Die Gedanken Sind Frei

[jungaar]

thank you

[AlecTrevalyn]

Wonderful bi-lingual interpretation .....

and a really wonderful german historical song .... we should remember in its meaning ...

[13regenbogenkind]

There's no rule HOW to believe. To be an Atheist doesn't mean to believe nothing.

I believe in love and the spririt of god (or call it whatever you want) in all of us. I'm god, you're god, everyone of us is divine.

In jedem von uns ist Gott. Alles leben auf der Welt besteht aus denselben göttlichen energien.

spirituelle-revolution-dot-net

[notahemi]

Uh, if there is not God you have not spirit.

All there is is material.

No mind either, apparently

[777Pinocchio]

Also dieses Lied jetzt im atheistischen Sinn zu interpretieren ist schon sehr gewagt.

Es kommt ja eigentlich von akademischen Burschenschaften die sich gegen Monarchie und Kleinstaaterei wandten und ein demokratisches und national geeintes Deutschland herbeisehnten.

Mit antichristlicher Propaganda hat das überhaupt nichts zu tun.

[Tetrian888]

ihr scheiß atheisten, solltet euch schämen, diese schöne lied für eure mist für deen ihr in die hölle kommt, zu missbrauchen!!!

[hohenhorstersam]

Wie witzig!!! ich war eig. auf der suche nach einer klavierversion davon. I think it´s a very good idea to sing it in english and german ...hört sich sehr interessant an...:)

[folkleo1]

good !

viele grüsse aus deutschland

[dunbar9finger]

I agree with those saying it sounds better in german. But I don't know how much of that is because of the poor translation versus how much of that is because Dan Barker just isn't that good of a singer. Don;t get me wrong - I love the FFRF and their radio show that this is from, but every time Dan starts to sing on that show, I cringe a little bit, thinking, "This really isn't helping our cause here."

[plankyob]

Thoughts are free, free of dogma, religious or otherwise.

[Busterdrag]

As a german and freethinker I'm ABSOLUTELY disgusted to see how this song was used in such a way.

The original freethinkers during the age of enlightment weren't atheists, and this song wasn't intended to be used as a song against religion.

It says that everyone can think and believe what he wants and no one has a right to change that. That counts for religious biased bigots as well as for aggressive raging atheists. And by using the song in this kinda way is a perversion of its meaning.

[ThreeOfEight]

As a German and free thinker I approve to see this song being used this way.

This song is not being used against religion here. It is used against the malicious influences of religion and the abuse of religion in politics.

We do have freedom of religion, which is a good thing, of course, however, freedom of religion is a different thing. For some reason, religions think they deserve "special treatment", you must not attack their statements, they are not open for discussion.

[ThreeOfEight]

People may do things on the grounds of their religion which they would not be allowed to do otherwise - and people, even many atheists, readily accept this insolence. Religious people can rail against homosexuals without punishment as long as they say it's because of their religion. That is wrong. Things like this do not belong into our modern world.

So, please, think twice before talking about "perversion of meaning" here. It is an amazing how old poems and songs can get new a meaning.

[Busterdrag]

@ThreeOfEight I never said that religion is like an excuse for everything. Of course, if someone does something stupid (like for example hate-crimes against homosexuals) then he can't use religious arguements to say its right and. And state and religion should be seperated.

What I'm against here is however how this organization uses it. THe FFRF's says its an anti-religious organization, its against religion and religious people, condoning them. And thats NOT freedome of thought if you ask me.

[dunbar9finger]

Over here on planet earth where the rest of us live, religion IS incompatible with freedom of thought. At the core of religion is this twisted notion that belief based on faith alone is somehow a virtue. It isn't. Period. It's a tool used by those in positions of power who wish to get people to go along without questioning what they're told. If you try to clai m otherwise then that merely tells me that you have no moral qualms against lying.

[Busterdrag]

@dunbar9finger Over here in reality it really isn't, so I dunno in what shithole of place you seem to live. I know a lot of very smart, free-thinking individuals who are also religious. Like for example my mum, a very faithful catholic who also supports gay people like me and question some agendas and beliefs of her church. Or my friend from the US who is a priest but more open minded then most other people I know.

