Dinosaurism The concerto of years and seasons Beats the age dust out of our ears Whenever our wisemen beckon it There are some that choose not to attend Evolution and its majestic parade They much rather sleep in cotton coffins The priests of yore awaken once more But they wake up as sombre portraits And mockingly stroll where the march had been Those druids bow to none but ancient lords Ancestors that died, most ironically By going against the invincible centipede With their dated measures and scales for worth They seek those who may hear their preaching And guide them politely to an adorned coffin If they'd ever meet a novelty beyond their reach They'd close in for a friendly whisper And maul it with the other cheek You know why they laugh with naked molars? Because one man alone would just get bitten These saurians have sharp silexes So let's crush those with a chilling stone Let us gallop over all obsolete golems With underneath us, a marble pavement Only fossilized remnants remain Kept out of umbrage, and hung in a museum Among sombre portraits of defeated ancestors Progress grants us another process And experience introduces wisemen Until the next cult surfaces Comment: Another old piece of mine. This poem is actually a satire that both mocks and warns for overconservative thoughts. A poem about those that cling to obsolete ideals ("dated measures and scales"). Those who try to stand in the way of progress ("going against the invincible centipede") are portrayed as priests and saurians to emphasize both their charisma and the threat they pose. The poem may sound like gibberish at first, and to some it may be, but I have tried my best to make it not so. Any thoughts on it?
Nah, I meant a modern translation. Though the different versions aren't as different, at least for those verses. I went to bible.cc to verify my claim. It's a website that files most (all?) of the Bible's versions per verse. Yeah, I see what you mean now. I think a reasonable amount of doubt is more of a positive thing than a hindrance though. It leaves room for skeptical thinking and criticism to both sides. And when someone eventually makes their choice and is actually convinced, their resolve is usually stronger than before. But even I don't think that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive...well, with some exceptions (e.g. creationism). Yes, but children aren't always so patient. If they are promised something, they usually want it right away or as soon as possible. That's where I think the difference lies. Not saying that bringing God up isn't going to work at all, but the "parents are kinda God" tactic works just as well.
Spirituality was probably the only viable option. You're right about that. I do not think, however, that religion had to have taken the form it took (that of a governing body and organization) for it to have a positive effect. But like I said some posts ago: that step was most likely inevitable. Actually, I didn't find out how being burned felt until pretty late in my childhood. But anyway... The reason I said it was beside the point is that it's not really relevant who can inflict the most painful punishment. The point was that both parents and God are able to convey the importance of being a good person, which still stands. I gave a bad example. Perhaps it will work better if inverted. Consider the difference between the arguments "You'd make mom very happy." and "You'd make God very happy.". If I were a child, I wouldn't care about this God person, omnipotent though he may be. Mom feeds me, mom plays with me and mom teaches me new stuff. Even if God is pulling the strings in the greater scheme of things, he's an abstract concept (especially to a child's mind), and trying to explain him to a kid would be more of a bother than it's worth. Well then I know that in my country it hasn't. And yet my wariness isn't even the main reason that I'd rather not raise my children in a religious way. The main reason is that it's not necessary, as I've been trying to say. If anything, the risk of faith being abused is merely one of the smaller weights that help tilt the scales. I think it would have a neutral impact too. The unique Yes, I was refering to Genesis 1:28-1:30. Ah I see. It's not really what I meant but good point. I see a gap in it though. Iconic things that happened because of faith are recorded in the Bible, but you have to have faith in order to believe that those happened the way they were recorded. It's not an argument that works against everyone. Personally I was thinking of events that happened because of the impact of the Bible, i.e. achievements of the Church. So what you're saying is that science waters down spirituality in a nihilistic and fatalistic way?
Nah, it's okay. And I'm sure SA wasn't offended either. I see what you mean, but I don't share your opinion. Perhaps you don't have enough...
