jazzypaul

What is your stance on magic leprachauns? I personally believe in magic leprechauns. I can give you my reasons for thinking that magic leprechauns exists, and you can tell me why they don't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there are no magic leprechauns. If this seems silly to you, understand that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is absurd because you cannot prove the non-existance of magic leprechauns. Hey, if you want to believe in magic leprechauns, who am I to stop you? Revel in your faith, dude. You can't be serious. Do people expect articles and pledges to save their soul, help their spirits, or what-have-you? The fact that you're likening passion for faith exposes your own disrespect for logic, faith, or both. Does anyone expect an article or pledge to save a soul? Of course not, and I wasn't even going there. And passion and faith are not one in the same, but passion and worship are kind of intrinsically linked. Without passion, worship is just lip service, and with it, it is a very powerful thing. Your worship of no god is indeed a quite powerful thing. It's done some good things (keeping religion out of the public sector, for one...), just as the worship of the Judeo-Christian God by his followers has done some good things as well. The only logic that my ideas don't fit is a logic that bends and sways to fit your viewpoint. Your whole take on greed proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. We're having a conversation. Stop projecting. Evangelism is spreading ideas and trying to get people to convert or conform. This is different than discussion, debate, and sharing information. I feel sorry for you if you can't see the difference. In a debate, you are trying to share your side of the issue, whilst trying to either pull the other side to your side, or the people watching in the audience to your side. That's pretty much the same thing as your very own definition of evangelism. Yes, there is some discussion and sharing of differing of viewpoints going on here, but you've been far too passionate about your ideas to simply call it a discussion. You're trying to disprove and discredit Christianity. And for what? Certainly not for simply the fun of doing it. Even from a humanist point of view, it certainly wins you no points to break the spirit of a person by discrediting their faith, right? So, what's the only other reason that you would bring up the issue with as much venom as you've mustered? I can't think of any other reason than atheistic evangelism...trying to convince others to join you and your point of view. And given what others have said about atheism in this discussion, isn't the better plan of action to sit back and laugh at us silly religious types? Instead, you jump up and down whining like a little girl who just got her Barbie taken away from her about the evils of Christianity. The same way that Jerry Falwell does when things don't go his way. And while Jerry Falwell is an embarrasment to America and Christianity both in his fundametalism, he is what, again? Oh, that's right, he's an evangelist. I never said that the ideas were alike at all. You do know the english language, do you not? I said that we were alike because we both had faith, both worship and both evangelize. I never said that our belief systems were even remotely close. You got any Grant Green that I haven't heard before? B-)

Dude! Ganesh (like all those Hundu dietys) is just another of the many faces of God. Just like Jesus and many others. It's the way they see cosmos. God is everywhere, a concept that I haven't heard in the Christian world since I was in Bible class as a child. speak for yourself. I totally believe in the idea that God is everywhere. He's everywhere that you can find unadulterated joy: In Ronnie Foster's solo on It's Your Thing, in the roar of an old Vette when you step on the gas, in the sky when you can see stars for miles and miles, in the fields when you see flowers in colors you didn't know existed... The way that the hindi dieties had been described to me (by a hindi) was much along the same line as the catholic saints: there is one big god that we all know and love, and then you pray to certain deities for certain things. That would make Ganesh his own bad self, among a crowded field of other dieties.

