Neil Peart News Updated

[Mills1988]

Yes, the religion bashing by Neil is getting old as of late. Maybe he can start to write about sci-fi, cars, motorcycles and the like again

[An Enemy Without]

[lerxt1990]

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 20 2012, 08:17 PM)

You'll never hear Neil discuss his philosophy on religion in a live interview. He's too spineless and hypocritical.

Stupidest post...EVAH!

[trenken]

Surprised this topic is still going because it should be pretty clear by now where Neil stands on things. It's written in stone. He doesnt even try to hold anything back these days.

 

He doesnt believe in god, has a serious deep rooted issues with those that do, does not like organized religion at all and cant even see how it can be a good thing for some people. We've seen plenty of proof of this.

 

That's it, end of story. He seems like he's continuing on with this subject with the new album, so Ive just gotten to the point where Im just happy to get new Rush music. The lyrical content means nothing to me now because I know he wants to keep writing about something I dont care about anymore. So I just listen to the music and melodies.

 

Nothing we can do about it. He hates religion, and is using the band as an outlet for that, so oh well. They'll be done soon anyway.

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Jan 20 2012, 09:17 PM)

You'll never hear Neil discuss his philosophy on religion in a live interview.  He's too spineless and hypocritical.

 

Yeah, I guess his books, blogs and lyrics aren't enough, maybe he should hold a press conference? Alot of "Religious" people seem to be holding them to bow out of the US Presidential race that God told them to enter. Talk about hypocritical.

 

 

This thread is like ! Yet I can't seem to stop myself from .

 

I guarantee Neil has friends that are "religious." It would almost be impossible for him to not. That said, I don't think, and this is my personal opinion on Neil, that he hates people who are religious (substitute whatever faith you'd like in for religious). What Neil can't stand, IMO, and as a Christian myself, what I can't stand, is hypocrisy. In the US we go to war to free countries from cruel dictators who either force a certain religion on their people or don't allow them to CHOOSE what religion they want to believe (or so we say), yet we, in our own country, want our religion mixed into the government. We want it taught in public schools. We are appalled when someone's beliefs differ from our own. Yet we fight wars to give others the same rights we are trying to take away in our own country. We as HowItIs quoted from the BIBLE focus on the speck of dust in our brothers eye while we have an oak tree in our own. I may be wrong, but that is what I think Neil doesn't like about religion. And what's even more funny to me as a "Christian", there are so many faiths that believe Jesus is the Son of God, yet we disagree over so many little things we lose sight of the teachings that Jesus taught. How about just worrying about yourself and let God worry about being the judge. But like I said a couple times in this thread, just turn on the TV and watch the debate of hypocrites just about nightly that are running for president. THAT is what I think Neil is railing against. Again, I could be wrong.

 

We are all hypocrites in some way or another. "Hey, we need to stop sending jobs over seas" while wearing clothing, watches and driving cars all made overseas. But I think there is a difference between that type of hypocrisy and the kind that Neil is obviously on a crusade against. The people who can read the Bible and all it's teachings, preach it and try to force feed it to everyone, then do the exact opposite of what it teaches. Screaming how their faith is under attack and that this country was founded on freedom of religion, then expecting everyone to believe what they do...and then we can't even agree between ourselves which "Christian" religion is the right one. Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Born-Again, Non-denominational, so on and on.

 

How can you not see how hypocritical this all is?

 

And for those of you who wishes Neil would just go back...go back to the old days. When he wrote timeless songs like Freewill. Maybe you need to reread those lyrics and understand what he is actually saying. Maybe RUSH is not the band for you?

 

 

Freewill

 

There are those who think that life

Has nothing left to chance,

A host of holy horrors

To direct our aimless dance

 

A planet of playthings

We dance on the strings

Of powers we cannot perceive

"The stars aren't aligned -

Or the gods are malign"

Blame is better to give than receive.

 

You can choose a ready guide

In some celestial voice.

If you choose not to decide

You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears

And kindness that can kill;

I will choose a path that's clear-

I will choose free will

 

There are those who think that

They were dealt a losing hand,

The cards were stacked against them-

They weren't born in Lotus-Land

All pre-ordained

A prisoner in chains

A victim of venomous fate

Kicked in the face

You can't pray for a place

In heaven's unearthly estate

 

Each of us

A cell of awareness

Imperfect and incomplete

Genetic blends

With uncertain ends

On a fortune hunt

That's far too fleet...

