Atheist Song of the Week #7 – Saved by Shelley Segal

My seventh Atheist Song of the Week is another talented Australian singer and songwriter, Shelley Segal, with Saved from her album An Atheist Album.

“So you think that you
Can tell us how to live our lives
Never questioning the source
From which your moral code derives
You think that suffering is part of
Some great plan that’s been devised
I wonder, I wonder,
When we’ll be rid of your lies.”

See also my regularly updated list of video links to 200 Atheist Songs from an eclectic range of artists and genres. They don’t all promote atheism, but they should all make you think or laugh or both. More suggestions welcome.

Previous Atheist Songs of the Week

Atheist Song of the Week #6 Thank You God by Tim Minchin
Atheist Song of the Week #5 Banana Republic by the Boomtown rats
Atheist Song of the Week #4 Ten Commandments by New Model Army
Atheist Song of the Week #3 Stardust by Monster on Sunday
Atheist Song of the Week #2 Your God by Cheryl Wheeler
Atheist Song of the Week #1 Uniformitarian Naturalism by God Hates Disco

Atheist Song of the Week #7 – Saved by Shelley Segal

One thought on “Atheist Song of the Week #7 – Saved by Shelley Segal

  1. Berg had dealt with many of your points araeldy.I myself am not particularly interested in the pure logic arguments there is just so much room of subjectivity and inappropriate logic. I think Frank Wilczek’s comments on the limitations of classical logic are extremely relevant when we get round to discussing basic ideas of existence, formation of and rationality of the universe, etc.I am afraid that if your wish everyone to express themselves in formal syllogisms, Dale, you are going to miss out on a lot of informative stuff in life. That’s the sort of naivety the thinking matters’ people try to use to reduce all philosophy/logic to their primitive level. I accept that not everyone has time to read specific books, and especially books which might be tedious, but I think your poor quality of the summary is a cop out.My objection to Berg’s arguments is that they were, for me, too detailed, too logical and too extensive. I guess that is a judgement of quality but I did feel I had a responsibility to read the book if I was to comment. A quick point about William Lane Craig. I’ve not spent hours looking, but I’ve yet to see his argument dealt with in a comprehensive, systematic way (’head on’, if you like) by any of his opponents. This is the very point I made and why I think Berg’s book has value to Christian apologists who follow Craig. It gives them some meat which they complain has been lacking.I, myself, still intend to write some articles on Craig’s specific arguments but the won’t be limited to syllogisms (I find those naive and irrelevant anyone can say 1, 2, 3) or general logic. Craig uses science opportunistically and should be challenged on those grounds. Ken

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to top