Lee

I totally agree with this so I guess I'm more spiritual than 'agnostic'. :lol But I just generally agree with the skepticism that agnosticism preaches (no pun intended). Yeah, I think agnosticism can apply equally to both theists and atheists. You are correct. Since theism and atheism have to do with belief, and agnosticism has to do with knowledge, [a]theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as many people mistakenly believe.

I never quite understood why Jewish people consider themselves a race. At least I don't understand biologically. So you people tend to congregate and marry one another. So what? It's still founded upon beliefs like every other religion is. If you don't believe, you aren't part of that religion. I agree. My family is Jewish, but I don't practice Judaism in any form and don't believe in a god. Therefore, I do not consider myself to be Jewish.

I was gonna say a lot of what Bob just said. You don't have to reach a certain age for your beliefs to be valid. And we all reserve the right to change our minds about anything at any point in our lives. It doesn't matter how many times you change your mind, if you have strong convictions at any given time, then your beliefs are as valid as anyone else's--provided there's no evidence to support arguments on either side, which, in this case, there's isn't. I find that there are two common traps that SOME religious people fall into, which can be kind of insulting to others: 1. The belief that just because religion is extremely important to them, it should be of extreme importance to everyone else. This idea that anyone should read religious sermons or whatever for 2-3 minutes a week...why? Why should bobbob do that any more than Godfather should read 2-3 minutes of quantum mechanics every week? Let bobbob do what he wants. 2. There is some tendency to equate faith with good and non-faith with bad. That's the one that really bothers me. Every time I hear someone complimented as a God-fearing man, I wonder what does that really tell me about this person? Nothing. And yet, to some, this seems like the greatest compliment you can give. I mean, does he live a decent life because he's God-fearing, or because he knows right from wrong? Would he go around smiting people if not for fear of God's reprimand? Whatever, I digress. The point is that non-believers should not be viewed as somehow deficient in character, and yet, sometimes I sense an underlying current of anger towards them in some of these posts. Anyway, as for me, I don't really believe in a God, per se, at least not as a fully conscious entity, as most of the popular organized religions would have it, but I do believe that people are made of more than just a bunch of molecules and chemicals, that our thoughts and actions are more than just the product of chemical interactions. There's something that liberates us from the prison of scientific inevitability, we are in control of our own destinies. So, I guess, in that sense, I'm at least minimally spiritual. But I did mark Jewish. L'chaim! When I see Lee misinterpreting my words that's one thing. I haven't read enough of his writings. But when I see you Mabdul, misinterpreting, then that tells me I'm not expressing myself properly. You're pretty good with reading comprehension. For the record, and to clarify what I said in my initial post in this thread......I believe in God. I leave open the possibility of a deity(just in case :shifty ), but my primary belief is that God exists as the collective soul of humanity. I believe that there's something that exists that's beyond pure science. Beyond our understanding. But I'm hardly a zealot about it. I've said that the sum total of my "religion" encompasses 2-3 minutes a week. And I'm saying that those 2-3 minutes enrich my life. And I'm not judging anyone, prosteletizing, or playing the age card. Anyone here can do what they want. If I'm misinterpreting you, what is your point then? You're just stating that you get something out of 2-3 minutes of reading sermons each week? It seems your deeper implication is that everyone should do the same. Your original post "encourages" those who consider themselves to be agnostics or atheists to do so. In the post I last quoted, you said you feel "sorry" for those who get nothing out of listening to leaders of congregations. You then said for the first 25 years of your life, you didn't get anything out of listening to them either. While it may not be what you meant, that says to me "someday you'll see what I mean." I leave open the possibility of a deity as well. I don't know for sure that there isn't a god out there. But until I see evidence that there is, I cannot believe. I see no point in having faith.

To those that have never heard any words from the leader of a congregation that have given them pause, peace, evoked new thoughts...I'm sorry for you. But I also can't recall any pearls of wisdom from a priest, minister, or Rabbi, in the first 25 years of my life. It happens that I've had a more interesting Rabbi for the last few years. I don't like it when people say things like this. To me, it comes across as "I was once in your position, but now I've matured, and someday you will too," as if my disbelief in a deity and lack of interest in religion is just some phase that I will eventually get past once I "see the light". It isn't. I don't believe in any deities because the concept doesn't logically make sense to me and never will. Therefore, I don't need to be assured that someone is looking out for me and that there is a place for me after I die. I lead a secular life because I feel that religion, in its current form, exists to provide a comfort for people that, due to my disbelief, I don't need or want. To me, there is no difference between listening to the theologies of Judaism or Christianity and reading about the ancient Greek gods. I am glad some people find what they are looking for in religion. But it's not for everybody. And to suggest that one is somehow missing out because he doesn't need it in his life is unfair.

Seeing a band called Moe at Radio City Music Hall. Three sets, five hours. Can't wait.

Why do you need a career, your own family, and a life on your own to formulate an opinion on religion? Seems pretty irrelevant. It's pretty insulting to tell someone their beliefs are only a result of not having lived long enough.

I'd encourage all who consider themselves atheists or agnostics to spend 2-3 minutes each week reading an on-line sermon from whatever faith you want. And devote the same level of concentration and thought to it that you would to analyzing sports, your job, your classes, or anything else that you're passionate about. Why? In the interest of making the most of your life. Expanding your mind. Thinking about things that you normally would never think of. Agree or disagree, it's only 2-3 minutes a week. Why not? Spending a lot more than 2-3 minutes a week reading about, discussing, and pondering religion, spirituality, and existence is how I came to be an atheist in the first place.