 

 

Now the argument that some have raised of, "I just wish Neil would move on and write something fantastical and just drop the religious aspect." I can't say I disagree. But Neil writes what he has on his heart and soul and by doing that he has written masterpieces like 2112 and Hemispheres. And right now, Clockwork Angels is what he is writing about. Just from that title alone, (not to mention the 2 songs already released) I can guess the jist of the album. I may be wrong but it seems obvious to me. So if you don't like it, keep complaining about it because I am sure Neil will listen. I know one thing, we will all (myself included) keep trying to tell each other about the huge log in the others eye.

[They Bow Defeated]

Edited January 21, 2012 by They Bow Defeated

[HowItIs]

QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Jan 21 2012, 01:43 AM)

On another point: it appears that the theme of unbelief/belief on Clockwork Angels is going to be presented in the context of a fictional story. That is, it looks like CA will have a multi-song epic in the style of 2112 or Hemispheres, which tells of a character in a steampunk society coming to grips with his belief in the "Watchmaker."

I've been saying this for almost a year, now. But some people are so hopped up on their outrage that they just don't care to listen.

 

Hero's Journey. Google it.

[New Digital Man]

God this is a boring thread!

[danielmclark]

"Science can't explain time, the origin of the universe or other complicated concepts so a Creator/God must be behind it all." really boils down to one philosophy: "because I said so".

 

It's a philosophy that says that because you can't explain something, the blanket "god did it" argument is the winner by default. That's what faith is - accepting something as true because someone said so. You don't get to ask for proof, you don't get to see the numbers. There's no opportunity to run further tests or examine the results from another angle. There's no way to apply logic or reason to the question at hand... it's just... because I said so.

 

And people of faith will always be right! Because when there is no scientific reason for something, and "god did it" is given as the answer, it's impossible to disprove! Well, until science advances far enough to disprove it, but still. For a while, the god answer is the "right" one. And so religion grows.

 

I hated it when my parents made me do something without any kind of explanation other than "because I said so". You probably did, too. It's interesting then, that faith, with that at its core, is so widely accepted.

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 21 2012, 10:12 AM)

"Science can't explain time, the origin of the universe or other complicated concepts so a Creator/God must be behind it all." really boils down to one philosophy: "because I said so". It's a philosophy that says that because you can't explain something, the blanket "god did it" argument is the winner by default. That's what faith is - accepting something as true because someone said so. You don't get to ask for proof, you don't get to see the numbers. There's no opportunity to run further tests or examine the results from another angle. There's no way to apply logic or reason to the question at hand... it's just... because I said so. And people of faith will always be right! Because when there is no scientific reason for something, and "god did it" is given as the answer, it's impossible to disprove! Well, until science advances far enough to disprove it, but still. For a while, the god answer is the "right" one. And so religion grows. I hated it when my parents made me do something without any kind of explanation other than "because I said so". You probably did, too. It's interesting then, that faith, with that at its core, is so widely accepted.

But when your parents say "because I said so" you did it anyways right? Because you knew that it was for your own good?

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Jan 21 2012, 10:21 AM)

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 21 2012, 10:12 AM) "Science can't explain time, the origin of the universe or other complicated concepts so a Creator/God must be behind it all." really boils down to one philosophy: "because I said so". It's a philosophy that says that because you can't explain something, the blanket "god did it" argument is the winner by default. That's what faith is - accepting something as true because someone said so. You don't get to ask for proof, you don't get to see the numbers. There's no opportunity to run further tests or examine the results from another angle. There's no way to apply logic or reason to the question at hand... it's just... because I said so. And people of faith will always be right! Because when there is no scientific reason for something, and "god did it" is given as the answer, it's impossible to disprove! Well, until science advances far enough to disprove it, but still. For a while, the god answer is the "right" one. And so religion grows. I hated it when my parents made me do something without any kind of explanation other than "because I said so". You probably did, too. It's interesting then, that faith, with that at its core, is so widely accepted. But when your parents say "because I said so" you did it anyways right? Because you knew that it was for your own good? Oh hell no. Because my parents are human and they were occasionally wrong. They had my best interests at heart but they weren't always right and what they wanted me to do wasn't always what was best for me. I fought back quite a lot. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I was wrong, but there were very few times, I think, when I just accepted "because I said so" and did what they said.   And now that I'm a parent myself (ages 6 and 3), I'm only further cemented in my understanding of it all... "because I said so" is a drug. It's powerful when used against someone you have authority over, and extremely addicting. My wife and I have both made it a point in our parenting to never tell our kids "because I said so". We've done fairly well. There might be a half a dozen times in the past six years that we've resorted to it. We prefer to explain things to the kids, to help them understand why something is in their (or our) best interests and why what we want them to do is what is best for them.   And my daughter, the six-year-old, has learned to think for herself as a result. She's really quite analytical (for a six-year-old) and has... from time to time... shown me that was I wanted her to do wasn't actually the best thing

