church music

I wonder if that one is on Brick Testament. That site is what got me through Bible as Lit, besides the fact that my teacher was awesome. 

http://www.thebricktestament.com/
 
I've played for a few churches.. Guitar and Bass.. both acoustic and electric on the guitar.. good times.
Just my 2 cents.
 
Ah, into the fray.  As I said before, I was brought up Jewish... but I'm a strong atheist and have been my whole life.  I think exalted said it best.  Believing in Allah or Jesus is exactly as absurd as believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.  Believing in some more abstract notion of god is a whole lot less absurd, but it still constitutes intellectual surrender.  Attributing things you don't understand to "god" is giving up on figuring those things out for yourself.
 
Do you honestly think you're going to be able to figure out what happens after you die while you're still alive?

I am totally open to finding out the secrets of the universe.  However, since there is no proof that god does not exist, I'm not going to rule it out. 
 
I'm an atheist and I haven't ruled anything out. I haven't ruled anything in either. :laughing7:

I'll take some inspiration from Ronald Reagan and say that beliefs are stupid things, unlike facts. :laughing11:
 
hannaugh said:
Do you honestly think you're going to be able to figure out what happens after you die while you're still alive?

I am totally open to finding out the secrets of the universe.  However, since there is no proof that god does not exist, I'm not going to rule it out. 

No, because I honestly know what will happen after I die.

I will be cremated, and my ashes will do the same thing any ashes do - be ashy.

Why do you think anything magical happens after you die? Is it because someone implanted the idea into your head, or because death is a scary concept?


And furthermore, it is impossible to prove a negative. Try proving to me that Leprechauns don't exist. Or that there isn't an invisible moon orbiting earth. Or that there is no such thing as 'god'.

All three are equally impossible. The burden of proof lies with the claimant - not its detractors.
 
I don't know why this thread turned into what it did.. BUT I like the idea of an invisible moon..  :toothy12:
 
you would be able to detect the moon by it's gravitational pull on the earth just like they do for planets orbiting distant suns.

Brian
 
Where is Sir Schmoopy with his Flying Spaghetti Monster avatar?

The FSM is probably the greatest advance in antireligious thought since Nietzsche...
 
bpmorton777 said:
you would be able to detect the moon by it's gravitational pull on the earth just like they do for planets orbiting distant suns.

Brian

True, but for the sake of argument (and in the true spirit of theism), let's assume that the normal laws of nature don't apply here.
 
I like the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument :p
They know it's invisible because you can't see it. They believe it's pink, though.
 
IPU and FSM are indeed quite amusing - and insightful. Both were derived from Russell's Teapot.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
 
exalted said:
IPU and FSM are indeed quite amusing - and insightful. Both were derived from Russell's Teapot.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Awesome, thanks exalted  :guitarplayer2:
 
exalted said:
hannaugh said:
Do you honestly think you're going to be able to figure out what happens after you die while you're still alive?

I am totally open to finding out the secrets of the universe.  However, since there is no proof that god does not exist, I'm not going to rule it out. 

No, because I honestly know what will happen after I die.

I will be cremated, and my ashes will do the same thing any ashes do - be ashy.

Why do you think anything magical happens after you die? Is it because someone implanted the idea into your head, or because death is a scary concept?


And furthermore, it is impossible to prove a negative. Try proving to me that Leprechauns don't exist. Or that there isn't an invisible moon orbiting earth. Or that there is no such thing as 'god'.

All three are equally impossible. The burden of proof lies with the claimant - not its detractors.

Who says god or souls are magical?  I think it could be a force more than anything else, like a part of nature.  I think whatever happens to your consciousness when you die (whether it goes somewhere else or it stops altogether) is natural, not supernatural.  I'm just saying we don't understand it, there is a lot we don't know, and it could be something very weird that many would consider "supernatural" or "magical". 

I'm not firmly devoted to any belief or system of beliefs, but I keep my mind open to all possibilities.  I would not be at all surprised if somehow we found out 100% that there is no god or afterlife (well, I would be surprised because we found out, but I wouldn't be surprised that there was nothing there).  I enjoy believing in a larger consciousness to the universe rather than "it all happened by accident", so I tend to lean slightly in that direction, but I am fully prepared to change my ideas if I observe something that points me in a different direction.  I just think it's crazy to firmly believe that there is nothing unseen and bizarre that is beyond our comprehension, or really to be married to one idea about any of it period. 
 
By the power given to me by the holee bejebus, I bring the dead to life.

I have a bit of a dilemma. I've joined a worship group, and the head wants me to have solos. I've always felt that they were cheesy at best in a worship setting and detracted from the meaning of the song. I feel that a solo is the guitarists time to show off, and that seems to defeat the purpose.

At the same time, the singer is certain that each song needs a guitar solo, and he's in a position of authority over me. I don't want to disrespect him by refusing to solo, but I'm conflicted. Am I over thinking things?

I don't care if you're christian, muslim, atheist, pastaferian, any advice helps.
 
You're over-thinking it. A solo is not necessarily a grandstand, it's a more complex treatment of the melody by a single instrument, perhaps a break for a slight departure to change or focus the mood/message, which eventually returns to the main theme.
 
ಠ_ಠ said:
By the power given to me by the holee bejebus, I bring the dead to life.

I have a bit of a dilemma. I've joined a worship group, and the head wants me to have solos. I've always felt that they were cheesy at best in a worship setting and detracted from the meaning of the song. I feel that a solo is the guitarists time to show off, and that seems to defeat the purpose.

At the same time, the singer is certain that each song needs a guitar solo, and he's in a position of authority over me. I don't want to disrespect him by refusing to solo, but I'm conflicted. Am I over thinking things?

I don't care if you're christian, muslim, atheist, pastaferian, any advice helps.

I am of a similar mind when it comes to worship music or vocal driven songs in general. If I were in your shoes, I would play a very unpretentious, melodic solo with little or no guitar wizardry. It fills the void left by the lack of vocals but keeps you from looking like a self gratifying douche nozzle.
 
Exactly. No Steve Vai or Yngwie Malmsteen at The Church of What's Happenin' Now. You want more of a tasteful Carlos Santana/David Gilmour/Gary Moore/Jeff Beck sort of thing, where there are no pyrotechnics, just very deliberate melodic stuff that enhances the whole thing. It may still draw attention to you if you do well, but that's ok. It doesn't mean you're a douche. You're just being asked to enhance things. Doesn't mean you're conceited or a soul-stealer or an egomaniac. It just means there's a job that needs to be done, and you need to do it.
 
Back
Top