|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Nov 2, 2020 23:51:33 GMT
concerto gendo
peter, peter!
are you asleep?
i have something
here to show you.
someone's here
within the keep...
awaken now
from slumbers lair,
here let me hold the light.
this is no dream
i bring to you,
he is flesh and blood tonight!
"why must i be awakened
at such an hour as this?
for i have softly slumbered here
wrapped in eternal bliss.
who is this man you rave about
come over bring him close.
i've not the vision i once had
now that i am but a ghost."
this is the one
i told you of
the one we waited for.
but i'm not equal
to the task
of writing him a score.
for many men
you have enshrined
with your
composers quill.
for here lies
your beloved one
who rests beside you still.
"my angel brought sweet joy to me,
the world will never know.
he set the standard of my work,
the very heart of concerto.
what could this one have done to you
to silence poets pen?
oh now i see with my near-sight,
his eyes have done you in."
o peter lift
this curse from me,
take gendo close to heart.
for verse is now
adverse to me,
your music must impart.
the beauty of
his wanting eyes.
the power resting there.
to fill my poet's heart
with sighs,
to wipe away all fears.
"yes stephen i will take this man
and do what you have tasked.
for i know your heart is tender
and you would never ask.
a man like gendo anything but
intentions that are true,
and only that we uplift him
as all kind artists do."
take gendo then
uplift his eyes
illuminate the stars!
leave nothing out,
no room for doubt,
for this is who we are.
for in this world
and in the next
the beauty in us all,
is captured in the songs
of those
who follow their heart's call!
sjw 08/19/09 inspired at this very moment in time by the illuminated eyes of the one known as Gendo, (with a little help from Peter Tchaikovsky).
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 3, 2020 0:11:47 GMT
How can that be when I am not 100% sure there is no supernatural force somewhere? Theism and Atheism are related specifically to God. Not necessarily and exclusively. Allegedly, angels are supernatural, the Devil, ghosts. witches faith healers etc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 3, 2020 0:17:36 GMT
Supernatural != God.Theism and Atheism are related specifically to God. Not necessarily and exclusively. Allegedly, angels are supernatural, the Devil, ghosts. witches faith healers etc etc etc. atheist /ˈeɪθɪɪst/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 6, 2020 18:48:59 GMT
I don't even care all that much, but I am an atheist by definition. I would technically classify as agnostic, but every atheist and ever theist is agnostic whether they know it or admit it or not and that is why I just leave that part out all together.
I am an atheist and mostly just discuss this stuff as a mental exercise and because other people's POV is an interest and curiosity of mine.
I don't care if some atheists claim to know God doesn't exist. They don't. These people are also taking on an unnecessary burden of proof that they can't meet.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 6, 2020 19:42:10 GMT
The first time you and I talked was when I saw you claiming that you know God doesn't exist. I asked you how you knew, and you said, "Logic." Maybe you've changed your mind in the meantime, but that's the way I remember it. I still pretty much know that God doesn't exist through logic..... I don't like using the word "know" in this context, but I am confident that no god exists based on the fact that nothing about it makes sense to me and nobody will convince me otherwise, even if that just has to do with my lack of comprehension. If I can't comprehend how something is possible, than I won't believe it exists. I will go even further and say it is impossible for me to believe it exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 6, 2020 20:21:46 GMT
I don't even care all that much, but I am an atheist by definition. I would technically classify as agnostic, but every atheist and ever theist is agnostic whether they know it or admit it or not and that is why I just leave that part out all together. I am an atheist and mostly just discuss this stuff as a mental exercise and because other people's POV is an interest and curiosity of mine. I don't care if some atheists claim to know God doesn't exist. They don't. These people are also taking on an unnecessary burden of proof that they can't meet. They don’t have to prove a negative. They must wait until a theist proves via empirical data there is a God. Only then does the atheist have the information to test. Even then, there are a lot of questions to be answered indubitably before Nature (what we do know via evidence and observational theory about creation) can be replaced with God.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 6, 2020 20:34:24 GMT
I don't even care all that much, but I am an atheist by definition. I would technically classify as agnostic, but every atheist and ever theist is agnostic whether they know it or admit it or not and that is why I just leave that part out all together. I am an atheist and mostly just discuss this stuff as a mental exercise and because other people's POV is an interest and curiosity of mine. I don't care if some atheists claim to know God doesn't exist. They don't. These people are also taking on an unnecessary burden of proof that they can't meet. They don’t have to prove a negative. They must wait until a theist proves via empirical data there is a God. Only then does the atheist have the information to test. Even then, there are a lot of questions to be answered indubitably before Nature (what we do know via evidence and observational theory about creation) can be replaced with God. They do have to prove the negative if they are asserting the negative as truth, but I won't quibble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 6, 2020 21:08:53 GMT
