It's a certain point about the nature of influence, mixed in with an obvious joke. In either case, you need to know the history involved; I didn't really think it was so obscure.
(The trick is trying to understand how it wasn't "Under Pressure". It was either a direct cop or cryptomnesia, and if we pretend to not understand the latter, then we can also argue those queers never influenced him. Talk to artists about who influenced their work; you might find it a surprisingly deep conversation compared to not being influenced by common elements in the culture around you. More directly, it would seem we need to invent a new valence of non-influence, just for atheists. Or maybe just for you? It's always a challenge to figure out side questions in the face of paradox; like the bit where any number of atheists want to behave similarly, but nobody should draw any conclusions from that fact. It's an unfunny aping of Christianists. Meanwhile, most of the atheists here have been influenced by Athanasius. Pretty much anyone discussing in a Christian, pseudo-Christian, or post-Christian context was. Somewhere between faint echoes of sixteen hundred plus years ago, and Rob Van Winkle telling people to not believe what they were hearing over and over again, we can find the approximate distinction by which years of common rhetoric and behavior displayed by diverse people who happen to be atheists have nothing to do with each other or any other common element between these individuals, but that rule only applies to atheists and can't be applied to anybody else. There is a part of me that says, yeah, I get what these people want me to believe, and how it works; then there is the part of me that recalls living experience, and it reminds this idea of non-influence appears pretty unique compared to human social behavior.)