Who doesn't love a great live performance?  So many artists these days can make good music in the studio but fail to live up to their talent when performing before a live audience.

Have you ever seen a really great live show, or like a musician paticuarly for the quality of their live performances?

I've been to a ton of concerts from a countless number of genres.  Out of all the shows I've seen, I'd have to say that Jethro Tull put on the show out of all the people I've seen; "his" vocals and flute playing were absolutely incredible.  Elton John always puts on a great show, too... but his vocals have collapsed somewhat in recent years, =/.

Honorable mention goes out to the Devin Towsend Band!  They brought down the shores of Virginia Beach a few years back!

 Feel free to post links to good live performances too.  Live music rocks! 

Jethro Tull -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHlMD50eYY

Devin Townsend -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrMTaRw4k6k 

On a side note, Metal concerts are usually the most fun and wacky concernts to attend. 

America -- 7.5.

I'd like to live in a country that is more free.  I'm sick of religious superstition, "conservative" values, pop culture, and cut-throat capitalism hurting all but a tiny elite in society.

Not sure which countries would be better.  I hear Sweden and other Scandinavian countries are nice, =).

Or believe in free enterprise and individuality ?

Free Enterprise? Absolutely.  As long as the individual who labors is not being exploited, manipulated, and robbed of the fruits of his labor.  Freedom to oppress others must be sacraficed for the sake of human dignity and exercise of freedom itself.  Absolute freedom is a horror beyond our comprehension (at least while resources are scarce).  Like I said, you must give up the dignity of an individual and their individual spirit, if you support free enterprise.  A person bound to factory labor and a rigid class structure is not free. 

Most people lean toward the economic left more than they realize.  We don't want to return to the days of text-tile mill labor, do we?

As I said before, liberalism is the only valid political ideology an individual can embrace if they wish to ensure the freedom, dignity, and self-worth of the individual.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="dbowman"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

 We really should refer to the left as "Rational Thought." 

jointed

 Totally agree with that. 

Lol, I wouldn't but thats just me

Really?  Care to explain?

Those on the social right find that their beliefs are usually articulated by religious superstition, or are mired in functionless tradition that has no logical warrant or purpose.

If you're on the economic right, you sacrafice much of the humanity and self-worth of the individual before vested private intrests (the extent of which can greatly vary).

Those on the political right sacrafice the rights and humanity of the individual before artifical standards and hollow "patriotism."

Western society has been following a slow curve, with bumps along the way, towards more liberalism for the last 500 years. It's the natural progression of the free rational mind and human dignity.

Most of this post is BS and I won't even adress it...

but I found that last statement funny...

Liberalism is not on the Left, it's on the Right. The western society has become more and more socialistic over the last 250 years, not liberalistic.....both of the idologies have their roots back in the 18th century, so I don't know why you're saying 500 years.

Until we can find some sort way to remove the human problem of scarcity, a liberal society is the only reasonable political position a rational mind can arrive at while ensuring that humans have dignity.  Since the enlightment, Western society has followed a strange curve toward a more liberal society.  I'm not refering to Adam Smith and John Locke economic liberalism -- sorry for not making that distinction.  We've swapped the meaning of the terms over the last century, and like most people these days, I find myself wrapped up in contemporary use of terminology, =P.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

God is not loving, caring, and forgiving. God is all, It is all emotion that can ever be felt by any being that It created. To say that God is those things is a sin, because it places an unwarranted limitation upon Its power.

Second off, probably not, because the vast majority of current believers are incredibly hypocritical in their beliefs.

Third off, yes, I would, because I require no reward to be happy, simply the knowing that I am doing what I believe to be right. 

dog64

Well, of course he has all emotions. But many times in the bible,God discribes himself as if he were human. For example, the bible meantions Gods' hands, eyes, and face. God doesn't have any of those things, yet he describes himself like that so that we can understand it.

God may not seem to be loving, caring, and forgiving in some parts of the bible. But I think God has four main characteristics: love, justice, wisdom, and power. God is supposed to love his creation, as I'm sure he does if he exists. But I don't think he's showing love if he forces his creation to worship him with the threat of hell if they don't.

God is loving?  

Tell that to the states of free people that the War God of Israel crushed for his "chosen" people.  Tell that to the thousands of souls suffering eternal and terrible punishment for simply not beliving in a dogmatic creed that lacks evidence.  Tell that to the millions of human who suffered at his genocidal hand throughout the Bible.  Tell that to the victims of Deutronomy and Levititcus -- innocent children who were murdered and raped in cold blood, women who were stoned for loving another person, cities that were raped and whiped off the face of the earth.

