Anti Nu-Metal

[Iceni]

Hmm' date=' I wonder if you and I hate any of the same things! [/quote'] I think we both dislike spiritualism, proselytizing, 'agnosticism', bad art, relativism and poor logic.

[JBaker]

I think we both dislike spiritualism' date=' proselytizing, 'agnosticism', bad art, relativism and poor logic.[/quote'] Well, I rather the like the 1st, 3rd and (occasionally) the 4th thing you mentioned. In all seriousness, it seems kind of strange to me not to listen to a certain song/band because you can't identify 100% with the sentiments being expressed. I love my mum, but that doesn't instantly mean I'm gonna avoid a song just because the artist is bashing theirs (although this rarely arises given there are fewer songs like this than the nu metal-bashers would have you believe and such a song is likely to be shit, anyway).

[Iceni]

In all seriousness' date=' it seems kind of strange to me not to listen to a certain song/band because you can't identify 100% with the sentiments being expressed.[/quote'] I should clarify that I also hate their vocals, it's not just the lyrics.

[JBaker]

I should clarify that I also hate their vocals' date=' it's not just the lyrics.[/quote'] So, if you loved the vocals, would the lyrics still stop you listening to them?

[Iceni]

So' date=' if you loved the vocals, would the lyrics still stop you listening to them?[/quote'] Maybe. I don't even necessarily mind anti-establishment lyrics, but DevilDriver's really rub me the wrong way. I love the music of Cryptopsy, Akercocke and Doomsword but I will not listen to them because I don't like the lyrics.

[FatherAlabaster]

Re: Nu Metal (Yes/no)

I think we both dislike spiritualism' date=' proselytizing, 'agnosticism', bad art, relativism and poor logic.[/quote'] Depending on your definitions of agnosticism (which I see as an uninformative truism rather than a philosophy of life) and relativism (a disdain for which often conceals cultural bigotry), I'd agree.

[Iceni]

I take that definition of agnosticism, yes. My definition of relativism posits the equal validity of all values and ideas, regardless of how seemingly immoral they are.

[Sinful Tranquility]

Are we talking about religion now?

[Iceni]

Are we talking about religion now?

It happens.

[Atrocity]

Somehow, we always end up talking about religion

[JBaker]

You asked for it putting the thread in 'deep and meaningful'

[JBaker]

I take that definition of agnosticism, yes. My definition of relativism posits the equal validity of all values and ideas, regardless of how seemingly immoral they are.

My personal (and probably too simplistic) take on agnosticism is that it basically means admitting we don't really know of there's a God(s) or not and so it is best not to make one's mind up one way or the other as there's little in the way of 'proof' either way. This idea doesn't strike me as particularly silly.

[Iceni]

The thing about agnosticism is that I'd think it'd be a given. Nobody is omniscient but that's no reason not to at least have a working hypothesis.

[JBaker]

The thing about agnosticism is that I'd think it'd be a given. Nobody is omniscient but that's no reason not to at least have a working hypothesis.

I think there are plenty of religious and non-religious people who claim to *know* what they believe to be true. As an agnostic, all you're really saying is you don't have the means of making enough of an educated guess about the origins of the universe etc. for there to be much point taking one 'side' over the other.

[FatherAlabaster]

Re: Nu Metal (Yes/no) I don't like polarized discussions, so I've tried to maintain a respectful tone whenever we do discuss theology. It's more important to me to use this forum, and music in general, as a bridge between all of us, than to go around being divisive... at least most of the time. On the face of it, Iceni and I (for instance) are doomed to fundamental disagreements. I find it interesting that he seems willing to entertain thoughts about evolution, the apparent age of the planet/universe, and other essentially scientific hypotheses - because many people who share his faith seem to be content with accepting the constellation of beliefs that are widely assumed to go along with that faith, even if they're not logically connected. I think there are at least a few issues that don't hinge on one another. For instance, the notion that the universe was created by an intelligent being and the idea of an "afterlife" aren't interdependent; whereas the idea of an "afterlife" depends upon the existence of a "soul", a portion of us that's distinct from our bodies, which (to my great personal sadness) is an idea I can't accept. But as I said to Iceni a while ago, I'd like for it to be a discussion, rather than an argument. Having said that, I'm not an agnostic in the sense of there being "arguments for both sides". I'm an atheist. It was a lonely process, and not something I fully wanted, but for me, the idea of an intelligent creator raises more questions than it answers, and the notion that one of the monotheistic scriptures is correct in all its particulars hovers between the vanishingly unlikely and the absurd. Note to Iceni: you already know that I feel this way, and I'm really not trying to ignite an argument. I value our friendship here. And, sorry if I'm late to the party with this post; I'm on a weekend trip with the family and I'm posting from my phone.