Edited January 21, 2012 by danielmclark

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 21 2012, 11:31 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Jan 21 2012, 10:21 AM) QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 21 2012, 10:12 AM) "Science can't explain time, the origin of the universe or other complicated concepts so a Creator/God must be behind it all." really boils down to one philosophy: "because I said so". It's a philosophy that says that because you can't explain something, the blanket "god did it" argument is the winner by default. That's what faith is - accepting something as true because someone said so. You don't get to ask for proof, you don't get to see the numbers. There's no opportunity to run further tests or examine the results from another angle. There's no way to apply logic or reason to the question at hand... it's just... because I said so. And people of faith will always be right! Because when there is no scientific reason for something, and "god did it" is given as the answer, it's impossible to disprove! Well, until science advances far enough to disprove it, but still. For a while, the god answer is the "right" one. And so religion grows. I hated it when my parents made me do something without any kind of explanation other than "because I said so". You probably did, too. It's interesting then, that faith, with that at its core, is so widely accepted. But when your parents say "because I said so" you did it anyways right? Because you knew that it was for your own good? Oh hell no. Because my parents are human and they were occasionally wrong. They had my best interests at heart but they weren't always right and what they wanted me to do wasn't always what was best for me. I fought back quite a lot. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I was wrong, but there were very few times, I think, when I just accepted "because I said so" and did what they said.   And now that I'm a parent myself (ages 6 and 3), I'm only further cemented in my understanding of it all... "because I said so" is a drug. It's powerful when used against someone you have authority over, and extremely addicting. My wife and I have both made it a point in our parenting to never tell our kids "because I said so". We've done fairly well. There might be a half a dozen times in the past six years that we've resorted to it. We prefer to explain things to the kids, to help them understand why something is in their (or our) best interests and why what we want them to do is what is best for them.   And my daughter, the six-year-old, has learned to think for herself as a result. She's really quite analytical (for a six-year-old) and has... from time to time... shown me that was I wanted her to do wasn't actually the best thing What can often help is to go past I said so (because truthfully, thats NOT the reason, its just quicker and easier than the real reason) to explain why youve said something, and then if they dont understand, tell them you think they don't understand, but thats your reason.   "Brush your teeth now!"   "Whhhyyyyyyy?"   "Because I said so!" v. "Because you may not think so, but you HAVE to brish your teeth so they dont wind up like daddy's!"   and so forth.

[Running Rebel]

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

Edited January 21, 2012 by Presto-a RUSH fan!

[Karena]

[laughedatbytime]

QUOTE (New Digital Man @ Jan 21 2012, 09:46 AM)

God: "this is a boring thread!"

Fixed...

[Running Rebel]

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Jan 21 2012, 03:24 PM)

QUOTE (New Digital Man @ Jan 21 2012, 09:46 AM) God: "this is a boring thread!" Fixed...         QUOTE (Karena @ Jan 21 2012, 03:20 PM) Besides, many fans now think 2112 is silly     Really? I haven't heard any fans call 2112 "silly"? Most fans still, at least from what I have heard, think that it is one of RUSH's crowning achievements.

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 21 2012, 01:08 PM)

I have to disagree. While faith is believing something that you can't prove to be true, you don't have to take it on someone else's word. You can also "test" faith in certain ways and while those tests are not scientific or may mean nothing to the next person, they mean something to you. They "prove" something to you. I don't think you quite have the correct way of thinking about faith, and for the 20th time, this comes from someone who has very little of it. What you are describing, at least in my eyes is the way a hypocrite uses faith. And I am not saying you are the hypocrite, just that, that is how a hypocrite uses faith. But that is just my opinion. Again, I could be wrong. <snip>

I won't quote the whole thing to save scrolling time

 

I think we're pretty much on the same page, too, with a few exceptions. Maybe the way I described it is the way a hypocrite uses or defines faith (no offense taken, I'm agnostic, so whatever ). But you said that you don't have to take it on someone else's word. You're right that faith once established doesn't have to be, but babies are born blank slates. Birth a child and raise him in the absence of faith-based or religious teachings, and he'll never come up with the idea of god. At some point, someone has to tell that kid about god and it is usually coupled with "and you should believe in god, and be a good worshipper or bad things will happen to you." There are whole swaths of the world where people have never heard of god and missionaries have to go there and teach - well, why? Why is it necessary? Because in the absence of teaching, faith (perhaps more accurately, religion) can never be established.

