 |
| Author |
Message |
    
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 07:10 pm: | 
|
So when you say you don't really believe in reality but you sit on chairs... there is no chair in your mind and you possibly arent even sitting? I don't understand how you can deny reality but use it at the same time.. Maybe you can't really convince yourself that this isnt real? So you know there is reality but your paranoid about never knowing enough to be 100% certain. So you take a gamble against everything you feel/know
I get it now.......
*wakes up*
Michael william James
|
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
i already brought up consistency and/or repetition of result. Which is why I wasn't logically flawed to begin with. A simple I don't know will not suffice. If it did nobody would remember Socrates. Doubt is philosophy and philosophy leads to knowledge but knowledge isn't absolute and logic only provides a framework for useful deparature and entry points on any thought-schema. Blind faith ignores all that and assumes certainty with no logical or empirical foundation. There is nothing "dogmatic" in that statement. It's a verifiable fact. (Again, remember I'm speaking from the position of empirical practicality which colors the definition of all terms I employ).
I am personally prejudiced to believe that all of experience is make-believe, that there is no metaphysical reality. Which is different from saying that I don't believe in a spiritual element to reality. I don't believe in reality. But I still sit on chairs, to re-use my analogy.
Chocolate for Momma?
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 09:57 am: |
|
Hmmm--
Ahh-- A simple "I don't know." would have been sufficiant.
I don't know either.
Perhaps if we established some agreed upon standard like availability or depenability or permanantcy or some point of departure by which we could proceed logically using our standard as a rough measuring device. We could make some logical progress at least as compared to that standard. What do you think?
Jimbo
|
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:53 am: |
|
Well, the non-physical world of mind contains all the physical world in the sense that all we truly know are our thoughts which have no physical essence except vis a vis their apparent relationship to chemical exchanges amongst neurons. Of course, we only know of that vis a vis our senses which are an outreach of those self-same non-physical thoughts. Then there is the tricky manifold by which sensation becomes perception and perceptions vary among individuals due to apparent differences in chemicals, beliefs, physical structures in brain etc.
The bottom line is I acknowledge that it's all based on faith but that the whole question becomes meaningless in the world of practicality unless miracles start to occur sometimes soon and then there are the unexplained phenomenon like the "dark matter' of the universe, how DNA came about (which is a decent design argument), and whether superstring theories can ever be tested (we can't do this yet) and thereby grant us further understanding of the relationships of various energies.
Where I diverge from 'believers' is that I think it more worthwhile to examine cause and effect on the basis of verifiable evidence and testable hypotheses. But still there is the possibility that all of reality is a hallucination (actually, I'm sure it is, produced by the brain) but it seems appealing that there is some actual matter-energy field which the brain interacts with via the body and the senses AND the mind since it is a hallucination with consistencies and which can be communicated with a great deal of reason among various minds despite differences in opinion, beliefs, prejudices, etc.
For example, most people think water is wet and not a lot of people who say water is not wet are allowed to keep daughters out late on high school dates. Evolution at work.
So, while I'm not completely discounting faith, again, I'm saying faith is something that deservedly should be questioned if you believe that the progress of mankind is an issue. Blind faith stultifies scientific exploration. At least, as long as dogmatic authorities with the power to enforce their dogma exist (i.e. government funding of stem cell research or aids research in the 80's). There are areas where faith takes a back seat in my mind. I don't believe faith-based philosophies should insist the scientific method produces results similar to study of the Bible because both have an element of faith. The results are wildly different. Studying the bible will never get an airplane off the ground or provide a smallpox vaccine. And that's why I believe in the power of empirical practicality and why I say that I'm not discounting faith. Faith is contained inside the philosophy of empirical practicality. But it knows its place.
(Message edited by carljohn on January 26, 2005)
Chocolate for Momma?
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 07:07 pm: |
|
CJ--
Excellent, your last post has made some real sense, sans the pontifications. I'm getting used to that. I have that problem with all dogmatic believers.
Now for a real rational exercise lets take the notion of "non-physical reality" and try to logically discern wheather it is the chicken or the egg in the hierarchy of reality.
