Cee Lo Green Changes 'Imagine' Lyrics To 'All Religions' From John Lennon's 'No Religion' During New - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Taishu;34009776]I was under the assumption that belief in the afterlife was a pretty damn necessary part of Christianity. Now, of course some parts of the bible, mostly if not only NT, I can agree with, and so can most people, but a lot of these moral guidelines goes without saying. We don't really the bible to tell us what is right and what is wrong.[/QUOTE] not for me it ain't.

People who need an excuse to be good are pathetic. But I guess that's better than them going on murder sprees.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34008710]Actually I look at the fact that according to the bible, god created the earth in a literally impossibly [i]long[/i] amount of time. God took 6 days, the big bang was instantaneous. Wouldn't an almighty god be able to create the universe just as fast as the big bang?[/QUOTE] Well I was referring more to God creating animals and the earth within that time in addition to just the start of the universe, while that took far longer than 6 days.

Chances are, Green didn't make the change. He's about as smart as a wet brick on a racetrack. No, it was probably a marketing representative going "Vague, [del]non-religious[/del] non-committal lines are more marketable than devout atheism!"

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34011411]Chances are, Green didn't make the change. He's about as smart as a wet brick on a racetrack. No, it was probably a marketing representative going "Vague, non-religious lines are more marketable than devout atheism!"[/QUOTE]Nonreligious my ass

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34011447]Nonreligious my ass[/QUOTE] Fuck, you're right. That was supposed to be non-committal.

I see you messin' 'round town with the song I love, and I'm like, "Fuck you!" "Ooh-ooh-ooh!"

hahahahahaha love how there's a 6 page thread about this who cares

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;34008238]Okay then. I am a Deist. I believe the universe was created by an all-powerful being who no longer interferes in the affairs of this universe. Prove me wrong. Oh wait! You can't... That's funny, isn't it? So stop acting like you know an undeniable proven truth, because you don't. [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] Seriously, your arrogance is revolting[/QUOTE] Okay then. I am a banana-ist. I believe the universe was created by an all-powerful banana who no longer interferes in the affairs of this universe. Prove me wrong. Oh wait! You can't... That's funny, isn't it? So stop acting like you know an undeniable proven truth, because you don't. [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] Seriously, your arrogance is revolting [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [quote]“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”[/quote]

[QUOTE=minilandstan;34003196]You're also ignoring the fact that the past couple of wars weren't even based on religion. Vietnam: North trying to take out the south [b]World War 2: Nazis try to invade other places, attacking Jews World War 1: Same as above, less Jew hate though[/b] Cold war: Political Shitstorm Middle East war (war on terrorism): Rebel forces want our shit outta their country. That's all i'm going to say about it.[/QUOTE] Nazis didnt even exist in the first world war.

fuckin cee lo doesn't get to change a john lennon song. what a dumb ass.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;34008409]I don't know, I'm not actually a Deist. There is no consensus on how the big bang actually began. So why believe in the big bang at all? Deism provides another possible answer for the beginning of the big bang.[/QUOTE] you know the Big Bang theory doesn't say anything at all about what happened at t = 0, right it describes what happened AFTER the start, inflation, forces being separated, the creation of matter etc. those are all concrete things on which plenty of research has been done. no falsifiable hypothesis for what happened at t = 0 currently exists, which is why any idea for what happened at that point is equally unsupportable with evidence [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] also if you're not a deist, what are you

Some people in this thread are putting John Lennon way too high on a pedestal..

How is this worth caring about? I hate John Lennon's music anyway. *watches as he gets boxes and angry hate messages from psycho Lennon die hard fans*

[QUOTE=The one that is;34012981]How is this worth caring about? I hate John Lennon's music anyway.[/QUOTE] How comes? [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Dantai;34012459]Some people in this thread are putting John Lennon way too high on a pedestal..[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. He only made about 2 worthwhile albums.

[QUOTE=AK'z;34013011]Pretty much this. He only made about 2 worthwhile albums.[/QUOTE] Besides, George was a better Beatle.

[QUOTE=agentgamma;34013267]Besides, George was a better Beatle.[/QUOTE] He was the most changed Beatle. He made one of the greatest concerts, put together Traveling Wilburys and had a massive heart. Why did he have to go? :(

He meant well and I understand that, but the way he worded it says otherwise. If all religion's were true, it'd cause so much conflict. It'd just be better if he sung the original.

Oh god, I knew this would happen from the start.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;34003196]You're also ignoring the fact that the past couple of wars weren't even based on religion. Vietnam: North trying to take out the south World War 2: Nazis try to invade other places, attacking Jews World War 1: Same as above, less Jew hate though Cold war: Political Shitstorm Middle East war (war on terrorism): Rebel forces want our shit outta their country. That's all i'm going to say about it.[/QUOTE] ummm the holocaust was religious because the nazis wanted to keep "christianity strong" in Europe the middle eastern conflicts are incredibly religious, you would have to be blind and deaf to not realize this. parts of the cold war were religious too, like how the mujhadeen wanted the soviets out of their country partly because they didn't want to be ruled over by an athiest government.

