As an amateur composer with great interest in music, that immediately strikes me as a very, very sad lack of belief in human skill and creativity.

Believers in God would submit that the exceptional skill and creativity of which you speak is derived from Him.

More artists than can be counted, many of great renown, have described themselves as merely vessels or conduits through which a force or power works through them.

you should really learn how to speak american if you are going to write american on an internet forum

i hope sarcasm detectors aren't broken but i guess we'll see

Your thread title is illogical.

yeah, it should be "Is your God proud of me for being an atheist"

This assumes that you know what is best. That has been the issue from day one.

Only if you read it that way. People who insist on being offended when no offense is intended by a straightforward question asked of someone else - are probably keeping Rolaids in business.

I doubt one missing comma would cause the whole sentence to be discarded.

Bach would disagree with you. And Rossini and Palestrina and the Pla brothers....

i doubt anyone was actually offended, just shocked by the sheer stupidity of the statement.

whats hilarious is that you refuse to admit that your comment can easily be interpreted in a way that is highly offensive. I guess admitting a mistake isn't something Jesus would do since he never made a mistake!

What's the other way to read it? I'm curious how deep you're going to dig this hole.

prax I've said it before and I'll say it again...
how can anyone take you seriously

we don't

quod erat demonstrandum

hehe

And crazy people think they are Jesus Christ or Napoleon Bonaparte.

And many people used to believe the world is flat.

People are mistaken about lots and lots of things. This is not surprising, and especially so when we are speaking about the pre-scientific era, or people without a scientific education... or when we mistake fruity language ("I'm just a vessel, the music comes through me") for truth claims.*

*Not that all such claims are merely fruity language; I'm sure a great many people believe it.

To compare people who are mentally ill with mentally healthy people who have different religious views isn't fair.

Also, not all scientists are atheist.

I don't think either of these statements are particularly relevant.

My point was and remains that people, historically as well as at this very moment, are quite capable of being mistaken.

The claim on the part of various exceptional musicians/artists throughout history that they are but vessels through which god(s) operate, does not constitute evidence of same. I may claim that I am a Buick, but this should not be confused with evidence that people are cars.

The only way I know to do justice to any kinds of claims is through systematic study, analysis, use of the scientific method, careful record keeping, etc.

I do not know of any reason to suppose that the role of any gods in the creation of music will be relegated to the role of NotReady's god in being able to predict random outcomes: maybe despite what we see, in or spite of what we don't see, there is an undetectable god at work, and nothing you say or do can disprove this! But that leaves the music, the inspiration, the musicians, etc., apparently all explainable by natural processes. Including the belief that inspiration comes from gods.

its truly a miracle that atheists can make music. it must be that god still works within us even though we turned our backs on him. amen.

or people are mistaken. lawls

What difference does it make? Honestly, if you live your life in a pragmatic fashion these silly arguments would never break out. It's like the old, "My dad can beat up your dad!" routine (insert God instead of dad). At the end of the day it won't matter who or what people do/don't believe if we learn to live our lives like the op.

Prop bet: I posit that everyone who has posted in this thread is an atheist.

I don't think that's how you define atheist...

I admit, that was a play on words in a sense. However, it wasn't central to my main point and it was fun. Actually, the way I used the term was in a negative connotation used by Robert Alteymeyer in his research. He describes 'negative atheism' as lacking belief in a deity, which clearly applies to most concerning the existence of Zeus.

Would I still get paid?

Systematic study, analysis, use of the scientific method, careful record keeping are all important.

My point was that some scientists of much greater accomplishment than the majority of participants in this forum state that any new discoveries and revelations bring them that much closer to God.

Science is not a static pursuit. Never ending research and constant examination will ensure that science will evolve, grow and change.

Well, your point is still very valid for how arbitrary it is to wholeheartedly believe in one particular deity.

Actually, that was the joke part of my post (the one with the spoiler attached). Which I thought was pretty funny BTW. My focus was that the belief/non-belief distinction is irrelevent when we live well together. I know it's possible!

The way the OP read it, from his answer. Funny, the guy I was talking to seemed to understand the exchange. He answered, I responded. If other people have problems, then you have problems.