What so you think? Does non-physical phenomena cause physical manifestations, or visa versa? Or perhaps something else is the prime cause?
Jimbo
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 05:45 pm: |
|
Ceej im well aware of science's break throughs, and i would do anything but attack science .I have no problem with science whatsoever .Only those who are so up there they fall completely biast .Science may not rely completely on faith but than again neither does religion .My beliefs in particular have many relics and historic documents to go by and so does science .Now to repeat say 5 times one of the experiments found in the science book of many years before your own time ceej if in five times 4 times the experiment succeeds that would be enough to Call it a success correct? But what if they were to keep trying it and in 20 times 4 times worked only.. and its later found that certain variables had of been monitored would of lead to greater accuracy! Same could work the other direction too. So in science you may not have to wait for someone to give you the answer but what you do have to do is find trust in yourself and believe that your estimations are right on target .Thats where alot of the faith in science comes into play .Even more obvious is the missing links in evolution.. It is proven a theory and that is all? So if its only a theory that in eyes of people like yourselves "BElivers in science" then why do you so strongly attest it against any other idea of creation .Sure you might think you have alot of evidence....but what about those who have had contact with God in there spiritual life surely they'd have a whole lot more than you could ever find in the next ten years .Anyways im not trying to disprove your beliefs or anyones, just asking you to reconsider the idea of Science seriously having any less relying on faith than those religious .And everybody questions everything its in our human nature, i don't think many people of today are in a religion they are completely clueless of ?do you?
My only problem is with those who call science full proof and dismiss religion of any intellectual integrity, such as yourself calling the bible crap because its missing some pages!
Michael william James
|
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:02 pm: |
|
Actually, you just aren't following my logic. I am just denying that there is any evidence of the existence of God. I didn't say there isn't any evidence of non-physical realities, whatever that means to you. There are non-physical realities like time that can be measured and observed but only indirectly. But there is no reality that relies upon a creator necessarily. There are other explanations. Furthermore, time can be an illusion. However, for pracical purposes, measuring it and applying measurements of it for experimental purposes does yield practical results. But saying, if I drop a cannonball off the Leaning Tower of Pisa will God send angels to slow it down if it were aimed at a Christian? doesn't yield practical results. You can't test God, so why bother with him. Obviously, if there is a creator he isn't interfereing, enabling, or interjecting himself in his creation, except in the election of George W. Bush the lying war-mongerer, of course. Perhaps he just wound things up at some point and let it go from there. Which is a possibility I am not close-minded to. In fact, I find it appealing. But it isn't necessary to accept it and then to go on to say that this non-interfering God wants me to vote republican and oppose abortion. That is a ridiculous leap in my thinking. Jefferson was a deist who believed in a un-concerned God and that makes much more sense than the nose-in-the-air God most people adhere to in this country. The bottom line is, God doesn't care so why should I? And there is no evidence of Him so why bother thinking about it to the point you impose limits on yourself and society that are harmful? Life is a crazy confusing mess for us. Only science can light the way. Religion is a proven failure. So let it die. If God cared he would have told Adam, E=MC2, not, don't eat my fruit. What kind of mind game is that, anyway?
Also, I am refering to the difference between empirical practicality and metaphysics, which you don't seem to follow. At heart, nothing can be proven and everything is dependent on faith. Why? Because we only know what our senses tell us and possibility we are seeing through a glass darkly and the actual reality of reality can never be known. However, that is what we have to work with. It is in the realm of the senses where practical results can be achieved that science finds its power. Faith has power in the sense of self-fulfilling prophecies because it is a way to modulate your behavior on a subconscious level and convince yourself not to give up. But you would be better off having faith in whatever good you are trying to achieve in the world than in Jesus getting killed for our sins so lets kill us some muslims. In other words, why make faith religious? Why not just use it to achieve things?
To sum up, since the ultimate reality can't be known it is possible that the chair you park yourself in is some kind of illusion. Perhaps you will fall through the Earth next time you sit down. But, in all practicality, I know from repeated experiments in that regard that I can in fact sit in the chair. So I do.
That's the so-called faith of science: repetition of result.