I'd encourage all who consider themselves atheists or agnostics to spend 2-3 minutes each week reading an on-line sermon from whatever faith you want. And devote the same level of concentration and thought to it that you would to analyzing sports, your job, your classes, or anything else that you're passionate about. Why?

I'm an atheist.

The real question is, what would MacGruber do?

Navy Florida Atlantic Cincinnati Nevada Boise State TCU Tulsa BYU Central Michigan Oregon State Mississippi State California Georgia Tech Rutgers Arizona State Boston College Connecticut Penn State Alabama Indiana South Florida Kentucky Auburn Tennessee Virginia Missouri Florida USC Georgia Oklahoma Virginia Tech LSU

Juanky- that was a great post.

What, you don't have a urinal in your house?

I think I graduated from high school with him. JC Casely is it? He was always singing at assemblies and talent shows and such and everyone said he was going to be big. I didn't realize he is on the verge of doing so now.

How bout: has anybody ever came into a urinal? Urinal no, bidet HELL YES!

West Virginia Arizona State Oregon USC Hawaii Central Michigan UCF LSU Virginia Tech Oklahoma

Man, if Mizzou loses and Ohio State slips into the MNC, they to me at this point in the season are a lot like UF last year. Both worked their way up to the #1/#2 spot before losing a disappointing game, both sneak in at the last second to play for the title because another team lost, both hearing that they would get killed if they were to play for said title. With the way this season is going, I wouldn't be surprised if OSU whooped the team they were supposed to get blown out by if they were to play for the championship.

West Virginia Auburn Oklahoma Virginia Florida South Carolina Tennessee Boise State Georgia Missouri

Tennessee Georgia Clemson West Virginia Oklahoma North Carolina State Louisville Purdue Michigan State Michigan

Guster doesn't really jam all that much, so I wouldn't put them into this category, but they are great.

*Zing!* Good one!!!! Sooo clever and witty!!!!!! This is the exact stereotype I'm trying to break. I'm guessing you read the title, didn't read anything I wrote, didn't listen to any of the music in the links, and came up with that hilarious quip all by yourself! If you aren't interested, please just don't post.

Count Bass D mentioned that people should do what he did for different genres, and I'm procrastinating packing for Boston, so here goes. I feel like jam bands get a bad rap on this message board and in general. People have this idea that all they are are a bunch of hippies standing on stage noodling around on guitars. I will be the first to admit that some bands do exactly that, and that is what makes the difference between good jam bands and bad ones. Good bands are so well crafted and meticulous with their performance that it does not seem improvised at all. All members are on the same page, changing arrangements, rhythm, key, scale, sometimes even genre simultaneously and seamlessly. When listening to a band that is primarily instrumental based, as jam bands are, you have to approach it differently than you would most typical bands. Obviously, there are not going to be a lot of vocals. In a typical song with vocals, a lot of the emotion and power of that song comes from the arrangement of the vocals over the music and/or the content of the lyrics. With instrumental bands, you get that same emotion and power from the music itself. Maybe this is corny, but with good jam bands, the music speaks to me. I tend to hear vocals as just another instrument anyway, so I don't feel like something is missing when they aren't there. It's just how I interpret music. Generally a jam will begin slowly and build up to a climax, which is why the songs tend to be 7 or 8 minutes long at a minimum. They need time to build. Just as a good symphony, or film, or book. They usually start with a theme that never changes, then go into an improvised jam, and then end again with the beginning theme. The middle part is different at every show. It's also important to note that while jam bands are usually all just lumped together, they are very different from each other. My two favorite bands, Perpetual Groove and String Cheese Incident, sound absolutely nothing like each other. This is because of both instrumentation and style. PGroove, as it is called, stays mostly with heavier, spacy, synthesized, psychedelic rock while Cheese uses bluegrass as a base and wanders off into various styles including southern rock, calypso, reggae, electronic, psychedelic, blues and more. The first band I will introduce is String Cheese Incident because they just recently disbanded after playing together since 1993. There were six members in this band: acoustic guitar, bass, drums, percussion, keys, and electric guitar/mandolin/fiddle/various other instruments. Like most jam bands, most of their songs are long and blend into each other. Which means, the jam from one song will transition into the next song without stopping, so that you might hear two or three songs in 30 or 40 minutes with the band never stopping play once. This is denoted in set lists by Song 1>Song 2 with the ">" indicating a transition. Often there will be a Song 1>Song 2>Song 1 or even something as crazy as Song 1>Song 2>Song 3>Song 2>Song 1. Here is a song from a show in March of 2000 in Oregon. It is called Little Hands. The first two minutes are mellow with vocals. After the verses end, the jam builds up with passionate piano, guitar, and fiddle bits. There are notable "sections" of the song as you will hear if you listen the whole way through (which I recommend). Altogether the thing is about 13 minutes long. Give it a chance. You aren't doing anything else anyway. Great quality audio. http://ia310133.us.archive.org/1/items/sci...10d1t05_vbr.mp3 This next one was played a couple songs after Little Hands at the same concert, and it includes an awesome horn section by Karl Denson and his group, Tiny Universe. It's called Come As You Are. It's a bit longer. http://ia310133.us.archive.org/1/items/sci...10d2t01_vbr.mp3

I have a television pilot script written and collecting dust. It's good. If the writers don't want to work, I will.

Last night's was the best episode of the season. Absolutely hilarious.

I didn't have a costume as of last night and was supposed to wear one to work today, so I cut off the side of a cardboard box, punched two holes in the top, and strung some ribbon through the holes so I could wear it around my neck. Then with a sharpie I wrote in big letters "JAMES EARL JONES" across the front. You would not believe how big of a hit this was. Everyone loved it.