Tell that at the deathbed of a loved one who has suffered through a horribly painful illness.  Tell that to the thousands of children who starve to death every day. 

The God of the Bible is the most contradictory, evil, genocidal, and terrible entity ever concieved of by man.  Have you any idea of how terrible something like Hell would be?  If we discovered a group of humans who endowed people with eternal life, so they might torture them for some sort of petty or stupid reason, the nations of the world would descend upon such a group with a wrath that we cannot imagein.  Why do we forgive "God" of sins so terrible that he would be damned by his own creed and law? 

We can't know God.  We can't determine if God exists.  We can't determine if God does not exist.  Any attempt is rushing to judgement before we have the means to evaluate and understand the evidence.  At best, we can expose dogmatic "man-made" Gods like those mentioned in the Bible and most other Holy texts.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] Actually, I have proven in this thread already that there is no such thing as a theistic god. .Silver_Dragon17

I stopped reading right there. Such a feat is not possible, and you have not proven that there is no such thing.

Please point out to me how you proved that God does not exist.

And how do you know that that is not possible? So far, it does not seem possible, but what about in 100 years or so? Will it be proven possible then? This does not prove that God does not exist. How would it anyway?

Nothing in science is fact. Things that have been considered fact have been proven wrong many times.

Also, why couldn't God be outside the realms of physical possibility? Why couldn't He create matter out of nothing, even if it's not possible?

Nothing in reality is fact, either -- if we want to commit to the most unknown and abstract standards.  Science -- which amounts to little more than examining the causal relationships between events and calculating the probability of an outcome -- is simply the most accurate, standard, and unified theory to knowledge that we have at the current time.  In all spheres of life, individuals use sensory observation to gauge the probability of an event and place it in its proper context (ie, you step into car, turn key, and know that the enginge will turn over) to make sense of the world around them.

If someone does not wish to place their trust in Science, that is fine.  They could very well be sceptical of sensory observation.  But I don't see how that same person could trust in Bronze-Age superstition that defies every level of sensory observation and deductive thought.  Nor could I understand how that same person, who is so skeptical of every-day observable events, could trust in some sort of ridiculous, completely unknowable, mystic, and "divine" power that is interprupted a thousand different ways -- and often can be exposed for the dogmatic, superstitious, and ridiculous ideas it represents.

Cry?

I'm sick and tired of console developers and other "machine" manufactuers monopolizing free ideas and content to sell their systems.  The hardware of a system should sell it, nothing more -- there should be no "exclusive" titles, and we don't need any more functionless corporations providing a relatively similar machine to process games.  Gaming is fragmented enough, consumers are forced to buy too much as it is right now.  We need LESS consoles in the short-run, and MORE consoles (that do not exploit "exclusive" titles) in the long run.  

[QUOTE="dbowman"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

 We really should refer to the left as "Rational Thought." 

bacon_is_sweet

 Totally agree with that. 

Lol, I wouldn't but thats just me

Really?  Care to explain?

Those on the social right find that their beliefs are usually articulated by religious superstition, or are mired in functionless tradition that has no logical warrant or purpose.

If you're on the economic right, you sacrafice much of the humanity and self-worth of the individual before vested private intrests (the extent of which can greatly vary).

Those on the political right sacrafice the rights and humanity of the individual before artifical standards and hollow "patriotism."

Western society has been following a slow curve, with bumps along the way, towards more liberalism for the last 500 years. It's the natural progression of the free rational mind and human dignity.

Let's just say that God finally shown himself to everyone, proving that he exists and that he wants to be worshipped. Would you then worship if you're not right now? dog64

What God are you referring to?  The old War God of Israel, Hindu Gods, Niger-Congo Gods?  I'll assume you mean the Old war god of Israel.  No, I'd never worship that genocidal muderer -- such a vindictive, horrifying, and terrible entity would never be worth praise or value.

If God told you that your current religion is false and he told you the correct one, would you convert and worship God?

God knows very well the standards which I have arived at through reason and mutual respect.  If God cannot abide by those standards, or is not the inspiration of those standards, why should I worship God?

I'm agnostic, and if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and all-just God Exists, God knows what I require to beleive in anything.

.Account_27

I arrived at around the same spot.

And yes, good to see people on the left.  We really should refer to the left as "Rational Thought."  In order to land on the right, you either have to strip people of much of their humanity, or believe in some sort of dogmatic superstition.