You can't apply that to religious 'phenomena'. One day you pray for rain and it doesn't rain. The next day it does. But the next day it does again when you didn't pray.
This is so simple I don't know why I have to explain it. But apparently most people don't realize that everything is make-believe but still there are consistent results to be had in the realm of science.
So ha.
Chocolate for Momma?
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
CJ--
I don't recall anyone proposing that science is without merit.
The root of the discussion is your contention that any reference to religion or spirituality is without merit. You consistantly deny the existence of non-physical reality while refering to the non-physical principles and non-physical scientific laws upon which science is dependent for its very existence to prove your point.
Your logic is seriously flawed.
Jimbo
|
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
oh wait, i was wrong. there is a God. right there under my tax returns.
what you don't seem to understand, Jimbone, is that science concerns itself with empirical evidence and practical results. I never said it disproves God. But the room for God is strictly in the immaterial plane of metaphysics. You keep trying to say that the world of the senses is just as arbitrary as the world of myth and it just ain't so. The world of the senses has some consistency to it. Results happen again and again in pre-determined conditions. The senses verify this with or without the aid of instruments. Just because science hasn't figured out absolutely everything yet doesn't mean that it all just as arbitrary as faith-based systems.
Please read this several times before you respond.
Thanks
Chocolate for Momma?
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 09:57 am: |
|
CJ--
Your logic is flawed.
You can't pick and choose which subjective realitys you will accept without object evidence and still be objective. If you won't accept subjective evidence of honest experience just because you don't know enough to quantify it you will always remain ignorant of it.
Jimbo
|
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 07:08 am: |
|
Mik3y--That isn't even the beginning of a good point or argument in any way. and let me explain why.
First off, the argument that there is no cold doesn't actually adequately explain the nature of dualist logical flaws. Cold is a subjective experience not a scientific one. You experience cold when your body approaching the borderline of hyperthermia and beyond. It would be scientific to say that cold is the absence of heat and the onset of hypothermia. But actually, it would be even more scientific to say that heat is a subjective experience of the movement of molecules causes by infrared radiation. Since this relies upon science, how can you say it refutes science? This is as ridiculous as saying that science relies on the same sort of faith as religious beliefs do, which it does not, which I'll explain soon.
Secondly, if evil is only the absence of good and Satan is evil then obviously Satan doesn't exist since he is by definition evil. If Satan doesn't exist God is a liar. Of course, lies are just the absence of truth so the idea that there is a God must have no truth so there is no God (I'm just using your brand of logic to point out it's absurdity, not that I think this is a good argument).
Nextly, why have faith in Jesus Christ as opposed to alternatives like Mohammed, Zoroaster, Confuscious, or even Einstein? Why pick Jesus in particular? If you weren't trained to believe in Jesus it would have been something else. And if you went through your whole life never questioning anything you would believe whatever you had first believed at some point. This gets even trickier though because I'm sure some of your beliefs have shifted as some point because you're obviously not a total idiot. So did they shift because of faith or reasoning? (Oh, this will be a very good semester indeedy).
Morely, what is faith? Is reason the lack of faith or is faith the lack of reason? Answer me dammit ;). Or is doubt the lack of faith. Well, doubt needs reasons and faith don't. Now what are we to derive from that? Maybe that your whole argument is pointless drivel?
Furthermorely, there is evidence of evolution in the form of (drumroll, please) fossils. It takes a big leap of faith to think that these were planted by God since he made the universe with age or that there are really not fossils at all. But faith can believe just about any old thing, can't it?
Next, as per the Professor's brain, you can have a brain and have no mind (i.e. the typical Christian) but that would be a whole other dualist fallacy, wouldn't it (see Descartes)? But, yet again, if we wanted to we could get evidence that the Professor had a brain via x-rays and tissue samples. However, we can't get any evidence
we can't get any evidence that there is a God because(drum roll again) there isn't any!
And, guess what, science isn't trying to disprove God. That isn't what science is for. That's why science and religion have nothing to do with each other. Why, if you faith is so strong, do you feel the need to attack science in the first place? Science has proven results that you enjoy the benefit of. Love your science with all your heart.
Now why don't you take it on faith that you should give me all your possessions and learn the basics of logic?