Wow, I get to respond to a few at once here... 1) Atheism isn't a religion? Hmmm, let's try this again, shall we? What are the fundamental points of religion? Faith, worship and evangelism, right? a) Faith is believing in something without totally being able to prove it. You cannot prove that there isn't a god anymore than I can really prove that there is one. I can give you my reasons for thinking that God exists, and you can tell me why He doesn't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there is no god. (the circular logic that the guy in that article attempted was just that. Circular logic.) side note: that article mentions Ganesh. Is Ganesh a god? Yes. People pray to it, we know what Ganesh looks like, there is no doubting that there is a Ganesh. I can point to Ganesh in a book and say, that's Ganesh. But, do I believe that Ganesh is anything more than a "god with wooden legs?" Nope. Just because it's a god doesn't make it GOD. That's the difference. b) When you worship something, you give it praise, you exclaim it mightier or better than all else. Look at the way Alexander drooled over a poorly written article that is not backed up by modern historical thinking! (Even the two atheists on the panel of the Jesus Seminar acknowledge the existence of a "historical Christ") Look at the fervor that is exuded trying to get something as inane as the Pledge of Allegiance modified. Anybody expending that kind of energy to banish God is, in essence, worshipping their no god in the same way that we as Christian are worshipping God when we do things that are pleasing to Him. And your efforts to demean Christianity are just as pleasing to your no god, I promise you. c) Evangelism is taking your beliefs to the streets. Ask Alexander and his article on whether or not Christ existed about that one. Reading it and keeping it to yourself is one thing; trying to put it out there with the idea in mind that you might bring someone to your side of the table is evangelism. So, you're trying to spread your unprovable faith that there is no god through evangelism. So, Skid, we're probably a lot more alike than you think. Our gods might be different, but make no mistake, man, we're still doing what we feel is right by our gods. You'll preach here about the virtues of Humanism, and I'll preach about My God being a mighty and powerful God who is great in all ways, to whom I am grateful for his blessings, and that I get them even though I am certainly not the best Christian on the planet, or the best human on the planet, or even my block. So, being that we are so alike, we should most certainly work on being more unified, shouldn't we? Got any Grant Green that I haven't heard yet? B-)

Skid, I think you missed a few of the points I was trying to make. Some of them simple, and some of them not so much... "insert name of real atheist organization here" was simply put in because I know there is no charitable organization called "atheists international." That's all. Reading Earthward's website, I got the distinct feeling that if a church was burning down in their neighborhood (for example), they wouldn't exactly be doing anything to help. That's what a charity does, it helps where help is needed, not where you deem help necessary. What I meant by a real atheist organization however is an organization that functions in the same realm as a Red Cross, United Way, March of Dimes or Salvation Army that gathers themselves under the flag of atheism. Not a "charitable organization" that only helps out likeminded causes. Yes, those exist in the Christian world as well, and I think just as little of them. And a good cause by a non-religious person was not what I was getting at. Chrome seemed upset that I mentioned that there are Christian organizations doing good throughout the world, and I simply wanted to know where their atheist counterparts were. So, an organization that is simply non-religious as opposed to atheist doesn't answer my question. (as I have stated before, non-religious simply means a lack of acknowledgement of God, atheism is the religion of no god. There is a difference...) And, you know what, I might have possibly completely missed his/her point. It happens, you know. And I'll always be the first to admit it when I'm wrong. But one thing that really drove me up a wall was this... What this essentially says is, "if they were preaching to the homeless, I wouldn't give to them." Really? Some place is offering food and shelter to those who are less fortunate, and you're going to withhold funds from them because they're teaching the word of God? That's mighty heartless, isn't it? If they're doing good for a community, and doing even the smallest amount of good to raise their community up, then it's worthy. End of story. No argument. Any argument of the issue says more about you than it ever could about the charity in question.