 

Religion and faith are related but different, and I perhaps could have differentiated them more in my previous post. Religion is 100% pure "because I said so". Leaders of the church (and I'm not picking on Christians, I mean the leaders of whatever religion) tend to their flocks with teachings that all come down to "because I said so". And that "because I said so" is backed up with faith. Someone tells you what to believe (let's be honest, that's what happens - religions are defined by what they believe in) and then they say "believe it, have faith in what I'm saying... because I said so."

 

Some have told me before that it's not "because I said so", it's "because the Bible (or other holy book) says so". Well, those books were all written by people. So... that's not proof. At best, it's "because they said so"

 

As for the Contact movie - it supports my point. Faith and religion are all about "because I said so". When asked if she loves her father, she says yes, and he says prove it? At that point, the response should have been, "because I said so. Just like your belief in god."

[Running Rebel]

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Jan 21 2012, 02:24 PM)

QUOTE (New Digital Man @ Jan 21 2012, 09:46 AM) God: "this is a boring thread!" Fixed... Blasphemy!

[laughedatbytime]

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jan 21 2012, 01:45 PM)

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Jan 21 2012, 02:24 PM) QUOTE (New Digital Man @ Jan 21 2012, 09:46 AM) God: "this is a boring thread!" Fixed... Blasphemy! There's a word I never thought I'd see YOU use...

[Running Rebel]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Jan 21 2012, 02:41 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 21 2012, 01:08 PM) I have to disagree.  While faith is believing something that you can't prove to be true, you don't have to take it on someone else's word.  You can also "test" faith in certain ways and while those tests are not scientific or may mean nothing to the next person, they mean something to you.  They "prove" something to you.  I don't think you quite have the correct way of thinking about faith, and for the 20th time, this comes from someone who has very little of it.  What you are describing, at least in my eyes is the way a hypocrite uses faith. And I am not saying you are the hypocrite, just that, that is how a hypocrite uses faith. But that is just my opinion.  Again, I could be wrong. <snip> I won't quote the whole thing to save scrolling time   I think we're pretty much on the same page, too, with a few exceptions. Maybe the way I described it is the way a hypocrite uses or defines faith (no offense taken, I'm agnostic, so whatever ). But you said that you don't have to take it on someone else's word. You're right that faith once established doesn't have to be, but babies are born blank slates. Birth a child and raise him in the absence of faith-based or religious teachings, and he'll never come up with the idea of god. At some point, someone has to tell that kid about god and it is usually coupled with "and you should believe in god, and be a good worshipper or bad things will happen to you." There are whole swaths of the world where people have never heard of god and missionaries have to go there and teach - well, why? Why is it necessary? Because in the absence of teaching, faith (perhaps more accurately, religion) can never be established.   Religion and faith are related but different, and I perhaps could have differentiated them more in my previous post. Religion is 100% pure "because I said so". Leaders of the church (and I'm not picking on Christians, I mean the leaders of whatever religion) tend to their flocks with teachings that all come down to "because I said so". And that "because I said so" is backed up with faith. Someone tells you what to believe (let's be honest, that's what happens - religions are defined by what they believe in) and then they say "believe it, have faith in what I'm saying... because I said so."   Some have told me before that it's not "because I said so", it's "because the Bible (or other holy book) says so". Well, those books were all written by people. So... that's not proof. At best, it's "because they said so"   As for the Contact movie - it supports my point. Faith and religion are all about "because I said so". When asked if she loves her father, she says yes, and he says prove it? At that point, the response should have been, "because I said so. Just like your belief in god." Good post, and I don't dissagree, well yeah I will but only slightly.   I think faith is the default perspective for humans. A baby does come up with faith on their own. Every culture has created gods and had faith in them. It is our default to explain the unexplainable and evolved as a survival instinct. Even modern primitive tribes/cultures have faith in magical thinking from rain dances to crop prayers, etc.

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

[Ancient Ways]