I was more offended by Bieber doing Let it Be, to be honest.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34007644]Yea, it is. Atheism is a religious philosophy, or more accurately, lack of one. If someone asks you what religion you are, you say atheist.[/QUOTE] Your understanding of atheism is pretty garbage. It is not a religion, or a philosophy, or anything. Atheism is, beginning to end, the lack of belief in any form of deity. Not even active disbelief, it is a LACK of belief. Straight atheism would actually be an incredibly difficult position to hold... you'd pretty much have to either never think about the origins of life or the universe, or just never have even been introduced to the concept of a deity. Vast majority of atheists are either gnostic (they fall somewhere between god "probably" and "definitely" not existing) or agnostic (they fall somewhere between "I don't know" to "there is no way to ever know"). You can be religious AND be an atheist btw. Tibetan buddhism has no deity, but it has reincarnation. Regardless, they are considerd atheists, and gnostic ones at that. [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34009596]As an atheist myself I respect his decision but I have to disagree on the fact that all religion is true and instead I think none of them are. Wouldn't saying "all religion is true" offend every religion too since each one thinks they are the true ones?[/QUOTE] What Cee Lo inadvertantly invoked here was Objective Relativism. [I]"Objective relativism[/I] is the view that the beliefs of a person or group of persons are ''true'' for them, but not necessarily for others. Ultimately, says this brand of relativism, no truth is universally, objectively true or false. One person's ''truth,'' which really amounts to opinion, can conflict with another's ''truth'' and still be valid. Objective relativism (also known as ''epistimological relativism'') challenges the very existence of how we know what we know, our underlying assumptions, and the validity of our knowledge.)" Basically, the idea is that you can say yes, I can say no, and we're both right. Obviously, in most cases, this is not possible and thus even thinking something like "Well it's not true for you but it is for me!" is so fucking dumb it blows my mind. [QUOTE=The one that is;34012981]How is this worth caring about? I hate John Lennon's music anyway. *watches as he gets boxes and angry hate messages from psycho Lennon die hard fans*[/QUOTE] John Lennon isn't anything special to me... not that I consider many things sacred anyway. But I have to ask: if you don't care, why are you even posting here?

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;34021233]Your understanding of atheism is pretty garbage. It is not a religion, or a philosophy, or anything. Atheism is, beginning to end, the lack of belief in any form of deity. Not even active disbelief, it is a LACK of belief. Straight atheism would actually be an incredibly difficult position to hold... you'd pretty much have to either never think about the origins of life or the universe, or just never have even been introduced to the concept of a deity. Vast majority of atheists are either gnostic (they fall somewhere between god "probably" and "definitely" not existing) or agnostic (they fall somewhere between "I don't know" to "there is no way to ever know"). [/QUOTE] Good job with the reading comprehension there champ. It's obvious you passed the 2nd grade huh.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34022466]Good job with the reading comprehension there champ. It's obvious you passed the 2nd grade huh.[/QUOTE] you can't say [quote]Atheism is a religious philosophy, or more accurately, lack of one[/quote] "Panthers are a type of bird, or more accurately, they're not birds at all"

By the way atheism =/= agnosticism. Agnosticism is the lack of a stance as far as a god goes. Atheism takes a stance or assumption that there is no god. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Turnips5;34022506]you can't say "Panthers are a type of bird, or more accurately, they're not birds at all"[/QUOTE] What I said was accurate, because atheism is a philosophical stance that there is no god. When you say all religions are true, that includes atheism because atheism is a religious stance.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34022557]By the way atheism =/= agnosticism.[/quote] yes [quote]Agnosticism is the lack of a stance as far as a god goes.[/quote] no. Agnosticism means you acknowledge that the existence of an invisible intangible almighty God is unprovable.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;34022609] no. Agnosticism means you acknowledge that the existence of an invisible intangible almighty God is unprovable.[/QUOTE] Then practically every single human being in the world is an agnostic. Whether religious or not. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] That word is meaningless when you use that definition.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34022641]Then practically every single human being in the world is an agnostic. Whether religious or not. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] That word is meaningless when you use that definition.[/QUOTE] okay, maybe "unknowable" is what I meant rather than "unprovable" they should evaluate to the same thing, but I forget so many people just throw evidence out of the window when it comes to supernatural things [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism[/url] "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is [B]unknown or unknowable[/B]" better

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34022557]By the way atheism =/= agnosticism. Agnosticism is the lack of a stance as far as a god goes. Atheism takes a stance or assumption that there is no god. [/QUOTE] (A)gnosticism is a statement of knowledge. (A)theism is a statement of belief. You can be an agnostic atheist/weak atheist (a person who does not believe in god(s) but does not claim to know for a fact that god(s) do not or can not exist) or you can be a gnostic athest/strong atheist (a person who does not believe in god(s) and claims to know for a fact that god(s) do not and can not exist) [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;34022641] That word is meaningless when you use that definition.[/QUOTE] If you're simple, maybe.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;34022682]okay, maybe "unknowable" is what I meant rather than "unprovable" they should evaluate to the same thing, but I forget so many people just throw evidence out of the window when it comes to supernatural things [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism[/url] "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is [B]unknown or unknowable[/B]" better[/QUOTE] "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—[b]especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity,[/b] but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable" That definition separates it from atheism. Again, atheists make the assumption that there is no god. Agnostics don't take any stance because it is unknowable.