From my perspective, fighting religion is very low on my list of organizing principles. If I was a militant atheist, well, perhaps I would spent time setting up an atheist hospital and an atheist school system. But to me that very militancy is a sign that religion has a disproportionate impact on your life. I would think about religion very little if it weren't for the success of the religious right in trying to impose their views on me. Again, from my perspective, I simply don't see the point in setting up competing charities so long as there is a reasonably good charity out there that seems to come from a secular humanist base (which many do), or a progressive base (Hull House for example) or even a big-tent approach to Christianity. Do I really need to set up Atheists for the Environment to compete with the Sierra Club? I give regularly to a Chicago soup kitchen; since they do not proselytize while handing out food, it doesn't concern me if some of the workers are Christian. Now the exception I would make would be if I lived in an area where there were only Catholic hospitals and health care providers. Then I would feel an obligation to build a non-Catholic hospital that had a broader range of services. Competing charities? Are you kidding me? Are there still hungry people in the world? If so, then one, or two, or ten charities are not enough. Is AIDS still rampant in Africa? Then there's not enough being done. Is poaching of endangered species still a problem? Then there's not enough being done. It's not like there's a Hull House in every city, or even a Pacific Garden Mission or Rainbow Center. There's still a need for more charity and giving in the world. I would like to see the majority of that charity done by Christian organizations, not to be missionaries and force our beliefs upon others, but rather so that people can see faith in action. But that's me. Different Strokes for different folks, right? Funny how the libertarian around here is the one talking about the increased need for charity, and the liberals are saying that there's no need for more charity. It's funny that so many here feel no problems with calling Christianity any number of things, but as soon as the atheists get called to the mat, I'm a hypocrite. It's quite strange that good deeds done with the most divisive of all motives are supposed to be applauded, but Christians that provide real charity to people in need are scumbags trying to trap the poor and defenseless. It's time to look around people. It's time to start thinking about the wedges that we're driving between us. It's time to start doing more listening and less talking. I agree that the fundamental branch of Christianity is doing irrepairable damage to itself, Christianity at large and the country. But trying to get any of the atheists here to simply acknowledge that the teachings of Jesus do indeed have merit is like pulling teeth. It's time for everyone to shut up and think before opening one's mouth (or post). Shrdlu's constant preaching is completely annoying. My ranting probably gets on quite a few people's nerves as well. But that's no worse than cheap shots being taken by Alexander and Take 5 and others. If there is to be an open dialogue, questions and answers are one thing, but thoughtless swipes are another. If we want an open dialogue, I'm down, but if this is just going to be a parade of people trying to prove that they're smarter than their religious counterparts, this is going to get tired really fast.

Earthward The Fred Hollows Foundation And of course (as Chrome already pointed out), there's a whole bunch of secular charities that do wonderful work as well. Points to make here: 1) Earthward is doing some good work. I will agree with them that the Islamic countries would be better governed by secular governments. All countries should be governed by secular governments. And I will agree that stepping in to thwart congregations who believe that children should only be allowed to be healed by supernatural powers is necessary. But, the original question was this: when have we seen "atheists international" (obviously, insert name of real atheist organization here) up and go to Africa, or Alabama for that matter, to go feed the hungry and heal the sick? Earthbound certainly isn't doing that. Instead, they're calling what they do charity when what it really amounts to is PR for the atheist movement. Everything that they're undertaking has an alterior motive. That's not really awe inspiring. They may be good works, but it's not charity for charity's sake. At which point, it's empty anyway. 2) Fred Hollows is indeed doing some great work in Australia. And it's great that his foundation is. But they're not exactly putting their atheism at the top of their webpage. 3) Secular foundations and atheist foundations are two separate things. When something is secular, they're simply not bringing God to the table. Atheist foundations are basing the cornerstone of their existence on the idea that God does not exist. There's a huge difference there. So, please, keep bringing them out. But, in the meantime, you've still yet to show me an organization whose very cornerstone is atheism that is out there doing charitable work for the simple purpose of helping mankind.

I don't have time for a full repsonse, but I guess it depends on how you're looking at things ... you weren't, in fact, JUST pointing out the good that Christians are doing ... you also had to take a "mean-spirited" swipe at atheists, too. I didn't mean to actually defend Take 5 so much as point out your apparent hypocrisy here. here is the difference my dear Chrome... Take 5 says some downright cruel things which cannot be proven about Christianity. They were cruel on their face, cruel in their spirit and cruel in their intention. I counter with something that is VERY true: when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry? Umm, that would be never. That makes me a hypocrite? That's strange. There's nothing hypocritical about it. if anything, it makes you far more of a hypocrite than me. Why? Simple. As an atheist, you're supposed to be smarter, fairer and more balanced than me, a simpleton that believes in a big God up in the sky that made everything. Yet, with all of your supposed balance, you get upset when somebody points out the very real fact that we've yet to see a charity that gathers its troops under the idea of atheism. Instead of jumping up and down defending someone that has the cuth of a swarm of angry hornets, you should be attempting to prove me wrong. But you haven't. Instead, you feel the need to label my statement in a way that is most certainly, at the very least, misleading. So, once again, learn to read what I write instead of what you think. Then let's debate.