Because as far as I know, religion is one of the prime examples. Not just in terms of impact, but also in terms of organization. But yes, as I have admitted, religion isn't the only example. Guilty as charged. I don't think they are so trivial. Granted, these anecdotes deal with individuals and not with society as a whole, but they are part of one side of the medal. The Catholic Church has been an epicenter of a major paedophilia scandal here in Belgium last summer. You have no idea how much has been divulged at the time. The facts are mostly outdated now, but why should we believe that anything has changed? Exactly. They are pretty much alike. Which brings me to my core point: religion isn't necessary in today's society. As a matter of fact, it's pretty superfluous. I am well aware that not every Christian is in cahoots with the WBC so to speak. I know that there are decent, loving, caring, etc. Christians out there. But here's the thing. It cannot provide us better morals and values than an education without religion can. Put simply, I can teach the same morals and values to my children as a Christian family would without ever mentioning God, Jesus or the Bible. Christian parents teach children about Jesus and use him as a sort of role model, correct? Which is good. The right role models can make raising children that much easier. But it isn't necessary to pick Jesus as a role model. There are plenty of alternatives. Are role models necessary? Probably. Are the particular role models of religion necessary? No. Which was the gist of the thread's question. Don't let that stop you from using them though. If you can find yourself in the ideas of the Bible, then by all means go nuts. Indeed it would. Suppose everyone would start raising their kids in a manner devoid of all religion, making no mention of God, Allah or whatever. Do you think this would have a negative impact on society? Be honest. I don't see how you can extract the "similar reasoning" out of such a line in the Bible. It says little more than God wanting us to tend and rule all plants and animals. We could be tending them as inefficiently as possible and we'd still be tending them. If a farming community exploits all of their fields in three generations, then they were lousy farmers but farmers nonetheless. It makes zero mentions of progress, let alone economical and ecological advancements. I do not see the Almanac analogy but I see your other point. Feel free to give another definition to the word "counter-productive". How would something as personal as philosophical and spiritual development translate into progress? How would it even develop? How would it look like if science didn't "hinder" it? I assume you can answer these questions, because how else would you know that science is a hindrance to it? But arguably, mankind would have gotten to that point sooner if it hadn't been for religion. Mankind would still have the same technical intelligence, meaning they could go against nature at roughly the same point in time. The prime difference is that the question of whether they should go against nature wouldn't pose itself. Probably. Most kids I know don't plan very far ahead, let alone as far as the afterlife. Pain still can't be quantified. Given the proper intensity and frequency, anything can feel worse than burning. Also, I think that's slightly beside the point.
Well, what's so different between talking to oneself and talking to oneself with rhyming sentences? The concept of poems isn't the rhyming in...
No it doesn't. Where did you get that? There are tons of beautiful poems out there that don't have a rhyme scheme whatsoever.
Except having dinner never bothered to deny what we now know to be fundamental truths. Of course, we are blocking progress every moment we're not coming up with something new and revolutionary in a way. But these are moments of passive indolence. There's an obvious difference with the active impeding of progress that religion has been guilty of. Even so, I know, religion hasn't been the only hindrance to progress. That wasn't the point to begin with. It has been an obstacle to progress, and contrary to the other "collations of ideas" you mentioned, it offers very little in return in the present timeframe. I don't really see how the evolutionary theory has changed mankind's views on death and disaster. Care to explain? To be honest, it's indeed rather hard to try and come up with an image of history where religion is outright absent. Then you assume that a child even fully grasps the concept of hell, which I doubt. I think a young child would be more scared if it were threatened with something it can understand. You can't see hell. You can see the cookies in the cookie jar that you won't get if you're naughty. It's a silly example but it works. And also; punishing a finite sin with eternal damnation? That's downright cruel. I'm sorry, but that has to be the most ******ed post in this thread so far. (1) The basis of engineering relies on scientific laws and principles. To say that engineering is more important than the very principles it is based on is downright idiotic. Not to mention that the actual construction of devices isn't limited to engineers. There are plenty of examples where scientists with no major in engineering have invented useful items and principles. One example just to drive my argument home: Michelson was the physicist (read: scientist) who developed the interferometer. (2) How does a dedication to learning rather than applying actually hinder us? You haven't explained this anywhere in your post. (3) If everyone would think the way you did, in terms of "THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO WITH THIS!", then a lot of contemporary applications wouldn't even have come to be. Sometimes a theory doesn't prove useful right from the get-go but only much later. It is essential for any scientist to understand this. Do you think Gregor Mendel had any of the present applicances of genetics in mind when he conducted his experiments on peas? (4) I fail to see why we can't be doing both at the same time. And we are. It isn't one or the other. No, it doesn't. We could be ruling our cattle and tending our farm and still be stuck in the Bronze Age. Name one benevolent evolution that the Bible has been responsible for, that wouldn't have occured if it weren't for them. Go on. Just one. That's the thing about being counter-productive. By definition, it makes progress impossible. It does not encourage advancement in any way. If anything, it implies stagnation.