They don’t have to prove a negative. They must wait until a theist proves via empirical data there is a God. Only then does the atheist have the information to test. Even then, there are a lot of questions to be answered indubitably before Nature (what we do know via evidence and observational theory about creation) can be replaced with God. They do have to prove the negative if they are asserting the negative as truth, but I won't quibble. Who is saying that other than the New Atheists who have fallen out of fashion? Hitchens is dead; Dawkins is half dead; Harris has gone right wing in support of their anti-Muslim stance if not their ideology fundamentalism. But even so, what are they saying they know does not exist? The Idea of God and Its existence has been rehashed within philosophy for 2500 years. So, if they haven’t figured it out by now, why should we give damn about those kinds of “proofs?” (Richard Rorty) Philosophy is at best thought experiment with zero testing. It’s function is to keep us thinking about It (existence, being) and lend perspective to what we know about the It. I don’t think many atheists have a problem with It. It’s the God Jehovah who is the theists’ It. If indeed, it turns out there is a First Cause, Watchmaker; the Greatest that can be thought; then they still got prove it’s Yahweh or Allah or Odin or Gaea or Ancient Aliens. As for physical evidence, there’s no definitive evidence yet on any of the above. Do I know for sure there is no God? No. But I do know there is no evidence for one. And especially there is no evidence for the God that dominates western theology and burdens its philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 6, 2020 21:18:21 GMT
They do have to prove the negative if they are asserting the negative as truth, but I won't quibble. Who is saying that other than the New Atheists who have fallen out of fashion? Hitchens is dead; Dawkins is half dead; Harris has gone right wing in support of their anti-Muslim stance if not their ideology fundamentalism. But even so, what are they saying they know does not exist? The Idea of God and Its existence has been rehashed within philosophy for 2500 years. So, if they haven’t figured it out by now, why should we give damn about those kinds of “proofs?” (Richard Rorty) Philosophy is at best thought experiment with zero testing. It’s function is to keep us thinking about It (existence, being) and lend perspective to what we know about the It. I don’t think many atheists have a problem with It. It’s the God Jehovah who is the theists’ It. If indeed, it turns out there is a First Cause, Watchmaker; the Greatest that can be thought; then they still got prove it’s Yahweh or Allah or Odin or Gaea or Ancient Aliens. As for physical evidence, there’s no definitive evidence yet on any of the above. Do I know for sure there is no God? No. But I do know there is no evidence for one. And especially there is no evidence for the God that dominates western theology and burdens its philosophy. I agree with all that and I didn't make a claim about how common those sorts of atheists are. There are only mediocre arguments for the existence of a God, but I understand why they are convincing to theists. Indoctrination and personal testimony are hard for many people to look at without bias. I was lucky enough to be raised in a lazily religious family and with an intelligent father and mother who taught me to think for myself and come to my own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 6, 2020 21:38:04 GMT
Who is saying that other than the New Atheists who have fallen out of fashion? Hitchens is dead; Dawkins is half dead; Harris has gone right wing in support of their anti-Muslim stance if not their ideology fundamentalism. But even so, what are they saying they know does not exist? The Idea of God and Its existence has been rehashed within philosophy for 2500 years. So, if they haven’t figured it out by now, why should we give damn about those kinds of “proofs?” (Richard Rorty) Philosophy is at best thought experiment with zero testing. It’s function is to keep us thinking about It (existence, being) and lend perspective to what we know about the It. I don’t think many atheists have a problem with It. It’s the God Jehovah who is the theists’ It. If indeed, it turns out there is a First Cause, Watchmaker; the Greatest that can be thought; then they still got prove it’s Yahweh or Allah or Odin or Gaea or Ancient Aliens. As for physical evidence, there’s no definitive evidence yet on any of the above. Do I know for sure there is no God? No. But I do know there is no evidence for one. And especially there is no evidence for the God that dominates western theology and burdens its philosophy. I agree with all that and I didn't make a claim about how common those sorts of atheists are. There are only mediocre arguments for the existence of a God, but I understand why they are convincing to theists. Indoctrination and and personal testimony are hard for many people to look at without bias. I was lucky enough to be raised in a lazily religious family and with an intelligent father and mother who taught me to think for myself and come to my own conclusions. The big gripe I think among atheists is these giant leaps the kind of theists who are currently dominating the conversation make to establish God of the Bible (The God in “In We Trust” on our money already) as a fact of existence not unlike electricity. You know their ultimate purpose for this is. So, don’t let yourself get trapped in the old semantic “prove the negative” and “faith, believe, know” hamster wheel. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 6, 2020 21:44:23 GMT
