rebelde

Macaco, you mention Eastern religions and particularly analyze the phenomenon of reincarnation; I imagine your first thought goes to Buddhism, which, as we know, indeed includes reincarnation in its doctrine. Despite various and sometimes vastly different methodologies related to the various schools of thought within it, Buddhist doctrine is fundamentally to be considered a path to salvation aimed at leading the soul to purification and realization, thereby freeing it from the wheel of samsara (the phenomenal world, the one in which we live) and ending the cycle of reincarnations to reach nirvana. The Buddhist doctrine also presupposes (with some exceptions) that all creatures possess the nature of Buddha, meaning the capacity, seen as a possibility, to attain nirvana. There is thus no real differentiation between the souls of humans and those of other beings. Other major 'Eastern' religions could include Hinduism, which unfortunately I do not know well, so I refrain from making conjectures; or Daoism, in which, however, the phenomenon of reincarnation is not given much weight; it's not that it is not accepted, but certainly it's not a cornerstone. In short, if you believe in reincarnation, it is not excluded that in your past life you might have been a seal, or that in your next life you might be a wildebeest. With all due respect.

Upon re-reading it, my comment-question might seem provocative in some parts, however that was not my intention. The fact remains that I can't grasp the basis of your argument. Let me explain: the theory of evolution suggests that over the centuries, random genetic mutations have occurred within the genetic makeup of species, making individuals stronger and more suited for survival in their habitat, thus fostering reproduction and the spread of the mutation itself. Hence, the evolution of species, a phenomenon that in itself does not include any consideration, as you say, regarding the development of the 'spiritual' aspect known by humans, nor does it imply discussions about the superiority of some over others. As you mentioned, science in this area is limited; it does not express itself, leaving room for potential instrumentalizations aimed at justifying inequalities and mystifications. But on the other hand, could one not perhaps make the same argument about religions and the ongoing, very current issue of their instrumentalizations? Regarding the discussion on the soul, it seems to me that you assume here that only we humans possess one; beyond the inextricable dilemma about the existence of the soul and its essence and function, it should be noted that many religions recognize that all beings possess a soul, regardless of whether they belong to an 'evolved' species such as humans, or a horse, a tiger, or a hummingbird. Paradoxically, all this would support Darwinism, as it would eliminate the question of the spiritual aspect you raised. What I mean is that the (now proven) theory of evolution is based on and explains the scientific aspect of our existence, and speculations about the soul do not concern it nor undermine it. This is a discussion that should be conducted separately, which in my opinion has no reason to be contrasted with Darwinism or science in general. That’s why when I read your statement of non-evolutionism, I began to question: in my opinion, it is a "superfluous" stance (in many quotes).

@47: let me understand something. You just declared yourself a non-evolutionist and then immediately added that you believe in the existence of the soul. But do you relate these two things to each other? And if so, how is the existence of the soul related to your rejection of the evolutionary theory? And finally, on what basis do you declare yourself a non-evolutionist? Is this just a provocation? Or is it an inner feeling that drives you to embrace a theory different from evolutionism? Or maybe is this position of yours due to a rejection of the scientific mindset? Ultimately, do you believe that we do not descend from monkeys? How does admitting our descent from ape-like ancestors undermine your faith or anything you hold for it? In what way would the evolutionary theory undermine the very existence of the soul, assuming that you think so, of course...?

Yes, hardrock92, I agree with you and Marx on this topic; religion is the opium of the people because it has often been instrumentalized throughout history (think, I even did a research project on it for an exam). So, I presume it would be consistent for me to exalt a materialist and atheist morality, which would free people from any bonds or metaphysical speculation. However, I believe that in these times, when a revolution in the way people think all over the world seems almost unattainable yet essential, this potential 'revolution' must have a strong spiritual characterization. By this term, I don't want to invoke any particular religion, belief, or philosophy; I simply believe that humanity needs to reassess its priorities and refocus on those values that humans, in my opinion, have projected onto divinity—namely, the best of themselves and their race—values that now lie obscured and crushed under the weight of a society, a world, that is a victim of its own long-desired and much-praised materialism taken to extremes, now almost to the blindness of feelings. I think every religion can be 'instrumentalized' for this purpose, although I don't believe it is an indispensable means for the realization of each individual, but merely a useful sounding board for the people, capable of pointing the way to everyone (and there’s my materialism). This is why I do not share the position of those who declare themselves atheists for the sake of doing so and perhaps celebrate or boast about a purely materialist mentality that, in my opinion, is nothing more than the greatest evil in the world—even from a secular/atheist point of view. As for the review, I must say I was quite surprised to find a gospel reviewed on Debaser, right above Twilight; however, if nothing else, it has provided some interesting food for thought. PS How does one vote for a gospel???

I haven't read it either... but frankly, the gothic romantic tale of the lovestruck vampire, the demon succumbing to this wonderful force that is love, seems to me like a very, very unoriginal topic. I really don't think I'll ever consider it. And the review bored me.

rather ugly review (if that’s what it is, but also not); I mean, it makes you chuckle, it’s occasionally amusing, but if you wanted to make it funnier, you really should have put more effort into making it much more entertaining. as it stands, it’s just a half-assed summary filled with a string of pointless puns. irony that, moreover, lacks any critical sense.

Read me again. Did I say that Cesare has no talent? Answer yourself. First, I said that I was only judging the first album because I’ve never heard the others. And again, I said that I can vaguely agree that those songs were well-made for a 15-year-old. Furthermore, I said that OFTEN the singles were released rearranged, not ALWAYS; there’s a difference. In short, Lawrence, do you read my comments or do you just respond randomly? For heaven's sake, consider it as great as you want; your tastes are yours. But be measured with the strong words, like masterpiece: if you send a review to a site like this, it means you must be willing to question yourself, to engage in a discussion; otherwise, what’s the point of comments and ratings? So if you write that Lunapop's songs are masterpieces, then you must be ready to accept the ensuing (obvious) criticisms. It’s not enough to say that they are GREAT because they were written by a 15-year-old; this is the only justification you’ve come up with so far. You need to try harder and maybe respond sensibly, because otherwise, people feel like they're arguing with a recorded tape, and that’s not stimulating.

I thought these guys were a joke: I had just returned from a long time abroad, and my brother wanted to show me Wale's video on YouTube; he was desperate, disgusted, bewildered; I couldn't stop laughing. Ridiculous. Yet deep down, I already knew they would be successful. It's not even worth voting for them.

@vortex: keep in mind that you won't have a pension

Damn! I don't turn up my nose just for the sake of it; I’m well aware of the first album by Lunapop: the songs written by this prodigy of fifteen were, in my opinion, rubbish, which were later patched up by the work of producers and co., to the point that often the singles released were in completely different and undeniably better versions compared to how they were recorded on the album. I'm not spouting nonsense, dear Lawrence, at least regarding their first album (after that, I never paid them any mind, you know, we grow up). If you want to say that those blessed songs, for being by a 15-year-old, are well made, then fine, I can afford not to object. But let’s try to be objective, please, and let’s not bring up the word masterpiece for such mediocrity.