There are plenty of people of all religions AND no religion who do good in this world ... no one group should get any special billing. Why do you feel the need to take a swipe at people who have different beliefs than you (atheists)? Aren't you doing just what you're castigating Take 5 for? Chrome, I don't see how you could get that out of what I said. Let me clarify, to make sure that you understand... Take 5 said... and Should I not defend my faith? And that is, sir, MY faith. I cannot speak for the muslims or hindus or buddhists, as I am not one, and I would be out of place to do so. However, I am a Christian, and yes, I will point out that when we follow Christ's teachings and keep our focus on what Christ did and why Christ did it, that we, as a group, are capable of some pretty cool stuff, through Him. Isn't it funny that Take 5 can take a downright mean spirited swipe at my religion and my God, and the good that we attempt to do, and it's fine. But when I point out that we are indeed doing good in the world, Chrome is there within 10 minutes to decry the points that I make? Chrome, when you come to my defense as quickly as you came to Take 5's, we'll talk about the fairness of the issue. Until then, learn to read what people type before you attack it, please.

Way to build bridges and form communities Take 5. Your argument is as tired as the song that your nickname honors. Seriously...what's the point of your post? You're yet another guy taking an empty swipe at Christianity. Because you only look at the harm that has been done by legalistic chumps that do more to harm us than help us, you forget that there are Christians that follow The Bible that do much good, day in and day out. But what about the Christians that run food pantries, homeless shelters and drug treatment centers? Are they evil scumbags, too? How about all of the white churches that joined the fight for civil rights throughout the south in the late 50's and early 60's? I am assuming that they're evil too, right? And those missionaries that you so quickly take aim at ARE indeed helping people, giving them shelter, food and education. When was the last time that "Athiests International" got together and did such things? For those of us who take the Word of God seriously, we bristle at the idea of the Falwells, Robertsons and Bushes of the world. They do God no favors, they do their religion no favors, and they do humanity at large no favors. And yet, you, in your blindness to the world around you, seem quite willing to lump anyone that respects Jesus Christ as their lord and savior together. I might be dumb for following, as you call it, a cult, but you're twice as dumb for not knowing the whole of that which you criticize. You would do well to read the book that you're so willing to slam. You would do well to seek out the Christians (few as they are, sadly) that shine with the light of Christ, as the quakers might put it. See if that doesn't at least run somewhat contrary to what you're so quick to think about us. And, this might be of help to you as well...liberal christians...yes, we exist... If you're going to say you disagree with something, at least do it with some class. We should expect better of each other here, shouldn't we?

she would, ahem, look so much better on the arm of a certain pudgy jazz drummer from Chicago...

yeah, that's rough, having to play well written music. I hate that too.

don't worry, I'm all done. go ahead...

Yep, they bill themselves as the Deep Blue Organ Trio. The occasional Tuesday night when I can convince myself to do the Blue Line/Red Line/Red Line/Blue Line/70 Bus thing to get up there and back, I go, and it is always awesome. Chris Foreman, in the vernacular of today's youth, is the poop.

so, how was the show?

To answer Pete C, this is why it was great... People loved it. People connected to it. Why do people love Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan, who were both terribly overated? Because people can feel a connection with them. And that's totally a solo for the masses. But a damn good solo for the masses...

