stolen lyrics as your own, that is still a lawsuit waiting to happen. Even if it isn't of substance, the artist shouldn't strictly and directly steal from the original artist, for he gains money, and every single cent of it, for something that is not of his creation. If he twists it to the point in which it cannot be directly correlated to the original source, that is a risk but most likely, not a successful lawsuit waiting to happen Plagiarism and influence are different, and that is what separates the background of songs like Communication Breakdown and Whole Lotta Love apart. And for that, you did point out the errors of their ways, and they did comply to it. Hi 'DeepBlackZeppelin' What you are failing to understand is this, it used to be OK for the old Blues Artists like Willie Dixon to "Steal/borrow" lyrics from other Artists during a time when people didnt copywrite their material. If you look back at these times it was commonplace for Black Artists to do this all the time. The Led Zeppelin song "Gallows Pole" was similar to "Gallis Pole" a song that Lead Belly did in 1939, did he credit the Pilgrim Fathers that originaly brought the song over from England? no he didnt, did he steal it then? in my opinion,no he didnt, he borrowed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallows_Pole Have a look at this link, the song could have come from any number of European countries but it certainly was not a black song. I would say that nearly all Blues songs originated from the white man in one form or another, do we then try to track down these "Thieves" and take them to court for stealing our lyrics? no we dont, we enjoy what they did with our tunes as they should do with what the white boys did with their tunes. How many John Bonham Drum Pattens have been sampled and incorporated in to Black songs today? Hundreds? did they all credit JB with it? I think not. Lets face it, if Led Zeppelin had not done "Whole Lotta Love" and covered many other songs, would we not say "Who the hell is this Willie Dixon?" I for one would not have known him. Bands like Led Zeppelin helped the Black Blues Artists no end by bringing their music to the white people and they should be forever greatful to them for it. I have personaly brought hundreds of Blues Artists Records that without Led Zeppelin i would never have spent my money on. So that is payback enough in my opinion. Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shankly Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 It is a fact that atheist's are in a vast minority on this planet. There are certainly many that would be considered agnostic and would consider themselves as such before claiming to be atheists. i suppose it depend (a) how you define athiest and ( where you live. Officially, the entire population of China is athiest - clearly, many of the people are not athiest, but China is an athiest country. I assume you live in America? From my experiences on the Richard Dawkins forum, it seems that people who claim to be athiest in America can run into a lot of problems - for example, not one member of congress has claimed to be athiest, yet given the percentage of athiest is society in general, this is completely unrepresentative. Polls have shown that in USA, many people rate athiests somewhere alongside child molesters and it would be political suicide to claim to be an athiest. There are more athiests out there than you are aware of. In England and indeed across most of Europe you will find a far greater number of athiests and England as a whole is a very secular country. If you asked most people about religion they would claim to be RC or C of E, but in reality have no practical faith whatsoever and, if pressed, would admit to a vague belief in some higher power but only because that is how they were brought up - not due to any commited belief of their own. I would agree that theist are probably an overall majority, but not as big a majority as you make out, certainly not outside the USA. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins is most definitely an athiest - it is quite clear from his writings and the content of his website and forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I'm a very faithful Protestant and for every awesome atheist I know there are 40 who are F'd in the head or have daddy issues. F'd in the head eh, ... What about all those altar/choir boys that get F'd in the ass by their priest/minister etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Incidentally, Richard Dawkins is most definitely an athiest - it is quite clear from his writings and the content of his website and forum. Shanks mate , yer wrong. Dawkins may have what most would call atheist views. In one of his TV prog's DVDs he talks about why he does'nt like the label atheist... it's something along the lines of calling someone an atheist donotes a belonging to some sort of group akin to a religious denomination, or something along those lines........... I really can't remember his exact quote ... but that's the basic jist of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Uh-huh. It's only been debated around here how many times?Too often to possibly count.... Always been a boring subject to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I read a "debate" between him and this very religious scientist. Dawkins ended up contradicting himself multiple times and I just laughed. He's an intelligent man, I'll say that. I just don't like how he comes across. It was a Time magazine interview, it was a while ago. I'm at a friend's room so I'm not gonna search for it but I recommend it to anyone who cares God Vs. Science Pretty good read, I must say Collins does come off a tad more level headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't put much trust into anyone who believes in fictional beings such as gods, tooth faeries and the like. To me this is a very good meter in determining how intelligent they are. Religion has been used over the centuries to control. That is it's main function........control.........how others feel, eat, sleep, or screw for that matter. It's more practical to take things as they are, appreciate love, beauty and life EMPIRICALLY. We must also accept our immortality thusly. Codex Argenteus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Argenteus (added at edit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't put much trust into anyone who believes in fictional beings such as gods, tooth faeries and the like. To me this is a very good meter in determining how intelligent they are. Religion has been used over the centuries to control. That is it's main function........control.........how others feel, eat, sleep, or screw for that matter. It's more practical to take things as they are, appreciate love, beauty and life EMPIRICALLY. We must also accept our immortality thusly. Codex Argenteus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Argenteus (added at edit) You seem to have confused Theism with organized religions like Christianity and Islam. How hypocritical that you claim all Theists are stupid and then go on to misconstrue Theism and membership in a specific church/sect. If you're going to do this right, say all members of massive churches have been brainwashed, are stupid, etc... Not that I believe that. FYI, I am agnostic. I don't consider this to be between Theism and Atheism, I consider it un-belief in God. So, I would not outright deny the existence of a supreme being, but I would not acknowledge that one exists or has ever existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 You seem to have confused Theism with organized religions like Christianity and Islam. How hypocritical that you claim all Theists are stupid and then go on to misconstrue Theism and Religiosity. If you're going to do this right, say all members of massive churches have been brainwashed, are stupid, etc... Not that I believe that. FYI, I am agnostic. I don't consider this to be between Theism and Atheism, I consider it un-belief in God. So, I would not outright deny the existence of a supreme being, but I would not acknowledge that one exists or has ever existed. So in other words you have no place to stand....agnostic means you don't wanna make a stand in one arena or the other. You have been judged by me now haven't you, and I by you right? You can say all church members are stupid, if you wish. Make a stand believe in something, either it is or it isn't....there's no in between....oh yeah....that's purgatory right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 You missed the point. There is a HUGE difference in being THEISTIC and being in a RELIGION. You can't say that all people who believe in a God are stupid, that's just an awful generalization and extremely intolerant. Also, my "stand" is that both Atheism and Theism are rubbish. But I'm not about to make generalizations about people who do believe in them. I respect their beliefs, and they have the right to believing in them with no repercussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 You missed the point. There is a HUGE difference in being THEISTIC and being in a RELIGION. You can't say that all people who believe in a God are stupid, that's just an awful generalization and extremely intolerant. Theism was coined to contrast with atheists. Just silliness as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 No sense of humor Mary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.