Have a nice day.
Chocolate for Momma?
|
Dahlia Swicegood (Dahlia)
Starlite Member
Username: Dahlia
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 06:44 am: |
|
Thank you Mik3y, for the most intellectual post ever posted on these forums. It should answer a lot of the questions asked and argued on here, but it probably won't. Because there's people who can't see one positive side of anything, without trying to put the negative to something. Let's just say for a moment there was nothing to believe in on this earth. Just everyone going from day to day and in all probability getting meaner, wouldn't it be a horrible world to live in? If some people don't want to believe there is a God, that is their life. If I want to believe in God and hope with all my heart there is a heaven and another life besides this one, then I will believe. |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 01:56 am: |
|
I can't say what i feel on this subject any better than the man/woman who said this... sorry if you read it already .It makes more sense than half the crap said in these forums .
An atheist professor enters a lecture theatre and pauses before his new
class. He then asks for any one of the new students who is a Christian
to stand. After a short wait, a student stands.
"Are you a Christian son?"
"Yes sir, I am" the student says.
"So you believe in God?"
"Yes sir, I do."
"Is God good?"
>"Yes sir, God is good."
>
>"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
>
>"Yes sir, He can."
>
>The professor pauses, then asks: "Are you good or evil?"
>
>"Er . I am evil."
>
>"Why do you say that?" the professor asks.
>
>"The Bible says that I am evil."
>
>The professor grins knowingly: "Ah . The Bible". The professor pauses
>again.
>
>"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a gravely sick person over here,
>and you can cure him. You definitely can do it. Would you help them?
>Would you try?"
>
>"Yes sir, I would."
>
>"So you are good then."
>
>"Er . no professor. The Bible tells me that I'm not."
>
>"But why do you say that? You said you would help a gravely ill person
>if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't. Why doesn't
>God help a gravely ill person if He is good? Can you answer this?"
>
>The student appears lost for words.
>
>The professor continues: "God doesn't help, does he? My brother was a
>Christian, and he died of cancer even though he constantly prayed to
>Jesus to heal him. How then is this Jesus good? Can you answer this?"
>
>The student still remains silent.
>
>"No, you can't answer this, can you?" the professor says.
>
>(You can't put God in a box; in other words, you can't judge what God
>should and shouldn't do, God is God.)
>
>The professor takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk.
>
>"OK. Let's start again, young man. Is God good?"
>
>"Er ... Yes".
>
>"Is Satan good?"
>
>The student doesn't hesitate: "No."
>
>"Where does Satan come from? By this I mean, who created Satan?"
>
>The student falters. "Er ... God."
>
>"That's right. God made Satan, didn't He?"
>
>(Yes, but Satan is the one who fell away from God, and didn't listen to
>him.)
>
>"Now tell me, son: Is there evil in this world?"
>
>"Yes sir, there is."
>
>"Yes, there is evil everywhere, isn't there?
>
>". Yes."
>
>"And God made everything, correct?"
>
>". Yes."
>
>"So who created evil?"
>
>Again, the student is silent.
>
>The professor continues: "Is there sickness; immorality; hatred? All
>these terrible things; do they exist in this world?"
>
>The student slowly answers ". Yes."
>
>"So who created them?"
>
>The student again seems unable to give answer, so the professor
>carefully repeats his question: "Well then, who created these things?"
>
>(God didn't create them, it is man themselves who turned away from God,
>and the result causes this.)
>
>Again, the student offers no answer. Suddenly the lecturer begins to
>pace back and forth in front of the lecture theatre. The class is
>mesmerised.
>
>"Tell me," the professor continues, "do you believe in Jesus Christ,
>son?"
>
>The student's voice betrays him, and cracks . "Yes professor, I do."
>
>The professor stops pacing. He looks at the student.
>
>"Science says you have five senses that you use to identify and observe
>the world around you. So then, have you ever actually seen Jesus with
>your own eyes?"
>
>"No . sir . I have never seen Him."
>
>"Then tell us if you've actually ever heard your Jesus?"
>
>"No sir . I have not."
>
>"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus, or smelt your Jesus?
>In fact, have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or
>for that matter God?"