So I won't sit here and let someone like you tell me my morality is flawed. <.<

[dunbar9finger]

I never said your morality IN GENERAL was flawed. I honed in on ONE ASPECT of moraliy - the tendency of religious people to treat faith as a virtue, which is a moral flaw because it's an attempt to defend lying. But there are other parts to morality to. Someone can be a defender of liars while still at the same time doing lots of other good things that offset that one flaw. But I won't be afraid of telling the truth by calling it a moral flaw to treat faith as anything other than just lying.

[Busterdrag]

@dunbar9finger Ugh, as agnosticism said theres not just one truth, there are multiple ones and truth is a subjectional thing. And you saying that its THE truth that all religious people are liars is just making me really angry right now. Or that being religious is a moral flaw.

Besides, lying in what context? Based on science? I take it you missed the fact that science never said anything about god existing or not existing. At least no scientist staying to the rules of science.

[dunbar9finger]

Agnosticism does not claim that there are more than one truth and that truth is subjective. That statement of yours is wrong for two reasons: 1 - It does not claim that whether or not god exists is subjective, and 2 - it never makes claims about truth in GENERAL - it talks about in truth in relation to the narrow god question only. Agnosticism says the truth about god existing is UNKNOWN. "Unknown" is not equal to "subjective".

[dunbar9finger]

Does a person claim to believe something that in fact they know perfectly well they don't actually have one smidgen of evidence for? If they are a believer in god and say that they believe in god based on faith alone, then they ARE saying exactly that. And yes, that all by itself, is lying. By their own admission that they use faith, they are admitting to lying. It's not about whether their belief is true or not. It's about the dishonest method they chose to use to come to that belief.

[Busterdrag]

@dunbar9finger Oh sure, I don't question what I'm told, cuz I'm such a mindless puppte.

I think you should really talk more to religious people, and I mean not just people like priests or so, but normal religious people too. You seem to have a wrong image of them, or so it seems.

And the statement "It isn't. Period." really rubs me in wrong way, saying like there is only ONE truth.

[dunbar9finger]

There is only one truth because thats how objective topics WORK. If we hold mutually exclusive beliefs about a thing, then we cannot both be correct unless its subjective (and the claims of religion are not subjective - they are claims that it is a FACT that such-and-such a god exists, and a FACT that he made the world in such-and-such a way, and so on). Even if we thought that there's no way to tell which of us is right that still doesn't mean it's possible for both of us to be right.

[dunbar9finger]

I don't have an incorrect image of normal religious people. You have an incorrect image of what it takes to be a liar. Any defense of faith-based belief all by itself already evidence that the person doesn't mind lying even before you investigate any further than that. "Faith" MEANS to believe without a good reason. How much more dishonest than that can you get?

[Busterdrag]

@dunbar9finger To believe without a good reason? What dumb kind of argument is that? And how is it dishonest to believe in something? I think you mix up your terms, gentlemen. That or you are just very disgruntled or a troll.

I can give you some reasons why people would believe in a god:

-Because they don't like the idea of a death without afterlife.

-As an answer to all things Science can't or won't explain.

-Simply to have hope for the future.

There, some reasons for you. :/

[dunbar9finger]

Thank you for proving me right. You provided three excuses that are not actual reasons to believe something is true. They are reasons to HOPE something is true. That's NOT the same thing (except in the minds of dishonest people who pretend that hoping is the same as believing).

I'm not mixing up my terms just because I hate the inherent dishonesty built in to religion.

[Busterdrag]

@dunbar9finger I see we're never gonna get onto the same terms, especially not with you:

a. Giving me no definition of what "truth" is to you.

b. You seizing a truth monopole here , not even giving me a damn definition of truth and claiming YOU have the ONLY truth avaible.

c. You working under a very tight moral absolutism here.

So I close this discussion now, its not gonna get to a satisfyining end for any of us and has no purpose.

[dunbar9finger]

Stop changing the subject. What I think is true is irrelevant because I was talking about "lying" here, not about "being mistaken". Lying is about intent. One can be saying untrue things and not lying if one is simply mistaken. One can also be trying to be rational an fail at it because of logical error. But what I'm talking about here is the DELIBERATE CHOICE to avoid even trying to be rational by choosing to use faith on purpose. That is dishonest.