I agree with all that and I didn't make a claim about how common those sorts of atheists are. There are only mediocre arguments for the existence of a God, but I understand why they are convincing to theists. Indoctrination and and personal testimony are hard for many people to look at without bias. I was lucky enough to be raised in a lazily religious family and with an intelligent father and mother who taught me to think for myself and come to my own conclusions. The big gripe I think among atheists is these giant leaps the kind of theists who are currently dominating the conversation make to establish God of the Bible (The God in “In We Trust” on our money already) as a fact of existence not unlike electricity. You know their ultimate purpose for this is. So, don’t let yourself get trapped in the old semantic “prove the negative” and “faith, believe, know” hamster wheel. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. My point is that there is no need to assert the negative, which I don't. We let the theists assert that God does exist and just sit back and watch them trip over themselves. I get what you are saying though.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 6, 2020 21:56:21 GMT
I agree with all that and I didn't make a claim about how common those sorts of atheists are. There are only mediocre arguments for the existence of a God, but I understand why they are convincing to theists. Indoctrination and and personal testimony are hard for many people to look at without bias. I was lucky enough to be raised in a lazily religious family and with an intelligent father and mother who taught me to think for myself and come to my own conclusions. The big gripe I think among atheists is these giant leaps the kind of theists who are currently dominating the conversation make to establish God of the Bible (The God in “In We Trust” on our money already) as a fact of existence not unlike electricity. You know their ultimate purpose for this is. So, don’t let yourself get trapped in the old semantic “prove the negative” and “faith, believe, know” hamster wheel. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. I am thinking you are basically saying that a thing only "exists" when it is "proved" to exist. I would agree with that. I can say that God doesn't exist until you prove to me that God does exist and it doesn't work the other way around. It is like saying I believe bigfoot exists until you prove to me that bigfoot doesn't exist. That is backwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2020 22:12:34 GMT
Not necessarily and exclusively. Allegedly, angels are supernatural, the Devil, ghosts. witches faith healers etc etc etc. atheist /ˈeɪθɪɪst/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. ^^ Thick as a brick ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 0:53:15 GMT
atheist /ˈeɪθɪɪst/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. ^^ Thick as a brick ^^ Yeah Arlon, dictionaries are the enemy
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2020 0:55:05 GMT
Yeah Arlon, dictionaries are the enemy ^^ mental age = 9 ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 0:59:49 GMT
Yeah Arlon, dictionaries are the enemy ^^ mental age = 9 ^^ And still way more balanced, intelligent and rational than you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2020 1:03:05 GMT
And still way more balanced, intelligent and rational than you. Because anonymous discussion board?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 1:12:22 GMT
And still way more balanced, intelligent and rational than you. Because anonymous discussion board? You know that A) Your presence on this board is effectively you right, like that fact that you dont have to use your real name is not hiding your lack of intelligence, and b) we all know who you are right, and that your published website only supports my statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2020 5:48:48 GMT
Because anonymous discussion board? You know that A) Your presence on this board is effectively you right, like that fact that you dont have to use your real name is not hiding your lack of intelligence, and b) we all know who you are right, and that your published website only supports my statement. I will assume, as I usually do, that you have something better than this going on, and that your answer to this question might be enlightening, "Where do you think dictionaries get their information and how?"
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 5:57:23 GMT
You know that A) Your presence on this board is effectively you right, like that fact that you dont have to use your real name is not hiding your lack of intelligence, and b) we all know who you are right, and that your published website only supports my statement. I will assume, as I usually do, that you have something better than this going on, and that your answer to this question might be enlightening, "Where do you think dictionaries get their information and how?" shit you know that is a good question, and pertinent. I dont really have anything better going on, I am procrastinating from work.
well I seem to recall without googling that the first (english) dictionary was written by some English noble, name slips my mind, but I am not 100% sure of his qualifications. Of course there are many different dictionaries, I know that Tolkien was one dictionary author in the 60s (it might have been the 50s), and that he is a qualified oxford English graduate, so I suppose my answer is that the people who write the dictionary (although I guess edit is a better word) are (in the case of the Oxford dictionary) Oxford English professors, I presume that they gather the information they need to update the dictionary every time they do a new one, but I do not know the actual process.
I am guessing you are bringing this up to suggest that dictionary definitions are not always the actual meaning of a word, I would argue that firstly they are the very definition of a meaning of a word, they are after all a dictionary definition, but also secondly that the actual definition of a word does not matter at all in the context of an argument, only that both parties agree on the definition so that they may argue on the same page.
|
|