>
>"No sir, I haven't."
>
>"Yet you still believe in him?"
>
>After a long pause, the student replies . "Yes."
>
>"But according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable
>protocol, science says your God does not exist. What do you have to say
>to that, son?"
>
>"I . ah . I . I only have my faith and trust in God who has passed on
>His word to us through the Bible".
>
>"Yes . faith," the professor repeats, "and that is the problem science
>has with God. There is no evidence, only faith. Thank you sir. Please be
>seated."
>
>(Yes there is much evidence, but faith is also a major thing.)
>
>The student sits, and the professor turns to the blackboard to begin his
>lecture. Another student raises his hand and stands.
>
>"Professor, is there such a thing as heat?"
>
>The professor doesn't turn. "Yes," the professor replies, "of course
>there is heat."
>
>"And is there such a thing as cold?"
>
>"Yes, son, there is cold too."
>
>"No sir, there isn't."
>
>The professor stops. Obviously interested, he turns to face the student.
>The lecture theatre suddenly becomes very quiet.
>
>The student begins to explain: "You can have lots of heat, even more
>heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but
>we don't really have anything called cold."
>
>The professor, interested, indicates to the student to continue.
>
>"We can hit 273 degrees Celsius below zero, which is no heat, but we
>can't go any further after that. So, in fact there is no such thing as
>cold; otherwise would we be able to go colder than minus 273 degrees."
>
>"Thus, as you can see sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the
>absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. We can only measure heat in
>thermal units because heat is energy."
>
>"Put simply sir, cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of
>it."
>
>A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer. The
>professor remains silent, pondering what the student has said.
>
>The student immediately continues: "What about darkness, professor. Is
>there such a thing as darkness?"
>
>"Well, yes." the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if
>it isn't darkness?"
>
>"With all due respect sir, you are wrong again. Darkness is not
>something; it is the absence of something."
>
>"You can have low light, normal light, bright light, blinding light,
>flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing,
>and we call it darkness. That's the meaning we use to define the word
>darkness."
>
>"But in reality, there is no such thing as darkness. If there were, you
>would be able to make darkness darker, would you not?"
>
>The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
>be a good semester.
>
>"So what is the point you are trying to make, young man?"
>
>"Professor, my point is this; your philosophical premise is flawed to
>start with, and therefore your conclusion must also be flawed."
>
>The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can
>you explain how?"
>
>"You are working on the premise of duality" the student explains. "You
>argue that there is life, and that there is death; a good God, and a bad
>God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something
>we can actually measure in some way."
>
>"So to view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact
>that death cannot exist as a substantive thing - something that can
>actually be measured. Death is not the opposite of life, just the
>absence of it."
>
>The professor remains silent. The student continues: "Professor. Do you
>teach your students that they have evolved from monkeys?"
>
>"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process young man,
>yes, of course I do."
>
>"But professor, have you ever observed the actual process of evolution
>with your own eyes?"
>
>The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realises
>where the argument is going. Yes, a very good semester indeed.
>
>"Since neither yourself, nor anyone else, has actually ever observed the
>process of evolution at work, and therefore cannot prove that this
>evolutionary process is an actual on-going process, are you not then
>actually teaching us your opinion sir; your belief? Are you no longer a
>scientist, but a preacher?"
>
>The class erupts into uproar. The student remains silent until the
>commotion has subsided.
>
>(What is the difference between a process going so slow that it cannot
>be observed, and one that is not happening in the first place?)
>
>"Professor, if I may continue the point you were making earlier, let me
>give you an example of what I mean?"
>
>The student looks around the room.
>
>"Is there anyone in this class who has ever actually seen the
>professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter again.
>
>"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the
>professor's brain, tasted or smelt the professor's brain?"
>
>After a moment the student continues: "No professor, it appears that
>no-one here has done so."
>
>"Thus, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
>demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, and with all
>due respect sir, if science says you have no brain, then how can we
>believe and trust what you will teach us in your lectures?"
>
>The room fell silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face
>unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the professor smiles
>and answers . "I guess you'll have to take it on faith."
>
>"Ah, yes . faith." the student repeats, and sits down.