[dunbar9finger]

I'm not operating under any more tight morality than you are (unless you're willing to admit that you think lying is okay, then I am). I don't think lying is okay with you - I think that you just fail to comprehend that faith counts as lying. And no I don't think I have the only truth here, but at least on the occasions that I'm mistaken the cause is not me deliberately avoiding even the attempt at honesty by using the mechanism of faith and being proud of it like religious people do.

[TheMiezekater]

@dunbar9finger rationalism can be reconciled with faith in some kind - many people are just too narrow-minded to put these together.

you see, faith is trust, and everybody is motivated by it and it has nothing got to do with guessing. in religion, faith is trusting in god.

you will never trust people you don't know. (most) religious people don't do either, but they know god and that's why the believe in him.

But argueing about that is fruitless work, 'till you get to know him yourself.

[dunbar9finger]

@TheMiezekater Your attempt to conflate trust in a thing with faith that thing exists is not honest. It's not "narrow-minded" to point out the flaw in your claim that to convince one's self that X exists one first begins by trusting X. No. When trusting people, one does not use faith to presume these people exist in the first place like we're illogically expected to do to convince ourselves that a god exists. It doesn't matter whether or not I find Yahweh trustworthy. First he has to exist.

[TheMiezekater]

@dunbar9finger Your argumentation is totally right. Proving god without you knowing him is as pointless as reasoning the existence of specific feelings, thoughts or fabulous creatures. I even cannot prove you the existence of any cousin of mine, even if I got you a photograph. On the one hand, it's a matter of willing to believe a thing and on the other hand, there are ways to find out. They may be time consuming or fruitless, but if a thing exists, you can probably find out.

best wishes

[dunbar9finger]

@TheMiezekater I still don't think you understood me. You CAN in fact prove to me (if it was worth the effort) that your cousin or any other human being you're asking me to trust, exists. Christians often make the false analogy that believing in god is like trusting your wife. It isn't. The first time you met her, that was evidence she existed. Your trust in her came after that. You didn't say "First I'll trust this alleged wife and then because I did that I'll obtain evidence she exists."

[TheMiezekater]

@dunbar9finger I never said that trusting comes first. that would be very plain. And no, I ment proving by simply explaining that anybody exists, because otherwise you can't compare it with proving the existence of god. You need to share expierences with god to get to know him. I'd never say: "Oh there's a god. Hm, let's believe all he says." And as you denied, it's in fact similar to meeting one's future wife. But why do I argue? It's like talking about aliens.

[dunbar9finger]

@TheMiezekater You didn't say trusting comes first but you did try to say that it's like the existence of your cousin, which it is exactly the argument you are now claiming you weren't making. If that's not the argument you were making, then why did you try to insert the line "I even cannot prove to your the existence of any cousin of mine"? That's incorrect. You CAN - and that's why the analogy that believing in god is like trusting an actual human is a massive failure.

[dunbar9finger]

@dunbar9finger The thing you keep seeming to miss here is that what I object to is using trust in god as evidence for god existing - the whole "believe with all your heart and he will show himself to you" sort of bullshit, which is no different from your : get to know him better so you'll see that he exists, sort of garbage. A person, or being's existence is not something they can be blamed or credited for, so the idea that it has anything to do with their personality is junk thinking.

[TheMiezekater]

@dunbar9finger No ;D I didn't say that. You see, first trusting me that my cousin exists would be naive. That's the same with god. And I said: "simply explaining that (my cousin) exists", is no evidence for his existence. SO, you see, I can NOT prove anything to you by talking about it. You two people need to meet each other or telephone - and this needs "stepping" towards the other. And no, I said the same: Someone's existence doesn't make me like or trust him. I already said that..

[dunbar9finger]

@TheMiezekater This is better than what you said before, where you claimed "I even cannot prove to you the existence of any cousin of mine". That's very different from saying that you CAN but it has to be on more than just your say-so. Can you see the difference between those statements?

And, by the way, No, I haven't found any evidence of a god despite trying a lot when I was younger. As usual, the theist implication that people don't believe because they haven't tried is pure bullshit.

[SGSOLDAT]

das lied ist im sich eine schade... für die ganze freiheitsbewegung !!!...

das lied soll keiner religions hintergrunds kacke verwendet werden

[Esquape]

mein gott

[Brachiale]

i like that they show these songs in the US but i think it they have done well but still they should have made a better translations of the text

[chuckrkrk]

This slut talks shit. It was written in the 18th century.