For the last 50 years of composition, you can't just call Lennon/McCartney Rock writers. That was their form, but their music has obviously transcended the boundaries of just Rock. Look at the huge numbers of great jazz versions of Beatles tunes out there. And, Robert Walter's live version of Instant Karma is pretty damn well bad ass as well. Stevie Wonder's only gotten one mention. That's downright sad. Sangry once again proves his wisdom on this board. Stevie's use of harmony is at least as complex as about 95% of the jazzers of the world. And his songs are just downright excellent. While we're speaking of modern funk and R&B guys, how about Prince? Another monster songwriter, and most certainly deserving of more nod's than just mine. Wayne Shorter would get a definite nod. His string of Blue Note albums in the 60's produced nothing but future standards. Gotta love me some Wayne. Becker/Fagen? Absolutely great. Their worst songs trump most other songwriters' best works, and their best stuff deserves to be listed along with the absolute best of the best, no matter the time period. Paul Simon is another one. Just try naming one Paul Simon song that you can't hum. Radiohead, too. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then lately, at least in the jazz world, these guys are getting flattered (lol) left and right. Mehldau is certainly no slouch as a player and his choice of songs usually borders on the sublime. So seeing him record 3 or 4 radiohead tunes throughout his recorded career should say quite a bit. Okay, that's my $0.02...

Dan: Rocky Marciano DID indeed retire with a perfect record, and was still sharp as a tack in the last interview that I had seen of him. Joe Frazier has far more on the ball than people give him credit for. Not to mention, he practically invented a fighting style (the duck and weave...I've never seen anyone do it the way he did). The sad thing about Frazier is that it was Frazier who got Ali a career again, and then Ali did everything he could to destroy Joe. It was truly a sad situation, and Joe deserved better. Rocky Graziano was kinda the Forrest Gump of the boxing community. Nuff said. and both Sugar Rays were just absolutely the shit. I take it I'm in the minority here as a boxing enthusiast...

There are quite a few exceptions to this rule. But, make no mistake, it is the rule. That said... Rocky Marciano (the heavyweight) Rocky Grazziano (the middleweight) (sp?) Sugar Ray Leonard Sugar Ray Robinson Joe Frazier and quite a few others. Unfortunately, for every one of them, there's a hundred Ali's. His has to be the saddest story of all...

Be glad you don't have a VW. That's all I can add to this conversation. I love my VW, but I hate the fact that it spends more time in the shop than in my driveway. You do have it better than in Chicago, however. State sticker, city sticker and neighborhood sticker are all yearly expenses. I have to deal with this on two cars. Uggh...

Maybe it's the fact that I'm a drummer. Maybe it's the fact that my ears simply work. But, man, how dare you guys? Tony played louder. He did not bash. He still played traditional grip, and he still used his chops for the greater good. The albums with Holdsworth are kinda blah to my ears, but the quintet stuff of the 80's and 90's? That's phat. The last trio record? Amazing. The Tribute to Miles and the VSOP stuff? First rate. And Tony at his most musical in the 70's? Captain Marvel by Stan Getz. Just because there's a Rhodes doesn't make it bad. I promise.

yep. Mini-disc once again proves itself to be manna from God. you can make fairly decent recordings from the room, and you can hear enough to make value judgements. I figure stuff out all the time about how I play, and how to make it better.

no, it's all about the music. which is why he's a saint.

Hilariously, there are a slew of tambourine/shaker appearances by Garvin Masseaux on some of the earthier BN sessions of the 60's. And, yeah, Feelin' the Spirit is the bomb.

my company has a nice deal worked out with Joe where we can go for free on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the week. I'll be there every Wednesday for the next couple of months. I love the showcase. I love even more that it's only a train ride away.

I dunno. I have two drumsets. One Yamaha Maple Custom, that I got used because it was played on for 40 minutes by Yoron Israel at the Chicago Jazz Fest about 4 years ago. Very nice drumset indeed. The drums resonate like mad, they're built very well, they sound great, and they look beautiful. However. My favorite set, and the one that I play on gigs unless looks matter is my practice kit. A $230 drumset that was meant for smaller kids who needed smaller drums. Turns out that the smaller kit is a 18" bass drum, 14" floor tom, 10" rack and a 5x13 snare. I don't even know the brand name. The drums don't resonate, they're practically made out of particle board and they look like shit. But tuned correctly, I can get them to sound exactly like Bill Stewart's kit, they stay in tune, they're easy to set up and tear down, and every drummer that has ever played them absolutely loves them. So, does the instrument make the difference? Yes. Is the nicest or most expensive instrument always the one that you want to play? Nope.