>
>
>How can science refute the existence of GOD if it can never measure nor
>explain what GOD is?
>
>How does science explain a thought, or a concept?
>
>Put simply, it can't.
>
>For instance, science measures and uses gravity, time, magnetism, etc,
>all of the time, but no-one has ever seen, touched, smelt, tasted or
>heard any of them, much less fully understood any of them.
Michael william James
|
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 06:51 am: |
|
yeah, we know that. the point is, there is actual evidence of atoms and DNA. at one point there wasn't but instruments were developed to enable the evidence to be obtained via the senses. but if you go willy-nilly believing in any crazy idea that pops into your head that makes you...
watch out for that closet unicorn, they're killers.
Chocolate for Momma?
|
Scott Whitmore (Emhotep)
Starlite Member
Username: Emhotep
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 07:14 pm: |
|
Where in the
world does it say, " WE NEED TO SEE IT TO BELIEVE IT ". Does any of us see the atoms which makes the
AIR we need to breath, or can you just look at any
thing on earth with ONLY YOUR EYES, and be able to
see all the DNA strands. Just because something is
not seen, does not mean that it not there.
Ona Gwe, Waki
Wm Scott Whitmore
aka
Em~Hotep
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 07:04 pm: |
|
CJ--
I wish I had the patience but I quickly grow weary of discussing rainbows, sunsets, and flowers with color blind persons.
Jimbo
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 06:36 pm: |
|
"There is no evidence of spirituality and no phenomena that require a spiritual explanation."
Thats not true at all! Science has failed to explain many phenomena... and often its either left to spiritual explanation or nobody will touch it .I don't think that means what ever science cant explain that spiritual junkies jump onto it and give there random thoughts on why it happens .I just take it down to some things are beyond our comprehension so it makes sense to believe that some other life force is amoungst us. That guy i mentioned had many skeptics and scientists trying to find him a fraud but none ever succeeded and he kept saying it was the spirits and bla bla and what about nostradamus....and all the others science has failed to explain surely they are signs of some spiritual force here with us?
Michael william James
|
Bread Crumbs (Bread_crumbs)
Starlite Member
Username: Bread_crumbs
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:45 pm: |
|
Exodus
They drove us out
on nights when moons died.
Patiently we bore the cross
they had made for us
out of lies, violence and torture,
and beneath the blows of their rifle-butts
we broke down more than thrice -
On the endless road of graves
we met no Simon of Cyrene.
Who among you, the living, can say
that he saw us?
Who among you, the dead, can say
he recognized his brother?
Only our mothers
behind sorrow-curtained windows
sensed our departure
and startled prayers fled from their lips
into the darkness.
Encompassed by night we departed from all the cities
and memory went with us.
We were thirsty,
memory has quenched our thirst,
we were hungry
and memory fed us the meat of Job,
and when we were weary
memory spread for us
a bed of thistles.
We were blind,
memory created illusion,
we were deaf,
memory was the music of the Cherubim,
we were naked,
memory lent us the divided cloak of comfort,
we were innocent
and memory never let us be guilty
in the eyes of God.
They drove us out
on nights when moons died,
and around us sprouted
a forest of hostile bayonets.
- Horst Bienek
Vorkuta, 1954
|
Dahlia Swicegood (Dahlia)
Starlite Member
Username: Dahlia
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 02:09 pm: |
|
Now Now CJ, temper temper. yee must ponder and wonder why you aren't among all those great men. Maybe one day you will be able to start a sentence with a capital letter, wouldn't that be an awesome day? |
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 01:10 pm: |
|
yeah, any rejection of spirituality must be without any real thought. good one.
spirituality on the other hand was come up with by a bunch of nomads sitting around a fire one day who decided once there was nothing then something made everything.
but science represents little thought to you. as long as you can flip a light switch you must be a genius.
there is no evidence of spirituality and no phenomena that require a spiritual explanation.
thousands of experiments and thinkers of vast intellect have concluded this.
do you even try to make an actual point, or are you like a midget that likes being flattened by a dragon constantly to get your endorphin kick?
Chocolate for Momma?
|
|
|  |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page