I replayed Jade Cocoon and the Spyro games last summer. I still like to pop the older FFs in my PS2 from time to time. So yeah, I still play old games.
It was figure of speech. Point still stands. Maybe so, but that's not what history has been showing us. So far, religion has blocked progress. I even gave examples in my post above. I agree with you there.
Introduction: *blows off dust* Perhaps I should update my poetry thread again. I'm under the impression that there are a lot of poets on KHV nowadays, so maybe we can learn from each other. By which I mean that comments to my poems are greatly appreciated, and will be met with comments on your own work in return. Yeah, that's how I roll. You Were The Snow Before the brush Had licked the painting I feared you As a hailfall in March Several minutes And stormwinds later I saw the mitts over your claws You said that you were the snow Hear my teeth Applaud Comment: I never liked this poem (I just picked it at random). It was written ages ago. It is about trust, and more specifically about not giving it when it's due. In that light it's about cynicism as well. What could be romantic is now somewhat tragic. If there's any charm in this poem, it's that.
I'd say they are poems. You opted for a more direct approach, as opposed to pompour imagery, but they are definitely poems. Pretty good ones too. I like the twist at the end of the first. Secondly, I see you've chosen to put all your poems in one thread. That's a wise decision, but then I suggest giving your poems a title. It needn't even be a well-contemplated one (but all the better if it is). It's just convenient if a reader wants to refer to one of your older poems. It's not haiku. Not by a long shot.
I agree with you both. It works very well as a prayer, not so much as a poem. If it was meant to be the latter, I suggest following Chev's advice. He's in the know.
Or they would have gotten to the point of rational philosophy and scientific deduction much sooner. We'll never know, but I find it hard to believe that mankind would have just been sitting around twiddling thumbs. Or it would have been given the necessary freedom to develop. The Greek ideas, for instance, were largely forgotten in Western Europe after the fall of Rome. They didn't resurface until the High Middle Ages. While these ideas and hypotheses weren't always correct, they did provide a basis for further research. It's likely that there would never have been such a gap if it wasn't for the ultraconservative Church of that time. If anything, religion has been an obstacle to the dispersion of knowledge multiple times. The historical role of religion has been inevitable, but not necessary. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I'm not sure. Children probably see God as some kind of invisible, super-powerful and incredibly wise parent. (Come to think of it, perhaps not only children see him as such.) Perhaps the parents could extend that authority to themselves. "You shouldn't steal because God will send you to hell." could become "You shouldn't steal because I'll cut both your hands off with a blunt meat cleaver." or something along those lines. Whatever God can punish or reward you with, parents can do too...in a manner of speaking.
Vengeful Viking Man, Diminutive Dwarven Mechanic and Re-Alligned Villanous Vixen will sound like a lively bunch.
Why shouldn't he? It's not like there's any penalty for losing anyway.
I thought you may be waiting for me to make a mistake. Unfortunately I'm rather prudent when it comes to situations like these. XD Are you sure you didn't hold back? Good game though. If we ever duel again, you'll get to go first.
Then I set another card face-down and end my turn. Your move. Monster card zone Spell/Trap card zone Styx: 16000 Red: 10950
Main Phase 1 Nothing. Battle Phase I attack you directly with the Meklord. You lose 4000 Life Points. Chain?
Draw Phase 1 card in hand. Standby Phase Nothing Activate anything?