[roumeaz]

marvelous ..

i love the vine especially my girl

she does above all pleases the most

by a glas vine i do sit not alone

me girl is with me

[Herzogvanwerden]

It is from 1780. Nice interpretation. In german it sounds quiet better.

Kind regards from Germany.

[treborilla]

(I´m not a big fan of tranlating and singing english songs in(to) german but here it´s the other way around. I think the english version is awful. There´s so much more words/expressions in the original german version that you wouln´t find in the english language. I feel the power, energy and strenth of the words got lost.)

[treborilla]

Sonst kein Freund davon seiend, ursprünglich englische Lieder auf deutsch zu singen, habe ich es mal andersrum. Ich finde die englische Version furchtbar. Es gibt einfach viel mehr Wörter/Ausdrücke in der deutschen Original Version, die gibt es im Englischen gar nicht. Ich finde dir Kraft der Wörter ging hier verloren.

[kiruz84]

absolut richtig, furchtbar ist ein sehr gut gewählter ausdruck. das klingt wie plastik, wenn du weißt was ich mein ;-) boa da könnt ich kotzen echt, so schlecht find ich das. klavierbegleitung geht so... halt so ala hollywood.. nicht um sonst: VOLKSLIED. fazit: HORRIBLE

[Silberwoelfin89]

aw I had no idea that this song was also sung in english^^

very cute, very special lyrics.

[bowenwen1992]

Also, 1 more thing I want to say.

Religions are really the source of majority of conflicts. Look at history of events and you will realize that. Problem with religion is that it limit your thoughts, it creates a cage for yourself, and it blind your vision of other people's opinions. So, be open mind.

[mycremona]

One last comment, be careful, Satan was the first free thinker, so free thinking isn't necessarily all good.

[bowenwen1992]

well, I don't think God against Satan's free thinking. If God in anyways limit anyone's thought, God would be doomed to the level of Satan. And I glad God did not limit anyone's thought, because you and I can think whatever we want.

I believe thoughts are absolutely free without any of bonds. Thoughts are different from action, thoughts can never hurt anyone. For long your action does not harm anything, who care what you thinks, good or bad, no matter.

[mycremona]

Can I have my free thoughts and disagree with you too? Because you lost faith, everyone else must too? I reject your dogma too.

... und diese ist auch meine freie Gedanken.

[stephan19]

jau schön dass dieses besondere Lied bis in anglophone Welten vordringt =)

Vorallem der lustige Akzent :)

[GeilerRitter]

i think it is a good work and that the comment of BadischerDragoner is fucking stupid

Gerade eine Übersetzung und in diesem Fall auch eine Uminterpretation und Erweiterung ist im Geiste dieses Liedes du Null!

[paulatwe]

The poor sod probably never gave thought to the pitfalls of translating (especially in the case of poetry) into another language but Baadisch. Not English, ou Français, Lakota he /hwo, ni Italiano, Español, of Nederlands.

#"verlässt du mich, ersetz ich dich,ich hab' dein Duplikat, du bleibst mir erspart..."#

[BadischerDragoner]

Let German traditional songs be German! -.-

It seems that you don't know ANYTHING about what's behind this song!

[waerloga2]

it seems _you_ dont get it. the message is universal, it doesnt matter in which language its sung.

[waerloga2]

okay, that would have been my answer if the religious content would not have changed the whole content. ;)

[BadischerDragoner]

Of course, the message is universal. But I alway get angry when people are using stuff for aims, which are not meant with it!

[waerloga2]

thats correct, but the language really doesnt matter... :)

[Tinamsch]

In dieser Version gefällt mir das Lied auch sehr gut. Danke

[AmvC]

How do you dare filling up this wonderful song with your own dogma! How can you talk about freedom and then proclaim about how there's no heaven and no hell and no angels and whatsoever? Let others have their freedom as well and don't try to bring them to your thinking. Thank you. (i'm not a christian but i seem to love freedom much more than you do)

Besides: Reason kills freedom, doesn't it? Give someone enough reason to hurt or kill someone and he'll do it (see 2nd world war).

[aajoeyjo]

AmvC Religion is the biggest most successful reason to do harm. Reason would prevent that.

[songsforyou00]

very nice - very lovely arrangement!