deathtokoalas
there's far more evidence for bigfoot than there is for jesus.

phil27hardie 
Hay-seuss

deathtokoalas
it's probably actually isis; you have to keep in mind there was no "j" in the alphabet at the time.

Stephanie R
theres more evidence for just about everything than god, not jesus. Jesus was a real person! Just nothing special about him :P

deathtokoalas
there's no real convincing evidence of the historicity of jesus. none of the historians of the time said anything about him. that's not to say there's evidence he didn't exist, but considering his existence is so fundamental to the religion he's the central aspect of, it's reasonable to demand convincing proof that he actually existed and was crucified - and there isn't anything.

i was at one point fooled into thinking there were tax records, but this doesn't hold up, either.

Stephanie R
What I was saying is there is proof there was a man named jesus back in the day. nothing more than that. haha

deathtokoalas
the thing is that there isn't even actually that much.

it's become fashionable in certain academic circles to try and prove jesus didn't exist, and was inventing by the roman hierarchy. it strikes me as an impossible to prove claim. however, the balance of evidence seems to suggest that the "jesus myth" is entirely syncretic. the story about visiting the underworld for three days and rising again is an old pagan motive. other figures were said to walk on the water. etc. once you deconstruct all the stories into their mythological origins, there becomes little reason to think that this "jesus" character has any more historical validity than socrates, odysseus or frodo.

Kestra
you don't need physical proof of jesus, he proves himself to you spiritually.

deathtokoalas
no, i need physical proof. sorry.

Stephanie R
I recommend you reading the bible, then you'll truly know how awful jesus/god really is... although he isn't real. He's about as real as a unicorn.

nightwingplaysmc
How on earth do we get proof of Jesus when he was born 2000 years ago

deathtokoalas
well, we're pretty sure augustus existed.

what is a proof? a proof is a proof, and you know it's a proof, because then it's been proven.

it's a tough question. but i'm not suggesting there's proof he didn't exist. that's the really hard thing to try and argue. you can come up with various arguments, but they all require a leap of faith at some point.

what i'm getting across is more that the proper way to approach something with such a dearth of evidence is skepticism.

with jesus, you've literally got nothing at all. with bigfoot, there are arguably some stool samples. there's native american folklore - which is unlikely to come from nothing at all. with jesus, it's true that the stories also must have a basis, but the fact that they can be deconstructed to non-christian sources indicates there's little reason to think the human was actually a real being. there's this idea that jesus was initially conceived of as this celestial being and was only given human form afterwards, as the stories got confused over the years. taking a similar line of thinking with bigfoot would suggest that you're - at least - dealing with an extinct species.

one of the more convincing arguments i've seen is that the legend has parallels in asia. could it be that the legend is so old as to have pre-migration roots in north asia? far from a proven hypothesis, but an interesting one.

i don't think the idea of a late non-human hominid is really that crazy. the evidence is admittedly pretty sketchy, but it's far more convincing than the total deficit of evidence surrounding the historicity of jesus.

Shia Islam is the righteous path
He was real. And God is real too. Bigfoot is a myth.

deathtokoalas
well, ok, if you say so.

Shia Islam is the righteous path
I do say so. It's a fact.  And it's nice that you were convinced fast, I thought you would resist a bit with an ignorant debate. Good girl :)

deathtokoalas
well, i don't really have much to debate with. i'm up for it, but i'm not really into starting it, and you've gotta give me more than that if you want me to react.

see, this is awesome...

i'm a little disappointed that they've stepped away from this. i saw them open for bob mould tonight hoping to get something like this and frankly found their new material rather boring.

cymbals eating stale, mouldy guitars in detroit

so, i've come to the conclusion that it's going to be a while before i get used to the fact that the magic stick really shakes when a band gets going. it's on the second level of a structure that looks like it was built a very long time ago and has been redone repeatedly since the 30s. the additions are quite obvious, and there's been a lot of them. there's this nagging fear that somebody fixed something with duct tape and it's just waiting to give...

on the one hand, an upper floor structure built to handle large standing audiences (that may get a little rowdy) and loud bass music should either be solid concrete or built to give a little in response. it's clearly not concrete. so that little bit of elasticity is hopefully actually a safety mechanism. a rigid structure is going to develop cracks and fall apart.

i don't know that it was engineered that way, though. nor would i have much faith in the architecture if i knew that it was, to be honest. all i know is it sways a little and it's unnerving and that i'm not likely to get over it quickly.

the show tonight was a little lacklustre. allow me to explain...

i knew it was an early show, likely to make space for a long set by bob mould, but i slept in a little late and missed the first few songs. so i need to be careful in the review of cymbals eat guitars' new disc, which i have yet to hear in it's entirety. i didn't hear the opening tracks...

...but this video is a decent representation of what i did see, and what you'll notice is that it's a little bit unadventurous relative to past efforts. the edges have been smoothed over a little, the excesses have been pared down, etc. now, the band seems to be being praised for this by the indie press, but that's what the indie press wants - predictability. what attracted me to the band was that they were a little different, a little rough, kind of coming apart at the seams...

it's not that it seemed dramatically different, it just seemed as though they cast out the parts that made them different and interesting and all that was left was the now ubiquitous generic indie formula. that's not something i'm going to be interested in or connect to.

so, i'm not going to comment on the disc, yet. i'm giving it a first listen right now. and i'm willing to accept that the kinds of things that make their records interesting may be difficult to transfer to a live setting. but i found the set underwhelming in it's move towards a more predictable sound.

this is a full set from a few days later:

i wouldn't have gone just to see bob mould, but i'd hardly skip out on him without giving him a few songs, either. i planned to give him a beer to win me over.

that may seem a little disrespectful, given his status in rock music history, but the truth is he's never really clicked with me and i'm really not familiar with or all that interested in exploring anything he's released as a solo artist. as for husker du itself, i put them on the fence in terms of holding up. i've spoken before of the 80s rock canon and the need to pare it down. i'm not going to forcefully argue against husker du's inclusion, but they're far from a lock within it the way that sonic youth or rem are. there's that one album, and not much else, really.

so, i wasn't sure what i was going to get or how i'd react. the bulk of the set was in the power pop variety, with minimal gazey excursions and really nothing approaching any kind of noise. it was a bit of a nice groove at first, but something became very apparent a few songs in: all his songs sound the same. a few more songs in and it just started getting monotonous. i got bored about an hour in and went downstairs to try the magic stick pizza.

i know his output is more varied than what he provided, and i'm not sure what kind of age-related crisis has got him playing power pop at this stage in his life, but i'd advise avoiding him until he goes back to acting his age.

here's an older tune...

http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2014/09/16.html