[Iceni]

On the face of it' date=' Iceni and I (for instance) are doomed to fundamental disagreements. I find it interesting that he seems willing to entertain thoughts about evolution, the apparent age of the planet/universe, and other essentially scientific hypotheses - because many people who share his faith seem to be content with accepting the constellation of beliefs that are widely assumed to go along with that faith, even if they're not logically connected.[/quote'] Many Los Alamos Christians share my viewpoint with regards to these things. Yeah, I do know your position, and I'm thankful that you don't bugger around with it. I've met far too many people at this university that perpetually skirt around anything even remotely approaching an assertion of belief. I've met precious few agnostics who seemed remotely interested in attacking straightforward atheism, when pressed to explain why they weren't just atheists. (Interestingly, they don't have the same difficulty with castigating the other end of the spiritual spectrum, unless we count Whole Foods spirituality.) At a basic level I can at least respect the courage of someone willing to take a fricking position - because at least they've admitted to themselves what they believe. As for being 'correct in all of its particulars' - this is one of the biggest issues in Scriptural interpretation. Suffice to say that my general principle is that if a Scripture is literally false it is not necessarily false in the way it was meant. It's funny you should say all this, because Hunter X Hunter, the anime I'm watching, has an interesting spiritual situation - it has a spiritual dimension, but it's simply another aspect of the natural world, governed by a set of rules. Not much in the way of a God in Hunter X Hunter, but mercifully that's by no means rendered it unpleasant or repugnant to me.

[FatherAlabaster]

Re: Nu Metal (Yes/no)

It's funny you should say all this' date=' because Hunter X Hunter, the anime I'm watching, has an interesting spiritual situation - it has a spiritual dimension, but it's simply another aspect of the natural world, governed by a set of rules. Not much in the way of a God in Hunter X Hunter, but mercifully that's by no means rendered it unpleasant or repugnant to me.[/quote'] That actually sounds something like my wife's spirituality, although I think she's a bit looser about it. It's not a topic that comes up a lot; it seems entirely personal and subjective, and it doesn't involve worship. I don't have to agree with it to accept it. I have a lot more respect for someone who can acknowledge the evidence for, say, evolution, and then try to reconcile that with their theological belief, than I do for black-and-white thinkers who reject it outright. My parents-in-law are of this bent, and it's a very common attitude in North Carolina. The bottom line for me is that there are a lot of issues (the nature of consciousness, the existence of a soul, the origins of morality, for instance) that can and should be explored regardless of theology. I can see how the science could be perceived as threatening to religious belief, just like geology used to be, but I can't see why people wouldn't want more facts at their disposal. However, ragging on nu-metal is a lot more fun than talking about all of this, most of the time, so let's keep it up, shall we?

[chaos212]

I am a devout believer of nu metal. Sent from my LGMS500 using Tapatalk

[Iceni]

However' date=' ragging on nu-metal is a lot more fun than talking about all of this, most of the time, so let's keep it up, shall we? [/quote'] Awww. Oh well, here goes. I really, REALLY hate Family Force 5. Speciously labeled as 'Christian',they're more or less a total ripoff of Marilyn Manson. Their song 'Love Addict' is supposed to be a fun song about being loved by God, but lyrically and aurally it's more like the soundtrack to sexual assault.

[FatherAlabaster]

Re: Nu Metal (Yes/no)

I am a devout believer of nu metal. Sent from my LGMS500 using Tapatalk

That's only one rung up from Scientology.

[Iceni]

That's only one rung up from Scientology.

Mainly because it's cheaper.

[FatherAlabaster]

Re: Nu Metal (Yes/no)

Mainly because it's cheaper.

Indeed, there's a fine line between eternal truth and sanitized, watered-down pablum. Anyone can get into nu-metal heaven; you just have to be able to get through the chorus of "The Roof Is On Fire" in a Dez Fafara voice and keep a straight face. Scientology requires both more money and a greater masochistic tendency.

[deathstorm]

So who will go to nu metal heaven

[chaos212]

Their song 'Love Addict' is supposed to be a fun song about being loved by God' date=' but lyrically and aurally it's more like the soundtrack to sexual assault.[/quote'] I've read this a few dozen times now and love it more and more every time.

[JBaker]

I've met precious few agnostics who seemed remotely interested in attacking straightforward atheism' date=' when pressed to explain why they weren't just atheists. (Interestingly, they don't have the same difficulty with castigating the [i']other end of the spiritual spectrum, unless we count Whole Foods spirituality.) At a basic level I can at least respect the courage of someone willing to take a fricking position - because at least they've admitted to themselves what they believe.

Yeah, I'll give you that. If you're 'in the middle', don't attack one side but not the other, and yeah, quite a few so-called agnostics do this, which only contributes to the assumption that agnosticism and atheism are one in the same. I'm an agnostic because I don't find myself entirely convinced by either 'side' of the argument. Funnily enough, I probably do lean more towards the idea of intelligent design than that the whole universe happened by chance, and I do believe in an afterlife; not sure exactly on the form this takes, but I definitely don't believe in Heaven and Hell. Reincarnation seems quite plausible to me and I believe in ghosts/spirits as well. I guess my point is, just as there are vast differences in the beliefs of people who might seem on paper to share the same religion, it also shouldn't be assumed all agnostics believe exactly the same thing; it's not just about being 'atheist-lite'.